Full text of "California water plan update : draft"

See other formats

Caufornia
JtkFER Plan
Update

Volume 2

November 1|993__— ii-

DRAFT

Draft
Bulletin 160-93

CALIFORNIA WATER PLAN UPDATE

Volume II
November 1993

Draft of The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

VOLUME II CONTENTS

Summary of Volume II 1

Water Supply 2

Water Demand 11

Urban Water Demand; Agricultural Water Demand; Environmental Water Demand;
Demand Reduction — Water Conservation

California Water Balance 23

Local Water Supply Issues 26

Public Involvement 28

North Coast Region 29

Population; Land Use

Water Supply 30

Supply with Existing Facilities; Supplies with Additional Facilities
Water Use 36

Urban Water Use; Agricultural Water Use; Environmental Water Use; Other Water Use
Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 47

Water Balance .• 50

San Francisco Bay Region 53

Population; Land Use

Water Supply 54

Supply with Existing Facilities; Supplies with Additional Facilities and Water
Management Programs

Water Use 64

Urban Water Use: Agricultural Water Use; Environmental Water Use; Other Water
Demand

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 73

Legislation and Litigation; Local Issues

Water Balance 75

Central Coast Region 77

Population; Land Use

Water Supply 80

Supply with Existing Facilities; Supply with Additional Facilities and Water
Management Programs

Water Use 86

Urban Water Use; Agricultural Water Use; Environmental Water Use; Other Water Use

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 96

Legislation and Litigation; Regional Issues; Local Issues

Water Balance 98

Draft of The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

VOLUME n CONTENTS

South Coast Region 101

Population; Land Use

Water Supply 104

Supply with Existing Facilities and Water Supply Management Programs; Supply with
Additional Facilities and Water Management Programs

Water Use 112

Urban Water Use; Agricultural Water Use; Environmental Water Use; Other Water
Demand

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 122

Legislation and Litigation; Local Issues

Water Balance 124

Sacramento River Region 127

Population; Land Use

Water Supply 128

Supply with Existing Facilities; Supply with Additional Facilities and Water
Management Programs

Water Use 137

Urban Water Use; Agricultural Water Use; Environmental Water Use; Other Water Use

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 152

Legislation and Litigation; Regional Issues; Local Issues

Water Balance 158

San Joaquin River Region .^ 161

Population; Land Use

Water Supply 163

Supply with Existing Facilities; Supply with Additional Facilities and Water
Management Programs

Water Use 171

Urban Water Use; Agricultural Water Use; Environmental Water Use; Other Water Use

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 1 84

Legislation and Litigation; Regional Issues

Water Balance 188

T\ilare Lake Region 193

Population; Land Use

Water Supply 196

Supply with Existing Facilities; Supply with Level I Water Management Programs

Water Use 204

Urban Water Use; Agricultural Water Use; Environmental Water Use; Other Water Use

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 216

Contracts and Agreements; Regional Issues; Local Issues

Water Balance 221

Draft of The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

VOLUME n CONTENTS

North Lahontan Region 225

Population; Land Use

Water Supply 228

Supply with Existing Facilities; Supply with Additional Facilities and Water
Management Programs

Water Use 233

Urban Water Use; Agricultural Water Use; Environmental Water Use; Other Water Use

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 242

Legislation and Litigation; Regional Issues

Water Balance 245

South Lahontan Region 249

Population; Land Use

Water Supply 253

Supply with Existing Facilities; Supply with Additional Facilities and Water
Management Programs

Water Use 256

Urban Water Use; Agricultural Water Use; Environmental Water Use; Other Water Use

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 266

Legislation and Litigation

Water Balance 270

Colorado River Region 273

Population; Land Use

Water Supply 277

Supply with Existing Facilities; Supply with Additional Facilities and Water
Management Programs

Water Use 281

Urban Water Use; Agricultural Water Use; Environmental Water Use; Other Water Use

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 294

Legislation and Litigation; Contracts and Agreements

Water Balance 301

Appendix C Planning Subarea and Land Ownership Maps 303

Appendix D Hydroelectric Resources of California 325

FIGURES

Figure S-1 . Ten Hydrologic Regions in California 3

Figure NC-1 . North Coast Region

Land Use, Imports, Exports, and Water Supplies 31

Figure NC-2. North Coast Region

Water Supply Sources (Average Conditions) 1990 level 33

Figure NC-3. North Coast Region

Net Water Demand (Average Conditions) 1990 level 37

Figure NC-4. North Coast Region

Applied Urban Water Demand (Average Conditions) 1990 level 38

Draft of The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

VOLUME II CONTENTS

Figure NC-5. North Coast Region

1990 Acreage, ETAW, and Applied Water for Major Crops 40

Figure NC-6. North Coast Region

Water Recreation Areas 46

Figure SF-1. San Francisco Bay Region

Land Use, Imports, Exports, and Water Supplies 55

Figure SF-2. San Francisco Bay Region

Water Supply Sources (Average Conditions) 1990 level 56

Figure SF-3. San Francisco Bay Region

Net Water Demand (Average Conditions) 1990 level 65

Figure SF-4. San Francisco Bay Region

Applied Urban Water Demand (Average Conditions) 1990 level 66

Figure SF-5. 1990 San Francisco Bay Region

Acreage, ETAW, and Applied Water for Major Crops 69

Figure SF-6. San Francisco Bay Region

Water Recreation Areas 72

Figure CC-1. Central Coast Region

Land Use, Imports, Exports, and Water Supplies 79

Figure CC-2. Central Coast Region

Water Supply Sources (Average Conditions) 1990 level 81

Figure CC-3. Central Coast Region

Net Water Demand (Average Conditions) 1990 level 87

Figure CC-4. Central Coast Region

Applied Urban Water Demand (Average Conditions) 1990 level 88

Figure CC-5. 1990 Central Coast Region

Acreage, ETAW, and Applied Water for Major Crops 90

Figure CC-6. Central Coast Region

Water Recreation Areas 94

Figure SC-1 . Land Use, South Coast Region 103

Figure SC-2. South Coast Region

Water Supply Sources (Average Conditions) 1990 level 104

Figure SC-3. South Coast Region

Net Water Demand (Average Conditions) 1990 level 113

Figure SC-4. South Coast Region

Applied Urban Water Demand (Average Conditions) 1990 level 115

Figure SC-5. South Coast Region

Acreage, ETAW, and Applied Water for Major Crops 117

Figure SC-6. South Coast Region

Water Recreation Areas 121

Figure SR-1. Sacramento River Region

Land Use, Imports, Exports, and Water Supplies 129

Figure SR-2. Sacramento River Region

Water Supply Sources (Average Conditions) 1990 level 130

Figure SR-3. Sacramento River Region

Net Water Demand (Average Conditions) 1990 level 138

Draft of The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

VOLUME n CONTENTS

Figure SR-4. Sacramento River Region

Applied Urban Water Demand (Average Conditions) 1990 level 139

Figure SR-5. 1990 Sacramento River Region

Acreage, ETAW, and Applied Water for Major Crops 143

Figure SR-6. Sacramento River Region

Water Recreation Areas 150

Figure SJ-1 . San Joaquin River Region

Land Use, Imports, Exports, and Water Supplies 164

Figure SJ-2. San Joaquin River Region

Water Supply Sources (Average Conditions) 1990 167

Figure SJ-3. San Joaquin River Region

Net Water Demand (Average Conditions) 1990 Level 172

Figure SJ-4. San Joaquin River Region

Applied Urban Water Demand (Average Conditions) 1990 Level 173

Figure SJ-5. 1990 San Joaquin River Region

Acreage, ETAW, and Applied Water for Major Crops 177

Figure SJ-6. San Joaquin River Region

Water Recreation Areas 183

Figure TL-1. Tulare Lake Region

Land Use, Imports, Exports, and Water Supplies 195

Figure TL-2. Tulare Lake Region

Water Supply Sources (Average Conditions) 1990 level 198

Figure TL-3. Tulare Lake Region

Net Water Demand (Average Conditions) 1990 level 205

Figure TL-4. Tulare Lake Region

Applied Urban Water Demand (Average Conditions) 1990 level 208

Figure TL-5. 1990 Tulare Lake Region

Acreage, ETAW, and Applied Water for Major Crops 210

Figure TL-6. Tulare Lake Region

Water Recreation Areas 217

Figure NL-1. North Lahontan Region

Land Use, Imports, Exports, and Water Supplies 227

Figure NL-2. North Lahontan Region

Water Supply Sources (Average Conditions) 1990 Level 228

Figure NL-3. North Lahontan Region

Net Water Demand (Average Conditions) 1990 Level 233

Figure NL-4. North Lahontan Region

Applied Urban Water Demand (Average Conditions) 1990 Level 234

Figure NL-5. North Lahontan Region

1990 Acreage, ETAW, and Applied Water for Major Crops 237

Figure NL-6. North Lahontan Region

Water Recreation Areas 241

Figure SL-1. South Lahontan Region

Land Use, Imports, Exports, and Water Supplies 252

Figure SL-2. South Lahontan Region

Water Supply Sources (Average Conditions) 1990 Level 253

VII

Draft of The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

VOLUME n CONTENTS

Figure SL-3. South Lahontan Region

Net Water Demand (Average Conditions) 1990 Level 257

Figure SL-4. South Lahontan Region

Applied Urban Water Demand (Average Conditions) 1990 Level 259

Figure SL-5. South Lahontan Region

1990 Acreage, ETAW, and Applied Water for Major Crops 262

Figure SL-6. South Lahontan Region

Water Recreation Areas 265

Figure CR-1 . Colorado River Region

Land Use, Imports, Exports, and Water Supplies 276

Figure CR-2. Colorado River Region

Water Supply Sources (Average Conditions) 1990 Level 277

Figure CR-3. Colorado River Region

Net Water Demand (Average Conditions) 1990 Level 282

Figure CR-4. Colorado River Region

Total Applied Urban Water Demand (Average Conditions) 1990 Level 284

Figure CR-5. Colorado River Region

1990 Acreage, ETAW, and Applied Water for Major Crops 288

Figure CR-6. Colorado River Region

Water Recreation Areas 293

SIDEBARS

California's Water Supply Availability 1

Definition of Terms 12

TABLES

Tkble S— 1. California Water Supply with Existing Facilities and Programs 4

Tkble S— 2, Level I Demand Management Options 4

Tkble S— 3. Level I Water Supply Management Options 5

Tkble S— 4. California Water Supply with Level I Water Management Options 6

Tkble S-5. State Water Project Supplies 8

Tkble S— 6. Net Ground Water Use by Hydrologic Region 9

Tkble S— 7. Ground Water Overdraft by Hydrologic Region 10

Tkble S-8. Waste Water Recycling — Annual Fresh Water Displaced 11

Tkble S-9. California Water Demand 13

Tkble S— 10. Population Projections By Hydrologic Region 14

Tkble S-11. California Urban Water Demand 15

Tkble S— 12. California Crop and Irrigated Acreage by Hydrologic Region

1990 (Normalized) 17

Tkble S— 13. California Crop and Irrigated Acreage

by Hydrologic Region 2020 (Forecasted) 18

Tkble S-14. California Agricultural Water Demand 19

Tkble S— 15. California Environmental Water Needs 21

Tkble S— 16. Annual Applied Water and Depletion Reductions

Due to Conservation from 1990 to 2020 oy Hydrologic Region 23

Tkble S-17. California Water Balance 25

Tkble NC-1. Population Projections 30

Tkble NC-2. Major Reservoirs 32

vui

Draft of The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

VOLUME II CONTENTS

Tkble NC-3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs 34

Tkble NC-4. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs 36

Tkble NC-5. Urban Water Demand 39

Tkble NC— 6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 41

Tkble NC-7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 41

Tkble NC-8. Agricultural Water Demand 42

Tkble NC-9. Environmental Instream Water Needs 43

Tkble NC-10. Wetlands Water Needs 44

Tkble NC-11. Tbtal Water Demands 47

Tkble NC-12. Water Balance 52

Tkble SF-1. Population Projections 54

Tkble SF-2. Major Reservoirs 57

Tkble SF— 3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs 58

Tkble SF-4. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs 62

Tkble SF-5. Urban Water Demand 67

Tkble SF-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 68

Tkble SF-7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 68

Tkble SF-8. Agricultural Water Demand 70

Tkble SF-9. Wetlands Water Needs 70

Tkble SF-10. Environmental Instream Water Needs 71

Tkble SF-11. Tbtal Water Demands 73

Tkble SF-12. Water Balance 76

Tkble CC-1. Population Projections 78

Tkble CC-2. Major Reservoirs 82

Tkble CC-3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs 82

Tkble CC-4. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs 85

Tkble CC-5. Urban Water Demand 89

Tkble CC-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 91

Tkble CC-7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 91

Tkble CC-8. Agricultural Water Demand 92

Tkble CC-9. Environmental Instream Water Needs 93

Tkble CC-10. Total Water Demands 95

Tkble CC-11. Water Balance 100

Tkble SC-1. Population Projections 102

Tkble SC-2. Major Reservoirs 106

Tkble SC-3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs 108

Tkble SC-4. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs 112

Tkble SC-5. Urban Water Demand 114

Tkble SC-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 118

Tkble SC-7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 118

Tkble SC-8. Agricultural Water Demand 119

Tkble SC-9. Wetlands Water Needs 120

Tkble SC-10. Total Water Demands 122

Tkble SC-11. Water Balance 125

Tkble SR-1. Population Projections 128

Tkble SR-2. Major Reservoirs 131

Tkble SR-3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs 134

Draft of The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

VOLUME II CONTENTS

Tkble SR-4. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs 137

Tkble SR-5. Urban Water Demand 141

Tkble SR-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 142

Tkble SR-7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 144

Tkble SR-8. Agricultural Water Demand 145

Tkble SR-9. Environmental Instream Water Needs 147

Tkble SR-10. Wetlands Water Needs 148

Tkble SR-11. Total Water Demands 152

Table SR-12. Water Balance 160

Tkble SJ-1. Population Projections 162

Tkble SJ-2. Major Reservoirs 165

Tkble SJ— 3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs 169

Tkble SJ-4. Water Supplies with Additional Level I Water Management Programs 170

Tkble SJ-5. Urban Water Demand 174

Tkble SJ-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 175

Tkble SJ-7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 176

Tkble SJ-8. Agricultural Water Demand 178

Tkble SJ-9. Wetlands Water Needs 180

Tkble SJ- 10. Environmental Instream Water Needs 181

Tkble SJ-11. Total Water Demands 184

Tkble SJ-12. Water Balance 190

Tkble TL— 1. Population Projections 194

Tkble TL-2. Major Reservoirs 196

Tkble TL— 3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs 197

Tkble TL— 4. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs 203

Tkble TL-5. Urban Water Demand : 206

Tkble TL-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 209

Tkble TL-7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 209

Tkble TL-8. Agricultural Water Demand 212

Tkble TL-9. Wetlands Water Needs 214

Table TL-10. Total Water Demands 216

Tkble TL-11. Water Balance 223

Tkble NL-1. Population Projections 226

Tkble NL-2. Major Reservoirs 229

Tkble NL-3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs 231

Tkble NL— 4. Water Supplies with Additional Facilities and Programs 232

Tkble NL-5. Urban Water Demand 235

Tkble NL— 6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 236

Tkble NL-7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 236

Tkble NL-8. Agricultural Water Demand 236

Tkble NL-9. Wetlands Water Needs 239

Tkble NL-10. Total Water Demands 242

Tkble NL-11. Water Balance 247

Tkble SL-1. Population Projections 250

Tkble SL-2. Major Reservoirs 254

Tkble SL-3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs 255

Tkble SL— 4. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs 256

Draft of The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

VOLUME II CONTENTS

Tkble SL-5. Urban Water Demand 260

Tkble SL— 6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 261

Tkble SL-7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 261

Tkble SL-8. Agricultural Water Demand 263

Tkble SL-9. Environmental Instream Water Needs 264

Tkble SL-10. Total Water Demands 266

Tkble SL-11. Water Balance 272

Tkble CR-1. Population Projections 274

Tkble CR-2. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs 278

Tkble CR-3. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs 281

Tkble CR-4. Urban Water Demand 283

Tkble CR-5. Irrigated Crop Acreage 285

Tkble CR-6. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 286

Tkble CR-7. Agricultural Water Demand 287

Tkble CR-8. Wetlands Water Needs 291

Tkble CR-9. Total Water Demands 292

Tkble CR-10. Water Balance 302

* * *

Draft of The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

Xll

Draft of The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

SUMMARY OF VOLUME II

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Summary of Volume U

SUMMARY OF VOLUME II

Bulletin 160-93 is organized into two volumes. Volume I discusses statewide issues; presents an
overview of current and future water management activities while detailing statewide water supplies and
water demands; and updates various elements of California's statewide water planning. Volume II ex-
amines current water demands and available supplies in each of the State's ten major hydrologic regions;
discusses regional and local water-related issues; and details DWR's 30-year projections of supplies and
demands for each region.

To best illustrate overall demand and supply availability, two water supply and demand scenarios, an
average year and a drought year, are presented for the 1 990 level of development and for projections to
^ 2020. Shortages shown under average conditions are chronic shortages indicating the need for additional
long-term water management measures. Shortages shown under drought conditions can be met by both
long-term and short-term measures, depending on the frequency and severity of the shortage and water
service reliability requirements.

Regional water balances present 1990 level and future water demands to 2020 and compare them
with supplies from existing facilities and with future demand management and water supply management
options. Future water management options are presented in two levels to better reflect the status of in-
vestigations required to implement them.

O Level I options are those that have undergone extensive investigation and environ-
mental analyses and are judged to have a higher likelihood of being implemented
by 2020.

O Level II options are those that could fill the remaining gap shown in the balance
between supply and urban, agricultural, and environmental water demands. These
options require more extensive investigation and alternative analyses.

California's Water Supply Availability

Average year supply: the average annual supply of a water development system over a long
period. For this report, the SWP and CVP average year supply is the average annual delivery ca-
pability of the projects over a 70-year study period (1922-91). For a local project, it is the annu-
al average deliveries of the project during 1984-1986 period. For dedicated natural flow, it is the
long-term average natural flow for wild and scenic rivers or it is environmental flow as required
for an average year under specific agreements, water rights, court decisions, and congressional
directives.

Drought year supply: the average annual supply of a water development system during a
defined drought period. For this report, the drought period is the average of water years 1 990
and 1991 . For dedicated natural flow, it is the average of water years 1990 and 1991 for wild and
scenic rivers or it is environmental flows as required under specific agreements, water rights,
court decisions, and congressional directives.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Summary of Volume II

This chapter summarizes regional water supplies and demands for the 1 990 level of development and
for projections to the year 2020. At the end of this chapter is the California Water Balance and a brief
overview of local water supply issues. The remaining chapters of Volume II discuss water demands, wa-
ter supplies, and water management issues related to each of the ten major hydrologic regions of the State
(Figure 1). Appendix C presents regional planning subarea and land ownership maps and Appendix D
lists hydroelectric facilities of the State by region.

Water Supply

Since the last water plan update in 1987, California Water: Looking to the Future, Bulletin 160-87,
evolving environmental policies have introduced considerable uncertainty about much of the State's wa-
ter supply. For example, the winter run chinook salmon and the Delta smelt, having experienced substan-
tial population declines, were listed under the State and federal Endangered Species Acts, imposing re-
strictions on Delta exports, and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (P.L. 102-575) was passed
in 1992, reallocating over a million acre-feet of CVP supplies for fish and wildlife.

These actions affect the export capability from California's most important water supply hub, the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, while also imposing restrictions on upstream diverters. The Delta is the
source from which two-thirds of the State's population and millions of acres of agricultural land receive
part or all of their supplies. Other events, such as the State Water Resources Control Board's Bay/Delta
Proceedings, and the federal Environmental Protection Agency's promise to promulgate Bay /Delta stan-
dards of its own, suggest even more stringent requirements could be imposed. Table S-1 shows Califor-
nia water supplies, with existing facilities and water management programs for the 1990 level of develop-
ment and projections to 2020.

Califomians are finding that existing water management systems are no longer able to provide suffi-
ciently reliable water service to users. In most areas of the State, as a result of 1987-92 drought, water
conservation and rationing became mandatory for urban users, many agricultural areas had surface water
supplies drastically curtailed, and environmental resources were strained. Until a Delta solution that
meets the needs of urban, agricultural, and environmental interests is identified, there likely will be water
supply shortages in dry and average years.

While the six-year drought stretched California's developed supplies to their limits, innovative water
management actions, water transfers, water supply interconnections, and changes in project operations to
benefit fish and wildlife all helped to reduce the harmful effects of the prolonged drought. Today, water
managers are looking into a wide variety of demand management and supply augmentation programs to
supplement, improve, and make better use of existing resources. The following sections summarize re-
sults from regional and statewide analyses of water supplies and the water supply benefits of water man-
agement programs under Level I options. Tables S-2 and S-3 list the major water management programs
included in Level I analyses and described in more detail in Chapter 1 1 of Volume I. The contribution of
these programs to future regional water supplies is included in Table S-4, which shows water supplies for
the 1990 level of development and compares them to projected supplies in 2020, with Level I water man-
agement programs in place. Note that Delta supplies are assumed to be operated under SWRCB D-1485

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Summary of Volume 11

DO.

•laKIYOU

ITRINITY,

TEHAMA

Borre

MOOOC

LAsaCN

PUiMA«

aiCRRA

OOUMA

LAKE

>¥

Legend

NC North Coast

SF San Francisco Bay

CC Central Coast

SC South Coast

SR Sacramento River

SJ San Joaquin River

TL Tulare Lake

NL North Lahontan

SL South Lahontan

CR Colorado River

>YOU)

Iw^^^z

^OHTRW'i 9AM

''VOAOUIH

TOULUMNE

SAWTA

:sj

MERCEO

MAOERA

FRE8N0

iNYO

3KTEREY

TULARE

KINOe

•AN
LUIS

oeispo

9ANTA

BARBARA

KERN

VENTURA

Loe

SAN BCRNARPINO

^ r

RIVERSIDE

IITERIAL

Figure S-1. Ten Hydrologic Regions in California

OCTOBER 1992

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Summary of Volume II

criteria; and, that some areas receiving Delta supplies are already impacted by reduced export capability
as a result of recent actions to protect aquatic species.

Table S-1. California Water Supply with Existing Facilities and Programs

(Decision 1485 Operating Criteria without Endangered Species Action for Deita Supplies)

(miiiions of acre-feet)

Supply

1990

2020

Change

Supplies

Surface:

Average

Drought

Average

Drought

Average Drough

Local

10.1

8.2

10.3

8.4

0.2

Imports by local agencies'*

1.0

0.7

1.0

0.7

0.0

0.C

Colorado River

5.2

5.1

4.4

-0.8

-0.7

CVP

7.5

5.0

7.9

5.1

0.4

0.1

Other federal

1.2

0.8

1.2

0.8

0.0

O.C

swpi

2.8

2.2

3.4

2.1

0.6

-0.1

Reclaimed

0.2

0.0

0.C

Ground Water

7.5

12.2

8.3

12.9

0.8

0./

Ground Water Overdraft

1.0

0.7

-0.3

-0.C

Dedicated Natural Flow

27.2

15.1

27.8

15.6

0.6

0.5

Total Supplies

63.7

50.5

65.2

50.9

1.5 1

0.4

^ 1990 SWP supplies are normalized and do not reflect additional supplies needed to offset reduction of supplies from the Mono and
Owens basins to the South Coast hydrologic region.

Table S-2. Level I Demand Management Options

Programs

Appiied Water
Reduction
(I.OOOAF)

Net Water Demand
Reduction
(1,000AF)

Average Drought

Economic
Unit Cost
($/AF)i

Comments

Long-term Demand
Management:

Urban Water
Conservation

1,300

900

315-390

Urban BMPs

Ag. Water Conserva-
tion

1,700

300

Not
Available

EWMPs and increased ir-
rigation efficiency

Land Retirement

130

Retirement of land with
drainage problems in west
San Joaquin Valley. Cost is
at the Delta.

Short-term Demand
Management:

Demand Reduction

1,300

1,000

Not
Available

Drought year supply

Land Fallowing/
Drought Water Bank

800

125

Drought year supply. Cost
is at the Delta.

'' Economic costs include capital and OMP&R costs discounted over a 50 year period at 6 percent discount rate. These
costs do not include applicable transportation and treatment costs.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Summary of Volume n

Table S-3. Level I Water Supply Management Options

Programs

Type

Capacity
(1,000 AF)

Annual Supply
(1,000 AF)

Average

Economic
Unit Cost
Drought ($/AF)'

Comments

Statewide Water Management:

Long-term Delta Delta Water

Solution Management Program

200 400 Not Under study by Bay/Delta

Available Oversight Council. Water

supply benefit is elimination
of carriage water under
D-1485.

"Interim" South Delta
Water Management
Program

South Delta
Improvement

Rnal draft is scheduled to
be released in late 1993

Los Banos Grandes
Reservoir ^

Offstream Storage

1,7303

250-300

260

Schedule now coincides
with BDOC process

Kern Water Bank 2

Ground Water Storage

3,0003

430

140

Schedule now coinckjes
with BDOC process

Coastal Branch-
Phase II (Santa Ynez
Extension)

SWP Conveyance
Facility

N/A6

N/A

630-1,110

Notice of Determination was
filed in July 1992.
Construction is scheduled
to begin in late 1993.

American River Rood
Control *

Rood Control Storage

5453

Feasibility report and envi-
ronmental documentation
completed in 1991.

Local Water Management:

Waste Water Recycling

Reclamation

800

450

125-840

Fresh water displaced

Ground Water
Reclamation

Reclamation

200

100

350-900

Primarily in South Coast

El Dorado County Wa-
ter Agency Water Pro-
gram

Diversion from South
Fork American R.

235

280

Certified final Programmatic
EIR identifying prefen-ed al-
temative; water rights hear-
ings,new CVP contract fol-
lowing EIR/EIS preparation

Los Vaqueros
Reservoir- Contra
Costa Water
District

Offstream Storage
Emergency Supply

100

N/A

320-950

T&E species, inundation of
ag. land. Costs vary with
different operation scenar-
ios.

EBMUD

Conjunctive Use and
Other Options

N/A

20-70

370-1,830

Investigating 6 altematives;
Draft EIR/EIS released in
Dec. 1992

New Los Padres
Reservoir - MPWMD

Enlarging existing
reservoir

410

T&E species, steelhead fish-
ery in Carmel River

Domenigoni Valley
Reservoir - MWDSC

Offstream storage of

SWP and Colorado

River water, drought

year supply

800

264

410

Rnal EIR certified.

Inland Feeder-
MWDSC

Conveyance Facilities

—

San Felipe Extension
-PVWA

CVP Conveyance
Facility

N/A

N/A5

140

Capital costs only. Convey
18,000 AF annually.

^ Economic costs include capital and OMP&R costs discounted over a 50 year period at 6 percent discount rate. These costs do not include applicable transportation and

treatment costs.
^ These programs are only feasible If a Delta water management program is Implemented.
3 Reservoir capacity.

* Folsom Lake flood control reservation would return to original 0.4 MAP
5 Yield of this project is in part or fully comes from tfie CVR
B NA: Not Applicable

BuUetin 160-93 Administrative Draft » Summary of Volume n

Table S-4. California Water Supply with Level I Water Management Options

(Decision 1485 Operating Criteria without Endangered Species Actions for Delta Supplies)

(millions of acre-feet)2

Supply

1990

2020

Change

Supplies

Surface:

Average

Drought

Average

Drought

Average Droug

Local

10.1

8.2

10.3

8.4

0.2

Imports by local agencies^

1.0

0.7

1.0

0.0

Colorado River

5.2

5.1

4.4

-0.8

-0

CVP

7.5

5.0

7.9

5.1

0.4

Other federal

1.2

0.8

1.2

0.8

0.0

swpi

2.8

2.2

4.1

3.0

1.3

Reclaimed

0.2

0.7

0.5

Ground water

7.5

12.2

7.8

12.8

0.3

Ground water overdraft

1.0

0.5

-0.5

-0

Dedicated Natural Flow

27.2

15.1

27.8

15.6

0.6

Total

63.7

50.5

65.7

52.3

2.0

1 1990 SWP supplies are normalized and do not reflect additional supplies needed to offset reduction of supplies from the Mono and
Owens basins to the South Coast hydrologic region.

Local surface water development includes direct stream diversions as well as supplies in local stor-
age facilities. Local agencies are finding it difficult to undertake new water projects to meet their needs
where supply shortfalls exist or are projected to occur in the future, as a result of economic, environmen-
tal, and regulatory obstacles. Thus, some water agencies are advocating or implementing incentive pro-
grams for water conservation to reduce demand where such programs are cost effective. Implementation
of urban Best Management Practices and agricultural Efficient Water Management Practices will reduce
demands in the future, and reductions caused by these practices were incorporated into water demand
forecasts to 2020. (See the Demand Reduction section in this chapter.) However, these practices only
partially improve water service reliability. Local water agencies must continue to plan for water demand
management and supply augmentation actions to increase water service reliability and meet future needs.

Ongoing local water supply programs include The Metropolitan Water District of Southern Califor-
nia's Domenigoni Valley Reservoir, East Bay Municipal Utility District's water management program. El
Dorado County Water Agency's water program, and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District's
New Los Padres Reservoir. By 2020, additional local water management programs could improve local
annual supplies by about 40,000 and 350,000 AF for average and drought years, respectively.

Local Imported Supplies. Court order restrictions on diversion from the Mono Basin and Owens
Valley have reduced the amount of water the City of Los Angeles can receive. These restrictions have
brought into question the reliability of Mono-Owens supply for the South Coast Region.

Colorado River supplies to the south Coast Region for urban and agricultural uses could eventually
decline from about 5.0 MAP to California's allocated supply of 4.4 MAP annually as a result of Arizona
and Nevada taking more of their allocated supplies. With those states using less than their apportionment
of water, their unused supply of Colorado River water was made available to meet California's require-

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Summary of Volume II

ments. Southern California was spared from severe rationing during most of the 1987-92 drought pri-
marily as a result of the 600,000 AF annually of Arizona and Nevada's unused Colorado River water that
was made available to The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Even with this supply,
however, much of Southern California experienced significant rationing in 1991 . Supplemental Colorado
River water cannot be counted on to meet needs in the future as Arizona and Nevada continue to use
more of their allocated share of Colorado River water.

Central Valley Project yield will remain about the same as present. The USBR is required by the
CVPIA to find replacement sources for 800,000 AF of water recently allocated to environmental uses.
Additional supplies needed for future CVP conveyance facilities, such as the San Felipe extension, will
probably come from reallocation of already contracted CVP supplies.

State Water Project supply studies were conducted to evaluate the delivery capability of the Project
(1) with existing facilities and (2) with Level I water management programs under SWRCB D-1485 op-
erating criteria (see Table S-5). SWP supplies for the 1990 level were 2.8 MAF and 2.2 MAF for aver-
age and drought years, respectively. SWP 1990 average supply is normalized and does not reflect addi-
tional supply needed to offset reduction of Mono-Owens supplies to South Coast Region. Additional
Level I programs include the South Delta Water Management Program, long-term Delta water manage-
ment programs, the Kern Water Bank (including local elements), Los Banos Grandes, and the Coastal
Branch (the Coastal Branch is a conveyance facility). With the Level I programs, SWP supplies can in-
crease to about 4.1 MAF and 3.0 MAF in average and drought years by the year 2020.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Summary of Volume n

Table S-5. State Water Project Supplies
(millions of acre -feet)

l-evel of
Develop-
ment

SWP Delivery Capability''

Witti Existing Facilities
Average Drought

Witli Level I Water Management
Programs^

Average

Drougtit

SWP Delta
Export
Demand

1990
2000
2010
2020

2.8
3.3
3.4
3.4

2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1

3.6
4.0
4.1

2.6
3.0
3.0

3.0
3.7
4.2
4.2

1 Assumes D-1485. SWP capability with Level I water management programs is uncertain until solutions to complex Delta problems
are implemented and future actions to protect aquatic species are identified. Includes conveyance losses.

^Level I programs includes South Delta Water Management programs, long-term Delta water management programs, the Kem Wa-
ter Bank and Local Elements, and Los Bancs Grandes Facilities.

Note: Feather River Sen/ice area supplies are not included. FRSA average and drought supplies are 927,000 and 729,000 AF re-
spectively.

California's ground water resources played a vital role in helping the State through the 1987-92
drought. Recent studies by DWR indicate that many of the San Joaquin Valley's ground water aquifers
substantially recovered from the 1976-77 drought during the late 70s and early 80s when surface runoff
and Delta exports were above average. Conjunctive use operations, which helped make this possible,
will continue to be refined and made more effective in the future. The 1990 level average annual net
ground water use in California is about 8.5 MAF, including 1.0 MAF of ground water overdraft. During
droughts, ground water use is increased significantly to offset reduction in surface water, as shown in
Table S-6. Annual ground water overdraft has been reduced by about half since 1980, when ground wa-
ter overdraft was last studied (see Table S-7). This reduction has mainly occurred in the San Joaquin
Valley and is due to the benefits of imported supplies to the San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake regions
and construction and operation of Hidden and Buchanan dams, which provide controlled releases and
opportunities for greater ground water recharge during the 1970s and 80s.

The overdraft amounts shown in Table S-7 do not include an estimated 200,000 AF of overdraft re-
sulting from possible degradation of ground water qucdity in basins in the trough of the San Joaquin
Valley. There is a west-to-east ground water gradient in this valley from Merced County to Kem
County. Poor quality ground water moves eastward along this gradient, displacing good quality ground
water in the trough of the basin. The total dissolved solids in the west side of the valley generally range
from 2,000 to 7,000 milligrams per liter, the eastside basin TDS from 300 to 700 milligrams per liter.
This displacement of good quality ground water should be investigated for overdraft estimates because
degraded ground water cannot be economically put to use. However, the amount is difficult to ascertain
and no water quality monitoring data are available to verify the calculations.

In the short term, those areas of California that rely on Delta exports for all or a portion of their sur-
face water supplies face great uncertainty in terms of water supply reliability due to the uncertain out-
come of a number of actions being undertaken to protect aquatic species in the Delta. For example, in
1993, an above normal runoff year, environmental restrictions limited CVP deliveries to 50 percent of
contracted supply for federal water service contractors from Tracy to Kettleman City. Because ground
water is used to replace much of the shortfall in surface water supplies, limitations on Delta exports will

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Summary of Volume 11

exacerbate ground water overdraft in the San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake regions, and in other regions
receiving a portion of their supplies from the Delta.

Table S-6. Net Ground Water Use by Hydrologic Region

(thousands of acre -feet)

Region

1990

2020 with Existing
Facilities & Programs^

Average Drought Average Drought

2020 with Additional
Facilities & Programs^

Average Drought

North Coast

260

280

300

320

290

310

San Francisco Bay

100

130

160

170

110

140

Central Coast

940

1,020

1,000

1,110

910

1,050

South Coast

1,110

1,320

1,610

1,540

1,610

Sacramento River

2,510

2,880

2,530

3,080

2.510

3,080

San Joaquin

1,280

2,340

1,070

2,280

1,050

2,270

Tulare Lake

1,730

4,550

1,660

4,410

1,320

4,230

North Lahontan

120

150

170

150

170

South Lahontan

300

330

340

310

340

Colorado River

160

150

100

Statewide

8,510 13,160

8,960 13,640

8,290 13,300

^ Assumes SWRCB D-1485 operating criteria for surface water supplies from tlie
species have made supplies from the Delta more uncertain; which will increase
San Joaquin Valley.

Delta. Recent actions to protect aquatic
ground water overdraft in portions of the

Bulletiii 160-93 Administrative Draft

Summary of Volume II

Table S-7. Ground Water Overdraft by Hydrologic Region

(thousands of acre -feet)

2020^

Region

1980

1990

with Existing
Facilities &
Programs

with Additional
Facilities &
Programs

230

250

249

110

120

420

210

990

340

280

100

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

Statewide

2,030

1,000

700

468

^ Assumes SWRCB 0-1485 operating criteria for surface water supplies from the Delta. Recent actions to protect aquatic
species have made supplies from the Delta more uncertain; which will increase ground water overdraft in portions of the
San Joaquin Valley.

Water reclamation programs such as waste water recycling, reclamation of contaminated ground
water, ocean water desalting, and desalting agricultural drainage water were evaluated (see Volume I,
Chapter 11 for a detailed discussion of these problems). Projected water recycling is based on evaluation
of water recycling data presented in Water Recycling 2000, a September 1991 report by the State Water
Conservation Coalition Reclamation/Reuse Task Force and the Bay-Delta Reclamation Subwork Group
and information provided by local water and sanitation districts. Table S-8 shows the estimated water
recycling contribution (annual fresh water displaced) to water supply by hydrologic region.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Summary of Volume II

Table S-8. Waste Water Recycling — Annual Fresh Water Displaced

(thousands acre-feet)

Region

1990

2000

2010

2020

1990-2020
Change

234

296

357

281

111

Total

235

453

561

676

441

Ground water reclamation programs could be implemented to recover degraded ground water. Cur-
rently, most ground water reclamation programs in the planning process are in Southern California. The
supply benefit of ground water reclamation by year 2000 is projected at about 90,000 AF and is included
with ground water supplies.

Water Demand

Extensive evaluation and analyses of water demand were conducted for this water plan update.
These analyses recognize the water demands of all beneficial uses: urban, agricultural, environmental,
and other uses including water based recreation, and power generation. Water based recreation is dis-
cussed more extensively in Volume I, Chapter 9. Table S-9 summarizes statewide estimated water de-
mands for each category of use.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Summary of Volume II

Definition of Terms

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

□ the intake to a city water system or factory.

□ the farm headgate.

Q a marsh or wetland, either directly or by incidental drainage flows; this is water for
wildlife areas.

□ For existing instream use, applied water demand is the portion of the stream flow
dedicated to instream use or reserved under the federal or State Wild and Scenic
Rivers acts or the flow needed to meet salinity standards in the Sacramento -San
Joaquin Delta under SWRCB standards.

O Evapotranspiration: The quantity of water transpired (given off) and evaporated from
plant tissues and surrounding soil surfaces. Quantitatively, it is expressed in terms of
volume of water per unit acre of depth of water during a specified period of time. Ab-
breviation: ET

O Evapotranspiration of appiied water: The portion of the total evapotranspiration
which is provided by irrigation. Abbreviation: ETAW.

O Irrecoverable losses: The water lost to a salt sink or water lost by evaporation or
evapotranspiration from conveyance facilities or drainage canals.

O Net water demand: The amount of water needed in a water sen/ice area to meet all
the water service requirements. It is the sum of evapotranspiration of applied water in
an area, the irrecoverable losses from the distribution system, and the outflow leaving
the service area, including treated municipal outflow.

O Depletion: The water consumed within a service area and no longer available as a
source of water supply. For agriculture and wetlands it is ETAW pluS irrecoverable
losses. For urban areas it is the exterior ETAW, sewage effluent that flows to a salt
sink, and incidental ET losses. For instream needs it is the dedicated flow that pro-
ceeds to a salt sink.

O Average year demand: The demand for water under average weather conditions for
a defined level of development.

O Drought year demand: The demand for water during a drought period for a defined
level of development. It is the sum of average year demand and water needed for any
additional irrigation of farms and landscapes due to the lack of precipitation or in-
crease in evapotranspiration during drought.

O Normalized demand: The result of adjusting actual water use in a given year to ac-
count for unusual events such as dry weather conditions, government interventions
for agriculture, rationing programs, etc.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Summary of Volume H

Table S-9. California Water Demand

(millions of acre -feet)

Category of Use

1990
average drought

2020
average drought

1990-2020 Change
average drought

Urban

Applied water
Net water
Depletion
Agricultural
Applied water
Net water
Depletion
Environmental
Applied water
Net water
Depletion
Other 1
Applied water
Net water
Depletion

28.6
28.2
24.4

0.5
1.8

1.3

16.4
16.1
12.7

0.5
1.7
1.3

12.6

10.5

8.5

28.9

25.1
22.9

29.5
29.0
24.7

0.7
1.8
1.3

13.1

11.0

8.9

30.4
26.3
24.2

17.3
16.9
13.0

0.5
1.5
1.1

4.8

5.0

3.8

4.0

2.8

2.9

2.0 "

-2.4

1.9

-2.1

■1.5

-1.6

0.9

0.8

0.3

■

0.3

0.2

0.0

-0.2

0.0

-0.2

3.8

3.5

2.7

2.5

1.6

1.4

Total

Applied water
Net water
Depletion

67.9
63.7
55.8

57.8
53.2
45.8

71.7
66.4
57.4

61.3
55.7
47.2

1 Other includes conveyance losses, recreation uses, and energy production.

Urban Water Demand

Urban water demands are primarily based on statewide population projections which show an in-
crease of almost 19 million people from 1990 to 2020, from roughly 30 million to 49 million people.
About half the projected population increase will happen in the South Coast Region. Population projec-
tions for the California Water Plan are based on the Department of Finance baseline series. The DOF
population estimates are taken from the 1990 census as the base year. Table S-10 shows projections of
population by hydrologic region.

-^'

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Summary of Volume n

Table S-10. Population Projections By Hydrologic Region

(millions)

Hydrologic Regions

1990

2020

1990-2020 Change

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

0.6

0.9

5.5

6.9

1.3

2.0

16.2

25.3

2.2

4.1

1.4

3.2

1.6

3.5

0.1

0.6

1.9

0.5

1.0

0.3
1.4
0.7
9.1
1.9
1.8
1.9
0.0
1.3
0.5

Total

30.0

48.9

18.9

Urban annual net water demand could increase from 6.7 MAF in 1990 to 10.5 MAF by 2020, after
accounting for implementation of conservation measures that are projected to reduce urban annual net
water demand by about 0.9 MAF. Urban water demand projections are based on: (1) population projec-
tions; and (2) unit urban water use values, considering probable effects of future water conservation mea-
sures, and trends such as increases in multi-family housing and greater growth in warmer inland areas of
the State. Table S-11 shows urban water demand projections by hydrologic region. A comprehensive
analysis of unit urban water use is presented in Volume I, Chapter 6.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Summary of Volume 11

Table S-11. California Urban Water Demand

(millions of acre-feet)

Hydrologic Regions

1990
average drought

2020
average drougtit

1990-2020 Change
average drought

North Coast

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

0.2
0.2
0.1

0.2
0.2

0.1

0.2
0.2
0.1

0.0
0.0
0.0

San Francisco

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

1.2
1.2
1.1

1.3
1,3
1.2

1.4
1.4
1.3

1.5
1.5
1.5

0.2
0.2
0.2

0.2
0.2
0.3

Central Coast

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

0.3
0.2
0.2

0.4
0.3
0.3

0.4
0.4
0.3

0.1
0.1
0.1

0.1
0.2
0.1

South Coast

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

3.9
3.5
3.3

4.0
3.6
3.5

6.0
5.3
4.8

6.2
5.5
5.0

2.1
1.8
1.5

2.2
1.9
1.5

Sacramento Rh^er

Applied Water
Net Water

Depletion

0.7
0.7
0.2

0.8
0.8
0.3

1.2
1.2
0.4

1.3
1.3
0.4

0.5
0.5
0.2

0.5
0.5
0.1

San Joaquin River

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

0.5
0.4
0.2

1.0
0.7

0.4

1.1
0.8
0.4

0.5
0.3

0.2

0.6
0.4
0.2

Tulare i-alce

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

0.5
0.2
0.2

1.1
0.5
0.4

0.6
0.3
0.2

0.3
0.2

North l.jihontan

Applied Water (1)
Net Water (1)
Depletion (1)

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.1
0.1
0.0

South l-ahontan

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

0.2
0.1
0.1

0.6
0.4
0.4

0.4
0.3
0.3

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Summary of Volume II

Table S-11. California Urban Water Demand (continued)

(millions of acre -feet)

IHydrologic Regions

1990
average drought

2020
average drought

1990-2020 Change
average drought

Colorado Rh^er

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

0.3

0.6

0.3

0.2

0.4

0.2

0.4

0.2

0^;

7.8

8.1

12.6

13.1

4.8

5.0

6.7

7.0

10.5

11.0

3.8

4.0

5.7

6.0

8.5

8.9

2.9

Total

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

(1) North Lahontan 1990 urban applied and net water demand is 0.04 MAF and the depletion is 0.001 MAR

Agricultural Water Demand

To compute agricultural water demand, the California Water Plan integrates the results of three fore-
casting methods used to project irrigated agricultural acreage and crop type:

O Review of local crop acreage trends along with the availability of water and impacts of

urban encroachment;

O Crop Market Outlook; and

O Central Valley Production Model.

Every five to seven years since 1948, DWR has surveyed agricultural land use to help assess the
locations and amounts of irrigated crops. Acreages of crops grown are estimated on a yearly basis, using
the annual crop data produced by county Agricultural Commissioners, adjusted on the basis of DWR land
use surveys, and estimates of urban expansion onto irrigated agricultural land.

The Crop Market Outlook is based on the expert opinion of bankers, farm advisors, commodity mar-
keting specialists, and others regarding trends in factors which affect crop production in California. Sev-
eral factors are evaluated, but the four primary ones are: (1) the current and future demand for food and
fiber by the world's consumers; (2) the shares of the national and international markets for agricultural
productions that are met by California's farmers and livestock producers; (3) technical factors, such as
crop yields, pasture carrying capacities, and livestock feed conversion ratios; and (4) competing output
from dryland (non-irrigated) acres in other states. The results determine the projected future potential
California production of various crops.

The Central Valley Production model is an economic model which accounts for crop production costs
in different areas of the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys in conjunction with the effect of overall pro-
duction levels on the market prices for California crops. This helps to estimate how the total California
production will be distributed among counties.

Some crop shifts are expected to happen as growers move from low value and high water use crops
to high value and low water use crops. Alfalfa and pasture lands are projected to decrease by about

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Summary of Volume II

330,000 acres mostly in the San Joaquin and Tulare Lake regions. Crop acreages expected to increase
include vegetables, vineyard, and nuts (almonds and pistachios).

The 1990 level (base year) crop acreage and crop types are based on agricultural land use surveys
which have been normalized to take into account the impact of the 1 987-92 drought, government set
aside programs, and other annual crop acreage fluctuations. Tables S-12 and S-13 show the 1990 and
2020 level California crop and irrigated acreage by hydrologic region, respectively. Projections of agri-
cultural water needs are based on: (1) agricultural acreage forecasts, (2) crop type forecasts, (3) crop unit
applied water and unit evapotranspiration of applied water values (in acre-feet for each crop acre), and
(4) estimates of future water conservation.

Table S-12. California Crop and Irrigated Acreage by Hydrologic Regioni

1990
(normalized, in thousands of acres)

Irrigated Crop

Total

Grain

303

182

297

988

Rice

494

517

Cotton

178

1,029

1,244

Sugar Beets

216

Com

104

181

100

403

Other Field

155

121

135

491

Alfalfa

141

226

345

255

1,134

Pasture

121

357

228

110

955

Tomatoes

120

107

352

Other Truck

321

133

204

190

1,024

Almonds/
Pistachios

101

245

164

510

Other Decidu-
ous

205

147

177

570

Citrus/Olives

164

181

419

Grapes

184

393

748

Total Crop
Areai

326

528

319

2,145

2,008

3,212

161

750

9,571

Double Crops

102

392

irrigated l^nd
Area

326

430

289

2,101

1,955

3,147

161

648

9,179

Total crop area is the land area plus the amount of land with multiple crops.

Bulletm 160-93 Administrative Draft

Summary of Volume n

Table S-13. California Crop and Irrigated Acreage

by Hydrologic Region 2020 (Forecasted)

(thousands of acres)

Irrigated Crop

Total

Grain

295

179

258

920

Rice

482

498

Cotton

178

949

1,194

Sugar Beets

197

Com

115

183

409

Other Field

158

122

130

456

Alfalfa

152

156

240

226

947

Pasture

122

320

171

106

815

Tomatoes

132

339

Other Truck

347

201

350

203

1,250

Almonds/
Pistachios

125

263

173

561

Other
Deciduous

217

151

178

584

Citrus/Olives

116

190

392

Vineyard

189

363

753

Total Crop Area

346

566

185

2,186

1,952

3,061

171

735

9,315

Double Crops

137

123

501

irrigated Land
Area

346

429

173

2,114

1,884

2,971 ,

171

612

8,814

Agricultural water needs were evaluated by determining crop types and acreages for each region.
Current projections indicate that irrigated agricultural acreage will decline by about 365,000 acres be-
tween 1990 and 2020, from 9.2 million acres to about 8.8 million acres. This decline represents a
700,000 acre reduction from a peak in 1980.

For the State as a whole, agricultural annual net water demand will decrease by about 1 .9 MAF,
from 27 MAF in 1990 to 25.1 MAF in 2020. Many of agriculture's unit applied water values have de-
creased during the past decade. Part of this decrease is due to improvements in irrigation efficiency and
increased emphasis on water conservation since the 1976-77 drought. Table S-14 shows the 1990 level
and projections of agricultural water demands by hydrologic region. For a comprehensive analysis of
agricultural water use, refer to Volume I, Chapter 7.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Summary of Volume 11

Table S-14. California Agricultural Water Demand
(millions of acre -feet)

Hydrologic Regions

1990
average drought

2020
average drought

1990-2020 Change
average drought

North Coast

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

0.8
0.7
0.6

0.9
0.8
0.6

1.0
0.8
0.7

0.1
0.1
0.0

0.1
0.0
0.1

San Francisco

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

0.1
0.1
0.1

0.1
0.1

0.1

0.1
0.1
0.1

0.0
0.0
0.0

Central Coast

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

1.2
1.0
1.0

1.2
0.9
0.9

1.2
1.0
1.0

0.1
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

South Coast

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

0.7
0.6
0.6

0.8
0.7
0.7

0.4
0.4
0.4

-0.3
-0.2
-0.2

-0.4
-0.3
-0.3

Sacramento Rh^er

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

7.8
6.8

5.5

8.6
7.3
6.1

7.6
6.5

5.4

8.3
7.0
6.1

-0.2
-0.3
-0.1

-0.3

0.0

San Joaquin River

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

6.8
6.2
5.1

5.7
5.2
4.4

6.1
5.6
4.7

-0.6
-0.6
-0.3

-0.7
-0.6
-0.4

Tulare Lalce

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

9.6
7.9
7.9

9.8
8.1
8.1

8.8

7.3
7.3

9.0
7.5
7.4

-0.8
-0.6
-0.6

-0.8
-0.6

-0.7

North Lahontan

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

0.6
0.5
0.4

0.5
0.5
0.4

0,6
0.5
0.4

0.0
0.0
0.0

South Lahontan

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

0.3
0.2
0.2

0.0
-0.1
-0.1

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Summary of Volume TL

Table S-14. California Agricultural Water Demand (continued)

(millions of acre -feet)

Hydrologic Regions

1990 2020 1990-2020 Change

average drought average drought average drought

Colorado River

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

3.7
3.4
3.4

3.4
3.2

3.2

3.4
3.2
3.2

-0.3
-0.2
-0.2

-0.3
-0.2

Total

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

30.9 32.8 28.9 30.4 -2.0

27.0 28.4 25.1 26.3 -1.9

24.4 25.8 22.9 24.2 -1.5

Environmental Water Demand

Estimates of environmental water demand are based on water needs of managed fresh water wetlands
(and Suisun Marsh), environmental instream flow needs. Delta outflow, and wild and scenic rivers. Wet-
lands water needs were tabulated from investigation of existing public and private wildlife refuges and
inclusion of additional wetlands water demand required by the CVP Improvement Act of 1992. Envi-
ronmental instream flow needs were compiled by reviewing existing fishery agreements, water rights,
and court decisions pertaining to water needs of aquatic resources of the stream. Additional flows in the
Trinity River, required by the CVPIA, are also included in the environmental instream demand. Environ-
mental water needs in drought years are considerably lower than in average years, reflecting the variabil-
ity of the natural flows of rivers and lower fishery flow requirements such as in D-1485 for the Bay /Del-
ta during drought. Table S-15 summarizes environmental water demands by hydrologic region. A more
comprehensive discussion of environmental water demands is presented in Volume I, Chapter 8.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Summary of Volume n

Table S-15. California Environmental Water Needs

(millions of acre-feet)

Hydrologic Regions

average

1990 2020

drought average drought

1990-2020 Change
average drought

North Coast

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

19.2

9.0

19.1

8.9

19.1

8.9

19.4
19.2
19.2

9.2
9.0
9.0

0.2
0.1
0.1

San Francisco

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

4.8
4.8
4.8

3.3
3.3
3.3

4.8
4.8
4.8

3.3
3.3
3.3

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

0.0

Central Coast

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

o.cf

0.0
0.0

South Coast

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

0.0
0.0
0.0

Sacramento River

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

3.9
3.7
0.2

3.5
3.3
0.2

4.4
4.2
0.2

4.0
3.9
0.2

0.5
0.5
0.0

0.5
0.6
0.0

San Joaquin River

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

0.6
0.5
0.2

0.5
0,4
0.2

0.7
0.6
0.3

0.6
0.5
0.3

0.1
0.1
0.1

O.f

0.1

Tulare Liike

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.1
0.1
0.1

North Lahontan

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

0.0
0.0
0.0

South L.ahontan

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

0.1
0.1
0.1

0.0
0.0
0.0

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Summary of Volume n

Table S-15. California Environmental Water Needs (continued)

(millions of acre-feet)

Hydrologic Regions

average

1990
drought

average

2020
drought

1990-2020
average

Change
drought

Colorado Rh^er

■1

Applied Water

0.0

H 0.0

0.0

0.0^

Net Water

0.0

B ^-^

0.0

•

Depletion

0.0

m 0.0

0.0

Total

Applied Water

28^

B 16-4

29.5

17.3

0.9

Net Water

2&2

B ^^'^

29.0

16.9

0.8

0.S

Depletion

24.4

12.7

24.7

13.0

0.3

Demand Reduction — Water Conservation

Water conservation has become an accepted method for helping reduce water demand in California.
Therefore, water conservation, including urban Best Management Practices and agricultural Efficient Wa
ter Management Practices, was incorporated into water demand computations and projections of demand
to 2020. More than 100 of California's major urban water agencies have agreed to BMPs. Those mea-
sures, which are detailed in Chapter 6 of Volume I, are projected to reduce urban annual applied water
demand by about 1.3 MAP by 2020. The annual depletion and net water reduction from urban BMPs
could amount to 935,000 AF. This amount is in addition to 400,000 AF annual net savings as the result
of urban conservation measures put into place between 1980 and 1990. Agricultural water conservation,
land retirement, and crop shifting would reduce agricultural annual applied water by about 1 .9 MAP by
2020. Agricultural water conservation, through EWMPs, could reduce agricultural annual applied water
by about 710,000 AF by 2020. As a result, annual agricultural water depletions are expected to be re-
duced by 330,000 AF by 2020. Although water conservation measures will reduce water demand, they
alone are not sufficient to eliminate projected shortages during the next 30 years with available supplies^

Table S-16 summarizes annual applied water reductions and depletions due to conservation from
1990 to 2020 by hydrologic region. Impacts of water conservation on depletions vary greatly, depending
on the opportunity for water reuse within an area. For example, Sacramento River Region water is re-
used extensively, thus the reduction of 265,000 AF of applied agricultural water will not result in any
reduction in depletion for the region. Effective water conservation in any region is the reduction in
depletion, which is defined as reduction of the ETAW, irrecoverable losses from distribution systems,
outflow to em ocean or a salt sink. Therefore, a larger water savings potential exists in the western San
Joaquin Valley, Colorado River, and coastal regions, where excess applied water generally enters saline i
sinks (Salton Sea or the ocean) or saline ground water basins and cannot be economically reused. Out-
flow from water users within the Sacramento region is generally "reused" within the region and is also
used to maintain water quality and flow standards in the Bay-Delta. Reductions in applied water can
reduce pumping and treatment costs and diversions from streams, thus benefiting fish and wildlife. Ho^
ever, care must be taken to look at impacts on downstream reuse such as other farms or managed fresh
water wetlands that rely on excess applied water from upstream farms.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Summary of Volume II

Table S-16. Annual Applied Water and Depletion Reductions

Due to Conservation
from 1990 to 2020 by Hydrologic Region

(thousands of acre-feet)

Urban

Agricultural

Total

HSA

Appiied

Water

Reductions

Reductions
in Depletion

^^!^ Reductions in
ReS!.ctlons °«P'««°"

"^^^ Reductions in
Reductions DeP'etion

0 0

250

0 0

250

20 0

610

490

65 10

675

500

110

265 0

375

40 20

155

90 90

115

0 0

10 10

200 200

240

235

Total

1,285

935

710 330

1,990

1,265

California Water Balance

I The California water balance. Table S-17, compares total net water demand with supplies from 1990
through 2020. (Delta supplies assume SWRCB's D-1485 operating criteria without endangered species

' actions.) Average annual supplies for the 1990 level of development are generally adequate to meet aver-
age demands. However, during drought, 1990 level supplies are insufficient to meet demand, which re-
sults in a shortage of over 2.7 MAF under D-1485 operating criteria. In drought years 1991 and 1992,
these shortages were reflected in urban mandatory water conservation, agricultural land fallowing and
crop shifts, reduction of environmental flows, and short-term water transfers.

Projected 2020 net demand for urban, agricultural, and environmental water needs amounts to 66.4
, MAF in average years and 55.7 MAF in drought years, after accounting for future reductions of 1.3 MAF
j in net water demand due to increased water conservation efforts (resulting from implementation of urban

BMPs, and increased agricultural irrigation efficiencies) and another 0.15-MAF reduction due to future
. land retirement. These demand amounts could increase by 1 to 3 MAF depending on the outcome of a
' number of actions being taken to protect aquatic species (see Volume I, Chapter 8).

By 2020, without Level I water management programs, an annual shortage of 2.2 to 4.2 MAF could
occur during average years depending on the outcome of various actions taking place to protect aquatic
■■ecies. This shortage is considered chronic and indicates the need for implementing long-term water
supply augmentation and management measures to improve water service reliability. Similarly, by year

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Summary of Volume n

2020, annual drought year shortages could amount to 5.8 to 7.8 MAF under D-1485 operating criteria,
also indicating the need for long-term measures.

However, water shortages would vary from region to region and sector to sector. For example, the
South Coast Region's population is expected to increase to over 25 million people by 2020, requiring an
additional average year water supply of 1 .5 MAF. Population growth and increased demand combined
with a possibility of reduced supplies from the Colorado River means the South Coast Region's annual
shortages for 2020 could amount to 0.4 MAF for average years and 1 .0 MAF in drought years. Projected
shortages would be larger if solutions to complex Delta problems are not found and proposed local water
management programs and additional facilities for the SWP are not constructed.

Level I water management options could reduce ground water overdraft and projected shortages in
2020 by implementing short-term drought management options (demand reduction through urban ration-
ing programs or water transfers that reallocate existing supplies through use of reserve supplies and agri-
cultural land fallowing programs) and long-term demand management and supply augmentation options
(increased water conservation, agricultural land retirement, additional waste water recycling, benefits of a
long-term Delta solution, more conjunctive use programs, and additional south-of-the-Delta storage
facilities). These factors combined leave a potential shortfall in annual supplies of about 1.6 to 3.6 MAF
in average years and 2.5 to 4.5 MAF in drought years that must be made up by future water supply aug-
mentation and demand management programs shown as Level n options. (Volume I, Chapter 1 1 explains
these options.).

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Summary of Volume II

Table S-17. California Water Balance
(millions of acre -feet)

Net Demand/Suppiy/Balance

1990

2020

average drought average drought

Net Demand

Urban - with 1 990 level of conservation

- reductions due to long-term conservation measures (Level I)
Agricultural - with 1990 level of conservation

- reductions due to long-term conservation measures (Level I)

- land retirement in poor drainage areas of San Joaquin Valley (Level 1)
Environmental

Other
Subtotal

Proposed Additional Environmental Water Demands^

Case I - Hypothetical 1 MAF

Case II -Hypothetical 2 MAF

Case III - Hypothetical 3 MAF

6.7

27.0

28.2

1.8

63.7

7.1

28.3

16.1

1.7

53.2

11.4
-0.9
25.5
-0.4
-0.1
29.1
1.8
66.4

1.0
2.0
3.0

11.9
-0.9
26.8
-0.4
-0.1
16.9
1.5
55.7

1.0
2.0
3.0

Total Net Demand
Case I
Case II
Case ill

63.7

53.2

Total Water Supplies

63.7

50.5

67.4
68.4
69.4

65.2

56.7
57.7
58.7

Water Supplies w/Existing Facilities Under D-1485 Operating Criteria for Delta Exports

Developed Supplies

Surface Water 28.0 22.2 28.4 21.7

Groundwater 7.5 12.2 8.3 12.9

Ground Water Overdraft 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.7

Subtotal 36.5 35.4 37.4 35.3

Dedicated Natural Flow 27.2 15.1 27.8 15.6

50.9

Demand/Supply Balance
Case i
Case 11
Case ill

0.0

-2.7

-2.2
-3.2
-4.2

-5.8
-6.8
-7.8

Level I Water Management Options: ^

Long-Term Supply Augmentation

Reclaimed

Local

Central Valley Project

State Water Project
Short-term Drought Management

Potential Demand Management

Drought Water Transfers
Subtotal- Level I Water Management Options:
Net Ground or Surface Water Use Reduction Resulting from Level I Programs

1.0
0.8
1^

0.5
0.0
0.0
0.7

1.2

■0.6

0.5
0.3
0.0
0.9

1.0
0.8
3.5

-0.2

Net Total Demand Reduction/Supply Augmentation

1.6

0.6

3.3

Remaining Demand/Supply Balance Requiring Future Level II Options

0.0

-0.9

Case 1

-1.6

-2.5

Case II

—

-2.6

-3.5

Case III

-3.6

-4.5

^ Proposed Environmental Water Demands-Case l-lll envelope potential and uncertain demands that have immediate and future conse-
quences on supplies available from the Delta, beginning with actions in 1992 and 1993 to protect winter-run salmon and Delta smelt (ac-
tions which could also indirectly protect other fish species).

^ Protection of fish and wildlife and a long-term solution to complex Delta problems will determine the feasibility of several water supply
augmentation proposals and their water supply benefits.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Summary of Volume n

Local Water Supply Issues

The following highlights local issues of concern. Each regional chapter contains more specific in-
formation on water supply issues affecting that region.

In the North Coast Region, a number of smaller communities have continuing water supply reliabil-
ity problems, often related to the lack of economic base to support water management and development
costs. Several small communities along the coast, such as Moonstone, Smith River, and Klamath, either
experience chronic water shortages or have supplies inadequate to meet projected growth. Water use is
already low due to conservation, so most of these problems will have to be solved by either constructing
or upgrading community water systems.

Marin Municipal Water District in the San Francisco Bay Region has relied on imported supply
from Sonoma County Water Agency and extensive conservation efforts by its customers to ensure ade-
quate supplies throughout the recent drought. Without supplemental supplies, the district estimates a 40
percent deficiency once every 10 years. MMWD negotiated an agreement with SCWA to import an addi-
tional 10,000 AF. This could decrease the MMWD deficiency to about 10 percent.

Imported supplies by the City of San Francisco and East Bay Municipal Utilities District also suf-
fered deficiencies during the recent drought. During 1991, the City of San Francisco was able to reduce
expected rationing from 45 to 25 percent through purchases of 50,000 AF from the 1991 State Drought
Water Bank and 20,000 from Placer County Water Agency. Customers were still required to reduce in-
door use by 10 percent and outdoor use by 60 percent.

Water supplies in much of the Central Coast Region are greatly dependant upon the region's
ground water basins whose storage is small and fluctuates from year to year. Since ground water and
limited local surface supplies are its primary source of water, the region is vulnerable to droughts. As
ground water extractions exceed ground water replenishment, several of the region's coastal aquifers are
experiencing overdraft conditions, allowing sea water to permeate into the freshwater aquifers. The re-
cent drought required many communities in the region to implement stringent water conservation pro-
grams. The City of Santa Barbara constructed a sea water desalination plant to improve its water service
reliability.

The South Coast Region is home to more than one half of the State's population, 16 million people.
The region's population is expected to increase to more than 25 million people by 2020. Such growth
poses several critical water supply difficulties, most notably increased demand with limited ability to in-
crease supply. Further, imports from Mono Lake and the Colorado River will be reduced and limits on
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta exports imposed by endangered species actions could further reduce wa-
ter service reliability in the South Coast Region. MWDSC has several programs in progress to improve
its water delivery and supply capability, including the construction of Domenigoni Valley Reservoir, and
supports improved Delta transfer capabilities to improve reliability of its SWP supplies.

Sacramento Valley water users are concerned about protecting their area's ground water resources
from export. Organized ground water management efforts in the Sacramento River Region are current-
ly under way in Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Shasta, Tehama, and Yolo counties. Also, several foothill areas
that rely heavily on ground water are finding those supplies limited. With many people relocating to
these areas, concern about ground water availability and the potential for contamination is increasing. In

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Summary of Volume II

many areas within this region, there is no readily available alternative water supply if the ground water
becomes depleted or contaminated.

Flood protection is another major concern for the region, especially along the Sacramento and Ameri-
can rivers near Sacramento. In 1991 , the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed a feasibility report
and environmental documentation for a flood detention dam at the Auburn site in combination with levee
modification along the lower American River to increase flood protection for the Sacramento area. The
report, however, generated much controversy over whether Auburn Dam should be a flood detention only
(dry dam) or multipurpose dam. A separate effort is now under way by the USER and local sponsors to
evaluate a multipurpose reservoir.

Foothill areas of both the San Joaquin River and TYilare Lake regions face limited water supplies.
The San Joaquin Valley, the largest block of irrigated land in California, contains about 5.5 million acres.
Major concerns for this region's agricultural community are agricultural drainage disposal and treatment
costs and potential reduction of imported supplies. The CVP and SWP supplies will be reduced by the
CVP Improvement Act of 1 992 and by endangered species actions in the Delta.

In the North Lahontan Region years of disputes over the waters of the Truckee and Carson rivers
led to the 1 990 enactment of the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act. This fed-
eral act makes an interstate allocation of the rivers between California and Nevada, provides for the
settlement of certain Native American water rights claims, and provides for water supplies for specified
environmental purposes in Nevada. The act allocates to Califomia: 23,000 AF annually in the Lake Ta-
hoe Basin, 32,000 AF annually in the Truckee River Basin below Lake Tahoe, and water corresponding
to existing water uses in the Carson River Basin. Provisions of the Settlement Act, including the inter-
state water allocations, will not take effect until several conditions are met, including negotiation of the
Truckee River Operating Agreement required by the act.

Growth has long been a major issue in the Tahoe Basin and strict controls have been adopted by local
agencies under the lead of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. These controls have been very effec-
tive. For example, the City of South Lake Tahoe grew by only 4 percent in the 1 980s, while population
of the Lassen County portion of the region increased by nearly 30 percent over the same period. A major
contributor to Lassen's growth was the construction of the Califomia Correctional Center-Susanville,
which houses about 4,000 inmates and employs a staff of about 1 ,000. Potential ground water export
from the Honey Lake Valley is a controversial issue in the North Lahontan Region. The Truckee Mead-
ows Project is proposed to export at least 13,000 AF of ground water annually from the Nevada portion
of Honey Lake Valley to the Reno area. Lassen County and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Indian Tribe op-
pose the project on the grounds that it would deplete the local ground water supply and harm the environ-
ment. Presently, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement
for a pipeline that would take the water from Honey Lake to the north Reno area. The EIS also covers
the area of export and the area of import.

Water exports from the South Lahontan Region have been the subject of litigation since the early
1970s. In 1972, the County of Inyo sued the City of Los Angeles claiming that increased ground water
pumping for export was harming the Owens Valley. Consequently, the City of Los Angeles and Inyo
County implemented enhancement projects to mitigate the impacts of ground water pumping. In 1989,

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Summary of Volume n

the parties reached agreement on the long-term ground water management plan for Owens Valley and
the EIR was accepted by the court.

Another long standing issue is the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power diversions from
Mono Lake tributaries and the impact of these diversions on the lake level. As a result of extensive liti-
gation between the City of Los Angeles and a number of environmental groups, LADWP is now prohib-
ited by court order from diverting from the tributaries until the lake level stabilizes at 6,377 feet above
sea level.

The Colorado River Region faces increasingly difficult issues involving water quality. In the late
1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s, the Salton Sea suffered from high water levels caused by increased agri-
cultural runoff, treated urban waste water, and above average rainfall. In 1984, the State Water Resources
Control Board, responding to a farmer's lawsuit, adopted Water Right Decision 1600, and forced Imperial
Irrigation District to prepare a conservation program and take other steps to improve its delivery system.
Imperial Irrigation District agreed to follow a nine-year plan designed to conserve irrigation water and
lower the Salton Sea's water level by about 8 feet. The sea level has stabilized during recent years, due
primarily to conservation measures taken by IID. However, salinity concentrations have increased at a
rate of about 500 parts per million per year. Higher salinity has harmed fish and wildlife as well as the
recreational resources in the area. Since 1987, the Salton Sea task force has been studying the sea's prob-
lems to find a way to continue its viability to support various aquatic species. The Salton Sea dilemma
illustrates the complexity and opportunities for cooperative solutions of water management issues in
California.

