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

Full text of "California water plan update : executive summary"

C£ 

Q£ 

i)o. 160-9 

8 SUMM. 

Phy 

Lib ,« 




THE California 
Water Plan Update 




Bulletin 160-' 



r-,vn 



^9> 



Executive 
Summary 



» 




^ 




California 

WATER Plan update 

Bulletin 160-98 

Executive Summary 

November 1998 



Pete Wilson 
Governor 

Douglas P. Wheeler 
Secretary for Resources 
The Resources Agenc)' 

David N. Kennedy 
Director 

Department of Water Resources 




U.NJiVER3ITY OF CALIFOttNU/ 

DEC 03 1983 

GOV'T. DOCS. ■ lieRARY 



Tht California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



©Department of Water Resotirces, Sacramento, 1998 



Copies of Bulletin 160-98 may he purchased for $25 from: 

California Department of Water Resources 

P. O. Box 942836 

Sacramento, CA 94236-0001 

Make checks payable to: Department of Water Resources 
California residents add current sales tax 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



Foreword 



In 1957, the Department published Bulletin 3, the California Water Plan. Bulletin 3 was 
followed by the Bulletin 160 series, published six times between 1966 and 1993, updating 
the California Water Plan. A 1991 amendment to the California Water Code directed the 
Department to update the plan every five years. Bulletin 160-98 is the latest in the series. The 
Bulletin 160 series assesses California's water needs and evaluates water supplies, to quantify the 
gap between future water demands and water supplies. The series presents a statewide overview 
of current water management activities and provides water managers with a framework for 
making decisions. 

In response to public comments on the last update, Bulletin 160-93, this 1998 update 
evaluates water management options that could improve California's water supply reliability. 
Water management options being planned by local agencies form the building blocks for evalu- 
ations performed for each of the State's ten major hydrologic regions. Local options are integrated 
into a statewide overview that illustrates potential progress in reducing the State's expected 
future water shortages. 

When the previous water plan update was released, California was just emerging from a six- 
year drought. This update follows the largest and most extensive flood disaster in California's 
history, the January 1997 floods. These two hydrologic events fittingly illustrate the complexity 
of water management in the State. 

The Department appreciates the assistance provided by the Bulletin 160-98 public advi- 
sory committee, which met with the Department over a three-year period as the Bulletin was 
being prepared. The Department also appreciates the assistance provided by the many local 
water agencies who furnished information about their planned water management activities. 




David N. Kennedy 
Director 



111 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



The Cllifortiiil Water I'laii Update BULLKTIN 160-98 



Contents 



Chapter ESI. Introduction 

Overview of California's Water Needs ESl-2 

Bulletin 160-98 Hydrologic Regions ESl-4 

Changes Since the Last California Water Plan Update ESl-4 

Changes in Response to Bulletin 160-93 Public Comments ESl-4 

Changes in Future Demand/Shortage Forecasts ESl-6 

Preparation of Bulletin 160-98 ESl-7 

Public Comments on Draft ESI -7 

Works in Progress and Uncertainties ESl-8 

Presentation of Data in Bulletin 160-98 ESl-9 

Chapter ES2. Current Events in California Water Management 

Facilities ES2-1 

Legislation ES2-4 

Proposition 204 ES2-4 

Proposition 218 ES2-4 

MTBE ES2-4 

Safe Drinking Water Act ES2-5 

Reclamation, Recycling, and Water Conservation Act of 1996 ES2-6 

Water Desalination Act of 1996 ES2-6 

Major Water Management Issues and Programs ES2-6 

Bay-Delta Accord and CALLED ES2-6 

Colorado River ES2-8 

Recent ESA Listings ES2-9 

January 1997 Central Valley Floods ES2-10 

CVPIA Implementation ES2-12 

SWP Monterey Agreement Contract Amendments ES2-14 

Environmental Restoration Activities ES2-14 

Implementation of Urban Water Conservation MOU ES2-17 

Implementation of Agricultural Efficient Water Management Practices MOU ES2-17 

Klamath River Fishery Issues ES2-17 

Truckee-Carson River System ES2-17 

City of Los Angeles' Water Supply from Owens Valley ES2-18 

Mono Basin ES2-19 

SaltonSea ES2-19 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



Chapter ES3. Water Supplies 

Water Supply C^alcuLuion ES3-1 

Definition of Bulletin 160 Water Supplies ES3-1 

Applied Water Methodology ES3-2 

Normalized Data ES3-2 

Water Supply Scenarios ES3-3 

Sources of Water Supply ES3-4 

Surface Water Supplies ES3-5 

Groundwater Supplies ES3-5 

Water Marketing ES3-7 

Water Recycling and Desalting Supplies ES3-8 

Water Supply Summary by Hydrologic Region ES3-9 

^*^ter Quality ES3-9 

Chapter ES4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 

Urban Water Use ES4-1 

Population Growth ES4-2 

Factors Affecting Urban Per Capita Water Use ES4-2 

Urban Water Use Forecasting ES4-4 

Summary of Urban Water Use ES4-4 

Agricultural Water Use ES4-5 

Crop Witer Use ES4-5 

Quantifying Base Year Irrigated Acreage ES4-6 

Forecasting Future hrigated Acreage ES4-7 

Summary of Agricultural Water Use ES4-1 1 

Environmental Water Use ES4-1 1 

Wild and Scenic River Flows ES4-12 

Instream Flows ES4-12 

Bay-Delta Outflow ES4-14 

Wetlands ES4-14 

Summary of Environmental Water Use ES4-15 

Water Use Summary by Hydrologic Region ES4-15 

Chapter ESS. Balancing Supply and Demand 

Future with Existing Facilities and Programs ES5-2 

Water Supply ES5-2 

Water Demand ES5-3 

Water Shortages ES5-3 

The Bulletin 160-98 Planning Process ES5-3 

Major Steps in Planning Process ES5-5 



VI 



The California Water Plan Update BULLtllN 160-98 



Shortage Management ES5-7 

Using Applied Water Budgets to Calculate New Water Needs ES5-7 

Summary of Options Likely to be Implemented ES5-8 

Implementing Future Water Management Options ES5-10 

Bulletin 160-98 Findings ES5-11 

Appendix ES5A. Regional Water Budgets with Existing Facilities 

and Programs ES5A-1 

Appendix ES5B. Regional Water Budgets with Options Likely 

to be Implemented ES5B-1 

Abbreviations and Acronyms ESA-1 

Tables 

Table ES2-1. Major Water Conveyance Facilities Since 1992 ES2-2 

Table ES2-2. Large Structural Fishery Restoration Projects ES2-3 

Table ES2-3. Proposition 204 Funding Breakdown ES2-5 

Table ES3-1. California Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs ES3-5 

Table ES3-2. 1995 and 2020 Level Overdraft by Hydrologic Region ES3-7 

Table ES3-3. Recently Completed Long-Term Water Marketing Agreements ES3-8 

Table ES3-4. 2020 Level Total Water Recycling and New Water Supply ES3-9 

Table ES3-5. California Average Year Water Supplies by Hydrologic Region ES3-10 

Table ES3-6. California Drought Year Water Supplies by Hydrologic Region ES3-10 

Table ES4-1. California Population by Hydrologic Region ES4-2 

Table ES4-2. Effects of Conservation on Per Capita Water Use by Hydrologic Region ES4-4 

Table ES4-3. Applied Urban Water Use by Hydrologic Region ES4-5 

Table ES4-4. California Crop and Irrigated Acreage by Hydrologic Region, 1995 Level ES4-8 

Table ES4-5. California Crop and Irrigated Acreage by Hydrologic Region, 2020 Level ES4-I0 

Table ES4-6. Applied Agricultural Water Use by Hydrologic Region ES4-1 1 

Table ES4-7. Wild and Scenic River Flows by Hydrologic Region ES4-12 

Table ES4-8. Instream Flow Requirements by Hydrologic Region ES4-14 

Table ES4-9. Wedands Water Use by Hydrologic Region ES4-15 

Table ES4-10. Applied Environmental Water Use by Hydrologic Region ES4-15 

Table ES4-1 1. California Average Year Water Use by Hydrologic Region ES4-16 

Table ES4-12. California Drought Year Water Use by Hydrologic Region ES4-16 

Table ES5-1. California Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ES5-2 

Table ES5-2. Summary of Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, by Option Type ES5-9 

Table ES5-3. California Water Budget with Options Likely to be Implemented ES5-1 1 

Table ES5A-1. North Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ES5A-2 

Table ES5A-2. San Francisco Bay Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ES5A-2 



vti 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



Table ES5A-3. Central Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ES5A-2 

Table ES5A-4. South Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ES5A-3 

Table ES5A-5. Sacramento River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ES5A-3 

Table ES5A-6. San Joaquin River Region Witer Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ES5A-3 

Table ES5A-7. Tulare Lake Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ES5A-4 

Table ES5A-8. North Lahontan Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ES5A-4 

Table ES5A-9. South Lahontan Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ES5A-4 

Table ES5A-10. Colorado River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ES5A-5 

Table ES5B-1. North Coast Region Water Budget with Options ES5B-2 

Table ES5B-2. San Francisco Bay Region Water Budget with Options ES5B-2 

Table ES5B-3. Central Coast Region Water Budget with Options ES5B-2 

Tible ES5B-4. South Coast Region Water Budget with Options ES5B-3 

Table ES5B-5. Sacramento River Region Water Budget with Options ES5B-3 

Table ES5B-6. San Joaquin River Region Water Budget with Options ES5B-3 

Table ES5B-7. Tulare Lake Region Water Budget with Options ES5B-4 

Table ES5B-8. North Lahontan Region Water Budget with Options ES5B-4 

Table ES5B-9. South Lahontan Region Water Budget with Options ES5B-4 

Table ES5B-10. Colorado River Region Wtter Budget with Options ES5B-5 

Figures 

Figure ESl-1. California's Expected Population Growth Versus Neighboring States' Populations ESl-3 

Figure ESl-2. California's Hydrologic Regions ESl-5 

Figure ES3-L Disposition of California's Average Annual Precipitation ES3-3 

Figure ES3-2. California's Major Water Projects ES3-6 

Figure ES4-1. Projected Growth Rates by County, 1995-2020 ES4-3 

Figure ES4-2. California Wild and Scenic Rivers ES4-13 

Figure ES5-1. 2020 Shortages by Hydrologic Region with Existing Facilities and Programs ES5-4 

Figure ES5-2. 2020 Shortages by Hydrologic Region with Likely Options ES5-12 

Sidebars 

Summary of Key Statistics ESI -2 

California's Hydrologic Regions ESI -6 

American River Flood Protection ES2-1 1 

Sacramento River Flood Control Project ES2-12 

CVPL\'s Dedicated Water ES2-I3 

Key Water Supply and Water Use Definitions ES3-2 

Procedures for Normalizing Water Supply and Water Use Data ES3-4 

Initial Screening Criteria ES5-5 

Options Category Evaluation ES5-6 



Vllt 



The California Water Plan Update BULLhTlN 160-98 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
Pete Wilson, Governor 

THE RESOURCES AGENCY 
Douglas P. ^X^leeler, Secretary for Resources 

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 
David N. Kennedy, Director 

Raymond D. Hart Robert G. Potter Stephen L. Kashiwada 

Deputy Director Chief Deputy Director Deputy Director 

L. Lucinda Chipponeri Susan N. Weber 

Assistant Director for Legislation Chief Counsel 

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

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

by 

Naser Bateni Former Chief, Water Resources Evaluation 

Paul Hutton Chief Water Resources Evaluation 

Waiman Yip Senior Engineer 

Bob Zettlemoyer Senior Engineer 

assisted by 

Barbara Cross Tom Hawkins Dick Neal 

Steve Cowdin Ray Hoagland Virginia Sajac 

Dan Fua Scott Mar^ac Clara Silva 



with assistance on special topics or studies by 



Manucher Alemi 
Linton Brown 
Randy Brown 
Ed Craddock 
Baryohay Davidoff 
Farhad Farnam 



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



Richard Le 
Claire LeFlore 
Jim Rich 
Maurice Roos 
Ray Tom 



tx 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



Dtita collection and regional i)ifonnatio>i provided by Departineiit District ojftces 

Northern District 
Naser Bateni, Chief 



X. Tito Cervantes 
Andrew Corry 



assisted by 

Douglas Denton 
Todd Hillaire 



Glen Pearson 
Eugene Pixiey 



Alan Aguilar 
Emil Calzascia 
Toccoy Dudley 



Central District 
Karl Winkler, Chief 

assisted by 

AlLind 
Ed Morris 



Doug Osugi 
James Wiekin^ 



Jack Erickson 
Robert Polgar 
David Scruggs 



San Joaquin District 
Lou Beck, Chief 

assisted by 

Brian Smith 

Arvey Swanson 



Ernie Taylor 
Iris Yamagata 



Glenn Berquist 
Sergio Fierro 
David Inouye 



Southern District 
Charles White, Chief 

assisted by 

Vern Knoop 
Kelly Lawler 
Michael Maisner 



Mark Stuart 
Garret Tarn Sine 



Editorial, design, and production services were provided by 

Nikki Blomquist Teresa Chaney Joanne Pierce 

John Carter Mike Miller Therese Tynan 



Photography provided by 

Department of Water Resources, Photography Unit 
Peter Stoiber, Supervising Photographer 



Paul Hames 
Norm Hughes 



Dale Koike 



Stephen Payer 



The Califortiia Water I'laii Update BULLETIN 160-98 



State of California 

The Resources Agency 

Department of Water Resources 

CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION 

Daniel F. Kriege Stanley M. Barnes 

Chair, Capitola Vice Chair, Visalia 



Donald C. Cecil Willows 

George Gowgani, Ph.D San Luis Obispo 

Homer F. Lundberg Richvale 

Michael D. Madigan San Diego 

Martin A. Matich San Bernardino 

Sayre M. Miller Clovis 



Raymond E. Barsch, Executive OfFicer 

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



XI 



7*; 



P: 4 








The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



1 



;n mn r- 



Introduction 



In 1957, the Department published Bulletin 3, the California Water Plan. Bulletin 3 
was followed by the Bulletin 160 series, published six times between 1966 and 1993, 
updating the California Water Plan. A 1991 amendment to the California Water 
Code directed the Department to update the plan every five years. Bulletin 160-98 is the 
latest in the series. 

The Bulletin 160 series assesses Californias agricultural, environmental, and urban 
water needs and evaluates water supplies, in order to quantify the gap between future water 
demands and the corresponding water supplies. The series presents a statewide overview of 
current water management activities and provides water managers with a hamework for 
making water resources decisions. 

„ ^ , „ „ . While the basic scope of the Department's water plan updates has 

The Department s Bulletin ^ ^ r r 

160 series quantifies only remained unchanged, each update has taken a distinct approach to water 
California's managed or 
dedicated water uses— resources planning, reflecting issues or concerns at the time of its 

urban, agricultural, and 



environmental uses. 

Unmanaged uses, such as 

the precipitation consumed 

by native plants, are not 

quantified. 



publication. In response to public comments on the last update. Bulletin 
160-93, the 1998 update evaluates water management actions that could 
be implemented to improve California's water supply reliability. Bulletin 
160-93 analyzed 2020 agricultural, environmental, and urban water 
demands in considerable detail. These demands, together with water supply 
information, have been updated for the 1998 Bulletin, which also uses a 



ESl-1 



INTRODUCTION 



Tht California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



2020 planning horizon. However, mucii of Bulletin 
160-98 is devoted to identifying and analyzing op- 
tions for improving water supply reliability. Water 
management options available to, and being consid- 
ered by, local agencies form the building blocks of 
evaluations prepared for each of the State's ten major 
hydrologic regions. (Water supplies provided by local 
agencies represent about 70 percent of California's 
developed water supplies.) These potential local op- 
tions are integrated with options that are statewide in 
scope, such as the CALFED Bay-Delta program, to 
create a statewide evaluation. 

The statewide evaluation represents a snapshot, 
at an appraisal level of detail, of how actions planned 
by California water managers could reduce the gap 
between supplies and demands. The evaluation does 
not present potential measures to reduce all shortages 
statewide to zero in year 2020. Such an approach 
would not reflect economic realities and current plan- 
ning by local agencies. Not all areas of the State and 
not all water users can afford to reduce drought year 
shortages to zero. Bulletin 160-98 focuses on compil- 
ing those options that appear to have a reasonable 



chance of being implemented by water suppliers, to 
illustrate potential progress in reducing the State's fu- 
ture shortages. 

Overview of California's Water Needs 

Bulletin 160-98 estimates that California's water 
shortages at a 1 995 level of development are 1 .6 maf in 
average water years, and 5.1 maf in drought years. (As 
described later in the Bulletin, shortages represent the 
difference between water supplies and water 
demands.) The magnitude of shortages shown for 
drought conditions in the base year reflects the cut- 
backs in supply experienced by California water users 
during the recent six-year drought. Bulletin 160-98 
forecasts increased shortages by 2020 — 2.4 maf in an 
average water year and 6.2 maf in drought years. The 
water management options identified as likely to be 
implemented could reduce those shortages to 0.2 maf 
in average water years and 2.7 maf in drought years. 

Population growth is expected to drive the State's 
increased water demands. To put California's popula- 
tion into perspective, about one of every eight U.S. 



Summary of Key Statistics 

Shown below for quick reference are some i<ey statistics presented in tfie Bulletin. Water use information is based on 
average water year conditions. The details behind the statistics are discussed in Chapter ES4. 

1995 



Population (million) 
Irrigated crops (million acres) 
Urban water use (maO 
Agricultural watet use (maf) 
Environmental water use (maf) 

1995 



32.1 
9.5 
8.8 
33.8 
36.9 



2020 Forecast 


Change 


47.5 


+ 15.4 


9.2 


-0.3 


12.0 


+3.2 


31.5 


-2.3 


37.0 


+0.1 


2020 





Urban 




Urban 



Agricultural 




INTRODUCTION 



ESl-2 



The California Walrr Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



FIGURE ES 1-1 

California's Expected Population Growth Versus Neighboring States' Populations 



Anticipated 

Population 

Growth 

In California 

By 2020: 




Oregon 



Nevada 




Idaho 



Utah 



Arizona 



New Mexico 1.7 



Arizona 


4.3 


Nevada 


1.5 


Oregon 


3.1 


Idaho 


1.2 


Wyoming 


0.5 


Utah 


2.0 


Montana 


0.9 



TOTAL: 



Montana 



The anticipated growth 

in California's population 

by the year 2020 

is approximately equivalent to 

the combined 1995 popuLition 

of these eight neighboring states. 




ESl-3 



Introduction 



The California Water Plan Update BUl.lFTIN 160-98 



residents now lives in C'alifoinia. During the time pe- 
riod covered in the Bulletin (the 25 years from 1995 
to 2020), California's population is forecast to increase 
by more than 1 5 million people, the equivalent of add- 
ing the present populations of Arizona, Nevada, 
Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, and 
Utah to California, as shown in Figure ESl-1. Today, 
four of the nation's 15 largest cities (Los Angeles, San 
Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco) are located in the 
State. 

The sidebar on page ESl-2 summarizes key 
statistics developed later in the Bulletin. 

Bulletin 160-98 Hydrologic Regions 

Figure ESI -2 shows California's ten hydrologic re- 
gions, corresponding to the State's major drainage 
basins. The Department subdivides the State into re- 
gions for planning purposes. The largest planning unit 
is the hydrologic region, a unit used extensively in this 
Bulletin. The next level of delineation below hydro- 
logic regions is the planning subarea. Some of the 
Bulletin's regional water management evaluations dis- 
cuss information at the PSA level. The smallest study 
unit used by the Department is the detailed analysis 
unit. California is divided into 278 DAUs. Most of 
the Departments' Bulletin 160 analyses begin at the 
DAU level, and the results are aggregated into hydro- 
logic regions for presentation. 




Agieements reached in the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord were 
widely bailed as a truce in California's water wars. The 
approach taken in the Bay-Delta exemplifies some hallmarks 
of today's water management activities — increased 
participation by local governments and other stakeholders in 
statewide water management issues, and significant efforts to 
carry out ecosystem restoration actions. 



Changes Since the Last California Water 
Plan Update 

The last California Water Plan update. Bulletin 
160-93, was published in 1994 and used 1990-level 
information to represent base year water supply and 
demand conditions. At that time, California had re- 
cently emerged from the six-year drought and 
Bay-Delta issues were in a state of flux. Bulletin 
160-98 uses 1995-level information to represent base 
year conditions, including new (interim) Bay-Delta 
standards. 

Changes in Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta 
conditions are a major difference between the two bul- 
letins. Bulletin 160-93 was based on State Water 
Resources Control Board Decision 1485 regulatory 
conditions in the Delta, and used a range of 1 to 3 maf 
for unspecified future environmental water needs — a 
range that reflected uncertainties associated with Bay- 
Delta water needs and Endangered Species Act 
implementation. Bulletin 160-98 uses SWRCB's Or- 
der WR 95-6 as the base condition for Bay-Delta 
operations, and describes proposed CALFED actions 
for the Bay-Delta. 

Bulletin 160-93 was the first California Water Plan 
update to examine the demand/supply balance for 
drought water years as well as for average water years, 
a response to water shortages experienced during the 
then-recent drought. Bulletin 160-98 retains the 
drought year analysis and also considers the other end 
of the hydrologic spectrum — flooding. Traditionally, 
water supply has been the dominant focus of the 
water plan updates. In response to the January 1997 
flooding in Northern and Central California, Bulletin 
160-98 highlights common areas in water supply and 
flood control planning and operations and emphasizes 
the benefits of multipurpose facilities. 

Changes in Response to Bulletin 160-93 
Public Comments 

Other changes between the two reports resulted 
from public comments on Bulletin 160-93. The domi- 
nant public comment on Bulletin 160-93 was that it 
should show how to reduce the gap between existing 
supplies and future demands, in addition to making 
supply and demand forecasts. Bulletin 160-98 ad- 
dresses that comment by presenting a compilation of 
local agencies' planning efforts together with poten- 
tial water management options that are statewide in 
scope. Local agencies' plans form the base for this ef- 
fort, since it is local water purveyors who have the 



Introduction 



ESI -4 



The California Water I*tau Update BULLETIN 160-98 



FIGURE ESI -2 
California's Hydrologic Regions 




Colorado 
River 



1 



ESl-5 



INTRODUCTION 



Tht California Water Plan Update BULLETrN 160-98 



California's Hydrologic Regions 

North Coast Klam.uli River ,\nL\ l.osi River Basins, and all basins draining into the Pacific Ocean trom the Oregon 

statehne southerly through the Russian River Basin. 

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

Central Coast Basins draining into the Pacific Ocean below the Pescadero Creek watershed to the southeastern 

boundary o( Rincon Creek Basin in western Ventura County. 

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

Mexican boundary. 

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

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

Tul/ire Lake The closed drainage basin at the south end of the San Joaquin Valley, south of the San Joaquin River 

watershed, encompassing basins draining to Kern Lakebed, Tulare Lakebed, and Buena Vista Lakebed. 

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

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

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



ultimate responsibility for meeting their service areas' 
needs. 

Bulletin 160-98 excludes groundwater overdraft 
from the Bulletins base year water supply estimate and 
is therefore the first water plan update to show an av- 
erage water year shortage in its base year. (Both of the 
bulletins excluded future groundwater overdraft from 
fiiture water supply estimates.) About 1.5 mafofthe 
1 .6 maf base year shortage is attributable to ground- 
water overdraft. 

Finally, Bulletin 160-98 uses applied water data, 
rather than the net water amounts historically used in 
the water plan series. This change was made in response 
to public comments that net water data were more 
difficult to understand than applied water data. This 
concept is explained in Chapter ES3. 



Changes in Future Demand/Shortage Forecasts 



Bulletin 1 60-93 used a planning horizon of 1 990- 
2020. Bulletin 160-98 uses a planning horizon of 
1995-2020. Bulletin 160-98 uses the 2020 planning 
horizon because no major data changes occurred be- 
tween the two reports that would justify extending the 
planning horizon. Urban water demands depend 
heavily on population forecasts — the next U.S. Cen- 
sus will not be conducted until 2000. 

The water plan series uses population forecasts 
from the Department of Finance. DOF reduced its 
2020 forecast for California in the period between 
Bulletin 160-93 and Bulletin 160-98. The reduction 
reflects the impacts of the economic recession in Cali- 
fornia in the early 1990s. California experienced a 
record negative net domestic migration then, as more 



iNTROnUCTION 



£5/ -6 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



people moved out of the State than moved in. This 
reduction in the population forecast translates to a 
reduction in forecasted urban water use in Bulle- 
tin 160-98. 

The 2020 forecasted agricultural water demands 
increased from Bulletin 160-93 to Bulletin 160-98, 
even though the forecasted crop acreage decreased 
slightly. This increase resulted from elimination of the 
"other" category of water use shown in Bulletin 160- 
9.3, which included conveyance losses. For Bulletin 
160-98, water in the "other" category was reallocated 
back to the major water use categories to simplify in- 
formation presentation. Most of the conveyance losses 
are associated with agricultural water use. Combining 
the "other" category into the major water use catego- 
ries most affected the agricultural water demand 
forecast. When conveyance losses are factored out of 
the Bulletin 160-98 forecast, agricultural water use de- 
crea.ses between Bulletin 160-93 and Bulletin 160-98. 

Bulletin 160-93 was the first water plan update to 
quantify environmental water use, recognizing the 
importance of the water that is dedicated to environ- 
mental purposes for maintaining those resources and 
that this water is unavailable for future development 
for other purposes. As illustrated earlier, the environ- 
mental sector is California's largest water using sector. 
Bulletin 160-98 uses the same definition and quanti- 
fication procedure for environmental water use as did 
Bulletin 160-93. 

The 2020 environmental water demand forecast 
increased substantially from Bulletin 160-93 to Bulle- 
tin 160-98. This increase results from implementation 
of the Bay-Delta Accord, inclusion of additional wild 
and scenic river flows, and increased instream flow re- 
quirements. 

The shortage shown in Bulletin 160-98 is similar 
in magnitude to the low end of the shortage range re- 
ported in Bulletin 1 60-93. The treatment of forecasted 
Bay-Delta environmental water demands accounts for 
much of the difference. The range of potential future 
environmental water demands of 1 to 3 maf used in 
Bulletin 160-93 was added to that Bulletin's base en- 
vironmental water demand forecast, rather than being 
evaluated through operations studies, because Bay- 
Delta regulatory assumptions could not be determined 
then. This conservative approach yielded higher de- 
mands than operations studies would have provided. 

Preparation of Bulletin 160-98 

Although the water plan updates are published 



only every five years, the Department continuously 
compiles and analyzes the annual data used to prepare 
them. After publication of Bulletin 160-93 in 1994, 
the remainder of that year was devoted to finishing 
data evaluation deferred during the Bulletin's produc- 
tion. 'Work on Bulletin 160-98 began in 1995. A 
citizens' advisory committee with more than 30 mem- 
bers, representing a wide range of interests, was 
established to assist the Department in its preparation 
of the next water plan update. The advisory commit- 
tee met with Department staff 17 times during 
Bulletin 160-98 preparation, and in August 1997 re- 
viewed an administrative draft that preceded release of 
the public review draft at the end of January 1998. 
The review period lor the public draft extended 
through mid-April 1998, during which time public 
meetings were held and presentations were made to 
interested parties. The draft was also made available 
on the World Wide Web. Over 4,000 copies of the 
public review draft were distributed. 

Public Comments on Draft 

The Department received over 200 comment let- 
ters on the draft and additional comments from public 
meetings. Many comments were provided by local 
agencies whose facilities and projects are described in 
the public draft, and dealt with edits or corrections 
regarding those facilities or projects. Another major 
class of comments dealt with policy, conceptual, or 
analytical subjects. Many of these comments were in- 
fluenced by discussions taking place in the CALFED 
Bay-Delta program and reflected the commenters' 
positions on CALFED issues. For example, proponents 
of CALFED's no conveyance improvements alterna- 
tive generally expressed opposition to Bulletin l60-98's 
exclusion of groundwater overdraft as a supply, because 
this approach increases overall statewide shortages. The 
Department received positive public comments on 
Bulletin 160-93 when it excluded groundwater over- 
draft as a supply for the first time, and also received 
positive comments on its treatment of overdraft for 
Bulletin 160-98. Often, public comments conflicted 
with one another. For example, environmental orga- 
nizations frequendy stated that the Bulletin should 
include more future water conservation, while water 
purveyors frequently stated that levels assumed in the 
Bulletin were overly optimistic. Some comments sug- 
gested that the Bulletin's future water demands could 
be reduced by raising water prices, while others felt 
that the forecasted demands were too low and did not 



ESl-7 



INTRODUCTION 



Tht California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



take into account future needs of C^alifornia's popula- 
tion and agricultural economy. Likewise, some 
comments expressed philosophical opposition to con- 
structing more reservoirs in California, while others 
emphasized the need for more storage and flood con- 
trol reservoirs. The Department considered these 
comments in the context of the Bulletin's goal of accu- 
rately reflecting actions that water purveyors statewide 
would be reasonably likely to implement by year 2020. 

Some comments suggested that Bulletin 160-98 
(or the Department, or the State of California) advo- 
cate or express a vision on a variety of 
subjects — including State-funded water supply devel- 
opment, sustainable development, nonpoint source 
pollution, flood control, food production security, 
mandatory water pricing, and greater use of desalting 
(by entities other than the commenter). Such an ap- 
proach is outside the scope of the Department's water 
plan update series. The role of the Bulletin 160 series 
is to evaluate present and future water supplies and 
demands given current social/economic policies, and 
to evaluate progress in meeting California's future wa- 
ter needs. As appropriate, the Bulletin discusses how 
other factors such as flood control may relate to water 
supply planning. 

To develop 2020-level conditions, the Department 
makes a fundamental assumption that today's condi- 
tions — facilities, programs, water use patterns, and 
other factors — are the basis for predicting the future. 
(And, as one commenter correctly pointed out. Bulle- 
tin 160-98 also assumes that California's climate will 
remain unchanged over the Bulletin's 25-year planning 
horizon.) This approach differs distinctly from the 
approach of establishing a desired future goal or vi- 
sion, and then preparing a plan that would implement 
that goal or vision. Such a plan would require broad 
public acceptance that simply does not exist today. 

Many of the advocacy or vision comments de- 
scribed above are also not within the Department's 
jurisdiction or the jurisdiction of other State agencies. 
For example, the Department's role in developing wa- 
ter supply for local agencies is limited to fulfilling its 
State Water Project contractual obligations. (The De- 
partment may provide financial assistance to local 
agencies for various water management programs as 
authorized under bond measures enacted by the Leg- 
islature and approved by the voters.) The Department 
has no regulatory authority to mandate how local wa- 
ter agencies price their water supplies, or to require 
that local agencies adopt one type of water manage- 



ment option over another. Comments such as those 
suggesting that the Department plan for control of 
nonpoint source pollution or food production address 
the jurisdictional areas of other State agencies. 

The subject of flood control merits special men- 
tion because of the direct relationship between 
operation of water supply projects and flood control 
projects. The purpose of the water plan update series 
is to evaluate water supplies, but those supplies can be 
affected by flood control actions such as increasing the 
amount of reservoir storage dedicated to flood control 
purposes. With memories of the disastrous January 
1997 floods still fresh in people's minds, some 
commenters recommended that Bulletin 160-98 de- 
vote more attention to flood control needs, such as 
floodplain mapping programs, that are not directly re- 
lated to water supply considerations. The 1 997 Final 
Report of the Governor's Flood Emergency Action Team 
describes recommended actions to be taken based on 
the damages experienced in January 1997. Sections of 
that report are referenced throughout the Bulletin. Bul- 
letin 160-98 emphasizes the interaction between water 
supply and flood control planning, and points out the 
benefits associated with multipurpose water projects. 

