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

Full text of "The California water plan : outlook in 1974 : summary report"

PHYSICAL SCI. WB. 



Ok in 1974 




er1974 
y Report 



^palifornia 
iources Agency 



UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
DAVIS 

DEC 13 1983 
GOV'T. DOCS. -LIBRARY 



lent of 

^sources 

^o.160-74 



Department of 
Water Resources 

Bulletin No. 160-74 



The California \l\kAer Plan 

Outlook in1974 



November 1974 
Summary Report 



The State of California Department of 

Resources Agency Water Resources 

Norman B. Livermore,Jr. Ronald Reagan John R.Teerink 

Secretary for Resources Governor Director 



FOREWORD 



Water development has done more to enhance the 
economy and environment of California than any of 
man's other activities. From a hostile climate has come 
the livelihood of 20.9 million people and a major por- 
tion of the nation's food supply. California today is 
the result of the planning and management of its water 
resources hy local, state, and federal agencies. Gilifor- 
nia tomorrow will also depend on continued wise re- 
source management but is challenged by increasingly 
complex issues that will affect the quality of life. 
Water development is a part of these interrelated 
issues and must be viewed in a broader context than 
in the past. An affluent society with its water demands 
satiated can afford to consider a larger value system. 

Alomentous events and trends have occurred during 
the past four years since our last statewide water re- 
source assessment was made. Some of these events 
and trends have already affected the water picture in 
definable ways, while the effects of others are yet to 
mature. Some major e.xamples are the establishment of 
stringent goals for water quality improvement and 
waste management, the substantial new demands for 
cooling water for thermal electric power plants, the 
reservation of one-fourth of the State's surface water 
resources in a Wild and Scenic River System, the in- 
creasing worldwide demand for agricultural products, 
widespread litigation seeking delay or curtailment of 
water development programs, and the escalating costs 
of energy. 

While these and additional events have occurred, 
other significant trends have continued that also affect 
the State's water resources. Population has continued 
to increase, but at a rate less than during the 1960s, 
reflecting the national trend, and thereby stretching 
our presently developed water supplies. Irrigated ag- 
riculture has continued to increase at about the same 
rate as during the previous reporting period. 



On a statewide basis, the California water outlook 
is favorable. There are, however, areas facing distress 
and some uncertainties in the future that will require 
corrective action. The continued increase of salinity 
in many of the local ground water basins and in wa- 
ter from the Colorado River will be detrimental to 
many water users. The continued overdraft, currently 
over one and one-half million acre-feet per year, in 
the San Joaquin Vallev will have a permanent ad- 
verse economic effect on the user and will deplete 
some portions of the basin. Conveyance facilities are 
necessary to bring developed water supplies to the 
areas of need in the valley. 

The inland siting of thermal electric power plants 
will impose a significant water requirement on water 
deficient areas of the State. To meet this requirement 
every effort should be made to use our poorer quality 
water supplies such as agricultural drainage and other 
waste water to the extent feasible. Where agricultural 
waste water can be used, the drainage disposal prob- 
lem could be reduced. 

Current litigation, if successful, will have a serious 
adverse effect on several areas of the State. Alterna- 
tives to projects in contention are limited and costly. 
The full ramifications of these law suits cannot be 
determined at this time. 

Thorough study needs to be given to alternatives 
that would continue to stretch our water supplies. 
The reclamation of waste water, including demineral- 
ization of brackish water, appears to be the most 
promising today. While research and development of 
alternatives continues, it is incumbent on all users to 
achieve more efficient u.se of the water supplies now 
available. Several significant policy issues relating to 
water resource management need careful and thought- 
ful public and legislative consideration if we are to 
most effectively meet our future water needs. 



/C^ ,^2'^^^^^u«l*X. 



John R. Teerink, Director 
Department of Water Resources 
The Resources Agency 
State of California 




CONTENTS 

Page 

FOREWORD iii 

ORGANIZATION _ vi 

CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION vii 

INTRODUCTION 1 

The Outlook in 1974 1 

Concerning Growth 1 

Concerning Water Demands . 2 

Concerning Present Water Supplies 2 

Concerning New Water Supplies 2 

Concerning Regional Water Supply and Demand 3 

Concerning Alternative Futures 4 

California's Water Resources 5 

State Responsibility for Water Development 5 

Organization of Bulletin 160-74 7 

I. HISTORIC AND RECENT EVENTS 9 

Water Resources Development in California 9 

Federal Water Projects in California 9 

California State Water Project 10 

Transition to the Present 10 

National Water Commission Report 10 

Environmental Events 11 

En\ ironmental Legislation _ 11 

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act 11 

Public Involvement 12 

Water Rights Decisions 12 

Litigation - 12 

State-Federal and Interstate Activities 12 

Land Use Planning and Controls 13 

II. KEY WATER POLICY ISSUES 15 

Cooling Water for Electrical Energ>' Production 15 

Water Deficiencies 17 

Cost Sharing of Environmental Enhancement 18 

Water Qualit\- Improvement 19 

Water Supplies as a Growth Regulator 20 

Role of Water Exchanges in Water Management 20 

Public Interest in Agricultural Drainage 22 

Flood Damage Pre\ention _ _.. 23 

Water Pricing Polic>' and Its Effect on Demand 24 

Water Use Efficiency and Its Effect on Demand 24 

Economic Efficiency as Basis for Water Management- 26 

Supplemental Water Through \\'aste Water Reclamation 26 

III. ALTERNATIVE FUTURES FOR CALIFORNIA. 31 

Population 31 

Births and Migration 31 

Future Population Levels 32 

Agriculture — _ 33 

Five Governing Factors . 33 

Future Agricultural Levels _ _ _. 34 

Energy 36 

Trends and Influences _. 36 

Two Future Energ>' Levels .■. _ 36 

Thermal Power Plant Siting 36 

Other Water Resources Management Needs 38 

IV. DEMANDS FOR WATER _ _ „ 39 

Urban Demands 39 

Agricultural Demands . 39 

Power Plant Cooling Water_ . 40 

Recreation, Fish and Wildlife 41 

Other Water Demand Considerations 41 

Environmental Enhancement 42 

Water Quality Control _ 42 

Flood Control .- . 43 

Navigation 43 

Summary of Water Demands _ _ 43 



V. SOURCES OF WATER AND WATER MANAGEMENT-. 47 

Surface Water Regulation 47 

Ground Water - 47 

Waste Water Reclamation 48 

Geothcrnial Water Potential 51 

Weather Modification _ 52 

Management Concepts and Practices __ 52 

More Effective Use of Water 52 

More Effcctixe Use of Facilities . — . . 52 

Ground Water Modeling . . - 53 

Water\va>- Management Planning . . 54 

Flood Control Management 54 

Water Qualit\- Control Planning . . 54 

VI. WATER SUPPLY AND SUPPLEMENTAL DEMANDS 55 

A\ailable Water Supplies 55 

Surface Water - 55 

Ground Water Safe Yield 55 

Other Sources of W'ater ■ . — 55 

Sunimar>' 56 

Effect of Water Rights Decisions on Water Supply . 56 

Decision 1379 57 

Decision 1400 __ _. _ 57 

Decision 1422 57 

Supplemental Water Demands _ 60 

Anal>sis of Central V^alley Project and State Water Project Capability and Demand— 60 

Project Water Supplies 60 

The Peripheral Canal 60 

Water Demands on the Central V^alley Project 60 

Water Demands on the State Water Project 61 

Comparison of Supply and Demand 63 

TABLES 
Number ^'^^ 

1 California and U. S. Population and Percent Increase by Decades, 1920-1974 31 

2 Population Factors " 

3 Projected California Population 32 

4 Population in California, 1972, 1990, and 2020 33 

5 Alternative Future Levels for California Agriculture 34 

6 Projected Requirements for Electrical Energy 36 

7 Additional Inland Thermal Power Generation 38 

8 1972 and Projected Urban Applied Water Demands _ — 39 

9 1972 and Projected Agricultural Applied Water Demands 40 

10 Power Plant Fresh Water Cooling Requirements 41 

11 Applied Water Demands for Fish, Wildlife, and Nonurban Area Recreation 41 

12 Present and Projected Applied Water Demands by Alternative Futures 44 

13 Summary- of 1972 and Projected Net Water Demands by Alternative Futures 45 

14 Sumniar>- of Urban Waste Water Production, Disposal, and Reclamation in 1972 49 

15 Intentional Use of Reclaimed Water in 1972 50 

16 Total Water Supply and Present Use and Commitments 55 

17 Summary of 1972 and Projected Water Supplies, Net Water Demands, and Supple- 

mental Demands by Hydrologic Study Areas — 56 

18 Net Water Demands on the Central \'alley Project „ 61 

19 Possible Additional Demands on the Central Valley Project 61 

20 Net Water Demands on the State Water Project Under Present Contracts 63 

21 Possible Demands on the State Water Project in Addition to Present Contracts 63 

FIGURES 

1 The Hydrologic Cycle 5 

2 H>drologic Study Areas of California 6 

3 Average Annual Runoff in Million Acre-Feet 7 

4 California Historical and Projected Population Growth 32 

5 Historic and Projected Irrigated Land Area 35 

6 Historic and Projected Electrical Energy Requirements 37 

7 Statewide Water Demand and Usable Water Supply Summary 58 

8 Projected Net Water Demands and Dependable Water Supply — Central Valley 

9 Projected Net Water Demands and Dependable Water Supply — State Water Project 64 

PLATE 

1 Major Surface Water Supply and Conveyance Facilities, 1974 28 



State of California 
The Resources Agency 

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 



RONALD REAGAN, Governor 

NORMAN B. LIVERMORE, JR., Secrefory for Resources 

JOHN R. TEERINK, Director, Department of Water Resources 

ROBERT G. EILAND, Deputy Director 



DIVISION OF RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT 



Herbert W. GreydonuSu Division Engineer 



Charles A. McCuIlough- 
Jerry D. Vayder<- 



This bulletin was prepared by 



-Chief, Statewide Planning Branch 
Supervising Engineer, W. R. 



with major assistance from 



Ralph G. Allison 

Vernon C. Bengal 

Earl G. Bingham 

Walter W. Bourez, Jr. 

Stanley W. Cummings 

Robert M. Ernst 

John R. Glavinovich 

Caroline J. Grubbs 

Marian P. Hagen 

Jacob W. Holderman 

Jean H. Jaquith 

Paulyne D. Joe 



Lionel J. Lerner 
L. Ernest Moberg 
William G. McKane 
Maurice D. Roos 
Glenn B. Sawyer 
Price J. Schreiner 

Betty F. Wade 

Richard J. Wagner 

Wendell D. Walling 

James M. Wardlow 

Jack H. Wyott 

Mitzi A. Young 



Albert J. Dolcini._.. 
Robin R. Reynolds,. 

Carl L. Stetson 

Jack J. Coe 



Assistance was provided by the District Offices of the 

Department of Water Resources 

under the direction of 



District Engineer, Northern District 

District Engineer, Centrol District 

District Engineer, San Joaquin District 
District Engineer, Southern District 



Contributions were made by many individuals in other 
Department of Water Resources units 



Section on Water Quality Control Planning was prepared by 
State Water Resources Control Board 



State of California 

Department of Water Resources 

CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION 



IRA J. CHRISMAN, Chairman, Visalia 
CLAIR A. HILL, Vice Chairman, Redding 



Mai Coombs — - Garberville 

Roy W. Ferguson — - Ontario 

Ralph E. Graham - San Diego 

Clare W. Jones Firebaugh 

William P. Moses — - - San Pablo 

Samuel B. Nelson .- - -— - Northridge 

Ernest R. Nichols -. - Ventura 



Orville L. Abbott 
Executive Officer and Chief Engineer 

Tom Y. Fujimoto 
Assistant Executive Officer 



Copies of this bulletin are available without charge from: 

State of California 

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 

P.O. Box 388 

Sacramento, California 95802 

The detailed edition of Bulletin No. 160-74, on which this 
summary is based, is $5.00 per copy. 

Make checks payable to STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
California residents add 6 percent soles tax. 



INTRODUCTION 



Bulletin No. 160-74 is the third in a series of reports 
updating the California Water Plan, originally pub- 
lished in 1957 as Department of Water Resources 
Bulletin No. 3. The California Water Plan is a com- 
prehensive master plan to guide and coordinate the 
use of California's water resources for all beneficial 
purposes to meet present and future needs in all parts 
of the state. The plan is not a specific blueprint for 
construction but is, rather, a flexible pattern which can 
provide information and guidance relating to the use 
of the state's water resources, its future water require- 
ments, and sources of water supply for California. 

In this bulletin, the Department of Water Resources 
has departed from the previous practice of develop- 
ing a single forecast of future water requirements, and 
has used for the first time a concept of "alternative 



futures". Under this concept, four different estimates 
of future water requirements are developed, each re- 
lating to different scenerios as to future conditions 
and events that affect water use and demands. 

Data collected by the Department of Water Re- 
sources since publication of Bulletin No. 160-70 four 
years ago show that water use in California between 
1967 and 1972 has increased a moderate 1.4 million 
acre-feet, or some 4 percent, corresponding generally 
to a moderate population increase of 1.4 million peo- 
ple, or 7 percent, and an increase in irrigated area of 
300,000 acres or 4 percent. Analysis of present and 
past conditions, together with studies and estimates of 
future conditions — using the alternative futures ap- 
proach — indicates the following outlook for water re- 
sources management in California. 



The Outlook in 1974 



General 

1. The status of developed and available water sup- 
plies compared to present demands for water is still 
favorable — the situation affords time for consideration 
of all alternative sources for future water supply, in- 
cluding techniques for more efficient use of water to 
reduce demands. This outlook is premised on comple- 
tion of Auburn Dam on the American River, New 
Melones Dam on the Stanislaus River, and Warm 
Springs Dam on Dry Creek in the Russian River 
Basin, and the Peripheral Canal being constructed and 
in operation by 1980. 

2. How far into the future this condition will e.xtend 
depends on the completion of additional conveyance 
facilities needed to deliver already regulated supplies 
to various service areas in the State. 

3. The extent to which available supplies will cover 
future requirements is considerably less certain in 1974 
than it appeared to be in 1970 because of highly 
significant events and trends that have occurred dur- 
ing the last four years — major factors being the estab- 
lishment of additional water requirements for water, 
quality improvement and salinit\' control; the move- 
ment toward siting of po\\ er plants at inland locations 
rather than on the coast, also leading to a sub- 
stantial additional \vater requirement; and the world- 
wide leap in demand for agricultural products. 

4. In addition, no new water projects that would 
develop additional supplies of any significance have 
been authorized, either by state, federal, or local 
agencies in California during the past four years, and 
virtually ever\' attempt to begin construction of pre- 
viously authorized projects or units of such projects 
has met \\ ith litigation seeking to dela\' or stop such 



construction — a condition which, along with the wild 
river legislation and the coastal zone initiative, clearly 
reflects a widespread public interest and concern with 
protection and preservation of the natural environ- 
ment. 

5. The quality of the State's water supply is gen- 
erally quite satisfactory, with the significant exception 
of the Colorado River and some localized ground 
water problems, and may be expected to be maintained 
and improved as the result of the basin plans for water 
quality management currently being developed by the 
State Water Resources Control Board. 

6. While the urban areas of the State should experi- 
ence no significant or extensive water shortages during 
the next 20 years, the prospects of providing water for 
any large expansion of irrigated agriculture in Cali- 
fornia to meet increased demands for food and fiber 
worldwide are not considered optimistic under the 
general conditions prevailing at the present time. 

Concerning Growih 

1. In 1974 the population of California was 20.9 
million people, reflecting a continued slowing in 
growth rates, and it ma>' range from a low of 23.6 to 
a high of 27.4 million by 1990, or an increase of 13 
to 31 percent. By 2020, the population may range 
from 26.5 to 43.3 million, or an increase of 27 to 107 
percent. 

2. Of the total state area of 100 million acres, ur- 
ban development currently occupies 2.6 million acres 
and may increase to between 2.9 and 3.3 million by 
1990. Urban land use in 2020 may range from 3.2 to 
4.4 million acres — still less than 5 percent of the total 
area of the State. 



3. Irrigated agriculture increased at an average rate 
of 60,000 acres per year from about 8.5 million acres 
in 1967 to about 8.8 million in 1972. Irrigated area may 
range between 9.2 and 10.2 million acres by 1990, an 
increase of 5 to 16 percent. In 2020, irrigated land 
may range from 9.4 million to 11.4 million acres, an 
increase from 7 to 29 percent. The Department of 
Water Resources' land classification surveys show 22 
million acres of irrigable land in California. 

Concerning Water Demands 

1. Urban water use is now about 5 million acre-feet 
annually, and future demands are e.xpected to range 
from 6.2 to 7.1 million acre-feet in 1990, an increase 
of 22 to 41 percent. By 2020, urban use may range 
from 7.2 to 11.4 million acre-feet. Urban water use 
today accounts for about 1 3 percent of total water use 
in the State. 

2. Present agricultural water use is 32 million acre- 
feet of applied water annually, or about 85 percent of 
total water use in the State. Demands for agricultural 
water in 1990 are e.xpected to range from 34 million 
to 38 million acre-feet, an increase of from 7 to 19 
percent. By 2020, agricultural water demands may 
range from 35 to 42 million acre-feet annually. 

3. If two-thirds of the projected increase in thermal 
electrical generation is located at inland sites, up to 
400,000 acre-feet of cooling water will be required by 
1990, and as much as 1.1 million acre-feet could be re- 
quired by 2020. 

4. Total annual applied water demands for all pur- 
poses in California are projected to increase from the 
present 37 million acre-feet, and may range from 41 
to 46 million acre-feet in 1990, an increase from 10 to 
24 percent annually. By 2020, the total applied water 
demands may range from 43 to 55 million acre-feet 
annually. 

5. Net water demands in California, which reflect 
the opportunities to reuse return flows, are projected 
to increase from the 1972 level of 31 million acre-feet 
annually, and may range from 34 to 38 million acre- 
feet by 1990, an increase of 11 to 23 percent. By 2020, 
total net water demands may range from 36 to 46 mil- 
lion acre-feet annually. 

6. With full use of presently foreseen supplies, the 
supplemental water requirements are expected to range 
from 1.6 million to 3.8 million acre-feet annually by 
1990, and from 2.6 to 9.6 million acre-feet annually 
by 2020. 

Concerning Present Water Supplies 

1. California's present water needs are being met by 
existing state, federal, and local projects, and in some 
areas, especially the San Joaquin Valley, by overdraft- 
ing ground water supplies. More water is available 
from the existing projects than is being used now, and 
this reserve can be used to satisfy increasing demands 



for a number of years, providing necessary conveyance 
facilities are constructed in a timely manner. One such 
facility is the Peripheral Canal which will provide con- 
veyance of water for several regions. Other facilities 
are mentioned in the regional outlooks later in this 
section. 

2. Supplemental water requirements currently aver- 
age 2.4 million acre-feet per year and are being met 
primarily through ground water overdraft. The major 
overdrafted areas are in the San Joaquin Valley, the 
Central Coast, and Southern California. 

3. Total overdraft of ground water basins has de- 
creased in the past four years by about 500,000 acre- 
feet per year, due to new water brought into the 
western San Joaquin \^alley by the State Water Proj- 
ect and the San Luis Division of the Central Valley 
Project, thus replacing to some extent previous ground 
water use. Remaining overdrafts, of which the largest 
is 1.4 million acre-feet on the east side of the San 
Joaquin Valley, are not considered permanent sources 
of \\ ater supply. The Cross Valley Canal, under con- 
struction by the Kern Countv \Vater Agency, \\i\\ 
alleviate some of the overdraft in the San Joaquin 
\'alley. Further, a possible mid-valley canal, being 
studied by the Department of Water Resources and 
the Bureau of Reclamation, could provide additional 
alleviation of part of the remaining San Joaquin V^al- 
le\- overdraft. 

4. Intentionally reclaimed waste water furnished 
about 180,000 acre-feet of usable water supply in 
1972, most of which was for agricultural irrigation. 
An additional 530,000 acre-feet of waste water was 
indirectly reclaimed, returned to the surface and 
ground water supply and reused. 

5. In 1974, virtually no water supply from desalt- 
ing plants was being used in California, and none at 
all was furnished from geothermal sources. 

Concerning New Water Supplies 

1. The location, character of streamflow, and pres- 
ent stage of development of California's surface water 
resources are such that the only areas in the State 
where there is any substantial physical potential for 
development of additional water supplies are in the 
north coastal area and the Sacramento River Basin. 
More than 25 percent (18 million acre-feet) of the 
total stream runoff in California is set aside and not 
available for water supply development under existing 
law for wild and scenic rivers in the north coastal 
area (although the law does require the Department 
of Water Resources to report in 1985 on the need 
for water supply and flood control projects on the 
Eel River and its tributaries). There is a potential for 
additional development of water in the Sacramento 
Basin, although such development will be costly be- 
cause the more economical sites have already been 
developed. 



— 2 



2. Conjunctive use of ground water basins and sur- 
face supplies can achieve more effective use of exist- 
ing surface water supplies and \\ould help conserve 
water that would otherwise spill from surface reser- 
voirs during periods of high water. Additional study 
and exploration of the State's ground water basins are 
needed to adequately assess the potential for conserv- 
ing additional surface ^vater resources through con- 
junctive operation. 

3. The California Aqueduct will have excess ca- 
pacity for several years that could be used to convey 
surplus water from Northern California for recharge 
of overdrawn ground Mater basins in Southern Cali- 
fornia. 

4. Reclamation of waste water, including highly 
saline agricultural waste water, may provide an im- 
portant source of industrial water, particularly for 
cooling in power plants. Reservations regarding the 
safet\- of reclaimed water from a health standpoint 
greath' limit its use for human consumption and re- 
strict projecting future use for municipal water sup- 
ply purposes. To adequately evaluate the role of waste 
water reclamation in meeting the supplemental de- 
mands, the Department of Water Resources is par- 
ticipating in projects of applied research. 

5. Desalting of sea water on a large scale does not 
currently appear practical due to high costs and ex- 
tremely large energy requirements. Desalting may be 
used for a variety of smaller applications, however, 
over the next 10 to 30 years, particularK- to treat 
brackish waste water for use as cooling water in power 
plants. In coastal communities requiring supplemental 
water supplies, there may be limited possibilities for 
desalting sea water by distillation. Inland communities 
with brackish ground water supplies may find the 
membrane processes (reverse osmosis and electrodial- 
ysis) practical. 

6. Geothermal resources in the Imperial V^alley 
could provides California with additional energy, and 
possibly water supplies. These could help meet local 
municipal and industrial \\ater demands or might be 
blended with Colorado River water to reduce the sa- 
linity- of water supplies from the river. To this date 
however, it has not been demonstrated that develop- 
ment of geothermal water supplies is feasible, either 
from an economic or environmental point of view. 

7. There are several operational weather modifica- 
tion programs in California and in other states. It has 
not been possible to determine the extent to which a 
consistent increase in precipitation and streamflow 
can be attained. Several studies and pilot projects are 
under^\■ay but their success is problematical. Conse- 
quently, it is not prudent at this time to rely on 
weather modification as a feasible source of future 
water supply. In addition, there are as yet unresolved 
problems of environmental effects and legal questions. 



Concerning Regional Water Supply and Demand 

1. North Coastal. Overall water supplies are abun- 
dant, amounting to nearly 40 percent of the total 
water resources of the State. However, there are scat- 
tered local shortages during the dry season when 
streams are low. In the interior (upper Klamath River 
Basin including the Shasta and Scott Rivers) present 
supplies are nearly completely used and significant 
expansion would require additional water develop- 
ment. 

Only minor increases from present water demands 
are projected for the region in 1990, most of which 
are expected to be met from increased ground water 
pumping and remaining surface supplies. The minor 
increase in supplemental demand is mostl>' due to in- 
creases in wildlife requirements. 

2. San Francisco Bay. This region presently has 
enough water to take care of its requirements, except 
for a few scattered areas in the North Bay and Rus- 
sian River basins. Overall water supplies appear ade- 
quate for 1990, but the distribution of supplies does 
not correspond with the pattern of projected demand. 
Therefore, a supplemental demand of from 30,000 to 
80,000 acre-feet per year is indicated, primarily in 
Santa Clara, Marin, and Napa Counties. The near fu- 
ture supply assumes completion of Warm Springs 
Dam and Reservoir. If that water supply of 115,000 
acre-feet is not available, major shortages in Sonoma 
County also would be expected by 1990. Completion 
of the North Bay Aqueduct of the State Water Proj- 
ect will provide capacity- for an additional 12,500 
acre-feet annually for Napa County. 

3. Central Coastal. Water demands in this region 
presently exceed dependable supplies by about 140,000 
acre-feet, per year, with the difference showing up 
as ground water overdraft. This has resulted in sa- 
linit>' intrusion in certain coastal aquifers. The quality 
of ground water is poor in the area around the City 
of Santa Barbara and some locations along the Santa 
Maria River. New supplies to Santa Barbara and San 
Luis Obispo Counties from the Coastal Aqueduct of 
the State Water Project will help meet demands, but 
projected increases in 1990 water demands would leave 
a shortage between 200,000 to 280,000 acre-feet per 
year. The bulk of the shortage \\ould be in the north- 
ern portion of the region, including the Salinas Val- 
le\' and the service area of the authorized San Felipe 
Division of the Central X'alley Project. 