Public Involvement

California's water policies are still evolving as new statutes, court decisions, and agreements become
effective. In light of this, the California legislature passed and Govemor Wilson signed AB 799 in 1991
requiring the California Water Plan be updated every 5 years. This water plan update was developed with
extensive public involvement including an outreach advisory committee, made up of urban, agricultural,
and environmental interests. This committee was established in June 1992 to review and comment on the
adequacy of work in progress. That process has been valuable in developing Bulletin 160-93 into a com-
prehensive water plan for water management in California. /

* * *

Draft of The California Water Plan Update

Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

NORTH COAST REGION

A wild and scenic river in Trinity county.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft North Coast Region

NORTH COAST REGION

The North Coast Hydrologic Region comprises all of the California area tributary to the ocean from
the mouth of Tomales Bay north to the Oregon border and east along the border to a point near Goose
Lake. It encompasses over 12 percent of the State's area, including redwood forests, inland mountain
valleys, and the desert-like Modoc Plateau.

Much of the region is mountainous and rugged. Only 13 percent of the land is classified as valley or
mesa, and more than half of that is in the northeastern part around the upper Klamath River basin. The
dominant topographic features in the region are the California Coast Ranges and the Klamath Mountains.
The eastern boundary is formed by mountains that average around 6,000 feet above sea level with a few
peaks over 8,000 feet. About 400 miles of ocean shoreline form the western boundary of the region.

Average annual precipitation in the North Coast Region is 53 inches, ranging from over 100 inches in
eastem Del Norte County to less than 15 inches in the Lost River drainage area of Modoc County. A rel-
atively small fraction of the precipitation is in the form of snow. Only at elevations above 4,000 feet
does snow remain on the ground for appreciable periods. The heavy rainfall concentrated over the moun-
tains makes this region the most water abundant area of California. Mean annual runoff is about 29
MAF, which constitutes about 40 percent of the State's total natural runoff. There is also 1 .86 MAF of
average annual runoff flowing into the region from Oregon.

Population

Much of the North Coast Region is sparsely populated with most of the population living (nearly 60
percent) in and around Santa Rosa, within the Russian River Basin. Most of the remainder of the popula-
tion is concentrated in the Eureka-Arcata-McKinleyville area around Humboldt Bay and the Crescent
City area. Other sizable towns include the county seats of Yreka (Siskiyou), Weaverville (Trinity), and
Ukiah (Mendocino).

Overall, the North Coast Region's population has grown from 467,890 in 1980 to 571,750 in 1990
and accounts for 1.9 percent of California's population. During the 1980s, the population in the Santa
Rosa area grew by 3 1 percent, due primarily to spillover from the Bay Area, while essentially no growth
occurred in the Modoc and Siskiyou County portions of the region. Average annual population growth
rate in the northern half of the region has been relatively slow at 3 percent. One exception is Crescent
City, which had a population increase of 81 percent in 1991, resulting from the annexation of the new
Pelican Bay State prison. Previous growth rates in Crescent City have been 6.5 percent and 14 percent in
1989 and 1990, respectively.

Rapid growth is projected for the Santa Rosa area over the next 30 years, while only moderate expan-
sion is expected in Humboldt County. The traditional economic bases of timber, cattle, and fishing are in

Region Characteristics
Average Annual Precipitation: 53 inches Average Annual Runoff: 28,886,000 AF

Land Area: 20,000 square miles 1990 Population: 571, 750

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft North Coast Region

a state of flux. Recreation, government, and retirees are becoming the major growth generating activities
in the north part of the region. Table NC-1 shows regional population projections to 2020.

Table NC-1. Population Projections

(thousands)

Planning Subareas

1990

2000

2010

2020

Upper Klamath

Lower Klamath - Smith

Coastal

160

189

211

233

Russian River

337

403

464

510

Total

572

688

789

874

Land Use

About 97 percent of the land area is forest or range land. Much of this land lies within national fo-
rests. State and national parks, and Indian reservations. A considerable amount of the remainder is pri-
vately owned forest land, often held in large ownerships. Only about 325,000 acres (2.6 percent) of the
region's area are irrigated. Of that total, 225,900 acres lie in the Upper Klamath River Basin, above the
confluence of the Scott and Klamath rivers. (See Appendix C for maps of the planning subareas and land
ownership in the region.) In the Upper Klamath area, the main irrigated crops are pasture and alfalfa,
grain, and potatoes. Orchards and vineyards are found in the Russian River drainage area. Pasture, alfal-
fa, and grain are the predominate crops in irrigated areas throughout the remainder of the region.

Besides small areas of urban and agricultural development (mainly around the Santa Rosa and Eureka
areas) land is used for timber production and wildlife habitat. Land use issues in the region include acti-
vities causing soil erosion, such as road construction, gravel mining, and logging. Figure NC-1 shows
land use in the North Coast Region.

Water Supply

About 94 percent of the region's 1990 level average water supply is dedicated natural runoff, primari-
ly for wild and scenic rivers. Summer water supplies are limited throughout much of the area when rain-
fall and runoff is much less. The few surface water supply projects that exist on tributary streams are
small and provide limited carryover capacity to deal with extended months of low rainfall. Larger water
supply projects include the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Klamath Project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers' Russian River Project (Lakes Mendocino and Sonoma), and the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water
District's Ruth Reservoir and Eureka to McKinleyville distribution system. The largest reservoirs in the
region (the Central Valley Project's Clair Engle Lake and the Corps' Lake Sonoma) export to adjacent
hydrologic regions, while Clear Lake Reservoir supplies water to the USBR Klamath Project. Table
NC-2 lists major reservoirs in the region.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Coast Region

n. >

Legend

Vr 1

g Urban Land

-2.

N:A

1 Inigated Land

^- Region Water Transfers

(1/XXrt of Acra-FMt pw Ymt)

)

S-,

Sonoma PetaJuma

Aqueduct

Figure NC-1. North Coast Region
Land Use, Imports, Exports, and Water Supplies

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Coast Region

Table NC-2. Major Reservoirs

Reservoir Name

River

Capacity (1 ,000 AF)

Owner

Upper Klamath

Klamath

873.3

USBR

Clear Lake

Klamath

526.8

USBR

Gerber

Klamath

94.3

USBR

Copco

Klamath

77.0

PP&LCo.

Iron Gate

Klamath

58.0

PP&LCo.

1 ake Shastina

Shasta

50.0

Montague WCD

Lewiston

Trinity

14.7

USBR

Clair Engle

Trinity

2,447.7

USBR

Ruth

Mad

51.8

Humboldt Bay MWD

Lake Pillsbury

Eel

80.5

PG&E

Lake Mendocino

Russian

122.4

USAmny

Corps of Engineers

Warm Springs
1 ake Sonoma

Dry Creek

381.0

US Army

Corps of Engineers

PP&L = Pacific Power and Light Company

PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric Co.

Supply with Existing Facilities

The Klamath Project, in Klamath County, Oregon, and in Siskiyou and Modoc counties, was the first
federal reclamation projects. It drained and reclaimed lakebed lands of Lower Klamath and Tule lakes
and developed water supplies from the Klamath and Lost rivers to irrigate the reclaimed lands. The prin-
cipal project storage facilities are Upper Klamath Lake in Oregon (873,300 AF) and Clear Lake Reservoir
on the Lost River in California (527,000 AF). The project normally irrigates over 230,000 acres
(100,(XX) of which lie in California) through a network of about 185 miles of canals with associated di-
version dams, pumping plants, and drainage facilities.

The Klamath River Basin Compact addresses interstate water sharing matters in the upper Klamath
River and Lost River basins. Negotiated by the states of Oregon and California, approved by their re-
spective Legislatures, and consented to by the U.S. Congress in 1957, the compact is to (1) facilitate or-
derly development and use of water, and (2) further cooperation between the states in the equitable shar-
ing of water resources. The compact is administered by the Klamath River Compact Commission, which
is chaired by a federal representative appointed by the President. The commission provides a forum for
communication t)etween the various interests concerned with water resources in the upper Klamath River
Basin. Its recent activities have focused on water delivery reductions caused by the drought and operat-
ing restrictions to protect two species of endangered sucker fish. Other pressing issues are water supplies
for wildlife refuges and upper basin impacts on anadromous fisheries in the lower Klamath River.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Coast Region

Figure NC-2. North Coast Region

Water Supply Sources (Average Conditions)

1990 level

Other
Federal*

Reclaimed

Local

Surface

Water

*lncludes imports by local agencies and imports from other federal projects.

The Bureau of Reclamation constructed the Trinity River Division in the early 1960s to augment
CVP water supplies in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys. The principal features of this part of the
CVP are Trinity Dam and the 2.5 MAF Clair Engle Lake on the upper Trinity River and the 10.7-mile
Clear Creek Tunnel beginning at Lewiston Dam and ending at Whiskeytown Lake in the Sacramento
River Basin. Exports from the Trinity River began in May 1963 and, since 1980, have averaged 926,000
AF annually. There are no in-basin deliveries of water from the Trinity River Division. However, the

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Coast Region

Central Valley Improvement Act of 1992 allocated an additional 123,000 AF to instream environmental
use.

The Russian River Project, constructed by the Corps of Engineers, includes Lake Mendocino
(122,000 AF) formed by Coyote Dam on the East Fork of the Russian River near Ukiah and the Lake
Sonoma (381, 000 AF) behind Warm Springs Dam on Dry Creek near Geyserville. Lake Mendocino was
completed in 1958 and Lake Sonoma in 1982. Both reservoirs provide flood protection to the lower Rus-
sian River area, reservoir recreation, and water supply for urban, irrigation, and instream uses. Most of
the water supply made available by the Russian River Project is contracted to the Sonoma County Water
Agency. The SCWA delivers about 29,000 AF per year via aqueduct to Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Cota-
ti, and Forestville. In addition, the agency exports approximately 25,000 AF per year from the North
Coast's Russian River Project to the San Francisco Bay Region. This water is delivered via several
aqueducts to Novato, Petaluma, the Valley of the Moon, and Sonoma areas.

The principal reaches and major tributaries of the Klamath, Eel, and Smith rivers are designated Wild
and Scenic under federal and State law, and therefore are precluded from large scale water development.
Figure NC-2 shows the region's 1990 level sources of supply and Table NC-3 shows water supplies with
existing facilities and water management programs.

Table NC-3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities

and Programs

(thousands of acre -feet)

Supplies

1990
average drought

2000
average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

Sur^ce

Local

438

433

451

446

470

464

483

480

Local Imports

Colorado River

CVP

Other federal

471

471|

SWP

Ground water

264

283

275

296

285

308

296

317

Overdraft

Reclaimed

Dedicated natural flow

18,850

8.704

18,973

8,827

18,973

8,827

18,973

8,827

Total Supply

20,037

9,905

20,184

10,054

20,213

10,084

20,237

10,109

Supplies with Additional Facilities

Future water management options are presented in two levels to better reflect the status of investiga-
tions required to implement them.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft North Coast Region

O Level I options are those that have undergone extensive investigation and environmental analyses
and are judged to have a high likelihood of being implemented by 2020.

O Level II options are those that could fill the remaining gap between water supply and demand.
These options require more investigation and alternative analyses.

Most of the water demand within the North Coast Region is supplied by the above projects, and
many other smaller local water developments. These water suppliers range from relatively large and well
organized municipal systems serving communities such as Yreka, Weaverville, Hayfork, Willits, Crescent
City, and Fort Bragg to small residential or agricultural water systems (usually based on ground water) in
locations like Mendocino, Garberville and Shelter Cove. Future upgrades in these systems to improve
water supply reliability are planned. These projects are generally relatively small local projects. For ex-
ample, Weaverville Community Services District, supplied by East Weaver Creek, is planning to
construct a 5-mile pipeline to the Trinity River to meet its future needs.

The projected 30 percent increase in average urban water demand by 2020 can be provided largely by
existing or upgraded water supply systems. However, there is currently no economically or environmen-
tally feasible solution to. significantly augment dry-year irrigation supplies in the North Coast Region.

Due to the absence of either large urban concentrations or extensive agriculture, and the cool and wet
weather patterns, the North Coast did not experienced any large-scale water shortages during the
1987-92 drought and most of this region did not have to reduce water use significantly. Unlike most oth-
er regions, water conservation in the North Coast region does not benefit another hydrologic area where
either the water supply originates in or flows to . However, water conservation can play a vital role in
reducing urban demand and waste water treatment costs.

Areas irrigated with surface water will likely continue to make-do with water available from existing
facilities. A few additional wells are expected to augment irrigation supplies in the Butte Valley/Tule
Lake area. Pressure for additional ground water development in areas like Scott and Shasta valleys will
be greater if some salmon races are listed or if strict application of Department of Fish and Game code
regulations reduce the supplies available from existing water developments or natural runoff.

Present water supplies and modest expansion of local water sources will generally be adequate to
meet the region's expected municipal and industrial demands over the next 30 years, and the Humboldt
Bay-McKinleyville area will continue to be adequately served by Ruth Reservoir on the Mad River, with
supplies possibly augmented by ground water. Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District's system may
ultimately be expanded to serve the Trinidad-Moonstone area, which is experiencing deficiencies. How-
ever, the system draws water from the Mad River through Ranney collector wells that are being undercut
by erosion of stream bed gravels. HBMWD is investigating the problem and hopes to solve it soon.

Crescent City has an adequate supply from the Smith River but needs to increase system transmis-
sion and storage capacity. It may also be facing construction of an expensive surface water treatment fa-
cility. Trinity County Waterworks District No. 1 serves the town of Hayfork from the 800-AF Ewing
Reservoir and has plans for expanding its surface water system. Growth in the service area has almost

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Coast Region

reached the design capacity of the existing system, and the district plans to enlarge its offstream reservoir
within the next few years. This expansion was planned at the time the project was constructed in the late
1960s. The Weaverville CSD plans to divert from the Trinity River at Douglas City to provide needed
future water supplies.

Table NC^ shows water supplies with additional facilities and water management programs.

Table NC-4. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs

(thousands of acre -feet)

Supplies

1990 2000 2010 2020

average drought average drought average drought average drought

Surtece

Local

Local Imports

Colorado River

CVP

Other federal

SWP
Ground water
Overdraft
Reclaimed
Dedicated natural flow

438
2
0
0

471
0

264

18,850

433
2
0
0

471
0

283

8,704

451
2
0
0

471
0

272

18,973

446
2
0
0

471
0

293

8,827

470

471

279

18,973

471

302

8,827

483
2
0
0

471
0

288

18,973

Total

20,037 9,905 20,184 10,054 20,213 10,084 20,238 10,110

Water Use

Although the North Coast Region produces nearly half of California's surface runoff, urban and agri-
cultural water use within the region is relatively low because it is sparsely populated and has few irri-
gated acres. Irrigation accounts for 746,000 AF of the region's water use, while municipal and industrial
(M&I) use is 169,000 AF. These water needs are generally met by small local developments and lim-
ited ground water extractions. Because of economic and physical restrictions on development of new
irrigated areas and the small estimated population growth, neither irrigation nor municipal and industrial
uses are expected to increase greatly. Annual water use in the region is projected to increase only 75,000
AF by 2020.

Urban Water Use

The current total urban water use in the North Coast Region, 169,000 AF per year, represents about
2.5 percent of the State's total urban water use. Per capita use varies from around 130 gallons per day in
the Humboldt Bay area to about 300 gallons per day in the warmer inland area of the Lost River Basin.
Municipal use in areas directly influenced by the coastal climate is up slightly from the 1980 level, while

I Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Coast Region

Figure NC-3. North Coast Region

Net Water Demand (Average Conditions)

1990 level

Environmental

95%

Agricultural

Urban

1 1%

Other

jhe interior valleys remain level. Around 54,000 AF per year was used by high water using industries
iprimarily wood and pulp processing plants in the Humboldt Bay area) in the 1 990 level of development.
;liis has at least temporarily decreased by 22,000 AF per year as a result of the recent indefinite closure
•f the Simpson pulp mill. This water will be retained in Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District's Ruth
leservoir for future users or to supply the Simpson pulp mill if it reopens. Because of the present uncer-
tainty over the length of the mill closure , the area's water use is projected to remain at preclosure levels
jintil the year 2000. Table NC-5 shows urban water demands for the region to 2020.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Coast Region

Figure NC-4. North Coast Region
Applied Urban Water Demand (Average Conditions)

1990 level

Governmental

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Coast Region

Table NC-5. Urban Water Demand
(thousands of acre -feet)

Planning Subareas

1990 2000 2010 2020

average drought average drought average drought average drought

Upper Klamath

Applied water demand
Net water demand
Depletion

Total

14
14

Lower Klamath -Smith

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Coastal

Applied water demand

84 1

Net water demand

Depletion

Russian River

Applied water demand

104

Net water demand

104

Depletion

Applied water demand

169

176

186

196

203

214

219

230

Net water demand

169

176

186

196

203

214

219

230

Depletion

110

112

119

123

127

132

136

142

Volume 1 , chapters 6 and 7, of this report contains a detailed explanation of the methods used in es-
jtimating regional water use. The impacts of water conservation and best management practices are also
[discussed in those chapters.

Agricultural Water Use

Total irrigated acreage within the North Coast Region in 1990 was 326,000 acres. The number of
irrigated acres in the region is expect to remain nearly level over the next three decades. Table NC-6
summarizes irrigated land and Table NC-7 shows evapotranspiration of applied water by crop in the re-

igion. Figure NC-5 shows 1990 crop acreages, evapotranspiration, and applied water for major crops.

'The applied water and net demand shown in Table NC-8 were derived from irrigated acreages by apply-
ing unit water use factors determined by DWR. These unit use factors, which are unique to each detailed
analysis unit (a portion of a planning subarea), reflect local conditions of climate and cultural practices.

, Applied water amounts vary with the source of water supply (surface or ground water and the type of wa-
ter year). Drought year factors reflect the need for additional irrigation to replace water normally sup-

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Coast Region

150

Acres (X 1 ,000)

120

Acre-Feet p( 1 ,000)

450

360

270

180

Grain Pasture Grapes

Alfalfa Other Truck

■Acreage ^ETAW ■Applied Water

Figure NC-5. North Coast Region
1990 Acreage, ETAW, and Appiied Water for Major Crops

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Coast Region

plied by rainfall and to meet higher than normal evapotranspiration demands. The trend of unit water use
in the region is generally stable. The values employed in the trend calculations are representative of cur-
rent water use in the region and estimates of future agricultural use are based on the 1 990 unit use values.
Net agricultural water use is expected to increase by only one percent by 2020 in the region.

Climate, soils, water supply, and remoteness from markets limit the crops that can be grown profit-
ably throughout most of the region. In the inland valley areas, there is more irrigable land than can be
irrigated with existing supplies. During dry years, the region experiences substantial water deficiencies
that are particularly noticeable in the arid inland portions of the region. The agricultural trend in the past
decade has been one of land consolidation and slow growth; this reflects the low crop values, lack of
additional low-priced surface water supplies, and use of only the most economically developable ground
water sources.

Table NC-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage

(thousands of acres)

Planning Subareas

1990

2000

20i0

2020

Upper Klamath

227

232

236

239

Lower Klamath - Smith

13 ife

Coastal

36 III

1 38

Russian River

^ W^

Total

326

334

340

346

Table NC-7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop

Irrigated Crop

Total
Acres
(1,000)

Total ETAW
(I.OOOAF)

Irrigated Crop

Total
Acres
(1,000)

Total ETAW
(I.OOOAF)

Grain
Sugar beets
Com

Other field
Alfalfa

82
2
1
3

119
4
2
4

128

Pasture

Other deciduous
Vineyard
Other truck

Total

121

"326"

253
10
26
33

"579"

Bulletiii 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Coast Region

Table NC-8. Agricultural Water Demand

(thousands of acre -feet)

Planning Subareas

1990 .

average drought

2000
average drought

2010

average drought

2020

average drought

Upper Klamath

Applied water demand

664

729

689

757

709

778

721

791

Net water demand

585

589

587

592

596

601

602

607

Depletion

459

5(»

477

524

490

539

498

548

Lower Klamath -Smith

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Coastal

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Russian River

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Total

Applied water demand

840

916

867

947

891

971

906

989

Net water demand

745

760

748

766

761

778

771

787

Depletion

592

648

611

669

627

686

638

699

Environmental Water Use

The principal environmental water use for the region is for environmental instream needs. Table
NC-9. The region's total dedicated natural runoff is 18.9 MAF in average years and 8.7 MAF in drought
years. Wetland water needs for several national wildlife refuges amount to annual net water demands of
237,000 AF, Table NC-10.

Through the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1972, Califomians determined that the vast
majority of water in the North Coast Region will remain in the rivers to preserve their free-flowing char-
acter and provide for environmental uses. Most of the Eel, Klamath, and Smith rivers are designated
wild and scenic and their waterways cannot be modified in a manner that affects their free-flowing pris-
tine character. The Trinity River also receives protection under the federal Wild and Scenic River system.
Such protection includes prohibitions to water resource project construction that could adversely affect
the value of the rivers. The Trinity River is also protection under the federal Wild and Scenic River sys-

Bulletin 16ft-93 Administrative Draft

North Coast Region

tem, which similarly prohibits construction of facilities that a

dversely affect the

river's free-flowing and

aesthetic values.

Table NC-9. Environmental Instream Water Needs

(thousands of acre-

-feet)

stream

1990
average drought

2000
average drought

2010

average drought

2020
average drought

Klamath River

' Applied water demand

833

Net water demand

833

Depletion

833

Trinity River

Applied water demand

217

340

Net water demand

217

340

Depletion

217

340

Wild and Scenic

Applied water demand

17,800

7,654

17,800

7,654

17,800

7,654

17,800

7,654

Net water demand

17,800

7,654

17,800

7.654

17,800

7,654

17,800

7,654

Depletion

17,800

7,654

17,800

7,654

17,800

7,654

17,800

7,654

Total

Applied water demand

18,850

8,704

18,973

8,827

18,973

8,827

18,973

8,827

Net water demand

18,850

8,704

18,973

8,827

18,973

8,827

18,973

8,827

Depletion

18,850

8,704

18,973

8.827

18,973

8,827

18,973

8.827

Instream fishery needs on the Trinity River below Lewiston Dam

have beer

1 under si

tudy. The

study

is expected to be finished in

1996 and then

given to

Congress for revi

2w. This

study could result

in even

more water than the 1990 level of 340,000 AF per year bein^

I allocated to Trinity River instream flows

and unavailable to the Sacramento River under the CVPIA.

Bulletiii 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Coast Region

Table NC-10. Wetlands Water Needs
(thousands of acre -feet)

Planning Subareas

1990 2000 2010 2020

average drought average drougtrt average drougtrt average drought

Lower Klamath NWR

Applied water demand

115

115^

^tt

115

Net water demand

77!

Depletion

Butte Valley WA

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Clear Lake NWR

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Tule Lake NWR

Applied water demarKJ

180

Net water demand

120

Depletion

119

Shasta Valley Refuge

mmm

•

Applied water demand

■■

Net water demand

pup

Depletion

Areata Marsh

Applied water demarx)

Net water demand

Depletion

Total

Applied water demand

349

353

Net water demand

237

239

Depletion

235

237

The principal wetland uses of water occur in the Lx)wer Klamath, Tule Lake, and Clear Lake National
Wildlife Refuges and the State's Butte Valley Wildlife Area. A major share of the wildlife water needs in
Butte Valley are met by approximately 3,000 AF per year of ground water; the other refuges in the region
are served from surface supplies. The prevalent crops grown in the refuges are wheat, alfalfa, barley, mil-
let, and milo. Alkali bulrush is an important naturally occurring food source for wildlife. The predomi-

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft North Coast Region

nant types of wildlife using the refuges are Canadian, snow and white fronted geese; mallard, pintail,
^adwall, teal, canvas back, and redhead ducks; and pheasant. Other wildlife species such as songbirds,
raptors, shorebirds, antelope, and deer also depend heavily on the refuges and agricultural land during the
winter.

Environmental water use within this region will probably remain relatively unchanged to 2020. The
absence of projected large-scale population growth and the abundance of water in this region leads to
•datively stable long-term water use patterns. However, releases below existing dams could be modified
in response to the findings of ongoing or future instream flow need studies for anadromous fisheries.
Existing instream flow requirements downstream from a number of major dams are shown in Chapter 8
of Volume I.

Other Water Use

Figure NC-6 shows water recreation areas in the North Coast Region. Millions of people throughout
the State and nation come to the North Coast Region for recreation. The region is an area of rugged natu-
ral beauty with some of the most renowned fishing streams in North America. It has diverse topography,
including scenic ocean shoreline; a forested belt immediately inland, which includes more than half of
California's redwoods; and extensive inland mountainous areas, including 10 wilderness areas, managed
mainly by the U.S. Forest Service. Over 40 State parks and one national park are in the region. In addi-
ion to the natural attractions, the area contains scores of small reservoirs which are extensively used for
kecreation. Rafting and canoeing are popular on the rivers in the area. White water and river sports are
particularly popular on the Smith, Klamath, Salmon, Trinity, Eel and Russian rivers.

During 1990, the visitation to the parks in the region was over 10.5 million visitor-days. Public rec-
reation use of national forests and small local reservoirs is probably several times that of parks. The job
pase and economic value of travel and recreation has exceeded that of the lumber industry in some North-
im California counties. Based on studies of recreation and economic development within California, the
Idemand for recreation is expected to continue to grow.

(
I

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Coast Region

_0 R E G 0 N

D E Hi^ /
N 0 R T E s

J?i

ver.

iPa

Lower

Klamath

Lake

4. ^5 mIJ D 0

Clear
Lake

9
A

^ -L/"^^

_/K ^^^

^^r 'Sl^^^^^^^^^

^-N-^^.

r"^

•^ •' «»r^

^<5Z^

IX ^ J 4^

w /^ T

10.11

J -

A Water Recreation Area
• Hydroelectric Power Plant
■• Federal Wild and Scenic River

H U M 3 OVL D T

lkiV\

^11

14;

18.

l»A^

«*^^

D 0'

N 0

.23

CINO

. r

<-^ > SONOMA

1. Jedediah Smith Redwoods S.P.

2. Iron Gate Reservoir

3. Lower Klamath Lake

4. Tule Lake

5. Clear Lake

6. Lake Earl

7. Indian Tom Lake

8. Medicine Lake

9. Big Sage Lake

10. Trinity Lake

11. Clair Engle Lake

12. Lewiston Lake

13. Grizzly Creek Redwoods S.P.

14. Humboldt Redwoods S.R.

15. Ruth Reservoir

16. Benbow Lake S.R A

17. Richardson Grove S.P.

18. Smithe Redwoods S.R.

19. Standish-Hlckey S.R.A.

20. Admiral William Standish S.RJ^

21. Lake Cleone

22. Lake Pillsbury

23. Van Damme S.P.

24. Lake Mendocino

25. Paul M. Dimmick Wayside Campground

26. Anna Del S.P.

26.

f
10 20

Figure NC-6. North Coast Region
Water Recreation Areas

IvUetin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Coast Region

Table NC-11. Total Water Demands

(thousands of acre -feet)

Category of Use

1990

average drought

2000
average drought

2010
average drought

2020

average drought

'Urban

Applied water demand

169

176

186

196

203

214

219

230

Net water demand

169

176

186

196

203

214

219

230

Depletion

110

112

119

123

127

132

136

142

Agricultural

Applied water demand

840

916

867

947

891

971

906

989

Net water demand

745

760

750

765

761

777

771

787.7

Depletion

592

648

611

627

686

638

699

Environmental

Applied water demand

19,199

9,053

19,326

9,180

19,326

9,180

19,326

9,180

Net water demand

19,087

8,941

19,212

9,066

19,212

9.066

19,212

9,066

Depletion

19,085

8,939

19,210

9.064

19,210

9,064

19,210

9,064

Other!

Applied water demand

Net water demand

356

Depletion

Total

Applied water demand

20,209

10,146

20,381 10,323

20,421

10,366

20,452

10,400

Net water demand

20,037

9,912

20,182 10,0621

20,212

10,092

20,237

10,118

Depletion

19,796

9,708

19,948

9,864

19,973

9,891

19,992

9,914

Includes conveyance losses, recreation uses, and energy production.

Despite the importance of recreation to its economy, the region's consumptive water use for recre-
tion is relatively minor. Table NC-1 1 shows the total water demands for this region.

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management

Generally, the moderate to low population growth in the North Coast Region is not creating any
iressing water issues that cannot be solved by local water management, planning, and system upgrading
>r construction. The main impediment to improving water supply reliability in communities is disagree-
nent between residents who favor growth and those who want to limit it through restrictions on water
lookups. The principal water-related issues in the North Coast Region revolve around water quality and
nvironmental concerns.

An action pursuant to the Trinity River Restoration Act, having great impact on North Coast water
applies, was the 1991 decision by the Secretary of the Interior to increase instream flow releases to the
rinity River below Lewiston Dam to 340,000 AF per year instead of the 1990 level of 217,000 AF per
ear. The CVPIA directed the Secretary to continue releases at the 340,000 AF level through 1996. The

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft North Coast Region

result of this decision is an unquantified enhancement of Trinity River fishery habitat and a decrease of
Improvement Act 123,000 AF per year of water supply for the Sacramento River and Delta during
drought years. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is presently conducting a 12-year flow evaluation
study on the Trinity, which is to be completed in 1996 and forwarded to Congress for review. The result
of this study will be a recommended instream flow release schedule which could differ substantially from
the present schedule. The potential exists for further reductions in federal CVP yield in exchange for
betterment of fishery habitat.

Drinking Water Standards. A primary issue affecting water managers in this region is complying
with new EPA-mandated drinking water standards. Compliance could require filtration for most commu-
nities and would be very expensive to implement.

Trinity River Sediment Control. The construction of Buckhom Mountain Dam in 1990, in combina-
tion with sediment pool construction at the mouth of Grass Valley Creek to collect decomposed granite
sand, has made high periodic flow releases from Trinity Dam less necessary. This 70-foot-high dam
will keep a large portion of the creeks sand sediment from flowing into the Trinity River where it dam-
ages spawning and rearing areas. The portion of sediment that flows in below the dam is largely con-
trolled by sediment ponds at the mouth of the creek. In addition, a proposal to purchase the creek's wa-
tershed and place it in public ownership for prevention of future soil disturbance is being investigated by
the Trinity River Task Force.

Instream Flow Issues. At several locations throughout the region, there is conflict between water
supplies for in-basin needs and fishery requirements. Examples include the Klamath River below Iron
Gate Dam, the Shasta and Scott rivers below irrigation diversions, the upper Eel River below Lake Pills-
bury, and the reaches of the Russian River below Lakes Mendocino and Sonoma. For most of the North
Coast Region, few major changes in the water supply capabilities of existing facilities are expected over
the next 30 years. However, some significant possibilities, primarily related to increased instream flows
below existing reservoirs, could change water supply allocations. Presently, however, there is no reliable
means of quantifying the effects of potential demands for increased instream flows in the Klamath, Trin-
ity, upper Eel, or lower Russian rivers. The effect of the State and federal Endangered Species acts as
additional species are listed cannot be estimated with any certainty.

Identifying the Primary Causes of Fishery Declines. Fish populations have declined precipitously
on all north coast streams since the 1960s. Many people tend to identify dams as the main cause of these
fishery declines, yet undammed streams such as the Smith, Van Duzen, and Mattole rivers have also suf-
fered steep reductions in salmon populations. There are many factors contributing to fishery declines,
such as prolonged drought, commercial ocean fishing and logging disturbances blocking tributary
streams.

Endangered Species. Two species of sucker fish found in the Klamath Project area have been listed
as endangered under the federal and State Endangered Species Acts. In response, the U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Service imposed restrictions on project operations that reduced dry period water supply capabilities.
As a result, roughly 7,000 acres of normally irrigated land in California was taken out of production in

bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft North Coast Region

992. This modified operation of the Klamath Project, to accommodate the needs of the listed suckers,
Iso reduced flows below Iron Gate Dam that are critical to salmon and steelhead survival in the middle
nd lower Klamath. The conflicting needs between listed species must be addressed.

Pelican Bay State Prison. Opened in December 1 989, Pelican Bay State Prison houses 4,000 in-
nates. An independent water supply line serves the prison from Crescent City's Ranney collectors on the
;mith River. The prison currently uses about 672 AF annually, and waste water from the prison facilities
s treated on-site. A Del Norte County advisory measure allowing the Department of Corrections to
mild a second prison was passed by the voters and construction is likely to proceed. It appears that the
ncreased water demand can be met through increased use of Smith River supplies.

Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District. This district supplies an average of 62,000 AF per year in
he Humboldt Bay area, including Eureka, Areata, McKinleyville, and several pulp and lumber mills.
he district's supply from Ruth Reservoir on the Mad River is allocated through existing contracts.
Vbout 4,480 AF per year of additional supply is available to meet future demands or alleviate drought
onditions. HBMWD considered enlarging Ruth Reservoir, but this does not appear to be engineeringly
easible and recent changes in health regulations would require expensive additional treatment of water
rem that source. Complying with the surface water treatment rules established in the 1986 amendment
3 the Safe Drinking Water Act presents a difficult, potentially costly, challenge for the Eureka area. Fur-
rier, water from HBMWD's Ranney collectors in the Mad River has been designated as ground water
nder the influence of surface water and must be filtered. A regional filtration plant is estimated to cost
1 6 million. Thus, HBMWD is considering the feasibility of developing ground water to replace a por-
lon of the Mad River supply for residential and commercial use only. About 50,400 AF of the district's
2,720 AF average annual water use (80 percent) was normally supplied to the Eureka pulp mills for in-
ustrial purposes. This water does not require treatment. Since closure of the Simpson pulp mill, the
istrict will deliver only about 28,000 AF per year to this industry.

Russian River Instream Flow Decision and Supply Allocations. With water available from Lake
onoma (Warm Springs Dam), and State Water Resources Control Board Decision 1610 defining in-
tream flow requirements and operating criteria, most major water supply reliability questions in the Rus-
ian River Basin have been resolved to beyond 2010. However, there is growing concern over the extent
f sedimentation in Lake Pillsbury and Lake Mendocino and the resulting reductions in dry-year car-
yover water supplies. Additionally, Mendocino County is concerned that Decision 1610 will prevent the
ounty from obtaining additional water from the Russian River. Through the Eel-Russian River Com-
lission, the two counties are exploring possibilities for maintaining or augmenting available water sup-
lies, including construction of additional storage on the upper Eel River and conjunctive use of ground
ater with existing surface supplies.

Water Supply Reliability Problems in Small Communities. A number of smaller communities
iroughout the region have continuing supply problems, often related to the lack of economic base to
upport water supply management and development costs. For example, the areas north and south of the
)wn of Trinidad in Humboldt County depend on small springs and shallow wells which provide an inad-

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft North Coast Region

equate supply during late summer and fall. They have attempted to hook up to Trinidad's system, sup-
plied from Luffenholtz Creek, but has been unsuccessful due to local fears of over taxing this small sys-
tem. The City of Willits has had chronic problems with turbidity, taste, and odor in its Morris Reservoir
and high arsenic, iron, and manganese levels in its well supply. These problems have been largely
solved by the construction of Centennial Dam and associated treatment facilities.

The City of Fort Bragg has shortage problems with its individual wells and has hired a consultant to
investigate alternative solutions. A possible solution is an off stream storage project. Many north coast
wells located on low terraces near the ocean are vulnerable to sea water intrusion if over pumped. For
example, the well serving the relocated town of Klamath has recently begun pumping sea water. Several
small communities along the coast, such as Moonstone, Smith River, and Hiouchi, either experience
chronic water shortages or have inadequate supplies to meet projected growth in the future. Water use is
already very low due to extensive conservation, so most of these problems will likely need to be solved
by constructing or upgrading community water systems. Factors hindering development of community
systems are low population base contributing to lack of funding and community disagreements on the
desirability of growth.

Lakes Earl and Talawa. To increase wildlife habitat, these linked lakes north of Crescent City are
being allowed to reach higher levels than historically permitted. Local fears, that these actions would
interfere with operation of surrounding septic systems, have subsided after a year of higher lake levels
without significant problems. The lake levels are kept higher by breaching an ocean-formed sand bar at
the common outlet at a higher level. Agreement among agencies on the maximum allowable levels has
not been reached yet, and studies continue. Higher late summer levels in these lakes could increase water
availability to surrounding shallow wells.

Water Balance

Water balances were computed for each Planning Subarea in the North Coast Region by comparing
existing and future water demand projections with the projected availability of supply. The region total
was computed as the sum of the individual subareas. This method does not reflect the severity of
drought year shortages in some local areas which can be hidden when planning subareas are combined
within the region. Thus, there could be substantial shortages in some areas during drought periods. Lo-
cal and regional shortages could also be less severe than the shortage shown, depending on how supplies
are allocated within the region, a particular water agency's ability to participate in water transfers or de-
mand management programs (including land fallowing or emergency allocation programs), and the over-
all level of reliability deemed necessary to the sustained economic health of the region. Volume I, Chap-
ter 1 1 presents a broader discussion of demand management options.

Table NC-12 presents water demands for the 1990 level and for future water demands to 2020 and
balances them with: (1) supplies from existing facilities and water management programs, and (2) future
demand management and water supply management options.

Regional net water demands for the 1990 level of development totaled 20.0 and 9.9 MAF for average
and drought years respectively. Those demands are projected to increase to 20.2 and 10.1 MAF, respec-

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft North Coast Region

'lively, by the year 2020, after accounting for a 55,000 AF reduction in urban water demand resulting
from additional long-term water conservation measures. Urban net water demand is projected to increase
by about 50,000 AF by 2020, primarily due to expected increases in population; while, agricultural net
water demand is projected to increase by about 26,000 AF, primarily due to an expected increase in vine-
yards in the region. Environmental net water demands are increasing by 125,000 AF due to implementa-
tion of the Central Valley Improvement Act, which increases Trinity River flows for fisheries by about
123,000 AF.

Average annual supplies are generally adequate to meet average net water demands in this region out
to the year 2020. However, during drought, present supplies are insufficient to meet present demands
and, without additional water management programs, annual drought year shortages are expected to con-
tinue to be nearly 10,000 AF.

The only Level I water management program planned for this region is in the Russian River planning
subarea. That program is 9,000 AF of water recycling, which will reduce ground water pumping for this
PSA by a similar amount. The remaining shortage of 9,000 AF is in the Upper Klamath PSA, which re-
ipiires both additional short-term drought management and future Level II options depending on the
overall level of water service reliability deemed necessary, by local agencies, to sustain the economic
lealth of the region.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Coast Region

Table NC-12. Water Balance
(thousands of acre -feet)

Demand/Supply

1990 2021

average drought average dro'

Net Demand

Urban -with 1990 level of conservation

169

176

274

-reductions due to long-term consen/ation measures (Level 1)

—

-55

Agricultural

745

760

771

-reductions due to long-term consen/ation measures (Level 1)

—

Environmental

19,087

8,941

19,212 1

Other (1)

Total Net Demand

20,037

9,912

20,237 1(

Water Supplies w/Existfng Facilities

Developed Supplies

Surface Water

923

918

968

Ground Water

264

283

296

Ground Water Overdraft

Subtotal

1,187

1,201

1 ,264

Dedicated Natural Flow

18,850

8,704

18,973 (

Total Water Supplies

20,037

9,905

20,237 1(

Demand/Supply Balance

-7

Future Water Management Options Level 1

Long-term Supply Augmentation

Reclaimed

Local

Central Valley Project

State Water Project

Subtotal - Water Management Options Level 1

Ground Water/Surface Water Use Reduction Resulting from Level 1 Programs

-9

Remaining Demand/Supply Balance Requiring Short Term Drought Management
and/or Future Level ii Options

(1) includes conveyance losses, recreation uses and energy production.

* * *

V ^2

Draft of The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION

Looking through the Golden Gate Bridge at San Francisco.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Francisco Bay Region

SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION

The San Francisco Bay Region extends from Pescadero Creek in southern San Mateo County to the
mouth of Tomales Bay in the north and inland to the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin
rivers near Collinsville. The total land area of the region is about 3 percent of the State's area. For much
of the following discussion, the region is divided into the North Bay and South Bay planning subareas,
which are divided by the bay waterways. (See Appendix C for maps of the planning subareas and land
ownership in the region.)

The highest peaks of the Coast Range, which make up much of the eastern boundary, are over 3,000
feet. Other prominent geographic features include San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun bays, and the
San Francisco and Marin peninsulas. The region also includes many small creeks which flow to the
Pacific Ocean or into the bays.

The climate is generally cool and often foggy along the coast, with warmer Mediterranean-like
weather in the inland valleys. The average high temperature is nearly 10 degrees higher inland than at
San Francisco, resulting in higher outdoor water use in the inland areas. The gap in the hills at
Carquinez Strait allows cool air to flow at times from the Pacific Ocean to the Sacramento Valley. Most
of the interior North Bay and the northern parts of the South Bay also are influenced by this marine
effect. The southern interior portions of the South Bay, by contrast, experience very little air movement,
and therefore, have more moderate weather. Average precipitation ranges from 14 inches at Livermore,
in the South Bay, to almost 48 inches at Kentfield in Marin County in the North Bay.

Population

The region is highly urbanized and includes the San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose metropolitan
areas. There are large undeveloped areas in the western, northern and southern parts of the region. In
1990, 18 percent of the State's total population lived in the region and almost 88 percent, or 4.8 million,
of those residents lived in the South Bay. During thel980s, the region's population grew by
approximately 695,000; the North Bay grew by about 20 percent and the South Bay grew by 14 percent.

In the North Bay planning subarea, the inland cities of Fairfield, Vallejo, Benicia, and Suisun City
grew by 33, 36, 59, and 105 percent, respectively, from 1980 to 1990. These cities alone accounted for
an increase of almost 70,000 people during the decade. Over the same period, most of the cities in Marin
County grew very slowly. San Rafael, the county's largest city, grew at a modest 8 percent, while Fairfax
actually declined in population. Further north and east, Petaluma and Napa grew by 28 and 22 percent,
respectively.

The most rapid growth in the South Bay also took place in the eastern part of that area. A number of
cities had growth rates greater than 40 percent during the 1980s, including Dublin, Martinez, Pittsburg,

L-—^- ^ ~ ■

Region Characteristics ^^

Average Annual Precipitation: 31 inches Average Annual Runoff : 1,245,500 AF

Land Area: 4, 1 00 square miles Population: 5, 484. 000

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Francisco Bay Region

Pleasanton, and San Ramon. Hercules, in the northern part of the PSA, grew by 282 percent. Growth
during the 1980s was most significant in the larger urban centers: Oakland (32,905), Fremont (41,394),
San Francisco (44,985), and San Jose (152,666). Table SF-1 shows regional population projections.

Table SF-1. Population Projections

(thousands)

Planning Subareas

1990

2000

2010

2020

North Bay
South Bay

680
4,804

817
5,398

889
5,722

941
6,003

Total

5,484

6,215

6,611

6,944

Land Use

Land use in the region is truly diverse. The San Francisco Bay Region is home to the world famous
Napa Valley and Sonoma County wine industry; international business and tourism in San Francisco; the
leading technological development and production center of Silicon Valley; as well as urban, suburban,
and rural living. Urban land accounts for 23 percent (655,600 acres) of the land area. Irrigated
agricultural land in 1990 was 61,400 acres. Projected land use reflects an increase in urban areas to
870,900 acres, or 37 percent of the region's land area, by 2020. Point Reyes National Recreation Area, as
well as other federal and State parks and reservoirs, make up a small portion of the total region.

While a relatively large portion of the land area is urbanized, a wide variety of crops also are grown
in the region. Agricultural land use is strongly influenced by the climatic and urban growth factors
mentioned above. In almost every area of the region, urban development is encroaching on agricultural
lands.

Within the North Bay, vineyards account for over three-fourths of the irrigated acres in Sonoma and
Napa counties. There are 4,200 acres of pasture and about 3,900 acres of deciduous trees (primarily
walnuts, prunes, and pears in Solano County) in the North Bay. The coastal area of the South Bay
supports rangeland, flowers, and a number of high-value specialty vegetables, such as artichokes.
Vegetables, flowers, vineyards, and many suburban ranchettes with irrigated pasture are found in the
Santa Clara Valley. Alfalfa, truck crops, and wine grapes are grown in the Livermore Valley. Figure
SF-1 shows land use, imports, exports, and water supplies in the San Francisco Bay Region.

Water Supply

Water supply sources include local surface water, imported surface water (both locally developed and
purchased from other local agencies), ground water, CVP water, other federal project water (Solano
Project), SWP water, and a small amount of reclaimed waste water. About 66 percent of the urban
supplies are imported to the region. Figure SF-2 shows the region's 1990 level sources of supply.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Francisco Bay Region

PRESENT WATER SUPPUES

(1X»0 AF/Yf.)

LOCAL SURFACE WATER DEVELOPMENT

364

Legend

PutaA South — 1
Cana 1

IMPORTS BY LOCAL WATER AGENOES
GROUND WATER PERENNIAL YIELD

661
97

Urban Land >-^

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

363

Irrigated Land \^
Region Water Transfers V,^

|1,000'« o* Aen-f—t put Y««1 1

OTHER FEDERAL WATER DEVELOPMENT

:f^*^

STATE WATER PROJECT
WATER RECLAMATION

238
32

Sonoma PetaJuma

Aqueducts

DEDICATED NATURAL FLOW

WATER SUPPLY
GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT

TOTAL

City of Vallejo
2

North Bajr

Aqueduct

Carriage Water
SWP 61
CVP 183

Afokeiumne Aqueduct
244

Contra Costa Canai
73

South Bay

Aqueduct

154

4,616

6,303

Hetch Hetchjr
Aqueduc t
269

San Felipe

Unit

Figure SF-1. San Francisco Bay Region
Land Use, Imports, Exports, and Water Supplies

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Francisco Bay Region

Supply with Existing Facilities

Ground water is found in both the alluvial basins and upland hard rock areas. Well yields in the
alluvial basins range from less than 100 to over 3,000 gallons per minute. The yield from wells in the
hard rock areas is generally much lower, but are usually sufficient for most domestic or livestock
purposes. Recharge to the alluvial basins occurs primarily from rainfall and seepage from adjacent
streams. However, a significant percentage, especially in the South Bay, is through artificial recharge
facilities and incidental recharge from irrigation.

Figure SF-2. San Francisco Bay Region

Water Supply Sources (Average Conditions)

1990 level

Ground Water
1.5%

Re-
claimed
0.5%

♦Includes the federal Central Valley Project, other federal projects, and the State Water Project.

i Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Francisco Bay Region

For 1990, drought supplies (including dedicated natural flow) were 28 percent less than normal.
Supply reductions occurred in local surface and imported supplies. Ground water use increased
primarily because users and suppliers often rely more heavily on aquifers in dry years.

The major reservoirs in the region are listed in Table SF-2. Table SF-3 shows water supplies with
existing facilities and programs.

Table SF-2. Major Reservoirs

Reservoir Name

River

Capacity (1 ,000 AF)

Owner

Lake Hennessey

Conn Creek

31.0

City of Napa

Nicasio

Nicasio Creek

22.4

Marin MWD

Kent

Lagunitas
Creek

32.9

Marin MWD

Alpine

Lagunitas
Creek

8.9

Marin MWD

Soulajuie

Lagunitas
Creek

10.6

Marin MWD

San Pablo

San Pablo
Creek

38.6

East Bay MUD

New Upper San Leandro

San Leandro
Creek

41.4

East Bay MUD

Chabot

San Leandro
Creek

10.4

East Bay MUD

Briones

Bear Creek

60.5

East Bay MUD

Del Valle

Arroyo Del
Valle

77.1

DWR

San Antonio

San Antonio
Creek

50.5

City of San Francisco

Coyote

Coyote Creek

22.3

Santa Clara Valley WD

Leroy Anderson

Coyote Creek

89.1

Santa Clara Valley WD

Lexington

Los Gatos
Creek

19.8

Santa Clara Valley WD

Austrian

Los Gatos
Creek

6.2

San Jose Water Works

Calaveras

Calaveras
Creek

96.9

City of San Francisco

San Andreas

San Andreas
Creek

19.0

City of San Francisco

Crystal Springs

San Mateo
Creek

58.4

City of San Francisco

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Francisco Bay Region

Table SF-3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs

(Decision 1485 Operating Criteria for Delta Supplies)

(thousands of acre -feet)

1990 2000 2010 2020

average drought average drought average drought average drought

Supply

364

253

364

253

364

253

364

253

551

512

575

512

594

514

601

516

363

336

456

314

479

306

477

298

238

173

300

178

300

170

300

169

133

103

166

152

171

162

165

Surface

Local

Local Imports

Colorado River
■ CVP(1)

Other federal

SWP
Ground water
Overdraft
Reclaimed

Dedicated natural flow 4,615 3,085 4,615 3,085 4,615 3,085 4,615 3,085

Total Supply 6,303 4,564 6,487 4,580 6,578 4^71 6,593 4,558

(1) CVP supplies include Delta outflow carriage water released from storage. The 1990 level CVP carriage water is estimated to
be 183,000 AF for average years and 176,000 AF for drought years.

(2) SWP supplies include Delta outflow carriage water released from storage. The 1990 level SWP carriage water is estimated to
be 61 ,000 AF for average years and 58,000 AF for drought years.

North Bay. At the 1990 level, the average year local surface water supply for the North Bay is
75,000 AF. An additional 150,000 AF of local surface water is used to meet Suisun Marsh wetlands
requirements. Recent experiences indicate that local supplies drop by about 22 percent during drought
conditions to about 58,000 AF.

Marin Municipal Water District serves the most populated, southeastern portion of Marin County.
Local supply is obtained from its reservoirs in Marin County which can store up to 79,200 AF and
supply of about 30,000 AF annually.

North Marin Water District supplements its imported Sonoma County Water Agency supply with just
over 1,000 AF from Stafford Lake. The City of Napa produces local surface supply from Lake
Hennessey and Lake Milliken, and St. Helena receives water from Bell Canyon Reservoir. The City of
Vallejo gets water from Lake Curry in Napa County. Vineyards along the Napa River annually divert
approximately 6,000 AF from the River for irrigation and frost protection. Since no major local supply
projects are anticipated, the local surface supplies are projected to remain constant through 2020.

Imports by Local Agencies. In the North Bay, water is imported from the Russian and Eel rivers
(North Coast Region) by Sonoma County Water Agency and from the Delta by the City of Vallejo
through the SWP. SCWA delivers water from the Russian River Project, which includes Lake
Mendocino and Lake Sonoma, and the Potter Valley Project, which is operated by PG&E for hydropower
production to eight principal contractors, including four in the San Francisco Bay Region (Petaluma,
Sonoma, Valley of the Moon, and North Marin water districts).

MM WD recently negotiated with SCWA to add 10,000 AF to its annual deliveries. The delivery
initially would be on an "as available" basis until a water right is recognized by the State Water

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Francisco Bay Region

Resources Control Board. MMWD customers recently approved financing to provide the necessary
project facilities. The North Bay's 1990 average imported supply by SCWA and Vallejo is 39,000 AF.

Ground water. The North Bay 1990 level average supply of ground water is about 26,000 AF. The
increase in ground water supply during drought years reflects a greater dependence on ground water
during periods of surface water deficiencies. Future ground water supply is projected to remain fairly
constant.

The important alluvial basins in the North Bay PSA include Suisun-Fairfield Valley, Napa
Valley-Sonoma Valley, Petaluma Valley, and Novato Valley. Ground water levels indicate the basins are
probably not in overdraft. Estimated ground water storage in the basins is 1 .7 MAF. Salt water
intrusion has been a problem in the bayside portions of the Sonoma and Napa valleys, but this has been
substantially mitigated by using imported surface water instead of ground water. The ground water
quality in the North Bay is generally good. Some isolated areas experience elevated levels of dissolved
solids, iron, boron, hardness, and chloride. High levels of nitrates occur in the Napa and Petaluma valleys
as a result of past agricultural practices.

Other Federal Projects. Solano County Water Agency contracts for water from Lake Berryessa via
the Solano Project and delivers it to farmers and cities within the county. The project was built by the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and began operation in 1959. The project supply is 201,000 AF annually
and the majority of its entitlement water goes to agriculture in the Sacramento River Region. The 1990
level average project supply for the North Bay is 43,000 AF. The drought year supply shows a 15
percent deficiency, which was imposed by the USBR in 1991. Since use under SCWA's contract is
approaching the project's yield, supplies are projected to increase only slightly through 2020.

State Water Project. The SWP delivers water through the North Bay Aqueduct to the Solano County
Water Agency and Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The Aqueduct extends
over 27 miles from Barker Slough to the Napa Turnout Reservoir in southern Napa County. Maximum
SWP entitlements are for 67,000 AF annually. The Aqueduct also conveys water for the City of Vallejo,
which purchased capacity in the NBA.

Waste Water Reclamation. About 500 AF of reclaimed waste water is used, primarily for landscape
irrigation in Marin County. Water is also reclaimed by NMWD and Petaluma in the Sonoma County
Water Agency service area. The total 1990 average and drought waste water reclamation supply in the
North Bay is 3,000 AF.

South Bay. The 1990 average local surface supply for the South Bay is 139,000 AF. The drought
year shortage is significantly affected by a 67 percent reduction in local surface supplies. Future supplies
from existing facilities would remain relatively constant through 2020.

Imports by Local Agencies. SFWD imports Tuolumne River water via the 150-mile-long Hetch
Hetchy System. In addition to supplying water to the City and County of San Francisco, SFWD sells
water wholesale to 30 water districts, cities, and local agencies in Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo
counties. SFWD now has three pipelines capable of delivering 336,000 AF annually to the Bay Area.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Francisco Bay Region

EBMUD imports water from the Mokelumne River through its aqueducts and delivers water in much
of Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The district supplies water to approximately 1.1 million people
in 20 cities and 15 unincorporated communities. EBMUD has water rights and facilities to divert up to
364,000 AF annually from the Mokelumne River, depending on streamflow and water use by other water
right holders.

Ground water. The major ground water basins of the South Bay PSA include Santa Clara Valley,
Livermore Valley, and the Pittsburg Plain. The total ground water storage in the South Bay basins is
estimated to be 6.5 MAF.

Artificial recharge programs are in place in several South Bay localities. ACFC&WCD, Zone 7, uses
several abandoned gravelpits to recharge ground water in the Livermore Valley. Alameda County Water
District uses a series of artificial barriers and abandoned gravel pits to retard runoff and increase
percolation in and along Alameda Creek. SCVWD uses a similar system to recharge ground water
along Coyote and Los Gatos creeks in Santa Clara Valley.

The SCVWD has supplemented the yield of its ground water aquifers by developing an extensive
conjunctive use program. Water supplies recharge ponds are located along major creeks in the Santa
Clara Valley. SCVWD monitors ground water pumping by requiring most agricultural and municipal and
industrial users to be metered. Ground water users pay for recharged surface water through a basic user
fee. Decisions on ground water pumping are made by all ground water users, generally in a spirit of
cooperation.

These programs have resulted in a general rise to near historic highs in ground water levels in many
of the basins. Recharge and surface water substitution in the Pittsburg Plain was successful in restoring
ground water basins which were overdrafted in the past. These efforts mitigated or eliminated low
ground water level problems, such as salt water intrusion in the Pittsburg Plain and portions of northern
Santa Clara Valley. Land subsidence in northern Santa Clara Valley has also been greatly reduced.
Alameda County Water District has begun an Aquifer Reclamation Program to mitigate salt water
intrusion into the ground water basin near San Francisco Bay. The program includes pumping and
disposing of saline water using a series of wells and creating a salinity intrusion barrier using 15 wells in
the upper aquifer. The district anticipates that the basins annual perennial yield will be increased 3,500
AF at the completion of the Aquifer Reclamation Program.

Ground water quality is still a problem to various degrees in many South Bay locations. The
Livermore Valley has elevated levels of dissolved solids, chloride, boron, and hardness. The highly
urbanized areas of the Santa Clara Valley have experienced ground water pollution over large areas from
organic solvents used in electronics manufacturing. As a result, a small number of municipal wells have
been forced out of production.

Central Vallev Project. CVP water is delivered through the Contra Costa Canal to Contra Costa
Water District and through the San Felipe Project to SCVWD. CCWD delivers water throughout eastern
Contra Costa County, including a portion of the district in the San Joaquin River Region. CVP water
was fu:st delivered by CCWD in 1940. The current contract with USBR is for a supply of 195,000 AF

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Francisco Bay Region

">e

r year. The district also has a right to divert almost 27,000 AF from Mallard Slough on Suisun Bay.
VIost of CCWD's demands are met through direct diversions from the Delta through the Contra Costa
iCanal. CCWD has very little regulatory or emergency water supply storage to replace Delta supplies
ivhen water quality is poor. As a result, CCWD service area voters authorized funding for Los Vaqueros
Reservoir in 1988. The proposed reservoir will improve supply reliability and water quality by allowing
he district to pump and store water from the Delta during high flows.

SCVWD's maximum entitlement from the CVP's San Felipe Division, which became operational in
1987, is 152,500 AF. Average 1990 deliveries to the region are about 93,200 AF. By 1989, much sooner
iian anticipated, the district was requesting, but did not receive, its full entitlement to reduce impacts of
he 1987-92 drought. Normally, about two-thirds of the CVP water is used for recharge; the rest is used
as direct supply.

I State Water Project. The South Bay Aqueduct conveys SWP water to SCVWD, ACFC&WCD Zone
(7, and ACWD. The aqueduct is over 42 miles long beginning at SWP's South Bay pumping plant on
Bethany Reservoir and ending at the Santa Clara Terminal Facilities. SWP water is used in South Bay
PSA for municipal and industrial supply, agricultural deliveries, and ground water recharge.

Waste Water Reclamation. There are several waste water reclamation projects in the South Bay PSA
which provide 29,000 AF to various uses such as environmental, industrial, landscape, and construction.

Supplies with Additional Facilities and Water Management Programs

With increasing populations and the resulting increased water demand. Bay Area water agencies are
looking at a number of options to increase supplies as well as ensure the reliability of their existing water
sources. Future water management options are presented in two levels to better reflect the status of
investigations required to implement them.

' O Level I options are those that have undergone extensive investigation and environmental analyses

! and are judged to have a high likelihood of being implemented by 2020.

I O Level II options are those that could fill the remaining gap between water supply and demand.

i These options require more investigation and altemative analyses.

I Supplies in the North Bay are available during average years with additional Level I options facilities
jto meet the water use through 2020. For drought years, shortages range from 30,000 AF in 1990 to
i74,000 AF in 2020 with existing facilities. With additional facilities, drought year shortages are about
j53,000 AF in 2020. Some areas that may have difficulty meeting water demand include MMWD, the
jSolano Project service area, and SWP contractor service areas. MMWD has the ability to use unused
iconveyance space in SCWA and NMWD aqueducts, thus improving the water district's water supply
reliability through water transfer.

' With existing facilities, the South Bay's supplies will meet projected demands through 2020 during
laverage years. During drought years, with existing facilities, shortages will increase from 280,000 AF in

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Francisco Bay Region

1990 to 404,000 AF in 2020. With additional facilities, the South Bay will be able to meet average year
demands to 2020 and drought year supply shortages could be about 290,000 AF. Each of the six major
water agencies in the South Bay is served by at least one of the import water systems connected to the
Delta. These connections allow the transfer of water from agencies upstream of the Delta assuming a
water management program to address key Delta issues has been implemented. Table SF-4 shows
regional water supplies with additional (Level I) water management programs.

Table SF-4. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs

(Decision 1485 Operating Criteria for Delta Supplies)

(thousands of acre-feet)

Supply

1990
average drought

2000
average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

Surface

Local

364

253

364

253

364

253

364

253

Local Imports

551

512

581

555

594

557

601

557

Colorado River

CVP(1)

363

336

456

314

479

306

477

298

Other federal

SWP (2)

238

173

299

212

332

247

330

247

Ground water

133

157

150

112

143

Overdraft

$ 0

Reclaimed

# 70

Dedicated natural flow

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

Total

6,303

4,564

6,497

4,659

6,574

4.691

6,611

4,693

(1) CVP supplies include Delta outflow carriage water released from storage. The 1990 level CVP carriage water is estimated to be
183,000 AF for average years and 176,000 AF for drought years.

(2) SWP supplies include Delta outflow carriage water released from storage. The 1990 level SWP carriage water is estimated to
be 61 ,000 AF for average years and 58,000 AF for drought years.

Water Supply Reliability and Drought Management Strategies. The San Francisco Bay Region
weathered both the 1976-77 and 1987-92 droughts with moderate but only temporary impacts. These
experiences verify that the region's flexibility to efficiently move water is a valuable asset in drought
years. Three major factors contribute to their flexibility and the region's successful drought strategies:
(1) effective water conservation and rationing programs, (2) available interconnections between water
providers, and (3) diversity of water sources. While the region's dependency on imported supplies are
enough in drought years, water sources are geographically diverse and emergency supplies and water
transfers can help alleviate drought impacts. The following paragraphs describe some recent drought
management actions taken in the region.

During the 1976-77 drought, MMWD received supplemental water through an elaborate sequence of
interconnections. The transfer involved delivery of SWP water made available by agencies in Southern

bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Francisco Bay Region

L ^fomia, which took more water from the Colorado River. Water was conveyed through the South
P Jay Aqueduct and then by exchange and interconnected through the water systems of the SFWD, City of
iayward, and EBMUD, to a temporary pipeline across the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. MMWD
Customers also achieved a 39 percent reduction in water use during the voluntary reduction period
laigeted at 25 percent in the recent drought.

! Another example of drought induced interconnections occurred during the recent drought when
>FWD requested DWR to install the San Antonio turnout from the South Bay Aqueduct that had been
ised in the 1976-77 drought.

EBMUD has facilities to transfer water to both CCWD and the City of Hay ward, while SFWD is
ible to transfer water to SCVWD. All of the major agencies of the South Bay have access to facilities
apable of transferring water from other agencies upstream of the Delta. These transfers can be brought in
hrough the Contra Costa Canal (CVP), the South Bay Aqueduct (SWP), or the San Felipe Project
I CVP). During the recent drought, EBMUD adopted both voluntary and mandatory water use reduction
uograms of up to 25 percent.

SCVWD received 32 percent of its maximum CVP supply in 1991, which included 10,000 AF of
lardship supply. In addition, it received 30 percent of its SWP supply and 75 percent of its Hetch Hetchy
iipply. As a result of these deficient supplies, the district elected to purchase 10,000 AF of water from
^lacer County Water Agency and 20,000 AF from the 1991 State Emergency Drought Water Bank. In

, addition to supplementing its supplies, the district instituted conservation programs designed to save 20

I |)ercent of the average water use.

Locally imported supplies by SFWD and EBMUD also suffered deficiencies during the recent
. drought. The Hetch Hetchy deficiency was reduced from an initial 45 to 25 percent for 1991 . Customers
' f/ere required to reduce indoor use by 10 percent and outdoor use by 60 percent. The deficiency
I "eduction was made possible by purchases of 50,000 AF from the 1991 State Emergency Drought Water
W and 20,000 AF from PCWA.

ACWD and ACFC&WCD, Zone 7 were both subject to 80 percent deficiencies in their 1991 SWP
supplies. ACWD received 14,800 AF from the 1991 State Emergency Drought Water Bank and an
ncrease in its share of Lake Del Valle supplies. These supplemental supplies allowed the district to scale
Dack its rationing plan to 25 percent reductions. ACFC&WCD, Zone7 was able to make up for SWP
Jeficiencies by increased ground water pumping. ACFC&WCD, Zone 7 also acquired a small
supplemental supply from the 1991 State Emergency Drought Water Bank and instituted a conservation
I i^ucation program with a 25 percent reduction goal.

Future Water Management Options. MMWD had one of the least reliable supplies in the Bay
Area. The district had to rely on supplemental imported supply from Sonoma County Water Agency and
1 very responsive reduction effort by customers to ensure adequate supplies throughout the recent
drought. Assuming "base case" growth to 2025 and no supplemental supplies, the district had estimated
i 40 percent deficiency once every 10 years. MMWD's new contract with SCWA will decrease the
deficiency to approximately 10 percent.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Francisco Bay Region

MMWD currently has no participation rights in the SCWA facilities and uses excess capacity in
NMWD's system to convey Russian River water as far as Novato. In order to avoid future supply
deficiencies, the district is proposing its own pipeline to bypass the NMWD system. To do this, MMWD
will need to participate in SCWA's facilities expansion as well.

Other suppliers in the area are much less vulnerable. SCWA's principal contractors, for example,
have very reliable supplies. Using historic hydrology and 2010 demands, SCWA forecast no supply
deficiencies for the system.

EBMUD's supply is vulnerable in at least three ways: (1) drought, (2) decreasing availability of
supplies due to increased use by senior water right holders and an increasing emphasis on environmental
needs, and (3) the integrity of its delivery system, especially the security of the aqueducts from
earthquakes or floods as they cross the Delta. EBMUD is currently working on an Updated Water Supply
Management Program that includes a number of improvements to its water supply system. A detailed
discussion of this program is in Volume I, Chapter 12, "Options of Balancing Water Supply and
Demand." A main element of EBMUD's program is the conjunctive use of ground water. In average and
wet years, available water wold be stored in the lower Mokelumne River's ground water basin and
withdrawn in dry years. This program will yield 43,000 AF in drought years.

Local imported supply would increase by 43,000 AF in 2000 for drought years, reflecting EBMUD's
conjunctive use alternative. American River water is potentially available from a previously unused CVP
contract for 150,000 AF that was originally to be delivered through Folsom South Canal to the
Mokelumne Aqueducts. The district is still considering building its own extension of the Folsom South
Canal so water could be delivered to its aqueducts.

As described previously, CCWD is pursuing the development of Los Vaqueros Reservoir near Byron
to secure additional reliability and better quality for its water supplies.

Water recycling projects are becoming a cost effective method of meeting increased demand in the
San Francisco Bay Region. By 2020, the region will have a supply of about 40,000 of recycled water to
meet its demands.

Water Use

Water use in the region has undergone dramatic changes over the last 40 years. A 1949 land use
survey recorded 163,000 acres of irrigated agriculture in the region; the 1990 level land use analysis
showed 61,400 acres, a 62 percent reduction. The 1990 level agricultural net water demand was 88,000
AF. Urban water demand is approximately 1.2 MAF; and environmental water use is about 4.8 MAF.
Almost all environmental water use in the region is associated with the Suisun Marsh demands and
required Delta outflow. Total water use is projected to increase from approximately 6.3 MAF in 1990 to
6.6 MAF, primarily due to population increases, in 2020. Figure SF-3 shows the distribution of 1990
level net water demands for the San Francisco Bay Region.

tulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Francisco Bay Region

Figure SF-3. San Francisco Bay Region

Net Water Demand (Average Conditions)

1990 level

Environmental
75%

Agricultural

Other includes conveyance losses, recreation uses, energy production, and SWP and CVP carriage water requirements.

Jrban Water Use

Urban water demand is computed using population and per capita water use. Census data and State
department of Finance projections were used to tabulate the region's population. Per capita use in the
egion varies significantly, depending on factors such as climate, income, population density, residential
/aid size, and volume of commercial and industrial use. Generally, per capita use showed an upward
rend after the 1976-77 drought to pre-drought levels. Recently, per capita use values have dropped
iigain, although not to the levels of the previous drought. This most recent drop is due to conservation

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Francisco Bay Regioi

Figure SF-4. San Francisco Bay Region
Applied Urban Water Demand (Average Conditions)

1990 level

Governmental
7%

efforts during the 1 987-92 drought. Per capita use is projected to continue to drop slowly over the next
three decades due to implementation of Best Management Practices (Volume I, Chapter 6).

The cooler coastal portions of the region have the lowest per capita water use. The low per capita use
values of approximately 100 gpcd in San Mateo County and 139 gpcd in San Francisco are generally
related to a cooler climate, small yards, and higher population densities than in inland areas. Bayside
communities in Marin and Sonoma counties use approximately 170 gpcd.

Santa Clara County's per capita use averages approximately 200 gpcd. The warmer and drier climate
results in increased outdoor use. Residential areas reflect a range of uses, from high density multiunit

^ iBulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Francisco Bay Region

dwellings to some areas of very low density suburban homes. The county also has a mix of water using
{industries, such as food processing and computer and electronics manufacturing, which tend to raise per
capita use.

The highest per capita use in the South Bay is in Contra Costa County, where use averages 230 gpcd
.because many residential areas consist of large estate size lots which have high landscape water
■requirements, and there is considerable industrial water use concentrated along the Bay. The average daily
[per capita use for the region was 193 gallons in 1990. Figure SF-4 shows applied 1990 level urban water
demands, by sector.

Urban water demands are displayed in Table SF-5. With a 27 percent increase in population
anticipated by 2020, urban water use should increase roughly 1 7 percent after accounting for savings
from implementing water conservation measures such as urban Best Management Practices. The overall
regional per-capita use should decrease by about 6 percent.