As discussed in the following section, the Depart- 
ment received a number of comments requesting that 
Bulletin 160-98 quantify future water supply uncer- 
tainties associated with ongoing programs or regulatory 
actions, such as the CALFED Bay-Delta program. 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hydroelectric 
plant relicensing, and Endangered Species Act listings. 
Text has been added that quantifies those actions for 
which data are available. 

The Department received some comments that 
could not be incorporated in Bulletin 160-98 
because they suggested substantial changes in the scope 
or content of the Bulletin that could not be addressed 
before the Bulletin's due date to the Legislature, or 
suggested changes for the next update of the water plan. 
The scope of Bulletin 160-98 was established in co- 
ordination with the Bulletin's advisory committee in 
1995, just as the scope of the next plan update (five 
years hence) will be established early in the process of 
preparing that update. The Department will consider 
these long-term comments when work begins on the 
next update. 

Works in Progress and Uncertainties 

The descriptions of major California water man- 
agement activities provided in the Bulletin are generally 



Introduction 



ESl-8 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



current through July 1998. There are several pending 
activities that could be characterized as works in 
progress, including the CALFED Bay-Delta program 
and Colorado River water use discussions. For pro- 
grams such as these, the Bulletin describes their current 
status and potential impacts, if known, on future 
water supplies. There are uncertainties associated with 
the outcomes of these activities, just as there are with 
any process that is evaluated in mid-course. 

As noted at the beginning of this chapter, each 
water plan update focused on issues or concerns of 
special interest at the time of its publication. As an 
example of this focus, Bulletin 160-83 was the last 
water plan update to review water use for hydropower 
generation. No major changes have occurred since the 
late 1970s/early 1980s, when high energy prices and 
favorable tax treatment for renewable energy spurred 
a boom in small hydropower development. Ibday, 
uncertainties about water supply and water use associ- 
ated with hydropower production are increasing, with 
the 1998 initiation of deregulation for California in- 
vestor-owned power utilities and the pro.spect of FERC 
relicensing of several powerplants on major Sierra 
Nevada rivers between 2000 and 2010. Although there 
is presently little information available on which to 



base forecasts of resultant changes in water supplies, 
more information is likely to be available for the next 
water plan update. 

Colorado River interstate issues are a new addi- 
tion to a statewide water picture largely dominated by 
Delta and Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
issues in the recent past. Achieving a solution to 
California's need to reduce its use of Colorado River 
water to the State's basic apportionment (a reduction 
of as much as 900 taf from historical uses) requires 
consensus among California's local agencies that use 
the river's water, as well as concurrence in the plan by 
the other basin states. 

Presentation of Data in Bulletin 160-98 

Water budget and related data are tabulated by 
hydrologic region throughout the Bulletin. The state- 
wide totals in these tables are generally presented as 
rounded values. As a result, individual table entries will 
not necessarily sum exactly to the rounded totals. 

In the Chapter ES5 water budget appendices, re- 
gional water use/supply totals and shortages are not 
rounded. Individual table entries may not sum exactly 
to the reported totals due to rounding of individual 
entries for presentation purposes. 



ESl-9 



INTRODUCTION 



^^•y^ 



'^ ~^ *• 





^- --. j^ 


nnm 


^^H|^HPI^^^^ '.v-«^A^^^g| 


I 


.^K S"*^ ", ^^Hl 


■ 


^B^^^^jT^^^^^T 


i 


^^^^ 




'/ i^^i 


HB '^ 





•^p^ll 



hi 



If 



■•*~'-5ii« 



-•»> 



Uii? 



>^ 



li 



S3 ^^ 



The Califortiiil Water I'lan Update BULLEilN 160-98 



t 



Executive bumniary 

Current Events in 
California Water Management 



T 



his chapter highlights some significant infrastructure and institutional changes 
that have occurred since the publication ot Bulletin 160-93, and reviews the 
status of selected high-profile programs. 



Facilities 

A common theme in previous California Water Plan updates has been the need 

to respond to the State's continually increasing population. Population growth brings with 

it the need for new or expanded infrastructure. California's water purveyors have made 

significant infrastructure improvements — including reservoirs, conveyance facilities, recycling 

and desalting facilities, and structural environmental restoration projects — since publication 

of the last California Water Plan update. 

In 1998, Contra Costa Water District completed its 100 taf Los Vaqueros Reservoir, 

improving water quality and providing emergency storage for its service area. Metropolitan 

Water District of Southern California is constructing its Eastside Reservoir in Riverside 

County. When completed in 1999, this 800 taf reservoir will nearly double the region's 

California's existing surface storage capacity and will provide increased terminal storage for 

increasing ^'''^fp j^id Colorado River supplies. Eastside Reservoir would provide the entire 
population is a 
driving factor region with a six-month emergency supply after an earthquake or other disaster 

in future water , . , , ■ , i r i i i i 

and would also provide water supply tor drought protection and peak summer 
management 

planning. demands. 

ES2-1 CURRENT EVENTS 



The California Water Plan Update BULLEIIN 160-98 



Taimi: ES2-1 
Major Water Conveyance Facilities Since 1992 



Facility 



Constructing 


Status 


Length 


Maximum 


Agency 




(miles) 


Capacity (eft) 


Departmcnr of Water Resources 


completed 1997 


100 


100 


Metropolitan Water District 


completed 1997 


8 


1 ,000 


of Southern Caiit'ornia 








Department of Water Resources 


completed 1996 


100 


2,880 


Mojave Water Agency 


started 1997 


71 


94 


Contra Costa Water District 


completed 1997 


20 


400 


Department of Water Resources 


started 1998 


14 


104 


Metropolitan Water District 


started 1997 


44 


1,000 


of Southern California 








Mojave Water Agency 


completed 1994 


71 


100 


Stockton East Water District and 


completed 1993 


21 


500 



Coastal Branch Aqueduct 
Eastside Reservoir Pipeline 

Hast Branch Enlargement 
Mojave River Pipeline 

Old River Pipelines 

(Eos Vaqueros Project) 

East Branch Extension 
Inland Feeder Project 

Morongo Basin Pipeline 

New Melones Water 
Conveyance Project 



Central San Joaquin Water 
Conservation District 



Several major conveyance projects were completed 
or began construction since the last water plan up- 
date. For example, the Departments Coastal Aqueduct, 
completed in 1997, now carries SWP water to San 
Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. Mojave 
Water Agency recently completed a major conveyance 
facility (71 miles long) and is constructing another of 
similar length to import surface water to its service 
area to alleviate longstanding groundwater overdraft 
problems. Large conveyance projects under construc- 
tion or recently completed are listed in Table ES2-1. 

Water recycling and desalting are becoming larger 
components of existing and potential future water sup- 
plies, especially for urban areas. Bulletin 160-98 
estimates 1995-level total statewide water recycling to 
be 485 taf/yr, considerably higher than the Bulletin 
160-93 total water recycling estimate of 384 taf/yr. 
Groundwater recharge and agricultural and landscape 
irrigation constitute the greatest uses of recycled water 
in the State. As advanced treatment technologies be- 
come more cost-effective, and as public acceptance 
increases, augmentation of surface water supplies may 
become another application for recycled water. The 
San Diego water repurification program, a proposed 
project to repurify 16 taf/yr of wastewater, would be 
the first example of highly treated recycled water be- 
ing discharged directly into a surface reservoir. 

Today, California has more than 150 desalting 
plants producing fresh water from brackish ground- 



water, municipal and industrial wastewater, and sea- 
water. The capacity of these plants totals about 66 taf/ 
yr; seawater desalting capacity accounts for only 8 taf/ 
yr of total capacity. Most existing plants are small (less 
than 1 taf/yr) and have been constructed in coastal 
communities with limited water supplies. The Santa 




DWR's extension of the Coastal Branch to serve San Luis 
Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties provides an imported 
surface water supply that can help reduce overdraft of coastal 
groundwater basins. 



(.Xjrrunt Events 



ES2-2 



The California Water Plan Update BULLtllN 160-98 



Barbara desalting plant, with a capacity of 7.5 taf/yr, 
is the largest seawater desalting plant in California. The 
plant was constructed during the 1 987-92 drought and 
is now on long-term standby. In 1997, the Marina 
Coast Water District completed construction on a re- 
verse osmosis seawater desalting plant. This 
$2.5 million plant produces about 340 af/yr. 

Many large-scale environmental restoration 
projects and programs are being implemented. Facili- 
ties associated with these programs include the United 
States Bureau of Reclamation's Shasta Dam Tempera- 
ture Control Device, USBR's Red BlufFDiversion Dam 
Research Pumping Plant, and many fish screens or fish 
passage improvements at local agency and privately- 
owned diversions. Financial assistance provided by 
programs such as CVPIA's anadromous fish restora- 
tion program and CALFED's Category III program 
has resulted in a major expansion of local agency screen- 
ing and fish passage projects. Table ES2-2 lists some of 
the largest examples of recently completed structural 
fishery restoration projects. 

Several more large fish screen facilities are nearing 
the final phases of design or construction, including 
diversions on the Sacramento River at the Glenn- 
Colusa Irrigation District, Reclamation District 108 
near Grimes, Reclamation District 1004 near 
Princeton, the Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation 
District and Provident Irrigation District consolidated 
diversion, and others. Construction of GCID's 




USBR is evaluating the fishery impacts of dijjereni types of 
pump diversions to the Tehama-Colusa Canal. One 
alternative for improving fish passage at Red Bluff Diversion 
Dam would be to leave the dam's gates in the raised position 
and use a pumping plant to make TCC diversions. The 
research plant contains three pumps — one helical pump and 
two Archimedes screw pumps (right side of photo). 

Hamilton City Pumping Plant screen began in spring 
1998. This $70 million project will minimize fish losses 
near the pumping plant and will maximize GCID's 
ability to meet its water supply delivery obligations. 
Reclamation District 108 began construction in 1997 



TABLE ES2-2 
Large Structural Fishery Restoration Projects 



Project 



Owner 



Description 



Shasta Dam Temperature 
Control Device 



Red BlufFDiversion Dam 
Research Pumping Plant 



Butte Creek hsh passage 



Maxwell Irrigation District 
fish screen 

Pelger Mutual Water 
Company fish screen 



USBR 



USBR 



Western Canal 

Water District and others 



Maxwell ID 
PMWC 



An approximately $83 million modification to the 
dam's outlet works to allow temperature-selective 
releases of water through the dam's powerplant was 
completed in 1997. 

A S40 million experimental facility to evaluate fishery 
impacts of different types of pumps diverting 
Sacramento River water into the Tehama-Colusa and 
Corning Canals was constructed in 1995. 

A multi-component project to improve fish passage by 
removing small irrigation diversion dams from the 
creek. By 1998. five diversion dams will have been 
removed. 

An 80 cfs diversion on the Sacramento River was 
screened in 1994. 

A 60 cfs diversion on the Sacramento River was 
screened in 1994. 



ES2-3 



CURRENT EVENTS 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



on a new $10 million Fish screen. Ihe project, located 
at the districts Wiikens Slough diversion, will protect 
migrating winter-run chinook salmon. The district an- 
ticipates completing the project by the 1 999 irrigation 
season. Reclamation District 1 004 began construction 
of its $8 million fish screen in 1998. In addition to a 
fish screen, the project includes relocation of the 
Princeton Pumping Plant and conveyance facilities. In 
1998, the Princeton-Codora-Glenn and Provident 
Irrigation Districts are expected to complete construc- 
tion of an $11 million fish screen and pump 
consolidation project. The 600 ch project eliminates 
three unscreened diversions. 

Legislation 

Proposition 204 

In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 
204, the Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act. The 
act authorized the issuance of $995 million in general 
obligation bonds to finance water and environmental 
restoration programs throughout the State. Approxi- 
mately $600 million of these bonds would provide the 
State share of costs for projects benefitting the Bay- 
Delta and its watershed, including $390 million of this 
amount to implement CALFED's ecosystem restora- 
tion program for the Bay-Delta. These latter funds 
would be available after final federal and State envi- 
ronmental documents are certified and a cost-sharing 
agreement is executed between the federal and State 
governments. Table ES2-3 summarizes all programs 
authorized for Proposition 204 funding. 

Proposition 218 

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



Although there are many tests to determine if a 
fee or charge is subject to the provisions of Proposi- 
tion 218, the most significant one is whether the agency 
has relied upon any parcel map for the imposition of 
the fee or charge. There is currently uncertainty in the 
interpretation of Proposition 218 requirements, espe- 
cially as they relate to certain water-related fees and 
charges. From one point of view. Proposition 2 1 8 could 
be interpreted as a comprehensive approach to regu- 
late all forms of agency revenue sources. This broad 
interpretation would include all fees and charges for 
services provided to real properry. Types of water-re- 
lated charges and fees that may be affected by 
Proposition 2 1 8's requirements include meter charges, 
acreage-based irrigation charges, and standby charges. 
Additional legislation or judicial interpretation may 
be needed to clarify the application of Proposition 218 
to fees and charges used by water agencies. Several water 
industry groups are working on proposals for clarify- 
ing legislation. To date, there has been one water-related 
legislative clarification of Proposition 2 1 8. A 1 997 stat- 
ute clarified that assessments imposed by water districts 
and earmarked for bond repayment are not subject to 
the proposition's voter approval requirements. 

Municipalities and special districts are beginning 
to seek voter approval of assessments as required by 
Proposition 218. Many assessments to fund existing 
programs have been receiving voter approval. There is 
at least one example, however, of a water agency whose 
proposed assessment was not approved. Monterey 
County Water Resources Agency did not receive voter 
approval for an assessment to support existing pro- 
grams — groundwater quality monitoring, water 
conservation, and nitrate management outreach — 
funded by water standby charges. Examples of 
MCWRA's proposed assessment charges were $1.67 
per irrigated acre for agricultural land use and $2.26 
per parcel for single-family dwellings. 

MTBE 

Detection of methyl tertiary butyl ether in water 
supplies soon after it was approved for use as an air 
pollution-reducing additive in gasoline has raised con- 
cerns about its mobility in the environment. Legislation 
enacted in 1997 included several provisions dealing 
with MTBE regulation, monitoring, and studies. One 
provision required the Department of Health Services 
to establish a primary (health-based) drinking water 
standard for MTBE by July 1999, and a secondary 
(taste and odor) drinking water standard by July 1 998. 



CURRENT EVENTS 



ES2-4 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



MTBE can be detected by taste at very low concentra- 
tions, hence the early requirement for a secondary 
drinking water standard. 

Safe Drinking Water Act 

The Safe Drinking Water Act, administered by the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in coordina- 
tion with the states, is the chief federal regulatory 
legislation dealing with drinking water quality. The 
104th Congress reauthorized and made significant 
changes to the SDWA, which had last been reautho- 
rized in 1 986. Major changes included: 

• Establishing a drinking water state revolving loan 
fund, to be administered by states in a manner 
similar to the existing Clean Water Act State 
Revolving Fund. Loans would be made available 
to public water systems to help them comply with 
national primary drinking water regulations and 
to upgrade water treatment systems. 

• The standard-setting process for drinking water 



contaminants established in the 1 986 amendments 
was changed from a requirement that EPA adopt 
standards for a set number of contaminants on a 
fixed schedule to a process based on risk assessment 
and cost/benefit analysis. The 1996 amendments 
require EPA to publish (and periodically update) 
a list of contaminants not currently subject to 
national primary drinking water regulations, and 
to periodically determine whether to regulate at 
least five contaminants from that list, based on 
risk and benefit considerations. 
A requirement that states conduct vulnerability 
assessments in priority source water areas expanded 
existing source water quality protection provisions. 
States are authorized to establish voluntary, 
incentive-based source protection partnerships 
with local agencies. This activity may be funded 
from the new SRR 

As a result of the 1 996 amendments, EPA adopted 
a more ambitious schedule for promulgating the 



TABLE ES2-3 
Proposition 204 Funding Breakdown 



Program 



Dollars 
(in millions) 



Delta Restoration 

CVPIA State share 
Category III State share 
Delta levee rehabilitation 
South Delta barriers 
Delta recreation 
CALFED administration 

Clean Water and Water Recycling 

State Revolving Fund Clean Water Act loans 

Clean Water Act grants to small communities 

Loans for water recycling projects 

Loans for drainage treatment and management projects 

Delta tributary watershed rehabilitation grants and loans 

Seawater intrusion loans 

Lake Tahoe water qualiry improvements 

Water Supply Reliability 

Feasibility investigations for specified programs 
Water conservation and groundwater recharge loans 
Small water project loans and grants, rural counties 
Sacramento Valley water management and habitat improvement 
River parkway program 

CALFED Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Program 

Flood Control Subventions 

Total 



193 

93 
60 
25 
10 
2 
3 

235 

80 
30 
60 
30 
15 
10 
10 

117 

10 
30 

25 
25 
27 

390 

60 

995 



ES2-5 



Current Events 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



Disinfectant/Disinfection By-Prodiicts Rule and 
the Enhanced Surface WaterTreatnicnt Rule. The 
first phase of the D/DBP Rule is proposed to take 
effect in late 1998, as is an interim ESWTR. More 
stringent versions of both rules are proposed to 
follow in 2002. 

Reclamation, Recycling, and Water 
Conservation Act of 1996 



development project. Local sponsors are the C'ity of 
Long Beach, Central Basin Municipal W;iter District, 
and MWDSC. 

Water Desalination Act of 1996 



This act amended Title 16 of PL 102-575 by 
authorizing federal cost-sharing in additional waste- 
water recycling projects. (PL 102-575 had authorized 
federal cost-sharing in specified recycling projects.) The 
additional California projects are shown below, along 
with the nonfederal sponsors identified in the statute. 

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

• Calleguas Municipal Water District recycling 
project (CMWD) 

• Watsonville area water recycling project (City of 
Watsonville) 

• Pasadena reclaimed water project (City of 
Pasadena) 

• Phase 1 of- the Orange County regional water 
reclamation project (Orange County Water 
District and County Sanitation Districts of Orange 
County) 

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

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

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

• San Joaquin area water recycling and reuse project 
(San Joaquin County, Ciry of Tracy) 

Federal cost-sharing in these projects is authorized 
at a maximum of 25 percent for project construction 
and federal contributions for each project are capped 
at $20 million. Funds are not to be appropriated for 
project construction until after a feasibility study and 
cost-sharing agreement are completed. Federal cost- 
sharing may not be used for operations and 
maintenance. 

The act also authorizes the Department of Inte- 
rior to cost-share up to 50 percent (planning and 
design) in a Long Beach desalination research and 



This act authorizes DOI to cost-share in non-fed- 
eral desalting projects at levels of 25 percent or 
50 percent (for projects which are not otherwise fea- 
sible unless a federal contribution is provided). 
Cost-shared actions can be research, studies, demon- 
stration projects, or development projects. The 
authorization provides $5 million per year for fiscal 
years 1997 through 2002 for research and studies, and 
$25 million per year for demonstration and develop- 
ment projects. The act requires DOI to investigate at 
least three different types of desalting technology and 
to report research findings to Congress. 

Major Water Management issues 
and Programs 

Bay-Delta Accord and CALFED 



Representatives from the California Water Policy 
Council, created to coordinate activities related to State 
long-term water policy, and the Federal Ecosystem 
Directorate, created to coordinate actions of federal 
agencies involved in Delta programs, signed a Frame- 
work Agreement for the Bay-Delta estuary in June 
1 994. Together, these agencies are known as CALFED. 
The Framework Agreement improved coordination 
and communication between State and federal agen- 
cies with resource management responsibilities in the 
estuary. It covered the water quality standards setting 
process; coordinated water project operations with 
requirements of water quality standards, endangered 
species laws, and CVPIA; and provided for coopera- 
tion in planning long-term solutions to problems 
affecting the estuary's major public values. 

In December 1994 State and federal agencies, 
working with stakeholders, reached agreement on the 
"Principles for Agreement on Bay-Delta Standards 
Between the State of California and the Federal Gov- 
ernment" (referred to as the Bay-Delta Accord) that 
would remain in effect for three years. Provisions of 
the Bay-Delta Accord covered water quality standard 
setting and water project operational constraints, ESA 
implementation and use of real-time monitoring data, 
and improvement of conditions not directly related to 
Delta outflow. Parties to the Accord committed to fund 



Cl.iRRENT EVENTS 



ES2-6 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



"non-flow Category III" measures at $60 million per 
year for the agreement's three-year term. The Accord 
was subsequently extended for a fourth year. An 
Operations Group composed of representatives from 
the State and federal water projects and the other 
CALFED agencies was established to coordinate 
project operations. Stakeholders from water agencies, 
and environmental and fishery groups participate in 
Operations Group meetings. 

Water Quality Standard Setting. SWRCB 
adopted a water quality control plan for the Bay-Delta 
in May 1995, incorporating agreements reached in the 
Accord. In June 1995, SWRCB adopted Order WR 
95-6, an interim order amending terms and conditions 
of SWRCB's Decision 1485 and the SWP's and Cen- 
tral Valley Project's water right permits to resolve 
inconsistencies with D-1485 requirements and the 
projects' voluntary implementation of Accord stan- 
dards. The interim order will expire when a water right 
decision allocating final responsibilities for meeting the 
1995 objectives is adopted, or on December 31, 1998, 
whichever comes first. SWRCB released a revised draft 
EIR for implementing the water quality control plan 
in 1998, and intends to issue a water right decision 
implementing the order by the end of 1 998. The DEIR 
has eight flow alternatives: 

(1) SWP and CVP Responsible for D-1485 Flow 
Objectives 

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

(3) Water Right Priority Alternative — the CVP's 
Friant Unit is assumed to be an in-basin project. 

(4) Water Right Priority Alternative — the CVP's 
Friant Unit is assumed to be an export project. 

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

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

(7) San Joaquin Basin Negotiated Agreement — San 
Joaquin Basin water right holders' responsibility 
to meet the plan objectives is based on an 



agreement titled "Letter of Intent among Export 
Interests and San Joaquin River Interests to Resolve 
San Joaquin River Issues Related to Protection of 
Bay-Delta Environmental Resources." 
(8) San Joaquin Basin Negotiated Agreement — 
Vernalis flow objectives are replaced by target flows 
contained in the agreement. 
CALFED Long- Term Solution-Finding Process 
for Bay-Delta. The June 1 994 Framework Agreement 
called for a State-federal process to develop long-term 
solutions to Bay-Delta problems related to fish and 
wildlife, water supply reliability, natural disasters, and 
water quality. The CALFED program is managed by 
an interagency team under the policy direction of 
CALFED member agencies, with public input pro- 
vided by the Bay-Delta Advisory Council. BDAC is a 
31 -member advisory panel representing California's 
agricultural, environmental, urban, business, fishing, 
and other interests who have a stake in the long-term 
solution to Bay-Delta problems. 

The CALFED program's first phase identified 
problems and goals for the Bay-Delta, and developed 
a range of alternatives for long-term solutions. This 
phase concluded with a September 1 996 report iden- 
tifying three broad solutions, each of which included 




iiiMfrnttti 



l! 





4 



Actions funded by the Category III program include fish 
screening, fish passage improvements, habitat acquisition, 
and control of non-native invasive species. The zebra mussel 
has caused millions of dollars of increased operations and 
maintenance costs to Great Lakes water users. Preventing the 
mussels' spread is a priority in invasive species management. 



ES2-7 



Current events 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 




CALFED's Ecosystem Restoration I'logiam ailLsJor extensive 
creation ofneiv habitat in the Delta. Construction of setback 
levees would allow restoration of riparian and riverine 
aqttatic habitats, benefitting fish and wildlife. 

a range of water storage options, a system for convey- 
ing water, and some programs tiiat were common to 
all alternatives. The second phase consisted of prepar- 
ing a programmatic EIR/EIS covering three main 
alternatives for conveyance of water across the Delta — 
an existing system alternative, a through-Delta 
alternative, and a dual Delta conveyance alternative. 
The first public review draft of the PEIR/PEIS was 
released in March 1998. CALFED expects to issue a 
second draft PEIR/PEIS by the end of 1998. The 
revised draft would identify CALFED's draft preferred 
alternative. 

The third phase would involve staged implemen- 
tation of the preferred alternative over a time period 
of several decades and will require site-specific envi- 
ronmental documents. Current plans are for an initial 
implementation period of 7 to 10 years, during which 
only common program elements would be imple- 
mented (water conservation measures, ecosystem 
restoration, levee improvements). Any conveyance or 
storage facilities would be constructed in a later phase 
of implementation. 



ESA Administration. The December 1994 Bay- 
Delta Accord established several principles governing 
F2SA administration in the Bay-Delta during the 
agreement's term. 

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

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

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

Colorado River 

A major issue facing California is its use of Colo- 
rado River water in excess of the amount apportioned 
to it by the existing body of statutes, court decisions, 
and agreements controlling use of the water supply 
among the seven basin states. California's basic appor- 
tionment of river water is 4.4 maf of consumptive use 
per year (plus a share of surplus flows, when available), 
as compared to its present consumptive use of up to 
5.3 maf/yr. California's use has historically 
exceeded the basic apportionment because California 
has been able to divert and use Arizona's and Nevada's 
unused apportionments, and to divert surplus water. 
With completion of the Central Arizona Project and 
the 1 996 enactment of groundwater banking legisla- 
tion, Arizona projects that it will use almost all of its 
2.8 maf apportionment for the first time in 1998. 
Nevada is projected to use about 280 taf of its 300 taf 
apportionment in 1998. 

California local agencies, working through the 
Colorado River Board of California, have been devel- 
oping a proposal for discussion with the other basin 
states to illustrate how, over time, California would 
reduce its use to the basic apportionment of 4.4 maf/ 
yr. Drafts of the proposal, known as the draft Colo- 
rado River Board 4.4 Plan, have been shared with the 
other states. Efforts are being made to reach intra- 
state consensus on the plan in 1 998. As Bulletin 1 60-98 



CURRKN I EVENTS 



ES2-8 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



goes to press, the most current version of the draft plan 
is the December 1997 version. 

As formulated, the draft plan would be imple- 
mented in two phases. The first phase (between the 
present and 2010 or 2015) would entail implement- 
ing already identified measures such as water 
conservation and transfers to reduce Calitornia's Colo- 
rado River water use to about 4.6 to 4.7 maf/yr. The 
second phase would implement additional measures 
to reduce California's use to its basic annual 4.4 maf 
apportionment in those years when neither surplus 
water nor other states' unused apportionments were 
available. One of the fundamental assumptions made 
in the plan is that MWDSC's Colorado River Aque- 
duct will be kept full by making water transfers from 
agricultural users in the Colorado River Region to ur- 
ban water users in the South Coast Region. 

Actions included in the first phase were: core 
water transfers such as the existing Imperial Irrigation 
District/MWDSC agreement and the proposed Im- 
perial Irrigation District/San Diego County Water 
Authority transfer; seepage recovery from unlined sec- 
tions of the All American and Coachella Canals; 
drought year water transfers similar to the Palo Verde 
Irrigation District/MWDSC pilot project; groundwa- 
ter banking in Arizona; and conjunctive use of 
groundwater in areas such as the Coachella Valley. 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 plan 
elements must address environmental impacts on the 
lower Colorado River and its listed species. 

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. An impor- 
tant element of the draft CRB 4.4 Plan is the concept 
that existing reservoir operating criteria be changed by 
USBR to make optimum use of the river's runoff and 
available basin storage capacity. California agencies 
developed new proposed operating criteria that are 
included in the draft CRB 4.4 Plan. The draft plan 
contemplates that changes in operating 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, for example, that new criteria should 
not be implemented until California has prepared the 



environmental documents and executed the agreements 
that would be needed to begin implementation of the 
draft CRB 4.4 Plan. 

The second phase of the draft CRB 4.4 Plan would 
include additional average year and drought year wa- 
ter transfers. Specifics on these transfers would be 
developed during the first phase of plan implementa- 
tion. Other components of the second phase would 
include further transfers of conserved agricultural wa- 
ter to the South Coast and further work on reservoir 
operating criteria. Implementation of some elements 
of phase two ol the plan may extend beyond the Bul- 
letin 160-98 planning horizon. 

Recent ESA Listings 

Since publication of Bulletin 160-93, there has 
been action on federal listing of several fish species 
having statewide water management significance. In 
August 1997, the National Marine Fisheries Service 
listed two coastal steelhead populations as threatened 
(from the Russian River south to Soquel Creek, and 
from the Pajaro River south to the Santa Maria River), 
and one population as endangered (from the Santa 
Maria River south to Malibu Creek). NMFS deferred 
listing decisions for six months for other California 
populations — from the Elk River in Oregon to the 
Trinity River in California, from Redwood Creek to 




USBR's Parker Dam on the Colorado River impounds Lake 
Havasu. At this location, the Colorado River forms the 
stateline between California and Arizona. AIWDSC's 
Colorado River Aqueduct and the Central Arizona Project 
divert from Lake Havasu. 



ES2-9 



CURRENT EVENTS 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETtN 160-98 



the Gualala River, and in the Central Valley — due to 
scientific disagreement about the sufficiency and ac- 
curacy of the data available for listing determinations. 
In March 1998, NMFS listed the Central Valley popu- 
lation as threatened, and deferred listing ok the two 
north coast populations in favor of working with Cali- 
fornia and Oregon on state conservation plans. 

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

In 1998, NMFS proposed several runs of chinook 
salmon for listing — the spring-run in the Central Val- 
ley ESU as endangered, the fall and late-fall rims in 
the Central Valley ESU as threatened, and the spring 
and fall runs in the Oregon/California coastal ESU as 
threatened. (The spring-run chinook salmon has been 
listed as a candidate species under the California ESA.) 
NMFS expects to make its decision on listing in 1 999. 

USFWS proposed in 1994 to list a resident Delta 
fish species, the Sacramento River splittail, but a con- 
gressional moratorium on listing of new species 
prevented USFWS from working on the proposal un- 
til 1996. USFWS again proposed to list splittail in 
1 996, but received significant public comments on new 
scientific information for splittail. The extended pub- 
lic comment period ended July 1998. USFWS is 
expected to make a decision after reviewing comments. 

USFWS has also listed or proposed for listing spe- 
cies whose limited range would result in localized water 
management impacts. For example, the red legged frog, 
found primarily in the Central Coast area, was listed 
as threatened in 1996. Another example is the Santa 
Ana sucker, found in the Santa Ana River, proposed 
for listing in 1998. 

January 1997 Central Valley Floods 

The January 1997 flood event was notable for its 
sustained rainfall intensity, the volume of floodwater, 
and the extent of the storm pattern — from the Or- 
egon 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, pouring over 
30 inches of rain on watersheds already saturated by 
one of the wettest Decembers on record. In many major 
river systems, flood control dams reduced flood flows 
by half or more, saving lives and significantly reduc- 
ing property damage. However, in some areas, leveed 



flood control systems were overwhelmed, causing ap- 
proximately $2 billion in damages. 