4. South Coastal. Water demands in 1972 had be- 
gun to outstrip the supplies available from sources 
other than the State Water Project. New supplies 
from the State Water Project should be more than 
adequate to meet 1990 water demands, even with the 
projected reduction of about 780,000 acre-feet per 
year in Colorado River supplies including some re- 
allocations for power plant cooling in the desert areas. 
The increase in State Water Project supply and its 



— 3 



substitution in part for Colorado River water should 
markedly lo^\■er the dissolved salts content of South- 
ern California water supplies. Indicated annual 1990 
demands range from 650,000 to 1,030,000 acre-feet 
less than 1990 total water supplies assuming the full 
contractual commitments of the State Water Project 
are available to the region. 

5. Sacravieiito Basin. Although overall supplies in 
this region appear adequate, not all locations have 
sufficient dependable water supplies at present. The 
indicated current annual deficit is estimated to be 
240,000 acre-feet and could increase to as much as 
500,000 acre-feet by 1990 for the highest demand pro- 
jection, or could be slightly less than current levels for 
the lowest demand projection. Most of the projected 
supplemental demand in 1990 is expected to occur on 
the west side of the Sacramento Valley and in several 
upland basins. 

Significant additions to present water facilities in- 
clude completion of the Tehama-Colusa Canal in the 
Sacramento Valley and Indian Valley Reservoir on 
Cache Creek, both currently under construction. 

6. Delta-Central Sierra. Estimated 1972 supple- 
mental demand was about 120,000 acre-feet per year, 
mostly in the Folsom South Canal service area in Sac- 
ramento and San Joaquin Counties. Completion of the 
Folsom-South Canal and possibly a Hood-Clay intertie 
from the Sacramento River will meet this demand. 
Other supplemental demands ranging from 80,000 to 
220,000 acre-feet would remain. Completion of the 
North Bay Aqueduct of the State Water Project will 
enable 43,000 acre-feet annually to be supplied Solano 
County from the Delta. 

7. San Joaquin Basin. The estimated present 
ground water overdraft in this region is about 250,000 
acre-feet per year, mainly in Madera, southeastern 
Merced, and eastern Stanislaus Counties. The assumed 
additional Central Valley Project supply of New 
Melones Reservoir, plus some additional use of other 
sources, is not e.xpected to completely end the over- 
draft. Supplemental demands ranging from 130,000 
to 670,000 acre-feet are projected for 1990. 

8. Tulare Basin. Estimated 1972 ground water 
overdraft was slightly over 1,300,000 acre-feet per 
year, significantly less than the 1,800,000 acre- feet 
amount in 1967. The improvement is due to new water 
supplies from the Central Valley Project and the State 
Water Project to service areas on the west side of 
the basin, with some 1,500,000 acre-feet provided in 
1972. By 1990 projected deliveries would be increased 
by about another 1,300,000 acre-feet per year, but 
increases in dcrnand and continued overdraft in areas 
not served by state and federal facilities would still 
leave supplemental demands or continuing ground 
water overdrafts ranging from 920,000 to 1,920,000 
acre-feet per year. A possible mid-valley canal could 
convey surplus water to the east side of the basin to 



partially alleviate overdrafted ground water condi- 
tions. 

9. North Lahontan. Water demands by 1990 could 
range from a slight decrease to a minor increase over 
the present net demands of 430,000 acre-feet per year. 
Some of the current deficiency in firm water supply, 
about 40,000 acre-feet, is expected to be met by con- 
tinuing ground water development. There is pro- 
jected a 1990 supplemental irrigation demand of about 
20,000 acre-feet per year. The high cost of water 
development, however, will make it difficult to meet 
this requirement. 

10. South Lahontan. Estimated present annual 
ground water overdraft amounts to about 120,000 
acre-feet. Projected State Water Project entitlement 
supplies, if delivered in 1990, could completely elim- 
inate the current overdraft and could add from 70,000 
to 100,000 acre-feet per year to underground storage 
in the Antelope V'alley-Mojave River areas. 

1 1 . Colorado Desert. Only modest increases of 
130,000 to 150,000 acre-feet per year in agricultural 
and urban applied water demands are projected for 
this region in 1990. The estimated 1972 annual ground 
water overdraft of almost 40,000 acre-feet could be 
mostly eliminated by use of State Water Project .sup- 
plies. The only significant new type of demand would 
be that for power plant cooling which could range 
from 40,000 to 130,000 acre-feet per year in 1990, 
part of which is expected to be served from the Colo- 
rado River entitlement of the Aletropolitan Water 
District of Southern California. 

Concerning Alternative Futures 

1. None of the four alternative futures presented 
in this bulletin was designed to represent a most prob- 
able future. If such a projection were to be developed, 
it would most likely result in a statewide water de- 
mand somewhere within the range of alternative fu- 
tures II and III. 

2. Selection of a future (s) as a basis for making a 
decision should reflect the degree of flexibility to 
change a decision. In other words, as long as it is not 
necessary to make a final decision, alternative futures 
should be examined and, when it becomes necessary 
to adopt a course of action, a single future must be 
selected. 

3. In evaluating actions to meet the short range 
1990 needs, the Department of Water Resources con- 
cludes that alternative future II is a reasonable basis 
since it would be unwise to risk water shortages due 
to unplanned rates of growth. In evaluating actions to 
meet 2020 needs the Department concludes that alter- 
native future III provides flcxibilit\- yet is a reasonable 
basis as use of this alternative future minimizes the 
likelihood of oversizing of facilities and overcommit- 
ment of resources. 



California's Water Resources 



California's natural water supplies arc derived from 
an average annual precipitation of 200 million acre- 
feet — the cijuivalcnt of more than 65 trillion gallons. 
About 65 percent of this precipitation is consumed 
through evaporation and transpiration by trees, plants, 
and other vegetation (Figure 1). The remaining 35 
percent comprises the State's average annual runoff 
of 71 million acre-feet. 

Water information compiled b\' the Department 
of Water Resources and presented in this report is 
shown by 1 1 h)'drologic study areas covering Cali- 
fornia, Figure 2. Average runoff in the h\drologic 
areas is shown in Figure 3. The wide disparity in run- 
off, both from year to year and between major drain- 
age areas, creates the need for the storage and 
conveyance of surface water and the extensive use of 
ground water. As shown in Figure 3, the greatest 
amounts of runoff arc available in areas with the fewest 
people, i.e., the North Coastal area and the Sacramento 
Basin. As California has grown, its surface water 



s\stems have been expanded to large-scale transfer 
systems, involving the storage and transportation of 
water almost the entire length of the State. 

A continuing major water problem today is the 
maintenance of a proper balance between the use of 
the State's water resources and protection and en- 
hancement of the natural environment. Prior to the 
1960s, environmental benefits for the preservation of 
cultural resources and aesthetic areas, including open 
and green space, wild rivers, and wilderness regions, 
were not usually included in water project planning. 
Many such benefits were difficult to identify and are 
still difficult to measure because they cannot be as- 
signed a value, and the technique of cost and benefit 
anal\sis to determine relative value of a proposed 
project is no longer adequate. Accordingly, to reflect 
today's widespread concern for the natural environ- 
ment, water resources planning has been broadened 
to include consideration of aesthetic and ecological 
effects. 



State Responsibility for Water Development 



California's responsibilit\- for the development and 
wise use of her water resources is set forth in various 
sections of the California Water Code. The Depart- 
ment of Water Resources and the State Water Re- 
sources Control Board each are assigned specific duties 



in the Code. The Board regulates activities that affect 
quality and rights to use of the waters of the State. 
Water Code Section 10005, in addition to establishing 
the California Water Plan, assigns the Department of 
Water Resources the responsibility for updating and 




EVAPORATION 

AND 

TRANSPIRATION 



PRECIPITATION 



'/^ 



SEEPAGE TO 
GROUND STORAGE 




EVAPORATION 
FROM OCEAN 



TO THE OCEAN 




Figure 1. The Hydrologic Cycle 

— 5 — 



NC - NORTH COASTAL 

SF - SAN FRANCISCO BAY 

CC - CENTRAL COASTAL 

SC - SOUTH COASTAL 

SB - SACRAMENTO BASIN 

DC - DELTA-CENTRAL SIERRA 

SJ - SAN JOAQUIN BASIN 

IB - TULARE BASIN 

NL - NORTH LAHONTAN 

SL - SOUTH LAHONTAN 

CD - COLORADO DESERT 




M S 



Figure 2. Hydrologic Study Areas of Colifornia 

— 6 — 



supplementing tlie Plan. The Department carries out 
tliis rcsponsibiiit)- through a statewide planning pro- 
gram, wliich guides the selection of the most favorable 
pattern for use of the State's water resources, con- 
sidering all reasonable alternative courses of action. 
Such altcrnatixcs are evaluated on the basis of tech- 
nical fcasil)ility and economic, social, and institutional 
factors. The program comprises: 

• Periodic reassessment of existing and future de- 
mands for water for all uses in eacii of the 
hydrologic study areas of California 

• Periodic reassessment of local water resources, 
w atcr uses, and the magnitude and timing of the 
need for additional water supplies that cannot 
be provided locally. 

• Appraisal of various alternative sources of 
water — ground water, surface water, reclaimed 
waste water, desalting, geothcrmal resources, 
etc., — to meet future demands in areas of water 
deficiency. 

• Determination of the need for protection and 
preservation of water resources in keeping w ith 
protection and enhancement of the environment. 

• Evaluation of water development plans. 




Figure 3. Average Annual Runoff in Million Acre-Feet 



Organization of Bulletin 160-74 



Bulletin Xo. 160-74 and its summary report have 
the same format, which consists of six chapters. Chap- 
ter I discusses historic and recent events in water 
resources planning and development in California, in- 
cluding recent environmental planning, measures to 
enhance water qualit\', and the recent interest and 
close involvement of the public in environmental 
enhancement. Chapter 1 also touches on a recent 
National Water Commission report, which indicates 
possible forthcoming changes in U. S. water policies. 
Finally, tiic chapter reports on California's cooperative 
activities with federal water agencies and other west- 
ern states, and briefly describes recent trends in land 
use planning and controls. 

Chapter 2 presents a discussion of important water- 
policy issues for consideration by legislators, admin- 



istrators and the public. Chapter 3 presents alternative 
future projections — of population, agriculture, and 
electrical energy. In addition. Chapter 3 discusses the 
trends and influences that affect other water-related 
needs, such as (a) recreation, fish, and wildlife, (b) 
environmental quality, (c) water quality, and (d) 
flood control. 

In Chapter 4, the alternative future projections pre- 
sented in Chapter 3 are discussed in terms of future 
water demands. 

Chapter 5 discusses potential supplemental sources 
of water supply and water quality- planning. Chapter 
6 relates the alternative future projections of water 
demand presented in Chapter 4 to existing developed 
supplies and gives estimates of future supplemental 
water demands. 




Pine Flat Reservoir, constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pfiofo 



— 8 



I. HISTORIC AND RECENT EVENTS 



During the past 125 years, tlic development of Cali- 
fornia's water, which began with the diversion of 
gold-mining and irrigation supplies from streams by 
individual miners, farmers, and ranchers, has culmi- 
nated in large interbasin transfer systems, such as the 
federal Central Valley Project and the California State 



Water Project. Although these large projects are more 
widely known, the efforts of local water agencies have 
long dominated water development in the State. Plate 
1 (Page 28) shows major features of the State Water 
Project and federal and local projects. 



Water Resources Development in California 



The construction of large dams began in California 
during the 1880s. Whereas the early projects were 
chiefly intended to provide water for local use, the 
concept of long-distance transfer of water supplies 
came into being not long after 1900. Los Angeles 
began diverting water from the Owens River, some 
240 miles to the northeast, in 1916; water is conveyed 
to the city from Owens Valley through the twin- 
pipeline Los Angeles Aqueduct. Since 1934, San Fran- 
cisco has imported much of its water through its 
Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct from the Hetch Hetchy 
Project on the Tuolumne River, 150 miles east of San 
Francisco. 

Similarly, the East Bay Municipal Utilitj' District, 
which serves Oakland, Alameda, and other east bay 
communities, obtains water from Pardee Reservoir on 
the Mokelumne River, some 85 miles east of Oakland. 
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern Cali- 
fornia diverts water from the Colorado River and 
transports it 240 miles to Los Angeles through the 
Colorado River Aqueduct. 

The first comprehensive statewide investigations of 
California's water resources were conducted by the 
State Engineer beginning in 1920. Ten years later, 
the results of these investigations were published as 
Division of Water Resources' Bulletin No. 25, "Re- 
port to Legislature of 1931 on State Water Plan". 
This report and subsequent studies lead to state author- 
ization of the Central V^alley Project. 

Federal Water Projecfs m California 

The State Water Plan, which envisioned transfers 
of surplus water from the Sacramento River Basin 
to water-deficient areas of the State, particularly the 
upper San Francisco Bay area and the San Joaquin 
Valley, eventually formed the basis for the Federal 
Central Valley Project (CVP). A key CVP feature 
(Plate 1) is Shasta Dam and Lake, near the junction 
of the Sacramento, McCIoud, and Pit Rivers, which 
conserves surplus flows in these rivers, regulates flood 
flows in the Central Valley, enhances navigation on 



the Department of Water 



the Sacramento River, controls salinity in the Sacra- 
mento-San Joaquin Delta, and produces hydroelectric 
energy. Near Tracy, water is pumped into the 120- 
mile-long Delta-Mendota Canal for use along the west 
side of the San Joaquin Valley and to replace San 
Joaquin River water diverted at Millerton Lake. 

An important CV'P feature is Trinity Dam and 
Clair Engle Lake on the Trinity River, which, in com- 
bination with Whiskeytown Reservoir on a tributary 
of the Sacramento River, furnishes hydroelectric en- 
ergv and north coastal water for use in the Central 
Valley. 

Another key CVP feature is Friant Dam (Alillerton 
Lake) on the San Joaquin River in Fresno County 
and the Madera and Friant-Kern Canals, which sen'e 
the east side of the San Joaquin Valley in Madera, 
Fresno, Tulare, and Kern Counties. Still another im- 
portant C\T unit is Folsom Dam (Folsom Lake) near 
Sacramento, which regulates flood flows on the Amer- 
ican River and furnishes hydroelectric energy to the 
CVP network. 

In 1967, the Bureau of Reclamation completed the 
San Luis Division addition to the CV^P. The joint 
federal-state San Luis Dam and Pumping Plant is also 
a key feature of the California State Water Project. 
Other CVP works under construction include Auburn 
Dame on the North Fork American River, the Fol- 
som-South Canal, and the San Luis Drain. The CVP 
is currently delivering some six million acre-feet of 
water to local agencies. 

The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers is also involved 
in water development in California. Principal flood 
control projects include Pine Flat and Isabella Reser- 
voirs in the Tulare Basin, Lake Mendocino on the 
Russian River, and an e.xtensive system of channels 
and reservoirs in the Sacramento Valley, South 
Coast, and other areas of the State. Recently com- 
pleted projects include Martis Dam and Reservoir on 
Martis Creek in Nevada County and Mojave Dam on 
the Mojave River. Projects under construction include 
New Melones Dam on the Stanislaus River, Warm 
Springs Dam on the Russian River in Sonoma County, 
Hidden Dam on the Fresno River, and Buchanan Dam 
on the Chowchilla River. 



— 9 



California Staie Water Project 

The California State Water Project (Plate 1) — 
designated in the California Water Plan as the initial 
unit for state construction — is now delivering water 
to 24 water-service agencies in the Feather River area, 
San Francisco Bay area, San Joaquin Valley, and 
Southern California. The May 1973 dedication of 
Perris Dam in Riverside County marked the comple- 
tion of the initial facilities of the Project, the largest 
single water delivery system in the world. 

Construction of the State Water Project began in 
1957 with the relocation of highways and railroads 
near the present site of Lake Oroville, where water is 
stored for distribution to drier areas of the State. To- 
day the principal Project facilities include 23 dams 
and reservoirs, 16 pumping plants, 5 powerplants, and 
the 444-mile-long main line of the California Aque- 
duct, along with its four main branch lines — the South 
Bay Aqeuduct, the West Branch, and portions of the 
Coastal Branch, and the North Bay Aqueduct. The 
Peripheral Canal is being designed for service to begin 
in 1980. 

Transition to the Present 

The ten years following publication of the CaJifor- 
nia Water Plan was a decade of swift population 
growth and rapidly increasing demands for water. In 
1966, the Department of Water Resources published 
Bulletin 160-66, "Implementation of the California 
Water Plan". This bulletin reported that the popu- 
lation of California — soon to be the most populous 
state in the nation — had increased almost 45 percent, 
from 13 million to almost 19 million since 1955. On 
the basis of this performance, California's population 
was projected to exceed 35 million by 1990 and to 
top 54 million in 2020. 

Bulletin 160-66 forecast that by 1990, statewide irri- 
gated acreage would increase to 9.5 million acres, and 
to 10.8 million acres by 2020. Under these circum- 
stances, substantial additions to the authorized water 
conservation facilities of the State Water Project and 
federal Central Valley Project, as well as other water 
supply systems, would be needed by 1980. 

By 1970, however, the spectacular population 
growth rate of the 1940s, 1950s, and early 1960s had 
slowed down markedly due to reductions in both 
births and immigration. Accordingly, Bulletin No. 
160-70 *, the second in the Bulletin 160 series, forecast 
a 1990 population of 29 million and a 2020 population 
of 45 million. On the basis of these revised predictions, 
irrigated acreage was predicted to increase to 9.3 mil- 
lion acres by 1990 and to 9.6 million acres by 2020. 
Bulletin No. 160-70 also predicted that more time 



Water Plan. Outlook 



would be available to develop new water supplies and 
that additional conservation facilities would not be 
needed until some time during the 1990s. 

A number of significant events have occurred in 
the last four years, some of which have tended to 
place an increased burden on the State's water re- 
sources and some of which have directed more atten- 
tion to those factors affecting the future use of water 
resources. At the federal level, the National Water 
Commission has published probably the most compre- 
hensive report ever seen on water management; a Na- 
tional Environmental Policy Act has been adopted; 
Congress has given considerable attention to a Na- 
tional Land Use Policy; and principles and standards 
have been established by the Water Resources Coun- 
cil and adopted by the President that add environ- 
mental quality as an objective for planning. 

At the state level California has adopted a Wild 
and Scenic Rivers Act which dedicates about one- 
fourth of the State's surface water flow to scenic and 
recreational use; an Environmental Quality Act simi- 
lar to the federal legislation has been adopted; and 
several major administrative decisions concerning 
water rights have focused attention on natural environ- 
mental and esthetic uses of water. 

National Water Commission Report 

A recent report issued by the National Water Com- 
mission indicates that U.S. water resources policies 
may soon be changed, particularly the method of fi- 
nancing water projects. The report, "Water Policies 
For the Future" (June 1973), is the most comprehen- 
sive analysis of federal water policies and practices, 
and the most far-reaching in its recommendations, ever 
published. The Commission, which was established by 
Congress in 1968 and terminated in 1973, was directed 
to ". . . review present and anticipated national wa- 
ter resource problems, making such projections of 
water requirements as may be necessary and identify- 
ing alternative methods of meeting those requirements 
. . . and (2) consider economic and social conse- 
quences of water resource development . . . and (3) 
advise on specific matters . . . referred to it by the 
President and the Water Resources Council." 

The report advocates increased planning at local or 
regional levels supported by federal funding. Further- 
more, the Commission strongly urges that responsi- 
bility for financing water projects should be shifted 
to those who will benefit from them. In keeping with 
this idea, the Commission's sunmiary report suggests 
the following five new "waternomics" (sic) policies: 

1. Inland Waterways. "Users of inland waterways 
should pay costs of operation and maintenance. On 
future waterway projects, beneficiaries should repay 
construction costs \vith interest." 



10 



2. Water Supply Projects. "Future water supply 
projects for municipal, industrial, and agricultural 
Avatcr should oniv be undertaken if ail costs of con- 
struction, operation and maintenance can be recovered 
from beneficiaries." 

}. Agricultural Land Enhanccvient Programs. 
"Subsidized reclamation programs place an unfair 
burden on taxpayers. Agricultural \\ater projects, such 
as irrigation of arid lands, drainage of wetlands, and 
flood protection for bottom lands should be paid for 
in the price of the crops." 

4. Flood Control. "Costs of flood control projects 
such as reservoirs, dams, and levees to protect flood 
plains often exceed the cost of developing flood-free 
land. Costs of flood control projects should be paid 
for by the beneficiaries." 

5. Recreational Benefits. "Where federal tax 
money is used to provide recreational benefits the 
users should repay costs through direct user fees and 
excise taxes on some recreational equipment." 

Adoption of all these recommendations would ap- 
pear to almost remove the Federal Government from 
the water resources picture. However, the report also 
states that ". . . there will be a continuing need for 
vigilant federal oversight. . . . The Federal Govern- 
ment should encourage regional, state and local pro- 
grams, and assume responsibility when other levels 
of government fail to perform." Furthermore, the 
report also suggests joint federal and nonfederal fi- 
nancing of water projects as a method that will "pro- 
vide incentives for the selection of efficient projects 
. . . and that would require projects to be in the 
proper locations, at the proper time, to provide the 
proper services in the proper amounts." The report 
concludes that ". . . cost-sharing policies should be 
equitable, with project beneficiaries bearing propor- 
tionate shares of project costs." 

The State of California agreed with some of the 
National Water Commission's conclusions and recom- 
mendations and disagreed with others. The State con- 
sidered unrealistic: (a) the assumption of greatly in- 
creased prices for water, and (b) assumed shifts of 
agricultural production from irrigated to nonirrigated 
lands. The State also disagreed with economic criteria 
proposed for interbasin transfers of water. 

Environmental Events 

Toda\% the State is vitally concerned with the qual- 
ity of the environment and, along with the Federal 
Government, has taken a number of steps to better 
incorporate this concern into all future water re- 
sources planning. Planning for water development is a 
critical element in environmental protection because 
of the direct effect of water projects on the ecosys- 
tem. A proposed water project can no longer be eval- 
uated solely on the basis of a cost and benefit analysis 



but, instead, must include consideration and evaluation 
of its effects on the environment. 

Environmental Legislation 

Bulletin No. 160-70 reported that the 1970s had been 
declared "the decade of the environment" b\' both the 
National Congress and the California Legislature. Just 
prior to 1970, Congress had enacted the National En- 
vironmental Polic\' Act of 1969 to prevent damage to 
the natural environment and to protect the nation's 
natural resources. The federal Wild and Scenic Rivers 
Act sets for the basic principle that certain rivers of 
the Nation arc to be preserved in a free-flowing condi- 
tion and protected for the enjoyment of present and 
future generations. Named in the Act was the Middle 
Fork Feather River, one of the first to be so desig- 
nated. 

In 1972, the California Legislature passed a Cali- 
fornia Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Act placed 
eight California rivers in a state system and provided 
that they be classified as wild, scenic, and recreational. 
These are the entire Smith River and major portions 
of the Klamath, Trinit\-, Scott, Salmon, Eel, Van Du- 
zen, and the north fork and lower main stem of the 
American River. Except for the Eel River, the Act 
precludes all planning and construction of projects 
that ^\•ould directl\- affect the free-flowing condition 
of the rivers. 

The law directs that after 1984, the Department of 
Water Resources will report to the Legislature on 
the results of studies of the need for flood control and 
water suppK' conservation facilities on the Eel. This 
report will be the basis for legislative hearings to 
determine whether portions of the Eel River should 
be removed from the system. 

The National Environmental Policy Act requires 
all federal agencies, in every recommendation for a 
project that would significantly affect the quality of 
the human environment, to include an "Environmental 
Impact Statement." This is a detailed statement of the 
possible adverse environmental effects of the proposed 
project and is required not only with proposals by 
federal agencies but also with proposals by other agen- 
cies that would include federal financing. 

A corollar)' law at the state level is the California 
Environmental Quality Act of 1910. This Act requires 
state and local agencies to include an "Environmental 
Impact Report" on all projects they propose to carry 
out or approve. In addition, the Act requires state 
agencies to include funds for environmental protec- 
tion in all budgetary requests. 

Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act 

The Porter-Cologne Water Qualit\- Control Act of 
1970 strengthened the State Water Quality Act of 
1949 and required implementation of a statewide pro- 
gram for control of the quality of all water resources 



11 — 



of the State. To assist in this program, the people of 
California appproved the Clean Water Bond Law in 
1970, which enabled the sale of $250 million in gen- 
eral obligation bonds to assist local government agen- 
cies in correcting and preventing water pollution. 
Some $6 million was allocated to the State Water Re- 
sources Control Board for the development of plans 
for water quality control in 16 planning basins cover- 
ing the entire State. The Department of Water Re- 
sources is preparing plans for four of the basins for 
the State Board. Each plan is designed to preserve and 
enhance water quality and to protect beneficial uses 
over the next 25 to 30 years. 

Public Involvement 

Much of the recent environmental legislation re- 
flects firm public support. Public opinion polls taken 
during the late 1960s and early 1970s showed strong 
sentiment toward environmental protection, and all 
levels of government — Congress, the California Legis- 
lature, and local boards and commissions — responded 
to the apparent concern of their constituents. Citizens 
are also voicing their concern more directly. For ex- 
ample, in 1972, California voters approved an initiative 
which established the California Coastal Zone Protec- 
tion Act. The Act established a State Commission and 
six regional commissions who are responsible for pro- 
tection and preservation of the coastal environment. 
The State Commission, with input from the regional 
bodies, must submit a coastline protection plan to the 
Legislature by January 1976. After the plan has been 
approved by the Legislature, all development and con- 
struction in designated coastline areas will have to 
meet the criteria established by the plan. In the mean- 
time, all development within 1,000 yards of the ocean 
must be approved by the appropriate regional com- 
mission. 