Table SF-5. Urban Water Demand
(thousands of acre -feet)

Planning Subareas

1990
average drought

2000

average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

North Bay

Applied water demand

151

165

174

191

188

216

196

226

Net water demand

151

165

174

191

188

216

196

226

Depletion

133

146

154

169

166

191

173

200

South Bay

Applied water demand

1,033

1.120

1,122

1,197

1,175

1,268

1,208

1,302

Net water demand

1,033

1,120

1,122

1,197

1,175

1,268

1,208

1,302

Depletion

938

1,022

1,023

1,095

1,072

1.163

1,102

1,260

Total

Applied water demand

1,184

1,285

1,296

1,388

1,363

1,484

1,404

1,528

Net water demand

1,184

1,285

1,296

1,388

1,363

1,484

1,404

1,528

Depletion

1,071

1,168

1,177

1,264

1,238

1,354

1,275

1,460

Agricultural Water Use

Figure SF-5 shows the irrigated acreage, ETAW, and applied water for major crops grown in the
region. The following sections discuss agricultural water use in the North and South Bay areas.

North Bay. Agricultural water use in the North Bay is influenced by the climate of the area. The
cool air entering San Pablo Bay from the west is a factor in determining crop viability and irrigation
practices. There is very little agriculture remaining in Marin County, currently about 700 irrigated acres.
Sonoma and Napa counties, on the other hand, have actually increased agricultural acreage, due to an
increase in vineyards and adoption of drip irrigation on lands too steep for furrow or sprinkler irrigation
practices. Most of these agricultural lands are served by ground water or direct diversions from the Napa

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Francisco Bay Region

and other local streams. Projections are that vineyard acreage will continue to increase, while other crop
acreages, with the exception of pasture (projected to decrease 20 percent) are expected to remain about
the same.

South Bay. The climate of the South Bay is also warmer as you move inland from the coast. The
area produces many high value crops including artichokes, brussels sprouts, and cut flowers. The Santa
Clara Valley was historically one of the garden spots for California agriculture. Urbanization over the
last 40 years has reduced irrigated agricultural land acreage from over 100,000 acres to less than 17,000
in 1990. Most of the remaining lands in production are along the Highway 101 corridor, north of Morgan
Hill. Crops grown are primarily high value truck, fruit, and nut crops. Also, one- to five-acre suburban
ranchettes, with sprinkler-irrigated pasture for horses, are now found on formerly nonirrigated range land
and compete for limited ground water supplies.

The Livermore Valley is partially separated from the interior bay climate patterns by the Diablo
Range. The valley is significantly warmer, reflected in higher outdoor water use. There are
approximately 2,500 acres of irrigated agriculture, primarily vineyards, grain, and truck crops.

Table SF-6 shows the irrigated agricultural land use by PSA and for the region, for 1990 through
2020. Table SF-7 shows agricultural water demand for 1990 through 2020. Table SF-8 summarizes the
1990 and projected agricultural water demand in the region.

Table SF-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage

(thousands of acres)

Planning Subareas

1990

2000

' 2010

2020

North Bay
South Bay

44
17

48
16

49
16

Total

Table SF-

-7. 1990 Evapotranspiratlon of Applied Water by Crop

Irrigated Crop

Total

Acres

(1,000)

Total ETAW
(1,000AF)

Irrigated Crop

Total

Acres

(1,000)

Total bl AW
(I.OOOAF)

Grain
Com
Other field

2
1
1

1
1

Pasture
Other truck
Other deciduous
Vineyard

10
6

11
19
10
27

Total

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Francisco Bay Region

Acres (X 1 ,000)

Acre-Feet (X 1 ,000)

120

Pasture Other Decidious

Other Truck Grapes

■Acreage METAVJ ■Applied Water

Figure SF-5. 1990 San Francisco Bay Region
Acreage, ETAW, and Applied Water for l\/lajor Crops

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Francisco Bay Region

Table SF-8. Agricultural Water Demand

(thousands of acre -feet)

Planning Subareas

1990
average drought

2000
average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

North Bay

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

South Bay

Applied water demand

35 1

Net water demand

35 1

Depletion

Total

Applied water demand

103

104

103

Net water demand

100

Depletion

Environmental Water Use

The Suisun Marsh is the only identified managed wetland in the San Francisco Bay Region requiring !
water supplies. The brackish water marsh consists of approximately 55,000 acres of managed wetlands.
The State owns about 10,000 acres and about 44,000 acres are under private ownership and managed as
duck clubs. The estimated water demand of the marsh is about 150,000 AF per year. The additional
instream demands for the Suisun Marsh are about 15,000 AF in an average year and 145,000 AF during
drought years. Additional Suisun Marsh instream demands are based on an estimated supplemental flow
required over the eight-month period when Suisun Marsh Salinity Gates are operational to meet E)-1485
standards downstream of the gates in the Delta. Table SF-9 shows wetlands water needs.

Table SF-9. Wetlands Water Needs

(thousands of acre -feet)

Wetlands

1990
average drought

2000
average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

Suisun Marsh

Applied water

150

Net water

150

Depletion

150

Total

Applied water

150

Net water

150

Depletion

150

^ I Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Francisco Bay Region

The largest water use in the region is for Delta outflow to meet SWRCB salinity requirements, which
requires about 4.6 and 2.9 MAF for average and drought years, respectively. Other instream flows for
streams throughout the region were not included in the water use tables. Environmental instream water
needs are shown in Table SF-10. Recent and future actions to protect aquatic species in the Delta will
increase environmental water needs for this region. Volume I, Chapter 8 presents a broad discussion of
proposed water needs for the Bay /Delta.

Table SF-10. Environmental Instream Water Needs

(thousands of acre -feet)

Stream

1990 2000 2010 2020

average drought average drought average drought average drought

Bay- Delta

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3.085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,oS

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

Total

Applied Water
I Net Water
> Depletion

Other Water Demand

Other water demand includes water losses by major conveyance facilities in the region, water needs
of recreational facilities, water demand of power plants and other energy production, and the S WP and
CVP carriage water requirements. Figure SF-6 shows water recreation areas in the San Francisco Bay
area. Table SF-11 shows the total water demand for 1990 and projections to 2020 for the San Francisco
Bay Region.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Francisco Bay Region

.2 \

SONOMA
A3

MARIN

NM P A

^. /'

SOLANO

CONTRA

Leg and
▲ Water Recreation Area
• Hydroelectric Power Plant

1 . Lake Berryessa

2. Lake Sonoma

3. Spring Lake

4. Samuel P. Taylor S.P.

5. Benicia S.R.A.

6. Soulajule Reservoir

7. Aquatic Park

8. San Pablo Reservoir

9. Lafayette Reservoir

10. Contra Loma Reservoir

11. Lake Chabot

12. Bethany Reservoir

13. Lake Merced

14. Lake Del Valle R.F.

15. Stevens Creek Reservoir

16. Lexington Reservoir

17. Almaden Lake

18. Lake Cunningham

19. Anderson Lake

20. Henry W. Coo

21. Loch Lomond

22. Coyote Reservoir

23. Pinto Lake

24. El Estero Lake

25. San Justo Reservoir

^"^

■5^

pes

x*^

c»^e^

l»^^

aej

^ Zaire
Del Valle

^15

SANTA

^<^^

.16^

CLARA
^ Anderson 20

▲ A

Lake
.19

.21

Figure SF~6. San Francisco Bay Region
Water Recreation Areas

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Francisco Bay Region

Table SF-11. Total Water Demands

(thousands of acre -feet)

Category of Use

1990
average drought

2000
average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

Urban

Applied water

1,184

1.285

1,296

1388

1363

1484

1404

1528

Net water

1,184

1,285

1,296

1388

1363

1484

1404

1528

Depletion

1,071

1,168

1,177

1264

1238

1354

1275

1460

Agricultural

Applied water

103

104

103

Net water

100

Depletion

Environmental

Applied water

4,765

3,235

4,765

3.235

4,765

3,235

4,765

3.235

Net water

4,765

3,235

4,765

3,235

4,765

3,235

4,765

3,235

Depletion

4,765

3,235

4,765

3,235

4,765

3,235

4,765

3,235

Other (1)

Applied water

248

238

328

179

339

168

331

157

Net water

266

255

346

196

358

185

352

174

Depletion

266

255

346

196

358

185

352

174

Total

Applied water

6,289

4,861

6,483

4,906

6,561

4,991

6,594

5,023

Net water

6,303

4,874

6,497

4,919

6,576

5,004

6,611

5,036

Depletion

6,182

4,747

6,370

4,785

6,443

4,864

6,474

4,958

(1) includes conveyance losses,

recreational i

jses, energy production, and SWP and CVP carriage water

requirennents

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management

The principal water management issues facing the region are population growth and environmental
concerns. The following paragraphs describe legislation, litigation, and issues affecting the region.

Legislation and Litigation

EBMUD supplies. The SWRCB held hearings in November 1992 regarding instream flow
requirements for the Mokelumne River. The Department of Fish and Game, private fishing groups, and
environmental interest groups want to increase flows below Camanche Reservoir to protect the river's
fishery. In addition, several water agencies in the Sierra foothills, San Joaquin County, and the Delta
contend that they should receive some priority in the distribution of Mokelumne River water. If the
SWRCB rules against EBMUD, the district could be forced to take a large portion of its water from the
Delta rather than through the Mokelumne Aqueducts. Lower quality water from the Delta would mean
increased treatment costs which would be passed on to EBMUD customers. In a separate process, the

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Francisco Bay Region

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is reviewing the district's hydropower operations and could
independently rule for higher fish flows.

EBMUD diverted its contracted American River water only once, during the 1976-77 drought, when
the district took 25,000 AF from the Delta to supplement its depleted supplies under an emergency
agreement with USER. In 1972, a suit was filed protesting EBMUD's right to divert water at Folsom
South Canal. In 1986, the SWRCB affirmed the right and referred the lawsuit to Alameda Superior
Court for litigation. A preliminary decision in 1989 confirmed the right to divert water at Folsom South
Canal and established minimum flows for the American River below Nimbus Dam that would be
required before EBMUD could divert its supplies. A final decision was made in 1990, which cleared the
way for the district to seriously consider a connection between the canal and the Mokelumne Aqueducts.
An EIS/EIR will focus on technical, public health and safety, social, and environmental factors for the
project.

Recently, EBMUD filed a lawsuit against Contra Costa County to block use of scarce EBMUD water
for a housing development. The county certified an EIR for the Dougherty Valley development despite
the concerns about water supply expressed by the district. EBMUD told the county that it does not have
the water to supply the proposed 11,000-home development.

CVP Improvement Act Implementation of the 1992 CVPIA will have some cost impacts on Bay
Area water users in the form of higher prices for CVP water. The Act allocates a portion of CVP water to
environmental uses and allows municipal and induMrial users to purchase water fi^om agricultural users.
(See Volume I, Chapter 2.)

Local Issues

Slow-growth movement. Anti-growth sentiment is increasing in some Bay Area communities and
was evident during many of the 1992 local elections. Solano, Napa, and Contra Costa counties elected
several slow-growth candidates. Marin County residents had opposed efforts to improve their water
system delivery capabilities beyond limited expansion of local supplies, fearful that more water would
mean uncontrolled growth. The Marin Municipal Water District has had for the last three years a
moratorium on growth within its service area due to limited water supplies. The operational yield of
present district facilities indicated a 5,000 AF deficit for 1990. After more than 20 years of consistently
rejecting plans to import more surface water, voters narrowly approved financing to increase the district's
capacity to import water from the Sonoma County Water Agency to reduce the frequency and severity of
drought year shortages.

Contra Costa Water District The quality and reliability of CCWD's Delta water supply has been an
issue for the district. The proposal to build Los Vaqueros Reservoir addresses a number of related issues
for the district's water supply and the Delta. The proposed reservoir would be an off-stream storage
facility and would allow more flexibility in CCWD's operations. Specifically, the district could divert
higher quality water to Los Vaqueros reservoir during high flows in the Delta. Los Vaqueros water would
then be available to improve water quality delivered throughout the year and in dry years and provide
emergency storage. By storing water at certain times of the year, the district could shut down its pumps

iBulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Francisco Bay Region

during periods when the fisheries are most sensitive to large diversions. CCWD is planning to have the
project online by 2000.

Lagunitas Creek. DFG has not established permanent instream flow requirements below Peters
iDam on Lagunitas Creek. Interim regulations require an average of 4,000 AF annually to preserve or
{enhance the anadromous fishery of the creek. Significant changes in the permanent requirements would
alter Marin MWD's operational yield.

Drinking Water Standards. The California Department of Health Services is rewriting its surface
water treatment requirements to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's new drinking water
: standards. SFWD was recently given an extension of its operating permit to propose specific plans to
'meet DHS requirements. SFWD estimates that new facilities for treating Hetch Hetchy supplies, if
required, could cost about $50 million.

Water Balance

Water balances were computed for each Planning Subarea in the San Francisco Bay Region by

comparing existing and future water demand projections with the projected availability of supply. The

region total was computed as the sum of the individual subareas. This method does not reflect the

severity of drought year shortages in some local areas which can be hidden when planning subareas are

combined within the region. Thus, there could be substantial shortages in some areas during drought

jperiods. Local and regional shortages could also be less severe than the shortage shown, depending on

ihow supplies are allocated within the region, a particular water agency's ability to participate in water

I transfers or demand management programs (including land fallowing or emergency allocation programs),

land the overall level of reliability deemed necessary to the sustained economic health of the region.

'Volume I, Chapter 11 presents a broader discussion of demand management options.

Table SF-12 presents water demands for the 1990 level and for future water demands to 2020 and
balances them with: (1) supplies from existing facilities and water management programs, and (2) future
demand management and water supply management options.

Regional net water demands for the 1990 level of development totaled 6.3 and 4.9 MAF for average
and drought years respectively. Those demands are projected to increase to 6.6 and 5.0 MAF,
respectively, by the year 2020, after accounting for a 250,000 AF reduction in urban water demand
resulting from additional long-term water conservation measures.

Urban net water demand is projected to increase by 470,000 AF by 2020, primarily due to expected
increases in population; while, agricultural net water demand remains essentially level. Environmental
net water demands would remain the same but could increase substantially depending on the outcome of
several actions currently being undertaken to protect aquatic species.

Average annual supplies with existing water management programs are inadequate to meet average
net water demands in this region resulting in a shortage of about 1 8,000 AF by 2020. During droughts,
without additional water management programs, annual drought year shortages are expected to increase
to about 478,000 AF by 2020.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Francisco Bay Region

Table SF-12. Water Balance
(thousands of acre -feet)

Demand/Supply

1990 2020

average drought average drought

Net Demand

Urban -with 1990 level of conservation

-reductions due to long-term conservation measures (Level I)
Agricultural

-reductions due to long-term conservation measures (Level I)
Environmental
Other (1)

1,184

1.285

1,654

—

-250

4,765

3,235

266

255

352

Total Net Demand

6,303 4,874 6,61 1

Water Supplies w/Existing Facilities Under D-1485 for Delta Supplies

Developed Supplies

Surface Water 1,591

Groundwater 97

Ground Water Overdraft 0

Subtotal 1,688

Dedicated Natural Flow 4,615

1,346 1,816 1,308

133 162 165

0 0 0

1,479 1,978 1,473

3,085 4,615 3,085

Total Water Supplies

6,303 4,564 6,593

Demand/Supply Balance

■310

-18

Future Water Management Options Level I (2)

Long-term Supply Augmentation

Reclaimed

Local

Central Valley Project

State Water Project
Subtotal - Water Management Options Level I
Ground Water/Surface Water Use Reduction Resulting from Level I Programs

-50

Remaining Demand/Supply Balance Requiring Short Term Drought
Management and/or Future Level II Options

(1) Includes conveyances losses, carriage water, recreational uses, and energy production.

(2) Protection of fish and wildlife and a long-term solution to complex Delta problems will determine the feasibility of several water
supply augmentation proposals and their water supply benefits.

With planned Level I options, drought year shortages could be reduced to about 343, (XK) AF by 2020.
This remaining shortage requires both additional short-term drought management, water transfers and
demand management programs, and future Level II options depending on the overall level of water
service reliability deemed necessary by local agencies, to sustain the economic health of the region.

4c :|e ^

)raft of The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

CENTRAL COAST REGION

Along the coast in Monterey Bay.

ulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Central Coast Region

CENTRAL COAST REGION

The Central Coast Region accounts for about 7 percent of California's total land area. It
[icompasses the area adjacent to the Pacific Ocean including Santa Cruz County in the north through
anta Barbara County in the south to the Diablo and Temblor mountain ranges on the east. Its
)pographic features include Monterey and Morro Bay; the Pajaro, Carmel, Santa Maria, Cuyama and
alinas valleys; and a number of mountain ranges. The Central Coast Region is best known for its
jgged Pacific coastline, scenic bays and redwood forests.

The varied geography of the region creates diverse climates. During the summer months,
mperatures are generally cool along the coastline and warm inland. In the winter, temperatures remain
ool along the coast and become even cooler inland.

Annual precipitation in the region ranges from 14 to 45 inches, usually in the form of rain. The
verage annual precipitation near the City of Salinas is about 14 inches while in the Big Sur area,
pproximately 30 miles south of Monterey along the coast, precipitation averages about 40 inches a year.
1 1983, however, the Big Sur area had a surprising 85 inches of rain. Average annual precipitation in
le southern coastal basins ranges from 1 2 to 20 inches, with most of it occurring from November
irough April. The southern interior basins usually receive 5 to 10 inches per year; the mountain areas
;ceiving more than the valley floors.

*opuIation

With a 1990 population slightly under 1.3 million, the Central Coast Region contains roughly 4
ercent of California's population. While most of California experienced a substantial population
icrease over the past 10 years, growth in this region exceeded the State's average. The collective
opulation of incorporated cities in the Salinas Valley increased 37 percent during the past decade,
'opulation centers along the coast, such as San Luis Obispo and Santa Maria, also had large population
ncreases of 23 and 54 percent, respectively. In addition, significant increases were recorded in the Santa
fnez Valley and smaller communities in Salinas Valley. An inviting atmosphere of good weather, clean
ir, and close proximity to the mountains and urbanized areas encouraged this growth. Land and water
upply limitations and building moratoriums limited population growth in the area near Santa Barbara.

Population growth in the northern part of the region is also associated with space availability and
iffordable housing prices. While above the national average, the cost of homes in this area is affordable
ompared to many other parts of California. Much of the region's growth is the result of people
nigrating from the San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles areas. Current growth in the region's northern
irea is primarily in and around Hollister, Salinas, and the Watsonville area. Table CC-1 shows
copulation projections to 2020 for the region.

Region Characteristics
Average Annual Precipitation: 20 inches Average Annual Runoff: 2.477,000 acre-feet
Land Area: 11.300 square miles 1990 Population: 1,292,900

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Central Coast Region

Table CC-1. Population Projections

(thousands)

Planning Subareas

1990

2000

2010

2020

Northern
Southern

702
591

823
699

969
792

1,129
888

Total

1,293

1,522

1,761

2,017

Despite the population increases, much of the region is sparsely populated. The principal population
centers are Santa Cruz, Salinas, Watsonville, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Maria, Santa Barbara,
and Lompoc. Most of the region's future population growth continue to be in areas showing recent
growth. (See Appendix C for maps of the planning subareas and land ownership in the region.)

The economy of many areas of the region is tied to military installations. Fort Ord, Hunter-Liggett
Military Reservation, Camp Roberts, and Vandenberg AFB are the major facilities. The Monterey
Peninsula area is now preparing for the closure of Fort Ord. The cities of Seaside and Marina will suffer
the greatest impacts , but the entire area is expected to be affected by the loss of military personnel,
civilian workers, and their families.

Land Use

Publicly-owned lands constitute approximately 28 percent of the region's area. The four major
military installations within the region occupy 340,000 acres. The abundance of state parks and national
forest land (Los Padres, 1 .3 million acres) offers the public many recreational opportunities. Elkhom
Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve, one of the few remaining coastal wetlands, showcases
miles of scenic wetlands and rolling hills. The slough is on a migratory flyway and is an important
feeding and resting ground for a variety of waterfowl. Irrigated and nonirrigated agriculture still remains
the dominant land use for most of the Central Coast region. Intensive agriculture exists in the Salinas
and Pajaro valleys in the north and the Santa Maria and lower Santa Ynez valleys in the south. Moderate
levels of agricultural activity also occur near the Upper Salinas, South Coast, and Cuyama areas. Most of
the region's irrigated agriculture is in the northern and southwestern valleys, and in recent years irrigated
acreage has remained fairly stable. Figure CC-1 shows land use, along with imports, exports, and water
supplies for the Central Coast Region.

Wine grape acreage has increased in the upper Salinas Valley in San Luis Obispo County but
decreased in the lower valley within Monterey County. However, acreage planted to vegetables and other
truck crops far surpassed that planted to vineyard and orchards. Cut flowers and specialty crops, such as
asparagus, mushroom, artichokes, and holly, are distinctive to the region's northern area. The flower
seed industry in Lompoc Valley is a thriving business which also attracts many tourists each year.
Portions of the upper Salinas Valley and Carrizo Plain are dry farmed to produce winter grain. These
areas also support sheep and cattle ranching. Industries other than agriculture are not well developed, but
there are petroleum refining operations near Santa Maria and a significant well field in the Cuyama
Valley as well as frozen food plants in the Pajaro Valley.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Central Coast Region

[ocb Loaoad
Lake ,

PRES^rr WATER 8UPPUE8

{1,000 AF/Yr.)

San FeJipe Udi t
Ssnts CI*rM / 55

Caaal

-^tre

-^^

v^.

LOCAL SURFACE WATER DEVEPLOMENT 78

GROUND WATER PERENNIAL YIELD 092

CEhfTRAL VALLEY PROJECT 55

OTHER FEDERAL WATER DEVELOPMENT 66

WATER RECLAMATION

DEDICATED NATURAL FLOW

•

Bollistor

WATER SUPPLY

809

1 _^

r Conduit

GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT

248

TOTAL

1,148

\l/^

Ligind

H Urban Land
■ Irrigated Land

-^- Region Water Transfer

(1,000'a of Aer»-FMt pw Ymt)

NOF

y^Nmeimit
Lake

rv*

Mbtil« Hoc
Beaerroir

Wbale Rock
Condul t

SmnU
^ \^Mar£artt*

'jK ^Saa Luis Obisp

".'.>s8WlERN

Lopex

fisqaouc

v^*^

Sou lit Coast Conduit-

10 20 30

Figure CC-1. Central Coast Region
Land Use, Imports, Exports, and Water Supplies

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Central Coast Region

Urban development is beginning to encroach on the agricultural lands in the highly productive inland
valleys. Total irrigated agricultural land acreage in the Central Coastal Region decreased from 459,000
acres in 1980 to 430,000 acres in 1990 (-6 percent). Total crop acreage decreased from 531,000 acres in
1980 to 528,000 acres in 1990. Although in the Southern PSA total irrigated land decreased from
156,000 acres to about 145,000 acres, total crop acres increased from about 155,000 acres in 1980 to
about 182,000 acres in 1990. This indicated an increase in multiple cropping. Urban acreage also
increased from 182,000 acres to 240,100 acres during the same period.

Increases in defense related jobs associated with the space shuttle and missile testing programs, at
Vandenburg Air Force Base accelerated the urbanization of the Santa Maria and lower Santa Ynez valle\
during the 1970's. Growth was experienced in all areas of urban land use, but primarily in the residential
and industrial categories. Prime agricultural land was lost to the initial wave of development. However,
some local growers have compensated for the agricultural land losses by utilizing nonirrigated pasture
lands.

Much of the coastal strip has not been developed because of steep slopes, inaccessibility, and
military-use restrictions. Developed coastal areas consist primarily of tourist and resort areas (Monterey
Bay, Cambria, Morro Bay, and Pismo Beach) and middle-to-upper income residential communities
(Carmel, Lompoc, Goleta, and Santa Barbara).

Water Supply

Ground water is the most significant source of water supply for the region. Supplies from federal and
local surface projects account for roughly 17 percent of the total supply. Completion of the Coastal
Branch of the State Water Project, as well as other local projects, will lessen the reliance on ground water
supplies. Figure CC-2 shows the region's 1990 level sources of supply.

The average water supply for the Central Coastal Region for the 1990 level of development is
estimated at 1 .15 MAF. Water supplies are projected to increase approximately 134,000 AF by 2020.
The projected increases in supply come from the San Felipe project of the CVP, the Coastal Branch of the
SWP, and the Los Padres Dam enlargement/desalination project, a local water supply project. In 1990,
ground water pumping amounted to 82 percent of total supplies, 26 percent of which was in excess of the
estimated perennial yield and is considered overdraft.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Central Coast Region

Figure CC-2. Central Coast Region

Water Suppiy Sources (Average Conditions)

1990ievei

Ground Water

82%

Re-
claimed
0.7%

includes imports from the federal Central Valley Project.
^*lncludes local surface and other federal projects.

Supply with Existing Facilities

There are in excess of 60 reservoirs within the Central Coastal region, the majority of which are
owned by private concerns. The reservoirs in the region are used for individual and municipal water
needs, flood control, recreation, irrigation, and riparian habitat. The major reservoirs in the region are
listed in Table CC-2.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Central Coast Region

Table CC-2. Major Reservoirs

Reservoir Name

River

Capacity (1,000 AF)

Owner

Santa Margarita

Salinas

US Corps of Engineers

San Antonio

330

MCWRA

Nacimiento

340

MCWRA

Gibralter

Santa Ynez

City of Santa Barbara

Cachuma

Santa Ynez

190

USBR

Whale Rock

Old Creek

DWR

Lopez

Arroyo Grande
Creek

SLOCFCWCD

Twitchell

Cuyama River

240

USBR

In the Northern PSA, ground water is the primary source of water for both urban and agricultural use.
The Carmel, Pajaro, and Salinas rivers provide most of the ground water recharge for the area. The San
Antonio and Nacimiento reservoirs regulate the Salinas River. Table CC-3 shows water supplies with
existing facilities and water management programs.

Basins in the Southern PSA are smaller, but important to their local communities. These shallow
riparian basins underlie seasonal coastal streams. During years with normal or above normal rainfall,
aquifers in the basins are continuously replenished by creek flows. In years of below normal
precipitation, the creek flows are intermittent, flow is insufficient for both agricultural and municipal
uses, wells become dry, and seawater intrudes some coastal basins.

Table CC-3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs

(Decision 1485 Operating Criteria for Delta Supplies)

(thousands of acre -feet)

Supply

1990
average drought

2000
average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

Surface

Ijocal

Imports by local

Colorado River

CVP

SHi

Other federal

SWP

Ground water

692

774

686

772

724

817

755

858

Overdraft

249

Reclaimed

Dedicated natural flow

■■b

Total

1,148

1,154

1,142

1,152

1,185

1,197

1219

1238

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Central Coast Region

Water Supply Reliability and Drought Management Strategies. Many large and small communities
in the region have initiated both voluntary and mandatory water conservation practices. These
procedures will undoubtedly be initiated or revived for future critical water years. Practices range from
voluntary water conservation and limited outdoor watering to mandatory water rationing and little or no
outdoor watering. The City of Salinas relies on outdoor watering restrictions based upon time of day
water use limitations, and voluntary water conservation practices. Recently, many of the communities
who mandated water rationing during the drought have elected to implement a voluntary water
conservation program. Currently, Monterey has an outdoor watering schedule based upon time of day
restrictions, and the city's waste water ordinance is in effect. The communities of Watsonville and Santa
Cruz have voluntary water conservation programs in force. Outdoor watering is based upon the weather
in Watsonville. Water runoff is prohibited in these communities.

The Marina County Water District in Monterey County, near Fort Ord, has stepped up its
conservation effort to deal with the issue of drought and sea water intrusion. In 1991, the Marina County
Water District adopted an ordinance designed to prohibit water waste and encourage conservation efforts.
Water conservation projects initiated included a low-flow showerhead retrofit program, resulting in the
replacement of one-third of all showerheads in the district. A water audit program was also initiated to
provide owners of both businesses and residences with a personalized water conservation plan.

Water supply shortages occurred in the South Coast, San Luis Obispo, Arroyo Grande, and North
Coast areas of the region because of the 1987-92 drought in the Central Coast Region. Dwindling
siiiface water supplies forced retail water agencies in these areas to depend more on limited ground water
supplies and water conservation to make up deficits. Portions of the Southern PSA experienced
unprecedented supply shortages. In the summer of 1990, retail water agencies in the service area of Lake
Cachuma were confronted with the prospect that only 12 months of supply remained in that reservoir.
Two of these agencies were the Goleta Water District and the City of Santa Barbara. The Goleta Water
District began implementing a mandatory water rationing program in 1988 for all urban and agricultural
customers within its service area. The historical water use by all customers was evaluated and a
percentage reduction was assigned to each; financial penalties were established to prevent
noncompliance. In addition, the agency established a rebate program that involved the purchase and
installation of ultra-low flush toilets for residential customers, passed ordinances that temporarily banned
certain water related activities, and vigorously advertised water conservation. The conservation efforts
by the retail customers exceeded the savings levels imposed by the district and resulted in extra water
supplies being delivered to agricultural customers.

The City of Santa Barbara implemented similar strategies in combating supply shortages. The city
also established a drought patrol to monitor water use behavior, and penalties and citations were handed
out to violators. In addition, the city examined and approved action to: 1) import emergency SWP water
from Ventura County and 2) examine the potential of sea water desalination. An emergency pipeline was
installed to bring SWP water into the Santa Barbara-Carpenteria area from Casitas Lake in Ventura

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Central Coast Region

County by exchange, and a sea water desalination plant was constructed in 1991-92 that is capable of
producing 10,000 AF per year.

During the height of the drought, the counties of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara relaxed certain
health restrictions on the use of grey water for residential landscape irrigations. Homeowners in San Luis
Obispo County were permitted to use secondary washing machine rinse water for these irrigations and
were required to discharge the water underground.

In Santa Barbara, irrigations with grey water were permitted on nonedible plant materials only and
homeowners were required to discharge the water through drip systems or leach lines. Regulations on
the grey water use were not relaxed in other parts of the region.

Supply with Additional Facilities and Water Management Programs

Future water management options are presented in two levels to better reflect the status of
investigations required to implement them.

O Level I options are those that have undergone extensive investigation and environmental analyses

and are judged to have a high likelihood of being implemented by 2020.

O Level II options are those that could fill the remaining gap between water supply and demand.
These options require more investigation and alternative analyses.

Increased use of SWP water in the Southern PSA and CVP water in the Northern PSA will require
additional transportation facilities. As outlined in the water supply section, many agencies are looking to
these import sources for their future supplies. Local alternatives being examined include increasing
capacity in local storage reservoirs or, in some cases, authorizing new projects. Cloud seeding and
desalination are showing to be effective in parts of the region.

New Los Padres Reservoir. To improve the reliability of water supplies in the Monterey Bay area,
the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District has taken a number of actions including water
conservation, water reclamation, and investigating several water development alternatives.
Improvements to the system also are needed to provide water for municipal and industrial as well as
environmental water needs of the area. Current supply is inadequate during drought years when
shortages develop due to lack of adequate storage facilities. The Monterey Peninsula Water management
District investigated 32 water supply alternatives before selecting five alternatives. The preferred
environmentally superior alternative is the 24,000 AF New Los Padres Reservoir with or without
desalination. The New Los Padres Dam would be on the Carmel River and would completely inundate
the existing dam and reservoir. The New Los Padres Reservoir could provide an average water supply of
22,000 AF usable storage to the Monterey Peninsula's water supply system.

Many areas within the Southern PSA use local surface projects and ground water extractions as their
primary sources of water. Surface water storage facilities include Salinas Reservoir, Twitchell Reservoir,
and Lake Cachuma. Annual precipitation and spring runoff from nearby mountains determine the

BulletiD 160-93 Administrative Draft

Central Coast Region

reliability of these vital water supplies. In some instances, emergency measures, such as wheeling local
and SWP water from Ventura County to Santa Barbara in 1990, must be implemented to ensure an
adequate supply of water. In 1 992, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties approved extending the
Coastal Branch of the SWP, which will increase their future water supply reliability, assuming present
limitations of Delta diversions can be removed and additional SWP facilities and programs can be
implemented. Table CC-4 shows water supplies with additional Level I water management programs.

Table CC-4. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs

(Decision 1485 Operating Criteria for Deita Suppiies)

(tKiousands of acre -feet)

Suppiy

1990

2000

2010

2020

average

drought

average

drought

average

drought

average drought

Surface

Local

102

100

Imports by local

Colorado River

CVP

102

Other federal

SWP

Ground water

692

774

595

716

615

760

656

804

Overdraft

249

Reclaimed

Dedicated natural flow

Total

1,148

1,154

1,168

1,185

1,220

1,236

1,268

1,282

Agencies within San Luis Obispo County have requested almost 4,830 AF from the SWP, while
requests from Santa Barbara County total approximately 42,486 AF. The County of San Luis Obispo is
also negotiating to take delivery of its full entitlement of over 17,000 AF of Nacimiento Reservoir water
by the year 2000. Availability of SWP supplies in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties will
lessen the severity and frequency of water supply shortages and will help alleviate ground water
overdraft.

The City of Lompoc has voted not to take its 4,000 AF entitlement of SWP water and plans to
negotiate for federal water from Lake Cachuma. Currently, Lake Cachuma water goes to residents in the
southern portion of the Central Coast Region, in the Santa Barbara area, and in the Santa Ynez River
Water Conservation District.

Other measures to augment water supplies are under consideration by various water agencies. Cloud
seeding was effective in the Monterey County mountains. Desalination, reservoir enlargement, and
importing surface water are options to increase surface water supplies. The USBR is studying the cost
effectiveness of extending the San Felipe Project of the federal CVP, which would deliver water to the

Bulletm 16(^93 Administrative Draft Central Coast Region

Pajaro Valley. Several local government and water agencies are preparing water management plans
which will address short- medium-, and long-term schemes to reduce water use and bring in additional
water.

Reclaimed water will play an increasing role in water supplies for nonconsumptive use. The Carmel
Area Wastewater District will begin construction during 1993 of a reclaimed water project that will serve
seven golf courses and two recreational areas in the Pebble Beach area of Monterey County. Plans call
for enough reclaimed water to meet almost 100 percent of the users' irrigation demands. The project is
being developed with the Pebble Beach Community Services District.

The Monterey Regional peninsula Water Pollution Control Agency was formed in the 1970s to seek
solutions to the problem of water pollution, and is comprised of a dozen local entities. During the late
1970s the MRWPCA began purchasing the treatment plants and outfalls owned by its member agencies.
To comply with regulations of the SWRCB and the U.S. EPA, old outfalls were replaced by a large
outfall discharging two miles offshore. The installation of interceptor pipelines and pump stations to
divert waste water from Pacific Grove and the upgrade of the Monterey Treatment Plant was completed
in 1981. In 1983, a series of interceptor pipelines, pump stations, and a new ocean outfall were
completed.

In the final EIS of the Salinas Valley Seawater Intrusion Program, construction of a tertiary treatment
plant is proposed adjacent to the regional plant. The facility would intercept waste water flows after the
secondary treatment and process them to produce filtered effluent suitable for irrigation. The MRWPCA
has hired CH2MHill to prepare preliminary designs for the project, of which are expected to be
completed by the end of 1993.

Water Use

In 1990, water use in the region was divided 60 to 40 percent between the Northern and Southern
PSAs, respectively. Agricultural water use accounts for 78 percent of the region's total water use, while
urban water use is 20 percent of the total. The remainder of the region's water use is for energy
production, environmental needs, conveyance losses, and recreation. The 1990 level net water use in the
region is about 1.15 MAP. Projections indicate that average annual water demand will increase about 12
percent to 1 .3 MAP by 2020. Water supplies for the region will increase about 12 percent by that time
with planned additional water management programs. Figure CC-3 shows net water demand for the
1990 level of development.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Central Coast Region

Rgure CC-3. Central Coast Region

Net Water Demand (Average Conditions)

1990 level

Agricultural
78%

Instream

'.3%

Other
1.8%

The 1990 level drought demand is 1.21 MAF and it will increase to 1.38 MAF, or 14 percent, by
2020. Water supplies during drought are projected to increase by 12 percent. Additional ground water
overdraft and shortages are anticipated to occur as demand increases.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Central Coast Region

Urban Water Use

Population in the Central Coast is expected to grow by about 56 percent by 2020 to over 2 million
people. Figure CC-4 shows applied urban water demand, by sector, for the 1990 level of development.
Table CC-5 shows urban water demand projections to 2020.

Figure CC-4. Central Coast Region
Applied Urban Water Demand (Average Conditions)

1990 level

Governmental

bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Central Coast Region

Table CC-5. Urban Water Demand
(thousands of acre -feet)

1990 2000 2010 2020

Planning Subareas

average drought average drought average drought average drought

Northern

Applied water demand 151 152 176 178 207 210 242 245

Net water demand 131 132 152 154 179 182 209 212

Depletion 118 118 137 138 160 162 187 189

Southern

Applied water demand

122

125

139

143

158

163

178

184

Net water demand

101

111

114

125

129

140

145

Depletion

101

111

114

125

129

140

145

Total

Applied water demand

273

277

315

321

365

373

420

429

Net water demand

229

233

263

268

304

311

349

357

1 Depletion

216

219

248

252

285

291

327

334

In the Southern PSA, average 1990 level per capita use for the San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara
ireas was 190 and 187 gallons, respectively. The per capita water use for the Southern PSA is 187
^gallons, while that in the Upper Salinas Valley area, in the region's warmer interior, is 223 gallons. Per
I papita use could increase by about 5 percent in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara by 2020.

In the Northern PSA, the average per capita use for the region is about 190 gallons per day. This
value varied from a high of about 250 gallons per day in the warmer inland communities of Hollister and
King City to a low of about 150 gallons per day in the chronically water short Monterey-Carmel area.

With a few exceptions, most cities and metropolitan centers as well as predominant urban water
demands in the region are geographically near U.S. Highway 101. Construction is primarily in the form

I [of single and multiple-family style housing units and commercial services. Even though demand has
•generally increased in the region, per capita water use values have not changed significantly. This is
because: (1) higher water using industries have not established themselves in areas with new
I |construction and, (2) the number of multiple-family dwelling units built counterbalance the
single-family units.

Table CC-5 projects the applied and net urban water use for the next 30 years. While the population
is expected to increase 56 percent, the comparatively low per capita use rate in the areas where growth is
expected, coupled with water saving technologies employed in new developments, will not produce a
proportional increase in water use for the region.

Agricultural Water Use

Projections indicate that agricultural water use will increase, from the 1990 level, 4 percent by 2020.
Irrigated agriculture in the northern Central Coast Region has remained relatively stable during the past

Bulletm 160-93 Administrative Draft

Central Coast Region

350

300

250

200

150

100

Acres (X 1 ,000)

Acre-Feet (X 1 ,000)

1,050

900

750

600

450

300

150

Grain Other Truck Grapes

Afalfa Other DecidJous

■Acreage METPW ■Applied Water

Figure CC-5. 1990 Central Coast Region
Acreage, ETAW, and Applied Water for Major Crops

iulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Central Coast Region

lecade. Total agricultural land acreage has not changed significantly and total crop acreage has increased
lue to an increase in multiple cropping of vegetables in the Salinas Valley. There has been a slight shift
way from permanent crops such as grapes and apples to annual crops. Acreage planted in strawberries,
very high-market value annual crop, has increased. Lettuce and other annual crops have also increased
jreage since 1980. In the southern portion of the region, irrigated agricultural activity is projected to
ntensify slightly by 2020. Although total irrigated land will gradually decrease, planted and harvested
rop acres will increase because of the: (1) intensification of multiple-cropping and (2) conversion of
mdeveloped and formerly nonirrigated lands to irrigable lands. Vineyards (primarily wine grapes) show
he most significant acreage expansion. Truck crop and citrus and subtropical fruit orchard acres will
cmain relatively stable, while other crop categories will experience decreases. Table CC-6 shows
mgated acreage projections to 2020. Figure CC-5 shows the 1990 level irrigated acreage, ETAW, and
ipplied water for major crops in the region.

Despite the recent drought and continued long-term overdraft in some areas, agricultural water
upplies have remained dependable. Virtually all applied irrigation water was pumped ground water,
intil water from the CVP San Felipe Project was introduced into San Benito County in June 1987.
jround water still constitutes a large majority (82 percent) of the water supply; and, although not without
ts problems, such as sea water intrusion, the ready availability of ground water is important to the
tability of this area. Irrigated crop acreage is expected to remain roughly stable with only a slight
ncrease. Table CC-7 shows the 1990 level evapotranspiration of applied water by crop. Table CC-8
hows agricultural water demand projections to 2020.

I Table CC-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage (thousands of acres)

Planning Subareas

1990

2000

2010

2020

Northern
Southern

346
182

356
186

371
187

379

187 %

Total

528

542

558

566

Table CC-7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop

Irrigated Crop

Total Acres
(thousands)

Total ETAW

(thousands of

acre-feet)

Irrigated Crop

Total Acres
(thousands)

Total ETAW

(thousands of

acre-feet)

Grain

Pasture

Sugar beets

Tomatoes

Corn

Other truck

321

415

Other field

Other deciduous

Alfalfa

Vineyard

Citrus/olives

Total

528

704

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Central Coast Region

Table CC-8. Agricultural Water Demand

(thousands of acre -feet)

Planning Subareas

1990 2000 2010 2020

average drought average drought average drought average drought

Northern

";1.

Applied water demand

707

711

737

742

767

772

792

^ : ^'

Net water demand

553

594

571

615

589

634

602

Depletion

543

583

561

604

579

623

592

Southern

§ ■

Applied water demand

434

467

431

464

416

447

408

4f:

Net water demand

342

367

341

367

333

357

328

Depletion

342

367

341

367

333

357

328

Total

Applied water demand

1,141

1,178

1,168

1,206

1,183

1,219

1,200

1,2«

Net water demand

895

961

912

982

922

991

930

1,003

Depletion

885

950

902

971

912

980

920

992

About one-third of the winegrape acreage in the Salinas Valley has been converted to low volume
irrigation systems in recent years. There has also been a slight trend to buried drip irrigation in vegetable
crops in the same area. This trend is even more pronounced in San Benito' County. About one-fourth of
these plantings are currently using this method. In this same area the small acreage of new deciduous
tree plantings are on low volume systems. Water conservation measures implemented by growers for
their irrigation operations are often related to operating cost reduction. Drip, low-flow emitters, and
sprinklers are used for much of the grape, citrus, and subtropical fruit orchards (vineyards are also
retrofitted with overhead sprinklers for frost protection). Growers also use hand-moved sprinklers to
meet pre-irrigation and seed germination requirements for most truck, com, tomato, and some field
crops; this is usually followed by furrow irrigation. Seedling transplants for some truck crops eliminates
the need for seed germination irrigation.

Environmental Water Use

The recent drought has created problems for the fish and wildlife in the region. Along the rivers,
riparian habitat has diminished. Likewise, the lack of precipitation has weakened or killed trees and
native vegetation in the foothill and mountain areas, creating potential fire problems, insect infestation,
and disease.

The Carmel River, San Luis Obispo Creek, and Santa Ynez River have historically been major
spawning habitats for steelhead. However, steelhead migration has been reduced by dam construction,
low flows due to surface water diversions, poor water quality, and habitat degradation. A number of
projects have been proposed for these systems, ranging from dam enlargement on the Carmel and Santa

k! ulletiii 160-93 Administrative Draft

Central Coast Region

nez rivers to a water reclamation project on San Luis Obispo Creek. Environmental net water demand
ccounts for 3,000 AF. Table CC-9 shows the total environmental instream water needs for the region.

In the Southern portion of the Central Coast Region, there are no federal or State mandated wetlands.
b the north, Elkhom Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve is a 1 ,340 acre coastal area which
rotects the habitat or many species of birds, fish, and invertebrates. The reserve is owned by the
tepartment of Fish and Game. The slough is one of the few relatively undisturbed coastal wetlands
jmaining in California. It also serves as a feeding and resting ground for migratory fowl. The reserve
sceives no fresh water.

Table CC-9. Environmental Instream Water Needs
(thousands of acre -feet)

Stream

1990 2000 2010 2020

average drought average drought average drought average drought

Carmei Rh^er

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

Total

<Vpplied Water
Net Water
Depletion

4 2

3 0

2 4

0 3

BuUetin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Central Coast Region

' ■> Coaduit

Lzg znd
A Water Recreation Area
• Hydroelectric Power Plarrt
■• Federal Wild and Scenic River

WATER RECREATION AREAS

1. Loch Lomond and
Henry Cowell Redwoods

2. Pfeiffer Big Sur S.P.

3. Lalce San Antonio RA

4. Lake Nacimianto RA

5. Lopez Lake RA

South Corns t Coaduit-

10 20 30

Figure CC-6. Central Coast Region
Water Recreation Areas

luUetin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Central Coast Region

j)ther Water Use

Other water uses in the region include water for recreation and energy production. Water for
creation and energy is equivalent to roughly one percent of total demand for the region and is expected
) remain stable in coming years. Recreational opportunities in the region benefit from the many lakes,
ivers, parks and forests. Activities include hiking, swimming, fishing, boating, camping, and water
kiing. Recreational water use accounted for over 1,000 AF in 1990. There does not appear to be any
jdditional future recreation water use prospects for the region. Surface water recreation is available at
tan Antonio, Nacimiento, Lopez Lake, Twitchell, and Lake Cachuma reservoirs, among others. Most
jffer fishing, boating, camping, and water skiing. Figure CC-6 shows water recreation areas in the
bgion.

Cooling water is integral to the operations of electrical power plants (gas, oil, and nuclear). Many of
ne region's power plants are located along the coastline and use sea water for cooling. Injection of
Ireshwater into the underground oil fields accounted for almost 14,000 AF of water use in 1990 for the
anta Ynez area. Table CC-10 shows the total water demands for this region.

* TableCC~10. Total Water Demands
(thousands of acre -feet)

Category of Use

1990 2000

average drought average drought

2010 2020

average drought average drought

MrtMin

Applied water
Net water
Depletion

273
229
216

277
233
219

315
263
248

321
268
252

365
304
285

373
311
291

420
349
327

429
357
334

Agricultural

JAppiied water
Net water
Depletion

1,141 1,178 1,168 1.206 1,183 1,219 1,200 1,242

895 961 912 982 922 991 930 1003

885 950 902 971 912 980 920 992

Environmental

Applied water
Net water
Depletion

Other (1)

Applied water

181

Net water

Depletion

Total

Applied water 1436 1475 1505
Net water 1148 1213 1199
Depletion 1125 1188 1174

1547
1269
1242

1570
1250
1221

1612
1321
1290

1642
1303
1271

1691
1379
1345

(1) includes conveyance losses, recreational uses, and energy production.

Bulletm 160-93 Administrative Draft Central Coast Region

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management

The Central Coast Region, with its inland valleys and coastal ground water basins, presents
distinctive water management issues. With limited surface supply and fewer surface water storage
facilities and a growing demand for water, an increased dependence on ground water pumping is
necessary to meet the region's needs. As ground water extractions exceed ground water replenishment,
many of the region's aquifers are experiencing overdraft conditions. This condition has allowed sea
water to advance into some coastal freshwater aquifers. Sea water intrusion is a continuing threat to
ground water reservoirs, and limits on ground water pumping and use are currently being discussed.
Unless additional local surface water storage facilities are built and water is imported by the CVP and
SWP, the region will not be able to support existing water uses let alone additional water users. Recently,
the drought has required many communities in the region to implement stringent water conservation
programs.

Legislation and Litigation

Nacimiento Releases. Over the past several years, two lawsuits were filed seeking to control the
water releases from Nacimiento Reservoir. The first one was filed by a group of homeowners and
interested individuals in the Nacimiento area. Initially, the group obtained a temporary restraining order
preventing water releases from the reservoir. However, the order was later released and the plaintiff's
request for an injunction was denied. In addition, the court found that the Monterey County FCWCD
(now Monterey County Water Agency) was not required to comply with CEQA in setting its yearly
release schedule. The decision is now on appeal. The second lawsuit was settled shortly after it was
filed by a recreation concessionaire at Nacimiento to maintain the recreation at the reservoir during the
drought. The Monterey County FCWCD agreed to retain water in the reservoir for recreation uses for
the year, but the action did not set a precedent for future years.

Regional Issues

SWP Water. Recently, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties voted to extend the SWP
Coastal Branch to ensure their domestic and agricultural water supplies. The most pressing issue for the
region at this time is determining how the SWP water will be used. The San Luis Obispo County Board
of Supervisors approved sending draft water supply contracts to cities and water districts to determine
their interest in water supplies and amounts from the SWP. A group of farmers and property owners near
the Nipomo Community Services District decided to form an irrigation district to receive SWP water.
The City of Paso Robles is declining any SWP water and is working with other communities to get water
from Lake Nacimiento.

Cloud Seeding. In early 1990, the Monterey County FCWCD initiated a cloud seeding program
which was designed to increase rainfall and runoff for the Arroyo Seco River, as well as the San Antonio
and Nacimiento reservoirs. As part of the rainfall enhancement program, aircraft seeding operations
dispensed silver iodide. An experimental radio controlled, ground based propane dispenser was also
installed in the Arroyo Seco area. Overall, the Monterey County Water Agency concluded that rainfall
increased from 12-16 percent for water year 1990-91.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Central Coast Region

Santa Barbara County proposed a cloud seeding design for the 1992-1993 winter program similar to
the previous year. The proposed project design is ideally suited to conduct a state-of-the-art operation.
The key components are a dedicated weather radar, a seeding aircraft, remotely controlled ground
generators, computerized GUIDE model, and an experienced weather modification meteorologist familiar
with the area.

For the past two years, in San Luis Obispo County, the City of San Luis Obispo, and Zone 3 of the
San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District conducted a cloud seeding
program.

Local Issues

Desalination. The City of Santa Barbara's sea water desalination plant began operation in early
March 1992. The plant operated until early June, when it was shut down; the plant will remain shut
down until it is needed. Operations of the plant in 1992 helped to alleviate further reductions in
agricultural, municipal and residential water use. The cost to produce the water was relatively high for an
area that relies on local surface supplies and ground water.

Pajaro Valley Shortages. The Pajaro Valley is experiencing adverse effects from the recent drought,
most notably ground water overdraft and accelerated sea water intrusion. Coastal wells and the ground
water are becoming unusable in the Sunset Beach, Pajaro Dunes, and Springfield areas. Local
homeowners installed expensive water purification equipment, purchased bottled water, or trucked water
in to solve the problem. The homeowners currently are negotiating with City of Watsonville officials to
obtain a potable water supply. Watsonville officials proposed a pipeline from the city limits to the Sunset
Beach area at a cost of $10,000 per home. The pipeline construction project will take approximately
three years to complete, but will provide a potable water supply for the residents.

' To better manage its water resources, the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, in cooperation
with the USBR, is preparing a Basin Management Plan for the Pajaro Valley. To meet the future
demands of the area, a combination of alternatives must be employed.

I , Pajaro Valley Water Augmentation. A $92 million Basin Management Plan for the Pajaro Valley
Water Management Agency was approved in May 1993 by agency directors. Key elements of the
preferred alternative includes a dam on College Lake to create a 10,000 AF reservoir and a connection to
the San Felipe branch of the CVP and a coastal pipeline to meet agricultural users between Highway 1
and the ocean. The proposed San Felipe extension involves transporting water from the existing Santa
Clara Conduit, a key feature of the San Felipe Division, which delivers water from San Luis Reservoir

into Santa Clara County, with a fork into San Benito County. The pipeline, with a capacity up to 67 cfs,

could provide a maximum annual volume of 19,900 AF annually for municipal and industrial, as well as
agricultural, water use in the Watsonville area. The supply for the San Felipe extension will probably
come from reallocation of CVP supply. To date, no contract negotiations have occurred to bring water
into the Watsonville area.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Central Coast Region

Monterey Peninsula Problems. Improvements to the Monterey Peninsula's water supply system are
needed for several reasons. Water supply in average rainfall years far exceeds demand; however, the area
is vulnerable to climate variability and the impact of multi-year droughts. When dry years occur,
shortages rapidly develop due to inadequate storage on the Carmel River. The drought, increases in
ground water pumping, limited surface water storage facilities, and urban growth have all contributed to
the need for an increased firm water supply. Demands for water will continue to increase as new homes
and businesses are built. Tourism, a major industry for the region, has also increased since construction
of the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Without an increase in the firm water supply for the region, the risk of
shortages in dry years will increase. The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District has taken a
number of actions to address the need for a reliable water supply. The district has already implemented
several programs, including an urban water conservation program.

Water Balance

Water balances were computed for each Planning Subarea in the Central Coast Region by comparing
existing and future water demand projections with the projected availability of supply. The region total
was computed as the sum of the individual subareas. This method does not reflect the severity of
drought year shortages in some local areas which can be hidden when planning subareas are combined
within the region. Thus, there could be substantial shortages in some areas during drought periods.
Local and regional shortages could also be less severe than the shortage shown, depending on how
supplies are allocated within the region, a particular water agency's ability to participate in water transfers
or demand management programs (including land fallowing or emergency allocation programs), and the
overall level of reliability deemed necessary to the sustained economic health of the region. Volume I,
Chapter 1 1 presents a broader discussion of demand management options.

Table CC-1 1 presents water demands for the 1990 level and for future water demands to 2020 and
balances them with: (1) supplies from existing facilities and water management programs, and (2) future
demand management and water supply management options.

Regional net water demands for the 1990 level of development totaled 1.15 and 1.21 MAF for
average and drought years respectively. Those demands are projected to increase to 1 .30 and 1 .38 MAF,
respectively, by the year 2020, after accounting for a 30,000 AF reduction in urban water demand
resulting from additional long-term water conservation measures.

Urban net water demand is projected to increase by about 52 percent by 2020, due to projected
increases in population. Agricultural net water demand is projected to increase by about 5 percent,
primarily due to an expected increase in double cropping in the region. Environmental net water
demands, under existing rules and regulations, will remain essentially level; however, there are several
Central Coast Region streams that have proposed increases in instream flow for fisheries.

Average annual supplies were generally adequate to meet average net water demands in 1990 for this 3
region. However, during drought, present supplies are insufficient to meet present demands and, without
additional water management programs, annual average and drought year shortages by 2020 are expected
to increase to about 84,000 and 140,000 AF, respectively, excluding ground water overdraft.

iulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Central Coast Region

With planned Level I options, average and drought year shortages could be reduced to 35,000 and
)7,000 AF respectively. This remaining shortage requires both additional short-term drought
nanagement, water transfers and demand management programs, and future long-term Level II options
lepending on the overall level of water service reliability deemed necessary, by local agencies, to sustain
he economic health of the region.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Central Coast Region

Table CC-11. Water Balance
(thousands of acre -feet)

1990
Demand/Supply

average drought

2020
average drought

Net Demand

Urban -with 1990 level of conservation

229

233

379

387

-reductions due to long-term conservation measures (Level 1)

—

-30

Agricultural

895

961

930

1,003-

-reductions due to long-term conservation measures (Level 1)

Environmental

Other (1)

Total Net Demand

1,148

1,213

1,303

1,379

Water Supplies w/Existing Facilities Under D-1485 for Delta Supplies

Developed Supplies

Surface Water

204

131

212

131

Ground Water

692

774

755

858

Ground Water Overdraft

249

249^

Subtotal

1,145

1,154

1,216

1,238

Dedicated Natural Flow

Total Water Supplies

1,148

1,154

1,219

1,238

Demand/Supply Balance

-59

-84

-141

Future Water Management Options Level 1 (2)

Long-term Supply Augmentation

■•

Reclaimed

Local

Central Valley Project

State Water Project

Subtotal - Water Management Options Level 1

148

Ground Water/Surface Water Use Reduction Resulting from Level 1 Programs

-99

-54

Remaining Demand/Supply Balance Requiring Short Term Drought
Management and/or Future Level II Options

-35

-97

(1) Includes conveyance losses, recreation uses, and energy production.

(2) Protection of fish and wildlife and long-term Delta solutions will determine the feasibility of several water supply augmentation
proposals and their water supply benefits.

* * *

100

raft

of The California Water Plan Update

Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

SOUTH COAST REGION

Sailing in Santa Monica harbor

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft South Coast Region

SOUTH COAST REGION

The most urbanized region in California is the South Coast. Although it covers only about 7 percent of the
State's total land area, it is home to roughly 54 percent of the State's population. Extending eastward from the
Pacific Ocean, the region is bounded by the Santa Barbara- Ventura county line and the San Gabriel and San Ber-
nardino mountains on the north, the international border with Mexico on the south, and a combination of the San
Jacinto Mountains and low-elevation mountain ranges in central San Diego County on the east. Topographically,
the region is comprised of a series of broad coastal plains, gently sloping interior valleys, and mountain ranges of
moderate elevations. The largest mountain ranges in the region are the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, San Jacinto,
Santa Rosa, and Laguna mountains. Peak elevations are between 5,000 and 8,000 feet above sea level; however,
some peaks are nearly 11,000 feet high. (See Appendix C for maps of the planning subareas and land ownership
in the region.

The climate of the region is Mediterranean-like, with warm and dry summers followed by mild and wet win-
ters. In the warmer interior, maximum temperatures during the summer can ascend to over 90°F. The moderating
influence of the ocean results in lower temperatures along the coast. During winter, temperatures rarely descend
to freezing except in the mountains and some interior valley locations.

About 80 percent of the precipitation occurs during the four month period, December through March. Aver-
age annual rainfall quantities can range from 10 to 15 inches on the coastal plains and 20 to 45 inches in the
mountains. Precipitation in the higher mountains commonly occurs as snow. In most years, snowfall quantities
are sufficient to support a wide range of winter sport activities in the San Bernardino and San Gabriel mountains.

There are several prominent rivers in the region, including the Santa Clara, Los Angeles, San Gabriel, Santa
Ana, and San Luis Rey. Some segments of these rivers have been intensely modified for flood control. Natural
runoff of the streams and rivers averages around 1 .2 MAF annually.

Population

Growth has been fairly steady since the first boom of the 1880s. The 1990 population was up 26 percent
from 12.97 million in 1980. Much of the population increase is due to immigration, both from within the United
States and from around the worid. Most of the region's coastal plains and valleys are densely populated. The
largest cities are Los Angeles, San Diego, Long Beach, Santa Ana, and Anaheim. Each of these is among in
California's top ten most populated cities; Los Angeles and San Diego also are the second and sixth largest cities
in the United States, respectively. The region is also home to six of the State's ten fastest growing cities in the
50,000 to 200,000 population range. These are Corona, Fontana, Tustin, Laguna Niguel, National City, and Ran-
ch© Cucamonga. Areas undergoing increased urbanization include the coastal plains of Orange and Ventura
counties, the Santa Clarita Valley in northwestern Los Angeles County, the Pomona/San Bernardino/Moreno val-

Region Characteristics
Average Annual Precipitation: 18.5 inches Average Annual Runoff: 1,227,000 AF

Land Area: 10,955 square miles 1990 Population: 16,292,800

101

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft

South Coast Region

leys, and the valleys north and east of the City of San Diego. The region's population is expected to increase by
55 percent by 2020. Table SC-1 shows regional population projections to 2020.

Table SC-1. Population Projections

(thousands)

Planning Subareas

1990

2000

2010

2020

Santa Clara

834

1,063

1,301

1,556

Metropolitan Los Angeles

8,501

9,445

10,376 ,,,

11,505

Santa Ana

4,023

5,155

6,230 It

7,384

San Diego

2,935

3,610

4,191 Si

4,870

Total

16,293

19,273

22,098

25,315

Land Use

Despite being so urbanized, about one-third of the region's land is publicly owned. Approximately 2.3 mil-
lion acres is public land, of which 75 percent is national forest. Urban land use accounts for about 1 .7 million
acres, and irrigated cropland accounts for 288,000 acres. Figure SC-1 shows land use in the South Coast Region.

The major industries in the region are national defense, aerospace, recreation and tourism, and agriculture.
Other significant industries include electronics, motion picture and television production, oil refining, housing
construction, government, food and beverage distribution, and manufacturing (clothing and furniture). While
defense, aerospace, and oil refining are currently in a decline, the South Coast Region has a strong and growing
commercial services sector. International trading, financing, and basic services are major economic contributors
to the region.

One of the most important land use issues in the South Coast Region is whether to prohibit housing and other
urban land uses from spreading into the remaining agricultural land and open space. Some of the regions agricul-
tural land is currently protected through the State's Williamson Act. Some local governments are attempting to
establish agricultural preserves in their areas. The desire to retain open space in the Los Angeles area also has led
to parkland status for parts of the Santa Monica Mountains. Preservation of coastal wetlands and lagoons in the
region is another prime concern. A 1993 agreement between federal. State, and local agencies to protect endan-
gered gnat catcher habitat is a good example of protection of open space to benefit wildlife.

The largest amount of irrigated agriculture is in Ventura County, where 116,600 acres of cropland is culti-
vated. Most of it is fresh market vegetables, strawberries, and citrus and avocados. San Diego PSA has more
than 110,600 acres in irrigated agriculture, most of which is planted in citrus and avocados. Fresh market vegeta-
bles and other crops are grown in some of the county's coastal and inland valleys. The region is also ideally
suited for growing other high value crops, such as nursery products and cut flowers. Other significant irrigated
agriculture includes forage and field crops related to the dairy industry and vineyards.

102

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

South Coast Region

PRESENT WATBI SUPHJES

(1,000 AF/Yr.)

California Aqueduct
1,232

Los Auffeles

Aqueduct

380

LOCAL SURFACE WATER DEVELOPMENT 254

IMPORTS BY LOCAL WATER AGENQES 380

GROUND WATER PERENNIAL YIELD 1,128

OTHER FEDERAL WATER DEVELOPMENT 22

STATE WATER PROJECT 14tt

WASTE WATER RECLAMATION It

COLORADO RIVER MM

USABLE WATER SUPPLY AjKI

GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT M
TOTAL

Colorado River
Aqueduc t

Leg end
Urban Land
Irrigated Land
Region Water Transfer

{^fiO»^ of Acr»-F«« pm Ymt)

M B ^

10 20 30

Figure SC-1. South Coast Region
Land Use, Imports, Exports, and Water Supplies

103

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft

South Coast Region

Water Supply

About 67 percent of the region's 1990 level water supply comes from surface water imports. The remaining
portion is supplied by ground water (25 percent) and to a lesser extent by local surface water (6 percent) and re-
claimed water (2 percent). Since the turn of the century, water development has been carried out on a massive
scale throughout the South Coast Region. Steady expansion of the population and economy lead to sufficient de-
mand and financial backing to build large water supply projects for importing water into the region. Figure SC-2
shows the region's sources of supply.

Figure SC-2. South Coast Region

Water Suppiy Sources (Average Conditions)

1990 level

Local Surface
Water**

•Includes imports by local agencies, the Colorado River, and the State Water Project.
**lncludes other federal projects.

104

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft South Coast Region

Supply with Existing Facilities and Water Supply Management Programs

Local and imported surface water account for about 73 percent of the region's 1990 level water supply. In
1913, the Los Angeles Aqueduct began importing water from the Mono-Owens area to the South Coast region.
With the addition of a second conduit in 1970, the Mono-Owens supply is about 10 percent of the region's 1990
level water supply. Court-ordered restrictions on diversions from the Mono Basin and Owens Valley have re-
duced the amount of water the City of Los Angeles can receive and have brought into question the reliability of
Mono-Owens supply for Los Angeles (see South Lahontan Region). In 1941, the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California completed the Colorado River Aqueduct, providing about 29 percent of the region's supply
with Colorado River water. The State Water Project began delivering water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta to the South Coast region in 1972, furnishing about 28 percent of the supply. The remainder of the surface
supply (about 6 percent of the 1990 level total) is provided by local projects. Table SC-2 list the major reservoirs
in the region.

105

Bulletin 16(^93. Administrative Draft

South Coast Region

Table SC~2. Major Reservoirs

Reservoir Name

River

Capacity (1 ,000 AF)

Owner

Casitas

Coyote Creek

254

USBR

Lake Piru

Piru Creek

88.3

United WCD

Pyramid

Piru Creek

171.2

DWR

Matilija

Matilija Creek

1.5

Ventura CO FCD

Castaic

Castaic Creek

323.7

DWR

Cogswell

San Gabriel

8.9

Los Angeles CO FCD/Dept. of
Public Works

San Gabriel

42.4

Los Angeles CO FCD/Dept. of
Public Works

Bear Valley

Bear Creek

73.4

Big Bear MWD

Ferris

Bernasconi Pass

131.5

DWR

Lake Mathews

Trib Cajaico Creek

179.3

MWDSC

Lake Hemet

San Jacinto River

13.5

1 ake Hemet MWD

Railroad Canyon

San Jacinto River

11.9

Temescal Water Co.

Santiago Creek

25.0

Serrano ID/Irvine Ranch WD

Skinner

Tucalota Creek

44.2

MWDSC

Vail Lake

Temecula Creek

50.0

Rancho California WD

Henshaw

San Luis Rey
River

50.0

Vista ID

Lake Hodges

San Dieguito
River

37.7

City of San Diego

Sutherland

Santa Ysabel
Creek

29.0

City of San Diego

San Vicente

San Vicente
Creek

90.2

City of San Diego

El Capitan

San Diego River

112.8

City of San Diego

Cuyamaca

Boulder Creek

11.8

Helix WD

Lake Jennings

Quail Canyon
Creek

9.8

Helix WD

Murray

Chaparral
Canyon

6.1

City of San Diego

Lake Loveland

Sweetwater River

25.4

Sweetwater Authority

Sweetwater

Sweetwater River

28.1

Sweetwater Authority

Lower Otay

Otay River

49.5

City of San Diego

Morena

Cottonwood
Creek

50.2

City of San Diego

Ban-ett

Cottonwood
Creek

37.9

City of San Diego

Miramar

Big Surr Creek

7.3

City of San Diego

J^::

106

; Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft South Coast Region

There are numerous ground water basins along the coast and inland valleys of the region. Many of these ba-
sins are adjudicated or managed by a public agency (see Vol. I, chapters 2 and 4). Recharge occurs from natural
infiltration along river valleys, but in many cases, basin recharge facilities are in place using local, imported, or
reclaimed supplies. Some basins are as large as several hundred square miles in area and have a capacity exceed-
ing 10 MAF. The current estimated annual use approaches 1.1 MAF.

Basins close to the coast often have troubles with sea water intrusion. Historically, additional recharge or a
series of injection wells forming a barrier have been used to mitigate this problem. Other ground water quality
concerns are high TDS, nitrates, PCE, sulfates, pesticide contamination (DBCP), selenium, and leaking fuel stor-
age tanks.

Approximately 76,000 AF of fresh water was displaced by reclaimed water in 1990, about 2 percent of the
region's supply. Reclaimed water is used for irrigating freeway and other urban landscaping, golf courses, and
some agricultural land; it is also used in ground water recharge and sea water barrier projects. The Central and
West Basin Water Replenishment District annually recharges the Central and West Coast ground water basins with

I 50,000 AF of reclaimed water. The Orange County Water District injects about 5,000 AF of reclaimed water into
the ground at the Alamitos Barrier Project. This process prevents further sea water intrusion into the district's

. ground water supply and frees imported supplies for other uses.

Drought Water Management Strategies. To minimize the impacts caused by the shortfalls in imported sur-
! face water supplies, most agencies in the region established and implemented rationing programs during the
1987-92 drought to bring demand in line with supplies. Customer rationing allotments were determined by the
customer's use prior to the drought. Rationing levels, or reductions, ranged from 15 to 50 percent.

Programs implemented by the Cities of San Diego and Los Angeles are typical of the efforts agencies
throughout the region made to combat recent drought-induced shortages. The City of San Diego implemented a
20 percent rationing program for its customers during 1991; a 10 percent program had been in place since 1988.
Other programs and activities by the City of San Diego included establishing customer rebates for the installation
of ultra-low flush toilets, distributing free showerheads, providing turf and home audit service, expanding the ex-
isting public information program (with a 24-hour hotline), establishing a field crew to handle waste-of-water
complaints, constructing a xeriscape demonstration garden, and retrofitting city water facilities. Landscape de-
signs for new private and public construction are regulated for water conservation by a 1986 City ordinance. San
Diego also has ordinances that permit enacting water conservation measures and programs during critical water
supply situations and that require all residential dwellings to be retrofitted prior to resale.

The City of Los Angeles has had a rationing program in place since 1986. The program was mandatory for
all its customers until eariy in 1992, when it was revised to voluntary status. The program originally called for a
10 percent reduction; however, it was amended to 15 percent during 1992 when the State's water supply situation
worsened. Programs established by the City of Los Angeles are similar as those described for San Diego. Los
Angeles also established a "drought buster" field program with staff patrolling neighborhoods looking for water
wasters. Table SC-3 shows the region's water supplies with existing facilities and programs.