Most of the large reservoirs in Northern Califor- 
nia were full or nearly full within the first days in 
January. Several Sacramento Valley reser\'oirs — includ- 
ing Shasta, Oroville, and New Bullards 
Bar — experienced record inflows during the January 
1997 flood event. American River inflow to Folsom 
Reservoir was similar to the amount recorded during 
the February 1 986 flood. Levees of the federal Sacra- 
mento River Flood Control Project (see sidebar) 
sustained moderate to heavy damage, including two 
major levee breaks (one near the town of Arboga) and 
several relief cuts. Flooding in the Marysville-Yuba City 
area resulted in 35,000 people being evacuated from 
the Marysville area and 75,000 people being evacu- 
ated downstream in Sutter County. 

The volume of runoff exceeded the flood control 
capability 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 1 20,000 cfs, it was more than six times 
the downstream channel's flow restrictions ol 9,000 
cfs. In all, 36 levee failures occurred along the San 
Joaquin River system, along with extensive damage 
related to high flows and inundation. Most of the dam- 
age occurred downstream of the Tuolumne River 
confluence. 

The January 1997 floods demonstrated the need 
for increased Central Valley flood protection. The 1 997 
Final Report of the Governor's Flood Emergency Action 
Team identified many actions that could be taken to 
increase valley flood protection, including better emer- 
gency preparedness, floodplain management actions, 
levee system improvements, construction of new flood- 
ways, temporary storage of floodwaters on wildlife 
refuges, reoperation or enlargement of existing reser- 
voirs to increase flood storage, and construction of new 
reservoirs. 

The Sacramento River Flood Control Project's 
ability to provide protection for growing urban areas 
is the primary flood control issue lacing the Sacramento 
Valley. Additional flood protection is needed in the 
Yuba River Basin, particularly in the greater Marysville- 
Yuba City area. Additional flood protection is also 
needed in the American River Basin for the Sacramento 
metropolitan area, as discussed in the accompanying 
sidebar. The 1997 FEAT report detailed several rec- 
ommendations and possible actions for the Sacramento 



Current Events 



ES2-10 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



The Sacramento 

metropolitan area has one 

of the lowest flood 

protection levels in the 

nation, for a community of 

its size. Without interim 

reoperation ofFolsom 

Dam, the community is 

estimated to have only a 1- 

in-60 year level of 

protection. (With 

reoperation, the level of 

protection is l-in-77 years). 

This photo shows the 

American River in January 

1997, and the high-density 

urban development 

adjacent to the levee. 














Valley, including new flood storage, enlarged flood 
bypasses, and increasing channel capacity through mea- 
sures such as dredging and setback levees. 

The primary flood control issue facing the San 
Joaquin River watershed is the lack of flood channel 
capacity. Channels and levees are generally designed 
for 50-year flood protection. Insufficient channel ca- 
pacity is especially problematic in the lower San Joaquin 



River below the Merced River. At the lower end ol the 
system, sediment deposition continues to raise the river 
bed and reduce channel capacity. Sediment deposition 
also promotes vegetation growth, thereby increasing 
channel roughness and further impeding flows. As 
urban development occurs on lands formerly used for 
agriculture, the need for higher levels of flood protec- 
tion becomes more important. The 1997 FEAT report 



American River Flood Protection 

Following the floods of February 1986, the United States 
Army Corps of Engineers reanalyzed American River Basin 
hydrology and concluded chat Folsom Dam did not provide 
an adequate level of flood protection to the downstream 
Sacramento area, significantly less than the 250-year 
protection estimated in the late 1940s when the dam was 
designed. The 977 taf reservoir has a normal winter flood 
control reservation of 400 taf (estimated to provide the 
Sacramento area with protection from a storm having a 1 -in- 
60-year return period). 

Three main flood protection alternatives have been 
evaluated by USAGE. Two of the alternatives would increase 
flood control storage in Folsom, modify the dam's 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 national 
economic benefits. The State Reclamation Board endorsed 
the detention dam as the best long-term solution to reliably 
provide greater than l-in-200 year flood protection. 

TheGentral Valley's Januar)' 1997 flood disaster prompted 
another examination of American River hydrology. Based on 



that hydrologic review, the 1 986 and 1 997 floods are now 
considered to be about 60-year events. The 1997 flooding 
also triggered payback provisions of the Sacramento Area 
Flood Gontrol Agency's agreement with USER, under which 
USER sets aside up to 270 taf of additional winter flood 
control space in Folsom. (This additional flood conttol space 
in the reservoir taises Sacramento's level of protection to about 
a 77-year event level.) Reoperation ofFolsom for additional 
flood control resulted in a lo.ss of supply to USBR. SAFGA 
and the federal government purchased 100 taf to offset the 
loss of supply — 50 taf from Yuba Gounty Water Agency, 35 
taf from Placer County Water Agency, and 1 5 taf from GGID. 
In 1998, the Reclamation Board restated its conclusion 
that the best long-term engineering solution to reliably provide 
greater than l-in-200 year flood protection is to develop 
additional flood detention storage at Auburn. As an 
incremental measure to increase the level of flood protection, 
the Board also resolved to support SAFCA's plan for modifying 
Folsom Dam's outlets to increase flood protection to 
approximately a 1 -in- 1 1 year level. As of June 1 998, SAFCA 
was seeking congressional authorization for USAGE 
participation in Folsom Dam modifications and downstream 
levee enlargements. 



ES2-11 



CURRENT EVENTS 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



The January 1997 flood 

disaster was the largest in 

the State's history. 

Flooding forced wore 

than 1 20,000 people 

from their homes, and 

over 55,000 people were 

housed in temporary 

shelters. Nearly 300 

square miles of 

agricidtural land were 

flooded. Livestock and 

wildlife were trapped by 

the flooding. 




detailed several recommendations and possible actions 
tor the San Joaquin River watershed, including new 
flood storage, development restrictions and land ac- 
quisitions in the floodplain, and increasing channel 
capacity through measures such as dredging, setback 
levees, and improving bridge crossings. 

CVPIA Implementation 

CVPIA made significant changes to the CVP s leg- 
islative 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 wild- 
life enhancement on a par with power generation. Key 
areas of CVPIA implementation are summarized 
below. USER and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service re- 
leased a draft programmatic EIS on CVPIA 
implementation for public review in November 1 997. 
The draft PEIS describes, among other things, esti- 



mated water supply impacts of federal implementa- 
tion of the act, and illustrates the consequences of 
different alternatives for fish and wildlife supplemen- 
tal water acquisition. A final EIS is scheduled to be 
released in 1999. 

Renewal of CVP Water Service Contracts. 
CVPIA prohibited execution of new CVP water ser- 
vice contracts (with minor exceptions), except for fish 
and wildlife purposes, until all of the many environ- 
mental restoration actions specified in the statute had 
been completed. The act also provided that existing 
long-term water service contracts be renewed for 25- 
year terms, as opposed to their previous 40-year terms. 
Only interim renewals (not more than three years) are 
allowed until the PEIS required by the act is completed. 
Beginning in October 1997, most existing long term 
contracts are subject to a monetary hammer clause 
encouraging early renewal. Renewed contracts will in- 



Sacramento River Flood Control Project 

Congress authorized the Sacramento River Flood Control 
Project in 1917after a series of major Sacramento Valley floods 
in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The project was built with 
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. The 
bypass system was designed to carry 600,000 cfs of water past 
Sacramento — 1 10,000 cfs in the Sacramento River through 
downtown Sacramento and West Sacramento, and the 
remainder in the Yolo Bypass. The system has worked 
exceedingly well over the years. 



The capacity of the SRFCP was increased upon completion 
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 completion of Oroville Dam on the Feather 
River in 1 968 and New Bullards Bar Dam on the Yuba River 
in 1970. These are large multipurpose reservoirs in which 
flood control functions share space with water supply 
functions. 



Current Events 



ES2-12 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



corporate new provisions required by CVPIA, such as 
tiered water pricing. Since USBR has not completed 
the PEIS, all contract renewals to date have been in- 
terim renewals. USBR has had more than 60 interim 
contract renewals from the date of enactment through 
1996, representing over 1 maf/yr ol supply. 

Fish and Wildlife Restoration Actions. One of 
the most controversial elements of CVPIA implemen- 
tation has been management of the 800 taf of CVP 
yield (see sidebar) dedicated by the act to fishery res- 
toration purposes. This water is available for use on 
CVP controlled streams (river reaches downstream 
from the projects major storage facilities on the Sacra- 
mento River, American River, and Stanislaus River) 
and in the Bay-Delta. 

The ambiguity of the statutory language and the 
use of dedicated water in the Bay-Delta Accord have 
generated many questions, including whether the wa- 
ter may be exported from the Delta after the water has 
been used for instream flow needs in upstream rivers, 
and if the water may be used for Bay-Delta purposes 
beyond Accord requirements. Initially, USBR and 
USFWS attempted to develop guidelines or criteria 
for its management. Subsequent to CALFED's cre- 
ation, the CALFED Operations Group became a 
forum for attempting to resolve dedicated water. In 
November 1997, DOI released its final administrative 
proposal on management of the dedicated water. The 
proposal's release was subsequently challenged in legal 
action filed by some CVP water contractors. 

A main purpose of the dedicated water is meeting 
the act's goal of doubling natural production of Cen- 
tral Valley anadromous fish populations (from their 
average 1967-91 levels) by year 2002. Release ot water 
to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam is excluded 
from this program. CVPIA authorizes USBR and 
USFWS to acquire additional, supplemental water 
from willing sellers to help achieve the doubling goal. 



CVPIA hirther allocates additional CVP water supply 
lor instream use in the Trinity River by reducing the 
quantit)' of water which the project could otherwise 
divert, requiring that an instream flow of 340 tal/yr be 
maintained through water year 1 996 while USFWS 
finishes a long-term instream flow study. (USFWS now 
recommends instream flows much greater than 
340 taf/yr.) 

CVPIA enumerates specific physical restoration 
measures that the federal government must complete 
for fishery and waterfowl habitat restoration. The larg- 
est completed measures are a temperature control 
device at Shasta Dam, at a cost of over $83 million, 
and a research pumping plant at Red Blulf Diversion 
Dam. CVPIA allocated part of the costs of some res- 
toration measures to the State; the remaining costs are 
being paid by federal taxpayers and by CVP water and 
power contractors. Some of the smaller restoration 
actions include individual fish-screening projects that 
USBR and USFWS are cost-sharing with local agen- 
cies under the anadromous fish screening program. 

CVPIA required USBR to impose a surcharge on 
CVP water and power contracts for deposit into a Res- 
toration Fund created by the act. Monies deposited 
into the fund are appropriated by Congress to help 
fund CVPIA environmental restoration actions. The 
act authorizes appropriation of up to $50 million (1992 
dollars) per year for the restoration actions. Annual 
deposits into the fund vary with water and power sales. 
CVPIA environmental restoration actions can be 
funded from the general federal treasury, as well as from 
the Restoration Fund. 

Land Retirement Program. CVPIA authorized 
DOI to carry out an agricultural land retirement pro- 
gram for lands receiving CVP water. USBR published 
interim guidelines for administration of a pilot pro- 
gram, pending formal promulgation of rules and 
regulations. The federal guidelines were developed in 



CVPIA's Dedicated Water 

Section 3406(b)(2) describes the dedicated water as follows: 
Upon enactment of this title dedicate and manage annually 
800, 000 acre-feet of Central Valley Project yield for the primary 
purpose of implementing the fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration 
purposes and measures authorized by this title; to assist the State 
ofCalifomia in its efforts to protect the waters of the San Francisco 
Bay-San Joaquin Delta Estuary; and to help meet such obligations 
as may be legally imposed upon the Central Valley Project under 
State or Federal law following the date of enactment of this title. 



including but not limited to additiotial obligations under the 
federal Endangered Species Act. For the purpose of this section, 
the term "Central Valley Project yield" means the delivery 
capability of the Central Valley Project during the 1928-1934 
drought period after fishery, water quality, and other flow and 
operational requirements imposed by terms and conditions 
existing in licenses, permits, and other agreements pertaining to 
the Central Valley Project under applicable State or Federal law 
existing at the time of enactment of this title have been met. 



ES2-I3 



Current events 



The California Water Plan Update BULLLIIN 160-98 



coordination with a State land retirement program es- 
tablished in 1 992 imder Water Code Section 14902 ff 
seq. The State statute limited the retirement program 
to drainage-impaired lands. The State land retirement 
program has never been funded, and thus no State ac- 
quisitions have been made. By November 1997, the 
federal land retirement program had made one pur- 
chase — about 600 acres of drainage-impaired land in 
Westlands Water District that would be managed for 
wildlife habitat. Recently, USER solicited proposals 
from landowners wishing to participate in the retire- 
ment program and received offers to sell lands 
amounting to 31,000 acres. 

Other Programs and Reports. From a water sup- 
ply standpoint, certain CVPIA-mandated reports are 
of special interest. USFWS has prepared several draft 
documents relating to estimated Centra! Valley envi- 
ronmental water needs and water management actions 
for the AFRR The most recent draft of the AFRP was 
published in May 1997. In 1995, USER released an 
appraisal-level least-cost CVP yield increase plan, re- 
quired by the act to identify options for replacing the 
water supply dedicated to environmental purposes. 
Although the act directed that the plan be prepared, 
USER was not required to implement it. 

5^7* Monterey Agreement Contract Amendments 

The Monterey Agreement among the Department 
and SWP water contractors was signed in December 
1994. This agreement set forth principles for making 
changes in SWP water supply contracts, which would 
then be implemented by an amendment (Monterey 
Amendment) to each contractor's SWP contract. The 
amendment has been offered to all SWP contractors. 
Those contractors that sign the amendment will re- 
ceive the benefits of it, while those that do not will 
have their water supply contracts administered such 
that they will be unaffected by the amendment. As of 
July 1998, 26 of the 29 contractors had signed the 
amendment. 

Changes to SWP Water Allocation Rules. The 
amendment states that during drought years project 
supplies are to be allocated proportionately on the ba- 
sis of contractors' entitlements. The amendment 
allocates water to urban and agricultural purposes on 
an equal basis, deleting a previous initial supply re- 
duction to agricultural contractors. 

Permanent Sales of Entitlement. The amend- 
ment provides for transfer of up to 175 taf of 
entitlement from agricultural use. The first transfer 



made was relinquishment of 45 taf of entitlement 
(40,670 af from Kern County Water Agency, 4,330 af 
from Dudley Ridge Water District) back to the SWP, 
as part of the transfer of the Kern Water Bank prop- 
erty to these agencies. This relinquishment reduces the 
total SWP contractual commitment. The amendment 
provides for an additional 130 taf of existing agricul- 
tural entitlement to be sold on a permanent basis to 
urban contractors, on a willing buyer-willing seller 
basis. 

Storing Water Outside a Contractor's Service 
Area; Transfers of Non-Project Water. This provi- 
sion allows a contractor to store water in another 
agency's reservoir or groundwater basin. Examples in- 
clude water storage programs with Semitropic Water 
Storage District, a member agency of Kern County 
Water Agency. The amendment also provides a mecha- 
nism for using SWP facilities to transport non-project 
water for SWP water contractors. (The Department 
uses other contractual arrangements for wheeling wa- 
ter for the CVP and for other non-SWP water users.) 

Annual Turnback Pool. Prior to the amendment, 
water allocated to contractors that was not used dur- 
ing a year would revert to the SWP at the end of the 
year. No compensation was provided to the contrac- 
tor for this water, and no other contractors could make 
use of these supplies during the year. The turnback 
pool is an internal SWP mechanism which provides 
for pooling potentially unused supplies early in the 
year for purchase by other SWP contractors at a set 
price. If neither the SWP nor individual SWP con- 
tractors wish to use water placed into the pool, that 
water may then be sold to entities that are not SWP 
contractors. 

Other Operational Changes. The amendment es- 
tablished a procedure to transfer ownership of the 
Department's KWE property to KCWA and Dudley 
Ridge Water District. The amendment allows contrac- 
tors repaying costs of constructing the Castaic and 
Perris terminal reservoirs to increase their control and 
management of a portion of the storage capacity of 
each reservoir, to optimize the operation of local and 
SWP facilities. This is expected, for example, to im- 
prove dry year supplies for MWDSC, Castaic Lake 
Water Agency, and Ventura County Flood Control and 
Water Conservation District. 

Environmental Restoration Activities 

Several major environmental restoration activities 
are ongoing throughout the State, in addition to the 



CURRENT EVENTS 



ES2-14 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



intensive effort focused on the Bay-Delta. Projects fo- 
cused on fishery and habitat restoration on the State's 
three most important river systems — the Sacramento, 
San Joaquin, and Colorado Rivers — are described be- 
low, followed by a brief mention of restoration and 
mitigation projects in other watersheds. 

Sacramento River System. The extensive struc- 
tural environmental restoration actions being 
performed in the Sacramento River system were de- 
scribed earlier in this chapter. These actions include 
major projects such as USBR's Shasta Dam Tempera- 
ture Control Device and research pumping plant at 
Red Bluff Diversion Dam, as well as fish screen instal- 
lations at many of the larger irrigation diversions on 
the Sacramento River mainstem. Many more restora- 
tion actions are being planned, such as additional fish 
passage improvements on Butte and Clear Creeks and 
at Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District's diver- 
sion dam. Many of the actions on the river's mainstem 
were in response to the need to protect listed winter- 
run chinook salmon. Actions are also being taken to 
protect spring-run chinook salmon, a species proposed 
for listing under the federal ESA and a State candidate 
species. 

In 1995, State legislation restricted future water 
development on Mill and Deer Creeks to protect spring 
run chinook salmon habitat. In addition, local land- 
owners formed the Mill and Deer Creek Watershed 
Conservancies. The conservancies have begun a wa- 
tershed planning and management process, with 
funding assistance from an EPA grant. The Depart- 
ment has participated with Mill Creek landowners in 



a test project to construct wells to provide groundwa- 
ter supplies in lieu of creek diversions for irrigation 
during spring fish migration periods. A similar project 
is being negotiated with Deer Creek water users. 

San Joaquin River System. One of the first over- 
views of San Joaquin River restoration needs was 
provided by the Resources Agency's 1995 San Joaquin 
River Management Program Plan, which evaluated 
potential actions on part of the river's mainstem and 
on the lower reaches of its main tributaries. Structural 
restoration work performed to date has focused largely 
on spawning gravel placement and related habitat im- 
provements. Several other projects are now in planning, 
including replacement of Central California Irrigation 
District's Mendota Dam and a potential new fish hatch- 
ery on the Tuolumne River. Increased instream flows 
have been provided in the river system through 
SWRCB Order WR 95-6 requirements and through a 
FERC settlement agreement for the Tuolumne River. 

The San Joaquin River Conservancy, a State agency 
charged with acquiring and managing public lands 
within the San Joaquin River Parkway, is working to 
expand lands preserved by the parkway. The parkway 
includes the San Joaquin River and about 5,900 acres 
of land on both sides of the river, extending about 
22 miles from Friant Dam downstream to the High- 
way 99 crossing of the river. The parkway is planned 
as a riparian corridor with public access trails, boating 
access points, wildlife areas, and education areas. Ap- 
proximately 1 ,900 acres are located in Madera County 
and 4,000 acres in Fresno County, of which approxi- 
mately 1,600 acres are now in public ownership. 



In February 1998, two 

large cylindrical fish 

screens mere installed 

at one of the largest 

Delta diversions 

located on Sherman 

Island. 




ES2-15 



Current events 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



Lower Colorado River System. In 1995, DOI ex- 
ecuted partnership agreements with California, 
Nevada, and Arizona to develop a multi-species con- 
servation program for ESA-listed species and many 
non-listed, but sensitive, species within the 100-year 
floodplain of the lower Colorado River, hom Glen 
Canyon Dam downstream to the Mexican border. In 
1996, a joint participation agreement was executed to 
provide funding for the program. USFWS has desig- 
nated the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 
Conservation Program steering committee as an eco- 
system conservation and recovery implementation 
team pursuant to ESA. The steering committee is com- 
posed of representatives from the three states, DOI, 
Indian tribes, water agencies, power agencies, environ- 
mental organizations, and others. 

The conservation program will work toward re- 
covery of listed and sensitive species while providing 
for current and future use of Colorado River water 
and power resources, and includes USBR's Colorado 
River operations and maintenance actions for the lower 
river. Over 100 species will be considered in the pro- 
gram, including the southwestern willow flycatcher, 
Yuma clapper rail, and four fish species listed under 
the federal ESA: Colorado squawfish, razorback sucker, 
humpback chub, and bonytail chub. Developing the 
program is estimated to take three years. Costs of pro- 
gram development and implementation of selected 
interim conservation measures, estimated at $4.5 mil- 
lion, are to be split equally between DOI and the 
non-federal partners. 

USBR initiated a formal Section 7 consultation 
process with USFWS, who issued a five-year biologi- 
cal opinion on USBR operation and maintenance 
activities from Lake Mead to the southerly interna- 
tional boundary with Mexico in 1997. USBR has 
estimated that the cost of implementing the biological 
opinion's reasonable and prudent alternatives and mea- 
sures could be as high as $26 million. 

The steering committee is currently participating 
in funding several interim conservation measures. 
These include a razorback sucker recovery program at 
Lake Mojave, restoration of Deer Island near Parker, 
Arizona, and a "Bring Back the Natives " program spon- 
sored by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 

Other Watersheds. Major environmental resto- 
ration activities are ongoing in other watersheds 
throughout the State, including the Russian and Kings 
Rivers and Lake Tahoe. 

A Russian River Action Plan, prepared by Sonoma 



County Water Agency in 1997, provides a regional 
assessment of needs in the Russian River watershed 
and identifies fishery habitat restoration projects in 
need of funding. The SWRC^B is promoting a coordi- 
nated Russian River fishery restoration plan. 

Kings River Conservation District and the Kings 
River Water Association are cooperating with USACE 
in a feasibility study of Kings River fishery habitat 
improvements. One component of the study includes 
a new multi-level intake structure for the reservoir, to 
better manage downstream river temperatures. USACE 
is also implementing a related project to install a by- 
pass pipe at the dams powerplant so that releases can 
be made through the existing penstocks when the tur- 
bines are not in operation. This project will provide 
temperature control for the downstream trout fishery. 

The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, a bi-state 
agency created by Congress, has identified nearly $500 
million in capital improvements needed to achieve 
environmental targets in the Lake Tahoe watershed. 
Federal, state, and local governments have invested 
nearly $90 million in erosion control, storm water 
drainage, stream zone restoration, public transit, and 
other capital projects. The U.S. Forest Service has 
implemented a watershed restoration program and a 
land acquisition program to prevent development of 
sensitive private lands. The State of Nevada approved 
a $20 million bond measure to perform erosion con- 
trol and other measures on the east side of the lake. In 
California, Proposition 204 provides $10 million in 
bond funds for land acquisition and programs to con- 
trol soil erosion, restore watersheds, and preserve 
environmentally sensitive lands. 

Mitigation Projects. Significant habitat improve- 
ments are also resulting from land management or 
mitigation projects being carried out by water agen- 
cies. For example, the Department purchased much 
of Sherman andTwitchell Islands in the Delta, and is 
implementing management plans on them to control 
subsidence and soil erosion, while providing signifi- 
cant wetland and riparian habitat for wildlife. The plans 
also provide recreational opportunities such as walk- 
ing trails and wildlife viewing. 

CCWD established over 18,000 acres of preserve 
as part of its Los Vaqueros construction project. This 
land is being managed to protect listed species such as 
the San Joaquin kit fox. The project impacted 174 acres 
of valley oaks and 9 acres of alkali wetlands. To miti- 
gate, CCWD is creating or enhancing 394 acres of 
woodland habitat and 49 acres of wetlands. 



CURRENT EVENTS 



ES2-16 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



Kern Water Bank Authority set aside about 1 0,000 
acres for habitat purposes as part of its 20,000-acre 
Kern Fan Element project. ESA listed species found in 
the project area include the kit fox, kangaroo rat, and 
blunt-nosed leopard lizard. 

As part of its Eastside Reservoir project, MWDSC 
purchased 3,700 acres for the Nature Conservancy's 
Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve. MWDSC also 
purchased 9,000 acres for the Southwestern Riverside 
County Multi-Species Reserve, including lands around 
the reservoir, Lake Skinner, and the 2,500-acre Dr. Roy 
E. Shipley Reserve. 

Behind Prado Dam in Riverside County, Orange 
County Water District operates 465 acres of con- 
structed freshwater wetlands to reduce the nitrogen 
levels in the Santa Ana River. The river provides much 
of the county's coastal plain groundwater recharge. The 
Prado wetlands are home to several rare and endan- 
gered bird and waterfowl species. More than 226 acres 
are set aside as habitat for the endangered least Bell's 
vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher. 

Implementation of Urban Water 
Conservation MOU 

The 1 99 1 Memorandum ofUnderstanding Regard- 
ing Urban Water Conservation in California defined a 
set of urban best management practices and procedures 
for their implementation, and established a California 
Urban Water Conservation Council composed of 
MOU signatories (local water agencies, environmen- 
tal groups, and other interested parties). More than 
200 entities have signed the MOU. The CUWCC has 
monitored implementation of BMPs and reported 
progress annually to the SWRCB. The Council devel- 
oped a plan providing for ongoing review of BMPs 
and potential BMPs. In late 1996, the Council initi- 
ated a review of the BMPs to clarify expectations for 
implementation and to develop an implementation 
evaluation methodology. Revised BMPs were adopted 
in 1997. 

Implementation of Agricultural Efficient Water 
Management Practices MOU 

The Agricultural Efficient Water Management 
Practices Act of 1990 (AB 3616) required the Depart- 
ment to establish an advisory committee to develop 
EWMPs for agricultural water use. Negotiations among 
agricultural water users, environmental interests, and 
governmental agencies on a memorandum of under- 
standing to implement EWMPs were completed in 



1996. The MOU established an Agricultural Water 
Management Council to oversee EWMP implemen- 
tation, much like the organizational structure that exists 
for urban BMPs, and also provided a mechanism for 
its signatories to evaluate and endorse water manage- 
ment plans. By May 1998, the MOU had been signed 
by 31 agricultural water suppliers irrigating about 
3 million acres of land, as well as by over 60 other en- 
tities. 

Klamath River Fishery Issues 

The primary water management issue in the in- 
terstate Klamath River basin is the restoration offish 
populations that include listed species such as the Lost 
River and shortnose suckers, coho salmon, and steel- 
head trout. 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, Tule Lake, 
and Upper Klamath Lake. Both species spawn during 
the spring. Higher water levels in Upper Klamath Lake 
have been identified as an aid to recovery of these fish- 
eries. Coho and steelhead were recently listed, and 
water supply implications will not be known until 
management plans are completed and recovery goals 
are established. 

To address the need for greater certainty in project 
operations, USBR began preparing a long-term Kla- 
math Project Operations Plan in 1995. Several issues 
have delayed completion of the long-term plan. USBR 
has issued an annual operations plan each year since 
1995. The Klamath River Compact Commission is 
facilitating discussions on water management alterna- 
tives to address water supply needs. This three-member 
commission was established by an interstate compact 
ratified by Congress in 1957 to facilitate integrated 
management of interstate water resources. The KRCC, 
USBR, and both states are cooperatively developing 
water supply options. Members include a representa- 
tive from the Department, the Director of the Oregon 
Water Resources Department, and a presidentially- 
appointed federal representative. 

Truckee-Carson River System 

The Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights 
Settlement Act (Tide II of Public Law No. 101-618) 
settled several water rights disputes affecting the wa- 
ters of Lake Tahoe, the Truckee River, and the Carson 
River. Of most importance to California, the act made 
an interstate apportionment of these waters between 
the States of California and Nevada. (It was the first 



ES2-I7 



CURRENT EVENTS 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



congressional apportionment since the Boulder Can- 
yon Project Act of 1928.) The act addresses several 
other issues, including settlement of water supply dis- 
putes between the Pyramid Lake PaiuteTribc of Indians 
and other users of theTruckee and Carson Rivers. The 
act also addresses environmental concerns, such as re- 
covery of listed fish species in Pyramid Lake. 

Many of the act's provisions — including the in- 
terstate apportionment between California and 
Nevada — will not take effect until several conditions 
have been satisfied, including dismissal of specified law- 
suits and negotiation and adoption of a Truckee River 
Operating Agreement. The act requires that a TROA 
be negotiated among DOI and California and Nevada, 
after consultation with other parties as may be desig- 
nated by DOI or by the two states. The TROA 
addresses interstate water allocation and implements 
an agreement between Sierra Pacific Power Company 
and the United States which provides for storing wa- 
ter in upstream reservoirs for Pyramid Lake fish and 
emergency drought water supplies for the Reno-Sparks 
area. TROA negotiation has been ongoing since 199L 
A draft TROA is analyzed in an EIS/EIR prepared by 
DOI. (The Department is the State lead agency for 
compliance with the requirements of CEQA.) The draft 
EIS/EIR was released for public review in 1998 and is 
expected to be completed in 1999. 

City of Los Angeles' Water Supply 
from Owens Valley 



In 1913, the City of Los Angeles began diverting 
water from Owens Valley through the Los Angeles 
Aqueduct. A second aqueduct, completed in 1970, 
increased the Los Angeles Department of Water and 
Power's capacity to divert both surface and groundwa- 
ter from the Owens Valley. LADWP's water diversions 
have resulted in degradation of the valleys environ- 
mental resources. Recent issues have revolved around 
rewatering the lower Owens River and dust control 
on the Owens Lakebed. 

Rewatering Lower Owens River. In 1972, Inyo 
County initially filed suit against the city, claiming that 
increased groundwater pumping from the second aq- 
ueduct was harming the Owens Valley environment. 
An EI R was subsequently prepared jointly by LADWP 
and the county, and in 1991 both parties executed a 
long-term water management agreement delineating 
how groundwater pumping and surface water diver- 
sions would be managed to avoid significant decreases 
in vegetation, water-dependent recreational uses, and 



wildlife habitat. Several agencies, organizations, and 
individuals challenged the adequacy of the EIR and 
were granted amici curiae status by the Court of Ap- 
peals, allowing them to enter in the EIR review process. 
Another agreement was subsequently executed in 1 997, 
ending 25 years of litigation between Los Angeles and 
Inyo County. 

The lower Owens River project, a major provi- 
sion of the agreement, was developed to rewater 
approximately 60 miles of the Owens River channel 
from the LAA diversion downstream to Owens Lake. 
The project is also identified in the EIR as compensa- 
tory mitigation for impacts that occurred between 1 970 
and 1990 that were considered difficult to quantify or 
mitigate directly. Four significant physical features of 
the LORP and agreement are: provision of year-round 
flows in the lower Owens River (with a pumpback sta- 
tion just above the Owens River delta to return some 
of the water to the LAA), provision of flows past the 
pumpback station to create new wetlands in the Owens 
Lake delta, enhancement of off-river lakes and ponds, 
and development of a new 1 ,500-acre waterfowl habi- 
tat area. 

The majority of planning work is expected to be 
completed by December 1998. Los Angeles will pay 
the costs of implementing the project, with the county 
repaying one half of the costs up to a maximum of 
$3.75 million. To date, the federal government has 
committed $300,000 for the design of the pumpback 
system. Congress has approved another $250,000 for 
planning and development work. LADWP and the 
county will jointly prepare an EIR on the LORP, with 
a draft expected by June 2000. Rewatering of the river 
channel will begin within 6 years after the pumpback 
system is completed. 