Water Rights Decisions 

Three recent decisions by the State Water Re- 
sources Control Board, Decisions 1379, 1400, and 1422, 
have imposed significant environmental constraints on 
water development in California. All three decisions 
significantly affect the operation of existing water 
projects as well as future planning. All three are under 
court review. 

Decision 1319 will require greater outflows from 
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta than those consid- 
ered in previous planning and will reduce the quan- 
tity of water available for delivery to the service 
areas of the Central Valley Project and State Water 
Project. In effect, the decision establishes water qual- 
ity standards in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, 
and directs the Bureau of Reclamation and the De- 
partment of Water Resources to maintain these stand- 
ards. This will require either reducing project diver- 
sions or releasing stored water. The objective of the 



standards is to protect agricultural, municipal and 
industrial, and fishery uses in the Delta. 

Decision 1400, which applies to Auburn Reservoir 
on the American River, requires greatly increased 
flows — from 1,250 to 1,500 cubic feet per second 
(cfs) — rather than 250 to 500 cfs — for fishery and 
recreation uses in the American River from Nimbus 
Dam to its confluence with the Sacramento River. The 
Bureau of Reclamation had planned to divert much 
of the flow of the American to service areas in Sacra- 
mento and San Joaquin Counties through the Folsom- 
South Canal. Decision 1400 will enhance fishery and 
recreational benefits in the American River between 
Folsom Dam and Sacramento. 

Decision 1422 orders the Bureau of Reclamation to 
limit storage in New Melones Reservoir on the Stanis- 
laus River to slightl\- more than half the total reservoir 
capacity until a specific need for additional water 
service for consumptive purposes is demonstrated. The 
storage limitation will extend the use of a popular 
"Whitewater" area and at the same time provide suffi- 
cient yield to satisfy demands for local service area 
irrigation, water quality control, and fishery and wild- 
life benefits. Hydroelectric energy generation and 
recreation aspects of the project will be curtailed. 

Litigation 

The courts have played an increased role in water 
resources development during the last several years. 
Most litigation against agencies planning or construct- 
ing water projects has been initiated by individuals or 
groups who believe that such projects v\ ould adversely 
affect the environment or that the project plans in- 
cluded insufficient environmental protection. A'lany of 
the lawsuits were brought under the National Environ- 
mental Policy Act or the California Environmental 
Quality Act. 

In California, although lawsuits have delayed some 
projects, no water projects have been totally aban- 
doned because of litigation alone. However, many cur- 
rent lawsuits are still in various stages of trial or pre- 
trial or have been appealed to higher courts, and some 
of these will not be resolved for several years. 

State-Federal and Interstate Activities 

California's ability to provide adequate water for 
future needs is in part dependent on the State's rela- 
tionship with agencies of the Federal Government. In 
another respect its coordination with other western 
states is also important. California's participation in a 
number of state-federal and interstate activities is de- 
scribed in some detail in the full report. The activities 
dealt with include California's cooperation with or 
participation in: 

1. The Western U. S. Water Plan Study, which 
was undertaken to develop a general plan to meet 
the future water needs of the western states. 



12 — 



2. Cooperative studies of the salinity of the Colo- 
rado River. 

3. The Western States Water Council, whose pur- 
pose is to provide cooperation in Avater planning 
among the states of the West. 

4. The California State-Federal Interagency Group, 
^\•hich was established as a forum for exchange 
of information and resolution of problems among 
a number of state and federal agencies in Cali- 
fornia. 

5. The Klamath River Basin Compact and the Cali- 
fornia-Nevada Interstate Compact, under which 
California cooperates with Oregon and Nevada, 
respectively, in the administration and use of sur- 
face waters common to both states. 

Land Use Planning and Controls 

Land-use controls are not a new concept in Cali- 
fornia. Federal, state, and local governments, as well 
as public initiative action, have all contributed a va- 
riety of control mechanisms. Recently, however, prin- 
cipally in response to environmental concerns, the 
number of such control measures has been increasing. 
The controls imposed on land development by the 
National Environmental Policy Act and the California 
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 have already been 



described. A recent dramatic example of public initia- 
tive is the California Coastal Zone Protection Act of 
1972 (described in a previous paragraph). In a recent 
report on land use and associated environmental issues, 
the Council of Environmental Quality, established by 
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, de- 
scribed the many new land-use controls as a "quiet 
revolution." 

Federal legislation recently under consideration 
^\■ould have had state governments responsible for (I) 
establishing a statewide land use planning process 
within 3 years of passage, (2) developing an adequate 
state land-use program within 5 years of passage, and 
(3) establishing an intergovernmental advisory' council 
consisting of local governmental officials. Under the 
legislation, states would have been required to have 
the power to regulate development around important 
major facilities, such as airports, freeway interchanges, 
etc., and to regulate real estate development 10 miles 
beyond the boundaries of a "Standard Metropolitan 
Statistical Area." These bills died in Congress, but 
similar legislation will probably be enacted in the 
future. 

In California, recent legislative concern has been 
directed toward establishing a responsible state agency 
to assist the Legislature in designating areas of critical 
concern and establishing rules and regulations for land 
development within those areas. 



13 



II. KEY WATER POLICY ISSUES 



A significant aspect of tiic greatly expanded public 
concern for natural environmental conditions is the 
need for greater consideration of interrelationships of 
actions, "trade-offs", and secondary- effects. The need 
to evaluate the interrelationships, and frequently even 
their existence, is not alw ays recognized. The complex 
interrelationships need to be understood to avoid 
simplistic or partial solutions to water problems. 

The following discussions outline some of the cur- 
rent water policy issues that need thorough consider- 
ation. In some cases adequate data arc not available to 
make complete assessments of the interrelationships 
currently considered important. Awareness of these 
and the likely direction of the effects is, however, 
very important to sound decisions. Every effort should 
be made to avoid actions that produce unexpected and 
adverse results. All of the issues relate to changing 
public attitudes that affect or arc affected by water 
development and management. The principal cause 
for the changes relates to revised views on protection 
and enhancement of the natural environment. 

Over the past quarter centur\', the technology of 
economic analysis as applied in the planning, formu- 
lation, and design of government-sponsored water re- 
sources development has reached a high level of so- 
phistication, particularly as compared \\ ith the analvsis 
of other government-sponsored programs. This tech- 
nology, based largely on economic criteria, has its 
critics and its difficulties. When properly and con- 
scientiously applied it provided a tangible basis for 
decision making in connection with implementation of 
major water resources development and the allocation 
of the costs among beneficiaries. 

Within recent years, however, this approach to the 
decision making process has been seriously challenged 
by those who contend that preservation and enhance- 
ment of the natural environment, and social considera- 
tions, are of primary concern in connection with any 
development-oriented undertaking. These considera- 
tions are highly qualitative, judgment oriented, and 
not readil\' adaptable to quantitative expression or eco- 
nomic dimensioning. When included in water project 
development they result in benefits and costs which 
many significantly affect the cost of other products 
and services. 

In an expanding economy under conditions of in- 
creasing population, maintenance of the status quo, 
or the "no project alternative", usually represents a 
cost in itself, since the products and services \\ hich 
society demands must be supplied from a more costly 
alternative. Indeed, the "environmental movement" 
and the increasing awareness and concern on the part 
of the general public for the natural environment and 
esthetics appear to be side effects or results of increas- 



ing economic affluence in a large sector of society. 

Although environmental and esthetic goals involve 
economic aspects, it is not necessary that these con- 
siderations be forced into a rigorous economic frame- 
work. Care must be taken, however, to adopt a rea- 
sonable balance bet\veen economic factors and sub- 
jective factors to provide opportunity for the eco- 
nomically handicapped portion of society to increase 
its level of economic affluence to a point w here it can 
participate in the natural environmental and esthetic 
amenities of California. Such an approach would rec- 
ognize the impact of water management actions on the 
environment as well as recognize the economic and 
social impact of development. There is need for a 
straightfor\\ard, workable basis for formulating and 
evaluating water resources development, and for al- 
locating the costs of such development among all bene- 
ficiaries, including those for whom the natural environ- 
mental and esthetic considerations are enhanced. 

The issues presented in this chapter have significant 
potential impact on the public and most have received 
public attention. Most have been extensively reviewed 
and discussed in various forums including the work- 
shops held by the Department of Water Resources in 
the preparation of this bulletin. While the subjects 
have received wide attention, the ramifications of the 
courses of action have not always received the atten- 
tion necessary to develop public policy and decisions. 

Cooling Water for Electric Energy Production 

The cooling w ater policy issue arises because limita- 
tions on locating power plants on the coast are creat- 
ing a substantial previousl\- unplanned-for demand on 
inland water resources. Significant resource trade-offs 
and costs result from the coastal limitations. 

In recent decades most of the increased demand for 
electric energy in California has been met by con- 
structing thermal electric plants. Although the remain- 
ing hydroelectric potential is significant, pollution-free, 
and nonconsumptive of fuels (as pointed out in De- 
partment of Water Resources' Bulletin No. 194, 
"Hydroelectric Energy Potential in California") the 
majority of future energy requirements must still be 
met by thermal generating plants. Thermal plants re- 
quire some high quality water for steam generation, 
w hich is frequently obtained by distillation, and much 
larger quantities of cooling water to recondense the 
steam and to remove approximately 50 to 60 percent 
of the heat which cannot be converted to electricity 
due to natural heat exchange limitations. This cooling 
water is either passed through the plant and dis- 
charged back into its source or recycled through cool- 
ing tow ers where heat is removed by evaporation. 



— 15 



Thermal electric plants located along the Pacific 
Ocean or its bays and estuaries take advantage of the 
large volume of cold water available and use once- 
through cooling systems. Concerns about the marine 
environment, the esthetics of coastal plants, and the 
safety of structures against earthquakes, however, 
have greatly restricted further construction of new 
plants along the coast during the past few years. The 
present trend is toward location of new thermal plants 
at inland sites. Plants in these areas will require recir- 
culation of the cooling water, most of which must 
come from fresh water resources. The number of new 
plants which will be constructed at inland sites will 
depend on many factors but it is possible that the 
cooling water demands may range between 300,000 
and 400,000 acre-feet annually by the year 1990. Even 
more water might be required in later years, although 
technological advances may improve cooling methods 
and energy conservation programs may slow the rate 
of growth in demand. The U.S. Environmental Pro- 
tection Agency is currently proposing that all existing 
plants stop using ocean water for cooling and switch 
to other sources. To do so would require by 1977 
about 200,000 acre-feet of fresh water annually. The 
Department of Water Resources, State Water Re- 
sources Control Board, and the electric utilities have 
expressed concern to the Environmental Protection 
Agency that such a requirement is impractical and 
unnecessary. 

Many of the natural environmental concerns about 
coastal sites apply equally well to inland sites. While 
there are impacts on marine resources from use of 



ocean water for cooling, the development of addi- 
tional surface water supplies for inland plants will also 
have environmental impacts on fresh water fish and 
wildlife resources. Similarly, concern with the esthet- 
ics and scenery on the coast will be translated to anal- 
ogous concerns at inland locations. Plants at coastal 
locations using once-through cooling are not as large 
and imposing as ones located inland with their large 
cooling towers, which typically are several hundred 
feet tall if natural draft is used. An alternative to cool- 
ing towers would be construction of large ponds, 
which could be esthetically pleasing but require large 
areas of land. Consideration is currently being given to 
using air cooling, in which the cooling water is recir- 
culated through a radiator system similar to that used 
in an automobile. These costly systems, however, 
would require very large installations covering large 
areas in order to provide enough cooling surface, and 
they also require energy for pumping. 

Water for cooling at inland locations, however, can 
in part be obtained from waste water discharges which 
may be too brackish to use for other purposes. Waste 
water that would otherwise be discharged to the 
ocean that could be used for power plant cooling 
could result in an overall economic benefit. The cost 
of electric generation may be somewhat greater than 
if fresh water is used due to the cost of pretreatment 
of the water. The cost of disposing of the waste water, 
however, could be much lower because the volume 
may be only about one-tenth the initial volume due 
to the concentrating effect of the evaporative process. 
In the Central Valley there will be significant quan- 




Ocean woter cooling at Diablo Conyon Nuclear Power Plant 

— 16 — 



titles of waste water which must otherwise he dis- 
charged to the ocean. This water must be collected, 
treated, and stored for cooling. Some discharges into 
the Salton Sea may also offer potential for power plant 
cooling. The level of the Salton Sea would, however, 
be lowered and the salinity increased. This would 
have an impact on the fishery resources and the recre- 
ation use of the Salton Sea. 

A major untapped source of waste water would be 
the urban discharges to the ocean and its estuaries. Due 
to safety and environmental considerations, it has been 
difficult to locate power plants near the metropolitan 
areas, and the use of urban waste water for cooling 
would involve extensive collection and transmission 
facilities. 

An additional factor involved in the source of cool- 
ing water is the physical advantage of the cold Pa- 
cific Ocean over inland water supplies. The ocean water 
in Northern California is generally 20-25 degrees 
colder than inland supplies and therefore is a more ef- 
ficient coolant. The difference in Southern California 
may be around 10-15 degrees. The increased efficiency 
of power plants using colder sea water w hen compared 
to plants operated inland with warmer waters and 
evaporative coolers would be equivalent to between 
15 and 20 million barrels of oil annuall>- for the addi- 
tional plants needed b\- 1990. 

Boards and agencies responsible for developing coast- 
al zone and control plans, the Legislature, and the 
public should be aware of the trade-offs which are 
involved. The esthetic impact on the coastline should 
be compared to the trade-off of a highly visible inland 
site w ith its massive cooling towers. Waste w ater in 
the San Joaquin \'alley used for cooling at inland sites 
might be some of the water now used for Delta sa- 
linity control and w ould have to be offset by fresh 
water outflow . Until waste water can be collected and 
adequately treated, it may be necessar\- in some areas 
of the state to use fresh w ater for cooling thus impos- 
ing additional stress on the state's w ater supplies. The 
coastal site limitations on pow er plants will create very 
similar inland problems. 

Water Deficiencies 

The size and scheduling of future water conserva- 
tion facilities, particularly for the State Water Project 
and tiic Central \'allcy Project, depend to some degree 
on the ccrtaint\' of meeting contractual delivery sched- 
ules, if it is nor necessary to fully meet the contractual 
commitments during dry years, the water supplx' avail- 
able during "normal" or wet years can be spread out 
to more users, or the date by which additional conser- 
vation facilities are needed for a given service area can 
be deferred. This latter concept is the basis for sug- 
gestions for increasing the yield of the State Water 
Project and the Central Valley Project by simply ex- 
panding the degree of risk in meeting w ater dcliver\- 



commitments. The policy issue is whether an increased 
degree of risk should be borne b>' water users in order 
to defer or avoid additional water development. Equi- 
table consideration of any increased risk would involve 
all water uses, including municipal and industrial 
users, agriculture, fish and wildlife, recreation, and 
hydroelectric generation. 

The dependable or firm yield of each water project 
traditionally has been based on the capabilities of that 
project to furnish water service on some prescribed 
pattern or schedule during the most severe drought of 
record. Built into this approach are tempering allow- 
ances for reduction of water deliveries in critical!)- dry 
vears. For example. State Water Project contracts with 
agricultural customers provide for maximum defi- 
ciency of up to 50 percent of contractual amounts in 
any one year and up to 100 percent cumulative defi- 
ciency over a seven-year period after which municipal 
and agricultural users jointly share an\' further short- 
ages. The practical effect of these deficiency allow- 
ances in project planning and design is to build in some 
degree of risk, but the amount of risk is usually not 
statistically determined. 

For water projects using Northern California water 
supplies such as the Central V^alley Project and the 
State Water Project, the historic drought which oc- 
curred during the six water seasons 1929 through 
1934 is the critical period for project water yield 
snidies. This period was the worst sustained drought 
in the Sacramento River Basin in the 120 years of 
record in terms of length and severity. The driest 
single runoff year in the past 100 years was 1924 
(1864 was probably slightly drier, based on very 
limited rainfall records). 

The recurrence interval of a six-year drought com- 
parable in severity to the 1929-19.H critical dry period 
is not known. Estimates range from between 100 and 
400 years, and the best estimate at this time is that 
a similar drought could be expected about once every 
200 years on the average. It could occur twice in 
successive decades, however. 

Critics of the traditional "historic critical period" 
method have suggested that probability methods be 
used for determining the design size and water yield 
accomplishment of water resource projects. With the 
advent of the electronic computer, this approach is 
possible, but the matter of risk remains. Three aspects 
need to be evaluated somewhere in this process: (1) 
assessment of the level of risk built into the traditional 
approach, an cxtrcmeK- important point to those hold- 
ing existing contracts for firm yield; (2) the economic 
effect of water shortages on various types of use; and 
(3) the degree of risk of water and hydroelectric 
power shortage which the public is able or willing to 
accept and the equitable distribution of such risks. 

The same water development system might be able 
to provide more water on the average than the calcu- 
lated dry period safe yield, if sufficient conveyance 



17 



capacity existed. Operating in this manner would tend 
to use ail or much of the reservoir carryover reserves 
during the current year rather than a longer and more 
conservative carryover as assumed in conventional 
studies; therefore, the shortages which occur would 
generally be greater. The average water supply would 
be increased, but the lack of dependability would 
also be increased, causing dry year hardships for some 
water users whose investments may require a firm 
or dependable supply. Hydroelectric power produc- 
tion would also be reduced in dry years due to lower 
water levels in reserviors. This would require addi- 
tional installed capacity in new thermal electric plants. 
The sharing of water deficiencies between agencies 
under drought conditions would be constrained by 
institutional and legal considerations. Water rights are 
property rights and there is no legal basis for sharing 
between users of different basins. 

Cost Sharing of Environmental Enhancement 

As a general principle of cquit)-, the cost of mitiga- 
tion, due to the loss of a public resources, such as 
fish, has been borne by water project beneficiaries. 
Considerable efforts have been made to compensate 
for certain unavoidable losses. For example fish hatch- 
eries have been constructed to replace the loss of fish 
spawning areas due to dam construction. These have 
been accepted as project costs. There has not, how- 
ever, been a corresponding degree of concern with 
cost sharing for the benefits received ^hen enhance- 
ment occurs. 



In large federal water projects, such as those on 
the American River, there are generally many years 
between the time of authorization of a plan of ac- 
complishments with its corresponding cost-sharing 
formula and the time the project is completed and in 
operation. Public pressures for changes in plan or 
operation to enhance the natural environment are 
common but generally do not include any proposals 
for changing the cost-sharing formulas. In some cases 
large segments of the public can be benefited by 
project changes, while in other cases only limited num- 
bers of people enjoy the benefits. Frequentl)', signif- 
icant benefits incidental to the main purpose of project 
operation, such as a live summer stream with enough 
flow to produce "white water" rapids favored for 
recreation or an esthetically pleasing stream flow, are 
taken for granted. Intensive public pressures are ap- 
plied to retain the windfall benefits but little or no 
indication is made as to what project costs should be 
assigned to those benefits or how they should be 
paid for. The result is often long delays in carrying 
out the water program. 

In the Water Rights Decision 1379 of the State 
Water Resources Control Board provision was made 
for fishery enhancement. This decision, which calls 
for mitigation as well as enhancement, establishes cer- 
tain water quality conditions in the Sacramento-San 
Joaquin Delta which would in part be dependent on 
release of stored water. It would require about 500,- 
000 acre-feet annually of stored water from the State 
Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project 
to achieve the prescribed conditions for enhancement. 




To make up the loss of water resulting from the deci- 
sion would require the construction of a new water 
storage project in the Upper Sacramento \'al!e\' or 
the North Coast. 

Among public works projects, water development 
undertakings are in the forefront on economic justifi- 
cation, that is, benefits versus costs, and on cost alloca- 
tions. Over the years legislative acts have identified 
certain types of project accomplishments which are 
sufficiently widespread to warrant repayment from 
general taxes. This was the purpose of the Davis- 
Dolwig Act w hich applies only to the State Water 
Project. For federal water projects provision for en- 
hancement may be included at time of authorization, 
but great difficulty has arisen when these benefits 
have been added ex post facto. .As the t\pe and scope 
of environmental amenities expand, p^ublic policy on 
cost sharing has not kept pace, and financing and re- 
payment obligations have been assigned by default. 
There is a pressing need for further conscious con- 
sideration of the degree of general public benefit 
which could be paid by general taxes, and the extent of 
direct user repayment hy the specific beneficiaries. The 
process of evaluating public interest in paying for 
various environmental benefits would identify the rela- 
tion between benefits and costs and ma\- indicate the 
need to revise some goals. 

Water Quality Improvement 

Concern for the qualit\' of the ri\ers and lakes of 
the nation has become a major public issue in the 
last decade. The state and national programs for water 
quality improvement involve large sums of money and 
material and human resources, as well as releases of 
stored fresh water in some cases. The United States 
is now planning to spend billions of dollars over the 
next few years for clean water. Grants of up to 75 
percent of the cost of waste treatment facilities are 
available to local communities. In California an addi- 
tional 12.5 percent can be obtained from the State. 
These programs are designed to treat wastes from 
municipalities. They call for secondary treatment of 
all wastes by 1977, the best practicable treatment by 
1983, and elimination of all pollutant discharges to 
navigable waterways by 1985. There are also require- 
ments for major improvements in industrial waste dis- 
charges. Increasing attention is being directed to agri- 
cultural return flow s. Concern is also being expressed 
with the loads of pollution w hich run off from streets 
and urban areas during storm periods, and means of 
controlling these wastes are being considered. 

Benefits from the qualit\' improvements have gen- 
erally not been assessed in quantitative terms and 
compared to the costs, particularly the incremental 
benefits and costs resulting from varying levels of 
treatment. The issue of cost effectiveness was raised 



b\- the National Water Commission in its report of 
1973. 

The Federal Water Pollution Q)ntroI Act calls for 
a high degree of uniformity in requirements through- 
out the country. The water supplies, seasonal pre- 
cipitation patterns, present quality of rivers and lakes, 
and historic pollution control vary widely, however, 
and many of the requirements for humid and indus- 
trialized eastern states do not fit the California case. 
Strong water quality control has been in effect in Cali- 
fornia since the late 1940s, and in 1969 this control 
was further strengthened with enactment of the 
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control .Act. This Act 
establishes as state polic\- that quality of the water 
resources of the State shall be protected for the use 
and enjoyment of people and that activities which 
affect qualit\- shall be regulated to attain the highest 
water quality w hich is reasonable considering all uses 
of the water and all values involved. These qualified 
policies call for a balance between various water uses. 
The general public in its support for better water 
quality or waste treatment may not take into account 
the tradeoffs that such a program imposes. This could 
be in the form of higher taxes or prices for goods and 
services. 

Practically all of the attention has been directed 
toward the reduction of discharged pollutants. Less 
attention has been directed toward desirable degrees 
of w ater qualit\' in the rivers, lakes, and ground water 
bodies for beneficial uses. Since these are the sources 
of w ater suppl\- for other users, there is a relationship 
between the quality of the suppl_\' and the benefits 
derived by the subsequent user. In most cases there is 
a wide range of qualities which are fully satisfactory 
to meet consumptive urban, industrial, and agricultural 
needs as well as fish, wildlife, and recreation needs. 
The incremental savings w hich may result from pro- 
viding better quality water within that range may be 
far less than the costs of providing the incremental 
improvement. As the quality of the water supply 
deteriorates, the incremental costs to the user become 
increasingly greater, and in this range there may be 
justification for larger expenditures on water treat- 
ment. 

In addition to the overall question on the appropri- 
ate level of water quality achievement, there is the 
consideration of the payment of costs. Where there is 
widespread public benefit, it is generally satisfactor\' 
to use public taxes. Where identifiable commercial in- 
terests are involved, the costs are generally assigned to 
those interests but these increased costs of production 
are, in turn, passed on to the product consumers. 

Some proposals and requirements for water quality 
improvement involve releases of stored water from 
existing or future water projects. Dedication of the 
>ield of projects to this end may mean construction of 
additional and more costly facilities if other water re- 
quirements are to be met. The additional costs would 



— 19 



be passed on to a different group of beneficiaries unless 
special provisions arc made for repayment. Tiiere may 
also be environmental costs with additional water de- 
velopment \\ hich would be an offset to the environ- 
mental enhancement achieved b\' use of stored water. 
It is reasonable that additional consideration be given 
to all types of benefits of water quality improvement 
to be certain that benefits equal or exceed costs or 
offsets. Congress has recognized the need for methods 
of evaluation and the federal program is being evalu- 
ated by the National Commission on Water Quality. 
The Commission report is due in October 1976 and 
guidelines from this effort are anticipated. 

Water Supplies as a Growth Regulator 

There has been increasing activity in recent years to 
limit population growth by restricting water supplies. 
Most of these efforts have been at the local community 
level, but there are those who suggest that the denial 
of additional water would stop population growth in 
Southern California and thereby alleviate air quality 
problems, further congestion, and so on. Water is nec- 
essary to support growth as w ell as the status quo, but 
it is equally true that the factors influencing gro\\ th 
are many. 

In California, a State of over 20 million people, much 
of the pressures of grow th are related directly to nat- 
ural population increase. Decisions regarding numbers 
of children are matters of individual family planning 
and are based on considerations other than the availa- 
bility of w ater. There is no evidence that decisions to 
migrate to or from California or to other areas within 
the State are made on the basis of an assured water 
supply. Such movement has been induced principally 
by climatic, social, or economic reasons. Environmental 
qualit\- is also becoming a motivating factor and is 
affecting some growth patterns. 