107

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft

South Coast Region

Table SC-3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities

and Programs

(Decision 1485 Operating Criteria for Delta Supplies)

(thousands of acre-feet)

Supply

1990

2000

2010

2020

average

drought

average

drought

average

drought

average

drought

Surface

Local

254

118

254

118

254

118

254

118

Imports by local^

425

208

425

208

425

208

425

208

Colorado River^

1,265

1,230

626

CVP

Other federal

swpi

1,232

1,032

1,746

1,072

1,901

1,140

1,903

1,154

Ground water 3

1,083

1,296

1,379

1,524

1,515

1,611

Overdraft

Reclaimed

Dedicated natural flow

Total

4,379

4,003

4,533

3,650

4,819

3,800

4,917

3,814

^ 1990 supplies are normalized and do not reflect additional supplies needed to offset reduction of supplies from the Mono and
Owens basins. SWP supply was used in 1990 to replace reduction of supplies from Mono and Owens basins, putting additional
demand on Delta supplies.

2 Colorado River supplies for the year 2000 and beyond reflect elimination of surplus Colorado River supplies and the transfer of
76,000 AF of water from the Colorado River Region as a result of currently agreed upon conservation programs

3 Includes ground water reclamation. MWDSC ground water recovery program would provide additional supplies of 85,000 AF
by year 2000 and 95,000 AF by 201 0 and beyond.

Water Management Options with Existing Facilities. MWDSC is pursuing additional supplies to replace
those it has lost under recent court's rulings. Other factors contribute to a growing demand for water from
MWDSC. Water use in its service area has increased from 2.8 MAF in 1970 to 4.0 MAF in 1990. The increase
reflects a large population growth. Moreover, the City of Los Angeles is increasing its reliance upon MWDSC's
water to make up for its loss of imported water from the Owens River-Mono Basin. Following are highlights of
major MWDSC water supply and demand management programs, most of which are in place, that would provide
options for additional supplies, especially in critical years.

Imperial Irrigation District Water Conservation Agreement (Phase I) began in January 1990. In return for fi-
nancing certain conservation projects, MWDSC is entitled to the amount of water saved by IID. Conservation
projects include lining existing canals, constructing local reservoirs and spill interceptor canals, installing nonleak
gates and automation equipment, and instituting distribution system and on-farm management activities.

MWDSC has an advance delivery agreement with Desert Water Agency and Coachella Valley Water District
for ground water banking. Under this agreement MWDSC makes advance deliveries of Colorado River water
(conditions permitting) to the two agencies for recharging the Coachella Valley ground water basin. MWDSC, in
turn, may use the SWP entitlements of the two agencies (61,200 AF per year). Water stored in the basin during
the recent drought was used by the two agencies, enabling MWDSC to make full use of the DWA and CVWD
entitlements.

108

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft South Coast Region

Under the Chino Basin and San Gabriel Basin Cyclic Storage Agreement, imported water is delivered to and
i stored in the Chino and San Gabriel basins. When water supplies are abundant, advance deliveries of MWDSC's
I ground water replenishment supplies are provided for later use. When imported supplies are limited, MWDSC

has the option of meeting the replenishment demands through surface deliveries or a transfer of the stored water.

NfWDSC's maximum storage entitlements are 100,000 AF in the Chino Basin and 142,000 AF in the San Gabriel

Basin. As of July 1990, 28,000 AF was stored in the Chino Basin and 58,000 AF in the San Gabriel Basin.

MWDSC is also planning for additional conjunctive use programs.

MWDSC promotes water reclamation through its Local Projects Program of 1981 . Under this program, the
district provides financial assistance for local water reclamation projects which develop new water supplies. The
programs' primary focus is on increasing the use of reclaimed water in landscape irrigation and industry, thereby
reducing the demand for potable water supplies. To date, MWDSC is participating in 32 projects, with a total ul-
timate yield of 147,000 AF per year. Currently, four additional projects submitted to MWDSC for inclusion in the
program are in various stages of review. These proposed projects have a combined estimated ultimate yield of
2 1,700 AF per year.

MWDSC promotes conjunctive use at the local agency level under its Seasonal Storage Service Program of
1989 by discounting rates for imported water placed into ground water or reservoir storage. The discounted rate
and program rules encourage construction of additional ground water production facilities allowing local agencies
to be more self sufficient during shortages. Additionally, the program is designed to reduce the member agencies'
dependence upon district deliveries during the peak summer demand months. As of December 31, 1992, approxi-
mately 1.24 MAF of water has been delivered as Seasonal Storage Service.

Other water management options include water banking, short-term fallowing of land, desalination, reclaim-
ing waste water and brackish ground water, water conservation, and additional offstream storage facilities for im-
ported supplies.

j Supply with Additional Facilities and Water Management Programs

Future water management options are presented in two levels to better reflect the status of investigations re-
I quired to implement them.

O Level I options are those that have undergone extensive investigation and environmental analyses and are
judged to have a high likelihood of being implemented by 2020.

O Level II options are those that could fill the remaining gap between water supply and demand. These op-
tions require more investigation and alternative analyses.

With planned Level I options, 2020 average and drought year shortages could be reduced to 373,000 and
1,001,000 AF, respectively. A shortage of this magnitude could have severe economic impacts on the region.
This remaining shortage requires both additional short-term drought management, water transfers and demand
management programs, and future long-term and Level II options depending on the overall level of water service
reliability deemed necessary, by local agencies, to sustain the economic health of the region. In the short-term.

109

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft South Coast Region

some areas of this region that rely on Delta exports for all or a portion of their supplies face greater uncertainty in
terms of water supply reliability due to the uncertain outcome of a number of actions undertaken to protect aquat-
ic species in the Delta. Local water districts are seeking to improve water service reliability of their service area i
through water transfers, water recycling, conservation, and supply augmentation.

Water Management Options with Additional Facilities. The USER is studying the potential for recycled
water use under its "Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation Study." The goal of the $6 million,
three-phase study is to "identify opportunities and constraints for maximizing water reuse in Southern California.
Phase I is expected to be complete in one year; the scheduling of phases n and HI will be determined during the
first phase. Expected completion date is March 1999. The USBR believes the success of the study depends on
the active participation of local and State agencies.

MWDSC authorized preliminary studies for a 5-mgd (5,600 AF per year) desalination pilot plant (distillation
method). Although the location is undecided, plans call for the plant to be near an existing power plant on the
coast. Planned ultimate capacity of the plant is 100 million gallons per day (1 12,000 AF per year).

The Colorado River Banking Plan is a proposal that would create an additional water supply for MWDSC by
making use of available SWP water in place of Colorado River water. Under the plan, MWDSC would adjust its
Colorado River diversions according to the availability of water from the SWP. In years when SWP supplies are
adequate, MWDSC would take more of its SWP water and correspondingly less Colorado River water. The dif-
ference between available Colorado River water and MWDSC's actual diversions would remain in Lake Mead
and be credited to a water management account. Any additional water lost by spills or evaporation due to the
storage of such water would be deducted from the water management account.

The final environmental impact report for the Arvin-Edison Water Exchange Program, involving an agree-
ment between MWDSC and the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District, is scheduled for 1993. Arvin-Edison is a
Central Valley Project contractor in southeastern Kern County. Its CVP water is delivered through the California
Aqueduct by arrangement with the State. According to the proposed contract, MWDSC will help construct Ar-
vin-Edison's partially completed distribution system and deliver a portion of its SWP water in wet years for use
in Arvin-Edison 's replenishment programs. In return, MWDSC will receive some of Arvin-Edison 's CVP water
during dry years. Through this proposed agreement, MWDSC expects to store as much as 135,000 AF per year of
SWP water in the southern San Joaquin Valley. During wet periods, MWDSC could accumulate a storage account
of up to 800,(K)0 AF. In dry periods, the program would make roughly 100,0(X) AF per year available for
MWDSC. In another exchange program, MWDSC negotiated with Kern County Water Agency to store SWP
supplies in the Semitropic Water Storage District's ground water basin. (See Volume I, Chapter 11.)

In October 1991, MWDSC certified the final environmental impact report for the Eastside Reservoir Project
(Domenigoni Valley Reservoir). Final design and land acquisition activities for the reservoir, which will be in
the Domenigoni Valley, are proceeding. The ERP, combined with the ground water storage program, will: (1)
maximize ground water storage by regulating imported water supplies for conjunctive use programs, (2) provide
emergency water reserves if facilities are damaged as a result of a major earthquake, (3) provide supplies to re-
duce water shortages during droughts, (4) meet seasonal operating requirements, including seasonal peak de-

110

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft South Coast Region

mands, and (5) preserve operating reliability of the distribution system. This conjunctive use program should
eventually provide two years of drought or carryover storage protection for MWDSC (528,000 AF). The project
should be completed by 1999.

Under the Ground Water Recovery Program of 1991, MWDSC will improve regional water supply reliability
by providing financial assistance for local agencies to recover contaminated ground water. The goal of the
Ground Water Recovery Program is to recover 200,000 AF per year of degraded ground water. About half of this
ultimate annual production will be untapped local yield, or new supplies. The remainder will require replenish-
ment from MWDSC's imported water to avoid basin overdraft. Those projects will produce water, including dur-
ing droughts, but will only receive replenishment water when imported supplies are available. Currently,
NfWDSC has approved participation of eight projects, with an estimated ultimate production of 21,800 AF per
year. The program is expected to reach its goal of 200,000 AF per year by the year 2004. The net projected yield
associated with natural replenishment from the Ground Water Recovery Program through the year 2020 is:

Year Net Projected Yield

Acre-Feet Per Year

1993 U54

2000 86,100

2010 95.540

2020 95,540

Local surface water supplies provide a minor contribution to the South Coast Region, making up only about 6
percent of the region's total supplies. During drought years, these surface supplies, for the most part, dry up.
However, during the winter, this region can be hit with devastating floods. Many people speculate that more local
surface reservoirs could help alleviate the region's need for increased imported supplies. However, the cost of
developing local surface water supply projects for rare or limited runoff makes them impractical at present. Table
SC-4 shows water supplies with additional Level I facilities and programs.

Ill

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft

South Coast Region

Table SC-4. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs

(Decision 1485 Operating Criteria for Delta Supplies)

(thousands of acre -feet)

Supply

1990

2000

2010

2020

average

drought

average

drought

average

drought

average

drought

Surface

Local

254

118

254

118

254

118

254

118

Imports by local 2

425

208

425

208

425

472

425

472

Colorado River ^

1,265

1,230

696

CVP

Other federal

SWP2

1,232

1.032

1,846

1,336

2,233

1,815

2,237

1,834

Ground water ^

1,083

1,296

1,273

1,488

1,341

1,537

1,539

1,611

Overdraft

Reclaimed

234

296

357

Dedicated natural flow

Total

4,379

4,003

4,755

4,106

5,267

4,955

5,530

5,109

^ Colorado River supplies for year 2000 and beyond reflect elimination of surplus Colorado River supplies, ransfer of 76,000 AF
of water as a result of currently agreed upon conservation programs, and an additional 70,000-AF water transfer from the
Colorado River Region as a result of IID/MWDSC agreement on lining of the All American Canal.

2 1990 supplies are normalized and do not reflect additional supplies needed to offset reduction of supplies from the Mono and
Owens basins. SWP supply was used in 1990 to replace reduction of supplies from Mono and Owens basins, putting additional
demand on Delta supplies.

3 Includes ground water reclamation. MWDSC ground water recovery program would provide additional supplies of 85,000 AF
by year 2000 and 95,000 AF by 201 0 and beyond.

Water Use

Urban water demands for the South Coast Region have progressively increased over the last decade. Tremen-
dous population growth rates and rapidly expanding urbanized areas contributed heavily to this increase. In many
areas, urban expansion has lead to reductions in agricultural acreage and water use. Figure SC-3 shows the dis-
tribution of 1990 level net water demands for the region.

Urban Water Use

Total municipal and industrial applied water use in 1990 is estimated at 3.85 MAF (Table SC-5), an increase
of 1.10 MAF from 1980. The increase is attributed to population and economic growth. Table SC-5 shows that
1990 applied urban water use in the Metropolitan Los Angeles planning subarea is about half of the region's total.
Projections indicate that urban applied water use in the region will increase by 56 percent between 1990 and
2020.

Although overall demands have increased since 1980, per capita water use has leveled off somewhat in older
urbanized areas with modest increases in the newer urbanized areas, particularly in the warmer interior sections of
the region. Since there is little space for expansion, the older urban core areas are being renovated and converted
from one type of use to another, such as single-family residential to multi-family residential. Such conversions

112

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

South Coast Region

tend to decrease household water use because of reductions in the exterior water uses associated with these
multi-family housing structures.

Figure SC-3. South Coast Region

Net Water Demand (Average Conditions)

1990 level

Urban
80%

Other

Wetlands

113

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft

South Coast Region

Table SC-5. Urban Water Demand
(thousands of acre-feet)

Planning Subareas

1990
average drought

2000
average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

Santa Clara

Applied water demand

183

190

231

240

287

298

345

358

Net water demand

153

158

194

201

241

250

290

301

Depletion

149

154

186

193

231

240

278

289

Metropolitan Los Angeles

■l'

Applied water demand

1,911

1,985

2,055

2,135

2,270

2,359

2,520

2,620

Net water demand

1,833

1,904

1,971

2,048

2,177

2,263

2,417

2,512

Depletion

1,795

1,866

1,888

1.965

2,074

2,160

2,294

2,390

Santa Ana

Applied water demand

1,067

1,111

1,344

1,401

1,665

1,736

2,020

2,108

Net water demand

848

882

1,045

1,087

1,265

1,317

1,500

1,564

Depletion

720

746

872

905

1,036

1,077

1,209

1,257

San Diego

Applied water demand

690

711

816

841

958

988

1,123

1,158

Net water demand

677

697

800

825

940

969

1,102

1,137

Depletion

666

687

733

758

857

886

1,003

1.037

Total

Applied water demand

3,851

3,997

4,446

4,617

5,180

5,381

6,008

6,244

Net water demand

3,511

3,641

4,010

4,161

4,623

4,799

5,309

5,514

Depletion

3,330

3,453

3,679

3,821

4,198

4,363

4,784

4,973

Average 1990 per capita water use by PSA for the region is 21 1 gallons daily. This daily per capita value
ranges from 246 gallons for the Santa Ana PSA to 204 gallons in the Metropolitan Los Angeles PSA. With con-
tinued water conservation, the region's average per capita water use is expected to increase slightly to 212 gallons
daily by 2020. Figure SC-4 shows 1990 level applied urban water demand by sector.

Recent State laws require that most urban water wholesale and retail agencies prepare urban water manage-
ment and water shortage contingency plans. Under the Urban Water Management Act of 1985 most agencies
must analyze their water conveyance operations and water use in their service areas, identify areas for improve-
ment, and develop and implement plans to correct any inefficiencies. The plans must be updated at 5-year inter-
vals. The act requires that agencies examine operations and demands in their service area during droughts and
develop plans to cope with the shortfall in supply. These plans will be attached to existing urban water manage-
ment plans.

Most of the water conservation programs identified in these plans are a part of a package known collectively
as the Best Management Practices (a more detailed discussion about urban BMPs is in Volume I, Chapter 6).

114

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

South Coast Region

BMPs assist agencies develop specific strategies to augment or stretch their dependable water supplies to meet
ever-increasing water demands within their service areas. Plans must be implemented on a timetable once an
agency decides to adopt these practices.

Since 1980, many water and local governmental agencies have developed and implemented water conserva-
tion programs, similar to those required in the Best Management Practices list. Many local agencies provide tech-
nical assistance to schools who wish to incorporate discussions on water resources and conservation into their nat-
ural science curricula. Total urban water use will be reduced through these ongoing programs, implemented
BMPs, building and plumbing code modifications, and more efficient irrigation operations for major landscaping
projects.

Figure SC-4. South Coast Region
Applied Urban Water Demand (Average Conditions)

1990ievel

/ Residential \
/ 59% \

y^ \\\^ Unaccounted
\ y^ \ \ ^-^ ^^ /

\ Commercial \ \ industrial /

\ 19% \ \ 7% /

^ — J '""^Governmental

115

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft South Coast Region

Agricultural Water Use

Total agricultural applied water use for the 1990 level was approximately 727,000 AF, a decrease of approxi-
mately 26 percent since 1980. The Santa Clara PSA used the most agricultural water in 1990, roughly 34 per-
cent of the total, followed closely by San Diego PSA with 33 percent and Santa Ana PSA with 31 percent. The
Metropolitan Los Angeles PSA had the least demand, using only about 2 percent of the region's total applied agri-
cultural water. Figure SC-5 shows the irrigated acreage, ETAW, and applied water for major crops grown in the
region.

The South Coast Region's 1990 normalized crop acreage was almost 318,000 acres (Table SC-6). The major
agricultural operations in the region are found in the Santa Clara, San Diego and Santa Ana PSAs. A 42 percent
decrease in total irrigated crop acres (including multiple cropped acres) is projected for the region, to about
184,(XX) acres by 2020 primarily due to economics and the urbanization of irrigated lands. The region's total irri-
gated land acres are also projected to decrease about 1 15,(XX) acres over the same time period.

Five major crops produced in the region are citrus and subtropical fruit, truck (vegetables and nursery prod-
ucts), improved pasture grass, small grains, and alfalfa. Slightly more than half of the total cropped acres and
gross applied water in the region is associated with citrus and subtropical fruit orchards. Citrus (mostly oranges,
lemons, and grapefruit) is found in all parts of the South Coast Region, but the largest amounts are in the San Di-
ego and Santa Clara PSAs. High-value crops, such as avocados, are generally grown in the hills above the Santa
Clara River in Ventura County and in the hills in the extreme southwestem Riverside County (Santa Ana PSA)
and San Diego County. The region also has a substantial cut-flowers industry. Truck crops follow citrus and sub-
tropical fruit in terms of planted and harvested acres and use of applied water. Irrigated grain is cultivated in
southern San Diego County, southwestem San Bernardino County, and southwestern Riverside County. Irrigated
pasture and alfalfa are grown primarily in southwestem San Bemardino County.

116

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

South Coast Region

180

Acres (X 1 ,000)

Acre-Feet (X 1 ,000)

120

540

360

180

Other Truck Subtropical

■Acreage MEYAVJ ■Applied Water

Figure SC-5. South Coast Region
Acreage, ETAW, and Applied Water for Major Crops

117

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft

South Coast Region

Table SC-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage

(thousands of acres)

Planning Subareas

1990

2000

2010

2020

Santa Clara

Metropolitan Los Angeles
Santa Ana
San Diego

118

110

111

105

Total

319

287

235

184

Table SC-7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop

Irrigated Crop

Total Acres
(thousands)

Total ETAW

(thousands

of acre -feet)

Irrigated Crop

Total Acres
(thousands)

Total ETAW

(thousands

of acre -feet)

Grain 11 2
Com 5 7
Other field 4 8
Alfalfa 10 26
Pasture 20 55

Tomatoes 9 20
Other truck 87 123
Other deciduous 3 8
Vineyard 6 9
Citrus/olives 164 282

Total 319 540

Vmeyards in Pomona Valley are on the decline; however, modest acreages in southwestem Riverside County
have remained stable since 1980. Deciduous tree crops are relatively small, but there is a concentration of apples
and pears in central San Diego County.

Even though the region's projected acres are expected to decline, citrus and subtropical fruit and truck crops
will be significant portions of the remaining cropped acres.

Water conservation efforts by the growers will contribute to the reduction of agricultural water demands in the
region. Most citrus and subtropical growers use the latest irrigation system technologies of drip emitters and low-
flow sprinklers. Also, they are managing their irrigation operations with more efficiency. The best potential for
conservation beyond current achievements will be in the citrus and subtropical orchard irrigation operations.
Much of the potential for savings will occur by the end of the decade, possibly up to an additional 5 percent. In-
creased use of drip irrigation, improved furrow irrigation, plastic mulches, and irrigation scheduling services will
save water in the other crop categories.

Table SC-8 shows 1990 level and projected applied agricultural water demand in the region. Applied water
amounts vary with the source of water supply (surface or ground water). Drought year factors reflect the need for
additional irrigation to replace water normally supplied by rainfall and to meet higher than normal evapotranspira-
tion demands. The region's total applied agricultural water use is expected to decrease 47 percent by 2020. Ur-
banization of irrigated agricultural land is the main factor in this reduction. Other factors include continued im-
provements in on-farm irrigation operations and irrigation system technologies. Decreases range from about 66
percent to 34 percent among the PSAs.

;•'

118

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

South Coast Region

Table SC-8. Agricultural Water Demand

(thousands of acre -feet)

Planning Subareas

1990
average drought

2000
average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

Santa Clara

Applied water demand

245

256

222

233

184

193

138

145

Net water demand

214

224

197

207

167

175

126

133

Depletion

214

224

197

207

167

175

126

133

Metropolitan Los Angeles

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Santa Ana

IHI

Applied water demand

227

232

179

181

127

129

-^ 78

Net water demand

186

190

149

152

109

110

Depletion

186

190

149 ;

152

109

110

San Diego

'"' 'M

Applied water demand

240

249

220

229

178

185

158

ier

Net water demand

231

240

213

222

173

180

154

160

Depletion

231

240

213

222

173

180

154

160

Total

;; ,:

Applied water demand

727

753

632

655

499

518

382

396

Net water demand

644

668

569

592

458

474

356

370

Depletion

644

668

569

592

458

474

356

370

Environmental Water Use

Currently, the State's San Jacinto Wildlife Area occupies approximately 5,000 acres, and there are applica-
tions to increase the size of the facility by 1,600 acres. The SJWA is run by DFG. It is unique in that it is the first
such operation in the State to use reclaimed waste water. Eastern Municipal Water District supplies the facility
; with reclaimed water from its Hemet/San Jacinto Water Reclamation Plant. Reclaimed water allocations to the
I SJWA are 2,200 AF a year, even though only 400 AF and 800 AF were used in 1990 and 1991, respectively. By
the year 2000, the allocation will be 4,500 AF. Table SC-9 shows wetland water needs to 2020.

119

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft

South Coast Region

Table SC-9. Wetlands Water Needs
(thousands of acre -feet)

Wetlands

1990 2000 2010 2020

average drought average drought average drought average drought

San Jacinto WA

Applied water
Net water
Depletion

Total

Applied water
Net water
Depletion

2 2

Additional environmental water supply requirements may be needed for the Sespe Wilderness. This preserve
is in the Ventura County portion of the Los Padres National Forest and totals approximately 219,700 acres. A
portion of Sespe Creek has been added to the list of Wild and Scenic Rivers.

Other Water Demand

Recreational water use in the South Coast Region amounted to almost 23,000 AF in 1990. Most recreational
facilities in the region consist of campgrounds and parks, and their use entails water for lawns, toilets, showers,
and facility maintenance and public service. Use in the Santa Clara, Metropolitan Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and
San Diego PSAs in 1990 amounted to about 8,000 AF; 8,000 AF; 3,000 AF; and 3,000 AF, respectively. Figure
SC-6 shows water recreation areas in the South Coast Region.

Conveyance losses account for 160,000 AF and are realized in the transmission of water via the three major
aqueducts in the region. Cooling water for power plants amounts to 35,000 AF, while approximately 5,000 AF is
used to inject water in deep wells to extract oil. Table SC-10 shows total water demand projections to 2020 for
the South Coast Region.

120

1 Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

South Coast Region

Legend
A Water Recreation Area
• Hydroelectric Power Plant
** Federal Wild and Scenic River

WATER RECREATION AREAS

1. Pyramid Lake S.RA
Castaic Lake S.RA
Baldwin Hills S.RA
Kenneth B. Hahn S.RA
L.ake Penis S.RA
Lake Elsinore S.RA
Palomar Mountain S.P.

8. Cuyamaca Rancho S.P.

9. Border Field S.P.

Figure SC-6. South Coast Region
Water Recreation Areas

121

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft

South Coast Region

Table SC-10. Total Water Demands

(thousands of acre -feet)

Category of Use

1990
average drought

2000

average drought

2010
average drought

2020

average drought

Urban

Applied water

3,851

3,997

4,446

4,617

5,180

5,381

6,008

6,244

Net water

3,511

3,641

4,010

4.161

4,623

4,799

5,309

5.514

Depletion

3,330

3.453

3,679

3.821

4,198

4,363

4,784

4,973

Agricultural

Applied water

727

753

632

499

518

382

396

Net water

644

668

569

592

458

474

356

370

Depletion

644

668

569

592

458

474

356

370

Environmental

Applied water

Net water

Depletion

Other (1)

'-'W^

Applied water

Net water

222

210

227

215

232

220

232

220

Depletion

222

210

227

215

232

220

232

220

Total

Applied water

4,642

4,809

5,151

5,340

5,757

5,972

6,468 1

6,713

Net water

4,379

4,521

4,812

4,974

5,319

5,499

5,903 1

6,110

Depletion

4,198

4^3

4,481

4,634

4,894

5,063

5,378 !

5,569

(1) includes conveyance losses,

recreational uses, and (

snergy production

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management

Each PSA in the region has its own set of geographic and demographic conditions which present several wa-
ter management issues. In general, though, the South Coast Region faces several critical water supply issues,
most notably increasing demand with limited ability to increase supply, and ground water degradation. The most
significant events in recent years regarding regional water supplies were the court decisions regarding Mono
Lake and Colorado River diversions. (For a detailed discussion about these court decisions, see Volume I, Chap-
ter!.)

Legislation and Litigation

Legislation and litigation played a very important part in developing water supplies for the South Coast Re-
gion. Most court decisions and legislation that affect the region are those which also affect statewide water re-
sources. A complete discussion of these decisions and laws are in Volume I, Chapter 2.

MWDSC is the largest water purveyor in the region; it has 27 member agencies, some of whom rely solely on
MWDSC for their water supply. Many other agencies, like the City of Los Angeles, rely on MWDSC to supple-

122

3iilletin 160-93 Administrative Draft South Coast Region

nent their existing water supplies. MWDSC lost an extremely important supply of water when its Colorado Riv-
Ir entitlement was cut by 650,000 AF; the City of Los Angeles lost an important supply of water when its Mono
.ake and Owens Valley water supplies were reduced. Details are provided in Volume I, Chapter 3.

[ A brief synopsis of agreements and litigation which affect regional water matters follows:

Untreated Sewage from Mexico. Tijuana's excess sewage has plagued the City of San Diego and its South
3ay beaches since the 1930s. During frequent failures of Tijuana's inadequate, antiquated sewage treatment sys-
lem, millions of gallons of raw sewage have been carried across the border through the Tijuana River to its estu-
iry in San Diego County. San Diego's first attempt to alleviate this nuisance was in 1965, when the city agreed to
reat Tijuana's waste on an emergency basis. In 1983, the United States and Mexico signed an agreement stating
;h^ Mexico would modernize and expand Tijuana's sewage and water supply system and build a 34-mgd sewage
reatment plant.

j Mexico received a grant for $46.4 million from the Inter-American Development Bank to help finance the
expansion and was to spend an additional $11 million to build the waste water treatment plant, 5 miles south of
ihe International Border. Phase I of the facility was completed in January 1987. The plant was fiiUy operational
n September 1987, only to break down a month later. In May 1988, the facility was again operational.

A future facility will be funded jointly by Mexico and the U.S. at a cost of $192 million. Additional phases
vill be added as needed, with an ultimate capacity of 100 mgd. The effluent will be discharged to the Pacific
Ocean just north of the Mexican border and will meet U.S. standards.

San Bernardino Ground Water. As late as the 1940s, the lowest portion of the San Bernardino Valley was
omposed mainly of springs and marshlands. It now boasts a thriving urban complex and industrial center, but
l^ound water levels in the area remain high, impairing the use of some buildings. The San Bernardino Valley
viunicipal Water District began alleviating the high ground water problem by pumping ground water firom the
!>ressure area to the Colton-Rialto basin through the Baseline Feeder.

In 1969, the Superior Court of Riverside County, in response to a lawsuit filed by the Western Municipal Wa-

sr District of Riverside County against the East San Bernardino County Water District, limited the amount of wa-

jerthat can be produced or exported from the San Bernardino Basin area. The ruling requires the SBVMWD to

'eplenish the basin when ground water pumping exceeds the specified amount. This has appeared at times to be

t cross purposes with attempts to alleviate the effects of the high ground water .

' *
^ocal Issues

Ventura County Ground Water. Ground water is the main water supply for irrigation and urban uses over

nuch of the coastal plain of Ventura County (including the Oxnard Plain). As a result of increasing water de-

nand, the ground water aquifers underlying the plain have been overdrafted. The overdraft within the United

Vater Conservation District averaged 18,900 AF per year during 1976-85. The Fox Canyon Ground Water Man-

gement Agency was formed to manage the ground water resources underlying the Fox Canyon aquifer zone. To

liminate the overdraft in all aquifer zones, the agency adopted ordinances requiring meter installation on all

veils pumping more than 50 AF per year. The objective of the ordinances is to limit the amount of ground water

hat can be pumped and to restrict drilling of new wells in the North Las Posas Basin. In February 1991, United

123

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft South Coast Region

Conservation District completed construction of the Freeman Diversion Improvement Project on the Santa Clara
River. The improved structure increases average annual diversions by about 43 percent, from 40,000 AF to
57,000 AF. The diverted water is used for ground water recharge and agricultural irrigation, thereby reducing
agricultural ground water demand.

In an effort to prevent degradation of the Ojai ground water basin, a coalition of growers, public agencies,
water utilities, and pumpers decided in early 1990 to have legislation enacted to form the Ojai Basin Ground Wa-
ter Management Agency. Its activities include implementing agency ordinances; monitoring key wells; determin-
ing amounts of extractions, ground water in storage, and operational safe yield; surveying land use within the
agency's boundaries; compiling water quality data; and artificial recharge of the basin.

Water Balance

Water balances were computed for each Planning Subarea in the South Coast Region by comparing existing
and future water demand projections with the projected availability of supply. The region total was computed as
the sum of the individual subareas. This method does not reflect the severity of drought year shortages in some
local areas which can be hidden when planning subareas are combined within the region. Thus, there could be
substantial shortages in some areas. Local and regional shortages could also be less severe than the shortage
shown, depending on how supplies are allocated within the region, a particular water agency's ability to partici-
pate in water transfers or demand management programs (including land fallowing or emergency allocation pro-
grams), and the overall level of reliability deemed necessary to the sustained economic health of the region. Vol-
ume I, Chapter 1 1 presents a broader discussion of demand management options.

Table SC-1 1 presents water demands for the 1990 level and for future water demands to 2020 and balances
them with: (1) supplies from existing facilities and water management programs, and (2) future demand manage-
ment and water supply management options.

Regional net water demands for the 1 990 level of development totaled 4.4 and 4.5 MAF for average and
drought years respectively. Those demands are projected to increase to 5.9 and 6.1 MAF, respectively, by the year
2020, after accounting for a 490,000 AF reduction in urban water demand resulting from implementation of long-
term conservation measures and a 10,000 AF reduction in agricultural demand resulting from additional long-
term water conservation measures.

Urban net water demand is projected to increase by about 1.8 MAF by 2020, primarily due to expected in-
creases in population; while, agricultural net water demand is projected to decrease by about 288,000 AF, primari-
ly due to lands being taken out of production resulting from the high cost of imported water supplies and urban-
ization. Environmental net water demands, under existing rules and regulations, are projected to increase from
2,000 to 6,000 AF annually due to increased acreage at the San Jacinto Wildlife Area.

Average annual supplies were generally adequate to meet average net water demands in 1990 for this region.
However, during drought, present supplies are insufficient to meet present demands and, without additional water
management programs, annual average and drought year shortages are expected to increase to nearly 1 .0 and 2.3
MAF by 2020 respectively. With implementation of Level I programs, shortages could be reduced to 0.4 MAF
and 1 .0 MAF for average and drought years, respectively.

/* 124

iBulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

South Coast Region

Table SC-11. Water Balance
(thousands of acre -feet)

Demand/Supply

1990 2020

average drought average drought

Net Demand

Urban -with 1990 level of conservation

-reductions due to long-term consen^ation measures (Level I)
Agricultural

-reductions due to long-term conservation measures (Level i)
Environmental
Other (1)
Total Net Demand

3,511

3,641

5,799

6,004

—

-490

644

668

366

380

—

-10

777

210

232

220

4,379

4,521

5,903

6,110

3,274

2,685

3,306

2,2ol

1,083

1,296

1,611

1.611

4,379

4,003

4,917

3,814

4,379

4,003

4,917

3,814

^HtXw Supplies w/Existing Facilities Under D-1485 for Delta Supplies

Developed Supplies

Surface Water

Ground Water

Ground Water Overdraft
Subtotal

Dedicated Natural Flow
Total Water Supplies

Demand/Supply Balance

-518 -986 -2,296

Remaining Demand/Supply Balance Requiring Siiort Term Demand
Management and/or Future Level II Options

-373

Future Water Management Options Level i (2)

Long-term Supply Augmentation

Reclaimed

Local

Colorado River

State Water Project
Subtotal - Water Management Options Level i
Ground Water/Surface Water Use Reduction Resulting from Level I Programs

281

264

334

680

685

1,295

-72

•1,001

(1) Includes conveyance losses, recreation uses and energy production.

(2) Protection of fish and wildlife and the ultimate Delta transfer solution will detemnine the feasibility of several water supply
augmentation proposals and their water supply benefits.

* * *

125

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft South Coast Region

126

pnit of The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

SACRAMENTO RIVER REGION

Oroville Dam spillway in 1986.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Sacramento River Region

SACRAMENTO RIVER REGION

The Sacramento River Region contains the entire drainage area of the Sacramento River and its
tributaries and extends almost 300 miles from CoUinsville in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta north to
the Oregon border. The crest of the Sierra Nevada forms the region's eastern border; the northern is
bounded by the crest of California's Cascade Range; and the western side is defined by the crest of the
Coast Range. The vast watershed of the American River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta form the
southern border. The snow-capped Mt. Shasta, rising 14,162 feet above sea level, dominates the north
end of the region, and is followed closely in by Mt. Lassen, at 10,457 feet above sea level. Both
mountains are part of the Cascade Range. About 100 miles south of those mountain peaks stand the
Sutter Buttes; the remnants of a prehistoric volcano, which has been called the smallest mountain range
in the world. Winding its way through the entire region is the State's largest river, the Sacramento.
The region contains 17 percent of the State's total land area. (See Appendix C for maps of the planning
subareas and land ownership in the region.)

The climate varies considerably in the region; however, three distinct climate patterns can be defined.
The northernmost area, mainly high desert plateau, is characterized by cold snowy winters with only
moderate rainfall, and hot, dry summers. This area depends on melting snowpack to provide a
summertime water supply. Average annual precipitation is 12 inches. Other mountainous parts in the
north and east have cold, wet winters with major amounts of snow providing considerable runoff for the
summer water supply. These higher mountainous areas may receive rainfall during any month of the
year. Summers are usually mild. Precipitation totals from 21 to 41 inches. The Sacramento Valley, the
south-central part of the region, has mild winters with less precipitation. Precipitation usually takes
place from October through May; virtually no precipitation occurs ft"om June to September. Summers in
the valley are hot and dry. Sacramento's average annual precipitation is 18 inches.

Popuiation

The 1990 census shows that there are 535,000 more people in the region than in 1980, a 32 percent
increase. Immigration from other parts of California played a big role in the increase. The fastest
growing town was Loomis, a foothill community about 25 miles northeast of Sacramento, where there
was a 344 percent increase in the number of people between 1980 and 1990. The City of Sacramento had
the greatest number of new residents: more than 93,600 additional people. More than half of the
region's population lives in the greater metropolitan Sacramento area. Other fast growing communities
include Vacaville, Dixon, Redding, Chico, and the Sierra Nevada foothill counties. Table SR-1 shows
population projections to 2020 for the Sacramento Region.

Region Characteristics
Average Annual Precipitation: 36. 0 inches Average Annual Runoff: 22, 389, 700 AF

Land Area: 26,960 square miles Population: 2,208,900

127

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Sacramento River Region

Table SR-1.

Population Projections

(thousands)

Planning Subareas

1990

2000

2010

2020

Shasta- Pit

Northwest Valley

110

132

153

176

Northeast Valley

187

258

311

365

Southeast

253

329

400

467

Central Basin West

242

328

390

461

Central Basin East

1,267

1,629

1,977

2,316

Southwest

110

Delta Service Area

108

125

Total

2,209

2,869

3,467

4,063

Land Use

A wide variety of crops are grown in the Sacramento River Region, where agriculture is the largest
industry. The region produces a significant amount of the overall agricultural tonnage in California,
especially rice, grain, tomatoes, field crops, fruit, and nuts. Because of comparatively mild weather and
good soil, double cropping occurs in the region. The largest acreage of any single crop is rice, which
represents about 23 percent of the total.

Crop statistics show that irrigated agricultural acreage in the region peaked during the 1980s and is
now decreasing. The main reason for this decline is the conversion of irrigated agricultural lands to
urban development. The comparison of 1980 and 1990 crop patterns shows that grain, field, rice, and
pasture crops decreased a total of 137,000 acres. On the other hand, orchard, alfalfa, and tomato crops
gained a total of 106,000 acres. The net decrease between 1980 and 1990 was 31,000 acres of irrigated
crops. The Sacramento Region supports about 2.1 million acres of irrigated agriculture (23 percent of
State total). About 1.7 million acres are irrigated on the valley floor and the surrounding mountain
valleys within the region add 0.5 million irrigated acres (primarily pasture and alfalfa) to the region's
total.

The rapid growth in single and multi-family housing has had a major impact on the Sacramento
County area, as well as the surrounding areas like Placer, El Dorado, Yolo, Solano, and Sutter counties.
Most of the development has been along the major highway corridors and has taken some irrigated
agricultural land out of production. Suburban "ranchette" homes on relatively large parcels often
surround the urban areas, sometimes converting previously non-irrigated areas into irrigated pasture or
small orchards. Most of the land in these "ranchette" areas is typically non-irrigated. Figure SR-1
shows land use, imports, exports, and water supplies for the Sacramento Region.

Water Supply

The Sacramento River Region is the main water supply source for much of California's urban and
agricultural areas. Basin runoff averages 22.4 million acre-feet, providing nearly one-third of the State's

128

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Sacramento River Region

PmttMT WATBI SUPfUtt

(1JX» AF/Yr.)

LOCAL SURFACE WATCT DEVELOPMEhfT
IMPOflTS BY LOCAL WATIR AGENQES
GROUND WATBR PERENNIAL YIELD
CENTIUU. VALLEY PROJECT
OTHER FEDERAL WATER DEVELOPMBfT
STATE WATER PROJECT
WATER RECLAMATION
DEDICATED NATURAL FLOW

WATER SUPPLY
GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT

TOTAL

OREGON

Trinity River
Diversion - CVP
881

Ragion Water Tranafors
\.ytxa% or Aa»^Mt v ymii

Figure SR-1. Sacramento River Region
L^nd Use, imports, Exports, and Water Supplies

129

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Sacramento River Region

total natural runoff. Major supplies in the region are provided through surface storage reservoirs and
through direct ground water pumping. These sources supply 8 MAF of water to the region. About 2.5
MAF of ground water is pumped from the region's ground water basins. Figure SR-2 shows the
region's 1990 level sources of supply.

Figure SR-2. Sacramento River Region

Water Supply Sources (Average Conditions)

1990 level

Local Surface

Water *

49.8%

Reclaimed
0.1%

Dedicated Natural
Flows
28.5%

Total

Imports

0.1%

includes local surface, SWR CVR and other federal projects.

Supply with Existing Facilities

Major reservoirs in the region providing water supply, recreation, power, environmental, or flood
control benefits are shown in Table SR-2.

130

[Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Sacramento River Region

Table SR-2. Major Reservoirs

Reservoir Name

River

Capacity (1,000 AF)

Owner

McCloud

McCloud River

35.2

PG&E

Iron Canyon

Pit River

24.2

PG&E

l^e Britton

Pit River

40.6

PG&E

Pit No. 6

Pit River

15.9

PG&E

Pit No. 7

Pit River

34.6

PG&E

Shasta

Sacramento

4,552.0

USBR

Keswick

Sacramento

23.8

USBR

Whisl<eytown

Clear Creek

241.1

USBR

1^6 Almanor

Feather River

1,143.8

PG&E

Mountain Meadows

Feather

23.9

PG&E

Butt Valley

Butt Creek

49.9

PG&E

Bucks Lake

Bucks Creek

105.6

PG&E

Antelope

Indian Creek

22.6

DWR

Frenchman

Little 1 ast
Chance Creek

55.5

DWR

Lake Davis

Big Grizzly
Creek

84.4

DWR

Little Grass Valley

Feather

94.7

Oroville Wyandotte ID

1 Sly Creek

Lost Creek

65.7

Oroville Wyandotte ID

Thermalito

Feather

81.3

DWR

Oroville

Feather

3,537.6

DWR

New Bu Hards Bar

Yuba River

966.1

Yuba County WA

Jackson Meadows

Yuba River

69.2

Nevada ID

Bowman Lake

Canyon Creek

68.5

Nevada ID

French Lake

Canyon Creek

13.8

Nevada ID

Spaulding

Yuba River

135.7

PG&E

Englebright

Yuba River

70.0

USACOE

Scotts Flat

Deer Creek

48.5

Nevada ID

Rollins

Bear River

66.0

Nevada ID

Camp Far West

Bear River

104.0

So. Sutter WD

French Meadows

American River

136.4

Placer Co. WA

Hell Hole

Rubicon River

207.6

Placer Co. WA

Loon Lake

Gerle Creek

76.5

SMUD

Slab Creek

American River

21.6

SMUD

Caples 1 ake

Caples Creek

16.6

PG&E

Union Valley

Silver Creek

277.3

SMUD

Ice House

Silver Creek

46.0

SMUD

Folsom Lake

American River

974.5

USBR

131

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Sacramento River Region

Table SR-2. Major Reservoirs (continued)

Reservoir Name

River

Capacity (1 ,000 AF)

Owner

Lake Natoma

American River

9.0

USBR

East Park

Stony Creek

50.9

USBR

Stony Gorge

Stony Creek

50.0

USBR

Black Butte

Stony Creek

143.7

Santa Clara USCE

Clear Lake

Cache Creek

313.0

Yolo Co. FCWCD

Indian Valley

Cache Creek

301.0

YCFCWCD

Lake Berryessa

Putah Creek

1,600.0

USBR

The region's water supply moves through a complex natural and engineered conveyance system.
Water is both imported into the region and exported from the region. On the import side, the Clear Creek
Tunnel on the Trinity River system carries roughly 926,000 AF annually from Lewiston Lake Reservoir
into Whiskeytown Reservoir. Since 1 876, PG&E has imported 2,000 AF annually from Echo Lake in
the North Lahontan Region to the South Fork of the American River. Sierra Valley imports about 6,000
AF annually from the Little Truckee River.

Shasta Valley exports 2,000 AF from Sacramento Basin to the Klamath River watershed, and 3,000
AF is exported to the Madeline Plains in the North Lahontan Region. About 6 MAF is also exported to
the regions to the south and west through local. State, and federal conveyance facilities.

Ground water provides about 22 percent of the water supply in the region. Ground water is found in
both the alluvial basins and in the upland hard rock areas. Well yields in the alluvial basins vary from
less than 100 to over 4,000 gallons per minute. Yields in most of the upland hard rock areas are
generally much less, but can support most domestic activities or livestock. Some wells in the volcanic
hard rock areas of the upper Sacramento River and Pit River watersheds yield large amounts of water.
Ground water recharge in the region's alluvial basins is primarily from river and stream seepage or
infiltration of applied agricultural water. Additional recharge occurs as rainfall and snow melt percolates
into the basins. A detailed description of water supplies for the different areas of the region follows.

Mountains and Foothill Areas. It is often thought that the Sierra Nevada foothills of California
have a lot of water because of the many creeks, rivers, and reservoirs in the area. However, water is
scarce in much of the foothill area because many creeks that experience high flows during the winter
rains and spring runoff become dry or nearly dry during summer and fall. This is also true for foothill
regions on the west side of the Sacramento Valley, including the Clear Lake and Lake Berryessa areas.
Most of the water for the mountains and foothills come from local surface sources.

Mining operations of the Gold Rush resulted in the first water development in the Sierra area. When
hydraulic mining operations ceased, some of the mining ditches were incorporated into what eventually
became the PG&E's hydroelectric power system or local water supply systems, such as that of the
Nevada Irrigation District. Currently, they provide agricultural and urban water supplies. The

132

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Sacramento River Region

conveyance systems tend to have large but not irrecoverable losses. A number of areas lack distribution
systems to convey the water to the places of need.

Though ground water is a lesser source of water in the foothills, it plays an important role in meeting
the needs of many individuals. The ground water within the mountain counties exists mostly in fractured
rock and provides approximately 17 percent of their water supply, about 7,300 AF annually.

Ground water quality in this area is generally good, depending on the rock type from which the
water is produced. Locally significant ground water quality problems may occur where ground water is
in contact with radon or uranium-bearing rock, or sulfide mineral deposits that contain heavy metals.
There is also a potential for ground water quality degradation where septic systems have been constructed
in high density subdivisions. Moderate levels of hydrogen sulfide can be found in the volcanic and
geothermal areas in the western portion of the region.

Valley Area. The Sacramento Valley geologically is a trough partially filled with clay, silt, sand, and
gravel deposited through millions of years of flooding. Although ground water is in all the younger
sediments, only the more permeable sand and gravel aquifers provide enough for pumping. These
younger sediments overlie older marine sediments throughout the valley, which contain brackish or saline
water. The depth to saline water in the Sacramento Valley ranges from less than 500 feet in the north to
over 3,000 feet in the south.

The ground water quality in the Sacramento Region is generally excellent. However, there are areas
where local contamination or pollution of the ground water supplies exist. In some parts of the region,
elevated levels of naturally occurring chemicals make ground water use problematic.

Agriculture's water supply varies considerably, with a large number of irrigation districts supplying
surface water through regulated rivers, sloughs, and pipelines. USER, PG&E, SWP, and county water
agencies have developed some of the water for the region.

Ground water is available in much of the areas, but often surface water is less expensive and
therefore preferred. Surface supplies are available either through riparian or appropriative water rights, or
through an agency which delivers the water. The valley floor has an intricate water distribution system
of sloughs, ditches, and canals devoted to conveying irrigation water. Water users also have some of the
oldest rights to the surface water. Some water rights go back before the Gold Rush to old Spanish land
grants.

Reclaimed water, primarily from urban waste water reclamation plants total 9,000 AF. About half of
that supply comes from projects on the west side of the Northern Sacramento Valley. Table SR-3 shows
water supplies with existing facilities and water management programs.

133

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Sacramento River Region

Table SR-3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities

and Programs

(thousands of acre -feet)

Supply

1990

2000

2010

2020

average

drought

average

drought

average

drought

average

drought

Surfece

Local

3,169

2,856

3,205

2,890

3,301

3,003

3,352

3,060

Local imports

Colorado River

CVP

2,382

1.996

2,453

2,064

2,458

2,065

2,462

2,075

Other federal

239

218

243

218

243

218

243

218

SWP

Ground water

2,480

2,850

2,469

2,982

2,430

3,032

2,497

3,044

Overdraft

Reclaimed

Dedicated natural flow

3,323

2,929

3,749

3,355

3,749

3,355

3,749

3,355

Total

11,648

10,904

12,176

11,566

12,238

11,730

12,360

11,809

Supply with Additional Facilities and Water Management Programs

Future water management options are presented in two levels to better reflect the status of
investigations required to implement them.

O Level I options are those that have undergone extensive investigation and environmental analyses
and are judged to have a high likelihood of being implemented by 2020.

O Level II options are those that could fill the remaining gap between water supply and demand.
These options require more investigation and alternative analyses.

There are no major additional water supply facilities coming on line by the year 2020 in this region.
However, El Dorado County Water Agency has issued a Final Environmental Impact Report for the El
Dorado Project, which will augment supplies in the El Dorado Irrigation District service area. The
preferred alternative includes: (1) obtaining consumptive use rights to PG&E water currently used solely
for power generation; (2) increasing the district's contract for CVP water from Folsom Reservoir; and (3)
construction of the White Rock Project, which will convey water from the South Fork American River to
proposed EID treatment and distribution facilities. The additional supplies from this alternative are
17,000 AF of firm supply (average and drought) from PG&E water, and 7,500 and 5,600 AF for average
and drought years, respectively, from Folsom Reservoir. The White Rock Project is strictly a conveyance
project, which will not supplement the district's water supply.

Water Service Reliability and Drought Water Management Strategies. Urban areas in the central
part of the region generally have sufficient supplies to survive dry periods with only voluntary cutbacks.

134

JBolletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Sacramento River Region

However, communities in Butte, Lake, and Shasta counties, and areas served from Folsom Lake have
used rationing or water transfers.

The Redding Basin is fundamentally an area of abundant water supplies, but outlying areas are
subject to severe shortages in dry years due to the terms of USBR contracts and the lack of alternative
supplies. Small districts located virtually in the shadow of Shasta Dam face chronic water shortages.

Mountain valley areas in the region that depend on surface water are generally irrigated to the extent
water is available; when water runs low or runs out, irrigation is cut back. This type of drought
management is a way of life for the ranchers. Holders of riparian and pre-1914 water rights on perennial
streams generally enjoy reliable supplies, even during droughts. They are technically subject to restriction
during times of shortage, but, as a practical matter, such restrictions have not been enforced in the past.

The 30 percent of the region's lands that are irrigated with ground water generally enjoy a very
reliable supply. Ground water levels may decline moderately during an extended drought, but the main
result is a modest drop in well production and an increase in pumping costs.

Much of the foothill area relies on ground water to meet water needs. Ground water supplies are
highly variable and do not contain significant volumes due to the nature of the fractured rock
characteristic of the area.

I There are roughly two dozen CVP contractors for project water, but the majority of diverters along

'the Sacramento River existed before major reservoirs were constructed. There are only three Sacramento

[River Region SWP contractors: Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Butte

County, and Yuba City. The Feather River had a similar history before the construction of the SWF's

lOroville Reservoir. The diverters executed water rights settlement contracts with the USBR and DWR

jafter the CVP and SWP water rights were filed. These contracts normally provide for deficiencies of

jonly 25 to 50 percent in extremely dry years, whereas CVP and SWP contractors can receive much larger

Ideficiencies. These water rights settlement contracts include these provisions because their water rights

jwere filed long before the federal and State projects were built; most go back to before the turn of the

'century.

CVP contractors account for 20 percent of the region's water use and are subject to sizeable cutbacks
in drought years; some contractors suffered a 75 percent reduction in 1991 . The effects of such cuts
Idepend on what alternatives are available. Some areas can fall back on ground water; others have no
feasible alternatives.

A final category of water users includes those who depend primarily on return flow from upstream
areas. These users usually do not have a firm water right because an upstream user is not generally
obliged to continue to provide return flows. The recent drought, the resulting water banking activities,
and increased emphasis on water conservation have reduced return flows available for downstream users.
Among those affected have been State and federal wildlife areas and various privately owned duck clubs.

Water Management Options with Existing Facilities. Changes in the surface water allocation
within the region will probably result from pressure for environmental restoration, negotiations for

135

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Sacramento River Regior

renewal of CVP contracts, expanded conjunctive use of surface and ground water, and various proposals
and designs for water transfers. Cumulatively, these changes could result in further substantial increases
in ground water use in the region. Water transfers are becoming increasingly important throughout
California. Since the Sacramento River system potentially is the major source of future water transfers,^
this region will probably experience more water transfer activities in the future.

Water conservation efforts in this region do not usually result in substantial actual water savings
because water not consumptively used is available for reuse downstream. For example, most water
delivered in the Sacramento Region that is not consumptively used is returned to surface or ground water
sources from which it may be diverted and used again.

Some water users would find themselves without a supply if upstream users did not provide surplus
runoff from their "inefficient" application of water. If return flows were reduced by upstream water
conservation efforts, downstream users who have the rights to do so would elect to divert more water
from the Sacramento River to meet their needs.

Water Management Options With Additional Facilities. Many potential surface water
developments within the Sacramento River Region have been examined over the last 40 years. Most of
these studies were geared primarily to producing additional water supplies for use in other regions of the
State. Agricultural payment capacity within the Sacramento River Region generally is insufficient to
justify expensive new reservoir projects.

The most attractive surface water projects in the Sacramento River Region have already been built.
High construction costs and the increasing emphasis on environmental considerations have greatly
restricted the remaining options for additional surface water development. There are a few reservoir
projects under consideration within the region, but none is far enough along in the planning and
environmental review analysis to be constructed within the 30-year forecast presented here. The
proposed Auburn Dam is discussed earlier in the "Local Issues" section of this chapter.

Additional ground water development will most likely provide for the limited increasing water
demands of the region. The potential for developing new supplies from ground water is most favorable
in the northern portion of the Sacramento Valley; the southern portion is already operating close to
perennial yield in many areas. From the standpoint of overall basin management, increasing use of
ground water will come partially at the expense of depleting existing surface supplies. Table SR-4
shows water supplies with additional facilities and programs.

136

ulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Sacramento River Region

Table SR-4. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs

(thousands of acre -feet)

Supply

1990

2000

2010

2020

average

drought

average

drought

average

drought

average

drought

Surface

Local

3.169

2.856

3,222

2.907

3,318

3.020

3,369

3,077

Local imports

8 1

w ^

1 Colorado River

CVP

2,382

1,996

2,453

2,070

2,459

2,071

2,469

2,081

Other federal

239

218

243

218

243

218

243

218

SWP

Ground water

2,480

2,850

2,452

2,982

2,413

3,032

2,480

3,044

Overdraft

Reclaimed

Dedicated natural flow

3,323

2,929

3,749

3.355

3,749

3,355

3,749

3,355

,Total

11,648

10,904

12,176

11,588

12,239

11,753

12,367

11,832

I Water Use

The 1990 level water usage in the Sacramento River Region is 1 1 .6 MAF, and is projected to rise to
[Imost 12.4 MAF in the year 2020. Since 1980, urban use has increased while agricultural use has
lemained relatively stable except for the peak in acreage during the early 1980s. A general decline in
Agricultural acreage is forecast, but there will be limited expansion in some areas. Therefore, agricultural
ivater use is expected to decline slightly during the next 30 years as agricultural irrigation efficiencies
iontinue to improve. Environmental use is expected to increase by 0.5 MAF by 2020 under existing
ishery and wetland requirements. Figure SR-3 shows net 1990 level water demands for the Sacramento
tiver Region.

137

i I

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Sacramento River Regioi

Figure SR-3. Sacramento River Region

Net Water Demand (Average Conditions)

1990 level

138

iBulIetin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Sacramento River Region

jUrban Water Use

Cities in the region tend to be on or near major rivers and much of the population receives its water
supplies from those rivers. Ground water supplies some cities and rural dwellers and also supplements
(surface supplies in some areas. In the last decade, rapid growth on the outskirts of cities with surface
supplies has led to a number of residential developments using ground water.

Figure SR-4. Sacramento River Region
Appiied Urban Water Demand (Average Conditions)

1990 levei

An average of 75 percent of the total residential water use is for landscaping. Per capita water use
averages 248 gallons per day for valley residents. In the northern part of the region per capita water use
ranges from about 200 to around 350 gpd. The higher unit use is generally associated with the hot, dry

139

■1

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Sacramento River Region

floor of the northern Sacramento Valley. Overall, daily per-capita urban water use of 300 gallons has not
changed significantly over past years except during droughts. At those times, communities with high
water use have reduced their use by employing standard water conservation methods.

Overall, the region's population is expected to more than double. Municipal and industrial use is
expected to increase along with the region's population from 1990 to 2020. Much of the growth will be
in the southern part of the region including El Dorado, Placer and Sacramento counties.

The high water using industries of the region are closely tied to agriculture and forestry. Tomato and
stone fruit processing, sugar mills, paper pulp, and lumber mills consume large amounts of water and
many have their own supplies. Table SR-5 summarizes the applied and net urban water use projections
for the region. Figure SR-4 shows applied 1990 level urban water demand, by sector.

140

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Sacramento River Region

Table SR

-5. Urban Water Demand

(thousands of

acre-

-feet)

Planning Subareas

1990
average drought

2000
average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

Shasta -Pit

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Northwest Valley

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Northeast Valley

Applied water demand

104

110

Net water demand

104

110

Depletion

Southeast

Applied water demand

102

111

121

127

13p

Net water demand

102

111

121

127

139

Depletion

Central Basin West

Applied water demand

100

109

116

125

Net water demand

100

109

116

125

Depletion

Central Basin East

8or

Applied water demand

448

490

543

593

645

705

735

Net water demand

448

490

543

593

645

705

735

803

Depletion

127

140

154

170

185

202

211

232

Southwest

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Delta Service Area

l^^l

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Total

Applied water demand

745

809

912

989

1,078

1,169

1,230

1,334

Net water demand

745

809

912

989

1,078

1,169

1,230

1,334

Depletion

238

256

293

318

348

378

399

433

141

pr"

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Sacramento River Region

Agricultural Water Use

Agricultural water use is estimated using crop acreages and corresponding applied water and
evapotranspiration of applied water unit use values for each crop. Figure SR-5 shows irrigated acreage,
ETAW, and applied water for major crops grown in the region. On-farm irrigation efficiencies vary
widely, depending on individual crops, soils, irrigation methods, system reuse, water scarcity, and
irrigation costs. Areas depending on ground water or limited surface water tend to be very efficient.
Others who enjoy high priority rights to dependable supplies are often less conservative in their water
usage. Excess water supplied simply returns to the supply system through drainage canals. Basin
efficiency is usually very good because downstream users recycle return flows for their own use. In
many places, return flows are the only water source for downstream users. The capital investment
necessary to increase on-farm irrigation efficiency is generally not considered warranted unless water
supplies are unreliable. Along with that, many farmers are working with a narrow profit margin and are
growing the most profitable crop for the soil and climate in the area; additional production costs often
may not be an option, but rather will cause the farming operation to cease.

Rainfall during the growing season is virtually non-existent. During normal years, surface and
ground water are plentiful and water availability is not the limiting factor in production. Much of the
valley is irrigated using various flood irrigation methods. Table SR-6 shows irrigated acreage
projections for the region. Table SR-7 presents 1990 ETAW by crop and Table SR-8 shows agricultural
water demands to 2020.

Table SR-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage
(thousands of acres)

Planning Subareas

1990

2000

2010

2020

Shasta- Pit
Northwest Valley
Northeast Valley
Southeast
Central Basin West
Central Basin East
Southwest
Delta Service Area
Total

147

142

144

146

129

139

146

149

104

786

784

804

815

679

664

653

642

189

190

2,145

2,134

2,156

2,162

142

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Sacramento River Region

Acres (X 1 ,000) Acre-Feet (X 1 ,000)
1 ,200 1 ^ ^^ V 3,600

900

600

300

2,700

1,800

900

Grain Other Field Pasture

Rice Alfalfa Other Decidious

■Acreage ^ETAW ■ Applied Water

Figure SR-5. 1990 Sacramento River Region
Acreage, ETAW, and Appiied Water for Major Crops

143

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Sacramento River Region

Table SR-

-7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop

Irrigated Crop

Total
Acres
(1,000)

Total ETAW
(1,000AF)

Irrigated Crop

Total

Acres

(1,000)

Total ETAW
(1,000AF)

Grain

303

183

Pasture

357

809

Rice

494

1,458

Tomatoes

120

303

Sugar Beets

165

Other truck

Corn

104

232

Almonds/pistachios

101

234

Other field

155

197

Other deciduous

205

475

Alfalfa

141

326

Vineyard

Citrus/olives

Total

2,145

4,510

In the Sacramento River Region, several crops are expected to decrease in acreage, especially on the
valley floor. The main reasons for the decreases in certain crops are urban encroachment on irrigated
agricultural land and changes in market factors and advanced technology. Pasture is the crop projected
to have the largest decrease in acreage at 35,500 acres (10 percent), followed by rice at 1 1,900 acres (2
percent), small grains, 9,200 acres (3 percent) and sugar beets, 3,000 acres (4 percent). However,
between 1990 and 2020, a net increase in irrigated crop acreage of about 17,000 acres, or 1 percent, is
forecast. Almost all of this increase is expected to occur north of the Sutter Buttes where there exists
adequate farmable soils with sufficient surface and ground water supplies. The crops projected to have
the largest increase in acreage are almonds, miscellaneous truck crops, tomatoes, vineyard, com, and
miscellaneous deciduous orchards.

144

1 BuUetin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Sacramento River Region

Table SR-8.

Agricultural Water Demand

(thousands of acre-

-feet)

Planning Subareas

1990
average drought

2000
average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

Shasta -Pit

Applied water demand

440

469

433

463

440

470

449

479

Net water demand

379

396

374

391

380

397

387

405

Depletion

330

358

325

352

330

358

335

363

Northwest Valley

Applied water demand

472

569

490

590

505

609

508

612

Net water demand

460

485

480

506

498

525

504

532

1 Depletion

356

433

374

455

388

471

392

476

Northeast Valley

Applied water demand

306

353

306

353

310

358

310

358

Net water demand

298

312

299

314

304

319

303

318

Depletion

230

266

234

271

238

276

239

276

1 Southeast

Applied water demand

358

426

355

423

351

418

351

418

Net water demand

346

388

344

385

341

381

341

381

1 Depletion

261

306

261

306

261

304

261

306

' Central Basin West

Applied water demand

2,830

3,081

2,804

3,052

2,803

3,049

2,812

3,057

Net water demand

2,159

2,397

2,168

2,456

2,159

2,443

2,167

2,440

Depletion

1,896

2,153

1,919

2,179

1,947

2,210

1,970

2,235

Central Basin East

Applied water demand

2,907

3,124

2,781

3,020

2,660

2,960

2,605

2,799

Net water demand

2,613

2,754

2,463

2,627

2,363

2,580

2,324

2,435

Depletion

1,950

2,151

1,923

2,132

1,886

2,080

1,852

2,042

Southwest

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

-i 46

Delta Service Area

Applied water demand

461

546

457

542

453

537

453

537

Net water demand

426

504

383

455

369

450

379

450

Depletion

403

342

405

342

403

343

405

Total

Applied water demand

7,847

8,645

7,697

8,516

7,594

8,475

7,558

8,333

Net water demand

6,752

7,308

6,580

7,203

6,480

7,164

6,473

7,029

Depletion

5,476

6,121

5,425

6,147

5,438

6,148

5,437

6,150

145

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Sacramento River Region

Environmental Water Use

Instream flow requirements of major streams in the region are listed in Table SR-9. This region
contains the largest wetland areas in the State, totalling approximately 175,000 acres. Water for these
wetlands is from several sources, including CVP supplies, agricultural return flows, and ground water.
The estimated wetland applied water, shown in Table SR-10, is about 456,000 AF. The projected supply
for year 2000 is expected to go up by 34 percent due to the 1992 CVP Improvement Act of 1992 which
allocated more water to wetlands. In the year 2000, 612,000 AF would be allocated for wetlands. The
CVP Improvement Act of 1992 is discussed in Volume I, Chapter 2.

The Butte and Sutter basins contain large wetlands areas which serve as critical habitat for migratory
waterfowl in the Pacific Fly way. There are about 13,000 acres of publicly owned and managed
waterfowl habitat in the Butte Basin. In addition, private hunting clubs maintain more than 30,000 acres
of habitat during normal years. The Sutter Basin has almost 2,600 acres of publicly owned waterfowl
habitat, all are in the Sutter National Wildlife Refuge. Private duck hunting clubs provide an additional
1 ,500 acres of waterfowl habitat.

146

i Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Sacramento River Region

Table SR-

-9. Environmental Instream Water Needs

(thousands of acre-

-feet)

Stream

1990

2000

2010

2020

average

drought

average

drought

average

drought

average drought

Sacramento River

Applied Water

1,903

1.702

1,903

1.702

1,903

1,702

1,903

1,702

Net Water

1,903

1,702

1,903

1,702

1,903

1.702

1,903

1,702

Depletion

Ybba River

Applied Water

280

600

Net Water

174

600

Depletion

Feather River

Applied Water

977

784

977

784

977

784

977

784

Net Water

977

784

977

784

977

784

977

784

Depletion

American River

Applied Water

234

Net Water

234

Depletion

Others (1)

Applied Water

Net Water

Depletion
Total

Applied Water

3,443

3,049

3,763

3,369

3,763

3,369

3,763

3,369

» Net Water

3,323

2,929

3,749

3,355

3,749

3,355

3,749

3,355

1
Depletion

147

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Sacramento River Region

Table SR-10. Wetlands Water Needs

(thousands of acre -feet)

1990

2000

2010

2020

Wetlands

average drought

average

drought

average drought

average

drought

Modoc NWR

Applied water

20 1

1 20

Net water

Depletion

Sacramento NWR

Applied water

50 J 50

Net water

Depletion

Colusa NWR

Applied water

25 ^

^'. 25

Net water

Depletion

Butte Sink NWR

Applied water

Net water

Depletion

Delevan NWR

Applied water

Net water

Depletion

Sutter NWR

■

Applied water

g»

'30

Net water

Depletion

4 4 4

Gray Lx>dge WA

Applied water

Net water

Depletion

Ash Creeic WA

Applied water

13 js

^ 13

Net water

: 13

Depletion

Upper Butte Basin

Applied water

Net water

Depletion

148

iBulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Sacramento River Region

Table SR-10. Wetlands Water Needs (continued)

(thousands of

acre-

feet)

Yolo Bypass

mssm

1 Applied water

0^^

i Net water

^ flH

1 Depletion

Stone Lakes

^ii

HHI

i Applied water

oP^

™

^^r

1 Net water

0 ^^m

' Depletion

Butte Basin

1 Applied water

120 120

120

' Net water

74 ^

; Depletion

33 *

Colusa Basin

1
Applied water

Net water

Depletion

i American Basin

! Applied water

1 Net water

Depletion

Sutter Basin

1 Applied water

Net water

, Depletion

Yolo Basin

Applied water

Net water

21 ^-

Depletion

^ Sherman Island

> Applied water

1 Net water

9 P

; Depletion

j Cosumnes River

! Applied water

; Net water

Depletion

Total

Applied water

456 A

156

612

Net water

354 :

154

478

Depletion

167 1

207

149

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Sacramento River RegioDi

Other Water Use

Figure SR-6 shows water recreation areas in the Sacramento Region. Table SR-1 1 shows the total
water demands for the region.

Figure SR-6. Sacramento River Region
Water Recreation Areas

1 . Goose Lake

2. Castle Crags S.R

3. West Valley Reservoir

4. Blue Lake

5. Ahjumaw Lava Springs S.R

6. Tule Lake

7. McArthur-Burney Falls M.S.R

8. Lake McCloud

9. Shasta Lake

10. Iron Canyon Reservoir

11. LakeBritton

12. Whiskeytown Reservoir

13. Crater Lake

14. Manzanita Lake

15. Lake Al manor

16. William B. Ide Adobe S.H.R

17. Butte Valley Resen/oir

18. Round Valley Reservoir

19. Antelope Lake R.F.

20. Woodson Bridge S.R.A.

21 . Snag Lake

22. Lake Davis

23. Frenchman Lake

24. Black Butte Lake

Shown on map.

25. Bidwell River Park S.R.A.

26. Plumas-Eureka S.R

27. Bucks Lake

28. Lakes Basin Recreation Are

29. Stony Gorge Reservoir

30. Thermalito Afterbay R.F

31. Thermalito Forebay R.F

32. Lake Oroville S.R.A.

33. Little Grass Valley Reservoir

34. New Bullards Bar Reservoir

35. Malakoff Diggins S.H.R

36. Bowman Lake

37. Jackson Meadow

Recreation Area

38. Boca Resen/oir

39. Prosser Creek Reservoir

40. PlaskettLake

41. Collins Lake

42. South Yuba Trail Project

43. Lake Spaulding

44. Lake Valley Reservoir

45. Eagle Lake

46. Martis Creek Lake

47. Blue Lakes -Lake County

48. Lake Pillsbury

49. Colusa-Sacramento River S.

50. Scotts Flat Lake

51 . Indian Valley Resen/oir

52. Camp Far West Lake

53. Rollins Lake

54. Englebright Reservoir

55. Sugar Pine Reservoir

56. French Meadows Reservoir

57. Clear Lake S.R

58. Anderson Marsh S.H.R

59. Auburn S.R.A.

60. Stumpy Meadows Reservoir

61 . Marshall Gold Discovery S.H.

62. Hell Hole Reservoir

63. Loon Lake

64. Union Valley Resen/oir

65. Jenkinson Lake Sly Park R.A.

66. Ice House Reservoir

67. Wrights Lake

68. Echo Lake

69. Folsom lake S.R.A.

70. Lake Natoma

71. Brannan Island S.R.A.

R.A.