Dust Control on Owens Lakebed. Owens Lake 
became a dry lakebed by 1 929. On windy days, air- 
borne particulates from the dry lakebed violate air 
quality standards in the soiithern Owens Valley. In 
1997, the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control 
District ordered the City of Los Angeles to implement 
control measures at Owens Lake to mitigate the dust 
problems. Under the order, 8,400 acres of lakebed 
would be permanently flooded with a few inches of 
water, another 8,700 acres would be planted with grass 
and irrigated, and 5,300 acres would be covered with 
a 4 inch layer of gravel. This order, which was appealed 
by the city, could reduce the city's potential diversion 
by 50 taf/yr or about 1 5 percent of its supply. 

In luly 1998, a compromise was reached when 



Current Events 



ES2-I8 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



LADWP agreed to begin work at Owens Lake by 200 1 
and to ensure that federal clean air standards would be 
met by 2006. In turn, the APCD agreed to scale back 
the improvements sought in its 1997 order. Under this 
compromise, LADWPs dust-control strategy may in- 
clude shallow flooding, vegetation planting, and gravel 
placement. The implementation schedule requires that 
6,400 acres of lakebed be treated by the end of 2001. 
By the end of 2006, an additional 8,000 acres would 
be treated, plus any additional lakebed necessary to 
bring particulate counts into compliance with federal 
air quality standards. The plan hinges on final approval 
from the Los Angeles City Council, the APCD's board, 
and the State Air Resources Board. 

Mono Basin 

Mono Lake and its tributaries have been the sub- 
ject of extensive litigation between the City of Los 
Angeles and environmental groups since the late 1970s. 
In 1983, the California Supreme Court ruled that 
SWRCB has authority to reexamine past water alloca- 
tion decisions and the responsibility to protect public 
trust resources where feasible. SWRCB issued a final 
decision on Mono Lake (Decision 1631) in 1994. 
Amendments to LADWP's water right licenses are set 
forth in the order accompanying the decision. 

The order sets instream flow requirements for fish 
in each of the four streams from which LADWP di- 
verts water. The order also establishes water diversion 
criteria to protect wildlife and other environmental 
resources in the Mono Basin. These water diversion 
criteria prohibit export of water from Mono Basin until 
the lake level reaches 6,377 feet, and restrict Mono 
Basin water exports to allow the lake level 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 31 taf of water 
per year from the basin. The order requires LADWP 
to prepare restoration plans for the tour streams from 
which it diverts and to restore part of the waterfowl 
habitat which was lost due to lake level decline. In May 
1997, parties to the restoration planning process pre- 
sented a signed settlement on Mono Basin restoration 
to the SWRCB. If approved, the settlement would 
guide restoration activities and annual monitoring 
through 2014. 

Key features of the stream restoration plans in- 
clude restoring peak flows to Rush, Lee Vining, Walker, 
and Parker Creeks; reopening abandoned channels in 
Rush Creek; and developing a monitoring plan. One 



of the restoration actions required by SWRCB — by- 
passing sediment around LADWP diversion 
dams — was deferred for further analysis. The water- 
fowl habitat restoration plan proposes that a Mono 
Basin waterfowl habitat restoration foundation admin- 
ister a $3.6 million trust 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 adja- 
cent to the lake, and rewatering Mill Creek. LADWP 
would continue its brine shrimp productivity studies, 
open several channels on Rush Creek, and make its 
Mill Creek water rights available for rewatering Mill 
Creek, based on the recommendations of the founda- 
tion. The plans are being considered by SWRCB and 
a decision is expected at the end of 1998. 

Saltan 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. /Mexi- 
can border to divert the river's flow to agricultural lands 
in the Imperial Valley. Over the long term, the sea's 
elevation has gradually increased, going from a low on 
the order of -250 feet in the 1920s to its present level 
of about -226 feet. The Salton Sea is the largest lake 
located entirely within California, with a volume of 
about 7.5 maf at its present elevation of -226 feet. The 
sea occupies a closed drainage basin — if there were no 
inflows to maintain lake levels, its waters would evapo- 
rate. 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 sea supports water-based recreational activi- 
ties 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 the recreational fishery that 
was established with introduced species able to toler- 
ate high salinities. 

The sea also provides important wintering habitat 
for many species of migratory waterfowl and shore- 
birds, 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 sourc- 



ES2-I9 



CURRENT EVENTS 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 




A natural-color satellite image of the Saltan Sea (January 1998 Landsat 5). The irrigated areas in Imperial Valley are clearly 
visible to the south of the sea, as are the Algodones Dunes to the southeast. The City of Mexicali and irrigated acreage in the 
Mexicali Valley can also be seen. 



es. An area at the sea's south end was estabhshed as a 
national wildlife refuge in 1930, although most of that 
area is now under water as a result of the sea's rising 
elevation. Some of the 380 bird species wintering in 
the area include pelicans, herons, egrets, cranes, cor- 
morants, ibises, ducks, grebes, lalcons, plovers, avocets, 
sandpipers, and gulls. The Salton Sea is considered to 
be a major stopover point for birds migrating on the 
Pacific flyway, and has one of the highest levels of bird 
diversity of refuges in the federal system. 

Historically, salinit)' has been the water quality 
constituent of most concern at the sea. Present levels 
are about 44,000 mg/L TDS (seawater is about 35,000 
mg/LTDS). This high level of salinity reflects long- 
term evaporation and concentration of salts found in 



its inflow. Selenium has been a more recent constitu- 
ent of interest, due to its implications for aquatic 
species. Although selenium levels in the water column 
in the sea are less than the federal criterion of 5 ;/g/l, 
this concentration can be exceeded in seabed sediment 
and in influent agricultural drainage water. Agricul- 
tural drain flows also contribute significant nutrient 
loading to the sea, which supports large algal blooms 
at some times of the year. 

Over the years, USBR and others have considered 
potential solutions to stabilize the sea's salinity and el- 
evation. Most recently, the Salton Sea Authority (a joint 
powers authority consisting of Riverside and Imperial 
Counties, Imperial Irrigation District, and Coachella 
Valley Water District) and others have been perform- 



CURRENT EVENTS 



ES2-20 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



ing appraisal level evaluations of some of the frequently 
suggested alternatives. 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 devel- 
oped. 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 concerns 
about maintaining the sea's environmental productiv- 
ity. Such proposals might be implemented as part of 
the second phase of CRB's draft 4.4 Plan. 




Roadrunners are one of the bird species foinid year-rotind in 
the Salton Sea area. 

Congressional legislation introduced in 1998 
would authorize expenditure of federal funds for a 
multi-year study of the sea's resources and potential 
solutions for managing its salinity. 



ES2-21 



CURRENT EVENTS 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 




Executive Summary 

Water Supplies 



This chapter describes how water supplies are calculated and summarized 
within a water budget framework. A description of California's existing 
supplies-surface water, groundwater, recycled water, and desalted water-and 
how a portion ot these supplies are reallocated through water marketing follows. This chapter 
concludes with a review of water quality considerations that influence how the State's water 
supplies are used. 

Water Supply Calculation 

Bulletin 160-98 calculates existing water supply and demand, then balances forecasted 
demand against existing supply and future water management options. The balance, or 
water budget, with existing supply is presented on a statewide basis in Chapter ES5 and on 
a regional basis in Appendix ES5A. The water budget with future water management options 
is also presented in Chapter ES5. 
Definition of Bulletin 160 Water Supplies 

The Bulletin 160 water budgets do not account for the State's entire water supply and 
The SWP's use. In fact, less than one-third of the State's precipitation is quantified in the 

California Aqueduct 
is the only conveyance 



water budgets. Precipitation provides California with nearly 200 maf of total 



facility that moves water supply in average years. Of this renewable supply, about 65 percent 
water from the 

Central Vallev to '^ depleted through evaporation and transpiration by trees and other plants. 

Southern California. -phis large volume of water is excluded from the Bulletin 1 60 water supply 



ES3-I WATER SUPPLIES 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



Key Water Supply and Water Use Definitions 

Chapters ES3 and ES4 introduce C^alitornia's water supplies 
and urban, agricultural, and environmental water uses. 
Certain key concepts, defined below, provide an essential 
foundation for presenting and analyzing water supplies and 
water use. 

Applied Water: The amount of water from any source needed 
to meet the demand of the user. It is the quantity of water 
delivered to any of the following locations: 

• The intake to a city water system or factory. 

• The farm headgate or other point of measurement. 

• A managed wetland, either directly or by drainage flows. 
For instream use, applied water is the quantity of stream 

flow dedicated to instream use (or reserved under federal or 
State wild and scenic rivers legislation) or to maintaining flow 
and water quality in the Bay-Delta pursuant to the SWRCB's 
Order WR 95-6. 

Net Water: The amount of water needed in a water service 
area to meet all demands. It is the sum of evapotranspiration 
of applied water in an area, the irrecoverable losses from the 



distribution system, and agricultural return flow or treated 
urban wastewater leaving the area. 

Irrecoverable Losses:\\nK imouni oi vma lost to a. salt sink, 
lost by evapotranspiration, or lost by evaporation from a 
conveyance facility, drainage canal, or fringe areas. 

Evapotranspiration: ET is the amount of water transpired 
(given off), retained in plant tissues, and evaporated from 
plant tissues and surrounding .soil surfaces. 

Evapotranspiration of Applied Water: ETAW is the portion 
of the total ET which is provided by applied irrigation water. 

Depletion: The amount of water consumed within a service 
area that is no longer available as a source of supply. For 
agricultur,Tl .ind certain environmental (i.e., wetlands) water use, 
depletion is the sum of irrecoverable losses and the ETAW due 
to crops, wetland vegetation, and flooded water surfaces. For 
urban water use, depletion is the ETAW due to landscaping and 
gardens, wastewater effluent that flows to a salt sink, and 
incidental ET losses. For environmental instream use, depletion 
is the amount of dedicated flow that proceeds to a salt sink. 



and water use calculations. The remaining 35 percent 
stays in the State's hydrologic system as runoff. (Figure 
ES3-1.) 

Over 30 percent of the State's runoff is not explic- 
itly designated for urban, agricultural, or 
environmental uses. This water is depleted from the 
State's hydrologic system as outflow to the Pacific 
Ocean or other salt sinks. (Some of this non-desig- 
nated runoff is captured by reservoirs, but is later 
released for flood control.) Similar to precipitation 
depletions by vegetation, non-designated runoff is ex- 
cluded from the Bulletin 1 60 water supply and water 
use calculations. 

The State's remaining runoff is available as 
renewable water supply for urban, agricultural, and 
environmental uses in the Bulletin 160 water bud- 
gets. In addition to this supply, Bulletin 160 water 
budgets include a few supplies that are not generated 
by intrastate precipitation. These supplies include im- 
ports from the Colorado and Klamath Rivers and new 
supplies generated by water recycling and desalting. 

Applied Water Methodology 

Bulletin 160-98 water supplies are computed us- 
ing applied water data. As defined in the sidebar, 
applied water refers to the amount of water from any 



source employed to meet the demand of the user. Pre- 
vious editions of Bulletin 1 60 computed water supplies 
using net water data. Bulletin 1 60-98 switched from a 
net water methodology to an applied water methodol- 
ogy in response to public comments on Bulletin 
160-93. Because applied water data are analogous to 
agency water delivery data, water supply data based 
on an applied water methodology are easier for local 
water agencies to review. Net water supply values are 
smaller than applied water supply values because they 
exclude that portion of demand met by reapplica- 
tion of surface and groundwater supplies. 

Reapplication can be a significant source of water 
in many hydrologic regions of California. An applied 
water budget explicitly accounts for this source. How- 
ever, because of reapplication, applied water budgets do 
not translate directly into the supply of water needed to 
meet future demands. The approach used to compute 
the new water required to meet future demands with 
applied water budgets is presented in Chapter ES5. 

Normalized Data 

Water budget data used to represent the base plan- 
ning year do not necessarily match the historical 
conditions observed in 1995. Instead, Bulletin 160- 
98's base year applied water budget data are developed 



WATER SUPPLIE5 



ES3-2 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



FlGURF. ES3-1 
Disposition of California's Average Annual Precipitation 





Environmental 



M^U|P' 



Agricultural 



from "normalized" water supply, land use, and water 
use data. Through the normalizing process, year-to- 
year fluctuations caused by weather and market 
abnormalities are removed from the data. For example, 
water year 1998 would greatly underestimate average 
annual water use, as rainfall through May and early 
June provided the necessary moisture needed to meet 
crop and landscape water demands. In most years, 
much of California would require applied water sup- 
plies during May and early June. The procedures used 
to normalize water supply and water use data are de- 
scribed in the sidebar on page ES.3-4. 

Water Supply Scenarios 

California is subject to a wide range of hydrologic 
conditions and water supply variability. Knowledge of 
water supplies under a range of hydrologic conditions 
is necessary to evaluate reliability needs that water man- 
agers must meet. Two water supply scenarios — average 
year conditions and drought year conditions — were 
selected from among a spectrum of possible water sup- 
ply conditions to represent variability in the regional 
and statewide water budgets. 

The average year supply scenario represents the 
average annual supply of a system over a long plan- 
ning horizon. Average year supplies from the CVP and 



SWP are defined by operations studies for a base 
(1995) level of development and for a future (2020) 
level of development. Project delivery capabilities are 
defined over a 73-year hydrologic sequence. For other 
water supply projects, historical data are normalized 
to represent average year conditions. For required en- 
vironmental flows, average year supply is estimated 
for each of its components. Wild and scenic river flow 
is calculated from long-term average unimpaired flow 
data. Instream flow requirements are defined for an 
average year under specific agreements, water rights, 
court decisions, and congressional directives. Bay- 
Delta outflow requirements are estimated from 
operations studies. 

For many local water agencies, and especially 
urban agencies, drought water year supply is the critical 
factor in planning for water supply reliability. Traditional 
drought planning often uses a design drought hydrology 
to characterize project operations under ftiture conditions. 
For a planning region with the size and hydrologic com- 
plexity of California, selecting an appropriate statewide 
design drought presents a challenge. The 1 990-9 1 water 
years were selected to represent the drought year supply 
scenario for Bulletin 160-98. (The 1990-91 water years 
were also used to represent the drought year scenario in 
Bulletin 160-93.) 



ES3-3 



WATER SUPPLIES 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



Procedures for Normalizing Water Supply 
and Water Use Data 

On the supply side, normalized water project delivery 
values are computed by averaging historical delivery data. 
Normalized "average year" project supplies are typically 
computed from 3 to 5 recent non-deficient water years. 
Normalized "drought year" project supplies are computed by 
averaging historical delivery data from 1990 and 1991. A 
notable exception to the above procedure is the development 
of normalized CVP and SWP project deliveries. Supplies from 
these projects are developed from operations studies rather 
than from historical data. Operations studies provide an 
average project delivery capability over a multi-year sequence 
of hydrology under SWRCB Order WR 95-6 Bay-Delta 
standards. 

On the demand side, base year urban per capita water 
use data are normalized to account for factors such as residual 
effects of the 1987-92 drought. In any given year, urban 
landscape and agricultural irrigation requirements will vary 
with precipitation, temperature, and other factors. Base year 
water use data are normalized to represent ETAW 
requirements under average and drought year water supply 
conditions. Land use data are also normalized. The 
Department collects land use data through periodic surveys; 
however, the entire State is not surveyed in any given year 



(such as 1 995). To arrive at an estimate of historical statewide 
land use tor a specific year, additional sources of data are 
consulted to interpolate between surveys. After a statewide 
historical land use base is constructed, it is evaluated to 
determine if it was influenced by abnormal weather or crop 
market conditions and is normalized to remove such 
influences. 

Normalizing allows Bulletin 160-98 to define an existing 
level of development (i.e., the 1995 base year) that is 
compatible with a forecasted level of development (i.e., the 
2020 forecast year). Future year shortage calculations 
implicitly rely on a comparison between future water use and 
existing water supply, as water supplies do not change 
significantly (without implementation of new facilities and 
programs) over the planning horizon. Therefore, the 
normalizing procedure is necessary to provide an appropriate 
future year shortage calculation. Normalizing also permits 
more than one water supply condition to be evaluated for a 
given level of development. If historical data were used to 
define the base year, only one specific hydrologic condition 
would be represented. (Historical data for 1995 would 
represent a wet year.) But through normalizing, a base level 
of development can be evaluated under a range of hydrologic 
conditions. 



The 1 990-9 1 drought year scenario has a recur- 
rence interval of about 20 years, or a 5 percent 
probability of occurring in any given year. This is 
typical of the drought level used by many local agen- 
cies for routine water supply planning. For extreme 
events such as the 1976-77 drought, many agencies 
would implement shortage contingency measures 
such as mandatory rationing. Another important 
consideration in selecting water years 1990-91 was 
that, because of their recent occurrence, local agency 
water demand and supply data were readily avail- 
able. 

The statewide occurrence of dry conditions dur- 
ing the 1990-91 water years was another key 
consideration in selecting them as a representative 
drought. Because of the size of California, droughts 
may or may not occur simultaneously throughout 
the entire state. 



Sources of Water Supply 

Table ES3-1 shows California's estimated water sup- 
ply, for average and drought years under 1 995 and 2020 
levels of development, with existing facilities and proand 



grams. Facility operations in the Delta are assumed to be 
in accordance with Order WR 95-6. The State's 1995- 
level average year water supply is about 77.9 maf 
including about 31.4 maf of dedicated flows for envi- 
ronmental uses. As previously discussed, this supply is 
based on an applied water methodology and therefore 
includes considerable amounts of reapplication within 
hydrologic regions. 

Even with a reduction in Colorado River supplies 
to California's 4.4 maf basic apportionment, annual 
average statewide supply is projected to increase about 
0.2 maf by 2020 without implementation of new wa- 
ter supply options. While the expected increase in 
average year water supplies is due mainly to higher CVP 
and SWP deliveries (in response to higher 2020-level 
demands), new water production will also result from 
groundwater and from recycling facilities currently un- 
der construction. 

The State's 1995-ievel drought year water supply 
is about 59.6 maf, of which about 16.6 maf is dedi- 
cated for environmental uses. Annual drought year 
supply is expected to increase slightly by 2020 with- 
out implementation of new water supply options. The 
expected increase would come from higher CVP 



Water Supplies 



ES3-4 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



TABLE ES3-1 
California Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs^ (taf) 



Supply 



1995 



2020 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



Drought 



Surface 




CVP 


7,004 


SWP 


3,126 


Other Federal Projects 


910 


Colorado River 


5,176 


Local Projects 


11,054 


Required Environmental Flow 


31,372 


Reapplied 


6,441 


Groundwater 


12,493 


Recycled and Desalted 


324 


Total (rounded) 


77,900 



4,821 
2,060 
694 
5,227 
8,484 
16,643 
5,596 

15,784 

333 

59,640 



7,347 

3,439 
912 

4,400 
11,073 
31,372 

6,449 

12,678 

415 

78,080 



4,889 
2,394 
683 
4,400 
8,739 
16,643 
5,575 

16,010 

416 

59,750 



Bulletin 160-98 presents water supply data as applied water, rather than net water. This distinction is explained in a prn'ious section. Pasr edirions of 
Bulletin 160 presented water supply data in terms of net supplies. 

Excludes groundwater overdraft 



and SWP deliveries and new production from surface 
water, groundwater, and recycling facilities currently 
under construction. 

Surface Water Supplies 

Surface water includes developed supplies from the 
CVP, SWP, Colorado River, other federal projects, and 
local projects. Figure ES3-2 shows the location of the 
State's major water projects. Surface water also includes 
the supplies for required environmental flows. Required 
environmental flows are comprised of undeveloped 
supplies designated for wild and scenic rivers, supplies 
used for instream flow requirements, and supplies used 
for Bay-Delta water quality and outflow requirements. 
Finally, surface water includes supplies available tor 
reapplication downstream. Urban wastewater dis- 
charges and agricultural return flows, if beneficially 
used downstream, are examples of reapplied surface 
water. 

Groundwater Supplies 

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

Bulletin 160-98 excludes long-term basin extrac- 



tions in excess of long-term basin inflows in its defini- 
tion of groundwater supply. This long-term average 
annual difference between extractions and recharge, 
defined in the Bulletin as overdraft, is not a sustainable 
source of water and is thus excluded from the base year 
and forecast year groundwater supply estimates. (In re- 
sponse to public comments on the Bulletin 160-93, 
Bulletin 160-98 is the first water plan update to ex- 
clude overdraft from the base year groundwater 
supply estimate.) 

In wet years, recharge into developed ground- 
water basins tends to exceed extractions. Conversely, 
in dry years, groundwater basin recharge tends to be 
less than groundwater basin extraction. By definition, 
overdraft is not a measure of these annual fluctuations 
in groundwater storage volume. Instead, overdraft is a 
measure of the long-term trend associated with these 
annual fluctuations. The period of record used to evalu- 
ate overdraft must be long enough to produce data 
that, when averaged, approximate the long-term aver- 
age hydrologic conditions for the basin. Table ES3-2 
shows the Departments estimates of 1995 and 2020- 
level groundwater overdraft by hydrologic region. 
Within some regions, overdraft occurs in some well- 
defined subareas, while additional groundwater 
development potential may exist in other subareas. 

For the 1995 base year, Bulletin 160-98 estimates 
a statewide increase in groundwater overdraft ( 1 60 taO 
above the 1990 base year reported in Bulletin 160-93. 
Most of the statewide increase in overdraft occurred in 
the San Joaquin and Tulare Lake Regions, two regions 



ES3-5 



Water Supplies 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



California's Major Water Projects 




wai'uk supplies 



ES3-6 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



TABl E ES3-2 
1995 and 2020 Level Overdraft by Hydrologic Region (taf) 



1995 



2020 



Region 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



Drought 



North Coast 
San Francisco Bay 
Central Coast 
South Coast 
Sacramento River 
San Joaquin River 
Tulare Lake 
North Lahontan 
South Lahontan 
Colorado River 
Total (rounded) 







214 



33 

239 

820 



89 

69 

1,460 







214 



33 

239 

820 



89 

69 

1,460 







102 



85 

63 

670 



89 

61 

1,070 







102 



85 

63 

670 



89 

61 

1,070 



where surface water supplies have been reduced in re- 
cent years by Delta export restrictions, CVPIA 
implementation, and ESA requirements. CVP contrac- 
tors in these regions who rely on Delta exports for their 
surface water supply have experienced supply deficien- 
cies of up to 50 percent subsequent to implementation 
of export limitations and CVPIA requirements. Many 
of these contractors have turned to groundwater pump- 
ing for additional water supplies. This long-term 
increase in groundwater extractions exacerbated a 
short-term decline in water levels as a result ot the 1 987- 
92 drought. 

As shown in Table ES3-2, groundwater overdraft 
is expected to decline from 1.5 mat/yr to 1.1 maf/yr 
statewide by 2020. Overdraft in the Central Coast 
Region is expected to decline as demand shifts from 
groundwater to imported SWP supplies, provided 
through the recently completed Coastal Branch of the 
California Aqueduct. The reduction in irrigated acre- 
age in drainage problem areas on the west side of the 
San Joaquin Valley, as described in the 1 990 report of 
the San Joaquin Valley Interagency Drainage Program, 
is expected to reduce groundwater demands in the San 
Joaquin River and Tulare Lake regions by 2020. Some 
increases in groundwater overdraft are expected in Sac- 
ramento, Placer, and El Dorado Counties of the 
Sacramento River Region. 

Water Marketing 

In recent years, water marketing has received in- 
creasing attention as a tool tor addressing statewide 
imbalances between water supply and water use. Ex- 
periences with water markets during and since the 
1987-92 drought bolstered interest in using market- 



ing as a local and statewide water supply augmenta- 
tion option. While water marketing does allow water 
agencies to purchase additional water supply reliabil- 
ity during both average and drought years, water 
marketing does not create new water. Therefore, wa- 
ter markets alone cannot meet California's long-term 
water supply needs. 

In this update of the California Water Plan, water 
marketing may include: 

• A permanent sale of a water right by the water 
right holder. 

• A lease from the water right holder (who retains 
the water right), allowing the lessee to use the water 
under specified conditions over a specified period 
of time. 

• A sale or lease of a contractual right to water sup- 
ply. Under this arrangement, the ability of the 
holder to transfer a contractual water right is usu- 
ally contingent upon receiving approval from the 
supplier. An example of this type of arrangement 
is a sale or lease by a water agency that receives its 
supply from the CVP, SWP, or other water whole- 
saler. 

Water marketing is not an actual statewide source 
ot water, but rather is a means to reallocate existing 
supplies. Therefore, marketing is not explicitly item- 
ized as a source of water supply from existing facilities 
and programs in the Bulletin 160 water budgets. (Wa- 
ter marketing agreements in place by 1995 are 
considered to be existing programs and are implicitly 
part of the water budgets.) Water marketing is identi- 
fied as a potential water supply augmentation option 
in the Bulletin 1 60 water budgets. Potential water mar- 
keting options have several characteristics that must 



ES3-7 



Water Supplies 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



Tabi F HS3-3 
Recently Completed Long-Term Water Marketing Agreements 



Participants 



Region(s) 



Westside Water District, Colusa County Water District 

Semitropic Water Storage District. Santa Clara Valley Water District 

Semitropic Water Storage District, Alameda County Water District 

Semitropic Water Storage District, Zone 7 Water Agency 

Semitropic Water Storage District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

Kern County Water Agency, Mojavc Water Agency 

Arvin-Edison Water Storage District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern C'alifornia 

Mojave Water Agency, Solano County Water Agency 

Imperial Irrigation District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 



Sacramento River 
Tulare Lake, San Francisco Bay 
Tulare Lake, San Francisco Bay 
Tulare Lake, San Francisco Bay 
Tulare Lake, South Coast 
lulare Lake, South Lahontan 
Tulare Lake, South Coast 
South Lahontan, San Francisco Bay 
Colorado River, South Coast 



be captured in the water budgets incorporating sup- 
plies from future management options. For example, 
through changes in place of use, water marketing op- 
tions can reallocate supplies from one hydrologic region 
to another. And through changes in type of use, water 
marketing options can reallocate supplies from one 
water use sector to another. Finally, for a given place 
and type of use, water marketing options can reallo- 
cate supplies among average years and drought years. 

While several long-term agreements have been com- 
pleted in recent years (see Table ES3-3), short-term 
agreements have made up the majority of water market- 
ing. Short-term agreements, with terms less than one year, 
can be an effective means of alleviating the most severe 
drought year impacts. Short-term ^reements can be ex- 
ecuted on the spot market; however, water purveyors are 
increasingly interested in negotiating longer-term agree- 
ments for drought year transfers. In such fiimre agreements, 
specific water supply conditions may be the tri^ers to de- 
termine whether water would be transferred in a specific 
year. 

Two examples of programs for acquiring water 
through short-term agreements are the Drought Wa- 
ter Bank and the CVPIA interim water acquisition 
program. Beyond these programs, data on short- 
term water marketing arrangements are difficult to 
locate and verify. Agreements executed for less than 
one year do not need SWRCB approval (unless there 
is a change in place of use or point of diversion) 
and thus are not tracked by outside entities. Data 
are also difficult to evaluate, as it is often difficult 
to distinguish between exchanges and marketing ar- 
rangements. 

Water Recycling and Desalting Supplies 

Water recycling is the intentional treatment and 
management of wastewater to produce water suitable 



for reuse. Several factors affect the amount of waste- 
water treatment plant effluent that local agencies are 
able to recycle, including the size of the available mar- 
ket and the seasonality of demands. Local agencies must 
plan their facilities based on the amount of treatment 
plant effluent available and the range of expected ser- 
vice area demands. In areas where irrigation uses 
constitute the majority of recycled water demands, 
winter and summer demands may vary greatly. (Where 
recycled water is used for groundwater recharge, sea- 
sonal demands are more constant throughout the year.) 
Also, since water recycling projects are often planned 
to supply certain types of customers, the proximity of 
these customers to each other and to available pipeline 
distribution systems affects the economic viability of 
potential recycling projects. 

Technology available today allows many munici- 
pal wastewater treatment systems to produce water 
supplies at competitive costs. More stringent treatment 
requirements for disposal of municipal and industrial 
wastewater have reduced the incremental cost for 
higher levels of treatment required for recycled water. 
The degree of additional treatment depends on the 
intended use. Recycled water is used for agricultural 
and landscape irrigation, groundwater recharge, and 
industrial and environmental uses. Some uses are re- 
quired to meet more stringent standards for public 
health protection. An example is the City of San Diego's 
planned 1 8 mgd wastewater repurification facility. This 
water project would produce about 16 taf/yr of 
repurified water to augment local municipal supplies. 
If implemented, the project would be California's first 
planned indirect potable reuse project that discharges 
repurified water directly into a surface reservoir. 

The use of recycled water can lessen the demand 
for new water supply. However, not all water recycling 
produces new water supply. Bulletin 1 60 counts water 



Water Supplies 



ES3-8 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



that would otherwise be lost to the State's hydrologic 
system (i.e., water discharged directly to the ocean or 
to another salt sink) as recycled water supply. If water 
recycling creates a new demand which would not oth- 
erwise exist, or if it treats water that would have 
otherwise been reapplied by downstream entities or 
recharged to usable groundwater, it is not considered 
new water supply Water recycling provides multiple 
benefits such as reduced wastewater discharge and 
improved water quality. 

The Department, in coordination with the 
WateReuse Association of California, conducted a 
1995 survey to update the Associations 1993 survey 
of local agencies' current and planned water recycling. 
By 2020, total water recycling is expected to increase 
from 485 taf/yr to 577 taf/yr, due to greater produc- 
tion at existing treatment plants and new production 
at plants currently under construction. This base pro- 
duction is expected to increase new recycled supplies 
from 323 taf/yr to 407 taf/yr. All new recycled water is 
expected to be produced in the San Francisco Bay, 
Central Coast, and South Coast Regions. Table ES3-4 
shows future potential options for water recycling. 

Table ES3-4 

2020 Level Total Water Recycling and 

New Water Supply (taf) 



Projects 



Total 
Water Recycling 



New Water 
Supply 



Base 

Options 

Total 



577 

835 

1,412 



407 

655 

1,062 



By 2020, water recycling options could bring to- 
tal water recycling potential to over 1.4 maf/yr, 
potentially generating as much as 1.1 maf/yr of new 
supply if water agencies implemented all projects iden- 
tified in the survey. 

The capacity of California's existing desalting 
plants totals about 66 taf annually; feedwater sources 
are brackish groundwater, wastewater, and seawater. 
Total seawater desalting capacity is currendy about 8 
taf/yr statewide. Most existing plants are small (less 
than 1 taf/yr) and have been constructed in coastal 
communities with limited water supplies. The Santa 
Barbara desalting plant, with capacity of 7.5 taf/yr, is 
currently the only large seawater desalting plant. The 
plant was constructed during the 1987-92 drought and 
is now on long-term standby In the 1995-level water 



budget, 8 taf of seawater desalting is included as a 
drought year supply In the 2020-level water budget, 
8 taf of seawater desalting is included as average and 
drought year supplies. 

Water Supply Summary by Hydrolase Region 



Table ES3-5 summarizes average year water sup- 
plies by hydrologic region assuming 1995 and 2020 
levels of development and existing facilities and pro- 
grams. Similarly, Table ES3-6 summarizes drought year 
water supplies by hydrologic region for existing and 
future levels of development. Regional water supplies, 
along with water demands presented in the following 
chapter, provide the basis for the statewide water bud- 
get developed in Chapter ES5 and regional water 
budgets developed in Appendices ES5A and ES5B. 

