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 0 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)
0
0
214
0
33
239
820
0
89
69
1,460
0
0
214
0
33
239
820
0
89
69
1,460
0
0
102
0
85
63
670
0
89
61
1,070
0
0
102
0
85
63
670
0
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
0
rt
n
o
u
2
c
J
O
U
0
■b4
0
_4
2
0
e
3
2
o
z
c
t/2
t
c
If
u
3
0
E
o
c
o
Z
3
O
0 -^
O 0
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
0
U
c
n
O
U
o
c
ri
0
_c
_1
5
0
-o
e
3
0
La
-=
rt
_c
2
O
i>
_C
_n
1^
o
13
0
Z
C
C
u
3
0
t/1
c
3
o
Z
3
0
0
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 0 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 0
Central Coast 98
South Coast 69
Sacramento River 1 ,733
San Joaquin River 1 ,974
Tulare Lake 1,614
North Lahontan 271
South Lahontan 0
Colorado River 0
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
0
28
51
736
939
751
154
0
0
10,560
17,800
0
98
69
1,733
1,974
1,614
271
0
0
23,560
7,900
0
28
51
736
939
751
154
0
0
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
0
85
107
0
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
0
84
81
0
4,970
1,410
17
20
4
3,397
1.169
0
85
107
0
6,210
1,285
9
9
4
2,784
712
0
84
81
0
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
0
27
632
230
50
18
0
39
1,480
325
160
0
27
632
230
50
18
0
38
1,480
325
160
0
31
632
240
53
18
0
44
1,500
325
160
0
31
632
240
53
18
0
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
0
-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 0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
14,553
111
830
9,054
4,223
14,106
10,022
3,218
0
13,239
867
1,139
7,939
5,839
14,917
12,196
2,636
0
14,832
85
1,236
8,822
4,225
14,282
10,012
3,281
0
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
0
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
0
0
8,943
10,753
788
63
970
6,719
1,919
9,609
5,986
2,912
0
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
0
12,228
870
690
10,026
809
11,525
3,693
5,970
0
9,663
1,862
1 ,099
10,123
1,676
12,897
7,791
4,386
0
12,177
720
1,099
9,532
813
11,443
3,593
5,999
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
1,371
108
4,294
5,773
5,607
96
70
5,773
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
5.528
477
,S6
6,090
3,832
1,592
667
6,090
0
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
0
14,553
111
830
9.054
4.223
14,106
10,022
3,218
0
13,239
867
1.139
7.939
5.839
14,917
12,282
2,636
0
14,918
0
1,236
8,822
4,225
14,282
10,279
3,281
0
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
0
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
0
0
8,943
10,814
788
0
970
6,717
1.919
9,607
6.029
2,920
0
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
0
12,228
870
690
10,026
809
11,525
3,693
5,970
0
9,663
1,862
1,099
10,106
1 ,676
12,880
8,292
4,386
0
12,678
202
1,099
9,515
813
11,426
4,167
6,391
0
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
0
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
0
568
252
81
901
578
296
27
901
0
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
0
715
3,393
43
4,151
3,852
284
15
4,151
0
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 0 6 20B6
DEC 0 \ 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
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11