150

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Sacramento River Region

OREGON

Legend
A Water Recreation Area
• Hydroelectric Power Plant
■» Federal Wild and Scenic River

Figure SR-6. Sacramento River Region
Water Recreation Areas

151

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Sacramento River Region

Table SR-11. Total Water Demands
(thousands of acre -feet)

1990
Category of Use

average drought

2000
average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

Urban

Applied water 744

808

911

988

1077

1168

1229

1333

Net water 745

809

912

989

1078

1169

1230

1334

Depletion 238

256

293

318

348

378

399

433

Agricultural

■il-

Applied water 7,847

8,645

7,697

8,516

7594

8475

7558

i; 8333

Net water 6,752

7,308

6,580

7,203

6480

7164

6473

7029

Depletion 5,476

6,121

5,425

6,147

5438

6148

5437

1 6150

Environmental

Applied water 3,899

3,505

4,375

3,981

4375

3981

4375

3981

Net water 3,677

3,283

4,227

3,833

4227

3833

4227

f 3833

Depletion 167

167

207

Other (1)

Applied water 1

Net water 475

408

458

398

455

398

438

398

Depletion 71

Total

Applied water 12,491

12,959

12,984

13,487

13046

13625

13163

13649

Net water 11,648

11,807

12,176

12,423

12239

12564

12367

12593

Depletion 5,952

6,605

5,995

6,733

6063

6793

6113

6849

(1) includes conveyance losses, recreational uses, and (

energy production

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management

Legislation and Litigation

Bay/Delta Proceedings and Other Delta Issues. A comprehensive discussion of the Bay /Delta
hearings and other Delta issues can be found in Volume I, Chapter 2 and Chapter 10.

Sacramento River Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Management Plan (Senate Bill 1086). The

salmon and steelhead fishery in the upper Sacramento River has declined greatly in the last few decades.
Contributing to this decline are problems on the river's main stem: unsuitable water temperatures, toxic
heavy metals from acid mine drainage, limited spawning gravels, obstructions to fish migration, fish
losses from diversions, and riparian habitat loss. In 1986, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1086,
which called for development of a riparian habitat inventory and an Upper Sacramento River Fisheries
and Riparian Habitat Management Plan. The final plan contained a conceptual Riparian Habitat
Restoration Plan recommending two major actions dealing with riparian habitat along the river and its
major tributaries. It also contained a more specific Fishery Restoration Plan, listing 20 actions to help
restore the salmon and steelhead fisheries of the river and its tributaries. In September 1989, the

152

iBulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Sacramento River Region

Legislature approved Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 62, declaring a State policy to implement the
|recommendations of the management plan.

About half of the proposed restoration actions are now underway, funded by a combination of
federal, State, and local sources, but progress in obtaining major federal funding has been slow. The
CVP Improvement Act includes many of the CVP related fishery restoration measures recommended by
the SB 1086 plan. This Act should accelerate implementation of the major actions needed to restore the
jupper Sacramento River salmon and steelhead fisheries by providing needed funding.

; Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Intake Screen Deficiencies. The GCID has 700,000 AF of prior
rights supplemented by 120,000 AF of CVP water. In May 1972, DFG constructed a 40 drum rotary
[screen at the intake to the GCID main pump station. The rotary drum screen is one of the largest ever
jbuilt, allowing a diversion from the Sacramento River of 3,000 cfs. However, the design performance of
the screens was never realized because local river bed erosion gradually lowered the water surface. This
(resulted from the cutoff of a large downstream river bend during the high water of 1970, which dropped
]the normal water surface elevation at the screen by approximately 3-1/2 feet. The ensuing operational
[deficiencies caused high juvenile fish mortalities.

In 1987, GCID and DFG entered into a joint memorandum of understanding to fund an investigation
Df potential solutions. The engineering firm CH2MHill was selected to perform this investigation. Their
broposed solution was a new V-type screen combined with gradient restoration in the river. In 1989, the
p.S. Army Corps of Engineers was directed by special federal legislation to proceed with engineering
^d design to restore the river hydraulics near the screen to 1970 conditions. The Corps has recently
Completed an initial design and environmental assessment of a gradient restoration project.

The listing of the winter run chinook salmon in 1991 required GCID to consult with the National
|Marine Fisheries Service on operating the existing screen and constructing a new screen. A court order
|>et requirements for operating the existing screen which limit the amount of water GCID can divert. In
i:he summer of 1992 a second contractor, HDR Engineering, Inc., was hired to perform a feasibility level
study of selected screen design alternatives and prepare environmental documentation.

The CVP Improvement Act of 1992 includes fishery mitigation at the GCID pumping plant in the
Act's list of mandatory environmental restoration actions. USER will participate with other parties,
imcluding the Reclamation Board, in implementing the work required by the Act.

Regional Issues

Ground Water Export. Individuals and water districts from several counties have recently sold or
:onsidered selling surface water and ground water to downstream users. As a result, many north valley
vvater users are concerned about protecting ground water resources from export. Surface water transfers
:aused considerable controversy in local areas (see Volume I for a more complete discussion of water
ransfers and the 1991 State Emergency Drought Water Bank). Organized ground water management
efforts are currently under way in Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Shasta, Tehama, and Yolo counties.

Endangered Species. Threatened and endangered species are affecting management of the region's
•vater supplies. While few specific water supply requirements yet have been established for individual

153

BuUetin 160-93 Administrative Draft Sacramento River Region

species, a number of operating restrictions may be considered that will impact the statewide water
demand balance. For example, the listing of the winter run chinook salmon has had a major impact on
GCID and ACID operations. Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District and other Sacramento River
water diverters are concerned about the listing of additional fish runs. Additionally, the bank swallow, a
State threatened species, has limited the bank protection efforts along the Sacramento River.

Foothill Ground Water. Although most of the foothill areas have abundant surface water supplies,
several rely heavily on ground water to meet their needs. With many people relocating to foothill and
mountain regions, there is increasing concern about ground water availability in hard rock areas and the
potential for contaminating these supplies. In many mountain counties, homes are built on small parcels
away from regional sewer systems and municipal water supplies. Most of these homes rely on a single
well for their potable water supply and a septic system to dispose of their sewage. In many areas where
this development is occurring, there is no readily available alternative water supply if the ground water
becomes depleted or contaminated.

In some areas, current development will cause water supply needs to exceed available supplies.
Downstream areas have already developed the least costly reservoir sites, and a number of recent State
and federal mandates further limit water development. Financial and other local agency constraints can
make it virtually impossible for these regions to develop supplies on their own.

Local Issues

Sacramento River Water Quality. Water quality in the entire watershed is generally excellent,
making it the one of the most desirable water sources in the State. However, the system is vulnerable to
pollution from several sources such as the July 1991 toxic spill into the Sacramento River near Dunsmuir
from a train derailment. The upper Sacramento River is slowly recovering from that metam sodium spill
which killed essentially all life for miles of this river system. Native rainbow trout from tributaries are
redistributing themselves in the river and the smaller benthic organisms are steadily returning to the river.
DFG continues to closely monitor the river's recovery. Current plans are to keep sport fishing closed
until there is substantial recovery of the river's historic wild trout population.

Problems such as turbidity and high pesticide concentrations affect not only the fisheries, but also the
drinking water supplies. One of the most significant water quality problems on the upper Sacramento
River is heavy metals loading caused by acid mine drainage from a region of past copper/lead/zinc
mining above Redding. The major contributor, Iron Mountain Mine, is included in EPA's Superfund
program, and remedial and water quality enforcement actions have been underway there for many years.
Acid mine drainage from this region has caused significant fish losses in the Sacramento River. USBR
operates Spring Creek Debris Dam, upstream of Keswick Reservoir, to control runoff from part of the
Iron Mountain area. Mine drainage is impounded in the reservoir and released when downstream flows
are large enough to provide dilution. Sometimes when SCDD is full, releases must be made from Shasta
Reservoir to provide dilution. This reduces CVP yield but is necessary to protect the fishery.
Enlargement of SCDD to provide additional reservoir storage has been one of the alternatives considered
in EPA's remedial plans for Iron Mountain Mine.

154

I Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Sacramento River Region

Discharges from paper mills near Anderson have also caused water quality problems. Other
problems relate to degraded agricultural return flows, particularly those bearing significant pesticide
residues.

North Delta Contract. On January 28, 1981, DWR and North Delta Water Agency signed the North
Delta Contract. One of the water quality standards in the contract is measured, at Emmaton on Sherman
Island, which is situated where salinity fluctuates widely in low flow conditions, due to tidal influences.

The North Delta Contract allows DWR to construct an overland facility as an alternative to meeting
the Emmaton Standard. The Overland Facility would divert water from Threemile Slough and deliver it
to other parts of the island where offshore water is of higher salinity. In 1986, however, Sherman Island
landowners requested that DWR purchase their land instead of building the overland facility.

The Western Delta Water Management Program was developed to include the landowners' desire and
to develop Sherman Island into a wildlife refuge. This would: (1) improve levees for flood control; (2)
[protect Delta water quality; (3) meet water supply and water quality needs of Sherman Island; (4) provide
i habitat for waterfowl and wildlife; (5) minimize oxidation and subsidence on Sherman Island; (6) protect
the reliability of the SWP, Contra Costa Canal, and the CVP; (7) protect Highway 160 and utilities; and
(8) provide additional recreational opportunities.

DWR has been negotiating land sales with the landowners. To date, DWR owns or has offers
accepted for about 13 percent of the land on the island. In 1991, as part of these efforts, DWR negotiated
a draft agreement that had elements of water banking and acknowledgement of the intent to have DWR
purchase lands.

El Dorado County Supplies. Currently El Dorado County has problems with distribution, storage,
and water rights. The 1992 Cleveland fire in El Dorado County destroyed a large portion of the PG&E
El Dorado canal. The canal supplies about one third of El Dorado Irrigation District's water supply.
PG&E will repair the damaged portion of the canal. The American River watershed produces ample
water, but other agencies hold the water rights, leaving El Dorado County deficient. The El Dorado
County Water Agency and El Dorado Irrigation District have jointly filed for additional water rights from
the American River Basin.

El Dorado County Water Agency has issued a final EIR for the El Dorado Project, which will
jaugment supplies in EID's service area. EDCWA has determined that combining water right permits,
contractual entitlements and water exchanges, with the construction of water facilities will provide a
viable supplemental water supply to the year 2020.

Placer County Distribution. Currently, Placer County lacks sufficient delivery capacity to meet its
future demands. There is currently no permanent system to deliver American River water supplies to
western Placer County which has American River water rights, entitlement to water from PG&E's
Yuba-Bear system, and a CVP contract for American River water with the USER. These supplies are

155

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Sacramento River Region

sufficient to meet 2020 needs. The county is studying various delivery systenis to serve western Placer
County agricultural uses.

Cloud Seeding DWR initiated a prototype project to augment snowpack by cloud seeding using
ground based propane dispensers in Plumas and Sierra counties during 1991. These dispensers are
expected to produce a 10 percent increase in snow depths within an area in the upper Middle Fork
Feather River Basin during average and dry years. Increased snow depths are projected to result in an
additional downstream water yield of 22,400 AF in a year of near normal precipitation. The project
suspends operation when it appears that the year will have a heavy snow pack. By seeding
approximately 50 percent of all suitable storms, it will take an estimated five years to statistically
determine the percentage increase in snow depth (and ultimate water yield) produced by the project.
Environmental monitoring of the effects of this new technology is an important component of the
program. There has been local resistance to this program because of the possible additional burden on
Plumas County resulting from increased snow depths. The DWR has committed to pay for any
additional snow removal costs attribute to seeding.

Control of Upper Sacramento River Water Temperatures. During the last summer and fall of
1990-92, extremely low water elevations in Shasta Lake caused Sacramento River water temperatures to
raise above safe levels for fall and winter run salmon. Large amounts of water from the lowest lake
intakes, bypassing the generators, had to be released to prevent extreme fish mortalities. These releases
were expensive and could have been avoided if the dam was equipped with a multi-level temperature
control structure. Design of such a structure is presently underway but construction is still several years
away. The estimated cost is $80 million and the funding source will be the CVP Improvement Act. A
construction contract could be awarded as early as October 1994.

Butte and Sutter Basins. The water-related problems of the Butte and Sutter basins include fish
passage and habitat degradation, water quality, flooding and drainage problems, and water rights. The
issues are complex because of competing uses and the maze-like pattern of water flow. Spring salmon
runs in the Butte Creek watershed have decreased from around 20,000 in 1960 to less than 500 in 1992.
The studies completed under SB 1086 toward a Sacramento River Fisheries Management Plan identified
Butte Creek as a watershed in urgent need of fisheries mitigation work. The Butte and Sutter basins also
provide a major part of the waterfowl wetland habitat in the Sacramento Valley, but are in need of more
dependable water supplies.

This area's greatest water management issue from a local perspective is the widely perceived need for
a ground water basin management plan. Development of this plan is motivated by fears that other areas
of the State may try to purchase ground water to the possible detriment of the local economy and rural
lifestyle. The Butte Basin Water Users Association recently formed to develop a ground water
management plan which would protect local interests in the area north of the Sutter Buttes. Another new
organization, the Northern California Water Association, was formed to protect the water rights of
Sacramento Valley area farmers.

156

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Sacramento River Region

Colusa Basin Drainage and Flooding. The Colusa Basin comprises over 1 ,000,000 acres of valley
. floor and foothill lands in the southwest part of the Sacramento Valley. It includes portions of Glenn,
Colusa, and Yolo counties. Over 450,000 acres of the valley lands within the basin are normally irrigated
and it contains about one-third of the total irrigated acreage of the Sacramento Valley.

The basin has historically experienced flooding, drainage, water quality, and subsidence problems. In
1984, a task force was created to develop solutions to basin problems following the passage of SB 674.
This legislation authorized the Colusa Basin Appraisal by DWR which was completed in 1990. In 1987,
the California Legislature passed the Colusa Basin Drainage District Act which created a multicounty
district to implement solutions to the area's flooding and drainage problems.

The Drainage District Act required that an economically feasible initial plan be developed. In
November 1988, the Board of Directors for the Colusa Basin Drainage District was organized and work
began on the District's initial plan. The DWR's Colusa Basin Appraisal in May 1990, was used as a
guideline for implementing the initial plan. The appraisal concluded that the potential for structural
solutions to Colusa Basin problems is limited and recommended that a management plan be implemented
to address drainage problems first, then flooding.

The plan in its present form lacks the necessary support to be adopted through a district election, and
a vote on the plan is currently not scheduled. The Board plans to consider modifications which could
broaden the scope of the initial plan to include new district objectives such as water transfers and ground
water management. The district has worked to establish a Memorandum of Understanding with the three
counties and Reclamation District 2047 which is now responsible for maintenance of the Colusa Basin
Drain. Negotiations for these agreements are ongoing but the major area of contention is how much
private landowners would be assessed to implement the management plan and which landowners should
be included.

Water Quality in Clear Lake. The most severe problem in Lake County is the nutrient rich character
of Clear Lake water. High nutrient levels cause uncontrollable algae growth, with its associated odor and

' aesthetic problems. Nutrient sources include septic leach lines, sewage treatment plants, and runoff water
from upland areas. The predominant blue-green algae form thick mats and scums which residents and
tourists find noxious. Decomposition of the dense algal growths also causes severe dissolved oxygen
reduction in the water column, which at times kills fish. Lake County received a Clean Lakes grant from
the U.S. EPA to analyze methods for the control of the nuisance algae. The county contracted with the
University of California at Davis to conduct this work. A draft report was due in spring 1993. Elevated
mercury levels have been found in fish from the "Oaks arm" of the lake, prompting DFG to advise

j against eating fish from the lake. The source of mercury is an abandoned mercury mine at Sulphur Bank
near Clear Lake Oaks. In late 1992, the U.S. EPA awarded funds to UCD to investigate the significance
of the mercury problem and develop remedial measures.

West Delta Program. DWR is implementing a unique land use management program that could
effectively control subsidence and soil erosion on Sherman and Twitchell islands, while also providing
significant wildlife/waterfowl habitat values. DWR and DFG have jointly developed the Wildlife

157

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Sacramento River Region

Management Plan for Sherman and Twitchell to accomplish this objective. The plan is also designed to
benefit wildlife species that occupy wetland, upland, and riparian habitat on the islands, and provide
recreational opportunities for hunting and wildlife viewing. Property acquired and habitat developed
through DWR's contribution will be available for use as mitigation for impacts associated with ongoing
DWR Delta water management programs.

This plan would significantly reduce subsidence by minimizing oxidation and erosion of the peat
soils on the islands by replacing present farming practices with land use management practices designed
to stabilize the soil. Such practices range from minimizing tillage to establishing wetland habitat.

Altering land use practices on Sherman and Twitchell islands could provide up to 13,600 acres of
managed wildlife and waterfowl habitat and responds directly to the underlying need for additional
wetlands, as expressed in national and State policies for wetlands enhancement and expansion. Delta
issues are also discussed in the San Joaquin Region.

Water Balance

Water balances were computed for each Planning Subarea in the Sacramento River Region by
comparing existing and future water demand projections with the projected availability of supply. The
region total was computed as the sum of the individual subareas. This method does not reflect the
severity of drought year shortages in some local areas which can be hidden when planning subareas are
combined within the region. Thus, there could be substantial shortages in some areas during drought
periods. Local and regional shortages could also be less severe than the shortage shown, depending on
how supplies are allocated within the region, a particular water agency's ability to participate in water
transfers or demand management programs (including land fallowing or emergency allocation programs),
and the overall level of reliability deemed necessary to the sustained economic health of the region.
Volume I, Chapter 11 presents a broader discussion of demand management options.

Table SR-12 presents water demands for the 1990 level and for future water demands to 2020 and
balances them with: (1) supplies from existing facilities and water management programs, and (2) future
demand management and water supply management options.

Regional net water demands for the 1990 level of development totaled 1 1 .6 and 1 1.8 MAF for
average and drought years respectively. Those demands are projected to increase to 12.4 and 12,6 MAF,
respectively, by the year 2020, after accounting for a 25,000 AF reduction in urban water demand
resulting from implementation of long-term conservation measures and a 10,000 AF reduction in
agricultural demand resulting from additional long-term agricultural water conservation measures.

Urban net water demand is projected to increase by about 485,000 AF by 2020, due to expected
increases in population; while, agricultural net water demand is projected to decrease by about 278,000
AF, primarily due to changes in cropping pattems. Environmental net water demands, under existing
rules and regulations, will increase by 550,000 AF, reflecting increased water allocation to wildlife
refuges in the Sacramento Valley and increased Yuba River instream flow required recently by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

158

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Sacramento River Region

Average annual supplies were generally adequate to meet average net water demands in 1990 for this
region. However, during drought, present supplies are insufficient to meet present demands and, without
additional water management programs, annual drought year shortages are expected to decrease from
about 784,000 to 761,000 AF by 2020. This decrease is due primarily to reductions in agricultural water
use.

There are several actions currently in progress, including implementation of the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act, that have proposed increases in instream flow for fisheries that could affect the
availability of supplies for urban and agricultural use in the region.

With planned Level I programs, drought year shortages would be reduced by 23,000 AF. The
lemaining 761,000 AF drought shortage requires both additional short-term drought management, water
transfers and demand management programs, and future long-term Level II options depending on the
overall level of water service reliability deemed necessary, by local agencies, to sustain the economic
health of the region.

■s.

159

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Sacramento River Region

Table SR-12. Water Balance

(thousands of acre -feet)

Demand/Supply

1990
average drought

2020
average drought

Net Demand

Urban -with 1990 level of conservation

-reductions due to long-term conservation measures (Level I)
Agricultural

-reductions due to long-term conservation measures (Level I)
Environmental
Other (1)

745

809

6,752 7,308

3,677
475

3,283
408

1,255
-25

6,483
-10

4,227
438

1,359
-25

7,039
-10

3,833
398

Total Net Demand

11,648 11,807 12,367 12,593

Water Supplies w/Existing Facilities

Developed Supplies

Surface Water

Ground Water

Ground Water Overdraft
Subtotal
Dedicated Natural Flow

5,812

5,092

6,081

5,377

2,480

2,850

2,497

3,044

8,325

7,975

8,611

8,454

3,323

2,929

3,749

3,355

Total Water Supplies

11,648 10,904 12,360 11,809

Demand/Supply Balance

-903

-7

Remaining Demand/Supply Balance Requiring Short Term Drought
Management and/or Future Level II Options

-784

Future Water Management Options Level I

Long-term Supply Augmentation

Reclaimed (2)

Local

Central Valley Project

State Water Project
Subtotal - Water Management Options Level I
Ground Water/Surface Water Use Reduction Resulting from Level I Programs

-761

(1) Includes conveyance losses, recreation uses and energy production.

(2) Because of existing reuse within region, reclaimed supplies do not add supply to the region.

160

iDraft of The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER REGION

El Capitan in Yosemite Valley.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Joaquin River Region

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER REGION

Located in the heart of California, the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region is bordered on the east
by the crest of the Sierra Nevada and on the west by the coastal mountains of the Diablo Range. It ex-
tends from the Delta and the Cosumnes River drainage south to include all of the San Joaquin River wa-
tershed. It is rich in natural wonders, including the Yosemite Valley, Tuolumne Meadows, Moaning Cav-
erns, and Calaveras Big Trees. The region comprises about 10 percent of California's land area. (See
Appendix C for maps of the planning subareas and land ownership in the region.)

The region is diverse but can be divided into two main topographies and associated climates for dis-
cussion: (1) the mountain and foothill areas and (2) the valley area. The climates of many of the upland
areas west of the valley resemble those of foothills. Precipitation in the mountainous areas varies greatly.
The annual precipitation of several Sierra Nevada stations average about 35 inches. Snowmelt runoff
from the mountainous areas is the major contributor to local water supplies for the eastern San Joaquin
Valley floor, whereas the climate of the valley portion of the region is characterized by long hot summers
and mild winters. Average annual precipitation on the valley floor ranges from 17 inches in the northeast
to 9 inches in the south.

Population

About 5 percent of the State's population lives in the region. From 1980 to 1990, the region's popu-
lation grew 41 percent, primarily in Merced, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin counties. Communities such as
Stockton, Modesto, Merced, and Tracy, once valley farm centers, are now major urban centers in the re-
gion. These communities and their smaller neighboring cities, such as Lodi, Gait, Madera, and Manteca,
are expected to continue expanding into the mostly agricultural northern San Joaquin Valley. Several
counties expect their populations to nearly double by 2010.

Some of this growth is due to the expansion from the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento into
the previously agriculturally based areas. Nine new communities have been proposed for development in
southern San Joaquin County, two of which were approved, New Jerusalem and Riverbrook, with pro-
posed populations of 22,000 and 7,000, respectively. As currently proposed, these developments would
increase the county's population by about 30,000 people and require about 4,000 acres.

W: Region Characteristics

y Average Annual Precipitation: 13 inches Average Annual Runoff: 7,933.300 acre-feet
Land Area: 15,946 square miles 1990 Population: 1,430,200

161

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Joaquin River Region

The relatively inexpensive housing available in the area offsets the long commute to Bay Area jobs
for some San Joaquin County residents. Larger cities such as Stockton and Modesto are industrial and
commercial centers in their own right.

In contrast to the large valley urban centers, separated by flat agricultural fields and linked by free-
ways, the foothills are sprinkled with small communities connected by small two-lane roads. Much of
the foothill population lives along the old Mother Lode route of the 1 849 Gold Rush, Highway 49.
Towns such as Jackson, Angels Camp, San Andreas, Sonora, and Oakhurst have grown significantly in
the last decade. Leading off from the north-south trending Highway 49 is a series of roads that lead to
Sierra Nevada mountain passes. These mountain roads (Highways 88, 4, 108,120) generally follow east-
west trending ridges, which are separated by one of the nine major river systems draining the Sierra. The
economies of mountain communities along these routes depend on tourist and travel industries. These
communities are also retirement areas for many former Bay Area or Southern California residents.

The western side of the region, south of Tracy, is sparsely populated. Small farming communities
provide services for farms and ranches in the area, all relatively close to Interstate 5, the chief north-
south transportation route in California.

Historically, the economy of the San Joaquin River Region has been based on agriculture. By far,
agriculture and food processing are still its major industries. Other major industries include the produc-
tion of chemicals, lumber and wood products, glass, textiles, paper, machinery, fabricated metal products,
and various other commodities. Table SJ-1 shows population projections to 2020 for the San Joaquin
River Region.

Table SJ-1. Population Projections

(thousands)

Planning Subareas

1990

2000

2010

2020

Sierra Foothills
Eastern Valley Floor
Delta Service Area
Western Uplands
East Side Uplands
Valley East Side
Valley West Side
West Side Uplands
Total

140

214

284

ii ^^

312

376

445

K 536

156

229 j

315

1 423

109 ^

150

L-r: ^^^

60 j

HH ^2

653

905 1

1,192

r 1,489

82 ^

103

r ^^^

1,430

1,975

2,555

3,221

162

iBulIetin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Joaquin River Region

JLand Use

Much of the Sierra Nevada Range is national forest land, while the San Joaquin Valley is predomi-

nantly agricultural. In the Sierra Nevada, there are the El Dorado, Stanislaus, and Sierra national forests

and Yosemite National Park. The valley constitutes about 3.5 million acres, the eastern foothills and

mountains total 5.8 million acres, and the western coastal mountains comprise 0.9 million acres.

The national forest and park lands encompass over 2.9 million acres of the region; state parks and
recreational areas and other state owned property account for about 80,000 acres; Bureau of Land Man-
agement and military properties occupy some 221,000 and 37,000 acres respectively. Public lands, there-
foffe, comprise about one-third of the region.

About 1,956,000 of the region's 10.2 million acres (19 percent) were devoted to irrigated agriculture
in 1990. Some of the major crops include almonds, alfalfa, pasture, grain, grapes, cotton, and field com.
Urban land usage in 1990 totaled 295,300 acres. Figure SJ-1 shows land use, along with imports, ex-
ports, and water supplies for the San Joaquin River Region.

Water Supply

About 47 percent of the region's 1990 level water supply comes from local surface sources, while 29
percent is from imported surface supplies. Ground water provides about 19 percent of the total 1990 lev-
el average annual water supply for the region. The surface waters of all rivers in the region combine with
the San Joaquin River in or above the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Located in the Delta are the
pumping facilities of the federal Central Valley Project, the State Water Project and the Contra Costa Ca-
nal. The CVP provides much of the water supply (about 63 percent) for the west side of the region's
valley area. The Hetch Hetchy reservoir system, on the Tuolumne River, provides water to the southern
San Francisco Bay Area and Peninsula through a system of reservoirs, power plants and aqueducts. The
East Bay Municipal Utility District receives water from Pardee Reservoir on the Mokelumne River.
IThis water is conveyed by the Mokelumne Aqueduct to the East Bay MUD's service area, which includes
Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond, and Walnut Creek.

163

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Joaquin River Region

Folsom Lake

Di version

Sly Park
2A

FoJscm South

Canal

Delta Mendota
Canal
3,231

California Aqueduct
2.588

Contra Costa

Canal

Moke 1 taane

Aqueduct

South Ba

Aqueduc

164

Hetcb ffet
Aqueduct
208

San Felipe Unit
145

1?MC - Mendota-
Pool
130
California
Aqueduct
and San Luis
Canal
4,007

Friant Kern

Canal

1,148

PRESEiyrr water suppues

(1,000 AF/Yr.)

LOCAL SURFACE WATER DEVELOPMENT
GROUND WATER PERENNIAL YIELD
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT
STATE WATER PROJECT

OTHER FEDERAL WATER DEVELOPMENT
WATER RECLAMATION
DEDICATED NATURAL FLOW

WATER SUPPLY
GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT
TOTAL

I Urban Land
I irrigated Land
•^- Region Water Transfer

(l/XXTt of Acr»-FMt pw Ymt)

Figure SJ-1. San Joaquin River Region
Land Use, Imports, Exports, and Water Supplies

164

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Joaquin River Region

Supply with Existing Facilities

Surface water systems in the region form a general pattern. A series of reservoirs gather and store
snowmelt in the upper mountain valleys of the Sierras. Water here is generally used for hydro-generation
as it is released down river. Some diversion for consumptive use occurs for local communities, but most
flows are caught downstream in other reservoirs located in the foothills or at the eastern edge of the
valley floor. Irrigation canals, along with municipal pipelines, commonly carry water from these storage
facilities. Water released downstream in the river can be picked up for irrigation and other uses on the
valley floor as it heads for the Delta. Figure SJ-2 shows the region's 1990 level sources of supply.

Of the 57 major reservoirs in the region, there are 16 with storage capacities greater than 100,000 AF,
four of which have capacities of 1 MAP or more. Fifteen of these reservoirs were built primarily for
flood control; however, many of them also have additional storage capacity for water supply and other
uses included in their design. In addition to federal agencies, local irrigation districts own and operate
many of the major facilities; most are managed for multipurpose uses. The region's major reservoir sys-
tems are briefly described in Table SJ-2.

Table SJ-2. Major Reservoirs

Reservoir Name

River

Capacity (1 ,000 AF)

Owner

t New Melones

Stanislaus

2,420

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

New Don Pedro

Tuolumne

2,030

Turlock and Modesto Imgation Districts

Hetch Hetchy

Tuolumne

360.4

City of San Francisco

Lake McClure

Merced

1,024

Merced Irrigation District

San Luis

N/A

2,040

USBR and Dept. of Water Resources

Shaver

San Joaquin

135

Southern California Edison

Pardee

Mokelumne

210

East Bay Municipal Util. District

Salt Springs

Mokelumne

139

Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Millerton

San Joaquin

520

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Edison

San Joaquin

125

Southern California Edison

Uoyd (Cherry)

Tuolumne

268

City of San Francisco

Mammoth Pool

San Joaquin

123

Southern California Edison

Camanche

Mokelumne

431

East Bay Municipal Util. District

New Hogan

Calaveras

325

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Eastman

Chowchilla

150

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation completed New Melones

in 1979, and the reservoir was initially

filled in 1983. Although this reservoir

has an estimated annual additional yield of 1 80,000 AF, none of

this yield has been delivered yet due to

a lack of conveyance facilities. To date, Stockton East Water Dis-

trict has contracted with USER for 75,000 AF of interim water; Central San Joaquin Water District has

165

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Joaquin River Region

contracted for 49,000 AF of average and drought year supply and 3 1 ,000 AF of interim water. The facili-
ties to transport this water may be completed by the end of 1993, and delivery may begin in 1994, de-
pending on water availability. Water supplies vary by areas in the region, as discussed below.

Mountain and Foothill Areas. The major mountain and foothill areas of the region include the east
side Sierra Nevada mountain counties of Mariposa, Tuolumne, Calaveras, Amador, and portions of Al-
pine and El Dorado. There are dozens of small communities in these counties, generally located along
Highway 49; most of them, and the sparse agricultural land in the area, receive their water from local sur- (
face supplies. In the 1850s, hydraulic mining for gold and other minerals promoted the construction of
an extensive network of canals and ditches to bring water from main rivers and tributaries to the mine
sites. When the mining industry waned, power companies, like Pacific Gas and Electric Company, took
control of many of these facilities. Today, in addition to supplying water to hydroelectric power plants,
these facilities convey water to many of the small mountain communities. For example, in Amador
County, the Cosumnes River supplies water to the community of Plymouth and the Mokelumne River
supplies water to the communities of Jackson and lone. In Calaveras County, water is distributed via
pipelines and ditches from the Stanislaus and Calaveras Rivers to the communities of Angels Camp, Ar-
nold, and Jenny Lind. In Tuolumne County, water from the Lyons Reservoir is diverted to several com-
munities along Highway 108, including Tuolumne, Jamestown, Columbia, and Sonora. Groveland re-
ceives water from the Hetch Hetchy system.

In addition to surface water, many of these mountain communities pump ground water from hard
rock wells and old mines to augment their surface supplies. Ground water generally is no more than
about 15 percent of the total supply for most of them. Valley Springs in Calaveras County, an exception
to the general rule, relies entirely on ground water for its water needs. The communities of Plymouth and
Mariposa had to turn to ground water to supplement surface supplies during the 1976-77 and the
1987-92 droughts. Also, for many mountain residents who are not connected to a water conveyance sys-
tem, ground water is their only source.

166

bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Joaquin River Region

Figure SJ-2. San Joaquin River Region
Water Supply Sources (Average Conditions)

1990

edicated
Ntural Flow

'Irudes imports from: the federal Central Valley Project, and the State Water Project.
* Includes local supplies and other federal projects

Valley Area. The nine major river systems feeding into the valley from the Sierra Nevada provide
more than 50 percent of the total supply. Irrigation districts transport much of the local surface water to
valley agricultural users. Modesto Irrigation District and Turiock Irrigation District supply both agricul-
tural and municipal users through the Modesto and Turiock Canals. Other irrigation districts, such as
Merced, Oakdale, and South San Joaquin, operate similar facilities. The Folsom South Canal used to
import about 17,000 acre-feet from the American River for cooling at the Rancho Seco Nuclear Power
Plant, which has been closed. The canal continues to deliver water for agricultural uses in local districts,
such as Gait Irrigation District.

167

Bulletiii 160-93 Administratiye Draft San Joaquin River Region

Adding to the valley's surface water supply are three major canal systems: the California Aqueduct,
Delta-Mendoca Canals and Madera Canal. The CVP also delivers water from its Mendota Pool, O'Neil
Rwrebay, and MiUerton Lake facilities. Only the Oak Flat Water District receives water from the SWP.
Within the Delta service area, agricultural water users pump directly from Delta sloughs and water
courses. The City of Stocktoo receives mincM- surface flows frcwm the New Hogan Reservoir via the
Stockton East Pipeline, and the commonity of Tracy receives about 5,000 acre-feet annually from the
CVP Delta-Mendota Canal.

In an average year, about 19 percent, or 1,281,000 acre-feet, of the region's water requirements are
met by pumping ground water. Agriculture uses about 70 percent of the ground water pumped. The other
30 percent is used to meet a variety of w ater demands including urban, rural residential, industrial and
wildlife. On the valley flow, the roajcnrity of communities, industries, and rural residents rely (mi ground
water as their primary or only source of water supply. Some of the wildlife refiiges in the region may also
use ground water to supplement their surface water supplies, especially in years of below normal surface
deliveries.

The availability of ground water for the region is influenced mainly by water quahty problems. The
valley floor is essentially one large ground water basin consisting of alluvial sediments. Much of the
western portion of the valley is underiain by the Corcoran clay, which generally lies at depths between
100 and 400 feet. The Corcoran clay divides the basin sediments into confined and unconfined aquifers.
On the west side high total dissolved solids and sulfates, are found in varying degrees in both the con-
fined and the deeper unconfmed aquifers. East of the San Joaquin River the valley is underlain by older
less productive sediments. The shallow ground water quality is generally very good here and several wa-
ter districts have drainage wells that pump into their distribution systems. However, in some areas of the
central and northeastern portion of the valley, nitrates and organic ccmtaminants have been found, mosth
localized around a point source.

Overdraft for 1990 is estimated at about 209,000 acre-feet a year. Areas most affected are found in
San Joaquin and Madera counties, with an estimated 70,000 and 1 20,000 acre-feet of overdraft respec-
lively. Jpl

Roughly 24,000 acre-feet of recycled water from municipal and industrial areas is used annually in
the region. Table SJ-3 shows water suf^lies with existing facilities and water management programs.

168

Bulletin 160-93 Administratnre Draft San Joaquin Rher Regioa

Table SJ-3. Water Supplies witti Existing Facilities

and Programs

(Decision 1485 Operating Criteria for Delta Supplies)

(thousands of acre -feet)

Supply

1990

2000

2010

2020

•««ag*

mmw9B

drou^

Miaga

Surface

Local

3.015

2337

3,000

2.803

2367

2,785

2392

2301

Local imports

Colorado River

CVP

1.997

1,389

2,160

1.450

2.171

1,463

2.169

1.463

Other federal

155

SWP

GrourxJ water

1,072

2.127

1,058

2.245

1,081

2.272

1372

2384

Overdraft

209

100

Reclaimed

Dedicated natural flow

330

247

330

247

330

247

330

247

Total

6,807

6,868

6,831

6,904

6,747

6341

6,746

6354

Supply with Additional FadUties and Water Management Programs

The San Joaquin River Region withstood drought conditions by employing several water manage-
ment options: conservation, exchanges, transfers, and supplementing surface supfrfies with ground water.
In the \oag run, however, with continued pc^lation growth and shifts in types of water use, the region's
water resource managers will also look for strategies that increase surface supply reliability and provide
for additional recharge of ground water basins. Means of improving water quality will have to be buih
into these strategies. Future water management options are presented in two levels to better reflect the
status of investigations required to implement them.

O Level I options are those that have imdergone extensive investigatioa smd envi-
ronmental analyses and are judged to have a high likelihood of being implement-
ed by 2020.

O Level n options are those that could fill the remaining gap between water supply
and demand. These options require more investigation and alternative analyses.

Table SJ-4 shows water supplies with Level I water management programs.

169

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Joaquin River Region

Table SJ-4. Water Supplies with Additional Level i

Water Management Programs

(Decision 1485 Operating Criteria for Delta Supplies)

(thousands of acre -feet)

Supply

1990

2000

2010

2020

average

drought

average

drought

average

drought

average

drought

Surface

Local

3,015

2,837

3,001

2,804

2,968

2,786

2,992

2,801

Local imports

Colorado River

CVP

1,997

1,389

2,165

1.450

2,175

1,463

2,173

1,463

Other federal

155

SWP

Ground water

1,072

2,127

1,049

2,239

1,065

2,259

1,050

2,267

Overdraft

209

100

Reclaimed

Dedicated natural flow

330

247

430

252

430

252

430

252

Total

6,807

6,868

6,931

6,907

6,848

6,845

6,846

6,859

Water Supply Reliability and Drought Water Management Strategies. From 1987 through 1992,
the San Joaquin River Region, like much of California, endured drought conditions. Many of the cities
in the region had restricted water use even though ground water is the predominant source of supply for
the communities in the region. Drought related problems developed, such as increased pumping depths,
well failures, and accelerated degradation of water quality, but generally, there was no substantial reduc-
tion in supply. Nevertheless, conservation programs were introduced in nearly all of the communities in
the region in reaction to the drought. Lack of water metering precludes the monitoring or implementa-
tion of mandatory rationing in most communities, but a number of other practices have been employed,
ranging from voluntary water conservation with limitations on outdoor watering to mandatory water ra-
tioning with little or no outdoor watering. For example, the City of Modesto restricted outdoor water use
based on several factors: the season, the day of the week, and the time of day. For indoor water use, the
city relied on voluntary water conservation. The cities of Merced, Tracy, and Turlock had programs simi-
lar to Modesto. Because of the ability of the east side agencies, supplying urban customers and agricul-
tural growers, to supplement reduced surface water allocations with ground water, annual crop acreages
remained fairly stable during the drought.

The foothill community of Mariposa relies on surface water and was hit hard by the reduced runoff.
Its water supply comes from a 440-acre-foot water storage reservoir on Stockton Creek. Residents were
at one point on a strict rationing program that fluctuated with the available water supply. Per capita re-

170

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Joaquin River Region

strictions were as low as 100 gallons per day for the first person of a household and 50 gpd for each addi-
tional person. In comparison, most San Joaquin Valley residents use ground water, and though most ci-
ties were practicing time of day or day of week outdoor watering restrictions and other conservation
programs, water consumption averaged about 250 gpcd.

On the west side of the region, normally about 90 percent of the surface supply is obtained from the
CVP. Over 60 percent of this amount comes by way of exchange contracts for San Joaquin River water.
This exchange provides farmers with a good quality water. These contractors received only 75 percent of
their normal entitlements in 1991 and 1992.

Those areas on the west side which receive contract water from the Delta-Mendota or San Luis Ca-
nals experienced much more severe cuts in water supply. During 1991 and 1992, only 25 percent of the
entitlement amounts were delivered. Many of these areas lacked sufficient ground water pumping capa-
bilities to fully make up for the cuts. There were substantial reductions in cropped acreage and under
irrigation of permanent crops, resulting in decreased crop yields. Some State Water Bank water and fed-
eral hardship water was used primarily to ensure the survival of permanent crops.

Water Management Options with Additional Facilities. In 1 984, the California Legislature autho-
rized the proposed Los Banos Grandes reservoir in western Merced County as a facility of the SWP. Los
Banos Grandes would store water pumped from the Delta through the California Aqueduct during wet
months, primarily November through March. Stored water would be released during water-short periods
for use by agencies with contracts for water from the SWP. This 1.73 MAF reservoir will help provide a
more dependable water supply for the people and farms served by the SWP. (See Volume I, Chapter 1 1 .)
Although only one water district in the region will benefit directly, the reservoir will provide other indi-
rect benefits to the area, such as recreational opportunities and supplemental flood protection for the local
area.

The Mariposa Public Utility District in Mariposa County is developing the Saxon Creek Water Proj-
ect, which will bring additional water to the 2,000 residents living within the district. The project in-
volves tapping the Merced River and delivering water via a pipeline. The project is small, about 900
acre-feet annually at full development, but important to the community of Mariposa. It will help to pro-
vide a reliable water supply in an area that is already straining its water resources.

Water Use

Agricultural water demand is about 85 percent of the region's total demand of 6.8 million acre-feet.
Urban demand, which includes urban residential, industry and rural residential, comprise approximately 5
percent of total demand. Environmental water use for the region's wetlands, and instream fishery require-

171

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Joaquin River Region

merits represent about 8 percent of the total water demand. Other water use includes recreation, water
used for power plant cooling, and water lost during conveyance; this category constitutes about 2 percent
of total demand. Figure SJ-3 shows net water demand for the 1990 level of development.

Figure SJ-3. San Joaquin River Region

Net Water Demand (Average Conditions)

1990 Level

Agricultural

85%

Other

Environmental
Instream

Urban Water Use

In 1990, urban applied water demand in the region totaled almost 495,000 AF, an increase of about
91,000 AF since 1980. This increase was primarily due to an increase in population. Average per-capita
water use is about 309 gallons per day. Per-capita values range from about 350 gallons per day in Mo-
desto, one of the larger cities, to 200 gallons per day and less in small communities like Dos Palos on the

172

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Joaquin River Region

west side and Riverbank on the east side. Higher per capita water use in communities like Modesto is
generally due to a high concentration of industries. In the case of Modesto, food processing comprises a
large segment of the industrial activity. Figure SJ^ shows the 1990 level applied urban water demands
by sector. Table SJ-5 shows applied water and net urban water demand to 2020.

Figure SJ-4. San Joaquin River Region
Applied Urban Water Demand (Average Conditions)

1990 Levei

Commercial

173

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Joaquin River Region

Table SJ-5. Urban Water Demand
(thousands of acre -feet)

Planning Subareas

1990 2000 2010 2020

average drought average drought average drought average drought

Sierra Foothills

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Eastern Valley Floor

Applied water demand

105

114

124

135

147

Net water demand

105

114

124

135

147

Depletion

Delta Service Area

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Western Uplands

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

East Side Uplands

Applied water demand

Net water demand

- 7

Depletion

Valley East Side

Applied water demand

279

280

378

381

493

497

605

610

Net water demand

149

150

202

205

263

267

322

327

Depletion

116

163

164

217

218

270

272

Valley West Side

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

West Side Uplands

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Total

Applied water demand

495

506

663

683

839

867

1,029

1,059

Net water demand

353

364

468

489

587

615

718

751

Depletion

175

177

241

248

316

324

395

404

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Joaquin River Region

Most urban water supply agencies in the region do not meter deliveries to residential customers.
Generally, commercial and industrial deliveries are metered. Outdoor use probably accounts for about
one-half of total urban use for most of the region. Warm summers and associated high water require-
ments for landscaping are the main factors behind this region's urban water use being higher than the sta-
tewide average.

Population projections indicate that more than twice as many people would reside in the San Joaquin
River Region by 2020. Such growth is expected to drive the conversion of some agricultural lands to ur-
ban development. This may further stretch water supplies in some areas, or just shift water use from agri-
culture to urban. Given these population increases, urban net water demand could double by 2020.

Agricultural Water Use

Agriculture accounts for over 85 percent of the total applied water in the San Joaquin Region. The

industry can best be described as widely diverse. Major crops in the region (alfalfa, almonds, grapes,
grain, com, and cotton) encompass over 100,000 acres each. Table SJ-6 shows irrigated crop acreage
projections for the region to 2020. Table SJ-7 shows 1990 crop acreages and evapotranspiration of ap-
plied water. Figure SJ-5 shows crop acreages, ETAW, and applied water for major crops.

Table SJ-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage

(thousands of acres)

Planning Subareas

1990

2000

2010

2020

Sierra Foothills
Eastern Valley Floor
Delta Service Area
Western Uplands
East Side Uplands
Valley East Side
Valley West Side
West Side Uplands
Total

273

272

271

269

277

276

273

271

2 ^

1,003

985

965

949

433

435

436

437

2,008

1,990

1,968

1,951

175

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Joaqu

in River Region

Table SJ-

-7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop

Irrigated Crop

Total

Acres

(1,000)

Total ETAW
(1,000AF)

Irrigated Crop

Total
Acres
(1,000)

Total ETAW
(1,000AF)

Grain

182

130

Pasture

228

704

Rice

Tomatoes

181

Cotton

178

453

Otiier trucl<

133

164

Sugar Beets

157

Almonds/pistachios

245

513

Corn

181

342

Other deciduous

147

380

Other field

121

153

Vineyard

184

364

Alfalfa

226

665

Citrus/olives

Total

2,008

4,296

Estimates of future agricultural water use were generally based on the 1990 unit use values. There
may be room for some minor improvements in irrigation efficiencies; however increased efficiencies
would only slightly reduce the overall agricultural water use. Double cropping accounted for about
52,700 acres in 1990, a decrease of about 35 percent since 1980. The double cropped acres represent less
than 3 percent of the irrigated acreage. Table SJ-8 shows agricultural water demands to 2020.

■;

176

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Joaquin River Region

Acres (X 1 ,000)

Acre-Feet (X 1 ,000)

1,200

960

720

480

240

Grain Corn Pasture Grapes

Cotton Alfalfa Almond/Pistachio

■Acreage METPW ■Applied Water

Figure SJ-5. 1990 San Joaquin River Region

Acreage, ETAW, and Appiied Water for

Major Crops

177

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Joaquin River Region

Table SJ~8. Agricultural Water Demand

(thousands of acre -feet)

Planning Subareas

1990
average drought

2000
average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

Sierra Foothills

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Eastern Valley Floor

Applied water demand

888

1,040

852

998

825

948

811

948

Net water demand

874

1,028

803

988

765

904

751

903

Depletion

637

747

628

735

619

715

612

715

Delta Service Area

Applied water demand

739

830

719

805

694

774

681

755

Net water demand

690

772

673

749

650

721

638

705

Depletion

552

620

542

606

532

591

522

578

Western Uplands

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

East Side Uplands

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Valley East Side

Applied water demand

3,193

3,366

3,059

3,230

2,926

3,086

2,841

3.013

Net water demand

2,840

2,995

2,726

2,881

2,608

2,757

2,533

2,691

Depletion

2,340

2,468

2,271

2.398

2,200

2,326

2,138

2,269

Valley West Side

Applied water demand

1,413

1,445

1,357

1,392

1,306

1,338

1,264

1,287

Net water demand

1,312

1,349

1,272

1,277

1,233

1,235

1,198

1,196

Depletion

1,139

1,171

1,113

1,111

1,085

1,082

1,057

1,054

West Side Uplands

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Total

Applied water demand

6,301

6,779

6,054

6,502

5,820

6,230

5,668

6,084

Net water demand

5,783

6,222

5,541

5,972

5,324

5,700

5,191

5,577

Depletion

4,718

5,063

4,604

4,908

4,489

4,776

4,382

4,677

178

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Joaquin River Region

Over the past 20 years, agricultural net water demand in the region has fluctuated, primarily as a re-
sult of changing crop patterns. For example, rice acreage normally planted near the City of Modesto has
nearly disappeared due to the recent water shortages. Rice has been replaced by sugar beets and cotton,
which require less water. In some areas, sugar beets have been replaced with other crops due to disease.
Another factor is the trend of using low-volume irrigation systems in new plantings of orchards and vine-
yards. Some mature plantings are being converted to these systems as well.

A gradual decrease of about 10 percent in agricultural net water demand is predicted over the next 30
years. The majority of this reduction is expected in the Valley East Side and Valley West Side planning
subareas. About one-third of this decrease is attributed to reduced plantings due to urbanization. The
region's irrigated crop acreage is expected to decrease by almost 60,000 acres (3 percent), mostly in the
I Valley East Side PSA. The rest of the decrease in net water demand is primarily due to changing crop

I trends and slight increases in irrigation efficiencies.

i Environmental Water Use

The region contains wildlife refuges, wetlands, and stretches of rivers that are designated Wild and

Scenic under the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Grasslands area in western Merced County
■ is an important stop along the Pacific Flyway for migrating waterfowl. In addition to the Grasslands

area, there are ten other major wetlands that contribute to the region's environmental water demands.
I Water for conserving these wildlife habitats accounts for about 3 percent of the region's total net water
r demand. Refuges also provide areas for recreational use, a habitat for native vegetation, and flood and

erosion control. Table SJ-9 summarizes projected wetland water needs for the region.

Instream flows are waters flowing in a natural stream channel providing vital support for fisheries.

Four rivers in the region, the Mokelumne, Merced, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne, have significant instream

flow requirements. (See Volume I, Chapter 8.) The region's annual water requirement for instream flows

is 318,000 AF. In addition, the following minimum instream flows are required. At Merced Falls on the

I Merced River, 3 cubic feet per second is required for the minimum flow through the fish ladder. Below

[New Exchequer Dam on the Merced River, DFG requires annual flow release of 180 to 220 cfs during

I November 1 to April 1, plus spring flushing flows. Table SJ-10 summarizes environmental instream

; needs for the region.

179

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Joaquin River Regioi

Table SJ-9. Wetlands Water Needs
(thousands of acre -feet)

Wetlands

San Luis

Applied water
Net water
Depletion

1990 2000 2010 2020

average drought average drought average drought average drought

13
10

13
10
10

19
14

19
14
14

IMerced

Applied water
Net water
Depletion

^3f
10 ^

10 i

13
10
10

16
12
12

Volta

Applied water
Net water
Depletion

10
8

10
8
B

16
12

16
12
12

Los Banos

Applied water
Net water
Depletion

13
13

17
13
13

25
19
19

Los Banos-Wolfson

Applied water
Net water
Depletion

Kesterson

Applied water
Net water
Depletion

7
7

10
7
7

7
7

10
7
7

7
7

10
J7
7

Grassland

Applied water
Net water
Depletion

125
91
91

180
135
135

East Grassland

Applied water
Net water
Depletion

38
30
30

38
30

38
30
30

Kesterson Mitigation

Applied water

62^

62 1

Net water

46 1

Depletion

46 1

180

>BuIletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Joaquin River Region

Table SJ

-9

. Wetlands Water Needs (continued)

(thousands of acre-

-feet)

Wetlands

1990 2000
average drought average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

Delta

Applied water

40 40

Net water

40 40

1 Depletion

7 7

Total

' Applied water

266

266 413

413

Net water

211

211 321

321

Depletion

178

178 288

288

Table SJ-

10.

Environmental Instream Water Needs

(thousands of acre -

-feet)

stream

1990 2000
average drought average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

\ Mokelumne River

* Applied Water

14 14

! Net Water

14 14

Depletion

0 0

Merced River

Applied Water

Net Water

Depletion

. Stanislaus River

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

110

Tuolumne River

Applied Water

122

Net Water

122

Depletion

Total

Applied Water

330

247

330

247

330

247

330

247

Net Water

330

247

330

247

330

247

330

247

Depletion

181

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Joaquin River Region

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department of Fish and Game are currently ne-
gotiating environmental regulations for rivers in the Sierra Nevada. The conclusion of these negotiations
will determine the magnitude and the scheduling of releases required for environmental uses. An interim
agreement, requiring releases from New Melones to the Stanislaus River to fall within the range of
98,300 to 302,100 AF annually has already been set. Further agreements will undoubtedly be reached
requiring changes in water use practices.

The California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1972 provides for the preservation of the natural water-
course and character of certain rivers in the State. In the San Joaquin River Region portions of the Tuo-
lumne and Merced rivers are designated wild and scenic. The upper stretch of the Tuolumne River, be-
low Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and above New Don Pedro Reservoir, was designated wild and scenic in
1984. In 1992, a bill was passed designating an eight-mile stretch of the Merced River from Briceburg
to Bagby as wild and scenic. Much of the river was already given this status in 1987. In addition to pro-
tecting the river from development, the 1992 bill allows the county to proceed with the Saxon Creek Wa-
ter Project, providing a reliable water supply to the community of Mariposa. Waterways designated as
wild and scenic are protected by law from the construction of dams or diversion structures that would
alter the natural free-flowing character of these rivers. The Saxon Creek Project involves pumping water
from the Merced river at times when flows are high enough that the waterway would not be adversely
affected. The region's current environmental net water demands are about 530,000 AF annually; this is
expected to increase by 21 percent to 651,000 AF annually by 2020.

Other Water Use

Recreation in the national forests and Yosemite National Park includes camping, hiking, snow ski-
ing, white water rafting, hunting, bike riding, rock climbing, and spelunking, to name only a few activi-
ties. An estimated 4 million visitors from all over the world toured Yosemite in 1992.

San Luis, New Melones, and New Don Pedro reservoirs, and Lake McClure are just four of the re-
gion's many public access reservoirs that provide facilities for boating, swimming, water skiing, wind
surfing, and fishing. Near the City of Los Banos, in western Merced County, is the Grasslands area
where several public and private wildlife refuges provide areas for waterfowl hunting, fishing and nature
study. Figure SJ-6 shows water recreation areas in the San Joaquin River Region.

Water used in the region's recreation areas amounted to 4,500 AF in 1990. Most of it was distrib-
uted to campgrounds for drinking water and sanitation. Other minor usage in the region includes water
for cooling, 20,000 AF annually. Recreational and cooling water uses together make up about 1 percent
of the total regional demand. Table SJ-1 1 shows the total water demand for the region.

182

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Joaquin River Region

Leg end
Water Recreation Area
Hydroelectric Power Plant
Federal Wild and Scenic River

1. Silver Lalce

2. Caples L^ke

3. Woods Lalce

4. Lower Bear River Reservoir

5. Salt Springs Reservoir

6. Blue Lakes Alpine County

7. Lake Amador

8. Highland Lake

9. Rancho Seco Park

10. Lake Camanche

11. Pardee Reservoir

12. Calaveras Big Trees

13. Hartley Lake

14. Pinecrest Lake

15. Franks Tract S.R.A

16. New Hogan Reservoir

17. New Melones Reservoir

18. Cherr/ l^ke

19. Lake Tulloch

20. Woodward Reservoir R.P.

21. Clifton Court Forebay R.A.

22. Bethany Reservoir S.R.A.

23. Caswell Memorial S.P.

24. Modesto Reservoir R.P.

25. New Don Pedro Reservoir

26. La Grange R.P.

27. Yosemite National Park

28. Turlock Lake S.RJ\.

29. Lake Mcclure

30. Lake McSwain

31. George Hatfield S.R.A.

32. McConnell S.R.A

33. Lake Yosemite

34. Fremont Ford S.RA

35. Eastman Lake

36. Bass Lake

37. O'Neill Forebay R.F.

38. San Luis Reservoir S.R.A.

39. Los Banos Reservoir R.F.

40. Millerton Lake S.RA

41. Little Panoche Reservoir R.F.

Figure SJ-6. San Joaquin River Region
Water Recreation Areas

183

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Joaquin River Region

Table SJ- 11. Total Water Demands
(thousands of acre -feet)

Category of Use

1990
average drought

2000
average drought

2010

average drought

2020
average drought

Urban

Applied water

495

506

663

683

839

867

1,029

1,059

Net water

353

364

468

489

587

615

718

751

Depletion

175

177

241

248

316

324

395

404

Agricultural

Applied water

6,301

6,779

6,054

6,502

5,820

6,230

5,668

6,084

Net water

5,783

6,222

5,541

5,972

5,324

5,700

5,191

5,577

Depletion

4,718

5,063

4,604

4,908

4,489

4,776

4,382

4,677

Environmental

Applied water

596

513

743

660

743

660

743

660

Net water

541

458

651

568

651

568

651

568

Depletion

178

288

Other (1)

Applied water

48 "

Net water

130

172

142

186

156

186

156

Depletion

Total Demands

Applied water

7,416

7,802

7,496

7,881

7,450

7,805

7,488

7,851

Net water

6,807

7,174

6,832

7,171

6,748

7,039

6,746

7,052

Depletion

5,155

5,502

5,217

5,528

5,177

5,472

5,149

5,453

(1) includes conveyance losses,

recreational uses,

and energy projects

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management

Each area of the San Joaquin River Region has its own set of geographic and demographic conditions j
which present several water management issues. For example, during the 1987-92 drought, the Valley
West Side planning subarea experienced severe shortages, primarily due to cutbacks in Central Valley
Project water deliveries. This predominantly agricultural area receives more than 87 percent of its total
water supply from the CVR The cutbacks prompted nine water supplying agencies in the PSA to pur-
chase a total of 2,630 AF in 1992 from the State Drought Water Bank. For the most part, the municipal
and industrial water demands are met by pumping ground water, and these demands have been met satis- 1
factorily. However, meeting the demands during the drought increased pumping costs and accelerated
ground water deterioration in some areas.

Legislation and Litigation

Statutes and court decisions have influenced water allocation and use in the San Joaquin River Re-
gion considerably. An overview of the major statutes and proceedings follows.

184

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Joaquin River Region

Bay-Delta Proceedings. In 1978, the State Water Resources Control Board's Water Rights Decision
1485 set water quality and outflow standards for the Delta and put forth rules for operating water projects
affecting the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. There are several regulatory ac-
tions currently affecting the Bay /Delta, which are discussed in Volume I, Chapters 2 and 10.

South Delta Water Agency Lawsuit. In July 1982, SDWA filed a lawsuit claiming that SWP and
CVP operations harmed their agricultural production by causing low water levels, poor water quality, and
poor circulation. In October 1986, DWR, USBR, and SDWA signed an agreement solidifying a frame-
work for settling the litigation. As a result of the agreement, during 1986 through 1992, DWR imple-
mented operational criteria regarding Clifton Court gate openings, completed dredging and installed si-
phons in Tom Paine Slough, and constructed the Middle River barrier to improve water levels,
circulation, and quality within parts of the SDWA area.

Continuing negotiations resulted in a draft long-term contract in 1990. The contract commits the
three agencies to constructing and operating three permanent barriers in Middle River, Old River near
Tracy, and Grant Line Canal, after a period of testing.

Delta Levees. More than 1,000 miles of levees act as the only barriers between land and water in the
Delta. Behind these earthen walls lie over half a million acres of agricultural land and valuable wildlife
Ihabitat, many small communities, numerous roads, railroad lines, and utilities. With each passing year,
^^he promise of protection provided by these levees grows weaker. The Delta islands, which commonly
lie 10 to 15 feet below sea level and are composed mainly of highly organic (peat) soils, are constantly in
danger of land subsidence and seepage.

The original levees were constructed in the late 1800s with heights of about 5 feet and founded on the
i
'soft, organic Delta soils. Due to continued subsidence of the levees and island interiors, it was necessary

to continually add material to maintain freeboard and structural stability. Over the last century, the levees

have significantly increased in size and are now between 15 to 25 feet high.

Several active faults, for example, the Antioch, Greenville, and Coast Range Sierra Nevada Boundary
Zone faults, are located west of the Delta and are capable of delivering moderate to large shaking. There
has been on-going concern about the potential for liquefaction of the levees and of the foundation materi-
als on some islands. However, there is no record of a levee failure resulting from earthquake shaking,
meaning the levee system has not really been tested for earthquake shaking. Several studies indicate
there would probably be levee damage or failure induced by earthquake shaking within the next 30 years.
Further investigations are needed to better define the expected performance of the levees.

185

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Joaquin River Region

Delta levees are classified as either "project" or "nonproject." Project levees are part of the Sacra-
mento River Flood Control Project. Mostly found along the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, they are
maintained to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers standards and generally provide dependable protection.
Nonproject, or local, levees (65 percent of Delta levees) are those constructed and maintained to varying
degrees by island landowners or local reclamation districts. Most of these levees have not been brought
up to federal standards and are less stable, increasing the area's chances of flooding.

The Delta Levee Subventions Program, originally known as the "Way Bill" program, began in 1973.
The bill authorized funding, which grew from $200,000 annually in the 1970s to $2 million annually in
the 1980s for levee maintenance and rehabilitation costs, with up to 50 percent reimbursement to local
agencies.

Since 1980, 17 islands have been partially or completely flooded, costing roughly $100 million dol-
lars for recovering property and completing repairs. As a result of 1986 floods, the Delta Flood Protec-
tion Act of 1988, Senate Bill 34, was enacted. It provides $12 million a year for 10 years for the long
standing Delta Levees Subventions Program and for developing special flood control programs to protect
eight western Delta islands and the communities of Walnut Grove and Thornton.

Senate Bill 34 was enacted partly because of a commitment the State made in its 1983 Hazard Miti-
gation Plan for the Delta. (Hazard Mitigation Plans are required by the Ffederal Emergency Management
Agency). The plan recommended an increase in funding to the Subventions program to aid the districts
in maintaining and upgrading their levees to minimum standards until a major federal levee rehabilitation
project could be implemented. Through SB 34, legislative intent for funding the Delta Subventions pro-
gram increased to up to $6 million a year and allows up to 75 percent reimbursement to the local agen-
cies for their levee work. The other $6 million is for implementing special flood control projects. Recent
activities include planning and design of major levee rehabilitation projects on Twitchell Island and Neu
Hope Tract, repair of threatened levee sites on Sherman Island, Twitchell Island, Bethel Island, and Webb
Tract, and other special projects and studies to determine the causes of Delta land subsidence. On
Twitchell Island, a five-mile reach of levees along the San Joaquin River has been significantly up-
graded.

In 1991, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DWR, and the Reclamation Board signed an agreement
to work further toward solving Delta flood control and environmental problems. The agreement calls for
a six-year special study that will define the extent of federal interest in implementing a long-term flood
control plan for the Delta. The study will attempt to find long-term solutions to Delta problems after SB
34 lapses in 1999.

186

; Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Joaquin River Region

San Joaquin River Management Program. The San Joaquin River Management Program was

{created to address the needs of the San Joaquin River system. Existing conditions on the San Joaquin

^ River do not fully satisfy present water supply, water quality, flood protection, fisheries, wildlife habitat,

and recreational needs. Continuing present river management practices would further deteriorate the riv-
er system, adversely affecting all users. On September 18, 1990, the Governor signed Assembly Bill
3603 (now Chapter 1068, 1990 statutes), which charges SJRMP with the following:

O Provide a forum where information can be developed and exchanged to provide
for the orderly development and management of the water resources of the San
Joaquin River system.

O Identify actions which can be taken to benefit legitimate uses of the San Joaquin
River system.

I O Develop compatible solutions to water supply, water quality, flood protection,

fisheries, wildlife habitat, and recreation needs.

Regional Issues

West-Side Drainage Problem. On the west side of the region, several hundred acres of land are un-

'derlain by shallow, semi-impermeable clay layers that prevent water from percolating downward. Inade-

.quate drainage and accumulating salts have been long-standing problems in this area of the valley. With

ithe importation of irrigation water from northern California during the last 20 years, the problem has in-
ftensified. Where water tables are high, subsurface drainage is necessary to remove and dispose of the
(water.

In 1984, the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program was established as a joint federal-State effort o
^investigate drainage and drainage-related problems. In 1990, the SJVDP published its recommended
'plan for managing the west side drainage problem, and at the end of 1991, a Memorandum of Under-
'standing was executed that allows federal and State agencies to coordinate activities for implementing the
plan. Work on this program is ongoing.

Ground Water Quality — Radon. Concentrations of radioactive elements in ground water vary wide-
ly throughout the Sierra Nevada. Radon is a radioactive gas generated by naturally occurring uranium
[deposits in the earth's crust. Radon is not a problem in surface water because the gas is released to the
latmosphere. It can be found in outdoor air and can seep into homes through basements or foundations.
3round water can also release the odorless radon gas when residents wash dishes or the laundry, or when
hey shower. Inhalation of radon's decay products increases the risk of lung cancer.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, radon is the second leading cause of lung
:ancer in the United States. In October 1990, DWR published Natural Radioactivity in Ground Water of

187

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Joaquin River Region

the Western Sierra Nevada, which reported the quality of water sampled from 20 wells in the mountain
and foothill areas of Mariposa and Madera counties. The highest concentrations of radon, uranium, and
radium are found in wells drilled in granitic rock, while lower concentrations are associated with meta-
morphic rock formations. A notable radon and uranium "hot spot" in the region is located near Bass
Lake in Madera County. Granitic rock formations can be found in Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dora-
do, and Tuolumne counties.

Water Balance

Water balances were computed for each Planning Subarea in the San Joaquin River Region by
comparing existing and future water demand projections with the projected availability of supply. The
region total was computed as the sum of the individual subareas. This method does not reflect the severi-
ty of drought year shortages in some local areas, which can be hidden when planning subareas are com-
bined within the region. Thus, there could be substantial shortages in some areas during drought periods.
Local and regional shortages could also be less severe than the shortage shown, depending on how sup-
plies are allocated within the region, a particular water agency's ability to participate in water transfers or
demand management programs (including land fallowing or emergency allocation programs), and the
overall level of reliability deemed necessary to the sustained economic health of the region. Volume I,
Chapter 1 1 presents a broader discussion of demand management options.

Table SJ-12 presents water demands for the 1990 level and for future water demands to 2020 and
balances them with: (1) supplies from existing facilities and water management programs, and (2) future
demand management and water supply management options.

Regional net water demands for the 1990 level of development totaled 6.8 and 7.2 MAP for average
and drought years respectively. Those demands are projected to decrease slightly to 6.7 and 7.1 MAP,
respectively, by the year 2020, after accounting for a 20,000 AF reduction in urban water demand result-
ing from implementation of long-term conservation measures and a 20,000 AF reduction in agricultural
demand resulting from additional long-term agricultural water conservation measures and land retire-
ment.

Urban net water demand is projected to increase by about 365,000 AP by 2020, due to expected in-
creases in population; while, agricultural net water demand is projected to decrease by about 590,000 AF.
primarily due to lands being taken out of production due to ubanization of irrigated lands and land retire-
ment in areas with poor drainage conditions on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. Environmental
net water demands, under existing rules and regulations, will increase 1 10,000 AP over the next 30 years,
reflecting increased supplies for managed wetlands resulting from implementation of the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act. However, there are severed actions currently in progress, including further im-
plementation of the CVPIA, that have proposed increases in instream flow for fisheries that will affect
the availability of supplies for urban and agricultural use now and in the future.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Joaquin River Region

Urban and environmental water demands will increase over the next 30 years, but the agricultural
water demand will decrease significantly causing total net water demand for the region to decrease for
both average and drought conditions. The majority of the decrease will come from the southern half of
the region.

Future average annual supplies are expected to continue to meet average net water demands in the
San Joaquin Region. However, during drought conditions, substantial shortages occur at the 1990 level
of development, as was evident during the 1987-1992 drought. Drought year shortages are projected to
decrease at the 2020 level of development due to reduced water demands and Level I surface water aug-
mentations.

Two planning subareas in the region rely heavily on ground water to supplement surface supplies to
meet demands. Consequently, these areas are in significant overdraft. Eastern Valley Floor PSA has 89,000
AF of overdraft, with 70,000 AF in San Joaquin County. Valley East Side PSA has 1 20,000 AF of over-
draft, mostly in Madera County.

In both planning subareas, water demand is expected to shift, like the rest of the region, from agriculture
to urban over the next 30 years. This change in net water demand will result in about a 6 percent decrease in
overall agricultural and urban demand by 2020.

The Eastern Valley Floor PSA will soon receive supplies from New Melones reservoir. Two area water
districts have contracts with USER for 155,000 AF, 106,000 AF interim and 49,000 AF average and
drought year, of New Melones Project water. Distribution and conveyance facilities are nearly completed.
With this additional surface supply, this PSA could rely less on ground water pumping thereby reducing or
eliminating ground water overdraft.

Agricultural and urban net water demands in the Valley East Side PSA are expected to decrease 148,000
AF by 2020. Existing surface and ground water supplies should meet future demands. Ground water over-
draft could also be reduced or eliminated in this planning subarea.

The Valley West Side PSA supplies are mainly imported from the Delta by the CVP. Changes in
CVP Delta supplies will affect the Valley West Side's ability to meet future demands.

189

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

San Joaquin River Region

Table SJ-12. Water Balance
(thousands of acre -feet)

Demand/Supply

1990
average drought

2020
average drought

Net Demand

Urban -with 1990 level of conservation

353

364

738

771

-reductions due to long-term conservation measures (Level 1)

—

-20

Agricultural

5,783

6,?22

5,215

5,601

-reductions due to long-term consen/ation measures

—

-28

-20

-reductions due to land retirement in poor drainage areas of San

-4

Joaquin Valley (Level 1)

Environmental

541

458

651

568

Other (1)

130

186

156

Total Net Demand

6,807

7,174

6,746

7,052

Water Supplies w/ExIsting Facilities Under D-1485 for Delta Supplies

Developed Supplies

Surface Water

5,196

4,285

5,344

4,324

Ground Water

1,072

2,127

1,072

2,284

Ground Water Overdraft

209

Subtotal

6,477

6,621

6,416

6,606

Dedicated Natural Flow

330

247

330

247

Total Water Supplies

6,807

6,868

6,746

6,855

Demand/Supply Balance

-306

-197

Future Water Management Options Level 1 (2)

Long-term Supply Augmentation

Reclaimed (3)

Local

Central Valley Project

State Water Project

Subtotal - Water Management Options Level 1

Ground Water/Surface Water Use Reduction Resulting from Level 1 Programs

-22

-17

Remaining Demand/Supply Balance Requiring Short Term Drought Management
and/or Future Level 11 Options

-197

(1) Includes conveyance losses, recreation uses and energy production.

