Full text of "California water plan update"

See other formats

■ .. . %

>4* .« ■»•

Watted P-iuainj

California

Water Plan

Update

Volume 1

Bulletin 160-93
October 1994

Pete Wilson

Governor

State of California

Douglas P. Wheeler
Secretary for Resources
The Resources Agency

David N. Kennedy
Director
Department of
Water Resources

Copies of this bulletin may be purchased at $25.00 for Volumes 1 and 2 from:

State of California Department of Water Resources

P. O. Box 942836

Sacramento, CA 94236-0001

Make checks payable to: Department of Water Resources

California residents add current sales tax.

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Foreword

In 1957, the Department of Water Resources published Bulletin 3, The California
Water Plan, a comprehensive plan to guide and coordinate the current and future
beneficial use of California's water resources. Bulletin 3 became the foundation for a
series of water plan updates, now known as the Bulletin 160 series. The updates were
published five times between 1966 and 1987. While they generally did not contain
specific blueprints for water management and development, they described California's
water use and supply at the time of their publication, projected future water needs, and
provided information to guide beneficial use of the State's water resources. Each of the
updates presented the overall outlook for water conditions throughout the State by
examining total water supply and demand with the technology and analytical methods
current at the time the updates were being prepared.

The scope of the updates has remained essentially the same; however, each took
its own distinctive approach to water resources planning, reflecting the issues or
concerns prevalent at the time the update was being developed. Bulletin 160-93, The
California Water Plan Update, continues this tradition but differs from its predecessors
by:

O estimating environmental water needs separately and accounting for these needs
along with urban and agricultural water demands;

O recognizing and presenting water demand management methods, including
conservation and land retirement, as additional means of meeting water needs; and,

O presenting two separate water balance scenarios. The first compares average
demands with average supplies, which portrays the general picture. The shortage
shown under average conditions is chronic and indicates the need for additional
long-term measures. The second water balance compares drought year demands
with drought year supplies. The shortage illustrated under drought conditions
requires both long-term and short-term drought management measures,
depending on local water service reliability requirements.

This water plan update consists of two volumes. Volume 1 focuses on statewide
issues and reports the status of water use and supply. It also discusses the nature of
water resource management planning, reliability and shortages, and it recommends
options for balancing water demand and supply in the future. Volume II presents
issues specific to each of the ten major hydrologic regions and chronicles water use and
supply conditions by region.

Bulletin 160-93 was developed with extensive public involvement in accordance
with amendments to Sections 10004 and 10005 of the California Water Code. An
outreach advisory committee made up of representatives of urban, agricultural, and

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

environmental interests was established in July 1992 to assist the Department of
Water Resources in preparing Bulletin 160-93. The committee met regularly to review
and comment on the content and adequacy of work in progress. Public hearings in each
of the State's ten major hydrologic regions were held by the California Water
Commission to receive comments from the public. Summaries of the comments
received during the public hearing and comment period are appended to this report.

The inclusion of environmental water needs, the commitment to implementation
of extensive water conservation measures, and the public involvement in developing
this plan reflect current socioeconomic priorities. Water resource management has
become increasingly complex, and this water plan update reveals many of the changes
now shaping water management decisions in California.

David N. Kennedy
Director

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

A Letter from the California Water Commission

STATE OF CAUFORNIA • THE RESOURCES AGENCY

PETE WILSON. Qownor

Department o( Water Reeouroea

CAUFORNIA WATER COMMISSION

1416 NINfTH STF»EET. ROOM 1104-4
SACRAMEMTO, CAUFORNIA 9581 4

Audrey Z. Tennia, Chair - Chioo

Katharine Dunlap, Vice Chair • Loe Angeiaa

Stanley M. BartMa - Vwalia

Kenneth S. Caldwell - Camarillo

Clair A. Hill - Redding

Michael D. Madigan - San Oiego

Martin A. Matich - San Bernardino

Mr. David N. Kennedy, Director
Department of Water Resources
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1115
Sacramento, California 95814

Pi»as« Addnat Communlcmllona to:

The Chairman of the Commlaalon

P.O. Box 942836

Sacramvnto, CA 9423&<X»1

Phona: (01 Q 653-5058

FAX: (91Q 6534745

April 1, 1994

Dear Mr. Kennedy:

The Water Code directs the Department of Water Resources to update the
California Water Plan every five years, and it requires the Department to release a
preliminary draft of the Plan for review and comment. As a part of this process, the
Department, or at the Department's request, the California Water Commission must
conduct a series of hearings with interested persons, local, State and Federal agencies
and representatives of the diverse geographical areas and interests of the State. In
response to these requirements, the Department prepared a draft of Bulletin 160-93,
California Water Plan Update, which was released to the public for comments in
November, 1993, and the California Water Commission conducted the public hearings
on this Draft.

The members of the Commission conducted ten hearings in January and early
February, 1994. One hearing was conducted in each of the State's ten major hydrologic
regions. Comments were received from more than one hundred individuals. The
Commission appreciates the detailed and cogent comments by many of those who
participated in the hearings, which reflected a great deal of thought and analysis of the
technical material and issues covered in the Draft.

The range of coomients on the Draft, as well as issues raised in the Dr?ift itself,
point out that there is a serious and long-standing gap between planning on the one hand
and construction and operation of water supply facilities on the other. To bring these
together will require accommodation of engineering, economic and socio-political
considerations. The comments highlight a number of serious problems in meeting
California's water needs and strong political forces appear to be pulling in opposite
directions. Bulletin 160 will provide factual information which should be helpful in
reaching some reasonable accommodation. California can and must provide adequate
supplies of good quality water to its citizens, indmtries, and lands in concert with a
suitable environment for its fish and wildlife.

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

A Letter from thie California Water Commission (continued)

Mr. David N. Kennedy
April 1, 1994
Page Two

The Commission believes that the Department of Water Resources staff has done
an excellent job of developing and presenting the extensive material in the Draft. It
represents the most thorough and comprehensive analysis of California's water needs and
future supply options since the publication of Bulletin 1 in 1951, Bulletin 2 in 1955, and
Bulletin 3 in 1957. Most witnesses at the hearings complimented the Department on the
breadth and quality of the report and they indicated that the final report should be very
helpful for their local planning efforts.

TTie Commission also appreciates the efforts of the BuUetin 160 Advisory
Committee members who contributed substantial amounts of time and effort in reviewing
and commenting on earlier administrative drafts. The quality of the Draft is in no small
part the result of the Advisory Committee's efforts.

The Commission has considered the statements presented at each of the ten
hearings, and has developed its own comments and recommendations on the Draft.
These are set forth in the enclosed memorandum. We commend the Department's staff
for its fine efforts, and we look forward to publication of the final document.

■yi^ylLo

Enclosure

Audrey Z. Tennis
Chair

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Acknowledgment

In July 1 992, the Department ofWater Resources established an outreach advisory
committee made up of people representing urban, agricultural, and environmental
interests from various regions of the State to evaluate and advise DWR as to the
adequacy of work in progress to update the California Water Plan.

DWR is indebted to the advisory committee members for providing critical feedback
on the content and analyses required to produce the California Water Plan Update.
While this report is a DWR product and does not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of each
committee member nor the member's organization, the Department appreciates the
committee's support of the balanced approach taken to develop this water plan.

DWR gratefully acknowledges the input from the members:

Bob Reeb, Chair

California Water Resources Association

George Baumli
Hal Carter
Cindy Chadwick
Grace Chan
Vernon Conrad
Bill DuBois
Lyle Hoag
Laura King
John Krautkraemer
Billy Martin
Shel Meyer
Christine Morioka
Larry Preston
Stuart Pyle
Jim Sequeira
Charles Shreves
Polly Smith
A. J. Yates

State Water Contractors

University of California Agricultural Issues Center

Department of Fish and Game

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

County Supervisors Association of California

California Farm Bureau

California Urban Water Agencies

Natural Resources Defense Council

Environmental Defense Fund

California Central Valley Flood Control Association

NorCal Fishing Guides and Sportsmen's Association

City of San Francisco Water Department

North State Water Association

Association of California Water Agencies

City of Sacramento Department of Utilities

Imperial Irrigation District

League of Women Voters

Department of Food and Agriculture

VII

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Contents

Foreword iii

A Letter from the California Water Commission, Acknowledgment

Chapter 1 Summary of Volume I 1

Effects of Recent Changes in the Institutional Framework 3

California's Water Supplies 4

Surface Water Supplies, Ground Water Supply, Water Quality
Considerations

The Need and Demand for Water 7

Will There Be Enough Water? 9

Recommendations 11

Demand Management, Supply Augmentation

Chapter 2 The institutional Framework for

Water Resource IVIanagement in California 19

Allocation and Management of California's Water Supplies 20

California Constitution Article X, Section 2; Riparian and
Appropriative Rights; Water Rights Permits and Licenses; Ground
Water Management; Public Trust Doctrine; Federal Power Act;
Area of Origin Statutes

The Current Regulatory and Legislative Framework 24

Protection of Fish and Wildlife, Environmental Review and Mitigation,
Protection of Wild and Natural Areas

Water Quality Protection 30

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System, Drinking Water Quality

San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 32

State Water Project and Federal Central Valley Project, Decision
1485, Racanelli Decision, Coordinated Operation Agreement, SWRCB
Bay-Delta Proceedings, Fish Protection Agreement, Suisun Marsh
Preservation Agreement

Surface Water Management 36

Regional Water Projects, Central Valley Project Improvement Act of
1992, Transfer of the CVP

Trends in Water Resource Management 38

Water Transfers, Water Use Efficiency, Management Programs

Interstate Water Resource Management 46

Colorado River, Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights
Settlement Act of 1991, Klamath Project

Contents

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Chapter 3 Surface Water Supplies 49

Droughts in California 51

Length and Frequency of Droughts

Water Supply Development 53

Local and Imported Supplies, State Water Project, Central Valley
Project, Other Federal Projects, Colorado River, Water Recycling

Other Water Supplies 71

Gray Water, Long-Range Weather Forecasting, Weather Modification,
Watershed Management, Sea Water Desalination

Recommendations 75

Chapter 4 Ground Water Supplies 79

Ground Water Defined 79

Ground Water Development 80

Statewide Ground Water Use 81

Ground Water Overdraft 89

Sea Water Intrusion, Subsidence, Ground Water Quality

Management of Ground Water Resources 93

Acijudicated Basins, Ground Water Management Agencies, Water
Districts with a Pump Charge, Other Districts

Effect of the Drought on Ground Water 99

Ground Water Levels and Storage, Wells and Ground Water Use

Conjunctive Use 102

Conjunctive Use Programs, Prospects for the Future

Recommendations 105

Chapter 5 Water Quality 109

Overview of Water Quality in California 109

Mineralization and Eutrophication, Toxic Pollutants, Pathogens,
Disinfection Byproducts, Agricultural Pollutants, Urban Pollutants,
Other Pollutants, Drinking Water Regulations and Human Health,
Meeting Water Quality Standards, Source Protection

Critical Components of State Water Supply 120

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Water Quality, Colorado River Water
Quality, Ground Water Quality, Renwdiation and Protection of
Ground Water Quality

Qucdity Considerations for Water Reclamation and Reuse 130

Costs of Poor Quality Water 130

Recommendations 132

Introduction Water Use 135

Chapter 6 Urban Water Use 141

Population Growth 141

Urban Land Use 142

Urban Water Conservation 144

Urban Water Pricing 145

Urban Retail Water Prices, Urban Ground Water Prices

Per Capita Water Use 149

Disaggregating Urban Water Use 152

Urban Water Use Forecasts 153

Urban Water Use Forecast to 2020

Recommendations 155

Contents

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Chapter 7 Agricultural Water Use 159

Factors Affecting Agricultural Water Use 162

Definition of Crop Consumptive Use, Historical Unit Water Use.
Irrigation Management and Methods, Drainage and Salinity, Water
Price and Production Costs, Cropping Patterns in California. Historic
Agricultural Acreage, Water Supply and Water Price, Agricultural
Retail Water Prices. Agricultural Ground Water Production Costs

Agricultural Water Conservation 173

Drainage Reduction. San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program, Irrigation
Efficiency

Agricultural Water Demand Forecast 1 77

1990 Level of Development, Agricultural Acreage Forecast.
Urbanization of Agricultural Lands. 2020 Agricultural Water
Demands

Recommendations 183

Ctiapter 8 Environmental Water Use 187

Bay-Delta Estuary 188

Bay-Delta History. The Physical System, Water Development.
Biological Resources and Processes. Bay-Delta Environmental Water
Needs. Other Activities That May Affect Bay-Delta Water Allocation

Environmental Instream Flows 201

Sacramento River Region. San Joaquin River Region. Eastern Sierra,
Coastal Streams. Existing Environmental Instream Flow
Requirements

Wetlands 219

Federal Wetland Policies and Programs. California Wetland Policies
and Programs, Wetland Water Supply and Demands, Future Water
Needs for Wetlands

Summary of California's Environmental Water Needs 227

Recommendations 229

Chiapter 9 Water-Based Recreation 231

Recreation and Water Management 23 1

Reservoir Recreation, River Recreation, Wildland Recreation,
Water-based Recreation Policy and Planning Responsibility, The
Davis-Dolwig Act, Federal Water Project Recreation Act

Trends in Recreation Area Use 235

Water Use for Recreation 236

Water Project Operations and Recreation Benefits 237

State Water Project Recreation

Drought Impacts on Recreation 241

Direct Effects on Facility Availability. Reservoir Recreation Impacts.
River Recreation Impacts, Winter Recreation Impacts

Ctiapter 1 0 Thie Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 245

Delta Flows 246

Reverse Flow and Carriage Water
Key Delta Issues 251

Fish and Wildlife Issues, Local Issues

Delta Water Quality Standards 253

Racanelli Decision, SWRCB Bay-Delta Proceedings, Meeting Water
Quality Standards

Flooding in the Delta 256

Stability of Delta Levees

Delta Water Resource Management and Planning 257

Contents

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Past Delta Water Management Programs. Current Delta Regulatory
Decision-Making Process, Role of the U.S. EPA in the Delta

Options for Enhancing Urban Water Quality, Water Supply Reliability,
and Improving Delta Environmental Conditions 263

Ongoing Delta Planning Programs. Long-Term Delta Planning
Programs

Recommendations 269

Chapter 1 1 Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand 273

Reliability Planning: Maintaining the Balance Between

Water Supply and Demand 273

Supply Reliability and Demand Variability

Options for Enhancing Water Supply Reliability 276

Level 1 — Reliability Enhancement Options 278

Long-Term Demand Management Options, Short-Term Demand
Management Options, Water Supply Management Options

Level II — Reliability Enhancement Options 312

Long-Term Demand Management Options, Water Supply
Management Options

Chapter 1 2 Water Supply and Demand Balance 331

Water Supply 332

Existing Water Management Programs, Level I Water Management
Options. Level II Water Management Options

Water Demand 338

Urban Water Use, Agricultural Water Use, Environmental Water Use

California Water Balance 340

Recommendations 345

Demand Management, Supply Augmentation

Economic Costs of Unreliability 347

Contingency Losses, Long-Term Losses, Environmental Cqsts of
Unreliability, Ek:onomic Impacts of the Drought

Appendix A 357

A. 1 Bibliography, Statutes, and Court Cases Cited in Chapter 2 357

A. 2 Acts Authorizing Regional and Local Water Projects 361

A. 3 Acts Authorizing Elements of the

State Water Project and the Central Valley Project 363

A. 4 Several Acts Regulating Activities Affecting the Environment 365

Appendix B Public Comments on the

Draft California Water Plan Update 367

Background 367

The Plan as a Whole 374

Water Supply 375

Water Use 376

Meeting California's Water Needs 378

Miscellaneous 38 1

Glossary 383

Abbreviations and Acronyms 391

Figures

Figure 1-1 . Water Project Facilities in California 2

Figure 1 -2. California Water Balance 14

Contents

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

• Figure 2- 1 . Wild and Scenic Rivers in California 29

Figure 3- 1 . Disposition of Average Annual Water Supply 49

Figure 3-2. Distribution of Average Annual Precipitation and Runoff 50

Figure 3-3. The Sacramento River Index Since 1906 52

Figure 3-4. Comparison of Droughts Sacramento River Index 52

Figure 3-5. Comparison of Droughts San Joaquin River Index 53

Figure 3-6. Comparison of Multi-Year Droughts

Average Annual Runoff 55

Figure 3-7. Storage in 155 Major Reservoirs in California, October 1 58

Figure 3-8. Historical Development of Reservoir Capacity 58

Figure 3-9. Regional Water Transfers at 1990 Level of Development 59

Figure 3-10. State Water Project Service Areas 61

Figure 3-11. Major State Water Project Facilities 62

Figure 3-12. State Water Project Deliveries 1967-1993 63

Figure 3-13. Central Valley Project Service Areas 65

Figure 3-14. Central Valley Project Deliveries 1960-1993 66

Figure 3-15. Central Valley Project Annual Hydroelectric

Energy Production 1960-1993 67

Figure 3-16. Colorado River Service Areas 68

Figure 3-17. Present Use of Recycled Water 70

Figure 4- 1 . Cornponents of Ground Water Use and Sources of Recharge . 80

Figure 4-2. Locations of Adjudicated Ground Water Basins 96

Figure 4-3. Locations of Ground Water Management Districts or Agencies 98

Figure 4-4. Cumulative Change in Ground Water Storage

San Joaquin Valley 100

Figure 4-5. Cumulative Change in Ground Water Storage

Sacramento Valley 101

Figure 4-6. Annual Well Completion Reports 102

Figure 5-1. Disinfection Byproduct Precursors in the Delta: July 1983 to June

1992 122

Figure 5-2. Mass Discharge of the Rice Herbicide Molinate

to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 125

Figure III-A. Derivation of Applied Water, Net Water Use, and Depletion

Example of Water Use in Inland Areas 136

Figure III-B. Derivation of Applied Water, Net Water Use, and Depletion

Example of Area with Salt Sink 137

Figure III-C. Derivation of Applied Water, Net Water Use, and Depletion

Example of Most Inland Areas with High Efficiency 1 38

Figure 6- 1 . Comparison of California Population Projections

Bulletin 160 Series 142

Figure 6-2. Comparison of Department of Finance and
Council of Governments Population Projections for

California's Two Largest Metropolitan Areas 143

Figure 6-3. Common Urban Water Rate Structures 147

Figure 6-4. Urban Per Capita Water Use San Francisco Bay Area

1920-1990 150

Figure 6-5. Urban Per Capita Water Use 1940-1990 151

Figure 6-6. Comparison of Per Capita Water Use

by Selected Communities 151

Figure 6-7. Average Monthly Urban Per Capita Water Use Statewide 152

Figure 6-8. Urban Applied Water Use by Sector 153

Contents xiii

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

i Figure 7- 1 . Comparison of Irrigated Acreage Projections

Bulletin 160 Series 159

Figure 7-2. Yield of Cotton Lint, Rice, and Alfalfa per Acre 1920-1990 . . 165

Figure 7-3. On-Farm Average Seasonal Application Efficiency

of Various Irrigation Methods 166

Figure 7-4. Irrigated Acreage in California 1870-1990 171

Figure 7-5. Various Estimates of Irrigated Crop Acreage in California ... 178

Figure 7-6. Irrigated Vegetable Acreage in California 1920-1990 180

Figure 7-7. Irrigated Pasture Acreage in California 1950-2020 180

Figure 7-8. Irrigated Acreage in California 1870-2020 181

Figure 8-1. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay 190

Figure 8-2. Striped Bass Abundance Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary . 195
Figure 8-3. Estimated Annual Ocean Harvest of Chinook Salmon

1971-1991 198

Figure 8-4. Fall-Chinook Salmon Runs on the

Sacramento River and Tributaries 199

Figure 8-5. Examples of Applied Water, Net Water Use, and Depletion
for Instream Fishery Flows Example of Central Valley Streams
—1990 Average Year 218

Figure 8-6. Publicly Managed Fresh-Water Wetlands 220

Figure 10- 1 . The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta 247

Figure 10-2. Land Surface Below Sea Level,

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 248

Figure 10-3. Tidal Flows in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 249

Figure 10-4. Delta Flow Components and Comparisons 250

Figure 10-5. Flow Distribution, With and Without Reverse Flows 251

Figure 10-6. Delta Decision-Making Process 261

Figure 10-7. Proposed Interim South Delta

Water Management Program i 265

Figure 10-8. Proposed Isolated Facilities (1982) 268

Figure 10-9. Proposed Delta Wetlands Project (1990) 270

Figure 11-1. Least-Cost Reliability Planning

Total Costs of Alternative Plans 276

Figure 11-2. Relationship Between Drought Contingency Measures

and BMPs 281

Figure 1 1-3. Water Sources and Allocations of the

1991 and 1992 State Drought Water Banks 286

Figure 1 1-4. 2020 Delivery Capability of SWP with

Existing Facilities and Level I Programs Based on D-1485 289

Figure 1 1-5. SWP Urban and Agricultural Deliveries with
Existing Facilities and Level I Programs
Based on D-1485 1990 and 2020 Levels of Demand 290

Figure 1 1-6. Future Delivery Capability Objectives of Various Projects . . 291

Figure 1 1-7. CVP and SWP Delta Export Capabilities

Under Various Delta Export Restrictions 292

Figure 11-8. Los Banos Grandes Facilities Location 293

Figure 11-9. Proposed Coastal Branch Phase II and

Central Coast Water Authority Extension 297

Figure 1 1-10. Domenigoni Valley Reservoir Site and Facilities 311

Figure 11-11. Usable Transfer Capacity with Existing
SWP/CVP Facilities for Transfers from the Delta to
the South Coast Region 318

xiv Contents

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Figure 11-12. Monthly Variation of Usable Transfer Capacity with

Existing SWP/CVP Facilities for Transfers from the

Delta to the South Coast Region Based on D- 1485 319

Figure 11-13. Westside Sacramento Valley Storage

and Conveyance Concepts 325

Figure 12- 1 . California Water Balance 344

Sidebars

The Governor's Water Policy 3

California's Water Supply Availability 8

What Is Navigable? 21

Point-Source Versus Nonpoint-Source Pollution 31

Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, 1993 CVP Operations . . 39

Water Transfer Criteria 41

Possible Effects of Global Climate Change 56

Estimating Perennial Yields of Ground Water Basins 82

Evaluation of Ground Water Overdraft in the San Joaquin Valley 89

Procedure for Adopting a Ground Water Management Plan

in Accordance with Water Code Section 10750 94

Principles of Water Utility Management as Set Forth by

the Source Water Quality Committee of the

California-Nevada Section, American Water Works Association 118

Water Price and" Agricultural Production 168

Land Use Survey Program 170

Criteria for Summary of Present and

Proposed Environmental Water Flows 189

Least-Cost Planning Process for Evaluating

Water Management Plans 275

Water Conservation Bond Laws 277

SWP Reliability Planning Process 294

SWP Drought Year Supply 295

Criteria for Determining Level I and Level II

Water Reclamation and Available Supplies for Bulletin 160-93 299

EBMUD Reliability Planning Process 302

MWDSC Reliability Planning Process 308

Water Transfer Costs 320

California's Water Supply Availability 33 1

Water Service Reliability 348

Tables

Table 1-1. California Water Supplies with

Existing Facilities and Programs 5

Table 1-2. Use of Ground Water by Hydrologic Region 6

Table 1-3. Ground Water Overdraft by Hydrologic Region 6

Table 1-4. Net Water Demand by Hydrologic Region 9

Table 1-5. California Water Supplies with

Level I Water Management Programs 11

Table 1-6. California Water Budget 12

Table 2- 1 California Water Code Requirements for Water Transfers 40

Table 3- 1 . Pre- 1900 Dry Periods and Droughts Since 1900 54

Table 3-2. Major Central Valley Project Reservoirs 64

Contents xv

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

J Table 3-3. Present Use of Recycled Water by Category 70

Table 3-4. Suitable Uses of Recycled Water 72

Table 3-5. Major Surface Water Reservoirs in California 76

Table 4- 1 . Use of Ground Water by Hydrologic Region 81

Table 4-2. Ground Water Management in California

1990 Level of Development 83

Table 4-3. Ground Water Overdraft by Hydrologic Region 91

Table 5-1. Threats to Water Quality 115

Table 5-2. Contaminants Regulated Under the

Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, August 1993 116

Table 5-3. Proposed Contaminants to be Regulated Under the

Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, August 1993 117

Table 5-4. Average Water Quality of Selected Sources,

1986 to 1992 123

Table 6- 1 . California Population by Hydrologic Region 142

Table 6-2. 1990 Population Densities of Selected States

and Countries 144

Table 6-3. Best Management Practices for Urban Water Use 145

Table 6-4. 1991 Single Family Residential Monthly Water Use

and Costs for Selected Cities 148

Table 6-5. Commercial and Industrial Monthly Water Use

and Retail Costs for Selected Cities 149

Table 6-6. Typical Urban Ground Water Costs in 1992

by Hydrologic Region 1 50

Table 6-7. 1990 Distribution of Residential Interior Water Use 153

Table 6-8. Present and Projected Urban Unit Applied Water

by Hydrologic Region 1 54

Table 6-9. 1990 Percentage of Urban Water Use by Sector 154

Table 6-10. Applied Urban Water Reductions and Reductions in

Depletions by Hydrologic Region ^ 155

Table 6-11. Urban Water Demand by Hydrologic Region 1 56

Table 6-12. Potential Best Management Practices 157

Table 7-1. Crop Yields in California 160

Table 7-2. Irrigated Crops Where California Influences or Dominates

the U.S. Market 162

Table 7-3. 1990 California Agricultural Export Data 163

Table 7-4. U.S. Department of Agriculture's Quantity Index of

Agricultural Imports 163

Table 7-5. Agricultural Imports by Country of Origin 164

Table 7-6. Ranges of Unit Evaporation of Applied Water 164

Table 7-7. Ranges of Unit Applied Water for Agriculture

by Hydrologic Region 165

Table 7-8. Crop Acreage Irrigated by Various Methods 167

Table 7-9. Typical Agricultural Retail Water Costs in 1991

by Hydrologic Region 1 72

Table 7-10. Typical Agricultural Ground Water Production Costs

in 1992 by Hydrologic Region 173

Table 7-11. Summary of Current Efficient Water Management

Practices 1 75

Table 7-12. California Crop and Irrigated Acreage

by Hydrologic Region 1990 1 79

Table 7-13. California Crop and Irrigated Acreage

by Hydrologic Region 2020 (Forecasted) 181

xvi Contents

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Table 7-14. Annual Agricultural Applied Water Reductions
and Related Reduction Depletions by Hydrologic Region
2020 (Forecasted) 182

Table 7-15. Agricultural Water Demand by Hydrologic Region 184

Table 8- 1 . Estimated Winter Run Chinook Salmon

at Red Bluff Diversion Dam 196

Table 8-2. Estimated Fall Run Chinook Salmon in the Feather River 199

Table 8-3. Summary of Present and Proposed Fishery Flows

for Major California River Systems 202

Table 8-4. Instream Environmental Water Needs by Hydrologic Region . . 217

Table 8-5. Wetlands Water Needs by Hydrologic Region 226

Table 8-6. Environmental Water Needs by Hydrologic Region 228

Table 9- 1 . Recreation Use and Minimum Rafting Flows

on Some Popular California Rivers 234

Table 9-2. Estimated Current Annual and Cumulative

Attendance (through 1990) at State Water Project Reservoirs 238

Table 10-1. Major Permits Required for Implementation

of Delta Water Management Programs 260

Table 11-1. Level I Demand Management Options 278

Table 11-2. Short-Term Water Transfers 1982 Through 1992 284

Table 1 1-3. Recent Major Water Transfers for Environmental Uses 285

Table 11-4. 1991 and 1992 Drought Water Bank Purchases

and Allocations 287

Table 1 1-5. Level I Water Supply Management Options 288

Table 1 1-6. State Water Project Supplies 289

Table 11-7. Total Water Recycling and Resulting New Water Supply

by Hydrologic Region 300

Table 1 1-8. Level II Water Management Options 313

Table 11-9. Applied Water Reductions by 2020 With and Without
Implementation of the Plan Recommended by the
San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Drainage Program 315

Table 1 1-10. SWP and CVP Usable Transfer Capability from the Delta . . 317

Table 11-11. Annual 1990 and Potential Future Water Desalting 327

Table 12-1. California Water Supplies with Existing

Facilities and Programs 333

Table 12-2. California Water Supplies with Level I

Water Management Programs 334

Table 12-3. State Water Project Supplies 336

Table 12-4. California Water Demand 339

Table 12-5. California Water Budget 342

Contents

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Chapter 1

For the first time in recent history, Californians are finding that existing water
management systems are no longer able to provide sufficiently reliable water service to
users. In most areas of the State, the 1987-92 drought: caused increased water
conservation, and in some cases mandatory rationing, for urban water users;
drastically curtailed surface water supplies for many agricultural water users; and
strained environmental resources. The six-year drought stretched California's
developed supply to its limits, yet innovative water banking, water transfers, water
supply interconnections, and changes in project operations to benefit fish and wildlife
all helped reduce the harmful effects of drought.

In light of the increased complexities in water resources planning brought about
by these significant events. Water Code Section 1 0004 was amended in 1 99 1 to require
that the California Water Plan be updated every five years and that the Department of
Water Resources "conduct a series of hearings with interested persons, organizations,
. . . agencies, and representatives of the diverse geographical areas and interests of the
state."

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 water supply. For example, the winter-run
Chinook salmon and the Delta smelt were listed under the State and federal
Endangered Species acts, imposing restrictions on Delta exports, and the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (PL 102-575) was passed in 1992, reallocating over a
million acre-feet of CVP supplies for fish and wildlife. Other actions, such as the State
Water Resources Control Board's Bay-Delta proceedings, and the federal Environmen-
tal Protection Agency's proposed Bay- Delta standards, suggest that even more
stringent requirements could be imposed. These actions determine 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. Figure 1-1 shows major water
project facilities in California.

The drought and actions to further protect fish and wildlife emphasized the need
for a comprehensive water policy to guide California's water management and
planning. On April 6, 1992, the governor announced his policy, which has provided
general direction in developing demand management and supply augmentation
alternatives put forth in this California Water Plan update.

The following overview summarizes each of the major elements (chapters)
required to produce this water plan update. It begins by discussing the effects of recent

Summary of
Volume I

Summary of Volume I

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure 1-1. Water Project Facilities in California

San Francisco

South Ba

lay
Aqueduct

San Felipe
ut
Montereyf Reservoir

o^=>^

State Water Project Facilities
Federal Water Project Facilities
Local Water Project Facilities

San Diego ^
V Aqueducts
^ San

Diego

Summary of Volume I

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

changes to the institutional framework for water management in California and
continues by presenting: (1) California's existing water supplies along with water
quality considerations, (2) the plan's assessment of the need and demand for water,
and (3) options for balancing those demands with supply. Finally, recommendations
are highlighted. Discussion of regional issues and the results of regional analyses used
in developing the California Water Balance can be found in Volume II.

Effects of Recent Changes in the Institutional Framework

Chapter 2, The Institutional Framework for Water Resource Management in
California, presents an overview of the major constitutional requirements, statutes,
court decisions, and agreements that form the framework for many water resource
management and planning activities in California.

Probably the most far reaching action affecting water resources management in
California in the last decade was the federal listing of the winter-run chinook salmon
and the Delta smelt, combined with the biological opinions on operations of the CVP
and SWP that followed. The opinions effectively pre-empted short-term measures to
provide environmental protection for the Bay- Delta as proposed by the State Water
Resources Control Board's Draft Water Right Decision 1630. The actions and
restrictions on water project operations contained in the biological opinions have
immediate and future consequences on Delta export capability. The precise extent of
those consequences is, thus far, unknown. Furthermore, the CVPIA reallocates a
portion of CVP supplies for environmental purposes. About 400,000 af of the
reallocation was used in 1993 to benefit winter -run salmon and Delta smelt: however,
how the environmental water will be used on a long-term basis will be determined
upon completion of a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.

Other major actions (discussed in Chapter 2) that could have far reaching
consequences are the EPA's proposed standards for the Bay-Delta estuary, future
SWRCB Bay-Delta standards, and more stringent and costly drinking water quality
standards. Recent decisions and laws that affect current water supply reliability are
the Mono-Owens decision, which reduced the imports of supplies historically available
to the South Coast Region, and a multitude of water management and water transfer
legislation that has begun to open up the water market in California.

The Governor's Water Policy

Here are key elements of the Governor's water policy as announced on April 6,
1 992. As the Governor stressed, each of these elements must be linked in such a way
that no single interest (urban, agricultural, or environmental) gains at the expense of
another.

Water Conservation

Water Recycling

Desalination

Transfer of the federal Central
Valley Project to State Control

^''^''^® :] Colorado River Water Banking

Additional Storage Facilities

□

Fixing the Delta

□

Reduction of Ground Water

□

Overdraft

□

Water Marketing and Transfers

Additional Water for Fish and

Summary of Volume I

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Caiifornia's Water Supplies

In the day-to-day planning and management of California's water resources, the
term "reliability" is defined as a measure of a water service systems expected success
in providing an adequate supply that meets expected demand and in managing
shortages without serious detrimental effects. Reliability is not strictly a water supply
characteristic because it includes demand management actions that can mitigate the
effects of shortages (such as emergency water allocation programs during drought
years). Given this definition, California generally had an adequately reliable supply to
meet the 1990 level of urban, agricultural, and environmental water demands.
However, in certain regions, the 1990 drought experience found some California
communities and the environment suffering from a somewhat less than reliable
drought supply to meet drought year needs. The following sections describe
California's surface and ground water supplies and summarize water quality
considerations.

Surface Water Supplies

The Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers have provided Californians with an
average of nearly 15.5 maf annually for urban and agricultural uses. However, recent
and future actions to protect aquatic species and reallocation of a portion of the
Central Valley Project water supplies to the environment could reduce the existing
annual supply availability for urban and agricultural uses by about 1 to 3 maf. This
range envelops proposed additional environmental water needs.

Colorado River supplies to the South Coast Region for urban and agricultural
uses could eventually decline from about 5.2 maf to California's apportionment of 4.4
maf annually. Historically, Arizona and Nevada have used less than their apportion-
ment of water, making their unused supply of Colorado River water available to meet
California's requirements. Southern California was spared from severe rationing
during most of the 1987-92 drought primarily as a result of the 600,000 af annually of
surplus and 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 1 99 1 . 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.

In response to the 1987-92 drought, many creative approaches to cope with
water shortages were Implemented throughout California, including construction of
more interconnections between local. State, and federal water delivery facilities. The
City of San Francisco's connection to the SWP's South Bay Aqueduct allowed
emergency drought supplies to be conveyed into the city's system for use by
communities along the San Francisco peninsula. Toward the end of the drought, the
City of Santa Barbara constructed a sea water desalination facility and received limited
SWP supplies through an emergency interconnection and a series of exchanges with
other water agencies. Throughout California, water agencies were bu3ang and
exchanging water to meet critical needs. The State Drought Water Bank played a vital
role In meeting some of those critical water needs.

Prior to changes in water availability from the Sacramento-San Joaquin and
Colorado river systems, California had roughly enough water to meet average annual
urban and agricultural water demands at the 1990 level while complying with existing
SWRCB standards, as specified in Water Rights Decision 1485. (See Chapter 2 for
details about D-1485.) Chapter 3 summarizes historical water supply and discusses

Summary of Volume I

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

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

(Decision 1485 Operating Criteria for Delta Supplies)
(millions 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"i
Reclaimed
Ground water'^'
Ground water overdraft*^'
Dedicated natural flow

10.1
1.0

27.2

8.1
0.7

15.3

10.1
1.0

8.1
0.7

10.2
1.0

8.3
0.7

27.4

15.4

27.4

15.4

10.3
1.0

27.4

8.4
0.7

5.2

5.1

4.4

7.5

5.0

7.7

5.1

7.7

5.2

7.7

5.2

1.2

0.8

1.3

0.8

1.3

0.8

1.3

0.8

2.8

2.1

3.2

2.0

3.3

2.0

3.3

2.0

0.2

7.1

11.8

7.1

12.0

7.2

12.1

7.4

12.2

1.3

—

15.4

TOTAL

63.5

50.4

62.4

48.9

62.7

49.1

63.0

49.4

(1) 1 990 SWP supplies are normalized and do not reflect additional supplies delivered to offset the reduction of supplies from the Mono and Owens basins to the South Coast
hydrologic region.

(2) Average ground water use is prime supply of ground water basins and does not include use of ground water which is artificially recharged from surface sources into the ground
water basins.

(3) The degree future shortages ore met by increased overdraft is unknown. Since overdraft is not sustainable, it is not included as a future supply.

the current supply system. Table 1-1 shows California's water supply with existing
facilities and programs as operated in accordance with D-1485 for Delta supplies.

Average annual supplies at the 1990 level of development are about 63.5 maf
(includes natural flows dedicated for instream use and ground water overdraft) and
could decrease to 63.0 maf by 2020 without any additional facilities or programs. A
possible substantial reduction in Colorado River supplies could be offset by short-term
transfers and increased SWP Delta diversions, in addition to water management
programs of the MWDSC. The 1990 level of development drought year supplies are
about 50.4 maf and could decrease by about 1.0 maf by 2020 without additional
storage and water management options. However, until comprehensive solutions to
complex Delta problems are identified and implemented, SWP and CVP Delta
diversions will continue to be impaired.

Ground Water Supply

California's ground water storage is about 850 maf, roughly 100 times the State's
annual net ground water use, stored in some 450 ground water basins statewide.
Probably less than half of this total is usable because of quality considerations and the
cost of extraction. However, the large quantity of good-quality ground water makes it a
crucial component of California's total water resource.

In a year of average precipitation and runoff, an estimated 1 5 maf of ground
water is extracted and applied for agricultural, municipal, and industrial use. This is
over 20 percent of the total applied water supply statewide, and ranges from 20 to 90
percent locally, depending on the area. However, because of deep percolation and
extensive reuse of applied water, the 1990 level average annual net ground water use
was about 8.4 maf, including about 1 .3 maf of ground water overdraft. Overdraft
estimates include 0.2 maf due to possible degradation of ground water quality in the
trough of the San Joaquin Valley ground water basins. In drought years, the net use of

Summary of Volume I

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Table 1-2. Use of Ground Water by Hydrologic Region<^>

(thousands of acre-feet)

Hydrologic Region

7990

2000

2070

2020

Fverage

drought

average

drought

average

drought

overage

drought

263

283

275

295

286

308

298

316

100

139

126

174

160

174

165

174

688

762

694

769

695

776

698

781

1,083

1,306

1,100

1,325

1,125

1,350

1,150

1,375

2,496

2,865

2,463

2,985

2,426

3,033

2,491

3,038

1,098

2,145

1,135

2,202

1,156

2,227

1,161

2,252

915

3,773

918

3,758

921

3,726

926

3,758

121

146

128

154

138

165

147

173

221

252

220

237

226

271

258

271

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

TOTAL 7,100 11,800 7,100 12,000 7,200 12,100 7,400 12,200

(1) Average year ground water use represents use of prime supply of ground woter basins. Ground wafer overdraft is not included.

ground water increases significantly to 13.1 maf (also including 1.3 maf of overdraft),
which indicates the importance of the State's ground water basins as storage facilities
to meet drought year water needs (see Chapter 4). Table 1-2 shows regional ground
water use.

Between 1980 and 1990, annual ground water overdraft had been reduced by
about 0.7 maf from the 1980 level of 2 maf. The reduction is mostly in the San Joaquin
Valley and is due primarily to the benefits of imported supplies to the Tulare Lake
Region, construction and operation of new reservoirs in the San Joaquin River Region
during the 1960s and 1970s, and prudent management of surface and ground water
resources, including conjunctive use of those supplies. Table 1-3 shows 1990 level
regional overdraft. However, until key Delta issues are resolved and additional water
management programs are implemented, the reductions in overdraft seen in the last
decade in the San Joaquin Valley will reverse as more ground water is pumped to make

Table 1 -3. Ground Water Overdraft by Hydrologic Region

(thousands of acre-feet)

Region 1990

North Coast 0

San Francisco Bay 0

Central Coast 240

South Coast 20

Sacramento River 30

San Joaquin 210

Tulare Lake 650

North Lahontan 0

South Lahontan 70

Colorado River 80

STATEWIDE 1 ,300

6 Summary of Volume I

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

up for reductions in surface water supplies from the Delta. In the long-term, continued
overdraft is not sustainable and must be addressed in local and State water
management plans. As such, overdraft is not included as a future supply.

Efficient use of surface and ground water through conjunctive use programs has
become an extremely important water management tool. Conjunctive use programs
promise to be less costly than new traditional surface water projects because they
increase the efficiency of existing water supply systems and generally have less adverse
environmental impact than new surface water reservoirs. Conjunctive use programs
must address potentially undesirable results such as loss of native vegetation and
wetland habitat; adverse effects on* third parties and fish and wildlife; land subsidence;
and degradation of water quality in the aquifer. There are also questions about the
feasibility and legal complexity of water transfers involving ground water.

Water Quality Considerations

Water quality considerations directly affect the quantities of water available for
use in California. Poor water quality for the intended use has inherent costs, such as
treatment and storage costs for drinking water, reduced crop yields, higher handling
costs, and damage to fish and wildlife. The real challenge is to avoid these costs by
protecting water sources from degradation in the first place.

Of critical importance to many Californians is the water quality of the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Municipal and industrial waste discharges and
agricultural drainage increase the salt content of water as it flows from higher
elevations to the Delta. Sea water intrusion is a major source of salts in Delta supplies.
Bromides from sea water are of particular concern because in combination with
dissolved organic compounds present in soil they contribute to the formation of
harmful disinfection b5T)roducts of drinking water treatment. On the average. Delta
influences are responsible for elevating the salt concentration at Banks Pumping Plant
about 1 50 milligrams per liter above that of the fresh water inflows to the Delta. Most
of the SWRCB's Delta water quality objectives relate to salinity. The SWP and CVP are
required to operate to meet Delta salinity standards.

Disease-causing organisms and other harmful microorganisms which are found
in raw water can pose serious health risks. New and more costly federal and State
surface water treatment rules, effective in June 1993, require that all surface water
supplied for drinking receive filtration, high-level disinfection, or both. The cost to
construct new filtration facilities to meet new regulations can be quite high.

Human activities introduce a variety of pollutants which contribute to the
degradation of water quality. Mining can be a major source of acids and toxic metals.
Agricultural drainage may contain chemical residues, toxic elements, salts, nutrients,
and elevated concentrations of chemicals which cause harmful disinfection bypro-
ducts. Municipal and industrial discharges, including storm runoff, are regulated by
State and federal environmental protection laws and policies. Waste water must be
treated to render it free of certain disease-carrying organisms and reduce its
environmental impact. Unfortunately, normal waste water treatment plant processes
may not completely remove all water-borne synthetic chemicals. The above water
quality concerns and others are detailed in Chapter 5.

The Need and Demand for Water

Prior California Water Plan updates determined the existing "base case" for water
supply and demand, then balanced forecasted future demand against existing supply

Summary of Volume I

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

and future supply and demand management options. To better illustrate overall
demand and supply availability, two water supply and demand scenarios, an average
year and a drought year, are presented for the normalized 1990 level of development
and for projections to 2000, 2010, and 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. Urban, agricultural, and environmental water needs, along with water
for recreation, are detailed in Part III of this report. The main conclusions are:

O California's population is projected to increase to 49 million people by 2020 (from
about 30 million in 1990). Even with extensive water conservation, urban annual
net water demand will increase by about 3.7 maf to 10.5 maf by 2020. Nearly half
of the increased population is expected to occur in the South Coast Region,
increasing that region's annual urban water demand by 1 .8 maf. (See Chapter 6.)

O Irrigated agricultural acreage is expected to decline by nearly 400,000 acres, from
the normalized 1990 level of 9.2 million acres to a 2020 level of 8.8 million acres,
representing a 700,000-acre reduction from the 1980 level. Reductions in
projected irrigated acreage are due primarily to urban encroachment onto
agricultural land and land retirement in the western San Joaquin Valley where poor
drainage and disposal conditions exist. Increases in agricultural water use
efficiency, combined with reductions in agricultural acreage and shifts to growing
lower -water-use crops, are expected to reduce agricultural annual net water
demand by about 1.9 maf by 2020. (See Chapter 7.)

O The 1 990 level and projections of environmental water needs to 2020 include water
needs of managed fresh water wetlands (including increases in supplies for refuges
resulting from implementation of the CVPLA) , instream fishery requirements, Delta
outflow, and wild and scenic rivers. Environmental water needs during drought
years are considerably lower than average years, reflecting principally the
variability of natural flows in the North Coast wild and scenic rivers. Average
annual net water demand for environmental needs is expected to increase by 0.4
maf by 2020. Furthermore, regulatory agencies have proposed a number of
changes in instream flow needs for major rivers, including the Sacramento and San

California's Water Supply Availability

Average year supply is the average annual supply of o water development
system over a long period. For this report the SWP and CVP average year supply is
the average annual delivery capability of the projects over a 70-year study period
( 1 922-9 1 ). For a local project without long-term data , it is the annual average deliver-
ies of the project during the 1984-1986 period. For dedicated natural flow, it is the
long-term average natural flow for wild and scenic rivers, or it is environmental flows
as required for an average year under specific agreements, water rights, court deci-
sions, and congressional directives.

Drought year supply is 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 1990 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.

Summary of Volume I

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Joaquin. These proposed flow requirements are not necessarily additive; however,
an increase from 1 to 3 maf is presented to envelop potential environmental water
needs that could result from proposed additional instream needs and actions
under way by regulatory agencies. (See Chapter 8.)

O With California's increasing population and higher levels of affluence since World
War II. water-based recreation has become an integral part of satisfying urban
society's ability and need for escape from the congestion of growing urban areas.
State, federal, and local public water supply projects have helped to provide
recreational facilities in addition to natural lakes and streams. In some cases, these
projects have enhanced downstream flows during times of year when natural flows
are diminished, thus creating Whitewater rafting opportunities that were not
possible before reservoir regulation. Often there are conflicting values and needs
for the same river system. Recreation at reservoirs, natural lakes, and streams
must be managed to prevent overuse and degradation. (See Chapter 9.)

Table 1-4 shows California's regional net water demands. A majority of the
environmental net water demand occurs in the North Coast hydrologic region,
reflecting the large dedicated natural flows of the North Coast wild and scenic rivers
system, about 17.8 maf in an average year. The Tulare Lake Region has the largest net
water demand for agriculture, about 7.7 maf in an average year, and the South Coast
Region has the highest net water demand for urban use. about 3.5 maf in an average
year. Dedicated instream flow under D-1485 makes up the largest portion of the San
Francisco Bay Region's net water demand (about 4.6 maf), while urban and
agricultural net water demands for the region amount to 1.3 maf.

Will There Be Enough Water?

Today, areas of the State reljang on the Delta for all or a portion of their supplies
find those supplies unreliable. Annual reductions in total water supply for urban and
agricultural uses could be in the range of 500,000 af to 1 maf in average years and 2
to 3 maf in drought years. These reductions result mainly from compliance with the
ESA biological opinions and proposed EPA Bay-Delta standards. While these impacts
do not consider the potential reductions in Delta exports due to "take limits" under the
biological opinions, they basically fall within the l-to-3-maf range for proposed

Table 1 -4. Net Water Demand by Hydrologic Region

(thousands of acre-feet)

Hydrologic Region

1990 2000 2010 2020

average drought average drought average drought average drought

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

20,035

10,159

20,182

10,306

20,213

10,337

20,238

10,364

6,071

4,652

6,185

4,756

6,253

4,852

6,296

4,895

1,143

1,213

1,194

1,269

1,245

1,321

1,291

1,379

4,379

4,521

4,812

4,974

5,319

5,499

5,903

6,110

11,734

11,921

11,841

12,065

11,907

1 2,204

1 2,036

12,238

6,826

7,190

6,847

7,187

6,764

7,055

6,763

7,068

8,136

8,308

8,031

8,198

7,932

8,090

7,844

7,995

514

566

518

571

520

573

537

590

555

554

577

581

648

653

735

744

4,124

4,041

4,018

4,012

TOTAL

63,500 53,200 64,200 53,900 64,800 54,600 65,700 55,400

Summary of Volume I

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

• f additional environmental demands for protection and enhancement of aquatic species .

Such uncertainty of water supply delivery and reliability will continue until issues
involving the Delta and other long-term environmental water management concerns
are resolved.

In 1990, average annual supplies, including 1.3 maf of ground water overdraft,
were generally adequate for 1990 level average demands. However, 1990 level
drought-year supplies were insufficient to meet 1990 level drought-year demands,
which is illustrated by a shortage of over 2.7 maf under D- 1485 criteria in 1990. In the
drought years 1991 and 1992, these shortages were reflected in urban mandatory
water conservation (rationing), agricultural land fallowing and crop shifts, reduction of
environmental flows, and short-term water transfers. Basically, shortages in supply
exist today and are best illustrated by the year 2000 water budget.

After accounting for future reductions of 1.3 maf in net water demand resulting
from implementation of urban Best Management Practices and agricultural Efficient
Water Management Practices (discussed in Chapters 6 and 7), and another 0.1 maf
reduction due to future land retirement, projected 2020 net demand for urban,
agricultural, and environmental water needs amounts to 65.7 maf in average years and
55.3 maf in drought years. As noted, these demand amounts could increase by 1 to 3
maf.

By 2020, without additional facilities and improved water management, annual
shortages of 3.7 to 5.7 maf could occur during average years depending on the
outcome of various actions taking place to protect aquatic species. Average year
shortages are considered chronic and indicate the need for implementing long-term
water supply augmentation and demand management measures to improve water
service reliability. Similarly, by 2020, annual drought year shortages could increase to
7.0 to 9.0 maf under D- 1485 criteria, also indicating the need for long-term measures
in addition to short-term drought management measures.

Water managers are looking into a wide variety of management actions to
supplement, improve, and make better use of existing resources. The single most
important action will be solving key issues in the Delta. This water plan update
presents both long-term and short-term water management and supply augmentation
options for meeting future water supply needs. Future water management options are
presented in two levels to better reflect the status of investigations required to
implement them.

O Level 1 options are those programs that have undergone extensive investigation and
environmental analyses and are judged to have a higher likelihood of being
implemented by 2020.

O Level 11 options are those programs 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 analyses of
alternatives.

Implementation of Level 1 water management programs could reduce but not
eliminate projected shortages. Included are short-term drought management options
(demand reduction through urban rationing programs or water transfers that
reallocate existing supplies through use of reserve supplies and agricultural 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,

10 Summary of Volume I

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

and additional south-of-the-Delta storage facilities). (Chapter 1 1 explains these
options.) If all Level 1 options were implemented, there would still be a potential
shortfall in annual supplies of about 2. 1 to 4. 1 maf in average years and 2.9 to 4.9 maf
in drought years by 2020 that must be made up by Level II water supply augmentation
and demand management programs. (Chapter 1 1 explains these programs.) Table 1-5
shows California's water supplies with Level I water management programs.

The California Water Budget, Table 1-6, compares total net water demand with
supplies from 1990 through 2020. The water budget also indicates the potential
magnitude of water shortages that can be expected in average and drought years if no
actions are taken to improve water supply reliability. Figure 1 -2 illustrates the water
supply benefits of short- and long-term water management programs under Level I
options and the need for further investigating and implementing Level II options.

Recommendations

The Delta is the hub of California's water supply infrastructure; key problems in
the Delta must be addressed before several of the Level I options in the California Water
Plan Update can be carried out. It is recommended that finding solutions to those
problems be the first priority. Also, a proactive approach to improving fishery
conditions — such as better water temperature control for spawning, better screening of
diversions in the river system to reduce incidental take, and better timing of reservoir
releases to improve fishery habitat — must be taken so that solutions to Delta problems
mesh with basin-wide actions taken for improving fishery conditions. To that end,
many of the restoration actions identified in the Central Valley Project Improvement
Act for cost sharing with the State can improve conditions for aquatic species. Once a
Delta solution is in place and measures for recovery of listed species have been initi-
ated, many options requiring improved Delta export capability could become feasible.

Table 1-5. California Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs

(Decision 1485 Operating Criteria for Delta Supplies)
(millions of acre-feet)

Supply 7990 2000 2010 2020

overage drought average drought average drought average drought

Surface

Local 10.1 8.1 10.2 8.2 10.2 8.3 10.3 8.4

Local imports"' 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Colorado River

CVP

Other federal

SWPni
Reclaimed
Ground water'^'
Ground water overdraft'-"
Dedicated natural flow 27.2 15.3 27.5 15.4 27.5 15.4 27.5 15.4

TOTAL 63.5 50.4 63.3 49.5 64.0 51.2 64.5 51.6

5.2

5.1

4.4

7.5

5.0

7.7

5.2

7.7

5.2

7.7

5.2

1.2

0.8

1.3

0.8

1.3

0.8

1.3

0.8

2.8

2.1

3.4

2.1

3.9

3.0

4.0

3.0

0.2

0.7

0.8

0.9

7.1

11.8

7.1

11.9

7.2

12.2

7.3

12.3

1.3

—

(1) 1990 SWP supplies are normalized and do not reflect additional supplies delivered to offset t})e reduction of supplies from the Mono and Owens basins to the South Coast
hydrologic region.

(2) Average ground water use is prime supply of ground water basins and does not include use of ground wotor which is artificially recharged from surfoce sources into the ground
woter basins.

(3) The degree future shortages ore met by increased overdraft is unknown. Since overdraft is not sustainable, it is not included as a future supply.

Summary of Volume I 1 1

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Table 1 -6. California Water Budget

(millions of acre-feet)

Water Demand/Supply 7 990

average drought

Net Demand

Urban — with 1 990 level of conservation

6.8

7.1

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

Agricultural — with 1 990 level of conservation

26.8

28.2

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

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

Environmental

28.4

16.4

OttieH"

1.5

SubMal

„, 63,5

53.2

Proposed Additional Environmental Water Demands'^'
Cose 1 - Hypottietical 1 MAF

Case II - Hypothefical 2 MAF ]

^■—

Case III - Hypotfietical 3 AAAF

—

Total Net Demand

63.5

53.2

Case!

—

CoseH

—

Casein

—

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

Developed Supplies

Surface Water<3i

27.9

22.1

Ground Water

7.1

11.8

Ground Water OverdraP^i

1-3

1.3

Subtotal

36.3

35.2

Dedicated Natural Flow

27.2

15.3

TOTAL Water Supplies

63.5

50.5

Denrand/Suppty Balance

0.0

-2.7

Casel

—

Casel

—

Casein

—

Level 1 Water Management Programs'"'

Long-term Supply Augmentation

Reclaimed

—

Local

—

Central Valley Project

—

State Water Project
Short-Term Drought Management

—

Potential Demand Management

—

1.0

Drought Water Transfers

—

0.8

Subtotal - level 1 Water Management Programs

—

1.8

Net Ground Water or Surface Water Use Reduction
Resulting from Level 1 Programs

—

0.0

NET TOTAL Demand Redudion/Suppiy Augmentation

0.0

1.8

Remaining Demand/Supply Balance Requiring Level II Options

0.0

-0.9

Casel

—

Cosen

—

CoseH

—

(1 ) Indudes major conveyance focility losses, recreation uses, and energy production.

(2) Proposed EnvironnDental Water Demands — Case l-lll envelop potential and uncertain demands and hove immediate and future
consequences on supplies from ttie Delta, beginning wilti actions in 1 992 and 1 993 to protect winter run salmon and delta smelt (octions
which could also protect other fish species).

12 Summary of Volume I

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

2000

average drought

Table 1 -6. California Water Budget

(millions of acre-feet)

2010

average drought

2020

average drought

immm6-3

8.7

JHHHHB.^-?

10.3

11.4

11.9

-0.4

-0.7

-0.9

-0,9

' 26.4

27.7

25.8

27.1

25.4

26.6

-0 2
-0 1

-0.2
-0.1

-0.3
-0.1

-0.4
-0.1

-0,4
-0,1

28.8

16.8

"■^^ 28.8

16.8

28.8

16.8

1.5

1.4

1.5

1.4

1.5

1.4

1 64.3

53.9

64.9

54.5

65.7

55.3

1.0

1,0

1.0

' 2.0

2.0

3.0

I -

—

65 3

54.9

65.9

55.5

66.7

56.3

66.3

55.9

66.9

56.5

67.7

57.3

67.3

56.9

67.9

57.5

68.7

58.3

[ 27,8

21.5

28.1

21.6

28.2

21.7

7.1

12.0

7.2

12.1

7.4

12.2

1 —

—

34.9

33.5

35.3

33.7

35,6

33.9

1 27.4

15.4

27.4

15.4

27.4

15.4

62.3

48.9

62.7

49.1

63.0

49.3

1 —

—

-3.0

-6.0

-3.2

-6.4

-3.7

-7.0

t..--4.o

-7.0

-4.2

-7.4

-4.7

-8.0

-5.0

-8.0

-5.2

-8.4

-5,7

-9.0

0.5

^^^B»0_6

0.6

0,8

0.8

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.2

0.1

0.6

1.0

0.7

1.0

^^- —

1.0

—

1.0

—

1.0

—

0.8

—

0.8

—

0.8

i 0.7

2.5

1.3

3.8

1.5

3.9

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.7

2.5

1.4

4.0

1.6

4.1

—

-2.3

-3.5

-1.8

-2.4

-2.1

-2.9

-3.3

-4.5

-2.8

-3.4

-3.1

-3.9

' -4.3

-5.5

-3.8

-4.4

-4.1

-4.9

(3) The degree future shortages are met by increased overdraft is unknown. Since overdraft is not sustainable, it is not included as a future supply.

(4) 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

Summary of Volume I

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

•< Figure 1-2.

California Water

Balance

Note: VVdrer supplies are
based on SWRCB D- 1 485
operating criteria for Delta

exports. Tables 11-1. 11-5.
and 1 1 -8 (Chapter 1 1) list

Level I and Level II options.

Following are the major Level I options recommended for implementation to help
meet California's water supply needs to 2020, along with their potential benefits. Many
of them still require additional environmental documentation and permitting, and in
some instances, alternative analyses. Before many of these programs can be
implemented, environmental water needs must be identified and prioritized and
funding issues addressed.

Demand Management

^ Water conservation — by 2020, implementation of urban BMPs could reduce
annualurbanapplied water demand by 1.3 maf, and net water demand by 0. 9 maf.

Summary of Volume I

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

afteraccountingfor reuse. Implementation ofagricultural EWMPs, which increase
agricultural irrigation efficiencies, could reduce agricultural applied water
demands by 1.7mafandnetwaterdemandby0.3maf, after accounting for reuse.
In addition, lining of the All-American Canal will reduce net water demand by
68,000 af.

^ Land fallowing and water bank programs during droughts — temporary,
compensated reductions of agricultural net water demands and purchases of
surplus water supplies could reallocate at least 0.6 maf of drought-year supply.
However, such transfers are impaired until solutions to Delta transfer problems
are identified and implemented.

^ Drought demand management — ^voluntary rationing averaging 10 percent
statewideduringdrought could reduce annual drought-yearurban applied andnet
water demand by 1.0 maf in 2020.

^ Land retirement — retirement of 45,000 acres with poor subsurface drainage and
disposal on the western San Joaquin Valley could reduce annual applied and net
water demand by 0. 13 maf by 2020.

Supply Augmentation

^ Water reclamation — plans for an additional 1 . 2 maf of water recycling and ground
water reclamation by 2020 could provide annual net water supplies of nearly 0.8
maf after accounting for reuse.

^ Solutions to Delta water management problems — improved water service
reliability and Increased protection for aquatic species in the Delta could provide
0. 2 to 0.4 maf annually of net water supplies (under D- 1485) and make many other
water management options feasible. Including water transfers.

^ Conjunctive use — more efficient use of major ground water basins through
programs such as the Kern Water Bank could provide 0.4 maf of drought-year net
water supplies (under D-1485).

^ Additional storage facilities — projects such as Los Banos Grandes (SWF), could
provide 0.3 maf of average and drought-year net water supplies (under D-1485),
and Domenigoni Valley Reservoir (MWDSC) could provide 0.3 mcif of drought-year
net water supplies.

In the short-term, those areas of California reljang on the Delta for all or a portion
of their supplies face uncertain water supply reliability due to the unpredictable
outcome of actions being undertaken to protect aquatic species and water quality. At
the same time, California's water supply Infrastructure is limited in its capacity to
transfer marketed water through the Delta due to those same operating constraints.
Until solutions to complex Delta problems are Identified and put in place, and demcind
management and supply augmentation options are implemented, many Callfornians
will experience more frequent and severe water supply shortages. 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 in the area from
Tracy to Kettleman City. Such limitations of surface water deliveries from the Delta will
exacerbate ground water overdraft in the San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake regions
because ground water is used to replace much of the shortfall in surface water
supplies. In addition, water transfers within these areas will become more common as
farmers seek to minimize water supply impacts on their operations. In urban areas,
water conservation and water recycling programs will be accelerated to help offset ^

short-term reliability needs.

Summary of Volume I 15

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Finally, it is recommended that Level II options be evaluated, expanded to include
other alternatives, and planned for meeting the p>otential range of average-year short-
ages of 2. 1 to 4. 1 maf and the potential range of drought-year shortages of 2.9 to 4.9
maf. Level II options include demand management and suppfy augmentation mea-
sures such as additional conservation, land retirement, increased water recycling and
desalting, and surface water development. Several mixes of State and local Level 11 op-
tions should be investigated, and their economic feasibility ascertained, to address the
range of demand and supply uncertainty illustrated in the California Water Budget.
Such uncertainty will affect the identification and selection of Level II options needed
to meet California's future water supply needs.

16 Summary of Volume I

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Summary of Volume I 1 7

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Water Right Decision 1485 established salinity control standards for the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh. D-1485, the recently
enacted Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, and biological
opinions under the Endangered Species Act all affect the timing and amount
of water Jlowir^ through the Delta at any given time.

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Chapter 2

Water resource management in California is at a critical juncture as evolving
policies and physical limits of the State's water supply infrastructure collide. Three
major interest groups — urban, agricultural, and environmental — must work their way
through California's institutional framework toward solutions that should benefit all
Californians and their environment.

Since 1957, when the first comprehensive California Water Plan was published,
attitudes toward and methods for managing the State's natural resources have gone
through many changes. Californians have become more environmentally sensitive, as
reflected in statutes such as the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Endan-
gered Species Act, and the State Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

The situation in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is a prime example of an area
where concerns about aquatic species compete with urban and agricultural water
supply needs. The Delta provides valuable habitat and migration corridors for many
species, including the winter-run salmon and Delta smelt, which are listed under the
State and federal Endangered Species Acts. The Sacramento split-tail is also being
considered for listing under the State and federal acts because of its low populations.
Natural resource managers are looking for ways to help these species recover. Biological
opinions have been issued under the federal Endangered Species Act; these opinions
affect how water supply proj ects in the Delta are operated . Essentially, the opinions have
increased the amount of water allocated to environmental uses in the Delta over SWRCB
D-1485, and they affect when water projects in the Delta can pump or convey the
supplies that eventually serve about two-thirds of California's population and much of
its farmland. California's population will require even more water as it grows by nearly
60 percent by the year 2020, making it clear to resource managers that something must
be done to address water supply reliability for urban, agricultural, and environmental
needs in the Delta.

In California, water use and supplies are controlled and managed under an intri-
cate system of federal and State laws. Common law principles, constitutional
provisions. State and federal statutes, court decisions, and contracts or agreements all
govern how water is allocated, developed, or used. All of these components, along with
the responsible State, federal, and local agencies, compose the institutional framework
for allocation and management of water resources in Cadifornia.

This chapter presents an overview of California's institutional framework for man-
aging water resources in California. It highlights some of the changes that have occurred
over the last decade, as new statutes have been enacted and earlier laws, decisions, and
agreements reinterpreted. Summarized here are major constitutional requirements,
statutes, court decisions, and agreements that form the groundwork for many water

The Institutional
Framework for
Water Resource
Management in
California

The Institutional Framework

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

J resource management and planning activities. (General references and citations to the

laws and cases discussed are contained in Appendix A.)

Allocation and Management of California's Water Supplies

The following subsections condense the basic water rights laws and doctrines
governing allocation and use of California's water supplies.

California Constitution Article X, Section 2

The keystone to California's water law and policy. Article X, Section 2 of the
California Constitution, requires that all uses of the State's water be both reasonable
and beneficial. It places a significant limitation on water rights by prohibiting the waste,
unreasonable use, unreasonable method of use, or unreasonable method of diversion
of water.

Riparian and Approprlative Rigtits

California operates under a dual system of water rights for surface water which
recognizes both the doctrine of riparian rights and appropriative rights. Under the
riparian doctrine, the owner of land has the right to divert but not store a portion of the
natural flow of water flowing by his land for reasonable and beneficial use upon his land
adjacent to the stream and within its watershed, subject to certain limitations. General-
ly, all riparian water right holders must reduce their water use in times of water
shortages. Under the prior appropriation doctrine, a person has a right to divert, store,
and use water regardless of whether the land on which it is used is adjacent to a stream
or within its watershed, provided that the water is used for reasonable and beneficial
uses and is surplus to water from the same stream used by earlier appropriators. The
rule of priority between appropriators is "first in time is first in right."

Water Rigtits Permits and Licenses

The Water Commission Act, which took effect in 1914 following a referendum,
recognized the overriding interest of the people in the waters of the state but provided
that private rights to use the water may be acquired in the manner provided by law. The
act established a system of state-issued permits and licenses to appropriate water.
Amended over the years, it now appears in Division 2 (Commencing with Section 1 000)
of the Water Code. These provisions place responsibility for administering appropriative
water rights with the State Water Resources Control Board; however, the permit and
license provisions do not apply to pre- 19 14 appropriative rights (those initiated before
the act took effect in 1914). The act also provides procedures for adjudication of water
rights, including court references to the State Water Resources Control Board and
statutory adjudications of all rights to a stream system.