When considering the growth issue recognition 
should be given that curtailing services such as water 
supplies may not, in fact, limit growth but induce 
health hazards, environmental degradation, and other 
complications. Further, in most Califorina urban areas 
growth would still be possible where w ater is in short 
suppl\' b\' taking water conservation, reclamation, and 
reuse measures. Finally, localized moves to control 
population expansion, if successful, might simph' trans- 
fer the growth and associated problems to another area. 

Government at all levels has mechanisms at its dis- 
posal to influence population growth patterns. A broad 
public policy to do so, however, does not exist. When 
and if such should occur, the State's water resources 
can be adjusted to accommodate grow th patterns. The 
more significant hurdles may be legal and institutional. 
Aside from recent court decisions confimiing the right 
to move, significant changes in water law would be 
necessary. Government can largely control further de- 
velopment of surface water simpl\' b\' withholding 



funds for building projects. The surface water supplies 
remaining to be developed require large projects to 
be economically feasible and are generally beyond the 
means of private individuals or the smaller public 
agencies. Ground water in California is another matter, 
however. In all but the adjudicated ground water basins 
of the State, any local public agency or an individual 
can construct a well and obtain water for a variety 
of purposes. Under existing law, the state or federal 
government has little influence on use of ground water 
except in those few areas where the basin has been so 
severely overdrawn that the courts through the ad- 
judicatory process have placed limits on the further 
withdrawal of ground water. A whole new body of 
ground w ater law w ould be required for the State to 
be able to designate areas that could not use available 
ground water to support further development. 

Another factor to be considered in limiting growth 
w ould be the payment of costs incurred and obligated 
in existing water projects that have been sized and 
constructed to support future growth. 

Role of Water Exchanges in Water Managenfient 

As California's water supplies become more fully 
used or reserved for natural environmental uses, such 
as wild and scenic rivers, it becomes increasingly im- 
portant to review w ater rights and management poli- 
cies. Alany changes would involve revised laws, but 
frequently much can be done within existing laws or 
with minor modifications. Significant policies, such as 
water rights, water pricing, water quality, and flexibil- 
ity of operations, are almost always involved. 

There are opportunities for water exchanges which 
could be considered to reduce the expenditure of re- 
sources to meet future needs and to make more effec- 
tive use of available resources. Each case will have its 
own particular problems. It will almost always be nec- 
essary to make some financial arrangements, and in 
many cases there would be water quality considera- 
tions. Two key ingredients to agreements appear to be 
earnest desire b\- water users to improve the service 
of their agencies, and mutual economic advantage for 
each agency. Public interest in the concept would 
stimulate dormant opportunities. Some past exchanges 
and potential opportunities that have had some atten- 
tion are described in the following paragraphs. 

Each additional increment of water supply is gen- 
erally more cxpensi\e than previous increments, and 
frequently long distances between source and area of 
use are involved. Water supplies are sometimes con- 
veyed through areas which already have adequate sup- 
plies or w hich only received a small additional supply 
from the system passing through the area. In other 
cases, areas w hich have been slow to develop are faced 
with high costs because supplies originating in or near- 
by the developing areas have already been appropri- 
ated by a downstream or distant area. In some places, 



— 20 — 




Growth in Southern California — 1954 to 1974 
— 21 — 



water of excellent quality is used once and discharged 
to a marine water body and lost. If an alternative and 
available supply of adequate but lower quality water 
would suffice, the water of excellent quality might be 
made available for more than one use. 

Possibilities for water exchanges are enhanced when 
they can be combined with major regional transfer 
works such as the California Aqueduct of the State 
Water Project and the Central \'alle\- Project. For 
example, the Desert Water Agency and the Coachella 
Valley County Water District have arranged with the 
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to 
take Colorado River water for a few years from the 
Colorado Aqueduct which goes through their area and, 
in turn, assign to the Metropolitan Water District their 
water supply from the State Water Project. This ex- 
change permits the two desert districts to defer a major 
outlay of funds for a conveyance system to connect 
A\ith the California Aqueduct until later when demands 
are greater and the financial base of the districts is 
larger. 

In terms of the quantity of water, the largest ex- 
change in the State involves the Central \'alley Proj- 
ect. Water from the Sacramento Valley is conveyed 
through the Delta-Mendota Canal to Mendota Pool on 
the San Joaquin River to replace supplies in the river 
which are diverted at Friant Dam and conve>xd south- 
ward through the Friant-Kern Canal as far as the 
Bakersfield area. 

Study is being given by the state and federal agencies 
and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company to increas- 
ing dry season in-stream flows in the Eel River below 
Van Arsdale Dam by using some of the \\ ater stored 
in Lake Pillsbury and diverted by Pacific Gas and 
Electric to a power plant on the East Fork Russian 
River. This trade would result in a reduction in power 
output and some reduction in water supply to the 
Russian River Basin. Primary benefits would be en- 
hancement of Eel River fisheries and recreation in 
northern Mendocino and southern Humboldt Counties, 
plus a possible supplemental irrigation supply in the 
Eel River Delta. 

Where a ground water basin has been adjudicated, 
as, for example the West Coast Basin in Los Angeles 
County, exchange of water may occur when surface 
water is also available. Operation of the basin to reduce 
sea water intrusion is possible by the reduction in 
pumping of some overlying owners in exchange for 
surface water importation. Such exchange also factors 
in any cost and quality differences between the two 
sources. 

Proposals have also been made to use Los Angeles' 
Owens Valley Aqueduct Water in communities ad- 
jacent to the aqueduct, such as China Lake-Inyokern, 
in exchange for Northern California water delivered 
to the City of Los Angeles via the State Water Project 
and Metropolitan Water District's facilities. 



Although the opportunities for exchanges e.xist, such 
factors as cost, quality differences, and legal and in- 
stitutional constraints will often present formidable 
problems. In the final analysis such exchanges may 
save conveyance costs but do not obviate the need 
to develop dependable water supplies. 

Public Interest in Agricultural Drainage 

Agricultural drainage in the San Joaquin \'alley is 
a problem which could have a major impact on the 
State's agricultural economy and consequentl\-, upon 
the economic well-being of a significant portion of 
the State's population. Some 150,000 acres of pres- 
ently producti\c land will become seriously degraded 
within the next decade unless some corrective meas- 
ure to remove salt and reduce water tables is devel- 
oped. An additional 800,000 acres are in jeopardy of 
a similar fate unless corrected within the next two to 
five decades. With increasing demands for food, losses 
of agricultural production in this magnitude would 
have significant impacts on the economy of the State. 

The fundamental problem involves "salt balance" 
in the San Joaquin Valley where only a part of the 
salt residue resulting from the consumptive use of 
local and imported water supplies is discharged from 
the Valley. The greater portion is simply accumu- 
lating in the ground, water and soil. If the produc- 
tivity of the San Joaquin Valley is to be maintained, 
this salination process must be stopped and reversed. 

The general approach to maintenance of salt bal- 
ance is to remove the salts from the area in the form 
of concentrated saline ^\•aste water collected as natural 
drainage or from subsurface drainage swstems installed 
by the irrigators. The San Joaquin River now serves as 
a conduit for the removal of such waste water in the 
northern or San Joaquin Basin portion of the V^alley. 
The river also is a source of irrigation water and, at 
times, the quality is only marginall>- adequate and 
further degradation cannot be tolerated. The larger 
Tulare Lake Basin portion of the San Joaquin \'alley 
is essentially a closed basin with no outlet, and the 
problem of salt balance in this area is particularly 
threatening since none of the salts are leaving the 
basin. 

A master drain system for the San Joaquin \'alley 
is an authorized part of the State Water Project, and 
the Department of Water Resources has made exten- 
sive studies of the drainage problem in the Valley 
and has developed a plan for a master drain system. 
Difficulties in obtaining repayment contracts with 
beneficiaries have so far prevented implementation of 
the plan. The major problem has been that, though 
a large portion of the San Joaquin \'alley contributes 
to the problem, only those areas which actually suf- 
fer damage have thus far been called upon to repay 
the costs of implementing the drainage plan. Some 
means is needed to finance and assign responsibility 



— 22 



for rcpa\'nient of the costs of such a system on an 
expanded rcpa\ment base. Benefits to the State in 
maintaining its number one industry — agriculture, are 
threatened unless some repa>mcnt means arc found. 
The costs would be partially borne by electric power 
users if thermal electric plants located in the San 
Joaquin \'alley use agricultural drainage water for 
cooling. 

A closeh' related and significant environmental 
problem is the mannner of disposing of the saline 
drainage water. Drainage conve\ ed to the Sacramento- 
San Joaquin Delta ma\- require removal of the nutri- 
ents to avoid undesirable algae conditions in the Delta 
channels. The water would, however, provide a por- 
tion of the out-flow needed to control intrusion of 
salinity from the bay svstem which would otherwise 
have to be provided from fresh water sources. If the 
drainage water is ponded in the valle_\- and removed 
by evaporation, large land areas would be required. 
Concentrated brine blow-down from power plant 
cooling would require much less land area. An\' 
inland storage areas w ould need to be scaled to prevent 
percolation to ground water and an\- such plan ma>' 
onh- defer an ultimate solution of salt removal. If the 
water or the salt cannot finally be disposed of at 
inland facilities or to the ocean through the Delta, it 
will have to be conveyed by conduit and discharged 
directly into the ocean at an offshore location. Envi- 
ronmental concerns will be involved in any disposal 
alternative, and some impact is unavoidable for con- 
tinuation of the agricultural econonn' of the State. 



Flood Damage Prevention 

There are basicall\- two means to prevent flood 
damages. They are (1) stay out of the way of floods, 
or (2) keep the flood flows in defined channels either 
with or without upstream regulator)- storage. Both 
methods have been used throughout the history of 
California with the greatest emphasis being placed on 
controlling floods. Although a great deal of money 
has been spent on structural control measures, such 
as reservoirs and leveed channels, annual flood dam- 
ages continue in man\' unprotected areas. Alore atten- 
tion to sta\ing out of the way of floods — flood plain 
management is being urged. 

Significant amounts of public funds and natural 
resources, as well as control of land use decisions, 
are involved, and it is increasingi)' important to give 
thoughtful consideration to the various aspects of 
flood damage prevention alternatives. 

The nature of California's topography is a major 
factor in considering this issue. Most of the moun- 
tains are geologically \oung and quite steep. The 
valleys and plains are composed of the sediments 
washed dow n from the mountains. Most of the easily 
habitable land is a flood plain. Stream channels are 
naturally inclined to extensive changes in course as 



sediments build up. Levees and channels works are 
necessarv to keep the floods w ithin reasonable limits, 
if the flood plain is inhabited. 

Sta\ ing full>' out of the wa\- of floods in California 
is probabl\- not practical as a complete solution. In 
some of the mountainous northern California counties, 
practicall\- all of the "flat" land is in a a flood plain 
and further economic development would be severel)' 
limited if it could not take place in the flood plain, 
but structural control measures would be required. 
The desire to maintain streams in their natural state 
for wildlife or scenic values, particularl\' in urban 
areas, will necessitate strong land use controls. 

Major flood control reservoirs can adequately re- 
duce most flood peaks, but in all cases they are de- 
signed to operate with high release rates to accom- 
modate large inflows from a major storm when the 
reservoir is nearl\- full. These high release rates, even 
though far smaller than the natural flood flows, gen- 
erall\- are so infrequent that the public does not recog- 
nize that the\- ma\' occur. Consequently, the flood 
channel becomes encroached upon by downstream 
development in the absence of adequate zoning pro- 
tection. The Sacramento River below Shasta Dam, 
particularly in the Redding area, and the Santa Ana 
River in Orange Count\- below Prado Dam are two 
examples. 

Land use control — and flood plain management is a 
major form of land use control — is, under existing 
state law, the responsibility of local agencies. Failure 
to adequatel\- zone, and regulate in accordance there- 
with, at the local level tends to create laws and pro- 
grams administered by state and federal governments. 
To prevent development in floodways in which the 
State financiall\- assists local agencies to provide rights 
of wa\- for federal flood control agencies to construct 
flood control projects, the State has since 1965 under 
the Cobey-Alquist Act required that the local agency 
zone and regulate the channel area. For areas identi- 
fied by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development as having special flood hazards, flood 
insurance is a requirement to obtain a new or addi- 
tional loan from a federally insured financial institu- 
tion, if such insurance is available. After July 1, 1975, 
loans cannot be made unless the community is par- 
ticipating in the national flood insurance program and 
insurance is purchased. 

In addition to changing public attitudes regarding 
flood control structures in favor of greater emphasis 
on flood plain management, the record of unusual flood 
events continues to lengthen. It indicates that extreme 
events like the 1964 flood on the Eel River, the new 
1974 peak inflow to Shasta Reservoir, or even the 
l-in-500-year flood as occurred in Rapid City, South 
Dakota, in 1972, are possible and it is necessary to 
plan for increasingly intense storms. 

As the State's growth continues, the potential for 
loss of life and economic investment also grows. The 



23 



trade-offs between large investment of public funds, 
flood risk, and the environmental desires to maintain 
natural channels and wild rivers should be considered 
in future public policy decisions. 

Water Pricing Policy and Its Effect on Demand 

To reduce the future quantity of \\ater used by 
urban areas and irrigated agriculture, suggestions have 
been made that water prices be raised. Urban users 
generally pay for water at a flat rate or a decreasing 
block rate under which the unit costs of successive 
blocks of water are priced at lower rates, similar to 
most electric power rates. Irrigation water in federal 
reclamation projects is priced at less than full costs. 
Price increases may reduce demand for future irriga- 
tion water. Some industries may also be encouraged to 
use less \\ater or to reuse waste water. There would 
be related effects ^\•hich must also be considered in 
any discussion of the price/demand relationship. 

In the development of the State Water Project, an 
initial determination was made of the overall market 
for urban and agricultural water, and direct negotia- 
tions \\ ere undertaken with water agencies acting on 
behalf of individual customers. Contracts were signed 
that obligated the water agencies to pay full cost of 
providing the water, including interest. The aqueduct 
system ^^•as sized and built to convey the contracted 
for quantities of water. Repayment for the system is 
the obligation of the agencies. The additional costs of 
conserving and pumping the w ater is fixed by contract 
to the actual costs to the State. 

To effect a significant change in agricultural water 
demands would require a governmental pricing policy 
for all irrigated area which would result in sufficiently 
high costs as to eliminate some farming enterprises. 
Such a governmental policy could not be extended 
across the agricultural sector under existing laws. 
Water is diverted or pumped by individuals and many 
public districts and, therefore, pricing is not subject 




The California Aqueduct conveys contracted for quantities of water 



to State or federal intervention. Since existing federal 
reclamation contracts have fixed the price of water, 
any increase could be effected only when those con- 
tracts come up for renewal or for future projects. 

In the case of urban water demands, the evidence is 
mixed but there are examples where a switch from 
flat rates to metered rates has resulted in decisive and 
permanent reductions in water use. This follows the 
usual expectation that an increase in price results in a 
decrease in demand, and the greater the price increase 
the greater change in demand. Behavioral patterns are 
oftentimes affected, which results in conservation prac- 
tices including reductions in wastage from overirriga- 
tion, lawn watering, and leaky plumbing fixtures. The 
duration of these practices will depend, in part, upon 
the costs of water relative to personal income and 
other expenditures. This applies to industry as well, 
but as long as the price of water is sufficiently high 
to be a concern, a reduction in water demand could 
be expected. 

A significant question involved in increasing munic- 
ipal water rates is who is affected and what may be the 
results. Most probably the low income group would 
be most seriously affected, as the more affluent families 
would be able to more easily absorb a cost increase. 
Environmental amenities such as lawns, trees, fountains, 
and parks would likely be reduced. The U. S. Forest 
Service has found that well-watered trees can reduce 
air temperatures on a hot, dry day as much as five 
degrees. They also found that a single city tree pro- 
vides a cooling effect equivalent to five average- 
sized room air conditioners running about 20 hours 
per day. 

In summary there is a relationship between water 
price and demand. From a practical standpoint the 
ability of federal and state pricing policies would have 
limited effect. The tradeoffs of local environmental 
amenities, economic and social well-being vis-a-vis the 
environmental benefits of leaving more natural stream 
flow or some streams undeveloped require thoughtful 
consideration. 

Water Use Efficiency and Its Effect on Demand 

A great deal of attention is currently being directed 
toward improvements in the efficiency of use of re- 
sources as a means of decreasing expanding demands 
and stretching available supplies. Possibilities for more 
efficient use of water, range from flush toilets that use 
less water to desert type landscaping or appl\ing irri- 
gation by controlled dripping at each tree. These and 
various other methods can reduce the amount of water 
used in homes and industr\-, and to irrigate crops. The 
degree to which the\' would reduce the overall re- 
quirement for water supplies, however, depends on 
several factors. 

In evaluating the effects of improving the methods 
of using w ater, consideration must also be given to the 



24 — 













'_^ ' '.'.^ 



Small sprinklers provide for efficient use of water 



disposal of \\aste water. Where the waste water is dis- 
charged to saline water, any reduction in the amount 
of water originally applied will provide an equivalent 
reduction in demand for developed water supplies. It 
will also reduce the size of the waste treatment facili- 
ties. This case generally applies to coastal urban areas 
but only to a very limited degree to agriculture. The 
principal areas where agricultural returns mix with 
brackish water are in the Coachella and Imperial Val- 
leys which drain to tiic Salton Sea. 

Throughout practically all other irrigated areas and 
at inland urban locations, almost all excess irrigation 
water or urban waste water becomes part of the suppl)' 
for downstream users. Any reduction in the amount 
of applied w ater will result in approximately the same 
reduction in return flow and therefore require a com- 
parable amount of water from an alternative source 
for downstream users. With the exception of some 
savings in unavoidable losses, there will not be any 
overall savings in total water demand by improving 
the efficiency of application or use of water in such 
cases. There will, however, be other advantages and 
some disadvantages. 



If less water is used, the costs of handling it, in par- 
ticular energy for pumping, will be less. With less ap- 
plied water there will generally be less leaching from 
irrigation, and the quantity of dissolved salts which 
need to be removed from the area will be less. The 
concentration of salts in the return flows, however, 
will be greater due to the reduced volume of water. 
Reduction in the waste water from urban areas will 
involve higher concentrations of salts unless there are 
also changes in the home and industrial practices which 
reduce the quantity of waste minerals. 

Reduction in the amount of irrigation runoff from 
fields will be adverse to trees, brush, and native 
grasses, and the wildlife which depends on this vege- 
tation. In most cases, and particularly the flat Central 
X'alley, there would be .scenic detriments from the loss 
of vegetation. 

While the overall w ater savings from more efficient 
use probably will be relatively small in comparison to 
total usage, the advantages warrant thorough stud_\'. As 
water supplies become increasingly scarce improved 
use methods become more important. 



25 



Economic Efficiency as a Basis for 
Water Management 

As California's supplies of undeveloped water have 
decreased, suggestions have been made that certain 
presently developed supplies could be diverted from 
uses having low economic returns to uses with higher 
economic returns. Generally this would involve a shift 
from agricultural production to industrial use, as well 
as a change in geographic location. It also suggests 
the shifting of water from one crop to another that 
might use less water and produce more economic re- 
turn. Advocates of this view point out that there 
would be greater employment and wealth for a given 
quantity of water and there would not be need for 
as much, if any, additional water development. This 
concept also includes the purchase or shifting of water 
during periods of drought from one use such as irriga- 
tion of an annual crop to a use of greater significance 
to the State's economy. Such a concept has great 
ramifications and raises major policy issues. State law 
does not provide for administrative reassignment of 
water supplies being beneficially used. 

A change in use would involve water rights as well 
as financial considerations. A major factor in buying 
out the water supply of an agricultural area is the 
relocation and social impact and change of life style 
on the people of the area. Payment for water and 
land values will not necessaril)' provide for relocation 
and/or gainful employment elsew here, although some 
agricultural workers may retrain for industrial work 
if it is in the same general area. There may be in- 
creased costs in social welfare programs. It would be 
necessary to reimburse owners more than market 
values to obtain comparable relocated conditions and 
to assist in relocation. 

Three generations have passed since the City of Los 
Angeles purchased the lands and acquired the water 
rights in the Owens V^allew The transfer of water 
from irrigation use to urban use was made and one 
of the world's major cities developed. This experience 
has shown, how ever, that long lasting social problems 
remain even though there was an increase in economic 
efficiency. 

Supplemental Water Through Waste 
Water Reclamation 

Waste water reclamation is generall\ acclaimed as 
the primary alternative to further surface water de- 
velopment for meeting California's future water needs. 
This alternative, while probably the major potential 
supplement to surface water development, must also 
be viewed from the perspective of some limitations. 
The following discussion outlines some kc\- considera- 
tions, such as dissolved mineral levels, health concerns, 
costs, and institutional conflicts, which strongl\- affect 
policy decisions by local agencies in pursing waste 
water reclamation. 



Waste water reclamation, as considered in this bulle- 
tin, is the planned renovation of waste water with the 
intent of producing usable water for a specific benefi- 
cial purpose. Biological treatment and/or demineral- 
ization may be involved. 

It is important to distinguish between reclamation 
which results in improvement of the existing supply 
and reclamation which actuall)- results in creation of 
a "new" supply. Both facets are important, but the 
creation of a "new" supply as supplemental water is 
the thrust of this policy issue. 

Only when waste water would otherwise be dis- 
charged to saline water — or when water has been so 
degraded that it cannot be discharged to fresh water 
— does reclamation create a water supply which can be 
considered "new". Much of the water used in Califor- 
nia is returned to the freshwater cycle, either directly 
after its use or following treatment. This includes 90 
percent of the irrigation return water from nearly 
9 million acres of irrigated land and the treated wastes 
from inland cities, particularly in the Central V'alley. 
Although reclamation of this water would tend to 
enhance water qualit\', it would not create a new 
supply. 

There are two main sources of water which can be 
reclaimed for new supplies. These are (1) the brackish 
agricultural drainage water which must be removed 
from the Central V'alley and in particular the San 
Joaquin V'alley, and ( 2 ) the urban w astes from coastal 
areas which are discharged to the ocean and its es- 
tuaries: It is anticipated that much of the agricultural 
drainage could be reclaimed for power plant cooling. 
The role for reclaimed coastal urban wastes is not, 
however, as apparent. 

To undertake waste water reclamation there needs 
to be a suppl\' of fresh water of good qualit\- to begin 
with. Not all of this fresh water supply can be re- 
claimed, however. Up to 50 percent of an urban sup- 
ply is used consumptively or incidentally lost. Another 
20-30 percent of the initial supply is needed to carry 
off concentrated waste and prevent accumulation of 
salts in gardens, parks, etc. Accordingly, only 20-30 
percent of the original suppl\' ma\' be available for 
possible reclamation. 

The mineral qualit\' of the initial supply is impor- 
tant in evaluating reclamation. A single cycle of water 
use in an urban area normally adds about 300 milli- 
grams of salts per liter of water. The recommended 
limit for salts in municipal supplies is 500 milligrams 
per liter (mg/1) but up to 1,000 mg/1 is acceptable. 
A large share of the urban w arcr suppl\' in the coastal 
area of Southern California is from the Colorado 
River and has a salt content of around 750 mg/1. A 
single use would cause the salt to exceed the accept- 
able limit, and reclaimed water would require blend- 
ing with less saline water. With an increasingly 
greater share of water from the State Water Project 
used in Southern California, the widespread mineral 



26 



limitation on waste water reclamation would be re- 
duced. At the other end of the scale, the Sierra 
Nevada water supplies delivered to the San Francisco 
Ba>' area through the Hetcli Hetchy and Alokelumne 
Aqueducts are of excellent mineral quality with gen- 
erall>' less than 100 mg/1. Water delivered by the 
State Water Project would average less than 220 
mg/1. 

At this time there are significant health concerns 
which greatly limit urban use of reclaimed water. 
Development and use of a wide range of organic 
compounds for industrial, agricultural, and household 
uses, which find their way into public water supplies, 
are causing concern regarding effects on public health. 
Many of the complex compounds are stable, that is, 
they do not break down into simpler forms, and 
persist for a long time. The long-term effect of in- 
gesting even minute amounts of some stable organic 
compounds is unknown and, therefore, efforts are 
made to avoid use of water containing the compounds. 
Similar concerns exist regarding viruses which may 
not be full)- eliminated in waste ^\■ater treatment and 
reclamation processes. 

Concern about viruses has caused health officials 
to reject direct distribution and use of reclaimed w ater 
for human consumption. Concern regarding effects of 
stable organic compounds has caused health officials 
to greatly restrict the use of reclaimed water for 
ground water recharge where the ground water basin 
is a source of water for human consumption. Since 
ground water moves very slowly and does not mix 
verj- well, reclaimed water would generally' move as 
a unit away from the point of recharge and could 
remain in the basin for many years. 

Until the uncertainties regarding health are resolved, 
plans for using reclaimed water arc being directed 



toward nonpotable uses such as irrigation and indus- 
trial, especiall\- power plant cooling. Efforts are being 
launched by local and state agencies to develop re- 
search programs on these health concerns. The De- 
partment of A\'ater Resources, in cooperation with 
the State Water Resources Control Board with help 
from the Universit\- of California, is initiating work 
leading to specific and coordinated studies of the stable 
organic and virus problems. 