(2) Protection of fish and wildlife and a long-term solution to complex Delta problems will determine the feasibility of several
water supply augmentation proposals and their water supply benefits.

(3) Because of existing reuse within this region, reclaimed water does not add supply to the region.

With planned Level I options, drought year shortages would not change; however, ground water use
would be reduced by nearly 250,000 AF by 2020 and consequently long-term ground water overdraft
would also be eliminated for this region.

The remaining drought shortage requires both additional short-term drought management, water
transfers and demand management programs, and future long-term Level II options depending on the

19»

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Joaquin River Region

overall level of water service reliability deemed necessary, by local agencies, to sustain the economic
health of the region. In the short-term, some areas of this region that rely on the Delta exports for all or a
portion of their supplies face great uncertainty in terms of water supply reliability due to the uncertain
outcome of a number of actions undertaken to protect aquatic species in the Delta. For example, in 1 993,
an above normal runoff year, environmental restrictions limited CVP deliveries to 50 percent of con-
tracted supply for federal water service contractors from Tracy to Kettleman City. Because ground water
is used to replace much of the shortfall in surface water supplies, limitations on Delta exports will exacer-
bate ground water overdraft in this region.

* * *

191

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft San Joaquin River Region

192

j>rtft of The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

TULARE LAKE REGION

Carrots growing in the southern San Joaquin Valley near Wheeler Ridge.

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft Tblare Lake Region

TULARE LAKE REGION

The TUlare Lake Region includes the southern San Joaquin Valley and tributary Sierra Nevada and
Coast Range from the southern limit of the San Joaquin River watershed to the crest of the Tehachapi
Mountains. It stretches from the Sierra Nevada Crest in the east to the Coast Range in the west. Many
small agricultural communities dot the eastern side of the valley, and the rapidly growing cities of Fresno
and Bakersfield anchor the region, which encompasses almost 10 percent of the State's total land area.
(See Appendix C for maps of the planning subareas and land ownership in the region.)

Four main areas make up this mostly agricultural region: the western side of the San Joaquin Valley
floor, the Sierra Nevada foothills on the region's eastern side, the central San Joaquin Valley floor, and
the Kem Valley floor. The major rivers in the region, the Kings, Kaweah, Tule and Kern, begin in the
Sierras and generally flow east to west into the valley. They are sustained by snow melt from the upper
elevations. The Kem River follows a more north-south alignment for much of its path. All of them
terminate on the valley floor in lakes or sinks; water does not find its way to the ocean from the basin, as
it once did under natural conditions, except in extremely wet years. There is a considerable drainage area
on the west and south sides of the valley, but scant rainfall has not produced water development there.

The region's climate varies between valley and foothill areas. The valley areas experience mild
springs and hot, dry summers. Winters are typically cold with some temperatures below freezing, but
snowfall is rare. In some parts of the valley, thick tule fog is common at times during the winter.
Climate in the foothills is typical of mountainous foothill areas. Winters and springs are cold with
snowfall at higher elevations.

Most of the region's runoff is stored for summer water supply to the drier valley floor areas. In most
years, imported water from northern California supplements local supplies to meet the region's high
agricultural water demand.

Population

Population in the region increased substantially in the 1980s, led by 50- to 60-percent growth in the

Fresno, Bakersfield, and Visalia-Tulare urban areas. Fresno's population, which had one of the highest
growth rates among large metropolitan areas in the United States during the 1980s, grew by more than 60
percent— from 217,000 in 1980 to 354,000 in 1990. A high birth rate contributed to this growth and

Jt Region Characteristics

i:^ Average Annual Precipitation: 14 inches Average Annual Runoff: 3.313,500 acre-feet

• Land Area: 16,518 square miles 1990 Population: 1,554.000

193

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft

Tblare Lake Region

Water Supply

The main local surface water supplies in the Tulare Lake Region come from Sierra Nevada rivers.
Imported water is by way of the federal Central Valley Project's Delta-Mendota Canal and Friant-Kem
Canal, and the State Water Project's California Aqueduct, which enters the region as part of the Joint-Use
Facilities with the CVP's San Luis Unit. Ground water pumping meets the remaining water demands.
Figure TL-2 shows the region's 1990 level sources of supply.

Supply with Existing Facilities

Local surface supplies on the western side of the region are limited to flood flows into the Tulare

lakebed from the Kings, Tule, and Kaweah rivers. Excess flows from the Kings River flow through
Fresno Slough to the Mendota Pool. Local supplies from snow melt and runoff in Sierra Nevada
systems are more plentiful than imported sources in the central portion and eastern edge of the valley, but
not as reliable throughout the year. Major reservoirs in the region are listed in Table TL-2. Table TL-3
shows water supplies with existing facilities and water management programs.

Table TL-2. Major Reservoirs

Reservoir Name

River

Capacity (1 ,000 AF)

Owner

Courtright

Helms Creek

123

Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

Wishon

Kings

118

Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

Pine Flat

Kings

1,000

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Terminus

Kaweah

143

U.S. "Army Corps of Engineers

Lake Success

Tule

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Lake Isabella

Kern

568

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Mountain and Foothill Areas. Cities in the Sierra Nevada foothills often have less dependable
drought supplies than valley communities. In many foothill areas, local surface water connections or
rights are not available. Ground water is limited to small pockets of water formed from runoff trickling
into fissures in the rock strata. During drought years, the ground water in the fissures is scarcely
replenished and urban water supplies in foothill areas are often exhausted. A few cities, such as Lindsay
in eastern Tulare County and Orange Cove in eastern Fresno County, receive imported surface water
through the CVP's Friant-Kem Canal.

196

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft

TUlare Lake Region

Table TL-3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities

and Programs

(Decision 1485 Operating Criteria for Delta Supplies)

(thousands of acre -feet)

Supply

1990 2000 2010 2020

average drought average drought average drought average drought

Surface

Local

Local imports

Colorado River

CVP

Other federal

SWP
Ground water
Overdraft
Reclaimed

Dedicated natural flow
Total

2,347

1,240

2,347

1,240

2,347

1,240

2,347

1.240

B- ^

2,704

1,288

2,704

1,288

2,704

1,288

2,704

1,288

243

1,226

847

1,043

692

965

622

967

625

1,391

4,209

1,440

4.223

1,439

4,204

1,375

4,129

341

350

320

280

8,315 7,988 8,189 7,656 8,080 7,737 7,979 7,625

197

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft

"Rilare Lake Region

Figure TL-2. Tulare Lake Region

Water Supply Sources (Average Conditions)

1990 level

Local Surface

Water**

31%

Total Imports*

47%

^Indudes imports from: the federal Central Valley Project and the State Water Project.
**Local surface water includes other federal projects in the region.

Valley Area, Many valley cities, including Fresno and Bakersfield, rely on ground water for urban
use, occasionally obtaining supplemental supplies from local surface water and some imported water.
Fresno, for example, uses ground water for its main urban supply. Fresno also purchases local Kings
River water and imported water from the Friant-Kem Canal and replenishes ground water through local
recharge basins. In Bakersfield, the Kern County Water Agency treats CVP Cross Valley Canal water to
supplement its urban ground water supply (26 TAF in 1991, more than 10 percent of its municipal and
industrial supply). In isolated parts of the valley's westem side, smaller cities like Aveneil, Huron, and
Coalinga rely on imported surface water from the San Luis Canal for their municipal demands.

198

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft T^,^^ La,^^ ^^^^

The SWP, through San Luis Reservoir and the California Aqueduct, provides an average of 1 .2
million acre-feet of surface water yearly to the region during normal years. The U.S. Bureau of
iReclamation supplies an average of 2.7 MAF during normal years from the CVP via the Delta-Mendota
Canal, the Friant-Kem Canal, the Madera Canal, and the San Luis Canal of the CVP/SWP San Luis
Joint-Use Facilities. The Friant-Kem and the Madera canals receive water from Millerton Lake and the
San Joaquin River; the Delta-Mendota Canal and the Califomia Aqueduct divert water from the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

The region covers four major ground water basins and part of a fifth basin; three are overdrafted. The
valley floor is mostly one large ground water basin that consists of alluvial sediments. In the western
half to three quarters, the Corcoran clay layer, which generally lies at depths of 300 to 900 feet, divides
the basin into two aquifers. South of the Kem River, the Corcoran horizon drops below well depths but
other clay layers provide some confinement. On the eastern side of the valley, both north and south of
jthe Kem County line, older formations are tapped by wells that usually exceed 2,000 feet in depth. A
Ismail ground water subbasin, with little hydraulic connection to the main aquifers, exists on the western
jside of Fresno, Kings, and Kem counties from Coalinga to Lost Hills. Two other small subbasins in
Kem County are separated from the main basin by the White Wolf and Edison faults. Productive aquifers
jwith good quality water are the general rule, except in the Tulare Lake area where lakebed clays yield
I little water, along the extreme eastem edge of the region where shallow depth to granite limits aquifer
! yields, and along the westem side where quality is poor.

The Kings-Kaweah-Tule River Planning Subarea accounts for just over 50 percent of net water
demand of the Tulare Region. Supplies for the KKTR PSA are split three ways: local surface provides
about 39 percent, imported water provides 30 percent, and ground water provides 3 1 percent. Reductions
I in Delta diversions will influence this PSA only slightly, since only about 225,000 AF of its supplies
come from the Delta. On the other hand, the San Luis West Side and Kem Valley Floor PSAs will be
heavily affected by CVP and SWP reduced deliveries. The SLWS meets over 90 percent of its demand
with imported water, especially CVP water from the Delta. With future CVP deliveries unknown and
limited available ground water and local surface supplies, the SLWS could have problems meeting future
demand. Although ground water and local surface supplies are available, the KVF PSA could face
similar problems as the SLWS PSA; more than 60 percent of its demand is met by imported water.
Changes in SWP deliveries from the Delta would have the most effect in this PSA.

The City of Bakersfield operates a 2,800-acre recharge facility southwest of Bakersfield where the
city and some local water agencies recharge surplus Kem River and occasionally, SWP and Friant-Kem

199

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft Tulare Lake Region

Canal water; this water then is "banked" and withdrawn in drier years. The recharge facility is one of the
largest single areas in California and during wet years, more than 100,000 AF of water may be recharged.

The reclaimed water for the region includes 42,300 AF from the Kings-Kaweah-Tule rivers areas
and 17,100 AF from the Kern Valley Floor area. In both areas, the main source of reclaimed water is
treated urban waste water (sewage), mainly from Fresno and Bakersfield. In other areas, minor amounts
of reclaimed water also come from urban wastewater treatment.

Supply with Level I Water Management Programs

Future water management options are presented in two levels to better reflect the status of
investigations required to implement them.

O Level I options are those that have undergone extensive investigation and environmental analyses
and are judged to have a high likelihood of being implemented by 2020.

O Level II options are those that could fill the remaining gap between water supply and demand.
These options require more investigation and alternative analyses.

Some of the water management options available to the region include increasing local reservoir
storage by raising existing dam heights and encouraging more urban water conservation while protecting
water quality in city wells.

Water Supply Reliability and Drought Water Management Strategies. During drought, as surface
supplies dwindle and carryover storage in reservoirs is not replaced, ground water pumping increases
tremendously. The number of new wells drilled during the recent drought (1987-92) more than doubled
compared to normal periods.

Along the eastern side of the region, the ability to make up deficits by ground water pumping was
crucial to sustaining agricultural production during the drought. Allotments from the Friant-Kem Canal,
which delivers CVP water along the eastern side of the region from Fresno County to Kern County, were
greatly decreased in the last drought. Some growers who receive Friant-Kem Canal water along the
eastern side of the region were not able to pump enough to make up the deficiencies. In these cases,
permanent crops did not receive full irrigations and yields suffered. State Water Project agricultural
contractors received only 50 percent of their normal delivery in 1990 and then the next two years
received no delivery at all.

Although ground water pumping in western Fresno County reached all time highs during the
1987-92 drought, unprecedented since the arrival of CVP and SWP water, growers still could not affordj
to pump enough water to make up for the surface water deficiencies from reductions in CVP and SWP
water. As a consequence, some acreage was fallowed. The situation was even worse in western Kern

200

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft -Rilare Lake Region

bunty, where ground water is not generally available. Some water was obtained from the State Drought
Water Bank to ensure the survival of permanent crops in 1991. Still, over 125,000 acres were fallowed in
1991 due to lack of water.

Some well problems have been experienced in the region's urban areas. These have primarily been
an aggravation of already existing quality problems. Most communities enacted water use restriction
ordinances during the current drought, generally including time-of-day watering and odd-even-day
watering, a prohibition of driveway or other paved surface washing, and water waste patrols.

Water Management Options with Existing Facilities. Due to their hot climates, Fresno and
Bakersfield have had relatively high per capita water use. As a result of continued urban growth and
stricter federal drinking water standards, which have closed some wells with high pesticide levels, Fresno
will have problems meeting its future urban water demand. To address this problem, the City of Fresno
is preparing a ground water management plan to ensure the reliability of existing supplies. Among its
efforts, Fresno established a water reclamation district that ponds storm runoff in recharge basins
throughout the metropolitan area. The district could also pond additional surplus surface water when it is
available. With proper management and some enhancement, the recharge basins can be used to meet
Fresno's growing water demands.

DWR, in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, is assisting local water agencies and
districts in developing conservation plans that will be required of all CVP water users in the future
because of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act. With proper conservation
planning, local agencies may better be able to deal with shortages of imported water during drought
periods.

Water Management Options with Additional Facilities. For future agricultural needs along the
eastern half of the central San Joaquin Valley area, the Tule River Association wants to increase the
reservoir capacity of Lake Success on the Tule River by 28,000 acre-feet. The extra capacity would be
used for flood control and better irrigation scheduling during summer months. Construction would be
completed by 2000, if approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This project is in the planning
stage.

The Kaweah-St. Johns Rivers Association also has a project in the planning stages that could raise
the height of Terminus Dam on Lake Kaweah and add 43,000 acre-feet of flood control capacity and
off-basin storage of Kaweah River water by 1999. Projects like the conservation program started by the
Orange Cove Irrigation District will probably be more common in the future as area farmers look to
conservation rather than new water sources to alleviate shortages. OCID plans to replace 98 miles of

201

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft -j^,^^ Lake Region

40-year-old pipelines to reduce leakage losses and add six regulating reservoirs and new metering
equipment to make water delivery totals more precise.

Farmers on the Kern Valley floor will benefit from water transfers and banking of the Kern Water
Bank Project when it is completed. Water districts and the SWP will be able to divert surplus water in
wet years to recharge basins in the KWB project area, where the water will be stored in a vast
underground aquifer. In dry years, users will be able to withdraw banked water from KWB to
supplement SWP and other project deliveries.

Local supplies should remain at the 1990 level since there are no firm plans yet to increase reservoir
capacity for the region. As surplus SWP supplies decline and urban water demand increases, increased
ground water pumping will probably continue to make up the difference.

By the year 2010, SWP deliveries to the region are predicted to stabilize as the Los Banos Grandes
Reservoir is completed and the Kern Water Bank is implemented at its fiill capacity. (See Volume I,
Chapter 1 1 for detailed discussions of these programs.) Deliveries from the CVP are shown as
remaining the same. Although the Central Valley Project Improvement Act will probably reduce
agricultural water supplies to the region, its effects on future CVP deliveries are, as yet, unpredictable.
Local surface supplies should remain at 1990 levels. Table TL^ shows water supplies with additional
Level I water management programs.

202

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft

Iblare Lake Region

Table TL-4. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs

(Decision 1485 Operating Criteria for Delta Supplies)
(thousands of acre -feet)

Supply

1990 2000 2010 2020

average drought average drought average drought average drought

Surface

Local

2,347

1.240

2,347

1,240

2,347

1,240

2,347

1,240

Local imports

Colorado River

CVP

2,704

1,288

2,704

1,288

2,704

1,288

2,704

1,288

Other federal

243

SWP

1,226

847

1,127

876

1,251

762

1,253

753

Ground water

1,391

4,209

1,455

4,135

1,364

4,277

1,266

4,179

Overdraft

341

240

Reclaimed

111

Dedicated natural flow

Total

8,315

7,988

8,190

7,853

8,081

7,739

7,979

7,626

If no additional capacity is added to the SWP and the CVP, water users in the region will probably
rely more on ground water pumping as urban demands increase. Very little new agricultural land is
expected to be brought into production, since most available productive agricultural land is already in
use.

203

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft ^^j^^ Lake Region

Water Use
Most water use in the Tulare Lake Region is used for irrigated agriculture. In a normal year, irrigated
agriculture uses roughly 8 MAF, about 95 percent of the region's total water use; this is the largest
agricultural demand for water of any hydrologic region in California. Municipal and industrial needs are
about 215,000 acre-feet annually. Wildlife refiiges and other nature areas account for one-third of one
percent of the region's water needs. Agriculture will continue to be the major water user in the region in
the future. However, as the population grows, municipal and industrial use will increase considerably.
Figure TL-3 shows net demand for the 1990 level of development.

Municipal and industrial net water use is expected to increase 87 percent due to large population
increases throughout the region, while agricultural water use may decline slightly (6 percent) as farm
irrigation efficiencies increase and some agricultural land is converted to urban land. The total net water
use for the region is projected to decrease 2 percent by 2020.

204

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft

Tblare Lake Region

Figure TL-3. Tulare Lake Region

Net Water Demand (Average Conditions)

1990ievei

Agricultural

95%

vironmental
(Wetlands)
0.4%

Urban Water Use

Total urban applied water for the region was 523,000 acre-feet in 1990; the 1990 urban net water use
for the region was 215,000 AF. The Sierra Nevada foothill area (Uplands planning subarea) had a net
water use of about 6,000 acre-feet (1990). Since the mid-1980s, urban water use has declined in the
central San Joaquin Valley floor and on the western side of the valley floor, but it has increased in the
other areas. Table TL-5 shows urban applied and net water demand to 2020.

205

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft

T\ilare Lake Region

Table TL-5. Urban Water Demand

(thousands of acre -feet)

Planning Subareas

1990
average drought

2000
average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

Uplands

Applied water demand

Net water demand

14 W

!: 14

Depletion

Kings- Kaweah -Tula

Applied water demand

319

432

547

548

694

Net water demand

134

181

230

290

Depletion

139

187

248

San Luis West Side

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

6 li

Western Uplands

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Kern Valley Floor

Applied water demand

180

250

299

365

Net water demand

116

141

Depletion

124

Total Urban

Applied water demand

523

716

891

892

1,115

Net water demand

215

292

294

364

454

Depletion

154

230

231

301

393

The average per-capita daily water use within the Tulare Lake Region is about 301 gallons. Water
use in the foothills was 202 gpcd, while that of the Kern Valley floor was 374 gpcd. The region has a
fairly high urban water consumption rate due to its hot summers, which cause greater demand for
drinking, cooling, and landscaping water. Additionally, the per capita consumption number in the Kern
Valley area represents an average of many urban areas and water districts that may have high industrial
water use due to petroleum refining and production.

Municipal water use in valley cities represents up to 80 percent of total M&I net water use. About 60
percent of the total municipal and industrial net use occurs outdoors; landscaping accounts for 90 percent

206

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft "nilare Lake Region

i
of this percentage and swimming pools the remaining 10 percent. Indoor water use (for drinking,

washing, and cooking) accounts for 40 percent of total municipal and industrial net water use. Both

Fresno and Bakersfield have a high per capita water use, about 280 and 330 gpcd, respectively. Both

cities have water use regulations and water education programs to promote water conservation. Figure

TL-4 shows the 1990 level applied urban water demands by sector.

For the year 2020, municipal and industrial applied water is expected to increase in the Tulare Lake
Region due to population increases in Fresno and other cities. The population for the valley and the
foothills will more than double by 2020. Per capita water consumption in the central San Joaquin Valley
(Kings-Kaweah-Tule rivers planning subarea) floor area is expected to decline because of
implementation of water conservation measures. On the Kern Valley floor, per capita use should
decrease, while use in the foothills should average about 190 gallons. Per capita water use on the western
side of the valley floor should average about 225 gallons.

207

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft

TXiIare Lake Region

Figure TL-4. Tulare Lake Region
Applied Urban Water Demand (Average Conditions)

1990 level

Governmental

Agricultural Water Use

Irrigated agriculture accounts for more than 95 percent of the 1990 level water use in the Tulare Lake
Region. Many different crops are grown throughout the region. In the future, however, urbanization and
increasingly higher costs for water could reduce the variety and acreages of crops and thus ultimately,
agricultural water use. Figure TL-4 shows 1990 crop acreages, evapotranspiration, and applied water for^
major crops.

Climate, water supply, and salt buildup in the soils may limit the crops that can be grown profitably
throughout the region. Most good irrigable land with access to dependable imported or local surface

208

bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft

I\ilare Lake Region

Vater has been developed. Crop acreages have generally declined in the region over the last decade, due
0 the limited availability of water and a drop in demand due to the sluggish economy. Cotton acreages,
or example, declined from 1989 to 1992. Its price dropped from about 75 cents per pound in the late
1980s to about 50 cents per pound in 1992. In addition to decreased demand for cotton, the drought
leduced SWP deliveries along the western side of the region. Table TL-6 shows irrigated crop acreage
[jrojections to 2020. Table TL-7 shows 1990 evapotranspiration of applied water by crop.

j Table TL-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage

(thousands of acres)

Planning Subareas

1990

2000

2010

2020

Uplands

Wngs-Kaweah-Tule

1,721

1,667 ■

1,618

1,565

San Luis West Side

620

620 J

618

621

Western Uplands

0 sB' 0

Kern Valley Floor

863

869

866

Total

3,212

3,159

3,114

3,061

Table TL-

-7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop

Irrigated Crop

Total
Acres
(1,000)

Total ETAW
(1,000AF)

Irrigated Crop

Total
Acres
(1,000)

Total ETAW
(I.OOOAF)

Grain

297

294

Pasture

141

Rice

Tomatoes

107

245

Cotton

1,029

2,569

Other truck

204

275

Sugar Beets

Almonds/pistachios

164

392

Com

100

199

Other deciduous

177

470

Other field

135

262

Vineyard

393

817

Alfalfa

345

1,045

Citrus/olives

181

344

Total

3^12

7,147

209

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft

Ibiare Lake Region '

1,200

Acres (X 1 ,000)

Acre-Feet (X 1 ,000)

900

600

300

3,600

2,700

1,800

900

Grain Cotton Alfalfa Grapes

■Acreage ^ETAW ■Applied Water

Figure TL-5. 1990 Tulare Lake Region

Acreage, ETAW, and Appiied Water for

Major Crops

210

^Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft Tblare Lake Region

The average year applied water and net water demands were derived from irrigated acreages by
[applying water use factors for average year conditions. The unit use factors reflect local conditions of
climate and cultural practices. Applied water amounts vary with the source of water supply (surface or
ground water and the type of water year). During drought years, there will be a need for additional
irrigation to replace water normally supplied by rainfall and to meet higher than normal
evapotranspiration demands.

Applied water use amounts can be reduced with more efficient irrigation management. Farmers in
some areas are practicing these techniques. On the western side of the San Joaquin Valley they are using
more sprinkler irrigation and less flood or furrow irrigation. In 1990, less than half of the irrigated land
was flood irrigated, where only five years ago, farmers irrigated over 60 percent of the land in the area
with flood methods. Now, many use sprinklers and drip irrigation, especially on truck crops where small
applications of water early in the growing season are highly beneficial. Also, almost all new plantings
of trees and vines are on drip or trickle systems.

In the central San Joaquin Valley much of the citrus growing area of the region, which converted to
drip irrigation years ago, is now moving towards highly efficient microjet irrigation through
microsprinklers. About half of all new plantings of table grape vineyards are on drip irrigation and some
existing vineyards have changed from furrow to drip irrigation. Finally farmers throughout the area are
improving irrigation management based on better knowledge of evapotranspiration requirements and soil
moisture content. Table TL-8 shows agricultural water demand projections for the Tulare Lake Region
to 2020.

211

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft

Iblare Lake Region I

Table TL-8. Agricultural Water Demand
(thousands of acre -feet)

Planning Subareas

1990 2000 2010

average drought average drought average drought

2020
average drought

Uplands

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Kings - Kaweah -Tule

Applied water demand

5,205

5,393

4,971

5,149

4,793

4,960

4,600

4,757

Net water demand

4,065

4,211

3,910

4,049

3,777

3,911

3,635

3,760

Depletion

4,039

4,182

3,884

4,021

3,752

3,884

3,611

3,734

San Luis West Side

Applied water demand

1,695

1,721

1,685

1,700

1,665

1,684

1,665

1,693

Net water demand

1,514

1,532

1,496

1,514

1,467

1,484

1,459

1,476

Depletion

1,514

1,532

1,496

1,514

1,467

1,484

1,459

1,476

Western Uplands

^tfi

Applied water demand

0 ^

^Sl

Net water demand

~^B

Depletion

Kern Valley Floor

Applied water demand

2,684

2,706

2,621

2,640

2,588

2,608

2,539

2,5S

Net water demand

2,304

2,323

2,257

2,275

2,238

2,255

2,195

2,21;

Depletion

2,304

2,323

2,257

2,275

2,238

2,255

2,195

2,21

Total

■

Applied water demand

9,613

9,848

9,305

9,518

9,075

9,281

8,833

9,039

Net water demand

7,903

8,086

7,682

7,858

7,501

7,670

7,309

7,468

Depletion

7,877

8,057

7,657

7,830

7,477

7,643

7,285

7,442

Environmental Water Use

Wetlands in the region are mainly freshwater wetlands that provide habitat for migratory waterfowl.

In Fresno County, the Mendota Wildlife Area had a 1990 water demand of 29,650 acre-feet for
development of the refuge's 10,851 acres. Existing water supplies (supplies that are available and can be
delivered in an average year) can provide about 18,000 AF of water annually. Recently, the refuge
received an average of 23,000 AF. Water in the Mendota Wildlife Area is fairly reliable since the refuge
is a regulating basin for the Delta-Mendota Canal.

212

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft TXilare Lake Region

In Kern County, the Kern National Wildlife Refuge, also a habitat for migratory waterfowl, needs an
annual water supply of 25,000 acre-feet for management of its 2,800 acres of natural wetlands.
However, the refuge has no firm supplies and usually relies on surplus SWP water and ground water. In
an average water year, the refuge receives about 10,000 AF of water.

In Tblare County, the Pixley National Wildlife Refuge has a water demand of 6,000 acre-feet for
development of its 5,100 acres, used for migratory waterfowl. However, the refuge has no firm supplies
and relies on flood flows from Deer Creek and ground water from recharge basins in the Pixley Irrigation
District. Consequently, the refuge received an average of only 1,280 acre-feet of water in recent years.

Besides these refuges, there are 2,879 acres of privately managed wetlands in the region, including
duck clubs, nature preserves owned by nonprofit organizations, and rice lands. In normal water years, an
estimated 6,910 acre-feet is supplied to the duck clubs. In the Tulare lakebed area, most of the original
wetlands surrounding the old Tulare Lake have been drained for agriculture. Evaporation ponds
established to deal with agricultural drainage disposal are potentially hazardous to migrating waterfowl.
Additional wetlands habiiat could be built to deal with these problems, but a firm supply of water is
necessary. Table TL-9 shows wetland water needs to 2020.

213

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft

Tlilare Lake Region

Table TL-9. Wetlands Water Needs
(thousands of acre -feet)

1990 2000 2010 2020 "

average drought average drought average drought average drought

Wetlands

Kern

Applied water

25 1

Net water

19 II

Depletion

19 1

PIxley

Applied water

6 E

Net water

4 If;

Depletion

4 1

Mendota WA

Applied water

Net water

Depletion

Tulare Basin

il;::

Applied water

7 1;

Net water

5 ■::

Depletion

5 1

Total

Applied water

68 ^

'68

Net water

Depletion

Another environmental water consideration involves the water conveyance facilities in the region.
Certain endangered species, such as the San Joaquin kit fox and the blunt-nosed leopard lizard, are using
the canals, flood control channels, and banks of the California Aqueduct for habitat as native vegetation
grows around the facilities. DWR monitors these areas to prevent maintenance operations from
disturbing these species and their habitat. DWR's Kern Water Bank in western Kern County will provide
wetlands and refuges for endangered species as part of its overall program. Of the 20,000 acres that will
be used for the Kern Water Bank, several thousand acres will be used for wildlife needs.

Other Water Use

Kings Canyon National Park and Sequoia National Park together use about 500 acre-feet of water
annually for drinking water and other domestic uses. The parks obtain most of their water from ground
water wells and local surface water diversions from the upper Kings River. During the 1987-92 drought.

214

JBulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft ^^,3^^ La,^^ R^g.^^

some campgrounds in Kings Canyon and Sequoia that relied on wells were closed for part of the camping
jscason due to low ground water levels.

Some water use in recreation areas can be described as indirect usage. Along the California
Aqueduct, there are many specially designated areas for fishing that include easy access from area roads
and vehicle parking areas. In the Tulare Lake Region, there are five fish access areas; Three Rocks,
[uron, Kettleman City, Lost Hills, and Buttonwillow. In the foothills, three major lakes (Pine Lake,

:e Success, and Isabella Lake) have recreation areas that are used for fishing, boating, camping, and
(ther recreational uses. Both the fish access and the recreation areas show reduced use during drought
{periods and low flow months.

During normal years, white water rafting is a popular activity on the Kings and Kern rivers. The
Kings River supports white water rafting above Pine Flat Reservoir for the experienced rafters while the
river below the reservoir is satisfactory for beginners. The Kern River has expert-level white water
rafting and kayaking above Isabella Reservoir while below the reservoir, beginners as well as experts can
practice their white water rafting. Stretches of the upper Kings and Kern rivers have been declared wild
and scenic by federal legislation. The Kings River is designated as such on both the middle and south
fork of the upper portion above Mill Rat Creek. The Kern River is designated wild and scenic on both
the north and south fork of the upper portion above Isabella Reservoir.

The many reservoirs and lakes throughout the Tulare Lake Region support many recreational
lactivities including fishing, camping, hiking, water skiing, and boating. Courtright and Wishon
•reservoirs on the Kings River have native trout fisheries, camping, and hiking on the trails of the John
jMuir and Dinkey Lakes wilderness areas. Also, Pine Flat Reservoir on the Kings, Lake Isabella on the
Kern, and Lake Kaweah on the Kaweah River are popular recreational areas in the region. Figure TL-6
shows water recreation areas in the region. Table TL-10 shows the total water demand for the region.

215

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft

'Hilare Lake Region

Table TL-10. Total Water Demands

(thousands of acre -feet)

Category of Use

1990 2000 2010

average drought average drought average drought

2020
average drought

Urban

Applied water

523

716

891

892

1,115

Net water

215

292

294

364

454

Depletion

154

230

231

301

393

Agricultural

Applied water

9,613

9,848

9,305

9,518

9,075

9,281

8,833

9,039

Net water

7,903

8,086

7,682

7,858

7,501

7,670

7,309

7,468

Depletion

7,877

8,057

7,657

7.830

7,477

7,643

7,285

7,442

Environmental

Applied water

Net water

Depletion

Other (1)

Applied water

102

Net water

166

Depletion

166

Total

Applied water

10,279

10,514

10,191

10,404

10,136

10,342

10,118

10,323

Net water

8,315

8,498

8,190

8,367

8,081

8,249

7,979

8,138

Depletion

8,227

8,407

8,103

8,277

7;994

8,160

7,893

8,050

(1) Other includes conveyance losses,

recreational i

jses, and energy production

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management

Each area of the Tulare Lake Region has its owr

I set of geographic

; and demographic

conditions that

have led to varied water supply (

circumstances. Fon

example,

the foothill cities

along the eastern

edge of

the region experienced severe water shortages in the recent drought. However, the Fresno area managed

to meet most of its water needs.

In addition to these

problems

5, water resource managers

in the region

must consider court rulings, changes in laws, and contracts or

agreements when

1 planning

;and

implementing water resource management programs

216

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft

Iblare Lake Region

Legend
ater Recreation Area
rdroelectric Power Plant
ideral Wild and Scenic River

10 20 30

WATER RECREATION
AREAS

. Pine Flat Lake RA.

Avocado Lake Park

Fair^ Fish Access

Three Rocks Fish Access

Huron Fish Access

6. Kettiennan City Fish Access

7. Ketdeman City Aquatic S.RA

8. Lost Hills Rsh Access

9. Buttonwillow Fish Access

10. Buena Vista Aquatic RA.

11. Lake Kaweah RA

12. Success Lake RA.

13. Isabella Lake RA

Figure TL-6. TUIare Lake Region
Water Recreation Areas

217

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft •I\ilare Lake Region

Contracts and Agreements

In western Kem County, 85 percent of the land related SWP water entitlements of the Devil's Den
Water District have been bought by the Castaic Lake Water Agency, which has transferred the water to
the South Coast Region for urban use in the Santa Clarita urban area. The transfer resulted in the loss of
some seasonal agricultural jobs and more than 20 full-time agricultural positions within the district.
State planners in the future will be faced with this situation again, as metropolitan areas seek alternative
water supplies. The needs of urban residents will have to be balanced against the potential loss of
agricultural jobs and of agricultural production capacity brought on by the reallocation of water.

The final environmental impact report for the Arvin-Edison Water Exchange Program, involving an
agreement between MWDSC and the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District, is scheduled for 1993.
Arvin-Edison is a Central Valley Project contractor in southeastern Kem County. Its CVP water is
delivered through the California Aqueduct by arrangement with the State. According to the proposed
contract, MWDSC will help construct Arvin-Edison 's partially completed distribution system and
deliver a portion of its SWP water in wet years for use in Arvin-Edison 's replenishment programs. In
return, MWDSC will receive some of Arvin-Edison's CVP water during dry years. Through this
proposed agreement, MWDSC expects to store as much as 135,000 AF per year of SWP water in the
southern San Joaquin Valley. During wet periods, MWDSC could accumulate a storage account of up to
800,000 AF. In dry periods, the program would make roughly 100,000 AF per year available for
MWDSC. In another exchange program, MWDSC negotiated with Kem County Water Agency to store
SWP supplies in the Semitropic Water Storage District's ground water basin. (See Volume I, Chapter
11.)

Regional Issues

Population Growth. One of the most important issues in the Tulare Lake Region is whether to allow j
growth and development to continue at its current rate or location or restrict urban development to
preserve prime agricultural land, wetlands and other wildlife habitat. Although converting agricultural
land to urban use increases water use slightly (less than 1 acre-foot per acre annually), urban water use
may require higher water quality and water supplies must be reliable.

For example, Fresno and surrounding towns draw ground water from the same basin. As Fresno has
expanded into former agricultural areas, it has encountered degraded ground water, in some places by
pesticide contamination from DBCP and other farm chemicals used before the 1980s. This degraded
water quality has shifted dependence to wells that produce good quality water. Urban growth in Fresno is j
also occurring in outlying areas at higher elevations than many older portions of the city. These new

218

{Bulledn 160-93. Administrative Draft T^,^^ Laj^^ ,j^g.^„

suburbs have switched from the surface water supplies used by agriculture to new ground water wells.
The urban ground water demand has created a fast drawdown of the aquifer, which has increased the
depth to ground water, raised the cost of pumping, and decreased water quality because the lower
elevation parts of the city draw in poorer quality water from the agricultural regions.

Finally, converting agricultural land to urban use tends to diminish natural recharge of ground water
basins because of the nonporous nature of concrete and asphalt used in urban areas. While Fresno has
existing recharge facilities, it may raise development taxes to finance more recharge basins to protect
current levels of ground water in the city.

Ground Water Overdraft Problems. Agriculture, in areas with no surface water supply and good
quality ground water, has overdrafted ground water basins where long-term replenishment is inadequate
to maintain the water table, inducing subsurface flow from adjacent districts. Such an area exists along
the valley trough in Fresno County and affects adjacent districts. Other overdraft areas are in the
subbasin around Coalinga and in Westlands Water District, where subsidence occurs during droughts.
Overdraft also occurs in Kern County.

Subsidence has stabilized in western Fresno County and southern Kern County except during
droughts. No data has been available for Tulare County since 1970. Canals and wells have required
repair because of the effects of subsidence.

Reliability of Supplies in Foothill and Mountain Communities. In foothill and mountain areas,
some urban water needs are met by ground water. However, the ground water is found in thin layers of
alluvial sediments and in underlying hard rock. Recharge to these underground reservoirs is very slow
and during the recent drought, some foothill communities relied on imported surface water to supplement
their supplies.

Orange Cove is a typical foothill community that relies on imported water delivered through the
Friant-Kem Canal as its most economical alternative to limited ground water supplies, especially during
drought periods. Ground water in the foothills can be scarce and expensive to extract. During severe
drought conditions in 1990, Orange Cove allowed people to use only 125 gpcd. A water transfer enabled
the city to relax this standard during 1991 . Small foothill towns like Orange Cove will need greater
priority to water during droughts to prevent future severe rationing.

Water supply is often more limited in mountain communities than in valley or foothill cities in the
region. Wofford Heights in eastern Kern County is a typical mountain community. Although Lake
Isabella is nearby, the Arden Water Company would have to install almost 40 miles of pipeline to provide
service and it can't afford the connection. During the recent drought, seven of Wofford Heights' 10

219

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft Tulare L^^e Region

existing wells went dry and had to be abandoned. Arden Water Company was able to drill 3 new wells,
but it had to drill 450 to 500 feet. Previous wells had only been drilled to 300 feet. The sites for the new
wells were carefully chosen to intersect two or more pockets of water, and Arden built new above-ground
storage tanks to provide more dependable deliveries during droughts.

Reliability of Supplies for Wildlife. Many of the region's environmental needs, including
maintenance of the Mendota Wildlife Area, the Kern National Wildlife Refuge, and various duck clubs
and wetlands, require firm water supplies that are now unavailable. The CVP water supplied to the
Mendota area and the surplus water supplied to the Kern Refuge are usually the only water available.
The duck clubs and wetlands have relied partly on tail water from upstream sources.

•I

Local Issues

Drinking Water in Fresno. As a result of continued urban growth and stricter federal drinking water
standards, more than 40 wells have been closed in the region. As mentioned earlier, these wells have a
high level of DBCP or other contaminants, including trichloroethylene. Because of these well closings
and future strict EPA requirements that the water be tested for a wide variety of chemical contaminants,
the City of Fresno could have problems meeting its future urban water demand.

In addition, during past years, Fresno did not have to chlorinate its municipal supply because of its
high quality ground water in storage under the city. With recent EPA standards for coliform and other
bacteria levels, Fresno has begun to chlorinate the municipal water supply at the wellheads. Although the
city expects no problems with trihalomethanes, a byproduct of chlorination often found in chlorinated
surface water, there have been some complaints about the taste and smell of the chlorinated water. As
urban development continues, Fresno may attempt to supplement its ground water supply with surface
water from the Friant-Kem Canal and the Kings River, which could affect agriculture in dry years.

Arroyo Pasajero. DWR is currently seeking solutions to flood problems threatening the California
Aqueduct near the intersection with a natural drainage channel called Arroyo Pasajero. The aqueduct,
completed in 1967, formed a barrier to arroyo water and sediment flow. By design, arroyo runoff was
retained in a 1 ,900-acre ponding basin and periodically discharged into the aqueduct through four inlet
gates. The runoff for the arroyo was found to be greater than anticipated. After a 1980 investigation
determined that arroyo runoff was also raising asbestos levels in aqueduct water, concerns were voiced J^
over possible health risks associated with consuming water containing high levels of asbestos. DWR hi
been studying methods of managing arroyo runoff without discharging it into the aqueduct. A
non-structural method of routing arroyo discharge is being considered and environmental studies are
underway.

220

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft "nilare Lake Region

Agricultural Drainage. On the western side of the valley, where ground water quality is marginal to
unusable for agriculture, farmers use good quality surface water when it is available; this allows the
aquifer to fill and causes drainage problems. The high water table is exacerbated by clay-rich soils that
slow drainage in some areas. Poor quality ground water in the unconfined aquifer in Westlands Water
District is increasing by about 1 10,000 acre-feet per year. In Kem County, west of the California
Aqueduct, the few available wells also show rising water levels. This marginal to poor quality ground
water has reached plant root zones in many areas along the western side and must be removed by drains
if agriculture is to continue in these areas.

Westside Ground Water Quality. Most naturally occurring, poor quality ground water is found along
the region's western side. Total dissolved solids, sulfate, boron, chloride, and selenium limit the
usefulness of ground water in this area. Several contaminants are present, including pesticides,
petroleum products, and industrial solvents. One of the pesticides, dibromochloropropane (DBCP), is
also found over large areas on the eastern side of the valley. Concentrations of DBCP (which the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency banned in 1 977) are declining but are still above acceptable limits in
many areas. Rising levels of nitrates have been found in numerous wells in rural areas. Many of them
contain nitrate levels above the maximum contaminant level for nitrates in drinking water.

Water Balance

Water balances were computed for each Planning Subarea in the Tulare Lake Region by comparing
existing and future water demand projections with the projected availability of supply. The region total
was computed as the sum of the individual subareas. This method does not reflect the severity of
drought year shortages in some local areas which can be hidden when planning subareas are combined
within the region. Thus, there could be substantial shortages in some areas during drought periods.
Local and regional shortages could also be less severe than the shortage shown, depending on how
supplies are allocated within the region, a particular water agency's ability to participate in water transfers
or demand management programs (including land fallowing or emergency allocation programs), and the
overall level of reliability deemed necessary to the sustained economic health of the region. Volume I,
Chapter 1 1 presents a broader discussion of demand management options.

Table TL-1 1 presents water demands for the 1990 level and for future water demands to 2020 and
balances them with: (1) supplies from existing facilities and water management programs, and (2) future
demand management and water supply management options.

Regional net water demands for the 1990 level of development totaled 8.3 and 8.5 MAF for average
and drought years respectively. Those demands are projected to decrease to 8.0 and 8.1 MAF,

221

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft Tblare Lake Recion I

respectively, by the year 2020, after accounting for a 20,000 AF reduction in urban water demand
resulting from implementation of long-term conservation measures, a 90,000 AF reduction in
agricultural demand resulting from additional long-term agricultural water conservation measures, a
120,000 AF reduction due to land retirement on the west side of the region.

Urban net water demand is expected to increase by about 100 percent by 2020, due to expected
increases in population; while, agricultural net water demands is projected to decrease by about 10
percent, primarily due to lands being taken out of production due to poor drainage conditions on the west
side of the San Joaquin Valley. Environmental net water demands, under existing rules and regulations,
will increase by 19,000 AF. However, there are several actions currently in progress, including
implementation of the Central Valley Improvement Act, that have proposed increases in instream flow for
fisheries that will affect the availability of supplies for urban and agricultural use.

Average annual supplies, including about 340,000 AF overdraft, were generally adequate to meet
average net water demands in 1990 for this region. However, during drought, present supplies are
insufficient to meet present demands and, without additional water management programs, drought year
annual shortages are expected to remain at nearly 510,000 AF.

With planned Level I options, overall ground water use could be reduced by 330,000 and 175,000 AF
during average and drought years, respectively. The net effect of improved surface water deliveries
would be to reduce long-term ground water overdraft in this region.

The remaining drought shortage of about 512,000 AF by 2020 requires both additional short-term
drought management, water transfers and demand management programs, and other future long-term
Level II options depending on the overall level of water service reliability deemed necessary, by local
agencies, to sustain the economic health of the region. In the short-term, some areas of this region that
rely on the Delta exports for all or a portion of their supplies face great uncertainty in terms of water
supply reliability due to the uncertain outcome of a number of actions undertaken to protect aquatic
species in the Delta. For example, in 1993, an above normal runoff year, environmental restrictions
limited CVP deliveries to 50 percent of contracted supply for federal water service contractors from
Tracy to Kettleman City. Because ground water is used to replace much of the shortfall in surface water
supplies, limitations on Delta exports will exacerbate ground water overdraft in this region.

222

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft

Iblare Lake Region

Table TL-11. Water Balance

(thousands of acre -feet)

Demand/Supply

1990 2020

average drought average drought

Net Demand

Urban -with 1990 level of conservation 215 215

-reductions due to long-term conservation measures (Level I) — —

Agricultural 7,903 8,086

-reductions due to long-term conservation measures (Level I) — —

-land retirement in poor drainage areas of San Joaquin Valley (Level I) — —

Environmental 31 31

Other (1) 166 166

474

-20

,487

7,646

-90

-88

166

Ibtal Net Demand

8,315 8,498 7,979 8,138

Water Supplies w/Existing Facilities Under D-1485 for Delta Supplies

Developed Supplies

Surface Water

Ground Water

Ground Water Overdraft
Subtotal
Dedicated Natural Flow

6,583

3,438

6,324

3,216

1,391

4,209

1,375

4,129

341

280

8,315

7,988

7,979

7,625

8,315

7,988

7,979

7,625

Total Water Supplies

Demand/Supply Balance

-510

-0 -513

Future Water Management Options Level I (2)

Long-term Supply Augmentation

Reclaimed (3)

Local

Central Valley Project

State Water Project
Subtotal - Water Management Options Level I
Ground Water/Surface Water Use Reduction Resulting from Level I Programs

286

334

-334

128

176

-175

Remaining Demand/Supply Balance Requiring Short Term Drought Management BHHK -0 -512

and/or Future Level 11 Options

(1) Includes conveyance losses, recreation uses £und energy production.

(2) Protection of fish and wildlife and a long-term solution to complex Delta problems will determine the feasibility of several water
supply augmentation proposals and their water supply benefits.

(3) Because of existing reuse within this region, reclaimed water does not add supply to the region.

223

Bulletin 160-93. Administrative Draft T^l^re Lake Region

224

ift of The California Water Plan Update

Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

NORTH LAHONTAN REGION

Emerald Bay on Lake Tahoe.

Ulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft North Lahontan Region

j NORTH LAHONTAN REGION

The eastern drainages of the Cascade Range and the eastern Sierra Nevada, north of the Mono Lake
, ainage, make up the North Lahontan Region. The region forms part of the western fringe of the Great
asin, a large landlocked drainage that includes most of Nevada and northern Utah, and stretches about
() miles from the Oregon border to the southern boundary of the Walker River drainage in Mono
unty. At its widest part, the region measures about 60 miles across; it narrows to scarcely 5 miles in
crvsL County. Its land area represents less than 4 percent of the State's total land area. The topography
generally mountainous and rugged with large desert valleys between mountain ranges in the north and
irrow alpine valleys in the south. (See Appendix C for maps of the planning subareas and land
A nership in the region.)

The region comprises two planning subareas: the northern most is the Lassen Group PSA, which
eludes the Modoc and Lassen county portions of the region, plus a small comer of northeastern Sierra
ounty that drains to Honey Lake. The southern PSA is the Alpine Group from mid-Sierra county to
ar Mono Lake, which includes Lake Tahoe and the Truckee, Carson, and Walker River drainages. The
iountain crests forming the western boundary of the region range up to elevation 11,000 feet. The
mited amount of valley land in the Alpine PSA is primarily pasture land above elevation 5,000 feet
ong the Carson and Walker Rivers.

Annual precipitation is as much as 70 inches at the crest of the Sierra Nevada, closest to Lake Tahoe
id as little as 4 inches at the Nevada boundary in Surprise Valley and in the Honey Lake Basin. The
jgion's streams flow either to Nevada or to intermittent lakes in California. Natural runoff of the
reams and rivers averages around 1.8 million acre-feet per year of which about three-quarters comes
cm the region's southern portion.

opulation

Almost 65 percent of the 78,000 residents in the North Lahontan Region live in the Truckee-Tahoe

asin, where the largest community is the City of South Lake Tahoe with a 1990 population of 21,600.
he main population center of the Lassen subarea is Susanville, the county seat of Lassen County, with
,279 residents. Also located in the region are Bridgeport, the county seat of Mono County, and
larkleeville, the county seat of Alpine County, which has a total county population of 1,100. Population
J quite sparse between these towns, consisting of ranches and tourist and service centers primarily along

Region Characteristics
Average Annual Precipitation: 32 inches Average Annual Runoff: 1 ,842,000 acre-feet
Land Area: 3,890 square miles Population: 78,000

225

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft North Lahontan Region

Highway 395. Only about one-fourth of one percent of California's people live in the region. Table
NL-1 shows population projections to 2020 for the North Lahontan Region.

Table NL-1. Population Projections
(thousands)

Planning Subareas

1990

2000

2010

2020

1 assen Group
Alpine Group

25
53

32
63

36
71

Total

107

118

Land Use

Much of the North Lahontan Region is national forest land. The major privately owned lands are in

the valley areas of Modoc and Lassen counties. Relatively small portions of the Truckee-Tahoe area and
the Carson and Walker river basins are in private ownership, but those small areas are of considerable
economic significance.

Cattle raising is the principal agricultural activity in the region, although the acreage of irrigated land
is relatively small (less than 4 percent of the region's land area). Pasture and alfalfa are the dominant
irrigated crops. About 70 percent of the irrigated land is in Modoc and Lassen counties, and most of the
remainder is in the Carson and Walker river valleys in Alpine and Mono counties.

Tourism and recreation are the principal economic activities in the Truckee-Tahoe area and the
surrounding mountains. On a typical summer day, the number of recreationists within the Tahoe Basin
may equal the number of full-time residents. A similar but smaller peak in the number of recreationists
visiting the basin occurs during the winter sports season. Figure NL-1 shows land use, along with
imports, exports, and water supplies for the North Lahontan Region.

226

Ijlletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Lahontan Region

PRESENT WATER 8UPPUE8

(1,000 AF/Yr.)

Moon Lake

Ditch

WATER SUPPLY
GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT
TOTAL

Legend
UrtMn Land
Inigated Land

LASSEN GROUP

LOCAL SURFACE WATER DEVEPLOMBTT
GROUND WATER PERENNIAL YIELD
IIMPORTS BY LOCAL
WATER RECLAMATION

120

a
0

Region Water Transfer
(xjaaar* <* Aa«-FMt pw ymi)

Figure NL-1. North Lahontan Region
Land Use, Imports, Exports, and Water Supplies

227

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Lahontan Region

Water Supply

About 74 percent of the region's 1990 level water supply comes from surface sources. Ground water
supply amounts to 23 percent. Throughout most of the North Lahontan Region, water development has
been carried out on a modest scale by local interests, with many projects built in the late 1800s. In the
northern portion of the region, these developments include numerous small reservoirs which retain winter
runoff for summer irrigation. Among the more notable is the Moon Lake project . It imports about
3,000 acre-feet per year from the South Fork Pit River drainage for irrigation in the Madeline Plains area.
The Lassen Irrigation District developed three small reservoirs in the Susan River drainage beginning in
1891 — McCoy Flat reservoir. Hog Flat reservoir, and Lake Leavitt. Figure NL-2 shows the region's
1990 level sources of supply.

Figure NL-2. North Lahontan Region

Water Supply Sources (Average Conditions)

1990 Level

Local Surface Water

74%

Imports

228

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft North Lahontan Region

Supply with Existing Facilities

One of the most cost-effective storage structures ever built is a small dam at the outlet of Lake
Tahoe. This 14-foot-high dam, constructed in the 1870s, controls the upper 6.1 feet of the lake and
creates up to 732,000 AF of storage capacity. The Lake Tahoe Dam is operated by the Truckee-Carson
Irrigation District and controlled by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation under an easement from Sierra
Pacific Power Company. Its operations are supervised by the federal watermaster under the Orr Ditch
Decree. Similar outlet dams constructed on natural lakes during the 1930s increased storage at
Independence Lake by 18,000 AF and at Donner Lake by 10,000 AF. These dams are operated by Sierra
Pacific Power Company. Table NL-2 lists major reservoirs in the region.

Federal water storage projects in the region include Stampede Reservoir, Boca Reservoir , and
Prosser Creek Reservoir. These three USBR reservoirs were constructed on tributaries of the Truckee
River, primarily to provide water supply for service areas in Nevada, downstream flood protection, and
local recreation. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed the 20,000 AF Martis Creek Dam in
1971; this single-purpose structure provides flood protection for the Reno-Sparks area. Operations
criteria for these projects are changing, mostly due to water requirements of the cui-ui and Lahontan
cutthroat trout. The cui-ui is classified as endangered and the Lahontan cutthroat as threatened under
the federal Endangered Species Act.

Table NL-2. Major Reservoirs

Reservoir Name River Capacity (1 ,000 AF) Owner

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Stampede

Little Truckee

227

Boca

Little Truckee

Prosser Creek

Lake Tahoe

Truckee

732

Bridgeport

E. Walker

Martis Creek Dam

Martis Creek

Walker River Irrigation District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

An average of about 2,000 AF per year is exported from the Tahoe Basin to the South Fork American
River in conjunction with a power development that began in 1876. Another 7,000 AF is diverted from
the Little Truckee River for irrigation use in Sierra Valley (Feather River Basin of Sacramento River
Region). Much of the supply from the Truckee, Carson, and Walker rivers is reserved for use by Nevada
interests under various water rights settlements and agreements.

Ground water supplies meet many of the municipal and industrial water needs throughout the
northem portion of the region. In the North Lahontan portions of Lassen and Modoc counties, nearly
120,000 AF is pumped annually. The City of Susanville derives its municipal supplies from Cady and

229

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft North Lahontan Region

Bagwell Springs and from ground water. Municipal water supply in the Lake Tahoe basin comes from a
combination of surface and ground water. Some systems divert directly from the lake, some from
tributary streams or springs, and some use wells. Municipal supplies in the Tnickee River Basin
downstream of Lake Tahoe are almost entirely from ground water; the largest purveyor is the
Truckee-Donner Public Utility District.

Both alluvial basins and hard rock areas in the region contain ground water. The major basins in the
north include Long, Honey Lake, Secret, Willow Creek, and Surprise Valleys and the Madeline Plains.
Cross basin ground water flow is limited by geologic faults between basins. Well yields are greatest in
alluvial sand and gravel and from buried basalt flows. Some wells yield greater than 3,000 gallons per
minute.

Yields from hard rock wells are usually low but are generally sufficient for domestic uses. Ground
water quality in the north ranges from excellent to poor. Wells that obtain their supply from lake deposits
can have high levels of boron, arsenic, and fluoride and high adjusted sodium absorption ratio. Some
domestic wells in the Standish area of Honey Lake Valley have iirsenic levels above safe drinking water
standards. The total ground water in storage within the Lassen Subarea is estimated to be about 5 MAP.

The major ground water basins in the Alpine Group PSA include the Bridgeport, Antelope, Carson,
and Martis valleys, as well as the Tahoe Basin. Ground water recharge occurs primarily from infiltration
of snow melt and precipitation while discharge from the basins occurs mainly from streams flowing east
into Nevada. The estimated total ground water pumping from these basins is 12,300 AF annually. There
is some agricultural ground water pumping in Antelope Valley, however most occurs on the Nevada side
of the basin. Ground water pumping in the hard rock area occurs at scattered locations throughout the
subarea but is most heavily relied on in the area east of Martis Valley. Yields from these hard rock wells
are usually low but sufficient to provide domestic or livestock supplies. Although pumping and ground
water level information within the subarea is limited, there are no reported instances of basin overdraft so
current pumping is probably within the perennial yield. The total ground water in storage is estimated at
1 .8 MAP, and the water quality in the Alpine Group PSA is usually good.

Some municipal wells in the Lake Tahoe Basin produce water high in uranium, radon^jor^^
radionuclides. Elevated levels of uranium or radon, or both, may occur in ground water in other areas of
the PSA given the granitic rocks and sediments from which ground water is produced. Some test wells
on the west side of the Lake Tahoe Basin produce poor quality water that contains high concentrations of
arsenic. Elevated levels of arsenic and other constituents have been found in ground water near areas of
geothermal activity along the front of the Sierra Nevada. High levels of boron and fluoride have been
/reported in ground water in parts of the Antelope Valley.

230

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Lahontan Region

Table NL-3 shows water supplies with existing facilities and water management programs.

Table NL-3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs

(thousands of acre -feet)

Supply

1990
average drought

2000
average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

Surface

Local

383

338

378

340

371

340

378

344

Local imports

Colorado River

CVP

Other federal

SWP

Ground water

120

146

128

154

138

165

147

173

Overdraft

1m'

Reclaimed

Dedicated natural flow

Total

514

Misf

495

517

505

520

516

536

528

Supply with Additional Facilities and Water Management Programs

Future water management options are presented in two levels to better reflect the status of
investigations required to implement them.

O Level I options are those that have undergone extensive investigation and environmental analyses
and are judged to have a high likelihood of being implemented by 2020.

O Level II options are those that could fill the remaining gap between water supply and demand.
These options require more investigation and alternative analyses.

In the North Lahontan Region water supplies are not expected to change to year 2020. Irrigated
agriculture is already constrained by economically available water supplies, with a small amount of
agricultural expansion expected in areas that can support minor additional ground water development.
Similarly, the modest needs for additional municipal and industrial supplies can be met by minor
expansion of present surface systems or by increased use of ground water. No significant additional
Level I or Level 11 surface water development in the region is anticipated.

Table NL^ shows water supplies with additional Level I water management programs. Since there
no planned Level I water management programs, the table is identical to Table NL-3.

About 5,000 AF of reclaimed waste water is exported out of the Tahoe Basin by South Tahoe Public
dlity District for agricultural use in the Carson River watershed. Tnickee Tahoe Sanitation Agency

231

meet changing or higher priority needs within the basins. In California, this has meant acquisit
some agricultural land and water rights for environmental needs throughout the basin and for m
needs downstream in Nevada.

In the Walker River basin, agricultural supplies may be supplemented by increasing use of
water and conjunctive use in areas such as Antelope Valley. Water conservation for agricultural
(that is, ditch lining and soil moisture controlled irrigation scheduling) may become increasing!
important as more water rights are sold or otherwise transferred to urban and environmental use

232

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Lahontan Region

Water Use

The 1990 level annual net water use within the North Lahontan Region is about 514,000 AF per year,
of which about 90 percent is for irrigated agriculture. Most of the 37,000 AF of municipal and industrial
use takes place in the Susanville and Tahoe-Truckee areas. Despite the importance of recreation in the
region's economy, the water needs of recreation are a minor component of total water use. The principal
wildlife water needs are those of the State's Honey Lake and Willow Creek wildlife areas in southern
I I Lassen County, and instream flows.

The primary users of ground water in the Alpine subarea are the municipalities in the Lake Tahoe
Basin and Martis Valley, and to a lesser extent in Bridgeport Valley. Figure NL-3 shows net water
demand for the 1990 level of development.

Figure NL-3. North Lahontan Region

Net Water Demand (Average Conditions)

1990 Level

Environmental

(Wetlands)

233

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Lahontan Region

Urban Water Use

Population projections indicate that by 2020, the region's population will increase by 51 percent over
1990 levels. Most people will still be located in the Alpine subarea. Average daily per-capita water use is
about 421 gallons. In the two planning subareas, use ranges from 607 gallons per capita daily in the Lassen
Group to 337 gpcd in the Alpine Group. The significantly larger per-capita use in the northern PSA is due
to high-water-use industry (mostly energy production — cogeneration and geothermal) , which accounts
for about half of the urban water use in this area. Per capita use values for areas such as the Tahoe Basin are
distorted as well because they are based on permanent population while a substantial share of the water use
is by tourists and temporary residents. Figure NL-^ shows the 1990 level applied urban water demands by
sector.

Figure NL-4. North Lahontan Region
Applied Urban Water Demand (Average Conditions)

1990 Level

234

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Lahontan Region

Table NL-5 shows applied water and net urban water demand through 2020. Urban water use is not
expected to increase proportionately with population due to water saving techniques employed with new
construction and other water conservation measures.

Table NL-5. Urban Water Demand

(thousands of acre -feet)

Planning Subareas

1990
average drought

2000
average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

Lassen

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Alpine

Applied water demand

Net water demand

30 i

Depletion

Total

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

The recent drought forced Susanville to pump more ground water to supplement reduced surface water
supplies. The State Department of Corrections is planning to expand the Susanville Correctional Center to
double its capacity from 4,000 to a maximum of 8,000 inmates. As a result, the area's water demand is
expected to increase. The city is requiring the developer of one large subdivision to produce a water supply
for its project that is independent of existing city sources. Present plans are to meet this demand with
ground water supplies.

Agricultural Water Use

Total irrigated land within the North Lahontan Region in 1990 was 161,000 acres, an increase of about

seven percent since 1980. Table NL-6 shows irrigated crop acreage projections for the region. The
number of irrigated acres in the region is expected to increase slightly over the next three decades. Table
NL-7 shows 1990 crop acreages and evapotranspiration of applied water. Figure NL-5 shows 1990 crop
acreages, evapotranspiration, and applied water for major crops.

235

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Lahontan Region

Table NL-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage

(thousands of acres)

Planning Subareas

1990

2000

2010

2020

Lassen Group
Alpine Group

120
41

122
41

125
41

128
41

Total

161

163

166

169

Table NL-

7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop19

Irrigated Crop

Total

Acres

(1,000)

Total ETAW
(1,000AF)

Irrigated Crop

Total

Acres

(1,000)

Total ETAW
(1,000AF)

Grain
Rice

6 10
1 2

Pasture 110 233
Other truck 1 2

Alfalfa

103

Total 161 350

Table NL-8 summarizes 1990 and projected agricultural water demand in the region. The applied
water values were derived by applying unit water use factors to the irrigated acreages in the region.
Applied water amounts vary according to crop, soil type, and cultural practices. During drought years,
there is an increased need for additional irrigation to replace water normally supplied by rainfall and to
meet higher than normal evapotranspiration demands.

Table NL-8. Agricultural Water Demand

(thousands of acre -feet)

Planning Subareas

1990
average drought

2000
average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

Lassen

Applied water demand

344

380

352

389

362

400

371

409

Net water demand

294

316

299

322

306

329

316

340

Depletion

270

301

277

308

285

317

291

324

Alpine

Applied water demand

178

207

171

200

163

191

165

193

Net water demand

166

195

159

188

151

179

153

181

Depletion

108

125

108

125

108

125

108

125

Total

Applied water demand

522

587

523

589

525

591

536

602

Net water demand

460

511

458

510

457

508

469

521

Depletion

378

426

385

433

393

442

399

449

236

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Lahontan Region

120

Acres (X 1 ,000)

100

Acre-Feet (X 1 ,000)

Grain Alfalfa Pasture

■Acreage MET fK\N ■Applied Water

Figure NL-5. North Lahontan Region
1990 Acreage, ETAW, and Applied Water for Major Crops

360

300

240

180

120

237

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft North Lahontan Region

Most of the area irrigated by surface water in the region has hmited water storage facilities, so it is
dependent on snow melt and spring and summer rainfall. Portions of the region that are irrigated by ground
water, or a combination of ground and surface water, have a more stable water supply. Flood irrigation of
pasture is expected to be shifted almost entirely to sprinkler irrigation in the near future. Irrigation
efficiencies will increase slightly because of operating costs, water shortages, and improved irrigation
practices.

Madeline Plains has shown a rapid growth in irrigated alfalfa acreage. During the past eight years,
alfalfa acreage has increased from 300 to over 10,000 acres. Wild rice is a new crop to the area, and there
were 500 acres of it planted in 1 990. Much of the increase in irrigation can be attributed to an innovative
method of collecting winter runoff in a large sump in a closed basin, then using it, in conjunction with
ground water, for irrigation.

Environmental Water Use

The principal environmental water use in the region is for wetlands near Honey Lake. The Honey Lake

Wildlife Area in southern Lassen County consists of the 4,271 -acre Dakin Unit and the 3,569-acre
Fleming Unit. The two units provide important habitat for several threatened or endangered species,
including the bald eagle, sandhill crane, bank swallow, and peregrine falcon. These wildlife areas have
winter storage rights from the Susan River from November 1 until the last day of February. The HLWA
also operates eight wells, each producing between 1,260 and 2,100 gallons per minute. In an average year,
the HLWA floods 3,000 acres by March 1 for waterfowl brood habitat.

In 1989, the California Department of Fish and Game purchased the 2,714-acre Willow Creek Wildlife
Area in Lassen County to preserve existing wetlands and increase the potential for waterfowl production
and migration habitat. About 2,000 acres are wetland and riparian habitats. The endangered bald eagle and
sandhill crane inhabit this area. In addition to the Honey Lake and Willow Creek Wildlife Areas,
Department of Fish and Game operates the Doyle Wildlife Area, also located in the Honey Lake Basin.
This wildlife area is preserved as dryland winter range for deer and requires less water than the Honey Lake
or Willow Creek areas. Table NL-9 summarizes projected wetlands water needs for the region.

238

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Lahontan Region

Table NL-9. Wetlands Water Needs
(thousands of acre -feet)

Wetlands

1990
average drought

2000
average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

Honey Lake

Applied water

14 14

Net water

14 14

Depletion

14 14

Willow Creek

^^^

Applied water

3 3

Net water

3 3

Depletion

3 3

Total

^Hi

Applied water

17 17

Net water

17 , 17

Depletion

17 17

DFG is concerned about maintaining instream flows and reservoir levels in the California portions of
the Carson and Walker river basins. Portions of these rivers are protected by the California Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act. In conjunction with American Land Conservancy, a private land trust organization,
DFG has been acquiring lands and water rights at Heenan Lake in the upper watershed of the East Fork
Carson River. This small reservoir, formerly used to supply irrigation water for lands in Nevada, is now
being used by DFG to raise Lahontan cutthroat trout to stock in other locations throughout the Sierras.
Parts of the upper Carson River are managed by DFG as wild trout waters, where stocking of hatchery
fish is not allowed. Recreational trout fishing is a popular activity on both the upper Carson and Walker
Rivers.

Bridgeport Reservoir on the East Walker River near the California-Nevada border was the site of a
recent significant State Water Resources Control Board action on water requirements for the trout fishery.
This reservoir supplies water to agricultural lands in Nevada. The operation of the reservoir during the
recent drought caused a fishery resource to decline in the river downstream. As part of ensuing legal
actions, instream flow releases and other conditions were imposed on reservoir operation. The Board's
modifications to the permits for Bridgeport Reservoir are being challenged in litigation in the U.S.
District Court in Nevada.

ler Water Use

By far, the heaviest concentration of recreation use in the North Lahontan Region occurs within the
ce Tahoe Basin. Recreation development in other areas of the region is limited due to the relatively low

239

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft North Lahontan Region

population density and their remoteness. Roughly half of the visitors to this region come from the San
Francisco metropolitan area, about 30 percent from the Los Angeles metropolitan area, and 15 percent from
out-of-state.

Public recreation areas include 3 national forest districts, 12 Bureau of Land Management recreation
complexes, 7 State parks, and 6 county parks. There are more than 30 major private recreation areas, which
include ski resorts, golf courses, resorts, and marinas.

Several natural waterways in the region provide access for fishing, swimming, boating, hiking, and
picnicking. River touring, a popular sport in California, is a common activity in the Truckee, Carson, East
Fork Carson, West Walker, and East Walker rivers. Figure NL-6 shows water recreation areas in the
region.

240

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Lahontan Region

OREGON

Leg end
A Water Recreation Area
• Hydroelectric Power Plant
■••• State Wild and Scenic River

WATER RECREATION AREAS

1. Donner Memorial S.P.

2. Kings Beach S.RA

3. Tahoe S.RA

4. Sugar Pine Point S.P.

5. D.L Bliss S.P.

6. Emerald Bay S.P.

7. GrovM- Hot Springs S.P.

Figure NL-6. North Lahontan Region
Water Recreation Areas

241

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Lahontan Region

Current visitor attendance to the region is estimated at 12 million visitor days annually. Total
consumptive water use for recreation in the region is small, estimated at 500 to 2,000 acre-feet per year.
Table NL-1 0 shows the total water demands for this region.

Table NL-10. Total Water Demands
(thousands of acre -feet)

Category of Use

1990
average drought

2000
average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

Urban

Applied water

--^' 51

Net water

Depletion

Agricultural

Applied water

522

587

523

589

525

591

536

602

Net water

460

511

458

510

457

508

469

521

Depletion

378

426

385

433

393

442

399

449

Environmental

Applied water

Net water

Depletion

Other (1)

Applied water

Net water

Depletion

Total

Applied water

576

642

582

649

588

655

603

670

Net water

514

566

517

570

520

572

536

589

Depletion

409

458

419

467

428

478

437

488

(1) includes conveyance losses,

recreational uses

>, and 1

energy production

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management

The principal water-related issues in the North Lahontan Region center around interstate water
allocations, population growth, limitations of existing water supply systems, protection of water quality,
and management of ground water.