Ground Water Management

Generally, ground water is available to any person who owns land overlying the
ground water basin. Ground water management in California is accomplished either by
a judicial adjudication of the respective rights of overlying users and exporters, or by
local management of rights to extract and use ground water as authorized by statute
or agreement. Most of the larger ground water basins in Southern California and the San
Francisco Bay area are managed either pursuant to a court adjudication or by an agency
with statutory powers; however, most basins in Northern California are not so managed .
Statutory management may be either by powers granted to a public agency that also
manages surface water, or by a ground water management agency created expressly for
that purpose.

20 The Institutional Framework

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

In 1 992. the Legislature repealed the water code sections that authorized manage-
ment in specific critically overdrafted basins and adopted new sections to authorize any
local agency which provides water service to adopt a ground water management plan
if the ground water is not subject to management under other provisions of law or a court
decree. Specific notice and hearing procedures must be followed. If protesting landown-
ers represent more than 50 percent of the assessed valuation of land within the local
agency, the ground water management plan may not be adopted. Elements of a plan may
include control of saline water intrusion, identification and protection of well head and
recharge areas, regulation of the migration of contaminated water, provisions for aban-
donment and destruction of wells, mitigation of overdraft, replenishment, monitoring,
facilitating conjunctive use, identification of well construction policies, and construc-
tion of cleanup, recharge, recycling, and extraction projects by the local agency.

Public Trust Doctrine

In the 1980s, the Public Trust Doctrine was used by courts to limit traditional
water rights. Under the Equal Footing Doctrine of the U.S. Constitution, each state has
title to tidelands and the beds of navigable lakes and streams within its borders. The
Public Trust Doctrine — recognized in some form by most states — embodies the principle
that the state holds title to such properties within the state in trust for the beneficial use
of the public and that public rights of access to and use of tidelands and navigable waters
are inalienable. Traditional public trust rights include navigation, commerce, and fish-
ing. California law has expanded the traditional public trust uses to include protection
offish and wildlife, preserving trust lands in their natural condition for scientific study
and scenic enjoyment, and related open-space uses.

In 1983. the California Supreme Court extended the public trust doctrine's
limitation on private rights to appropriative water rights. In National Audubon Society
V. Superior Court of Alpine County, the court held that water right licenses held by the
City of Los Angeles to divert water from streams tributary to Mono Lake remain subject
to ongoing State supervision under the public trust doctrine. The court held that public
trust uses must be considered and balanced when rights to divert water away from
navigable water bodies are considered. The court also held that California's
appropriative rights system and the public trust doctrine embody important precepts
which "...make the law more responsive to the diverse needs and interests involved in
planning and allocation of water resources." Consequently, in issuing or reconsidering
any rights to appropriate and divert water, the State must balance public trust needs
with the needs for other beneficial uses of water.

What Is Navigable?

The law has a number of different— and often confusing— definitions of "naviga-
ble" rivers and lakes (all tidal areas are considered navigable). For purposes of deter-
mining state title to the beds of rivers and lakes, they must have been capable of carry-
ing commerce at the time the state entered the union. "Commerce"includes more
than boats carrying persons and cargo. The courts have found streams to be "naviga-
ble" where they have carried saw logs or shingle bolts. For purposes of some federal
regulatory programs, a waterway must have carried, or be capable of carrying, inter-
state commerce. Other federal regulatory programs (e.g. , the Federal Power Act) in-
clude waterways which could carry interstate commerce with reasonable modifica-
tions. Finally, the Clean Water Act defines "navigable" waters to include all waters of
the United States which may affect or be affected by interstate commerce. This in-
cludes most water bodies in the nation.

The Institutional Framework 21

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Since the 1983 National Audubon decision, the public trust doctrine has been
involved in several other cases. In United States v. State Water Resources Control Board
(commonly referred to as the Racanelli Decision and discussed later in this chapter) , the
State Court of Appeal reiterated that the public trust doctrine is a significant limitation
on water rights. TTie public trust doctrine was also a basis for the decision in
Environmental Defense Fund v. East Bay Municipal Utility District. In this case, EDF
clciimed that EBMUD should not contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for water
diverted from the American River upstream of where it flowed through the Sacramento
urban area in a manner that would harm instream uses including recreational, scenic,
and fish and wildlife preservation purposes. The Superior Court upheld the validity of
EBMUDs contract with USBR but placed limitations on the timing and amounts of
deliveries to EBMUD. As a result of these cases, the SWRCB now routinely implements
the public trust doctrine through regulations and through appropriate terms and condi-
tions in water rights permits and licenses.

The public trust decisions reflect changes in our attitudes about using water
resources. The earliest cases involved rights of public access to tidelands around San
Francisco Bay cmd San Pablo Bay. Later cases involved public trust rights to inland
water bodies such as Clear Lake and LakeTahoe. Modification of water rights is the most
recent application of this doctrine.

Federal Power Act

The Federal Power Act has. at times, conflicted with the administration of State
water rights involving hydroelectric projects. The act creates a federal licensing system
administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and requires that a license
be obtained for nonfederal hydroelectric projects proposing to use navigable waters or
federal lands. The act contains a clause modeled after a clause in the Reclamation Act
of 1902, which disclaims any intent to affect state water rights law.

In a number of decisions dating back to the 1940s,*the U.S. Supreme Court held
that provisions of the Reclamation Act amd the Federal Power Act preempted inconsis-
tent provisions of state law. Decisions under both acts found that these clauses were
merely "saving clauses" which required the United States to follow minimal state proce-
dural laws or to pay just compensation where vested non-federal water rights are taken.
However, in California v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a number
of earlier Supreme Court decisions which found that the Reclamation Act substantially
preempts state water law. It held that the Reclamation Act clause requires the Bureau
of Reclamation to comply with conditions in state water rights permits unless those
conditions conflict with "clear Congressional directives."

In California v. FERC { 1 990) , commonly referred to as the Rock Creek Decision, the
U.S. Supreme Court rejected California's argument that the Federal Power Act clause
required deference to state water law, as the Reclamation Act's did. The court pointed
out that the Federal Power Act had been construed in a number of cases to preempt
inconsistent state law, beginning Avith Flirst Iowa Hydroelectric Cooperative v. Federal
Power Commission (1946)

First Iowa involved a state law which required that water be returned to a river at
the first available point below the dam in order to receive a state permit. The project
licensed by the FPC did not do this. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Power Act's
reference to state law was merely a "savings clause" intended only to require
compensation if vested property rights are taken. In all other respects, the Federal Power
Act could supersede inconsistent state laws. The Court noted that Iowa law sought to

22 The Institutional Framework

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

regulate ". . .the very requirements of the project which the Congress has placed in the
discretion of the Federal Power Commission."

Thus, in California v. FERC, the court declined to interpret the Federal Power Act
in the same manner as the Reclamation Act. It distinguished between the two acts,
finding that the Federal Power Act envisioned a broader and more active federal over-
sight role than did the Reclamation law.

The Federal District Court case ofSayles Hydro Association v. Maughan (February
1993), reinforced this view by holding that federal law has "occupied the field," prevent-
ing any state regulation of federally licensed power projects other than determining
proprietary water rights. In Sayles, the SWRCB refused to issue a permit to the propo-
nents of a hydro project until they had completed numerous environmental reports and
studies. The proponents sought and received a declaratory judgment that no more
environmental reports were necessary because the Board did not have the authority to
impose environmental conditions in the permit beyond what was required in the al-
ready-issued FERC license.

Preemption of state law by terms and conditions in Federal Power Act licenses is
likely to remain a significant problem for water management in the western states. There
have been instances where holders of Federal Power Act licenses have claimed preemp-
tion from state safety of dams requirements, minimum stream flow requirements, and
state designation of wild and scenic streams.

Area of Origin Statutes

During the years when California's two largest water projects, the Central Valley
Project and State Water Project, were being developed, area of origin legislation was
enacted to protect local Northern California supplies from being depleted as a result of
the projects. County of origin statutes provide for the reservation of water supplies for
counties in which the water originates when. In the judgment of the State Water Re-
sources Control Board, an application for the assignment or release from priority of
State water right filings will deprive the county of water necessary for its present and
future development. Watershed protection statutes are provisions which require that
the construction and operation of elements of the Federal Central Valley Project and the
State Water Project not deprive the watershed, or area where water originates, or
immediately adjacent areas which can be conveniently supplied with water, of the prior
right to water reasonably required to supply the present or future beneficial needs of the
watershed area or any of its inhabitants or property owners.

The Delta Protection Act, enacted In 1959 (not to be confused with the Delta
Protection Act of 1992, which relates to land use), declares that the maintenance of an
adequate water supply in the Delta — to maintain and expand agriculture, industry,
urban, and recreational development in the Delta area and provide a common source
of fresh water for export to areas of water deficiency — is necessary for the peace, health,
safety, and welfare of the people of the State, subject to the County of Origin and
Watershed Protection laws. The act requires the State Water Project and the federal CVP
to provide an adequate water supply for water users in the Delta through salinity control
or through substitute supplies in lieu of salinity control.

In 1 984, additional area of origin protections were enacted covering the Sacramen-
to, Mokelumne, Calaveras, and San Joaquin rivers; the combined Truckee, Carson, and
Walker rivers; and Mono Lake. The protections prohibit the export of ground water from
the combined Sacramento River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta basins, unless the
export Is in compliance with local ground water plans. Also, Water Code Section 1245

The Institutional Framework 23

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

i holds municipalities liable for economic damages resulting from their diversion of water

from a watershed.

The Current Regulatory and Legislative Framework

California's developed water supplies have become less reliable and more costly
for urban and agricultural users as State and federal regulations to protect the public
and its environment have increased. Environmental actions and regulations to protect
both water quality and fish and wildlife have had far reaching effects on water use and
management and involve several regulatory agencies. A few important examples are:

O Fish and Wildlife

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service enforce rules and
regulations under the federal Endangered Species Act.

California Department of Fish and Game enforces rules and regulations under the State
Endangered Species Act.

O Water Quality

State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards enforce rules
and regulations under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

Federal Environmental Protection Agency has delegated primary water quality control and
enforcement authority under the Clean Water Act to the SWRCB and its regional boards.

Regulatory actions, in combination with costs of compliance, have brought
California's water development close to a standstill for nearly 1 5 years. During this time,
water resource managers have implemented a number of strategies to help Californians
become more efficient in their water use, thus stretching existing supplies. But Califor-
nia's increased demand for water to meet the needs of a growing population and to
protect the environment all point to the necessity of addressing the problems and
moving forward with cost effective and environmentally sound water supply develop-
ment combined with more efficient water management.

Many of the current issues regarding the storage, allocation, distribution, and use
of water in California involve environmental concerns. Environmental laws are inextric-
ably intertwined in all of the State's major water supply programs, and environmental
concerns play a major role in water policy and planning. Following is a summary of the
majorenvironmentallawsinfluencingwatersupplyfacilityplanning, construction, and
operation.

Protection of Fish and Wildlife

Endangered Species Act. Under the federal ESA, an endangered species is one
that is in danger of extinction in all or a significant part of its range, and a threatened
species is one that is likely to become endangered in the near future. The ESA is designed
to preserve endangered and threatened species by protecting individuals of the species
and their habitat and by implementing measures that promote their recovery.

The ESA sets forth a procedure for listing species as threatened or endangered.
Final listing decisions are made by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or the
National Marine Fisheries Service. Presently over 650 species have been listed in the
United States, of which 110 are native to California — the largest number in any state.

Once a species is listed. Section 7 of the act requires that federal agencies, in
consultation with the U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service ,
ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of the species or

24 The Institutional Framework

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

habitat critical for the survival of that species. The federal wildlife agencies are required
to provide an opinion as to whether the federal action would jeopardize the species. The
opinion must include reasonable and prudent alternatives to the action that would avoid
jeopardizing the species' existence. Federal actions subject to Section 7 include issuance
of federal permits such as the dredge and fill permit required under Section 404 of the
federal Clean Water Act, which requires that the project proponent demonstrate that
there is no feasible alternative consistent with the project goals that would not affect
listed species. Mitigation of the proposed project is not considered until this hurdle is
passed.

State agencies and private parties are also subject to the ESA. Section 9 of the ESA
prohibits the "take" of endangered species and threatened species for which protective
regulations have been adopted. Take has been broadly defined to include actions that
harm or harass listed species or that cause a significant loss of their habitat. State
agencies and private parties are generally required to obtain a permit from the USFWS
or NMFS under Section 1 0(a) of the ESA before carrying out activities that may inciden-
tally result in the take of listed species. The permit normally contains conditions to avoid
take of listed species and to compensate for habitat adversely impacted by the activities.

The ESA has been interpreted to apply not just to new projects, but also to ongoing
project operation and maintenance. For example, maintenance activities along the
California Aqueduct right-of-way may impact the San Joaquin kit fox, the blunt-nose
leopard lizard, and the Tipton kangaroo rat, all species that have been listed as endan-
gered. DWR initiated the Section 10(a) process to obtciln a permit for the incidental take
of species resulting from maintenance activities along the California Aqueduct despite
measures DWR takes to reduce or eliminate take. Another example is federal. State, and
local operations in the Delta and upstream Sacramento River that are affected by
biologiccd opinions to protect the winter-run salmon and the Delta smelt.

Calif ornia Endangered Species Act. The California Endangered Species Act is
similar to the federal ESA and must be complied with in addition to the federal ESA.
Listing decisions are made by the California Fish and Game Commission.

All state lead agencies are required to consult with the Department of Fish and
Game about projects that impact State listed species. DFG is required to render an
opinion as to whether the proposed project jeopardizes a listed species and to offer
alternatives toavoidjeopardy.Stateagenciesmustadoptreasonablealternativesunless
there are overriding social or economic conditions that make such alternatives infeasi-
ble.

Many California species are both federally listed and State listed. CESA directs
DFG to coordinate with the USFWS and NMFS in the consultation process so that
consistent and compatible opinions or findings can be adopted by both federal and State
agencies.

Natural Community Conservation Planning. Adopted in 1991, California's
Natural Community Conservation Planning Act establishes a program to identify the
habitat needs of species before they become listed as threatened or endangered, and to
develop appropriate voluntary conservation methods compatible with development and
growth. This program is designed to preserve habitat for the variety of species that are
dependent upon each other. Participants in the program develop plans to protect certain
habitat and will ultimately enter into agreements with DFG to ensure that the plans v»^ll
be carried out. Plans must be created so that they are consistent with endangered
species laws. A pilot program has been established in Riverside, Orange, and San
Bernardino counties for the Coastal Sage Scrub, which exists in a habitat that has been

The Institutional Framework 25

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

diminishing. A number of endangered species, including the gnatcatcher, depend on
this habitat. The Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior has endorsed this
process, which may evolve into the approach of the future. Participation in these plans
is not mandatory.

The Natural Conservation Planning Act is likely to play an important role in water
development in the future . Water suppliers may participate in plans for habitat impacted
directly by new water projects and indirectly in the areas that receive water supplies.

Dredge and Fill Permits. Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act regulates
the discharge of dredged and fill materials into waters of the United States, including
wetlands. The term "discharge of dredged and fill material" has been defined broadly to
include the building of any structure involving rock, sand, dirt, or other construction
material. No discharge may occur unless a permit is obtained from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. Generally, the project proponent must agree to mitigate or have plans to
mitigate environmental impacts caused by the project before a permit is issued. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to veto permits issued by the Corps
for projects that have unacceptable adverse effects on municipal water supplies, fish-
eries, wildlife, or recreational areas.

Section 404 permits the issuance of a general permit on a State, regional, or
nationwide basis for certain categories of activities that will cause only minimal environ-
mental effects. Such activities are permitted without the need of an individual permit
application. Installation of a stream gauging station along a river levee is one example
of an activity which falls within a nationwide permit.

TTie Corps also administers a permitting program under Section 10 of the 1899
Rivers and Hcirbors Act. Section 10 generally requires a permit for obstructions to
navigable water. The scope of the p>ermit under Section 10 is narrower than under
Section 404 since the term "navigable waters" is more limited than "waters of the United
States."

The majority of water development projects must comply with Section 404, Section
10, or both. For example, proposed facilities such as Los Banos Grandes and Phase II
of the Coastal Branch for the SWP and Los Vaqueros for the Contra Costa Water District,
as well as activities within Delta channels, are subject to 404 jurisdiction and regulation.

Public Interest Terms and Conditions. The Water Code authorizes the SWRCB
to impose public interest terms and conditions to conserve the public interest, specifi-
cally the consideration of instream beneficial uses, when it issues permits to appropriate
water. It also considers environmental impacts of approving water transfers under its
jurisdiction. Frequently, it reserves jurisdiction to consider new instream uses and to
modify permits accordingly. D-1485 fish and wildlife conditions that regulate CVP and
SWP Delta operations were imposed under a reservation of SWRCB's jurisdiction.

Releases of Water for Fish. Fish and Game Code Section 5937 provides protec-
tion to fisheries by requiring that the owner of any dam allow sufficient water at all times
to pass through the dam to keep in good condition any fisheries that may be planted
or exist below the dam. In California Trout Inc. v. the State Water Resources Control
Board (1989), the court determined that Fish and Game Code sections 5937 and 5946
require the SWRCB to modify the permits and licenses issued to the City of Los Angeles
to appropriate water from the streams feeding Mono Lake to ensure sufficient water
flows for fisheries purposes. In a subsequent case, the court of appeal ordered the
Superior Court to set interim flow standards for the four streams feeding Mono Lake and
from which the City diverts. The Alpine County Superior Court entered a preliminary

26 The Institutional Framework

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

injunction prohibiting Los Angeles from diverting water whenever the Mono Lake level
falls below 6,377 feet.

Streambed Alteration Agreements. Fish and Game Code Sections 1601 and
1603 require that any governmental entity or private party altering a river, stream, or
lake bed, bottom or channel enter into an agreement with the Department of Fish and
Game. Where the project may substantially impact an existing fish or wildlife resource,
DFG may require that the agreement include provisions designed to protect riparian
habitat, fisheries, and wildlife. New water development projects and on-going mainte-
nance activities are often subject to these sections.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This act implements various treaties for the protec-
tion of migratory birds and prohibits the "taking" (broadly defined) of birds protected by
those treaties without a permit. The Secretary of the Interior is directed to determine
conditions under which a taking may occur, and criminal penalties are provided for
unlawful taking or transportation of birds. Liability imposed by this act was one of
several factors leading to the decision to close the Kesterson Wildlife Refuge. (See the
discussion of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program under Management Programs
in this chapter.)

Environmental Review and Mitigation

Another set of environmental statutes compels governmental agencies and private
individuals to document and consider environmental consequences of their actions.
They define the procedures through which governmental agencies consider environ-
mental factors in their decision-making process.

National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA directs federal agencies to prepare
an environmental impact statement for all major federal actions which may have a
significant effect on the human environment. It states that it is the goal of the federal
government to use all practicable means , consistent with other considerations of nation-
al policy, to protect and enhance the quality of the environment. It is a procedural law
requiring all federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their proposed
actions during the planning and decision-making processes. The content of an EIS is
very similar to that required by the California Environmental Quality Act for a State
environmental impact report.

California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA, modeled after NEPA, requires
California public agency decision makers to document and consider the environmental
impacts of their actions. It requires an agency to identify ways to avoid or reduce
environmental damage and to implement those measures where feasible. It also serves
as a means to encourage public participation in the decision-making process. CEQA
applies to all levels of California government, including the State, counties, cities, and
local districts.

CEQA requires that a public agency carrying out a proj ect with significant environ-
mental effects prepare an environmental impact report. An EIR contains a description
of the project; a discussion of the project's environmental impacts, mitigation measures,
and alternatives; public comments; and the agency's responses to the comments. In
other instances, a notice of exemption from the application of CEQA may also be
appropriate.

NEPA does not generally require federal agencies to adopt mitigation measures or
alternatives provided in the EIS. CEQA. on the other hand, does impose substantive
duties on all California governmental agencies approving projects with significant envi-
ronmental impacts to adopt feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that

The Institutional Framework 27

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

substantially lessen these impacts, unless there are overriding reasons why they can-
not. When a project is subject to both CEQA and NEPA, both laws encourage the
agencies to cooperate in planning the project and to prepare joint environmental docu-
ments.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and
related acts express the policy of Congress to protect the quality of the aquatic environ-
ment as it affects the conservation, improvement, and enjoyment of fish and wildlife
resources. Under this act, any federal agency that proposes to control or modify any
body of water, or to issue a permit allowing control or modification of a body of water,
must first consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State Fish and Game
officials. This requires coordination early in the project planning and environmental
review processes.

Protection of Wild and Natural Areas

Water use and management are also limited by several statutes designed to set
aside resources or areas to preserve their natural conditions. This precludes certain
activities, including most water development projects, within the areas set aside.

Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers System. In 1968, Congress passed the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to preserve in their free-flowing condition rivers which
possess "outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, his-
toric, cultural, or other similar values." The act also states: "... that the established
national policy of dam and other construction at appropriate sections of rivers of the
United States needs to be complemented by a policy that would preserve other selected
rivers or sections thereof in their free-flowing condition to protect the water quality of
such rivers and to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes."

The act prohibits federal agencies from constructing, authorizing, or funding the
construction of water resources projects having a direct and adverse effect on the values
for which the river was designated. This restriction also applies to rivers designated for
potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. California rivers
included in the system include portions of the Middle Fork Feather, North Fork Ameri-
can, Tuolumne, Merced, Kings, North Fork Kern, South Fork Kern, Smith, Sisquoc, and
Big Sur Rivers, and Sespe Creek (Figure 2- 1 ) . Also included in the system are most rivers
protected under the State Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; these rivers were included in the
national system upon California's petition on January 19, 198 1 . The West Walker and
East Fork Carson rivers are not included in the federal system.

California Wild and Scenic Rivers System. In 1972, the California legislature
passed the State Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, declaring that specified rivers possess
extraordinary scenic, recreational, fishery, or wildlife values that should be preserved
in a free-flowing state for the benefit of the people of California. It declared that such
use of the rivers would be the highest and most beneficial use within the meaning of
Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution. The act prohibits construction of any
dam, reservoir, diversion, orotherwaterimpoundmentonadesignated river. Diversions
needed to supply domestic water to residents of counties through which the river flows
may be authorized, if the Secretary of the Resources Agency determines that the diver-
sion will not adversely affect the river's free-flowing character. The State system includes
portions of the Klamath, Scott, Salmon, Trinity, Smith, Eel. Van Duzen, American. West
Walker, and East Fork Carson rivers. While not technically a part of the system, similar
protection also extends to portions of the McCloud River.

The major difference between the national and State acts is that if a river is
designated wild and scenic under the State act. the Federal Energy Regulatory Commis-

28 The Institutional Framework

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Figure 2-1. Wild and Scenic Rivers in California

LEGEND

Federal Designation
State Designation Only

The Institutional Framework

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

sion can still issue a license to build a dam on that river, thus overriding the state
* system. (See Federal Power Act discussion above.) This difference explains why national

wild and scenic designation often is sought.

Wild Trout Streams. The California Fish and Game Code designates certain
sections of streams and rivers as "wild trout waters. "The Trout and Steelhead Conserva-
tion and Management Planning Act of 1979 directs the Department of Fish and Game
to inventory all California trout streams and lakes and determine whether each should
be managed as a wild trout fishery or involve the planting of trout. The objective of the
legislation is to establish and maintain wild trout stocks in suitable waters of the State
and establish angling regulations designed to maintain the wild trout fishery by natural
reproduction. The legislature further directed that part of the wild trout program be
devoted to developing catch and release fisheries. The Fish and Game Commission has
designated 26 streams as "wild trout waters," and adopted a policy pursuant to Fish and
Game Code Section 703 that "[a]ll necessary actions, consistent with state law, shall be
taken to prevent adverse impact by land or water development projects on designated
wild trout waters."

National Wilderness Act. The Wilderness Act sets up a system to protect federal
land designated by Congress as a "wilderness area" and preserve it in its natural
condition. Wilderness is defined as undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval
character and influence without permanent improvements or human habitation. Com-
mercial enterprise, permanent roads, motor vehicles, aircraft landings, motorized
equipment, or construction of structures or installations are prohibited within desig-
nated wilderness areas.

Water Quality Protection

Another important consideration in water resource management is water quality.
The State Water Resources Control Board plays a central role in both determining water
rights and regulating water quality. Discussed below are key State and federal laws
governing water quality.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

This act is California's comprehensive water quality control law and is a complete
regulatory program designed to protect water quality and beneficial uses of the State's
water. The act requires the adoption of water quality control plans by the state's nine
Regional Water Quality Control Boards for areas within their regions. These plans are
subject to the approval of the State Water Resources Control Board, and ultimately the
federal EPA. The plans are to be continually reviewed and updated.

The primary method of implementing the plans is to require each discharger of
waste that could impact the waters of the State to meet formal waste discharge require-
ments . Anyone discharging waste or proposing to discharge waste into the State's water
must file a "report of waste discharge" with the Regional Water Quality Control Board
within whose jurisdiction the discharge lies. Dischargers are subject to a wide variety
of administrative, civil, and criminal actions for failing to file a report. After the report
is filed, the regional board may issue waste discharge requirements that set conditions
on the discharge. The waste discharge requirements must be consistent with the water
quality control plan for the body of water and protect the beneficial uses of the receiving
waters. The regional boards also implement Section 402 of the federal Clean Water Act,
which allows the State to issue a single discharge permit for the purposes of both State
and federal law.

30 The Institutional Framework

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

National Pollutant Disctiarge Elimination System

Section 402 of the Clean Water Act established a permit system known as the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System to regulate point sources of dis-
charges in navigable waters of the United States. The EPA was given the authority to
implement the NPDES, although the act also authorizes states to implement the act in
lieu of the EPA, provided the state has sufficient authority.

In 1972, the California Legislature passed a law amending the Porter-Cologne Act
which gave California the authority and ability to operate the NPDES permits program.
Before a permit may be issued. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the
Regional Water Quality Control Board certify that the discharge will comply with appli-
cable water quality standards. After making the certification, the regional board may
issue the permit satisfying both State and federal law. The State Water Resources
Control Board is currently reviewing the activities subject to nationwide permits to
determine if they qualify for water quality certification.

In 1 987, Section 402 was amended to require the regulation of storm water runoff
under the NPDES, despite the fact that it comes from a large variety of sources which
the EPA in the past claimed were too diffuse to be controlled. The EPA and the State
Board have adopted some regulations and general permits for certain categories of
storm water discharges, but regulations covering all sources have not yet been ap-
proved.

Drinking Water Quality

The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, enacted in 1 974 and significantly amended
in 1986, directed the Environmental Protection Agency to set national standards for
drinking water quality. It required the EPA to set maximum contaminant levels for a
wide variety of contaminants by establishing maximum allowable concentrations in
drinking water supplies. The local water suppliers were given the responsibility to
monitor their public water supplies to assure that MCLs were not exceeded and report
to the consumers if they were.

The 1986 amendments set a time table for the EPA to establish standards for
specific contaminants and Increased the range of contaminants local water suppliers

Point-Source Versus Nonpoint-Source Pollution

A permit system prohibiting point-source discharges of pollutants may not be
effective as the sole method of implementing water quality control plans. The clas-
sic example of this occurs in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta where a major wa-
ter quality problem is the intrusion of salt water from the San Francisco Bay. When
flows from rivers feeding into the Delta are reduced, whether naturally or by up-
stream diversions, salt water from the bay intrudes into the Delta. High salinities can
cause problems for agricultural, municipal and industrial diverters in the Delta; for
fish, wildlife, and their habitat; and for water quality at the CVP and SWP pumps in
the southern Delta.

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act requires SWRCB to "establish
such water quality objectives. . . as in its judgment will ensure the reasonable
protection of beneficial uses " Beneficial uses include domestic, municipal, agri-
cultural and industrial supply; power generation; recreation, aesthetic enjoyment;
navigation; and preservation and enhancement offish, wildlife, and other aquatic
resources or preserves. Establishing water quality objectives for the Delta and de-
termining how to implement them is a major ongoing water management issue In
California.

The Institutional Framework 31

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

were required to monitor to include contaminants that did not yet have an MCL estab-
* lished. They also strengthened enforcement authority, required filtration and

disinfection of surface supplies not adequately protected, banned future use of lead pipe
and lead solder, and required the EPA to evaluate monitoring methods for deep-well
injection waste-disposal sites. They included a wellhead protection program, a grant
program for designating sole-source aquifers for special protection, and grant programs
and technical and financial assistance to small systems and states.

In 1976, California enacted its own Safe Drinking Water Act requiring the State
Department of Health Services to administer laws relating to drinking water regulation,
including: setting and enforcing both federal and State drinking water standards, ad-
ministering water quality testing programs, and administering permits for public water
system operations. The federal Safe Drinking Water Act permits the State to enforce its
own standards in lieu of the federal standards so long as they are at least as protective
as the federal standards . Significant amendments to the State's act in 1 989 incorporated
the new federal safe drinking water act requirements into California law, gave DHS
discretion to set more stringent MCLs, and recommended public health levels for
contaminants. DHS was authorized to take the technical and economic feasibility of
reducing contaminants into account in setting MCLs. The standards established by
DHS are found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22.

California voters have also passed a series of bond laws to finance grants and
low-interest loans to local water suppliers to bring domestic water systems up to
drinking water standards. These grant and loan programs are jointly administered by
DWR and DHS Office of Public Drinking Water.

San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

Any discussion of California water policy in the 1 990s must include a discussion
of issues involved in the Delta because almost all developing areas of law, as well as the
CVP and SWP operations, are inextricably intertwined ki this complex set of issues. A
discussion of Delta issues can provide an interesting example of how a great deal of the
institutional framework already discussed in this chapter interrelates. Delta issues
include water quality, threatened and endangered species such as winter-run salmon
and Delta smelt, water rights, the public trust doctrine, and operation of California's two
major water projects.

State Water Project and Federal Central Valley Project

The California Central Valley Project Act was approved by the voters in a referen-
dum in 1933, which authorized construction of the Central Valley Project. The State was
unable to construct the project at that time because of the Great Depression; portions
of the CVP were subsequently authorized and constructed by the United States. Other
portions of it were constructed by the State after the Depression as part of the State
Water Project, as authorized in 1960 under the Burns-Porter Act. Principal facilities of
the State Water Project include Oroville Dam, Delta Facilities, the California Aqueduct,
and North and South Bay Aqueducts. Principal facilities of the federal CVP include
Shasta, Trinity, Folsom, Friant, Clair Engle, Whiskej^town, and New Melones dams.
Delta facilities, and the Delta Mendota Canal. Joint SWP/CVP facilities include San Luis
Reservoir and Canal and various Delta facilities. Specific laws authorizing construction
of elemients of both the State and federal projects are listed in Appendix A.

The SWRCB issued the first water rights permits to the USBR for operation of the
CVP in 1958, and to DWR for operation of the SWP in 1967. Key features of these water
rights permits were the ability to divert water from the Delta and send it west to the San

32 The Institutional Framework

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Francisco Bay area and south to San Joaquin Valley farms and Southern California
urban areas. In these and all succeeding permits issued for the CVP and SWP. the
SWRCB reserved jurisdiction to formulate or revise terms and conditions relative to
salinity control, effect on vested rights, and fish and wildlife protection in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Board has a dual role of both issuing water rights
permits and regulating water quality.

Decision 1485

On April 29, 1 976, the Board initiated proceedings leading to the adoption ofWater
Right Decision 1485 in 1978. Decision 1485 set forth conditions — including water
quality standards, export limitations, and minimum flow rates — for SWP and CVP
operations in the Delta and superseded all previous water rights decisions for the SWP
and CVP operations in the Delta. Among beneficial uses to be protected by the decision
were ( 1 ) municipal and industrial water supply, (2) agriculture, and (3) fish and wildlife.
Decision 1485 established flow and water quality standards to protect these beneficial
uses.

In formulating Decision 1485, the SWRCB asserted that Delta water quality
should be at least as good as it would have been if the SWP and CVP had not been
constructed. In other words, both the SWP and the CVP were to be operated to meet
"without project" conditions. Decision 1485 standards included different levels of
protection to reflect variations in hydrologic conditions during different tjrpes of water
years.

To help implement these water quality standards. Decision 1485 also mandated
an extensive monitoring program. It also called for special studies to provide critical data
about major concerns in the Delta and Suisun Marsh for which information was insuffi-
cient. Decision 1485 included water quality standards for Suisun Marsh, as well as for
the Delta, requiring DWR and the USER to develop a plan for the marsh that would
ensure meeting long-term standards for full protection by October 1 984, later extended
to October 1988.

Recognizing that the complexities of project operations and water quality condi-
tions would change over time, the SWRCB also specified that the Delta water right
hearings would be reopened within ten years of the date of adoption of Decision 1485,
depending upon changing conditions in the Bay-Delta region and the availability of new
evidence on beneficial uses of water.

Racanelli Decision

Lawsuits by various interests challenged Decision 1485, and the decision was
overturned by the trial court in 1984. Unlike its predecessor, D-1379, whose standards
had been judicially stayed, D-1485 remained in effect. In 1986, the appellate court in
the Racanelli Decision (named after Judge Racanelli who wrote the opinion) broadly
interpreted the SWRCB's authority and obligation to establish water quality objectives
and its authority to set water rights permit terms and conditions that provide reasonable
protection of beneficial uses of Delta water and of San Francisco Bay. The court stated
that SWRCB needed to separate its water quality planning and water rights functions.
SWRCB needs to maintain a "global perspective" in identifying beneficial uses to be
protected (not limited to water rights) and in allocating responsibility for implementing
water quality objectives (not just to the SWP and CVP, nor only through the Board's own
water rights processes) . The court recognized the SWRCB's authority to look to all water
rights holders to implement water quality standards and advised the Board to consider
the effects of all Delta and upstream water users in setting and implementing water
quality standards in the Delta, as well as those of the SWP and the CVP.

The Institutional Framework 33

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Coordinated Operation Agreement

Later in 1986. DWR and the USBR signed the landmark Coordinated Operation
Agreement obligating the CVP and the SWP to coordinate their operations to meet
Decision 1 485 standards, in order to address overlapping concerns and interests in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The agreement authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
to operate the CVP in conjunction with the SWP to meet State water quality standards
for the San Francisco Bay and the Delta (unless the Secretary determines such operation
to be inconsistent with Congressional directives) . and provides a formula for sharing the
obligation to provide water to meet water quality standards and other in-basin uses. It
sets forth the basis upon which the CVP and the SWP will be operated to ensure that
each project receives an equitable share of the Central Valley's available water and
guarantees that the two systems will operate more efficiently during periods of drought
than they would were they operated independently of one another. Under the COA, the
USBR also agreed to meet future water quality standards established by the SWRCB
unless the Secretary of the Interior determines that the standards are inconsistent with
Congressional intent.

SWRCB Bay-Delta Proceedings

Hearings to adopt a water quality control plan and water rights decision for the
Bay-Delta estuary began in Jufy 1987. TTieir purpose was to develop a San Francisco
Bay /Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta water quality control plan and to consider public
interest issues related to Delta water rights, including implementation of water quality
objectives. During the first phase of the proceedings. State and federal agencies, includ-
ing DWR public interest groups, and agricultural and urban water purveyors provided
many expert witnesses to testify on a variety of issues pertaining to the reasonable and
beneficial uses of the estuary's water. This phase took place over six months, and
generated volumes of transcripts and exhibits.

The SWRCB released a draft Water Quality Control Plan for Salinity and Pollutant
Policy Document in November 1988. However, the draft water quality control plan, a
significant departure from the 1 978 plan, generated considerable controversy through-
out the State. The Pollutant Policy Document was subsequently adopted in June 1990.

In January 1989, the SWRCB decided to significantty amend the draft plan and
redesign the hearing process. The water quality phase was to continue, an additional
scoping phase would follow, and issues related to flow were to be addressed in the final
water rights phase. Concurrentfy, DWR and other agencies offered to hold a series of
workshops to address the technical concerns raised by the draft plan. TTiese workshops
were open to the public and benefited all parties involved by facilitating a thorough
discussion of technical issues. After many workshops and revisions to the water quality
control plan, the SWRCB adopted a final plan in May 1 99 1 . The federal EPA rejected this
plan in September 1991.

With the adoption of the Water Quality Control Plan, the SWRCB began the EIR
scoping phase and held several workshops during 199 1 to receive testimony regarding
planning activities, facilities development, negotiated settlements, and flow objectives.
Tlie goal was to adopt an EIR and a water right decision by the end of 1992.

In response to the Governor's April 1992 water policy statement, SWRCB decided
to proceed with a process to establish interim Bay-Delta standards to provide immediate
protection for fish and wildlife. Water right hcculngs were conducted from July through
August 1992. and draft interim standards (proposed Water Right Decision 1630) were
released for public review in December 1992. Concurrently, under the broad authority

34 The Institutional Framework

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

of the Endangered Species Act. the federal regulatory process was proceeding toward
development of Delta standards and upstream measures applicable to the CVPand SWP
for the protection of the threatened winter-run chinook salmon. In February 1993. the
National Marine Fisheries Service issued a long-term biological opinion governing op-
erations of the CVP and SWP with Delta environmental regulations that in certain
months were more restrictive than SWRCB's proposed measures. On March 1. 1993,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officially listed the Delta smelt as a threatened species
and shortly thereafter indicated that further restrictions of CVP and SWP operations
would be required.

In April 1 993, the Governor asked the SWRCB to withdraw its proposed Decision
1630 and instead, to focus efforts on establishing permanent standards for protection
of the Delta since recent federal actions had effectively pre-empted State interim stan-
dards and provided interim protection forthe Bay-Delta environment. On December 1 5,
1993. EPA announced its proposed standards for the estuary in place of SWRCB water
quality standards EPA had rejected in 1991; USFWS proposed to list the Sacramento
splittail as a threatened species; and NMFS announced its decision to change the status
of winter-run salmon from threatened to endangered.

In April 1994, the SWRCB began a series of workshops to review Delta protection
standards adopted in its 1991 Water Quality Control Plan for Salinity and to examine
proposed federal EPA standards issued in December 1993. These processes seek to
involve both SWRCB and EPA and are intended to establish a mutually acceptable draft
SWRCB Delta regulatory plan scheduled for release in December 1994. The plan will be
developed in accordance with the Triennial Review requirements of the Clean Water Act.

The California Water Policy Council, created to coordinate activities related to the
State's long-term water policy, and the Federal Ecosystem Directorate (sometimes
referred to as "Club Fed"), comprising representatives from the EPA. NMFS, USFWS,
and the USBR, have developed and signed a framework agreement for the Bay-Delta
Estuary. The agreement provides for improved coordination and communication among
State and federal agencies with resource management responsibilities in the estuary.
It covers the water quality standards setting process; coordinates water supply project
operations with requirements of water quality standards, endangered species laws, and
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act; and provides for cooperation in planning
and developing long-term solutions to the problems affecting the estuary's major public
values.

Coordination of State-federal resource management and long-range planning in
the Bay-Delta Estuary is necessary to promote regulatory consistency and stability and
to address the estuary's environmental problems in a manner that minimizes the costs
to the State in water for urban and agricultural uses and in dollars.

Fish Protection Agreement

To mitigate fish losses at Delta export facilities, both the SWP and the CVP have
entered into agreements with DFG. The SWP's Harvey O. Banks Delta Pumping Plant
lies at the head of the California Aqueduct near the City of Tracy. When the plant was
initially constructed, seven of the eleven pumping units planned were installed. The
remaining four units were only recently installed to provide more operational flexibility.

During the environmental review process for installation of the remaining four
pumps, DFG and DWR began negotiating an agreement for the preservation of fish
potentially affected by the operation of the pumps. A unique aspect in the development
of this agreement was the assistance provided by an advisory group made up of repre-

The Institutional Framework 35

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

. sentatives from United Anglers, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's

Associations, the Planning and Conservation League, and the State Water Contractors.

The Fish Protection Agreement was signed by the directors of the two departments
in December 1986 and identifies the steps needed to offset adverse fishery impacts of
the Banks Pumping Plant. It sets up a procedure to calculate direct fishery losses
annually and requires DWR to pay for mitigation projects that would offset the losses.
Losses of striped bass, chinook salmon, and steelhead are to be mitigated first. Mitiga-
tion of other species is to follow as impacts are identified and appropriate mitigation
measures found. In recognition of the fact that direct losses today would probably be
greater if fish populations had not been depleted by past operations, DWR also provided
$15 million to initiate a program to increase the probability of quickly demonstrated
results.

Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement

Decision 1485 ordered USBR and DWR to develop a plan to protect the Suisun
Marsh. The Suisun Marsh consists of a 55,000-acre managed wetland area in southern
Solano County, just beyond the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers.
One of the largest contiguous brackish water marshes in the United States, the Suisun
Marsh is a unique and irreplaceable resource for migratory waterfowl. During the fall
and winter, waterfowl traveling along the Pacific Flj^way depend on the marsh as a
feeding and resting area. An adequate supply of water is essential to maintain the health
of the marsh. Upstream water diversions have reduced the Delta outflows that maintain
the water quality required by the marsh ecosystem.

The Suisun Marsh Preservation and Restoration Act of 1979 authorized the
Secretary of the Interior to enter into a Suisun Marsh cooperative agreement with the
State of California to protect the marsh, and specified the federal share of costs for
facilities. The plan was subsequently developed by DWR and other interested parties,
and the initial facilities were completed in 1981. A salinity control structure on
Montezuma Slough, consisting of radial gates and a boat lock, was completed in 1989.
Negotiations among the Suisun Resource Conservation District, DFG, DWR, and USBR
resulted in an agreement that would moderate the adverse effects of the SWP, CVP, and
other upstream diversions on the water quality in the marsh. The agreement, along with
amonitoringagreementandamitigationagreement, approved in March 1987, describes
proposed facilities to be constructed , a construction schedule , cost-sharing responsibi-
lities of the State and federal governments, water quality standards, soil salinity, water
quality monitoring, and purchase of land to mitigate the impacts of the Suisun Marsh
facilities themselves.

A significant feature of the agreement is the schedule and sequence of construc-
tion for the facilities of the Plan of Protection which provides for test periods during
which the effectiveness of the constructed facilities is to be evaluated. Assessments will
then be made to determine whether additional facilities will be needed to meet the water
quality standards of the agreement.

Surface Water Management

The following sections are brief descriptions of major statutes affecting surface
water management in California.

Regional Water Projects

The statutes authorizing the major regional water projects in California are listed
in Appendix A and include: the Hetch Hetchy Project, which supplies Tuolumne River

36 The Institutional Framework

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

water to the City and County of San Francisco and other Bay Area cities: the Colorado
River Aqueduct, which supplies water from the Colorado River to serve several major
urban areas in Southern California; the Lx)s Angeles Aqueduct, which delivers water
from the Owens Valley to the City of Los Angeles: and the Mokelumne River Aqueduct
operated by the East Bay Municipal Utility District, which transports Sierra Nevada
water from Pardee Reservoir to eastern San Francisco Bay cities. These projects are more
fully described in Chapter 3, Surface Water Supplies.

Besides the major regional projects, there are over 40 different statutes under
which local agencies may be organized and have, among their powers, the authority to
distribute water. In addition, there are a number of special act districts, such as the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. DWR Bulletin 155-94, General
Comparison ofWater District Acts (March 1989), presents a comparison of various water
district acts in California.

Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992

On October 30. 1992, the President signed PL 102-575 into law. Title XXXIV of
which is the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. The act is the first major piece of
legislation to deal with the Central Valley Project since the Reclamation Reform Act of
1982, which made major reforms to acreage limitations and subsidies. The act makes
significant changes to the management of this federal reclamation project, and creates
a complex set of new programs and requirements applicable to the project. The USBR
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as directed by the Secretary of the Interior, are
beginning to put into place the interim guidelines and procedures necessary to imple-
ment the act's provisions: however, it will take a number of years to complete all of the
specified actions called for in the legislation.

The act covers five primary areas: limitations on new and renewed CVP contracts,
. water conservation and other water management actions, water transfers, fish and
] wildlife restoration actions, and establishment of an environmental restoration fund.
With a few exceptions, new contracts for CVP water are prohibited until several require-
ments have been met, including completion of a programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement analyzing direct and indirect impacts and benefits of implementing the act,
j Including fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration and the potential renewal of the existing
CVP water contracts.

j Renewals of existing water service contracts are limited to a term of 25 years, and

1 contracts can only be renewed on an interim basis until environmental documentation
required by the act is completed. Specified water conservation provisions are to be added
to the renewed, amended, and new water service contracts. Project water can now be
transferred outside of the CVP service area on a willing seller /willing buyer basis,
subject to approval of the transfer by the Secretary of the Interior and a number of other
limiting conditions, some of which are discussed below in the Water Transfers section.

Implementation of environmental restoration measures is a major goal of the act.
which specifically reauthorizes the CVP to establish fish and wildlife mitigation, protec-
tion, and restoration on a par with domestic and irrigation uses of water, and
additionally places fish and wildlife enhancement on a par with hydro power generation.
The act requires that 800.000 af annually of project yield be dedicated to general fish
and wildlife, and habitat, purposes. It establishes a goal of doubling the natural produc-
tion of anadromous fish in Central Valley rivers and streams (except for part of the San
Joaquin River, which is treated separately) by 2002. The act further requires dedication
of additional water for Trinity River instream flows, and for wetlands habitat areas in
, the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys. The Secretary of the Interior is directed to

The Institutional Framework 37

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

undertake a number of physical measures to restore the fishery and habitat, such as
* construction of a temperature control device at Shasta Dam, and establishment offish

screening programs. The act requires that the Secretary enter into a cost-sharing
agreement with the State of California for some of these mandated restoration measures.
However, California's continuing budget difficulties make cost sharing problematic at
this time. Funding for the restoration measures also comes from increased payments
by CVP water and power users, from the federal treasury, and from a fee of $25 per
acre-foot levied on water transferred to non-CVP municipal and industrial water users.

Transfer of the CVP

As early as 1952, in a report titled Feasibility of State Ownership and Operation
of the Central Valley Project of California, the State recognized that State ownership of
the CVP would be in its best interests. Transfer of the CVP to the State of California is
one of the elements of the Governor's Long-Term Water Policy Framework for California.
The policy recognizes that transfer of the CVP to California will optimize operational
flexibility of the CVP and the SWP, and it could assure that California, rather than the
federal government, has the authority for planning and allocating the State's water
resources.

In March 1992, California's Governor and the federal Secretary of the Interior
designated representatives to negotiate the transfer of control of the CVP to the State.
Any such transfer will require: (1) authorizing legislation from Congress, (2) compliance
with NEPA, CEQA. and other applicable State and federal laws, and (3) negotiation of
detailed terms and conditions for the transfer. On December 14, 1992, the Governor and
the Secretary of the Interior signed a Memorandum of Agreement outlining the process
necessary to comply with NEPA and CEQA and for developing detailed terms and
conditions. In 1993, the negotiations were stopped as other events affecting the CVP
eclipsed this process.

Trends in Water Resource Management

Factors having major influence on water management and policy over the past six
years have been the 1987-1992 drought, expanding water needs due to growth and
increasing recognition of the need for instream water uses, endangered species consid-
erations, and the increasingdifficulty of developing new water supplies, due in large part
to environmental restrictions. In response to these problems, water managers are
paying added attention to using water transfers and emphasizing water conservation.
More attention is also being given to solving water management problems on a regional
basis.

Water Transfers

Many water resource managers view water transfers, with appropriate safeguards
against adverse environmental and third -party impacts, as an important tool for solving
some of California's water supply and allocation problems. In fact, water transfers have
occurred in California since Gold Rush days. There are generally fewer environmental
impacts associated with transfers than with construction of conventional projects, and
although difficult to implement, transfers can be implemented more quickly and usually
at less cost than construction of additional facilities.

Under existing law, holders of both pre-1914 and appropriative water rights can
transfer water. Holders of pre-1914 appropriative rights may transfer water without
seeking approval of SWRCB, provided no other legal user of water is injured. Holders
of appropriative rights may transfer water, but SWRCB must approve any transfer

38 The Institutional Framework

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

requiring a change in terms and conditions of the water right permit or license, such as
place of use, purpose of use, or point of diversion. Short-term (one year or less) tempo-

Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, 1993 CVP Operations

The 1 993-94 water year is the first year of dedicated water use for fish and wildlife
under the CVPIA (Title 34 of Public Law 102-575). Operations for 1993 dedicated
800,000 acre-feet, of which up to 400,000 is for the benefit of the Delta smelt. The 1 993
prescribed measures include the following;

Sacramento and American River Basins

□ At least an 8,000-cubic-foot-per-second pulse flow from Keswick Dam for a
five-day period in late April to assist downstream migration of juvenile fall-run
Chinook and help provide the pulse flow needed in the Delta for Delta smelt and
striped bass.

□ At least 4,000-cfs releases from Keswick Dam to the Sacramento River from
October through March, and at least 1,750 cfs from Nimbus Dam to the
American River from October through February. These are to eliminate flow
fluctuations for the spawning, incubation, and rearing of fall-run and late
fall-run chinook salmon and steelhead trout.

r) Close the Delta Cross Channel gates during May to reduce entrainment of
downstream migrating fall-run chinook salmon, striped bass eggs and larvae,
and other Delta species.

Stanislaus and San Joaquin River Basins

□ Two pulse flows from New Melones Reservoir of at least 1 ,500 cfs: ( 1 ) from April 24
to May 1 6 primarily to help move fall-run chinook salmon smolts downstream and
past the Delta pumps, secondarily to benefit Delta smelt; and (2) from May 20 to
June 2 primarily to aid Delta smelt, secondarily to benefit striped bass and fall-run
Chinook salmon.

□ A pulse flow of 1 ,000 to 2,000 cfs below New Melones Reservoir for a 7- to 14-day
period in fall 1993 to attract upstream migrating fall-run chinook salmon.

[^ A base flow release of at least 300 cfs from New Melones Reservoir to the Stanislaus

River from October through March to improve spawning and rearing conditions
for fall-run chinook salmon.

□ A carryover of 100,000 to 11 5,000 acre-feet in New Melones Reservoir beyond
spring of 1994 for improved water temperatures and as a contingency against
drought.

The Delta

□ No reverse flow in the western Delta in May and June, maximum reverse flow of
1 ,000 cfs in July, and maximum reverse flow of 2,000 cfs in August, December, and
January, specifically to benefit Delta smelt.

□ A springtime pulse flow of about 4,500 cfs on the San Joaquin River side of the
Delta . (Stanislaus River pulses and releases from other tributaries described above
should provide this flow.)

□ A pulse flow of at least 1 8,000 cfs from about April 20 to May 4 in the Sacramento
River side of the Delta at Freeport. (The Keswick Dam pulse described above
should contribute greatly to this.) From April 20 through May 30, the 14-day
running average flow at Freeport should be at least 13,000 cfs, with daily
minimums of at least 9,000 cfs.

G Base flows at Chipps Island between 14,000 and 7,700 cfs from May througti July.

□ Pumping reductions to 1 ,500 cfs (federal and State combined) from April 26 to
May 1 6 (during the San Joaquin River pulse flows). Increased pumping to 4,000 cfs
for the remainder of May, and 5,000 cfs for the month of June.

The prescribed Delta measures will benefit outmigrating salmonids,
striped bass, and Delta smelt, as well as other migratory and resident estua-
rine species.

The Institutional Framework 39

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

raiy transfers of water are exempt from compliance with CEQA, provided SWRCB
approval is obtained. SWRCB must find no injury to any other legal users of the water
and no unreasonable effect on fish, wildlife, or other instream beneficial uses. CEQA
compliance is required for long-term transfers. (See Table 2-1 for further details.)
Because of complex environmental problems in the Delta, SWRCB has announced it will
not approve long-term transfers that increase Delta pumping until completion of an
environmental evaluation of the cumulative impacts. In addition, permits from fish and
wildlife agencies may be required if a proposed transfer will affect threatened or endan-
gered species.

Water held pursuant to riparian rights is not transferable from place to place,
although downstream appropriators may contract with riparians to leave water in a
stream for potential downstream diversion. Water rights along an adjudicated stream
that prior to the adjudication would have been considered riparian may be transferred
subject to the terms of the court decree. Similarly, contractual water rights based upon
an exchange for riparian rights may be transferable subject to the terms of the exchange
contract. Transfers of ground water, and ground water substitution arrangements
whereby ground water is pumped as a substitute for transferred surface water, may be,
in some cases, subject to statutory restrictions designed to protect ground water basins
against long-term overdraft and to preserve local control of ground water management.
Underwater Code Section 1 707, SWRCB can authorize conversion of any existing water
right into an "instream appropriation" to benefit fish, wildlife, or other instream benefi-
cial use. The potential of this new code section is just beginning to be explored. If the

Transfer Type

Table 2-1. California Wafer Code Requirements for Water Transfers
Requirements

Water Code
Section

Environmental Comments
Actions

Temporary Urgency
Change (one year
or less)

1435

1 . Urgent need

2. No injury to vested rights

3. No unreasonable effect
on fish and wildlife

4. Use in public interest

5. Show diligence in
seeking the permit or
long-term change

Normal CEQA 1 . Petition must be filed with SWRCB

process 2. Change good for up to 1 80 days

3. Can be renewed

4. Board notice and action

Temporary Change 1 725-1 732 1 . If applicable, petitioner must

for Transfer (one have been diligent in petition-

year or less) ing for a permanent change

2. Involves only water consump-
tively used or stored

3. No injury to vested rights

4. No unreasonable effect on fish
or wildlife

Exempt from 1 . Permittee notifies SWRCB of

CEQA proposed change

2. SWRCB must moke findings

3. Hearing may be required

4. Effective 5 days after SWRCB
approval

5. Good for 1 year or less

Long-term Transfer
(more than one year)

1735

1 . No injury to vested rights

2. No unreasonable effect on
fish or wildlife

Normal CEQA 1 . Petition must be filed with SWRCB

process 2. SWRCB provides notice and

opportunity for hearing
3. Good for any period in excess of

1 year

The Institutional Framework

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

parties to a transfer intend to use facilities belonging to the SWP, CVP, or other entity
for transporting the water, permission must be sought from the owner of the facility.

Water obtained pursuant to a water supply contract is also potentially transfer-
able. However, most water supply contracts require the consent of the entity delivering
the water. Almost all types of water rights can also be transferred in California, but
typical transfers are structured so that water is transferred, while the original holder
retains the water right. Several statutes provide that transfers of water do not impair or
cause forfeiture of water rights.

As a result of conditions in California during the 1987-92 drought, transfers of
water between suppliers or users who could temporarily reduce their usage to areas with
water shortages have become more prevalent. Some of these transfers have been within
the context of a State Drought Water Bank first created by Governor Wilson in 1 99 1 and
administered by DWR. The water bank was designed to move water from areas of
greatest availability to areas of greatest need. There were three sources of water for the
1991 State Drought Water Bank: temporary surplus in reservoirs, surface supplies freed
up by the use of ground water, and surface supplies freed up by fallowing agricultural
lands. The 1992 State Drought Water Bank did not purchase surface supplies freed by
fallowing of agricultural lands. Transfers of water outside the State-sponsored Water
Bank have also become more prevalent, and many of these transfers involve DWR
because they require conveyance of the transferred water through SWP facilities.

In 1991, temporary changes to the law designed to facilitate the State Drought
Water Bank were enacted. These changes were made permanent in 1992. The law now
authorizes water suppliers (local public agencies and private water companies) to con-
tract with water users to reduce or eliminate water use for a specified period of time, and
to transfer the water to a State Drought Water Bank or other water suppliers and users.
It also provides that water proposed for transfer need not be surplus to requirements
within the supplier's service area and specifies that use for a transfer is a beneficial use.
Substitution of ground water from an overdrafted ground water basin for transferred
surface water is prohibited unless the water was previously recharged to the basin as
part of a ground water banking program. The amount of water made available by land

Water Transfer Criteria

In his water policy statement of April 6, 1992, the Governor stated that the following
five criteria must be met in developing a fair and effective water transfer policy.

Q Water transfers must be voluntary, and they must result in transfers

that are real, not paper water, Above all, water rights of sellers

must not be impaired.
O Water transfers must not harm fish and wildlife resources or their

habitats.
O There needs to be assurances that transfers will not cause

overdraft or degradation of ground water basins.

O Entities receiving transferred water should be required to show
that they are mai<ing efficient use of existing water supplies,
including carrying out urban Best Management Practices or
agricultural Efficient Water Management Practices.

O Water districts and agencies that hold water rights or contracts to
transferred water should have a strong role in deciding how
transfers are carried out. Impacts on the fiscal integrity of the
districts and on the economies of small agricultural communities
must be considered.

The Institutional Framework

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

^ fallowing is limited to 20 percent of the amount applied or stored by the water supplier

unless the supplier approves a larger amount at a hearing.

Although these changes do much to facilitate water transfers by water suppliers,
they do not address the issue of "user-initiated transfers" where the water user is not
the holder of the water right, but has a contractual entitlement to water from the water
supplier. There is much interest in developing legislation acceptable to suppliers, users,
and potential buyers, whereby users can initiate transfers subject to reasonable terms
and conditions imposed by suppliers to protect their legitimate interests and those of
other water users.

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 also contains provisions
intended to increase the use of water transfers by providing that all individuals and
districts receiving CVP water (including that under water right settlement and ex-
change contracts) may transfer it to any other entity for any project or purpose
recognized as a beneficial use under State law. The Secretary of the Interior must
approve all transfers. The affected district must approve any transfer involving over 20
percent of the CVP water subject to long-term contract with the district. Section 3405
(a) (1) also sets forth a number of conditions on the transfers, including conditions
designed to protect the CVP's ability to deliver contractually obligated water or meet
fish and wildlife obligations because of limitations in conveyance or pumping capacity.
The conditions also require transfers to be consistent with State law, including CEQA.
Transfers are deemed to be a beneficial use by the transferor, and are only permitted
if they will have no significant long-term adverse impact on ground water conditions
within the transferor district, and will have no unreasonable impact on the water
supply, operations, or financial conditions of the district.

Water Use Efficiency

Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution prohibits the waste, unreason-
able use, unreasonable method of use, or unreasonable method of diversion of water
It also declares that the conservation and use of water "shall be exercised with a view
to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the public interest and for the public
welfare." Although provisions and requirements of the Constitution are self executing,
the Constitution states that the Legislature may enact statutes in furtherance of its
policy. Water Code Section 275 directs the Department ofWater Resources and the State
Water Resources Control Board to "take all appropriate proceedings or actions before
executive, legislative, or judicial agencies to prevent waste or unreasonable use of
water. "SWRCB's Water Right Decision 1 600, directing the Imperial Irrigation District to
adopt a water conservation plan, is an example of an action brought under Article X.
Section 2. The board's authority to order preparation of such a plan was upheld in 1 990
by the courts in Imperial Irrigation District v. State Water Resources Control Board.

Urban Water Management Planning Act. Since 1985, this act has required
urban water suppliers serving more than 3,000 customers or more than 3,000 acre-feet
per year to prepare and modify urban water conservation plans. The act authorizes the
supplier to implement the water conservation program. The plans must contain a
number of specified elements, including: estimates of water use; identification of exist-
ing conservation measures; identification of alternative conservation measures; a
schedule of implementation of actions proposed by the plan; and, identification of the
frequency and magnitude of water shortages. In 1991, the act was amended in response
to the drought to require water suppliers to estimate water supplies available at the end
of one, two, and three years, and to develop contingency plans for severe shortages.

42 The Institutional Framework

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Water Conservation in LandscopinsrAct. The Water Conservation in Landscap-
ing Act required DWR, with the assistance of an advisory task force, to adopt a model
water efficient landscape ordinance. The model ordinance was adopted in August 1992,
and has been codified in Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations. It establishes
methods of conserving water through water budgeting plans, plant use, efficient irriga-
tion, auditing, and other methods.

Cities and counties were required to review the model ordinance and adopt a water
efficient landscape ordinance by January 1. 1993, if they had not done so already.
Alternatively, cities and counties could make a finding that such an ordinance is
unnecessary due to climatic, geological, or topographic conditions, or water availability.
If a city or county failed to adopt a water efficient landscape ordinance or make findings
by January 31, 1993, the model ordinance became effective in that jurisdiction.

Agricultural Water Management Planning Act. Under this act. agricultural
water suppliers supplying greater than 50.000 af of water were required to submit a
report to DWR indicating whether there exists a significant opportunity to conserve
water or reduce the quantity of highly saline or toxic drainage water through improved
irrigation water management. The act provided that agricultural water suppliers, who
indicated that they had an opportunity to conserve water or reduce the quantity of highly
saline or toxic water, were to prepare a water management plan and submit it to DWR
no later than December 31. 1991. The act provides that the contents of the water
management plans include a discussion of the water conservation practices currently
used and a determination of whether, through improved management practices, an
opportunity exists for additional water conservation. DWR was required to review the
plans and submit a report to the Legislature by January 1993. Currently, almost 60
information reports and plans have been submitted to DWR.

Agricultural Water Suppliers Efficient Management Practices Act. The Agvi-

culturalWaterSuppliers Efficient Management Practices Act. adopted in 1990. requires
that DWR establish an advisory task force to review efficient agricultural water manage-
ment practices. DWR is required under the act to offer assistance to agricultural water
suppliers seeking to improve the efficiency of water practices. Members of the Commit-
tee have been selected and are working on methods to promote efficient practices. At
the request of the Governor, the committee is working on a Memorandum of Under-
standing to implement the practices. A subcommittee is meeting on a monthly basis to
complete this task. The proposed EWMPs are listed in Chapter 7.

Agricultural Water Conservation and Management Act of 1992. This act
gives any public agency that supplies water for agricultural use. authority to institute
water conservation or efficient management programs . The programs can include irriga-
i tlon management services, providing information about crop water use. providing
Irrigation consulting services, improving the supplier's delivery system, providing tech-
nical and financial assistance to farmers, encouraging conservation through pricing of
water, and monitoring.

Urban Best Management Practices MOU. The Urban BMPs are being imple-
mented under the auspices of the California Urban Water Conservation Council. This
council consists of about 1 50 water agencies, environmental organizations, and other
interested parties. The council is responsible for quantifying BMPs, reviewing exemp-
tions requested by water agencies from certain BMPs, and evaluating potential BMPs.
The BMPs and potential BMPs are discussed in Chapter 6, under Urban Water Conserva-
tion.

The Institutional Framework 43

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

' Water Recycling Act of 1 991 . This act makes legislative findings regarding the

environmental benefits and public safety of using recycled water as a reliable and
cost-effective method of helping to meet California's water supply needs. It sets a
statewide goal to recycle 700,000 AF per year by the year 2000 and 1 ,000,000 AF by
2010.

Management Programs

Management programs are increasingly being used as an approach to solving
complex sets of regional water management problems. Three management programs
that have had some success in dealing with regional issues are discussed below. Both
the Sacramento River Fishery and Riparian Habitat Restoration Plan and the Manage-
ment Plan for Agricultural Subsurface Drainage and Related Problems on the Westside
San Joaquin Valley (San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program) have been completed and
are currently being used in making decisions affecting those resources. As discussed
below, the San Joaquin drainage program addresses significant agricultural drainage
issues, and elements of the plan are being implemented under both the 1 992 CVP reform
legislation and state legislation, particularly in the areas of water marketing and trans-
fers, land fallowing, and conservation efforts. The San Joaquin River Management
Program is still in the process of developing a management plan as of the writing of this
Bulletin, and it appears a similar approach may be used by the Bay-Delta Oversight
Council appointed by the Governor to "fix the Delta" in accordance with his April 1992
Water Policy.

Sacramento River Fishery andRiparianHabitat Restoration. In 1986, State
legislation was enacted calling for a management plan to protect, restore, and enhance
the fish and riparian habitat and associated wildlife of the Upper Sacramento River. The
plan was prepared by an advisory council working closely with an action team, both
composed of people representing a wide range of federal. State, and local agencies and
private interests concerned with promoting the renewed health of the upper Sacramento
River system. It was prepared with a spirit of cooperation and consensus and was
published in January 1989. In September 1989, Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 62
declared that it is the policy of the State to implement the actions recommended in the
Upper Sacramento River Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Management Plan. The plan
recommends 20 fishery improvement items, several of which are contained in the CVP
Improvement Act. Some items such as gravel restoration and Mill and Clear Creeks'
restoration are receiving attention from various agencies.

San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program. The San Joaquin Valley Drainage
Program was a federal and State interagency program established in August 1984 by
the Secretary of the Interior and the Governor of California to study agricultural drain-
age problems in the San Joaquin Valley. The study was, in large part, a response to
drainage problems that came to a head with the discovery of deformities and deaths of
aquatic birds at Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge in 1983 that were determined to be
caused by selenium poisoning.

The San Joaquin Valley has had a long history of inadequate drainage disposal and
accumulation of salts on agricultural land. With importation of water for agricultural
irrigation by the CVP and SWP, the problems were exacerbated. The original CVP and
SWP plans called for the construction of the San Luis drain, with an outfall in the
western Delta, as a joint federal and State facility. The State declined to participate, but
the USBR eventually built the initial portion of the drain, about 120 miles of collector
drains, and the first phase of a reservoir (Kesterson) designed to temporarily retain
drainage water.

44 The Institutional Framework

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

The drain never reached the proposed outlet into the Delta because in the
mid-1970s questions about the potential effects of untreated agricultural drainage

I water on the quality of water in the Delta and San Francisco Bay were raised. Around
that time it was decided that Kesterson should be used to store and evaporate drainage
water until the outlet to the Delta could be built. Once the deformities and deaths of
aquatic birds were discovered, however, use of Kesterson was halted and the reservoir

j was eventually closed in 1988.

In September 1990. the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program published its final
report. A Management Plan for Agricultural Subsurface Drainage and Related Problems
on the Westside San Joaquin Valley. The recommended plan was regional and provided
a framework designed to permit the present level of agricultural development in the San
Joaquin Valley to continue for a few years while protecting fish and wildlife and helping
to restore their habitat to levels existing before direct impact by contaminated drainage
water.