General industrial use of reclaimed water would 
require separate distribution systems and in-plant mod- 
ifications. The costs are generally not competitive w ith 
fresh water, although as the requirements for treat- 
ment of waste water increase, industry will find it 
more advantageous to recirculate its water. Thermal 
electric power plant cooling could be a major use of 
reclaimed water, but the plants cannot usually be lo- 
cated near urban centers for environmental and safety 
reasons. Consequently, the reclaimed water from ur- 
ban areas would need to be conveyed long distances 
with considerable expense and use of energy. 

In addition to the costs directly associated with rec- 
lamation, consideration must be given to costs already 
invested in facility capacit\- for future needs. These 
sunk costs are frcquentl\- quite great since many water 
projects and distribution systems are constructed with 
capacity for the future to take advantage of economies 
of scale. Fxonomic evaluation of waste water recla- 
mation must take into account the sunk costs in exist- 
ing facilities. 

Generally separate local agencies have been organ- 
ized to handle water supply and waste. Full considera- 
tion of the reclamation of waste water may be 
inhibited due to institutional constraints. The appro- 
priate agencies to pursue this potential is one of the 
policy issues needing attention. 



27 — 



N 



N 



z*^* 



/ 
/fc 



f^ — S\ Goose Lane ^^^ 



, Alturas 



o!/ 



^' 



[ogle Lcke 



<</ 



V 



7 

/ 



/ 



/ 



^Htllluilt Rk 



Clair Engle Lake 



!ta Lake 
■^ ^ywhisieytmni Res '^, 



Redding 




iMmrn 

^ ^.f PaiH Bis 

for Wtsl >^fo/som Lake 1 



HlHIi Htlcllr Rt! 

New M 

^Uelopes IJ i,i„^Mcau„ 



Black Butte fles\ NK 



Stony Gorge Res.^^ 

East Fork Res 




Pacif; 



ic 



— 28 — 



PLATE I 




San Diego 






, „ TwikMi cachmo Res • Santa Barbara 

^ jf*'Rn ^>- 



Legend 

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT 
STATE WATER PROJECT 
FEDERAL DEVELOPMENT 







c^an 



MAJOR SURFACE WATER SUPPLY 

and 

CONVEYANCE FACILITIES 

1974 



— 29 



111. ALTERNATIVE FUTURES FOR CALIFORNIA 



As briefly menrioned in the Introduction, in this 
Bulletin the Department of Water Resources has de- 
parted from the usual practice of presenting the future 
only as an extension of past trends. Although trend 
analysis is a valid method of forecasting future hap- 
penings, a projection based on past events will not 
necessarily describe the most probable future level of 
development. Accordingly, in presenting a number of 
possible future levels, the Department recognizes that 
a variety of outcomes are possible and that chance or 
policy decisions will produce changes that are not 
mere projections of past events. 

Because of the rapid changes occurring in society, 
including its outlook and values, planning on the basis 
of alternative futures is extremely relevant today. The 
Department of Water Resources recognizes that sev- 
eral futures are equally possible, and that they can be 
influenced by deliberate activit>-. On the other hand, 
identification and evaluation of alternative futures, and 
the consequences of alternative choices are not in- 
tended as a recommendation for a particular course 
of action. Rather, the analyses are intended to pro- 
vide information for public review and for those who 
must decide on policy. 

The importance of evaluating a range of water 
management and demand alternatives is evidenced by 
the uncertainty involved in projections of the location, 
size, and timing of future water demands and other 
water management needs. Five recent factors that have 
contributed to this uncertainty are ( 1 ) the recent 
downward trend in birth rates, (2) the opening of the 
Chinese and Russian agricultural markets, (3) new, 
stricter air and water quality standards, (4) future 
land use policies, and (5) the impact of recent en- 
vironmental preservation and enhancement trends. 

The alternative future levels of population, agricul- 
ture, and energy discussed in this chapter were derived 
from various combinations of possible future Califor- 
nia conditions. They may be used to describe the 
future, 20, 30, or 50 years from now and to indicate 
the direction and size of changes in water and land use 
that might result from changes in public policy, tech- 
nology, and other factors. They are also the bases for 
the alternative levels of future water demands pre- 
sented in Chapter IV. Because data on the outlook for 
fish, wildlife, and recreation are limited, only one pro- 
jection was made for these needs. The Department 
of Water Resources is also concerned ^^•ith other 
water-related needs that must be included in the plan- 
rung of water resources projects. These include such 
factors as environmental quality, water quality, and 
flood control. Whereas the needs for such benefits are 
evident, they cannot be readily expressed as numerical 
demands for water. 



Population 

Growth has been the trend in California's popula- 
tion during all of the more than 150 years that records 
have been kept. The rate of growth has varied during 
diff'erent periods in the last half century, but in all 
that time, it has far exceeded the growth rate for the 
entire United States. Table 1 summarizes population 
growth rates in California and the United States by 
decades since 1920. 



Table 1. California and 
Increase by Dec 


U.S. Population and Percent 
odes, 1920-1974 




Decade 


California population 


U.S. population 


Year 


.Millions 


Percent 


Millions 


Percent 


1920. 

I9J0. 

1940.- 

1950 

1960 

1970 

1972 

1974 


1920^30 
1930-tO 
1940-50 
1950^^ 
1960-70 


3.4 

5.7 

6.9 

10.6 

15.9 

20.0 
20.5 
20.9 


68 
21 
54 
50 
26 


107 

123 

132 

152 

180 

205 
209 
212 


16 
'8 

is 

19 
14 



Births and Migrafion 

The trends, influences, and driving forces that affect 
population growth are now changing in the United 
States and particularly in California. Although the 
number of potential mothers is higher than ever before, 
fewer babies were born in the U. S. last year than in 
any year since 1945. In both California and the nation, 
the birth rate has decreased to an annual rate equivalent 
to 1.9 births per woman of child-bearing age. A re- 
placement level, often referred to as "zero population 
growth," is 2.11 children per woman. The peak year 
for births in the U. S. was 1957, when the birthrate 
was equivalent to 3.35 births per woman of child- 
bearing age. 

Another very important factor influencing Cali- 
fornia's population growth is net in-migration — those 
entering the State and establishing residency minus 
those leaving the State. For many years, net in-migra- 
tion exceeded 300,000 annually with a high of 357,000 
in 1963. Then, in the late 1960s and early 1970s a drop 
occurred with a low of about 16,000 in 1970. However, 



31 



there has since been a steady increase; in 1973 a net 
in-migration of 84,000 was experienced. 

Future Population Levels 

Four population projections, based on the factors in 
Table 2, are used in this report. The letter designators 
(C, D, and E) are those used by the U. S. Bureau of 
the Census and the State Department of Finance to 
designate population series based on fertility rates, that 
is, the average number of children born per woman of 
child-bearing age. The numbers represent annual net 
migration into California. 



Table 3 presents four projections of future California 
population for 1980 through 2020. Continued popula- 
tion growth results under each of the four sets of 
assumptions. However, the projected growth under 
each of the four is lower than that experienced in 
California during any decade since 1920. Although 
E-O is often referred to as zero growth, the popula- 
tion still would increase and is not expected to stabilize 
until after 2020. The historic growth of California's 
population from 1920 through 1973 and the four al- 
ternative projections of future growth are shown in 
Figure 4. 

Table 3. Projected California Population 
(in millions) 



Table 2. Populat 


on Factors 




Alternative projection 


Population series 


Fertility rate 


Net migration 


I 


c 

D 
D 

E 


2.8 
2.5 
2.5 
2.1 


150,000 
150.000 
100,000 


n -- 

in 

IV 









Year 


Alternative projections 


1980 


1990 


2000 


2010 


2020 


I (C-ISO) 


23.0 
22.8 
22.7 
21.9 


27.4 
26.7 
26.1 
23.6 


31.9 

30.5 
29.3 
24.7 


37.2 
34.6 
32.8 
25.7 


43.3 


II (D-ISO) 

III (D-lOO) 

IV (E-O) 


39.1 
36.6 
26.5 















POPULATION IN MILLIONS 












r 






/ 


50 

40 

30 

20 

10 


20 


















^ 








i 


^ 






€i 


II ir "1 " 






> 


y 


/ 












n 


y^ 












19 


20 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 20 

YEARS 



Figure 4. California Historical and Projected Population Growth 

— 32 — 



Using tlic statewide projections as a base, the State 
Department of Finance has also produced county-by- 
county population projections, which take into account 
different fertility- patterns for different counties and 
expected different future levels of net migration by 



county. On the basis of these county-by-county pro- 
jections, the Department of Water Resources has pro- 
duced four alternative future population levels, desig- 
nated I through I\', for each of the hydrologic study 
areas of the State, as shown in Table 4. 



Toble 4. Population in California— 1 972, 1990 and 2020 
(in thousands) 





1972 








Alternative fu 


ure projection 








(Series 


C-ISO) 


II 
(Series D-150) 


III 

(Series D-lOO) 


IV 
(Series E4)) 


Hydrologic study area 


1990 


2020 


1990 


2020 


1990 


2020 


1990 


2020 




180 

4,630 

840 

11,240 

1,210 

470 

440 

980 

40 

240 

230 


2S0 

5,940 

1,370 

14,620 

1,700 

760 

650 

1,280 

70 

410 

350 


390 
8,670 
2,430 
22,510 
2,600 
1.730 
1,140 
2,030 

110 
1,040 

650 


240 

5,800 

1,340 

14.260 

1,670 

730 

640 

1,250 

70 

370 

330 


350 

7,920 

2,200 

20,300 

2,400 

1,550 

1,010 

1,820 

100 

870 

580 


230 

5,680 

1,290 

13,930 

1,630 

710 

620 

1,240 

70 

370 

330 


310 
7.350 
2.030 
19.140 
2,230 
1.420 

940 

1,730 

90 

820 

540 


210 

5,270 

1.130 

12.510 

1.470 

640 

560 

1.160 

60 

290 

300 


230 


San Francisco Bay... 


5,700 
1.370 




13,790 


Sacramtnto Basin 


1,620 




930 




660 


Tulare Basin. 


1.360 




60 




380 


Colorado Desert 


400 


Totals 


20,500 


27,400 


43,300 


26,700 


39,100 


26,100 


36,600 


23.600 


26.500 







Agriculture 

Production of food and fiber in California is by far 
the most significant single enterprise affecting use of 
the State's land and water resources. Eighty-five per- 
cent of all present water use in the State is by irri- 
gated agriculture. Whereas the demand for food and 
fiber is primaril\' a function of the number of people 
in the United States and their eating habits, California 
agriculture is also affected b\- the foreign market and 
our competitive position with other producers. 

A number of social and economic trends and events 
during the past decade have caused a major change 
in the ^vorld food situation. Since the publication of 
Bulletin 160-70 in December 1970, an era of com- 
mercial food surpluses has been superseded by a 
worldwide shortage of food and fiber. Global food 
reserves are at an all-time low, primariK- because of 
widespread droughts in various parts of the world. 
Also responsible are population growth and a rising 
affluence, particularly overseas, which is evidenced by 
a growing demand for meats, specialty foods, vege- 
tables and fruits, and a decreasing demand for food 
grains, beans, and other starchy foods. 

A singular combination of climate, large areas of 
fertile land, and available water resources enable Cali- 
fornia's farmers to produce considerably more food 
and fiber than can be consumed locally. As a result, 
other areas of the nation and the world look to Cali- 
fornia to satisfy many of their supplemental needs for 
food products. National and foreign markets are there- 
fore significant considerations in studies of both pos- 
sible future demand for California crops and future 
water requirements. 



Five Governing Facfors 

Four alternative levels of future agricultural pro- 
duction in California ^\ere developed from alternative 
assumptions regarding the following five factors: 

• National population. 

• Per capita consumption of food. 

• Foreign trade. 

• California's share of national production. 

• Per acre yields of California crops. 

The significance of each of these factors is pre- 
sented in the following paragraphs: 

a. National population growth will be one of the 
principal determinants of the State's agricultural fu- 
ture, because of the large quantities of California pro- 
duce marketed in other states. Along with the expand- 
ing national population, a growing affluence has created 
increased demands for many of California's specialty 
crops as well as for its more staple food and fiber crops. 
Total national consumption food and fiber is com- 
puted as a function of national population and per 
capita consumption. 

b. Per capita consiniiption is the quantitative meas- 
ure of the various kinds of food and fiber consumed 
per person. Studies of eating habits show that tastes 
for various foods change with ri.sing incomes and 
with changes in living and working patterns. As per- 
sonal income increases, the quantity of food consumed 
does not necessarih' increase, but the types of food 
consumed generally' change noticeably. In general, 
families with higher incomes tend to eat more meat, 
fruit, vegetables, and dairy products, whereas fam- 



33 



ilies with lower incomes consumer more starchy, less- 
expensive foods such as bread, potatoes, beans, and 
rice. 

c. Foreign Trade. Recent developments in inter- 
national agricultural trade have revealed several pro- 
found changes, including an apparent revolution in 
world dietary patterns and major changes in agricul- 
tural trade flows and trade policies. Per capita incomes 
around the world are growing and will probably con- 
tinue to grow. As incomes rise, more people are able 
to improve their life styles, with greater security and 
individual well-being. Among the first areas of im- 
provement arc upgraded diets. This trend, coupled 
with increasing population, not only increases total 
food consumption, but also creates a demand for a 
wider variety of foods. 

As the nations of the world use more agricultural 
commodities, they buy more in the world market and 
particularly from the United States. Over the past 10 
years, American agriculture has conducted an aggressive 
advertising campaign, which has enabled the United 
States to sell a greater quantity of produce in the 
international market. A review of U. S. agricultural 
exports since 1960 shows that California's share has 
grown to 54 percent of foreign sales of fruit, 27 per- 
cent of the vegetables, 22 percent of the rice, II 
percent of the cotton, and 94 percent of the nuts. 

d. California's share of national production. The 
California agricultural industry has demonstrated con- 
siderable success in competing for greater shares of 
U. S. production. This trend is expected to continue, 
although opportunities for increasing shares will differ 
considerably among specific crops. 




e. Crop yields. The quantity of produce per acre 
is an important factor in forecasting California's ability 
to satisfy future demands for food and fiber. Over the 
jears, crop jields have been increased by such innova- 
tions as new machiner\', hybrid seeds, use of fertilizers, 
herbicides, and pesticides, higher plant populations per 
acre, and improved managerial skills. Further research 
and improved technologj' should continue to enhance 
the productivity of California agriculture. 

On the other hand, the effects of the energy crisis 
and certain environmental constraints could result in 
smaller increases in crop yields. If, for example, the 
recent scarcity of petroleum continues, it could result 
in shortages of fertilizers, pesticides, and other petro- 
leum-based products that are essential to present crop 
yields and production. Concern over the environmental 
effects of certain fertilizers and some of the more 
effective pesticides and herbicides could result in con- 
straints on their use. 

Future Agriculfural Levels 

To project alternative levels of future agricultural 
production in California, the five factors described in 
the preceding paragraphs were analyzed, and one or 
more values for each were selected. Four combinations 
of these values resulted in four alternative levels of 
future crop acreage. In all four cases, the same values 
were used for per capita consmnption and California'' s 
share of the national market. These ^\•ere combined 
with two values for national population, net foreign 
trade, and average crop yields as shown in Table 5, 
which also presents four alternative future levels for 
California agriculture expressed as irrigated crop acre- 
age required in 1990 and 2020. These projections of 
crop acreage were modified to account for (1) lands 
planted but not harvested, and (2) the estimated future 
acreage of dry-farmed crops and double-cropping, to 
determine the four alternative projections of irrigated 
land shown in Figure 5. 

Table 5. Alternative Future levels for California Agriculture 



Irrigated corn field in Californi< 



.Mternative 


Nat 
popu 


onal 


Net 
foreign 
trade 


Crop 
yields 


Irrigated crap 
acreage required 
(1.000s of acres) 




Series 
D 


Series 
E 


High 


Low 


1968 


Mod- 
iRed 


1990 


2020 


I. 


X 
X 
X 


X 


X 




X 


X 
X 

-X 


10,600 
10.200 


12,100 


II 


X 
X 
X 


11,200 


Ill 


9.700 10,300 


IV 


9,500 : 9,800 













34 — 



12 



10 



m 

u 8 

< 



z 
o 




L, 










i 



I 

I 

m 

I 
I 




1 







1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 

YEARS 

Figure 5. Historic and Projected Irrigated Land Area 



i 



2000 2010 2020 



35 



Energy 

The future location of thermal electrical power 
plants will affect the future requirements for fresh 
cooling water in California. At the present time, most 
California thermal plants arc located along the Pacific 
Coast, where ample sea water is available for cooling. 
However, because of recent restrictions on the con- 
struction of thermal plants along the coast, the need 
to locate future plants at inland sites will create large 
new demands for fresh cooling water. 

Trends and Influences 

Until recently, energ\- has generally been taken for 
granted in California. During the last two years, how- 
ever, the energy "crisis" has caused uncertainty about 
the future, and concerned individuals and groups are 
reexamining former assumptions about the future of 
energy capacity and demands. Factors that affect the 
future consumption of electrical energy are as follows: 

1. Factors which cause a continued increase in elec- 
tricity consumption: 

a. Population growth 

b. Extension of existing uses of electricity 

(1) Resistance heating 

(2) Refrigeration cooling 

(3) Transportation — trains, mass transit 

c. New uses for electricity 

( 1 ) Transportation — autos 

(2) Conversion to alternative forms of energy 

(3) Desalting 

2. Factors which would contribute to a lower rate 
of increase in electricity consumption: 

a. Decline in birthrate and net in-migration 

b. Rising energ\' costs 

c. More efficient use of energy 

( 1 ) Conservation measures to reduce waste 

( 2 ) Better appliances 

( 3) Beneficial uses of w aste heat 

d. Substitution of alternative forms of energy. 

iMost of the factors that tend to increase energy 
consumption have prevailed in California since 1945. 
In the future, how ever, the factors that tend to reduce 
energy consumption are expected to dominate. For 
example, population growth is slowing down, and per 
capita energy use, which increased rapidly between 
1940 and 1972, is also slowing down. In addition, the 
cost of energy is increasing significantly and will 
probably continue to increase. Projection of certain 
other factors is more uncertain. For example, the im- 
pact of alternative forms of energy, such as solar 
energy, is still highly speculative. 



Two Future Energy Levels 

To develop future projections of electrical energy 
demand and capacity, the Department of Water Re- 
sources has used (1) values shown in a 1972 report by 
the Rand Corporation ^ which presents detailed anal- 
yses of five different cases, and (2) a 1973 report by 
the California Resources Agency,- which presents 
future projections made by the California Public Utili- 
ties Commission. The reports forecast future demands 
for electrical energy through 2000 and 1991 respec- 
tively; for the estimates presented in Table 6 the 
Department has projected the values to 2020. 

Thus, the low projection shown in Table 6 uses 
values from the low growth case in the Rand report. 
The values beyond 2000 were estimated on the basis 
of a 3 percent compound annual growth in electrical 
energy use. The high projection was obtained by 
using the projection in the Resources Agency report, 
which was also projected to 2020. The projections of 
future generation of electrical energy were computed 
from the estimated demand values. 



Projected Requirements for Electrical Energy 
(billion kilowatt hours per year) 





Electrical energy sales 


Electric energy generation"^ 


Year 


High estimate 


Low estimate 


High estimate 


Low estimate 


1972 

1990 


140 
420 
1600« 


140 

247 
600i> 


15S 
466 
I78U 


155 

274 


2020 


670 



' Estimated by projecting 4.4 percent rate of growth from 2000. 
• Estimated by projecting 3 .0 percent rate of growth from 2000. 
■ Electric energy generation differs from sales by 10 percent losses. 



Figure 6 shows historic consumption of electrical 
energy from 1950 through 1972 and the high and low 
estimates of future energ\' use in California. 

Thermal Power Plant Siting 

The technology of electrical energy production is 
changing rapidly, and by 2020, new methods of pro- 
duction, e.g., fusion, gas turbines, which would reduce 
the need for cooling water, may have been developed. 
However, over the next 50 years, and despite the 
significant remaining hydroelectric energy potential 
in California ■', most of the additional electrical energy 
generated in California is expected to be developed by 
thermal pow cr plants fueled b\- nuclear energy, which 



^ The Rand Corporation, "California's Electricity Quandary, I. Estimating 
Future Demand." September 1972. 

- State of California, The Resources AReno'. "Energy Dilemma, Cali- 
fornia's 20-ycar Power Plant Siting Plan." June 1973. 

3 Department of Water Resources Bulletin No. 194, 'Hydroclcclric Power 
Potential in California", March 1974. 



36 




Figure 6. Historic and Projected Electrical Energy Requirements 



require substantial quantities of cooling water for 
operation. Accordingly, projections of future thermal 
power generation and the location of thermal plants 
are important factors in the determination of Cali- 
fornia's future water requirements. 

About 90 percent of California's existing major 
thermal power plants have been constructed along the 
coast. However, because of the public desire to pre- 
serv^e the esthetic appearance of the coastline, the pos- 
sible impact of heated-water discharges on the marine 
environment, and the potential earthquake hazard along 
the coast, most future thermal plants will probably be 
constructed at inland locations. 

Analyses of power plant siting criteria based on 
seismisity and population, as shown in the 1973 Energy 
Dilemma Report by the California Resources Agency, 



indicate that the most favorable inland areas are in 
the Central Valley and the eastern portion of the 
Colorado Desert. These analyses were not in sufficient 
detail to determine whether other localized parts of 
the State would not also be suitable as sites for 
thermal plants. 

In view of the uncertainties about power plant sit- 
ing, two alternative locations for thermal plants were 
considered. An assumption was made for this report 
that either one-third or two-thirds of future thermal 
generating plants would require closed-cycle evapora- 
tive cooling, which would have to be supplied from 
inland sources of fresh water. The remaining thermal 
plants would be located on the coast and use sea 
water for cooling. 



37 




Additional Inland Thermal Power Generation 
(in billion kilowatt hours) 



Most California ther 



These two assumptions regarding future plant lo- 
cation were combined with the two levels of electrical 
energy generation shown in Table 6 to derive four 
alternative futures for thermal power plants in Cali- 
fornia. Installed capacities of electric generating plants 
requiring inland sources of cooling water are presented 
in Table 7. 





Energy 
demand 


Fresh water 
cooling* 


Ge 


neratio 


requiring cooling 


Alternative 
future 


1990 


2020 


I 


High 
High 
Low 


K 
A 


158 
88 
52 
44 


790 




420 


m --- 


250 


IV 


150 







an shown indicates that portion of additional thermal generation 
ivater for cooling purposes. The remaining portion of cooling need i 
t by ocean water. 



Other Water Resources Management Needs 

Population, agriculture, and energy, as discussed in 
the preceding paragraphs, are expressed in terms of 
alternative future demands for urban, agricultural, 
and power plant cooling water in Chapter IV. How- 
ever, other water-related needs must be included in 
planning for water-resources management. These needs 
include (1) recreation, fish, and wildlife, (2) environ- 
mental quality, (3) water quality, and (4) flood con- 
trol. 

The discussion of water demands in Chapter IV in- 
cludes a single projection for water for recreation, 
fish, and wildlife. Environmental quality, water quality 
needs, and flood control are discussed in Chapter IV in 
terms of environmental benefits or values. The trends 
and influences affecting these factors are discussed in 
some detail in the full report. 



— 38 



IV. DEMANDS FOR WATER 



The future water demands presented in tliis chap- 
ter are discussed on three different bases: 

1. Demands for (a) urban uses, (b) irrigated agri- 
culture, and (c) power plant cooling are presented 
in terms of alternative future development. 

2. Demands for recreation, fish, and wildlife are 
presented as a single projection only. 

3. Other demands, such as those for environmental 
enhancement, water qualit\- protection, flood control, 
and navigation, are not discussed in quantitative terms 
but must be considered in water resources planning. 

Urban Demands 

Url)an \\ater uses include residential (68 percent); 
industrial (18 percent); commercial (10 percent); 
and governmental (4 percent). For the determination 
of future water demands, these four broad categories 
were combined, and the urban demands presented in 
Table 8 were derived as the product of alternative 
projections of population (Table 2) and per capita 
or unit ^\•ater use values. 

Per capita use is determined by dividing total urban 
water use in a given area by the population of that 



area. Per capita use varies considerably from city to 
city and region to region. Factors affecting per capita 
use include climate, personal income and life style. 
familv size, t\pe of communit)', level of industrializa- 
tion, metering, and system losses. 

Climate has the most significant effect on per capita 
use, particularly residential use. In warm, arid, and 
heavily populated regions, for example, large quanti- 
ties of water are used for lawn and garden irrigation. 
In such areas, summer use exceeds winter used by 
several hundred percent. On the other hand, as popu- 
lation density increases, especially as condominium 
and high-rise apartment dwellers increase, lawn and 
garden areas tend to decrease, thus reducing total per 
capital use. 

Industrial water use is also affected by a number of 
variables, principally by the type of industry. 

Alternative projected urban water demands are pre- 
sented in Table 8 for each of the State's hydrologic 
areas and as statewide totals. The demands are ex- 
pressed in terms of applied \\ ater, \vhich is the total 
quantity of water that must be delivered to each point 
of use, e.g., the house, factory, etc., plus local system 
losses. 