Legislation and Litigation

Interstate River Issues. Years of disputes over the waters of the Truckee and Carson rivers finally

led to congressional enactment of the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act in

1990. The act makes an interstate allocation of the waters between California and Nevada, provides for

the settlement of certain Native American water rights claims, and provides for water supplies for

242

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft North Lahontan Region

l»

specified environmental purposes in Nevada. The act allocates to California: 23,000 AF annually in the
Lake Tahoe Basin; 32,000 AF annually in the Truckee River Basin below Lake Tahoe; and water
corresponding to existing water uses in the Carson River Basin. Provisions of the Settlement Act,
including the interstate water allocations, will not take effect until several conditions are met, including
negotiation of the Truckee River Operating Agreement required in the act.

DWR and SWRCB staff have represented California interests in negotiating the Truckee River
Operating Agreement. DWR is a lead agency with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in developing the Environmental Impact Report/Statement for the agreement. A
major purpose of the TROA is to establish detailed river operations procedures to meet the goals laid out
in the act. It may also address some aspects of implementing California's water allocation. Issues of
concern to California include implementation of surface and ground water allocations, including the
amount of water charged for snow-making at ski resorts and allocations for operation of Truckee River
storage facilities to protect lake and instream beneficial uses.

j Present-day operatiqns of the Truckee, Carson, and Walker Rivers are governed in large part by
i existing federal court water right decrees administered by court-appointed watermasters. The interstate

nature of the rivers, combined with the long history of disputes over water rights, has created a complex
! system of river management criteria. On the Carson River for example, it took the federal court 55 years

to sort out the water rights and issue the Alpine Decree, which governs operation of the river today.

Regional Issues

Population Growth. Growth has long been a major issue in the Tahoe Basin and strict controls have
been adopted by local agencies under the lead of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. These controls
have been very effective. For example, the City of South Lake Tahoe grew by only 4 percent in the
1980s.

Population of the Lassen County portion of the region increased by nearly 30 percent over the past
decade. A major contributor to this growth was the construction of the California Correctional Center —
Susanville, which houses about 4,000 prisoners and employs a staff of about 1 ,000. This growth and the
1987-92 drought have revealed the limits of local surface water supplies. There is increasing interest in
assuring that water will be available to meet urban needs without reducing agricultural supplies or
overdrafting ground water. State proposals to double the capacity of the correctional facility led to
intense local debate in 1991 . One of the principal issues was the growth-inducing impact of the proposal
and the resulting increased pressure on existing water supplies. The question was eventually put on the
ballot, and a substantial majority of the voters approved the expansion. Recent water quality issues have
arisen regarding the municipal supply for the City of Susanville (potential contamination of spring

243

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft North Lahontan Region '

supplies by urban development located upslope) and the nearby resort subdivision at Eagle Lake, where
there is apparent contamination from septic tank discharge. i

The Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board has been concerned about ground water
contamination and eutrophication at Eagle Lake since 1982. Numerous studies, including one completed j
by DWR in October 1990, have shown widespread bacterial contamination in domestic wells in this area.
Blooms of noxious species of algae appear to be increasing in frequency in the lake in response to
nutrient enrichment, suspected to result from increased residential development in the basin. The
Regional Board issued Cease and Desist Orders in 1991 requiring subdivision residents to abandon use of
septic tanks. The State Water Resources Control Board was petitioned by residents of Spalding Tract and
Stones-Bengard subdivisions for relief from these orders, and the Board agreed to allow formation of a
septic system maintenance district in lieu of a regional waste water collection system. The Regional
Board will be establishing guidelines for formation of this district and monitoring requirements to ensure
that ground water contamination does not continue.

Further development, west of Susanville, has been constrained by concerns expressed by the City of
Susanville and the Regional Board over septic tank leachfield effluent contaminating ground water.
Local interests assume ground water in the area contributes to flows at Cady Springs, a major source of
drinking water for Susanville, and studies are under way. ^

Reno Water Supplies. Although not strictly a California issue, local interests in the northern part of
the region have been apprehensive about the Reno area's aggressive quest for additional water supplies.
In the late 1980s, the Silver State Plan triggered concerns as far north as Modoc County (over 150 miles
north of Reno). The plan envisioned constructing a pipeline north nearly to the Oregon border to tap
ground water basins, some of which extend across the California-Nevada line. More recently, the
proposed Truckee Meadows Project generated concerns about depletion of ground water supplies (see
below).

Ground water management is closely related to the issue of water supply for the Reno area. Concern
over protecting local ground water resources has led to establishment of formal ground water
management mechanisms in the Honey Lake and Long Valley basins in Lassen and Sierra counties.
Similar arrangements are being considered in Surprise Valley and the pending interstate allocation
establishes limits on ground water withdrawals in the Lake Tahoe and Truckee River basins. At present,
neither the Honey Lake nor Long Valley ground water management districts is active, but either can be
activated whenever a need is perceived.

Water Quality. There is a potential for future ground water pollution in those areas where
single-family septic systems have been installed in high density subdivisions, especially in the hard rock

244

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft North Lahontan Region

areas. Water quality has also become a greater issue for many surface water systems around Lake Tahoe.
The recent drought dropped lake levels to all-time lows and left some system intakes in shallow water.
In addition, the 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act are forcing many of the smaller private
systems to consolidate or change ownership since they are unable to afford the new monitoring and
treatment requirements of the amended act. South Tahoe Public Utility District, the largest water
purveyor in the basin, is also experiencing some difficulty in planning to meet these requirements.

Truckee Meadows Ground Water Transfer Project. In the mid-1980s, a plan for the Truckee
I Meadows Project was developed to export ground water from Nevada's portion of Honey Lake Valley
' ground water basin to the Reno area. Applications were filed with the Nevada State Engineer to transfer
about 23,000 acre-feet per year. Concerns about the transfers and possible side effects resulted in a 1987
agreement among DWR, the State of Nevada, and the U.S. Geological Survey to jointly determine the
ground water flow system in eastern Honey Lake Valley. When the USGS study was completed, the
Nevada State Engineer opened hearings in the summer of 1990 regarding applications to transfer ground
water from Honey Lake Valley to the Reno area. The Nevada State Engineer ruled that only about 13,000
acre-feet could be transferred from the basin. Currently, the Truckee Meadows Project developers are
completing an Environmental Impact Statement for the 80-mile pipeline to transfer ground water.
Lassen County and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe have challenged the State Engineer's decision in a
Nevada Court.

Long Valley Ground Water Transfers. In the late 1980s, there was a proposal to export about 3,000
acre-feet per year from Long Valley to the Reno area. The project developers were asked to submit an
application to the Long Valley Ground Water Management District for a permit to export ground water
from the district. To date, the project proponents have not filed an application.

Water Balance

Water balances were computed for each Planning Subarea in the North Lahontan Region by
comparing existing and future water demand projections with the projected availability of supply. The
region total was computed as the sum of the individual subareas. This method does not reflect the
severity of drought year shortages in some local areas, which can be hidden when planning subareas are
combined within the region. Thus, there could be substantial shortages in some areas during drought
periods. Local and regional shortages could also be less severe than the shortage shown, depending on
how supplies are allocated within the region, a particular water agency's ability to participate in water
transfers or demand management programs (including land fallowing or emergency allocation programs),
and the overall level of reliability deemed necessary to the sustained economic health of the region.
Volume I, Chapter 1 1 presents a broader discussion of demand management options.

245

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft North Lahontan Region

Table NL-1 1 presents water demands for the 1990 level and for future water demands to 2020 and
balances them with: (1) supplies from existing facilities and water management programs, and (2) future
demand management and water supply management options.

Regional net water demands for the 1990 level of development totaled 0.51 and 0.57 MAF for
average and drought years respectively. Those demands are projected to increase to 0.54 and 0.59 MAF,
respectively, by the year 2020. Urban net water demand is projected to increase by about 13,000 AF,
primarily due to expected increases in population, while agricultural net water demand remains
essentially level. Environmental net water demands are also expected to remain level out to 2020.

Average annual supplies are generally adequate to meet average net water demands in this region out
to the year 2020. However, during drought, present supplies are insufficient to meet present demands of
irrigated agricultural lands, and, without additional water management programs, annual drought year
shortages are expected to continue to be about 62,000 AF.

This drought year shortage of about 61,000 AF was reflected in reduced surface water supplies
available for irrigation primarily in Alpine, Mono, Lassen, and Modoc counties during the recent
drought. There are no major water management programs planned for this region. Plans for augmenting
supplies for the Reno-Sparks area, such as ground water import from California, could affect future
supplies in the region. Future water management programs depend on economic viability of new water
management programs and the overall level of water service reliability deemed necessary by local
agencies to sustain the economic health of the region.

246

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

North Lahontan Region

Table NL-11. Water Balance

(thousands of acre -feet)

Demand/Supply

1990 2020

average drought average drought

Net Demand

Urban -with 1990 level of conservation

-reductions due to long-term conservation measures (Level I)
Agricultural

-reductions due to long-term conservation measures (Level i)
Environmental
Other (1)

460

17
0

511

17
0

469

17
0

I Total Net Demand

514

566

536

589

Water Supplies w/ExIstIng Facilities

Developed Supplies

Surface Water

Ground Water

Ground Water Overdraft
Subtotal
Dedicated Natural Flow

394

349

389

355

120

146

147

173

514

495

536

528

Total Water Supplies

514

495

536

528

Demand/Supply Balance

-1

-61

Future Water Management Options Level I

Long-term Supply Augmentation

Reclaimed

Local

Central Valley Project

State Water Project
Subtotal - Water Management Options Level I
Ground Water/Surface Water Use Reduction Resulting from Level I Programs

(1) Includes conveyance losses, recreation uses and energy production.

Remaining Demand/Supply Balance Requiring Short Term Drought management 0 -61

and/or Future Level 11 Options

* * *

247

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft North Lahontan Region

248

I Draft of The California Water Plan Update

Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

SOUTH LAHONTAN REGION

!#■

One of many tufa towers in Mono Lake

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft South Lahontan Region

SOUTH LAHONTAN REGION

The South Lahontan Region encompasses the area from the mountain divide north of Mono Lake to
the divide south of the Mojave River, which runs through the Mojave Desert, It is bordered on the east
by the Nevada state line and on the west by the crest of of the Sierra Nevada.

The region is a closed basin with many desert valleys that contain central playas, or dry lakes,
especially in the south. The north portion is dominated by the Sierra Nevada and the White-Inyo
Mountain Ranges. In the south are smaller mountain ranges with broad alluvial fans. Other prominent
topographic features in the region include Mt. Whitney (the highest mountain in the contiguous 48 states,
with an elevation of 14,495 feet), the Mono volcanic tableland. Death Valley (the lowest point at
elevation 282 feet below mean sea level), and the Owens Valley. (See Appendix C for maps of the
planning subareas and land ownership in the region.)

Average annual precipitation for the region's numerous valleys ranges between 4 and 10 inches.
Depending on location, variations above and below this range do occur. For example. Death Valley
receives only 1 .9 inches annually. The Sierra Nevada Mountains can receive up to 50 inches annually,
with much of it in the form of snow. In some years, the community of Mammoth Lakes can have snow
accumulations of more than 10 feet.

Population

In 1990, the South Lahontan Region's population was almost 6(X),000, about 2 percent of

California's total. Although not densely populated, the region contains some of the fastest growing urban
areas in California, including the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale in the Antelope Valley of Los Angeles
County and the Victor and Apple valleys of San Bernardino County. Many of the new residents in these
valleys are workers who have accepted a long commute to employment centers in the greater Los
Angeles area in exchange for affordable new homes. Future population growth in the region will
probably be concentrated in the vicinity of these locations. Major local employment includes the
aerospace industry at Palmdale Airport and Edwards Air Force Base. Bishop, Ridgecrest, and Barstow
are the other important centers in the region. The City of Ridgecrest's continued growth will be tied to
the economic conditions of the nearby China Lake Naval Weapons Center and mining operations at
Searles Lake.

^ Region Characteristics

I' Average Annual Precipitation: 8 inches Average Annual Runoff: 1.334,000 acre-feet

^ Land Area: 32,907 square miles 1990 Population: 599,900

249

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

South Lahontan Region

While the identified growth centers will probably continue to expand, there is little reason to expect
much population growth elsewhere in the region. The Owens Valley and eastern Sierra area should
remain sparsely populated, with the string of small communities serving recreationists and travelers along
U.S. Highway 395. Barstow, a services center for railroads and travelers, is strongly tied to the U.S.
Army's Fort Irwin. It has grown modestly in recent years. Most of the other towns and communities in
this portion of the region are highway service centers or farm service centers. Table SL-1 shows
population projections to 2020 for the South Lahontan Region.

Table SL-1. Population Projections

(thousands)

Planning Subareas

1990

2000

2010

2020

Mono -Owens
Death Valley
Indian Wells
Antelope Valley
Mojave River

25
1

48
260
265

108

738

547

141

986

748

Total

599

1,(K)3

1,429

1,919

Land Use

Public lands constitute about 75 percent (14 million acres) of the region's area. Much of this land is
national monument and scenic areas, national forests, and military reservations.

About 1 percent of the 18.6 million acres in the South Lahontan Region is used for urban and
agricultural activities. In 1990, urban and suburban land uses occupied about 170,000 acres; a 21 percent
increase from 1980. Over 80 percent of this increase was in urban acreage concentrated in the Antelope
and Mojave River Valleys. The only other area showing much urban growth was the Indian Wells Valley.
Much of this increase was associated with construction of new single and multiple-family dwellings.
Modest increases are associated with new commercial services and light industry. Industries supporting
the region's economy include the military, recreation and tourism, travelers' services, agriculture, and
mining. These industries should remain strong in the future.

About 61,000 acres is irrigated crop land (less than one percent of the region's total land area).
Multiple cropping is not generally practiced in the region. Most of the irrigated acreage is in the
Mono-Owens planning subarea where roughly 30,000 acres are irrigated. This PSA includes the Owens
Valley, the Crowley Lake area northwest of Bishop, and the Hammil and Fish Lake valleys. Alfalfa and
pasture are the primary crops.

250

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft South Lahontan Region

WK Moderate levels of irrigated agriculture subsist in the Mojave River, Antelope, and Indian Wells
1 valleys. Most of the activity and acreage produces alfalfa, pasture grass, or deciduous fruit. Figure SL-1
i shows land use, along with imports, exports, and water supplies for the South Lahontan Region.

251

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

South Lahontan Region

PRESENT WATER SUPPUE8

(1,000 AF/Yr.)

LOCAL SURFACE WATER DEVELOPMENT
GROUND WATER PERENNIAL YIELD
STATE WATER PROJECT
WATER RECLAMATION
DEDICATED NATURAL FLOW

WATER SUPPLY
GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT
TOTAL

CaJi fornia

Aqueduc t

1,357

Call fornia
Aqueduct

(East Se

West Branch)

1,290

Urban Land

Irrigated Land

Region Water Transfer

(1,000't or Acre-Fart per Ymt)

57
227

128

483
72

565

Los Angeles |VAr*^**'^~^*~"~^
N Aqueduc t
380

0 10 20 30

Figure SL-1. South Lahontan Region
l^nd Use, Imports, Exports, and Water Supplies

252

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

South Lahontan Region

Water Supply

Historically, the South Lahontan Region has relied mostly on ground water, the mainstay of many of
the local urban and farming communities in the early part of the century. Natural surface water supplies,
such as the Mono Lake tributaries, the Owens River, and the Mojave River, also contribute to the
domestic and agricultural supplies. Table SL-2 lists the major reservoirs of the region. Figure SL-2
shows the shows the region's 1990 level water supplies.

Figure SL-2. South Lahontan Region

Water Supply Sources (Average Conditions)

1990 Level

Re-
claimed
.4%

253

Bulletiii 160-93 Administrative Draft

South Lahontan Region i

Table SL-2. Major Reservoirs

Reservoir Name

River

Capacity (1,000 AF)

Owner

Saddlebag Lake
Gem Lake
Grant Lake
South Lake
L^e Crowley
Tinemaha
Haiwee
Lake Silverwood

Lee Vining Creek

Rush Creek

South Fork Bishop Creek

Owens

Rose Valley

West Fork Mojave

11
17
48
13
183
16
41
73

Southern California Edison Co.
Southern California Edison Co.
Los Angeles Dept. Water & Power
Southern California Edison Co.
Los Angeles Dept. Water & Power
Los Angeles Dept. Water & Power
Los Angeles Dept. Water & Power
Department of Water Resources

In 1913 and 1970, the first and second Los Angeles aqueducts were completed and began conveying
water from the Mono-Owens area to the City of Los Angeles. The combined carrying capacity of both
aqueducts amounts to 780 cubic feet per second. Court-ordered restrictions on diversions from the Mono
Basin and Owens Valley have reduced the amount of water the city can receive and have brought into
question the reliability of the Mono-Owens supply for Los Angeles. (See the Legislation and Litigation
section under Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management.) As demand continues to grow, the
decreased diversions have forced the City of Los Angeles to become more dependent on other sources.

In the 1970s, the Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency began receiving deliveries of State Water
Project water and recharging the valley's ground water basin. Ground water levels in some portions of the
basin are reported to have risen 40 feet or more since the introduction of SWP water.

Supply with Existing Facilities

Table SL-3 shows water supplies with existing facilities and water management programs. Ground
water is the only source of domestic and agricultural water in the Death Valley and Indian Wells planning
subareas. Very little, if any, of the surface water flow in these PSAs is used for other than natural ground
water recharge. The Antelope Valley receives over 66 percent of its domestic and agricultural water
supply from the State Water Project, with the remainder drawn from ground water and local surface
supplies. The Mono-Owens and Mojave River PSA's rely on both surface and ground water supplies to
meet demands.

254

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

South Lahontan Region

Table SL~3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities

and Programs

(Decision 1485 Operating Criteria for Delta Supplies)

(thousands of acre-feet)

Supply

1990
average drought

2000
average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

Surface

Local

Local imports

Colorado River

CVP

Other federal

SWP

165

101

163

Ground water

227

256

189

274

221

271

263

270

Overdraft

Reclaimed

Dedicated natural flow

128

122

128

122

128

122

128

122

Total

555

550

577

579

642

608

684

607

Ground water is extremely important in supplying water to the region. As many as 47 distinct
ground water basins covering thousands of square miles have been identified in the South Lahontan
Region. Storage capacities vary by basin, but combined basin capacities in both the Mojave River and
and Antelope Valley PSAs, for example, total about 70 MAF each. Usable storage is significantly less
'but provides the major, if not the only, water source in most areas. Water quality also varies and this
I influences water supply. Basins are recharged through percolation from irrigation return flow, natural
stream flow, and intermittent stream flow from snowmelt, depending on location.

Natural runoff, carried by numerous streams on the eastern slopes of the Sierras, is about 1 .3 MAF
annually in average years. Estimated projected average year deliveries to the City of Los Angeles are
about 425,000 AF a year for 2000 to 2020. Under drought conditions, deliveries are projected to be
208,000 AF a year for 2000 to 2020.

Supply with Additional Facilities and Water Management Programs

Future water management options are presented in two levels to better reflect the status of investiga-
tions required to implement them.

O Level I options are those that have undergone extensive investigation and envi-
ronmental analyses and are judged to have a high likelihood of being implement-
ed by 2020.

255

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft South Lahontan Regioo

O Level II options are those that could fill the remaining gap between water supply
and demand. These options require more investigation and alternative analyses.

Table SL-4 shows water supplies with Level I water management programs.

Table SL-4. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs

(Decision 1485 Operating Criteria for Delta Supplies)

(thousands of acre -feet)

Supply

1990

2000

2010

2020

average

drought

average

drought

average

drought

average

drought

Surface

Local

57 1

Local imports

0 i

Colorado River

0 j

CVP

0 1

Other federal

0 j

SWP

174 \

127

194

151

195

152

Ground water

227

256

191

217

196

241

240

269

Overdraft

Reclaimed

2 !

Dedicated natural flow

128

122

128

122

128

122

128

122

Total

555

550

577

537

648

631

695

662

The larger urban and agricultural areas of the South Lahontan Region — Owens Valley, Victorville,
Hesperia, and Antelope Valley — have several water management optionsYor the future, including:
formation of ground water management agencies or replenishment districts; reclamation of brackish
ground water; desalination; and institution of conjunctive use operations to make more efficient use of
surface and ground water supplies.

Most of the water demands are being met with ground water and local surface water, and several of
the ground water basins are in overdraft. SWP water is being delivered to residents in the Antelope
Valley and, in 1995, the Mojave Water Agency after completion of the Morongo Pipeline. Also, a
feasibility study is being initiated for the Mojave Water Agency's proposed Mojave River Pipeline to the
City of Barstow and the community of Newberry Springs. More on this water management plan can be
found in the Legislation and Litigation section later in this chapter.

Water Use

Estimated 1990 level annual net water use within the South Lahontan Region is about 555,000 AF
per year. Irrigated agriculture accounts for 52 percent of the region's 1990 level net water use, while
urban use amounts to about 22 percent, and environmental and other water use account for 26 percent.

256

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

South Lahontan Region

Net water use for urban and agricultural purposes in the South Lahontan Region increased by almost 4
i percent between 1980 and 1990. By 2020, net water demand for the region is projected to climb an

additional 32 percent because of continued expansion of urban centers. Figure SL-3 show net water
i demand for the 1990 level of development.

Figure SL-3. South Lahontan Region

Net Water Demand (Average Conditions)

1990 Level

Other

257

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft South Lahontan Region!

Since the 1970s, population in some urban centers in Antelope, Mojave River, Apple, and Victor
valleys has increased dramatically. Urban development alone in the Antelope and Mojave River Valleys
increased net water use by almost 125 percent since 1980.

Urban Water Use

Population projections indicate that by 2020, the regions population will increase by over 300
percent from the 1990 level. Medium-sized cities such as Lancaster, Palmdale, and Barstow will
continue to expand; however, development in the rest of the region will be sporadic.

Total municipal and industrial applied water use in 1990 was about 188,000 AF, an increase of about
98 percent from the 1980 level of 95,000 AF. Urban net water demand is projected to increase by almost
200 percent by 2020. Most of the increase in new water use will be in the residential category, while
increases in water use related to business and manufacturing services will be modest. Figure SL-4 shows
the 1990 level applied urban water demand by sector.

Normalized 1990 per capita water use for the region was 280 gallons daily. However, daily per
capita use ranged from 124 gallons for the Death Valley PSA to 503 gallons for the Mono-Owens PSA.
Possible reasons for the relatively high per capita values in the Mono-Owens area are the large numbers
of tourists (greatly exceeding the residential population). In Death Valley, there is little outdoor
residential water use, which accounts for the relatively low per capita use value for the area.

258

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

South Lahontan Region

Figure SL-4. South Lahontan Region
Appiied Urban Water Demand (Average Conditions)

1990 Level

Industrial

In 1990, the Antelope Valley and Mojave River PSAs combined accounted for about 86 percent of
the region's total urban applied water, while the Mono-Owens and Indian Wells PSAs accounted for the
remaining 14 percent. Applied regional water demands for urban use are projected to climb to almost
[50,000 AF by 2020, an increase of 194 percent over the 1990 level. Table SL-5 shows applied water

urban water demand to 2020.

259

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

South Lahontan Region

Table SL

-5. Urban Water Demand

(thousands of acre-

-feet)

Planning Subareas

1990
average drought

2000

average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

Mono -Owens

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Death Valley

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Indian Wells

Applied water demand

36 ;

Net water demand

20 i

''A 21

Depletion

20|

■1

Antelope Valley

Applied water demand

122

126

180

186

243

250

Net water demand

123

126

165

170

Depletion

123

126

165

170

Mojave River

"^±£1^1 1

Applied water demand

136

140

183

189

247

"W'

Net water demand

120

124

162

167

Depletion

120

124

162

187

Total

Applied water demand

187

193

292

302

409

423

550

565

Net water demand

123

125

191

198

269

277

360

372

Depletion

123

125

191

198

269

277

360

372

Agricultural Water Use

Agricultural average annual net water use is expected to decline from the 1990 level of 290,000 AF
to 231,000 AF annually by 2020. This decrease of planted and harvested crop acres in the region is due
to urbanization and land going out of production for economic reasons. The only area that registered an
increase in planted acres was the Owens-Mono PSA. The area projected to undergo the most significant
transformation is the Antelope Valley PSA. Between 1990 and 2020, the projected irrigated acres for this
PSA is expected to decrease from slightly less than 10,000 to 1,000 acres. Other PSAs are expected to

260

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

South Lahontan Region

experience less dramatic decreases. Table SL-6 shows irrigated crop acreage projections for the region.
Table SL-7 shows 1990 crop acreages and evapotranspiration of applied water.

Table SL-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage

(thousands of acres)

Planning Subareas

1990

2000

2010

2020

Mono-Owens
Death Valley
Indian Wells
Antelope Valley
Mojave River

29
2
3
2

29
2
3

Total

Table SL-7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop

Irrigated Crop

Total
Acres
(1,000)

Total ETAW
(1,000AF)

Irrigated Crop

Total

Acres

(1,000)

Total bl AW
(1,000AF)

Grain 1 l

' Other field 1 2

Alfalfa 34 147

Pasture 19 83

Other truck 2 3
Other deciduous 4 8

Total 61 244

Figure SL-5 shows
region. Table SL-8sho
. indicate the region's tots
2020.

the 1990 crop
ws projections
d agricultural

acreage, ETAV

of agricultural

applied water v

/, and applied water for
water demands to 2020
vill decrease by about 2C

the major crops in the

for this region. Projections

) percent between 1990 and

261

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

South Lahontan Region

Acres (X 1 ,000)

Acre-Feet (X 1 ,000)

Alfalfa Pasture

■Acreage MEJAVJ ■Applied Water

Figure SL-5. South Lahontan Region
1990 Acreage, ETAW, and Applied Water for IMajor

Crops

240

180

120

262

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

South Lahontan Region

Table SL-8. Agricultural Water Demand

(thousands of acre -feet)

Planning Subareas

1990 2000 2010 2020

average drought average drought average drought average drought

Mono-Owens

Applied water demand
Net water demand
Depletion

161
147
147

165
150
150

156
144
144

160
147

147

156
144
144

160
147

147

156
144
144

160
147
147

Death Valley

Applied water demand
Net water demand
Depletion

10
9
9

Indian Wells

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Antelope Valley

Applied water demand

Net water demand

mmJ

Depletion

Mojave River

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Total

c*%^

Applied water demand

317

321

266

270

258

262

253

257

Net water demand

290

293

242

245

235

238

231

234

Depletion

290

293

242

245

235

238

231

234

Environmental Water Use

Spring runoff and snowmelt from the eastern Sierra Nevada create a unique ecological setting in the
Mono Lake and Owens Valley areas. Preserving a balance between environmental, agricultural, and
domestic water needs of the Mono-Owens area and those of the Los Angeles area is a vital concern in the
region. This situation is discussed under Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management later in this
chapter. The Mono Lake and Owens River average annual instream requirements are about 73,000 and
55,000 AF respectively and drought year requirements are 67,000 and 55,000 AF respectively. There are
no wetlands water requirements in the South Lahontan Region. Table SL-9 shows environmental
instream water needs for the region.

263

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

South Lahontan Region

Table SL-9. Environmental Instream Water Needs

(thousands of acre -feet)

Stream

Mono Lake

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

1990 2000 2010 2020

average drought average drought average drought average drought

55 -

■V

128

122

128

122

128

122

128

122

128

122

128

122

128

122

128

122

Owens River

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

Total

Applied Water
Net Water
Depletion

Other Water Use

Other water uses in the region include energy production and water used at recreation facilities for

public service, showers, toilets, and watering some limited landscaping. Power plant cooling water
accounted for about 6,000 AF of the regional water use in 1990, of which 4,000 AF were used in the
Mojave River PSA, 1,000 AF in the Antelope Valley PSA, and 1,000 AF in'the Indian Wells PSA. Water
used at recreation facilities during 1990 was 3,000 acre-feet.

Water-related recreation in the region includes fishing and skiing, and recreational areas offer
opportunities for camping and hiking. For instance, Crowley Lake, located about 25 miles northwest of
Bishop, is operated to provide optimum environmental and recreational benefits, as well as to provide
water and power to the Los Angeles Aqueduct system. Fishing, camping, water skiing, sailing, and
water jet skiing are among the recreational activities prevalent. Figure SL-6 shows water recreation areas
in the region. Table SL-10 shows the total water demands for this region.

264

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

South Lahontan Region

Water Recreation
Hydroelectric Power

Silverwood

0 10 20 X

Figure SL-6. South Lahontan Region
Water Recreation Areas

265

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

South Lahontan Region

Table SL-10. Total Water Demands

(thousands of acre -feet)

Category of Use

1990
average drought

2000
average drought

2010
average drought

2020
average drought

Urban

Applied water

187

- 193

292

302

409

423

550

565

Net water

123

125

191

198

269

277

360

372

Depletion

123

125

191

198

269

277

360

372

Agricultural

Applied water

317

321

266

270

258

262

253

257

Net water

290

293

242

245

235

238

231

234

Depletion

290

293

242

245

235

238

231

234

Environmental

Applied water

128

122

128

122

128

122

128

122

Net water

128

122

128

122

128

122

128

122

Depletion

Other (1)

Applied water

Net water

Depletion

Total

Applied water

641

645

695

703

804

816

940

953

Net water

555

554

577

580

648

652

735

743

Depletion

500

499

522

525

593

597

680

688

(1) includes conveyance losses,

recreational uses, and energy production

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management

The 1987-92 drought raised several water management issues in the South Lahontan Region. In
1991, retail urban water agencies in the region implemented ordinances requesting that their customers
reduce their overall demand. Reductions ranged from 10 to 25 percent. Most agricultural operations
were generally not hindered, as ground water supplies were generally adequate to meet demands.
However, the City of Los Angeles cut back its deliveries to growers and ranchers in the Owens Valley,
which resulted in a minor decline in planted and harvested acreage and yield. In addition, some alfalfa
acreage in the Antelope Valley was fallowed so ground water supplies could be used to irrigate deciduous
fruit orchards that were affected by reduced supplies from the State Water Project. The ground water was
pumped into the California Aqueduct and transported to the orchards.

266

Bulletin 16(^93 Administrative Draft South Lahontan Region

Legislation and Litigation

Of the many factors influencing water resource management, legislation and litigation have
significantly changed water supply management in the South Lahontan Region. Several court cases have
altered water diversions and ground water pumping in the region. A few of the landmark cases are
described here.

Owens Valley Area. At the turn of the century, the City of Los Angeles faced a severe shortage of
water due to a growing urban population. In 1913, the City of Los Angeles completed its first aqueduct
from Owens Valley to the City of Los Angeles. This aqueduct has a carrying capacity of 480 cubic feet
per second. Due to increased population and industries in Los Angeles, a second aqueduct was com-
pleted in 1970 with a capacity of 300 cfs. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power diverts both
surface and ground water from the Owens Valley and surface water from the Mono Basin.

In 1972, the County of Inyo filed suit against the City of Los Angeles, claiming that increased
ground water pumping for the second aqueduct was harming the Owens Valley environment. The
County of Inyo asked that LADWP's ground water pumping be analyzed in an Environmental Impact
Report in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Since 1984, the City of Los Angeles and Inyo County have spent about $5 million to determine the
effects of ground water pumping on native vegetation. Together with the U.S. Geological Survey, the
two parties gathered the data needed to formulate a long-term ground water management plan and
Environmental Impact Report. Within the scope of these studies, numerous enhancement and mitigation
projects were implemented. Revegetation and irrigation of certain wildlife habitats and recreation areas
constituted the bulk of these projects.

As of August 1, 1989, the parties reached agreement on the long-term ground water management
plan for the Owens Valley. However, the EIR has been rejected by the Third District Court of Appeals in
Sacramento, which required a more comprehensive environmental assessment of the agreements. The
highlights of the agreement are:

O Formation of a technical group and a standing committee to oversee all opera-
tions pertaining to water and how its use affects the environment in the Owens
Valley and adjacent areas.

O Formation of designated management areas.

O Development of a ground water pumping program including new wells and al-
lowable production capacity.

O Construction of ground water recharge facilities including location and opera-
tion.

267

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft South Lahontan Region

O Modification of Haiwee Reservoir operations.

O Provisions of financial assistance required by the City of Los Angeles.

O Release of city-owned lands.

O Development of projects and other provisions involving numerous enhancement
and mitigation measures and transfer of ownership of the water systems of sever-
al towns.

Continued study of the Owens Valley appears to be benefiting all concerned.

Mono Basin. Mono Lake, which lies just east of Yosemite National Park at the base of the eastern
Sierra Nevada, is the second largest lake completely within California. It has long been recognized as a
valuable environmental resource because of its rare scenic and biological characteristics. The area is
famous for its tufa towers and spires, structures formed by years of mineral deposition in the lake's
unique saline waters. The lake has no outlet, and there are two islands in the lake that provide a protected
breeding £irea for large colonies of California gulls and a haven for migrating waterfowl.

Much of the water flowing into Mono Lake comes from snowmelt via five fresh water creeks. Since
1941, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has diverted water from four of these creeks —
Lee Vining, Walker, Parker, and Rush creeks. Tunnels and pipelines carry the water to the Owens Valley
drainage, where it is eventually transferred, together with Owens River flows, to Los Angeles via the Los
Angeles Aqueduct.

Diversions of instream flow from its tributaries lowered Mono Lake's -water level by 45 feet to an
historic low of 6,372 feet above sea level reached in December 1981 . With decreased inflow of fresh
water, the lake's salinity has increased dramatically, which may threaten local food chains. There is
evidence that higher salinities reduce algal blooms, the food supply for the lake's abundant brine shrimp
and brine flies. Such a change poses a threat to bird populations that feed on the shrimp and brine flies.
In addition, drops in water levels to 6,375 feet or lower create a land bridge to Negit Island, one of the
lake's two islands, allowing predators to reach gull rookeries; this first happened in 1978 and again
during the 1987-92 drought. Large areas of the lake bed have also become exposed, and the dust formed
by dried alkali silt causes air quality problems, especially during wind storms.

As a result of these impacts, the lake and its tributaries have been the subject of extensive litigation
between the City of Los Angeles and a number of environmental groups since the late 1970s. (A more
detailed discussion of key court cases is provided in Volume 1, Chapter 2.) Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power is now prohibited by court order from diverting the tributaries until the lake level
stabilizes at 6,377 feet above sea level, the level identified by state and federal agencies to protect the
ecosystem and control air pollution. During the 1987-92 drought. Mono Lake remained near the target

268

Bulletin 16&-93 Administrative Draft South Lahontan Region

level, but the diversion limit resulted in an estimated loss of 100,000 AF per year to Los Angeles' water
supply by the end of 1992. In addition, releases into four of the lake's tributaries have been ordered by
another court ruling to protect and restore once thriving trout fisheries. Instream flow requirements for
the tributaries have been set on an interim basis and will be reviewed once field studies are completed.
The State Water Resources Control Board is preparing an EIR that will determine what instream flows
and lake levels are required to protect Mono Lake's ecosystem and the fisheries. In the meantime, Los
Angeles is making efforts to conserve water and approved a mandatory conservation ordinance during the
drought. Since 1989, annual water deliveries to the City of Los Angeles from the Mono-Owens system
have decreased by an average of 39 percent from previous levels in the 1980s. The decrease is in part
drought related. Los Angeles is also investigating potential alternative sources of water.

Antelope Valley Area. In December 1991 , the Palmdale Water District made public its intentions to
create, through state legislation, a ground water management agency so that long-term overdrafting in
the valley could be arrested. Several constituents within the Antelope Valley expressed their opposition.
In the ensuing months, several local groups held meetings to reach a consensus on formation of the
agency. The Antelope Valley East Kern- Water Agency suggests that a ground water management agency
is "premature" and unnecessary. Due to public outcry over this issue, the Palmdale Water District Board
of Directors has withdrawn its proposal. The Antelope Valley agencies have since formed an advisory
board to discuss water issues, including ground water.

High Desert Area. Recent court cases involving, among others, the Cities of Barstow, Victorville,
and Hesperia, have led to concerns over water rights in the Mojave River Basin. The Mojave Water
Technical Advisory Committee reports that a preliminary estimate of overdraft for 1990 would be
between 65,000 and 75,000 AF. Projected overdraft for the year 2015 amounts to 90,000 AF, based on
2015 population forecasts. The Mojave Water Agency Board of Directors has approved initiating a
feasibility study for a 37-mile Mojave River Pipeline to convey State Water Project water to the City of
Barstow and the community of Newberry Springs.

In addition, the SWP water will provide a supplemental supply for a district within the Mojave Water
;ency, which now has only ground water available and whose extraction is exceeding the natural
replenishment. In June 1990, the district voted to approve issuance of $66.5 million in general obligation
bonds to finance the Morongo Pipeline. Ground breaking for the 70-mile pipeline was held in
December 1992, with construction scheduled for completion by July 1994. It will deliver water from the
Hesperia Turnout of the California Aqueduct to the Morongo Basin in the Yucca Valley, in the Colorado

269

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft South Lahontan Region

River Region. The Morongo Basin has an entitlement to 7,257 AF of SWP water. The Board of
Directors of the Mojave Water Agency has decided to oversize the pipeline to provide capacity for water
to recharge the Mojave River. Increasing the pipeline's first section from 30 inches in diameter to 54
inches will give it the capacity to put as much as 30,000 AF a year into the river.

The City of Barstow filed a suit in 1990 against some Upper Basin water districts requesting that the
Superior Court guarantee it an annual supply of 30,000 AF of Mojave River water (to be received at a
particular stream gaging station downstream of Barstow). Barstow alleges that this was the natural river
flow to the city in 1950, before Victor Valley's growth began to cause overdrafting of the Mojave River
Basin's ground water. It further alleges that it now receives less than half of the flow it did 40 years ago.
Currently, Mojave Water Agency is developing a water management plan, as required by the court . The
parties, with the assistance of a facilitator, drafted a set of preliminary principles of adjudication of water
rights. They are attempting to expedite an agreement or a stipulated judgment to avoid a potential
moratorium on new development and to create a workable long-term solution. In another suit, between
Barstow and the City of Hesperia, the court's ruling emphasized the necessity for Mojave Water Agency
to exercise its authority as a key agent in settling the region's long-term water problems.

Water Balance

Water balances were computed for each Planning Subarea in the South Lahontan Region by compar-
ing existing and future water demand projections with the projected availability of supply. The region
total was computed as the sum of the individual subareas. This method does not reflect the severity of
drought year shortages in some local areas, which can be hidden when planning subareas are combined
within the region. Thus, there could be substantial shortages in some areas during drought periods. Lo-
cal and regional shortages could also be less severe than the shortage shown, depending on how supplies
are allocated within the region, a particular water agency's ability to participate in water transfers or de-
mand management programs (including land fallowing or emergency allocation programs), and the over-
all level of reliability deemed necessary to the sustained economic health of the region. Volume I, Chap-
ter 11 presents a broader discussion of demand management options.

Table SL-1 1 presents water demands for the 1990 level and for future water demands to 2020 and
balances them with: (1) supplies from existing facilities and water management programs, and (2) future
demand management and water supply management options.

Regional net water demands for the 1990 level of development totaled 550,000 AF for average and
drought years. Those demands are projected to increase to 735,0(X) AF for average and drought years by
the year 2020, after accounting for a 10,000 AF reduction in urban water demand resulting from

270

bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft South Lahontan Region

mplementation of long-term conservation measures and a 10,000 AF reduction in agricultural demand
iesulting from additional long-term agricultural water conservation measures.

Urban net water demand is projected to increase by about 240,000 AF (200 percent) by 2020 from
he 1990 level of 123,000 AF, due to increases in population. Agricultural net water demand is projected
0 decrease by about 60,000 AF by 2020, primarily due to lands being taken out of production resulting
jrom the high cost of developed water supplies. Environmental net water demands, under existing rules
!ind regulations, will remain essentially level out to 2020.

Average annual supplies were generally adequate to meet average net water demands in 1990 for this
legion. However, during drought, present supplies are insufficient to meet present demands and, without
jidditional water management programs, annual average and drought year shortages are expected to in-
':rease to nearly 50,000 and 140,000 AF by 2020 respectively.

With planned Level I programs, average and drought year shortages could be reduced to about 40,000
Imd 80,000 AF respectively. This remaining shortage requires both additional short-term drought
nanagement, water transfers and demand management programs, and other future long-term Level II
options depending on the overall level of water service reliability deemed necessary, by local agencies, to
;ustain the economic health of the region. In the short- term, some areas of this region will experience
nore frequent and severe water shortages.

271

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

South Lahontan Regioni;

Table SL-11. Water Balance
(thousands of acre -feet)

Demand/Supply

1990 2020

average drought average drought

Net Demand

Urban -with 1990 level of conservation

-reductions due to long-term conservation measures (Level I)
Agricultural

-reductions due to long-term conservation measures (Level I)
Environmental
Other (1)

123

125

370

382

—

-10

290

293

241

244

—

-10

-m

128

122

128

Total Net Demand

555

554

735

743

Water Supplies w/Existing Facilities Under D-1485 for Delta Supplies

Developed Supplies

Surface Water

Ground Water

Ground Water Overdraft
Subtotal
Dedicated Natural Flow

128

100

222

144

227

256

263

270

427

428

556

485

128

122

128

122

Total Water Supplies

555

550

684

607

Demand/Supply Balance

-4

Remaining Demand/Supply Balance Requiring Sliort Term Drought
Management and/or Future Level II Options

-51

-40

-136

Future Water Management Options Level i (2)

Long-term Supply Augmentation

Reclaimed

Local

Central Valley Project

State Water Project
Subtotal - Water Management Options Level i
Ground Water/Surface Water Use Reduction Resulting from Level I Programs

-1

-81

(1) Includes conveyance losses, recreation uses and energy production.

(2) Protection of fish and wildlife and a long-term solution to complex Delta problems will determine the feasibility of several water
supply augmentation proposals and their water supply benefits.

* * *

272

I Draft of The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

COLORADO RIVER REGION

Control gates on the Colorado River Aqueduct.

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Colorado River Region

COLORADO RIVER REGION

The Colorado River Region encompasses the southeastern comer of California. The region's
northern boundary, a drainage divide, begins along the southern edge of the Mojave River watershed in
the Victor Valley area of San Bernardino County and meanders northeast across the Mojave Desert to the
Nevada state line. The southern boundary is the international border with Mexico. A drainage divide
forms the jagged western boundary through the San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and Santa Rosa Mountains
and the Peninsular Ranges (which include the Laguna Mountains). The Nevada state line and the
Colorado River (the boundary with Arizona) delineate the region's eastern boundary.

Covering over 12 percent of the total land area in the State, the region is California's most arid. It
includes mountain ranges and hills of volcanic origin; distinctive sand dunes; broad areas of the Joshua
tree, alkali scrub, and cholla communities; and elevated river terraces. Despite its dry climate and rugged
terrain, the region contains some of the State's most productive agricultural areas and vacation resorts.
(See Appendix C for maps of the planning subareas and land ownership in the region.)

Much of the region's topography consists of flat plains punctuated by numerous hills and mountain
ranges. Faulting and volcanic activities are partially responsible for the presence of many abrupt
mountain ranges. The San Andreas fault slices through portions of the Coachella and Imperial Valleys.

A prominent topographic feature is the Salton Trough located in the south-central part of the region.
Oriented in a northwest-southeast direction, the trough extends from San Gorgonio Pass in the north to
the Mexican border and beyond to the Gulf of California. It includes the Coachella Valley in the north and
Imperial Valley in the south. The low point of the trough is the Salton Sea, which was created between
1905 and 1907 when the headworks of an irrigation canal conveying Colorado River water to Imperial
Valley broke. Large volumes of water flowed into the Salton Sink, resulting in the sea that exists today.
In September 1993, the Salton Sea's water surface level was about 227 feet below sea level.

The climate for most of the region is subtropical desert. Average annual precipitation is much higher
in the western mountains than in the desert areas. Winter snows generally fall above 5,000 feet; snow
depths can reach several feet at the highest levels during winter. Most of the precipitation in the region
falls during the winter; however, summer thunder storms can produce rain and local flooding in many
areas.

Region Characteristics

Average Annual Precipitation: 5.5 inches Average Annual Runoff : 1 78,700 acre-feet

Land Area: 19,730 square miles 1990 Population: 464,200 i

273

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Colorado River Region

Drainage in the region is internal except for the eastern portion, which drains into the Colorado River.
Portions of the Coachella Valley are drained by the Whitewater River, which terminates in the Salton Sea.
The Imperial Valley is drained by the Alamo and New Rivers, which originate in Mexico and terminate
in the Salton Sea.

Population

The Colorado River Region's population increased from 313,000 in 1980 to 464,200 in 1990, over
48 percent. Most of the population is concentrated in the Coachella and Imperial Valleys. Major cities in
the Coachella Valley include Palm Springs, Indio, Cathedral City, and Palm Desert. Other urban centers
in the region include the Cities of El Centro, Brawley, and Calexico in Imperial Valley, the Cities of
Beaumont and Banning in the San Gorgonio Pass area, and the cities of Needles and Blythe along the
Colorado River. Table CR-1 shows the population projections for this region.

Table CR-1. Population Projections

(thousands)

Planning Subareas 1990 2000 2010 2020

Twenty Nine Palms

Chuckwalla

Colorado River

Coachella

Borrego

Imperial Valley

Total 463 639 818 1,003

About 1 .5 percent of California's population resides in the region. Urban development in the
Coachella Valley is proceeding at a rapid pace due to affordable housing and the area's aesthetic appeal.
Much of the growth is attributed to retirees and others finding the climate and real estate settings
attractive.

Land Use

Federal and state government-owned lands account for about 14,270 square miles, or 72 percent of
the total land area of the region. There are several military training and testing grounds, including the
large U.S. Marine Corps Military Training Center at Twenty Nine Palms and the gunnery range in the
Chocolate Mountains. Major parks include Joshua Tree National Monument and Anza-Borrego Desert
State Park. The U. S. Bureau of Land Management oversees use of much of the desert lands

The number one industry and most important source of income for the region is agriculture. Almosi
90 percent, 647,000 acres, of the developed private land is being used for agriculture, most of which is

274

102

124

'W:'W

' M

263

375

496

619

:: -i^

. yh

104

144

' 173

208

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Colorado River Region

located in Imperial Valley. Because of a lack of significant rainfall, all crops planted and harvested in
these areas receive irrigation water, imported mostly from the Colorado River. Some ground water
supplies are used as well. Some of the more prominent crops include alfalfa, winter vegetables, spring
melons, table grapes, dates, Sudan grass, and wheat. Figure CR-1 shows land use, along with imports,
j exports, and water supplies for the San Joaquin River Region.

Together, recreation and tourism have become the second most important industry and source of
income for the region. In Coachella Valley, a heavy media advertising campaign over the past decade has
promoted the positive aspects of resort lifestyle and golf, and has contributed to the influx of retirees and
vacationers from around the world. To accommodate and maintain the increase in businesses, developers
in the valley have constructed world-class hotels, country clubs, golf courses, and residential
communities from Palm Springs to Indio. Over 90 golf courses have now been established in the valley.
Other activities, such as boating, water sports, and fishing on the Salton Sea and Colorado River, snow
skiing in the higher mountains, and camping, are also promoted to maintain the strong recreation and
tourism industry.

Most of the remaining industries are generally associated with the region's intensive agricultural
, activities. These industries process, pack, and distribute harvested crops or manufacture and sell
' agricultural equipment and materials. Other industries in the region include geothermal and alternative

energy developments near the Salton Sea and in Imperial Valley, wind farms near San Gorgonio Pass, and

gold and miscellaneous mining operations.

The major issue involving land use in the Colorado River Region is how to balance long-term
preservation and protection of the land while providing various kinds of recreational opportunities.
Recent discussions have centered on proposed federal legislation that would enlarge and give national
park status to the East Mojave National Scenic Area and Joshua Tree National Monument.

275

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Colorado River Region

PRESENT WATER SUPPUES

(1,000 AF/Yr.)

LOCAL SURFACE WATER DEVELOPMENT
GROUND WATER PERENNIAL YIELD
COLORADO RIVER
STATE WATER PROJECT
WATER RECLAMATION
WATER SUPPLY

GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT
TOTAL

Call fornia Aqueduct
(Exchange Agreement )

Colorado

Ri ver

3,898

Region Water Transfer

d.OOO'* of A<»-FMt par Ymi)

Figure CR-1. Colorado River Region
Land Use, Imports, Exports, and Water Supplies

276

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Colorado River Region

Water Supply

The region began its water development by depending mostly on ground water, as in the Coachella
Valley, supplemented with a minimum of surface water (those rivers that supply water to the Palm
Springs area). Water demands are met from the following sources: Colorado River (through local
diversions, the Colorado River Aqueduct, and the Ail-American and Coachella Canals), State Water
Project (indirectly), ground water, local surface water, and reclaimed water. Figure CR-2 shows the
region's 1990 level sources of supply.

Figure CR-2. Colorado River Region

Water Supply Sources (Average Conditions)

1990 Level

Total Imports*
95.8%

Local Surface
Water

.1%

Reclaimed

.1%

includes imports by local agencies and imports from the Colorado River and the State Water Project. See the Region Water Supplies
Table CR-2 for details.

277

lal

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Colorado River Region

Supply with Existing Facilities

In 1938, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation began conveying Colorado River water, via the
All-American Canal, to the Imperial Valley, Coachella Valley, and Borrego. The Ail-American Canal
can carry 15,100 cubic feet per second, which has provided these areas with an adequate and reliable
supply of water. There are no major water supply reservoirs in the region beyond those on the Colorado
River. Table CR-2 shows water supplies with existing facilities and water management programs.

The Colorado River also supplies water to areas served by the Colorado River Aqueduct, owned by
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The California apportionment of Colorado River
water is 4.4 million AF annually plus one-half of any surplus. California consumptively used over 5.2
MAF of Colorado River water in 1990, of which 3.9 MAF was used in the Colorado River Region.
Water from the Colorado River makes up about 95 percent of the region's total supply.

Table CR-2. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities

and Programs

(Decision 1485 Operating Criteria for Delta Supplies)

(thousands of acre -feet)

Supply

1990
average drought

2000

average drought

2010
average drought

2020

average drought

Surface

Local

< 6

Local imports

^^1

Colorado River^

3,898

3.898

3,774

CVP

Other federal

SWP

Ground water

Overdraft

Reclaimed

Dedicated natural flow

Total

4,124

4,107

3,983

3,960

3,980

3,957

3,982

3,959

^Colorado River supplies for the year 2000 and beyond reflect elimination of surplus Colorado River supply and transfer
of 76,000 AF of water to the South Coast Region as a result of currently agreed upon conservation programs.

Three State Water Project contractors are located in the region: Desert Water Agency, Coachella
Valley Water District, and San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency. The SWP does not extend into the region at
this time; however, MWDSC has signed an exchange agreement with Desert Water Agency and
Coachella Valley Water District that allows MWDSC to take the two agencies' SWP entitlement water.

278

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Colorado River Region

In return, MWDSC releases the same quantity of pre-delivered water from its Colorado River Aqueduct
I into the Whitewater River for recharge of the ground water basin in the Coachella Valley. Local surface
water supply in the Coachella subarea amounted to about 6,000 AF in 1990. This supply is derived from
the Whitewater River. However, the supply is not dependable in times of drought.

About 2,700 AF of fresh water was displaced by reclaimed water in 1990. Most of the fresh water
displacement occurred in the Coachella (about 2,000 AF) and Twenty-Nine Palms (almost 700 AF)
PSAs, with less than 100 AF displaced in the Imperial PSA. Most of the reclaimed water was applied to
golf courses and resort hotel common areas.

Total ground water supplies for 1990 were about 160,(X)0 AF, almost 4 percent of the region's total
I supply. The Coachella PSA accounted for about 89,000 AF of the ground water use in the region, 56,0(X)
AF of this use was overdraft. Recharge of various ground water basins depends on location. Streamflow,
percolation, subsurface inflow, periodic Colorado River flooding, and canal leakage all provide ground
water basin recharge.

From 1990 to 2020 overdraft could be reduced by over 16 percent (80,000 AF in 1990 to 67,000 AF
in 2020) in the Colorado River Region. Reduced agricultural demand and increased SWP deliveries
account for most of this decrease.

Supply with Additional Facilities and Water Management Programs

Future water management options are presented in two levels to better reflect the status of
investigations required to implement them.

O Level I options are those that have undergone extensive investigation and environmental analyses

I and are judged to have a high likelihood of being implemented by 2020.

O Level II options are those that could fill the remaining gap between water supply and demand.
These options require more investigation and alternative analyses.

Drought Water Management Strategies. State requirements for water shortage contingency plans
for urban water providers encourage urban water agencies to implement water conservation measures and
practices within their respective service areas and to plan strategies for managing shortages. The Federal
Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 requires that water suppliers who contract with the U. S. Bureau of
Reclamation prepare water conservation plans and update them every five years. Most of the larger
agencies in the region would be affected. (Volume I, Chapter 2 of the California Water Plan Update
presents more details of the 1982 act.) These planning steps constitute the major drought water
management efforts in the region. The recent drought has not adversely affected the area due to ample
l^puryover of supplies in the lower Colorado River. "

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Colorado River Regicm

Water Management Options with Additional Facilities. Currently, the San Gorgonio Pass Water
Agency plans to construct facilities that would allow it to import its SWP entitlement (17,300 AF) plus
an additional 50,000 AF to be used conjunctively in the ground water basin. Under this plan, facilities
would have a carrying capacity of 32 cfs. The facilities are expected to be on-line in 1995 or 1996.

An estimated 1 MAF of evacuated space is available within the San Gorgonio ground water basins.
At present, the agency is gathering hydrogeologic information to determine whether or not to make a
feasibility study. To date, two 1 ,000-foot-deep exploration wells and two monitoring wells (100 feet and
250 feet deep) have been established in the potential recharge area.

The Mojave Water Agency is constructing the Morongo Basin Pipeline, which will convey State
Water Project water from the Hesperia turnout of the California Aqueduct to the Morongo Basin-Johnson
Valley area. The design capacity of the pipeline is 22 cubic feet per second. Construction is scheduled to
be completed in 1994. The San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency, a SWP water contractor, has no physical
facilities for transporting its SWP entitlement of 17,300 AF. The agency is currently designing facilities
to take delivery of its entitlement. San Gorgonio serves the cities of Banning and Beaumont and the
Morongo Indian Reservation. Table CR-3 shows water supplies with additional Level I water
management programs

280

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Colorado River Region

Table CR-3. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs

(Decision 1485 Operating Criteria for Delta Supplies)

(thousands of acre -feet)

Supply

1990

2000

2010

2020

average

drought

average

drought

average

drought

average

drought

Surface

Local

Local imports

Colorado River''

3,898

3.898

3,704

CVP

Other federal

SWP

^^p

Ground water

Overdraft

Reclaimed
Dedicated natural flow

3
0

4
0

5
0

fl»H^

Total

4,124

4,107

3,917

3,896

3,920

3,907

3,880

3,868

1 Colorado River supplies for the year 2000 and beyond reflect elimination of surplus Colorado River supplies, the transfer
of 76,000 AF of water as a result of a currently agreed upon conservation program, and the saving of 70,000 AF of water
by lining the All American Canal, a Level I conservation program.

■ Water Use

The 1990 level annual net water demand within the Colorado River Region is about 4,124,000 AF.
Agricultural irrigation accounts for 83 percent of the region's net water use, while municipal and
i industrial use accounts for almost 5 percent. The Colorado River Region's agricultural water use is the
fourth highest in the State. Even though the region has a small permanent population base, the water
requirements of its recreation and tourism industries make up a large portion of the region's municipal
and industrial net water use of 204,000 AF. Figure CR-3 shows 1990 level of development net water
demands for the Colorado River Region.

281

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Colorado River Region

Figure CR-3. Colorado River Region

Net Water Demand (Average Conditions)

1990 Level

Agricultural
83%

Environmental
1%

Urban Water Use

Population projections indicate that urban applied water demand will increase about 106 percent
between 1990 and 2020, due to an expected population increase of roughly 1 17 percent during the same
period. Table CR-4 shows the total urban applied net water demand, and depletion for the Colorado
River Region through 2020. Much of the increase in urban water demand can be attributed to the

282

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Colorado River Region

development of recreation and resort facilities in Coachella Valley. Figure CR-4 shows the 1990 level
applied urban water demands by sector.

Table CR-4. Urban Water Demand
(thousands of acre -feet)

Planning Subareas

1990
average drought

2000
average drought

2010
average drought

2020

average drought

IWenty Nine Palms

Applied water demand

Net water demand

P™*6

Depletion

m g

Chuckwalla

Applied water demand

Net water demand

m. °

Depletion

m 0

Colorado River

Applied water demand

i ^^

Net water demand

i ^

Depletion

Coachella

Applied water demand

251

335

431

™'

524

Net water demand

165

220

283

344

Depletion

165

220

283

344

Borrego

Applied water demand

lliiiii

Net water demand

HH|

Depletion
Imperial Valley

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Total

Applied water demand

301

HUP

399 ^

399

512

621

Net water demand

204

272

349

424

Depletion

204

272

349

424

283

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Colorado River Region

Figure CR-4. Colorado River Region

Total Applied Urban Water Demand

(Average Conditions)

1990 Level

Industrial

Governmental

Average 1990 level water use for the region was 336 gallons per capita daily. However, values range
from 853 gpcd in the Coachella PSA to 163 gpcd in the less densely populated areas of the Twenty Nine
Palms PSA. Average per capita water use is expected to increase by about 7 percent between 1990 and
2020.

The higher per capita values in 1990 are attributable to a large tourism industry, greater landscape
irrigation requirements, and a rise in the number of people who reside in the region part-time. Lower

284

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Colorado River Region

per-capita values are common in areas where the residential landscape requirements are lower and
commercial and industrial water uses are extremely small.

Agricultural Water Use

The 1990 level irrigated crop acreage for the Colorado River Region amounted to 750,000 acres.
Table CR-5 shows irrigated crop acreage projections to 2020. Most of the major agricultural operations
n the region are in the Imperial Valley, Colorado River, and Coachella PSAs, with the largest and most
ntensive being located in the Imperial Valley PSA. Minor reductions of about three percent in total
rrigated crop acres are projected to occur between 1990 and 2020. However, increases will occur in the
blanted and harvested acres for certain high market value crops, such as fresh market vegetables,
pemand by both international and domestic markets for fresh vegetables will probably encourage
growers to maintain current levels of crop production and, if possible, plant and harvest additional acres.
bdier crops expected to show minor to moderate increases are small grains, citrus and subtropical fruit,
;ugar beets, and cotton. For cotton, current pest problems caused by boll worm could be rectified and
idditional acres planted, mainly in Imperial Valley. The silverleaf whitefly infestation, primarily in
mperial Valley, has caused temporary minor reductions in the recent planted and harvested acreage.
Eradication and management efforts should mitigate the problems caused by these pests and allow crop
icreage to return to normal levels. Table CR-6 shows the 1990 level evapotranspiration of applied water
)y crop.

Table CR-5. Irrigated Crop Acreage

(thousands of acres)

Planning Subareas

1990

2000

2010

2020

Twenty Nine Palms

Chuckwalla

Colorado River

Coachella

Borrego

Imperial Valley

Total

130

131

132

12 «

526

530 '

534

750

746

737

726

285

Bulletin 160-93 Administratiye Draft

Colorado River Region

The four top crops in terms of acreage and total gross applied water use are alfalfa, track (vegetables
and nursery), small grains, and miscellaneous field. In 1990, alfalfa used roughly 50 percent of the total
gross applied agricultural water. Figure CR-5 compares 1990 crop acreages, evapotranspiration, and
applied water for major crops.

Table CR-6. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop

(thousands of acres)

Irrigated Crop

Total Acres
(1,000)

Total ETAW
(1,000 AF)

Irrigated Crop

Total Acres
(1,000)

Total ETAW

(1,000 AF)

Grain

152

Pasture

176

Cotton

121

Tomatoes

Sugar beets

134

Other truck

190

310

Com

Other deciduous

Other field

146

Vineyard

MaUfSi

255

1.381

Citrus/olives

123

Total

750

2,665

Reductions in irrigated acres are expected for crops or crop categories with low or fluctuating market
values, such as alfalfa, com, and miscellaneous Held crops. Market competition (international and
domestic) and the pressures from urban encroachment may cause decreases in acres planted with table
gntpes in the Coachella Valley. Total 1990 agricultural applied water demand was about 3.7 MAF and net
water demand was about 3.4 MAF. Table CR-7 summarizes the 1990 and projected agricultural water
demand in the region.

286

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Colorado River Region

Table CR-7. Agricultural Water Demand

(thousands of acre -feet)

Planning Subareas

1990 2000 2010

average drought average drought average drought

2020
average drought

IWenty-Nine Palms

Applied water demand
Net water demand
Depletion

22
20
20

28
24
24

32
28
28

34 m

34
30
30

Chuckwalla

Applied water demand
Net water demand
Depletion

30
27
27

27
27

17
16
16

13
12
12

15
13
13

13
13

Colorado River

Applied water demand
Net water demand
Depletion

785
606
606

751
588
588

705
566
566

698

559
559

698
559
559

Coachella

Applied water demand
Net water demand
Depletion

393
313
313

342
277
277

260
215
215

202
168
168

Borrego

Applied water demand
Net water demand
Depletion

Imperial Valley

Applied water demand
Net water demand
Depletion

37
35
35

45
42
42

48
46
46

51
48
48

2,438 2,438
2,438 2,438
2,438 2,438

2,415
2,415
2,415

2,395 2,395
2,395 2,395
2,395 2,395

2,363
2,363
2,363

48
48

2,363
2.363
2,363

Total

Applied water demand
Net water demand
Depletion

3,705

3,598

3,453

3,363

3,439

3,362

3,262

34262

3,181

3,439

3,362

3,262

3,181

287

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Colorado River Region

800

Acres p< 1 ,000)

600

400

200

Acre-Feet (X 1 ,000)

2,400

1,800

1,200

-600

Grain Other Field Alfalfa Other Truck
■Acreage META\N ■Applied Water

Figure CR-5. Colorado River Region
1990 Acreage, ETAW, and Applied Water for Major Crops

288

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Colorado River Region

Minor reductions in crop acreage and applied water use are expected for the region. Projections
indicate that the region's total applied agricultural water use will decrease by about 9 percent between 1990
and 2020. Improvements in on-farm irrigation operations and irrigation system technologies, the loss of
irrigated land caused by urbanization, and minor shifts in crop type will contribute to the decrease. Table
CR-7 shows increases of about 55 percent and 38 percent in applied agricultural water use between 1990
and 2020 in the Twenty-Nine Palms and Borrego PSAs, respectively. During the same period, decreases of
about 50 percent are projected for both the Chuckwalla and Coachella PSAs.

Since the late 1970s, major efforts have been undertaken by local governments, water agencies, and
growers to improve the efficiency of agricultural irrigation operations in the region. The most observable
improvements have been made in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys. Agricultural conservation in the
region can be placed into two categories: (1) on-farm irrigation system management and operation
improvements and (2) conveyance system improvements. Examples of current on-farm improvements
include: careful management and design of furrows, basin and sprinkler systems to minimize excessive
tailwater runoff from the ends of fields into drains and to evenly irrigate the entire field; laser leveling of
fields to improve movement of irrigation water in furrows and basin systems; implementing
micro-irrigation technology (drip emitters and micro-jet sprinklers) for permanent crops; using different
irrigation and cultivation techniques (hand-move sprinklers for pre-irrigation of fields and seed
germination); reusing tailwater to supplement delivered water for the irrigation of another field; and
irrigation scheduling. Subsurface irrigation systems are also being tested on certain crops in the region.

Conveyance system improvements have come in the form of: constructing regulatory reservoirs to
enhance the delivery and storage capabilities of the system; concrete lining of canals and laterals with
concrete to minimize supply losses due to seepage; automating the system with telemetry for improved
control over the delivery of water; and installing seepage recovery and operational spill interceptor
systems.

Environmental Water Use

Total 1990 environmental water use for the Colorado River Region amounts to nearly 40,000 AF.
Demands are projected to increase 13 percent by 2000 and remain at the 44,000 AF level through 2020.
Colorado River water supplies most of this use. Currently, there are two major areas where water is used
for wildlife habitat in the region: the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge and Imperial Wildlife Area.
There are also several private wetlands. Table CR-8 shows wetland water needs in the Colorado River
Region.

289

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Colorado River Region

The Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1930 by executive order. Originally, the
refuge contained 23,425 acres, but due to inflow of agricultural drain water and a rise in the sea level,
most of the refuge is now inundated. About 2,500 acres of manageable habitat remain, with about 1 ,068
acres managed as marsh land. In 1990, the refuge used about 4,900 AF of fresh water. Projections
indicate the refuge will require about 10,000 AF of fresh water by the year 2000.

The Imperial Wildlife Area is operated and managed by the State Department of Fish and Game. The
area is comprised of two units. The Finney-Ramer unit contains two lakes with a combined area of 320
acres and several small ponds. The total water surface area of the unit is about 2,050 acres, with total
annual water use estimated at 7,600 AF. The Wister unit has a total water surface area of about 5,500
acres and total annual water use of almost 21,000 AF. Demands are projected to remain level through
2020.

Private wetlands in the Colorado River Region occupy about 2,225 acres and consumptively use
roughly 5,330 AF of fresh water annually. These wetlands, scattered throughout Imperial and Riverside
Counties, are used for duck hunting.

290

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Colorado River Region

Table CR-8. Wetlands Water Needs
(thousands of acre -feet)

Wetlands

1990 2000 2010 2020

average drought average drought average drought average drought

Salton Sea

Applied water
Net water
Depletion

10
10
10

10
10

Imperial

Applied water
Net water
Depletion

29
29
29

Private

Applied water
Net water
Depletion

Total

Applied water
Net water
Depletion

39
39
39

44
44
44

Other Water Use

Conveyance losses, primarily in the All-American and Coachella Canals, totaled about 360,000 AF

in 1990. Both the Imperial Irrigation District and Coachella Valley Water District conveyance losses are
calculated as the acre-feet of water allocated to them minus the amount of water actually sold to users by
the districts. Conveyance losses are projected to decrease to 170,000 AF by 2020, as a result of
conservation programs to line the canals. Geothermal power plants in Imperial Valley PSA produce
about 379 megawatts per year and use about 74,200 AF of cooling water annually in their operation.
Table CR-9 shows the total water demand for this region.

Recreational facilities are found in all PSAs; most consist of campgrounds and parks, and water is
used for drinking, landscape watering, toilets, showers, and facility maintenance. Total water use in these
areas amounted to almost 5,000 AF in 1990. The Colorado River PSA accounted for about 3,000 AF of
that use. Recreation includes water skiing, boating, fishing, and swimming. Figure CR-6 shows water
recreation areas in the Colorado River Region.

291

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Colorado River Region

Table CR-9. Total Water Demands
(thousands of acre -feet)

Category of Use

1990 2000 2010 2020

average drought average drought average drought average drought

Urban

Applied water
Net water
Depletion

301
204
204

399
272
272

512
349
349

621
424
424

621

42^

Agricultural

Applied water
Net water
Depletion

3,705 3,705
3,439 3,439
3,439 3,439

3,598
3,362
3,362

3.598
3,362
3,362

3,453
3,262
3,262

3,453 3,363
3,262 3,181
3,262 3,181

Environmental

Applied water
Net water
Depletion

39
39
39

44
44
44

Otheri

Applied water
Net water
Depletion

82
442
442

83
363

363

83
363
363

83
363

363

Total

Applied water
Net water
Depletion

4,127 4,127 4,124 4,124 4,092 4,092 4,111 4,111

4,124 4,124 4,041 4,041 4,018 4,018 4,012 4,012

4,124 4,124 4,041 4,041 4,0t8 4,018 4,012 4,012

^ Other includes conveyance losses, recreation uses, and water used in energy production.

292

(ulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Colorado River Region

Leg end
▲ Water Recreation Area
• Hydroelectric Power Plant

WATER RECREATION AREAS

1. Salton Sea S.R^

2. Picacho State Recreation Area

_-.-i--VT? 1 c °

0 10 20 30

Figure CR-6. Colorado River Region
Water Recreation Areas

293

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Colorado River Region

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management

Legislation and Litigation

Colorado River Water Allocations. As a result of the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decree in Arizona v.
California, California's allocation of Colorado River water was quantified and five lower Colorado River
Indian tribes were awarded 905,496 acre-feet of annual diversions, 131,400 AF of which were allocated
for use in and chargeable to California pursuant to a later supplemental decree.