Water Quality 

A critical factor in determining the usability and 
reliability of any particular water source is water qual- 
ity. The quality of a water source will significandy affect 
the beneficial uses of that water. Water has many po- 
tential uses, and the water quality requirements for each 
use vary Sometimes, different water uses may have 
conflicting water quality requirements. For example, 
water temperatures ideal for irrigation of some crops 
may not be suitable for fish spawning. 

The establishment and enforcement of water qual- 
ity standards for water bodies in California fall under the 
authority of SWRCB and the nine regional water quality 
control boards. The RWQCBs protect water quality 
through adoption of region-specific water quality con- 
trol plans, commonly known as basin plans. In general, 
water quality control plans designate beneficial uses of 
water and establish water quality objectives designed to 
protect them. The designated beneficial uses of water may 
vary between individual water bodies. 

Water quality objectives are the limits or levels of 
water quality constituents or characteristics which are 
established to protect beneficial uses. Because a par- 
ticular water body may have several beneficial uses, 
the water quality objectives established must be pro- 
tective of all designated uses. When setting water 
quality objectives, several sources of existing water 
quality limits are used, depending on the uses desig- 
nated in a water quality control plan. WTien more than 
one water qualit)' limit exists for a water quality con- 
stituent or characteristic (e.g., human health limit vs. 
aquatic life limit), the more restrictive limit is used as 



ES3-9 



Water Supplies 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



JS 



E 

n 

tX) 

o 



B 

n 

w 
« 

'o 
•S 

M 

B 






B 
O 

< -s 

H O 

•a 
>> 
X 

w 
o 



in s 



4) 








(Q 


i: 


$ 


§ 


!• 


S: 


m 


s 


« 


a 


>- 


S 




O 


bA 




fO 








4) 




^ 




< 


^ 


1 


^ 






Q 


^ 














n 




u 





a 1 



1^ 






^ I 






.0 



o 


O 


O 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


r- 


00 


v/^ 


xr 


rO 


u-\ 


00 


u^ 




(N 


« 


o 




^_ 




00 


r^ 




Gv 


1^ 


IN 


o 


o 


K 




\A 


xf 


o 


(N 






^ 


90 


f^j 




















K 




I^ 


IN 


f-i 


O 


o 


o 


00 


r^ 


ir\ 


e 




^ 


Nj" 












IN 




5- 


00 


(N 




"-1 


^ 


u^ 


\o 


fn 


00 


yr\ 




00 


r-v 


xr 


•<r 


«-i 


o 


00 


CO 


^ 


00 


00 


(N 




o 


(N 


^, 


(N 


fO 


^ 


IN 


IN 


va_ 










rN 


fN 


■V 








1-H 




t^ 


00 


ij~\ 


^O 


00 




Cn 


I^ 


o 




r^ 


VO 


-o 


(N 


Cv 


vr^ 


5^ 


m 


m 


IN 




f^, 


o 


r<-l 


vq 




•<r 


t^ 


r^ 


XT 


<7\ 


OV 


o 


K 




rn 


r4 


oo' 


K 






r<"' 


~* 


'^•1 




















VO 


c 


o 


O 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 






00 


tN 


ly^ 


vo 


w^ 


^ 


Cv 




o 


3 


— 


rn 


IN 


\r\ 


r^ 


1^) 




u^. 


l/~v 


o\ 


c 


1-^ 




iX 


-^r 


o 


l-J 






^' 


K 


f^i 




















t^ 


"^. 


v/"> 


00 


r^ 


o 


c 


o 


00 


r-. 


yn. 


o 








o 

(N 










^) 






^n 


00 


ir\ 


r^ 


(N 


U-N 


o 


t^ 


0\ 


I^ 


o 


o 


VO 


~5r 


r-^ 


h- 


c\ 


-T 


v/^ 


ri~i 


ri^ 


0\ 


^ 




o 




vq 




rO 




IN 


M-i 


-* 
































^' 


r^l 


^' 














00 


i?\ 




<N 


00 


r-^ 


IN 


^ 




tf^^ 






rO 


00 


vO 


00 


1^ 


I^J 


ir\ 




rr, 


o 


m 


00_ 


oo_ 


u^ 


00 


1^ 


i-ri 




























O 


K 




rn 


1 — 1 


oo 


I-T 






-<r 


in 


<~i 








1-1 












« 




o 


^ 




5 


2 




5 


c 
n 

c 


rt 






n 
o 

u 


2 

c 


J 


O 
U 





■b4 



_4 


2 




e 

3 

2 


o 

z 


c 

t/2 


t 

c 
If 

u 


3 




E 


o 
c 




o 
Z 


3 
O 


-^ 

O 

U H 



s 



III 

E 
n 

u 

o 



•o 

E 

a 
w 



o 

u 

B 



o 

^ 'Si 

" o 

UJ ,S 

H O 



in 

0) 



a 

3 

(/) 

n 

« 

>■ 

M 

3 

& 

a 

CO 

B 
k 



- 1 



^ 



is 

f2 I 












o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


ir> 


•<r 


00 


r-^ 


a^ 


O 


CN 


t^ 


w^ 




ir 


»/^ 


vn 


'O 


00 


IN 


<> 


lr^ 


t^ 


^ 


1^1 


K 


o 


ir\ 


^— 


■<f 


(^ 


CO 


cC 






■^ 


oC 






















ir\ 


-T 


r-- 


IN 


K1 


o 


a 


o 


00 


t^ 


\r\ 


o 




i<-i 


-sr 


IN 










N 










0^ 


IN 




IN 


Cv 


00 


\D 


■o- 


o 


1^1 


So 


1/^ 


^ 


00 




CN 


o 


Cs 


oo 




rO 




^^ 


^, 


IN 


CN 


CN 


IN 


IN 


IN 


o 
































rO 


IN 


\r\ 








so 


IN 


r^ 


O 


O 


IN 


VO 


I<-1 


r^ 


V3 


ON 


o 






00 


rO 




00 


o 


xr\ 


IN 


o 


(S 


N 


^ 






O 


Cv 


ly^ 


\r\ 




CN 


"1 
























O 


ir\ 




r<-l 


o 


i/^ 


1^ 






r*", 


PO 






















^ 


O 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


O 


o 


C> 




m 


OO 


xr 


xt- 


so 


ly^ 


O 


00 


xC 


^. 


si; 


«^ 


r-^ 


IN 


o 


o 


r-- 


ly^ 


■^. 


o 


o 


vX 


^- 


^' 


rn 


oo" 


o 






xf 


OS 






















vn 


^ 


\r\ 


^ 


t^ 


O 


o 


o 


CO 


t^ 


yr\ 


o 




rr-, 


IN 


o 

IN 










1^1 




m 
m 


^ 


IN 


IN 




00 


o 


o 


1^ 


m 


t^ 




C^ 


CN 


^ 


r^ 




o 


t^ 


00 


r^ 


rr-, 




rj 






rr-. 


IN 


o_ 


(T; 


— 


IN 


^ 


K 










rn 


IN 


irv 








in 




m 


O 


\0 


IN 


ro 


«~i 


r-^ 


GV 


00 


O 


00 


00 


■O 


CN 


IN 


xl- 


o 


ly-v 


U-v 


IN 


rn 




IN 






c> 


O 


^. 


ir^ 


IN 




ir\ 
























o 


vK 




rO 


o 


o 


fC 






xf 


rn 




>, 


















-* 




rr: 

o 


^^ 




a3 

> 

5 


> 

2 






C 

C 
O 

_c 

r3 
_] 


ly 


1 




U 


c 




n 

O 

U 


o 
c 


ri 



_c 

_1 


5 



-o 


e 

3 


La 


-= 




rt 


_c 


2 


O 


i> 


_C 


_n 


1^ 

o 


13 




Z 


C 


C 

u 


3 

t/1 




c 


3 


o 
Z 


3 





U 





WATER SUPPLIES 



ES3-I0 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



the water quality objective. 

Drinking water standards for a total of 81 indi- 
vidual drinking water constituents are in place under 
the mandates of the 1986 SDWA amendments. By 
the new SDWA standard setting process established 
in the 1996 amendments, EPA will select at least five 
new candidate constituents to be considered for regu- 
lation every five years. Selection of the new constituents 
for regulation must be geared toward contaminants 
posing the greatest health risks. 

Occasionally, drinking water regulatory goals may 
conflict. For example, concern over pathogens such as 
Cryptosporidium spurred a proposed rule requiring 
more rigorous disinfection. At the same time, there 
was considerable regulatory concern over 
trihalomethanes and other disinfection by-products 
resulting from disinfecting drinking water with chlo- 
rine. However, if disinfection is made more rigorous, 
disinfection by-product formation is increased. Poor 
quality source waters with elevated concentrations of 
organic precursors and bromides further complicate 
the problem of reliably meeting standards for disin- 
lection while meeting standards lor disinfection 
by-products. The regulatory community will have to 
balance the benefits and risks associated with pursu- 
ing the goals of efficient disinfection and reduced 
disinfection by-products. 

EPA promulgated its Information Collection Rule 
in 1996 to obtain the data on the tradeoff posed by 
simultaneous control of disinfection by-products and 
pathogens in drinking water. The ICR requires all large 
public water systems to collect and report data on the 
occurrence of disinfection by-products and pathogens 
(including bacteria, viruses, Giardia, and 
CryptosporidiuDi) in drinking water over an 18-month 
period. With this information, an assessment ot health 
risks due to the presence of disinfection by-products 
and pathogens in drinking water can be made. EPA 
can then determine the need to revise current drink- 
ing water filtration and disinfection requirements, and 
the need for more stringent regulations lor disinfec- 
tants and disinfection by-products. 

There has been growing concern over the poten- 
tial human health threat of pathogens in groundwater. 
This concern stems from pathogens such as Giardia, 
Cryptosporidium, bacteria, and viruses being found in 
water taken from wells. Ihe concern about pathogens 
in groundwater has led to regulatory discussions on 
disinfection requirements for groundwater. It is cur- 
rently estimated that the Groundwater Disinfection 



Rule will be proposed sometime in 1 999 and will be- 
come effective in 2002. The data obtained through 
the ICR will provide the necessary information to as- 
sess the extent and severity of risk. 

The SDWA requires states to implement wellhead 
protection programs designed to prevent the contami- 
nation of groundwater supplying public drinking 
water wells. Wellhead protection programs rely heavily 
on local efforts to be effective, because communities 
have the primary access to information on potential 
contamination sources and can adopt locally-based 
measures to manage these potential contamination 
sources. 




CCWD's Los Vaqueros Dam under construction. The 
reservoir does not provide new water supply, but provides 
terminal storage for CCWD's existing supply and improves 
service area water quality. 



ES3-U 



Water Supplies 



'■m&^;x:^mm^^^^m 




The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 




Executive Summary 

Urban, Agricultural, and 
Environmental Water Use 



This chapter describes present and forecasted urban, agricultural, and 
environmental water use. The chapter is organized into three major 
sections, one for each category of water use. 
Water use information is presented at the hydrologic region level of detail under 
normalized hydrologic conditions. Forecasted 2020-level urban and agricultural water use 
have not changed greatly since publication of Bulletin 160-93. Forecasted urban water use 
depends heavily on population forecasts. Although the Department of Finance has updated 
its California population projections since the last Bulletin, U.S. census data are an important 
foundation for the projections, and a new census will not be performed until 2000. The 
Departments forecasts of agricultural water use change relatively slowly in the short-term, 
because the corresponding changes in forecasted agricultural acreage are a small percentage 
of the State's total irrigated acreage. Changes in base year and forecasted environmental 
Nurserv Droducts are water use from the last Bulletin reflect implementation of SWRCB's Order 

CalifonMs third ^^Tl 95-6 for the Bay-Delta. 
largest farm product in 
gross value. The 

. , Urban Water Use 

nursery industry IS *""»•■■ ww»isii wo^s 

ajjec e oy e Forecasts of future urban water use for the Bulletin are based on 

availability of both 
agricultural and urban population information and per capita water use estimates. Factors influencing 

per capita water use include expected demand reduction due to implemen- 



ES4-1 



Water use 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



-cation of vviuer conservation programs. I'hc Depart- 
ment has modeled ettccts of conservation measures 
and socioeconomic changes on per capita use in 20 
major water service areas to estimate future changes 
in per capita use by hydrologic region. An urban wa- 
ter agency making estimates for its own 
service area would be able to incorporate more com- 
plexity in its forecasting, because the scope of its effort 
is narrow. For this reason, anti because DOF popula- 
tion projections seldom exactly match population 
projections prepared by cities and counties, the 
Bulletin's water use forecasts are expected to be repre- 
sentative of rather than identical to, those of local 
water agencies. 

Population Growth 

Data about California's population — its geo- 
graphic distribution and projections of future 
populations and their distribution — come from sev- 
eral sources. The Department works with base year 
and projected year population information developed 
by DOF for each count)' in the State. The decadal cen- 
sus is a major benchmark for population projections. 
DOF works from census data to calculate the State's 
population in noncensus years, and to project future 
populations. Figure ES4-1 shows DOF's projected 
growth rates by county for year 2020. (State policy 
requires that all State agencies use DOF population 
projections for planning, funding, and policymaking 
activities.) 

Population projections used in Bulletin 160-98 are 
based on DOF's Interim County Population Projections 
(April 1997). Table ES4-1 shows the 1995 through 
2020 population figures for Bulletin 160-98 by hy- 
drologic region. 



Table ES4-1 

California Population by Hydrologic Region 

(in thousands) 



Region 



1995 



2020 



North Coast 


606 


835 


San Francisco Bay 


5,780 


7,025 


Central Coast 


L347 


1,946 


South Coast 


17,299 


24,327 


Sacramento River 


2,372 


3,813 


San Joaquin River 


1,592 


3,025 


Tulare Lake 


1,738 


3,296 


North Lahontan 


84 


125 


South Lahontan 


713 


2,019 


Colorado River 


533 


1,096 


Total (rounded) 


32,060 


47,510 


■ WATER USE 




I 



DOF periodically updates its population forecasts 
to respond to changing conditions. Its 2020 popula- 
tion forecast used for Bulletin 160-93 was 1 .4 million 
higher than the 2020 forecast used in Bulletin 160- 
98. The latter forecast incorporated the effects of the 
recession of the early 1990s. Small fluctuations in the 
forecast do not obscure the overall trend — an increase 
in population on the order of 50 percent. 

The Department apportioned county population 
data to Bulletin 1 60 study areas based on watershed or 
water district boundaries. Factors considered in dis- 
tributing the data to Bulletin 160 study areas included 
population projections prepared by cities, counties, and 
local councils of governments, which typically incor- 
porate expected future development from city and 
county general plans. The local agency projections in- 
dicate which areas within a county are expected to 
experience growth, and provide guidance in allocating 
DOF's projection for an entire county into smaller 
Bulletin 1 60 study areas. 

Factors Affecting Urban Per Capita Water Use 

Urban per capita water use includes residential, 
commercial, industrial, and institutional uses of wa- 
ter. Each of these categories can be examined at a greater 
level of detail. Residential water use, for example, in- 
cludes interior and exterior (e.g., landscaping) water 
use. Forecasts of urban water use for an individual com- 
munity may be separated into components and 
forecasted individually. It is not possible to use this 
level of detail for each community in the State in Bul- 
letin 160-98. Bulletin 160-98 modeled components 
of urban use tor representative urban water agencies 
in each of the State's ten hydrologic regions and ex- 
trapolated those results to the remainder of each 
hydrologic region. 

Demand reduction achieved by implementing wa- 
ter conservation measures is important in forecasting per 
capita water use. Bulletin 160-98 incorporates demand 
reductions from implementation of urban best manage- 
ment practices contained in the 1991 Memorandum of 
Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in 
California. Bulletin 160-98 assumes implementation of 
the urban MOU's BMPs by 2020, resulting in a demand 
reduction of about 1 .5 maf over the year 2020 demand 
forecast without BMP implementation. 

The relationship of water pricing to water con- 
sumption, and the role of pricing in achieving water 
conservation, has been a subject of discussion in re- 
cent years. Elected board members of public water 



ES4-2 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



FIGURE ES4-1 

Projected Growth Rates by County, 1995-2020 




ES4-5 



WATER USE 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



TABLE ES4-2 

Effects of Conservation on Per Capita Water Use^ by Hydroiogic Region 

(gallons per capita per day) 



Region 



1995 



2020 



tvithout conservation 



with conservation 



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



249 
192 
179 
208 
286 
310 
298 
411 
282 
564 
229 



236 
188 
188 
219 
286 
307 
302 
390 
294 
626 
243 



215 
166 
166 
191 
264 
274 
268 
356 
268 
535 
215 



Includes residential, commercial, industrial, and landscape use supplied by public water systems and self-produced surface and groundwater. Docs not 
include recreational use. energy production use. and losses from major conveyance facilities. These are normalized data. 



agencies ultimately have the responsibility for balanc- 
ing desires to achieve demand reduction through water 
pricing with desires to provide affordable water rates 
to consumers. Urban water rates in California varv 




//itgA efficiency horizontal axis washing machines (front loading 
washers) are being ttsed in commercial applications, hut are just 
becoming available for home use. A check of large appliance 
dealers in 1998 showed tliat two brands of horizontal axis 
washers are commoidy in stock, at prices rangingfrom $700 to 
$1,100. Comparable standard washers cost from $100 to $600 
less. Some utilities are offering their customers rebates on the order 
of $100 to $150 for purchasing the horizontal axis machines. 



widely and are affected by factors such as geographic 
location, source of supply, and type of water treatment 
provided. Water rates are set by local agencies to re- 
cover costs of providing water service, and are highly 
site-specific. According to several price elasticity stud- 
ies for urban water use, residential water demand is 
usually inelastic, i.e., water users were relatively insen- 
sitive to changes in price for the price ranges evaluated. 
Water price currently plays a small role in relation to 
other factors affecting water use — public education, 
plumbing retrofit programs, etc. 

Urban Water Use Forecasting 

The Department forecasted change in per capita 
water use by 2020 in each hydroiogic region to esti- 
mate 2020 urban applied water by hydroiogic region. 
Viiriables included changes in population, income, 
economic activity, water price, and conservation mea- 
sures (implementation of urban BMPs and changes to 
State and federal plumbing fixture standards). The 
general forecasting procedure was to determine 1995 
base per capita water use, estimate the effects of con- 
servation measures and socioeconomic change on 
future use for 20 major representative water service 
areas in California, and calculate 2020 base per capita 
water use by hydroiogic region from the results of ser- 
vice area forecasts. (See Table ES4-2.) 

Summary of Urban Water Use 

Table ES4-3 summarizes Bulletin 160-98 urban 
applied water use by hydroiogic region. Statewide ur- 



WATER USE 



ES4-4 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



ban use at the 1995 base level is 8.8 maf in average 
water years and 9.0 maf in drought years. (Drought 
year demands are slightly higher because less precipi- 
tation is available to meet exterior urban water uses, 
such as landscape watering.) Projected 2020 use in- 
creases to 12.0 maf in average years and 12.4 maf in 
drought years. Full implementation of urban BMPs is 
estimated to result in demand reduction of 1 .5 maf in 
average year water use by 2020. Without implementa- 
tion of urban BMPs, average year use would have 
increased to 13.5 maf 

As indicated in the Table ES4-3, the South Coast 
and San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Regions together 
amount to over half of the State's total urban water 
use. The table also illustrates that precipitation plays a 
small role in meeting urban outdoor water needs (land- 
scape water needs) in arid regions such as the Tulare 
Lake, South Lahontan, and Colorado River Regions. 



Agricultural Water Use 

The Department's estimates of agricultural wa- 
ter use are derived by multiplying water use 
requirements for different crop types by their cor- 
responding statewide irrigated acreage, and 
summing the results to obtain a total for irrigated 
crops in the State. This section begins by covering 
crop water use requirements. A description of the 
process for estimating future irrigated acreage, and 
factors affecting acreage forecasts, follows. 
Forecasted 2020 agricultural water demands are 
summarized at the end of the section. 



Crop Water Use 



The water requirement of a crop is directly related 
to the water lost through evapotranspiration. The 
amount of water that can be consumed through ET 
depends in the short term on local weather and in the 
long term on climatic conditions. Energy from solar 
radiation is the primary factor that determines the rate 
of crop ET. Also important are humidity, temperature, 
wind, stage of crop growth, and the size and aerody- 
namic roughness of the crop canopy. Irrigation 
frequency affects ET after planting and during early 
growth, because evaporation increases when the soil 
surface is wet and is exposed to sunlight. Growing sea- 
son ET varies significantly among crop types, 
depending primarily on how long the crop actively 
grows. 

Direct measurement of crop ET requires costly 
investments in time and in sophisticated equipment. 
There are more than 9 million acres of irrigated crop 
land in California, encompassing a wide range of cli- 
mate, soils, and crops. Even where annual ET for two 
areas is similar, monthly totals may differ. For example, 
average annual ET for Central Coast interior valleys is 
similar to that in the Central Valley. Central Valley ET 
is lower than that in coastal valleys during the winter 
fog season, and higher during hot summer weather. 
Obtaining actual measurements for every combination 
of environmental variables would be prohibitively dif- 
ficult and expensive. A more practical approach is to 
estimate ET using methods based on correlation of 
measured ET with observed evaporation, temperature, 
and other climatologic conditions. Such methods can 



Table ES4-3 
Applied Urban Water Use by Hydrologic Region (taf) 



1995 



2020 



Region 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



Drought 



North Coast 
San Francisco Bay 
Central Coast 
South Coast 
Sacramento River 
San Joaquin River 
Tulare Lai<e 
North Lahontan 
South Lahontan 
Colorado River 
Total (rounded) 



169 

1,255 

286 

4,340 

766 

574 

690 

39 

238 

418 

8,770 



177 

1,358 

294 

4,382 

830 

583 

690 

40 

238 

418 

9,010 



201 
1,317 

379 
5,519 
1,139 

954 

1,099 

50 

619 

740 
12,020 



212 
1,428 

391 
5,612 
1,236 

970 

1,099 

51 

619 

740 
12,360 



ES4-5 



WATER USE 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



be used to transfer the results of measured ET to other 
areas with similar climates. 

The Department uses the ET/evaporation corre- 
lation method to estimate growing season ET. 
Concurrent with field measurement of ET rates, the 
Department developed a network of agroclimate sta- 
tions to determine the relationship between measured 
ET rates and pan evaporation. Data from agroclimatic 
studies show that water evaporation from a standard 
water surface (the Department uses the U.S. Weather 
Bureau Class A evaporation pan) closely correlates to 
crop evapotranspiration. The ET/evaporation method 
estimates crop water use to within ± 1 percent of mea- 
sured seasonal ET. 

Crop coefficients are applied to pan evaporation 
data to estimate evapotranspiration rates for specific 
crops. (Crop coefficients vary by crop, stage of crop 
growth, planting and harvest dates, and growing sea- 
son duration.) The resulting data, combined with 
information on effective rainfall and water use effi- 
ciency, form the basis for calculating ETAW and 
applied water use. Crop applied water use includes the 
irrigation water required to meet crop ETAW and cul- 
tural water requirements. 

The amount of water applied to a given field for 
crop production is influenced by considerations such 
as crop water requirements, soil characteristics, the 
ability of an irrigation system to distribute water uni- 
formly on a given field, and irrigation management 
practices. In addition to ET, other crop water require- 
ments can include water needed to leach soluble salts 
below the crop root zone, water that must be applied 
for frost protection or cooling, and water for seed ger- 
mination. The amount required for these uses depends 
upon the crop, irrigation water quality, and weather 
conditions. 

Part of a crop's water requirements can be met by 
rainfall. The amount of rainfall beneficially used for 
crop production is called effective rainfall. Effective 
rainfall is stored in the soil and is available to satisfy 
crop evapotranspiration or to offset water needed for 
special cultural practices such as leaching of salts. Irri- 
gation provides the remainder of the crop water 
requirement. Irrigation efficiency influences the 
amount of applied water needed, since a portion of 
each irrigation goes to system leaks and deep percola- 
tion of irrigation water below the crop root zone. 

The Bulletin's 1995 base applied agricultural wa- 
ter use values were computed from normalized data to 
account for variation in annual weather patterns and 



water supply. Normalizing entails applying crop coef- 
ficients to long-term average evaporative demand data. 
Actual applied crop water use during 1995 was less 
than the Bulletin 160-98 base in many areas due to 
wet hydrologic conditions that increased effective rain- 
fall, thus decreasing crop ETAW. Likewise, applied 
water use during a dry year (assuming no constraints ■ 
on water supplies) would likely exceed the base due to 
less than average effective rainfall with an attendant 
increase in crop ETAW. 

Bulletin 1 60-98 quantifies agricultural water con- 
servation based on assumed statewide implementation 
of the 1996 agricultural MOU. This conservation is 
expected to reduce agricultural applied water demands 
by about 800 taf annually by 2020. 

Quantifying Base Year Irrigated Acreage 

Forecasts of agricultural acreage start with land use 
data that characterize existing crop acreage. The De- 
partment has performed land use surveys since the 
1950s to quantify acreage of irrigated land and corre- 
sponding crop types, and currently maps irrigated 
acreage in six to seven counties per year. The base data 
for land use surveys are obtained from aerial photog- 
raphy or satellite imagery, which is superimposed on a 
cartographic base. Site visits are used to identify' or 
verify crop types growing in the fields. From this in- 
formation, maps showing locations and acreage of crop 
types are developed. 

The Department's land use surveys focus on quan- 
tifying irrigated agricultural acreage. Although fields 
of dry-farmed crops are mapped in the land use sur- 
veys, their acreage is not tabulated for calculating water 
use. In certain areas of the State, climate and market 
conditions are favorable for producing multiple crops 
per year on the same field (for example, winter veg- 
etables followed by a summer field crop). In these cases, 
annual irrigated acreage is counted as the sum of the 
acreage of the individual crop types. In the years be- 
tween county land use surveys, the Department 
estimates crop types and acreage using data collected 
from county agricultural commissioners, local water 
agencies, University of California Cooperative Exten- 
sion Programs, and the California Department of Food 
and Agriculture. 

The starting point for determining Bulletin 160- 
98 1995 base acreage was normalized 1990 irrigated 
acreage from Bulletin 160-93. Changes in crop acre- 
age between 1990 and 1995 were evaluated to 
determine if they were due to short-term causes (e.g.. 



Water Use 



ES4-6 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



drought or abnormal spring rainfall), or it there was 
an actual change in cropping patterns. Base year acre- 
age was normalized to represent the acreage that would 
most likely occur in the absence of weather and mar- 
ket related abnormalities. 

Crop acreage by region for the normalized 1995 
base is presented in Table ES4-4. The 1995 base irri- 
gated land acreage is about 9.1 million acres, which, 
when multiple cropped areas are tabulated, becomes a 
base irrigated cropped acreage of about 9.5 million 
acres. 

Forecasting Future Irrigated Acreage 

The Department's 2020 irrigated acreage forecast 
was derived from staff research, a crop market outlook 
study, and results from the Central Valley Production 
Model. As with any forecast of future conditions, there 
are uncertainties associated with each of these ap- 
proaches. The Department's integration of the results 
from three independent approaches is intended to rep- 
resent a best estimate of future acreage, absent major 
changes from present conditions. It is important to 
emphasize that many factors affecting future cropped 
acreage are based on national (federal Farm Bill pro- 
grams) or international (world export markets) 
circumstances. California agricultural products com- 
pete with products from other regions in the global 
economy, and are affected by trade policies and mar- 
ket conditions that reach far beyond the State's 
boundaries. 

The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform 
Act of 1996, for example, affects agricultural markets 
nationwide, by changing federal price supports for 
specified agricultural commodities. Under the terms 
of that act, federal payments to growers will be reduced 
by 2002, and prior farm bill provisions that required 
growers to reduce planted acreage of regulated com- 
modities are no longer in force. (Commodities with 
significant federal price support include wheat, feed 
grains, rice, cotton, dairy products, sugar, and peanuts.) 
The overall impact of the act to California, however, 
may be less than its impact to states whose agriculture 
is less diversified and who are less active in export 
markets. In 1994, for example, federal farm bill pro- 
duction payments to California growers represented 
about one percent of California's agricultural revenue. 
The potential impacts of FAIRA to California's agri- 
cultural market are considered in Bulletin 160-98 by 
the crop market outlook study. 

Intrastate factors considered in making acreage 



forecasts included urban encroachment onto agricul- 
tural land and land retirement due to drainage 
problems. Urbanization on lands presently used for 
irrigated agriculture is a significant consideration in 
the South Coast Region and in the San Joaquin Val- 
ley, based on projected patterns of population growth. 
DOF 2020 population forecasts, along with informa- 
tion gathered from local agency land use plans, were 
used to identify irrigated lands most likely to be af- 
fected by urbanization. Local water agencies and count)' 
farm advisors were interviewed to assess their perspec- 
tive on land use changes affecting agricultural acreage. 
For example, urbanization may eliminate irrigated acre- 
age in one area, but shift agricultural development onto 
lands presendy used as non-irrigated pasture. Soil types 
and landforms are important constraints in agricul- 
tural land development. If urbanization occurs on 
prime Central Valley farmland, some agricultural pro- 
duction may be able to shift to poorer quality soils on 
hilly lands adjoining the valley floor. A consequent shift 
in crop types and irrigation practices would likely re- 
sult — for example, from furrow- irrigated row crops to 
vineyards on drip irrigation. 

The Department's crop market outlook, a form 
of Delphi analysis, was developed using information 
and expert opinions gathered from interviews with 
more than 130 University of California farm advisors, 
agricultural bankers, commodity marketing specialists. 




Factors that influence the couversion of irrigated Liiitis to 
urban use include the binds' proximity to existing urban 
areas and transportation corridors, and local agency land ttse 
planning and zoning policies. 



ES4-7 



WATER USE 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 





« 








> 








« 




o 




U 




§ 




in 








o> 








0) 








1H 








,. 








s 








o 




H 




M 




t^ 




0) 








K 








u 








■^ 








u 








o 
















o 


^.^ 


**.s 




k 


(A 


(^ 




"U 


V 






>. 


k 






I 


u 




"t 




IS 




en 




o 




PL) 

2 
< 




(A 


^ 


H 


o 


(/) 






< 


§ 






"O 


4rf 






0) 








«' 








n 

bfi 




O 




•c 




so 



a 
o 

u 

ra 

e 

I 
U 



I 



o 


r^ 


^ 


OS 


00 


r^ 


o 




-<r 


t^ 




vo 




u^ 


IN 




^ 


vr 



o 


^ 
m 
w^ 


<N 
O 






in 


1^ 


00 


— 










o\ 




!> 



t^ 


o 


9\ 


xj- 


\r\ 


"^ 


(N 


•^ 


O 


^ 






tv 




o 



O -H O — 

so o 



O -H O — 



^ 1\ — rs] oo (^ 

c~ r^ c> o h^ fs 

— — — (N r^ -H 



o 



1^ 




o 




ON 
CN 


rN 

00 


o 


IT: 
1^1 




00 


00 


§ 


o 
m 


(7\ 



rsj 


\r\ 


G^ 


rs| 


00 


^ 


^ 


c^ 


Gs 


\r\ 


■^ 


ir\ 


rn 


ir^, 








•— ' 




ro 






— 


(N 



o 

(N 



rr^ \0 ^ CO O 



_ ^ O 






m o 

— < in 



00 ON ^ n (N o 

— — vr> K -^ «~i 

>r — -* 



MOO 

1^ 



o — m 



V3 









t -g -T3 



2 ^ 

O 5 



u 






o < 



E 

o 



o < 



2 S 
t: a. 



a. 
o 

ha 

u 
■3 

o 



C^ -13 

P C 



u 


::3 


<u 


-a 


O- 








-:r 


OJJ 



WATER USE 



ES4-8 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



managers of cooperatives, and others. Three basic fac- 
tors guided the CMO: current and future demand for 
food and fiber by the world's consumers; the share 
California could produce to meet this worldwide de- 
mand; and technical factors, such as crop yields, pasture 
carrying capacities, and livestock feed conversion ra- 
tios that affect demand for agricultural products. (Milk 
and dairy products are California's largest agricultural 
product, in terms of gross value. The demand for these 
products is reflected in the markets for alfalfa, grains, 
and other fodder used by dairies.) The CMO forecasts 
a statewide crop mix and estimates corresponding irri- 
gated acreage. The major findings of the CMO for 
year 2020 were that grain and field crop acreage would 
decrease, while acreage of truck crops and permanent 
crops would increase. 