Table 8. 1972 and Projected Urban Applied Water Demand 
(1,000 acre-feet) 





North 
Coastal 


San 

Francisco 

Bay 


Central 
Coastal 


South 
Coastal 


Sacra- 
mento 
Basin 


Delta- 
Central 
Sierra 


San 
Joaquin 
Basin 


Tulare 
Basin 


North 
Lahontan 


South 
Lahontan 


Colorado 
Desert 


Total 


1972 


93 


990 


181 


2.370 


470 


173 


192 


363 


23 


89 


99 


5,040 


.Alternative I 
1990 


126 


1.480 
2.240 


308 
569 


3.130 
4,830 


700 
1,040 


251 

537 


295 
548 


493 
798 


40 
68 


154 

387 


148 
275 


7,100 


2020 


11.400 


^Iternatk 
1990 . 


ell 


102 
120 


1.460 
2.070 


300 
516 


3,050 
4,360 


687 
968 


247 
490 


287 
485 


479 
718 


40 
59 


139 
326 


142 

246 


6.930 


2020. . 




10.400 


Jtternativ 
1990.. 
2020.. 


elll 


101 
114 


1.430 
1.940 


2S9 
473 


2.980 
4,120 


674 
908 


239 
451 


279 
451 


471 

679 


39 
54 


136 

306 


139 
230 


6.770 
9,730 


jilternativ 
1990.. 


eir 


97 
100 


1,340 
1,570 


252 
318 


2,670 
2,980 


621 
702 


219 
323 


249 
307 


441 

530 


32 
35 


lOS 
143 


126 
173 


6,160 


2020 


7,170 







Agricultural Demands 

In 1972, about 8.75 million acres in California were 
under irrigation. Statewide applied water demands for 
irrigation in 1972 were 31.7 million acre-feet. The 
alternati\e projected water demands shown in Table 
9 were derived as the products of estimated future 
crop acreage (Table 4) and appropriate unit values 
of applied water. 



Unit values of applied \\ ater are determined on the 
basis of ( 1 ) data on current irrigation practices for 
each crop, and (2) expected changes in irrigation 
management and techniques. The irrigation s>stem 
used — sprinkler, wild flooding, furrow, etc. — is de- 
pendent on factors unique to each farm operation. 
In 1972, about 2 percent of California crop lands were 
irrigated by wild flooding, i.e., water flowing dow n 
slope from a network of distribution ditches, 17 per- 



39 



Table 9. 1972 and Projerted Agricultural Applied Water Demand 
(1,000 acre-feet) 



1972 

JIurnalivt I 

1990 

2020 

.llurnalivi II 

1990 

2020. 

Alterncihe III 

1990 

2020 

Alurnatire IV 

1990 

2020 



North 
Coastal 


San 

Francisco 

Bay 


Central 
Coastal 


South 
Coastal 


Sacra- 
mento 
Basin 


Delta- 
Central 
Sierra 


San 
Joaquin 
Basin 


Tulare 
Basin 


North 
Lahontan 


South 
Lahontan 


Colorado 
Desert 


710 


250 


1.030 


920 


6.020 


2.470 


5,450 


10.890 


420 


310 


3.220 


720 
740 


290 
330 


1,240 
1.310 


730 
530 


7.940 
9.080 


3.220 
3.700 


6,620 
7,320 


13.070 
14,870 


430 
430 


300 
250 


3.320 
3.320 


720 
740 


280 
320 


1.200 
1.270 


720 
510 


7.540 
8.350 


3,010 
3,540 


6,390 
6,600 


12.510 
13,720 


430 
430 


300 
250 


3,320 
3.320 


710 
730 


290 
310 


1.190 
1.240 


720 
520 


7,050 
7.540 


2,810 
3.250 


6,040 
6,180 


11.750 
12,360 


430 

430 


300 
250 


3,320 
3.320 


710 
730 


280 
280 


1.200 
1.220 


750 
520 


6,960 
7.410 


2,710 
3,020 


5.750 
5.750 


11,580 
11,750 


400 
400 


300 
250 


3.320 
3.320 



37.900 
41.900 



34,000 
34.600 



cent were irrigated by sprinkler, and most of the re- 
mainder were irrigated by border, basin, or furrow 
systems. The efficiency of sprinkler systems, in terms 
of both water used and labor requirements, is gener- 
ally- greater than that of other irrigation methods. 
Because water supplies are limited or costly in some 
areas, and labor and other operating costs are con- 
tinuously rising, the use of sprinklers is expected to 
increase. A new irrigation method, drip irrigation, 
which has the potential for even greater efficiency of 
water application, is being studied with great interest. 

Alternative projected agricultural applied water de- 
mands are shown in Table 9 for each of the State's 
hydrologic area and as statewide totals. 

Power Plant Cooling Water 

The calculation of future applied water demands 
for thermal power plant cooling was complicated by 
uncertainties regarding (1) the total capacities and 
types of future plants, and (2) the location, i.e., 
coastal or inland, of future thermal plants that require 
cooling water. As shown in Table 6, high and low 
projections of future energy sales and capacity have 
been forecast for California. The siting question is 
also significant because (1) for power plants located 
along the coast, sea water is readily available for once- 
through cooling,* but (2) inland plants will require 
large quantities of fresh water for cooling. 

Anal\'ses of power plant siting indicate that the most 
favorable inland areas for sites are in the Central Valley 
and the eastern portion of the Colorado Desert. Con- 
sequently, most of the future demand for cooling 
water was assumed to occur in those areas. 





through the plant condensers and returned to the 



Drip irrigation of young pistachio nut tree 



— 40 — 



The calculations of projected demands for cooling 
water were made on the basis that, depending on the 
location of future thermal power plants (coastal or 
inland), either 'A or % of the future cooling-water 
demand would be supplied by fresh water. These two 
assumptions were then combined with both high and 
low assumptions of future generation (Table 6) to 
derive the four levels of alternative demands shown 
in Table 10. 

The demands show n in Table 10 are for water from 
inland sources only. If part of these demands are met 
with reclaimed waste water, which is a potential source 
of cooling water, the requirement for high-quality 
fresh water w ould be reduced accordingly. 

Table 10. Power Plant Fresh Water Cooling Requirements 
(1,000 acre-feet) 





1972 


.Mternativc futures 




1990 


2020 


Hydrologic study area 


I 


II 


in 


IV 


I 


II 


III 


IV 




18 

n 


30 


30 



30 



30 



80 
140 


40 
60 




50 





Sacramento Basin 





Delta-Central Sierra 


20 


100 


75 


50 


40 


ISO 


100 


110 


70 


San Joaquin Basin 

















140 


70 








Tulare Lalce Basin 





70 


IS 


20 


20 


240 


130 


60 


60 


South Lahontan. 





10 


10 


10 





100 


50 








Colorado Desert 





130 


70 


40 


40 


250 


130 


130 


80 




38 


390 


220 


150 


130 


1,100 


580 


350 


210 







Recreation, Fish and Wildlife 

Both California and the Federal Government regard 
recreation, along with protection and enhancement of 
fish and wildlife, as important features of water proj- 
ects. The California Water Code prescribes that rec- 
reation facilities, fisheries, and wildlife habitat be given 
equal consideration with other purposes of proposed 
w ater projects. 

In some parts of the State, especially the North 
Coastal Area, where the tourist trade and commercial 
fishing arc ke>' features of the local economy, recrea- 
tion, fish, and wildlife represent the greatest local need 
for water. In other parts of the State, particularly the 
northeastern counties and the Central \'alley, water is 
needed to restore severel> depleted marshlands for 
^\■aterfowl in the Pacific Fl\w a\-. Since the early 1900s, 
marsh habitat in the State has declined from some 3..*' 
million acres to 400,000 acres and is still declining. 

To support recreation, fish population, and wildlife 
habitat, strcamflow must be adequate, and water qual- 
ity and temperature must be satisfactory. However, 
water required to maintain streamfiow is not consumed 
and is available for other uses downstream. As a 
matter of fact, consumptive use of water for recrea- 



tion, fish, and wildlife amounts to only about 2 percent 
of the total applied water demand in California. The 
following tabulation is a general summary of con- 
sumptive (out-of-strcam) and nonconsumptive (in- 
stream) requirements. 





Type of use 


Category 


Consumptive 


Nonconsu mptive 


Recreation 

Fish 


Water supply, sanitation. 
swimming lagoons 

Hatcheries, rearing ponds, 
processing 

Refuges and management 
areas, duck clubs 


Swimming, boating, water- 
skiing, general esthetics 


Wildlife 


spawning 
Marshland habitat, hunting 







The consumptive uses shown in the preceding tabu- 
lation comprise the applied water demands shown in 
Table 1 1 for each of the hydrologic areas of the State: 



Table 1 1 . Applied Water Demands for Fish, Wildlife, and 
Nonurbon Area Recreation (1,000 acre-feet) 



Hydrologic study area 


1972 


1990 


2020 




323 
24 

2 

6 
125 

6 
91 
43 
11 

4 
20 


359 
37 
3 
19 

170 
7 
94 
68 
11 
16 
22 


362 


San Francisco Bay 


46 




6 




23 




174 




9 




95 




70 




13 




22 




26 






Total --- 


655 


806 


846 







As explained in the preceding paragraphs, most of 
the water required for recreation, fish, and wildlife is 
for the maintenance of adequate streamfiow only and 
is not consumed. For example, water may be released 
from a storage reservoir to enhance streamfiow; this 
water is not consumed and may continue downstream 
to satisfy a part of other water demands. Many water- 
rights permits and licenses, and Federal Pow er Com- 
mission licenses, issued to public and private agencies 
provide for maintenance of streamfiow and reservoir 
levels to protect and enhance fisheries and wildlife 
habitat. 

Other Water Demand Considerations 

Although demands for environmental enhancement, 
water quality control, flood control, and navigation 
are often significant features of water resources plan- 
ning, in many cases they cannot be readily quantified 
as, for example, are economic demands for urban or 



41 



agricultural water. Moreover, because they involve 
little or no consumptive use of water, they need not 
be identified in terms of specific quantities of water; 
yet, they must be included in overall project planning. 

Environmental Enhancemenf 

By their very nature, water development projects 
provide substantial natural environmental benefits, 
even though some early water projects may not have 
been planned and carried out with environmental en- 
hancement as a specific purpose. On the other hand, 
today, natural environmental benefits are a definite 
part of water resources planning. A few examples of 
such benefits include 22 State Water Project reservoirs, 
which have been designated not only for water stor- 
age but also as recreational lakes — for fishing, boating, 
swimming, camping, and general relaxation and esthetic 
enjoyment. Other examples include the public fishing 
sites along the California Aqueduct. 

Many other examples of such benefits can be cited, 
particularly those provided by streams used for the 
conveyance of water supplies and the storage reser- 
voirs of public and private agencies in California. A 



number of such agencies, such as The Metropolitan 
Water District of Southern California, the East Bay 
Municipal Utilities District, Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company, Sacramento Municipal Utility District — to 
name only four — have developed public recreation 
areas. Such benefits are also provided at most federal 
water projects in California. 

Passage of the California Wild and Scenic Rivers 
Act in 1972 maintained substantial environmental ben- 
efits. As discussed in Chapter 1, the Act designates that 
eight California rivers be classified as wild, scenic, and 
recreational, and that the\' must be maintained as free- 
flowing rivers for the enjoyment of all the people of 
the State and for future generations. 

Water Quality Control 

Close!}' related to the trend toward environmental 
enhancement is the increasing emphasis on clean water 
and the abatement of water pollution. The increasing 
use of the nation's surface water as both a source of 
water supply and a conveyance system for disposal of 
wastes has caused the Federal Government and many 
State governments to begin correcting existing and 
potential pollution problems. 




Percolation ponds along Los Gatos Creek also provide recreation 



— 42 — 



At the federal level, Public Law 92-500, adminis- 
tered by the Environmental Protection Agency, es- 
tablishes national goals and policies, sets forth compre- 
hensive programs for water pollution control, and sets 
standards for enforcement. The objective of Public 
Law 92-500 is to restore and maintain the chemical, 
physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. 

Here in California, water quality control policies 
and programs are established by the State Water Re- 
sources Control Board and carried out with the assis- 
tance of nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. 
Basic authority for the State and Regional Boards was 
established by both the Water Quality Act of 1949 and 
the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 
1970. 

The State and Regional Boards have definite respon- 
sibilities in carrying out provisions of federal Public 
Law 92-500, including the preparation of water qual- 
ity control plans for California in 16 planning basins 
covering the entire State. The general objectives of 
these basin plans are to maintain or, in some instances, 
to enhance water quality in California. 

Flood Control 

Flood control is a water-related, although noncon- 
sumptive, demand that must be considered in water 
resource management planning. The objective is to 
reduce flood damage in the most effective way. 

A combination of structural measures, such as dams, 
reservoirs, and levees, and nonstructural measures, such 
as zoning of floodplains to prevent development in 
flood-prone areas, is usuall\- the most effective method 
of reducing flood losses. However, structural measures, 
particularly dams and reservoirs, arc becoming more 
difficult to authorize and finance. Therefore, flood- 
plain zoning, which is carried out by local govern- 
ments, may provide the primar\' means for reduction 
of losses. 

For almost 40 years, the Federal Government has 
dominated the planning and construction of flood- 
control structures in major river basins, with state 
financial aid in California for the costs of land, ease- 
ments, and rights-of-way. However, the picture is 
changing, and the trend today is toward more local 
participation in flood-control planning and, especially, 
in financing control measures. Legislation adopted in 
1973 reduced reimbursement by the State, thus requir- 
ing local agencies to assume a significant portion of the 
initial costs of projects.* 

Navigation 

The onl\ significant commercial navigation on fresh 
water w ithin the State extends from the Sacramento- 
San Joaquin Delta upstream to the Port of Stockton 



' Chapter 893 Slalutcs of 1973 



via the Stockton Deep Water Channel, to the Port of 
Sacramento via the Sacramento River and Sacramento 
Deep Water Channel, and upstream on the Sacramento 
River to Colusa. 

Most of the fresh water channels used for com- 
mercial navigation are within the zone of tidal influ- 
ence so that mininmm depths do not depend entirely 
on the rates of river flow. The exception is the reach 
of the Sacramento River from Sacramento to Colusa. 
Under the Sacramento River Shallow Draft Channel 
Project Act, a 145-mile channel up to 200-feet wide 
was excavated from Suisun Bay to Colusa. Down- 
stream from Sacramento, the minimum depth of chan- 
nel is 10 feet; upstream the minimum depth is 6 feet. 

Very low river flows can result in below-minimum 
depths within the Sacramento River Shallow Draft 
Channel Project. The authorizing document for Shasta 
Dam provided for minimum releases of 5,000 cubic 
feet per second to maintain navigation depth. Releases 
for other Central \'alley Project purposes generally 
exceed the minimum requirement, but releases specifi- 
cally for navigation are occasionally needed. Little or 
no water is consumed for navigation uses. 

Summary of Water Demands 

Table 12 summarizes present and projected alterna- 
tive applied water demands for the principal categories 
of consumptive water uses, i.e., urban, agricultural, and 
power plant cooling, .'\pplied demands for recreation, 
fish, and wildlife are also included, but onh' as a 
single projection. The alternative projected applied 
water demands shown in Table 12 are summations of 
the values developed for each category of use. 

Net water demands are used in Chapter VI to evalu- 
ate the relationship between water demand and water 
supplies. Net demand in each of the 1 1 hydrologic 
areas was calculated by a determination of (1) in- 
ternal reuse of applied water, (2) conveyance losses, 
such as evaporation of surface water, water lost 
through leaks, etc, and (3) outflow from each h\dro- 
logic area. 

Examples of reuse are return flow s or drainage from 
an agricultural field that may be directly used in an 
adjacent field or that ma\- be returned to a distribution 
SN'stem for use in a more distant field. An example of 
urban reuse is the discharge of treated waste water to 
rivers or streams that serve as sources of municipal 
and industrial water. Other examples include percola- 
tion of excess applied irrigation water (both agricul- 
tural and lawn or garden) where it may be recovered 
b\' pumping. 

Of course, not all surplus surface or percolating 
water can be recovered for reuse. Waste water dis- 
charged to saline water bodies, and irrigation water 
that percolates into moisture-deficient soil, is lost to 



43 — 



the freshwater supply. Agricultural water that flows 
out of a given area is also unavailable for reuse there 
but may be available for use in another area down- 
stream. 

Present and projected alternative net water demands 
for each of the State's hydrologic study areas arc 
shown in Table 13. A comparison of Tables 12 and H 



shows that the total net demand is lower than the total 
applied demands in each hydrologic area except the 
Colorado Desert and San Francisco Bay areas. In the 
Colorado Basin, this is generally due to large convey- 
ance losses and limited opportunities for reuse; in the 
San Francisco Bay area, conveyance losses slightly ex- 
ceed reuse. 



Table 12. 1972 and Projected Applied Water Demands by Alternative Futures 
(1,000 acre-feel) 



Power plant cooling 



Fish. 

wildlife 



North Coastal 

1972 

1990 

2020 

San Francisco Bay 

1972 

1990 

2020 

Central Coastal 

1972 - 

1990 

2020 

South Coastal 

1972 

1990 

2020 

Sacramento Basin 
1972 

1990 

2020 

Delta-Central Sierra 

1972 

1990 

2020 

San Joaiuin Basin 

1972 

1990 

2020 

Tulare Basin 

1972 

1990 

2020 

\orth Lahontan 

1972 

1990 

2020 

South Lahontan 

1972 

1990 

2020 

Colorado Desert 

1972 

1990 

2020 

Stale Total 

1972 

1990 

2020 



990 
1.480 
2,240 



2,370 
3,130 
4,830 



990 
1,460 
2,070 



2,370 
3,050 
4,360 



470 
687 



990 
1,430 
1,940 



990 
1,340 
1,570 



2,370 
2,670 
2,980 



290 
330 



1,030 
1,240 
1.310 



920 
730 
530 



6,020 
7,940 



2,470 
3.220 
3,700 



5,450 
6,620 
7,320 



10,890 
13,070 
14,870 



420 
430 
430 



3,220 
3,320 
3,320 



5,040 
7,100 
11,400 



5,040 
6,930 
10,400 



5,040 
6,770 
9.730 



S.040 
6.160 

7.170 



31,700 
37,900 
41,900 



710 
720 
740 



250 
280 



1,030 
1,200 
1,270 



6,020 
7,540 
8,350 



2,470 
3,010 
3,540 



5,450 
6,390 
6,600 



10,890 
12,510 
13,720 



420 
430 
430 



300 
250 



3,220 
3,320 
3,320 



31.700 
36,400 
39,000 



1,030 
1,190 
1,240 



920 
720 
520 



6,020 
7,050 
7,540 



2,470 
2,810 
3,250 



5,450 
6,040 
6,180 



10,890 
11,750 
12,360 



420 
430 
430 



3,220 
3,320 
3,320 



31,700 
34,600 
36,100 



250 
280 
280 



1,030 
1,200 
1,220 



6,020 
6,960 
7,410 



2,470 
2,710 
3,020 



5,450 
5,750 
5,750 



420 
400 
400 



3,220 
3,320 
3,320 



31,700 
34,000 
34,600 



1,210 
1,550 
1,890 



3,320 
3,900 
5,470 



6,610 
8,860 
10,400 



2,670 
3,570 
4,400 



5,730 
7.010 
8,100 



11.300 
13,700 
16,000 



390 
1,100 



3,340 
3,620 
3,880 



37.400 
46,200 

55,300 



1,260 
1,770 
2,440 



1,210 
1,500 
1,790 



3,320 
3,820 
4,940 



6,610 
8.400 
9,550 



2,670 
3,340 
4,140 



5,730 
6,770 
7,250 



11,300 
13,100 
14,600 



479 
498 



3,340 
3,560 
3,730 



37,400 
44,400 
50,800 



1,170 
1,210 



1,260 
1,750 
2,300 



1,210 
1,480 
1.720 



3.320 
3.750 
4,660 



6,610 
7,900 
8,670 



2,670 
3,110 
3,820 



5,730 
6,410 
6,730 



11,300 
12,300 
13,200 



3,340 
3,530 
3,710 



37,400 
42,400 
47,000 



1,170 
1,190 



1,260 
1,660 
1,890 



1,210 
1.460 
1,540 



3,320 
3,470 
3,520 



6,610 
7.750 
8.290 



2.670 
2,970 
3,420 



5,730 
6,090 
6,150 



11,300 
12,100 
12,400 



3,340 
3,510 
3.600 



37,400 
41,100 
42,900 



44 — 



Table 13. 1972 i 



nd Projected Net Water Demands by Alternative Futures 
(1,000 acre-feet) 





1972 




Alternative 


1990 future 






Alternative 


2020 future 




Ilydrologic study area 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


I 


II 


III 


IV 




940 
1,270 

950 
3,030 
5,780 
2,270 
4,650 
7,300 

430 

280 
4,070 


990 
1,820 
1,240 
3,770 
7,610 
3,110 
5,510 
9,200 
450 
330 
4,240 


990 
1,780 
1,200 
3,700 
7.20O 
2.900 
5.350 
8,800 
450 
330 
4.180 


980 
1,760 
1,180 
3,640 
6,800 
2,700 
5,120 
8,290 
450 
320 
4,150 


980 
1,660 
1,150 
3,390 
6,630 
2,580 
4,960 
8,180 
420 
300 
4.140 


1.040 
2,630 
1,560 
5,200 
9,030 
3,860 
6.280 
11,000 
480 
510 
4,430 


1,030 
2,450 
1,480 
4,720 
8,240 
3,630 
5,710 
10,110 
470 
430 
4,300 


1.010 
2,310 
1.410 
4,480 
7.530 
3,360 
5.320 
9.160 
470 
370 
4.290 


1.000 




1,900 




1,250 


South Coastal 


3,460 




7,080 




3,010 


San Joaquin Basin 


5,030 


Tulare Basin 


8,700 




420 




290 


Colorado Desert 


4.210 




31,000 


38.300 


36,900 


35,400 


34,400 


46.000 


42.600 


39,700 


36.400 







— 45 — 



V. SOURCES OF WATER AND WATER MANAGEMENT 



For man\' years, California's \\ atcr needs iia\c been 
met by the development of conventional water re- 
sources, i.e., the storage and diversion of surface wa- 
ter and the extraction of ground water. Toda>', other 
sources have begun to emerge as potential sources of 
water supply. These include waste water reclamation, 
desalting, geothermal resources, and weather modifi- 
cation. 

In addition, more effective methods for the use of 
existing water supplies are being developed to help 
meet California's water-supply and water-control re- 
quirements. These various sources of water supply 
and improved water management practices are dis- 
cussed in the following paragraphs. 

Surface Water Regulation 

Of the various methods of water suppl\- augmen- 
tation, the regulation of surface water by dams and 
reservoirs has been the most widely practiced in Cali- 
fornia. An e.xtensive network of local, state, and fed- 
eral storage reservoir provides a significant degree of 
control of the runoff of most streams in the more 
highly developed areas of the State. At the present 
time, there are 1,090 reservoirs under state jurisdic- 
tion (in regard to safety), almost all of which were 
financed and constructed by local water agencies, and 
150 federal reservoirs. Of these, 1,240 reservoirs, the 
storage capacities of 141 range from 10,000 to 100,000 
acre-feet, 45 range from 100,000 to 1 million acre- 
feet, and 10 exceed 1 million acre-feet. 

During the past four years, two multipurpose proj- 
ects, Martis Creek Lake and Mojave Lake, were com- 
pleted by the U. S. Corps of Engineers. Local agen- 
cies also completed a number of projects, mainly for 
distribution of water in their respective service areas. 
Many of these distribution systems were constructed 
to serve water supplied by the State Water Project. 
During the same period, 29 water projects financed 
under the State Financial Assistance to Local Projects 
Program (Davis-Grunsky Act) were completed. 

Most of the larger surface water projects are lo- 
cated in the Central Valley. Additional projects now 
under construction include Auburn Dam on the 
American River, New Melones Dam on the Stanislaus 
River, Buchanan Dam on the Chowchilla River, Hid- 
den Dam on the Fresno River, Warm Springs Dam 
on a tributary of the Russian River, and Indian Valley 
Dam on North Fork Cache Creek. Major water trans- 
fer facilities under construction by the Bureau of Rec- 
lamation include the Tehama-Colusa Canal, the Fol- 
som South Canal, and the San Luis Drain. Construc- 
tion of the Cross Valley Canal has been initiated by 
the Kern Count}' Water Agenc>'. 



Development of additi(jnal surface water is now, 
and will probably continue to be, limited by both the 
increasing costs of constructing facilities and the con- 
flicting uses of water and land. For e.xample. North 
Coastal rivers in the California Wild and Scenic Riv- 
ers S\stem collect about 25 percent of the State's 
natural runoff. The water in these streams is com- 
mitted to maintenance of the wild and scenic rivers 
system. 

Most of the remaining unregulated streams outside 
of the North Coastal area are in the Central Valley. 
A number of possible alternative projects have been 
considered for regulation of these streams; however, 
none is presently under construction, nor is it likely 
that all of them would be constructed. These possible 
future projects in the Central Valley are as follows: 



Project 


Stream System 


Cottonwood Creek Proje 






Cottonwood Creek 

Main Stem 

South Fork 
South Cow Creek 
Inks Creek 
Red Bank Creek 
Elder Creek 
Stony and Thomes Cr 

River 
Vuba River 
Los Banos Creek 
Cosumnes River 

Main Stream 

Middle Fork 

South Fork 
Sacramento-San Joaquir 


















Mlliville Reservoir 




Wing Reservoir 




Schoenfield Reservoir... 

Gallatin Reservoir 

Glenn Reservoir-Sacrame 

Marysville Reservoir 


nto Riv 


erbi'vVr" 


eks-Sacramento 


Los Banos Reservoir . 




Cosumnes River Project 
















Pi Pi Reservoir 




Aukum Reservoir 




East Side Division-Centr 


al Valley Project. 