The major components of the plan included: (1) control of the source of contami-
nated water by reducing application of irrigation water; (2) reuse of drainage water on
progressively more salt-tolerant plants; (3) use of an evaporation system with safe-
guards for wildlife; (4) retirement of land with shallow ground water, elevated selenium,
and soils that are difficult to drain; (5) management of ground water by pumping water
j suitable for irrigation or wildlife habitat from deep within the aquifer in order to lower
surface water tables; (6). limited discharges to the San Joaquin River that meet water
quality objectives; (7) protection, restoration, and provisionof substitute water supplies
for fish and wildlife habitat and fresh water supplies for wetlands habitat; and (8)
institutional changes such as tiered pricing, water marketing and transfers, improved
delivery scheduling, and formation of regional drainage management organizations.

To facilitate carrying out the plan component involving land retirement, the

Legislature in 1 992 enacted the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Relief Act, which permits

f DWR to acquire land and manage it (or enter into agreements to have the land managed

! by DFG or nonprofit organizations) as upland habitat, wetlands, or riparian habitat. In

order to make the program self-supporting, water conserved as a result of the retirement

of land would be sold and the proceeds used to purchase and retire additional lands.

I The act requires DWR to maximize the water available for environmental needs

and permits local agencies to use up to one-third of the water conserved and not sold
for environmental purposes. The act recognizes that taking land out of production may
impact local economies and directs DWR to consider these effects in purchasing land.
It also directs DWR to coordinate with both the USER, which provides much of the water

r to these areas , and local water agencies . Finally, the act expresses legislative intent that
water distributed under the program be deemed contributions to a water resources

I mitigation bank, if such a bank is established.

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act also contains provisions relating to
the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program's plan. Section 3405 (e) establishes an office

1 charged with developing criteria for and evaluating the adequacy of CVP contractors'
water conservation plans. The office is required to give recognition to the final report of
the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program, among other things, in developing the
jl criteria. Section 3406(b)(3) requires the Secretary ofthe Interior to implement a program
\ to develop supplemental environmental water in conformance with the plan to double
anadromous fisheries and the waterfowl habitat measures. "[Tlemporary and perma-
nent land fallowing, including purchase, lease, and option of water, water rights and
associated agricultural land" are specifically mentioned as methods of developing the

The Institutional Framework 45

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

4 additional environmental water. Section 3408(h) specifically authorizes the Secretary of

** the Interior to purchase land to retire from irrigation if it would assist in water conserva-

tion or improve agricultural drainage or waste water problems. Once again the San
Joaquin Valley Drainage Program report was specifically referred to. Finally, Section
3408(j) requires the USER to develop a plan to replace water supplies for those used for
fish and wildlife purposes within 1 5 years through a variety of means, including the
purchase and idling of agricultural land.

San Joaquin River Management Program. In 1990, California legislation
created a program ". . .to provide for the orderly development and management of water
resources of the San Joaquin River system to accomplish compatible improvements of
the system for flood protection, water supply, water quality, and recreation, and for the
protection, restoration and enhancement offish and wildlife." It created an Advisory
Council and Action Team with members representing a wide range of State and local
governmental, private, environmental, and other interests. The members meet on a
regular basis. Their meetings formally began in November 1990 and are open to the
public. Their objectives are to identify and describe issues and problems, establish a
series of priority actions, identify proposed funding sources, and facilitate coordinated
actions in the area. They are required to submit an annual report to the Legislature.

Interstate Water Resource Management
Colorado River

The Colorado River provides a primary source of supply for the South Coast and
Colorado River regions. In addition to California, the states of Arizona, Nevada, Wyo-
ming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah, and the Republic of Mexico, all use water from
the Colorado River. In 1922, the seven states entered into an interstate compact which
includes a provision for the equitable division and apportionment of the use of the waters
of the Colorado River system. The Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 provided, among
other things, for the construction of works to protect and develop the Colorado River
Basin by the Department of Interior.

In the California Limitation Act of 1 929, the State Legislature limited California's
use of Colorado River water in response to requirements of the Boulder Canyon Project
Act. Priorities within California were listed in a Seven Party Agreement of 1931. The
United States-Mexico water treaty , signed in 1944, obligates the U.S. to deliver 1.5 maf
per year to Mexico (up to 1.7 maf in surplus years). The U.S. Supreme Court Decree in
Arizona v. California, 1 964, established several additional dimensions to the apportion-
ment of Colorado River water, including apportionments to the lower basin
states — ^Arizona, Nevada, and California. In 1968, the Colorado River Basin Project Act
authorized the Central Arizona Project and specified how water would be allocated to
the lower basin states in years of insufficient runoff in the main stream (river) to satisfy
the specified consumptive use of 7.5 maf. The act provided that California allocations
of 4.4 maf have priority over allocations to the Central Arizona Project.

The Colorado River Board of California is the state agency with statutory responsi-
bility to represent and protect the interests of California, its agencies, and its citizens
concerning the water and power resources of the Colorado River system.

Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act of 1991

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s interstate disputes over the waters of Lake
Tahoe and the Truckee, Carson, and Walker rivers led the states of California and
Nevada to negotiate an interstate compact equitably apportioning these waters. The

46 The Institutional Framework

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

California-Nevada Interstate Compact was adopted by the two states in 1968 and
\ ratified by their legislatures. Efforts of the two states to have the California-Nevada
Interstate Compact approved by Congress were unsuccessful. Although numerous
consent bills were introduced in Congress from 1971 to 1986, consent was never
forthcoming. After 1986, the two states gave up trying to obtain congressional consent
to the Compact.

The states did not give up other Congressional action. A new round of negotiations
among the states, the federal government, the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians, and
other interested parties led to the federal Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights
Settlement Act. Section 204 of this act specifies an apportionment of Lake Tahoe and
theTruckee and Carson rivers between California and Nevada. It is the first Congressio-
nal apportionment since the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1 928. The act also addresses
j a number of other issues, including settlement of certain water supply disputes among
I the Pyramid Lake Tribe and other users of the Truckee and Carson rivers. The act also
addresses a number of environmental issues, including recovery of Pyramid Lake fish
species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act and protection and restoration
of Lahontan Valley wetlands. Many of the act's provisions, including the interstate
I apportionment, will not become effective until a number of conditions are met, including
dismissal of certain lawsuits and the negotiation of an operating agreement for the
Truckee River between the United States, the two states, the Tribe, the Sierra-Pacific
Power Company, and other parties.

For further information on the history of the Truckee River water rights disputes,
. and how they are addressed by the Settlement Act, see DWR's June 1991 Truckee River
Atlas, and the December 1991 Carson River Atlas.

Klamath Project

Interstate aspects of the shared upper Klamath River and Lost River basins are
addressed through the Klamath River Basin Compact. Negotiated by the states of

I Oregon and California, approved by their respective Legislatures, and consented to by
the U.S. Congress in 1957, the compact is to (1) facilitate orderly development and use

: of water, and (2) further cooperation between the states in the equitable sharing of water
resources. The compact is administered by the Klamath River Compact Commission,

j which is chaired by a federal representative appointed by the President. The commission

I provides a forum for communication between 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 operating 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.

The Institutional Framework 47

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Silverwood Lake stores and regulates State Water Project supplies and
provides water-related recreation. Located on the west fork of the Mojave
River in San Bernardino County, the reservoir stores up to 78,000 acre-feet
behind a 236 foot-high dam.

y^^T'^ir^^

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Chapter 3

California has a wide range of climates due, in part, to its mountain ranges, which
influence weather patterns and cause more precipitation on the western sides of the
ranges than on the eastern sides. Average statewide precipitation is about 23 inches and
most of it, about 60 percent, is used by native vegetation or lost by evaporation. Esti-
mated average annual runoff amounts to about 7 1 million acre-feet. Not all of this runoff
can be developed for urban or agricultural use. Much of it maintains healthy ecosystems
in California's rivers and estuarine systems. Available surface water supply totals 78
maf when out-of-state supplies from the Colorado and Klamath rivers are added.

Uneven distribution of water resources is part of the State's geography. Roughly
75 percent of the natural runoff occurs north of Sacramento; about 75 percent of the
net water demand is south of Sacramento. Almost 29 maf, or 40 percent of California's
surface water supply, originates in the North Coast Region. The largest urban water use
is in the South Coast Region where roughly half of California's population resides, and
the largest agricultural water use is in the San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake regions
where fertile soils, a long, dry growing season, and water availability have combined to
make this area one of the most agriculturally productive areas in the world. For example,
Fresno County is the most productive county in the United States in terms of agri-
cultural output measured in dollars . The largest environmental water use is in the North
Coast Region where average annual dedicated natural flow in wild and scenic rivers
amounts to 1 8 maf. Figure 3- 1 shows the disposition of average annual water supplies.

Surface Water
Supplies

Figure 3-1.
Disposition of
Average Annual
Water Supply

Surface Water Supplies

BuUetin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure 3-2. Distribution of Average Annual Precipitation and Runoff

Region

Hydrologic Regions
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

Legend

Average
Runoff
(maf)

Average

Precipitation

(Inches)

Average
Runoff
(maf)

51.0

28.6

25.8 4H

B 1.6

19.8

2.5

18.4 ill

m 1.2

36.0

22.4

27.3

7.9

15.4

3.3

22.1

1.8

7.9

1.3

5.5

0.2

Entire State

22.9

70.8

Surface Water Supplies

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Droughts in California

Average runoff amounts are of some interest, but most of California's water de-
velopment has been dictated by the extremes of droughts and floods. For example, the
average yearly statewide runoff of 7 1 million acre-feet includes the all-time annual low
of 15 maf in 1977 and the all-time high, exceeding 135 maf, in 1983. (Figure 3-2
shows the distribution of average annual precipitation and runoff.) Stable and reliable
supplies are required to sustain agricultural and urban economies, whereas environ-
mental water needs vary with the natural hydrologic cycle.

The records of pre-

cipitation" and runoff
show that extremely dry
periods frequently last
several years. The seven-
year drought of 1928-34
established the criteria
commonly used to plan
storage capacity or water
yield of large Northern
California reservoirs.
From 1928 through
1937, the runoff was
below average for ten
straight years. Many res-
ervoirs built since that
time were sized to main-
tain a certain level of
planned deliveries, or reliability, should there be a repeat of the 1928-34 dry period.
The last 20 years have seen new record dry periods for one year (1977), two years
(1976 through 1977), three years (1990 through 1992), and six years (1987 through
1992).

The Sacramento River Index is used both as a yardstick of Northern California
water supply and in determining Delta water quality and flow criteria to be met by the
federal Central Valley Project and the State Water Project. It classifies the runoff during
a water year into five categories, ranging from critical (the driest) up to wet. Figure 3-3
shows the record of runoff for the index since 1906. The index is based on Water Right
Decision 1485 and is the sum of unimpaired runoff in the Sacramento River (above
Bend Bridge near Red Bluff), Feather River inflow to Oroville, Yuba River at Smartville,
and American River inflow to Folsom. (Unimpaired runqffis the natural production of
a stream unaltered by water diversions, storage, exports, or imports.) The major dry
periods of this century include the 1929-34 dry period, the severe two-year drought of
1976-77, and the recent drought, in which five of the six years were classified as criti-
cal. The average of 18.4 maf shown on the chart is the currently used 50-year average;
the average runoff for the entire 1906-93 period is slightly lower, about 17.8 maf.

The recent six-year drought is comparable to the 1929-34 sequence of dry years.
Statewide precipitation from 1987-1992 was about 75 percent of average and annual
streamflow was only about half of average. This drought was not quite the worst on
record for the Sacramento Basin. Runoff in 1987-1992 was about 54 percent of
average, about 1 percent more than the average during 1929-1934. Across the central
part of the State, however, the recent drought was more severe than 1929-1934. The
drought periods for Sacramento River Index runoff and for the San Joaquin River

The 1987-92 drought
lowered reservoir
levels throughout
California. These
docks at Folsom Lake
hit bottom during the
drought. Folsom Dam
usually stores over
one million acre-Jeet

Surface Water Supplies

Bulletin 160-93

The California Water Plan Update

Estimated
Natural Runoff
(million acre-feet)

Wet i. Above Nonnal i Below Normal r Dry 1 Crfflco/ 1

> illllllllll 1 i 1 II

11 kii '

Wafer Years

1941-1990 Average— 18.4

NOTE: The Sacramento River Itxlex is the sum of unimpaired runoff from itie Sacramento River at Bend Bridge,
Feottier River Inflovy to Oroville, Yoba River at Smartville and American River Inflovy to Folsom.

Figure 3-3.

The Sacramento River

Index Since 1906

Index runoff (the sum of the unimpaired runoff in the San Joaquin River at Friant, and
the Stanislaus. Tuolumne, and Merced Rivers) are shown in Figures 3-4 and 3-5. The
extended 1929-34 drought was softened somewhat in the southern Sierra Nevada by
an above-average water year in 1932. The recent drought, although varying somewhat
from year to year, was an unrelieved string of six critical years in the southern Sierra
Nevada.

Figure 3-4.

Comparison of

Droughts

Sacramento River

Index

Surface Water Supplies

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Figure 3-5.
Comparison of
Droughts
San Joaquin
River Index

In fall 1992, the storage in California's major reservoirs was somewhat under 12
maf, compared to a November 1 average of 21.4 maf. This was the lowest end-of-wa-
ter-year storage level of the recent drought but was more than in 1977, when
November 1 storage was only 7.6 maf.

Length and Frequency of Droughts

Each drought is different. In 1986, a tree-ring study reconstructed 420 years of
Sacramento River runoff. The study was conducted for DWR by the Laboratory of
Tree-Ring Research of the University of Arizona. The reconstruction suggests that the
1928-34 drought was the worst since 1 560. (Water year 1928 was near normal, but its
dry spring led into a series of six dry or critical water years.) Table 3-1 was excerpted
from the reconstruction. It shows other dry periods with consecutive years of runoff
less than 15.7 maf (the historical median) lasting at least three years, prior to 1900, for
the reconstructed Sacramento River Index. Also shown are the measured droughts
since 1900.

The record reconstructed from the tree-ring study does not always match the re-
cord of measured runoff, so the weight to be given to the above information is unclear.
However, the tree-ring widths provide us one way of comparing runoff records with
estimates from a much larger span of history.

Water Supply Development

The founding of the San Diego Mission in 1769 brought with it the start of water
supply development in California. Water was diverted from the San Diego River to irri-
gate fields surrounding the mission. Similar developments accompanied other
missions during ensuing years. After 1850, irrigation expanded significantly as the
amount of irrigated agricultural land increased dramatically. This increase was abetted
by the mining boom, which provided a nearby market for agricultural products. Since
natural stream flows dropped during the summer, it was not long before small reser-
voirs were built to supplement low stream flows. A number of fairly large dams were
built in Southern California by 1900, including Bear Valley, Hemet, Sweetwater, and

Surface Water Supplies

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Table 3-1. Pre- 1900 Dry Periods* and Droughts Since 1900

Period

Length
(years)

Estimated Average Runoff

(maf/year)

Based on tree ring studies
1579-82

1593-95
1618-20
1651-55
1719-24
1735-37
1755-60
1776-78
1793-95
1839-41
1 843-46
Based on flow measurements
1918-20
1 929-34
1959-62
1 976-77
1987-92

'Years wHh runoff less ilian 1 5.7 million acre-feet per year.

Cuyamaca. Dams in Northern California were smaller and usually at the outlets of nat-
ural lakes or meadows. Total storage capacity on the Yuba River, one of the basins with
a large amount of early development, exceeded 30,000 acre-feet by 1900.

During the 1920s, larger reservoirs were built irr Northern California; in many
cases, they were partially funded by hydroelectric power companies. Beginning in
1930, a number of critically diy years reduced snowmelt and streamflow and moti-
vated another era of water storage development to provide more stable and reliable
supplies.

There are now more than 1 ,200 nonfederal dams under State supervision (gener-
ally dams 25 feet or higher or those holding 50 af or more). The reservoirs formed by
these dams provide a gross reservoir capacity of roughly 20 maf. There are also 181
federal reservoirs in California, with a combined capacity of nearly 22 maf. Taken to-
gether these 1,400 or so reservoirs can hold about 42 maf of water, which is a relatively
small amount of storage in proportion to the 71 maf of annual runoff. The Colorado
River alone, with a long-term average annual runoff of about 15 maf. has about 65 maf
of storage. Table 3-5, at the end of this chapter, lists reservoirs storing 100,000 af or
more in chronological order of construction.

This chapter identifies developed surface water supplies by source. (Ground wa-
ter, another important source of supply, is covered in Chapter 4.) The major categories
are:

O local surface and local imported supplies

O State Water Project

O Central Valley Project and other federally developed water

O the Colorado River

O water reclamation, including desalination

Surface Water Supplies

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Local and Imported Supplies

Local water projects were constructed and are operated by a wide variety of water
and irrigation districts, agencies, municipalities, companies, and even individuals. Ini-
j tially, local projects consisted of direct stream diversions. When these proved
' inadequate during the dry season, storage dams were built. As nearby sources were
fully developed, urban areas began to reach out to more distant sources. Local agen-
cies are finding it increasingly difficult to continue to undertake new water projects to
' meet their needs because potential sites for additional water projects are either envi-
^ ronmentally sensitive, too costly to develop, or both. Rural areas, in particular, have
limited means of repaying loans for water projects. Opportunities for local conjunctive
use programs are limited because mountain and foothill ground water basins tend to
be limited. On average, local surface water supply projects meet about one-third of
California's water needs.

The majority of local water supplies are in-area (within one region) diversion and

storage systems. Most local surface projects are relatively smcdl, but some are large-

j volume projects. Some examples of these projects are the Exchequer and Don Pedro

(both old and new) dams on the Merced and Tuolumne rivers. Another example is

BuUards Bar Dam on the Yuba Fiiver, built by Yuba County Water Agency. Some irriga-

Figure 3-6.
Comparison oj
Multi-Year
Droughts
Average Annual
RunoJJ

Surface Water Supplies

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

tion districts have taken advantage of upstream projects built primarily for
hydroelectric power production. These facilities also incidentally regulate stream flows,
create more usable water supplies during the dry summer months, and provide flood
control and recreational benefits.

Figure 3-9 shows regional water transfers at the 1990 level of development. Most
of these transfers are through the Delta, the hub of California's surface water delivery
system. Until solutions to complex Delta problems are identified and put into place,
1990 level water transfers cannot be sustained in the future.

The first long-distance, inter-regional water transfer project in California was the
Lx)s Angeles Aqueduct, completed by the City of Lx)s Angeles in 1913. The aqueduct
stretches over 290 miles from the Owens Valley and had an original capacity of
330,000 af per year. A second section was added in 1 970, which increased its potential

Possible Effects of Global Climate Ctiange

Much concern has been expressed about possible future climate change
caused by burning fossil fuel and other modern human activities that increase car-
bon dioxide and other trace greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. World weather
records indicate an overall warming trend during the last century, with a surge of
warming prior to 1 940 (which cannot be attributed to greenhouse gases) and a more
recent rise during the 1 980s. The extent to which this latest rise is real or an artifact of
instrument location (heat island effect of growing cities) or a temporary anomaly is
debated among climatologists, For now, most of the projections of future climate
change are derived from computer climate simulation studies. Not yet well-repre-
sented in the simulation models are cloud effects, which can have a large influence
on the study results.

The studies generally indicate a global average temperature rise of about 2 to
5 degrees Celsius over the next century, or about 3°C as an average, for a doubled-
CO2 atmosphere. Figures for regional changes are less dependable because of re-
gional weather influences.

Although studies assume a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide content,
the same effect would be produced by some combination of increased CO2 and
trace greenhouse gases, such as methane and chlorofluorocarbons, which, in total,
produce the same effect as doubled CO2. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has
Increased from an estimated 280 parts per million about 200 years ago to roughly 3 1 5
ppm in 1960 and about 355 ppm in 1993.

Although the climate models also show precipitation , there is less confidence in
those results. The most important hydrologic parameter affecting water resources is
regional precipitation, and model results are not considered reliable enough to use
for any decisions. Some researchers have examined scenarios with ranges of preci-
pitation, for example 10 percent drier or wetter, to obtain insights into how sensitive
water systems are to these changes.

Sea level rise is inferred largely from projected temperature increases and is less
certain. Causes would be thermal expansion as the ocean warms and melting of
permanent ice fields and glaciers. Average projections of sea level rise call for about
1 foot by the middle of the next century, which would represent a strong increase
over the roughly 0.5-foot rise estimated for the past 1 00 years.

Reduced Mountain Snowpack and Shift in Runoff Patterns

For California, if global warming occurs, the most likely impact would be a shift
in runoff patterns, with less and earlier runoff from snowmelt and more winter runoff
from the higher mountain areas. This change in runoff directly relates to the tempera-
ture; the warmer temperatures would mean higher snow levels during winter storms,
more cool-season runoff, and less carryover into late spring and summer (assuming
precipitation remains the same).

56 Surface Water Supplies

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

annual deliveries to 480,000 af per year. However, these projects were developed with-
out minimum flows for fisheries in creeks tributary to Mono Lake and without
consideration of lake levels. Environmental problems resulting from diversions have
resulted in recent restrictions on the use of water tributary to Mono Lake and on
ground water pumping in the Owens Valley (see Chapter 2). These restrictions have
reduced the dependable supply of the Los Angeles Aqueduct to about 200,000 af in
drought ye£irs.

In the 1920s, the East Bay cities of the San Francisco Bay Region turned to Sier-
ra Nevada watersheds for additional water. The East Bay Municipal Utility District
completed the Mokelumne Aqueduct from Pardee Reservoir in 1929. With the addition
of a third barrel in 1965, this aqueduct's capacity was increased from 224,000 af per
year to 364,000 af per year. Camanche Reservoir was added in 1963. Again, drought

If average temperatures warm by 3°C and this change applies to winter season
storm systems, it would lift average snowline levels by about 1 ,500 feet. Compared to
today , the portion of California's winter precipitation stored in the mountain snowpack
would decrease significantly. The impact in the northern Sierra Nevada would be larger
than in the higher elevation southern Sierra Nevada. Preliminary estimates (assuming
the same average precipitation amounts and patterns) indicate that this shift would re-
duce the average April to July snowmelt runoff by about one-third. A corresponding
increase in runoff would be expected during the winter, when it often would have to be
passed through major reservoirs as flood control releases. There would be some loss in
water supply yield if the shift in snowmelt runoff occurs,

Impact of Sea Level Rising

If sea level rises, it could have a major impact on California water transfers through
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. There are two primary problems: (1) a slight in-
crease in ocean salinity intrusion due to deeper channels and, partly because of less
uncontrolled spring runoff, a longer season of relatively low Delta outflows, and (2)
problems with levees protecting the low-lying land. Both problems would degrade the
liuality and reliability of fresh water transfer supplies pumped at the southern edge of
the Delta with existing facilities and operations.

Potential Increase in Sizes of Large Floods

There is a general relationship between rainfall intensity and the warmness of the
climate. Other factors being equal, warm air holds more water vapor than cool air. Lift-
ing of the air, either orographically by a mountain range, by convective activity (thun-
derstorms) , or by a weather system front, then has the potential for greater precipitation
intensity. Also, higher snow levels in the Sierra Nevada mean more direct rain runoff and
less snow accumulation. Major floods on California's rivers are produced by slow-mov-
ing Pacific storm systems which sweep moist subtropical air from the southwest into
California. When these moisture-laden air streams run into the mountains, copious
amounts of rain and runoff result as the southwesterly winds are lifted to cross the Sierra
Nevada and coastal mountain ranges (orographic effect). Whether the southwesterly
winter storm winds would be stronger or weaker if global warming occurs has not been
determined.

These three potential impacts and other possible changes will probably be slow
to develop because climate change is expected to be gradual. The uncertainty about
potential changes is high, and there should be time for confirmation of these changes
and time to adapt. It is useful to monitor climate changes, however, and determine how
they may affect current water supply systems.

Surface Water Supplies 57

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

year supplies in the Pardee-Camanche Reservoir system are not always adequate to
sustain full aqueduct capacity diversions.

In 1934, the City of San Francisco completed the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct system,
which diverts water from the Tuolumne River to serve San Francisco, San Mateo,
northern Santa Clara, and portions of southern Alameda counties. (Hetch Hetchy Dam
began operating in 1923.) The current conveyance capacity of the Hetch Hetchy Aque-
duct is about 330,000 af per year. Its primary supply reservoirs are Hetch Hetchy.
Lake Lloyd (Cherry Valley), and Lake Eleanor. The City of San Francisco also has ex-
change water storage in Don Pedro Reservoir which allows water that would otherwise
go to Turlock and Modesto irrigation districts to be diverted through the Hetch Hetchy
Aqueduct.

Figure 3-7.

Storage in 155

Mcyor Reservoirs

in California

October 1

Note: The 1987-92 storage

amounts include New Melones

and Warm Springs reservoirs

which began operation after

1977. The 1989-92 storage

amounts include the new Spicer

Meadows Reservoir on the

Stanislaus River

Figure 3-8.

Historical

Development of

Reservoir Capacity

(reservoirs of

50,000 acre-feet

or more)

Surface Water Supplies

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Figure 3-9. Regional Water Transfers at 1990 Level of Development

(thousands of acre-feet per year)

Hydrologic Regions

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

South Bay Aqueduct 155
Contra Costa Canal 85
Mokelumne Aqueduct 245
Hatch Hetchy Aqueduct 267
e. San Felipe Unit

Total California Colorado River Usage 2 Exchange

Transfers from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta are taken from commingled waters originating in both the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Regions.

Surface Water Supplies

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

i. The Ail-American Csinal System was authorized under the Boulder Canyon Proj -

ect Act of December 21, 1928. It diverts Colorado River water to the Imperial and
Coachella valleys. Construction began in 1934, following construction of Hoover Dam
on the Colorado River. The first deliveries of irrigation water to Imperial Valley were in

1940. The Coachella Canal and distribution system was completed in 1954. The Impe-
rial Irrigation District assumed responsibility for operation and maintenance of the
All-American Canal in 1952. The Coachella Valley Water District is responsible for the
operation and maintenance of the Coachella Canal portion of the system. The system
has the capacity to divert over 3 maf annually from the Colorado River for use in the
Imperial and Coachella valleys.

The fifth major inter-regional conveyance project in California built by a local
agency is the Colorado River Aqueduct, which diverts Colorado River water from Lake
Havasu above Parker Dam to the South Coast Region. Constructed in the 1930s by the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, this aqueduct began operation in

1941 . The Colorado River Aqueduct was sized for about 1 .2 maf per year but has car-
ried as much as 1.3 maf during some of the recent drought years. (See the Colorado
River section in this chapter.)

The preceding local import systems are not the only ones in California, but they
account for over 95 percent of the local project water transferred among hydrologic
regions.

State Water Project

Planning for the multipurpose State Water Project began soon after World War II
when it became evident that local and federal water development could not keep pace
with the state's rapidly growing population. Voters authorized construction of the
project in 1960 by ratifying the Burns-Porter Act. At that time, the plans recognized
that there would be a gradual increase in water demand and that some of the supply
facilities could be deferred until later. The SWP's major components include the
multipurpose Oroville Dam and Reservoir on the Feather River, the Edmund G.
Brown California Aqueduct, South Bay Aqueduct, North Bay Aqueduct, and a portion
of San Luis Reservoir. Delta water transfer facilities were part of the original plan, and
additional Sacramento and North Coast basin supply reservoirs were envisioned.
Contracts were signed for an eventual delivery of 4.23 maf. Service areas of the
present 29 contracting agencies are shown in Figure 3-10. Figure 3-12 depicts a
history of SWP water deliveries from 1962 to 1993. Generally, San Joaquin Valley use
of SWP supply has been near full contract amounts since about 1980 (except during
very wet years and during deficient-supply years), whereas Southern California use
has only built up to about 60 percent of full entitlement.

The initial features of the SWP begin with three small reservoirs in the upper
Feather River basin in Plumas County: Lake Davis, and Frenchman and Antelope
Lakes. Farther downstream in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada is the 3.5-maf Lake
Oroville, the second largest reservoir in California, where winter and spring flows of the
Feather River are stored (see Figure 3-11). The 444-mile California Aqueduct is the
state's largest and longest water conveyance system, beginning in the southwest Delta
at Banks Pumping Plant and extending to Lake Perris south of Riverside, in Southern
California. Delta water is pumped southward and westward, with amounts exceeding
immediate needs temporarily stored in the 2.0-maf San Luis Reservoir (which is shared
with the CVP). Of the contracted amounts, about 2.5 maf of water is destined for south
of the Tehachapis, nearly 1.36 maf to the San Joaquin Valley, and the remaining 0.37
maf to the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast regions and the Feather River area. At

60 Surface Water Supplies

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Figure 3-10. State Water Project Service Areas

Surface Water Supplies

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure 3-11. Major State Water Project Facilities

North Bay
Aquedaci

South Bay
Aqueduei

Monterey

Surface Water Supplies

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley, pumps at the Edmonston Pumping Plant
lift water 1,926 feet, sending flows through the Tehachapi Mountains by tunnels and
into Southern California. Slightly over 1.5 maf wlas pumped at Edmonston Pumping
Plant in 1990.

The estimated seven-year average dry-period yield of the SWP with its current
facilities operating according to Water Right Decision 1485 requirements is about 2.4
maf per year. Entitlement demand of SWP contractors for the year 2010 is an esti-
mated 4. 1 maf. To augment project supply, additions to the SWP are proposed and
include: Delta facilities; interim south Delta facilities; the Kern Water Bank; Los Banos
Grandes; and possible conjunctive use of surface storage and ground water in the Sac-
ramento and San Joaquin valleys; and short- and long-term water purchases. These
projects and programs are discussed in Chapter 1 1 .

In the short-term, SWP contractors relying on the Delta for all or a portion of
their supplies face great uncertainty in terms of water supply reliability due to the un-
certain outcome of a number of actions currently being undertaken to protect aquatic
species in the Delta. Until solutions to complex Delta problems are identified and put
into place, many will experience more frequent and severe water supply shortages.

Central Valley Project

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Central Valley Project is the largest water stor-
age and delivery system in California, covering 29 of the State's 58 counties. The
project's features include 18 federal reservoirs, plus 4 additional reservoirs jointly
owned with the State Water Project (primarily the San Luis Reservoir). The keystone of
the CVP is the 4.6-maf Lake Shasta, the largest reservoir in California. The reservoirs
In this system provide a total storage capacity of slightly over 12 maf, nearly 30 percent
of the total surface storage in California, and deliver about 7.3 maf annually to agricul-
tural, urban, and wildlife uses.

The federal government began construction of the CVP in the 1930s, as autho-
rized under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1937. CVP purposes expanded to include

Figure 3-12.
State Water
Project Deliveries
1967-1993

Surface Water Supplies

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Table 3-2. Major Central Valley Project Reservoirs

Reservoir Name Capacity

(thousands of acre-feet)

Shasta

4,552

Clair Engle

2,448

Whiskeytown

241

Folsom ^

New Melones

2,420

Millerton

"wmmBmrn ^^o

San Luis (federal share) 971

river regulation, flood control, and navigation; later reauthorization included recre-
ation and flsh and wildlife purposes. Initial authorization covered facilities such as
Shasta and Friant Dams, Tracy Pumping Plant, and the Contra Costa, Delta-Mendota,
and Friant-Kern Canals. Later authorizations continued to add additional facilities
such as Folsom Dam (authorized in 1949), San Luis Unit (authorized in 1960), and
New Melones Dam (authorized in 1962).

A large 2. 3-maf multipurpose dam, primarily for flood control and water supply
on the American River, Auburn Dam, was authorized by Congress in 1965 as an addi-
tion to the Central Valley Project. Foundation and other preparatory work for
construction were halted by concerns for safety caused by the 1975 Oroville earth-
quake. After study, the dam's design was changed in 1980 from a concrete arch to a
gravity structure. Cost estimates have exceeded the original authorization, so new au-
thorization is needed before work can resume. The proposed dam is now a source of
controversy between proponents and those who wish to preserve the American River
canyon as is. As currently planned. Auburn Reservoir could have provided somewhat
over 0.3 maf per year of new water yield to the CVP.

The flood of 1986 revealed that flood protection in the metropolitan Sacramento
area is inadequate. In 1992, a proposal by the Corps of Engineers to build a 500,000-
acre-foot "dry dam" for flood control only at the Auburn site did not pass Congress
because of opposition from environmentalists and from supporters of a multipurpose
dam. The Corps of Engineers and USER, in cooperation with local agencies and the
State, are continuing studies to develop a management plan for the American River to
provide for the area's flood control and water supply needs.

The CVP supplies water to over 250 long-term water contractors in the service
areas shown in Figure 3-13, whose contracts total 9.3 maf including 1.4 maf of Friant
Division Class 2 supply available in wet years. Of the 9.3 maf, 6.2 maf is project water
and 3. 1 maf is water right settlement water. Average-year deliveries in the past decade
have been around 7 maf. Water right settlement water is water covered in agreements
with water rights holders whose diversions were in existence before the project was
constructed. Since construction of project reservoirs altered the rivers' natural flow
upon which these diverters had relied, contracts were negotiated to serve the users
stored water to supplement river flows available under their rights. CVP water right
settlement contractors (called prior right holders) on the upper Sacramento River re-
ceive their supply from natural flow and storage regulated at Shasta Dam; settlement
contractors on the San Joaquin River (called exchange contractors) receive Delta water
via the Delta-Mendota Canal as explained below.

About 90 percent of the CVP water has gone to agricultural uses in the recent
past; this includes water delivered to prior right holders. CVP water is used to irrigate

64 Surface Water Supplies

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Figure 3-13. Central Valley Project Service Areas

Surface Water Supplies

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

some 19,000 farms covering 3 million acres. Currently, increasing quantities of water
are being served to municipal customers. Urban areas receiving CVP water supply in-
clude Redding, Sacramento, Folsom, Tracy, most of Scinta Clara County, northeastern
Contra Costa County, and Fresno. Recent firming up of environmental supplies under
the provisions of the CVP Improvement Act of 1992 are described in Chapter 2.

Water stored in CVP northern reservoirs is gradually released down the Sacra-
mento River into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where it helps meet demand
along the river and quality and flow requirements in the Delta. The remainder is ex-
ported via the Contra Costa Canal and the Delta-Mendota Ccinal. Excess water during
the winter is conveyed to off-stream San Luis Reservoir on the west side of the valley for
subsequent deliveiy to the San Luis emd San Felipe units. A portion of the Delta-Men-
dota exports are placed back into the San Joaquin River at Mendota Pool to serve, by
exchange, water users who have long-standing historical rights to use of Sam Joaquin
River flow. This exchange enabled the CVP to build Friant Dam, northeast of Fresno,
and divert a major portion of the flow there farther south in the Friant-Kem Canal (and
some water northward in the Madera Canal). The Coming and Tehama-Colusa Canals
serve an area on the west side of the Sacramento Valley. Other water supplies are fur-
nished to districts and water rights holders in the Sacramento Valley. American River
water stored in Folsom Reservoir is used mainly for streemi flow and Delta require-
ments, including CVP exports. More recently, the San Felipe Unit was added to sen'e
coastal counties west of San Luis Reservoir. New Melones Reservoir will be serving an
area on the eastern side of the San Joaquin Valley as well as providing downstream
water quality and fishery flows. Operations in the Delta are coordinated with the SWF
to meet water quality and other standards set by the State Water Resources Control
Board, and more recentty by federal fisheries agencies.

Figure 3-14 shows historical CVP water deliveries since 1960. The drop in 1977
and 1990-92 deliveries was caused by shortages in supply during the critically dry
years. CVP water deliveries to agricultural and urban users have been reduced by the
passage of the CVP Improvement Act of 1992. As a result, CVP contractors will under-
go more frequent and severe shortages. (A more comprehensive discussion about the
CVP Improvement Act is in Chapter 2.) Figure 3-15 shows a history of CVP hydroelec-

Figure 3-14.

Central Valley Project

Deliveries

1960-1993

Surface Water Supplies

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Kilowatt Hours
(billions)

^H iiiiiiiiiiiiii

Illllllllllllll

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

I960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

NOTE: Total 1991 California electrical energy consumption was about 223 billion kilowatt hours.

trie energy production since 1960. Note the substantial drop in hydroelectric
production during the 1987-92 drought.

In the short-term, CVP contractors relying on the Delta 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 currently being undertaken to protect aquatic species
I in the Delta. Until solutions to complex Delta problems are identified and put into
place, many will experience more frequent and severe water supply shortages. For ex-
ample, in 1993, an above-normal runoff year, environmental restrictions limited CVP
deliveries to Westlands Irrigation District to only 50 percent of contracted supply. Fur-
ther, the CVPIA reallocates 800,000 af of CVP supplies for fisheries in Central Valley
streams; 200,000 af for wildlife refuges in the Central Valley; and about 120,000 af of
increased flow for the Trinity River.

Other Federal Projects

Other federal water projects include those constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers or the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Some of the larger projects in this cate-
gory are: the Klamath Project on the California-Oregon border; the Orland Project on
Stony Creek (west side of the Sacramento Valley); the Solano Project on Putah
Creek,which stores water in Lake Berryessa in Napa County and conveys water
through Putah South Canal in Solano County; New Hogan Reservoir in Calaveras
County; the four major dams and reservoirs on the east side of the Tulare Lake Re-
gion— Pine Flat, Terminus, Success, and Isabella; and Cachumaand Casitas reservoirs

j in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties. Altogether these projects deliver about 1 .2 maf

' annually.

Colorado River

In a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decree, annual use of 7.5 maf of Colorado River
water was apportioned among the three lower division states of Arizona, Nevada, and
California. Arizona could begin using its apportionment of 2.8 maf now that the
Central Arizona Project is operating, but current repayment issues associated with
sales of water to agricultural users are delaying the buildup in demand. Arizona's
Colorado River water use in 1993 was 2.2 maf. Nevada's water use is expected to reach

Figure 3-15.
Central Valley Project
Annual Hydroelectric
Energy Production
1960-1993

Surface Water Supplies

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure 3-16. Colorado River Service Areas

ssacrvoo

MODOC

/ SHASTA

L4SSEN

1 TtHAMA ^

}

)

\
/

Pt-UMAS

1 f 8UTTE

J~\ GIJENN {

-YJ^

j^ HDIADA

"-r^^

/^ PLACER

SAN FRANQSC

Surface Water Supplies

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

its 0.3-maf apportionment in a little over a decade. Nevada used 0.18 maf in 1993.
California's use in 1993 was about 4.8 maf.

California's basic apportionment of Colorado River supplies is 4.4 maf per year,
plus half of any excess or surplus water. Because of wet winters in the early to
mid-1980s, and because Arizona and Nevada were not yet using their full apportion-
ment. California has been able to use from 4.5 to 5.2 maf annually between 1986 and
1992. Since 1980. the highest and the lowest sequence of unregulated Colorado River
runoff has occurred, with the peak year in 1984 and the driest in 1990. Between 1988
and 1992, Colorado River runoff was far below average, and by 1991 storage on the
main river system fell to less than average. Runoff in 1993 was above average and, by
July 1 . storage in Lakes Mead and Powell had increased about 6 maf over the previous
year's storage. California's use of Colorado River water can be limited in the future to
4.4 maf in any year by the Secretary of the Interior.

The agricultural water diverters in the Colorado River Region are Palo Verde
Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, the Reservation Division of the Yuma
Project, and Coachella Valley Water District (see Figure 3-16). These water users have
priority rights to the first 3.85 maf of California's Colorado River supply. This would
leave 550,000 af, less the water used by Native Americans, for MWDSC's Colorado
River Aqueduct, instead of the 1 .2 maf that it has been using in recent years. Further
reductions in Metropolitan's supply are also expected; 55,000 af may be used by Native
American Tribes and others along the Colorado River. To partially offset potential
reductions, MWDSC has executed a number of agreements to increase its water sup-
plies. In December 1988, Imperial Irrigation District and MWDSC reached an
agreement that provides funding for conservation projects in the Imperial Valley after
the State Water Resources Control Board issued order WR 88-20 requiring IID to
conserve 100,000 af per year within a certain period of time. When completed, these
projects will save an estimated 106,000 af of water annually. MWDSC is funding the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the projects; the estimated total cost is
$222 million (1988 dollars). In exchange, MWDSC will be able to divert additional
water, under certain conditions, from the Colorado River through its Colorado River
Aqueduct. The amount of additional Colorado River water MWDSC diverts is to be
equivalent to the amount of water conserved through the MWDSC-financed projects in
the event MWDSC's available allocation is reduced to an amount below its aqueduct
capacity. As the result of a contract between the Coachella Valley Water District and
the United States, the first 49 miles of the Coachella Canal were lined to save 132,000
af annually, which can also be made available to MWDSC under certain conditions.

Water conservation measures implemented by IID since 1 954 have decreased the
amount of water entering the Salton Sea. With less relatively fresh water entering the
Salton Sea, its salinity concentrations have increased somewhat more rapidly than
would have happened otherwise and have affected the artificial fishery planted by
DFG. The State Water Resources Control Board considered this matter in issuing order
WR 88-20. Implementation of the water conservation measures has also reduced the
potential for flooding from higher Salton Sea stages.

Water Recycling

Water recycling, formerly known as waste water reclamation, has been intention-
ally used as a source of nonpotable water in California for nearly a century. In recent
years, more stringent treatment requirements for disposal of municipal and industrial
waste water have reduced the incremental cost of obtaining the higher level of
treatment required for use of recycled water. This higher level is needed so that re-
surface Water Supplies 69

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure 3-17.

Present Use of

Recycled Water

cycled water can be safely used for a wider variety of applications. Part of the recycled
water used will lessen demand for new fresh water supplies.

Technology available today allows municipal waste water treatment systems in
some regions to consistently produce safe water supplies at competitive costs. The de-
gree of treatment depends on the intended use, and public health protection is the
paramount criterion forjudging the level of treatment needed. As a minimum, waste
water is treated to a secondary level to remove dissolved organic materials. Secondary
effluent can be treated to a tertiary level by additional filtering and disinfecting, but the
cost can be high in comparison to other fresh water supply augmentation options.
Sometimes reverse osmosis desalination may be required to reduce the salt content; in
such cases, it is possible for the recycled water to be of higher quality than the original
source. However, the added costs of desalination can make water recycling infeasible
in many regions.

A July 1993 report
by the WateReuse Asso-
ciation of California
summarized present and
future potential water
recycling data gathered
during a 1992 survey.
About 240 agencies were
contacted, and 111
responded to the survey.
Its purpose was to de-
termine the agencies'
plans, projections, and
vision for future water
reuse. One of the pur-
poses of the survey report
was to encourage agen-
cies to set realistic goals,
and develop long-term strategies to better meet future water needs. It was noted that
water reuse had increased from about 270,000 af per year in 1987 to over 380,000 af
per year by 1993. Water reuse as reported in the 1993 survey is shown in Figure 3-17
and Table 3-3. Future estimates for water recycling are discussed in Chapter 11.

Table 3-3. Present Use of Recycled Water by Category

Type of Reuse

Rate of Reuse

(thousands of acre-feet per year)

Percent of Total

Agricultural Irrigation
Ground Water Recharge
Landscape Irrigation
Environmental Uses (Wildlife Habitat)
Industrial, Seawater Intrusion Barriers,
and Miscellaneous Uses
(Recreational and Others)

80
185
47
29
43

21
48
12
8
11

TOTAL 384

Ackipted from WaleReuse 1 993 survey. Future Water Recycling Potential, July 1993. [\ 992 level of recycling)

100

Surface Water Supplies

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Most of the 384,000 af recycled is in the South Coast. Central Coast, and Tulare
Lgike regions. Some uses of recycled water, such as environmental enhancement or
landscape projects, are new uses that would not have received fresh water in the ab-
sence of a water recycling project because imported fresh water was too costly or not
available. In addition, outflow from waste water treatment plants in the Central Valley
is generally put into streams or ground water basins and reused. Recycling of such
outflow, therefore, does not generate new water supply.

Some constraints to fully implementing all potential water recycling options in-
clude:

O Distances to potential applications, particularly as nearby agricultural land is
displaced by urban development.

Q Relatively high mineral content of waste water, especially where the quality of water
supply is poorer or sewage is contaminated by saline ground water.

Q Acceptance by the public and health authorities.

O Regional economics, energy, and funding for new water recycling plants.

O Regulatory requirements, including Regional Water Quality Control Board, health
agency, and other governmental approvals necessary to implement new projects.
On the other hand, some regulations (for example. Chapter 553 of the California
Code of Regulations) can encourage reuse by prohibiting use of fresh water for
certain purposes, such as golf courses or parks, when suitable reclaimed water is
available.

O Salt disposal problems.

Table 3-4 specifies a number of possible nonpotable uses of recycled water and
the degree of treatment necessary for the type of use, as assessed by the California
Department of Health Services In 1992. The "Disinfected Secondary-2.2" column indi-
cates the higher standard of 2.2 coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters, and the
"Disinfected Secondary-23" column indicates the less-treated reclaimed water con-
taining 23 coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters.

The potential for increased use of recycled water in the future depends on many
factors and is discussed in Chapter 1 1 . The primary source of raw supply would be the
estimated 2.5 to 3 maf of treated wastewater discharged annually into the ocean from
California's coastal cities. Smaller amounts of reclaimed water could come from re-
claiming brackish ground water, including contaminated ground water or ground
water with high nitrate content, and from desalination of ocean water.

Other Water Supplies

Several unconventional methods have been used to augment surface water sup-
ply in certain areas of California: use of gray water, long-range weather forecasting,
watershed management, weather modification, and sea water desalination.

Gray Wafer

For the residential homeowner, some waste water can be directly reused as gray
water (used household water). Gray water can be used in subsurface systems to irri-
gate lawns, fruit trees, ornamental trees and shrubs, flowers, and other ornamental
ground cover. Water from the bathroom sink, washing machine, bathtub, or shower
is generally safe to reuse, whereas water from a toilet, kitchen sink, or dishwasher or
water used in washing diapers should not be directly reused. Care must be taken so
! that children and others do not come in direct contact with gray water, and any food
from areas irrigated by subsurface systems that use gray water should be rinsed and
cooked before being consumed.

Surface Water Supplies 71

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Table 3-4. Suitable Uses of Recycled Water

Conditions in Which Use Is Allowed

Use

Irrigation of:

Parks, playgrounds, scfiool yards,
residential yards, and golf courses
associated witfi residences
Restricted access golf courses,
cemeteries, and freeway landscapes
Non-edible vegetation at otfier areas
with limited public exposure
Sod farms

Ornamental plants for
commercial use
All food crops

Food crops that are above ground

and not contacted by reclaimed water

Pasture for milking animals and

other animals

Fodder (e.g., alfalfa), fiber (e.g., cotton),

and seed crops not eaten by humans

Orchards and vineyards bearing food crops

Orchards and vineyards not bearing

food crops during irrigation

Christmas trees and other trees

not grown for food

Food crop which must undergo commercial

pathogen-destroying processing before

consumption (e.g., sugar beets)

Other Uses:

Supply for a nonrestricted impoundment
Supply for a restricted recreational impoundment
Industrial cooling using cooling towers, forced
air evaporation, spraying, or other feature that
creates aerosols or other mist
Industrial cooling not using cooling towers,
forced air evaporation, spraying, or other
feature that creates aerosols or other mist
Industrial process with exposure of workers
Industrial process without exposure of workers
Industrial boiler feed

Disinfected

Undisinfected

Tertiary

Secondary

Spray, drip, or

Not allowed

surface

Spray, drip, or
surface

Not allowed

Spray, drip, or
surface

Spray, drip, or
surface'"'

Not allowed

Spray, drip, or

Not allowed

surface

Spray, drip, or
surface

Not allowed

Spray, drip, or

Not allowed

surface

Spray, drip, or

Drip or surface

Not allowed

surface

Spray, drip, or
surface

Not allowed

Spray, drip, or
surface

Drip or surface

s Spray, drip, or
surface

Drip or surface

Spray, drip, or
surface

Drip or surface

Spray, drip, or
surface

Drip or surface

Spray, drip, or
surface

Drip or surface

Allowed

Not allowed

Allowed

Not allowed

Allowed

Not allowed

Allowed

Not allowed

Allowed

Not allowed

Allowed

Not allowed

Allowed

Not allowed

(a) Use is not allowed if part of o park, playground, or school yard.

Gray water has been used by some homeowners in certain coastal urban areas
during extreme drought to save their landscaping. In the past, health concerns and
lack of information limited use of gray water. In 1992, recognizing that gray water
could be used safely with proper precautions, the California Legislature amended the
Water Code to allow gray water systems in residential buildings subject to appropriate

Surface Water Supplies

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Table 3-4. Suitable Uses of Recycled Water (Continued)

Conditions in Which Use Is Allowed

Use

isinfected

Disinfected

Undisinfected

Tertiary

Secondary

Allowed

Not allowed

Allowed

Not allowed

Allowed

Not allowed

Allowed

Not allowed

Allowed

Not allowed

Allowed

Not allowed

Allowed

Not allowed

Dampening soil for compaction at
construction sites, landfills, and elsewhere
Washing aggregate and making concrete
Dampening unpaved roads and
other surfaces for dust control
Flushing sanitary sewers
Washing yards, lots, and sidewalks
Supply for landscape impoundment
without decorative fountain
Supply for decorative fountain

Source: California Department of Healtfi Services, August 1 7, 1 992.

Copies of tfie full text of Draft Language for Amendments to Title 22 ore available from Department of Heohti Services.

Standards and with the approval of local jurisdictions. Statewide, residenticd use of
gray water will be legal by fall 1994.

Long-Range Weather Forecasting

Accurate advance weather information — extending weeks, months, and even sea-
sons ahead — ^would be invaluable in planning water operations in all t5q5es of
years — wet, dry, and normal. Had it been known, for instance, that 1976 and 1977
were to be extremely dry years or that the drought would end in 1 977, water operations
would have been planned somewhat differently and the impacts of the drought could
have been lessened. The response to the 1987-92 drought might have been slightly
improved by storing more water in the winter of 1986-87, pursuant to a forecast, and
using more of the remaining reserves in 1992, the last year of the drought.

The potential benefits of dependable long-range weather forecasts could prob-
ably be calculated in hundreds of millions of dollars, possibly even in billions, and the
value would be national. For this and other reasons, research programs to investigate
cind develop such forecasting capability would most appropriately be conducted at the
national level. The National Weather Service routinely issues 30- and 90-day forecasts,
and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California (until recently),
and Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, are engaged in making experimental
forecasts. However, their predictions are not sufficiently reliable for project operation.
These may be improved by current research on global weather patterns including the
El Nino-Southern Oscillation in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

Weather l\/lodlflcatlon

Weather modification, commonly known as cloud seeding, has been widely
practiced in California for many years. Most projects have been along the western
slopes of the Sierra Nevada and some of the coast ranges. Before the recent drought,
there were about 10 to 12 weather modification projects operating, with activity
tjqpically increasing during dry years. By spring 1 99 1 , the number of programs operat-
ing in California had increased to 20. New projects started during the drought include
programs involving the Lake Benyessa area; San Gabriel Mountains; Calaveras, Tuo-
lumne, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, San Diego, and eastern Santa Clara counties; and
the SWP experimental propane project in the upper Feather River basin. A couple of

Surface Water Supplies

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

programs were dropped in the 1992-93 season, when 18 programs were ready to
operate. (Many areas suspended operations later as the winter turned wet.)

Operators engaged in cloud seeding have found it beneficial to seed rain bands
along the coast and in orographic clouds over the mountains. The projects are operated
to increase water supply or hydroelectric power. Although precise evaluations of the
amount of water produced are difficult and expensive to determine, estimates range
from a 2- to 15-percent increase in annual precipitation, depending on the number
and type of storms seeded.

The Department of Water Resources, on behalf of the SWP, began a planned five-
year demonstration program of cloud-seeding in the upper middle fork Feather River
basin during the 199 1-92 season. The project was testing the use of pure liquid pro-
pane injected into the clouds from generators on a mountain-top. The liquid propane
is essentially a chilling agent that helps produce ice crystal nuclei and enhance snow-
fall. The program was terminated after three years, in 1994, due to several overriding
considerations .

A 1993 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation feasibility study for a cloud seeding program
in the watersheds above Shasta and Trinity Dams indicated good potential for the Trin-
ity River Basin, but the study cast doubt about the effectiveness of a project for Shasta
Lake. The Bureau has done substantial cloud seeding research in the Colorado River
Basin. In September 1993. it published Validation of Precipitation Management by
Seeding Winter Orographic Clouds in the Colorado River Basin. However, the Bureau is
phasing out its participation in weather modification projects.

Interest in using cloud seeding to provide both short-term and long-term
drought relief remains high. The technique is more successful in near-normal years,
when more moisture in the form of storm clouds is present to be treated. It is also more
effective when combined with carryover storage to tal^e full advantage of additional
precipitation and runoff.

Watershed Management

Watershed management can increase stream flow by controlling the growth of
vegetation, usually by reducing the density of brush and tree cover and increasing the
portion in grasses. In other cases, vegetation management that encourages growth of
certain species can protect watersheds by reducing soil erosion, thereby reducing sedi-
mentation in reservoirs and canals. Water supply gained by such means, although a
small fraction of total runoff, can cost less than supplies developed by more conven-
tional means. However, extensive expanses of land must be managed to significanth'
increase statewide supplies. The primary purposes of vegetation management toda\
are to improve range, reduce wildfires, and enhance wildlife habitat.

National forest lands provide about half of the stream flow runoff in the state.
National forest management plans show that if the present management plans had
been in place prior to 1982, the average runoff fi-om national forests would have been
increased by about 290,000 acre-feet (an increase of nearly 1 percent). Much of this
water flows uncontrolled to the sea, either because of location (for example, the North
Coast Region) or because there is no space available in reservoirs to hold the water.
However, about 100.000 af could either be stored in surface reservoirs or ponded and
allowed to percolate into ground water aquifers. There may be a potential to boost
these amounts of runoff and water yield by roughly another 25 percent by implement-
ing recommended or selected forest management plans.

74 Surface Water Supplies

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Sea Water Desalination

Sea water desalination
can be a cost-effective
water supply alternative
for some coastal commu-
nities that have limited
local supplies and are
relatively far from the
statewide distribution
system, or communities
that are concerned about
water service reliability.
Desalination plants in
Avalon (on Catalina Is-
land) and the City of
Santa Barbara are exam-
ples of such projects.
However, a major limita-
tion for sea water desalt-
ing is its high cost, much of which is directly related to its high energy requirements.
Sea water desalting plants could be designed to operate only during droughts to aug-
ment other supplies and avoid the relatively high costs during wet periods. They could
also be downsized and operated continuously in conjunction with ground water, re-
ducing ground water pumping during wet periods and providing more ground water
supplies for drought periods. Chapter 1 1 presents a broader discussion of the poten-
tial for future desalination in California.

Recommendations

Bulletin 1, Water Resources of California, was published in 1951. DWR should
initiate work to update and maintain this resource document to incorporate more re-
cent hydrologic data, including 40 more years of runoff data.

During the 1987-92
drought, a few
communities had to
resort to nontraditional
means of supplying
water. For example, the
City of Santa Barbara
financed and built a
desalination plant to
increase the reliability
of its supplies.

Surface Water Supplies

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Table 3-5. Major Surface Water Reservoirs in California*

Reservoir

(dam)

Hydrologic
Region

Area

(acres)

Capacity

(1000 af)

Owner

Year
Completed

Clear Lake

Tahoe

Clear Lake

Hatch Hetchy (O'Shaughnessy Dam)

Shaver Lake

Almanor
Bucks
Pardee
Salt Springs
El Capitan

Hovasu (Parker)

Matthews

Lake Crowley (Long Valley)

Prado

Shasta

Millerton (Friant)
Isabella Lake
Cochuma (Bradbury)
Thomas A. Edison
Pine Flat

Fdsom

Lloyd Lake (Cherry Valley)

Nacimiento

Berryessa (Monticello)

Vaquero flwitcheil)

Wishon

Courtright

Casltas

Lake Mendocino (Coyote Valley)

Mammoth Pool

dair Engle (Trinity)

Lake Kaweah (Terminus)

Black Butte

Camp Far West

Union Valley

Comanche

Whiskeytown

New Hogon

San Antonio

French Meadows (L. L. Anderson)

Hell Hole

SJ
SJ

NC
TL
SR
SR
SR
SJ
SR
SJ

SR
SR

24,800

122,000

43,800

1,970
2,180

28,260
1,830

2,130

980

1,560

16,400
1,940
4,560
2,680
2,870
7,470
3,200

1,143
106
210
142
113

2,448

143
144
104
277
417
241

USER

YCFCWCD
SF

PG&E
&E

EBMUD

SSWD
SMUD
EBMUD

1910
1913
1914
1923
1927

1927
1928
1929
1931
1934

1962

1962
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963

4,410

317

USCE

1963 J

5,602

^^Ml

335

MCWRA

1965 M

1,420

136

PCWA

1965 ^

1,250

208

PCWA

1966 H

Surface Water Supplies

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Table 3-5. Major Surface Water Reservoirs in California* (Continued)

Owner

Reservoir

(dam)

Hydrologic
Region

Area

(acres)

Capacity

(1000 of)

Year
Completed

Lake McClure (New Exchequer)

7,150

1,024

MID

1967

San Luis

13,000

2,039

USBR

1967

Oroville

15,800

3,538

DWR

1968

New Bullords Bar

4,810

966

YCWA

1970

Stampede IH^^^^^H

Mil NL

3,440

226

USBR

1970

New Don Pedro

Pyramid

Perris

H. V. Eastman (Buchanan)

1 2,960
2,240
1,300
1,360
1,780

2,030
324
171
131
150

TID-MID
DWR
DWR
DWR
USCE

1971
1973
1973
1973
1975

Indian Valley

New Melones

Sonoma Lake (Warm Springs)

New Splcer Meadow

SJ
NC

4,000

12,500

3,600

1,990

300

2,420

381

189

YCFCWCD

USBR

USCE

CCWD

1976
1979
1982
1989

Reservoir Owners Listed

CCWD: Calaveras County Water- District

DWR: California Department of Water Resources

EBMUD: East Boy Municipal Utility District

LADWP: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

MCWRA: Monterey County Water Resources Agency

MID: Merced Irrigation District

MWD: Metropolitan Water District of Soutfiem California

PCWA: Placer County Water Agency

PG&E: Pacific Gas and Electric Company

SCE Soutfiern California Edison Company

SD: City of San Diego

SF: City and County of San Francisco

SMUD: Sacramento Municipal Utility District

SSWD Soutfi Sutter Water District

ID-MID: Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District

USBR: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

USCE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

YCFCWCD: Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

YCWA: Yuba County Water Agency

•Reservoirs witfi capacities exceeding 1 00,000 acre-feet; listed in cfironological order of completion.

Surface Water Supplies

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Ground water pumping in Yolo County. Ground water provides roughly 25 percent of
the State's urban and agricultural average annual supply.

wl^^

1.1,

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Chapter 4

In an average year, about 40 percent of the urban and agricultural applied water
use or over 20 percent of total applied water in California is provided by ground water
extraction. In drought years, when surface supplies are reduced, ground water
provides an even larger percentage of applied water. This shift from surface to ground
water supplies in drought years is an indication of the sheer magnitude of ground
water storage versus surface storage. Surface water and ground water are really one
source of supply that originates with precipitation and runoff.

DWR's Bulletin 118, California's Ground Water, September 1975, identified 450
ground water basins in the state. The statewide total amount of ground water stored in
these ground water basins is estimated to be about 850 million acre-feet, about 100
times the annual net ground water use in California. Probably less than half of this
total, under present circumstances, is usable because:

O extraction would induce either sea water or saline ground water to intrude into
the aquifer;

O the ground water in the basin is naturally too saline or of too poor a quality for
economical present-day use;

O the depth to ground water makes the cost of extraction uneconomical for the
potential use; or

O extraction of ground water could cause unacceptable amounts of land surface
subsidence.

The large quantity of good quality ground water in storage makes it an extremely
important component of California's total water resource that must be managed in
conjunction with surface water supplies to ensure sustained availability. This chapter
presents a definition of ground water and covers the history of ground water develop-
ment in California, statewide ground water use, ground water overdraft, management
of ground water, the effect of the 1987-92 drought on ground water, and conjunctive
use.

Ground Water
Supplies

Ground Water Defined

Ground water is subsurface water occurring in a zone of saturation. In that zone,
water fills the pore spaces or openings in rock and sediments. Large basins in southern
California and the Central Valley can contain thousands of vertical feet of sediments
washed in over millions of years by runoff. The sediments are a randomly interfingered
mixture of fine-grained material that can restrict movement of ground water and
coarse-grained material that constitutes the aquifers within a zone of saturation. An
aquifer is a geologic formation that stores, transmits, and yields significant quantities
of water to wells and springs. Ground water also occurs in limited quantities in

Ground Water

BuUeUn 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

fractured hard rock and is an important source for domestic supplies in foothill and
mountain communities. However, the following discussion will focus on the ground
water in basins with abundant ground water storage and high well yields.

Ground water basins in California have been defined on the basis of geologic and
hydrologic conditions in DWR Bulletin 118, Ground Water Basins in California,
January 1980. In Bulletin 118-80, some basin boundaries were modified to reflect
political or water district boundaries that constitute potential ground water
management units. Figure 4-1 illustrates components of ground water use and
sources of ground water recharge.

Figure 4-1.

Components of

Ground Water

Use and

Sources of ^ , ,

Overdrafh
Recharge Depletion of grou

water storage
long pen^ of time

Prime Supply:

Natural percolation of
rainfall and seepoge
from streonibeds

Net Ground Water Use =

Prime supply + overdraft

Perennial Yield =

Extraction - overdraft

Ground Water Development

When Europeans first arrived in California, essentially all of the ground water
basins in the state were full of water. Marshes existed in many parts of California and
many flowing streams were supplied from overflowing ground water basins. As
California settlers began to use water for crop irrigation and for industrial and domes-
tic purposes, readily available and reliable ground water was used to augment surface
water supplies.

As the amount of ground water extraction increased, ground water levels in many
basins began to decline as more of the aquifer in the basin was emptied each year. The
empty portion of the aquifers provided available storage space for any water that was
available for recharge. Some ground water recharge was provided by direct rainfall, but

Ground Water

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

most recharge resulted from infiltration of surface water runoff directly into the sedi-
ments in the bottoms of stream channels, or by infiltration of a portion of the water
applied to irrigate agricultural crops.

The amount of water flowing in many streams gradually decreased as more water
infiltrated into stream bottoms and recharged depleted aquifers. In some basins, the
amount of ground water extracted greatly exceeded the amount of runoff available in
the streambed to recharge the basins, resulting in no surface flows out of some basins.
In other years when flood flows occurred, surface water would again flow down the
river channels. This process continues today.

Extensive ground water use during California's early development led to estab-
lishment of vigorous agricultural and urban economies. These sectors were later able
to pay the costs of developing and importing surface water by building dams and con-
veyance systems to meet the growing demand for water; reduce ground water over-
draft; and, in some instances, increase ground water storage.

Statewide Ground Water Use

In a year of average precipitation and runoff, an estimated 15 maf of ground wa-
ter is extracted and applied for agricultural, municipal, and industrial use. There is a
significant amount of ground water recharge from surface water and ground water
used to irrigate agricultural crops. Some of the irrigation water flowing in unlined
ditches and some of the water that is applied to irrigate crops infiltrates into the soil,
percolates through the root zone and recharges the ground water basins. The annual
net use of ground water is ground water extraction minus deep percolation of applied
water. The 1990 statewide average annual net ground water use was about 8.4 maf.
The use of prime supply from ground water basins for 1990 was about 7. 1 maf, and
the remaining 1 .3 maf was overdrafted from the basins. (Ground water prime supply is
the long-term average annual percolation into major ground water basins from preci-
pitation and from flows in rivers and streams.) Table 4-1 shows use of ground water
(excluding overdraft) by hydrologic region.

In an average year, the amount of deep percolation from applied surface and
ground water supplies that recharges the aquifers is an estimated 6.5 maf. In addition.

Table 4-1. Use of Ground Water by Hydrologic Region<^)

(thousands of acre-feet)

Hydrologic Region

7990 2000 2010 2020

average drought average drought average drought average drought

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

263

283

275

295

286

308

298

316

100

139

126

174

160

174

165

174

688

762

694

769

695

776

698

781

1,083

1,306

1,100

1,325

1,125

1,350

1,150

1,375

2,496

2,865

2,463

2,985

2,426

3,033

2,491

3,038

1,098

2,145

1,135

2,202

1,156

2,227

1,161

2,252

915

3,773

918

3,758

921

3,726

926

3,758

121

146

128

154

138

165

147

173

221

252

220

237

226

271

258

271

TOTAL

7,100

11,800 7,100 12,000 7,200 12,100 7,400 12,200

(1) Average year ground water use represents use of prime supply of ground woter basins. Ground water overdraft is not included.

Ground Water

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

over 7.0 maf recharges naturally from rainfall and streambed seepage. Still more water
is recharged deliberately through artificial means. Statewide, the average amount of
ground water extracted exceeds the average recharge by about 1 .3 maf — a considerable
reduction from former estimates of nearly 2 maf — and is largely the result of changes
in water management. Implementation of agricultural water conservation and urban
landscape conservation will decrease deep percolation of applied water, thereby reduc-
ing future ground water recharge and perennial yield of ground water basins. In areas
like San Joaquin and Tulare regions, where deep percolation of applied water is a ma-
jor contributor of ground water perennial yield, this process could exacerbate ground
water overdraft in the future.

In wet years, when more surface water is available, less ground water is ex-
tracted, more recharge occurs, and ground water levels can recover. Conversely, in
years of low runoff, such as the 1987-92 drought, much less surface water is available
for recharge, and much more ground water is extracted. Ground water use also varies
in different areas of the State; ground water may provide as little as a few percent or as
much as 90 percent of the total applied water in an area during an average year.

Table 4-2 shows the normalized 1990 level of development for ground water. The
perennial yields include the benefits of imported surface supplies that have occurred
historically. In areas that rely on SWP or CVP imports from the Delta, future perennial
yields may be reduced because of changes in the amount of surface water that is im-
ported.