The Central Valley Production Model is a math- 
ematical programming model that simulates farming 
decisions by growers. Inputs include detailed informa- 
tion about production practices and costs as well as 
water availability and cost by source. The model also 
uses intormation on the relationship between produc- 
tion levels of individual crops and crop market prices. 
The model's geographic coverage is limited to the Cen- 
tral Valley, which represents about 80 percent of the 
State's irrigated agricultural acreage. The CVPM re- 
sults also indicated future crop shifting, from grains 
and field crops to vegetables, trees, and vines. The 
CVPM forecast showed a small reduction in crop acre- 
age from 1995 to 2020. 

One factor not included in Bulletin 160-98 ir- 
rigated acreage forecasts is the potential large-scale 
conversion of agricultural land to wildlife habitat 
for reasons other than westside San Joaquin Valley 
problems. The CALFED program represents the 
largest pending example of potential conversion of 
irrigated agricultural lands to habitat, as described 
in CALFED's March 1998 first draft programmatic 
EIR/EIS and supporting documents. CALFED's po- 
tential land conversion amounts have not been 
included in the Bulletin 160-98 irrigated acreage 
forecast because they are preliminary at this time (a 
site-specific environmental document with an imple- 
mentation schedule for land conversion has not yet 
been prepared), and because CALFED's preliminary 
numbers are so large relative to the Bulletin's mar- 
ket-based forecast of irrigated acreage that they 
would negate the results of the forecast. Overall, 
CALFED program activities as presently planned 
could convert up to 290,000 irrigated acres to habi- 




There is a perception that only drip irrigation is an efficient 
agricultural water use technology. High efficiencies are 
possible with a variety of inigation techniques. 
Considerations such as soil type, field configuration, and crop 
type influence the choice of irrigation technique, 

tat and other uses, an amount almost as great as the 
325,000-acre reduction in irrigated acreage forecast 
in the Bulletin. Water use implications of large-scale 
land conversions are not included in the Bulletin 
160-98 forecast. Impacts of such land conversions 
are expected to be addressed in the next water plan 
update, when CALFED's program may be better 
defined. 

The difficulty in estimating impacts from large-scale 
land conversion programs stems from the domino effect 
that changes in acreage in one location have on acreage 
and crop types in other areas, and how crop markets de- 
termine which crop shifts are feasible. For example, 
CALFED's preliminar)' reports suggest that up to 1 90,000 
irrigated acres in the Delta could be converted to other 
land uses. This amount represents about 40 percent of 
Delta irrigated acreage, whose principal crops are corn, 
alfalfa, tomatoes, grain, orchard crops, and truck crops 
(e.g., asparagus). Some land conversion in the Delta might 
result in production on new agricultural lands — most 
likely, rolling hills on the edge of the valley floor which 
are only suitable for limited crop types (orchards and vine- 
yards). Some of the land conversion might result in 
increased demand in other areas for the affected crops, 
such as increased demand for asparagus from the Impe- 
rial and Salinas Valleys. 

Table ES4-5 shows the 2020 irrigated acreage fore- 



ES4-9 



WATER USE 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



i/^i i/^i o 

i/^, xr — 

•^ C^ 00 



l/^ V/^ l/^, 



^ ) r ) \r\ 






^ XT l\ ^ 



H 



« 

o 

N 

O 
M 



« 

K 
u 

M 
O 
o ^ 

>. ^ 
■a o 

« c 
< o 
cs 

6S 



e 
ra 

a 
o 

O 

<B 

C 
k 

U 



■O C^ PO rTi 



>/^, 


o 


\r 


>/^ 




ir\ 


-T 


CJ 




K 




o 



— ^ r^j 



00 1^. 00 ^ 



O O 00 c> 
r^ O CN c> 









lA 

« 



^ 


t~~ 


o 


rn 


o 


w-i 


lA 


cs 


CN 


t^ 


\r-. 




00 


m 




•— ' 


fN 


— 






ON 



-^ 


r\ 


\n 


,—. 


CN 


U^, 


■^ 




•^ 


r-v 


■— ' 


— 


rn 







r^J m ro rN 



1 
.So 



f^l — ^ ^ ^ 



o o 

0\ -^ 



o 






^ (N rf-i tN 



lA 



O 2 



o 
U 



o 
U 



O ^ 



o 
H 



o 

< 



O Lo u 



CL. 

o 

u 
1 

o 
H 



< 



U 






2 ^ 



Waif.r Use 



ES4-10 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



TaBI.F E,S4-6 
Applied Agricultural Water Use by Hydrologic Region (taf) 

1995 



Region 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



2020 



Drought 



North Coast 
San Francisco Bay 
Central Coast 
South Coast 
Sacramento River 
San Joaquin River 
Tulare Lake 
North Lahontan 
South Lahontan 
Colorado River 
Total (rounded) 



894 

98 

1,192 

784 

8,065 

7,027 

10,736 

530 

332 

4,118 

33,780 



973 
108 

1,279 
820 

9,054 

7,244 

10,026 

584 

332 

4,118 
34,540 



927 

98 

1,127 

462 

7,939 

6,450 

10,123 

536 

257 

3,583 

31,500 



1,011 

108 

1,223 

484 

8,822 

6,719 

9,532 

594 

257 

3,583 

32,330 



cast. The total irrigated crop acreage is forecasted to 
decline by 325,000 acres from 1995 to 2020, prima- 
rily in the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast areas. 
Reductions in crop acreage are due to urban encroach- 
ment, drainage problems in the westside San Joaquin 
Valley, and a more competitive economic market tor 
California agricultural products. Grain and field crops 
are forecasted to decline by about 63 1 ,000 acres. Truck 
crops and permanent crops are forecasted to increase 
by about 238,000 and 68,000 acres, respectively. Acre- 
age with multiple cropping is forecasted to increase by 
108,000 acres, reflecting the expected increased pro- 
duction of truck crops. These statewide findings are 
used in developing the base year and forecasted agri- 
cultural water demands. 

Summary of Agricultural Water Use 

Crop water use information and irrigated acreage 
data are combined to generate the 2020 agricultural 
water use by hydrologic region shown in Table ES4-6. 
As previously noted, the 2020 forecasted values take 
into account EWMP implementation, which results 
in a 2020 applied water reduction of about 800 taf 

Environmental Water Use 

Bulletin 160-98 defines environmental water as 
the sum of 

• Dedicated flows in State and federal wild and 
scenic rivers 

• Instream flow requirements established by water 
right permits, DFG agreements, court actions, or 
other administrative documents 



• Bay-Delta outflows required by SWRCB 

• Applied water demands of managed freshwater 
wildlife areas 

This definition recognizes that certain quantities 
of water have been set aside or otherwise managed 
for environmental purposes, and that these quanti- 
ties cannot be put to use for other purposes in the 
locations where the water has been reserved or other- 
wise managed. This definition also recognizes that 
these uses of environmental water can be quantified. 
Unlike urban and agricultural water use, much of this 
environmental water use is brought about by legisla- 
tive or regulatory processes. Certainly the 
environment uses more water than is encompassed 
in this definition — the rainfall that sustains the for- 
ests of the Sierra Nevada and the North Coast, the 
winter runoff that supports flora and fauna in nu- 
merous small streams, the shallow groundwater that 
supports riparian vegetation in some ephemeral 
streams — but the Bulletin's definition captures uses 
of water that are managed (in one fashion or another) 
and quantifiable. As described earlier, average annual 
statewide precipitation over California's land surface 
amounts to about 200 maf About 65 percent of this 
precipitation is consumed through evaporation and 
transpiration by the State's forests, grasslands, and 
other vegetation. The remaining 35 percent comprises 
the State's average annual runoff of about 71 maf 
The environmental water demands discussed in this 
section are demands that would be met through a 
designated portion of that average annual runoff As 
with urban and agricultural water use, environmen- 
tal water use is shown on an applied water basis. 



ES4-11 



WATER USE 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



TARl \- FS4-7 
Wild and Scenic River Flows by Hydrologic Region (taf) 

1995 



2020 



Region 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



Drought 



North Coast 17,800 

San Francisco Bay 

Central Coast 98 

South Coast 69 

Sacramento River 1 ,733 

San Joaquin River 1 ,974 

Tulare Lake 1,614 

North Lahontan 271 

South Lahontan 

Colorado River 

Total (rounded) 23,560 

Wild and Scenic River Flows 

Flows in wild and scenic rivers constitute the larg- 
est environmental water use in the State. Figure ES4-2 
is a map of California's State and federal wild and sce- 
nic rivers. 

The 1968 National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 
codified to preserve the free-flowing characteristics of 
rivers having outstanding natural resources values, pro- 
hibited federal agencies from constructing, authorizing, 
or funding the construction of water resources projects 
having a direct or adverse effect on the values for which 
the river was designated. (This restriction also applies 
to rivers designated for potential addition to the na- 
tional wild and scenic rivers system.) There are two 
methods for having a river segment added to the fed- 
eral system — congressional legislation, or a state's 
petition to the Secretary of the Interior for federal des- 
ignation of a river already protected under state statutes. 
No new federal designations have been made since 
publication of Bulletin 160-93. 

A number of river systems within lands managed 
by federal agencies are being studied as candidates. For 
example, USFS draft environmental documentation 
in 1994 and 1996 recommended designation ot five 
streams (129 river miles) inTahoe National Forest and 
160 river miles in Stanislaus National Forest. These 
waterways drain to the Central Valley where their flows 
are used for other purposes, and wild and scenic desig- 
nation would not affect the existing downstream uses. 

The California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1 972 
prohibited construction of any dam, reservoir, diver- 
sion, or other water impoundment on a designated river. 
As shown on Figure ES4-2, some rivers are included in 
both federal and State systems. No new State designa- 



7,900 



28 

51 

736 

939 

751 

154 





10,560 



17,800 



98 

69 

1,733 

1,974 

1,614 

271 





23,560 



7,900 



28 

51 

736 

939 

751 

154 





10,560 



tions have been made since Bulletin 160-93, although 
the Mill and Deer Creeks Protection Act of 1995 (Sec- 
tion 5093.70 of the Public Resources Code) gave 
portions of these streams special status similar to wild 
and scenic designation by restricting construction of 
dams, reservoirs, diversions, or other water impound- 
ments. 

Table ES4-7 shows the wild and scenic river flows 
used in Bulletin 160-98 water budgets by hydrologic 
region. The flows shown are based on the rivers' un- 
impaired flow. (The unimpaired flow in a river is the 
flow measured or calculated at some specific location 
that would be unaffected by stream diversions, stor- 
age, imports or exports, and return flows.) For the 
average year condition, the long-term unimpaired flow 
from the Department's Bulletin 1 was used. The esti- 
mated average unimpaired flow for the 1990-91 water 
years was used for the drought condition. 

Instream Flows 

Instream flow is the water maintained in a stream 
or river for instream beneficial uses such as fisheries, 
wildlife, aesthetics, recreation, and navigation. Instream 
flow is a major factor influencing the productivity and 
diversity of California's rivers and streams. 

Instream flows may be established in a variety of 
ways — by agreements executed between DFG and a 
water agency, by terms and conditions in a water right 
permit from SWRCB, by terms and conditions in a 
FERC hydropower license, by a court order, or by an 
agreement among interested parties. Required flows 
on most rivers vary by month and year type, with wet 
year requirements generally being higher than dry year 
requirements. Converting from net water use analyses 
performed for prior editions ot Bulletin 160 to the 



WATER USE 



ES4-12 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 




FIGURE ES4-2 
California Wild and Scenic Rivers 








'^■i'--- Federal and State Designation 

State Designation Only 
Wis Federal Designation Only 




Rivf 



£. Fork Cilrson River 
^ W. WMerRivn 



m^P^iS^ 



■ -f-'ork 



.,:S 




A Rilier^ 





^"pr C. 



ES4-I3 



Water use 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



TABLK ES4-8 
Instream Flow Requirements by Hydrologic Region (taf) 

1995 



2020 



Region 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



Drought 



North Coast 
San Francisco Bay 
Central Coast 
South Coast 
Sacramento River 
San Joaquin River 
Tulare Lake 
North Lahontan 
South Lahontan 
Colorado River 
Total (rounded) 



1,410 

17 

20 

4 

3,397 

1,169 



85 

107 



6,210 



applied water budgets used in Bulletin 160-98 created 
a challenge in properly accounting for multiple 
instream flows witfiin a river basin. Bulletin 160-98 
used a simplified approach in which only the largest 
downstream flow requirement was included in the 
water budgets. This simplified approach undercounts 
applied instream flow requirements on streams having 
multiple requirements. The Department is develop- 
ing a new modeling approach for the next water plan 
update that will more accurately quantify applied 
instream flows. 

Since the determination of 1990-level instream 
flow values used as base conditions in Bulletin 160- 
93, subsequent agreements or decisions have increased 
or added instream flow requirements for the Trinity 
River, Mokelumne River, Stanislaus River, Tuolumne 
River, Owens River, Putah Creek, and Mono Lake 
tributaries. In addition, ten new waterways have been 
added to the Bulletin 160-98 instream flow water bud- 
gets — the Mad River, Eel River, Russian River, Truckee 
River, East Walker River, Nacimiento River, San 
Joaquin River (at Vernalis), Walker Creek, Lagunitas 
Creek, and Piru Creek. 

Table ES4-8 shows instream flows used in Bulle- 
tin 160-98 water budgets by hydrologic region. The 
drought year scenario shown in the tables represents 
the minimum annual required flow volume. For aver- 
age water years, the annual required flow volume is 
computed by combining the expected number of years 
in each year type (wet, above normal, normal, below 
normal, and/or dry, as specified in existing agreements 
or orders). 

Bay-Delta Outflow 

Environmental water use for Bay-Delta outflow is 



1,285 

9 

9 

4 

2,784 

712 



84 

81 



4,970 



1,410 

17 

20 

4 

3,397 

1.169 



85 

107 



6,210 



1,285 

9 

9 

4 

2,784 

712 



84 

81 



4,970 



computed by using operations studies to quantify 
SWRCB Order WR 95-6 requirements. Order WR 
95-6 established numerical objectives lot salinity, river 
flows, export limits, and Delta outflow. Operations 
studies were used to translate these numerical objec- 
tives into Delta outflow requirements for average and 
drought year scenarios. The studies computed outflow 
requirements of approximately 5.6 maf in average years 
and 4.0 maf in drought years. 

Wetlands 

The wetlands component of environmental water 
use is based on water use at freshwater managed wet- 
lands, such as federal national wildlife refuges and State 
wildlife management areas. In general, wetlands can 
be divided into saltwater and brackish water marshes 
(usually located in coastal areas) and freshwater wet- 
lands (generally located in inland areas). 

Five areas of California contain the largest remain- 
ing wetlands acreage in the State — the Central Valley, 
Humboldt Bay, San Francisco Bay, Suisun Marsh, and 
Klamath Basin. The majority of the State's wetland 
protection and restoration efforts are occurring in these 
areas. Nontidal wetlands usually depend on a supple- 
mental water supply, and protecting or restoring them 
may create demands for freshwater supplies. 

Bulletin 160-98 quantifies applied water needs 
only for managed wetlands, because other wetlands 
types such as vernal pools or coastal wetlands use 
naturally-occurring water supply (precipitation or 
tidal action). Managed wetlands are defined for the 
Bulletin as impounded fteshwater and nontidal 
brackish water wetlands. Managed wetlands may be 
State and federal wildlife areas or refuges, private 
wetland preserves owned by nonprofit organizations. 



WATER USE 



ES4-14 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



Region 



TABLE ES4-9 

Wetlands Water Use by Hydrologic Region (taf) 
1995 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



2020 



Drought 



North Coast 
San Francisco Bay 
Central Coast 
South Coast 
Sacramento River 
San Joaquin River 
Tulare Lake 
North Lahontan 
South Lahontan 
Colorado River 
Total (rounded) 



325 

160 



27 

632 

230 

50 

18 



39 

1,480 



325 

160 



27 

632 

230 

50 

18 



38 

1,480 



325 

160 



31 

632 

240 

53 

18 



44 

1,500 



325 

160 



31 

632 

240 

53 

18 



43 

1,500 



Region 



Table ES4- 10 
Applied Environmental Water Use by Hydrologic Region (taf) 

1995 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



2020 



Drought 



North Coast 
San Francisco Bay 
Central Coast 
South Coast 
Sacramento River 
San Joaquin River 
Tulare Lake 
North Lahontan 
South Lahontan 
Colorado River 
Total (rounded) 



19,544 

5,762 

118 

100 

5,833 

3,396 

1,672 

374 

107 

39 

36,940 



9,518 

4,294 

37 

82 

4,223 

1,904 

809 

256 

81 

38 

21,240 



19,545 

5,762 

118 

104 

5,839 

3,411 

1,676 

374 

107 

44 

36,980 



9,518 

4,294 

37 

86 

4,225 

1,919 

813 

256 

81 

43 

21,270 



private duck clubs, or privately owned agricultural 
lands flooded for cultural practices such as rice straw 
decomposition. Some of the largest concentrations 
of privately owned wetlands are the duck clubs in 
the Suisun Marsh and the flooded rice fields in the 
Sacramento Valley. (Acreage of rice fields flooded 
to enhance decomposition of stubble remaining af- 
ter harvest and to provide habitat for overwintering 
waterfowl was identified by Department land use 
surveys.) Table ES4-9 shows wetlands water de- 
mands by region. 

Summary of Environmental Water Use 



Table ES4-10 shows base 1995 and forecasted 
2020 environmental water use by hydrologic region. 
The large values in the North Coast Region illustrate 



the magnitude of demands for wild and scenic rivers 
in comparison to other environmental water demands. 

Water Use Summary by 
Hydrologic Region 

Tables ES4-1 1 and ES4-12 summarize California's 
average and drought year applied water use by hydro- 
logic region. The tables combine the urban, agricultural, 
and environmental water use described in this chapter. 
Also included are related minor uses such as convey- 
ance losses and self-supplied industrial and powerplant 
cooling water. These demands, together with the water 
supply information presented in Chapter ES3, are used 
to prepare the statewide water balance shown in Chap- 
ter ES5 and the regional water balances shown in 
Appendix ES5A. 



ES4-15 



WATER USE 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



JS 



o 
'So 
» 

K 
u 

M 

O 



X 
T 0) 

-J « 

CO ** 

< (B 

^ 5 



« 

w 
<s 

b 

> 

< 



IS 

o 



si 



hj 



1° 






fS I 



1= 



So 



o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


t^ 


oo 


(N 


00 


IN 


<N 


o 


so 


00 


r^ 


o 


VO 




^. 


o 


C\ 


00 


ON 


o^ 


ON 




\r\ 


O 


t-^ 


. — 


-6 


-^' 


o 


r4 






sr 


o 


'"I 




















as 


-<r 


(N 


00 


-<r 


ON 




so 


xr 


r^ 


^ 


o 


•^ 


vO 




o 


rri 


1 — 1 


r^ 


t--. 


o 


NT 


w 


\n- 


r-; 


^- 


^- 


00 


~*, 


sO_ 


f^ 


^- 




ON 


o 


vr> 






u-v 


f^' 


^ 








so 






















rr, 


r^ 


00 


1^ 


<N 


ON 


o 


"~i 


so 


r^ 


«-i 




rs 


C\ 


<N 


SO 


m 


u^ 


<N 


«-l 


u^ 


00 


Q 


CN 




— 


-sj- 


ON 


~^ 


— • 


ir\ 


rj 


l/^ 


lA 










K 


so' 


O 






^ 


rri 




r^ 


ON 


<7\ 


ON 


^ 


ON 


o 


ON 


o 


O 


o 




t^ 




m 


\r\ 


ON 


>yN 




•* 


(S 


<-^ 


rO 


r<^ 






ON 


o 




SO 


t^ 


O 


o 


O 


O 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 






O 


<N 


o 


o 




^ 


00 


h- 


ON 


so 


— 


\D 


<N 


vO_ 


o 


— 


ON. 


sO 


u^ 


-»• 


c' 


K 


— ' 


l/N 


^ 


T^ 


(V^, 






^ 


ON 


'^1 




















t^ 


^ 


(N 


oo 


O 


«-> 


so 


(N 


-* 


r-~ 


ON 


o 


^ 


\0 




O 


rO 


ON 


t-^ 


r^ 


o 


-^ 


•<t" 


m 


r-- 






00_ 


"7 


SO 


r<-i 






ON 
























2 


iri 






l/N 


n^ 


^— 








so 






















m 


^ 


00 


1-M 


NT 


u-> 


t^ 


so 


O 


(N 


00 


o 


CT' 


o 


GN 


oo 


SO 


f^I 


f<-l 


r^ 


rr-, 




« 


00 






r^ 


o 


O^ 


1^ 


VTN 


rr^, 




K 
































oo' 


t^ 


o 






^ 


rn 
m 


^ 


\r\ 


VO 


o 


so 


NT 


o 


ON 


00 


oo 


O 


o 


\r\ 


00 


~^ 


so 


t^ 


ON 


r<-, 


m 




|\ 






(N 




r^ 




so 




(N 


•<r 


00 




pa 
o 


w 




> 
5 


> 




ri 


n 
c 



-J 
3 

o 

CO 


> 


it 

-a 


J 

o 
2 


2 

c 

c 
to 


C 

U 


3 
O 
t/1 


o 
E 

CO 


C OJ 

o a 

'■ n 


O 
_C 

ri 
-> 

_c 

o 
Z 


2 

o 
-a 

5 

o 
U 


G 

a 

i 

f2 



(N 



c 
o 
'Sii 
« 

u 

M 

o 
o 






^1 

^2 I d 



til 



1= 



' 9) 

CO JS! 

u k 

-> 0) 

< m 



« 

>■ 



w 

3 
O 
k 

Q 



n 
O 



15 



^ 

^ 



o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


■^ 


r<~, 


u-\ 


00 


00 




■<r 


o 


so 


f^ 


VO 


r-^_ 


0O_ 


so. 




1^1 


so 


"^ 


ON 


ON 


"^ 


ON 


o 


y/^. 


— 


\0 


•<r" 


ON 


^— 






-^f 


l/N 






















VO 


oo 


■<r 


t^ 


so 


ITN 


ON 


r<N. 


so 




f^t 


o 




o> 


rr-. 


00 


IN 






m 


00 


^ 


K 


i/N 


<N 






IN 


ON 


00 


IN 






(S 




NT 






-T 












r) 




00 


f<-l 


xr 


(N 


Cs 


IN 


-^ 


K 


m 


o 




O 


IN 


00 


IN 




«~1 


ON 


^r^ 


oo 


(Tl 


o 


^- 


IN 


-<r 


00 


r^ 


yrs 


ir\ 


IN 


ir\ 


ffl 










co' 


sO 


ON 






rn 




IN 


00 




(N 


so 


O 


ON 




ON 


o 


o 




IN 


^ 




K-l 


l\ 


ON 


l/N 




^ 


VS 


(N 


■*. 


rO 


so 


IN 


ON 


o 




SO 


I\ 


'0 


O 


o 


O 


c 


O 


o 


c 


o 


o 


c 


o 


r^ 


sO 




00 






rn 


00 


l/^ 


(^ 


On 


sO 


r-^ 


SO 


•-; 


•— 


r-~' 


l/^ 


00 


so 


^, 


tv 


o 


u" 


^ 


>/- 


-^' 


o^' 


»— ' 






^ 


^ 






















SO 


00 


■^ 


t-^ 


IN 


rr\ 


NT 




so 




00 


o 




O. 


r^ 


00 


IN 


O 


o 


u^, 


00 


rr. 


^ 


l/^. 


(N 






IN 


ON 


00 


IN 






(N< 


on' 


-*' 






-^ 














rn 


00 


ON 


o 


-^ 


-^ 


so 


^ 


IN 


00 


o 


r-. 


o 


I^ 


IN 


\r\ 


-5r 


IN 


00 


IN^ 




•^ 


ON 




(N 


00 


o 


r~) 


o 


l/^ 


rr-j 


.— 


\r\ 












K 


o' 






xf 




r^ 


00 


xj- 


IN 


o 


rO 


o 


o 


00 


00 


o 


t^ 


l/N 


ON 


00 


«N 


00 


ON 


•<)• 


rri 








r'N 


IN 


MNi 

NT 


00 


ITN 


so 




IN 


NT 


o 

On 




CO 






> 


> 




» 


c^ 




^ 


o 


o 

CJ 

c 


1 


O 
U 


5 

o 
c 

E 
It 


2 


c 
o 

_c 

n 
-i 


C 
O 
-C 

J3 


> 

o 
-a 


u 

■o 
e 

§ 


-C 


lu 


r3 


_c 


o 




-C 


_C 


o 


H 


o 
Z 


C 
rt 
CO 


C 

u 


3 

o 

CO 


u 


c 
n 

CO 


~B 


o 
Z 


3 
O 


c3 


^ 



Water use 



ES4-16 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



ES4-17 Water USE 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 




Executive Summary 

Balancing Supply and Demand 



This chapter assesses California's water future, based on today's conditions 
and on options being considered by California's water purveyors. The 
Department's Bulletin 160 series does not forecast a particular vision tor the 
fiiture, but instead attempts to forecast the fiiture based on today's data, economic conditions, 
and public policies. 

Although no forecast of the future can be perfect, several key trends appear inevitable. 
California's population will increase dramatically by 2020. How growth is accommodated 
and the land use planning decisions made by cities and counties have important implications 
for fUture urban and agricultural water use. California's agricultural acreage is forecasted to 
decline slightly by 2020 (reflecting the State's increasing urbanization), as is its agricultural 

The 1848 water use. (California agriculture is still anticipated to lead the nation's 

discovery of gold at 

, „.„ , agricultural production because of advantages such as climate and proximity 
Sutter s Mill on the " ^ ° r / 

American River led to domestic and export markets.) As the State's population expands, greater 

to California's 
statehood in 1850 attention will be directed to preserving and restoring California ecosystems 

California celebrates ^^^ ^^ maintaining the natural resources which have attracted so many people 
its sesquicentennial 

in 2000. to California. 

Miners in the Sierra, 

Detail o/puinting by C/rarles Nahl 
andFrfderukWenderoth. 1851. 

Courtesy of Smithsonian Institution 



ES5'1 Balancing Supply and demand 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



This chapter begins by reviewing water supply and 
demand information and the statewide apphed water 
budget with existing flicilities and programs. Water 
management options identified as likely to be imple- 
mented are then tabulated and included in a statewide 
applied water budget with options. The chapter ends 
with an evaluation of how actions planned by water 
purveyors statewide would affect forecasted water 
shortages, and then summarizes key findings. 



Future with Existing Facilities and 
Programs 

Table ES5-1 shows the California water budget 
with existing facilities and programs. Regional water 
budgets with existing facilities and programs are shown 
in Appendix ES5A. 



Water Supply 



As described in Chapter ES3, average annual state- 
wide precipitation over California's land surface is about 
200 maf About 65 percent of this precipitation is con- 
sumed through evaporation and transpiration by 
California's forests, grasslands, and vegetation. The 
remaining 35 percent comprises the State's average 
annual intrastate runoff of about 71 maf. Over 30 per- 
cent of this runoff is not explicitly designated for urban, 
agricultural, or environmental uses. 

The State's 1995-level average water year applied 
water supply — from intrastate sources, interstate 
sources, and return flows — is about 78 ma£ Even as- 
suming a reduction in Colorado River supplies to 



California's 4.4 maf basic apportionment, average year 
statewide supply is projected to increase 0.2 maf by 
2020 without additional water supply options. This 
projected increase in water supply is due mainly to 
higher CVP and SWP deliveries in response to higher 
2020 level demands. Additional groundwater extrac- 
tion and facilities now under construction will also 
provide new supplies. The State's 1995-level drought 
year supply is about 60 maf Drought year supply is 
projected to increase slightly by 2020 without future 
water supply options, for the same reasons that aver- 
age year supplies are expected to increase. 

Bulletin 160-98 estimates statewide groundwater 
overdraft of about 1 .5 maf/yr at a 1995 level of devel- 
opment. Increasing overdraft in the 1 990s reverses the 
trend of basin recovery seen in the 1980s. Most in- 
creases are occurring in the San Joaquin and Tulare 
Lake regions, due primarily to Delta export restric- 
tions associated with the S'WRCB Order WR 95-6, 
ESA requirements, and reductions in CVP supplies. 

Water recycling is a small, yet growing, element of 
California's water supply. At a 1995 level of develop- 
ment, water recycling and desalting produce about 0.3 
maf/yr of new water (reclaimingwater that would oth- 
erwise flow to the ocean or to a salt sink), up 
significantly from the 1 990 annual supply of new wa- 
ter. The California Water Code urges wastewater 
treatment agencies located in coastal areas to recycle as 
much of their treated effluent as possible, recognizing 
that this water supply would otherwise be lost to the 
State's hydrologic system. Greater recycled water pro- 
duction at existing treatment plants and additional 
production at plants now under construction are ex- 



TARI.EES5-1 
California Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (maf) 



1995 



2020 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



Drought 



Water Use 




Urban 


8.8 


Agricultural 


33.8 


Environmental 


36.9 


Total 


79.5 


Supplies 




Surface Water 


65.1 


Groundwater 


12.5 


Recycled and Desalted 


0.3 


Total 


77.9 


Shortage 


1.6 



9.0 
34.5 
21.2 
64.7 

43.5 

15.8 

0.3 

59.6 

5.1 



12.0 
31.5 
37.0 
80.5 

65.0 

12.7 

0.4 

78.1 

2.4 



12.4 
32.3 
21.3 
66.0 

43.4 

16.0 

0.4 

59.8 

6.2 



Balancing Supply and demand 



ES5-2 



Tht California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



peered to increase new recycled and desalted supplies 
by nearly 30 percent to 0.4 maf/yr by 2020. 

Water Demand 

California's estimated demand for water at a 1 995 
level of development is about 80 maf in average years 
and 65 maf in drought years. California's water de- 
mand in 2020 is forecasted to reach 81 maf in average 
years and 66 mat in drought years. California's increas- 
ing population is a driving force behind increasing 
water demands. 