Delta 



The list of possible projects also includes three in 
the North Coastal Area; these are Butler Valley Res- 
ervoir on the Mad River and Dos Rios and English 
Ridge Reservoirs on the Eel River. However, the Eel 
River is part of the California Wild and Scenic Rivers 
System. The Legislature has directed that in 1985, the 
Department of Water Resources report on the need 
for development of the Eel River so that its continu- 
ance in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System can be 
reconsidered. 

Ground Water 

The increased use of ground water in California is 
limited by the recharge capabilities of some of the 
State's individual ground water basins. However, de- 
pletion or mining, which is carried out in some water- 
deficient areas, may provide economic interim water 
supplies in such areas. When supplemental supplies 
are required in areas overlying ground water basins, 
four methods of basin operation are generally' used. 



— 47 — 



These are: 

• Safe yield based on natural replenishment. 

• Temporarv overdraft, or mining, pending devel- 
opment of supplemental surface supplies. 

• Court-ordered regulation of withdrawals. 

• Sustained yield using natural replenishment and 
planned or incidental recharge with imported 
water. 

Improved uses of ground water are the objectives of 
several current ground water management investiga- 
tions by the Department of Water Resources. A spec- 
ific example of one such investigation is the use of 
surplus Northern California water for ground water 
recharge in areas south of the Tehachapi Mountains 
for subsequent withdrawal to either (1) offset water 
deficiencies during possible shutdown of the California 
Aqueduct, or (2) defer capital expenditure for con- 
struction of additional State Water Project conserva- 
tion facilities that would be required during critically 
dry periods to meet delivery commitments. The in- 
vestigation is being carried out cooperatively with 
water service agencies in Southern California. 

Other studies by the Department of Water Re- 
sources include: 

• A state-federal cooperative investigation of a 
canal (Alid-\'alley Canal), which extends from 
the California Aqueduct to the eastern San 
Joaquin \'alley, to allevi:ite long-time ground 
water overdrafts in the eastern Tulare Basin. 

• Cooperative investigations, with federal and local 
water agencies, of hydrologic, geologic, and 
water-quality data on ground water in all parts 
of California. 

• Evaluation of the probability of obtaining pro- 
ducing domestic wells in mountainous fractured- 
rock areas. 

• Protection of ground water from quality degra- 
dation, e.g., studies of (a) sea-water intrusion 
barriers, (b) sanitary landfills, (c) the effects of 
deep injection of oil-field wastes, (d) well con- 
struction practices, and (e) land subsidence. 

• Cooperative mathematical modeling studies of 
major ground water basins. 

• Alonitoring of subsidence of land areas caused by 
ground water pumping. 

The quality of ground water in California is gen- 
erally good, although scattered areas of poor-quality 
water may be found throughout the State, particularly 
in the southeastern desert areas, where the dissolved 
mineral content of some ground water bodies may 
range up to several thousand parts per million. In 
many parts of the State, heavy pumping of ground 
water is causing overdrafts of local ground water 
basins. In coastal areas, this excessive pumping is lead- 



ing to sea water intrusion. In the San Joaquin Valley, 
where the annual overdraft approaches 1.3 million 
acre-feet, ground water pumping is causing deep sub- 
sidence in many areas. 

Efficient management of surface and ground water 
resources will require comprehensive investigation of 
the institutional, legal, economic, and financial effects 
of management proposals. The institutional problems 
will require extensive dialogue among local water serv- 
ice agencies and those with statewide jurisdiction, such 
as the Department of Water Resources and the U.S. 
Bureau of Reclamation. Although ground water man- 
agement at the lowest possible governmental level is 
frequently advantageous, regional management may 
be necessary in many areas if maximum use of ground 
water resources is to be achieved. Regional authority 
might be established by (a) legislation, (b) stipulation 
by a coalition of adjacent water service agencies, or 
(c) the legislative processes associated with water 
rights permits administered by the State. 

Waste Water Reclamation 

In this day of special concern for the environment, 
the reclamation of waste water is a promising source 
of additional water supplies. The reclamation of waste 
water not only provides pollution control but also 
can augment natural water supplies, thus reducing the 
need for development of new sources of water. As 
used in this bulletin, "waste water reclamation" means 
the planned renovation of waste water with the intent 
of producing usable water for a specific beneficial 
purpose. 

Of course, much of the water used in California is 
returned to the freshwater cycle, either directly after 
its use or following treatment. This includes most of 
the return waters from irrigated land and the treated 
waste from cities, where waste water is returned to 
freshwater supplies for further use. Although treat- 
ment of this waste water tends to enhance water 
quality, it does not create a new supply. Only when 
waste water would otherwise be discharged to saline 
water, or when it has been so degraded that it cannot 
be discharged to freshwater, does its reclamation cre- 
ate a new supply. 

The amount of water that may be reclaimed is 
limited. Up to 50 percent of a given municipal water 
supply is used consumptively and is therefore un- 
available for reclamation. Of the waste water available 
for reclamation, about 15 percent will be chemically 
unsuitable. An additional 20 to 30 percent will be 
required to carry off concentrated wastes and prevent 
accumulation of salts in the soil. Accordingly, only 
about 60 percent of the available waste water could 
be reclaimed. 



48 



Tabic 14 shows the disposition of treated waste 
water discharged in 1972. As shown, almost 70 per- 
cent of the 2.5 million acrc-fcct of treated waste 
effluent produced during 1972 was discharged into 
the ocean and to saline bays and estuaries. It is the 
reclamation of this waste water (1.7 million acre-feet 
in 1972) that offers potential as a new source of water. 

In general, the amount that may be reclaimed is 
limited by (a) the quality of the waste water, (b) the 
cost of treatment, (c) the cost of conveyance and 
treatment, and (d) the price that potential users are 
willing and able to pay, and (e) public acceptance of 
the proposed use. 

The costs of reclaimed water vary ^\■idcl\', depend- 
ing on the quantity and quality of the ^\aste water 
and the intended use. Present costs range from: 

• $2 to $5 per acre-foot in areas where reclaimed 
water can be used for irrigation near a treatment 
plant. 

• $20 to $40 per acre-foot where extensive treat- 
ment, storage, transportation, and disposal are 
required. 

• More than $100 per acre-foot where more ex- 
tensive treatment, such as desalting, is required. 



Summary of Urban Waste Water Production, 
Disposal, and Reclamation in 1972 
(1,000 acre-feet) 





Waste 
water 
pro- 
duced 


Waste water reclaimed 


Waste water 
discharge 


Hydro!ogic study area 


Inten- 
tional 


Inci- 
dental 


Total 


Nef 


To 
saline 
waters'* 




73 
583 
114 
1,287 
106 
131 
60 
116 
11 
20 
22 


1 

8 
5 
57 
12 
8 
26 
45 
6 
7 
6 


6 
32 
35 
152 
86 
121 
32 
45 
3 
8 
12 


7 
40 
40 

209 
98 

129 
58 
90 
9 
15 
18 


72 
575 
109 
1,230 
94 
123 
34 
71 
5 

13 
16 


66 


San Francisco Bay 


540 
62 




1.066 






Sacramento Basin 

Delta-Ccntral Sierra 

San Joaquin Basin 

Tulare Basin 


North Lahontan 

South Lahontan 

Colorado Desert 






Total 


2.523 


181 


532 


713 


2,342 


1,735 



It of waste water produced less the amount used in intentional recla- 

^ Ocean, bays, and estuaries. 

« Discharges to Salton Sea and Colorado River. 



At present, reclaimed water is used principally for 
agricultural, industrial, municipal, and recreational 
pursuits. Agricultural uses include the irrigation of 
(1) pasture, (2) fodder, fiber, and seed crops, (3) 




Whittier Narrows waste water reclamation plant 

— 49 — 



crops grown well above the ground, such as fruits, 
nuts, and grapes, and (4) crops that are processed 
so that pathogenic organisms are removed prior to 
luiman consumption. The direct use of reclaimed wa- 
ter for domestic use is not permitted in California, 
because public health authorities arc uncertain that 
virus and other disease-producing agents can be elimi- 
nated from Maste \\ater. 

Industrial uses of reclaimed water include cooling 
water, process wash water, boiler feed water, fire 
protection, and secondary product recovery. These 



are carried out chiefly at metalurgical manufacturing 
and fabrication plants, eIectric-po\\er generation 
plants, oil rcfinaries and petro-chemical plants, lumber 
mills, and in mining and quarrying. Municipal and 
recreational uses include the irrigation of parks, free- 
way landscaping, golf courses, and athletic fields, and 
the creation of recreational lakes. 

The direct, intentional use of reclaimed water in 
the 11 h\'drologic areas of California during 1972 is 
sho\\n in Table 15. 



Intentionol Use of Reclaimed Water in 1972 
(Acre-feet) 





Industrial 


Irrigation 


Ground water 
recharge 


Recreation 


Log deck 
sprinkling 


Wildlife 
habitat 




Hydrologic area 


Crops 


Landscape 


Golf course 


Total 




100 
2.800 

900 


500 
3.200 
5.400 
20,200 
5,000 
8,400 
25,300 
44,100 
3.600 
2,600 
3,600 


1,000 
9,600 

200 
200 


200 
2,700 

200 
200 

3,600 
1,600 


100 
21,200 

900 

400 
200 


3,800 
700 


4,900 
2,800 


1,700 


600 


San Francisco Bay 


8,200 
5,500 
57 200 




Sacramento Basin 

Delta-Central Sierra 

San Joaquin Basin 


11,600 
8.400 
25,700 
45 400 




6 400 




6,600 




6 300 






Totals 


3,800 


121,900 


11.000 


8,500 


22,800 


4,500 


7,700 


1,700 


181 900 







Future opportunities for waste water reclamation 
will be most productive in areas ^\'here (1) water is 
costly or scarce, (2) waste water is discharged to 
saline or brackish waters, and (3) the quality of the 
initial water supply is good enough to enable treat- 
ment by conventional processes. In the San Francisco 
Bay, Los Angeles, and San Diego metropolitan areas, 
waste water reclamation offers particular potential as 
a supplemental water supply. These heavily popu- 
lated areas depend to some e.xtent now, and will de- 
pend to a greater e.xtent in the future, on good-quality 
water imports. Furthermore, much of the waste water 
produced in these areas is of reusable quality. 

Both the San Joaquin and Tulare Lake Basins offer 
potential for the reclamation of agricultural waste 
water. Recent estimates indicate that, at the 1970 level 
of development, about 87,000 acre-feet of agricultural 
waste water was generated each year in these two 
basins. This is expected to increase to 400,000 acre- 
feet by 1990. Two possible alternatives exist for the 
use of this waste water: 

• It could be desalted to provide additional water 
supplies. 

• It could be softened and used for powcrplant 
cooling. 

Reclaimed waste water can help meet w ater require- 
ments, help improve water quality, and help enhance 



the environment. Table 14 shows that during 1972, 
about 7 percent of the waste water produced in Cali- 
fornia, or about 181,000 acre-feet, was intentionally 
reclaimed for specific beneficial uses. 

Desalting 

Desalting is used to produce fresh water in certain 
areas of the world, e.g., Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the 
Caribbean Islands, where its cost is competitive with 
the high costs of alternative sources of water. In 
California, desalting has been used on a limited basis, 
because the present costs of desalting generally are 
far higher than the costs of surface or ground water 
supplies. 

Certain California industries use small-scale desalt- 
ing processes to produce distilled, bottled water. In 
addition, most coastal power plants have sea-water 
distillation facilities for the production of boiler-feed 
water and for other in-plant uses. Total state produc- 
tion of desalted water is about 2,000 to .3,000 acre- 
feet per year. 

Small-scale desalting has been used in a few Cali- 
fornia communities, e.g., an elcctrodialysis plant and 
reverse osmosis test unit at Coalinga and a standby 
sea-water distillation unit on Catalina Island. The Co- 
alinga units were used to desalt brackish ground water 



— 50 — 



until surface-water imports became available to the 
city in 1971. However, there are no municipal ap- 
plications of desalting in California toda\'. 

Two factors limiting the expansion of desalting 
today are the high cost and the large quantities of 
energy required. Until about 1970, refinements in de- 
saulting technology' were steadiix' decreasing the unit 
costs of desalted water. For example, in 1960, the 
estimated costs of producing fresh water in a small- 
capacitN' plant was about $6.00 per 1,000 gallons; by 
1970, this had been reduced to about Sl.OO per 1,000 
gallons. Today, however, inflation and the rising costs 
of fuel have combined to drive unit costs upward 
again. 

The Department of Water Resources began desalt- 
ing research in 1957. The following year the Depart- 
ment began a program of close cooperation with the 
federal Office of Saline Water (now incorporated into 
the Oflice of Water Research and Technology). The 
Department participated with the Office of Saline 
Water in funding and operation of a sea-water conver- 
sion plant at Point Loma, near San Diego, and the San 
Diego Saline Water Test Facility. 

The Department of Water Resources is also par- 
ticipating \\ith the Office of Saline Water and the 
Universit\' of California in studies of the feasibility 
of desalting agricultural waste water. The studies are 
carried out at a test station in Firebaugh in the San 
Joaquin Valley. One study at Firebaugh, combining 
an ion-exchange process with reverse osmosis desalt- 
ing, has resulted in 90 percent removal of salt from 
agricultural waste water. The Department is also co- 
operating with the Metropolitan Water District of 
Southern California in studies to determine the feasi- 
bility' of desalting Colorado River water to improve 
its quality-. 

The Department recently inventoried 1 1 1 small 
and medium-size California communities where exces- 
sive salts in municipal water supplies have created 
serious water-quality problems. A report on the possi- 
bility of using small-scale desalting to improve water 
quality in 10 of these communities will be published 
soon. 

In the future, desalting processes may be increas- 
ingly used for special tasks as metropolitan areas find 
it necessary to improve management of existing water 
supplies. There will be a need to provide salt balance 
in ground water basins, to improve water quality, to 
reuse water, and to meet regulatory requirements for 
the discharge of waste water. In some cases these 
processes could be accomplished by desalting. Desalt- 
ing processes will also play an increasing role in the 
treatment of agricultural waste waters. .Ml in all, de- 
salting will probably play an increasing role in water 
resource management over the next 10 to 30 years, 
but is not expected to be a major source of supple- 
mental water supply. 



Geothermal Water Potential 

Geothcrmal energy is the natural heat generated 
beneath the surface of tiie earth. In certain areas of 
California, subsurface temperatures rise sharply with 
depth; in such areas, superheated ground water comes 
to the surface as hot springs and gevscrs. The produc- 
tion of fresh water from saline ground water in such 
geothcrmal areas offers another potential source of 
water supply. 

Necessary conditions for production of fresh water 
include a source of geothcrmal heat, an adequate sup- 
ply of brine, and a favorable market for fresh water. 
The most economical development of geothermal re- 
sources would result from a facility that combines the 
production of power and water and, possibly, mineral 
by-products. The hot mineralized water could be dis- 
tilled with its own heat, or the heat could be used to 
distill other mineralized water or for the generation of 
electrical energy. The distillation process would also 
produce large quantities of waste brines; a satisfactory 
method for their disposal would be essential. 

Of the three major geothermal areas in California 
which have been investigated for commercial exploita- 
tion — the Geysers in Sonoma County, the Mono Lake- 
Long \'alley-Casa Diablo area, and the southern Im- 
perial \'alley — only the Imperial \^alley appears to 
have sufficient quantities of hot subsurface brine to 
enable large-scale production of water. At least nine 
geothermal anomalies — areas beneath the surface where 
ground temperatures are above normal as a result of 
near-surface penetration of heat from the hot magma 
of the earth's core — have been identified between the 
Salton Sea and the Mexican Border. 

Other parts of the Imperial X'allev have been identi- 
fied as potential areas for further investigation. Esti- 
mates of the hot geothermal brines in the basin range 
from I to 5 billion acre-feet; quantities recoverable 
and usable at temperatures of 300^F or higher have 
been estimated at 200 million acre- feet. 

The Department of Water Resources is monitoring 
the programs conducted by private and public enti- 
ties with the objective of establishing the physical and 
economic feasibility of geothermal resources develop- 
ment in the Imperial Valley as soon as possible. Also, 
to further define conditions at the Dunes Anomaly, 
the Department drilled a 2,000 foot test hole in 1972. 
Maximum temperature encountered in the test hole 
was 218° F. Cores fluid samples, and logs for this well 
were collected and analyzed, and preliminary results 
were published in a joint report by the Department 
and the University of California, Riverside. 

The U. S. Bureau of Reclamation has been conduct- 
ing a fresh-water-production research project in coop- 
eration with the U. S. Office of Saline Water at the 
Mesa Anomaly in the Imperial X'alley. In 1972, a 
geothermal well 8,000-feet deep was drilled and com- 
pleted. Pressure and temperature were adequate to 



51 — 



produce steam and brines with a salinity of about 
17,000 milligrams per liter. In 1973, rvvo experimental 
desalination units, each capable of producing 20,000 
to 50,000 gallons per day, were erected near the well 
to test the operation of distillation processes. 

If geothermal fluids in the Imperial Valley prove 
to be an economical source of water, they might aug- 
ment the Colorado River supplies now used in South- 
ern California and alleviate the increasing water quality 
problems there. Fresh water could be (1) added to the 
Colorado River, (2) used as a direct supply to meet 
municipal and industrial demand in the Imperial Val- 
ley, or (3) blended with Colorado River water in the 
All-American Canal system. 

Further investigation will be required to establish 
the feasibilit\- of large-scale use of the geothermal 
resources in the Imperial \^alle\'. Alorc geologic and 
engineering knowledge is needed to ( 1 ) refine esti- 
mates of the amount of brines and of the utility of 
the heat contents, (2) solve scaling and corrosion 
problems, (3) develop economical and acceptable 
methods of disposing of geothermal pollutants and 
solve other environmental problems, (4) determine 
costs of fresh water production, and (5) establish the 
economic feasibility and justification of such produc- 
tion. The magnitude of these tasks indicates that 
large-scale production of fresh \\ ater is still some years 
away. 

Weather Modification 

During the past 25 years, the possibilit\- of creating 
or increasing precipitation b\' cloud seeding has been 
the subject of considerable research and development. 
So far, experiments in California have consisted pri- 
marily of efi^orts to (a) increase precipitation from 
individual clouds or storms, (b) clear fog at airports, 
and (c) suppress lightning and hail storms. The most 
common method is the seeding of clouds with silver 
iodide, sulfur trioxide, or both, from either aircraft 
or ground-based generators. During the 1971-72 sea- 
son, 12 weather modification projects were carried out 
in California by various public and private contrac- 
tors. Six of these projects were efforts to increase 
precipitation. 

The role of the Department of Water Resources in 
weather modification research is a varied one. During 
1971-72, the Department funded several research ac- 
tivities by the California State University Fresno 
Foundation. The studies were conducted as part of 
Project Skywater, a nationwide program of the U. S. 
Department of Interior. In addition to its studies of 
winter storm modification, the Fresno Foundation 
has also studied the potential of producing or increas- 
ing precipitation from summer cumulus clouds over 
the central Sierra Nevada. 



The Department is now planning to conduct a 
pilot project to determine the effects of cloud seeding 
above the Feather River Basin. Subject to completion 
of a satisfactory Environmental Impact Report, seed- 
ing of a portion of productive storms is expected to 
begin during the fall of 1975. 

The effectiveness of weather modification projects 
is difficult to evaluate because of great variety of 
natural weather and rainfall patterns. Frequently, sim- 
ilar experiments produce conflicting results. More- 
over, a number of legal and technical questions remain 
unresolved. An important legal question relates to the 
responsibility' of operators for increasing flood flows 
and for the possible decrease in precipitation in areas 
downwind from target areas. 

Management Concepts and Practices 

In addition to the various sources of water discussed 
in the preceding paragraphs, new management prac- 
tices are being studied and developed to enable more 
effective use of water supplies already available. As 
new sources of water become more scarce, better 
management of available water supplies will help meet 
California's increasing water requirements. 

More Effecfive Use of Wafer 

More effective use of e.xisting water supplies will 
help meet increasing water demands. Improved 
methods of operation include: 

Improved farming and irrigation practices. 

• Controlled application of irrigation water to wet 
oni\' the crop root zone. 

• Better timing of water applications to reduce 
wasted runoff and deep percolation. 

• Improved soil structure to reduce the rate of 
water intake. 

• Lined irrigation ditches to reduce seepage losses. 
Unproved Jise of urban i^ater supplies. 

• Use of pricing policies, such as metering, to dis- 
courage wasteful practices. 

• Use of information programs to encourage con- 
servation of water. 

Expanded use of loiver quality ivater for uses that 
do not require high-quality ivater. 

• Cooling water for power plants and industry. 

• Blending with higher quality water to obtain 
usable water supplies. 

• Irrigation of golf courses, parks, freeway land- 
scaping, etc. 

• Creation of wetlands and \\ ildlife refuges. 

More Effective Use of Faciliiies 

The Department of \\'ater Resources and other 
water agencies are studying new methods for more 
efficient operation of water development facilities. 



— 52 — 



i.e., reservoirs, aqueducts, canals, etc., in an effort to 
increase the yield of water projects. Examples of more 
effective operations are as follows: 

1. Most water projects in California are operated 
independently by individual water agencies. The co- 
ordinated operation of individual projects could in- 
crease water yields. For example, coordinated opera- 
tion of State Water Project and federal Central Valley 
Project facilities enables maximum water yields in the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. 

2. During winter and early spring, water convey- 
ance systems frequently have unused capacity that 
could be used to transport surplus streamflow from 
areas with excess water supplies. Through water ex- 
changes and coordinated operation of facilities, sur- 
plus water could be conveyed for off-season storage 
in surface or ground water reservoirs. 

Ground Water Modeling 

The relationships among the physical properties of 
a ground water basin can be approximated by equa- 



tions. Therefore, a mathematical model of a ground 
w ater basin, programmed on a high-speed electronic 
computer, can be used to verify an analysis and to 
test a wide variety of methods for using the ground 
water basin in conjunction with surface supplies and 
distribution and storage facilities. 

The use of mathematical models has led to an im- 
provement in the approach to ground water basin 
management, which involves the planned use of 
ground water in storage in conjunction with local 
and imported surface water, and the use of subsur- 
face aquifers in conjunction with pipelines and canals 
for movement of water. Management of a ground 
water basin may include one or more of the follow- 
ing objectives. 

• Integration of ground water supplies with water 
from other sources to obtain the lowest cost 
water supply. 

• Use of a ground water reservoir to store excess 
water and thus increase the total available supply. 




Smith River at the junction of the North Fork and Middle Fork 

— 53 — 



• Mining of water previously stored to defer con- 
struction of import or distribution facilities. 

• Control of the movement of water within the 
ground water basin, including the intrusion of 
sea water. 

• Prevention of adverse salt build-up. 

• Operation of a ground water basin to prevent or 
relieve drainage or subsidence problems. 

The Department of Water Resources, in coopera- 
tion with local agencies, has developed mathematical 
models that permit complex evaluations of alternative 
operational plans. The studies are enabling local agen- 
cies to make management decisions based on fact in- 
stead of speculation. Decisions on how much imported 
water to purchase, ^hen to purchase it, and where 
to use it have been influenced by modeling studies of 
many areas of the State. On a statewide basis, the 
results of modeling studies provide valuable knowledge 
on the overall role of ground water in satisfying de- 
mands for future water supply and storage. 

Waterway Management Planning 

The objective of waterway management planning is 
to protect and enhance certain rivers and streams and 
their immediate adjacent land areas. In 1971, the Leg- 
islature directed the California Resources Agency to 
prepare detailed waterway management plans for cer- 
tain streams in the North Coastal and northern San 
Francisco Bay Hydrologic Areas. Then, in 1972, the 
Resources Agency was directed to prepare and ad- 
minister management plans under legislation establish- 
ing the State Wild, Scenic, and Recreational System. 

The Resources Agency's waterway management 
plans are designed to: 

• Protect and enhance scenic, recreational, geologic, 
fish and wildlife, historic, and archaeological val- 
ues. 

• Help maintain and enhance water quality. 

• Provide river-oriented recreation opportunities 
while protecting other river quality values. 

• Maintain all streams in the State Wild and Scenic 
Rivers system in a natural and free-flowing con- 
dition. 

• Identify desirable measures for control of floods 
and augmentation of streamflow. 

The Resources Agency, in cooperation with appro- 
priate local and federal agencies, is now preparing 
plans for the Smith and Klamath Rivers. After public 
hearings, the Smith River plan is expected to be sub- 
mitted to the Legislature for consideration during the 
1975 session. 

Flood Control Management 

Two general categories of flood control measures 
are used to prevent flood damage — structural and 



nonstructural. The first category includes reservoirs 
and detention basins; floodways and bypasses, levees, 
and river channel improvements. Nonstructural meas- 
ures include flood plain zoning to prevent develop- 
ment, flood forecasting and warning procedures, flood 
proofing, and flood insurance. A combination of struc- 
tural and nonstructural measures is frequently the most 
effective method of preventing flood losses. 

Over the years, federal and local agencies have 
dominated the planning and construction of flood- 
control structures in California, with state financial 
aid for the costs of land, easements, and rights-of-way. 
The Cobey-Alquist Flood Plain Management Act of 
1965, which is administered by the Department of 
Water Resources, directs local governments to regu- 
late development in flood plains prior to the construc- 
tion of local projects as a condition to receiving state 
financial aid. 

In July 1974 the Department of Water Resources 
began a 3-year study of the flood damage-prevention 
problem in California. The study, which will be con- 
ducted in cooperation with local flood-control agen- 
cies, will inventory existing and proposed flood-con- 
trol works, estimate the degree of protection from 
flooding, identify residual flood problems, and exam- 
ine and evaluate flood management concepts as they 
might resolve existing problems. 