Estimating Perennial Yields of Ground Water Basins

Perennial yield is estimated by plotting the change in ground water level versus
the amount of ground water extracted each year over a period of years that are
considered to be representative of the long-term average hydrology. For this
analysis, data for 13 years were plotted for each basin analyzed, A "best fit" curve
was drawn and the intersection of the best fit curve with the line showing zero ground
water level change indicated the current estimated perennial yield of ground water
in that basin. The perennial yield is similar to long-term sustained yield, assuming
there are no changes in water management practices.

The procedure probably underestimates perennial yield, or may not work, in
aquifers where extraction increases the ground water gradient and induces
additional recharge. The perennial yield of these aquifers would increase as
extraction increased so long as recharge was equal to, or greater than, the
extraction. This procedure does not take into consideration either existing or
potential problems with ground water quality.

82 Ground Water

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

■T3

?5
9i

e E .2.
0)-2 E

O C) V

Jq O
1$^

■
J)

(D
0)

-c

c
o

-o
c
o

c
E

c
o

^ ^ V)

-J q3

E ^

o 5 y

* s

J-^

(51

2 T

C Q) vfc

lTi

% 0)

Q c

-e

o
o

O 0)

Z ^

C ■!-

4) (1) (0 (1> 0) O

c c c c c c

O O O O O O

z z z z z z

KooKio>o>oo r\ioKKrvKrxiv>ooooooco

C^ CO c^ oo

a: CO Q£ CO Qi CO

QiCOQiCOQiCO__.-_._

•O r- .— ^ -^

i> CO

6 o

_5 o

3 n.

<::>

•o

c:>

•o

1 1

3 3

3 3 3 3 3 3

O O O O O O

J ^ J ^ J ^

o o o o o o

C c c c c c

_;^ -^ -^ -^ -;k -^

c c c c c c

3 3 3 3 3 3

o
o

•—

C»

8 8

*S jg g

Q-

o _ii q
CO © — '

d2 X

-n

o o o

z. :z -z

— ^ «o

lO cs •—

-j^

•^

< —

■5

<§

E
o

3
CO

Ground Water

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

•^ 1

o o

isfi

.= Q. q,

t- o >
o o »

O 0) o

S|.|
£o *

8 S-^

^£

E ^

o S ^
-3 v>

2
o

't s

c
o

•9 ^

CO o-

£ £

o o
Z Z

o
o
o
o"
o

o o o o

1 1 1

3 3 3

°8

o o
o o
o o

o
o
o

O 00
CN O
CM -^

o o

■n

■

2>\ .1

o o
.^ o

8 5

Ik c

c o

J'"

w 3

^ f <-»

9> O »
§ U o
E E ^

III

^3 < CO

CM CN CO

O O o o o o o

Z Z Q z z z z

O^ <S 00 O* O O^ 00

o*- o^ o^ o*^ c^ o^ o^

1 1.1 1 1 II

HI ■

c c c c c

-^ -)C -^ -^ -^

c c c c c

3 3 3 3 3

-^ -^ -^
c c c

3 3 3

O O O

-D-O-D-O-D-O-O-g-D

D O C O - D C
>>>>>>>

o e o o c o u

o o o
Z Z Z

o o
Z Z

o o

p. p.

O" CO

o CO

■ i|^H'~H|| m^ mm mm

hH B n Hf Ih

CN — CN
O^ O O^
&> O- (>^

o c

Z Z Z

o
o
o
d"
o

Ground Water

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

o
u

c
0)

E
o
o>

o
c
o

C
3

s
o

c c

I ^

E -£(

0) ^

S o

c
D

0) ~o

< eS </»

og <o

lit S^
■3 -53

o S y
-3 «/> ^

•2 "^

■c o

as -a

■T3

CS CN CN CN CN CN CS

^ o^ ^ 0^0* o^ ^

n '</) ■ n ■</> "O K t^

o "5 c b

_D CO O ^ CQ

U c •- U C •-

00 00

10 K K

>o ^ .—

c ^

^ 0) ^

000
Z Z Z

c
o

S'i

^ UJ -7-(

O i2 >

■£ I ^

o ~

a: .bz

o
U

55 :^

o o
Z Z

(-)

-0

<r5

c:)

'ifl

-0

0)
u_

Ci^

- 5L
O -

- i£ o

u->

' —

3 3

O ^ iJ
-700

6 ^ ^

(D 0)
O O

Z Z

3 3

o E 5 Q O

O J ^ O O

O O O "O^ o^

U-r _5 _5 CN r-"

c c O O

I I Q o

6 M^ o^

CN r— "

3 3

3 £

o E
- I

LJJ >

s; c^ S -5i

l|3

<^ 6

Q- "5

I 1

E 80

-;; — f^

R .9 O

-2 (u c 'I

o ^ £ U
\"^ o ^

o o

O 00

o o

8 8

d" o
o o

CO -^

O O

Ground Water

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

*- C >s

'JS

111
< Sot

c
o
u

III

in Call
pment

(1)

1- o

g-5
F I

o o

Q.J)

0>M.

^ *-•

g-2

c£l

O V

.fc

&- ^

«o

3 8*^

i>o

^ o*

o 5 y

^2:

-o

.■^

E
o

c>i

■

<5i

-Q

-«.

.2 i;

-D O

— lO

O K

JV o

CO CO

O
O
O
O"
o

o
o
o

o
o
o
o"

g ^
i g

S -9J

=> c

^—

03 =

= P

•E_g

'•^

c ^^

-2 S

Q._c

0) o

> ^

i.i

■£ ^

D CO

C
3

-gu

■— ^

'f u.

c §

>« a)

_g 0)

ts.

^—

co"

w-r

-o

fs.

3
6

•*~

Q-

o
o

o
to

_Q -^

_s -ii; 0

.E "D

o o

LO lO

K rs.

o o

^ _Q

0) O 3

E
d)

ai
o

I
I

-o
o
u

D3 _D

^ J ^

8 -B =
-2 O 5

o d

(U <U 0) 0) (U 0) (D

o o
Z Z

00 00 CN i« CM CN

K K 00 S 00 00

O^ O- (S O O- o»

.— .— >— ~D .— I—

Ch -^ d d

o o o o
-Z. 1. 1. -z.

CN CN 00 O
00 00 00 00

O O

Z Z

8^:f
R o 8

>. .E u u

0) .!2 (> _D

CO Q ■— Q.

O 00 -O O 00 -O
SD 00 K >0 00 t\

O^ O^ O^ o^ o^ o^

O O c O c c

O O -£ O O 6

o o « a.^ _S ^

00 ;5^ $ c c

— f^ — 3 3

oooooooo

_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^

I >1

i ^ s

D o .9?
m >- i/^

o
o

Ground Water

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

-a

E I

o o

- Qi

^ E ~Q

*- O %

C "fli O

E «~D

0) O c

O ft ">

o c

5 > fc

C
3
O

O
cs

J)
.o

c
o

I
§

^" ^ </i

III

E ^

-o o 1
o S y

-5 «o

= qS^

2 "^

■e u

•IE

•IC

•■s:

-2

-D

-o

</7

«o

o >o >o

O lO K

O-

O^ O^ O^

O-

d
u

a: to r!

d
U

-i£

o»

«-

«_

ut"

c
c

"8 ^^

^^^i^^H^^HBK

^aamm^BH

•c

.^^^RnHH^

g^n^^

J^^^^^^^H

^^^^^H

j^^^^^^^H

^^^HH

I^^^^^^^H

H^^B^

l^^^^^H

? J

ley 1

o
u

-D =

«8

1 1

ex
o

_^ ^ ->-

a> 0) <u
CT? O) o^

o o o

2 S 2 $

7-1 -71 -n y-

•^ 0) ~D "a ~D
^ i o rt r!

o = = =

o E

o b ^

^ ^

ii .i: .ii =: = Q)
V- V- V- n n r-

Q Q Q to to

OOOOCNCNCNCNCNCN
IVOOOOOOCXiOOOOOO

O^ (S o^ ^ o^ ^ o^ o^

lOO^OOOOO^O
— i— N.CSCX5>0-010

tU>

f~^

<_>

Q_J

<;3

t_^

r-)

—

■—

""sr

c!_!j

c!_!3

CJ?

^_^

tj?

^/■)

CnI

'>*

„

<i>

U-)

< —

W^l

'"t

o
o
o

o o
o o
o o

-^ o o rv CO CN o

lO CO CO O- -O MO 00

C7)

to to to to

E
«

c
o

CN CN CN CN CN CN CN
00 00 00 00 CO 00 00

Ov ^ o^ o^ o^ o^ ^

CN K CN CO IV CO O^
CO >0 '^ O ^ CO ^
00 CN O ^ 00 ^ CS

o o o o o o o

CO lO -^ O- O CO —
— CN .— CN lO CO CO

o
o
o

o
o

o
00

.—

—

{-^

c:)

U-1

■^

J-,

c->

c:>

c->

C")

^—

r—

cr>

, —

-<)

»o

«)

> On ^

O
O-

O
S3

O
O
O

O
O

c
o

:i^

_i«

, ^

-o

-n

c
0

^—

Ckl

V— .

«o

c
n

'*/>

"55

►£

Ground Water

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

c
o

c
q)

c
o

e E-Q
C -fli D

0) O C

Tom. °
O O «^

c _ -2

o a> o

"O .2

2
o

I ^$

^ ^ */>

E ^-

ex. Q)

-s> Sv—
o S ^

4:
p

c
o

J" 1^

3. 6M

.9 "^

O C

.i2 O D

"O -D Q.

§.1 s

E o p

I § §

P <rt m

O ^ roZ Z

>o
o^

c»>

£ £

o o

Z Z

I I

3 3

Si
O 1

1 1

Z> 3

o ^

c
.2 2>

o >

• >».

S ,9

OJ O

c >>

< =

J"H

«>

1 1

J o

dJ Q.

-O-D

-•- c

s °

E fc

0)
u

-n

rfc

"t; <U

vi:

S E

o
"2

8 8- §

U Q Z

a I

o
o
o

«^

I J-

cs o

O Q O
O O O

P. P. P.

^ CS CN

^ OJ

Q£

(D Q-
? O

o_ -^

-Q

T'™

-o

• V

_>s

■T3

o»

^—

■ —

c
3

■o

co"

■

•&

□

"53

-£

u
D

O
U

1 1

c E

d £ S

t c 00 I)

, .-2"5 o c
;o -Q ■>;,:d §

'CO O •/> i/y

P, -o

6 So

5 2^

"O „-2

E .

; -= t^ .>-Q
3 o •— g .i= Q.

5 §-0 ? o ^ s ■= 5 I

\2 — "5 U ~

00 ° ID —

-^ ■£ «i_
-loll

£'~ a ">

= t 1

i^Q- o g o

:2. o

0 ^

a: 2

-^.^^
§<>-.=

.= CM 2

8."°

« c o

-^> £

3 «> ~

-S g' 8-7-

E .-= o o 5
o c o. ^ ^ .E

o ^-o S °> «- o S:| o 3
" X m-p-n o - >^ai>'"T3

- E-^ 5 £ "^ e11|.I.=5 I
1 (£ Z) O rv 00 < — — — —

0-5 S c gU Q c

s 1 2<^ i-s g-:i

! 00 :

5^9 S,^

Ground Water

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

' Ground Water Overdraft

In areas where water demands exceed available surface water and sustainable
ground water supplies, a portion of the difference between supply and demand is often
made up by extracting ground water, thereby decreasing the amount of ground water

Evaluation of Ground Water Overdraft in ttie San Joaquin Valley

Ground water overdraft for the San Joaquin Valley was evaluated for each
planning subarea (PSA) using two independent methodologies: the specific yield
method and the water balance method. The specific yield method examines
changes in ground water storage over a long period; the water balance method is
based on the balancing of water supplies and demands for each PSA.

In computing overdraft using the specific yield method, ground water level
measurements from 1 970 through spring 1 983 were used. This period was chosen for the
following reasons;

O The total water supplies and demands for this period
were nearly the same as the 1990 normalized supplies
and demands.

O On average, the local water supplies and deliveries dur-
ing 1970-82 were quite similar to the long-term average
supplies and deliveries. This minimizes the need to correct
for any unusual ground water recharge and pumping.
Also, local stream runoff during 1 970-82 was very close to
the long-term average runoff (about 102 percent of the
long-term average). Ground water overdraft was com-
puted based on 100-percent average local runoff and
deliveries.

O The years preceding the ground water level measure-
ments in 1970 and spring 1983 were both wet years and
quite similar. This similarity reduces the potential for signif i-
I cant differences in ground water recharge during unlike

I years. Such an occurrence would complicate overdraft

I computations using the specific yield method.

I The impact of subsidence on water level measurements and the loss of ground

■ water storage were evaluated using pre-1970 subsidence rates. More recent, but

; limited, data from a few locations along the California Aqueduct were also used.

f For the water balance method , the long-term overage local and imported water

supplies were tabulated, along with the long-term average annual natural
I percolation to ground water tables. These amounts were then compared to the
I normalized water demand for each PSA, Ground water overdraft was computed as
I the difference between water supplies and demands.

I The two methodologies produced similar ground water overdraft computations

I . for most of the PSAs in the San Joaquin Valley. One notable exception is the

I Kings-Kaweah-Tule Rivers PSA , where the specific yield method produced significantly

I smaller overdraft than did the water balance method. An extensive investigation was

I done to understand the reason for such a difference; however, no specific reason for

f the large difference could be found. Actual ground water overdraft in the

I Kings-Kaweah-Tule Rivers PSA is probably somewhere between the values produced

I by the two methodologies. For this PSA, the California Water Plan Update used the

I overage of the ground water overdraft values computed using the two different

I methods.

Ground water quality degradation is another factor that must be considered
when computing overdraft. Ground water overdraft in a basin may induce the
subsurface movement of poor-quality water into higher-quality water. The resultant
quality degradation may reduce the usable storage of a ground water basin. This
adverse effect of ground water overdraft was evaluated and included in the ground
water overdraft computations for the California Water Plan Update.

Ground Water 89

Bulletin 160-93 TTie CaUfomla Water Plan Update

In Sacrajnento,
California, a gasoUne
tank suspected of leaking
is being removed to
protect ground water
quality. Until recently,
most types of under-
ground chemical storage
tanks were constructed
in a way that allowed
the tariks to leak contam-
inants into the soiL
SWRCB now manages a
program to control con-
tamination from
underground tanks.

in storage in those basins. Where the ground water extraction is in excess of inflow to
the ground water basin over a period of time, the difference provides an estimate of
overdraft. Such a period of time must be long enough to produce a record that, when
averaged, approximates the long-term average hydrologic conditions for the basin.
Bulletin 11 8-80 defines "overdraft" as the condition of a ground water basin \«^ere the
amount of water extracted exceeds the amount of ground water recharging the basin
"over a period of time." It also defines "critical condition of overdraft" as water manage-
ment practices that "would probabty result in significant adverse overdraft-related en-
vironmental, social, or economic effects." Water quality degradation and land subsi-
dence are given as examples of two such adverse effects. Table 4-3 shows 1990
estimated ground water overdraft by hydrologic r^on.

During the 1987-92 drought, ground water, where available, was extracted to
make up for reductions in surface water deliveries. The result was that ground water
levels and the amoiuit of ground water in storage declined considerably. Such a decline
is not considered overdraft, rather it is considered as removal of ground water finom
storage, similar to removal of water fix>m a surface reservoir. In the past, such declines
have been reversed during wet years ui^en surface water reservoirs refilled and ground
water aquifers were recharged.

Ground water quality degradation reduces usable ground water storage in
ground water basins. Ground water overdraft in a basin can produce a gradient that in-

induces movement of
water firom adjacent
areas, tf the adjacent
areas contain poor qual-
ity water, d^radation
can occur in the basin.
There is a west-to-east
water gradient in the
San Joaquin valley fit>m
Merced County to Kern
County. Poor quality
ground water moves
eastward along this
gradient. displacing
good quality ground wa-
ter in the trough of the
vaUey. The total dis-
solved solids in the west
side of the vaUey general^ range from 2.000 to 7.000 millig)rams per liter, the east side
water from 300 to 700 milligrams per liter. This adverse effect of overdraft and pos-
sible degradation of ground water quality in the San Joaquin Vall^ has been eva-
luated and included in ground water overdraft estimates.

In the short term, those areas of California that rety on Delta e:^ports for all or a
portion of thefr 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 re-
strictions limited CVP deliveries to 50 percent of contracted suppty for federal water
service contractors fix>m Tracy to Kettleman City. Because ground water is used to re-
place much of the shortfall in svirface water supplies, limitations on Delta exports will

Ground Water

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Table 4-3. Ground Water Overdraft by Hydrologic Region

(Hiousands of acre- feet)

Region 1990

North Coast 0

San Francisco Bay 0

Central Coast 240

South Coast 20

Sacramento River 30

San Joaquin 210

Tulare Lake 650

North Lahontan 0

South Lahontan 70

Colorado River 80

STATEWIDE 1,300

increase 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.

The ground water basins in small coastal areas of the Central Coast Region have
limited storage capacity. During drought periods, water levels in most of these basins
sometimes decline to a point where ground water basins are not usable. However, dur-
ing wet periods, most of these basins recover, thus making evaluation of overdraft or
perennial yields difficult. Overdraft amounts shown for the Central Coast Region were
estimated by reviewing previous studies and could be overestimated. In addition, the
Central Coast presently receives USER water through San Felipe and will soon receive
SWP water through the Coastal Branch of the California Aqueduct. These imported
supplies could reduce overdraft in the region. A more comprehensive study of the
ground water use in this region is needed to more accurately estimate the overdraft.

Estimated overdraft amounts are based on ouerdrq/i being defined as the amount
of ground water extracted for the 1990 level of development that is in excess of the
current perennial yield. "Current perennial yield" is the amount of ground water that
can be extracted without lowering ground water levels over the long-term. Perennial
yield in basins where there is hydraulic continuity between surface and ground water
depends in part on the amount of extraction that occurs. Perennial yield can Increase
as extraction increases, as long as the annual amount of recharge is equal to, or greater
than, the amount of extraction. Extraction at a level that exceeds the perennial yield for
a short period does not result in an overdraft condition. In basins with an adequate
ground water supply, increased extraction may establish a new hydrologic equilibrium
with a new perennial yield. The establishment of a new and higher perennial yield re-
quires that adequate recharge be induced. The methods used to estimate perennial
yield and ground water overdraft assume that the amount of ground water extracted
for the 1990 level of development is the amount of extraction that has taken place, or
could take place, without lowering ground water levels over a long period of time. These
estimates must include evaluation of the existing water management program in the
basin.

Changes in surface water deliveries will undoubtedly change the perennial yield
and overdraft conditions in the future. For example, delivery of surplus surface water
supplies from the SWP and CVP will probably occur much less frequently in the future.

Ground Water 91

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Such decreases in delivery of surface water will probably decrease perennial yields in
basins that receive SWP and CVP water.

Sea Water Intrusion

Along some parts of the coast, declining ground water levels allow sea water to
intrude into fresh water aquifers. Los Angeles County operates sea water intrusion bar-
rier projects in West Basin and Dominguez Gap. Los Angeles and Orange counties
jointly op)erate a sea water intrusion barrier in Los Alamitos Gap, which straddles the
border between the two counties. In most of these barriers, water from water recycling
facilities or from MWDSC imported deliveries is injected and flows down gradient in
both directions — toward the ocean as well as inland where it mixes with ground water
in the aquifer and can be extracted by irrigation and municipal wells. In some basins,
a sea water intrusion barrier may be a cost-effective management tool that would allow
greater use of the basin's ground water storage capacity.

In Salinas Valley, sea water intrusion was occurring before the drought began.
During the drought, the rate of intrusion accelerated because of decreased ground wa-
ter recharge and increased ground water extraction. Monterey County Water Re-i
sources Agency has formulated long-term plans to construct and operate facilities to
substitute surface water for ground water to alleviate the sea water intrusion problem.
The SWRCB is putting pressure on the Agency to start action immediately to stop the
intrusion, which is now almost 5 miles inland and threatens to contaminate municipal
wells in Salinas. MCWRA is dealing with overdraft and sea water intrusion in the coast-
al areas of the Salinas Basin and is in the process of preparing the Salinas River Basin
Management Plan. Under this plan, MCWRA will screen management alternatives for
preparation of an EIR/EIS. The agency has also adopted eight ordinances including
requiring the metering of all wells with a discharge size greater than three inches, agri-
cultural and urban conservation measures, establishing upper pumping limits, and
ground water management charges with penalties for use exceeding the pumping lim-
its. Sea water intrusion is also occurring in the area of the Pajaro River. Pajaro Valley
Water Management Agency and the City of Watsonville are formulating plans to ad-
dress the problems in that area.

In Ventura County, elevated chloride levels have been measured in much of the
Oxnard Plain since the 1950s. Recent studies have concluded that there are three
sources of chloride: sea water intrusion in a relatively small area; a larger area into
which saline water has migrated from adjacent marine formations; and leakage of chlo-
ride from an upper perched aquifer through failed well casings into an underlying aqui-
fer. The sea water does not appear to be moving inland. Local agencies are developing
programs to address the migration of saline water and the wells that have been im-
properly destroyed. Fox Canyon Ground Water Management Agency, United Water
Conservation District, and City of Ventura are all formulating plans to address the
problems in that area.

Subsidence

In some parts of California, ground water extraction has caused subsidence of
the land surface. Accurate prediction of subsidence is generally not possible with our
present level of knowledge or current data about the extent and properties of aquifer
sediments in subsidence areas. In some areas subsidence occurs when ground water
levels decline below a certain level. Data collected from six extensometers in Westlands
Water District Indicate that subsidence occurred in 1990, 1991, and 1992, with the
highest amount of subsidence occurring in 1991. Land subsidence can change canal
gradients, damage buildings, and require repairof other structures. In some instances.

92 Ground Water

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

local water management agencies may determine that a certain amount of land subsi-
dence is allowable as a part of their ground water management program.

In areas where ground water extraction is proceeding or where such programs
i are planned, the potential for subsidence should be evaluated. Water managers may
{ wish to include extensometer and land surface surveying if subsidence is a real poten-
tial.

I Ground Water Quality

A change in ground water gradient may accelerate movement of contaminants
toward water-producing wells. (See Chapter 5 for an explanation of contaminant
movement and levels.) This accelerated movement of contaminants may be particularly
true where ground water levels have been lowered significantly because of increased
extraction during droughts. However, a ground water monitoring program for water
levels and water quality is necessary to evaluate such changes.

Management of Ground Water Resources

Ground water basin management is defined as: protection of natural recharge
and use of intentional recharge; planned variation in amount and location of extrac-
tion over time; use of ground water storage conjunctively with surface water from lo-
cal and imported sources; and, protection and planned maintenance of ground water
quality. If the basin is managed to achieve these goals, ground water overdraft will be
reduced and water supplies of good quality will be sustainable.

Initial use of ground water in California considered only one aspect — building a
! I well and extracting ground water. It was only when ground water levels began to de-
cline, or landowners could not extract enough water from their wells, that consider-
ation was given to the second aspect of ground water use — recharge. In contrast, no
one would think of building a dam for water supply purposes before first identifying
and quantifying a source of water to fill the reservoir behind the dam. Water managers
in many areas where ground water was depleted realized that action was required and
requested legislation to provide authority to manage the ground water basins.

The tjApe of management structure and the extent of management of ground wa-
ter basins in California vary considerably. In part, this variety arose because ground
water was treated as a property right while surface water was treated under a complex
system of riparian and appropriative rights. The result is that ground water is regu-
lated both by statute and by case law from court decisions. As might be imagined, the
I j combination of the two makes for great complexity in managing this resource.

Management of ground water in California has generally been considered a local
responsibility. This view is strongly held by landowners and has been upheld by the
Legislature (in a number of statutes that have established local ground water agencies)
and by the courts (in decisions). State agencies have encouraged local agencies to de-

i velop effective ground water management programs to maximize their overall water
supply and to avoid lengthy and expensive lawsuits resulting in adjudicated basins.
The end result of either local agency ground water management programs or adjudica-

I tlon may be similar. Effective management can be achieved through either method.

Thirteen ground water basins have been adjudicated and are operated in accor-
dance with court settlements. A fourteenth watershed has been adjudicated in federal
court, but water users are not limited in their ground water extraction.

The California Water Code provides for management and distribution of surface
i j water and in many instances provides some limited authority to deal with ground wa-

Ground Water 93

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

ter through a number of types of local water agencies and districts, formed either by
general or special legislation. Nine ground water management agencies have been au-
thorized by the State Legislature. These agencies can enact ordinances affecting
ground water extraction, establish zones of benefits, and charge a ground water ex-
traction fee or levy taxes for actions that benefit the extractors. "Zone of benefit" means
an area, including but not limited to, subbasins within a district which will benefit
from planning, studies, or any management program undertaken by that district in a
manner different from other areas or subbasins within the district (Water Code, Appen-
dix 119-322 and 135-833).

Many water agencies have statutory authority from the Legislature to levy
charges for ground water extraction when it is shown that the surface water conveyed
to the area recharges the aquifer, thereby benefiting the ground water extractors. Not
all of these agencies have exercised that authority. Some of those that have are Orange
County Water District, Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District, Santa Clara Valley
Water District, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, and recently, Mon-
terey County Water Resources Agency.

Such charges are colloquially called a "pump tax," although the term "water re-
plenishment assessment" is used in the Water Code. The water replenishment assess-
ment may consist of a water charge, a general assessment, a replenishment assess-
ment, or a combination of two or more of the above.

In 1992, the Water Code was amended (Water Code Section 10750, et seq.) to
provide authority and define procedures to allow certain local agencies to produce and
implement a ground water management plan. To date, more than 40 local agencies
have expressed interest in using that section of the Water Code provision to adopt a
ground water management program. A number of those agencies have adopted resolu-
tions of intent in accordance with Water Code Section 10750 to adopt a ground water
management plan. Adoption of such a resolution allows the agency two years to adopt
a plan. If no plan is adopted in that time frame, the agency must start the process over
again. The Water Code encourages coordination between agencies in the same basin.
Early indications are that some agencies that share a basin are interested in formulat-
ing their own plans, while some other agencies that share a basin intend to develop one
coordinated cooperative plan for the entire basin. In addition, several mutual water
companies have expressed interest in developing ground water management plans.

Procedure for Adopting a Ground Water Management Plan
In Accordance with Water Code Section 10750

□ Hold noticed public hearing on Resolution of Intention to Draft a Ground Water
Management Plan.

□ Write and publish a Resolution of Intention to Adopt a Ground Water Management
Plan.

□ Prepare a draft ground water management plan within two years or restart the pro-
cess.

□ After the draft plan is completed, hold a second noticed hearing.

□ Landowners affected by the plan may file protests.

□ If a majority protest occurs (representing more than 50 percent of the assessed valu-
ation of the land), the ground water management plan shall not be adopted.

□ If a majority protest does not occur, the plan may be adopted.

□ A local agency may fix and collect fees and assessments for ground water manage-
ment costs associated with the implementation of the ground water management
plan, if such authority is approved by a majority of votes cast in a popular election.

94 Ground Water

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

However, such local entities are not included in the legal definition of'local agency" but
can sign Memorandums of Understanding with local agencies to develop a ground wa-
ter management plan under Section 10750.

Adjudicated Basins

In 13 adjudicated ground water basins, ground water extraction is regulated by
a watermaster that has been appointed by the court. Twelve of these adjudicated ba-
sins are in Southern California and one is in Northern California (Figure 4-2). Ground
water extraction in each of these basins was adjudicated with concern only for ground
water quantity. Ground water quality was not a part of the original court decisions.

The amount of ground water that each well owner can extract is determined by
the court decision and is based on the amount of ground water that is avciilable each
year, as determined by the watermaster. While each court decision may be slightly dif-
ferent, the goal is to avoid ground water overdraft by providing sustainable yield. Adju-
dication of these ground water basins has generally resulted in additional imports of
surface water supplies to make up for reduced extraction.

The thirteen adjudicated ground water basins and watermasters in California
are:

Los Angeles County
Q Central Basin: DWR
O West Coast Basin: DWR

O Upper I>os Angeles River Area: an individual specified in the court decision
O Raymond Basin: management board appointed by the court, DWR staff
O Main San Gabriel Basin: nine-director board

Kern County
O Cummings Basin: Tehachapi-Cummings Water District
O Tehachapi Basin: Tehachapi-Cummings Water District

San Bernardino County
O Warren Valley: Hi-Desert Water District

O San Bernardino Basin Area: one representative each from Western Municipal
Water District of Riverside County and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District

O Cucamonga Basin: not yet appointed

O Mojave River Basin: Mojave Water Agency

Riverside and San Bernardino Counties
O Chino Basin: Chino Basin Municipal Water District

Siskiyou County
O Scott River Stream System: two local irrigation districts

Ground water and surface water in a fourteenth basin, Santa Margarita River
Watershed in Riverside and San Diego Counties, has also been adjudicated by the fed-
eral court. Water users are required by the court decision to report to the court-ap-
pointed water master the amount of surface water they divert from the river, canals, or
ditches, and the amount of ground water they extract from the aquifer. However, the
amount of water they are entitled to is not limited by the decision.

Ground Water 95

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure 4-2. Locations of Adjudicated Ground Water Basins

Ground Water

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

The watermaster for Main San Gabriel Basin in Southern California has since
returned to the court and obtained approval of regulations to control extraction for the
purpose of protecting ground water quality. Ground water underflow from Puente Ba-
sin, a part of Main San Gabriel Basin, was addressed in a court decision separate from
the Main San Gabriel adjudication. The court named two individuals to act in the ca-
pacity of watermaster.

Ground Water Management Agencies

The Legislature has enacted several specific statutes establishing ground water
management agencies that can enact ordinances to regulate the amount of ground wa-
ter that is extracted and limit its place of use within the district's boundaries. Nine
ground water management agencies have been formed by such spiecial legislation. (See
Figure 4-3 for their locations.)

While these agencies have the authority to pass ordinances, such ordinances lim-
iting extraction are not popular with landowners within the agency's boundaries. In
addition, the funding for studies that are required to establish zones of benefit to en-
sure equitable assessments has not been readily available. Therefore, it is not yet clear
whether these agencies will become viable and effective at managing ground water in
a manner that conserves quantity and preserves good quality.

The nine ground water management agencies are:

Lassen County

O Honey Lake Valley Ground Water Management District: Board of Directors not
yet appointed.

O Willow Creek Valley Ground Water Management District: Board of Directors has
been appointed.

Lassen and Sierra Counties

O Long Valley Ground Water Management District: has adopted an ordinance that
requires a permit to export ground water outside the basin.

Sierra County

O Sierra Valley Ground Water Management District: has called for voluntary
landowner cooperation to reduce extraction and submit records on extraction.

Mono County

O Mono County Tri-Valley Ground Water Management Agency: is establishing a
network of monitoring wells.

Mendocino County

O Mendocino City Community Services District: requires well owners to record
their extraction.

Santa Cruz County
O Pqjaro Valley Water Management Agency: is dealing with sea water intrusion
and high nitrates in ground water. A basin management plan that will address
ground water extraction and surface water imports has been completed, and
fees on extraction have been assessed.

Ventura County

O Fox Canyon Ground Water Management Agency: has adopted an ordinance
prohibiting export of ground water outside the lateral boundaries of the aquifer.

Groundwater 97

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure 4-3. Locations of Ground Water l\/lanagement Districts or Agencies

Ground Water

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Q OJai Basin Ground Water Management Agency: Board of Directors recently
appointed. Water quality of the basins is good, with the apparent exception of
localized, elevated nitrate ion concentrations. Further data collection over a
wider geographic area will be required to identify the severity of the problem.

Water Districts witti a Pump Ctiarge

A number of water districts have obtained Legislative authority to levy a pump
charge on wells that extract a certain amount of ground water. Two of these districts
manage their surface water and ground water in a conjunctive operation. The third is
moving in the same direction. These water districts are:

Orange County
O Orange County Water District

Santo Clara County
Q Santa Clara Valley Water District

Monterey County
O Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

Ott)er Districts

Desert Water Agency and Coachella Valley Water District are authorized to levy
replenishment assessment charges to fund certain programs. Many other flood control
and water conservation districts, water storage districts, water replenishment districts,
irrigation districts, community services districts, water agencies, and others either
manage surface water only or may be involved in some minor ground water manage-
ment. Management of surface water can affect the timing and location of ground water
extraction, use, and recharge.

Effect of the Drought on Ground Water

The large amount of ground water available in California's ground water basins
provided a reliable source of water during the 1987-92 drought. During previous
droughts ground water extraction has provided as much as 60 percent of urban and
agricultural applied water statewide. The following sections describe the effects of
drought on ground water levels and storage and potential impacts from overdrafting
basins.

Ground Water Levels and Storage

The depth of water in wells in California's ground water basins differs consider-
ably among basins and even in different parts of the same basin. The water levels are
affected by many factors, including the amount of recharge that has occurred in pre-
vious years, the ratio of surface water to ground water used, the total number and
location of wells extracting ground water from the basin, the amount of ground water
that flows out of the basin, and the total amount of ground water extracted from the
basin.

While smaller surface water reservoirs can refill in a single year if the precipita-
tion and runoff are above normal, it can take several years of above normal precipita-
tion before ground water levels in a basin recover to pre-drought levels. The increase in
ground water storage is a function of the amounts of pumping and natural rechcirge, as
well as the contribution to recharge from applied irrigation water or direct recharge
operations.

The amount of ground water currently in storage in the San Joaquin Valley has
decreased considerably since 1987 because of the low amount of recharge from spring

Ground Water 99

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

1987 through spring 1992, combined with the large amount of ground water that was
extracted during that time.

As a result of the drought, it was expected that the extraction of ground water
through spring 1992 would be much higher than normal. In Kern County, more
ground water was extracted between spring 1991 and spring 1992 than during the
previous four years. However, the amount of ground water extracted between spring
199 1 and spring 1992 in Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, and Kings coun-
ties was significantly less than the amount of ground water extracted during the pre-
vious few years. The reasons for the unexpected decreases in ground water extractions
are still being investigated. Possible factors include rainfall variations, fallowed land,
changes in crops, a high intensity-long duration rainfall in some parts of California in
March 1991, and somewhat better runoff amounts in 1991 than in 1990 for the south-
ern Sierra Nevada. The change in ground water in storage in the San Joaquin Valley is
shown in Figure 4-4.

Ground water levels in most basins rose as a result of ground water recharge
from the storms that passed over California in December 1992 and January through
March 1993 which provided large amounts of precipitation and runoff. Such recovery
of ground water levels in many basins occurs during wet years, primarily as a result of
two factors:

O Surface water is available and is the primary source of irrigation water, thus
reducing extraction of ground water.

O In many areas, about 1 5 to 20 percent of the water applied for irrigation moves
past the root zone and results in recharge of the ground water basin. The
amount of such deep percolation varies in different areas.

The net change in the amount of ground water storage during summer 1993 will
not be known until spring 1994 water level measurements are evaluated. The spring
measurements of any year reflect events that occurred during the previous 12 months.
Thus, spring 1 993 water level measurements reflect the recharge that occurred in win-
ter 1992-93 and the extraction that took place in sunjmer 1992.

In the Sacramento Valley, ground water levels and storage did not decline signifi-
cantly in Glenn and Colusa counties during the 1987-92 drought. In Butte and

Figure 4-4.

Cumulative Change in

Ground Water Storage

San Joaquin Valley

100

Ground Water

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Tehama counties, ground water levels declined, but some remained higher than they
were after the 1976-77 drought. The change in ground water storage in the
Sacramento Valley is shown in Figure 4-5.

In coastal areas, some ground water basins have limited storage. Ground water
levels in such basins are often lowered to near critical levels each fall, thus making
evaluation of overdraft or sustainable yield difficult. These basins require relatively
little time to recharge to return to a full condition. As a result, ground water levels in
these basins can rise rapidly due to high rainfall such as occurred in March 1991, De-
cember 1992. and January through March 1993.

The ground water basins surrounding Clear Lake in Lake County also have lim-
ited storage capacity. Each year ground water levels in these shallow ground water ba-
sins decline to a point where ground water quality starts to deteriorate. But each win-
ter these basins normally refill. In these areas of limited storage, ground water has very
little capacity to support additional development.

Ground water levels in the adjudicated basins and managed basins in Southern
California vary. In Main San Gabriel Basin and the coastal plain of Orange County,
water levels are about at the middle of their court-approved operating range. Ground
water levels in San Fernando Valley range from high to low, depending on location.
Levels in Central and West Coast Basins cire fairly high.

Wells and Ground Water Use

Reduction of surface supplies during drought increases ground water extraction
while recharge remains significantly below normal. As ground water levels decline,
more energy is required to lift the water to the surface, adding to the cost of water for
urban and Agricultural use. Furthermore, existing wells often become unusable, re-
quiring deepening or, in some cases, replacement of wells. (Figure 4-6 shows the num-
ber of well completion reports filed, by year, from 1974 through 1992.) Upon the return
of normal or above normal precipitation, such as that occurring in late 1992 and 1993,
ground water extraction decreases markedly as surface water becomes more available.
The shift from using ground water to using surface water results in significant ground
water recharge.

Million Acre-Feet

^^^^^^^^g

^^^^B^HB

^Rl^S^^H

4 * 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1

1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992

Unconfined Aquifer

Figure 4-5.

Cumulative Change in
Ground Water Storage
Sacramento Valley

Ground Water

101

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure 4-6.
Annual Well

Completion

Reports

(thousands)

Ground water

recharge in the City

of Bakersjield. The

city operates a

2,800-acre recharge

facility southwest of

Bakersfield where

the city and some

local water agencies

recharge surplus

Kern River water,

and occasionally

SWP and Friant-Kern

Canal water The

water is withdrawn

in drier times.

The number of new wells reported as drilled during the 1987-92 drought peaked
in 1990 after increasing during the earlier years of the drought. Slightly over one-third
of the wells reported in 1990 were monitoring wells and many others were either re-
placement or deepening of existing wells.

Conjunctive Use

Conjunctive use is the operation of a ground water basin in coordination with a
surface water system to increase total water supply availability, thus improving the
overall reliability of supplies. The basin is recharged, both directly and indirectly, in
years of above-average precipitation so that ground water can be extracted in years of
below-average precipitation when surface water supplies are below normal. In some
instances conjunctive use is employed for annual regulation of supplies. These pro-
grams involve recharge with surface water or reclaimed water supplies and same-year
extraction for use. Aquifer storage and recovery programs are a good example of con-
junctive use. Following is a discussion of effective conjunctive use programs and the

types of programs in-
place today.

Conjunctive use
programs are designed
to increase the total us-
able water supply by
jointly managing sur-
face and ground water
supplies as a single
source. As such, they
are widespread in
California but differ
greatly in their intensity
and degree of planning.
Management can vary
from recharging a lim-
ited amount of sporadi-

102

Ground Water

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

cally available surface water to a comprehensive management program that coordinates
surface water use, delivery, recharge, and ground water extraction and use.

In the future, carefully planned conjunctive use will increase and become more
comprehensive because of the need for more water and the generally higher cost of new
surface water facilities. Conjunctive use programs generally promise to be less costly
than new traditional surface water projects because they increase the efficiency of wa-
ter supply systems and cause fewer negative environmental impacts than new surface
water reservoirs.

Various local agencies have implemented programs and coordinated with other
agencies to recharge surface water, when it is available, so that ground water will be
stored in the aquifer until it is needed. These agencies have effectively secured or im-
plemented some or all of the following components of a conjunctive use program:

O a source of surface water

Q identified usable storage capacity in the aquifer

Q identified possible re-regulation of surface water reservoirs

O recharge facilities

O extraction facilities

O distribution facilities for surface water and ground water

O monitoring wells for quantity and quality

O a means of financing and sharing the costs among the beneficiaries

Carefully planned and implemented conjunctive use programs can be developed
without causing significant adverse impacts. However, the effect of such programs on
native vegetation and wetland habitat, fish and wildlife resources, third parties, land
subsidence, and degradation of water quality in the aquifer must be evaluated. Phrea-
tophytic vegetation may be stressed when ground water levels are lowered because less
water is available in root zones. Similar processes can also affect wetlands. Potential
adverse effects on third parties include lowering of ground water levels below the bot-
tom of wells, or raising ground water levels so that local flooding occurs. Subsidence
caused by extraction of ground water can affect canals, wells, buildings, tanks,
bridges, and levees that require costly repair. Ground water quality can be degraded if
ground water gradients induce movement of lower quality water into the aquifer.

Interest in conjunctive use as a means of augmenting supplies that may then be
exported to areas outside the basin has led to questions about the feasibility and legal
complexity of water transfers involving ground water. Both the State Water Code and
the recently passed Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 specify that any wa-
ter transfers under their respective jurisdictions cause "no significant long-term ad-
verse impact on ground water conditions in the transferor's service area." The CVPIA
requirement will affect water districts that receive water from the CVP and seek to
transfer either surface or ground water.

Conjunctive Use Programs

A broad range of conjunctive use activities have been undertaken in California,
although many of them probably were not thought of as conjunctive use when devel-
oped. The range of conjunctive use activities in California is illustrated by the following
partial list of examples of programs in place today.

Alameda County Water District. The district is located near the mouth of the
Niles Cone area of Alameda County, adjacent to San Francisco Bay. Historically, ex-
Ground Water 103

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

traction of ground water from the basin lowered ground water levels and allowed sea
water from the Bay to intrude. In response, the district has developed an extensive pro-
gram to recharge local supplies from Alameda Creek and imported supplies from other
surface sources.

Kern County. In Kern County, a mix of local, regional, and State conjunctive use
projects are operating or are under development. The Kern County Ground Water Ba-
sin is in overdraft although changes in storage vary considerably depending on the sur-
face water availability to local agencies. Several districts have responded by building
and operating recharge projects that take advantage of imported and/or local surface
water when available. For example, the Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District pur-
chases surface water from three sources and recharges ground water via Goose Lake
Slough. Essentially all water use within the district is supplied by ground water.

On an interregional scale, the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District and the Met-
ropolitan Water District of Southern California are developing a cooperative water
banking project. In this complex program, Arvin-Edison will provide MWDSC water
during dry years from Aivin-Edison's CVP supply and will replace this water by pump- i
ing ground water from a basin previously recharged with surface water supplies made
available by MWDSC from its SWP supply. (See Chapter 1 1 for more details about the
program.) |

The Department of Water Resources, in cooperation with local agencies in Kern
County, is developing the Kern Water Bank project to augment the supplies available
to SWP contractors in drought years. (See Chapter 1 1 for more details.)

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. In 1989, MWDSC imple- :
mented a seasonal ground water storage program utilizing both direct and in lieu re- :
charge and storage in local ground water basins to increase emergency supply and pro-
vide carryover storage for droughts.

Orange County Water District. This district has, one of the most elaborate con-
junctive use programs. It purchases imported surface water from MWDSC for ground
water recharge, manages runoff and recycled water in the Santa Ana River, manages
extraction from the basin, operates a sea water intrusion barrier, is contemplating
additional barriers to allow use of even more ground water storage capacity, is improv-
ing ground water quality in areas where it has been degraded, and recharges a large
quantity of recycled water. ^yk

Santa Clara Valley Water District. The district provides and operates treat- •
ment and distribution facilities for surface water imported from the SWP and the CVP
and recharge sites for local surface and imported water supplies. The basin is managed
to provide an adequate supply of ground water annually, eliminate land subsidence,
and provide carryover ground water storage as a buffer against dry years when local
and imported surface water supplies are reduced.

South Sutter Water District. Irrigated agriculture in this area has relied on
ground water for many years. As a result, a regional ground water depression devel-
oped as local pumping exceeded recharge. In response to the declining ground water
levels, the district constructed Camp Far West reservoir on the Bear River to develop a
partial surface water supply for the district. This has been successful in reducing de-
mand on the ground water basin, which has since recovered. During extended dry pe-
riods, increased ground water use causes ground water levels to fall. The district is
investigating ways to further develop the conjunctive use potential of the basin.

104 Ground Water

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

United Water Conservation District. The district captures winter runoff in
Lake Piru and releases the water each fall down the Santa Clara River to replenish the
ground water basins along the river. These basins have limited storage capacity and
are generally operated on an annual cycle that largely uses the entire capacity. United
also operates two spreading areas to recharge the Oxnard Plain ground water basin in
coastal Ventura County.

Westlands Water District. The early development of irrigated agriculture in
Westlands was based on extraction of ground water from a deep, confined aquifer sys-
tem. This development resulted in extensive land subsidence. To alleviate this prob-
lem. Westlands obtained an imported surface water supply from the CVP that allowed
it to largely eliminate ground water pumping in most years. In years with deficient sur-
face water supplies, water users revert to ground water pumping.

Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. This district op-
erates Clear Lake and Indian Valley reservoirs to provide a surface water supply for
irrigated agriculture. The district does not have the capability of extracting ground wa-
ter, but local farmers maintain the capability to largely offset dry year surface water
shortages by pumping additional ground water. The district has undertaken a program
to artificially recharge ground water in its service area.

Prospects for the Future

In the future, conjunctive use is expected to increase and become more compre-
hensive if California's water needs are to be met in a cost effective and efficient manner
while resolving conflicts with other resources. Conjunctive use programs generally
promise to be less costly than new traditional surface water projects as they increase
the efficiency of existing systems and are expected to cause fewer negative environ-
mental impacts.

Recommendations

The State should encourage efforts to develop ground water management pro-
grams at the local and regional levels and to remove legal, institutional, financial, and
other barriers that limit conjunctive use of ground water basins. The programs should
be focused on solutions to clearly identified problems, such as overdraft, and natural
and human-caused contamination so as to optimize the use of surface and ground
water resources. Specific recommendations are as follows:

1 . Local agencies should adopt programs for ground water management with the
following goals:

a. Identify and protect major natural recharge areas. Devel-
op managed recharge programs where feasible.

b. Optimize use of ground water storage conjunctively with
surface water from local sources, including storage of re-
cycled water and imported sources.

c. Increase monitoring of ground water quality so that the
State can improve its ability to assess and respond to wa-
ter degradation problems. Report trends in the chemical
contents of ground water.

d. Develop ground water basin management plans that not
only manage supply, but also address overdraft, increas-
ing salinity, chemical contamination, and subsidence.

Ground Water 105

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

e. Adopt and implement a public education program to en-
sure that citizens understand the importance of ground
water and steps they can take to protect and enhance their
water supply.

Continuing use of overdraft as a source of supply is not sustainable and must
be addressed in State and local water management plans. Options for addres-
sing the management of overdraft will be strongly influenced by economic fac-
tors that must be considered in such plans.

106 Groundwater

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Ground Water 107

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Water samples are tested at DWR's Bryte Lab, located on the west
side of the Sacramento River. The sensitive electronic equipment
used at this lab can detect one part chemical in one billion parts
water.

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Chapter 5

Water has numerous uses, and each use has certain quality requirements that Woter QuaMtV
vary widely. The quality needed to wash cars, for example, is lower than that required
to irrigate orchards or make computer chips. In some cases, different water uses have
conflicting quality requirements; water temperatures ideal for crop irrigation may be
unsuitable for fish spawning, for instance.

Quality considerations have a direct bearing on the quantity of water available for
use. Water quality parameters, such as temperature, turbidity, and oxygen, mineral,
dissolved metal, £md nutrient content, all affect the usability of water and, therefore,
affect the total available quantity for specific uses. Although California has access to a
virtually unlimited supply of ocean water, it is too salty for most uses without costly
treatment. Water management must consider quality to determine the overall avail-
ability of water supplies in California. The pressures of a steadily growing population,
additional requirements for water to meet environmental needs, and potentially more
frequent water shortages pose serious water management and risk management prob-
lems for California.

This chapter describes factors affecting water quality as they relate to California
water management as well as the regulatory mechanisms designed to correct and
prevent quality problems affecting water supply and beneficial uses. Because the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and its tributaries, the Sacramento and San Joaquin
rivers, are key to California's water supply picture, water quality issues affecting these
water bodies are discussed. The Colorado River and California's ground water supplies
are also of great importance, and quality issues affecting these supply sources are also
addressed.

California's burgeoning population and limited water supplies require maximum
water use efficiency. Water recycling and reuse are important means of stretching
supplies; therefore, quality considerations pertaining to recycling and reuse are re-
viewed. Finally, an overview of some costs of poor water quality makes the importance
of water quality most obvious.

Overview of Water Quality in California

When water falls as snow or rain, it contains very low concentrations of inorganic
minerals and organic compounds, a result of the natural purification processes of
evaporation and precipitation. Once on the ground, much of the water evaporates or is
used by vegetation, some percolates into the ground, and much of the remainder flows
toward the Pacific Ocean. On its way, it is subject to msmiy influences.

Mineralization and Eutroptiication

As water passes over and through soils, it picks up soluble minerals (salts) pres-
ent in the soils because of natural processes, such as geologic weathering. As the water

Water Quality 109

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

passes through a watershed and is used for various purposes, concentrations of dis-
solved minerals and salts in the water increase, a process called mineralization. As
Sierra Nevada streams flow into the valleys, they typically pick up 20 to 50 milligrams
per liter (parts per million) of dissolved minerals, which is equivalent to about 50 to
140 pounds of salts per acre-foot. (An acre-foot of water with total dissolved solids of
736 mg/L contains one ton of salt, which is typical of Colorado River water.)

The increased concentration of minerals also results from municipal water uses.
Water passing through a typical municipal water supply ^stem. including waste water
treatment before discharge, typically increases in salt load by about 150 to 200
milligrams per liter. Industrial usage usualty contributes to mineralization, which can
be less than or far greater than that restdting firom municipal use, depending on the
industry.

In California, a major source of mineralization is sea water intrusion into the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the exp>ort location for much of California's water
suppfy. Sea water intrusion in the Delta elevates the salinity (particularly the ions of
concern, sodium, chloride, and bromide) of fresh water, worsening the quality of Delta
water. For example, during the period 1986 to 1992, the average concentration of dis-
solved solids (salt) in the lower Sacramento River was 108 mg/L (parts per million). In |
the lower San Joaquin River, the average was 519 mg/L. and at H.O. Banks Pumping
Plant, the southern Delta export location of the State Water Project, the average was
310 mg/L.

Tlie San Joaquin River contributes about 16 percent, on average, of the fresh
water inflow to the Delta, and the Sacramento River contributes about 80 percent. On
average. Delta influences are responsible for elevating the salt concentration at Banks
Pumping Plant about 150 mg/L above the salt concentrations present in the fresh
water inflows to the Delta. Considerable improvement in mineral quality could,
therefore, be achieved if the influence of the Delta (sea water intrusion, island drain-
age, municipal waste water) could be eliminated.

The bromides contributed by sea water intrusion are of particular concern be-
cause they contribute to formation of harmful disinfection byproducts during drinking
water treatment processes. Control of upstream flow by reservoirs greatly enhances
the capability to repel sea water from the Delta. Without these facilities, the entire
Delta would frequentty contain salty water from San Francisco Bay and the Pacific
Ocean.

Eutrophication results from addition of nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and
many necessary micronutrients) to surface waters. In the presence of sunlight, algae
and other microscopic orgcmisms are able to use the available nutrients to increase
their populations.

Slightly or moderately eutrophic water, such as the water in Delta channels, can
be healthful and support a complex web of plant and animal life. However, water
containing large populations of microorganisms is undesirable for drinking water and
other needs. Some types of microorganisms can produce compounds that, while not
directfy injurious to human health, may cause the water to smell smd taste bad and
can be costly and extremefy difficult to remove.

Toxic Pollutants

Elements such as nickel, silver, chromium, lead, copper, zinc, cadmium,
mercury, arsenic, and selenium can be toxic or carcinogenic at certain concentrations.

110 Water Quality

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Many of these are pres-
ent in California's water
due to runoff from aban-
doned mining
operations, such as the
Iron Mountain Mine on
the Spring Creek
tributary of the upper
Sacramento River. A
large percentage of the
heavy metals toxic to
aquatic life in the
Sacramento River is
thought to be from
abandoned mines in the
I upper watershed.

Pathogens

Many people think

water from the mountains is pure and preferable for drinking. They are often unaware
that even in pristine waters, there may be disease-causing organisms. Protozoans are
microscopic organisms; some tjqses of protozoans live in the bodies of warm-blooded
animals and can cause disease in humans who drink water shared with these animals.
Giardia lamblia is common in mountain-dwelling mammals. Giardiasis is a disease in
I humans which comes from this organism. Cryptosporidium is another pathogenic or-
ganism found in drinking water supplies as a result of contamination by mammals.

In April 1993, between 200,000 to 400,000 persons in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
became ill of cryptosporidiosis, the disease resulting from the presence of Cryptospori-
dium in their water supply. This outbreak presents a striking example of the
importance of maintaining the quality of source waters. Even well-operated water
I treatment facilities can be overwhelmed when the quality of the source water is erratic.

■ Federal and State Surface Water Treatment Rules , effective in June 1 993 , require

that all surface waters supplied for drinking receive filtration, high level disinfection, or
both, to Inactivate or remove viruses and protozoan cysts such as Giardia and Cryptos-
poridium.. However, not all disease-causing viruses, bacteria, and protozoan cysts are
destroyed in conventional drinking water treatment processes, and these may grow af-
ter discharge to waterways. Some urban water agencies routinely find Giardia and
other protozoan cysts in water used to wash their treatment plant filters, even after
rigorous disinfection that kills all other microorganisms. The cost of constructing new

'• filtration facilities to meet the new regulation can be quite high. San Francisco, for
example, has not previously filtered its water supplies, but may have to as a result of

[ this regulation.

Disinfection Byproducts

In its journey to the sea, water dissolves organic compounds present in the soil

as a result of plant decay. This organic material includes humic and fulvlc acids, and

f other organic compounds. High levels of these compounds can be present in drainage

from wooded or heavily vegetated areas and from soils high in organic content, such as

the peat soils which are present in parts of the Delta and other places in California.

Disinfectant chemicals are applied to drinking water to kill pathogenic
ji organisms. Chemicals such as chlorine, which are capable of efficiently killing such

High concentrations of
iron and other minerals
in drainage from the
abandoned Iron
Mountain Mine affect
water quality in
Sprir^ Creek and the
Sacramento Riven

Water Quality

111

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

organisms, are highly reactive and can cause unwanted chemical reactions to occur.
Trihalomethanes are a class of synthetic organic chemicals produced in drinking water
when chlorine, used as a disinfectant, comes into contact with naturally occurring or-
ganic material dissolved in the water. Where present, bromide (a type of salt found in
sea water) enters the reaction to produce bromine-containing trihalomethane com-
pounds.

The organic matter and salts in Delta waters are by themselves not harmful and
only become so when they undergo reaction during water treatment. However,
trihalomethanes are suspected of causing cancer in humans. Maximum Contaminant
Levels of trihalomethanes in drinking water have been established by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and California Department of Health Services, in ac-
cordance with the federal and State Safe Drinking Water laws. The current MCL for
THMs in drinking water is 0. 1 0 mg/L. The regulations establishing the MCLs are being
reviewed, and the stricter standard of 0.08 mg/L is expected to be promulgated. Revi-
sions to the federal regulations are to be proposed in 1994.

The Metropolitan

Water District of

Southern California

uses ozone to

disinfect water at

its ozonation plant

in LaVerne,

California. MWDSC

supplies 2.5 million

acre-feet annually

to 16 million water

users.

There are less
notorious disinfec-
tion byproducts,
also produced in
drinking water, that
may cause adverse
health effects. The
U.S. EPA and the
World Health Or-
ganization have
identified disinfec-
tion byproducts of
potentially more se-
rious human health
concern than triha-
lomethanes. One of
these is bromate,
formed during ozone
disinfection of wa-
ters containing bro-
mide. Drinking water regulations for disinfection bj^iroducts such as bromate are ex-
pected to be included in the regulations to be proposed in 1994.

Ozone is a powerful oxidant widely used for drinking water disinfection. Its ad-
vantages are that it is a very strong oxidizer that efficiently kills pathogens, destroys
tastes and odors, and minimizes production of trihalomethanes and unwanted by-
products. The problem of bromide in Delta water has serious implications for
California and is discussed in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Water Quality sec-
tion of this chapter.

Agricultural Pollutants

Agricultural pollutants are generally of the nonpoint variety, meaning their
sources are usually diffuse and are not readily subject to control. (By comparison,
point sources are more identifiable and generally more sub-ject to control, such as a
pipe discharging to a water

112

Water Quality

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

body.) Agricultural drainage may contain chemical residues, toxic elements, salts, nu-
trients, and elevated concentrations of chemicals which produce disinfection
byproducts in drinking water. In addition, protozoan cysts from dairies and ranches
can enter waterways through agricultural drainage systems. Sediments resulting from
land tillage can pollute waterways, obstructing water flow and affecting the survival
and reproduction of fish and other aquatic organisms. (For a discussion of a specific
agricultural drainage problem, see the section titled San Joaquin Valley Drainage Pro-
gram in Chapter 2.)

Urban Pollutants

In urban areas, water quality is influenced by nonpoint sources of pollution such
asrecreationalactivities,drainagefromindustrialsites,runofffromstreetsandhighways,
discharges from other land surfaces, and aerial deposition. In California, storm water
runoff, a major source of nonpoint pollution, is regulated by SWRCB on behalf of the
U.S. EPA. (See Water Quality Protection in Chapter 2 for more information.)

Industrial production and municipal activities produce a number of substances
that end up in municipal and industrial waste water discharges (point sources of pollu-
tion). In California, discharge of untreated sewage into the environment is not
permitted. The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System regulates point dis-
charges of waste water into the nation's waterways. Under this system, California
treats waste water to render it free of certain disease-carrying organisms and reduce
its environmental impact.

Most of the industries in California discharge to a publicly-owned waste water
treatment plant and only indirectly to the environment. These industries are required
to provide pre-treatment of their industrial waste prior to Its discharge to the munici-
pal waste water treatment plant. Like municipal discharges. Industrial discharges are
subject to regulation through the NPDES. Industries discharging directly Into the envi-
ronment are required to have an NPDES permit.

Waste water treatment facilities operated under the NPDES have, in general, been
successful in maintaining the quality of California's water bodies; however, the dis-
charge permits do not regulate all constituents that may cause adverse Impacts. For
example, the discharge of organic materials which contribute to trihalomethanes in
drinking water is not regulated. Nor does the NPDES guarantee elimination of proto-
zoan cysts, which are harder to Inactivate (disinfect) than most other waterborne
pathogens and are capable of causing disease. In addition, permitted discharges in-
clude nitrogen compounds that can be harmful to aquatic life, cause unwanted
growths of algae In surface water bodies, and force downstream drinking water facili-
ties to increase their use of chlorine.

Synthetic chemicals (manufactured by humans) are very widespread. Unfortu-
nately, some waste water treatment plant processes do not completely remove all
synthetic chemicals that can be present in the water. Depending on the processes
used, some treatment plants may remove most of these compounds, while others are
not able to do as well. As a result, some synthetic organic chemicals, especially from
agricultural and industrial waste water, are emitted into California's waterways
through treatment plant discharges.

Ottier Pollutants

There are a number of other sources of water pollution. Mining activities (pre-
viously mentioned In connection with toxic pollutants) can be a major source of acids
and toxic metals. In some rural areas of California, use of septic tanks has resulted in

Water Quality 113

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

bacterial contamination and nutrient pollution of ground water resources. The best
solution to this problem has been installation of sewer collection and treatment
* facilities.

Not all sources of pollution are caused by humans. Soil erosion can result from
such natural phenomena as earthquakes, landslides, and forest fires. During wet peri-
ods, eroded soils cause turbidity in the water which can seriously impact aquatic
organisms and adversely affect drinking water treatment processes. Wildlife can also
add nutrients to water bodies, and can host some types of waterbome disease organ-
isms.

Table 5-1 is adapted from the report Drinking Water into the 21st Century,
published in January 1993 by the Office of Drinking Water, Department of Health Ser-
vices. This table summarizes threats to water quality within California.

Drinking Water Regulations and Human Health

Currently, there are State and federal regulations for a variety of physical, chemi-
cal, and microbiologic constituents in drinking water, including pesticides and other
agricultural chemicals, trihalomethanes, arsenic, selenium, radionuclides (such as ra-
dium), nitrates, and toxic metals, as well as treatment and disinfection requirements
for bacteria, viruses. Giardia, and other pathogens. Standards for a total of 83 Individ-
ual drinking water constituents will soon be in place under the mandates of the 1986
federal Safe Drinking Water Act amendments. (See Tables 5-2 and 5-3.) This far-reach-
ing act will likely be amended again in 1994. No reduction in the number or scope of
drinking water standards is expected; the trend has been towards regulation of in-
creasing numbers of constituents and lowering acceptable concentrations.

The trend toward ever more numerous and restrictive drinking water regulations
is associated with rapidly escalating complexity and costs of all aspects of drinking
water supply. Previously, treatment processes were deemed sufficiently robust to per-
mit a large degree of variation in source water quality: this is no longer the case. Under
current regulations, it is necessary to operate a very finely tuned treatment system to
provide adequate disinfection while minimizing unwanted chemical byproducts. Sig-
nificant variations in source water quality can upset this fine balance, potentially
resulting in health risks to the population.

The need to modify and add processes to control new categories of chemicals and
provide improved disinfection can result in greatly increased capital and operational
expenditures. Municipal water agencies in California are facing the prospect of signifi-
cant rate increases to recoup these expenditures.

Clearly, the trend toward ever more stringent drinking water regulations is a fac-
tor that will have large repercussions for the water industry in the State, as the cost of
control measures is felt by the consumers. There is even some concern developing over
whether the complex new regulations will actually improve protection of human
health.

Meeting Water Quality Standards

SWRCB has promulgated the Inland Surface Waters Plan that establishes quality
criteria for pollutant levels in California's fresh water. The Coastal Bays and Estuaries
Plan establishes quality criteria for protection of the estuarine waters of California.
These criteria are embodied in water quality control plans for each of California's water
basins, as required under provisions of the federal Clean Water Act. Water quality con-
trol plans, commonly known as Basin Plans, establish specific water quality objectives

114 Water Quality

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Source of Contamination

Table 5-1 . Threats to Water Quality
Contaminant

Tyf^cal Sites

Natural (occur statewide)

Dissolved minerals

Asbestos
Hydrogen-sulfide

Radon

Mineral deposits, mineralized waters, hot springs, sea

water intrusion

Mine tailings, serpentine ^rmotions

Subsurface organic deposits, such as Delta Islands and

San Joaquin Valley trough

Most geologic formations

Commercial Businesses

Gasoline
Solvents
Toxic metals

Service stations' underground storage tanks
Dry cleaners, machine sfwDps

Photo processors, laboratories, metal plating works

Municipal

Microbial agents, nutrients, and
miscellaneous liquid wastes

Bacteria and virus contaminants from a variety of
sources such as sewage discharges and storm water
runoff; contributions from industrial dischargers,
households, and septic tanks

Industrial

VOCs, industrial solvents,
toxic metals, acids

Pesticides and herbicides
Wood preservatives

Electronics manufacturing, metal fabricating and

plating, transporters, storage facilities, hazardous

waste disposal

Chemical brmulating plants

Pressure treating power poles, wood pilings,

railroad ties

Solid waste disposal

Solvents, pesticides, toxic metals, organics,
petroleum wastes, and microbial agents

Disposal sites located statewide receive waste from
a variety of industries, municipal solid wastes, wasted
petroleum products, household waste

Agricultural

Pesticides (herbicides, fumigants,
fungicides), fertilizers, concentrated
mineral salts, microbial agents

Irrigated farm runoff, ag chemical applications,
fertilizer usage, chemical storage at farms and
applicators' air strips, agricultural produce packing
sheds and processing plants, meat processing plants,
dairies, and feed lots

Disasters

Solvents, petroleum products, microbial
agents, other hazardous materials

Earthquake-caused pipeline and storage tank
failures and damage to sewage treatment and
containment facilities; major spills of hazardous
materials; flood water contamination of storage
reservoirs and ground water sources

Adapted from Drinking Water into the 21st Century — Safe Drinking Water Plan for California, A Report to the Legislature, California Department of HeaWi Services, Office of Drinking Water,
January 1 993, p. 38.

for individual bodies of water. The Basin Plans are master planning documents in-
tended to guide efforts to maintain and restore the quality of California's waters.

SWRCB also established specific water quality objectives to protect the uses of
water in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Most of the Delta water quality objectives
relate to salinity. The SWP and federal CVP are required to release sufficient fresh wa-
ter to meet these Delta salinity standards. Chapter 10 contains a more detailed
discussion of Delta water quality standards.

Federal and State drinking water standards have been adopted to protect the
health of consumers. The California Department of Health Services Office of Drinking
Water promulgates and enforces State standards and enforces federal standards. Most

Water Quality

115

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Table 5-2. Contaminants Regulated Under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act

August, 1993

1 , 1 -Dichloroethylene

1,1,1 -Trichloroethone

1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroetfiane

1 ,2-Dibronx>-3-chloropropane (DBCP)

1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene

1 ,2-Dichbroethane

1 ,2-Dichbroethylene

1 ,2-Dichbropropane

1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene

2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)

2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid {2,4-D)

2,4,5-TP (Silvex)

Acrylamide

Adipates

Alachlor

AnHmony

Arsenic

Asbestos

Atrozine

Barium

Benzene

Berylium

Cadmium

Carbofuran

Corbon tetrachloride

Chlordane

Chromium

cis-1 ,2-Dichloroelhylene

Copper

Cyanide

Dolapon

Dichloromethane

Dinoseb

Diquat

Endothail

Endrin

EpichloFohydrin

Ethyibenzene

Ethylene dibromlde (EDB)

Flouride

Giardia lamblia

Giyphosote

Gross alpha partides activities

Gross beta particles activities

Heptdchior

Heplochlor epoxide

Heterotrophic bacteria

Hexochlorobenzene

Hexochlorocyclopentodiene

Lead

Legionella

Lindane

Mercury

Methoxychlor

Monochlorobenzene

Nickel

Nitrate

Qxamyl

Pentachlorophenol

Phthaldtes

Picloram

Poiychlorinated biphenyis (PCBs)

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Radium 226

Radium 228

Selenium

Silver

Simazine

Styrene

Sulfate

Tetrochloroethyiene

Thallium

Ibiuene

1bial coliforms

1btal trihalomethane

Ibxaphene

trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene

Trichloroethylene

Turbidity

Vinyl chloride

Viruses

Xylenes (total)

Gimpiledand updated from Staha of Contaminanis Regulated Under ^ Safe Drinking Water Act, U.S. Environmeold Protodion Agency, Aprf 1991.

drinking water quality standards are met by California's municipal drinking water uti-
lities. However, some drinking water regulatory activities may conflict. For example,
concern over surviving pathogens spurred a rule requiring more rigorous disinfection.
At the same time, there is considerable regulatory concern over trihalomethanes and
other disinfection byproducts, resulting from disinfection of drinking water with
chlorine. The problem Is that if disinfection is made more rigorous, disinfection by-
product formation is Increased. Additioucdly, poorer quality source waters with
elevated concentrations of organic precursors and bromides further complicate the
problem of reliably meeting standards for disinfection while meeting standards for dis-
infection byproducts.