California's population is forecasted to increase to 
47.5 million people by 2020 (about 1 5 million people 
more than the 1995 base). Forty-six percent of the 
State's population increase is expected to occur in the 
South Coast Region. Even with extensive water con- 
servation, urban water demand will increase by about 
3.2 maf in average years. (Bulletin 160-98 assumes that 
all urban and agricultural water agencies will imple- 
ment BMPs and EWMPs by 2020, regardless of 
whether they are cost-effective for water supply pur- 
poses.) 

Irrigated crop acreage is expected to decline by 
325,000 acres — from the 1995 level ot9.5 million acres 
to a 2020 level of 9.2 million acres. Reductions in fore- 
casted irrigated acreage are due primarily to urban 
encroachment and to impaired drainage on lands in 
the western San Joaquin Valley. Increases in water use 
efficiency combined with reductions in irrigated acre- 
age are expected to reduce average year agricultural 
water demand by about 2.3 maf by 2020. Shifts from 
lower to higher value crops are expected to continue, 
with an increase in permanent plantings such as or- 
chards and vineyards. This trend would tend to harden 
agricultural demands associated with permanent 
plantings, making it less likely that this acreage would 
be temporarily fallowed during droughts. 

Average and drought year water needs for envi- 
ronmental use are forecasted to increase by about 0. 1 
maf by 2020. Drought year environmental water needs 
are considerably lower than average year environmen- 
tal water needs, reflecting the variability of unimpaired 
flows in wild and scenic rivers. North Coast wild and 
scenic rivers constitute the greatest component of en- 
vironmental water demands. CVPIA implementation, 
Bay-Delta requirements, new ESA restrictions, and 
FERC relicensing could significantly modify environ- 
mental demands within the Bulletin 160-98 planning 
period. 



Water Shortages 



The shortage shown in Table ES5-1 for 1995 av- 
erage water year conditions reflects the Bulletin's 
assumption that groundwater overdraft is not avail- 
able as a supply. Forecasted water shortages vary widely 
from region to region, as presented in Figure ES5-1. 
For example, the North Coast and San Francisco Bay 
Regions are not expected to experience future short- 
ages during average water years but are expected to see 
shortages in drought years. Most of the State's remain- 
ing regions experience average year and drought year 
shortages now, and are forecasted to experience in- 
creased shortages in 2020. The largest future shortages 
are forecasted for the Tulare Lake and South Coast 
Regions, areas that rely heavily on imported water sup- 
plies. These regions of the State are also where some of 
the greatest increases in population are expected to 
occur. 

The shortages shown in Figure ES5-1 highlight 
the need for future water management actions to re- 
duce the gap between forecasted supplies and demands. 
As Californians experienced during the most recent 
drought (especially in 1991 and 1992), drought year 
shortages are large. Urban residents faced cutbacks in 
supply and mandatory rationing, some small rural com- 
munities saw their wells go dry, agricultural lands were 
fallowed, and environmental water supplies were re- 
duced. By 2020, without additional facilities and 
programs, these conditions will worsen. 

Future water shortages have direct and indirect 
economic consequences. Direct consequences include 
costs to residential water users to replace landscaping 
lost during droughts, costs to businesses that experi- 
ence water supply cutbacks, or costs to growers who 
fallow land because supplies are not available. Indirect 
consequences include decisions by businesses and grow- 
ers not to locate or to expand their operations in 
California, and reductions in the value of agricultural 
lands. Other consequences of shortages are less easily 
measured in economic terms — loss of recreational ac- 
tivities or impacts to environmental resources, for 
example. 

The Bulletin 160-98 Planning Process 

At an appraisal level of detail, the Bulletin draws 
upon integrated resources planning techniques to 
evaluate alternatives for meeting California's future 
water needs. IRP evaluates water management op- 
tions — both demand reduction options and supply 



ES5-3 



Balancing supply and Demand 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETtN 160-98 



FIGURE ES5-1 

2020 Shortages by Hydrologic Region with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf) 




Balancing Supply and demand 



ES5-4 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



augmentation options — against a fixed set of criteria 
and ranks the options based on costs and other fac- 
tors. Ahhough the IRP process inchides economic 
evaluations, it also incorporates environmental, insti- 
tutional, and social considerations which cannot be 
expressed easily in monetary terms. 

The development of likely regional water man- 
agement options uses information prepared by local 
agencies. The regional water management options 
evaluations are not intended to replace local planning 
efforts, but to complement them by showing the rela- 
tionships among regional water supplies and water 
needs and the statewide perspective. Local water man- 
agement options form the basis of the regional 
summaries which are combined into the statewide 
options evaluation. 

Major Steps in Planning Process 

The major steps involved in the Bulletin 160-98 
water management options evaluation process in- 
cluded: 

• Identify water demands and existing water supplies 
on a regional basis. 

• Compile comprehensive lists ol regional and 
statewide water management options. 

• Use initial evaluation criteria to either retain or 
defer options from further evaluation. For options 
retained lor further evaluation, some were grouped 
by categories and others were evaluated 
individually. 

• Identify characteristics of options or option 
categories, including costs, potential demand 
reduction or supply augmentation, environmental 



considerations, and significant institutional issues. 

• Evaluate each regional option or category of 
options in light of identified regional characteristics 
using criteria established lor this Bulletin. It local 
agencies have performed their own evaluation, 
review and compare their evaluation criteria with 
those used for the Bulletin. 

• Evaluate statewide water management options. 

• Develop tabulation of likely regional water 
management options. 

• Develop a statewide options evaluation by 
integrating the regional results. 

The first step in evaluating the regional water 
management options was to prepare applied water 
budgets for the study areas to identify the magnitude 
of potential water shortages for average and drought 
year conditions. In addition to identifying shortages, 
other water supply reliability issues in the region were 
identified. Once the shortages were identified, a list of 
local water management options was prepared. Where 
possible, basic characteristics of these options (e.g., 
yields, cost data, significant environmental or institu- 
tional concerns) were identified. 

After the options were identified, they were com- 
pared with the initial screening criteria shown in the 
sidebar. For options deferred from further evaluation, 
the major reasons for deferral were given. Options re- 
tained for further evaluation were categorized (some 
options within each category were further combined 
into groups based upon their estimated costs) and were 
evaluated and scored against the set of fixed criteria 
shown in the options category evaluation sidebar. 

The Bulletin 160-98 options evaluation process 
relied heavily upon locally developed information. 



Initial Screening Criteria 

1 he criteria used for initial screening of water 

management options were: 

• Engineering — an option was deferred from further 
evaluation if it was heavily dependent on the 
development of technologies not currently in use, it used 
inappropriate technologies given the regional 
characteristics (e.g., desalting in the North Lahontan 
Region), or it did not provide new water (e.g., water 
recycling in the Central Valley). 

• Economic — an option was deferred from further 
evaluation if its cost estimates (including environmental 
mitigation costs) were extraordinarily high given the 
region's characteristics. 



Environmental — an option was deterred from further 
evaluation if it had potentially significant unmitigable 
environmental impacts or involved use of waterways 
designated as wild and scenic. 

Institutional/Legal — an option was deferred from 
further evaluation if it had potentially unresolvable water 
rights conflicts or conflicts with existing statutes. 
Social/Third Parry — an option was deferred from further 
evaluation if it had extraordinary socioeconomic impacts, 
either in the water source or water use areas. 
Health — an option was deferred from further evaluation 
if it would violate current health regulations or would 
pose significant health threats. 



ES5-5 



Balancing Supply and demand 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



Evaluation 
Criteria 



Options Category Evaluation 

What is Measured? Hotv is it Measured? 



Score 



Engineering 


Engineering feasibility 
Operational flexibility 


Increase score for greater reliance upon current 

technologies 

Increase score for operational flexibility with 

existing facilities and/or other options 






Drought year supply 


Increase score for greater drought year yield/ 
reliability 






Implementation date 


Increase score for earlier implementation date 




Engineering Score 


Water quality limitations 


Increase score for fewer water quality constraints 


0-4 



Economics 

Economics Score 
Environmental 



Ptoject financial feasibility 
Project unit cost 

Environmental risk 

Irreversible commitment of resources 

Collective impacts 
Proximity to environmentally 
sensitive resources 
Environmental Score 

Institutional/Legal Permitting requirements 

Adverse institutional/legal effects upon 

water source areas 

Adverse institutional/legal effects upon 

water use areas 

Stakeholder consensus 

Institutional/Legal Score 

Social/Third Party Adverse third party effects upon 
water source areas 
Adverse third party effects upon 
water use areas 
Adverse social and community effects 

Social/Third Party Score 

Other Benefits Ability to provide benefits in addition 

to watet supply 



Other Benefits Score 
Total Score 



Increase score for lower overall costs and the 
ability to finance 

Increase score for lower overall unit cost 
(including mitigation costs) 

Increase score for least amount of environmental 

risk 

Increase score for least amount of irreversible 

commitment of resources 

Increase score for least amount of collective impacts 

Increase score for little or no proximity to 

sensitive resources 



Increase score for least amount of permitting 

requirements 

Increase score for least amount of adverse 

institutional/legal effects 

Increase score for least amount of adverse 

institutional/legal effects 

Increase score for greater amount of stakeholder 

consensus 



Increase score for least amount of adverse third 

party effects 

Increase score for least amount of advetse third 

party effects 

Increase score for least amount of adverse social 

and community effects 

Increase score for environmental benefits 

Increase score for flood control benefits 
Increase score for recreation benefits 
Increase score for energy benefits 
Increase score for additional benefits 
Increase score for improved compliance with 
health and safety regulations 



0-4 



0-4 



0-4 



0-4 



0-4 
0-24 



Balancing Supply and Demand 



ES5-6 



The California Water I'lan Update V,\.n\\\\>i 160-98 



Methods used to develop this information vary from 
one local agency to the next, thus making direct com- 
parisons between cost estimates difficult. To make cost 
information comparable, a common approach for es- 
timating unit cost (cost per acre-foot) was developed 
for this Bulletin. Where project information was readily 
available, costs were normalized using this approach. 
However, due to time constraints and lack of detailed 
information, not all option costs were normalized. 
Option unit cost estimates took into account capital 
costs associated with construction and implementa- 
tion, including any needed conveyance facilities, and 
annual operations, maintenance, and replacement 
costs. 

Water management options can serve purposes 
other than water supply; they can also provide flood 
control, hydroelectric power generation, environmen- 
tal enhancement, water quality enhancement, and 
recreation. In recognition of the multipurpose ben- 
efits provided by some water management options, the 
options evaluation scoring process assigned a high value 
to multipurpose options, as shown in the sidebar. 
However, since the focus of the Bulletin 160 series is 
water supply, cost estimates were based solely on the 
costs associated with water supply. 

Once options had been evaluated and scored, they 
were ranked according to their scores. This ranking 
was used to prepare a tabulation of likely regional wa- 
ter management options, taking into account options 
that might be mutually exclusive or could be optimized 
if implemented in conjunction with other options. De- 
pending on a region's characteristics, its potential 
options, and its ability to pay for new options, the tabu- 
lation of likely options might not meet all of a region's 
water shortages (especially in drought years). In regions 
where options do not meet all shortages, the economic 
costs of accepting shortages would be less than the costs 
of acquiring additional water supplies through the 
options identified in this Bulletin. 

This appraisal-level evaluation of options at a state- 
wide level of detail is based on the information presently 
available. The ultimate implementability of any water 
management option is dependent on factors such as 
the sponsoring entity's ability to complete the appro- 
priate environmental documentation, obtain the 
necessary permits, and finance the proposed action. 

Shortage Management 

Water agencies may choose to accept less than 1 00 
percent water supply reliability, especially under 



drought conditions, depending on the characteristics 
of their service areas. Shortage contingency measures, 
such as restrictions on residential outdoor watering or 
deficit irrigation for agricultural crops, can be used to 
help respond to temporary shortages. However, de- 
mand hardening is an important consideration in 
evaluating shortage contingency measures. Implement- 
ing water conservation measures such as plumbing 
retrofits and low water use landscaping reduces the abil- 
ity of water users to achieve future drought year water 
savings through shortage contingency measures. 

The impacts of allowing planned shortages to oc- 
cur in water agency service areas are necessarily 
site-specific, and must be evaluated by each agency on 
an individual basis. In urban areas where conservation 
measures have already been put into place to reduce 
landscape water use, imposing rationing or other re- 
strictions on landscape water use can create significant 
impacts to homeowners, landscaping businesses, and 
entities that manage large turf areas such as parks and 
golf courses. Drought year cutbacks in the agricultural 
sector create economic impacts not only to individual 
growers and their employees, but also to local busi- 
nesses that provide goods and services to the growers. 

Using Applied Water Budgets to Calculate 
New Water Needs 

Some municipal wastewater discharges, agricul- 
tural return flows, and required environmental instream 
flows are reapplied several times before finally being 
depleted from the State's hydrologic system. An ap- 
plied water budget explicitly accounts for this 
unplanned reuse of water. Because reapplication has 
the potential to account for a substantial portion of a 
region's water supply, applied water budgets may over- 
state the supply of water actually needed to meet future 
water demands. Therefore, shortages calculated from 
an applied water budget must be interpreted with cau- 
tion to determine new water needs for a region. 

The amount of new water required to meet a 
region's future needs depends on several factors, in- 
cluding the region's applied water shortage, 
opportunities to reapply water in the region, and the 
types of water management options that are imple- 
mented in the region. If no water reapplication 
opportunities exist, then the region's new water need 
is equivalent to its applied water shortage. In this ex- 
treme case, the new water need would be independent 
of the types of water management options that are 
implemented. However, if opportunities are available 



£55-7 



Balancing Supply and Demand 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



to reapply water in a region, then the region's new water 
need is less than its applied water shortage. In this case, 
the new water need depends on the types of water man- 
agement options that are implemented. 

Not all water management options are created 
equal in their ability to meet new water needs. Be- 
cause supply augmentation options provide new water 
to a region, the opportunity exists tor the options' ef- 
fectiveness to be multiplied through reapplication. For 
example, a supply augmentation option may provide 
100 tat ot new water to a region. But through reappli- 
cation within the region, the option effectively meets 
applied water demands in excess of 100 taf Demand 
reduction options, on the other hand, do not provide 
new water to a region. Hence, the opportunity does 
not exist to multiply the options' effectiveness through 
reapplication. To satisfy an applied water shortage ot 
100 taf a demand reduction option must conserve 100 
taf of water. 

Based on the above discussion, calculation of re- 
gional and statewide new water needs is more complex 
than computing regional and statewide applied water 
shortages — new water needs also depend on reappli- 
cation and implemented water management options. 
An applied water shortage provides an upper bound 
on the new water need. A lower bound on the new 
water need can be estimated for each region by assum- 
ing that new water supplies are reapplied in the same 
proportion that existing supplies are reapplied. 

The tabulations of likely regional water manage- 
ment options utilize minimum new water needs (rather 
than applied water shortages) as target values for se- 
lecting the appropriate number of regional options. It 
a region is unable to meet minimum new water needs 
as a result of regional characteristics, lack of potential 
options, or inability to pay for potential options, speci- 
fying minimum new water needs rather than applied 
water shortages as regional target values has no impact 
on options selection. On the other hand, if a region is 
able to meet its minimum new water needs, this does 
not necessarily guarantee that all applied water short- 
ages would be met. The remaining applied water 
shortages would depend on the selected option mix — 
the more water conservation selected, the greater the 
remaining applied water shortages would be (as water 
conservation options do not provide reapplication 
opportunities.) This approach is consistent with Bul- 
letin 160-93, which used net water shortages as target 
values for selecting regional options. Because data in 
net water budgets factor out reapplied water, net wa- 



ter shortages are essentially the same as minimum new 
water needs. 

Summary of Options Likely to be 
Implemented 

The options summarized in this section represent 
water purveyors' strategies for meeting future needs. 
This information relies heavily on actions identified 
by local water agencies, which collectively provide 
about 70 percent of the State's developed water sup- 
ply. As described earlier, water management options 
likely to be implemented were selected based on a rank- 
ing process that evaluated factors such as technical 
feasibility, cost, and environmental considerations. This 
process is most effective in hydrologic regions where 
local agencies have prepared plans for meeting future 
needs in their service areas. Affordability is a key fac- 
tor for local agencies in deciding the extent to which 
they wish to invest in alternatives to improve their water 
service reliability. Water agencies must balance costs 
and quantity of supply (and sometimes qualirv' of sup- 
ply) based on their service area needs. 

The Bulletin 160 series focuses on water supply. 
The statewide compilation of likely options has not 
been tailored to meet other water-related objectives 
such as flood control, hydropower generation, recre- 
ation, or nonpoint source pollution control. The 
evaluation process used to select likely options rated 
the options based on their abilit}' to provide multiple 
benefits, as described in the previous section. 

Options shown in Table ES5-2 include demand 
reduction beyond BMP and EWMP implementation 
included in Table ES5-1. Future demand reduction 
options are options that would produce new water 
supply through reduction ot depletions. For these op- 
tional water conservation measures to have been 
identified as likely, they must be competitive in cost 
with water supply augmentation options. 

Local supply augmentation options comprise the 
largest potential new source of drought year water for 
California. (Local options include implementation of 
the draft CRB 4.4 Plan to reduce California's use of 
Colorado River water.) In Table ES5-2 and in the wa- 
ter budgets, only water marketing options that result 
in a change of place of use of the water (from one hy- 
drologic region to another), or a change in t)'pe of use 
(e.g., agricultural to urban) have been included. Con- 
siderably more marketing options are described in the 
Bulletin than are shown in the water budgets, reflect- 
ing local agencies' plans to purchase future supplies 



BALANCINt: SUI'I'LY AND DEMAND 



ES5-8 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



TAR[ F F.SS-2 
Summary of Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, by Option Type (taf) 



Option Type 



Average 



Drought 



Local Demand Reduction Options 

Local Supply Augmentation Options 

Surhce Water 
Groundwater 
Water Marketing 
Recycled and Desalted 

Statewide Supply Options 

CALFF.D Bay-Delta Program 

SWP Improvements 

Water Marketing (Drought Water Bank) 

Multipurpose Reservoir Projects 

Expected Reapplication 

Total Options 



507 

110 

24 

67 

423 

100 
117 

710 

141 

2,199 



582 

297 
539 
304 
456 

175 
155 
250 
370 

433 

3,561 



from sources yet to be identified. Where the partici- 
pants in a proposed transfer are known, the seUing 
region's average year or drought year supply has been 
reduced in the water budgets. Presently, the only trans- 
fers with identified participants that are large enough 
to be visible in the water budgets are those associated 
with the draft CRB 4.4 Plan. Water agencies' plans to 
acquire water through marketing arrangements will 
depend on their ability to find sellers and on the level 
of competition for water purchases among water agen- 
cies and environmental restoration programs (such as 
CVPlA's AFRP or CALFED's ERP). 

Possible statewide options include actions that 
could be taken by CALFED to develop new water sup- 
plies. The timing and extent of new water supplies that 
CALFED might provide are uncertain at the time of 
the Bulletin's printing, since CALFED has not identi- 
fied a drah preferred alternative and a firm schedule 
for its implementation. CALFED's current schedule 
calls for a first phase of program implementation span- 
ning seven to ten years, at the end of which time a 
final decision would be made about the extent of any 
storage and conveyance facilities that might be con- 
structed. Given the long lead time required for 
implementing large storage projects, no CALFED fa- 
cilities may be in service within the Bulletin's 2020 
planning horizon. 

Bulletin 160-98 uses a placeholder analysis for new 
CALFED water supply development to illustrate the 
potential magnitude of new water supply the program 
might provide. The placeholder does not address spe- 



cifics of which surface storage facilities might be se- 
lected, since this level of detail is not available. 

Other statewide options include specific projects 
to improve SWP water supply reliability, the State's 
drought water bank, and two multipurpose reservoirs. 
A third potential multipurpose reservoir option, an 
enlarged Shasta Lake, was recommended for further 
study because additional work is needed to quantify 
benefits and costs associated with different reservoir 
sizes. 

The two multipurpose reservoir projects included 
as statewide options — Auburn Reservoir and enlarged 
Millerton Lake — were included to emphasize the in- 
terrelationship between water supply needs and the 
Central Valley's flood protection needs. Each reservoir 
would offer significant flood protection benefits. Both 
projects have controversial aspects, and neither of them 
is inexpensive. However, they merit serious consider- 
ation. 

The potential future water management options 
summarized in this section are still being planned. Their 
implementation is subject to completion of environ- 
mental documents, permit acquisition, and compliance 
with regulatory requirements such as those of ESA. 
These processes will address mitigating environmen- 
tal impacts and resolving third-party impacts. If water 
management options are delayed or rendered infea- 
sible as a result of these processes, or if their costs are 
increased to the point that the options are no longer 
affordable for the local sponsors, statewide shortages 
will be correspondingly affected. 



ES5-9 



Balancing supply and demand 



The California Water Plan Update BUl.l.ETtN 160-98 



Flood/lows on the 

Americtiii River in 

1986 breached the 

cofferdtiin ihiil USBR 

had constructed 

when it began its 

initial work at the 

Aiibnrn damsite. 

This flood event 

produced record 

flows in the American 

River through 

metropolitan 

Sacramento. 




Implementing Future Water 
Management Options 

Fable ES5-3 was developed by combining the re- 
gional and statewide analyses of water management 
options with the water budget with existing facilities 
and programs (Table ES5-1). Table ES5-3 illustrates 
the effect these options would have on forecasted fu- 
ture shortages. (Appendix ES5B shows regional water 
budgets with option implementation.) The table indi- 
cates that water management options now under 
consideration by water purveyors throughout the State 
will not reduce shortages to zero in 2020. The differ- 
ence between average water year and drought year water 
shortages is significant. Water purveyors generally con- 
sider shortages in average years as basic deficiencies 
that should be corrected through long-term demand 
reduction or supply augmentation measures. Shortages 
in drought years may be managed by such long-term 
measures in combination with short-term actions used 
only during droughts. Short-term measures could in- 
clude purchases from the States drought water bank, 
urban water rationing, or agricultural land fallowing. 
Agencies may evaluate the marginal costs of develop- 
ing new supplies and conclude that the cost of their 
development exceeds that of shortages to their service 
areas, or exceeds the cost of implementing contingency 
measures such as transfers or rationing. As water agen- 
cies implement increasing amounts of water 
conservation in the future (especially plumbing fix- 
ture changes), there will be a correspondingly lessened 



abilit)' to implement short-term drought response ac- 
tions such as rationing. Demand hardening will 
influence agencies' decisions about their future mix of 
water management actions. 

Ability to pay is another consideration. Large ur- 
ban water agencies frec]iiently set high water service 
reliability goals and are able to finance actions neces- 
sary to meet the goals. Agencies supplying small rural 
communities may not be able to afford expensive 
projects. Small communities have limited populations 
over which to spread capital costs and may have diffi- 
culty obtaining financing. If local groundwater 
resources are inadequate to support expected growth, 
these communities may not be able to afford projects 
such as pipelines to bring in new surface water sup- 
plies. Small rural communities that are geographically 
isolated from population centers cannot readily inter- 
connect with other water systems. 

Agricultural water agencies may be less able to pay 
for capital improvements than urban water agencies. 
Much of the State's earliest large-scale water develop- 
ment was for agriculture, and irrigation works were 
constructed at a time when water development was 
inexpensive by present standards. Agricultural users 
today may not be able to compete with urban users 
for development of new supplies. Some agricultmal 
water users have historically been willing to accept 
lower water supply reliability in return for less expen- 
sive water supplies. It may be less expensive for some 
agricultural users to idle land in drought years rather 



BAIj^NCING SlM'I'IY AND DHMAND 



ES5-10 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



TABI I- F,S5-3 
California Water Budget with Options Likely to be Implemented (mat) 



1995 



Average 



Drought 



2020 



Average 



Drought 



Water Use 




Urban 


8.8 


Agricultural 


33.8 


Environmental 


36.9 


Total 


79.5 


Supplies 




Surface Water 


65.1 


Groundwater 


12.5 


Recycled and Desalted 


0.3 


Total 


77.9 


Shortage 


1.6 



9.0 

.34.5 
21.2 
64.7 

43.5 

15.8 

0.3 

59.6 

5.1 



11.8 
31.3 
3^.0 
80.1 

66.4 
12.7 

0.8 
79.9 

0.2 



12.1 
32.1 
21.3 
65.5 

45.4 

16.5 

0.9 

62.8 

2.7 



than to incur capital costs of new water supply devel- 
opment. This can be particularly true for regions faced 
with production constraints such as short growing sea- 
sons or lower quality lands — areas where the dominant 
water use may be irrigated pasture. In areas such as the 
North Lahontan Region, tor example, local agencies 
generally do not have plans for new programs or fa- 
cilities to reduce agricultural water shortages in drought 
vears. Figure ES5-2 shows forecasted shortages by hy- 
drologic region to illustrate the etlects of option 
implementation on a regional basis. 

Local agencies that expect to have increased fu- 
ture demands generally do more water supply planning 
than do agencies whose demands remain relatively level. 
Most agricultural water agencies are not planning for 
greater futute demands, although some agencies are 
examining ways to improve reliability' of their existing 
supplies. Cost considerations limit the types of options 
available to many agricultural users. The agricultural 
sector has thus developed fewer options that could be 
evaluated in statewide water supply planning. Many 
options have been generated from planning performed 
by urban agencies, reflecting Urban Water Manage- 
ment Planning Act requirements that urban water 
suppliers with 3,000 or more connections, or that de- 
liver over 3 taf/yr, prepare plans showing how the}- will 
meet service area needs. 

Geography plays a role in the feasibility of imple- 
menting different types of options, and not solely with 
respect to the availability of surface water and ground- 
water supplies. Water users in the Central Valley, Bay 
Area, and Southern California having access to major 
regional conveyance facilities have greater opportuni- 
ties to rely on water marketing arrangements and 



conjunctive use options than do water users isolated 
from the State's main water infrastructure. 

Bulletin 160-98 Findings 

Bulletin 160-98 forecasts water shortages in Cali- 
fornia by 2020, as did the previous water plan update. 
The water management options identified in the Bul- 
letin as likely to be implemented by 2020 would reduce, 
but not completely eliminate future shortages. Water 
agencies faced with meeting future needs must detet- 
mine how those needs can be met within the statutory 
and regulatory framework affecting water use decisions, 
including how the needs can be met in a manner equi- 
table to existing water users. Land use planning 
decisions made by cities and counties — locations where 




Options identified as likely are still in the planning stages. 
Agencies implementing the options must complete 
environmental documentation and obtain the necessary 
permits. The permitting and environmental documentation 
process must consider impacts to listed species such as this 
San Joaquin Valley kit fox. 



ESS- 1 1 



Baij\ncinc Supply and Denund 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



FIGURE ES5-2 

2020 Shortages by Hydrologic Region with Likely Options (taf) 




Balancing Supply and dlmand 



ES5-12 



The California Water Plan Update BULLhllN 160-98 



future growth will or will not be allowed, liousing den- 
sities, preservation goals for open space or agricultural 
reserves — will have a significant influence on 
California's future water demands. Good coordination 
among local land use planning agencies and water agen- 
cies, as well as among water agencies themselves at a 
regional level, will facilitate finding solutions to meet- 
ing kiture needs. 

Bulletin 160-98 makes no specific recommenda- 
tions regarding how California water purveyors should 
meet the needs of their service areas, because it is the 
water purveyors who are responsible for meeting those 
needs. The purpose of Bulletin 160-98 is to predict 
future water needs based on today's conditions. Clearly, 
different agencies and individuals have different per- 
spectives about how the future should be shaped. The 
CALFED discussions, for example, illustrate conflict- 
ing values among individuals and agencies. 

There is not one magic bullet for meeting 
California's future 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 res- 
ervoirs and diverting surface water. Advances in 
technology, in the form of deep well turbine pumps, 
subsequently allowed substantial groundwater devel- 
opment. More recent improvements in water treatment 
technology have made water recycling and desalting 
feasible options. Today, water purveyors have an array 
of water management options available to meet future 
water supply reliability needs. The magnitude of po- 
tential 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 Californians in 2020. 

California water agencies have made great strides 
in water conservation since the 1976-77 drought. Bul- 
letin 160-98 forecasts substantial demand reduction 
from implementing presently identified urban BMPs 
and agricultural EWMPs, and assumes a more rigor- 
ous level of implementation than water agencies are 
now obligated to perform. Presently, about half of 
California's urban population is served by retailers that 
have signed the urban memorandum of understand- 
ing for water conservation measures. Less than 
one-third of California's agricultural lands are served 



by agencies that have signed the corresponding agri- 
cultural MOU. Bulletin 160-98 assumes that all water 
purveyors statewide will implement BMPs and 
EWMPs by 2020, even if the actions are not cost-ef- 
fective from a water supply perspective. Water 
conservation offers multipurpose benefits such as re- 
duced urban water treatment costs and potential 
reduction of fish entrainment at diversion structures. 
The Bulletin also identifies as likely additional demand 
reduction measures that would create new water and 
would be cost-competitive with supply augmentation 
options. These optional demand reductions are almost 
as large as the average year water supply augmentation 
options planned by local agencies. 

California water agencies have also made great 
strides in water recycling. As discussed earlier, the new 
water supply produced from recycling has almost 
doubled between 1990 and 1995. By 2020, recycling 
could potentially contribute almost 1.4 maf of total 
water to the State's supplies, which would exceed the 
goal expressed in Section 13577 of the Water Code 
that total recycling statewide be 1 maf by 2010. { Ihe 
potential 2020 recycling of 1.4 maf would represent 
about 2 percent of the State's 2020 water supply.) Water 
recycling offers multipurpose benefits, such as reduc- 
tion of treatment plant discharges to waterbodies. Cost 
is a limiting factor in implementing recycling projects. 
Bulletin 160-98 forecasts that projects implemented 
by local agencies by 2020 will increase the State's new 
water supply from recycling to about 0.8 maf 

Clearly, conservation and recycling alone are not 
sufficient to meet California's future needs. Bulletin 
160-98 has included all of the conservation and recy- 
cling measures likely to be implemented by 2020. 
Adding supply augmentation options identified by 
California's water purveyors still leaves a shortfall in 
meeting forecasted future demands. Review of local 
agencies' likely supply augmentation options shows that 
relatively few larger-scale or regional programs are in 
active planning, especially among small and mid-size 
water agencies. This outcome reflects local agencies' 
concerns about perceived implementabiliry constraints 
associated with larger-scale options, and their 
affordabiliry. 

In the interests of maintaining California's vibrant 
economy, it is important that the State take an active 
role in assisting water agencies in meeting their future 
needs. New storage facilities are an important part of 
the mix of options needed to meet California's future 
needs. Just as water conservation and recycling pro- 



ESU3 



Bawncing supply and Demand 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



\idc multiple benefits, storage hicilities ofk-r flood con- 
trol, power generation, and recreation in addition to 
water supply benefits. The devastating January 1997 
floods in the Central Valley emphasized the need for 
increased attention to flood control. It is important 
for small and mid-size water agencies who could not 
develop such facilities on their own to have access to 
participation in regional projects. The more diversi- 
fied water agencies' sources ol supply are, the better 
their odds of improved water supply reliability. 

An appropriate State role would be tor the De- 
partment to take the lead in performing feasibility 
studies of potential storage projects — not on behalf of 
the SWP, but on behalf of all potentially interested 
water agencies. State funding support is needed to iden- 
tify likely projects, so that local agencies may determine 
how those projects might benefit their service areas. 
In concept, the Department could use State funding 
to complete project feasibility studies, permitting, and 
environmental documentation for likely new storage 
facilities, removing uncertainties that would prevent 
smaller water agencies from funding planning studies 
themselves. Agencies wishing to participate in projects 
shown to be feasible would repay their share of the 
State planning costs as a condition of participation in 
a project. Feasible projects would likely be constructed 



by a consortium ol local agencies acting through a joint 
powers agreement or other contractual mechanism. 