Water Quality Control Planning 

The State Water Resources Control Board regulates 
the activities and factors that affect, or that may aflfect, 
the qualit)' of the waters of the State, in order to 
attain the highest reasonable water quality considering 
all demands being made and to be made on these wa- 
ters and the total values involved. Water quality and 
quantity are so interrelated that they must be consid- 
ered together; this was recognized by the Legislature, 
which charged the State Board with responsibility for 
both quantity allocation (water rights administration) 
and control of quality. 

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 
1969 established the present control mechanism. The 
Act requires the formulation and adoption of water 
quality control plans by each of the nine Regional 
Water Quality Control Boards for all areas with each 
region. The plans become effective upon approval of 
the State Board and will become a part of the Cali- 
fornia Water Plan when reported to the Legislature. 

The comprehensive plans for each of the 16 basins 
comprising the State have been under preparation since 
May 1972 and will be completed by December 1974. 
The plans will be published as reports and are ex- 
pected to be adopted and approved within a few 
months after publication. The plans will be assessed 
and revised as necessary to reflect current conditions 
and technology. 



54 



VI. WATER SUPPLY AND SUPPLEMENTAL DEMANDS 



If the average total statewide runoff (Figure 3) of 
almost 71 million acre-feet were available for use at 
all the right times and places, it would meet all fore- 
seeable future statewide demands. However, natural 
storm runoff occurs neither at the precise time of 
need nor in the right locations. Most of California's 
runoff occurs during winter and early spring, whereas 
peak demands occur during the summer. Moreover, 
most runoff occurs in the northern part of the State, 
whereas almost 75 percent of the demand occurs 
south of Sacramento. 

Table 16 presents a comparison of total available 
water supplies and total use and commitments for the 
1972 level of use. 

Table 16. Total Water Supply and Present Use and Commitments 
(millions of cere-feet) 



Water supply 


Present use and commitments 


Average natural runoff 


1972 use (depletions) 27.0 




27.2 




Sacramento Basin 

Remaining Central Valley.... 


... 22.4 
... 11.2 
.. 10.0 


Wild and scenic rivers 17.8 




... 70.8 
... 4.4 
... 1.4 

... 76.6 




Imports from Colorado River... 

Inflow from Oregon 

Total water supply 


Outflow to Nevada. 1.2 

Total use and commitments. 49.4 
Remaining water supplies... 27.2 



Theoretically, the balance of 27.2 million acre-feet 
shown in Table 16 represents the runoff available for 
regulation to meet increased future \\ater demands. 
However, about one-half of it cannot be captured 
because ( 1 ) the runoff occurs in remote areas, e.g., 
coastal watersheds or desert areas, \\here neither regu- 
lation nor conservation is possible or (2) the runoff 
occurs during infrequent flood flows, which cannot 
be regulated or conserved. 

Available Water Supplies 

The measure of water supplies used in the following 
paragraphs is in terms of dependable water supply, i.e., 
the quantities of ivater that can be provided from 
various sources to a ivater service area on a schedule 
that ivill meet demands in that area. The water sup- 
plies discussed for 1972 represent the estimated quanti- 
ties required for the current level of use and are not, 
in all cases, the actual quantities delivered during that 
rather dry year. 

Surface Water 

Of the total statewide 1972 net water requirement 
of }\ million acre-feet, some 23.3 million acre-feet was 



supplied by surface water projects. As briefly de- 
scribed in Chapter I, these include (1) local water 
development by local water agencies, (2) long-dis- 
tance imports by local agencies, (3) the Central Valley 
Project and other federal water projects, and (4) the 
California State Water Project. Major surface water 
projects are shown in Plate 1. 

Ground Water Safe Yield 

Ground Avatcr provides about 40 percent, or some 
15 million acre-feet, of California's applied water 
needs. About one-third (5.2 million acre-feet) of the 
total is supplied from safe yield of the ground water 
basins. One-half of the total pumping comprises reuse 
of deep percolation of irrigation water and of losses 
from canals and distribution s\stems serving urban 
and agricultural areas. The remaining portion (2.2 
million acre-feet) is overdraft, i.e., ground water taken 
out of storage beyond the current recharge capability. 
Together, the overdraft and safe \ield comprise about 
7.4 million acre-feet, or about 24 percent of the net 
water use in California. An additional 7.6 million acre- 
feet of annual ground water extraction constitutes re- 
use of water percolated from applications of excess 
surface water. 

The complete e.xtcnt of the State's ground water re- 
sources is not fully known. Whereas the known areas 
of water-bearing underground strata have been gen- 
erally delineated, knowledge of storage capacity is 
limited to ( 1 ) the basins most heavily used, where the 
need is greatest, and (2) the depths considered to 
represent a limit to economic pumping, even though 
water may be found at far greater depths. 

Other Sources of Water 

Waste Water Reclamation. During 1972, about 
180,000 acre-feet of waste water was reclaimed, most 
of \\ hich was used for the irrigation of fodder, or- 
chards, fiber, seed and other nonedible crops. Whereas 
in the past, declaimed water at inland areas has been 
included as part of reuse of net water supplies, in 
Bulletin No. 160-74, the quantities of waste water re- 
claimed for a specific beneficial use are considered as 
a separate item of supply. The projected quantities 
shown in Table 17 include only those quantities pro- 
duced by planned reclamation projects, i.e., water re- 
claimed for a specific use, and do not include inci- 
dental reuse, such as treated waste water returned to 
a river or irrigation return water that is mixed with 
incoming supplies. 



— 55 



Table 17. Summary of 1972 and Projected Water Supplies, Net Water Demands 

and Supplemental Demands by Hydrologic Study Areas 

{1,000 Acre-feet Per Year) 



Dependable water supplies 

Local surface water developmen 
Imports by local water agencies 

Ground water safe yield 

Central Valley Project' 

Other federal water developmen 

State Water Project' 

Waste water reclamation 

Desalting 

Total dependable water suppl 

Alurnative Future I 

Total net water demand 

Supplemental demand 

Reserve supplyS 

Alternative Future II 

Total net water demand 

Supplemental demand 

Reserve supply".... 

AlUrnalivi Future III 

Total net water demand 

Supplemental demand 

Reserve supply* 

Alurnatwe Future //' 

Total net water demand 

Supplemental demand 

Reserve supply' 



North Coastal 



1972 1990 2020 



SanF; 



Bay 



1972 1990 2020 



Central Coastal 



1972 1990 2020 



1,150 
200 



South Coastal 



1972 1990 2020 



Sacramento Basin 



1972 1990 2020 



2,700 
200 



6,630 
210 
970 



Delta-Central Sit 



1972 1990 2020 



1,330 
630 



2,700 
110 
320 



3,010 
280 
200 



' Facilities existing or under construction; amounts include water rights and exchange supplies in the Central Valley furnished from CVP facilit 
' Facilities definitely planned for construction and additional conservation facilities authorized to meet contractual commitments. 
' Potentially available to certain portions of the hydrologic study area to meet additional water demands; usually not available to other areas of 
of a lack of physical facilities and/or institutional arrangements. 



Desalting. At the present time, no municipal water 
in California is supplied by desalting, and because of 
the high cost and intensive uses of energy, no new 
significant developments are expected. However, be- 
cause a large desalting facility in Orange County is 
nearing operational status, 16,000 acre-feet of desalted 
water supplies are included in the projected supplies 
shown in Table 17. 

Summary 

Table 17 is a summary of present and projected (a) 
water supplies, and (b) net water demands in the 11 
hydrologic areas of California. The quantities of water 
shown as reserve supplies represent, in a given hydro- 
logic area, either (a) supplies in excess of demand 
or (b) supplies that exceed the capability of available 
conveyance or distribution facilities. The reserve sup- 
ply is valid at face value only in a designated service 
area. Its use in another service area would entail a 
number of institutional arrangements as well as phys- 
ical transfer facilities. 

The statewide water supply and demand picture 
under each alternative future is summarized in Fig- 
ure 7. The principal sources of water are indicated and 
compared with total net water demands. The differ- 
ence between water supply and net water demand is 



the supplemental demand. By 1990, the Colorado 
River supply will be reduced from the present 5.15 
million acre-feet to about 4.4 million acre-feet, which 
is California's share of the Colorado River supply ac- 
cording to the Supreme Court allocation. 

The category labeled "Local Water Projects" in- 
cludes local agency and federal surface water develop- 
ments, except for Colorado River and Central Valley 
Project sources. It also includes water supplies from 
waste water reclamation and desalting, which are too 
small to show as a separate category. 

Effect of Water Rights Decisions on Water Supply 

Three recent water rights decisions by the State 
Water Resources Control Board will significantly af- 
fect the water supply outlook in California. These are 
Decision 1379, which establishes water quality stand- 
ards for fishery, agricultural, and urban uses in the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta; Decision 1400, which 
requires reservoir releases to enhance fisherj^ and rec- 
reational benefits in the American River between Fol- 
som Dam and Sacramento; and Decision 1422, which 
limits the amount of water to be stored in New I\le- 
lones Reservoir on the Stanislaus River. 



— 56 — 



Table 17. Summary o< 1972 and Projected Water Supplies, Net Water Demands 

and Supplemental Demands by Hydrologic Study Areas — Continued 

(1,000 Acre-feet Per Year) 



Dependable water supplies 
Local surface water developments 
Imports by local water agencies.. 

Ground water safe yield 

Central Valley Project' 

Other federal water developments' 

State Water Project' 

Waste water reclamation _ 

Desalting 

Total dependable water supplies 



Murnatkt Future I 
Total net water deman 
Supplemental demand. 
Reserve supply' 



MurnatiTi Future II 
Total net water demani 
Supplemental demand. 
Reserve supply' 



Aluri\ativt Future III 
Total net water dem; 
Supplemental deman 
Reserve supply 



Alternative Future //' 
Total net water den 
Supplemental demai 
Reser\-e supply' 



San Joaquin Basin 



1972 1990 2020 



4,650 
250 



4,650 
250 



4,650 
250 



5,510 
670 



6,280 
1,420 



5,320 
460 



Tulare Basil 



1972 1990 2020 



2.220 



510 
2,660 
240 
790 
45 



7,300 

1,310 

480 



7,300 

1,310 

480 



7,300 

1,310 

480 



9,200 

1,920 

50 



8,290 
1,030 



8,180 
920 



!,220 



510 
2,890 

240 

1,410 

85 



11,000 
3,640 



10,110 
2,750 



8,700 
1,340 



North Lahonta 



1972 1990 2020 



South Lahontan 



1972 1990 2020 



Colorado Desert 



1972 1990 2020 



4,300 
140 



1972 1990 2020 



9,310 
2,450 
5,220 
7,290 
5,110 
1,160 
180 



31,000 
2,450 
2,140 



31,000 
2,450 
2,140 



31,000 
2,450 
2,140 



31,000 
2,450 
2,140 



9,560 
1,660 
5,470 
8,930 
5,310 
4,420 
290 
16 
35,700 



38,300 
3,810 
1,200 



35,400 
2,070 
2,330 



34,400 
1,620 
2,900 



9,810 
1,660 
5,560 
9,230 
5,310 
4,460 
360 
16 



46,000 
9,610 



42,600 

6,600 

430 



39,700 
4,420 
1,120 



36,400 
2,620 
2,680 



' Facilities existing or under construction; amounts include water rights and exchange supplies in the Central Valley furnished from C\'P fa 
' Facilities definitely planned for construction and additional conservation facilities authorized to meet contractual commitments. 
• Potentially available to certain portions of the hydrologic study area to meet additional water demands; usually not available to other areas c 
of a lack of physical facilities and/or institutional arrangements. 



Decision 1379 

Decision 1379 requires significantly higher outflows 
from the Delta than those contemplated in previous 
planning for both the Central Valley Project and 
State Water Project. Under these conditions, the com- 
bined yield of the Central Valley Project and State 
Water Project would be about 1.8 million acre-feet 
less than previously planned. The decision will be re- 
viewed by the State Water Resources Control Board 
no later than July 1978. Recent guidelines for water 
quality management planning issued by the State 
Board indicate that the required outflow for fishery 
uses might be reduced during years of below-normal 
runoff. Water supply yields used in this report are 
based on assumed dry year relaxations which ^\■ould 
reduce the 1.8 million acre-feet to 0.6 million acre- 
feet. 

Dec/s/on ]400 

In Decision 1400 (April 1972) the State Board es- 
tablished minimum requirements for fishery and rec- 
reation uses in the reach of the American River that 
flows through the Metropolitan Sacramento Area. Re- 
lease from Folsom Reservoir would provide flows of 
1,250 cubic feet per second (cfs) for fisheries and 



1,500 cfs for recreation from mid-May to mid-October 
in all but dry years. These were considered the mini- 
mum flows that would provide a good in-stream fish- 
ery and recreation enhancement. 

The previous fisher\- re'c s requirements were based 
on an agreement with the Department of Fish and 
Game negotiated when Folsom Dam was built. Fish- 
ery releases amounted to about 234,000 acre-feet per 
year, 250 cfs from January to mid-September and 500 
cfs the rest of the year. The increased requirement 
under Decision 1400, about 750,000 acre-feet per year, 
reduces the quantity of firm water supply available 
for diversion at the head of Folsom South Canal. 

Decision 1422 

In Decision 1422 concerning the New Melones 
Project on the Stanislaus River, the State Board re- 
stricted water storage in the federal reservoir to that 
required to provide (a) for prior rights at existing 
Melones Reservoir, (b) up to 98,000 acre-feet per 
year for preservation and enhancement of downstream 
fisheries and wildlife habitat, and (c) additional water 
to maintain dissolved oxygen in the Stanislaus River 
and provide water qualitj' control in the lower San 
Joaquin River at Vernalis. 



■57 — 



ALTERNATIVE FUTURE I 




1972 



1990 



2020 



ALTERNATIVE FUTURE III 




2020 




Figure 7. Statewide Water Demand ond Usable Water Supply Summary 
— 58 — 



ALTERNATIVE FUTURE II 



NET WATER DEMAND' 



USABLE WATER SUPPLY 
«ROU NO WATER 




STATE WATER PROJECT 



CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT 



COLORADO RIVER 



GROUND WATER 



LOCAL WATER PROJECTS 



1990 



2020 



ALTERNATIVE FUTURE IV 



^USABLE WATER SUPPLY 



NET WATER DEMAND 




STATE WATER PROJECT 



CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT 



20 



COLORADO RIVER 



GROUND WATER 



10 — 



LOCAL WATER PROJECTS 



1972 



1990 



2020 



YEAR 



Figure 7. (Continued) 

— 59 — 



W !i 



The decision, which will be reviewed by the State 
Board when there is a demonstrated need for more 
water for downstream uses, will preserve a popular 
"white water" area. 

In effect, Decision 1422 limits water supply storage 
to about 30 percent of the New Melones total capac- 
ity of 2.4 million acre-feet. This will reduce firm 
water supplies by about 210,000 acre-feet, with sub- 
stantial loss of electric power from the planned 
300-megawatt hydroelectric plant and substantially 
reduced water levels in the reservoir for recreation. 

Supplemental Water Demands 

The supplemental water demands shown in Table 
17 are the difference between the net water demand 
in each hydrologic area and that portion of the de- 
pendable water supply that is usable in the area of 
need. The determinations of supplemental demands 
include reserve supplies that cannot be readily used 
in areas of local water deficiency. 

As shown in Table 17, the present (1972) statewide 
supplemental demands total about 2.45 million acre- 
feet per year, almost all of which is ground water 
overdraft, principally in the Central V^alley. Depend- 
ing on population, agricultural, and energy growth 
rates, future supplemental demands are e.xpected to 
range from 1.6 to 3.8 million acre-feet in 1990, and 
from 2.6 to 9.6 million acre-feet in 2020. 

Analysis of Central Valley Project and State 
Water Project Capabilities and Demands 

Both the Central Valley Project and the State Water 
Project provide major transfers of water from areas 
of water surplus to areas of water deficiency. Because 
these two integrated projects account for much of the 
present water service and are expected to provide a 
greater share of the future water service, the capa- 
bilities of the two systems are significant in the analy- 
sis of California's water supplies. 

Project Water Supplies 

The estimated capability of the Central Valley 
Project to (a) meet prior water rights and exchange- 
water-service contracts, and (b) provide for the pro- 
jected net demands computed for this report is about 
9.2 million acre-feet per year. This assumes completion 
of Auburn and New Melones Reservoirs and the 
Peripheral Canal in the Delta, and reuse of return 
flows from some service areas. 

The current sustained-yield capability of the exist- 
ing State Water Project conservation facilities, to- 
gether with the Peripheral Canal, will be about 3.4 
million acre-feet. About 1 million acre-feet of addi- 
tional authorized conservation capability will be added 



to meet contractual demands plus conveyance losses, 
which together total 4.46 million acre-feet. 

The Peripheral Cana/ 

In 1959, the State Legislature recognized in the 
Burns-Porter Act that some kind of physical works 
would have to be built to transfer Sacramento River 
water through the Delta and concurrently to solve 
water quality and fishery problems within the Sacra- 
mento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1964, the Peripheral 
Canal was recommended as the best plan for the Delta, 
and was the most flexible of all proposed Delta plans. 
It would: 

• Protect and enhance the Delta fishery by restor- 
ing downstream flows in Delta channels. 

• Provide water quality control for the interior 
Delta uses by releasing water from many outlets. 

• Correct a deteriorating environmental condition 
by isolating project pumps from the Delta chan- 
nels. 

• Improve Delta recreation by providing new facil- 
ities along the Canal and by improving Delta 
access. 

• Ensure the quality of the water supply needed 
by agriculture, industry, and millions of Cali- 
fornians west and south of the Delta served by 
the state and federal projects. 

Although the Peripheral Canal was planned as a 
federal-state project, federal participation may not be 
authorized in time to complete the Canal by 1980, 
when it will be needed. Accordingly, the State has 
been preparing to proceed with a staged construction 
plan; tills will enable participation by the U. S. Bureau 
of Reclamation as soon as federal authorization is ob- 
tained. 

Wafer Demands on the Central Valley Project 

In the Central Valley Project service areas, estimated 
1972-level water demands and projected future water 
demands that could be fulfilled by the project works, 
either existing or under construction, are summarized 
in Table 18. These projections are based on the as- 
sumption that Folsom-South Canal will be completed 
into San Joaquin County and that New Melones Res- 
ervoir will serve areas of need in the San Joaquin 
Hydrologic Study Area. 

Table 19 summarizes the additional water supply 
demands in the Central Valley Project service areas 
that would occur under each alternative future. In 
effect, these additional demands represent that portion 
of the supplemental water demand that lies within 
or adjacent to the Central Valley Project service areas 
and exceeds the service areas commitments. Figure 8 
graphically depicts the water supply and demand pic- 
ture of the Central Valley Project. 



— 60 — 



Table 18. Net Water Demands on the Central Valley Project' 
(1,000 acre-feet) 





1972 


1990 


2020 




Alternative future 


Alternative future 


Ilydrologic sludy ana 


1 


11 


III 


IV 


1 


11 


III 


IV 


San Francisco Bay 

Sacramento Basin - - - 

DcUa-Ccntral Sierra 

San Joaquin Basin 


60 
2,090 

90 
1,620 
2,180 
6,040 


100 
3,050 

840 
1.940 
2,840 
8,770 


90 
2,900 

730 
1,940 
2,850 
8,510 


90 
2,720 
570 
1,940 
2,820 
8,140 


80 
2,660 
520 
1.930 
2.810 
8,000 


270 
3,490 

900 
1,940 
3,040 
9,640 


210 
3,270 

910 
1,940 
3,540 
9,370 


180 
2,930 

910 
1,940 
3,010 
9,000 


110 
2.810 

800 
1.940 
3,020 


Total 


8,680 







' Up to authorized commitments upon facilities existing or under construction. 



Table 19. Possible Additional Demands on the Central Valley Project' 
(1,000 acre-feet) 





1990 


2020 




Alternative future 


Alternative future 


Hydrologic study area 


1 


11 


111 


IV 


1 


11 


III 


IV 


San Francisco Bay - 


50 
80 
400 
150 
670 
1.550 
2.900 


50 
80 
310 
110 
500 
1,290 
2,340 


40 
80 
230 
100 
280 
980 
1,710 


20 
80 
190 
80 
120 
910 
1,400 


190 

110 

770 

760 

1,360 

2,690 

5,880 


180 
110 

580 

540 

800 

2,110 

4,320 


160 
110 
430 
380 
450 
1,410 
2,940 


70 




110 




280 


Delta-Central Sierra 


220 




170 




1,130 


Total 


1,980 







' In addition to authorized ( 



New facilities that could provide additional water 
supplies to Central Valley Project service areas to meet 
the additional water requirements shown in Table 19 



1. San Felipe Division* 

2. Marysville Reservoir* 

3. West Sacramento Canalt-- 

4. Mid-Valley Canalt 

5. East Side Divisiont 

6. Allen Campt 

7. Cosumnes River Divisionf 



Hydrologic Areas (see Figure 1) 



SF and CC 

SF. CC, SB, DC, SJ and TB 

SB, DC, and SF 

SJ and TB 

SJ and TB 

SB 

DC 



• Authorized 

t Not authorized 



Wafer Demands on the State Water Project 

Demands for service from the State Water Project 
are increasing rapidly now that the initial facilities are 
in operation. One factor tending to increase State 
Water Project demands in Southern California is the 
better quality of Northern California water compared 
with Colorado River water, with its relatively high 
content of dissolved salts. Additional supplies will be 
needed in the 1980s, when Colorado River supplies 




Wind Gop Pumping Plont — Slate Woter Project 



— 61 — 




Figure 8, Projected Net Water Demonds and Dependable Water Supply — Central Valley Project 

— 62 — 



delivered to the South Coastal area are reduced when 
the Central Arizona Project begins to use more of 
Arizona's entitlement to Colorado River water. 

State Water Project demands in this report are 
based on the assumption that the North Bay Aqueduct 



and Coastal Branch, as well as the necessary final 
pumping units at both the Delta and Edmonston 
Pumping Plants, will be completed. Projected de- 
mands, including recreation water and conveyance 
losses, are as shown in Table 20. 



Table 20. Net Woter Demands on the State Water Project Under Present Contracts 
(1,000 acre-feet) 





1972 


1990 


2020 






Alternative future 


Alternative future 


Maximum! 


Hydrologic study area 


I 


11 


III 


IV 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


annual 
entitlement 


San Francisco Bay 


130 



100 



10 

790 





1.030 


200 

90 

1.690 

40 

10 

1.410 

160 

80 

3.680 


200 

90 

1.620 

40 

10 

1.410 

150 

80 

3.600 


200 

90 

1,560 

40 

10 

1.410 

150 

80 

3,540 


200 

90 

1.310 

40 

10 

1.410 

130 

80 

3.270 


260 

90 

2,340 

40 

10 

1.410 

220 

90 

4.460 


260 

90 

2.340 

40 

10 

1.410 

220 

90 

4.460 


260 

90 

2.340 

40 

10 

1.410 

200 

90 

4.440 


240 

90 

1.370 

40 

10 

1.410 

110 

90 

3.360 


260 
90 




2.340 




40 




10 


Tulare Basin 


1.410 




220 




90 


Total 


4.460 







' Includes recrcatic 



Additional demands for State Water Project service 
are expected in areas now served by the project and 
in areas immediately adjacent to the present service 
areas. Satisfaction of these demands would require 
additions to the presently authorized State Water 
Project conveyance system. The estimates of possible 
future demands shown in Table 21 are based on a 
limit of 880,000 acre-feet additional service to South- 
ern California. This is the estimated additional capacity 
of the tunnels through the Tehachapi Mountains. 
However, enlargement of the Edmonston Pumping 
Plant and many sections of the California Aqueduct 
north of the Tehachapi would be required to convey 
that much additional water. Additional conservation 
facilities would also be required to increase the water 
supplies of the project. 



Comparison of Supply and Demand 

Figure 9 shows a comparison of the State Water 
Project supply and net demands for each of the four 
alternative projections. The demand lines for the first 
two alternative futures level off when they reach the 
amount under contract because the figure depicts the 
Project as presently planned. The supply line is the 
estimated capability of existing State Water Project 
conservation facilities. 

Much of the information presented in this bulletin 
is based on statewide data. Data on projected popula- 
tion growth, water demands, and water supplies arc 
presented to show statewide totals. For those who re- 
quire more detailed information, data on the water 
supply — water demand relationship in each hydrologic 
area are presented in Chapter VI of the full report. 



Toble 21. Possible Dennands on the State Water Project 

in Addition to Present Contracts 

(1,000 acre-feet) 





1990 


2020 




Alternative future 


Alternative future 


Hydrologic study area 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


I 


II 


HI 


IV 


San Francisco Bay 

Central Coastal 


10 
40 


370 

70 
490 


10 
20 


210 

10 
250 


10 

10 



60 



80 



10 


10 


20 


120 
100 
610 
40 
800 
80 
190 
1.940 


80 
90 

300 
30 

500 

50 

70 

1.120 


60 
70 
60 


240 
20 
70 

520 


20 
40 



San Joaquin Basin 



80 


South Lahontan 

Colorado Desert. 

Total 



20 
160 







— 63- 



< 



< 



MAXIMUMCONTRACTUAL COMMITMENT S 
I 




YEAR 



Figure 9. Projected Net Water Demands and Dependable Water Supply — State Water Project 



A86788— 950 9-74 20M 



64 — 



3 1 175 02040 4722