The regulatory community will have to carefulty balance the benefits and risks
associated with pursuing the goals of efficient disinfection and reduced disinfection
byproducts. One essential coroUary action will be to make any source water quality
improvements that are feasible.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates the annual nationwide cost
of treating drinking water to meet existing and new standards will be $36 million a year
in the early 1990s. $539 million annually by 1994, and will rise to $830 million, as a
result of the need to make long-term capital investments, before stabilizing at $500

116

Water Quality

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Table 5-3. Proposed Contaminants to be Regulated Under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act

August 1993

1,1-Dichloroethane

1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane

1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane

2,4/2,6-Dinih-otoluene

4-Nitrophenol

Acrylonitrile

Aldehydes

Aldicarb

Aldicarb sulfone

Aldicarb sulfoxide

Aluminum

Bentazon

Boron

Bromacil

Bromate

Bromodichlorometfiane

Bromoform

Bromomethane

Chloral hydrate

Chloramine

Chlorate

Chlorine

Chlorine dioxide

Chlorite

Chloroform

Chloropicrin

cis/trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene (Telone)

Cyanazine

Cyanogen chloride

Dacthal (DCPA)

Di bromoch loromethane

Dicamba

Ethylene thiourea (ETU)

Hexachlorobutadiene

lodate

Isophorone

Lactofen/Acifluorfen

Manganese

Methomyl

Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)

Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK)

Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)

Metolachlor

Metribuzin

Molybdenum

Naphthalene

Pentachlorophenol

Prometron

Radon

Trifluralin

Uranium

Vanadium

Zinc

Compiled and updated from Status of Contaminants Regulated Under itie Safe Drinking Water Act, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 1 991 .

million a year by the year 2000. These estimates demonstrate that major costs will
result from meeting the new standards.

According to data published in Drinking Water into the 21st Century, the current
annual cost-per-servlce connection for drinking water ranges from about $250 for
large systems to about $312 for very small systems. The added cost to implement new
drinking water regulations already promulgated will range from $16 for large systems
to $205 for very small systems. Additional proposed regulations may increase these
costs from $115 for large systems up to $450 for very small systems. These estimates
demonstrate that small water systems will be disproportionately affected by the new
regulations. Alternatives for mitigating this impact are being studied.

Careful watershed surveys, followed by long-term monitoring and management
plans, are the best tools to define and cope with mineralization, eutrophication, toxic
metals and other chemicals, pathogens, and disinfection byproduct precursors. In re-
sponse to new drinking water regulations, California water utilities began a series of
surveys in 1990 in preparation for development of watershed management plans.
These plans will provide a better definition of other, especially diffuse, pollutant
sources. The California Urban Water Agencies organization has undertaken an inves-
tigation of source water quality upstream of the Delta. Results of this study are
expected in 1994.

Source Protection

Urban and agricultural pollutants, mineralization, eutrophication, toxic chemi-
cals, precursors, and pathogens all affect water quality and present complex challenges
for water managers. Compared to other parts of the country, California has some dis-
tinct advantages in dealing with water quality problems. California was settled only
recently compared to other states, and most of our growth has occurred since World
/ar II. Generally, we are not faced with the problem of antiquated sewer systems and
)ther more difficult environmental problems experienced by states with facilities

Water Quality

117

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

installed longbefore World War II. Fortunately, environmental awareness and regulato-
ry control came about in California before its water resources were severely damaged.
However, certain problems exist, such as siltation and toxic element residues in the
tributaries of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (mostfy from hydraulic mining opera-
tions of the late 1800s}.

The quality of surface waters in various parts of California is affected by localized
conditions. The SWRCB and its Regional Water Quality Control Boards enforce the fed -
eral Clean Water Act in California on behalf of the U.S. EPA. These agencies document

Principles of Water Utility Management as Set Fortti by

the Source Water Quality Committee of thie California-Nevada Section,

American Water Works Association

As a result of the April 1993 outbreak of Crypto^x>ridiosis in Milwaukee,
President Foster Burtx3 of the American Water Works Associatkxi called on its
membership to test water supplies for ttie preser»ce of Cryptosporidium, and
said, 'Not only are we issuing this national call to action on testing, we're
strongly encouraging water utilities to develop stricter watershed manage-
ment and treatment practices.'

The Source Water CKjality Committee of the California-Nevada Section
of ttie AWWA adopted the foBowing statement on April 14, 1993:

Ttie Source Water Quality Committee of ttie California-Nevada Section
of the American Water Works Association supports ttie fundamental objec-
tives of providing drinking water from the best quality sources reasonat>ly at-
tainable. and of managing such sources to protect and enhance water quali-

iy.

Wrth increasingly stringent drinking water regukations, it is important That
water utilities obtain and maintain supply sources of the b^^ avaitat>le quali-
ty. Water utility marxagers should imp>lement the folkDwing princples:

1 . Where altemative sources of supply are available, drinking water stKXJkJ
be taken from the highest quality source reasonably attainable.

2. Where there are competing uses for water sources, publk: drinking water
shoukj be tt»e Ngtiest priority use.

3. Ttie quality of existing and potential sources of drinking water, including
both ground water and surface water, sttould be actively and aggres-
sively protected and entxinced. Source water quality protection pro-
grams shoufcl:

► Determine and monitor the existing quality, orKl
future changes of quality, of all water sources.

^ Determine factors Influencing, and potentially af-
fecting, source water quality; Including both point
and nonpoint contaminant sources, and continu-
ous, seasonal, and ephemeral contamination.

^ Implement an active program of monitoring and
maPKaging activrties In source water bodies, aqui-
fers, and watersheds to minimize contamination
and drinking water degradation.

4. Decisions regarding altemative resources uses and development stioukj
give full conskjeration to impacts on water quality— including piiDlic
t»ealth. economic, aesthetic, and environmental impacts.

5. Encourage water reuse and use of lower quality water for appropriate
purposes.

118 Water Quality

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

many water quality problems and are developing more restrictive water quality criteria
and preparing regulatory actions to make further improvements. The control of disin-
fection byproduct precursor compounds in source waters is a problem that has not
been resolved, but is one of the issues being considered by the Bay/ Delta Oversight
Council.

Important among California's current water quality concerns is the relatively re-
cent discovery that certain widely used chemical agents, particularly chlorinated
solvents, can infiltrate and pollute ground water. This revelation motivated a number
of investigative and regulatory actions. Major urban centers in California have had to
abandon wells or provide expensive treatment to remove chemicals from municipal
ground water supplies. The consequences of this problem are reduced water supply
and water management options for local water agencies.

Regulatory actions, such as requiring leakage protection for underground tanks,
eliminating unlined chemical pits, and regulating disposal practices, are making im-
portant contributions to prevention of further ground water degradation.

A basic tenet of good sanitary engineering practice is to obtain the best quality
drinking water source available and to protect and maintain its quality. By following
this practice, not only are water supplies treatable to meet drinking water standards,
but the variations in source water quality are also minimized to improve treatment reli-
ability.

Some municipal water supply agencies, with the backing of the Department of
Health Services, are able to control and protect the local watershed sources of their
drinking water supplies. This control prevents activities that might reduce the reliabil-
ity of their water treatment processes to produce safe drinking water.

Similar protection for Delta and Colorado River water supplies is out of the ques-
tion. Watersheds tributary to the Delta and Colorado River drain thousands of square
miles of land surface, and it is impossible to prevent activities that affect the quality of
the water. Inability to protect the watershed fully means that water treatment pro-
cesses used may not reliably remove all chemical agents present in the water.

In its 1993 report, Drinking Water into the 21st Century, the California Depart-
ment of Health Services wrote, "Contamination of ground water has received the most
attention due to news media coverage of toxic waste sites and spills. Yet, the exposure
and risks from ground water contaminants are significantly lower than the exposure
and risks from surface water." The report also contains the quotation, "The Delta,
through which the State Water Project flows, provides the most significant threat to the
quality of drinking water supplies." This report recommended.

To the extent feasible, measures should be taken to prevent degradation of
the domestic water transported through the Delta by minimizing the
introduction of disinfection byproduct precursors from agricultural operations
and by controlling seawater intrusion into the Delta. The domestic water supply
should be further protected from agricultural drainage and other sources of
potential degradation during transport through the State Water Project and
other aqueducts.

In 1990, at the request of the Department of Health Services, the State Water
Contractors completed a sanitary survey of the SWP. The survey identified potential
sources of quality degradation in the watersheds tributary to the SWP, with particular
emphasis on the Delta. The resulting report contained a number of recommendations
for correcting identified problems. Since publication of the report, an action plan has
been in the process of development, and is expected to be implemented in 1994.

Water Quality 1 19

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Critical Components of State Water Supply

Water quality considerations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and its tribu-
tary streams (principally the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers), in the Colorado
River, and in ground water will significantly influence management of these critically
important source water supplies. The following sections summarize water quality con-
siderations in California's water supply.

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Water Quality

Delta waters provide a rich habitat for fish and wildlife and are the major source
of supply for uses throughout the State.

Delta Ekiosystem and Water Quality. The Delta provides habitat for many spe-
cies of fish. Unfortunately, some are in serious decline. Striped bass, winter-run
Scilmon, and Delta smelt are fish whose evident declines have generated much atten-
tion. Pollution has been suggested as a cause of some of the problems. Some studies
indicate a link between the presence of certain chemicals from waste discharges and
the reduced health offish. Although less well known, other fish species are also in de-
cline in the Delta and are probably affected by some of the same factors as striped bass
cind salmon.

The effects of lethal doses of poison on fish are relatively simple to evaluate. Much
more difficult is the problem of assessing chronic low-level effects of toxicants on the
health and productivity of fishery resources. Because fish are residents of the water,
they may be constantly exposed to low-level toxicants. Scientists are learning that, in
some cases, very low concentrations of some chemicals can have health effects on fish.
New methods of analyzing chemicals at very low concentrations are being developed,
along with new methods for testing the effects of low toxicant levels on fish. Unfortu-
nately, inadequate evidence exists to aid basic fishery management decisions.

Drinking Water Supply. Drinking water for about 20 million Californians flows
through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The water is influenced by so many fac-
tors that it is not always clear which particular influences may be causing problems.
However, some facts are known. It has been clearly established that sources of natural-
ly occurring organic materials in the Delta double the capacity of Delta waters to form
unwanted byproducts in drinking water.

Drinking water produced by treating Delta waters usually meets all State and
federal drinking water criteria. There have, however, been occasions when the existing
trihalomethane regulations have not been met. In addition, compliance with the Sur-
face Water Treatment Rule, required beginning June 1993, has caused some major
Delta water users to change their disinfection practices, which produce even higher
levels of trihalomethanes in some cases.

Measurements by the Department of Water Resources and municipal agencies
that treat and serve Delta water to their customers have demonstrated that concentra-
tions of pesticides, toxic elements, and other chemicals in Delta waters are quite low in
relation to drinking water standards. However, pesticide degradation product studies
in these waters are in early phases and the information is preliminary.

Compared to other sources of drinking water, the Delta is at a disadvantage with
respect to the presence of disinfection byproduct precursors and the ability of urban
water suppliers to provide consistently acceptable drinking water. Bromide is present
in the Delta, chiefly as a result of the intrusion of sea water mixing with the fresh water
in the Delta. Also, the peat soils of the Delta are high in organic content and contribute

120 Water Quality

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

dissolved organic matter to Delta waters. Together, bromide and naturally occurring
organic compounds present in the Delta cause problems for treatment facilities and
their ability to meet current drinking water standards for trihalomethanes.

Figure 5- 1 depicts the potential of Delta waters to form trihalomethanes. a form
of disinfection byproducts. (Figure 5-1 was derived from data in The Delta as a Source
of Drinking Water, Monitoring Results. 1983 to 1987, August 1989. Department of Wa-
ter Resources.) The size of each pie is proportional to the capacity to form
trihalomethanes at that location. The shaded portions of each pie depict the influence
of bromide on the total. The Sacramento River is shown as having a considerably lower
capacity to form trihalomethanes. as compared to locations in the southern and west-
em Delta. Table 5-4 shows averages of selected constituents in the Delta and Colorado
River.

The western Delta has higher organic precursor concentrations, along with much
greater bromide influence. The interior Delta locations depicted are intermediate in or-
ganic precursor concentrations and bromides. Studies indicate that the bromides
present in Delta waters come mainly from sea water intrusion; the naturally occurring
organic compounds in Delta waters come from numerous sources, including signifi-
cant influence of Delta island drainage from soils rich in organic content.

Municipal agencies supplying drinking water taken from the Delta are concerned
that existing regulations for trihalomethanes, coupled with disinfection requirements
of the new Surface Water Treatment Rule may make Delta water difficult and expen-
sive to treat. The expected new, more stringent, drinking water regulations for
trihalomethanes and other disinfection byproducts may particularly increase the diffi-
culty and expense of treating Delta water. Even if drinking water from the Delta meets
the criteria, the desirable level of a carcinogen in drinking water is zero (the maximum
contaminant level goal as defined in the 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water
Act). At best, drinking water from the Delta is not likely to be as low in disinfection
byproducts as water from other sources.

Potentially, it would be possible to improve the quality of Delta drinking water by
taking actions to reduce bromides and naturally occurring organic compounds in the
water supply. Several possibilities are currently being examined through the Municipal
Water Quality Investigations Program, a multi-agency scientific investigation into the
factors contributing to disinfection byproduct formation in Delta waters. Possible
means of improving this aspect of Delta water quality are also being studied. The re-
sults will be used in the Delta planning process.

Salt gets into Delta water from its watersheds and its link with the San Francisco
Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Tidal action from the Bay brings salts into the Delta during
periods when fresh water outflows are low. With the exception of bromide, salts in
drinking water are generally of lesser concern. However, elevated salt concentrations
can make water unpalatable and the health of persons on low-salt diets can be ad-
versely affected. During the 1976-77 drought in California, salt content in water from
the Delta was such that physicians in Contra Costa County recommended bottled wa-
ter for some patients. Similar levels occurred during the recent drought.

Delta influences add about 150 mg/L (parts per million) of dissolved solids (salts)
to waters exported in the SWP. Using generalized cost figures taken from the Costs of
Poor Quality Water section of this chapter, the cost to consumers of this salt is on the
order of $120 per acre-foot, which is roughly the amount of water an average family
uses in a year. These costs arise primarily from the need to use more soaps and deter-
gents, and to more frequently replace plumbing fixtures and water-using appliances.

Water Quality 121

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure 5-1. Disinfection Byproduct Precursors in the Delta: July 1983 to June 1992

^^ Brominated Methane

■ik Formation Potential (ugi.)

^^k Chloroform

^^B Formation Potential (ugi}

Area of pie is proportionai to totd THMFP

122

Water Quality

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

-a

-o p

3 CO

»- E

Ji I

6 E

-i I

c
o

u: ^

C 0)

« c

b o

«/5 o

8 ^

c ^

O C

cQ _g

o %

-S "b

o 5"

> E
o ^

b »

8 I

CN I

^
§ I

I I

J3
E o

C^ CO

Water Quality

123

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

These costs could be avoided if the effects of ocean salinity intrusion and local Delta
drainage could be eliminated.

Some of the industries in the Delta area, such as paper production facilities, re-
quire water of limited salt content. Satisfying this requirement can present a formidable
challenge in dry years due to sea water intrusion. In the past, this problem has been
dealt with by relying on alternate water supplies and treatment.

Delta Agriculture and Wetlands. While the quality of Delta water available to
agriculture is generally satisfactory, certain conditions create problems with salt con-
tent. Sufficiently high concentrations of salt can stunt or kill plants. When salt content
is high, more applied water is required for irrigation to flush the salts through the root
zone. The San Joaquin River is a significant source of salt due to agricultural drainage
flows into the river upstream of the Delta. Much of this salt load originated in the ir-
rigation water exported from the Delta. At times, salts from this source adversely affect
agriculture in the southern Delta. Recent mitigation measures, such as installing tem-
porary rock barriers in certain Delta channels, improved the overall quality of water in
the southern Delta.

Some Delta lands are used as wetland habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife.
This type of land use is likely to expand in the Delta. The quality of water available to
support wetland habitat is generally adequate.

Water Quality Monitoring in the Delta. DWR and other agencies extensively
monitor water quality in the Delta. The monitoring evaluates Delta waters as a source
of drinking water for humans, as a source of agricultural and industrial water supply,
and as habitat for fish and wildlife. Water quality parameters monitored include miner-
als, nutrients, pesticides, and other constituents such as organic carbon and
trihalomethane-forming capacity. Extensive biological monitoring is also performed.

In a number of locations, such constituents as minerals and photosynthetic ac-
tivity are monitored continuously by permanently installed instruments that provide
information through remote sensing and data transmission. DWR is currently
compiling an inventory of all known water quality monitoring activity in the Delta by I
public entities. The compilation indicates a great deal of interest in the quality of Delta I
waters. Millions of dollars are invested each year in the pursuit of assessing Delta
water quality.

Scu:raniento River Region. The Sacramento River, on average, provides about
two-thirds of the water which flows into the Delta. A number of other watersheds are
tributary to the Delta, but of these, only the San Joaquin River is significant in terms
of quantity of flow. The quality of the water in the Sacramento River is generally good,
and mineral concentrations are low. For the period 1983 to June 1992, DWR data indi-
cate that dissolved solids concentrations ranged from about 50 to 1 50 milligrams per
liter in the Sacramento River at Greene's Landing, located eight miles south of the town
of Hood. For comparison, the maximum contaminant level for dissolved solids in
drinking water is 500 milligrams per liter. (This "Secondary MCL" was established to
protect the aesthetic appeal of drinking water, as concentrations above the limit result
in noticeably salty tasting water.)

SWRCB has classified 80 miles of the Sacramento River from Shasta Dam to be-
low the town of Red Bluff as impaired with respect to water quality. Twelve miles below
the dam is the confluence of Spring Creek with the Sacramento River. At this point,
significant concentrations of the toxic metals copper, zinc, and cadmium enter the riv-
er as a result of acid mine discharges from mines on Iron Mountain. Several fish kills

124 Water Quality

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

have occurred in the river below the mouth of Spring Creek following heavy runoff from
the Iron Mountain area. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board has
recently been conducting toxicity bioassay tests on minnows, zooplankton. and algae
i usin^ Sacramento River water collected in the reach from Keswick Dam to Hamilton
City. The results of these tests should help determine the degree of water quality im-
pairment of the river and should show what length of river is affected. Large releases of
firesh water are made annually from Lake Shasta in efforts to dilute the pollution to
nontoxic levels. South of Red Bluff, water quality improves and only periodic toxicity is
observed.

Colusa Basin Drain enters the Sacramento River at the town of Knight's Landing.
Bioassay testing has indicated significant toxicity to aquatic life associated with agri-
cultural discharge from this drain. (Bioassays are conducted by exposing test
oijganisms. such as minnows, to varying concentrations of the water being tested,
mixed with water containing no toxicants. The toxicity of the water can be judged by
observing the effects on the test organisms.)

In the early 1980s, agricultural pesticides used on Sacramento Valley rice fields
were determined to be the cause of fish kills in some agricultural drains and of com-
plaints from Sacramento residents about the taste of the water. A multi-agency team
that included public agencies and agricultural and rice industry participants was es-
tablished to confirm the cause of the problem and find a solution. The team resolved
the problem by designing a monitoring and control program which has been very suc-
cessful in reducing rice herbicide concentrations in the Sacramento River since 1986.
Reductions of molinate and other agricultural chemical residue can also be attributed
to use of improved chemicals requiring lower usage, use of disease-resistant and weed-
resistant rice strains, better water management, and integrated pest management
practices. Figure 5-2 depicts the dramatic reduction in discharges of the rice herbicide
molinate from 1982 through 1992.

While reduction of agricultural drainage is generally desirable for protection of
ivater quality, it is also true that long-term reductions in drainage can have the unde-
sirable effect of causing salt buildup in agricultural soils. Numerous ancient
civilizations declined as a result of soil infertility associated with salt buildup. There-

Figure 5-2.
Mass Discharge of
the Rice Herbicide
Molinate to the
Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta

Water Quality

126

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

fore, it is necessary to balance the need to protect water quality with the need to
maintain the fertility of our agricultural lands.

Monitoring the lower Sacramento River has shown that levels of pesticides, disin-
fection byproduct precursors, toxic metals, and other constituents of concern are
generally not detectable or have been present only in small concentrations as the river
flows into the Delta. The organic content of the Sacramento River is generally low, and
bromide concentrations are quite low. During the fall when rice fields are drained into
the Sacramento River upstream of Sacramento, the concentration of organic disinfec-
tion byproduct precursors in the river measurably increases.

The Sacramento regional waste water treatment plant discharges into the Sacra-
mento River near Freeport. The plant provides a high level of treatment and is in
compliance with its discharge requirements a high proportion of the time. The plant
does not, however, remove minerals from the water. This causes the total dissolved
solids concentration of the river to increase a few percent in the low flow periods of
summer and early autumn.

San Joctquin River Tributary. On average, about one-sixth of the total fresh
water inflow to the Delta comes in from the San Joaquin River. (Other east side streams
such as the Cosumnes and Mokelumne contribute no more than a few percent of Delta
inflow, and are of generally excellent quality.) Unlike the Sacramento River, the mineral
quality of the San Joaquin River is not very good during low flow periods. During high
flow conditions, the mineral quality of the river can be quite good. The elevated salinity
levels in the river are. in part, a result of significant amounts of valley agricultural
drainage returning to the Delta through the San Joaquin River. At certain times, most
of the river flow can be composed of agricultural drainage. In recent years, releases
from reservoirs such as New Melones have helped meet water quality standards in the
lower San Joaquin River. Data from 1982 through May 1992 indicate levels of dis-
solved solids in the San Joaquin River near Vemalis have ranged from about 110 to
900 milligrams per liter; the numbers reflect high find low flow conditions, respective-

A popular perception is that the San Joaquin River is very heavily polluted by
pesticides and other toxic agricultural chemicals. In fact, data have demonstrated that
pesticide concentrations, when present, have been at low parts per billion concentra-
tions, well within drinking water standards. While measured pesticide concentrations
have been low by drinking water standards, recent measurements by the U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control board indicate the
presence of certain insecticides in the tributaries to the Delta. Evidence indicates that,
during wet periods, these levels can be present in pulses high enough to produce in-
dications of widespread toxicity in the Bay-Delta estuary for short periods of time.

The San Joaquin River watershed has a special problem with selenium. In 1983.
it was discovered that selenium in valley agricultural drainage was responsible for de-
formities and lack of reproductive success in bird populations. Subsequent regulatory
action resulted in the closure of drainage facilities that contributed to the problem and
development of management strategies for controlling selenium. Selenium concentra-
tions currently found in the San Joaquin River where it enters the Delta are typically
not higher than 1 microgram per liter (part per billion). For comparison. California
drinking water Maximum Contaminant Level for selenium is 10 micrograms per liter
and the federal MCL is 50 micrograms per liter.

Selenium from the San Joaquin River watershed has an effect on the aquatic en-
vironment even though it is not considered a threat to drinking water quality. In small

126 Water Quality

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

concentrations, selenium is an essential nutrient, but studies have indicated that con-
centrations as low as a few micrograms per liter may be harmful to sensitive species.
Work is continuing to find the means to better manage and control selenium in the San
Joaquin Valley.

Colorado River Water Quality

The Colorado River is a major source of water supply to Southern California. The
river is subject to various water quality influences because its watershed covers thou-
sands of square miles and runs through parts of several states. The watershed is
mostly rural. Therefore, municipal and industrial discharges are not as significant a
source of quality degradation as is the case for the waters of the Delta. Upstream of the
point where the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California draws water from
the river, the primary water use is agricultural. Salt and turbidity from natural sources
and agricultural operations are the primary forms of water quality degradation.

Mineral concentrations In Colorado River water are typically higher than those
found in the water taken from the Delta through the SWP. During the period 1986 to
1992. dissolved solids In the Colorado River Aqueduct averaged 580 mg/L (parts per
million). During this period, dissolved solids concentrations in the California Aque-
duct of the SWP averaged 310 mg/L.

As practicable. MWDSC blends Colorado River water with water from the SWP or
other sources to reduce salt concentrations In the water delivered to consumers served
by the district's system. This improvement resulted in MWDSC discontinuing use of
the sodium-exchange softening process for Colorado River water in 1975.

Unlike the watersheds of the Delta, the soils of the Colorado River watershed are
primarily low in organic content. Consequently, disinfection byproduct precursor con-
centrations are lower. Colorado River water typically has 2.5 to 3.0 milligrams per liter
of total organic carbon and 0.06 milligrams per liter of bromide. As a result, it normally
has only about half the capacity to produce trihalomethanes as does water In the
Delta. Disinfection of Colorado River water with ozone has not produced measurable
levels of bromate.

Most of the water released from Parker Dam Is used for irrigation in the Imperial
and Coachella valleys and in northeastern Baja California. The agricultural drainage
from the two valleys in

California as well as
much of the drainage
from the irrigated area in
Baja California flows into
Sal ton Sea.

The agricultural
drainage waters have
high salinities which,
when combined with
evaporation from the sea
itself, lead to a continuing
increase of the Salton
Sea salinity. The current
concentration of dis-
solved solids (salts) in
the sea is about 45,000

Agricultural
drainage in the
Imperial Valley
contains h^h
concentrations of
naturally occurring
salts and minerals.

Water Quality

127

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

mg/L (parts per million), whereas the concentration of dissolved solids in ocean water
is about 35,000 mg/L. Since the sport fish in the sea were imported from the ocean,
the high salt concentration places considerable physical stress upon the fish.

In 1973, the seven states within the Colorado River basin formed the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Forum to develop numeric criteria for controlling salinity,
and to develop plans to implement controls. This group was formed in order to comply
with the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, requiring water quality standards
for salinity in rivers. Salinity standards for the basin were promulgated in 1975 and
were subsequently approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Forum
established a permanent work group to perform studies and triennial reviews of prog-
ress and to make recommendations for continuing improvements in salinity control.

The federal Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 authorized
construction of facilities to control salinity of the waters of the Colorado River which
are used in the United States and Mexico. Currently, salinity control activities are re-
moving 230,000 tons of salt per year from the river system. However, inadequate
funding is causing problems in maintaining the implementation schedule. To maintain
the salinity standards, it is calculated that, by the year 2010, about 1,500,000 tons of
salt will have to be removed each year.

Ground Water Quality

About 40 percent of California's annual total urban and agricultural applied wa-
ter use is provided by ground water extraction. Unfortunately, being out of sight has
meant that California's ground water has often been out of mind. As a result, laws to
protect and manage ground water have been slow in developing, as has the awareness
of the potential for pollution of some of California's ground water basins. Degradation
of these water resources is the most significant threat to our ability to integrate and
manage our ground water resources with surface waters.

In the mid-1970s, an investigation of ground water conditions in the vicinity of a
Stockton area manufacturing plant resulted in the discovery of significant pesticide
pollution. Prior to this investigation, general thought was that the natural process of
water percolating through the soil removed pesticides within the first few inches or feet
of soil. Statewide surveys were conducted leading to knowledge that polar, low- molecu-
lar-weight, volatile compounds such as solvents rapidly penetrate the soil and enter
the ground water. Once there, they may remain for hundreds of years. Now. water
managers know that cleaning up ground water pollution is quite difficult and costly.

Ground water has often been polluted in agricultural areas where soils have been
fumigated to eradicate soil organisms and in industrial areas where solvents have been
improperly handled. In the case of industrial pollution, the use of solvents was accom-
panied by indiscriminate disposal practices, such as dumping waste material on the
ground or in unlined ponds.

In the San Gabriel Valley of the greater Los Angeles area, solvent pollution is so
widespread in the ground water that it is generally not possible to identify individual
sources and assign cleanup responsibility. In other areas of California, such as the
Silicon Valley in Santa Clara County, cleanup responsibility has sometimes been as-
signed to specific industries. There, electronic industries which released solvents into
the ground (often because of leaky underground storage tanks), are proceeding suc-
cessfully with cleanup efforts which are costing millions of dollars.

Leaking underground tanks have been found to be a particular problem. Gaso-
line storage tanks and most other types of underground chemical storage tanks were.

128 Water Quality

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

until recent years, constructed in a way that caused the tanks to fail as they corroded.
As a result, ground water contamination from these sources is widespread. SWRCB
now manages a program to control contamination from underground tanks.

Ground water contamination by synthetic organic pollutants may be more seri-
ous than surface water pollution because of the difficulty and expense of cleanup. This
(yf)e of pollution is widespread in California and presents a serious challenge. Howev-
er, the water can be treated to remove solvents, and the water can then be used.

An even more complex problem than presented by solvents is the problem of ni-
trates. Nitrates are nitrogen-containing compounds required to support plant life. They
may enter the soil as a result of fertilizer applications, animal waste, septic tanks, in-
dustrial disposal, waste water treatment plant sludge application, or other sources.
Certain organisms even have the capacity to take nitrogen from the air and convert it
Into nitrates. In California, the most important source of nitrates in soils is from agri-
cultural practices, primcirily farming operations and animal husbandry.

Nitrates have the capability to move through the soil into ground water and, once
there, may seriously degrade its usability. There is a limit to the concentration of ni-
trates people can tolerate; infants, in particular, are susceptible to nitrate poisoning
(methemoglobinemia). Nitrates can also limit the use of ground water for other pur-
poses such as stock watering. In too high concentrations, nitrates become toxic to
plants. The biggest problem with nitrates is that treatment to remove them is so expen-
sive that it is impractical in most situations. Communities having water supplies high
in nitrates often turn to bottled water for cooking and drinking.

Nitrates are widespread in California's ground water. For instance, the Petaluma
area of Sonoma County was historically an important poultry production area. Poultry
waste was generally piled up and left to decompose on the site of the poultry operation.
Poultry waste is a potent source of urea and organic nitrogen, which can convert to
nitrates and then migrate into the ground. Even after poultry operations were discon-
tinued, plumes (feather-shaped bands) of nitrates remained in the ground. When it
rains, water percolates down through these plumes and dissolves some of the nitrates,
carrying it into the water-bearing stratum below. A 198 1 study demonstrated nitrates
in the Petaluma area's ground water ranging to over 300 milligrams per liter, signifi-
cantly exceeding the California's Maximum Contaminant Level of 45 mg/L for drinking
water.

Efforts must focus on better controlling nitrate pollution at the outset since ni-
trate removal from ground water is not usually economically feasible. Increasing
awareness of this problem at the federal and State levels has improved regulatory
attention to nitrate pollution. In some parts of the country, nitrate-laden water is
pumped from underground and applied as fertilizer, thus reducing the need for added
nitrogen fertilizer.

Remediation and Protection of Ground Water Quality

Protection and maintenance of California's ground water resources will require
the participation of all Californians. Significant ground water pollution has occurred as
a result of individual actions, including those of homeowners who dispose of solvents
by spreading them on their property. Individual citizens and industrial workers can
help greatly by disposing of toxic and hazardous materials in a safe, environmentally
acceptable manner.

Water Quality 129

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Quality Considerations for Water Reclamation and Reuse

As discussed in Chapter 3, water reclamation (recycling) and reuse make more
■ ^ efficient use of existing supplies, but the extent of reuse depends on the quality of the

source supply, local economic conditions, the amounts and tjrpes of reuse already
instituted, and the intended applications of the recycled water.

Fresh water can be saved for environmental enhancement or other uses to the
extent reclaimed waste water can be used in its place. However, there are also concerns
about the use of reclaimed water. In some cases, human health risks may be increased
by pathogenic organisms or chemical residues which could be present in reclciimed
water.

The Office of Drinking Water within the California Department of Health Services
is responsible for regulating use of reclaimed waste water. Regulations stipulate treat-
ment levels for use of reclaimed water for various purposes such as irrigation,
recreation, and ground water recharge. The objective of these regulations is to cdlow
the maximum use of reclaimed water while protecting public health. More specific reg-
ulations are expected concerning the use of reclaimed water for recharge of ground
water supplies.

The quality required of reclaimed water depends on its use. Possible uses include
landscape irrigation, growing food for animals, industrial uses such as wash water,
flushing toilets, ground water recharge, and other uses which do not involve direct hu-
man consumption. The concentration of salts in the waste water is a determining
factor of its availability for most uses. Water increases in salt concentration as a result
of being used. Also, some waste water pipelines have picked up salt from saline ground
water, such as near San Francisco Bay. In cases where fresh water supplies already
contain elevated salt concentrations, the waste water resulting from use of this water
may be quite limited in its usefulness.

Limited quantities of reclaimed water are being used in California to recharge
ground water for subsequent municipal water supply, and other potential projects are
being studied. Water quality requirements are quite stringent for projects involving hu-
man consumption of reclaimed water. The primary concerns are pathogenic organisms
and harmful chemical residues. Treatment processes used for recharging potable wa-
ter supplies must not only successfully remove harmful constituents, but also be
highly reliable.

The Department of Health Services evaluates aU proposals for potable use of re-
claimed waste water on a case-by-case basis. As treatment technology advances, it
may become possible for waste water to be adequately and reliably treated for direct
municipal reuse. Representatives of the Departments of Health Services and DWR cur-
rently co-chair a technical committee examining this issue.

Costs of Poor Quality Water

Water of reduced quality is generally associated with a cost to the user. The cost
depends on the quality of the available water, its intended use, and the treatment pro-
cesses required to meet standards specified for the intended use. Drinking water
standards and those for municipal, industrial, and agricultural water use specify the
qusdity requirements that must be attained before the water can be used beneficially.
New standards, such as the one requiring drinking water filtration, and ones which
have lowered the acceptable limit of lead and copper, often result in increased costs of
treatment to meet the new standards. In some cases, the cost can be very high. The
City and County of San Francisco, for example, may have to incur high costs if they are

130 Water Quality

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

required to construct filtration facilities as a result of the Federal Surface Water Treat-
ment Rule which generally requires filtration and rigorous disinfection of surface
drinking water supplies. In California, the SWTR will be administered by the State De-
partment of Health Services.

In general, the better the quality of the source for drinking water, the less treat-
ment it requires and, consequently, the less it costs to produce. Many water quality
parameters affect treatment costs, including microbiological quality, turbidity, color,
alkalinity, hardness, and bromide and organic carbon content. For example. MWD
treats roughly 6.000 af of water per day at five major treatment plants. Recently, the
district made improvements, costing about $5 million, to its treatment processes. To
meet the expected more stringent trihalomethane rule, MWD is studying the need for
further improvements with a capital cost range of $300 million to $2 billion.

The mineral quality of municipal supplies has a variety of impacts in addition to
affecting drinking water quality. Hard water (high in calcium and magnesium salts)
can cause corrosion, staining, and scale buildup and require excessive use of cleans-
ers. Soft water may attack the metal in plumbing, increasing lead and copper
concentrations at the tap.

Many studies have cited the impacts of water quality on the value of water to ur-
ban consumers, and all have cited the difficulty of expressing quality impacts in a
simple way. A 1989 review of consumer impacts of the mineral content of Delta water
proposed a generalized cost of $0.68 per acre-foot per milligram per liter of incremen-
tal total dissolved solids. The current generalized value would be about $0.80 per
acre-foot per milligram per liter (adjusted using the Consumer Price Index), or about
$0.30 per pound of dissolved mineral matter in the water. The impact of this added
cost can be quite significant.

Studies have also shown that lower water quality in urban supplies increases
consumer use of bottled water and home treatment devices. Surveys of California com-
munities indicate that about half of all California residences use some bottled or
home-treated water. The collective cost of these choices by California's residents is
over a billion dollars annually. Some of these expenditures would, of course, be made
regardless of local water quality.

A less obvious impact of water mineralization is the limiting of water recycling
opportunities, especially in areas where reclaimed water percolates back into ground
water basins. With each reuse, the reclaimed water is more heavily mineralized and
thus eventually becomes unusable. This phenomenon is more pronounced where com-
mon salt is added to regenerate water softeners, and the waste brine also enters
ground water. Under these conditions, the mineral pickup per cycle of use can be in-
creased several fold. Several areas of California have banned the use of water softeners
because of these circumstances.

There is great variation in the water quality requirements for industry. In many
industries, tap water is not of adequate quality for certain processes and must receive
additional treatment, such as softening. The costs of having unacceptable water quali-
ty for industry generally depend on the cost of the additional treatment that may be
necessary.

Salty irrigation water presents several costly problems for farmers. In many agri-
cultural areas, it is common to recirculate irrigation water a number of times to
increase irrigation efficiency. Salty water can be recycled fewer times than water that
is initially low in salt. Also, more salty water must be used for irrigation than is re-

Water Quality 131

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

quired when using supplies low in salt. The requirement to use more water results in
significant additional cost for pumping and handling the water and. perhaps, addition-
al cost to purchase the water.

Generally, the most salt-tolerant crops are not the ones having highest value.
Therefore, given a salty water supply, a farmer may be required to grow less valuable
crops than is possible when low-salt irrigation water is available. Finally, crop yields
fall as salt in the irrigation water increases beyond the optimal ranges specific to indi-
vidual crops.

Numerous aspects of water quality can affect fish and wildlife habitat and result
in monetary or envirormiental costs. An example is selenium in agricultural drainage
from the San Joaquin Valley which was used to supply wetland habitat in the valley. In
this case, elevated selenium concentrations caused severe reproductive damage to fish
and wildlife species, particularly to birds using the wetlands.

There are many water quality problems which can result in cost, either direct or
environmental. In turn, these impacts reduce flexibility in water supply planning and
water management. The real challenge is to avoid these costs by protecting water
sources from quality degradation in the first place. California's record has been a good
one, for an industrialized state. Most of our waters remain fit for fish and wildlife, and
for multiple uses by people. However, the rapidly growing population, along with con-
tinued industrialization, will continue to greatly challenge our ability to mciintain and
improve water quality. If we are to meet this challenge successfully, it will require the
best efforts of government, the water industry, and, most of all, concerned citizens. To
fail to meet this challenge would be to lose the use of precious water resources that
cannot be spared.

Recommendations

1 . Increasingly stringent and costly drinking water qucility standards for public
health protection will affect the continued availability and cost of water sup-
plies. More effort must be made by State and*federal agencies to balance the
cost with public health and other benefits of such standards.

2 . Research into relationships and effects of water quality degradation on fish and
wildlife should continue. In particular, more information is needed on acute
and chronic effects of low- level toxicants on the health and reproductive capac-
ity of aquatic organisms. (Research should be a cooperative effort by State and
federal agencies.)

3 . Urban water supplies diverted from the South Delta face the threat of increasing
water quality degradation from both salinity intrusion and organic substances
originating in Deltaisland drainage. Factors responsible forquality degradation
from Delta island drainage should be investigated by State agencies, and poten-
tial means of mitigating problems identified.

4. Reuse of adequately treated waste water can, in some areas, provide alternative
sources of supply as well as benefit fish and wildlife resources, particularly in
£irid portions of the State. Efforts by State agencies should be continued to de-
fine the conditions and degree of treatment needed to allow use of treated waste
water for beneficial uses and discharge of effluents to water courses so that
these benefits can be realized.

132 Water Quality

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Water Quality 133

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

134 Part III

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Introduction

This part of Bulletin 160-93 covers urban, agricultural, environmental, and
recreational water use. Certain key concepts, defined below, are important to
understand before reading the following chapters because they are employed in
analyzing water use and presenting results of planning studies.

Applied Water Demand: 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

□ 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) ; repelling salinity; or maintaining
flows in the San Francisco Bay/Delta under State Water Resources
Control Board's standards.

Net Water Demand: The amount of water needed in a water service area to meet
all requirements. It is the sum of evapo transpiration of applied water, ETTAW, in an
area; the irrecoverable losses from the distribution system; and agricultural return
flow or treated municipal outflow leaving the area.

Irrecoverable Losses: The water lost to a salt sink or lost by evaporation or
evapotranspiration from a conveyance facility, drainage canal, or in fringe areas.

Depletion: The water consumed within a service area and no longer available as a
source of supply. For agriculture and wetlands, it is ETAW (and ET of flooded
wetlands) plus irrecoverable losses. For urban water use, it is EnWW (water applied to
landscaping or home gardens), sewage effluent that flows to a salt sink, and incidental
evapotranspiration losses. For instream use, it is the amount of dedicated flow that
proceeds to a salt sink.

Figures III-A through III-C show examples of how applied water, net water use.
and depletion amounts are derived in three different cases. Figure III-A shows how
outflow in an inland area is reusable; Figure III-B shows how outflow to a salt sink is
not reusable; and Figure Ill-C shows how outflow in an inland area is reusable when
agricultural water use is more efficient.

Water Use

Part III

135

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure lll-A. Derivation of Applied Water, Net Water Use, and Depletion

Example of Water Use in Inland Areas

500 Un I ts

0 Un i ts

ETAW

\ 3 Un i t s

Applied Water

Reuse Water

Net Water Use

ETAW

Irrecoverable Losses*

Depletion

ETAW = EVAPOTRANSPIRATION OF APPUEO WATER

'Irrecovefable losses are losses from conveyance facilities due to evaporation, evapotranspirotion, or deep percolation of Vi/ater to saline sinks.

136

Part III

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Figure Ili-B. Derivation of Applied Water, Net Water Use, and Depletion

Example of Area with Salt Sink

500 Un i ts

10 Uni ts

ETAW

3 Uni ts

Applied Water
Reuse Water
Net Water Use

U7
47

100

ETAW

Irrecoverable Losses*

Depletion

100

ETAW = EVAPOTRANSPIRATION OF APPUEO WATER

■Ifrecovefoble losses are losses from conveyance facilities due to evaporation, evapotransplrcition. or deep percolation of water to saline sinks.

Part III

137

Bulletin 160-93 TTie California Water Plan Update

Figure lll-C. Derivation of Applied Water, Net Water Use, and Depletion

Example of Most Inland Areas with High Efficiency

500 Un i t s

10 Units

ETAMtf

\ 3 Uni Is

fcrecovefabte
Losses*

I Un I t

An*

City Fann "B" TOTAL

N«t Water Use —

ETAW 55

Irrecoverable Losses* 4

ETAW = EVAPOnUNSPIRATION Of APfUED WATEB

'Irrecoverable losses ore losses from cortveyorx^ fodRies due to evaporation, evopotronspiration. or deep percolation at water to soine srda.

138

Part in

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Part III 139

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Xeriscaping, designing landscapes that incorporate low-water-using
plants, is an effective means of reducing landscape irrigation. As
shown by this xeriscape in Riverside County, the designs use a
variety of plants — not Just succulents or cacti.

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Chapter 6

Urban water use is generally determined by population, its geographic location, Urbon Water Use
and thejpercentage of water used in a community by residences, industry, government,
and commercial enterprises. It also includes water that cannot be accounted for be-
cause of distribution system losses, fire protection, or unauthorized uses. For the past
two decades, urban per capita water use has leveled off in most areas of the State. The
implementation of local water conservation programs and current housing develop-
ment trends, such as increased multiple-family dwellings and reduced lot sizes, have
actually lowered per capita water use in some areas of the State. However, gross urban
water demands continue to grow because of significant population increases and the
establishment of urban centers in the warmer interior areas of the State. Even with the
implementation of aggressive water conservation programs, urban water demand in
California Is expected to grow in conjunction with increases in population.

Estimates of urban water use in this update of the California Water Plan are
based on population and per capita water use values, per capita values, called unit use
values, are estimated from water production and delivery records provided by urban
water purveyors. The gross per capita use was divided into residential, commercial,
industrial, governmental, and unaccounted categories, and the percentage of total wa-
ter use represented by each category was calculated. In most cases, the gross per
capita water use numbers presented need to be interpreted carefully because high-wa-
ter-using industries and commercial enterprises can skew the figures. For example, a
high-water-using paper pulp mill on the North Coast can double the gross per capita
water use for that area. Furthermore, per capita water use values can mask effects of
drought, conservation, inland growth, changes in industry, and other factors affecting
water use simultaneously.

This chapter presents factors affecting urban water use, including population
growth, urban land use, water conservation, and pricing, as well as presenting urban
water use forecasts to 2020.

^F>ylation Growth ,

Population growth now exceeds projections made in the 1980s and has contin-
ued into the 1990s despite the recent economic recession, v^lthough several entities
forecast population growth. State law requires that the Department of Water Resources
use Department of Finance population projections for planning purposes. Forecasts of
urban water use in this bulletin are based on Department of Finance's Population Pro-
jections by Race /Ethnicity for California and Its Counties, 1990-2040, Report 93 P-1.
Figure 6- 1 compares population projections from prior water plan updates. DOF pro-
jections use a baseline cohort-component method to project population with
assumptions as to future birth rates, death rates, and net migration. Trends based on
population estimates back to 1960 were used to calculate the projections reported

Urban Water Use

141

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

here. DOF projections at the county level were used as the control for all DWR projec-
tions. Only some Northern California coastal counties, such as San Francisco and
Marin, are projected to have little or no growth out to 2020. The 1990 through 2020
population figures, by hydrologic region, are shown in Table 6- 1 .

For a comparison of projections. Figure 6-2 compares DOF projections to those
of the following:

O Southern California — Southern California Association of Governments and San
Diego Association of Governments

O San Francisco Bay Area — ^Association of Bay Area Governments

Urban Land Use

Accompanying the growth in population has been a dramatic increase in urban
land use (acreage). Trends in urban land use can cause significant changes in urban

Table 6-1. California Population by Hydrologic Region

(millions)

Hydrologic Regions

1990

2000

2010

2020

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

|0.9
6.9
2.0

25.3
4.1
3.2

|3.5
0.1
1.9
1.0

TOTAL

30.0

36.5

42.5

48.9

142

Urban Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Population

(millions)

Soulhom CnBfomo

1980 1990
Actual Actual

Department of Finance

2000
Projected

Council of Governments

2010
Projected

Figure 6-2.
Comparison of
Department of
Finance and
Council of
Governments
Population
Projections for
California's Tux)
Largest
Metropolitan Areas

Population
(millionsl

San Francisco Bay Area

Department of Finance

2000 2010

Projected Projected

Council of Governments

per capita water use. For example, smaller lot sizes and Increased multi-family hous-
ing generally lower per capita water use. Also, increased plantings of low-water-using
landscapes and more efficient watering tend to push per capita water use down. How-
ever, water conservation efforts have only managed to slow increases in the applied
ijrban water demand because of significant population increases and growth in the
State's warmer interior. Based on DWR land use surveysconducted during the 1980s,
there are now 3.75 million urban acres in California. Table 6-2 compares California's
overall population density with New York. Texas, Flprida._and countries with similar
levels of industrial development.

With regard to the urbanization of agricultural lands, the Department of
Conservation has estimated that nearly 310,000 acres were developed and urbanized
between 1984 and 1990. Of this land, 63,400 acres were formerly irrigated farmland,
over one-half of which was considered prime farmland, according to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Land Inventory and Monitoring System as modified for
California.

Urban Water Use

143

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Table 6-2. 1 990 Population Densities of Selected States and Countries

State/Country

Unifed Kingdom
France

Population

Area

(square miles)

57,411,000
56,614,000

93,643
210,026

Density

(population/ sq. mi.)

California

29,760,000

155,973

191

Florida

1 2,938,000

53,997

240

NewYoli^l,

17,990,000

47,224 ^bH

■■iP^381

l-l-M

Texas

1 6,987,000

261,914

Germany

79,113,000

137,822 ■■

^^^^■■IH

^■1'

Netherlands

1 4,944,000

13,103

1,141

Japan

123,612,0001^^

HP 145,875 WtKk

HHHHHI

WKKk

613
270

Urban Water Conservation

Urban water conservation efforts haveijeen expanding^ since the 1970s. Unlike
agriculture, organizations such as the University of California Cooperative Extension
and local Resource Conservation Districts did not exist to provide conservation exper-
tise to urban water users. Urban water agencies have now filled that void and are
dramatically increasing water conservation programs. DWR's Water Conservation Of-
fice works cooperatively with local water agencies on many conservation efforts such
as leak detection, plumbing code changes, conservation planning, efficient landscape
ordinances, and Best Management Practices. DWR's Water Education Office, with as-
sistance from district offices, is working with local agencies to develop and implement
water education programs.

With the passage of the Urban Water Management Planning Act in 1983, the
California Legislature acknowledged the importance of water conservation and de-
mand^ management as essential components of water planning. The act requires the
300 medium-sized and large urban water agencies to,prepare and adopt plans for the
efficient use of their water supplies and update those plans every five years. The first
plans were due in 1985. Over 95 percent of the agencies affected by the law submitted
a plan.

In 1988, during the Bay-Delta Proceedings, interested parties gave the State Wa-
ter Resources Control Board widely divergent opinions on appropriate levels for
implementing urban conservation measures. To resolve these differences, urban water
agencies, environmental groups, and State agencies actively participated in a three-
year effort which resulted in identifying Best Management Practices. These are
conservation measures that meet either of the following criteria:

O An established and generally accepted practice among water suppliers that results
in more efficient use or conservation of water.

A practice for which sufficient data are available from existing water conservation
projects to indicate that significant conservation or conservation-related benefits
can be achieved; the practice is technically and economically reasonable,
environmentally and socially acceptable, and not otherwise unreasonable for most
water suppliers to cany out.

Sixteen initial BMPs that meet at least one of these criteria have been identified.
Table 6-3 lists the practices and indicates those that have been quantified. Several
additional practices that may meet the criteria are under study as Potential Best Man-

144

Urban Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Table 6-3. Best Management Practices for Urban Water Use

Management Practice Estimates of Water Savings

Quantified Not Quantified

1 . Interior and Exterior Water Audits and Incentive Programs for Single Family Residential, x
Multi-Family Residential, and Governmental/institutional Customers

2. New and Retrofit Plumbing x

3. Distribution System Water Audits, Leak Detection, and Repair x

4. Metering witfi Commodity Rates for All New Connections and Retrofit of Existing Connections x

5. Large Landscape Water Audits and Incentives x

6. Landscape Water Conservation Requirements for New and Existing Commercial, x
Industrial, Institutional, Governmental, and Multi-Family Developments

7. Public Information x
« 8. Water Education Programs for Schools x

9. Commercial and Industrial Water Conservation x

1 0. New Commercial and Industrial Water Use Review x

1 1 . Conservation Pricing x

1 2. Landscape Water Conservation for New and Existing Single Family Homes x

1 3. Water Waste Profiibition x

1 4. Water Conservation Coordinator x

15. Financiallncentives x

16. Ultra-Low Flush Toilet Replacement Programs x

agement Practices. The Potential BMPs have not been used in estimating future urban
water demand, but are discussed more fully in the last section of this chapter.

As of December 1992, over 100 water agencies, plus over 50 public advocacy
groups and other interested parties, had signed a Memorandum of Understanding Re-
garding Urban Water Conservation in California. This MOU commits signatories to
implement these BMPs at specified levels of effort over the period 1991 to 2001. The
water industry and others are working toward the implementation of BMPs through
the California Urban Water Conservation Council, established under the MOU. Full
descriptions of BMPs, including estimates of savings and implementation schedules,
are contained in the MOU.

The widespread acceptance of BMPs in California virtually assures that their im-
plementation will become the industry standard for water conservation programs
through 2001 and probably beyond. The BMP process offers great advantages for wa-
ter agencies. There will be significant opportunities to combine programs on a regional
basis to reduce implementation costs and increase effectiveness. In addition to the
programs described above, many of the cooperative efforts to help local agencies with
urban water conservation programs will focus on implementing BMPs.

Water conservation will undoubtedly continue to play a significant role in manag-
ing California's urban water needs. Proven conservation measures will be implemented
by more agencies, and new measures will gain greater acceptance. More sophisticated
economic analyses will shape the ways that water needs are met or modified. However,
as water use continues to become more efficient, agencies will lose flexibility in dealing
with shortages.

Urban Water Pricing

Many water conservation specialists think conservation encouraged by water
pricing is one of the most important BMPs for reducing urban water use. Many factors
influence the water prices levied by urban water agencies. Some of the major ones in-

Urban Water Use 145

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

elude the source of the water, methods of transporting and treating it, the intended
use, the pricing policies and size of water agencies, and climatic conditions.

The costs of supplying water depend greatly on the source and use of the water.
For example, the cost of diverting water from a river and using it on adjacent land can
be less than $5 an acre-foot; in contrast, the cost of sea water desalination can exceed
$2,000 an acre-foot. Other significant factors influencing the cost of water supplies is
the distance the water must be transported from the source to its ultimate place of use
and the level of water treatment required to make it usable. For example, the State
Water Project delivers supplies both in Northern and Southern California and contract-
ing water agencies must pay the full cost of supply and delivery to their area. Supplies
delivered to Southern California must travel through hundreds of miles of aqueducts
and be pumped over a mountain range before reaching thefr final destination. As a
result, the costs of these supplies are greater than those delivered farther north be-
cause of increased transportation costs. The pricing scheme is much like that of train
tickets; for example, the farther you travel, the higher the price of the ticket.

If an agency serves a heavily px)pulated area with a large number of connections
per square mile, the average fixed costs cind some variable energy costs of serving each
customer will tend to be less. Conversely, if the agency serves a sparsely populated
area, the average fixed costs of serving each customer are normally higher.

Generally, supplies used for urb£in purposes cost more than those used for agri-
culture because urban supply systems are more complex and ofi:en involve costly local
facilities for system regulation, pressurization, treatment plants, distribution systems.
water meters, and system operation (including meter reading and customer billing) . In
addition, some water rates include costs for waste water treatment. Further, future
increased treatment costs could add another $1,000 per acre-foot to urban water
costs. However, agricultural water costs are typically assessed at the farm headgate or
edge of the property. The rates charged for water supplied to agricultural users do not
include the costs incurred by a farmer for labor and equipment to distribute water sup-
plies throughout a farm. These costs ofi:en incorporate land preparation, specialized
machinery, and complex distribution through canals, pipes, or drip lines.

The policies adopted by various water agencies also significantty affect the final
prices consumers pay. For example, some agencies use water rates to fully recover the
costs of acquiring and delivering supplies, whereas others use a combination of water
rates and local property taxes. Policies concerning the use of water meters and rate
structure are also important. Although most urban retail agencies in California use
meters to monitor customer use and to levy charges, some (mainly in the Central
Valley) do not. Typically, the costs to consumers of using unmetered supplies (with flat
rate water charges) are less than if those same supplies were metered. However. In
times of drought when water use is reduced, water agencies that have flat rates (water
charges indejjendent of use) are not affected by reduced revenues to cover fixed costs.

Where supplies are metered, rate structure becomes important. For example,
most agencies have switched from declining block rates (where unit water costs de-
crease with increasing usage) to either constant or increasing block rates. These rates
encourage water conservation. Figure 6-3 shows some of the common urban rate
structures.

During years of normal or above-normal precipitation, most agencies' supplies
are adequate to meet current demands, and rates remain stable. During droughts, the
rates water agencies charge vary depending on reliability and availability of supplies.
For example, during the 1987-92 drought, many water purveyors adopted higher rates

146 Urban Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

to encourage water conservation. Several even implemented drought penalty rates de-
signed to drastically reduce water use. These policies reduced water use; however, an
unwanted consequence of reduced water use was reduced revenues to the agencies,
which still had to pay their system's fixed costs plus the costs of expanded conserva-
tion programs. To remain solvent, many water agencies had to increase rates several
times during the drought.

The following two subsections discuss urban retail water costs and urban ground
water costs. They are presented to illustrate the complexities of urban water pricing
and the vast differences in cost to various communities in California.

Urban Retail Water Prices

Urban retail water prices vary greatly because of the large number of agencies
with different production costs and pricing policies throughout the State. Each agency
is likely to have different pricing policies for the different customer classes, such as
residential, commercial, and industrial. Water rates and profit margins of investor-
owned utilities in California are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission.

Table 6-4 summarizes 1991 single-family residential monthly use and retail wa-

3 ter cost information for selected cities. Some of the higher water bills are found in cities

along the coast (such as Corte Madera, Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Oceanside). Some

Urban Water Use

147

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

of the lower bills are found in the cities in the Central Valley (such as Sacramento and
Fresno). Many of these 1991 water costs are higher than they were prior to the
1987-92 drought.

Table 6-5 summarizes 1991 commercial and industrial water use and cost in-
formation for selected cities. Unlike Table 6-4, Table 6-5 does not identify summer and
winter uses and costs. Instead, it displays an average monthly use. Single-family resi-
dential customers, as a group, tend to have similar unit water uses, which is not the
case for commercial or industrial customers. It is difficult to define a typical commer-
cial or industrial customer, particularly in the industrial sector, which can include
bakeries as well as oil refineries. Commercial and industrial water costs were based
upon a 2-inch meter size. The table shows that some of the higher commercial and
industrial water costs are also found along the coast. Some of the lower costs are found

Table 6-4. 1991 Single Family Residential Monthly Water Uses and Costs for Selected Cities'^'

Region/City

Average
Summer

Average
Winter

Typical
Summer

Typical
Winter

$per
Acre-foot

Effective
Date of

Montf)ly

U5e(ccf)'°>

Monthly

U5e(ccf)'°>

Monthly

Bill($)i^>

Monthly

Bill($)i^'

Co5ti^>

Rate

North Coast

Crescent City

369

Jan 1991

San Francisco Bay

Son Francisco

^^■"81

HHHBH

July 1991

Corte Madera

1,688

May 1991

Son Jose

664

July 1991

Central Coast

Santa Barbara

1,364

May 1991

Goleta

1,381

June 1991

Monterey

n ^"^

V 8

1,160

Jan 1991

South Coast

Los Angeles

462

Jan 1991

Beverly Hills

525

Apr 1991

Oceanside

875

July 1991

Hemet

515

June 1 991

Sacramento River

Sacramento

165

July 1991

Chico

518

June 1991

Grass Valley

Jan 1991

San Joaquin River

Stockton

311

May 1 990

Tulare Lake

Fresno

193

July 1991

North Lohontan

Susanville

434

Oct 1991

South Lahontan

Barstow

379

Jan 1991

Colorado River

El Centre

244

Sep 1980

(1 ) Costs shown do not include additional costs, such as property or od valorem taxes, which increase the real cost of water

(a) Hundred cubic feet (750 gallons)

(b) Includes service charge

148

Urban Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

441

379

1,079

282

22,133

471

253

144

208

358

2,300

111

1,858

272

1,021

1,635

112,472

582

703

7,437

104

441

1,794

503

359

742

2,684

324

122

244

4,000

316

1,479

104

673

198

183

251

136

204

667

434

349

350

8,273

672

2,017

1,196

258

Table 6-5. 1991 Commercial and Industrial Monthly Water Uses and Retail Costs for Selected Cities

Region/City Average Commercial $ per Average Industrial $ per

Monthly Number of Typical Acre-foot Monthly Number of Typical Acre-foot

Use(ccf)i°> Accounts Monthly Cosf''' Use (ccf)'"' Accounts Montf)ly Cosf^>

Bill($)i^> Bill {$) 1^1

North Coast

Crescent City
San Francisco Bay

San Francisco
Central Coast

Santa Barbara
South Coast

Los Angeles

Hemet
Sacramento River

Chico
San Joaquin River

Stockton
Tulare Lake

Fresno
North Lahontan

Susanville
South Lahontan

Barstow

(a) Hundred cubic feet (750 gallons)

(b) Includes service charge

in the Central Valley. Again, the drought may be have increased these 1991 water
I costs.

Definitive conclusions concerning water uses and costs among cities cannot be
' derived solely from these two tables because of the many complex factors influencing
j water prices, including proximity to supply and the level of treatment required.

i Urban Ground Water Prices

Local water agencies provide supplies to most residential and commercial cus-

i tomers in California. Within the industrial sector, small manufacturing firms also
obtain supplies mainly from water agencies. However, many large, water-intensive,
manufacturing firms (such as refineries and chemical manufacturers) have developed

j their own ground water supplies.

I Ground water costs vary widely throughout the State. Many factors influence

these costs, including depth to ground water, electricity rates, pump efficiencies, and
! treatment requirements. Another factor was the prolonged drought, which resulted in
j lower ground water levels and higher pumping costs. Typically, self-provided ground
water costs are less than the costs of treated surface water. Table 6-6 presents ranges
of urban ground water costs for the hydrologic regions. These costs include capital,
operations (including pumping energy costs), maintenance, replacement, and treat-

Iment costs.
. Per Capita Water Use

From the beginning of this century to 1 970, urban per capita water use increased
steadily, as illustrated by Figure 6-4, which charts increases in per capita water use in

Urban Water Use

149

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure 6-4.

Urban Per Capita

Water Use

San Francisco Bay

Area

1920-1990

Table 6-6. Typical Urban Ground Water Costs In 1992
by Hydrologic Region

Hydrologk Regi

North Gxist
San Francisco
Central Coast
South Coast

Sacramento River
Son Jooquin River
Tubre Lake
North Lahontan
South Lahontan
Colorado Rhrer

Ground Water Costs

($/acre-foot)

—

330

200

—

300

—

190

—

270

—

175

120

—

190

—

115

—

275

*Th«e cosh are higher than pumping row vvater (or agricuhurai use because capifcJ, operation, maintenance, replacement, and heabnent
cosb ore greater.

the San Francisco Bay area. Since 1970, however, the per capita use has been fluctuat-
ing but no longer shows a steady increase in most areas of the State, as shown in
Figure 6-5, Urban Per Capita Water Use, 1940-1990. Large reductions in per capita
water use are pronounced during drought years when aggressive short-term conserva-
tion and rationing programs are in effect. In the long term, permanent water
conservation programs and other factors have begun to reduce overall per capita water
use in some areas.

Other factors tend to raise per capita unit use rates, thus making it difficult to
analyze trends. Climatic variations affect water use significantfy from one year to the
next. In the long term, fewer people per household, increases in household income,
and population growth in warmer inland areas have tended to counteract the effects of
multifamily housing and conservation, which drive f)er capita water use downward.
Figure 6-6 compares the gross average per capita water use in selected California com-
munities from 1980 to 1990. Gross per capita use rates are higher in many hydrologic

150

Urban Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Urban Applied Water Use
(gallons per-capila daily)

Figure 6-5.
Urban
Per Capita
Water Use
1940-1990

State Average
Central Valley

South Coast

Central Coast

North Coast

San Francisco Bay

regions because of large industrial or commercial enterprises combined with low resi-
dent populations. For example, there are high per capita water use rates in the
, Colorado River Region because of tourist populations and a predominance of golf
courses.

' Even with effective drought emergency measures, drier winters tend to cause an

increase in water use for landscape irrigation (to replace effective precipitation) during
j the winter. The average per capita monthly water use, statewide, during the 1987-92
I drought, in relation to the rest of the 1980s, illustrates this fact (Figure 6-7).

Figure 6-6.
Comparison of
Per Capita Water
Use by Selected
Communities

'lUons per capita daily of total urban applied water use — does not include self-supplied water.

Urban Water Use

151

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure 6-7.

Average Monthly

Urban Per Capita

Water Use

Statewide

Does not include
self-supplied uxtter.

The population in the
Sacramento River Re-
gion is expected to
double by 2020. New
housing construction in
the region wiR continue.
With the help of Best
Management Practices,
such as instaUir^ low-
Jlow shower heads and
low-Jlush toilets, the in-
creases in urban water
use can be moderated.

Disaggregating Urban Water Use

The gross per capita water use values previously cited can be separated into the
four categories of use: residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental. Percent-
ages of total urban water use have been estimated for these four sectors for 1990 and
compared with 1980 in Figure 6-8. The biggest difference is in industrial water use.
The decline in industrial water use results from conservation and water reuse under-
taken in that sector, as well as the closure of some high-water-using industries, such
as lumber mills and canneries. Waste water discharge requirements have caused many
industries to recycle their water to avoid the costty water treatment required for dis-
charge.

Residential water
use averages about 120
gallons per capita per
day in California. CK'er-
all interior water use has
remained near 80 gal-
lons per capita per day
on the average during
the 1980s. However,
these per capita figures
can vary significant^
due to household in-
come and single-famity
or multifamily house-
holds. Table 6-7 shows
the breakdown of in-
door water use into its
components. Exterior
water use is extremety

152

Urban Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Table 6-7. 1990 Distribution of Residential Interior Water Use

Component

Average Use, Percentage

Toilet

Bath/Shower

Faucets

Laundry

Dishwashing

36
28
13
20
3

TOTAL

100

variable, ranging from 30 percent of residential use in coastal areas up to 60 j)ercent
in hot inland areas.