Meeting California's future needs will require co- 
operation among all levels of government — lederal. 
State, and local. Likewise, all three of California's wa- 
ter-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 in 1994, 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 agen- 
cies to negotiate a resolution to interstate and intrastate 
Colorado River water issues, represent a new spirit of 
fostering cooperation and consensus rather than com- 
petition 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 of fish and 
wildlife habitat. 



Balancinc Supply and Demand 



ES5-14 



The California Water Plan Update BULlf.TIN 160-98 



Appendix 5A 
Executive Summary 



Regional Water Budgets 
with Existing Facilities and Programs 



The following tables show the water budgets for each of the State's ten hydrologic regions 
with existing facilities and programs. Water use/supply totals and shortages may not sum 
due to rounding. 



ES5A-! 



Appendix ES5A I 



Appendix 5A 
Executive Summary 



The Cilijuriini Wuter I'lan Update BULLEIIN 160-98 



North Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf) 



1995 



2020 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



Drought 



Water Use 

Urban 169 

Agriciiltur.il 894 

Environmental 19,544 

Total 20,607 
Supplies 

Surtacc Water 20,331 

Grtjuntlwater 263 

Recycled ix\A Desalted 1 3 

Total 20,607 

Shortage 



177 

973 

9.S18 

10,668 

10,183 

294 

14 

10,491 

177 



201 

927 

19,545 

20,672 

20,371 

288 

13 

20,672 





212 

1,011 

9,518 

10,740 

10,212 

321 

14 

10,546 

194 



Table ES5A-2 
San Francisco Bay Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf) 



1995 



2020 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



Drought 



"^flM^T Use 




Urban 


1,255 


Agricultural 


98 


Environmental 


5,762 


Total 


7,115 


Supplies 




Surlace Water 


7,011 


Groundwater 


68 


Recycled and Desalted 


35 


Total 


7,115 


Shortage 






1,358 

108 

4,294 

5,760 

5,285 
92 
35 

5,412 

349 



1 ,3 1 7 

98 

5,762 

7,176 

7,067 
72 
37 

7,176 





1,428 

108 

4,294 

5,830 

5,417 
89 
37 

5,543 

287 



Tabi E E.S5A-3 
Central Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf) 



1995 



2020 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



Drought 



Water Use 




Urban 


286 


Agricultural 


1,192 


Environmental 


118 


Total 


1,595 


Supplies 




Surface Water 


318 


Groundwater 


1,045 


Recycled and Desalted 


18 


Total 


1,381 


Shortage 


214 



294 

1,279 

37 

1,610 

160 

1,142 

26 

1,328 

282 



379 
1,127 

118 
1,624 

368 

1,041 

42 

1,452 

172 



391 

1 ,223 

37 

1,652 

180 

1,159 

42 

1,381 

270 



I Afl'FNDlx ES5A 



ES5A-2 



The California Water Plan Update BULIU IN 160-98 



Appendix 5A 
Executive Summary 



Taki k ESSA-4 
South Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf) 



1995 



Average 



Water Use 




Urban 


4,340 


Agricultural 


784 


Environmciual 


100 


Total 


5,224 


Supplies 




Surface Water 


3.839 


Groundwater 


1,177 


Recycled and Desalted 


207 


Total 


5,224 


Sliortaee 






Drought 



4,382 

820 

82 

5,283 

3,196 
1,371 

207 
4,775 

508 



Average 



5,519 
462 
104 

6,084 

3,625 

1,243 

273 

5,141 

944 



2020 



Drought 



5,612 

484 

86 

6,181 

3,130 

1,462 

273 

4,865 

1,317 



TABLE ES5A-5 
Sacramento River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf) 



1995 



2020 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



Drought 



Water Use 

Urban 
Agricultural 
Environmental 
Total 

Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled and Desalted 
Total 

Shortage 



766 

8,065 

5,833 

14,664 

11,881 

2,672 



14,553 

111 



830 

9,054 

4,223 

14,106 

10,022 

3,218 



13,239 

867 



1,139 

7,939 

5,839 

14,917 

12,196 

2,636 



14,832 

85 



1,236 

8,822 

4,225 

14,282 

10,012 

3,281 



13,293 

989 



TARI F ES5A-6 
San Joaquin River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf) 



1995 



rage 



Drought 



Average 



2020 



Drought 



Water Use 




Urban 


574 


Agricultural 


7,027 


Environmental 


3,396 


Total 


10,996 


Supplies 




Surface Water 


8,562 


Groundwater 


2,195 


Recycled and Desalted 





Total 


10,757 


Shortage 


239 



583 


954 


7,244 


6,450 


1,904 


3,411 


9,731 


10,815 


6,043 


8,458 


2,900 


2,295 








8,943 


10,753 


788 


63 



970 
6,719 
1,919 
9,609 

5,986 

2,912 



8,898 

711 



ES5A-3 



Appendix ES5A I 



Appendix 5A 
Executive Summary 



I he Cllifuriliil Wuter Plitti UptUte BULLtllN 160-98 



TABI I ES'SA-7 
Tulare Lalie Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf) 



1995 



2020 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



Drought 



Water Use 

Urban 
Agricultural 
Environmental 
Total 

Supplies 

Surtace Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled and Desalted 
Total 

Shortage 



690 

10,736 

1 ,672 

13,098 

7,888 

4,340 



12,228 

870 



690 
10,026 

809 
11,525 

3,693 
5,970 

9,663 
1,862 



1 ,099 
10,123 

1,676 
12,897 

7,791 

4,386 



12,177 

720 



1,099 

9,532 

813 

11,443 

3,593 

5,999 



9,592 

1,851 



TABLE ES5A-8 
Nortli Lahontan Region Water Budget witli Existing Facilities and Programs (taf) 



1995 



2020 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



Drought 



Water Use 




Urban 


39 


Agricultural 


530 


Environmental 


374 


Total 


942 


Supplies 




Surface Water 


777 


Groundwater 


157 


Recycled and Desalted 


8 


Total 


942 


Shortage 






40 
584 
256 
880 

557 

187 

8 

752 

128 



50 
536 
374 
960 

759 

183 

8 

950 

10 



51 
594 
256 
901 

557 
208 
8 
773 
128 



TABI E ESSA-9 

South Lahontan Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf) 



1995 



2020 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



Drought 



Water Use 




Urban 


238 


Agricultural 


332 


Environmental 


107 


Total 


676 


Supplies 




Surface Water 


322 


Groundwater 


239 


Recycled and Desalted 


27 


Total 


587 


Shortage 


89 



238 

332 

81 

651 

259 
273 

27 
559 

92 



619 
257 
107 
983 

437 

248 

27 

712 

270 



619 

257 

81 

957 

326 
296 

27 

649 
308 



I ArpENDix ES5A 



ES5A-4 



The Cllij'oruia Water Phin <//i<y<//c BUl 1 H IN 160-98 



Appendix 5A 
Executive Summary 



TAIMI- ESSA-IO 
Colorado River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf) 



1995 



2020 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



Drought 



Water Use 

Urban 
Agricultural 
Environmental 
Total 

Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled and Desalted 
Total 

Shortage 



418 

4,118 

39 

4,575 

4.154 

337 

15 

4,506 

69 



4,118 

38 

4,574 

4,128 

337 

15 

4,479 

95 



740 

3,583 

44 

4,367 

3,920 

285 

15 

4,221 

147 



740 

3,583 

43 

4,366 

3,909 

284 

15 

4,208 

158 



ES5A-5 



AppKNnix ES5A I 



Appendix SA 
Executive Summary 



I Appendix ES5A 



ES5A-6 



The California Water Plan Update BUI I.KTIN 160-98 



Appendix SB 
Executive Summary 



Regional Water Budgets with 
Options Likely to be implemented 



The following tables show the water budgets for each of the State's ten hydrologic regions 
with options likely to be implemented. Water use/supply totals and shortages may not sum 
due to rounding. 



ES5B-I 



ArpEMDix ES5B I 



Appendix SB 
Executive Summary 



The California 



mm 



TABIF ESSB-1 

North Coast Region Water Budget with Options (taf) 



1995 



2020 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



Drought 



Water Use 

Urban 
AgricultLiial 
Environmental 
Total 

Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled and Desalted 
Total 

Shortage 



169 

894 

19,544 

20,607 

20,331 

263 

13 

20,607 





177 

973 

9,518 

10,668 

10,183 

294 

14 

10,491 

177 



201 

927 

19,545 

20,672 

20,371 

288 

13 

20,672 





194 

1,01 1 

9,518 

10,722 

10,212 

321 

14 

10,546 

176 



TABLE ES5B-2 
San Francisco Bay Region Water Budget with Options (taf) 



1995 



2020 



Average 



Drought 



rage 



Drought 



Water Use 




Urban 


1,255 


Agricultural 


98 


Environmental 


5,762 


Total 


7,115 


Supplies 




Surface Water 


7,011 


Groundwater 


68 


Recycled and Desalted 


35 


Total 


7,115 


Shortage 






1,358 

108 

4,294 

5,760 

5,285 
92 
35 

5,412 

349 



1,317 

98 

5,762 

7,176 

7,067 
72 
37 

7,176 





1,371 

108 

4,294 

5,773 

5,607 
96 

70 

5,773 





TABLE ES5B-3 

Central Coast Region Water Budget with Options (taf) 



1995 



2020 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



Drought 



WMer Use 




Urban 


286 


Agricultural 


1,192 


Environmental 


118 


Total 


1,595 


Supplies 




Surface Water 


318 


Groundwater 


1,045 


Recycled and Desalted 


18 


Total 


1,381 


Shortage 


214 



294 

1,279 

37 

1,610 

160 

1,142 

26 

1,328 

282 



347 
1,127 

118 
1,592 

477 

1,043 

71 

1,592 





359 

1 ,223 

37 

1,620 

287 

1,161 

71 

1,519 

100 



I Appendix ES5B 



ES5B-2 



The Cnliforniii Water I'lnn Update Bill I 1:1 IN 160-98 



Appendix SB 
Executive Summary 



Tabu- ES=iB-4 
South Coast Region Water Budget with Options (taf) 



1995 



2020 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



Drought 



Water Use 




Urban 


4,340 


Agricultural 


784 


Environmental 


100 


Total 


5,224 


Supplies 




Surface Water 


3,839 


Groundwater 


1,177 


Recycled and Desalted 


207 


Total 


5,224 


Shortage 






4,382 

820 

82 

5,283 

3,196 
1,371 

207 
4,775 

508 



5,435 
455 
104 

5,993 

4,084 

1,243 

667 

5,994 





5.528 

477 

,S6 

6,090 

3,832 

1,592 

667 

6,090 





TABLE ES5B-5 
Sacramento River Region Water Budget with Options (taf) 



1995 



2020 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



Drought 



Water Use 

Urban 
Agricultural 
Environmental 
Total 

Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Reoi'cled and Desalted 
Total 

Shortage 



766 

8,065 

5.833 

14,664 

11,881 

2.672 



14,553 

111 



830 

9.054 

4.223 

14,106 

10,022 

3,218 



13,239 

867 



1.139 

7.939 

5.839 

14,917 

12,282 

2,636 



14,918 





1,236 

8,822 

4,225 

14,282 

10,279 

3,281 



13,560 

722 



TABLE ES5B-6 
San ioaquin River Region Water Budget with Options (taf) 



1995 



2020 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



Drought 



Water Use 




Urban 


574 


Agricultural 


7,027 


Environmental 


3,396 


Total 


10,996 


Supplies 




Surface Water 


8,562 


Groundwater 


2,195 


Recycled and Desalted 





Total 


10,757 


Shortage 


239 



583 


954 


7.244 


6.448 


1.904 


3,411 


9,731 


10,813 


6.043 


8,497 


2.900 


2,317 








8,943 


10,814 


788 






970 
6,717 
1.919 
9,607 

6.029 

2,920 



8,949 

658 



ES5B-3 



Appendix ES5B I 



Appendix SB 
Executive Summary 



The Cnliforni,) W.iter I'lnii Update BUIILIIN 160-98 



TAHI I- F.SSB-7 

Tulare Lal<e Region Water Budget with Options (taf) 



1995 



2020 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



Drought 



Water Use 

Urban 
Agricultural 
Environmental 
Total 

Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled and Desalted 
Total 

Shortage 



690 

1 0,736 

1,672 

13,098 

7,888 

4,340 



12,228 

870 



690 
10,026 

809 
11,525 

3,693 
5,970 

9,663 
1,862 



1,099 
10,106 

1 ,676 
12,880 

8,292 

4,386 



12,678 

202 



1,099 

9,515 

813 

11,426 

4,167 
6,391 


10,558 

868 



Table ES5B-8 
North Lahontan Region Water Budget with Options (taf) 



1995 



2020 



rage 



Drought 



Average 



Drought 



Water Use 




Urban 


39 


Agricultural 


530 


Environmental 


374 


Total 


942 


Supplies 




Surface Water 


777 


Groundwater 


157 


Recvcled and Desalted 


8 


Total 


942 


Shortage 






40 
584 
256 
880 

557 

187 

8 

752 

128 



50 
536 
374 
960 

759 

183 

8 

950 

10 



51 
594 
256 
901 

557 
208 
8 
773 
128 



TaBIE ES'^B-9 
South Lahontan Region Water Budget with Options (taf) 



1995 



2020 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



Drought 



Water Use 






Urban 




238 


Agricultural 




332 


Environmental 




107 


Total 




676 


Supplies 






Surface Water 




322 


Groundwater 




239 


Recycled and Desalted 


27 


Total 




587 


Shortage 




89 



238 

332 

81 

651 

259 
273 

27 
559 

92 



568 
252 
107 
927 

651 

248 

27 

926 





568 

252 

81 

901 

578 

296 

27 

901 





I Appendix ES5B 



ES5B-4 



The California Water Plan Update BL'llKTlN 160-98 



Appendix SB 
Executive Summary 



TARIH ESSB-in 
Colorado River Region Water Budget with Options (taf) 



1995 



2020 



Average 



Drought 



Average 



Drought 



Water Use 




Urban 


418 


Agricultural 


4,118 


Environmental 


39 


Total 


4,575 


Supplies 




Surface Water 


4,154 


Groundwater 


337 


Recycled and Desalted 


15 


Total 


4,506 


Shortage 


69 



418 

4,118 

38 

4,574 

4,128 

337 

15 

4,479 

95 



715 

3,393 

44 

4,152 

3,852 

285 

15 

4,152 





715 

3,393 

43 

4,151 

3,852 

284 

15 

4,151 





ES5B-5 



Appendix ES5B I 



Appendix SB 
Executive Summary 



■ilifdvniti Wtttt'i- I'lftii Liptlnte bl 



■ Appendix ES5B 



ES5B-6 



Tht California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



Abbreviations and Acronyms 



AB Assembly Bill 

AAC All American Canal 

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-foot/acre-feet 

AFB Air Force Base 

AFRP Anadromous fish restoration program 
(or plan) 

AMD acid mine drainage 



CAL-AM 
Cal/EPA 

CALFED 

CAP 
CAWCD 

CCID 
CCMP 

CCWD 



AOP 


advanced oxidation process 


CDI 


APCD 


air pollution control district 


CEQA 


ARP 


aquifer reclamation program 


CESA 


ARWl 


American River Watershed Investigation 


cfs 


ARWRI 


American River Water Resources 


CII 




Investigation 


CIMIS 


ASR 


aquifer storage and recovery 




AVEK 


Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency 


CLWA 


AVWG 


Antelope Valley Water Group 


CMWD 
COA 


B 




COG 


BARWRP 


Bay Area regional water recycling program 


CMO 


BAT 


best available technolog)- 


COP 


BBID 


Byron-Bethany Irrigation District 


CPUC 


BDAC 


Bay-Delta Advisory Council 


CRA 


B/C 


benefit-to-cost (ratio) 


CRB 


BLM 


Bureau of Land Management 


CRIT 


BMP 


Best management practice 


CSD 


BVWSD 


Buena Vista Water Storage District 


CSIP/SVRP 


BWD 


Bard Water District 




BWRDF 


Brackish water reclamation demonstration 
facility 


CSJWCD 
CUWCC 



California-American Water Company 

California Environmental Protection 
Agency 

State (CAL) and federal (FED) agencies 
participating in Bay-Delta Accord 

Central Arizona Project 

Central Arizona Water Conservation 
District 

Central California Irrigation District 

Comprehensive conservation and 
management plan 

Colusa County Water District or 
Contra Costa Water District 

capacitive deionization 

California Environmental Quality Act 

California Endangered Species Act 

cubic feet per second 

commercial, industrial, and institutional 

California irrigation management 
information system 

Castaic Lake Water Agency 

Calleguas Municipal Water District 

Coordinated Operation Agreement 

Council of Governments 

crop market outlook 

certificate of participation 

California Public Utilities Commission 

Colorado River Aqueduct 

Colorado River Board 

Colorado River Indian Tribes 

community services district 

Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project/ 
Salinas Valley Reclamation Project 

Central San Joaquin Water Conservation 
District 

California Urban Water Conservation 
Council 



ESA-1 



ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETtN 160-98 



CVHJV Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture 

CVP Central Valley Project 

C-VPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

CVPM Central Valley production model 

CVWD Coachella Valley Water District 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CWD Coastal Water District, 

Cawelo Water District, or 
county water district 



D-1485 State Water Resources Control Board Water 
Right Decision 1485 

DAD detailed analysis unit 

DBCP dibromochloropropane 

DBP disinfection by-products 

DCID Deer Creek Irrigation District 

D/DBP disinfectant/disinfection by-product 

DDT dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane 

DEIR draft environmental impact report 

DEIS draft environmental impact statement 

DFA California Department of Food 
and Agriculture 

DFG California Department ot Fish and Game 

DHS California Department of Health Services 

DMC Delta-Mendota Canal 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOE California Department ot Finance 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DPR Department of Parks and Recreation or 
Department of Pesticide Regulation 

DU distribution uniformity 

DWA Desert Water Agency 

DWB DWR's Drought Water Bank 

DWD Diablo Water District 

DWR California Department ot Water Resources 

DWRSIM DWR's operations model for SWP/CVP 
system 



EDB ethylene dibromide 

EDCWA I-.l Dorado County Water Agency 

EDF Environmental Defense Fund 

EDR electrodialysis reversal 

EID El Dorado Irrigation District 

EIR environmental impact report 

EIS environmental impact statement 

ENSO El Nino Southern Oscillation cycle 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or 
Energy Policy Act of 1992 

ERP ecosystem restoration program or plan 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESP emergency storage project 

ESU evolutionarily significant unit 

ESWTR Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 

ET evapotranspiration 

ET reference evapotranspiration 

ETAW evapotranspiration of applied water 

EWMP efficient water management practice 



FAIRA Federal Agriculture Improvement and 

Reform Act 

FC&WCD flood control and water conservation district 

FCD flood control district 

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 per day 

gpf gallons per flush 

gpm gallons per minute 



EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District 

ec electrical conductivity 

ECCID East Contra Costa Irrigation District 

ECWMA East County Water Management 

Association 

ED electrodialysis 



H 



HCP 

HLWA 

HR 

HUD 



habitat conservation plan 

Honey Lake Wildlife Area 

House Resolution 

Department of Housing and 
Urban Development 



ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 



ESA-2 



The California Water PJari Update BULLETIN 160-98 



IBWX 

ICR 

ID 

IE 

lEP 

IID 

lOT 

IRP 

IRWD 

ISDP 



J PA 



K 



KCWA 

KPOP 

KRCC 

KWB 

KWBA 

kWh 



LAA 
LADWP 

LAFCO 

LBG 

LCRMSCP 

LEPA 

LMMWC 

LTBMU 



M 



maF 

MCL 

MCWD 

MCWRA 
MF 



liucrnational Boundary and 
Water Commission 

intormation collection rule 

irrigation district or improvement district 

irrigation efficiency 

Interagency Ecological Program 

Imperial Irrigation District 

intake opportunity time 

integrated resources planning 

Irvine Ranch Water District 

Interim South Delta Program 



joint powers authority 



Kern County Water Agency 
Klamath Project Operations Plan 
Klamath River Compact Commission 
Kern Water Bank 
Kern Water Bank Authority 
kilowatt hour 



Los Angeles Aqueduct 

Los Angeles Department of 
Water and Power 

local agency formation commission 

Los Banos Grandes 

Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 
Conservation Program 

low-energy precision application 

Los Molinos Mutual Water Company 

LakeTahoe Basin Management Unit 



meter 

million acre-feet 

maximum contaminant level 

Marina Coast Water District or Mammoth 
Community Water District 

Monterey County Water Resources Agency 

microfiltration or Middle Fork 



mgd 
mg/L 
M&l 
MID 



MMWC 
MMWD 
MOU 

MPWMD 

MRWPCA 

MTBE 

MUD 

mW 

MWA 

MWD 

MWDOC 

MWDSC 



N 



million gallons per day 

milligrams per liter 

municipal & industrial 

Madera Irrigation District, 
Maxwell Irrigation District, 
Merced Irrigation District, or 
Modesto Irrigation District 

McFarland Mutual Water Company 

Marin Municipal Water District 

memorandum of understanding 

Monterey Peninsula Water Management 
District 

Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control 
Agency 

methyl tertiary butyl ether 

municipal utility district 

megawatt 

Mojave Water Agency 

municipal water district 

Municipal Water District of Orange County 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern 
California 



NAWMP North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan 

NCFC&WCD Napa County Flood Control and Water 
Conservation District 

NCMWC Natomas-Central Mutual Water Company 

NED national economic development (plan) 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NF nanofiltration or North Fork 

NGO non-governmental organization 

NID Nevada Irrigation District 

NISA National Invasive Species Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

NOP notice of preparation 

NPDES national pollutant discharge elimination 

system 

NPDWR national primary drinking water regulations 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit 

NWD Northridge Water District 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 



ESA-3 



ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 



The California Watrr I'lan Updatt BULLETIN 160-' 



OCWD Orange County Water Districi 

OID Oakdale Irrigation District 

O&M operations and maintenance 



PAC powdered activated carbon 

PAH poiynuciear aromatic hydrocarbon 

PCB poiychlorinated biphenyl 

PCE perchloroethyiene 

PCGID/PID Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation 
District/Provident Irrigation District 

PCWA Placer County Water Agency 

PEIR programmatic environmental impact report 

PEIS programmatic environmental impact 
statement 

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

PGVMWC Pleasant Grove- Verona Mutual Water 
Company 

PL Public Law 

PMWC Pelger Mutual Water Company 

ppb parts per billion 

PROSIM USER'S operations model for the CVP/SWP 

PSA planning subarea 

psi pounds per square inch 

PTA packed-tower aeration 

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 Authority 

SB Senate Bill 

SBCFC&WCD Santa Barbara ('ounty Flood Control and 
Water Conservation District 

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 Wuer Authority 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act or 

South Delta Water Agency 

SEIS supplemental environmental impact 

statement 

SEWD Stockton East Water District 

SF South Fork 

SFBJV San Francisco Bay Joint Venture 

SEEP San Francisco Estuary Project 

SFPUC San Francisco Public Utility Commission 

SFWD San Francisco Water Department 

SGPWA San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency 

SID Solano Irrigation District 

SJBAP San Joaquin Basin Action Plan 

SJRMP San Joaquin River Management Plan 

(or Program) 

SLC San Luis Canal 

SLD San Luis Drain 

SLDMWA San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority 

SLOCFC&WCD San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and 
Water Conservation District 

SMBRP Santa Monica Bay restoration project 

SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

SNWA Southern Nevada Water Authority 

see synthetic organic compound 

SOFAR South Fork American River (project) 

SPPC Sierra Pacific Power Company 

SRCD Suisun Resource Conservation District 

SRF state revolving fund 

SRFCP Sacramento River Flood Control Project 

SRI Sacramento River index 

SSA Salton Sea Authority 

SSIID South San Joaquin Irrigation District 

SSWD South Sutter Water District 



ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 



ESA-4 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



STPUD South Tahof Public Uciliry- District 

SVGMD Sierra Valle)' Groundwater 

Management District 

SVOC semi-volatile organic compound 

SVRID Stanford Vina Ranch Irrigation District 

SVRP Salinas Valley reclamation project 

SWP State Water Project 

SWPP source water protection program or 

supplemental water purchase program 

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board 

SWSD Semitropic Water Storage District 



w 



taf 

TCC 

TCD 

TCE 

TDPUD 

TDS 

THM 

TID 

TID-MID 

TOG 

TROA 

TRPA 



u 



thousand acre-feet 

Tehama-Golusa Ganal 

temperature control device 

trichloroethylene 

Tahoe Donner Public Utility District 

total dissolved solids 

trihalomethane 

Turlock Irrigation District 

Turlock Irrigation District and 
Modesto Irrigation District 

total organic carbon 

Truckee River Operating Agreement 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 



WA water agency, water authority, or 
wildlife area 

WCD water conservation district 

WCWD Western Ganal Water District 

WD water district 

WMD water management district 

WMl watershed management initiative 

WQA water quality authority 

WQGP water quality control plan 

WR 95-6 SWRGB Order WR 95-6 

WRCD Westside Resource Gonservat ion District 

WRDA Water Resources Development Act 

WRF water reclamation facility or 
water recycling facility 

WRID Walker River Irrigation District 

WSD water storage district 

WTP water treatment plant 

WWD Westlands Water District 

WWTP wastewater treatment plant 



YGFG&WGD 

YGWA 

z 



UG Universit)' of Galifornia 

UGD University of Galifornia at Davis 

UF ultrafiltration 

ULFT ultra low flush toilet 

USER U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

USAGE U.S. Army Gorps of Engineers 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USPS U.S. Forest Service 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

UV ultraviolet 

UWCD United Water Gonservation District 



Z7WA 



Yolo County Flood Control and 
Water Conservation District 

Yuba County Water Agency 



Zone 7 Water Agency 



VAMP 
VOC 



Vernalis adaptive management plan 
volatile organic compound 



ESA-5 



Abbreviations and Acronyms 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ESA-6 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



NOTES 



The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 



NOTES 



THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
STAMPED BELOW 



BOOKS REQUESTED BY ANOTHER BORROWER 
ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL 



il f' 



JUN 1 ^ 200(1 
Physical Sciences |jt|raiy 

JAN \ 8 2006 
PSL 
eEG 6 20B6 






DEC \ 2006 



LIBRARY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS 

http://www.lib.ucdavls.edu/access/circweb/patron.html 

Autorrated Phone Renewal (24-hour). (530) 752-1132 

D4613 (3/98)M 



UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS 




3 1175 02344 5102 



Conversion Factors 


Quantity 


To convert froin 


To metric unit 




Multiply 


To convert to 




customary unit 






customary 
unit by 


customar)' unit, 
multiply metric 














unit by 


Length 


inches (in) 


millimeters (mm)# 




25.4 




0.03937 




inches (in) 


centimeters (cm) 




2.54 




0.3937 




feel (ft) 


meters (m) 




0.3048 




3.2808 




miles (mi) 


kilometers (km) 




1 .6093 




0.62 1 39 


Area 


square inches (in) 


squ.ire millimeters (mm') 




(h'^.K. 




0.00155 




square feet (fr) 


square meters (m-) 




0. 092903 




10.764 




acres (ac) 


hectares (ha) 




0.40469 




2.4''10 




square miles (mi") 


square kilometers (km 1 




2.5'll) 




(1. i,S(,l 


Volume 


gallons (gal) 


liters (L) 




3.7854 




0.26417 




million gallons (10" gal) 


megaliters (ML) 




3.7854 




0.26417 




cubic feet (ft') 


cubic meters (m') 




0.028317 




35.315 




cubic yards (yd') 


cubic meters (m') 




0.76455 




1.308 




acre-feet (ac-ft) 


thousand cubic meters (m' x 10') 




1.2335 




0.8107 




acre-feet (ac-ft) 


hectare-meters (ha - m)B 




0.1234 




8.107 




thousand acre-feet (taf) 


million cubic meters (m' x 10'') 




1.2335 




0.8107 




thousand acre-feet (taf) 


hectare-meters (ha - m)H 




123.35 




0.008107 




million acre-feet (maO 


billion cubic meters (m' x lO'')* 




1.2335 




0.8 10~ 




million acre-feet (maf) 


cubic kilometers (km') 




1.2335 




0.,S1()- 


I-'lovv 


cubic feet per second (ftVs) 


cubic meters per second (m'/s) 




0.028317 




35.315 




gallons per minut. (gal/min) 


liters per minute (L/min) 




3.7854 




0.26417 




gallons per day (gal/day) 


liters per day (L/dav) 




3.7854 




0.26417 




million gallons per dav (mgd) 


megaliters per day (ML/day) 




3.7854 




0.26417 




.icre-leet per day (ac-ft/d,n 1 


thousand cubic meters per day (m 


'xlO'/day) 1.2335 




0.8107 


Mass 


pounds (lb) 


kilt)grams (kg) 




0.45359 




2.2046 




tons (short, 2,000 lb) 


megagrams (Mg) 




0.90718 




1.1023 


Velociri 


feet per second (ft/sl 


meters per second (m/s) 




().3().r.S 




VJWIS 


Power 


horsepower (hp) 


kilowatts (kW) 




l).~^(. 




1 Ui\> 


Pressure 


pounds per square inch (psi) 


kilopascals (kPa) 




(i.S9h,S 




O.l-oOS 




head o( water in feet 


kilopascals (kPa) 




:.9S9 




0.33456 


Specific capacity' 


gallons per minute per foot 


liters per minute per meter of drawdown 


)2 -il9 




0.0,S(I52 




of drawdown 












C-oncentracion 


parts per million (ppm) 


milligrams per liter (nig/1 1 




111 




1.0 


Electrical conductivity- micromhos per centimeter 


microsiemens per centimeter (mS/ 


cm) 


1.(1 




1 II 


Ic-niperature 


degrees Fahrenheit ( Fl 


degrees Celsius CC) 




(•F-32)/1.8 


1 


.8 X •€) t .'il 


• When using 


"dual units." inches arc normally converted to millimeters (rather than centimeters). 








■ Not used often in metric countries, but is offered as a 


conceptual equivalent of customan 


' western 


U.S. practice (a stand. 


rdd 


epth of w.iter 


over a given 


area of land). 












♦ ASTM Manual E380 discourages the use of billion cubic meters since that magnitude is 


represented by giga (a thousand 


mill 


on) in other 


countries. It 


is shown here for potential use for quant 


tying large reservoir volumes (simitar to mil 


ion acre-feet). 








Other Common Conversion Factors 








I cubic foot=7.48 


gallons=62.4 pounds of water 


1 


acre-foot=325.900 gallons=43.560 


cubic feet 


1 cubic foot per second (cfs)=450 gallons per minute fgpm 


1 


million 


»allons=3.07 acre-feet 






1 cfs=646,320 gal 


ons a day= 1 .98 ac-ft a da%- 


1 


million 


gallons a day (mgd)=l. 


120 


ac-ft a year 



Pete Wilson 
Governor 

Douglas P. Wheeler 
Secretary for Resources 
The Resources Agency 

David N. Kennedy 

Director 

Department of Water Resources 




Ji