In 1978, the tribes asked the court to grant them additional water rights, alleging that the United
States failed to claim a sufficient amount of irrigable acreage, called "omitted" lands, in the earlier
litigation. The tribes also raised claims for more water based on allegedly larger reservation boundaries
than had been assumed by the court in its initial award of water rights to the tribes, called "boundary"
lands. In 1982, the special master appointed by the Supreme Court to hear these claims recommended
that additional water rights be granted to the Indian tribes. In 1983, however, the court rejected the
claims for omitted lands from further consideration and ruled that the claims for boundary lands could
not be resolved until disputed boundaries were finally determined. Three of the five tribes — Fort
Mohave Indian Tribe, Quechan Indian Tribe, and Colorado River Indian Tribe — are pursuing additional
water rights related to the boundary lands claims in a further Supreme Court proceeding currently being
held by still another special master. A settlement may be reached soon on the Fort Mohave claim. The
Quechan claim has been rejected by the special master on the grounds that any such claim was
necessarily disposed of as part of a Court of Claims settlement entered into by the tribe in a related matter
in the mid-1980s. The Colorado River Indian Tribe case was presented to the special master in early
1993. As with all claims to water from the main stem of the Colorado River and any determination by
the special master, only the U.S. Supreme Court itself can make the final ruling.

Any Colorado River or Fort Mohave tribal claims granted for additional water rights would reduce
the amount of water available to satisfy the fourth priority demands of The Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California under the 1931 California Seven Party Agreement, which established priorities for
use of California's entitlement. Any Quechan tribal claims granted for additional water rights would
reduce the amount of water available to satisfy the third priority demands of the Coachella Valley Water
District under this agreement because the Quechan tribe receives Colorado River water under the Yuma
Project Reservation Division's second priority. If all additional water rights claims were granted to the
three Indian tribes, MWD could effectively lose up to 22,600 AF and Coachella up to 45,200 AF of their
Colorado River supplies. The actual amounts to be granted, if any, are yet to be determined.

294

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Colorado River Region

The Lower Colorado Water Supply Act. On November 14, 1986, the President signed the Lower
Colorado Water Supply Act, Public Law 99-655, authorizing the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to
construct, operate, and maintain a project consisting of a series of wells along the AU-American Canal.
The project would be capable of providing up to 10,000 AF of water annually from ground water storage
to indirectly benefit the City of Needles, the community of Winterhaven, the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management, and other municipal, industrial, and recreational users in California with no rights or
insufficient rights to Colorado River water. Under PL 99-655, the Imperial Irrigation District or the
Coachella Valley Water District, or both, would exchange a portion of their Colorado River water for an
equivalent quantity and quality of ground water to be pumped from the well field into the Ail-American
Canal during years that the total consumptive uses in the Lower Basin States are less than 7.5 MAF and
apportioned but unused water is not available. The Lower Colorado Water Supply Project is now under
construction and is scheduled for operation in 1994.

Effects of the Central Arizona Project on Colorado River Allocations. The Central Arizona
Project, with an annual diversion capacity of 2.1 MAF, started delivering water in December 1985. All
aqueduct facilities were completed in 1992 and are projected to divert about 675,000 AF for municipal,
industrial, and agricultural uses in Central Arizona in 1993. Deliveries are expected to increase to 1.5
MAF annually under full development, with the capability of up to 2.1 MAF when it is available and
needed.

When the Central Arizona Project begins diverting its full allocation of Colorado River water,
California will be limited to its basic annual apportionment of 4.4 MAF when the Secretary of the
Interior declares that a normal condition exists. Additional water can and has been made available when
the Secretary determines a surplus condition exists, or when one or both of the other Lower Division
states (Arizona and Nevada) are not fully using their apportioned water. Since 1985, neither Arizona nor
Nevada has used its full basic apportionment, and the Secretary of the Interior has allowed California to
use surplus water or Arizona's and Nevada's apportioned but unused Colorado River water. These factors
have allowed California to divert and consumptively use 4.5 MAF to 5.2 MAF annually since 1985.

The availability of Colorado River water to California in 1993 was determined in the annual
operating plan issued by the Secretary of the Interior in October 1992. The 1993 annual operating plan
makes sufficient water available to supply all of California's reasonable beneficial consumptive use
demands, but the plan contains a proviso that if the total mainstream consumptive use in the Lower
Division states exceeds 7.5 MAF, the entity or entities responsible for the overuse will be required to
compensate for such overuse by 1996.

295

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Colorado River Region

Lining of the Ail-American Canal. The Secretary of the Interior (under PL 100-675 enacted in
1988) is authorized to line portions of the All-American Canal and the Coachella Canal, using funds
provided by MWDSC, Coachella Valley Water District, Imperial Irrigation District, and Palo Verde
Irrigation District. As of April 1993, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation was preparing a final
environmental impact statement/report regarding lining of a portion of the All-American Canal. Lining
the canal or constructing a parallel canal from Pilot Knob to Drop Number 3, about 25 miles east of
Calexico, would save roughly 67,700 AF annually.

The draft EIS/EIR for the project identified the preferred alternative to be a parallel concrete-lined
canal. The final EIS/EIR is scheduled to be filed in 1993 and construction could begin in 1995. In
addition, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is preparing a draft EIR/EIS regarding lining another section of
the Coachella Canal, from which savings are expected to total 30,000 AF per year. Thus, if both canals
were lined, as much as 97,700 AF of water could be made available for other uses.

Salinity Concentrations in the Colorado River. Salinity in the Colorado River varies from year to
year because the river is subject to highly variable flows. As a result of high river flows from 1983 to

1986, releases from reservoir storage into the lower Colorado River were greatly in excess of the releases
required for beneficial uses. These record high flows reduced salinity in the lower river. However, since

1987, with below normal water supply conditions and fewer reservoir releases being made to supply
consumptive uses only, salinity levels have again increased.

Like most western rivers, the Colorado increases in salinity from its headwaters to its mouth,
carrying a salt load of about 9 million tons annually (measured at Hoover Dam). Roughly 50 percent of
the river's salinity results naturally from salt in saline springs, ground water discharge into the river,
erosion and dissolution of sediments, and evaporation and transpiration. About 37 percent of the salt
load comes from agricultural return flows, which carry dissolved salts from underlying saline soils and
geologic formations. The remainder of the salt load results from out-of-basin exports, reservoir
evaporation, development of energy resources in the Upper Colorado River Basin, and other municipal
and industrial uses.

In 1972, the seven Colorado River Basin states adopted a policy that while they would continue to
develop the Colorado River water apportioned to each of them, they would work with each other to
maintain salinity concentrations in the lower main stem of the Colorado River at or below the flow
weighted average annual salinity of 1 972. Later that year, amendments to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act required that standards for salinity in the Colorado River be established. In 1973, the seven

296

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Colorado River Region

basin states created the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum to establish criteria and develop a
plan for implementing a salinity control program.

In 1975, all the basin states adopted the salinity standards set forth in the report Water Quality
Standards for Salinity, Including Criteria, and Plan of Implementation for Salinity Control, Colorado
River System, as recommended by the forum. The state-adopted and EPA-approved standards call for
maintenance of average annual flow weighted salinity concentrations of 723 milligrams per liter below
Hoover Dam, 747 mg/L below Parker Dam, and 879 mg/L at Imperial Dam.

Because of changes in hydrologic conditions and water use within the Colorado River Basin, the
forum reviews its plan of implementation every three years. The recommended revisions to the plan for
1990 appear in Review, Water Quality Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System. The revised plan
of implementation is designed to control enough salt to maintain the salinity criteria adopted in 1975
under a long-term mean water supply of 15 million AF per year. The 1990 proposed plan of
implementation includes:

O Completion of U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, and Department of
Agriculture salinity control measures. Currently remaining federal construction funds for these
activities total about $669 million.

O Imposition of effluent limitations, principally under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit program for industrial and municipal discharges.

O Implementation of various forum-recommended policies on such subjects as use of brackish or
saline waters for industrial purposes, NPDES standards for intercepted ground water, and fish
hatcheries.

The forum reported that average salinity concentrations for 1990 were 578 mg/L below Hoover Dam,
600 mg/L below Parker Dam, and 702 mg/L at Imperial Dam, which were all below the forum's criteria.
It also reported that there was no reason to believe the criteria would be exceeded during the 1990 to
1993 period. In fact, projections appearing in the 1990 review state, "...except for deviations caused by
factors beyond human control, average annual salinity levels would be maintained through 2010 at or
below the 1972 levels with the recommended plan of implementation."

Saltan Sea. The Salton Sea is a 35-mile-long, 12-mile-wide, 40-foot-deep, saline body of water.
It lies 228 feet below sea level in the desert of Imperial and Riverside Counties. In 1924, the federal
[government, recognizing the sea as a depository for agricultural drainage waters, placed lands lying
[below Elevation -220 feet in and around the sea in a public water reserve.

297

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Colorado River Region

In 1968, California enacted a statute declaring that the primary use of the Salton Sea is for collection
of agricultural drainage water, seepage, leachate, and control waters. In 1980, a Salton Sea shore farmer
wrote a letter to the State Water Resources Control Board alleging that the Imperial Irrigation District
was wasting water to the sea and causing his land to be flooded. After several hearings, the board, in
1988, ordered IID to develop a plan to conserve 100,000 AF of water per year by 1994, The order
required IID to make water delivery and irrigation practices more efficient and included a reservation of
jurisdiction regarding the possible future conservation of up to 368,000 AF annually.

The order caused concerns that conservation measures would lower the sea's surface level and
increase salinity concentrations at a slightly faster rate. The Salton Sea became increasingly saline
between 1907 and 1934, largely because of high evaporation and reduced inflow of fresh water. Since
1934 the salinity has varied from 33,000 mg/L to 44,000 mg/L. Inflow from Imperial, Coachella, and
Mexican Valleys from 1989 to 1991 was 977,000 AF, 108,000 AF, and 141,000 AF, respectively.
Irrigation return flows, precipitation (which averages less than 3 inches per year), and local runoff are the
only fresh water supplies to the sea. As is common in arid environments, the equivalent of several years
rain may arrive in a single storm. With a watershed exceeding 8,000 square miles, a large storm can
elevate the sea by one foot or more.

Agricultural drainage carries with it varying amounts of nutrients, mainly compounds of nitrogen and
phosphorus, which encourage the growth of algae. Although algae are very productive and support the
higher trophic levels, algae blooms in the upper water levels discolor the water and, upon death and
decomposition, often cause temporary anoxic conditions locally and produce obnoxious odors. Fish are
occasionally killed by the temporary lack of oxygen. These conditions reduce the sea's aesthetic appeal
and, to some extent, depress water contact recreation.

The presence of selenium in the Salton Sea area has recently focused attention on its source or
sources. The selenium content in the Colorado River water delivered to the Imperial and Coachella
Valleys has been found to be about 2 parts per billion and reflects selenium contributions from tributaries
to the main stem of the Colorado River in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The concentration of
selenium in the sea water is about 2.5 ppb. As the result of a concentration of leachates from the soils
irrigated with Colorado River water, higher levels of selenium concentrations in agricultural drains have
been found. Although drainage water consists of components ( for example, tile water, tail water, and
seepage) carrying different concentrations of selenium, the mixing that occurs in the drain channels
results in a selenium concentration of about 8 ppb.

298

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Colorado River Region

The State Water Resources Control Board has adopted a California Inland Surface Waters Plan with a
jrformance goal of 5 ppb for selenium concentrations in agricultural drain channels. In an earlier
;tion, the California Department of Health Services, concerned over the concentration of selenium in the
Bssue of fish in the sea, issued a health advisory that fish consumption by humans be limited to avoid any
iverse health effects.

Four bird species residing in the Salton Sea area are potentially adversely affected by organochlorine
ssticides. Such pesticides are mobilized from farm fields and transported to drains by tail water runoff,
tesuspension of bottom sediments in the New and Alamo Rivers and drains is another source of these
jsticides. Twenty-three different organochlorine pesticides have been found in various types of biota in
le Imperial Valley.

The average salt loading of inflow the sea over the past 30 years has been 4.9 million tons per year.
lince 1980, salinity concentrations have increased at a rate of 500 to 600 parts per million per year. As
5f December 1992, salinity levels in the Salton Sea were 44,000 parts of salt per million parts of water —
saltier than the ocean water, which averages 34,000 ppm.

Further increases in salinity could harm fish and wildlife and the recreational resources in the area.
Salinity concentrations in the sea are projected to reach 50,000 ppm in the next 10 years, even without
irther conservation measures being implemented, which would increase the rate. It is not likely, even
inder the most favorable hydrologic conditions, that the salinity of the sea will return to concentrations
below 40,000 ppm, even without any further water conservation. On the other hand, flooding has also
adversely affected shoreline developments and recreation. The sea has maintained relatively stable water
elevations for the past decade.

Since 1987, the Salton Sea Task Force, chaired by the State Resources Agency, has been studying
these problems. This intergovernmental group's objective is to find a way to conserve water in the Salton
Sea area while stabilizing the sea's salinity and water levels. Several plans have been proposed; however,
all plans would incur substantial costs. The task force is continuing to explore various means of
improving the financial feasibility of the plans and to seek some form of regional organization as a
sponsoring entity to carry out and provide funding for preservation measures.

Contracts and Agreements

MWDSC Water Conservation Agreements. To compensate for the loss of Colorado River water
under the Supreme Court decree in Arizona v. California, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California is pursuing a number of programs to augment its supplies. In December 1988, MWDSC and
Imperial Irrigation District signed the first of two agreements expected to make 106, 1 10 AF of conserved

299

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Colorado River Region

water available to MWDSC annually, except under certain limited circumstances, through the
implementation of structural and nonstructural water conservation projects within IID's service area. The
conservation measures to be used are: (1) concrete lining of existing earthen canals, (2) construction of
reservoirs and canal spill interceptors, (3) installation of non-leak gates and distribution system
automation equipment, and (4) on-farm management of irrigation water. MWDSC will furnish an
estimated $222 million (1988 dollars) for the conservation projects. Increased conservation in the IID
would reduce surface and subsurface fresh water inflow to the Salton Sea, thus shortening the time it
takes for the sea to reach critical salinity concentrations. The potential for increasing the rate of salinity
concentration is a controversial issue and, as yet, unresolved.

The Palo Verde Irrigation District signed an agreement with MWD for a two-year fallowing program
involving 22,000 acres of land that could save 200,000 AF of Colorado River water (100,000 AF per
year). The fallowing began August 1, 1992 and will end July 31, 1994. Program lands lying fallow in
1992 are required to lie fallow through July 31, 1994. Currently, about 90,000 AF has been conserved
and that water is to be maintained in Lake Mead. MWDSC must use the water before the year 2000.

IID and MWD were considering a test fallowing and modified irrigation practice program to save up
to 200,000 AF of Colorado River water over a two-year period for MWD's use. Fallowing and modified
irrigation of alfalfa would be conducted by Imperial Valley farmers on a voluntary basis for monetary
compensation.

Water Banking Proposal. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has formed a technical work group with
representatives from California, Arizona, Nevada, and the Colorado River Indian tribes to explore the
merits and feasibility of banking water in Lake Mead for use by California, Arizona, and Nevada, and the
tribes. A banking proposal is being considered as a provision of proposed regulations being prepared by
USER for administration of Colorado River entitlements in the Lower Basin.

Yuma Desalting Plant. The high salinity of Colorado River water in past years led to protests from
the Republic of Mexico and an agreement between the United States and Mexico. To enable the U.S. to
comply with the agreement without depriving Colorado River basin states of any of their apportioned
water, the Yuma Desalting Plant was authorized under Title I of PL 93-320 in 1974. The purpose of the
desalter is to remove sufficient salts from irrigation drainage water from the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation
and Drainage District in Arizona to meet the established salinity control standards at the Northerly
International Boundary when the treated drainage water is released into the river. At the Yuma Desalting
Plant, the brine discharge is disposed of in a channel leading to the Santa Clara Slough in Mexico, and
the treated water is blended with the remaining untreated drainage water and returned to the river. The

300

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft Colorado River Region

Yuma Desalting Plant began operation at one-third capacity in May 1992. Due to high flows in the Gila
River early in 1993, the plant was shut down in January 1993.

Under full operation, the desalter will be able to take about 98,000 acre-feet of drainage water and

produce 68,500 acre-feet of product water; this will be blended with about 10,000 acre-feet of untreated

irrigation water, so that a total of 78,500 acre-feet will be returned to the river.
!

Water Balance

j Water balances were computed for each planning subarea in the Colorado River Region by

; comparing existing and future water demand projections with the projected availability of supply. The

j region total was computed as the sum of the individual subareas. This method does not reflect the

fcverity of drought year shortages in some local areas which can be hidden when planning subareas are

combined within the region. Thus, there could be substantial shortages in some areas during drought
1
1 periods. Local and regional shortages could also be less severe than the shortage shown, depending on

i how supplies are allocated within the region, a particular water agency's ability to participate in water

i transfers or demand management programs (including land fallowing or emergency allocation programs),

i and the overall level of reliability deemed necessary to the sustained economic health of the region.

I Volume I, Chapter 11, presents a broader discussion of demand management options.

i
I
i Table CR-10 presents water demands for the 1990 level and for future water demands to 2020 and

I balances them with: (1) supplies from existing facilities and water management programs, and (2) fiiture

demand management and water supply management options.

Regional net water demands for the 1990 level of development totaled 4. 1 MAF for average and
drought years. Those demands are projected to decrease to 4.0 MAF by the year 2020, after accounting
for a 35,000 AF reduction in urban water demand resulting from implementation of long-term
conservation measures and a 200,000 AF reduction in agricultural demand resulting from additional
long-term agricultural water conservation measures.

Urban net water demand is expected to increase by about 220,000 AF by 2020, primarily due to
I increases in population, while agricultural net water demand is expected to decrease by about 260,000
AF. Environmental net water demands, under existing rules and regulations, will increase from 39,000
to 44,000 AF annually as a result of increased allocation of water to wildlife refuges.

Average annual supplies were generally adequate to meet average net water demands in 1990 for this
region. However, during drought, present supplies are insufficient to meet present demands and, without
additional water management programs, annual average and drought year shortages are expected to be
limited to about 0.03 and 0.05 MAF by 2020 respectively.

301

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Colorado River Region

Table CR-10. Water Balance
(thousands of acre -feet)

Demand/Supply

1990
average drought

average

2020

drought

Net Demand

Urban -with 1990level of conservation

204

459

-reductions due to long-term conservation measures (Level 1)

—

-35

Agricultural

3,439

3,381

-reductions due to long-term conservation measures (Level 1)

—

-200

Environmental

Other (1)

442

363

Total Net Demand

4,124

4,012

Water Supplies w/ExistIng Facilities Under D-1485 for Delta Supplies

Developed Supplies

Surface Water

3,965

3,948

3,836

3,813

Ground Water

Ground Water Overdraft

Subtotal

4,124

4,107

3,982

3,959

Dedicated Natural Flow

Total Water Supplies

4,124

4,107

3,982

3,959

Demand/Supply Balance

-17

-30

-53

Future Water Management Options Level 1 (2)

Long-term Supply Augmentation

Reclaimed

Local (3)

Colorado River

-70

State Water Project

Subtotal - Water Management Options Level 1

-59

-48

Ground Water/Surface Water Use Reduction Resulting from Level 1 Programs

-27

Remaining Demand/Supply Balance Requiring Short-Term Drought
Management and/or Future Level 11 Options

-62

-74

(1) Includes conveyance losses, recreation uses and energy production.

(2) Protection of fish and wildlife and long-term solution to complex Delta problems will determine the feasibility of several water
supply augmentation proposals and their water supply benefits.

With planned Level I options, average and drought year shortages could be about 62,0(X) and 74,(XX)
AF respectively. This remaining shortage requires both additional short-term drought management and
future long-term Level II options depending on the overall level of water service reliability deemed
necessary, by local agencies, to sustain the economic health of the region. Because of high priority of
rights to Colorado River water by such areas in the Palo Verde Irrigation District, the Coachella Valley,
and the Imperial Valley, any future shortages in these areas are expected to be limited.

* * *

302

>raft of The California Water Plan Update

Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

APPENDIXES

Appendix C Planning Subarea and

Land Ownership Maps

Appendix D Hydroelectric Resources

of California

Draft of The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

Appendix C

PLANNING SUB AREA AND LAND
OWNERSHIP MAPS

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix C

JMC

*r^

-^R

,N-'.

.*^'S

--^.^

--x

■Ki^

£7"^

.^.

Jf^

Legend

OWNER
ACRE8(»1000)

-1 PWVATE

J 51413

I COUNTY/CITY 1/NOS

I 486

I STATE UVOS

I 684

I STATE FMKS ft REC

I 1081

I STATE F6H ft GWC

I 97

I COF

I 68

-1 MiUT>«Y

J 3697

-I BUREAU RECMHTION

J 70

-] BUREMJ WDMNAFfAR

J 504

-1 US RSH ft VMLOUFE

J 210

1 Mil PMK/MONUMB(T

J 4491

-{ BUREAU LAND MGMT

J 17556

-1 NATIONAL FOREST

J 20646

f"' J

tTL

Statewide Land Ownership

303

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix C

OREGON

^AMi

J>.

YCf

!fo

Lo\
KlamaUb
Lalcff

hWM rule

* \ A

.■%:

,xy

CLAi

^^.J!

7LF

^-i>-

V^i

Upper Klamath PSA-OI

Lost River (1)

Butte Valley (2)

Scott Valley (3)

Shasta Valley (4)
Lower Klamath-SinHh PSAr02

Trinity (7)

Lower Klamatti (10)

Smith River Basin (14)
Coastal PSA PSA-03
(Mendocino Coas^

Big-Noyo-Ten Mile (17)

Navarro-Garcia (18)

Gualala (19)

CIM?

r \

^9LAJlE
SONOMA {

10 20

Clear
Lake

7Fk

Planning Subareas, North Coast Region

Coastal PSA-03 (eon^
(Eel River Basin)
Lower Eel (20)
Van Duzen (21)
South Foric Eel (23)
Upper Eel (25)
Mattole-Bear (27)
(Mad River Basin)
Redwood Creek (28)
Mad-Trinidad (30)
Eureka Plain (32)

Russian River PSA-04
Ukiah

Forsythe (33a)
Coyote (33b)
Upper Russian (33c)

Geyserville
Middle Russian (34a)
Dry Creek (34b)

Lower Russian (35)

Santa Rosa (36)

Bodega (37)

304

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix C

BUREAU INDWN/V^MR

111326

US nSH & WIOUFE

98325

NATL RWKMONUMBJT

123769

BUREAU UMDMGMT

373529

NATIONAL FOREST

5061668

Land Ownership, North Coast Region

305

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix C

North Bay PSAr^H

West Marin (38)
Petaluma

South Sonoma (39a)

East Marin (39b)
Napa (40)
Solano (41)

South Bay PSAn02

San Mateo Coast (42)
South Bay Peninsula (43)
San Jose (44)
Livermore (45)
Walnut Creek (46)
Oakland (47)

Planning Subareas, San Francisco Bay Region

3Q6

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix C

Legend

OWNER
ACRES

-| PWVATE
J 2335157
I COUNTY/CfTY WNDS

I STATE LANDS

I 7930

I STATE PARKS k REC

I 76576

I STATE RSH ft GHK

I 1312

I COF

I 816

MLTTARY

36149

BUREAU RECLAMATION

US RSH ft WLDUFE

20151

NATL FWK/MONUMaiT

79501

BUREAU LAMO MGMT

8852

NATIONAL FOREST

Land Ownership, San Francisco Bay Region

307

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix C

loeb Zoataatl

SantM Clara
Canal

\ ffolUater
Coadui t

Northern PSA-01

Pressure (48)

East Side (49)

Forebay (50)

Upper Valley (51)

Monterey Peninsula (52)

Arroyo Seco (53)

Gabilan Range (54)

Loclcwood (55)

Carmel River (56)

Santa Lucia Range (57)

Bolsa Nueva (58)

Watsonville (59)

Santa Cruz (60)

Santa Cruz Mountains (61)

South Santa Clara Valley (62)

Pacheco-Santa Ana Creeks (63)

San Benito River (64)

Southern PSA-02

Upper Salinas (65)

North Coast (66)

San Luis Obispo (67)

Arroyo Grande (68)

Carrizo Plain (69)

Santa Maria Valley-SLO (70)

Santa Maria Valley-SB (71)

Cuyama Valley-SLO (72)

San Antonio (73)

Santa Ynez (74)
South Coast (75)
Cuyama Valley-SB (76)

South Coast Coadui t-

Planning Subareas, Central Coast Region

308

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix C

CruzW;LARA

*Hollister

v.n

.SallJM.'

SAN BENITO

MONTEREY

^5K

AtttOnb R099fyOw

Legend

OWNER
ACRES

-1 PRIVATE

J S188194

I COUNTY/CITY LANDS

I 26310

■ STATE LAN)S
I 12889

■ STATE PARKS ft REC
I 74173

i STATE F6H ft GMtlE
I 22S3

■ COF
I 0

^ MMTARY

j 340240

1 BUREAU REOAIiMTION

J 9794

1 BUREAU INDIAN ARVUR

US RSH a WLDUFE

114

NATl PWK/MONUMBfT

14827

BUREAU LAND MGMT

265933

NATIONAL FOREST

1274236

SAN LUIS OBISPO
^Mom Bay

If.

TwMhM

•^

Sisqvoc

SANTA BARBARA

Lomp

^il^ toto Cachurm

Santa Bartani

Land Ownership, Central Coast Region

309

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix C

Santa Oara PSA-01
Vantura County (81)
Loa Angalea County (83)

Matropolltan LA PSA-02

Malibu (87)
Coastal (89)
San Fernando (90)
San Gabriel (92)

Santa Ana P8A-08

Orange (96)
Riverside North (98)
San Bemanfino (100)
Riverside South (104)

San DIago PSAr04

Temecula (110)

VMio (114)

San Diego County (120)

— M-E X'^ ^ °

0 10 20 30

Planning Subareas, South Coast Region

310

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix C

>Lak0

iLalM Cmhm

1 Ventur

■^gants

-cH'

LP& yyMGELES

VENTURA

._J

* ^^

Legend

OWNER
ACRES

PWVATt

4612595

COUNTY/CITY lANDS

7644

STATE LANDS

1^88

STATE PARKS & REC

73513

STATE FISH ft GAME

COf

MUTARY

194139

BUREAU RECIAMATION

BUREAU INDIAN /^fAIR

130991

US FISH ft WIDUFE

1902

MVTL RWKyMONUMENT

BUREAU LAND MGMT

142815

NATIONAL FOREST

1751375

Anffvlu Rmtwvok

SAN BE

m ^•r

ft^/

.iS^

kSanta Ana "^^

4GE

4^^

San Luli

.RIVERSiPi

if^^

SAN DIEGC

Land Ownership, South Coast Region

311

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix C

OREGON

Shasta Lalw-Pit fUvw PSA-01

Goose Lake-Aituras (130)

Big Valley (132)

MacArthur-Hat Creek (134)

Upper Shasta Lake (136)
Northwest Valley PSA-02

Clear-Cottonwood Creek (137)

Stony-Elder Creek Group (139

Redding West (141)

Red Bluff-Oriand (142)
Northeast Valley PSAr4)3

Redding East (143)

Los Mollnos (144)

Cow-Battle Creek (145)

Eastside Creek Group (147)
Southeast PSAr-04

Feather River (154)

Yuba-Bear Rivers (156)

American River (158)

Foothill

Honcut Foothill (159)

Yuba Foothill (160)

Placer Foothill (161)
Central Basin West P8Ar-05

Lower Cache (162)

Willows-Arbuckle (163)

Glenn-Knights Landing (164)

Vacaville (191)
Central Basin East PSA-06

Meridian-Robbins (165)

Durhanrt-Sutter (166)

Butte City (167)

Yuba City-Gridley (168)

Honcut Valley (170)

Yuba (171)

Placer (172)

Sacramento (173)
Southwest P8JM)7

Cache Creek (174)

Putah Creek (175)
Dafta Service Area PSAr^

Sacramento Delta (186)

Planning Subareas, Sacramento River Region

312

Bulletin 16(K-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix C

i«mvt^M*»AMM>xiM«>vinu«('M"m«l»Wwtf»«WSv4W

Legend

OWNBl
ACRES

-1 PnVATE

J 1073098

I COUNTY/CTTY l>MIS

I 0

I STATE LM05

I S2017

I STATE PMXS k REC

I 71012

I STATE F6H I GMkE

I S1401

I CDF

I 12302

T MILITARY

J 48212

1 BUREAU RECUMAT10N

J 59381

1 BUREMJ INDMNAFRW

J 12807

1 US RSH » WIOUR

J 29349

1 NML PARMNONUMBir

J 149388

n BUREAU lAND MGMT

j 808Sffl

-1 NATIONAL FOREST

J 5322S10

Land Ownership, Sacramento River Region

313

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix C

10 20

Sierra FoothHIs PSA-OI

Cosumnes-Mokelumne-Calaverae (176)
Stanislaus River (194)
Tuolumne River (19S)
Stanislaus-Tuolumne Interstream (196)

EMtam Valley Floor PSA-02

Elk Grove (180)
lone-Jenny Lind (181)
Lodi (182)
Bachelor Valley (184)

Delta Service Area PSArOS

San Joaquin Delta (186)
Wectem Uplands PSA-04

Antioch-Corral Hollow (192)
East Side Uplands PSArOS

Merced River (197)

Tuolumne-Merced Interstream (198)

Chowchilla-Fresno River Interstream (199)

Fresno River (200)

Chowchilla River (201)

Mariposa (202)

San Joaquin River (203)

Little Dry Creek (204)

Valley East Side PSA-06

South San Joaquin ID (206)
Modeeto-Oakdala (206)
Modesto Reservoir (207)
Turiock (208)
Turiock Lake (209)
Merced (210)

Merced Stream Group (211)
El Nido-Stevinson (212)
Madera-Chowchilla (213)
Adobe (214)
Gravelly Ford (215)

Valley West Side PSArO?
West Side (216)

Wert Side Uplands PSA-M
Del Puerto Creek (217)
Orestimba Creek (218)
San Luis Creek (219)
Los Banos Creek (220)

Planning Subareas, San Joaquin River Region

314

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix C

:ramento

50NTRA COSTA

Stockton

^Modesto
fuMinii

^ A STANISLAUS

MARIPOSA
\ ^Maripon

Merced

^^i

MERCED

Luis

MADERA ^^3^

Madera

FRES

Legend

OWNBt
ACRES

PnVATE

6629394

COUNTY/OTY UMDS

4341

STATE lANDS

6688

STATE PARKS ft REC

67325

STATE RSH I GMS

6222

CDF

MNJTARY

37065

BUREAU RECtAMOION

1818

BUREAU INDWNARMI

1276

US HSH a WLDlfE

15950

NATl FWUMUaa'

795114

BUREMI UND MGMT

220800

NATIONAL FOREST

2119714

Land Ownership, San Joaquin River Region

315

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix C

Uplands PSA-01

San Joaquin-Kings Interstream (221)

Kings River (222)

Kings-Kaweah Interstream (223)

Kaweah River (224)

Kaweah-Tule Interstream (225)

Tule River (226)

Deer Creek (227)

Poso Creek (228)

Upper Kern River (229)

Lower Kem River (230)

Caliente Creek (231)

Cummings (232)

Kings-Kaweah-Tule Rivers

Fresno (233)
Academy (234)
Raisin (235)
Consolidated (236)
Lower Kings River (237)
Hanford-Lemoore (238)
Alta (239)
Orange Cove (240)
Tulare Lake (241)
Kaweah Delta (242)
Tule Delta (243)

P&D2

10 20

San Luis West Side l>SA-«i

Westiands (244)
Kettleman Plain (245)
South Tulare Lake (246)
Kettleman Hills (247)

Western Uplands PSA-04
Panoche Creek (248)
Ciervo Hills (249)
Los Gatos Creek (250)
Reef Ridge (251)
Grapevine (252)
Temblor (253)

Kem Valley Hoor PSA-06
Kem Delta (254)
Semitropic (255)
North Kern (256)
Northeastern Kern (257)
Arvin-Edison (258)
Antelope Plain (259)
Buena Vista Valley (260)
Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa (261

Planning Subareas, Tulare Lake Region

316

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix C

Land Ownership, Tulare Lake Region

317

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix C

LaM«n Group PSA-OI

Surprise Valley (262)
Madeline Plains (263)
Susanville (264)
Herlong (265)
Upper Honey Lake (266)

Alpine Group PSA-02

Truckee-Tahoe (268)
Carson-Walker (270)

0 10 20 30

Planning Subareas, North Lahontan Region

318

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix C

EL 001

Legend

OWNBt
ACRES

PHVATl

1356142

COUNTY/CITY UHK

STAH i/HOS

51158

STATE FMXS k REC

12856

STATE F6H * GMC

13735

COF

MUTMY

83433

BURMJ RECUIMT10N

BUREMI mOHMARMR

63S1

US RSH ii moun

NATL RWK/MONUMBfT

536

eUtmUW MGMT

1103920

IMTNNM. FOREST

1246248

Land Ownership, North Lahontan Region

319

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix C

274

((WO

275

276

277

28^x

281

Mono-Owww ATM PSA-OI

Mono (274)
Adobe (275)
Long (276)
Upper Owens (277)
Lower Owens (278)
Centennial (279)
Rsh Lake (280)

282

283

285

298

301

Death Valey P8A-02
Deep Springs (281)
Eureka (282)
Saline (283)
Race Track (284)
Death Valley (286)
VaQean (286)
Furnace Creek (287)
Amargosa (288)
Pahrump (289)
Mesquite (290)
Ivanpah (291)
Owlshead (292)
Lesdi (293)
Nelson (294)
Bicycle (295)
Qoldstone (296)
Superior (297)
Partamint (298)
Coyote (315)

303

306

292

299

300

293

294-

296

v289*

Indian Weils Area PSA-03

Searies (299)

Cuddeback (300)

Coso (301)

Upper Cactus (302)

Indian Wells (303)

Fremont (304)
Antelope Valley PSA-04

Mojave (306)

Rosamond-Palmdale (306)

Pearblossom (307)
Mo^a River PSA-05

El Mirage (308)

Upper Moiave (309)

Middle Mojave (310)

Harper (311)

Lower Mojave (312)

Afton (313)

Troy (314)

Baker (316)

Kelso (317)

Broadwell (318)

290^^

286

291

313

311

315

316

317

310

314

318

307

0 10 20 30

Planning Subareas, South Lahontan Region

320

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix C

HMwio LakB \

MONO X^

< ^^Lukt CmwiaY

''V/^JV__

""- -V

\ ^^tf^V

■. X.

L^*,m

* ' ° ' ^ \

W, ^

1 Tktamaha R«siarvclr

Legend

OWNER
ACRES

PRIVATE

3064594

COUNTY/CtTY LANDS

381184

STATE lANDS

258521

STATE PARKS & REC

18734

STATE RSH I GAME

CDF

MUTARY

2062921

BUREAU RECLAIiMTION

BUREAU INDIAN AffAR

4305

US RSH & WLDUFE

NATL PMW/MONUMENT

1968325

BUREAU LAND MGMT

7486322

NATIONAL FOREST

1840250

INYO

tOwsns take

SAN BERNARDINO

■■fs\.

^'pjstyt

fi^

?S ANGELES

Land Ownership, South Lahontan Region

321

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix C

Twenty-Nine Palms-Lanfair

Lucerne (319)
Johnson (320)
Bessemer (321)
Means (322)
Emerson (323)
Lavic (324)
Deadman (325)
Joshua Tree (326)
Dale (327)
Bristol (328)
Fenner (329)
Lanfair (330)
Cadiz (331)
Ward (332)

PSA-01

Chuclcwaila PSAr02

Rice (333)
Ford (334)
Palen (335)
Pinto (336)
Pleasant (337)
Hayfield (338)
Colorado River PSA-03
Piute (339)
Needles (340)
Vidal (343)
Chemehuevis (341)
Quien Sabe (342)
Big Wash (344)
Palo Verde (345)
Arroyo Seco (346)
Yuma (347)

Coachella PSA-04

Coachella (348)

East Salton Sea (349)
Borrego PSA-05

Claric (350)

West Salton Sea (351)

Anza (352)
Imperial Valley PSA-06

Imperial (353)

Coyote Wells (354)

Davies (355)

Amos-Agilby (356)

Salton Sea (357)

0 10 20 30

Planning Subareas, Colorado River Region

322

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix C

Land Ownership, Colorado River Region

Legend

OWNBI
ACRES

3807464

COUNTY/CflY lANDS

115

STATE itHO&

255810

STATE MRXS k REC

556311

STATE nSH t GAME

CDF

MUTARY

982069

BUREAU RECUMIkTION

BUREAU INDMNAFFAff

182986

US RSH 4 WIOUFE

27698

NATL FARX/MONMBfT

548869

BUREAU LAND MGMT

6401954

NATKMAL FOREST

176950

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix C

324

Draft of The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

Appendix D

HYDROELECTRIC RESOURCES OF

CALIFORNIA

This appendix condenses information from the following sources:

O The California Energy Commission, California Power Plant Maps, July 1992.

O The Federal Energy Regulatory Agency, Hydroelectric Power Resources of the United
States, Developed and Undeveloped, January 1988.

O The Federal Energy Regulatory Agency, SFRO Project Assignments by Project Number,
September 16, 1992 (unpublished).

The proposed developments in Tables D-1 and D-3 are only those that have a Federal
Energy Commission number or are listed by the California Energy Commission.

There are 416 operating hydroelectric plants with an installed capacity of 1 1.8 million
kilowatts. Another 74 planned developments are in the regulatory process. Table D-1 shows
the distribution of developed and planned projects among the hydrologic regions, and Table
D-2 further breaks down hydroelectric resources in California. The data sources differ as to
hydroelectric plant names, owners, and capacities. FERC is generally the preferred source
for the information in Table D-3, except when information was secured directly from the
owner. CEC designation is supplied when it is significantly different from that of FERC's or
is not the owner's name.

* * *

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix D

Table D-2. Developed and Planned Development of Hydroelectric Resources

Hydrologic Region
River Basin/PSA

Developed Sites
KW Number

Undeveloped
Sites

Number

Total

North Coast
Klamath
Trinity River
Mad River
Eel River
Russian River

South Coast Total

49,532

114,526

4,240

25,968

16,500

South Coast

Santa Clara 212,500

Metro Los Angeles 260,31 1

Santa Ana 326,344

San Diego 1 3,820

812,975

12
25
32

1
1

13
26
34

North Coast Total

210,766

San Francisco Bay

North Bay

287

South Bay

800

San Francisco Bay
Total

1,087

Central Coast

Northern

Southern

7,335

Central Coast Total

7,425

Sacramento River

Sacramento River 959,640

Pit and McCloud 817,227
Rivers

West Side 28,143

East Side 78,836

Feather River 1,599,965

Yuba and Bear 708,366
Rivers

American River 1,074,734

7
22

10
28
24
35

9
26

11
31
29
42

Sacramento River
Total

5,266,911

151

181

326

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix D

Table D-2. (continued)

San Joaquin River

Mokelumne River 246,590

Calaveras River 3,940

Stanislaus River 784,750

Tuolumne River 483,631

Merced River 107,000

San Joaquin River 1,598,024

3
14
15

6
28

San Joaquin River
Total

3,223,935

Tulare Lake
Kings River
Kawea River
Tule River
Kern River

1,713,000

23,850

11,388

105,450

10
4
6
6

Tulare Lake Total

1,853,688

North Lahontan Total 6,450

South Lahontan Total 20 1 ,302

Colorado River Total 209,395

2
27

3
36

Statewide Total

11,793,934

416

490

327

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix D

Table D-3. Developed and Planned Development of Hydroelectric Resources

"""

"cT"

"in"

■"—

CT\

(7\

—

'-^

f-t

•<»

•*

<j\

<
U

*"*

■«»

■»

■"^

l£

<--)

Ci]

<Tt

S ^

■fli

d^ p

a:
u
2
u
o

o
o

r-i

■V

5 1

w
u

"o"

■"■"

r-i

cs"

■*

in
0

"^^

^"^

^^^

"""■

(iC.

<3\

<T\

£-•

t-4

u
><

"ch"

~cr

"~~

■»

«»

•»

H»

C-

«>

•*

(i,

E-

Cl4

f^i

>•

<1>
u

■O

•0

•a

•H

■H

•H

•rH

•f-i

•H

-rl

-H

.lii

Jii

.«

•|

-H

■H

•H

■H

•^

•H

_E^

_E2_

_£.

_H_

„

DlI

•H

1
ffl

:<:

•.

•H

(£

U
>

■0

«j

■a

•0

-o

•H

t3>

•o

•0

•H

•rH

r-i

_2_

:<:

:>:

£<:

U
U

2
u
o

t-t

CJl

•H

•rH

•H

►3

•^

-H

•n

>«

<«

>«

•0

■o

•T3

>«

-w

(£

•H

li-i

r-i

•M

•rl

•-I

113

[>.

Cl,

_J_

_2_

•-' d

•rH

■§

„

.«

■0

■o

•ri

•J

•-I

►^

•-I

^-^

■C

■0

j<:

■0

r-H

■0

•J

_s_

328

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix D

Table D-3. Developed and Planned Development of Hydroelectric Resources

v£

«-*

if)

"~"~

~~~

a
u

o
u

"in"

"™"

•H

If)

>«

•w

1-t

r-i

<-•

»H

u c

5 a

"■■"

•«»

U
H

I-l

I/)

'»

•>»

*"""

""""

■^■""

<J\

•-*

(N]

•

irt

•«

CTl

•«»

«)

<J\

•«»

«>

<JV

•o

-o

•a

-rH

■0

•H

•o

•a

■o

•O

■M

•H

-*H

•H

■H

I-l

E-i

I-l

■rl

r-t

■H

•O

•a

■o

■H

•M

ffi

I-l

«>

_2_

u
u

■H

■rt

H-l

•d

u
o

•o

•H

<■>

>«

•a

-H

I-l

»£

■o

•o

-H

bi:

•

<
w

•

«
n

S Cu

«)

flC

t <■*

■a

fa 0)

j<:

■a >-■

■<

3 t<

■0

■o

•o

e ^

•O

t XI

(

IJU

8 5i

329

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix D

Table D-3. Developed and Planned Development of Hydroelectric Resources

<71

«-l

•H

«-l

<ft

•<»

'"'

■^

"^^^

^^~'

««

i
§

_£

1 ^

•-1

r-4

«-i

■*

O
U

o
o

>«

r»

•H

•-•

^~"

■^■^

^■^

■"■"

<»i

•>»

«»

■

«k

o»

<7>

<71

o»

•H

-""

•«»

c->

"TT"

<T>

V£

f-i

H»

•«»

va>

■^

•*

»H

•k

•

•-t

•H

■0

•

>:i

■0

•

_s_

<
(0

l«

•<

CO 10

*—

Ck aJ

■H

•H

•

•< «

« CO

flQ

>•

U M

1 5

■0

•o

ffi

_§.

■a

_s_

>•

CO a.

«-i

•«

•o

•H

■H

■g

•«

•J

•a

►3

■^

►5

i-H

-a

•

■J

•

«j

«-<

i-t

■<

je_

•

■

u
a:

s •

1 •

«
a

l«

■

S a

i-H

2 cH

!• w

1 -^

« rH

•

•J

■

c •

•

O b.

9 1

■H

•

I* "

■-I

•

■

•a

B *'

•

■J

C c

•

_§.

o «

>•

o a

« CO

330

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix D

Table D-3. Developed and Planned Development of Hydroelectric Resources

«^

"TT"

r«

•N

"o"

^^^

■~^

a
u
a.

o
u

•4

•<

"o"

■n

U S
5 §

>•

•4

r«

a
u
a.

o
o
o

"r^

•H

•-)

t-t

■*

r-i

'«

,_4

""7T"

"inT"

,_4

•H

*-l

•«

•H

>»

fv|

«-l

I-*

w-i

t-t

•

r-l

•-<

<-<

•-I

•-t

t3>

tji

D»

C»

C3>

3
u

i-i

3
u

_J_

_£_

_J_

_£_

<
0.

•-I

a:
O

«(

w —

•

-t

•

a „

•o

3 0

liL.

Cv.

■O

•J u

o -

•

■J

•o

■o

■O

< t-l

fc; c

Z M

■

w X

_s_

■J

•«

H-l

>■

«H

•J

«a

>«

•n

•«

<«

■

N«

>»

-H

■o

XJi

D»

t»

01
«

«J

_U_

a
U

_s_

<
■J

_J_

J-

•

«
ON

•

8 S

•H

•
m

<c5

H C

8 B

6 ^

•

■0

•

•o

•

B
B

•

8
u

B
9

«) >j

■

* m

-1

V ■"

■o

•

o o

•

B 4J

0»

O 9

B
B

9
ki

■ t

■

331

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix D

Table D-3. Developed and Planned Development of Hydroelectric Resources

■«»

"77"

(->

<j\

CT>

"77"

■77-

—

— —

o»

</>

r»

•«»

'»

»»

o«

•»

"-"

<
u

■^^

Q
u
a.

Q
U

2
D

<
o

^^~

o: 5

•H

(71

■>»

r^-

•w

«-4

o«

■»

■*

«H

■«

•*

CT)

<
o

o
o

■«

5 a

•H

•w

fr>

t-t

<
u

r-j

■»

<»>

•*

<7>

•«

o«

•^

r-t

■V

"7T"

•<»

•»»

•<»

•«»

■«

"vo"

"TT"

■<»

"TT"

•»

O
U

<J>

<Jl

<3\

<7>

<J>

•H

■-*

•-*

t~*

'-*

r-*

t-4

>«

•>*

""in"

"in"

•«»

•<»

•«

— ■"

<3\

■<*

<x>

r-i

<JV

<J>

<j>

■»

C-

■o

•o

■o

■O

•o

■a

r-l

.-1

■0

o«

«
m

9
ffl

m
kl

IS
Dl
C

B
Dl
E

B
B

B
Dl

_J_

►3

■J

_J_

<
m

u
o:

•I

CO «

-w

i-H

•<

a u

■0

f-i

< O

2 "

■I

-H

■o

< V4

fc)

fc ^

•o

•«-i

■0

•a

< <a

•0

•9

CO rH

•«

•O

>~i

ffl

•rH

-H

>•

-1

u
u

■J

0
CO

«H

«M

■0

>•

■o

>•

•0

•rl

■O

■o

■O

■o

•H

■H

■rH

•o

■o

•O

■D

•a

■o

•a

ffl

•->

•0

JE_

_W_

«
o

•

8 .

•

" i

♦

•

1* -^

•

B •

< o

•H

3 ki

0 u

■ «

•

■o

•

P kl

■J

Q >■

3
0

S .J

>•

332

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix D

Table D-3. Developed and Planned Development of Hydroelectric Resources

"^n"

>«

N«

>»

v«

f>«

r»

c«

««

**>

a
u
a.

o
u

•<
u

l«

\t>

■*

1 i

t-l

P-

•-<

•-*

r-l

"""■

(~-

>«

I-I

'"'

•9

■^

r»

f~-

^^~

■>•

•«*

"r^

TT"

^7^

f-i

»»

<7l

<7\

<7>

r-l

«H

•H

«H

>£

■»

•*

■■"■

P-

«»

<JV

r»

•>»

«»

o»

r-<

C»

r«

o
at

■^

•H

-w

•H

■0

■a

■C3

•0

«)

■0

■a

■o

•0

CJl

tji

C3I

«>

■a

-H

i-i

ffi

■D

■0

a:
O

r-l

•>

tJi

■0

CO 09

■H

O4 «

f-t

•

«_l

Q 0
0 B

•0

•H

■0

■a

bl 0

M Dl

►J

•H

Q <

•»H

■0

§ -c

_!.

_J_

_X_

_J_

CO t<

_o_

■0

■a

0
w

kl
«

u
a

0
k)

kl
«

IM
0

•H

•n

■0

-H

>»

•

■0

•0
u

•0

■C3

C7I
•

ex
«

•0

•o

-H

■0

-H

»J

■0

■n

•

8 ^

H a

•

-H

9 V

•

9 "*

r«

fa B

(-1

«-i

0 «

■

•*4

•

B ^

•

D B

•

0 10

« CO

333

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix D

Table D-3. Developed and Planned Development of Hydroelectric Resources

•«»

"in~

■«»

CJV

r-i

■»»

r-j

o»

■«»

a:
O

'-'

■""

1-1

Q
u

a
u

c»

t~-

i ^

<ft

■»*

<JV

•>»

•*

<JV

•«»

«H

r»

u ^

o
o

•>*

■«*

s §

H
0«

<Tl

■«

•«11

•<»

•J

IT)

CT>

■«»

f-i

•<

■"■■■

^■^

■O"

vr>

<7V

Cl,
O

<7V

CTv

CJN

<J\

<T)

<Tl

<X\

tJ>

<J\

T-i

"TT"

■<|1

■<li

rr>

r~\

CTV

CTl

CTV

■»»

■*

<j\

CT\

■«

CTi

r-i

r»

■0

l->

4-1

■0

•o

.fi

■«

•rH

•H

c
«

oi:

■o

4-)

■0

•H

X IS

-H

Z 1^

M U

•o

1.1

CJl

(31

< 0)

•rH

a: u

■a

4-1

ce:

U nJ

l-l

*-t

< rH

-H

•H

CO CO

_a_

_U_

_s_

_jj_

•H

4-1

pc:

■<

■o

<J«

>«

-H

•H

C3I

■0

Iv.

[14

H-l

■a

•k

r-t

•H

•rH

i->

■0

i<H

•o

•H

•rH

■o

■a

C31

tJI

■o

tji

■CJ

■0

i-t
CO

10
0.

_l_

-1

_£.

-rH

•H
0)

_2_

o
o:

O
a:

M
CO

•

■o

■H

0»

o «

■H

E *"

8 ^

•H

•C

•I «

■H

>»

•g

1 '-'

•^

■^

tjl

•H

U IS

•o

•W

.-1

■a

« CO

_i.

-H
03

_3.

_£.

_s_

334

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix D

Table D-3. Developed and Planned Development of Hydroelectric Resources

^■^

'»

f-*

•H

<
u

"^~'

r«

(TV

1 ^

V£

»»

r>»

<Xi

•9

o
o
o

<J\

^^^

<7t

<7\

r<4

n-i

^^^

""inT"

"U^

■^^

"iTT"

•*

""""

<r\

fr»

^7^

«c

<JV

Ci3

<T>

CTl

<7V

i-i

■"^

«>

"To"

«)

"To"

»»

■>»

■«

•>»

Til

«J

»J

■0

_Eh_

►3

r-l

W nH

Q O

H U

W 1

•H

.-H

M «

■0

flC

g 3

Cl,

■0

_t£_

■H

•M

>•

■a

•H

•rH

>«

•4)

>«

•a

•»

[L,

i-H

<-l

•-<

.-H

■H

«-l

■rt

•rH

■H

.r-l

•W

•rl

<«

■0

•M

■<

>•

•

M
(0

•

•o

•>

1 ^

rH
41

1 *"*

•*

3 <o

■O

-i

■

_2.

« Ul

_*.

335

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix D

Table D-3. Developed and Planned Development of Hydroelectric Resources

■«»

■^

—

«N

<7V

«H

•H

t-(

»*

»»

t->

•«

'«

•^

•-<

•H

^■^

■^

Q
u
Q.

Q
U

"in"

>»

•*

r-«

•9

«•

■«»

S
CK

o
o

•»

I-l

■«

5 3

■«

•«

■^

•^

»-4

<J>

a
u

<7>

<J\

<Tl

<JV

<J\

<j>

<7V

•J

■"•

"-"

■-'

>->

'-'

»H

•-'

>-"

•H

*-*

u
><

(V)

•«»

■<»

*-i

"rT"

""<n"

■^7"

■™^

"io

<x>

■*

<7>

«H

<j\

CTv

•H

»H

»»

>»

[;;

]

•0

■0

•J

<S)

_co_

Ji^

■o

■0

■o

f-H

«J

Q H

M u

■0

c»

•o

■o

C3>

h «J

■0

.i<

U) u

■o

< 3

■0

.r4

.rH

U (0

ffl

_SE_

»H

x:
u

.r4
14
U

•

>«

•-H

►o

u
Qi

■s

•a

<«

U
«

•If

<4I

•«

■o

•o

•S

•s

■0

-H

•o

■o

•o

■o

Ol»

H-l

«M

■a

«M

<IH

H-l

-M

<«

tJ>

CJ>

■0

_g_

_J_

liu

•

10
«

€

H *

•-<

•

CTv

H-l

M r-i

.r4

■o

•>

•0

>:)

•

u«

9 O

■o

•

•o

D c

.rH

CJl

>«

CJl

a! V

_s_

_g_

^__

(i.

336

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix D

Table D-3. Developed and Planned Development of Hydroelectric Resources

fn ^ O f^ »-* r-« *-»

O O U1 00 iH

o» o M in 00
r« in lA in ^

r^ \o o^

ij H »

0\ iD 00 00 00 <-H

vo 00 in in in <N
o\ o* o\ o\ c\ o^

in in in in in <|>
.. o o o o o c

\C CN VO r^ C

r- vo \o

<N CN r* <N

03 GO 10

CQ CO CO to CO

OQ 03 OQ 03

3 rH ^

u
2 «

w w

<
m Q

0= §

ce a et a

n f: xi ^ x: s: u

iat3Mii>iMM.~i

x: z x: x:

CUM ^ M M

3 Z Z Z

u u u u u u

U U U U U bl

o o o o u o

u u <a u to u

O Oi O. J O. O. Ch

§1

C U > rH Jb<

u & u. a o

5 5 >

■r4 ..H aJ

a X j< rH

§ 8

u u 05 ca u

337

Bulletm 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix D

Table D-3. Developed and Planned Development of Hydroelectric Resources

■9

t»-

In"

o«

<7>

«>

•«

•^

«»

•*

""""

^■^

■""

■"""

^■^

■^

Q
U
Q.

a
u

•<

■"""

""■

r»

"~~

•»»

■«»

<7>

E->

<7\

•«

T-l

r-'

r**

u
z

b)
O

o
o

■«»

""^

■<»

>•

r-l

C>)

«-l

r-l

r-i

■«»

"ST"

"^3^

^*^

■*

^*^

r-t

•«

"vo

>£

i-l

(7t

C»v

<Tl

T-t

«-l

t-l

1-1

f>l

t~-

"TT"

"I^

•

•«

tT>

>-l

c«

Dl,

■0

■O

•o

l->

■0

t-i

a:
o

oe kl

•

1 ij

u
>

I-l

a o

■H

< M

•§

r-i

a b.

•O

•M

:i:

>< W

•

■rt

■^

■H

•H

kl
kl

kl
k)

•4

•o

■a

<«

-H

•«

H-t

<kl

■o

«-i

■o

•o

•

U
M

M
CO

•

■H

•

■w

■o

•0

«-l

•^

■0

•

■o

Sc >i

•H

•0

• «

■o

8 a

■o

•§

Q ^

•< a

•J

■0

>£

« X

338

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix D

Table D-3. Developed and Planned Development of Hydroelectric Resources

W M _

2 ^ i

O a.

2 .

u ^

u u

CO m

a ^

n 00 o m in <7\
^ ^ r- r- fs rt
sc \c r^ e^ ^

ro ^ in

^ <y» «-(

O 00 M> (N ro l^

r- f-* m <7t vH «#

^ \A u^ m

m <N vo

fs (N a>

(T\ (7^ 0\ Ov

w o <^
a\ r* 00

CN *N r^ r*
o\ o\ 0\ 0>

fo rt n i*> c* fo

o c^ «>

rs vo <7\

v«

i-l

•"J"

•»

•«

•H

C«

r«

c«

f>«

r«

v«

"O "O "O "O "O

z z z z z >• ui

a: 10 <-) «

•< r^ C rH rH CO

U U IJ u

U bl U U

U (9 (J C3 o: U

^ _< _< ^ O -H

>0 il il X) XI
XJ 3 3 3 3
3 > >« >< ><

ii &

rH rH « rH «

5 5 5 1

a, H

ii iJ &

C9 U O C

o ^ ^ ^ u

>, O O O X3

^ 5

8 •

% 5

B)^^^^>. CTJ

O .C o> u

e 5

r-l ^ U ^

s & s s

^ <0

339

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix D

Table D-3. Developed and Planned Development of Hydroelectric Resources

^■^

(-)

■>»

f>»

—

f>4

•9

f*>

>»

•»

•»»

■H

Q
u

•«

____

"^^

■■^

""^

U 1

1 i

u a

■>*

<•

o
o
o

■-<

""""^

^^^

t~-

C-l

P-

■*

C--

•••

fv<

r-i

•«»

•4

r«

<J\

<yi

■O"

■"^

•<»

«H

i/>

"in"

"""■

■■"""

■"^

^■^

<X\

<J>

<JV

■J

•H

■H

r-l

•>»

,_!

,_(

"7^

^^~

»a

«H

<«

t~-

r-j

■^

■«

•H

<J\

■<•

p»

<-<

r»

•a

■o

■0

•a

•o

■o

■O

■D

•0

■o

•a

■CJ

■o

•a

■0

flj

■0

l-l

V4
V4

ki
V4

o>
o

9
0

■0

•H

r-\

_W_

kl
U

>•

Jit

• ki

ec «

•M

.rH

^ IX

•H

-H

f-t

<-i

M C

r-t

oe 10

(0
0

ra
ki

k4
U

§ -a

•H

■0

■o

C3I

«J

•H

_K_

►J

■H

■^

f-l

•H

■rl

1-1

•H

£3

«>

§.

■o

•o

•a

■o

•o

«M

•o

■a

•a

•D

■0

•a

M-l

■H

-H

■a

•rH

■0

bi:

•

kH
U

•a

•H

•

§s

r-^

f-i

■o

S (0

•I 3

•H

I i

f-i

•o

•O

•H

* -w

(TV

■0

a z

«J

■d

►O

•J

340

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix D

Table D-3. Developed and Planned Development of Hydroelectric Resources

P-

••

P-

r>l

r«

C«

p«

«-i

^^^

o
u

"^~

i ^

r>i

«o

1/1

1
u

r-t

■«

u c

•H

l«

c»

'-*

5 §

"o~

>£

a»

P«

<ft

■«»

I-

•H

^^^

"o"

"oo"

f-i

t-i

■«"

•<»

(TV

'"'

•^

»H

P-

•*

1-1

P-

■w

«c

r»

•

■o

•o

■o

•a

■a

•o

•O

■O

■o

r-l
0.

■0
V

■0

_U_

■0

I-l

€

K 3

-O

u
a:

§ §

o u

• *

• CJ BC

BC PC

a c

i-l

CO to

w u 1

«t 10

< k)

2 " 1

pd kl

1 & £

g «.

<-l

< 10

(0 ki i>«

< 10

8 £ i

►:>

U U

_U_

•H

■H
M

o
kl

«
Dl

4)
Ol

u
o

•s

•<

-H

•^

>«

VII

•«

•o

•

■H

-H

•IH

•M

«M

•H

■o

•o

■0

►l

8 ■§

8 8

•

8 '^^

„

14
3ROLOG:

H H

»-t

H -^

•

S i

B «

S 9

u
to

S O

n "o a

1 -^

2 g

4 M •

4 rH

2. «

a O

i. 9

r-l

? X

•o o

-H

1 '^

1 ^

a 1 a

3 u (

1 «

•S £

3 o!

B
«

• Dl

•» -1 P

•< B

i-H

5 u

• U

•a

•H

■o

i-H

,_4

"-J

4 c «

i (J

■0

u a

3 ^

3 10 S

•J 3

(0 «

■0

8 o

►J

3 k) •

<->

— u

- Z

« u

_2.

341

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix D

Table D-3. Developed and Planned Development of Hydroelectric Resources

■9

<«

1n~

"in"

•«»

■9

"TT"

TT"

i~-

r»

fT)

f>)

•»

•«»

o
u
a.

a
u

*-»

•*

b3 t

(Tl

1 ^
11

•«»

1
u

o
o

t-l

r«

•f

■^

■V

•*

f-i

r-l

^-t

f*>

•9

<*>

r-l

«)

u
>

■^

■^"^

fT)

■<•

<r\

•»

<J>

<T\

•J

'-'

«H

•-'

«-•

'-<

•"•

•^

>•

^h"

rr>

I-

•«

«-t

<J\

(71

CJ\

■>»

•>*

<J\

<7V

(I)

■0

•-I

(1)

•H

•rl

•H

-H

-rH

-rl

■0

•-<

CO
U

u
CO

10
_U_

_£.

u
CO

>->
CO

iJ
CO

_£

_£.

<
CO
0.

•H

r-l

Cl,

a:
O

i->

■0

a a

-rH

CO 10

» 3

■o

< <0

■0

Id rH

iJ rH

-»H

-rH

S c3

CO a

•i

2 o

M -^

§ g

J B

r-*

C31

[L.

-rH

O -H

•rH

w w

_§.

O
O

g s

_i_

3
CO

3
U

-H

•H

-H

•H

-H

•H

■0

►:)

►3

r-l

•«

•C3
0

>«

3
O

3
0

n
10

(0
10

CO
10

ID
10

•«

■0

•4-4

(0
10

>»

CO
10

t-H

>»

•

>r>

►7

•-I

t»

■0

■a

•a

■o

■a

■0

r-H

l-A

•0

_2_

_e.

10
_CJ_

10
0.

10
O

_£.

_£

•6

1/)

•

B «

■

■0

• JS

■w

-rH

■0

C3>

P VO

■0

•O

■o

K ^

C3I

■0

3 ^

_8.

_s.

_s_

342

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix D

Table D-3. Developed and Planned Development of Hydroelectric Resources

■«

r«

"n"

r»

■»

a
u

Q
U
CO

o
o

t-l

""fo"

1 ^

«n

u fi

U
O

o
o

ir>

•*

5 §

■>»

■«

<J>

•«»

(7\

<T\

■«»

•«

•*

I7>

r-l

•<
u

^^^

«)

c»

o»

<7>

<JV

I-l

*-i

w-t

(-1

►J

1-1

"~~

CTl

■<»

""■

CTl

■*

r-l

■o

■a

•o

■a

■o

•o

■o

•O

•a

■o

«|

I-l

•o

•a

u
4)

rH
g

fc.

I-l

•H

•0

« IK

I-)

j->

Q T3

•o

■o

•o

•H

U 0)

>->

H-t

»J

U 0

•H

o: ^

■H

■o

«>

U 0)

■J

_u_

s s

<«

c
o

4->

•a

■rt

t-t

t-l

•rt

•o

«M

I-l

•a

■o

•o

■o

■O

■o

■0

«-!

«l

•.-1

I-l

_3E_

_5E_

_U_

»>

•9

■

•

r-t

% '-<

•o

^ rH

i fl

«>

•o

•0

1 '^

O "O

•H

»} 01

■J

1-1

S ^

r-l

■H

•O

2 £

■0

|lL4

343

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix D

Table D-3. Developed and Planned Development of Hydroelectric Resources

"■""

■■■■

•<

"<T

t*-

«>

-~"

^».

•>»

■«»

f-i

<Jl

■«»

•*

f->

■«

>»

•^

"~"

^~'

s
s

Q
U

t~-

•<

^^"

^^■"

■"^

^■■^

u -.

u e

•«f

o
o

<-4

CTi

(T\

u
o

«»

•»

% §

*"*

■^■^

^^^

•*

■*

■w

irt

■*

t-i

o«

■«»

ix>

•«»

<
u

"in"

l£

v-i

(J\

a
u

(Tt

<J\

(y\

CT\

<j\

<J\

'-'

T-i

<
u

•>»

■0"

■vf

•«»

"■""

CTl

CT>

t~*

<j\

]

«)

(1)

■O

■a

■o

■D

■a

•O

•a

kl"!

ft.

[ti

IL,

_s_

fci

[t,

[L,

[lu

-J.

Cl,

>->

CJ)

a: a:

<->

►^

►O

z c

■H

l-l -H

•»H

•H

■0

™

5, a

g tr

•rH

ii:

< ra

2 2

t-i

>-) >->

>->

'-)

1-3

►o

r-1

§ g

■o

i-H

C3I

CJl

-H

•H

•rH

•rl

W CO

_s_

•<H

•H

l-l

i-H

r-4

■0

-H

•H

•a

-0

•o

■o

•o

•a

•«

>«

•H

>«

<JI

•«

•rH

•C3

■0

•^

•H

H-l

•u

■M

•C

CJ)

•H

•^

■H

•a

•o

CJl

(ii

o:
o

t»-

•H

•«»

•H

1*1

•o

r-j

■0

■H

-rH

«M

•W

J>!

.!<

■W

«J

l-l

►^

•H

CJl

■rt

•W

■H

•o

tJl

tjl

CJl

■0

-*H

bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix D

Table D-3. Developed and Planned Development of Hydroelectric Resources

S 9

n M IN

o ^ o\ o 1-
o ■^ \e •* CO

iH lO iH f-l «

c* CO •-) r*

u t>

CO M

s ^ i

O o-

00 r- rH (N P- ^

3 t^

tn GO (7\ 04 O

v6 in fo

fO (N 00 00 00 ^

00 lo in in I/) 00

OS Os <T\ 0\ 0\ 0\

<7\ <N <N

<7t C\ 0\ 0\ 0\ <7t

00 <N o o\ n <N
O^ 9^ 0^ OV ON 9t

f*l

<-<

<T\

0\ 0\ CO OS

*H CN >^ r^

00 VO ro 0\ OJ

ro po f) t** r*"
O r-i ro vfi n

(IQ CO (0

<D Q) 0) 0)

g g g ^ g

g g ^ g ^ g

a m m m

o> M id M M M

V M M bu CD

■-I li, i-t r-l .-(
« S SB 5 S ^
O M a a M M

z z z z u

•S G

o u o o o

u u u u u

> O O (D O O

■H a -H 9

■2 g

O O. CO M w w

rH « 1-t <N

c x: £ U

q > « >

u q: ^ a:

e S I 2 E

345

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix D

Table D-3. Developed and Planned Development of Hydroelectric Resources

"■""

•^_

■^~

p»

—

f-l

«>

■«

•H

T-l

Q
(0

"o"

^■^

■""■

^^^

"^^

t»

Q
U
0.

fi?

"""■

—■—

^■^

■■"'

«-i

1 i

f*>

<>»

f*>

■>»

«H

u e

S 3

■■^^

•^

<«

P-

t~-

"oT

<J>

»«

<7>

o»

o«

<Xi

<T\

<y\

(Jk

<j\

tJl

<«

»H

r-)

•H

w-l

•H

»H

CTl

"o7"

i/i

^■^

<7v

•^

■«»

t»

■<»

■»»

(J>

■H

■^

•>»

r-l

<->

•<»

]

•H

<-t

•

•H

u
u

r-l

>-i

■o

•o

■o

■H

f-t

•O

1-1

■^

•H

(-1

•H

■o

■w

■H

•w

■H

_E^

_J_

U
•J

<«

»J

l-l

•»

•o

o
u

•rf

•o

►o

•->

•O

««

-H

■H

-H

l-J

■o

■0

«>

o
o

10
l4

a
B

-H

•*-!

•^

»:)

:>:

_J_

►J

»e

■J

•

B
X

5 «

€

■o

•*

•-'

•

i«

<-l

J<!

§s

O M

■o

•O

,><

•

m «

3 S

•o

■o

•>

r -c

-H

b (D

i-t

•a

9 3

_2_

•H

■»<

8 B

io!

346

Bulletin 160-93 Administrative Draft

Appendix D

Table D-3. Developed and Planned Development of Hydroelectric Resources

•H o\ in (N (N ^

•H r- ^ .H

M m X* <N

S ^ I

00 in 00

o o o o o o
o o o m <« o
in m in o> 00 vo

o p~ in in

^ ^ §1

in r> r>i *-<

1.]

t-i

VO^QOOOOOOOOOV^QOOOOIOQO

fS 00 <N

<J\

'»

<7l

'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O

s s

>, >, >i c

« <V (V 0)

2 Z M M M

aaaaQia> >

o o u u

6 8 6

I i

g 3

I I I I I I

US<<<<'<'<W

8 -.-

CO U) CO CO CO

m 09 a «

a Q. O. O

S o s s s

O 0)
0) «

rt < rH rt rH

O Ol 01 Ol

^ CU 'O 4> A

S 5 s s s

IS 10 10

-H

•n

•H

•rt

■rA

■rl

M
M

M
rH

Q
M

«J

»-H

<M -M »H O

>1 >, >, >1 >l O

U U U » 3

S «

rH •rH O -H £^

a. a. u X o

a a a o

bl u ot ot

B a

■0 <0 -H -rH

u u g g

o o 10 a

CO CO 00 OQ

<M rH >J X S

8 8 o o o

CO CO M CO CO U O

347

Draft of The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93, November 1993

Notes & Comments

^^^

TH^B^OK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE
STAMPED BELOW

BOOKS REQUESTED BY ANOTHER BORROWER
ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL

.40% 2007

PSL

LIBRARY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

D4613-1 {5/02)M

Pete Wilson

Governor

State of California

David Kennedy

Director

Department of Water Resources

Douglas P. Wheeler

Secretary for Resources

Resources Agency

ijrVEP'-jlTY OF CALIFORNIA

3 1

75 0204

2709

•'V :

■m

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "California water plan update : draft"

See other formats