Urban Water Use Forecasts

The 1990 level was normalized using per capita water use values based on an
average of 1980 to 1987 per capita use of more than 130 California communities. This
"normalization" for the 1 990 level was achieved by using water use data not affected by
the 1987-92 drought. Those drought years were affected by rationing and mandatory
conservation programs. The averages also include estimates of self-supplied (not deliv-
ered by water purveyors) ground and surface water. These values were then weighted
by population to yield the gallons per capita daily use by region as displayed in Table
6-8. Incorporated in these values are reductions in per capita use, caused by conserva-
tion, that have accumulated since 1980. It is estimated that urban applied water in the
normalized 1990 base-year was being reduced annually by approximately 435,000 af
statewide due to on-going conservation programs as compared to 1980. This estimate
did not include drought contingency programs. As mentioned earlier, these are gross
per capita water use values that include the residential, commercial, industrial, and
governmental sectors; the percentage of current total use for each sector is shown in
Table 6-9.

Urban Water Use Forecast to 2020

The forecasted per capita use by hydrologic regions for years 2000 through 2020
shown in Table 6-8 includes estimates of the reductions in urban use caused by imple-

Figure 6-8.

Urban Applied Water Use

by Sector

Governmentaf

Commercial
14%

Industrial

14%

Unaccounted

10%

Governmentaf
6%
\

Unaccounted
10%

Commercial
18%

Industrial
9%

Residential

54%

Residential

57%

(1) Includes irrigation of golf courses, park sites, etc.

Urban Water Use

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Table 6-8. Present and Projected Urban Unit Applied Water by Hydrologic Region

(gallons per capita daily)

Region

1990

2000*

2010*

2020*

All

Residential

All Residential

Uses

North Coast

263

137

242

126

230

120

224

118

San Francisco

193

106

186

102

184

100

181

Central Coast

189

112

185

110

185

110

185

110

South Coast

211

124

209

123

209

123

209

123

Sacramento River

301

169

283

161

277

156

270

151

Son Joaquin River

309

216

300

210

293

206

285

202

Tulare Lake

301

202

295

180

287

175

284

173

North Lohonton

421

160

397

171

387

166

380

163

South Lohontan

278

175

260

165

255

163

255

163

Colorado River

579

336

557

323

557

323

553

321

'Forecasted values including unit use reduction due to BMPs.

mentation of BMPs; these are rough estimates since the range of savings that can be
expected from an individual BMP may be quite large. For this bulletin, the estimated
reductions due to BMPs range from 7 to 10 percent of the forecasted per capita use,
depending on the location of the area studied. The applied water reductions and the
depletion reductions in 2020 due to BMPs are shown in Table 6- 10. The reductions in
depletions stem from reduced landscape evapotranspiration or reduced outflow to the
ocean because of reduced interior water use.

The reductions in depletion are greater for coastal cities where waste water is dis-
charged to the ocean and serves no further beneficial use. Applied water reductions in
the San Francisco Bay area are all considered reductions in depletions because waste
water is discharged to the ocean. In contrast, in the Sacramento River Region most
excess applied water either recharges ground water basins or is returned to the river
through waste water treatment facilities for later reuse downstream and thus is not a
depletion. For example, the depletion resulting from net water demand in Sacramento
versus that of Walnut Creek is 146 gallons per capita daily versus 184 gallons per
capita daily, respectively.

Region

Table 6-9. 1 990 Percentage of Urban Water Use by Sector

Residential Commercial Industrial Governmental

Unaccounted

North Coast

San Francisco

Central Coast

60 1

^1B8

' J

South Coast

Sacramento River

^7 mm

^ 12

San Joaquin River

Tulare Lake

«^^^HH»

North Lohonton

South Lohonton

Colorado River

Statewide

154

Urban Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Table 6-10. Applied Urban Water Reductions and Reductions in Depletions by Hydrologic Region

(thousands of acre-feet)

Region Applied Water Reductions Depletion Reductions

San Francisco ^ 250 250

South Coast 610 490

San Joaquin River 60 20

Tulare Lake iHHHHHHHHT ^^ ^

North Lahontan 5 0

South Lahontan fBHHHHHHHIB ^ ^^

Colorado River 40 35

TOTAL 1,285 935

Of course, the total urban applied water, net water demand, and depletions will

continue to increase to 2020 because of population growth. An even greater increase is

I expected in drought years because of less rainfall recharging soil moisture in urban

landscapes. Table 6-11 presents the estimated increases in statewide urban water

demand from 1990 to 2020.

When the potential BMPs summarized in Table 6-12 are approved by the
California Urban Water Conservation Council, they will be analyzed and are expected
to provide some additional urban water demand reduction. For this report, the reduc-
tion in demand due to potential BMPs was not quantified. However, these potential
BMPs are not expected to provide as much demand reduction as those BMPs already
adopted, primarily because the potential BMPs identify few practices that affect
I exterior water use where the largest potential for future urban water savings exists.

i
Recommendations

Urban water agencies recognize the need for better demand forecasting methods
to estimate water use. Some water agencies are moving toward a more disaggregated
approach, similar to that of energy utilities. DWR and the University of California at
LxDs Angeles have evaluated forecasting methods and developed procedures to estimate
conservation from BMPs. In this approach, more data, much of which is currently un-
available or goes unreported about the end uses of water must be analyzed individually
and then aggregated together to forecast overall water use. At a minimum, water use

^ information must be known about the following categories: single-family residential;

I multi-family residential; commercial/institutional; industrial; and public/unac-
counted. Other information on household population density, household income, and
pricing structure is necessary as well. The demand must also be analyzed for winter
(baseline) use and summer (peak) use. The water demand without conservation is then
calculated. An expected range of demand reductions due to conservation is then esti-
mated for each BMP. The median value of each range can be used to estimate a

i percentage reduction in the forecasted demand without conservation for each BMP.

I For many BMPs, particularly those affecting exterior water use, there are widely diver-
gent appraisals of water savings that will need further study to improve the quality of

, such estimates. Specific recommendations are as follows:

1. Urban water use forecasts require annual reporting of data to accurately
estimate urban water use for residential, industrial, commercial, and

Urban Water Use 155

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Idble 6-1 1. Urban Water Demand by Hydrologic Region
(thousands of acre- feet)

Hydrologic Region

1990 2000 20W 2020

average drought average c/roug/if average drought average drought

Norlh Coast

Apphed wcrier demanci

168

177

186

195

204

214

219

230

N^ water demand

168

177

186

195

204

214

219

230

Oepieiion

110

112

119

122

127

132

136

San Frandsco Bay

Appfied %valer demand

1,186

1,287

1,298

1,390

1,365

1,486

1,406

1.53^

N^ water demand

1,186

1,287

1,298

1,390

1,365

1,486

1,406

1,530

DepwhOKk

1,079

1,175

1,185

1,271

1,247

1,362

1,287

1,403 1

Central Coast

Applied wcder demond

273

277

315

321

365

373

420

429 j

N^ water demand

229

233

263

268

304

311

349

357

Deplelion

203

206

235

239

272

278

315

SouthCoast f

Af^ied waier demoid

3,851

3,997

4,446

4,617

5,180

5,381

6,008

6,Z4H

N^ water demand

3,511

3,641

4,010

4,161

4,623

4,799

5,309

5,514

Depletion

3,341

3/463

3,536

3,677

3,993

4,158

4,596

478i

Sacramento Rivef

Applied woler demand

744

807

911

989

1,076

1,167

1,231

l,33f

Net water demand

744

807

911

989

1,076

1,167

1,231

1,335

Deple^^'on

236

257

293

318

349

378

400

San Jooquin River

Applied warier demand

495

507

663

684

839

867

1,029

1,06||

Net water demand

353

366

468

490

587

616

717

752

Depletion

192

194

258

265

332

340

_jafi»

^420

lilareLake

Applkid ^woler demand

523

716

892

~TT!T™'T,ii<^

Net water demand

214

292

364*

364

454

Depletion

214

292

364

454

North Lahontan

Af^pKed woier demand

N^ water demand

Depletion

'""""^jl

South Lahontan

Applied worier demand

187

193

292

302

409

423

550

«•

Net water demand

123

125

191

198

269

277

360

372

Deplelion

123

125

191

198

269

277

360

Colorado River

AppTied vtfoier demand

301

399

512

621

-^1^

Net water demand

204

272

349

424

Dq)leHon

204

272

349

424

TOMI

AppSed walef demand
Net water demand
Depletion

7,800

8,100

9,300

9,700

10,900

11/400

12,700

13,200

6,800

7,100

7,900

8,300

9,200

9,600

10,500

11,000

5/00

6,000

6,400

6,700

7,300

7,700

8,400

8,800

156

Urban Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Table 6-12. Potential Best Management Practices

1 . . Rate structures and other economic incentives and disincentives to encourage water conservation.

2. Efficiency standards for v/oter using appliances and irrigation devices.

3. Replacement of existing v/ater using appliances (except toilets and sfiowerheods wfiose replacements are incorporated as Best Management
Practices) and irrigation devices.

4. Retrofit of existing car washes.

5. Graywater use.

6. Distribution system pressure regulation.

7. Water supplier billing records broken down by customer class (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial).

8. Swimming pool and spa conservation including covers to reduce evaporation.

9. Restrictions or prohibitions on devices that use evaporation to cool exterior spaces.

1 0. Point-of-use water heaters, recirculating hot water systems, and hot water pipe insulation.

1 1 . Efficiency standards for new industrial and commercial processes.

governmental sectors. Water use data reported to the State Controller's Office
and the Department of Health Services, Office of Drinking Water, are currently
insufficient to meet increasingly more complex forecasting needs. DWR
should implement new reporting mechanisms for urban water use data.

2. Lx)cal land use planning and resulting General Plans should be coordinated
with water resources planning agencies to insure compatibility between land
use plans and water supply plans to make optimum use of the State's water
resources.

3. DWR, in cooperation with the Urban Water Conservation Council, should de-
termine cost-effectiveness and water savings (reduced depletions) resulting
from the various urban Best Management Practices and identify additional ur-
ban practices for use in statewide and regional planning.

4. Urban "water price" effects and their relationship to conservation practices are
not well understood and require further data collection and analysis to ascer-
tain the effect on demand. It is recommended that efforts of the Urban Water
Conservation Council and others be combined with an expanded program in
DWR to address the issue.

Urban Water Use 157

BuUeUn 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Salinas Valley lettuce; California gmwn lettuce accounted for 75 percent of the lettuce
produced in the U.S. in 1990.

^mfr-

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Chapter 7

Agricultural water use is generally determined by the extent of irrigated acreage,
the relative proportions of types of crops grown, climatic conditions, and irrigation effi-
ciency. Up until the early 1980s, irrigated crop lands in California were expanding.
Today, however, economic uncertainties are more pronounced, and views differ widely
over the magnitude and direction of major forces that will shape crop markets in the
coming decades. Furthermore, uncertain and often more costly water supplies are cif-
fecting the continuous economic viability of some irrigated lands, primarily on the west
I side of the San Joaquin Valley and in the South Coast Region. Figure 7- 1 compares
j irrigated acreage projections from prior water plan updates. This chapter examines
[ factors that affect agricultural water use including: import and export markets; crop
water use; irrigation management; drainage and salinity; water price and production
costs; and agricultural water conservation. It then presents estimates of 1990 agricul-
tural water use and forecasts to 2020.

As recently as 1990, California enjoyed a sizable export capability by producing
nearly 50 percent of the nation's fruits, nuts, and vegetables. Yet California's popula-
tion is only 12 percent of the nation's total. California's 31 million acres of farmland,
of which nearly one-third is irrigated, accounts for only 3 percent of the country's
farmland but produces about 1 1 percent of the total U.S. agricultural value. California
agriculture is considered one of the most diversified in the world with over 250 differ-
ent crops and livestock commodities, with no one crop dominating the State's farm
economy. This modern and highly technological $20-billion-a-year industry not only

Agricultural
Water Use

Figure 7-1.

Comparison of

Irrigated

Acreage

Projections

Bulletin 160

Series

Agricultural Water Use

159

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

provides many of the State's jobs but also provides Califomians with relativety low-cost
food and fiber while serving as the backbone of California's rural econon^.

But times are changing. The 1987-92 drought, the Central Valley Project Im-
provement Act of 1992, and recent actions to protect fisheries in the Delta have
changed the outlook for irrigated agriculture. Agricultural water service reliability has
changed dramaticalty. The fi^equency and severity of shortages wiU become increasing-
ty difficult to mana^. Furthermore, over 300.000 acres of irrigated agricultural land
may be urbanized by a population growing finom 30 million in 1990 to 49 million by
2020. Even though California agriculture may continue to increase in terms of total
value, become even more efQcient, and produce higher yields per acre. California's out-
put of some crops, such as alfalfa, lags substantial^ behind the nation's growing need
for these crops.

This water plan update forecasts a net decline of neai^ 400.000 irrigated acres.
For the first time, international crop market competition, increasing yields on existing
land, and water suppty cost and availability are e^)ected to be constraints to putting
new land into irrigated agriculture. Most irrigated acrea^ being lost to urbanization or
lying fallow because of drainage problems will not be replaced. Some crops, primarify
field crops, are expected to drop in terms of planted acres; others will increase in acres
but will decline substantially in marieet share as the international maricet grows. Be-
tween now and 2010. the balance between worid population and level of international
crop production is not expected to raise the world prices of grains or fiber to the extent
that this trend would be reversed. Because of competitive advanta^s. most of
California's high-return crops, which include fiiilts. nuts, and v^etables. are expected
to be able to take advanta^ of increased worid afQuence and. consequent^, increased
demand for these types of crops.

Table 7-1. Crop Yields in California
(average yiMs in tons per acre)

Crop

1960^2 1969-71 1980-82 ' 1989^1 Percenf Increase

1960/62-1989/9]

Cotton
Rice
Com, grain

Wheat

Processed tomatoes
Lettuce
Oranges
Awocxdos

Prunes (dried)

Abnonck{sheM

Wine grapes

SIMFlf AVERAGE

70.9

(a) Nfeiue b kx 1 991 — -wkfespfBod dhiiig^«4nduced (odure of dir^^

wheat ofaobeoane mom prewolert in iie197Qs and 198Qs.
lU For 1989 Old 1990 aiJr-1991 di*i uncMilafaieL
M E3ldu^^^*lefcBeze^fcl^logedyeor of 1991, wt>Me yields were only ch^
(d)Oianging avocado >wielies. plus iie recent freeze tnic^ougib.lKMawiediie 1989-91 cNeroge yieU to be even lower ioiiie 1960^2 average. Ihefeiore.iiepenxnl change is far Ac

1960^2 to 1980^ pviodL
M For 196S«7-Hhe eoifeed data avodoUe.

160

Agricultural Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Californians pro-
cess or directly consume
less than 50 percent of
the State's farm product.

' Foreign and domestic ex-
ports of California farm
products are over three
times the value of foreign

I and domestic farm prod-
ucts imported into

1 California.

This bulletin does
! not address such public
' policy issues as govern-
' ment intervention in

agriculture to manage

wa-ter availability and

■ cost with the objective of
maintaining or enhanc-

■ ing market competitiveness for California crops. Such action could benefit the pro-
; ducers of crops declining in acres or market share, as well as associated agricultural
'businesses, and could also benefit consumers who face higher food prices for some of

the affected crops. However, such intervention would likely impose higher costs on
\ other sectors of the California economy.

In any case, California agriculture will remain a major business in the State,
helping provide food and fiber for growing populations and helping meet the increasing
demand for fruit, nut, and vegetable crops within the U.S. as well as in nations with
increasingly affluent citizens. Indeed, because of increasing yields and the expected
shift to higher-return crops, as international demand for specialty crops increases, the
size of California's farm revenues can be expected to grow substantially.

I High yields are achieved in California largely because of efficient management

Ipractices, a long growing season, and available irrigation water. These factors, plus
soils with desirable characteristics for certain crops and suitable microclimates, also
[allow for efficient crop production of high-value tree and vine crops. Although yield
increases have slowed in the last ten years, the 71 -percent simple average yield in-
crease shown in Table 7- 1 is impressive testimony to the productivity of California
fermers.

In recent years, 22 California crops, covering about 2,760,000 Irrigated acres,
influenced or dominated the U.S. market and produced an average yearly gross reve-
nue of about $6.74 billion. These are the crops for which most California growers enjoy
a strong competitive advantage (for at least certain varieties of the crops) over compet-
ing growers in other states. Table 7-2 lists these 22 crops for which California farmers
accounted for at least 36 percent of U.S. production of that crop during 1989 through
,1991 (based on California Agriculture, Statistical Review, reports for 1989, 1990, and
*1991, California Department of Food and Agriculture).

Table 7-3 shows how important exports are to the producers of a different list of
23 California agricultural commodities. More than half the California production of
our of those crops are exported. In recent years, an average of slightly more than 2
Tiilllon acres were used to grow those 23 crops for export.

Apple harvesting in
the Central Valley.
California's
Mediterranean
climate, long, dry
growing season,
available irr^ation
water, and
productive soils
allow farmers to
produce high-value
fruits, nuts, and
vegetables.

Agricultural Water Use

161

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Table 7-2. Irrigated Crops Where California Influences or Dominates the U.S. Market

(California Share of U.S. Population in 1 990 =12.0 Percent
All Figures are 1989-91 Averages)

Crop

CA Share of U.S.
Production

(Percent)

Acres

(Tliousands)

Gross Value

($ Millions)

Asparagus

Broccoli

Carrots

Celery

Lettuce

Cantaloupes*

Processed tomatoes

Almonds

Avocados

Grapes

Lemons

Nectarines

Olives

Peaches

Pistachios

Plums

Prunes

Strav/berries

Walnuts

Oranges*

Alfalfa seed

Safflower*

TOTALS

•Average for 1 989 and 1 990 only; 1 991 data unavailable. Note; The criteria for selection to this list is having had, for at least one of the three years, at least 36 percent of U.S. production and
at least 20,000 harvested acres in California.

No statistics on consumption of imported agricultural products by CaliforniJ
are available. However, the U.S. Department of Agriculture does compile statistics
[1991 Agricultural Statistics) on imports into the U.S. of certain crops and crop groups
that compete with California crops. Tables 7-4 and 7-5 give the latest USDA statistics,
on values and quantities of certain agricultural imports. If California growers of any oj
these crops do not maintain their share of production to meet rising domestic demand,
either because of market incentives or resource constraints, the shortfall likely will be
made up with additional imports as well as increases in production in other states,
possibly at increased market prices for some crops.

Factors Affecting Agricultural Water Use

The primary factor in California's robust agricultural production has been the
abundance of natural resources. Production of irrigated crops depends on carbon
dioxide (found naturally in the atmosphere), sunshine, water, nutrients, and soil.
These crops in turn produce food, fiber, and oxygen. The water used by the crop is
termed consumptive use but the process is actually the conversion of resources to
agricultural commodities that are ultimately consumed by the population in general.

162

Agricultural Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Crop

Table 7-3. 1 990 California Agricultural Export Data

Value of CA
Exports

($ millions)

Acres Needed to
Produce CA Exports

(ri^ousands)

Exported Share
of CA Production

(percent)

Cnitnn lint ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^

755

858

Dry beans

Hay (alfalfa & suclanf^^^^^^^^^H

N/A

Rice

Safflower

Wheat

Almonds

Grapes (fresh, raisins, & processed)

Lemons

Oranges

Pistachios

Plums

Prunes

Walnuts

Broccoli

Cauliflower

Lettuce

Onions

Strawberries

Nursery products

Cattle & calves

Dairy products

Chicken & eggs

TOTALS

2,560

2,083

* Notes: The value is equivalent farm gate value. Ttie acres figures assume average yields.

Definition of Crop Consumptive Use

The consumptive use of water by crops is S5monymous with the term evapotran-
spiration. It is expressed as a volume of water per unit area, usually acre-feet per acre,
and is a measure of the water transpired by plants, retained in plant tissue, and evapo-
rated from adjacent soil surfaces over a specific period of time. ET varies throughout
the year depending on solar radiation, humidity, temperature, Avlnd, and stage of plant
growth. For example, as a crop grows, ET increases until the crop reaches maximum
cover. The evaporation component of ET is greatest when the plant is small and does
not shade the soil surface. Further, the relationship between evaporation and transpi-
ration is a dynamic one. When evaporation increases, transpiration decreases. ET is

Table 7-4. U.S. Department of Agriculture's Quantity Index of Agricultural Imports

(excludes fruits, nuts, and vegetables)

Index Values for.

1980

1985

7990

Percent Change

1980-1990

Total agricultural imports into U.S.
Competitive agricultural imports

107
100

122
118

136
123

27 A
23.0

Agricultural Water Use

163

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Table 7-5. Agricultural imports by Country of Origin

(in $ millions)

Country of Origin

J988

1990

Percent Change

Canada

Mexico

Australia

Brazil

New Zealand

Crop

2,256

1,540

1,114

925

749

2,927
2,116
1,161
1,016
786

29.7

37.4

1.5

9.8

4.9

the largest element in California's hydrologic budget, including the ET in forests, natu-
ral vegetation, agriculture, and landscaping. ^

The evapotranspiration of applied water is less than the total ET of a crop in
most areas of the State because rainfall provides some of the crop requirements. This
effective precipitation is subtracted from the total crop KT to determine the evapotran-
spiration of applied water (that portion of the crop ET provided by irrigation). Crop
ETAW represents about 15 percent of the total evapotranspiration and associated
evaporation in the State. Table 7-6 indicates the EHAW range of the major crop groups
in the hydrologic regions of California.

Agricultural Water Use E^fficiency. Agricultural water use efficiency has nor-
mally been defined as irrigation efficiency calculated by dividing the ETAW plus the
leaching requirement by the applied water. Another measure of agricultural water use
efficiency is the agricultural production per unit of water. Harvested yields per acre of
most California crops have more than doubled during this century while irrigation
methods have become more efficient. For example, one of California's major crops, on
an acreage basis, is cotton. Figure 7-2 shows the increase in 3aelds of lint per harvested

Table 7-6. Ranges of Unit Evapotranspiration of Applied Water

(acre- feet/ acre per year)

Grain

0.3-1.5

0.2-0.4

0.2-0.2

0.2-1.6

0.3-0.9

0.6-1.2

1.6-1.6

0.2-0.2

2.0-2.0i

Rice

—

3.0-3.4

3.3-3.6

—

Cotton

—

*mm^^^^^

—

2.3-2.5

2.5-2.5

—

3.3-3.2^

Sugar beets

2.4-2.4

1.5-2.3

1.4-2.5

2.2-2.2

1.7-2.7

2.1-2.7

2.4-3.3

—

3.8-3.8

Corn

1.0-1.8

1.8-1.8

0.6-1.8

1.4-1.6

1.4-2.3

1.8-2.0

1.9-2.0

1.9-1.9

2.4-2.4

1 .7-2.6

Other field

0.9-1.8

1.0-2.0

0.6-1.3

0.6-2.2

1.2-2.0

0.6-1.6

1.2-2.1

—

2.2-2.2

2.0-3.5

Alfalfa

1.5-2.8

1.5-2.7

1 .9-3.0

2.7-2.7

1.8-3.2

2.4-3.3

2.9-3.3

2.3-2.5

3.8-5.0

4.3-6.6

Pasture

1 .4-2.6

2.1-3.0

2.0-3.0

2.7-2.8

2.1-3.3

3.0-3,3

3.0-3.5

2.4-2.6

3.8-5.0

4.3-6.6

ToniKitoes

—

1.9-2.1

1.0-2.0

1.8-2.3

1.6-2.1

1 .6-2.2

2.0-2.3

—

2.9-2.9

Otfier truck

1.0-1.7

0.9-2.0

0.8-2.1

1.4-1.5

0.6-1.8

0.6-1.7

1.0-1.4

1.7-1.7

1.5-1.5

1.3-5.4

Almonds/pistachios

—

1.6-2.7

1 .7-2.3

2.0-2.5

—

Other deciduous orchard

1.4-2.1

1.4-2.2

1.0-2.3

2.3-2.3

1.3-2.7

1.3-2.8

1.8-3.0

—

2.3-2.3

2.3-4.4

Subtropical orchard

—

1.0-2.0

1.7-1.8

1.3-2.0

1.0-2.1

1 .7-2.2

—

2.6-2.6

3.8-4.4

Grapes

0.5-0.8

0.5-0.9

0.8-1.3

1.2-1.5

0.9-2.0

1.0-2.1

1 .9-2.2

—

2.4-2.4

2.4-3.3

No»e;

Ttie Mortti Coast Region encompasses numerous climate zones, reflected by a large range of ETAW values for certain crops.

The Subtropical category includes olives, citrus, avocados, and dates, wfiich hove varying water requirements. Ranges of ETAW for tfils category reflect tfie relative acreages of eacti crop

witfiin a region.

Tfie cooler Delta climate reduces ETAW in some San Joaquin Region units for certain crops.

Some variation in values is caused by similar crops (or ffie same crop) grown at different times of the year.

164

Agricultural Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Figure 7-2.
Yield of
Cotton Lint,
Rice, and
Alfalfa per
Acre
1920-1990

OSHcial California
Agricultural Statistic
Service Data

acre for cotton since 1910. However, cotton is also valuable for the cotton seed as well
as the lint. The historical increase in jaelds of alfalfa and rice are also displayed in
Figure 7-2. In all cases, the production per acre-foot of EHAW has increased substan-
tially. In fact, the ET of many crops has been reduced due to new varieties with shorter
stature, shorter growing seasons, more disease resistance, and better ripening charac-
' tens tics.

Historical Unit Water Use

To estimate agricultural water use, unit applied water and unit ETTAW values in
acre-feet for each crop acre are evaluated. The ranges of unit applied water values used
for various regions of California are shown in Table 7-7. Agriculture's annual applied
water decreased over 4 maf during the 1980s. This decrease was due to urbanization

Table 7-7. Ranges of Unit Applied Water for Agriculture by Hydrologic Region

(acre feet/acre per year)

Crop

Grain

0.3-2.3

0.3-0.4

0.5-1.0

0.6-2.5

0.6-1.3

1.0-1.8

2.1-2.4

1.0-1.0

2.0-3.6

Rice

3.2-3.7

—

4.0-7.9

6.7-7.9

—

Cottor^^"^HHHi

—

3.1-3.3

3.0-3.3

—mm^mr-

4.1-5.5

Sugar beets

3.2-3.7

2.0-2.9

2.0-3.8

2.9-2.9

2.8-4.4

3.8-4.4

3.0-3.6

—

4.2-4.2

Com ^jjUJI^^^^^

1.4-2.8

2.3-2.3

1.5-2.9

1.9-2.3

2.4-3.5

2.6-2.9

2.4-3.6

2.7-2.7

4.0-4.0

2.1-4.0

Other field

1.3-3.0

2.0-2.5

0.9-2.5

0.8-3.1

1.8-2,9

1.8-2.9

2.1-3,2

—

3.7-3.7

2,9-5.2

Alfalfa '^a^^^

2.0-3.5

2.6-3.3

2.6-4.0

4.2-4.5

2.6-4.9

3.8-4.9

3.7-4.8

3.2-3.4

5.5-8.0

6.8-9.4

Pasture

1 .9-4.0

3.4-4.4

2.6-4.0

4.5-5.4

3.9-6.1

3.8-6.2

3.7-4.8

2.9-2.9

5.5-8.0

7.9-9.4

Tomatoes ^^^^^^^B

—

2.4-2.4

1 .7-3.3

3.0-3.0

2.6-3.5

2.7-3.5

3.1-3.4

—

4.3-6.4,

Other truck

1.3-2.7

1.7-2.5

0.9-2.7

1.9-2.5

0.7-2.7

1.7-2.9

1.8-2.3

2.4-2.6

2.5-2.5

2.9-7.7

Almonds/pistachios

—

2.6-3.6

2.6-3.4

2.7-3.3

—

Other deciduous orchard

2.8-3.0

2.0-3.2

1.0-3.4

2.9-2.9

2.6-4.2

3.1-4.2

2.6-3,9

—

3.8-3.8

5.9-6.3

Subtropical orchard

—

1.0-2.5

2.1-2.3

2.4-2.9

2.4-2.5

1.7-2.2

WKKM

3.5-3.5

4.2-5.9

Grapes

0.9-0.9

1.0-1.4

1 .0-2.5

1.5-1.9

1.3-3.1

1 .8-3.0

2.5-2.9

—

3.7-3.7

4.1-5.1

Note: Truck crops moy reach higher annual unit appliec

water values

when double or

triple cropping

occurs.

Agricultural Water Use

165

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure 7-3. On-Farm

Average Seasonal

■ * Application

Efficiency of Various

Irrigation Methods

Source: DWR/Local Agency Cooperative
Mobile Irrigation Laboratory Program.
The efficiencies were calculated from
1.000 field evaluations on less than 1
percent of California's fiirmland in San
Diego, Riverside. Ventura, Kern. Kings,
and Merced counties and cannot be con-
sidered a statewide average. Graded
border and solid sprinkler efficiencies
were high because of their use in mature
orchards with shaded ground and
protection from wind. Irrigation effiicien-
cies are related to the distribution unifor-
mity of a given irrigation method. The DU
of border and furrow systems is deter-
mined by a different method than that
used for sprinklers. Drip systems are
evaluated by measuring their emission
uniformity.

of irrigated land, changes in irrigation practices, and increased emphasis on water con- 1
servation since the 1976-77 drought and during the 1987-92 drought.

Irrigation Management and Mettiods

One business decision the farmer must make is which irrigation method to use.
To make any decision regarding an irrigation practice, detailed information is needed
about soil properties, the system's capital costs, operation and maintenance costs,
new management skills, the availability of water, the effect on water and energy use,
and the effect on yields and quality. Most irrigation system improvements will only be
made if such a change will increase the net returns of the farming operation.

In general, data indicate that on-farm irrigation efficiencies are higher than usu- (
ally perceived by the general public. During the 1980s irrigation efficiencies rose about I
10 percent, from an average of 60 percent to 70 percent. An analysis of data from the
cooperative Mobile Lab Program is presented in Figure 7-3 indicating average irrigation |
efficiencies for various methods. Most data of this kind indicate that all methods of |
irrigation can be efficient if properly managed, and there is no superior method that (
will save a large percentage of water. No matter what method is used, the ET of the crop
does not change substantially. Microirrigation does offer some reduction in evapora-
tion when irrigating young trees and vines. Currently, there is a definite trend away
from surface irrigation to pressurized systems for some crops. Drip and other forms of \
microirrigation are primarily being adopted for yield increases and other management
benefits rather than solely to improve water application. The University of California, i
Davis, estimated the acreage irrigated by various methods recently. The results of the [
current survey are found in Table 7-8. A comparison with the earlier studies showed
that surface-irrigated acreage has declined 13.3 percent since 1972, sprinkler-irri- !
gated acreage has increased over five percent, and drip-irrigated acreage has increased '
from almost nothing to 8.7 percent at present.

The manner of water delivery to the farm from water purveyors also affects water
use and irrigation efficiency. To manage irrigation water most effectively, a farmer
should be able to turn water on and off at will, like a commercial enterprise in a city
does. This is impractical with most agricultural water delivery systems due to the large

166

Agricultural Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

volumes of water that must be conveyed. However, a number of agricultural water
agencies are improving the water delivery flexibility to the farm. The increased flexibil-
ity is accomplished by allowing a farmer to give shorter notice to the district before
receiving water and giving the farmer some allowance for adjusting flow rates and the
duration of the irrigation.

Drainage and Salinity

A major consideration In water use is the salinity of the Irrigation water, the salin-
ity of the soil, and the physical characteristics of the soil that affect its Internal
drainage. For example, heavy soils In Imperial Valley, made up of shrink- swelling clay
minerals with poor internal drainage, need tile drains in order to leach salts from the
soil or crop production would not be feasible. Leaching requirements may represent 10
to 15 percent of the total applied water in this area.

Another area with a similar problem Is the western side of the San Joaquin
Valley. Inadequate drainage and accumulation of salts have been long-standing prob-
lems. As irrigated acreage Increased, the problem became more widespread In the
region where the soils are derived from marine sediments already high in salts and
frequently high In trace elements. Percolation from continued Irrigation has dissolved
these compounds in many areas and moved them Into shallow ground water aquifers
where they concentrate due to poor subsurface drainage disposal. Other regions in
California having soils with better drainage characteristics, and more rainfall to help
leach the salts, normally do not have as severe drainage and salinity problems.

Water Price and Production Costs

Water price also affects agricultural water use, and at some point the retail cost
can become too great for agricultural use. However, retail water prices are not as directly
related to agricultural water use efficiency as Is generally thought. Even though most
farmers paysubstantlally less forwateronaperacre-footbasls than theirurban counter-
parts , their overall water costs for Irrigation are a much higher percentage of their budget
than that of the average home owner.

Table 7-8. Crop Acreage Irrigated by Various Methods

(percentages in T991}

Crop

Surface

Sprinkler

Drip

Subsurface

Grain,

Cotton

Sugar

Corn

Other field

Alfalfa

Pasture

Tomatoes

Other truck

Deciduous orchard

Subtropical orchard

Grapes

Percentage of Acreage*

66.9

23.8

8.7

0.6

* Rice ocreoge not included

Agricultural Water Use

167

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Water Price and Agricultural Production

The effect of increases ffi ttie cost of irrigotion water on crop production Is a com-
plex issue. Some schools of thought precfict the imjDerKJing water price effects of the 1 992
Central Valley Project Improvement Act arxl the Reclamation Reform Act will encourage
farmers to take substantial announts of acreage out of production. Others say ttKJt the
water price increases wiB cause ttKwe irrigatrig pasture or growing field crops to shift to
twgher-income crops. Ttiis discussion shotdd reveal why neittier (xecfiction may be the
case.

The decision by a fcnmer to bring a particular pxece of land into pxoduction de-
perxjs on a number of factors: the size of the capital investment needed (eqi^Dment,
land. arKl larKi improvement costs); ttie farmer's skM. experience, and firKjncial re-
sources; the risk of crop or yield toss due to disease or clrought; the expected Income
from crop sales; ttie Hcely variation in ttxit income due to mcwket price fluctuations; arKJ
ttie costs of production Onduding any t>auling or processing costs pakJ by the farmer).
The compHance require^^e'^^s and irxiome effects of government farm programs must
also be consklered. A primary factor, of course, is ttie avaHatjiity of the resources need-
ed to produce a particukar crop: sustable soils arxj climate, tatxx. and water of sufficient
quantity and quaTity.

yNcA& price affects these factors both dfrecfly and ffKlirectly; it affects the cost of
production dIrecWy and ttie investment cost irKJirectiy . Ttie incSrect Ink exists because the
water cost affects the expected future net return from crop production on the kand in
question: the hlghier the water cost, the tower this rettwn is expected to be. The rTK»ket
value of ttie kirxj for crop production (askje from any speciJative value for norKigricul-
tural uses) is. in turn, based on the present wortti of ttiis expected net income.

Options may be avctfctole, tx>wever. to recKx:e the adverse impacts of a water
price ricrease. Alterrxative water sources or water marKjgement practices may be avaB-
able at a justitiat>le cost. Practices to reduce cppfied water in response to a price ir>-
crease can t)e effective if ttie cost of their implementation is substcwitiaHy less ttxan ttie
cost of ttie water ttiey reptace. (Such applied water reductions can also have "hkJden'
costs if they reduce deep percokation to a ground water basin ttiat is used for a drought
supply, for example.) Abo, because of tradHfon. a present kack of appropriate skBs and
experience, or an unwflfri^iess to accept risk or make a needed— but substantic*— capi-
tal Investment, a farmer may not be producing the crop ttiot can provkie the greatest
netincorne.

Ttie option to shift to another crop must be corekJered witti respect to ttie farmer's
finonckd resources, ttie suitabflity of cSmate and soils for ttie specific crop, and crop mcs-
keting corxftions. (For many tigh-vakjed crops, the necessary maricet conditions ffidude
obtcHTMng a contract witti a food processor.) Because of such corBtrcwits. tand pknted
to tower-vcrtued crops Bee pasture or cdfcdfa may not be a sign of opportunity being ig-
nored.

Even with a tow-cost water sjppHy. it is stM in the farmer's economfc nterest to pkant
ttie crop ttiat provkjes Vne greatest net fficome; a tow-cost water supply just alows this
crop to provide a greater net income than wotrid ottierwise be the case. However, in
cases where cttemative crops produce crixxjt ttie same gross income per acre but re-
qiire much different quafity and quantities of water, ttie dHTerent degree of ffT^xx;t on
production cost can ctiange the refcative attractiveness of a crop in terms of net ricome.

If Itie irripoct of a substantial water prfce iTKrrease carviot t)e sufficiently rrioderated
by ariy optkxis avcSabte to the farrrier. that fcmner rnay not have ttie firiaricrcN resources
or economte incentive to contriue farmkig. for any extended period, the land affected
by ttie water price increase. In tt« case, ttie tend wi be ptaced on the maricet. eitiier
vohjntariiy or rivoluntarily. and its price reduced, reflecting ttie water price increase. Un-
der ttiese conditions, the final effect is ikely to t)e a change in the financral status of the
person wtio owris the kMid arid pertiaps also the person wtio f amis ttie kjrid rattier than

the type of crop grown.

168 Agricultural Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Water Price and Agricultural Production (continued)

Price increases due to intermittent surface water shortages, whien farmers have
to use more costly ground water, for example, can be "absorbed" more or less suc-
cessfully by farmers with sufficient financial resources to weather short-term reduc-
tions in net income. When these shortages become more frequent or where the un-
available surface water has a high fixed cost attached, the necessary financial re-
sources to absorb even short-term water price increases are less likely to be avail-
able.

The prices received for different crops, the viability of the irrigated acres, the
availability of alternative sources of water, the net income resulting from a specific
crop or mix of crops, and the options and financial resources available to the farmer
all affect whether or not a certain crop is produced. It is extremely difficult to predict
the specific effects of a water price increase on agricultural production. In general,
however, an increase in the price of water will probably cause the value of the farm
land to drop, and land only marginally productive, farmed by those with very limited
financial resources, will be unable to continue production. The mix of crops on the
land remaining in production may not be substantially affected.

However, expanding markets for high-income crops will probably increase the
demand for land that is currently economically uncompetitive for producing these
types of crops. Although rising water prices will tend to lower production, increased
demand for high income crops should more than offset this effect.

Cropping Patterns in California

Over 250 different crops are grown in California due to the State's fertile soils,
long growing season, and multitude of microclimates. Which crops are grown is the
result of farmers' business decisions. Farmers must take into account the suitability of
land and climate for various crops, market conditions, production costs, the available
infrastructure, their own abilities, and what risks they are willing to take.

Historic Agricultural Acreage

Agricultural water use is estimated by determining what crops are grown and
where. Figure 7-4 shows the increase in irrigated agricultural acreage since the late
1800s, although certain field crops and irrigated pasture have decreased in recent
years.

Since 1950, DWR has sur-
veyed agricultural land
use. Since 1967, inten-
sively cropped counties
have been mapped about
every sevenyears to assess
the locations and amounts
of irrigated crops. The
acreages of crops grown
each year are also es-
timated using the annual
crop reports produced by
county Agricultural

Commissioners and the
California Department of
Food and Agriculture Live-
stock and Crop Reporting

High-altitude
photography reveals
cropping patterns
that are mapped,
digitized, and stored
in data banks. The
red patterns shown
here are irrigated
crops grown in the
region.

Agricultural Water Use

169

Bulletin 160-93 TTie California Water Plan Update

Land Use Survey Program

Since 1950, DWR has coriducreo aeTOneo lana use surveys as part of its Land
Resource and Use Program. Every rrKJjor water-using county is resurveyed about ev-
ery seven years. The surveys use low- and t^igtvelevation aerial photography to de-
termine land use arKJ bourKlcmes, otkI the information is mapped on U.S.
Geological Survey 7^/2-miinu\e quadrangle maps, scale 1 :24X)00 acres. Tt>e surveys
are Ihen used in arKilyses of urtxn and agricultural water needs.

During each survey, ttie mafx are taken to thie field to mal<e positive land use
identification arxJ to verify those interpreted from ttie photograptis. In addition,
crop acreage information from county agricultural commissioners and farm advi-
sors is used to help detemirie the extent of double cropping. Jlrte acreage of each
crop type (and ottier land uses) are deterrrwied and summarized by quad, county,
irrigation cBstrict. arxj hydrologic area. The present mettxxi used to generate tt>e
mops and process the resulting data is computer cfi^tizing of land use boundaries
and subsequent data arKilysts usrig a geographic information system. Below is a
map of the Socramento-San Joaquin River Delta resulting from ttie 1991 rKlepth
survey and updated using information from DWR's 1993 reconrKiissance suvey.

n no data

■ Agnojtture - Trees and Vines
O Agrioibjre • Other Crops

■I Agiicuiure- Uncropped

■ Urban

■ Native Land
H Water Surface

170

Agricultuial Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Service. Between 1980 and 1989, there was a five percent decrease in cropped
acreage: however, this decade was also a period of fluctuating acreage when govern-
ment programs, agricultural markets, and climate (floods and droughts) significantly
affected crop plantings. Irrigated agricultural acreage reached its peak in 1981. with
9.7 million acres, dropped 900.000 acres in 1983 due, in large part, to the Payment-
in-Kind Program, but then rose again by 800,000 acres in 1984. During the latter part
of the 1987-92 drought, lands were fallowed due to shortages in surface water sup-
plies. Therefore, data from the 1980s did not show reductions or increases in irrigated
acreage that could be used to forecast future water service needs.

Water Supply and Water Price

I The historic increase in irrigated acreage, and the wide variety of crops grown, are

the result of the water supply system developed by agriculture at the local level or with
the support of the State and federal government.

During normal years, a large amount of agricultural water comes from ground
water supplies and is pumped mostly by individual farmers and ranchers. However,
. the majority of agricultural water supplies are obtained from water districts, which ob-
tain most of their supplies from surface water, with a lesser portion from ground water
sources. A small percentage of agricultural water is diverted directly from streams and
rivers by the individual farmers and ranchers.

In 1991. at least 78 agencies each provided over 50.000 af to their service areas.
As with urban agencies, a number of factors influence these agencies' water prices,
including water sources, transportation, pricing policies, agency size, and weather.

I Agricultural Retail Water Prices

About 70 to 80 percent of agricultural water districts' revenues typically come
from water charges during a normal water year. The remainder of their water revenues
are derived from property taxes. Many water districts (especially in the Sacramento
Valley) charge on the basis of acres irrigated and at different per-acre rates, depending
upon the types of crops that are grown. Generally, all the prices for individual crops are

Figure 7-4.
Irrigated
Acreage in
California
1870-1990

Agricultural Water Use

171

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Table 7-9. typical Agricultural Retail Water Costs in 1991 by Hydrologic Region

(weighted average)

Hydrologk
Region

Number of Districts

District Water

Weighted

Responding to

Sources

Average Cost

Survey

($/acre-footj

Oher*

3
44t

CVP,CHher

SWP, Colorado River,
MWDSC, Other

252

CVP, SVy/P, Other

CVP, Other

CVP, SWP, Other

Other

1
3

SWP, Other

150
12

North Coast
Son Francisco Bay
Central Gxist
South Coast

Sacramento River
San Joaquin
Tulare Lake
North Lahonton
South Lahontan
Colorado River

Cosh ore estimated at the torm heodgote and exdude (onnen' costs lo distrftxite water to their fields.
* Locol surface orground vvoler supplies,
t Source: Santa dara Voliex Water District

calculated on a water duty (the amount of water required to irrigate a given area for
cultivation of some crop).

In late 1991 and early 1992, the Department of Water Resources mailed water
cost surveys to selected water districts that serve farms in California. Almost all of the
responses were from medium- or large-sized agricultural water purveyors. There were
33 responses from the Central Valley.

Table 7-9 summarizes 1991 agricultural retail rates by hydrologic region. TTie
most expensive agricultural water sold by districts is' found in the South Lahontan.
South Coast, and Tulare Lake regions. The least expensive irrigation water is found in
the North Coast, northeast California (North Lahontan), Colorado Desert, and the Sac-
ramento Valley. As with urban water prices, a major element is the transportation cost
of moving water from the area of origin to the area of use. Transportation costs include
the capital, operation, and maintenance costs of facilities (such as aqueducts, pipe-
lines, and pumping plants) plus the energy cost of moving the water. In addition.
conveyance losses are usually incurred, which increases the cost of water delivered to
the final users. Because of the recent prolonged and severe drought, many of these
1991 water costs may be higher than what would have been expected for a non-
drought year.

Agricultural Ground Wafer Production Costs

As with urban areas, agricultural ground water costs vary considerably through-
out California. Many factors influence these costs, including depth to ground water,
pump efficiencies, and electricity rates. Another factor was the drought which lowered
ground water levels and increased pumping costs. Table 7-10 presents a range of aver-
ages for agricultural ground water costs for the hydrologic regions. The costs include
capital, operation (including pumping energy costs), maintenance, and replacement
costs. Costs were determined from a survey of well drillers in the hydrologic regions
and frx)m DWR district flies.

172 Agricultural Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Agricultural Water Conservation

Agricultural water conservation has taken a different path from that of the urban
sector. Historically, irrigated agriculture has had the University of California.
California State Universities, local Resource Conservation Districts, and U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture programs to provide technical management assistance over many
decades. These efforts have often included improved and better crop varieties, high-
yielding food and fiber crops, disease-resistant crops, frost- resistant crops, and
irrigation and farming methods that help preserve soil structure and fertility, as well as
maintaining favorable soil salinity and long-term productivity. These collective efforts
have resulted in constant improvement in use of resources for agricultural production
and significant increases in yield per-acre for almost all crops grown in California. Ir-
rigation efficiencies have been increased and applied water requirements reduced over
time as a result of these efforts. /

Even though irrigation management continued to improve in the 1970s and
1 980s. using the existing technical assistance programs mentioned above, agricultural
water agencies now fill an active role paralleling that of urban water agencies in con-
servation efforts. Two pieces of legislation that accelerated this effort are the California
Agricultural Water Management Planning Act of 1986 (AB 1658) and the federal Recla-
mation Reform Act of 1982.

AB 1 658 required all agricultural water suppliers delivering over 50,000 acre-feet
of water per year to prepare an Information Report and identify whether the district
has a significant opportunity to conserve water or reduce the quantity of saline or toxic
drainage water through improved irrigation water management. The legislation af-
fected the 80 largest agricultural water purveyors in California. The districts that have
a significant opportunity to conserve water or reduce drainage are required to prepare
Water Management Plans.

The Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 required federal water contractors to pre-
pare Water Conservation Plans. In California, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's
Mid-Pacific Region developed a set of Guidelines to Prepare Water Conservation Plans
and required all federal water contractors serving over 2,000 acres to submit water
conservation plans. In 1990, USBR requested assistance from DWR to upgrade the
guidelines on how to prepare water conservation plans. New guidelines for USBR's

Table 7-10. Typical Agricultural Ground Water Production Costs in 1992

by Hydrologic Region

Region Ground Water Costs

($/acre-foot)^

North Coast 10-70

San Francisco Bay 60-130

Central Coast 80

South Coast 80-120

Sacramento River 30-60

San Joaquin 30-40

Tulare Lake 40-80

North Lahontan 60

South Lahontan 20

Colorado River 90

T The range represents tfie average cost at specific locations within a region, and includes capital, operation, mointenance, and replacement
costs.

Agricultural Water Use 173

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Mid-Pacific Region were prepared and DWR is providing assistance to USBR contrac-
tors to develop, update, and implement water conservation plans. The Central Valley
■f Project Improvement Act of 1992 required the USBR's Mid-Pacific Region to revise its

existing guidelines for reviewing conservation plans to include, but not be limited to,
BMPs and Efficient Water Management Practices developed in California. The 1992
Strategic Plan for the USBR has identified water conservation as a key element for im-
proving the use and management of the nation's water resources.

Enactment of AB 36 16 in 1990 charged DWR to establish an Advisory Committee
consisting of members of the agricultural community. University of California, Califor-
nia Department of Food and Agriculture, environmental and public interest groups.
and other interested parties to develop a list of Efficient Water Management Practices
for agricultural water supplies. Approximately 29 practices are under consideration.

The AB 36 16 advisory committee is working to develop a process for agricultural
water management plans for implementation of EWMPs Avithin the framework of rights
and duties imposed by existing law. Water management plans will identify water con-
servation opportunities and set a schedule for implementation. It is difficult to assess
the specific benefits of E^WMPs at the present time. Calculation of water savings result-
ing from EWMP implementation will require a detailed planning process by each
individual district, including analysis of technical feasibility, social and district eco-
nomic criteria, and legal feasibility of each practice. The University of California at
Davis surveyed 23 of the 79 agricultural water agencies affected by AB 1658 to assess
what practices similar to EWMPs are currently in place. The results of that suney are
also displayed as percentages in Table 7-1 1. It is expected that the AB 3616 process
will replace that contained in AB 1658. Currently, the advisory committee has drafted
a Memorandum of Understanding that will commit signatories to the development of
water management plans.

DWR continues to cooperate with many local agencies to implement measures
that are potentially included on the list of EWMPs. These include providing real-time
irrigation scheduling data through the California Irrigation Management Information
System; providing on-farm irrigation system evaluations through the Mobile Irrigation
Management Laboratory (Mobile Lab) program: offering advice on redesigning fee
structures; and offering loans for installation of water measurement devices and
construction of regulatory reservoirs. A cooperative effort, along with Pacific Gas and
Electric and others, has helped develop the Irrigation Training and Research Center at
California Polytechnic State University, in San Luis Obispo.

As mentioned in the urban water use section, the definition of water conservation
recognizes that reducing applied water results in additional water supply only when
the water would otherwise be lost to evapotranspiration or a saline water body such as
the Pacific Ocean. In the agricultural sector, this condition applies to a few specific
areas, primarify the Colorado River Region, which drains to the Salton Sea, and the
west side of the San Joaquin Valley. In the Sacramento River and the San Joaquin Riv-
er bcisins, excess applied irrigation water is either reused, ultimately percolates to
ground water, or drains back into rivers that flow to the Delta. Reducing applied water
in these basins reduces return flows, which must be made up by increasing resen^oir
releases to maintain specified outflows through the Delta.

Drainage Reduction

A major effort has been the cooperative demonstration projects of new and
emerging technologies for on-farm irrigation management to reduce applied water.
hence drainage and deep percolation, in drainage problem areas. Tlie west side of the

174 Agricultural Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Table 7-11. Summary of Current Efficient Water Management Practices

^ Practice Currently in Place*

(percentage)

Irrigation Management

1 . Improve water measurement and accounting 70

2. Conduct irrigation efficiency studies 43

3. Provide farmers witfi "normal-year" and "real time" irrigation, scheduling, and crop evopctronspiration ET information 52

4. Monitor surface water qualities and quantities 52 & 100 respectively

5. Monitor soil moisture 1 3

6. Promote efficient pre-irrigation techniques 17

7. Monitor soil salinity 26

8. Provide on-farm irrigation system evaluations 35

9. Monitor quantity and qualify of drainage waters 39 & 52 respectively

10. Monitor ground water elevations and qualities 83 & 43 respectively

1 1 . Evaluate and improve water user pump efficiencies 39

1 2. Designate a water conservation coordinator 48

Physical Improvement

13. Improve the condition and type of flow measuring devices 61

14. Automate canal structures 35

1 5. Line or pipe ditches and canals 22

16. Modify distribution facilities to increase the flexibility of water deliveries 43
: 1 7. Construct or line regulatory reservoirs 26

1 8. Construct District taiiwater reuse systems 39

1 9. Develop recharge basins for systems 35

20. Improve on-farm irrigation and drainage systems 43

21 . Evaluate efficiencies of District pumps 57

22. Provide educational seminars 57

Institutional Adjustments

23. Improve communication and cooperative work among district, farmers, and other agencies 65

24. Change the water fee structure in order to provide incentives for more efficient use of water and drainage reduction 43

25. Increase flexibility in water ordering and delivery 65

26. Conduct public information programs 48

27. Facilitate financing capital improvements for District and on-farm irrigation systems 43

28. Increase conjunctive use of ground water and surface water 22

29. Facilitate, where appropriate, alternative land uses 4

' Based on a 1 992 U.C. Davis survey of 23 agriculturol water suppliers delivering over 50,000 AF of irrigation water.

San Joaquin Valley contains hundreds of thousands of acres underlain by poorly
drained soils and shallow ground water. Continued irrigation requires the removal of
shallow ground water to prevent water logging and salinization of soils which damage
crops and reduce yields. In addition, some of the drain water contains toxic elements
in sufficient quantities to impact waterfowl habitat.

Since the 1950s, three major State and federal interagency studies have been
conducted regarding agricultural drainage disposal. Before 1983, study recommenda-
tions revolved around the construction of a drainage canal (San Joaquin Valley Drain)
to transport drainage water to the ocean through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Agricultural Water Use 175

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

The federal CVP constructed part of the San Luis Drain, the first phase of the San Joa-
quin Valley Drain, to serve the drainage needs of the CVP's San Luis Unit. The drain
terminated in Kesterson Reservoir, an interim storage and evaporation reservoir in
Merced County. In 1983, deformities and deaths of aquatic birds at Kesterson Reser-
voir were observed and determined to be caused by selenium toxicity. The presence of
high concentrations of selenium in drainage water significantly changed the strategy
for resolving drainage problems in the San Joaquin Valley.

San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program

In 1984, the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program was established as a joint
federal and State effort to investigate drainage and drainage-related problems in light
of the new conditions. The SJVDP published its recommended plan in September
1990. The study and resulting plan focused on in-valley management of drainage and
drainage-related problems. The recommended plan should guide management of the
agricultural drainage problem for several decades into the future. In December 1991,
eight State and federal agencies signed a Memorandum of Understanding to coordinate
activities implementing the plan. A strategy was also developed to serve the following
purposes: (1) establish a continuing coordination structure; (2) define and prioritize
implementation needs; (3) identify federal. State, local, and private roles in imple-
mentation; (4) recommend implementation actions; and (5) seek agreement of involved
parties.

The implementation strategy also includes developing a long-term monitoring
program for tracking drainage conditions, determining the impacts of actions to man-
age drainage problems, and formulating a plan for long-term management of drainage
data base programs. This bulletin assumes the land retirement and source control
(conservation) elements of the recommended plan will be implemented; the elements
are discussed in the next section.

Another consideration in projecting a slight reduction of agricultural acreage by
2020 was the retirement of lands with drainage and selenium concentrations, as rec-
ommended by the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program in A Management Plan for
Agricultural Subsurface Drainage and Related Problems on the Westside San Joaquin
Valley, September 1990. That report identified the need for 75,000 acres of land retire-
ment by 2040. Assuming that land retirement will occur uniformly over time, about
45,000 acres of land retirement could occur by 2020.

The importance of a solution to drainage problems on the west side of the San
Joaquin Valley cannot be overstated. Without adequate drainage management, soil sal-
inization will occur and potentially cause almost 500,000 acres of land to be
abandoned by 2040, according to the SJVDP report.

Irrigation Efficiency

Another consideration of agricultural water use projections is irrigation efficien-
cy, which as previously stated is the EHAW of farm fields divided by the applied water.
Previously, DWR has assumed that irrigation efficiencies could improve to between 70
and 75 percent. Recently, an agricultural sub-work group on the Bay-Delta Proceed-
ings formalized an average target on-farm efficiency for the San Joaquin Valley; the
average was computed to take into account the need for leaching of salts. An efficiency
of 73 percent was considered appropriate for the San Joaquin Valley using the follow-
ing formula:

SAE = ETAW + LR
AW

176 Agricultural Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

where SAE is seasonal application efficiency; ETAW is the evapotranspiration minus ef-
fective precipitation; LR is leaching requirement; and AW is applied water. The limiting
factor leading to the 73 percent target irrigation efficiencies was the assumption that a
distribution uniformity of 80 percent was the maximum attainable in the field. This tar-
get assumes that full production is achievable and yields will not be reduced. For this
report It is assumed that 73 percent is a reasonable average target on-farm irrigation
efficiency for agriculture in all regions of the State by 2020. Some areas of the State, such
as Westlands Water District, Kern County Water Agency . and Imperial Irrigation District
have on-farm irrigation efficiencies ranging from 75 percent to over 80 percent. Overall
district efficiencies of irrigation water suppliers sometimes exceed 95 percent.

When this target efficiency was used for an aneilysis of the water conservation
potential in the San Joaquin Valley, only an additional 1 4.000 af were determined to be
conservable. A number of other studies have indicated up to 290,000 af of conservable
water in the Central Valley (Central Valley Water Use Committee. 1987). In both cases
the analysis was criticized because of the lack of good on-farm applied water data in
many areas. The CVWUC report was one of the few that provided a range of uncertainty
of plus or minus 100,000 af. Most experts agree that a precise number would be diffi-
cult to attain. In any case, the estimates of the remaining agricultural water
conservation potential are extremely small compared to the total amount of water ap-
plied in agriculture for two reasons. The most important is that improvements in
irrigation efficiency do not necessarily result in reductions in depletions in most hydro-
logic areas, other than the two exceptions mentioned previously. Secondly, only
nominal improvements in irrigation efficiency are still practicable.

The source control (conservation) element of the preferred plan of the San Joa-
quin Valley Drainage Program was considered to be implemented for the purposes of
this bulletin. As the SJVDP report mentioned, many practices were already occurring.
Adopting the source control element results in 1 13,000 af of applied water reduction.

Agricultural Water Demand Forecast

1990 Level of Development

Bulletin 160 forecasts of agricultural acreage begin with a determination of a
base-year level of development, 1990. This base acreage normally differs from the ac-
tual acreage irrigated in the base year. This is particularly evident in this bulletin
because the base year of 1990 was a drought year.

Agricultural acreage data for the 1980s were developed from DWR land use sur-
veys and crop statistics developed by the Department of Food and Agriculture. Actual
acreage values for 1990 were adjusted, based on averages of the 1980s, to reflect aver-
age year water supply and normal market conditions; the resulting base-year values
are termed 1990 normalized. The normalized acreage is shown in Figure 7-5, cind
I Table 7-12 shows irrigated acreage by hydrologic region.

Agricultural Acreage Forecast

This California Water Plan Update relies on integrating three forecasting methods

, to estimate future agricultural acreage by crop type. The methods are: (1) expert opin-

j ion of land use trends and land capabilities, population projections, and local planning

I information obtained by DWR Land and Water Use Analysts: (2) DWR's Crop Market

Outlook; and (3) DWR's Central Valley Production Model.

The CMO is based on the collective opinions of bankers, farm advisors, commod-
ty marketing specicdists. and others. The CMO is grounded on three primary factors:

Agricultural Water Use 177

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure 7-5.

Various

Estimates of

Irrigated

Crop Acreage in

California

(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 production that are
met by California's farmers and livestock producers; and 3) technical factors, such as
crop yields, pasture carrying capacities, and livestock feed conversion ratios.

The CMO assumes there is no direct relationship between food consumed by
Californians and food grown in California. For instance, all corn silage and hay in
California are used by livestock. Most cotton is exported. California provides more
than 80 percent of the nation's processing tomatoes, tree nuts, lemons, olives, prunes,
and grapes.

Much of the bulk foodstuffs and fiber consumed in California is grown outside
the State. This dependence will broaden in the future as population grows. For
instance, California is the number-seven cattle-producing state, but feed grains fed to
California livestock are supplemented by feed from out of state. In short, modem
transportation systems and food storage technology combine with trade and a market
economy to allow California to benefit greatly from specialization in agricultural pro-
duction.

The ability of California's farmers to help meet the world's future demands for
food and fiber will be determined by various supply side- and demand-side factors.
These factors include;

O water quality regulation

O urban encroachment

O future crop yields

O access to world markets

O government farm programs

O regulation of farm chemicals and the availability of affordable alternatives

178

Agricultural Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Q the availability of an affordable water supply

Q emergence of agricultural export capability in other countries

Q labor and labor overhead

Q species protection

The comparative advantages for farmers will increase or decrease as the costs per
unit of output change for farmers in California and competing regions, and as trade
barriers and tariffs change. These will, in turn, affect our shares of domestic and in-
ternational markets. Among other cost components that affect farm production costs
and sales prices are energy, labor, labor overhead, and pest control.

California produces more than half of our nation's fresh and processed vegeta-
bles. A significant amount of our vegetable crops are exported, but some growers of
certain vegetables face increasing competition from imports. All vegetables are irri-
gated and many are double-cropped. California vegetable acres have increased
substantially in the past 20 years due to increasing comparative advantages in produc-
tion and rising per capita consumption. Some observers expect this trend to continue
at a faster rate than any other crop group. Figure 7-6 reflects this trend.

High value tree fruit, nut, and vine acreage has expanded significantly in
California over the last 20 years. California now dominates the U.S. market for most of
the major crops in this category, often with over 80 percent of U.S. production. Exports
for many of these crops are also important. Most fruit, nut, and vine acres are irrigated.
Most of these perennial crops are grown for both the fresh market and the processing
market.

The CVPM is a programming model of farm production activities in 40 areas
covering California's Central Valley. It incorporates detailed information on production
practices and costs as well as water availability and cost by source for each area.

Table 7-12. California Crop and Irrigated Acreage by Hydrologic Region 1990

I (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

Corn :iHiH!^l

104

181

100

403

Other field

155

121

135

491

Alfalfa

141

226

345

256

1,135

Pasture

121

357

228

110

956

''°'^°^°es '^^^■■i

120

107

352

Other truck

321

133

204

187

1,021

Almonds/pistachios

,— ■

ikO

101

245

164

510

Other deciduous

205

147

177

570

Citrus/olives

^fliip

164

181

419

Grapes

184

393

748

TOTAL Crop Area^'^

326

528

319

2,145

2,008

3,212

161

749

9,570

Double Crop

102

392

Irrigated Land Area

326

430

289

2,101

1,955

3,147

161

647

9,178

(l)Total crop area is the Ian

d area plus

(tie amount

of land double

cropped.

Agricultursd Water Use

179

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure 7-6.
Irrigated

Vegetable
Acreage in

California
1920-1990

Information on the relationship between the production levels of individual crops and
crop market prices is also an important part of the model. The purpose of the CVPM is
to evaluate the influence of production costs, resource availability, and market
demand on the future economic viability of different crops in various areas of the Cen-
tral Valley.

The CVPM and a review of crop acreage trends by DWR experts were used in con-
junction with the CMO forecasts to determine overall crop acreage projections to 2020.
All forecasting methods indicate a continuing decline in irrigated pasture as is illus-
trated in Figure 7-7. Agricultural acreage and applied water are expected to decrease

Mgure 7-7.

Irrigated

Pasture

Acreage in

California

1950-2020

180

Agricultural Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Table 7-13. California Crop and Irrigated Acreage by Hydrologic Region 2020 (Forecasted)

(thousands of acres)

Irrigated Crop

CR Total

Grain

Rice

Cotton

Sugar beets

Com

Other field

Alfalfa

Pasture

Tomatoes

Otfier truck

Almonds/pistacfiios

Otfier deciduous

Citrus/olives

Vineyard

0
0
0
2
0
6
6
4
43
0
3
116
3

295

482
0

72
115
158
152
320
132

65
125
217

179

15
178

45
183
122
156
171

88
201
263
151

11
189

258

949

130

240

350

173

178

190

363

0
0

0
52
104
0
2
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
26
19
0
1

0
2
0
0

0
67

226

203

909

498
1,194
197
409
455
947
813
339
1,250
561
585
392
753

TOTAL Crop Area
Double Crop
Irrigated Land Area

346

566
137
429

184

172

2,186
72

2,114

1,952
68

1,884

3,061
90

2,971

169

over the next 30 years. Figures 7-8 and Table 7-13 Indicate the projected acreage for
crops In the major hydrologic regions of the State for the year 2020.

This forecast is generally optimistic about the ability of California farmers to
compete in a world with fewer trade restrictions, smaller federal crop programs, and
increasing crop production capacity worldwide. The outlook is particularly optimistic
for California's high-value crops.

726
123

603

9,302

502

8,800

Acres
(millions)

Figure 7-8.
Irrigated
Acreage in
California
1870-2020

Note: The decline in 1983
was caused primarily by wet
conditions and the federal
agricultural payment in kind
(PIK) program. The decline in
1987-90 was due to drought.

Forecasted

NOTE: The decline in 1983 was coused primarily by widespread flooding and
the Federal Agricultural Payment in Kind (PIK) Program.

Agricultural Water Use

181

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Table 7-14. Annual Agricultural Applied Water Reductions and Related Reduction
Depletions by Hydrologic Region 2020 (forecasted)

(thousands of acre-feet)

Region

Applied Water
Changes*
1990-2020

Depletion Changes

Due to Acreage

Reductions or

Crop Shifts

Depletion Changes from

Irrigation Efficiency

Improvement

(Level 1 Programs)

North Coast

San Francisco Bay

Central Coast

South Coast

-345

-278

-10

Sacramento River

-290

-40

San Joaquin River

-633

-316

-20

Tulare Lake

-780

-464

-90

North Lahontan

South Lahontan

-64

-49

-10

Colorado River

-342

-58

-200

Net Change

-2,321

-1,070

-330

'Applied water changes result from acreage reductions, crop shifts, and irrigation efficiency improvement.

Urbanization of Agricultural Lands

A primary consideration in projections of decreased agricultural acreage was the
continued development of irrigated agricultural lands for urban use. In most cases, the
conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses does not reduce water demands. Often
prime agricultural lands are also prime lands for urban development as cities sur-
rounded by agriculture continue to grow. Currently, agriculture moves onto less
desirable lands as urban acreage expands. This trend could affect the trend of in-
creased production per unit of water as illustrated earlier in this chapter.

The California Department of Conservation has estimated the conversion of
prime farmlands to urban uses since 1984. Farmlands must be irrigated to be consid-
ered prime in California. Conservation's most recent report identifies nearly 32,000
acres of prime land converted to urban use since 1984. In this bulletin the primary
agricultural areas impacted by such conversions are in the South Coast Region and in
the Central Valley from Sutter County southward.

2020 Agricultural Water Demands

The applied water used by agriculture decreased by over 4 maf between 1980
and 1990. This was due to a reduction in acreage, a change in cropping patterns, and
an average improvement in irrigation efficiency from 60 percent to 70 percent. The re-
ductions in applied water of 2.3 maf by 2020 are due to a smaller increase in irrigation
efficiency to 73 percent by the adoption of EWMPs, but are dominated by reduced agri-
cultural acreage and shifts in cropping patterns.

The areas where reductions in applied water result in reductions in depletions
are the drainage problem areas on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and in the
Imperial Valley. Reductions in applied water may be beneficial in certain cases (for
example, pesticide movement) and detrimental in others (for example, wildlife habi-
tat). Such analyses and decisions need to be made at the local level through local
water management plans. The positive or negative effects of site-specific reduction in

182

Agriculturcd Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

applied water have not been evaluated in this bulletin. The projections of applied
water reductions and water conservation due to the EWMPs by 2020 are found in
Table 7-14. These projections are included in the agricultural water demands shown
in Table 7-15.

Recommendations

Gathering high-quality data to estimate applied water in agriculture and irriga-
tion efficiencies entails a lot of cost and labor. A source of high-quality data about
agricultural water use and conservation could be made available from local agricultur-
al water management plans developed in accordance with the USER water
management reports and the planned EWMP program. Such a source currently exists
from urban water agencies and is being strengthened through the BMP process. Spe-
cific recommendations are as follows:

1 . State agencies should encourage and provide technical assistance to agricultural
water suppliers in preparation and implementation of water management plans.

2. DWR needs to develop additional, more precise, on-farm applied-water data by
crop to more accurately estimate agricultural applied water use efficiency in cer-
tain areas.

3. The State needs to determine the effect of increasing population on overall food
production needs, in California and the nation, and its relationship to California's
agricultural industry. 9^

Agricultural Water Use 183

Bulletin 160-93 TTie California Water Plan Update

Table 7-15. Agricuhural Water Demand by Hydrologic Region
(thousands of acre-feet)

Hydrologk Region

1990 2000 20W 2020

average drought average drought average drought average drought

North Coast

Applied wcrier demcmd

839

915

868

948

891

972

907

989

■|

Net water demand

744

760

748

764

761

776

771

787

Depletion

592

647

611

669

627

686

637

698

San Francisco Bay

Applied water demand

103

loH

HHH

p 94

103

Net water demond

100

Depletion

HHHIl

■■■

1 82

Central Coast

Applied wafer demcHid

1,140

1,178

1,166

1,206

1,182

1,220

1,189

1,233

Net water demand

893

961

910

982

920

991

921

1,003

Depl^ion

950

901

^^^

■■11^^92

..m

South Coast

Applied water demand

727

753

632

655

499

518

382

396

Net water demand

644

668

569

592

458

474

356

370

Depl^ion

644

668

m- 569

592

458

474

356

370

Sacramento River

Applied water demand

7,848

8,645

7,698

8,517

7,592

8,475

7,558

8,333

Net water demand

6,788

7,394

6,602

7,222

6,506

7,184

6,497

7,049

DepldKon

5/477

6,123

5,426

6,149

5,439

6,151

5,437

6,151

San Joaquin iUver

Applied water demcHid

6,298

6,757

6,052

6,500

5,817

6,227

5,665

6,080

Net water demand

5,778

6,217

5,561

5,967

5,346

5,695

5,215

5,572

Depletion

4,719

5,064

4,605

4,909

4,490

4,///

4,383

4,678

likire Lake

Applied water demcmd

9,613

9,849

9,306

9,518

9,075

9,281

8,833

9,038

Net water demand

7,723

7,895

7,518

7,685

7,347

7,505

7,169

7320

Depldi<m

7704

7,876

7,499

7,666

7,328

7,486

7,150

7,301

North Lahontan

Applied water demand

522

587

523

589

525

591

536

:^^^Q2

Net water demand

460

511

458

510

457

508

469

521

Depletion

378

426

385

433

393

442

399

449

South Lahontan

Applied wai^- demand

317

321

266

270

258

262

253^

___257

Net water demand

290

293

242

245

235

238

231

234

Def^eiion

290

293

242

245

235

238

^m*

Colorado River

Applied water demand

3,705

3,598

3,453

3,363

Net water demand

3,439

3,362

3,262

3,181

Defection

3,439

3,362

3,262

3,181

TOTAL

AppSed Yfoler demand

31,100

32,800

30,200

31,900

29,400

31,100

28,800

30,400

Net Yfuler demand

26,800

28,200

26,100

27,400

25,400

26,700

24,900

26,100

Oepfefion

24,200

25,600

23,700

25,100

23,200

24,600

22,800

24,100

184

Agricultural Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Agricultural Water Use 185

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

A stretch of the Trinity Rtuer. The river basin encompasses a watershed of almost
3,000 square miles in Trinity and Humboldt counties, and most of the river is
protected under the federal WHd and Scenic Rtuers Act A U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service study is under way to establish the optunumflow schedule for fisheries in the
Trinity Riuer. The study is to be completed in 1996.

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Chapter 8

California has long led the nation in environmental awareness. Bulletin 3 (1957), Environmental
California's first comprehensive water plan, noted what were then thought to be mini- Wnter Us©
mum fish flow requirements or operational requirements to maintain healthy fisheries
on California's major stream systems impacted by water development. The recurrence
of drought (both in 1976-77 and 1987-92) has shown that fish populations and wet-
land areas require a more dependable water supply. This will be the first water plan
update to present environmental water needs along with urban and agricultural water
demand.

Many of the State's biological resources are at low levels due to natural and hu-
man factors. Three runs (or races) of chinook salmon in the Central Valley and
Klamath-Trinity river system have shown severe population declines in recent years.
Two fish species in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta Estuary are at such low
abundance levels that they are now protected under the State and federal Endangered
Species Acts. Environmental organizations have prepared petitions to list longfin smelt
and Sacramento splittail under the federal Endangered Species Act. The State Water
Resources Control Board is conducting ongoing hearings to help determine if addition-
al protection is needed for Bay-Delta Estuary fish and wildlife.

Governor Wilson, in his 1992 water policy, made it clear that fish and wildlife
protection must be an integral part of the State's water management. He emphasized
the need to balance the available water supply among often competing beneficial uses.
As part of this balance. The Resources Agency proposed using "biodiversity regions," or
"bioregions," in developing natural resource management plans. Biodiversity is an ap-
proach for maintaining habitat areas critical for a wide variety of plants and animals.
Water is a vital component of habitats such as wetlands and riparian areas. Bioregions,
including watersheds, transcend traditional jurisdictional lines and instead concen-
trate environmental planning and management on large, contiguous geographic areas
with similar biological and physical components. Eleven bioregions were designated
under a recent agreement signed by 10 State and federal agencies. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is proposing a similar approach of multi-species, ecosystem planning.

This chapter contains separate sections about the Bay-Delta Estuary, instream
flows, and wetlands. Brief descriptions of the physical and biological systems are pro-
vided. Current water requirements for protection of these systems are presented.
Where current requirements do not fully meet environmental water needs, proposals
for new allocations are presented if these are known. In many cases, there can be con-
siderable controversy regarding the amount of additional water needed to meet
environmental needs and whether it is in the public interest to fully meet these needs.
Because of this controversy, which is exemplified by concerns about the Sacramento-
San Joaquin River System, a range of 1 to 3 maf for proposed additional environmental
water needs is presented.

Environmental Water Use

187

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Under the E^A biological opinions and proposed EPA Bay-Delta Standards,
annual reductions in total water supply for urban and agricultural use could be in the
range of 750,000 af to 1.3 maf in average years and 1 .8 maf to 3.2 maf in critically dry
years. As proposed in December 1993, EPA's estuarine standard would be met only 50
percent of the time at the 1.8-maf impact level. Unless the form of the standard is
changed to an appropriate outflow regime, or to specify a suitable averaging period (for
example, monthly), the analysis of impacts must include a buffer to move the com-
pliance rate to 95 percent. A compliance rate of 95 percent would result in an impact
of 3.2 maf in critically dry years. While these impacts do not consider the potential
reductions in Delta exports due to take limits under the biological opinions, they basi-
cally fall within the 1- to 3-maf range for proposed additional environmental demands
for protection and enhancement of aquatic species. Such uncertainty of water supply
delivery and reliability will continue until issues involving the Delta and other long-
term environmental water management concerns are resolved.

This chapter will not speculate on the outcome of proposed modifications to allo-
cate additional water to the environment. Instead, a summary of existing and
estimated environmental water requirements for major streams, the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Bay-Delta Estuary, and wetlands is provided as well as proposals developed
by DFG. The proposed additional requirements are included in a hypothetical range of
1 to 3 maf appearing in the water supply /water demand budget (Chapter 12), from
which individuals can compare existing and proposed environmental water use with
existing supplies and urban and agricultural demands. Allocation of water to streams.
the Bay-Delta Estuary, and wetlands is generally by Judicial and administrative pro-
cesses as well as negotiations among affected parties.

This report only partially addresses the implementation of the federal CVP Im-
provement Act of 1992 as it relates to environmental water supplies since it will take
several years to complete implementation of the Act. However, the legislation does con-
tain several elements which will immediately affect the way in which water is used in
California. The law requires specific amounts of water for fish and wildlife as well as
stating goals for doubling existing anadromous fish populations affected by CVP op-
erations. It is also State policy to significantly improve salmon and steelhead
populations by the year 2000, as reflected in Section 6902 of the Fish and Game Code.

Bay-Delta Estuary

ILis_ impossible to consider California's environmental water needs without dis-
<:€ussing the Bay-Delta Estuary. Lying near the confluence of the Sacramento and San
Joaquin rivers, this system of waterways comprises a Delta and a series of embay-
ments leading to the Pacific Ocean at the Golden Gate (see Figure 8-1). This estuarine
system has long been an important resource to California. Among the many factors
affecting the estuarine environment are the rate and timing of fresh water inflow to the
estuary, as well as the quantities of fresh water reaching it seasonally, annually, and
over a series of years, and diversions from the estuary for both local and export uses.
This section provides a description of the Bay-Delta Estuary, a brief history of the area.
a review of the current environmental water requirements, and a summary of some of
the current activities which may affect future fresh water allocations to the estuary
(other aspects of the Delta are discussed in Chapter 10, The Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta).

Bay-Delta History

Before the Spanish arrived, several Native American tribes lived in the Bay-Delta
area. Early settlements in the area expanded rapidly with the discovery of gold in the

188 Environmental Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

! Sierra Nevada. Today, the Bay-Delta Estuary and its surrounding shorelines are home
i to about one-third of California's population. Water from the Delta provides part of the
i water supply for about two-thirds of the State's population.

j During the mid- 1800s. the rapid influx of new settlers and their activities re-

I suited in almost immediate changes to the Bay and Delta. Edges of the Bay were filled
' to provide more land for homes and industry. Formerly flooded marshlands in the Del-
'< ta were converted to farmable islands by building levees. Central Valley streams were
I dammed for water supply, valley lands were drained for farming, and hydraulic mining
' for gold in the watershed washed huge amounts of sediment into stream channels. All

of these activities caused changes in the quantity and quality of water reaching the
; fistuary. Finally^ jjiitreated municipaLancLiridustrial waste was discharged directly_

into the estuary.

Criteria for Summary of Present and Proposed
Environmental Water Flows

The 1990-level instream fishery flows are based or^ existing water right permits,
court decisions, congressional directives, laws or agreements between gov-
ernment agencies and project operators.

[2. The 1990-level instream fishery flows for major streams (that is, rim stations for
Central Valley streams), wild and scenic river flows, and required Delta outflow
are presented in this report. Instream flows upstream of the major reservoirs are
not listed.

Instream flow proposals are based on information provided by the Depart-
ment of Fish and Game as part of the Department of Water Resources' State
plan coordination. DFG supports proposed instream flows with biological stud-
ies showing the need for modification of current flows to protect or restore fish
and wildlife.

Only flows specifically listed for instream fishery ,wild and scenic rivers, and Del-
ta outflow are considered in this chapter. Flows specifically designated for oth-
er instream use such as power generation and recreation are not evaluated
under instream flow needs. Existing and proposed fish flows also include tem-
perature and flow fluctuation criteria and ramping rates which could require
additional water. In the interest of simplicity, these flows were not included in
the environmental water need table.

Present instream flows, combined with wetlands water demands, are listed as
environmental water needs and accounted for in the water balance.

Proposed instream flows are evaluated and presented as a "range of instream
needs." The impacts of proposed flows on water supplies and water balance
are noted and discussed in Chapter 12.

Instream needs are analyzed and listed in manners similar to those for urban
and agricultural water demand by calculating applied water, net water, and
depletion.

ET and ETAW on riparian lands adjacent to rivers are shared equally among
agriculture, urban, and environmental users, and therefore are not accounted
for under environmental water needs. This use and others such as ground water
recharge are accounted for in the difference between the 200-maf annual
statewide precipitation and the 71-maf annual statewide runoff.

For Central Valley streams, net water demands for each region are determined
by examining controls at downstream locations and working back upstream.
Depletion is computed as the portion of environmental water that enters a sa-
line sink.

Environmental Water Use

189

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure 8-1. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay

San Rafael

Suisun Resource
ConservatJon District

SCALE IN MILES

190

Environmental Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

The past 50 years have seen many new projects and activities affecting the Bay-
Delta estuarine resources In various ways — some good, some bad, and some difficult
to evaluate. Both San Francisco and East Bay Municipal Utility District built water
export facilities upstream of the Delta to ensure high-quality water supplies to much of
the Bay area. The federal Central Valley Project built dams on the Trinity River near
Lewiston, on the Sacramento River near Redding, on the American River near Folsom.
and on the San Joaquin River at Friant. In the 1940s and 1950s, the CVP began ex-
' ports from the Delta through the Contra Costa Canal and the Delta-Mendota Canal,
i The State Water Project constructed Oroville Dam on the Feather River and Delta diver-
j slon facilities for the California and North Bay aqueducts. These developments, along
' with numerous local water developments on Central Valley tributary streams, cause
1 changes in the timing^nd amount of Delta inflows and outflows during most years.
i Also.^aJmon runs wereblocked from some of their traditional spawning areas and be-
gan spawning In streams made habitable by the cold water releases below the new^^_^
constructed dams and into fish hatcheries constructed to mitigate such impacts. Oth-
ler races of salmon that spawned in the foothill elevations in some cases did not spawn
! successfully below these dams. For example, spring run salmon are no longer found in
the San Joaquin drainage. In the case of the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam. no
flows were allocated for salmon and all spawning and rearing habitat was lost.

Intensive efforts to reduce the effects of wastes discharged into the system accel-
erated after the federal Clean Water Act was signed In 1972. Better waste water
treatment reduced the load of oxygen-consuming materials and some toxic substances
to the Bay-Delta Estuary and Improved conditions for fish and wildlife. While dredged
material disposal (see Chapter 5) from deepening ship channels enhanced access to
inland ports, it also presented potential adverse environmental Impacts.

The Bay-Delta ecosystem has been changed dramatically by the accidental and
purposeful Introductions of numerous fish ancTinvefrebrate species. The purposeful
introductions have included such species as striped bass. American shad, catfish, and
largemouth bass. Accidental introductions arrived on shells of oysters and other bi-
valves or in ballast water of ships from foreign waters discharged to the estuary.

All the activities described above, plus natural events such as floods and
droughts, have changed the estuarine ecosystem. It is often difficult to determine
which factor is responsible for an observed change In the estuarine system, or if the
change will be permanent, because manyjactqrs^qccur simultaneously. For discus-
sion, the Bay-Delta Estuary system can be divided into three aspects: the physical
system, water development, and bifilogical resources and^ocesses..

TTie Physical System

The physical system consists of the rivers, the Delta, the downstresmi embay-
ments, and the Pacific Ocean. They all play important roles in determining the
abundance and distribution of plants, fish, and wildlife in the estuary and must be
:onsidered as a whole.

The rivers flowing into and through the Delta play a multiple role in the estuary.
n a simple sense, these rivers provide conduits for migratory fish, such as salmon, to
Tiove to and from the ocean; for other fish species, they provide spawning and nursery
labitat. River Inflow contributes much of the dissolved nutrients needed to support
estuarine food chains. Fresh water from the rivers mixes with salt water from the ocean
o create areas in the estuary where animals with varying salt tolerances can exist. Fi-
lally high fresh-water flow moves small life forms such as larval flsh into the Suisun
Bay.

Environmental Water Use 191

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

The Delta contains about 700 miles of channels that provide habitat for numer-
ous species of small plants and animals. The organisms form the basis for food chains
that support more than 40 species of native and introduced fish. Presently, water in
the Delta channels is generally fresh during all months of the year. Before water devel-
opment, it was often salty from summer through late fall and outflows were higher in
winter months. Delta waters are high in suspended matter because of the organic na-
ture of Delta islands and annual sediment inflow. Often, light can only penetrate 2 feet
or less; this high turbidity affects overall Delta productivity.

The first embayment below the Delta is Suisun Bay. This bay, which includes
Grizzly and Honker bays, is the area where the effects of mixing seaward-flowing fresh
water and landward-flowing saltwater (driven by tides) are most pronounced. Since
saltwater is slightly heavier than fresh water, it tends to move landward under the river

water, but this effect is
only slightly seen in the
upper bay and Delta. The
complex circulation pat-
terns cause a concentra-
tion of small plants,
larval fish, and other an-
imals within this zone.
This area of concen-
tration, a feature of all
estuaries which receive
significant amounts of
fresh water, is called the
entrapment zone, or
zone of maximum tur-
bidity. The location of the
entrapment zone in the
Suisun Bay and adj acent
extensive areas of productive shallow water is considered to be an important ecological
feature of the Bay-Delta Estuary complex. This zone moves upstream and downstream
in the estuary depending on the amount of fresh water outflows.

Twice a day. Pacific

Ocean tides move tn

and out of the

Bay-Delta, bringing

saltier water into the

Suiswi Marsh. Scdtnity

control gates on

Montezwna Slough

Control Structure help

maintain salinity

standards set by the

State Water Resources

Control Board to protect

habitat and water

quality in this brackish

water marsh

Adjacent to Suisun Bay is the Suisun Marsh — about 80,000 acres of brackish
water containing a significant percentage of the remaining contiguous wetlands in
C£ilifornia. This managed marsh, and the other tidal wetlands around the Bay-Delta
Estuary, provide valuable habitat for a variety of plants and animals, especially water-
fowl. They also contribute significant amounts of nutrients to the estuarine system.
(See the wetlands section later in this chapter.)

Below the Carquinez Strait are the San Pablo and central San Francisco bays.
The Strait tends to isolate these bays from the Suisun Bay and the Delta and allows
such oceanic conditions as tides to play a leading role in their salinity and circulation.
During extremely high freshwater flows, such as happened during February 1986,
these embayments can become quite fresh, especially at the surface. During these high
flows, the entrapment zone can be temporarily relocated in San Pablo Bay. These em-
bajonents are quite saline at low fresh -water flows and high tides.

South San Francisco Bay is very different from the other parts of the system. This
bay is out of the main path of Delta outflows and only receives significant flows from
the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers during high outflow or floods. Because of low

192

Environmental Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

freshwater flows during most of the year and losses of water through evaporation, the
South Bay is often saltier than the ocean outside the Golden Gate. The South Bay does
receive steady flows of secondarily treated municipal effluent and some local
streamflow at its south end. The effluent is rich in nitrogen and phosphorus, which can
stimulate algal growth. Changes in sewage treatment practices and outfall locations
over the past 40 years have resulted in marked improvement in South Bay water quali-
ty. In the 1940s and 1950s, South Bay waters often had dissolved oxygen
concentrations too low to support fish. These problems now occur only infrequently.

Tidal action moves water from the ocean into the Bay-Delta system through the
narrow and deep Golden Gate. Although accurate estimates are difficult to obtain, one
estimate is that about one-fourth of the Bay water is replaced with new ocean water
during each complete tidal cycle. Physical processes in the ocean, including tides, hori-
zontal currents along the coast which cause upwelling of deep oceanic water,
temporary and long-term rises in sea level, and changes in ocean temperature, all af-
fect the Bay-Delta ecosystem. In addition, many species of fish and fish-food
organisms found in the estuary originate in offshore areas.

Water Development

Water development has changed the estuarine system in a variety of ways. Fac-
tors having the greatest infiuence are:

O Delta inflow

O Flows from the Sacramento River through the Delta Cross Channel

O Reverse flows

O Water project and local agricultural diversions

O Delta outflow and salinity

The effects of these changes on species can vary depending on the time of year
and type of water year. Following are brief descriptions of how these factors can affect
the Bay-Delta ecosystem.

The magnitude of flows coming down the rivers into the Bay-Delta estuary affects
biological resources both in the rivers and in the estuary. For example, striped bass
eggs and larvae are more likely to survive if flow rates in the Sacramento River are suffi-
cient to transport the larvae downstream to Suisun Bay where food is more abundant.
Juvenile salmon migrating out of the San Joaquin system are more likely to avoid the
direct impacts of the pumps if they migrate down the San Joaquin River instead of Old
River. Improved flows in the San Joaquin River would change the ratio of the flow split
at the head of Old River and thus would increase salmon survival. The instream flows
in the tributaries to the Delta are discussed in greater detail in later sections.

Some of the water flowing down the Sacramento River enters the lower San Joa-
quin River through Georgiana Slough, Three Mile Slough, and the Delta Cross
Channel. Juvenile salmon migrating downstream in the spring can either move down
the Sacramento River or through the Delta Cross Channel or Georgiana Slough. The
salmon that remain in the Sacramento River have a better chance at survival than
those that move through the Delta Cross Channel or Georgiana Slough.

The natural flow pattern in the estuary is for fresh water flowing to the oceain to
cause the total flow during ebb tides to exceed the total flow during flood tides. The
SWP/CVP pumps in the southwestern Delta can cause the total upstream flow during
flood tide to exceed the total downstream flow during ebb tide. This is called reverse
flow. The potential significance of reverse flow is that it tends to move fish and their
food supply toward the SWP/CVP pumps rather than toward the ocean.

Environmental Water Use 193

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

The CVP exports up to 4.600 cfs through the Tracy Pumping Plant and 250 cfs

through the Contra Costa Canal. The SWP exports water up to 6,400 cfs through the

*< Banks Pumping Plant and 150 cfs through the North Bay Aqueduct. Intakes at the

Banks and Tracy pumping plcints have louver fish screens that are ineffective for larval
fish but are on the order of 90 percent effective for fish a few inches long. In addition
to fish lost through the screens, some fish are also lost to predation and stress
associated with handling and trucking. Calculated prescreening losses are high at the
Banks Pumping Plant because of predation in Clifton Court Forebay. Losses at all faci-
lities vary for different species and sizes of fish. In addition to losses at the SWP and
CVP diversions, there are many unscreened agricultural diversions in the Delta and on
the tributaries to the Delta that also cause fish losses.

There are two basic problems with the SWP and CVP screening facilities at their
present locations. One is that fish must be captured and transported to another loca-
tion for release. The other is that water is being withdrawn directly from the Delta,
which is a major nursery for some fish and a permanent residence for others. The di-
versions can diminish the capacity of the Delta to support fish populations through
effects on the fish and their food supply.

Delta outflow is the calculated amount of water flowing past Chipps Island , at the
western edge of the Delta, into San Francisco Bay. The magnitude of Delta outflow con-
trols the intrusion of salt water from the ocean into the estuary. Delta outflow and
salinity intrusion are highly correlated. The magnitude of Delta outflow strongly in-
fluences the distribution of many estuarine fishes and invertebrates.

GeneraUy, the greater the outflow, the further downstream estuarine fish and in-
vertebrates occur. The relationship between Delta outflow and abundance of fish and
invertebrates is not nearly as general. However, species such as longfin smelt and
striped bass show strong correlations between abundance and Delta outflow.

Biological Resources and Processes

There is a complex interrelationship among several different food chains in the
Bay-Delta ecosystem. Phytoplankton are plants that'act as the grass of the estuary;
their production depends on the availability of light and nutrients. Phytoplankton
abundance in a particular location is determined by factors such as turbidity and the
number of animals feeding on the algae. In the Delta, phytoplankton production is
often limited by the amount of light penetrating the water. In Suisun Bay, the phyto-
plankton concentration is the highest when the entrapment zone is next to productive
shaUow areas. Since the mid-1970s, there has been a consistent and largely unex-
plained decline in most phytoplankton abundance in the Delta and Suisun Bay. This
decline could affect the estuary's ability to support fish.

Although phytoplankton play an important role in the estuary, their exact con-
tribution has not been well documented. Rivers and marshes contribute organic
particles (such as leaves and grasses) which may also be significant sources of energy
for the next level of the food chain, zooplankton or the grazers. Zooplankton capture
live or decomposed plant and animal materisd for their food. In recent years, many of
the native zooplankton in the water column have declined in the Delta and Suisun Bay.
These declines were often accompanied by increases in accidentally introduced
zoopl£mkton and a species of clam [Potamocorbida amurensis] which has colonized
Suisun Bay. Although the exact impacts of these introductions have not been defined,
they have undoubtedly changed the food web.

More than 100 species of fish use the Bay-Delta system. Some are year-round
residents, such as Delta smelt and catfish, while others, such as American shad, are in

194 Environmental Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

the estuary for only a few months. Some of the species can live only in relatively fresh
water and others can only survive in the more saline parts of the Bay. There are also
several fish with intermediate salinity tolerance; these are the true estuarine species.
Finally, there is a mixture of native and introduced species. The most notable of the
Introduced species is the striped bass; the chinook salmon is one of the more well-
known native fishes. Introductions, both planned and accidental, have changed the
Delta fish fauna to the point that native species now make up only 40 percent of the
fish species and even less of the total population of fish.

An overview of the status and trends of several key fish populations is provided
including striped bass, winter-run chinook salmon, fall-run chinook salmon. Delta
smelt, longfin smelt, and the Sacramento splittail. These species are discussed be-
cause they are the focus of many efforts to restore the Delta ecosystem. Other fish
showing declines are the white catfish, sturgeon, and the starry flounder.

Striped Bass. Stripers flourished after their introduction in the late 19th centu-
ry. However, since the early 1960s, the adult population has declined from an
estimated 3 million to less than 1 million. (Figure 8-2 Illustrates the decline of one of
the striped bass life stages, the stage when they are about 1 ^ /2 Inches long.) One of the
principal environmental goals of the SWRCB's D-1485, enacted in 1978, was to halt
the decline and restore the population to "without project" levels. This goal was not
realized, in part because the Bay-Delta has continued to change.

The reasons for the observed declines are difficult to determine. Water project
exports, drought, unscreened agricultural diversions in the Delta, ocean fishing, illegal
fishing, toxics, and exotic species (some of which affect the food chain) are all factors.

Winter-Run Chinook Salmon. One of four runs of chinook salmon inhabiting
Central Valley streams Is the winter-run chinook salmon. The other runs also are
named after the time the adults migrate through the Bay-Delta on their way upstream
to spawn: these are the spring, fall, and late fall-runs.

The winter-run is unique among the other chinook salmon races around the
Pacific Rim because it spawns during the late spring and summer. Historically, this
race migrated to tributaries in the headwaters of the Sacramento, Pit, and McCloud

Figure 8-2.
Striped Bass
Abundance
Sacramento-
San Joaquin
Estuary

Environmental Water Use

195

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

rivers where cool mountain springs provided suitable temperatures for egg incubation
and juvenile rearing during the summer months. The juveniles probably moved out to
the ocean in late fall and winter, and returned as adults two to four years later. Run
sizes earlier this century are not well documented, but information from just prior to
construction of Shasta Reservoir indicate that the run was probably small at that time.
However, much larger runs were reported in the late 1800s. Although Shasta Dam
completion in 1944 blocked access to their historical spawning grounds, releases of
cold water from the reservoir enabled the flsh to reestablish themselves in the reach of
the Sacramento River below Keswick Dam to as far downstream as Red Bluff.

DFG first estimated populations of adult winter-run spawners in 1966, after the
Red Bluff Diversion Dam was constructed. The dam forced upstream migrating adults
to go past counting windows installed in fish ladders at both ends of the dam. The
population has exhibited a decline over the past 25 years, with the low point of 200
estimated spawners in 1991 (see Table 8-1). There were 1,180 estimated spawners in
1992 and 341 in 1993. In response to the declines, winter-run chinook salmon were
listed as threatened by the National Marine Fisheries Service under the federal Endan-
gered Species Act in November 1 990, reclassified as endangered in 1 994 by the NMFS,
and classified as endangered by the Department of Fish and Game under the Califor-
nia Endangered Species Act in October 1989.

The USBR is taking steps to permanently improve Shasta Dam's cold water re-
lease capability under changing reservoir storage levels to increase winter- and fall-run
survival. Installation and operation of a temperature control device at Shasta Dam is
one of the fish and wildlife restoration activities required by the CVPIA and would de-
crease the amount of water that would need to be dedicated for protection of the
winter -run.

In 1991, the USBR and DWR began consultation with NMFS and DFG to assess
the impacts of the CVP and SWP on the winter-run chinook salmon. On February 14,
1992, NMFS issued its Biological Opinion, which recommended a reasonable and pru-
dent alternative that, if implemented, would avoid jeopardizing the continued
existence of the winter-run chinook salmon. Reasonable and prudent measures to
avoid and minimize the effects of the CVP's and SWP's incidental taking of winter-run
were also provided to the USBR and DWR.

The reasonable and prudent alternatives and the reasonable and prudent mea-
sures included modifying CVP operations to provide cold water in spawning and
nursery grounds, controlling flows in the Sacramento River, closing the Delta Cross-
Channel, cind stopping operation of the Montezuma Slough Salinity Control Gates.

Table 8-1. Estimated Winter Run Chinook Salmon at Red Bluff Diversion Dam

Year

Number

Year

Number

Year

Number

of Fish

offish

of Fish

1967

57,300

1976

35,100

1985

4,000

1968

84,400

1977

17,200

1986

2,400

1969

117,800

1978

24,900

1987

2,000

1970

40,400

1979

2,400

1988

2,100

1971

53,100

1980

1,200

1989

500

1972

37,100

1981

20,000

1990

400

1973

24,100

1982

1,200

1991

200

1974

21,900

1983

1,800

1992

1,180

1975

23,400

1984

2,700

1993

341

196

Environmental Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

; Measures were also taken at the Tracy and Banks pumping facilities to reduce losses
I of winter-run Juveniles due to diversion. In April 1992, in response to an increased
take of winter-run at the pumps over that which had been anticipated in the Opinion.
I NMFS set specific limits on allowable take from April 9-30. To comply with the take
! limitations, pumping was curtailed by both projects.

In September 1992, NMFS convened a Recovery Team to develop a Federal Re-
covery Plan for the winter-run chinook salmon. The team consists of academicians
(population biologists and geneticists) and representatives of the State and federal fish-
ery agencies.

NMFS released its long-term biological opinion on February 12, 1993, which was
subsequently adopted by DFG. Conditions were similar to those contained in the 1992
opinion. However, the opinion for long-term operations contained a numerical limit on
take of Juvenile winter-run at the Banks and Tracy pumping plants as well as stan-
dards on flow in the lower San Joaquin River. To comply with the take limitations in
the winter of 1993 and the flow standards in the lower San Joaquin River, the SWP
curtailed pumping in February and March while there were high flows into the Delta.

NMFS, USFWS. and DFG are implementing recovery efforts to protect and re-
store the winter-run chinook salmon. These include restricting in-river and ocean
harvest, reducing losses to diversions along the Sacramento River (for example, in-
takes to Anderson-Cottonwood and Glenn-Colusa Irrigation districts), artificial
propagation, and a captive breeding program. The goal of the artificial propagation and
captive breeding program is to protect against loss of genetic diversity and possible
extinction due to low population levels in the wild.

Fall-Run Chinook Salmon. Both the Sacramento and San Joaquin river sys-
tems support fall-run chinook salmon, the run that provides the majority of the fish
taken in the commercial and sport harvest and is the predominant run in California
today. The adult salmon move upstream and spawn in the fall months, the eggs incu-
bate during the winter months, and the Juveniles migrate downstream in the late
winter and spring months. Factors that can affect the number of fall-run chinook
salmon returning each year to spawn include habitat conditions in the tributaries,
losses to diversions and pollution, losses in the Delta during outmigration, and sport
and commercial harvest.

Sport and com-
mercial harvest of
salmon are the basis of a
multi-million-dollar
industry. Commercial
harvest is regulated by
the Pacific Fisheries
Management Council,
and sportharvestisregu-
lated by the Fish emd
Game Commission. Reg-
ulations are set eachyear
to meet the salmon
spawning stock escape-
mentgoals. Recently, the
targetescapementforthe

Salmon trawlers in
Crescent City's marina.
Commercial and sport
Jishing are an integral part
of the area's economy.

Environmental Water Use

197

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Sacramento system has been 120,000 to 180.000 salmon. The number of salmon tak-
en by sport and commercial harvest for the period 1971 through 1991 is shown in
Figure 8-3. Because the bulk of the harvest consists of three-year-old fish, the salmon
harvest numbers reflect spawning conditions of three years earlier, as well as ocean
conditions during the same period. The salmon harvest of 1 988 was nearly 300 percent
higher than in 1983-84, a period of low harvest. For comparison, just after the first |
6-year drought of this century (1929-34), a biological report and investigation on the
salmon fishery in the Sacramento River near the Shasta Dam site (prepared by the U.S. i
Bureau of Fisheries in 1940) indicated that salmon catches had ". . .already undergone
a serious decline. . . ." and that the salmon count past Redding in 1939 was estimated
at 27,000. Sacramento Valley fall chinook have not met their escapement goals in the
past three years, and the Pacific Fisheries Management Council has convened a work
group to examine reasons for the low runs. (See Figure 8-4 for runs on other rivers.)

The causes of the declines in salmon populations are the subject of great debate,
and all parties do not agree on the relative importance of the different factors including
harvest, poaching, instream flows in the tributaries, gravel quality, predation by non-
native species, losses at unscreened water diversions, mortality in the Delta, pollution,
and other factors related to changes in land use management. It is likely that all these
factors have played a role in the overall health of the salmon fishery.

Hatcheries on the Sacramento, Feather, American, Mokelumne, and Merced riv-
ers augment the natural salmon production in the Central Valley. Juvenile salmon
produced in these hatcheries are regularly trucked downstream and released below the
Delta , while juvenile salmon produced by in-river spawning migrate downstream and
are influenced by factors such as diversions and changes in Delta conditions.

The Feather River is one of the brighter spots in the Central Valley salmon pic-
ture. F£dl and spring chinook use the river for spawning and the Feather River
Hatchery propagates both races. The size of the run on this river is generally larger
than it was during the years prior to construction of Oroville Dam (see Table 8-2). The
Feather River fall-run also has been estimated to contribute up to one-fourth of the
commercial salmon catches originating from Central Valley salmon stock.

Figure 8-3.

Estimated Annual

Ocean Harvest of

Chinook Salmon

1971-1991

(thousands)

Estimated totals in-
clude harvest from
ocean commercial
(tTxAl) and sport (char-
ter boat and skiff)
fishing.

198

Environmental Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Figure 8-4.
Fall-Chinook Salmon
Runs on the
Sacramento River
and Tributaries

There are other factors affecting the general abundance of chinook salmon in
California's rivers and streams. Droughts reduce stream flow and thus habitat re-
quired to support salmon. At the same time, salmon harvests reduce the number of
returning adult salmon to California's streams and rivers. Figure 8-3 shows the
Chinook salmon landed by troll fishing in California from 1971 through 1991.

Table 8-2. Esrimated Fall Run Chinook Salmon in the Feather River

Year

Number

year

Number

Year

Number

offish

of Fish

1953

28,000

1965

23,200

1977

57,300

1954

68,000

1966

21,000

1978

43,200

1955

86,000

1967

12,000

1979

36,400

1956

18,000

1968

18,000

1980

40,400

1957

10,000

1969

61,000

1981

59,100

1958

32,000

1970

62,000

1982

64,200

1959

76,000

1971

47,000

1983

37,200

1960

79,000

1972

47,000

1984

61,600

1961

43,500

1973

74,000

1985

63,900

1962

18,500

1974

66,000

1986

63,200

1963

34,000

1975

43,000

1987

79,000

1964

38,400

1976

62,000

1988

69,400

Environmental Water Use

199

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Delta Smelt. In contrast to the chinook salmon, which undergo an extensive
migration to and from spawning grounds and the Pacific Ocean, the delta smelt
generally spends its entire life cycle in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun
Bay. The Delta smelt is small (maximum length about 5 inches), rarely lives more than
one year, and is not taken in recreational or commercial fisheries.

It is impractical to obtain accurate estimates of delta smelt abundance in the es-
tuary at any given time. Instead, DFG determines annual indices of abundance as part
of the striped bass sampling by towing the same kind of net at the same time and loca-
tion each year. These indices show a delta smelt decline to low population levels in the
early 1980s which have generally stayed low through 1991. One index, the fall abun-
dance, shows a consistent increase from 1988 through 1991. In 1992, the fall delta
smelt index again declined to lower levels but returned to higher levels in 1993.

In 1990, the California Fish and Game Commission rejected a petition to list the
delta smelt as endangered. That same year, the California-Nevada Chapter of the
American Fisheries Society submitted a similar petition to the USFWS. USFWS an-
nounced its decision to list delta smelt as threatened on March 4, 1993 (effective on
April 5, 1993) and issued a formal biological opinion for SWP and CVP operations on
May 27, 1993. USFWS issued another biological opinion for SWP and CVP operations
on February 4, 1994. ja

Longfin Smelt and Sa€:ram.ento Splittail. The status of several other fish spe-
cies may soon be affecting water project planning and operation. In November 1992, a
coalition of environmental groups submitted a petition to USFWS to list the longfin
smelt and the Sacramento splittail. The longfin smelt spends its life cycle in the estuary
and moves from San Pablo Bay through Suisun Bay to spawn in the Delta and Suisun
Bay. The splittail generally spends most of its life cycle in the Delta; there is also a
population in the Delta-Mendota Canal. In both instances, increased abundance is
positively correlated to high storm flows during the late winter/spring period.

In 1989, DFG released a report describing the status of 45 fish species of special
concern in California. Two Central Valley salmonids, the spring run on the Sacramento
River and its tributaries, and the fall-run on the San Joaquin, are in particular trouble.
It is clear that the water needs of threatened and endangered fish and other aquatic
species, along with factors affecting aquatic species must be taken into consideration
as California plans for future water supplies.

Bay-Delta Environmental Water Needs

The SWRCB, through its water rights process, has been the principal forum for
establishing the Bay-Delta's environmental water requirements. (Requirements as
used here means actions taken by regulatory agencies to allocate water for various
beneficial uses, whereas water needs are the demands for water.) The SWRCB has re-
served jurisdiction in water rights permits and periodically holds water rights hearings
in which interested agencies and parties provide evidence supporting their respective
views regarding the water rights, public interest, or public trust impacts of the per-
mitted use. The SWRCB then sets standards and operating criteria to provide balanced
protection to all recognized beneficial uses. The State and federal projects are currently
operating under FESA requirements in addition to SWRCB Decision 1485, issued in
1978. m

The exact amount of water which may be ultimately required to meet Bay-Delta
environmental needs will not be known until many of the processes currently under
way are completed. The difficulty in predicting the amount of water that may be dedl-

200 Environmental Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

cated to environmental protection is complicated by the variety of ways that may evolve
to correct problems associated with the Delta ecosystem and the conveyance of water
through the Delta for export. (See Chapter 10 for an explanation.) Federal and State
fisheries agencies, the federal EPA, and environmental organizations have made rec-
ommendations which could substantially increase the amount of water allocated to
protect the Bay-Delta's environmental resources. In light of the many factors influenc-
ing water availability in the Delta, a range of environmental water needs was estimated
at 1 to 3 maf annually. The potential environmental water needs are included in the
California water budget discussed in Chapter 12.

Other Activities That May Affect Bay-Delta Water Allocation

There are several other forums and activities that can potentially influence the
amount of water reaching the estuary. The San Francisco Estuary Project was a multi-
agency effort to develop a management plan for the Bay-Delta Estuary. The project
was authorized under Section 320 of the federal Clean Water Act and resulted in a
comprehensive conservation and management plan for the estuary.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering promulgating Bay-Del-
ta standards based on its rejection of water quality standards developed by the
SWRCB. One significant proposed standard would be for flows needed to position a
specified bottom salinity, 2 parts per thousand, at various locations along the Suisun
Bay to the western Delta, depending on the amount of natural runoff. Another would
be to specify conditions leading to increased survival of Juvenile chinook salmon
through the estuary. If implemented, these standards would reduce or reallocate proj-
ect yield substantially while increasing protection for aquatic species.

The Governor created the Bay-Delta Oversight Council as part of his 1992 water
policy. The council, consisting of representatives from urban, agricultural, and envi-
ronmental water user groups. Is to investigate facilities, operations, and other
measures that can provide a stable water supply and protect the Bay-Delta environ-
mental resources.

Future facilities may also play a key role in determining environmental water
needs for the Bay-Delta. These facilities include those in the Delta Itself that are de-
signed to eliminate some of the problems now caused by Delta diversions. Facilities
south of the Delta can be used to store water during peak availability times when envi-
ronmental impacts may be minimal. Chapter 10 discusses options for fbdng the Delta
and accompanying water supply benefits. Facilities upstream of the Delta, such as the
Shasta Dam temperature control device, can also change environmental water needs.

Environmental Instream Flows

Environmental instream flow is the water maintained in a stream or river for in-
stream beneficial uses such as fisheries, wildlife, aesthetics, recreation, and
navigation. It is one of the major factors influencing the productivity and diversity of
California's rivers and streams. For wildlife, instream flow sustains the stream bank
and floodplain riparian zones and provides aquatic food resources (e.g., fish, inverte-
brates, and plants). It has a direct effect on fisheries by creating riffles, pools, and
glides as habitat for game and nongame species. Instream flow is also important be-
cause it provides a corridor for migratory aquatic species to reach upstream spawning
and rearing habitat. Many organisms, especially invertebrates, depend on streamflow
to deliver their food. Instream flow also has a vital role in maintaining water quality for
aquatic species. It helps sustain proper water temperatures and ojqrgen levels and
serves to remove natural sediment and agricultural, municipal, or industrial wastes
that could otherwise accumulate in the system.

Environmental Water Use 201

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

*«

River
Location

Table 8-3. Summary of Present and Proposed Fishery Flows
for Major California River Systems

Status

Water Year
Type

Minimum Streamfhw (ch)

1-14

15-31

NOV

DEC

1-15

DEC

16-31

JAN

FEB

Klamath

Iron Gate Dam

Present

All

1300

Trinity

Lewiston Dam

Present'

All

300

Sacramento

Dry-Wet

3250

Keswick Dam/

PresenF

CriHcal

2800

2000

Red Bluff/Keswick

Proposed^

Dry-We»

4500

Critical

3500

Yuba

Smortville

Present*

Runoff > 50%

600

800

600

Daguerre

Present

Runoff > 50%

400

245

Marysville

Proposed'

Full local supply

700

Feather

Present*

Runoff >

55%

1700

Below Tliermalilo

Runoff >

55%

1200

1000

Afterbay

Proposed*

All

1000

1700

2000

American

PresenP

All

500

250

Lower Anfwricon

Proposed*

All

1750

2000

Sacramento

Present'

Critical

1500

1000

Rio Vista

Wet

5000

2500

3000

AAokelumne Comanche

Present 5

All

Woodbridge

Proposed'°

Wet

300

350

Normal

250

300

Dry

200

Stoniskius

Present"

Nonnal

200

125

Goodwin Dam

Dry

150

100

Proposed

Critical -

Wet

200-300

250-400

200-400

Tuolumne

Present'2'3

Dry-Wet

150-200

200-300

150-250

250

New Don Pedro

Dam

Critical

200

135

Proposed"

Critical -

Wet

80-300

Merced

Present'*

Normal

180-220

Shaffer Bridge

Dry

180-220

1 80-220

Proposed'*

Critical -Wet

200-300

250-350

200-350

Son Joaquin River

Present"

All

Friant'8

Present

All

Vemolis

Proposed"

1. Ilie uses and USFWS agreement requires 340.0C)0 ocre^ket per yew of flow from 1991

2. AdcfaionaJ peoiung inHows required Dec. I - May I (or fisti spcnxning, egg inculxi<ion, outmigroHon, and temperature maintenance. StreomHow reduction criteria ako exist, as wel os the
temperature requirements set in SWRCB Oder 90-5.

3. Preliminary flouvs bosed on Department of Fish ond Gone skifF recommendations. New recommendatior»s may lolow implemenkdion of instream Row study.

A. SlreanA>w reduction criteria recommended at 800- 1 500 cfs from Oct. 1 5 - Feb 1 and oJI flows in May and June. Additional sireamHow may be required to mointoin temperature standards.

5. Sireamflow reduction standards exist in ol montfis.

6. PrelimiiKvy flows bosed on Deparfcnenl of Fish and Game stcff recommendations. Hei reconiinendations may lolow completion of instream Bow study.

7 SWRCB Decision 893 In better hydrologic conditions. USBR tries to operate on modified Decision 1 400, resuking m considerably higher Hows

8. Based on EBMUD Gxirt Decision. Recommendation may be altered (olowing completion of imtreom flow study, latere are numerous other potential inslieuwi flaw scenarios (or iie Lower
American River.

9 Standards from SWRCB D^ 1485

' A 1 993 FERC order lor PG&E operation of Narrows 1 Power Plant cri Englefari^ Reser>iair prmides lor flow rates at Smartvle up to lie monMy oinunts proposed in 1991 byDFGlor
Morysvile limited to a maximum inoementol storage reteose of 45,000 of annualy.

202

Environmental Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Table 8-3. Summary of Present and Proposed Fishery Flows
for Major California River Systems

Minimum Streamflow (ch)

MAR MAR APR APR MAY MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEP SEP Source

1-15 16-31 1-15 16-30 1-15 16-21 1-14 15-30

1300 1300 1300 1300 1000 1000 710 710 1000 1300 1300 DWR 1982

300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 USDOI 1991

2300 2300 2300 2300 2300 2300 2300 2300 2300 3250 3250 SWRCB 1 990

2300 2300 2300 2300 2300 2300 2300 2300 2300 2800 2800 1960

4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 DFG 1 992

3500 3500 3500 3500 4000 4000 4000 4000 4000 4000 4000

600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DFG 1 962

245 245 245 245 245 245 245 70 70 70 70 DFG 1 965

700 700 1000 1000 2000 2000 1500 450 450 450 450 DFG 1991

1700

1000

DWR/DFG1983

1000

DFG 1 983

2000

3000

4000

1000

DFG 1 992

250

500

SWRCB 1958

3000

1750

Judge Hodge

1000

2000

1000

1500

SWRCB 1 978

3000

5000

3000

1000

5000

30 30 000000000 DFG 1961

400 400 450 450 450 450 300 300 300 300 300 DFG 1991

350 350 400 400 450 450 400 150 100 100 100

200 200 200 250 300 300 20 20 20 20 20

125 125 125 125 125 125 150 150 150 150 150 DWR 1982

100 100 100 100 100 100 50 50 50 50 50 DFGetall987

200-350 200-350 300-500 300-500 300-500 300-500 200-350 200-350 200-350 200-350 200-350 DFG 1 992

300-350 300-350 250-550 250-550 1 00-200 1 00-200 3 3 3 3 3 FERC 1 986

200 200 85 85 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 FERC 1 964

80-300 80-300 80-550 80-3000 80-3000 80-3000 50-200 50-200 50-200 50-200 50-200 DFG 1992

1 80-220 1 80-220 75 75 75 75 25 25 25 25 25 DWR/MID 1 968

180-220 180-220 60 60 60 60 15 15 15 15 15

200-350 200-350 300-500 300-500 300-500 300-500 200-350 200-350 200-350 200-350 200-350 DFG 1 991

00000000000 SWRCB 1978
00000000000 SWRCB 1 959
0 0 2K-10K 2K-10K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DFG 1 992

1 0. Spawning attraction, outmigration, and streamflow reduction criteria recommended for Oct. 1 - Nov 1 5, April 1 - June 30, and Oct. 1 - Feb 29, respectively Shoft-lerm reduction criterio
also recommended Proposed fishery flows for tfie Lower Mokelumne River would, at times, exceed tfie available supplies Ttiere are also alternative flow schedules proposed by the City of
San Francisco and by the USFWS

1 1 Instream flow is also influenced by water quality standards in the San Joaquin River Streamflow is renegotioted annually for a 7-year fisheries study ond includes a minimum 98,000 AF
fisheries allocation from Public Law 87-874

1 2. Preseason flushing flow standards also exist.

1 3. Additional flow is required for fisheries studies.

1 i Tfiese ranges summarize ten possible flow schedules for a 1 0-year fisheries study Tfie exoct schedule is determined by tfie projected inflow Flows will be oltered foHoMnng compwion or
fisheries study. There are also alternative flow schedules proposed by EBMUD and by FERC

1 5. Criteria also exist to minimize streamflow fluctuation.

16. Flows developed for planning purposes for Montgomery/New Exchequer Reservoir operation Additional recommendations to follow completion of instreom flow study
1 7 Additional flow required to meet water quality standards in SWRCB Decision 1 422.

18. Decision 935
Note K = 1 ,000

Environmental Water Use 203

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Identifying instream flow needs for fisheries is one of the greatest challenges for
resource managers. Rivers are complex systems that contain diverse and interrelated
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. Identifying flow needs for even a
single type of flsh is often difficult because its habitat needs may vary seasonally for
different life stages. Prior to 1970, the professional judgment of resource managers
was the primary means for recommending minimum instream flows. Because more
standardized, quantitative methods of analysis were desired in order to better define
and balance increasingly competitive demands for water, scientists developed the In-
stream Flow Incremental Methodology, which is now one of the most frequently
applied systems to analyze fishery and recreation flow needs.

IFIM is not a single method, but rather a conceptual framework that includes a
number of different techniques. The basic assumption of most IFIM studies is that the
amount of habitat existing at different flow levels can be estimated and used to help
make flow recommendations. In this context, habitat is defined as all areas in the river
with the necessary physical and chemical conditions to support a species. Suitable
habitat occurs when there is the proper combination of water velocity, depth, sub-
strate, cover, and water quality.

An important advantage of IFIM is that it allows an incremental analysis of the
amount of suitable habitat for fish (or other organisms) at different flows. This creates
an important tool for water resource negotiations, where quantified and well-docu-
mented information on the possible effects of flow changes on fisheries is needed. The
IFIM is not universally accepted. IFIM focuses on fish habitat, not fish production, and
if the amount of habitat is the limiting factor, then the fish population should increase
when the available habitat increases. However, if the amount of habitat is adequate
and another factor, such as increased fishing, is limiting the population, a fish popula-
tion will not necessarily increase with increased habitat. Nonetheless, the IFIM is the
most widely accepted tool to help determine instream flow requirements and is fre-
quently used for decision making and negotiation.

Recognizing the necessity for adequate instreamTlow for maintaining California's
fisheries, riparian areas, and recreation, federal and State resource agencies are in the
process of trying to determine needed stream flows for much of California. Table 8-3
summarizes existing instream fishery flow regulatory requirements and proposed rec-
ommendations by resource agencies for the Klamath, Sacramento, and San Joaquin
river systems. The existing regulatory requirements are listed for each river, followed
by a summary of proposed additional environmental water needs, where recommenda-
tions are available. In many cases, the existing requirements and recommendations
also include flows specifically designated for riparian and appropriative water users
rather than instream environmental uses. Nonetheless, these flows often benefit fish
and wildlife as well.

The following sections present a more detailed discussion of selected rivers to il-
lustrate the diversity of instream flow issues and progress made in resolving them.

Sacramento River Regior)

The Sacramento River and its tributaries discharge into the estuary and provide
habitat for fish and wildlife. The following discussion focuses on instream flow in the
mainstem and one of its tributaries, the Feather River (and a tributary to the Feather.
the Yuba River). The discussion also focuses on the chinook salmon.

Sacramento River. The Sacramento River below Keswick Dam provides habitat
for a number of migratory game species including spring, fall, late-fall, and winter-run

204 Environmental Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Chinook salmon; steel-
head trout; and American
shad. Fall run salmon
constitute the largest
fishery resource in the re-
gion, but winter-run
salmon are particularly
Important because they
are listed as endangered
species under both the
federal and State Endan-
gered Species acts.

Flows are set by a
DFG/USBR agreement
for Keswick and Shasta
dams' management and a
more recent agreement to
stabilize flows from September to December. The criteria include average daily flows
for fish spawning and rearing, and limits on flow fluctuations to avoid the dewatering
of redds (salmon nests). Flows are also regulated by SWRCB Decision 90-5 which set
temperature requirements to protect winter -run salmon spawning.

Several environmental problems have been recognized in the system; however,
most of the recent focus has been on winter-run chinook salmon. In 1988, USBR,
USFWS, NMFS, and DWR developed a 10-point cooperative program to improve the
status of the winter -run in the basin. The two components related to instream flow
were raising the Red Bluff Diversion Dam gates to allow fish passage during critical
times of the year and improving temperatures by managing Shasta Dam releases. The
program also includes correction of pollution problems from Spring Creek, spawning
habitat restoration, a reduction in entrainment at water diversions, in-river harvest
restrictions, and hatchery studies.

Changes in river management may also happen as a result of instream flow stud-
ies by DWR and DFG. These extensive studies address some major instream flow
issues, but they only define habitat available for specific life stages of certain fish spe-
cies and were designed before the winter-run chinook became one of the primary
concerns. Much more work is needed to define the flows and reservoir operations that
best meet the needs of numerous life stages and species present in the river at any
given time.

Riparian habitat along
the Sacramento River
The Sacramento River
Region supports the most
productive salmon Jishery
in California.

Lower Yuba River. The Yuba River system drains approximately 1 ,300 square

[ miles of the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. This area encompasses parts of Sierra,

Placer, Yuba, and Nevada counties. Flows in the lower Yuba River are regulated by En-

glebright Dam and Daguerre Point Dam. There are several diversions by local Irrigation

districts, mostly in the Daguerre Point Dam area.

, Instream flows in the Yuba system are stipulated in a 1965 agreement between

Yuba County Water Agency and DFG. Major provisions of the agreement include minl-
mum fish flows below Englebright and Daguerre Point dsmis and streamflow reduction

', and fluctuation criteria. These standards have been consistently met and actual flows
In the river generally have been higher than the minimum requirements.

Environmental Water Use

205

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

The status of existing flow requirements in the lower Yuba River is under review
by the SWRCB as part of the Yuba County Water Agency Water Right hearings. These
hearings are at the request of DFG and a coalition of angler groups, who filed a com-
plaint in 1988 alleging that the existing instream flow requirements and screening
facilities do not adequately protect fishery resources. Several water right issues are
also being examined.

A major discussion topic at the hearings is DFG's Lower Yuba River Fisheries
Management Plan, which reviews the environmental water needs of the system. The
plan proposes a revised flow schedule (summarized in Table 8-3) to optimize habitat
for Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and American shad. The plan also includes maxi-
mum temperature limits as well as limitations in the amount of daily and long-term
fluctuation in flow and water quality. In some months, flows under the proposed new
fishery requirements would be at least seven times higher than in the old agreement.
Yuba County Water Agency estimates that the flow and temperature revisions would
result in water supply deficiencies for urban and agricultural uses of up to 200,000 af,
causing cutbacks in water deliveries at least 75 percent of the time. DFG also made
recommendations for habitat protection and improvement, new fish screens at existing
water diversions, public access for recreation, and additional studies.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in its February 1993 order issuing
the new license for PG&E's Narrows Project, changed the flow requirements to help
meet the DFG recommended flows.

Lower Feather River. The Feather River is the largest tributary of the Sacramen-
to River. The three main forks of the Feather River drain into Lake Oroville, where
releases into the lower river are controlled by Oroville Dam. Flows below Oroville are
also regulated by Thermalito Diversion Dam, located 5 miles downstream of Oroville
Dam.

The reach of the river from Oroville to the Sacramento River has one of the largest
runs of fall-run chinook salmon in the State, as well as a population of spring-run
Chinook salmon. The river also has sizable populations of American shad, steelhead,
and striped bass during spawning season. In addition, the banks of the lower Feather
River support large stands of riparian forest and some of the largest colonies of bank \
swallows in the State. !

Flow levels are presently set by a 1983 agreement between DWR and DFG. The
major provisions include minimum flow standards for salmon spawning and rearing
between October and March and streamflow reduction limits to prevent salmon redds
from drying out. The Department of Fish and Game made recommendations on
Feather River flow needs at SWRCB hearings on D-1630 (see Table 8-3). Cooperative
DWR/ DFG studies are underway to reevaluate the instream flow requirements of the
river. The SWRCB required these studies in 1989 to determine whether environmental
impacts happen as a result of potential long-term water transfers from Yuba County ;
Water Agency to DWR. The goals are to develop instream flow and water temperature '
models for the river; to examine the relationship of instream flow to riparian resources,
wildlife habitat, and endangered species; cind to review the status of recreation and ;
water diversions.

American River. The American River is the first major tributary above the Delta
in the Sacramento River system. Flows in the lower river are regulated by Folsom Dam. ;
operated by the USBR. The current flow requirements were set in Decision 893 by the \
SWRCB in 1958. In 1972, the SWRCB issued Decision 1400 which set higher i
minimum flows for the lower American River, based on the assumption that Auburn

206 Environmental Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

i Dam would be built. Because Auburn Dam has not been built, these higher flow
requirements have never been enforced.

In 1972, the Environmental Defense Fund filed suit against the East Bay

i Municipal Utility District. EBMUD was proposing to divert its CVP water supply from

the American River through the Folsom South Canal, which begins a short distance

downstream of Folsom Dam. EDF claimed that diverting the water in the Folsom

South Canal violated Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution, which says

; that all water should be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent possible. If the water

' were diverted lower in the system, it could be used for both domestic use and instream

use. In 1990, after protracted litigation. Alameda County Superior Court devised a

' Physical Solution for the lower American River. The Physical Solution allows EBMUD

to divert water from Folsom South Canal, but only when flows in the American River

are sufficient to protect the fish and wildlife in the river.

The flow requirements in the Physical Solution are not binding on the USBR. The
parties to the litigation are conducting additional studies on the flow requirements and
expect that the SWRCB will reconsider the issue of minimum flow requirements in the
American River after these studies are completed in the next few years.

San Joaquin River Region

The San Joaquin River provides the natural drainage system for the southern
half of the Central Valley. Friant Dam, constructed in the 1940s by the USBR, essen-
tially stopped flow in the San Joaquin below the dam, except in extremely wet years.
Dams on the tributaries below Friant have also limited flow from the Merced.
Tuolumne, Mokelumne, and Stanislaus rivers during most years. The result of water
development on the San Joaquin system is that flow in the mainstem below Mendota
Pool, near Mendota, consists mainly of agricultural return water and municipal efflu-
ent. In recent years, water quality and fisheries releases from New Melones have
benefited the Stanislaus River and the mainstem San Joaquin River.

There are several efforts under way to improve conditions for fish and wildlife in
the San Joaquin system. The San Joaquin River Management Program, authorized by
State legislation (see Chapter 2), is a cooperative undertaking by State, federal, and
local agencies to develop actions to provide better flood protection, water quality, fish
and wildlife habitat, and recreation. Its fisheries subcommittee has an emergency plan
to help the fall-run chinook salmon, which has been at near-record low numbers for
I the past few years. The plan, which has not been adopted, includes flow pulses from
the tributaries during outmigration in April, a barrier at the head of Old River during
outmigration to prevent outmigrating smolts from getting diverted into the south Del-
ta, and decreased pumping during April.

Other efforts are underway for improved San Joaquin River management. The
USBR has a San Joaquin River management effort which includes fisheries improve-
ments. The DWR Delta pumps mitigation agreement provides funding for projects on
I the Merced, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus rivers. Finally, DFG and USFWS are conduct-
ing instream flow studies on some of the tributaries to help evaluate flow needs.

Tuolumne River. Recently, work was conducted to change the flows in the lower
Tuolumne River in the reach below New Don Pedro Reservoir to the confluence of the
Tuolumne and San Joaquin rivers. While flows into the lower river are controlled by La
Grange Dam, Hetch Hetchy Dam. and New Don Pedro Dam, other upstream water
projects. Lake Lloyd (Cherry Valley) and Lake Eleanor, also have a strong influence on
.operations.

Environmental Water Use 207

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

One of the main environmental issues related to instream flow is the severe de-
cline of Chinook salmon in the San Joaquin River in general and the Tuolumne River in
* particular. Present estimates indicate less than 100 fall-run salmon returned to the

river during 1991 and less than 200 in 1992, compared to a historical maximum of
130.000 in 1944. Although lower populations of returning salmon can be expected in
drought years, especiailly toward the end of a prolonged drought (for example,
1987-92), increases in populations normally appear as increased natural flow returns
which increases habitat and thus future returning salmon p>opulations. Evidence sug-
gests that the overall decline is related to reduced instream flow and Delta diversions.
DFG biologists believe that the young salmon survival has been severely reduced by
low flows during April and May, which cause unhealthy high temperatures in the
Tuolumne River and poor survival during outmigration to the San Joaquin River and
the Delta.

As a result of the Phase I Bay-Delta Hearings in 1987, the SWRCB asked that
local. State, and federal agencies collaborate on mutually acceptable programs to meet
the environmental water needs of California. Probably the most successful product of
this request is the 1992 draft agreement among Turlock Irrigation District, Modesto
Irrigation District, and DFG to cooperate on long-term instream flow studies. The
agreement significantly augments existing instream flow allocations and expands an
existing study program designed to fulfill FERC licensing requirements for Don Pedro
Reservoir. The proposal to modiiy flows for fisheries studies is still awaiting approval
by FERC.

The new agreement for the Tuolumne River has a complex flow schedule based
on ten different water -year types (from Critically Dry to Maximum Wet) and provides
flows for spawning, egg incubation, and rearing young in spring and summer. An inno-
vative feature of the plan is the provision for "controlled freshets" (pulse flows) in spring
to enhance the migration of young salmon to the Delta. Other parts of the plan include
limitations in the hourly fluctuation of flow, restoration of spawning gravel, and juve-
nile salmon studies.

Mokelumne River. This stream descends from the western slope of the Sierra
Nevada into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where it splits into the north and
south forks. Water releases into the lower Mokelumne River are regulated by
Camanche Dam; however, the Mokelumne Aqueduct diversion upstream at Pardee
Reservoir has an important effect on water avaflability for instream flow. Flow condi-
tions below the town of Thornton are strongly affected by tidal actions in the Delta.

Flows in the lower Mokelumne River are presently set by a series of temporary
agreements between DFG and EBMUD. The system is operated primarily from down-
stream demands rather than fisheries needs. However, the only long-term agreement
provides a water allocation for the Mokelumne River fish hatchery, part of which is
returned to the river as instream flow.

EBMUD and DFG entered into a series of one-year MOU's regarding minimum j
flows for the protection of fisheries during the recent drought while the district was
preparing its Lower Mokelumne River Management Plan. However, the district is cur-
rently operating voluntarily, consistent with LMRMP. which provides considerably
more instream water for the Mokelumne River and the Delta than required by the 1961
agreement with DFG.

An ongoing water quality concern is the leaching of heavy metals from abandoned
mines into the river. Historically, high seasonal flows in the system diluted much of the
toxic runoff and minimized the impacts, but reduced flows because of Pardee Dam op-

208 Environmental Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

oration cause the heavy metals to accumulate downstream in the sediments of
Camanche Reservoir. There have been reports of fish kills from heavy metal pollution
and other water quality problems in the lower river.

These and other issues in the basin were reviewed by the SWRCB at water right
hearings in 1992 and early 1993. The Mokelumne River Fisheries Management Plan
was the basis for DFG's recommendations on higher flow levels, fish attraction, and
outmigration flows. The flow recommendations focused on the needs of fall-run Chi-
nook salmon and steelhead. but these flows may also benefit up to 25 other species
which use the river. A decision by the SWRCB is expected in 1994. In addition, FERC
is considering revisions to EBMUD's license. A draft EIS was issued, and a decision by
FERC is also expected in 1994.

Merced River. The Merced River is currently the southern limit of the chinook
salmon's range along the west coast. Flows in the Merced River are controlled by
Merced Irrigation District, which operates the New Exchequer Dam as well as McSwain
Dam and Crocker-Huffman Diversion Dam. The current flow requirements are set in
part by MlD's 1964 FERC license; flow requirements on the license are superseded for
the months November 1 through April 1 by the later Davis-Grunsky Agreement be-
tween MID and DWR.

The Merced River salmon run has decreased dramatically during the drought in
spite of the presence of the Merced River Fish Facility. From a recent high of over
18.000 spawning salmon in 1983, the run has dwindled to fewer than 100 fish during
the drought.

A DFG evaluation of flow requirements on the Merced is expected to be complete
in about three years. In the interim, DFG, USFWS, and MID are working together to
augment flows during critical times for adult salmon upstream migration and down-
stream migration of juveniles. FERC has required that MID construct delivery facilities
and deliver water to the USFWS's Merced Refuge. Until these facilities are constructed.
MID has been transferring water for use at other wildlife areas on a schedule to benefit
the Merced River chinook salmon run.

Stanislaus River. The flows In the Stanislaus River are essentially controlled by
the USER at New Melones Dam, which began operation in 198 1 . Flows for the Stanis-
laus River were set by the SWRCB in D-1422. In addition, a ten-year study of the flow
. needs of the salmon runs in the Stanislaus River was initiated when New Melones be-
gan operations

This study plan was revised In 1 987 and for the Interim the minimum water sup-
ply for instream use was revised to 98,000 af per year and the maximum was set at
302,100 af per year. Since the revision of the study agreement, additional fisheries
studies to determine the instream flow and other habitat needs of chinook salmon have
been conducted on the river. Using the study results to date, DFG has developed a set
of recommended flows for the Stanislaus River as part of the Stanislaus River Basin
land Calaveras River Water Use Program draft EIR/EIS.

The chinook salmon runs in the Stanislaus River have declined during the
drought to 150 fish in 1992. down from 12,000 fish in 1984.

San Joaquin River. The mainstem San Joaquin River historically supported a
large run of spring chinook salmon. When Friant Dam was constructed in 1942. there
were no provisions for instream flow releases to sustain the salmon fishery or maintain
a flowing river from Friant to the confluence with the Merced River. This eliminated the
salmon run in the upper San Joaquin River. Presently, there is a flowing river immedi-

Environmental Water Use 209

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

ately downstream of Friant due to releases to satisfy prior water rights holders but no
flows are dedicated to fisheries and the river dries up further downstream.

The USBR is preparing an EIS to document the environmental effects of renewing
the contracts with customers served by the Friant Unit of the CVP. The CVP Improve-
ment Act also calls for developing a reasonable plan to address fish and wildlife
concerns on the San Joaquin River, including re-establishing streamflows below Friant
D£im. The plan must be submitted to Congress before it is implemented and the Secre-
tary of the Interior cannot release water for restoration of instream flows from below
Gravelly Ford on the San Joaquin River until Congress has authorized the plan.

Eastern Sierra

Three systems, the Owens River, the Mono Basin, and the Truckee River, were
selected to typify environmental water use in the eastern Sierra Nevada. In these sys-
tems, water diversions that normally flowed to terminus lakes caused adverse impacts
to fish and other biological communities. In the first two cases, measures were taken
to reduce these diversions to help restore the affected organisms.

Owens River. The Owens River originates in the mountains south of the Mono
Basin and historically terminated in Owens Lake. Local irrigators began diverting wa-
ter from the Owens River before the turn of the century. Most of these local diverters
were bought out by Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to firm up its water
rights to divert the Owens River into the Los Angeles Aqueduct. This diversion gradual-
ly dried up Owens Lake. LADWP began the diversions from the Mono Basin into the j
Owens River in 1 94 1 . It also constructed a series of hydroelectric facilities which dried i
up a section of the Owens River where it flowed through the Owens River Gorge.

The SWRCB has released a draft EIR for the Mono Basin and downstream areas.
The EIR includes studies of the Owens River above Crowley Lake and downstream |
from Pleasant Valley Reservoir to Tinnemaha, where the aqueduct diverts the Owens '
River. These studies will allow the SWRCB to evaluate how changes in the Mono Basin
diversions could impact the Owens River.

In 1990, the SWRCB amended LADWP's water rights for operation of the hydro-
electric projects in the Owens Gorge to require water releases to restore its fishery.
LADWP is negotiating with the Mono County District Attorney over the details of the
restoration effort. Expectations are that the Owens River Gorge section will soon be
restored.

There has been ongoing litigation between Inyo County and LADWP over
LADWP's ground water pumping in the Owens Valley. As part of a settlement agree-
ment, an EIR was prepared to discuss environmental impacts of LADWP's water
gathering activities in the Owens Valley. As part of this process, there have been dis-
cussions about releasing water into the Owens River below the intake for the aqueduct
to mitigate impacts discussed in the EIR. However, this issue is stiU unresolved.

Overall, the Owens River has been the subject of some of the most contentious
"water wars" in California. Current proceedings may result in some significant changes
in the operations of the Owens River, resulting in restoration of flowing water in some
sections that have been dry for over 40 years.

Mono Basin. Mono Lake lies at the center of the Mono Basin, just east of Yose-
mite National Park at the base of the Sierra Nevada. The lake is one of the oldest in
North America and the second largest in California; it is recognized as a valuable sce-
nic, recreational, wildlife, and scientific resource. The area is famous for its distinctive

210 Environmental Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

natural features such as tufa towers and spires, structures formed by years of mineral
deposition in the lake's saline waters and now visible due to lower lake levels. The lake
Is a haven for migrating waterfowl. There are two volcanic islands and associated islets
in the lake that provide a protected breeding area for large colonies of California gulls
and a haven for migrating waterfowl. No fish live in the lake because its water is 2 V2
times saltier than sea water. It supports brine shrimp and brine flies that are major
i food supplies for California gulls.

j The lake receives most of its water from precipitation on its surface and contribu-

' tlons from seven freshwater creeks. However, the lake has no outlet and its salinity has
increased over time because of evaporation and stream diversions. All but flood flows
from four of the creeks, Lee Vining, Walker, Parker, and Rush, had been diverted to Los
Angeles by LADWP. LADWP constructed a fish hatchery to mitigate for the lost fishery.
A system of hydroelectric power plants, canals, tunnels, and reservoirs was
' constructed to generate electricity and carry the water to the Owens Valley where, to-
gether with the Owens River diversions, it is transported to Los Angeles via the Los
Angeles Aqueduct. Fish populations in the four streams declined as the percentage of
water diverted increased.

Diversions from the tributaries accelerated an already declining lake level, result-
ing in a drop of 45 feet between 1941 and 1982, when the historic low was reached.
Studies by the National Academy of Sciences and the University of California have
shown that there was a dramatic increase in lake salinity, which may 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 in the basin because, as noted, the shrimp
and flies are major food resources. The drop in water levels has created a land bridge
to one of the lake's two islands, allowing coyotes and other predators to reach impor-
tant gull rookeries. Large areas of the lake bed have become exposed, causing local air
quality problems from dust formed by dried alkali silt.

Disagreements over environmental and water rights issues and their impacts on
Mono Lake have resulted in litigation involving these allocations, including a lawsuit
, filed in 1 979 by the National Audubon Society, the Mono Lake Committee, and others.
The California Supreme Court in 1983 ruled that, under the public trust doctrine,
water rights are subject to review and reallocation by the courts or the SWRCB (a
summary of the ruling can be found in Chapter 2). As part of the final settlement in the
Audubon and other cases, the courts ordered the SWRCB to determine what instream
Hows and lake levels are required to protect public trust values. The SWRCB has
released an Environmental Impact Report describing the impacts of alternative
operational scenarios.

Until the SWRCB reaches a decision, Los Angeles is prohibited by court injunc-

j tion from diverting streamflow from the tributaries until the lake level stabilizes at

6,377 feet above sea level. Releases of natural flows into four of the lake's tributaries

below the diversion dams have been ordered by another court ruling to help reestablish

I the fishery that existed in the streams prior to diversions.

In September 1989, the Environmental Water Act of 1989 was signed into law. It
authorizes DWR to spend up to a total of $60 million from the Environmental Water
Fund for water projects or programs that wiU benefit the environment. A portion of this
total was reserved exclusively for projects that would enhance the Mono Lake environ-
ment as well as provide replacement water and power to Los Angeles.

Truckee River. Water rights disputes have continued in the interstate Truckee
River watershed for more thein a century, creating a complex set of issues that influ-

Environmental Water Use 211

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

ence instream flows in the basin. The river begins at Lake Tahoe and descends the

eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada before emptying into Pyramid Lake. Reservoirs that

* regulate its tributaries include Stampede Reservoir, Martis Creek Reservoir, Boca

Reservoir, and Prosser Creek Reservoir. Privately owned, partially controlled lakes or
tributaries include Independence Lake and Conner Lake.

Flows in the Truckee River are largely governed by water right decrees and settle-
ments among downstream water users in Nevada. Instream flows in California are
largely constrained by these decreed flows. The major water uses are in Nevada, and
range from agricultural needs in the Carson Basin and Truckee Meadows to the
municipal needs of the rapidly growing Reno/Sparks area, and water required to sus-
tain threatened and endangered fish in Pjn^amid Lake. Fisheries flows are designated
on the tributaries to prevent habitat dewatering; however, new instream flow require-
ments are being negotiated by California and Nevada as part of the Truckee River
Operating Agreement, called for in the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights
Settlement Act (see Chapter 2). DWR, USFWS, USER, and several other entities are
preparing a joint draft EIR/EIS to address the major issues. Some of the environmen-
tal concerns are described below.

Instream flows play a critical role in maintaining threatened, endangered, and
game fisheries. Pyramid Lake, Nevada is home to a reintroduced species of Lahontan
cutthroat trout, a threatened species, whose native strain was once one of the most
prized game fish in the region. Excessive water diversions from the Truckee River and
spawning tributaries, and commercial over-harvesting eliminated the species in Pyra-
mid by 194 1 . Irrigation diversions of most of the Truckee River flows to Pyramid Lake
created barriers which blocked spawning areas for the Lahontan cutthroat trout and a
native sucker species, the cui-ui. The cui-ui decline, a fish of major cultural impor-
tance to the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, led to its listing as an endangered species and
legal action to protect the remaining population. Several lawsuits were filed on the op-
erations of Truckee River reservoirs in an attempt to change or maintain project
purposes. A lawsuit filed by the Carson-Truckee Wat»r Conservancy District and Sier-
ra Pacific Power Company to overturn the Secretary of Interior's decision to operate
Stampede for endangered species did not succeed and the court ruled that the
Secretary had a duty to provide water for the cui-ui until such time as it not a listed
species. Other litigation is on hold pending negotiation of the Truckee River Operating
Agreement, to be signed by both states, the federal government, the Tribe, the Sierra
Pacific Power Company, and others. The Operating Agreement, if implemented, will
provide additional water and storage for endangered species and municipal and indus-
trial uses, and new instream flow requirements. Existing litigation would then be
dismissed or otherwise finally resolved.

Although Lahontan cutthroat trout no longer exist in the upper Truckee River
system except for a small population in Independence Lake and its tributary Indepen-
dence Creek, rainbow and brown trout provide important sport fisheries in the
mainstem Truckee River, thus future instream flow agreements will likely take their
habitat needs into consideration. DFG and U.S. Forest Service biologists have been
conducting fisheries studies since 1986 to help resolve present and possible future
conflicts.

Coastal Streams ^

This section discusses a few of the north and central coast streams which feed
into the Pacific Ocean and typify environmental water use for coastal streams. There is
also a discussion about the Trinity River, which is a tributary to the Klamath River. A

212 Environmental Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

number of other coastal streams have important environmental and regulatory issues.
However, their flow levels tend to be relatively small in comparison to other supply and
use values presented in the water plan. Flow requirements for many of these locations
are discussed in DWR Bulletin 216, Inventory oflnstream Flow Requirements Related
I to Stream Diversions, December 1982.

The North Coast region has supported one of the best salmon (chinook and coho)
and steelhead fisheries on the West Coast, as well as native-resident trout streams. The
coho fishery has decreased in the past decade, coincident with observed declines in
: most coho stocks along the West Coast. Fish habitat improvement has been under way
I since 1980 to increase spawning and rearing areas for salmon and steelhead. Biologi-
cal resources include over 300 species of wildlife and such threatened or endangered
species as bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and northern spotted owls.

Klamath River. The Klamath basin (excluding the Trinity River portion) contains
, over 8 million acres in California and Oregon. Much of the river and its tributaries are
j Included in the State and federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems, including the mains-
tern Klamath below Iron Gate Dam, the mainstem Salmon River, and North Fork
Salmon River in California.

Although much of the Klamath River system is classified as wild and scenic, it is
far from undisturbed. Stream habitat in the basin has been heavily altered by water
diversions, logging, agricultural activities, and mining. For at least 80 years, steelhead,
Chinook salmon, coho salmon, cutthroat trout, green sturgeon, and other anadromous
fish have been blocked from reaching spawning habitat in the river's headwaters above
Copco Dam. Habitat degradation has also occurred because flushing flows and fresh
spawning gravel are trapped in the reservoirs, causing spawning areas to become ar-
l mored (paved) with large cobble. These impacts have been partially mitigated by a
■■ salmon and steelhead hatchery constructed at Iron Gate, but natural production has
diminished greatly in recent years.

Between 1926 and 1960, Copco Dam regulated flow in the Klamath River. The
dam operated to meet only power demands, and no minimum flow was required. Ex-
treme, unnatural short-term flow fluctuations resulted in the loss of millions of
i salmon and steelhead each year. Beginning in 1961, Iron Gate Dam operation im-
j proved flows dramatically; however, the instream flow schedule was developed
primarily to maintain stocks of fall-run chinook salmon and may not necessarily be
! suitable for other runs or species. An instream flow study has been started to reevalu-
ate flows below Iron Gate Dam.

Instream flow issues are not limited to the lower Klamath basin. Flow from upper

Klamath basin tributaries supports two endangered fish species, the Lost River sucker

I and the shortnose sucker; these flows also support an important sport fishery for

' trophy-sized native rainbow trout. The suckers were once a major food source for the

Klamath Indian tribe but deteriorating water quality in Upper Klamath Lake and block-

;age of upstream spawning areas by diversion dams contributed to their severe decline.
, The U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs and the U.S. Forest Service are studying instream
f flow needs of the tributaries to determine what improvements can be made for environ-
mental water needs.

Trinity River. The Trinity River basin encompasses a watershed of almost 3.000
square miles in Trinity and Humboldt counties. It has been altered substantially by
dams, road construction, water export, logging, mining, and other land-use practices.
The Trinity River Division of the CVP was completed in 1963, leading to reduced

Environmental Water Use 213

BuUeUn 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

streamflows, sedimentation, cind vegetation encroachment in the Trinity River, which

has adversely impacted the fisheries.
■■«

Originally, releases from the Trinity and Lewiston dams to the Trinity River were

approximately 120,000 af per year. In the late 1970s, the USER increased the releases

to vary between 270,000 and 340,000 af per year. In 199 1 , the Secretary of the Interior

responded to a request for increased flows from the Hoopa Valley and Yurok tribes and

increased the minimum flows to 340,000 af per year. The tribes rely on the harvest of

salmonids for subsistence and ceremonial and commercial needs.

A major USFWS study is under way to establish the optimum flow schedule for
fisheries on the Trinity River. Initial study results indicate that 340,000 af per year
may provide enough water to maintain 80 percent of the existing habitat for salmon
populations. Tentative recommendations include providing 2,000 cfs in spring for
rearing and short-term "flushing" flows to aid young salmon outmigration. The CVP
Improvement Act of 1992 requires a permanent annual allocation of 340,000 af from
Lewiston Reservoir for fishery needs.

The CVP diverts Trinity River flows into the Sacramento River system for use in
the Central Valley. Increased instream flows in the Trinity River will reduce the amount
of water available in the Central Valley.

Smith River. The Smith River is the only major watershed in Ccdifomia that is
undammed and relatively undeveloped, making it a unique and pristine resource. The
basin, which includes the South Fork, Middle Fork, North Fork, Siskiyou Fork, and
mainstem of the Smith River, has the highest runoff per square mile in the State.

The Smith River was included in the California Wild and Scenic River system in
1972, and was later included in the federal Wild and Scenic River system in 1981. To
provide more protection, 305,000 acres of the basin were declared a National Recre-
ation Area in 1990 cind a part of the Six Rivers National Forest. A USFS Management
Plan was prepared to direct recreation, fisheries, forestry, fire control, habitat restora-
tion, and other activities for the region.

Lagunitas Creek. Lagunitas Creek is a good illustration of the difficulty in satis-
fying competing water demands in a small, coastal watershed. The system is one of the
major watercourses in Marin County, draining from the northern slopes of Mount Ta-
malpais to Tomales Bay.

Marin Municipal Water District is the largest user of Lagunitas Creek water and
operates Lagunitas, Bon Tempe, Kent, and Alpine reservoirs on the main stream and
Nicasio Reservoir on a tributary. The system provides basic water supplies to approxi-
mately 170,000 people in Marin County. Lagunitas Creek is also used by North Marin
Water District, which serves approximately 1 ,000 to 1 ,500 residents in the Point Reyes
Station area. Municipal demand is expected to increase as a result of continuing popu-
lation growth. There are also two substantial agricultural users, one of whom operates
Giacomini Dam at the mouth of the creek.

Lagunitas Creek once supported large numbers of coho salmon and steelhead
trout, but populations have been significantly reduced by inadequate instream flows.
prolonged drought, and habitat loss. The coho decline may also be related to other fac-
tors in that this species has declined in most streams along the West Coast of the
United States. Another notable resource is the endangered California freshwater
shrimp. Fresh water outflow from the creek also plays a significant role in the mainte-
nance of the Tomales Bay Estuary.

214 Envirormiental Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

The environmental needs of the system were recognized by the SWRCB in 1982.
when a minimum flow of 1 cfs was established at the Giacomini Dam fish ladder. How-
ever, recent drought conditions and rapid population growth have made it clear that
there is significant potential for demand to habitually exceed the available supply. In
1990, MMWD. DFG, and several other concerned parties requested new SWRCB hear-
ings to resolve these conflicts. Hearings were held in spring 1992; the SWRCB heard
testimony on the instream flow and water quality needs for fisheries, freshwater re-
quirements of Tomales Bay. and the present and anticipated future status of
agricultural and municipal water needs.

Carmel River. Historically, the Carmel River and its tributaries were a major
spawning ground and nursery stream for steelhead rainbow trout, with approximately
2,000 to 3.000 spawners per year. Construction of San Clemente and Los Padres
dams, surface diversions, and ground water pumping along the river substantially
changed flow patterns of the Carmel River which led to fish passage problems, delayed
migration, reduced rearing habitat, and mortality during emigration. Although the last
count in 1984 indicated a total run of 860 adults, the current drought combined with
diversions has limited or prevented migration since 1987.

Flow releases from San Clemente Dam are negotiated annually, but generally re-
main at 5 cfs. There is also an agreement between dam operators and DFG to provide
at least 5 cfs below Los Padres Dam. In spite of the presence of releases from the two
dams, the lower Carmel River is dry in summer and fall during normal rainfall years
and sometimes year-round in drought years. In contrast, studies indicate that at least
40-75 cfs are needed from January through March to allow spawners to pass through
critical riffles. Additional flow is necessary during other months in upstream areas for
incubation, migration, and rearing.

A number of projects have been proposed by Monterey Peninsula Water Manage-
ment District to increase the water supply in the basin and to enhance instream flow.
A Draft Environmental Impact Report/ Statement has been prepared which identifies
enlargement of Los Padres Dam (to 16,000 af or 24,000 af) and development of a desa-
lination plant as the preferred alternative. Some spawning and rearing habitat would
be lost with the enlargement; however, instream flows and water temperatures would
improve, particularly in the lower Carmel River.

San Luis Obispo Creek. San Luis Obispo Creek extends from San Luis Obispo
Bay, across the San Luis Obispo basin and up into the Santa Lucia Range. There are
no water projects on the creek, but the flow is reduced by small-scale stream diver-
sions and ground water pumping. Natural runoff sustains year-round flow in the
upper watershed of the stream; however, in the dry months of the year the streamflow
below San Luis Obispo is often exclusively from wastewater discharge.

At present, the major issue for this system is a proposal to reclaim wastewater for
irrigation and industrial users, thereby reducing instream flow in the lower reach of the
stream. Treated wastewater currently supports an important riparian corridor, provid-
ing habitat for game and nongame species. Species of special concern include the
southwestern pond turtle and red-legged frog. Although fisheries resources in the low-
er reach of the creek appear to be limited because of poor water quality, the stream is
a migration corridor for one of the most southerly races of steelhead trout. Migration of
steelhead occurs during the wettest months of the year, when instream flow is en-
hanced throughout the system. Resident-strain, nonmigratory rainbow trout also
occur in the stream. An instream flow study has been completed for the reach below

Environmental Water Use 215

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

the wastewater treatment plant and an Environmental Impact Report is being pre-
pared for the reclamation project.

Santa Ynez River. The Santa Ynez River system historically supported the larg-
est run of steelhead trout in Southern California. However, much of the main channel
is now of poor quality or unsuitable for spawning and rearing due to low or nonexistent
flows, high temperatures, passage barriers, and habitat degradation. A self-sustaining
population of trout remains in one of the tributaries, Salsipuedes Creek, but numbers
are low. Rearing habitat is especially limited in the creek and it appears that run size
depends on the magnitude of winter storms.

The river is regulated in its upper reaches by Juncal Dam and Gibralter Dcim and
downstream by Bradbury Dam and Lake Cachuma. There is presently no instream
flow requirement for the river; Lake Cachuma is operated to fill the lower ground water
basin and to protect downstream water users. Some information is available about the
possible effect of different levels of instream flow from studies associated with the pro-
posed enlargement of Lake Cachuma. Analyses show that if water quality is
satisfactory and flows are constant, releases of 50 to 120 cfs are needed to provide
optimal habitat between Bradbury Dam and Buellton. Maintaining flows in the reach
between the ocean and the confluence with Salsipuedes Creek appears to be particu-
larly important to allow steelhead to reach the highest-quality spawning habitat. Lower
flows of from 6 to 50 cfs may also be beneficial if combined with habitat improvement.

Existing Environmental Instream Flow Requirements

Environmental instream flow requirements were compiled by reviewing existing
fishery agreements, water rights, court decisions, and congressional directives. These
flows are included in Table 8-4. The instream applied water for a major river is based
on the largest fish flow specified in an entire reach of that river or, for wild and scenic
rivers, the flow is based on unimpaired natural flow. Instream applied water for fish-
eries within a hydrologic region is determined by adding all the fishery flow needs of
the major rivers within that region. Instream net water needs for any river are the por-
tion of the applied water which flows throughout th^ river or is the flow leaving the
region. Total instream net water needs of a region are computed by adding instream
net water needs of all the major streams within the region. Depletion of instream water
needs is the portion of environmental instream flows that flow to a salt sink or the
ocean. Figure 8-5 shows examples of applied water, net water, and depletion for in-
stream fishery flow.

The North Coast wild and scenic river flows were determined by estimating aver-
age and drought-year natural runoff of the portion of the streams designated as wild
and scenic. These streams include the Smith, Klamath, Trinity, and Eel rivers. In the
Central Valley and other areas with wild and scenic rivers, instream flows are exten-
sively reused downstream of the designated reaches.

Existing environmental instream flow requirements will increase from the 1990
level by about 600,000 af by 2020. Future environmental instream needs reflect recent
increases in Trinity River flows (required by the CVPLA), an increase in the Yuba River
fishery flow (required by a recent FERC action), and increased Delta carriage water re-
quirements (due to increased future exports under SWRCB D-1485). Further, the
CVPIA reallocates 800,000 af for Central Valley fishery needs along with 200,000 af for
wildlife refuge water needs. The long-term disposition of these supplies is the subject
of a program EIS now being developed by the USBR. A proactive approach to identify-
ing fishery needs — such as a better temperature control for spawning conditions,
better screening of diversions to reduce incidental take, and better timing of reservoir

216 Environmental Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Table 8-4. Instream Environmental Wafer Needs by Hydrologic Region

(thousands of acre- feet)

Hydrologic Region

1990

average drought

2000

average drought

2010

average drought

2020

average drought

Norrti Coast

Applied water demand'"

18,850

8,950

18,973

9,073

18,973

9,073

18,973

9,073

Net water demand'"

18,850

8,950

1 8,973

9,073

18,973

9,073

18,973

9,073

Depletion'"

18,850

8,950

18,973

9,073

18,973

9,073

18,973

9,073

Son Francisco Boy

Applied water demand

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

Net water demand

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

Depletion

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

4,615

3,085

Central Coast

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

South Coast

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

Sacramento River

Applied water demand

3,443

3,009

3,488

3,009

3,488

3,009

3,488

3,009

Net water demand

3,323

2,905

3,323

2,905

3,323

2,905

3,323

2,905

Depletion

San Joaquin River

Applied water demand

331

243

331

243

331

243

331

243

Net water demand

331

243

331

243

331

243

331

243

Depletion g(|||gg^H|||P; 0

Tulare Lake

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

North Lahontan

Applied water demand ^|

■i 0

Net water demand

Depletion

0 _

South Lahontan

Applied water demand

128

122

128

122

128

122

128

122 ^

Net water demand

128

122

128

122

128

122

128

122

Depletion

Colorado River

Applied water demand

Net water demand

Depletion

TOTAL

Applied wafer demand 27,400 15,500 27,600 15,600 27,600 15,600 27,600 15,600

Net water demand 27,300 15,300 27,400 15,500 27,400 15,500 27,400 15,500

Depletion 23,600 12,100 23,700 12,300 23,700 12,300 23,700 12,300

(1 ) Includes 1 7.8 MAP and 7.9 MAP flaws for Norlti Coost Wild ond Scenic Rivers for overoge and drought yeors, respectively.

Environmental Water Use

217

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure 8-5. Examples of Applied Water, Net Water Use, and
Depletion for Instream Fishery Flows

Example of Central Valley Streams— 1990 Average Year

Stream

SACRAMENTO RIVER REGION

(Thousands of Acre -Feet)

Applied Net

Water Water

Depletion

Whi skej^town
Reser voi r

Shasta
Reser voi r

Sacramento

1,903

Feath^HI

HHIH

■ •>

Yuba

280

174

American

234

Others*

TOTAL 3,443 3,323 0

^Others include Clear Creek, Bear River, Putah Creek and Cache Creek

Lake
Oroville

Eng 1 ebrigh t
Reservoir

Camp Far West
Reservoir

Stream

SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION

(Thousands of Acre -Feet)

Applied Net

Water Water

D1485
Outflow

4615

Stream

CamancJie
UoKA-Mruiit^^HiS^ ^ Reservoir

Depletion

New Meiones
Reservoir

New Don Pedro
Reservoir

Lake
McCiure

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER REGION

(Thousands of Acre-Feet)

Applied Net

Water Water

Depletion

Merced

Tuolumne

123

Stanislaus

110

TOTAL

331

218

Environmental Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

releases to improve fishery habitat, among others — must be taken so that solutions to
the Delta problems mesh with actions taken for improving fishery conditions. To that
end. many of the actions identified in the CVPIA for cost sharing with the State will
improve conditions for aquatic species.

In the short-term, environmental water needs are uncertain, but improved, as a
number of actions by regulatory agencies are underway to protect aquatic species. The
outcome of some of those actions depends on solutions to the complex problems in the

Delta.

Wetlands

During the past 15 years, actions taken by State and federal governments dem-
onstrate an increased awareness of both the broad public benefits of wetlands and the
need to protect and enhance wetland habitats. One such recent action was the "no net
loss of wetlands" policy adopted by both federal and state governments; California's
wetland policy states "no net loss in the short-term and an increase in wetlands in the
long-term." Protecting and restoring wetlands will cause additional demcmids on
California's water supplies since a critical need for many of the existing and potential
public and private wetlands is a reliable and affordable supply of good quality water.
Figure 8-6 shows publicly managed fresh-water wetlands.

Wetlands are transitional lands between terrestrial and aquatic systems where
the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is often covered by shallow
water during some parts of the year. Wetlands can be categorized according to specific
habitat and type of vegetation. In general, wetlands are divided into:

O Saltwater and brackish water marshes, which are usually located in coastal areas;

O Freshwater wetlands, which are primarily in the inland areas of California; and

O Freshwater forested and scrub wetlands, which £ire commonly referred to as
riparian habitat.

Historically, wetland habitat was often seen as only a breeding ground for
disease-carrying mosquitos. Federal, State, and local policies to drain, fill, or somehow
convert wetlands to more "productive" uses was the norm. For example, the federal
Swamp Land Acts of the 1800s gave 65 million acres of wetlands to 15 states, includ-
ing California, for reclamation. As recently as the 1960s and 1970s, the federal
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) promoted drainage of wet-
lands through cost-sharing programs with farmers.

As a result of these and other activities, many of California's wetlands were con-
verted to agricultural and urban uses, and water that had naturally flooded the
wetlands was diverted for other needs. Estimates of wetlands that historically existed
in California range from 3 to 5 million acres. The current estimate of wetland acreage
in California is approximately 450,000 acres; this represents an 85 to 90 percent re-
duction— the greatest percentage loss in the nation.

Wetlands are now seen as very important ecosystems with the following multiple

values and functions:

J Biological Diversity. Wetlands provide important habitat for diverse
communities of plants and animals, including over 50 percent of the federally
listed threatened or endangered species.

O Waterfowl Habitat. Wetlands provide the principal habitat for migratory
waterfowl. California provides critical wintering habitat for millions of waterfowl
migrating along the Pacific Flyway, which extends from Canada to Mexico.

Environmental Water Use 219

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure 8-6. Publicly Managed Fresh-Water Wetlands

MOCX3C

•6

Shasta Valley W.A.
Butte Valley W.A.
Lower Klamath N.W.R.
Tule Lake N.W.R.
Clear Lake N.W.R.
Modoc N.W.R.
Ash Creek W.A.
Willow Creek W.A.
Honey Lake W.A.
Upper Butte Basin W.A.

11. Sacramento N.W.R.

12. Delevan N.W.R.

SAN FRANCISC.

Gray Lodge W.A.
Butte Sink N.W.R.
Colusa N.W.R.
Sutter N.W.R.
Yolo Bypass W.A.
Stone Lakes N.W.R.
Suisun Marsh W.A.
North Grassland W.A.
Kesterson N.W.R.
Arena Plains N.W.R.
San Luis N.W.R.
Merced N.W.R.
Volta W.A.
Los Banos N.W.R.
Mendota W.A.
Pixley N.W.R.
Kern N.W.R.
San Jacinto W.A.
Imperial W.A.
Salton Sea N.W.R.

N.W.R. = National Wildlife

Refuge
W.A. = State Wildlife &

Ecological Reserve

220

Environmental Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Gray Lodge Wildlife Area
is a managed wetland
area near Gridleg,
California. The Butte
and Sutter basins
contain large areas of
wetlands that serve as
critical habitat for
migratory waterfowl in
the Pacific Flyway.

I Q Fisheries. Wetlands provide direct spawning and rearing habitats and food supply
that supports both freshwater and marine fisheries.

Q Flood Control. Wetlands detain flood flows, reducing the size and destructlveness
of floods.

^ Water Quality. Wetlands absorb and filter pollutants that could otherwise
degrade ground water or the water quality of rivers, lakes, and estuaries.

Q Ground Water Recharge. Some wetlands recharge aquifers that provide urban
and agricultural water supplies.

O Recreation. Wetlands support a multi-million-dollar fishing, hunting, and
outdoor recreation industry nationwide.
Five areas of
California contain the
largest remaining

wetlands acreage in the
State. These areas are in
the Humboldt Bay, San
Francisco Bay, Suisun
Marsh, Klamath Basin,
and Central Valley.
Humboldt and San
Francisco bays both
contain tidal and nonti-
dal salt and brackish
marshes as well as large
areas of reclaimed farm-
land and other diked
historic tideland that
offers important bird
habitat in the winter. The
brackish wetlands in Suisun Marsh are the largest contiguous estuarine marsh in the
lower 48 states. This area consists of approximately 52,000 acres, or 12 percent of the
State's total wetlands acreage. Along the coast, river mouths and estuaries contain
predominantly smaller wetlands with the exception of a few major remaining coastal
wetlands such as Elkhorn Slough in Monterey County, and Tijuana Estuary and
San Diego Bay in San Diego County. Most wetlands in the Klamath Basin and the
Central Valley are artificially managed because the natural flooding pattern no longer
exists. These artificially managed wetlands are under either public or private owner-
ship and are maintained by intentional flooding and water level manipulation.

Wetlands receive water from several sources including ground water, local sur-
face water, imported surface water from the CVP, the SWP, and local projects, as well
as agricultural return flows. Until recently, most of California's managed wetlands did
not have dependable water supplies; this will change for 15 refuges in the Central
Valley with the passage of the CVP Improvement Act of 1992. (See Chapter 2 for a
summary of this act.) The wetland provisions of this Act are discussed in more detafl
below. In most cases, both public and private wetlcinds receive water through informal
farrangements. The availability of water for wetlands was reduced in the 1980s for sev-
eral reasons. The biggest reasons were the 1987-92 drought and water quality
problems, such as selenium-contaminated agricultural return flows. Agricultural

Environmental Water Use

221

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

conservation practices have reduced the amount of good-quality agricultural return
flows available downstream for wetlands.

Several laws and programs were recently adopted by federal, State, regional, and
private agencies and organizations to protect and restore wetlands in California. These
laws and programs are intended to protect existing wetlands, improve wetland man-
agement practices, and increase wetland habitat. In many cases these laws and
programs could result in increased water demands for wetlands. Several of the major
wetland laws and programs are discussed below.

Federal Wetland Policies and Programs

A number of actions by federal agencies and federal legislation will have an im-
portant effect on wetlands and wetland management in California.

National Wetlands Policy Forum. This forum was convened in 1987, at the
request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, by the Conservation Foundation.
Its purpose was to address major policy concerns about how the nation should protect
and manage its wetlands resources. In November 1988, the Forum released its final
report. Protecting America's Wetlands: An Action Agenda.

The first element of the forum's recommended program was to establish a na-
tional wetlands goal that would improve the consistency among the nation's wetland
policies and programs. The forum recommended "an interim goal to achieve no overall
net loss of the nation's remaining wetlands base and a long-term goal to increase the
quantity and quality of the nation's wetlands resource base."

USER Refuge Water Supply Report. The USER is the lead agency in a multi-
agency study evaluating the water supplies for refuges in the Central Valley. In 1989,
the USBR completed the first phase of the study and prepared the Report on Refuge
Water Supply Investigations, which evaluates the water and power needs, surface wa-
ter delivery systems, ground water availability, recreation and wildlife resources, and
habitat management objectives for 1 5 refuges in the Central Valley. The 1 5 refuges in-
clude 10 National Wildlife Refuges, 4 State Wildlife Areas, and the Grasslands
Resource Conservation District, covering a privately owned wetland area.

For each of the 15 areas, the report quantifies the water needs into four levels:

Level 1 — Existing firm water supply (95, 163 af per year)

Level 2 — Current average annual water deliveries (381,550 af per year)

Level 3 — Supply for full use of existing development (493,050 af per yesir)

Level 4 — Supply for optimum habitat management (526,200 af per year)

Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1 992 (PL 1 02-575). This act was
signed by the president in October 1992. Title 34, Section 3406 (d) requires the Secre-
tary of the Interior to provide firm water supplies to various wildlife refuges and habitat
areas in the Central Valley, either directly or through contractual agreements with oth-
er parties. Specifically, water is to go to 15 existing wildlife refuges identified in the
USBR Refuge Water Supply Report and to the 5 habitat areas identified in the USBR/
DFG San Joaquin Basin Action Plan/Kesterson Mitigation Plan.

The act directs the Secretary of the Interior to immediately provide firm water
supplies at "Level 2" for the 15 Central Valley refuges, or 381,550 af per year. By 2002,
the Secretary is required to increase the water deliveries for the 1 5 refuges to "Level 4,"
or 526,200 af per year. This is an increase of 144,650 af per year over the Level 2 water
supply and about 200,000 af over the 1990 water supply of these refuges.

222 Environmental Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

For the 5 habitat areas listed in the San Joaquin Basin Action Plan/Kesterson
Mitigation Plan, the Act requires the Secretary to immediately provide two-thirds of the
water supply needed for full habitat development. The total amount needed for full
habitat development must be provided by the year 2002. The SJBAP calculates that
approximately 63,200 af per year will be needed for full habitat development of the Ave
areas. This amount, however, does not include transportation losses which the USBR
estimates at approximately 2 1 percent, or 1 3,600 af. Total water supply would amount
to about 76,800 af per year if transportation losses were included.

California Wetland Policies and Programs

Recent policies and laws adopted by the Governor and the legislature underscore
the importance of protecting and restoring California's wetlands. The following discus-
sion briefly outlines several of the most significant State wetland policies.

California Wetlands Conservation Policy. In August 1993, the Governor cin-
nounced the "California Wetlands Conservation Policy." The goals of the policy are to
establish a framework and strategy that will:

O Ensure no overall net loss and achieve a long-term net gain in the quantity,
quality, and permanence of wetlands acreage and values in California in a manner
that fosters creativity, stewardship, and respect for private property.

O Reduce procedural complexity in the administration of State and federal wetlands
conservation programs.

O Encourage partnerships to make landowner incentive programs and cooperative
planning efforts the primary focus of wetlands conservation and restoration.

The Governor also signed Executive Order W-59-93, which incorporates the
goals and objectives contained in the new policy and directs the Resources Agency to
establish an Interagency Task Force to direct and coordinate administration and im-
plementation of the policy.

The State's wetland acreage is expected to increase as a result of the Governor's
new policy. The policy recommends the completion of a statewide inventory of existing
wetlands that will then lead to the establishment of a formal wetland acreage goal. The
Resources Agency expects that the wetland acreage and quality could increase by as
much as 30 to 50 percent by the year 2010. Based on the current estimate that there
are 450,000 acres of existing wetlands in the State, the increase could be as much as
225.000 acres.

Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture and North American Waterfowl Man-
agement Plan. In 1986, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan was signed
by the United States and Canada. The NAWMP provides a broad framework for water-
fowl management in North America through the year 2000; it also includes
recommendations for wetland and upland habitat protection, restoration, and en-
hancement.

Implementing the NAWMP is the responsibility of designated joint ventures, in
which agencies and private organizations collectively pool their resources to solve wa-
terfowl habitat problems. The plan focuses on seven habitat areas; the Central Valley
of California is one of those areas.

The Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture was established in 1988 to "protect,
maintain, and restore habitat to increase waterfowl populations to desired levels in the
Central Valley of California consistent with other objectives of the NAWMP."

To achieve this goal, the CVHJV adopted six objectives for the Central Valley: (1)
i protect 80,000 acres of existing wetlands through fee acquisition or conservation ease-
Environmental Water Use 223

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

ment; (2) restore 120,000 acres of former wetlands; (3) enhance 291,555 acres of
existing wetlands; (4) enhance water habitat on 443,000 acres of private agricultural
land; and (5) secure 402,450 af of water for 15 existing refuges in the Central Valley.
The CVHJV derived their estimates of water needs for existing refuges from the USBR's
1989 refuge water supply study. In August 1993, DWR became an ex-officio member
of the CVHJV Management Board.

Suisun Marsh Plan of Protection. The Suisun Marsh, in southern Solano
County, is the largest wetland in the State. In 1974, the California Legislature recog-
nized the threat of urbanization and enacted the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act (SB
1981), requiring that a protection plan be developed for the Marsh.

In 1978, the SWRCB issued ID-1485, setting water salinity standards for Suisun
Marsh from October through May to preserve the area as a brackish-water tidal marsh
and to provide optimum waterfowl food plant production. D-1485 placed operational
conditions on the water right permits of the federal CVP and the SWP. Order 7 of the
decision requires the permittees to develop and fully implement a plan, in cooperation
with other agencies, to ensure that the channel salinity standards are met.

In 1984, DWR pubhshed the Plan of Protection for the Suisun Marsh Inclwiing
Environmental Impact Report. DWR, DFG, the Suisun Resource Conservation District
and the USBR prepared this report in response to D-1485. The USFWS also provided
significant input. The Plan of Protection proposes staged implementation of several ac-
tivities such as monitoring, a wetlands management program for marsh landowners, i
physical facilities, and supplemental releases of water from CVP and SWP reservoirs. ;
The Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement entered into among the four agencies has '
also been authorized by an Act of Congress in PL 99-546. To date, $66 million hjis =
been spent on studies and facility construction. |

i
Inlcuid Wetitmds Conservatix>n Program. In 1990, the Legislature passed leg- ;

islation authorizing the Inland Wetlands Conservation Program within the Wildlife '

Conservation Board. This program carries out some o/the Central Valley Habitat Joint \

Venture objectives by administering a $2-million-per-year program to acquire, im- \

prove, buy, sell, or lease wetland habitat. i

\
Wetland Water Supply and Demands

i
State and federal officials estimate that there are approximately 450,000 acres of ;

wetlands (excluding flooded agricultural lands) in California. This is only a rough esti- j

mate because a comprehensive inventory of California's wetlands has not been made. \

The Resources Agency is planning to conduct an inventory of the states' wetlands and I

to track changes in acreage and habitat types. This information about acreages and ,

habitat types is needed to accurately quantify the water needs for wetlands.

Currently, the best available data about wetland habitat and acreage in Califor- ;
nia are for managed wetlands. Consequently, the scope of this report is an assessment \
of the managed wetland water needs. Managed wetlands consist of either freshwater :
. and nontidal brackish water wetlands or agricultural lands flooded to create wildlife
habitat. These lands are maintained by the intentional flooding and manipulation of ■
water levels. Although agricultural lands flooded for wildlife habitat are not considered ;
to be wetlands, the term "wetlands" used in the following section refers to both natural
wetlands and flooded agricultural lands. All agricultural lands flooded for wildlife are 1
considered managed wetlands and the majority of California's natural wetlands are |
managed wetlands. Of the estimated 450,000 acres of natural wetlands in the State. I
approximately 75 percent (335,000 acres) are managed.
— -^ !

224 Environmental Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Managed wetlands are owned and operated as State and federal refuges, private
wetland preserves owned by nonprofit organizations, or private duck clubs. Agricultur-
al lands flooded to create waterfowl habitat are mostly rice fields in the Sacramento
Valley and corn or other small grain crops in the Delta. The flooded agricultural lands
In California provide very important winter feeding habitat for many migratory water-
fowl.

A brief description of the wetland habitat and water needs for each hydrologic

i basin is provided in this section. Table 8-5 summarizes the 1990 and projected wet-

I land water needs statewide for each hydrologic region. Eight of the ten hydrologic

basins have managed wetland habitat with freshwater needs. No managed wetlands

with freshwater needs were identified in the Central Coast or South Lahontan regions.

North Coast Region. In the North Coast region the managed wetlands include

federal and state wildlife refuges, most of which are in the Klamath Basin area. No pri-

\ately managed wetlands were identified in this region. The total flooded acreage is

I approximately 54,000 acres, about 60 per cent (33,000 acres) of which are seasonal

wetlands. The water source for these wetlands is surface water, including agricultural

drainage water.

San Francisco Region. The Suisun Marsh is the only identifled managed wet-
land in the San Francisco Region. The marsh consists of approximately 55,000 acres
of managed wetlands. The State owns about 10,000 acres and 44,000 acres are under
private ownership and managed as duck clubs. The water source for these wetlands is
surface water. The freshwater needs for the Suisun Marsh were based on the ID-1485
, salinity standards adopted by the SWRCB. The SWP and the CVP are required to re-
lease up to 145,000 af annually in critical years to maintain the standards. No
supplemental freshwater is provided during average years.

Sacramento River Region. This region contains the largest wetland acreage in
j the State, approximately 1 75,000 acres of wetlands. The majority of these wetlands are
under private ownership, mostly as duck clubs in the Butte, Colusa, and American
basins and the Delta. The Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture Implementation Plan
estimates the current area of privately owned wetlands at approximately 90,000 acres.
Water for these wetlands is from several sources including CVP supplies, agricultural
return flows, and ground water.

Agricultural field crops, such as rice, corn, and grain, provide habitat for a variety
of wildlife species. Rice fields augment natural wetlands and refuges with valuable win-
tering habitat for migratory waterfowl in the Sacramento Valley. Rice growers in the
Sacramento Valley, in cooperation with the Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited,
and the California Waterfowl Association, initiated a partnership plan to experiment
with ways to decompose rice straw while enhancing waterfowl habitat. Under this plan,
, rice fields are flooded from November through February, providing wetland habitat for
migratory birds while decomposing rice straw. The effects on water supply and flsh
need further study.

San Joaquin Region. Approximately 1 10,000 acres of managed wetlands are in
j the San Joaquin region. Almost 82 percent of these wetlands (90,000 acres) are under
private ownership in the Grasslands area. Water supplies for these wetlands were his-
torically less dependable than in other regions, especially for the private wetlands. In
past years, a major source of water for most of the wetlands was agricultural drainage
water. However, with the discovery of selenium contamination, this water source was
significantly reduced. The water supplies for this region will significantly increase and
be more reliable due to the provisions of the CVP Improvement Act of 1992. By 2002,

Environmental Water Use 226

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Table 8-5. Weriands Water Needs by Hydrologic Region

(thousands of acre-feet)

Hydrologic Region

1990 2000 2010 2020

average drought average drought average drought average drought

North Coast

Applied water demand

349

353

353 1 ;

Net water demand

237

239

Depletion

235

237

237 1

San Francisco Bay

Applied water demand

160

160 "H i

Net water demand

160

Depletion 4HHHi

HHHH!

i 160

160

160 1 i

Central Coast I

Applied water demand

oMi

Net water demand

° «'

Depletion

South Coast

Applied water demand

HB^

6 jl i

Net water demand

6 1

Depletion

6 m 1

Sacramento River _

Applied water demand

484

629

629 t 1

Net water demand

394

537

538

Depletion

168

207

208 |.

San Joaquin River

Applied water demand

268

413

413 ||

Net water demand

223

339

Depletion

190

306

306 1 !

Tulare Lake

Applied water demand

68|

HHHIHI

mmm

Net water demand

Depletion

ofl

North Lahontan

Applied water demand

17«

Net water demand

Depletion

i7(BB>^

17 a

South Lahontan

Applied water demand

oflHo

Net water demand

Depletion

Colorado River j

Applied water deniKind

44 1

■»4

44 Ji

Net water demand

44 ]

Depletion

44imp4

TOTAL

Applied water demand

1,400

1,700

Net water demand

1,100

1,300

Depletion

800

1,000

226

Environniental Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

I there will be approximately 150,000 af of additional water supplied to the public ref-
j uges and the Grasslands Resource Conservation District.

North Lahontan Region. Two public wetlands were identified in this region:

I Honey Lake Wildlife Area and Willow Creek Wildlife Area. Together, the total acreage is

' approximately 10,600 acres, of which half or about 5,500 acres are flooded wetlands.

The Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Settlement Act includes authority for purchases of

I water to restore and maintain wetlcmds in the Lahontan Valley in Nevada.

j Tulare Lake Region. The Tulare Lake Basin is the driest basin in the Central

Valley. Historically, it contained the largest single block of wetland habitat in Califor-
nia, approximately 500.000 acres. Water from the Sierra Nevada drained into a series
of shallow lake basins which in most years formed a sink. Currently there are only
about 6,400 acres of flooded wetland habitat In the basin. The acreage should increase
within ten years as water supplies increase as required by the CVP Improvement Act of
1992. By 2020. there will be approximately 20,000 af of additional water supplied to
the two public refuges in this basin, Kern NWR and Pixley NWR.

Colorado River Region. Managed wetlands in the Colorado region are primarily
around the Salton Sea and along the Colorado River. These wetlands receive freshwater
from the Imperial Irrigation District, not salt water from the Salton Sea. There are
approximately 3.500 acres of flooded wetland habitat in this region.

Future Water Needs for Wetlands

This report includes the estimated future water needs for existing wetlands, wet-
lands that have been recently acquired, and the water supply increases required by the
I CVP Improvement Act of 1992. A corresponding rise in wetland water use is likely to
' follow implementation of State and federal policies to increase wetland acreage. Most
, newly acquired wetlands will include the water rights associated with the property; in
S these situations there consequently would be a transfer of water from one use, most
likely agricultural, to wetlands. Increases in wetland acreage are based on available
I acquisition and restoration funding as well as private incentive programs.

One goal established for the Central Valley by the Central Valley Habitat Joint
Venture is to restore 120,000 acres of former wetlands. Another goal stated by the Re-
sources Agency is an increase of 30 to 50 percent by 2010. This could be an increase
of approximately 225,000 acres statewide. Enhancing existing wetlands could also re-
sult in an increase in water needs for wetlands. The CVHJV goal for the Central Valley
is to enhance 29 1 ,555 acres of existing wetlands.

Although the exact acreage that will be either acquired or enhanced is unknown,
water needs for wetlands will increase as California begins to restore and protect the
State's historic wetlands.

Summary of Caiifomia's Environmental Water Needs

Analyses of environmental water needs are based on (1) instream fishery flow
needs; (2) wild and scenic river flows; (3) water needs of fresh-water wetlands (and
Suisun Marsh); and (4) Bay-Delta requirements, including operations, water quality
objectives, and outflow. Environmental water needs are computed using similar proce-
dures for calculating applied water, net water, and depletion as those for agricultural
and urban water demand. Table 8-6 summarizes the environmental water needs for
each hydrologic region, as computed in the previous sections for the Bay-Delta, envi-
ronmental instream flows, and water needs for wetlands.

Environmental Water Use 227

BulleUn 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Table 8-6. Environmental Water Needs by Hydrologic Region

(thousands of acre-feet)

1990 2000 2010 2020

average drought average drought average drought average drought

Hydrologic Region

North Coast

Applied wcjter ciemand''"

19,199

9,299

19,326

9,426

19,326

9,426

19,326

9,426

Net water demand'"

1 9,087

9,187

19,212

9,312

19,212

9,312

19,212

9,312

DepietionO)

19,085

9,185

19,210

9,310

19,210

9,310

19,210

9,310

San Francisco Bay

Applied wafer demand

4,775

3,245

4,775

3,245

4,775

3,245

4,775

3,245

Net water demand

4,775

3,245

4,775

3,245

4,775

3,245

4,775

3,245

Deletion

4,775

3,245

4,775

3,245

4,775

3,245

4,775

3,245

Central Ccxist

Applied water demand

2«

Net water demand

DepleticHi IHSHI

i 0

H 0

South Ccxist

Applied water demand ^H

HHH

HlHI

iB«

Net water demand

Depletion »

WSf 2

■HnpB

H>«^

Sacramento River

Applied water cjemand

3,927

3,493

4,117

3,638

4,117

3,638

4,117

3,638 1

Net water demand

3,717

3,299

3,860

3,442

3,860

3,442

3,860

3,443

Depletion 4Bii

i 168

207

208 f

San Joaquin River

Applied wafer denwand »

IMP 599

511

744

656

744

656

744

656 1

Net water demand

554

466

670

582

670

582

670

582

Depletion ilHHHHH!

1 190

306

306 1

Tulare Lake

Applied wafer demand ^H

1 82

136

136 1

Net water demand

Depleticxi ■'w^mmm

r 34

»l

North Lahontan

Applied water demandj||||

1 17

171

HBi7

17 1

Net water demand

Depletion ^jjl

■ 17

17i

HHH

i^lH

South Lahontan

Applied water demand "

a"™™^2

128

122

128

122

128

122^

Net water demand

128

122

128

122

128

122

128

122

Depletion

671

HH-3

^7 9

Colorado River

Applied water ckmand

"^1

HHMi

■Mi

Net water demand

Depletion

TOTAL

Applied water demand 28,800 16,800 29,300 17,300 29,300
Net water demand 28,400 16,400 28,800 16,800 28,800
Depletion 24,400 12,900 24,700 13,300 24,700

17,300

16,800
13,300

29,300
28,800
24,700

17,300
16,800
13,300

( 1 ) Indudes 1 7.8 MAF and 7.9 MAF lk>ws k]r Norlh Coast Wild otkJ S^k Riv«n lor average a^

228

Environmental Water Use

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Recommendations

1 . Current methodologies for identifying cause and effect relationships for habitat
and fishery populations need to be improved and new techniques developed and
implemented by the State to better define goals and assess environmental water
use.

2 . DWR Bulletin 216, Inventory Oflnstream Flow Requirements Related to Stream
I Diversions, was last updated in 1 982 . An up-to-date inventory of flow require-

I ments should be completed and maintained.

3. Water resources management for protection offish and wildlife species should

be planned and performed under a multi-species approach.

Environmental Water Use 229

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Wind surfers at Lake Perris. California's many lakes, reservoirs, bays, and rivers offer
plenty of opportunities for recreation. Wind surfing is popular at many lakes and
reservoirs in the inland areas.

j^iof^m

'^'i*;.r--i-^i?^-c..>;'

lm,-^

■i^'^^-iT';

:"-'^^.-?--

'asste,'^

^ -r11 '*^'"li Till ill- " ^-^^ '- '-^ -**^

•^.;->^-*

• rv'il^rt'

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Chapter 9

Lakes and rivers have always been a primary focus for outdoor recreation activi-
ties. A few decades ago, recreation occurred incidentally at natural water bodies.
streams, and rivers. The abundance of potential recreation sites limited the need for
careful planning of recreation facility development. The situation began to change after
World War II. when a rapidly growing population that was increasingly affluent sought
the great outdoors to escape the congestion of growing urban areas.

Water -based recreation has become an integral part of meeting society's recre-
ational needs. Recreation at reservoirs, natural lakes, and streams must be managed
to prevent overuse and degradation. Public water supply projects, such as the State
Water Project, have helped to provide additional recreational opportunities for Califor-
nians. In some cases, reservoir releases can contribute to downstream recreation
benefits by improving fisheries or by creating white-water rafting opportunities that
would not be possible in the absence of reservoir regulation. Often, however, there are
conflicting values and needs for the same river system.

This chapter describes water -based recreation and State recreation facilities
constructed specifically to enhance such recreation and water use for recreation. It
also discusses some of the inherent conflicts between the natural setting and the built
environment relating to water -based recreation.

Recreation and Water Management

Reservoir Recreation

Although California is not usually associated with the phrase "land of 10,000
lakes," there are thousands of lakes and reservoirs within the State's borders. Many of
these lakes occur naturally, but over 1,400 are created by artificial impoundments.
While reservoirs are often synonymous with recreational opportunity, diverse recre-
ational opportunities are usually incidental to, and compete with, a reservoir's primary
purposes. Nevertheless, recreation planning and development is usually an element of
public water development design. At State Water Project reservoirs, recreation is al-
ways considered along with other project purposes, as required by the Davis-Dolwig
Act.

Swimming, fishing, and boating are popular activities at California's reservoirs.
Recreation facilities such as beaches, boat ramps, docks, trails, restrooms, and access
roads add to the quality and safety of the recreation experience. Often, picnic and
camping facilities are also developed to meet public demand. The way reservoir water
levels are managed and operated directly affects the quality and economic value of rec-
reational and other contingent activities.

Reservoir operations for water supply are usually adequate to support estab-
lished recreation activities, particularly when surface runoff from precipitation is near

Water-Based
Recreation

Water-Based Recreation

231

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

normal. Changes in operations, because of drought or demand exceeding supply, have
reduced both available recreational opportunities and per capita benefits and will con-
tinue to do so. In general, reservoir recreation benefits decrease as receding water
levels reduce water surface areas, make boat ramps less accessible, and leave recre-
ation facilities farther from shorelines. On the other hand, decreased recreation
benefits at drawn-down reservoirs may be offset to some extent by increases in stream
recreation benefits.

The California Fish and Game Code requires maintenance of stream habitat be-
low dams, and in some cases, even artificially created instream resources, but recently
the requirements for sensitive species preservation have become more critical. For ex-
ample, increased releases from Shasta Reservoir to control temperature will benefit
salmon habitat on the Sacramento River, but also will reduce recreational opportuni-
ties within the Shasta Lake area. On the other hand, minimum storage
recommendations at Shasta, invoked for sensitive species protection, also could ulti-
mately benefit recreation in the river downstream of Shasta Dam . A table summarizing
minimum instream flow requirements at selected sites is presented in Chapter 8, Envi-
ronmental Water Use (Table 8-3).

Hydroelectric generating facilities can have varying impacts on both reservoir
and river recreation depending on whether the operation is direct release or pumped
storage and whether releases are constant or subject to peaking. As with water supply
releases, increased stream flows from power generation provide recreation benefits
that to some degree offset the effects of diminished reservoir storage.

A pumped storage operation can create additional recreation opportunities at
forebay and afterbay reservoirs if water levels do not fluctuate too greatly on a daily
basis. As the recent drought reduced the attractiveness of large reservoirs like Lake
Oroville and San Luis Reservoir, Thermalito Afterbay and O'Neill Forebay, respectively,
supported increased recreation use; this raised the need to add temporary facilities to
augment facilities previously adequate at these sites.

Shifts in use, as those described above, can create potential water quality prob-
lems. Water quality and human health and safety can be jeopardized if recreation
becomes too intense at any one site. Algal blooms and high coliform counts are not
uncommon when swimming areas become overcrowded. Pollution by petroleum prod-
ucts and other chemicals is inevitable when motorized equipment, such as boats and
jet skis, operate on the water. The risk of worsening water quality underscores the im-
portance of proper recreation planning as outdoor recreation continues to grow in
popularity and competition for existing water supplies intensifies.

River Recreation

Riverine environments can offer types of recreation not available frorrl the large
water surface impoundments, although in many cases similar recreation facilities are
developed to meet public demand. In addition to fishing and swimming, some of the
recreation opportunities associated with rivers and streams are white-water sports
such as rafting, kayaking, and canoeing. Also, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
provides exceptional recreational opportunities for houseboating as well as striped
bass, catfish, and sturgeon fishing, among others. Water needs for these activities are
incidental to environmental water use and are included in Chapter 8.

Many streams are unimpaired by water development facilities, such as many of
those listed under the federal or State Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts. These streams offer
seasonal recreational opportunities in natural settings. (For a summary of the Wild

232 Water-Based Recreation

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

and Scenic Rivers Acts, see
Chapter 2.) Most of the wild
and scenic rivers are in
northern California and in-
clude all or parts of the
Smith, Trinity, Klamath,
Van Duzen, Eel, Feather,
American, and Tuolumne
rivers. Maps showing re
gional wild and scenic rivers
are in Volume II.

Other streams, such
as those controlled by res-
ervoir releases, offer
opportunities to enhance
downstream flows that can
benefit recreation values.
Streams that would natu-
rally run only intermittent-
tently, for example, can have year-round flows following reservoir construction and
operation. This kind of conversion can develop new fisheries, add to recreational-area
attractiveness, and enhance wildlife habitat. Regulation of larger streams and rivers
can support white-water sports for a longer season or increase the diversity of
available activities.

In some cases a hydropower development can completely change river recreation
benefits. For example, peak releases from the North Fork Stanislaus River project
greatly increased white-water rafting but reduced opportunities for swimming In the
summer. Local agencies are continuing to study the impacts and benefits of this con-
version.

The use and economic benefits provided by river recreation can be substantial,
although difficult to estimate because such use occurs over diffuse areas and is often
not under the jurisdiction of one area or operator. Table 9- 1 lists minimum flow levels
for rafting at 1 2 major California rivers popular with rafters and kayakers. Rafting and
boating conditions forecast for these and other popular California rivers are published
each spring in the DWR pamphlet Water Supply Outlook for Boaters, although few data
are available on recreation use over long reaches of these waters. Estimated rafting use
on these rivers was compiled in a 1983 report by the Planning and Conservation
League. It must be emphasized that optimum flows ordinarily occur only for a short
period during a year, and popular areas with prolonged periods suitable for rafting
often result from coordination with release schedules for hydroelectric generation from
major dams and reservoirs.

Rugged natural beauty
and some of the most
renowned Jishtng
streams in North
America attract over
1 0 million people
annually to the North
Coast Region. A
national park and over
40 State beaches,
parks, and recreation
areas are in the region.

Wildland Recreation

Many designated wildlife refuges in California owe their existence to imported
water which supports large populations of migratory waterfowl. Seasonal wetlsind
habitat at such refuges is Integral to maintenance of waterfowl populations along the
Pacific Flyway. Further discussion of water at wildlife refuges can be found in Chapter
8. Historically, recreation values associated with such wildlife have focused primarily
on hunting. More recently, DFG has cited birding (bird watching) as the fastest-grow-
ing recreation activity in the nation.

Water-Based Recreation

233

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Table 9-1. Recreation Use and Minimum Rafting Flows on Some Popular California Rivers

Stream

Minimum

Annual

Comments

Rafting Flow

(cfs)

Rafting Use

(visitor days)

South Fork American River

1,200

100,000

Depends on Chili Bor Dam releases

Lower American River

1,500

460,000

Below Nimbus Dam

East Fork Corson River

400

7,000

Often low in summer

Kem River

450

20,000

Below Lake Isabella

Kings River

800

18,000

Below Pine Fiat Reservoir

Kkimoth River

1,300 +

15,000

Below Iron Gate Dam

Merced River

500

14,000

Often low in summer

Russian River

350-650

100,000

Often low in summer

Sacramento River

5,000

125,000

Flow usually higher

Smith River

600

7,000

Limited in summer

Trinity River

550 +

33,000

Lewiston Reservoir releases

Truckee River

250

106,000

Too low without Tahoe outflow

Tuolumne River

800

6,000

Above New Don Pedro

In 1988, the California Wildlands Program became law. Broadly supported and
lauded by many, the program directed DFG to provide and charge for nonconsumptive
refuge-based recreation. Although the program has not met projected targets for pass
sales, visitation at refuges is significant. Prior to the program's inception, DFG records
for its larger wildlife areas indicated that nonconsumptive use by individuals and
groups averaged more than 260,000 visitor days annually, 1 5 percent higher than use
attributed to hunters and anglers. In 1993 DFG, in cooperation with USER, monitored
visitation and recreation at several of its management areas in order to collect more
accurate and recent visitor data.

Water-based Recreation Policy and Planning Responsibility

Recreation planning is a relatively new component of water project development.
In the past, recreation facilities were often added as afterthoughts to existing projects
as the public demand increased. Many water planning and development agencies were
among the flrst to recommend that recreation be treated as a water project purpose
along with flood control, urban water supply, irrigation, hydroelectric generation, and
other traditional purposes in the planning and financing of new projects. Today's wa-
ter supply management and development must balance conflicting needs and values
for environmental, recreational, and other water supply benefits.

Conflicts which arise between maintaining optimum recreational opportunities
through minimally fluctuating reservoirs versus stream flows forhealtfty fisheries, or
in some cases even greater flows for rafting, must be evaluated. Both the State and
federal legislative bodies enacted laws requiring that recreation be a part of their re-
spective water projects, and today recreation planning is an important part of any
Environmental Impact Report or Statement.

Ttie Davis-Dolwig Act

The Davis-Dolwig Act was passed by the State Legislature in 1961. It is the pri-
mary statement of State policy concerning recreation and fish and wildlife
enhancement at State-constructed water facilities. The act sets fundamental policies
and establishes the responsibilities of the State departments that participate in the
program.

234

Water-Based Recreation

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

The Davis-Dolwig Act declcires that recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement
I Jare^aHwmg Ihe purposes j)f State water projects. It specifies that costs incurred for
these purposes shall not be included in the prices, rates, and charges for water and
power to urban and agricultural users. It also provides for DWR to allocate to recre-
ation and fish and wildlife enhancement a portion of the costs of any facility of the
SWP. Under Davis-Dolwig, acquiring real property for recreation and fish and wildlife
enhancement must be planned and initiated concurrently with and as part of the land
acquisition program for other project purposes. Reimbursement for land acquisition
has in the past been from State oil and gas revenues, while facilities have been
constructed with general fund and bond financing.

Three State departments are assigned specific responsibilities under the act.
DWR is responsible for planning recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement and
preservation measures in connection with State-constructed water projects. DWR is

- risoiesponsible for acquiring any needed lands. The Department of Paries and Recre-
ation is responsible for desigit^ construction, operation, and maintenancex)fthe^t;tiial

.rgcreatlon features at thesesites. DPR must consider arrangements in whichiederal
oyjoral a^exicies could become participants, if appropriate. The Department of Fish
and Game is responsible for managing the fish and wildlife resources at State water

^projects. A later amendment to the act authorized the Wildlife Conservation Board to
design and construct fishing access sites along SWP aqueducts.

Federal Water Project Recreation Act

The Federal Water Project Recreation Act/ comparable to the Davis-Dolwig Act/
was enacted in 1965 and affects federal water development projects^ It requires those
; federal agencies approving water projects to include recreation development, including
provisions for cost and benefit allocation, as a condition of issuing permits. Consider-
1 ation of recreational development must be made in conjunction with any navigation,
j ^ood control^ reclamation, hydroelectric, or multi-purpose water resource project. For
example, a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license to operate a hydroelectric
facility usually includes an obligation to construct specific recreation facilities to pro-
vide for anticipated demand.

Periodic relicensing and FERC review can result in revised project operation and

impacts on fishing, white-water boating, and other established activities and facilities.

The issues of relicensing typically focus on water quality and environmental water

' needs; however, it is important to recognize the secondary effects of revised operation

on recreation.

It should be noted that terms of Federal Power Act licenses supersede state regu-
lation of projects in most cases. There have been instances where holders of FPA
licenses have claimed exemption from state safety of dams requirements, minimum
I streamflow requirements, state Wild and Scenic River designation, and condemnation
of easements and lands for projects in state parks, see Chapter 2.

■ Trends in Recreation Area Use

DPR statistics show a steady increase in visits to State park £ind recreation
» areas. Visitation has grown at a rate even faster than that of California's population.
Increased leisure time, economical transportation, and changing demographics con-
tribute to the demand for recreational facilities. The best estimates are that over 60
million visits are made to State park system units each year, indicating growth of
roughly 15 percent per year throughout most of the 1980s; however, this growth rate
has slowed somewhat in the last few years.

Water-Based Recreation 235

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Although increased recreation area fees may be partly to blame, and the latest
recession may have curbed discretionary income expenditures for recreation, the re-
cent six-year drought is commonly cited as the primary reason that the trend of
increased recreational use has diminished at many reservoirs. San Luis Reservoir was
subject to severe drawdown during the drought, although O'Neill Forebay was main-
tained relativefy fiiU. and the level of Los Banos Reservoir only dropped a few feet.

Trout fishing near

KybuTZ, California.

Cold water releases

fifxmi upstream

reservoirs help

maintain fiow and

temperatures that

benefit downstream

fisheries.

Perhaps another
index of drought impacts
to water -based recrea-
tion is evidenced by
declining California
sport fishing license
sales. Sales were down
over a quarter -million
(13 percent) during the
recent drought. Al-
though a pre-existing
trend of decline may be
attributable to changing
demographics, and large
price increases for li-
censes, there can be little
argument that drought
impacted outdoor recre-
ation.

Water Use for Recreation

Recreational activity and resources generally do not consume significant
amounts of water, no more than 3 percent of the statewide total. Although some watef
developments were designed and constructed primarity to provide recreation, most
recreational facility developments are on streams, lakes, or reservoirs operated for oth-
er purposes. In some cases, minimum reservoir releases may be imposed on the latter
to maintain recreation activities below a dam. or the drawdown of a reservoir may be
limited during the recreational season. Consumptive use occurs when water allocated
specifically for recreation with no other benefit is not recaptured downstream or is
evaporated fi:x)m a larger -than-normal water surface area. The amount of water con-
sumed through reservoir operations is usually very small compared to other
consumptive uses: reservoir operations also benefit fish, wildlife, and other environ-
mental A^ues.

Water for drinking and sanitation is also a factor at every recreation site. Land-
scaping adds appreciabfy to overall water use at these sites; however, consumptimi
associated with recreational development is still exceedingfy small when compared to
urban, agricultural, and other uses.

A planning standard for intensefy used recreation areas is 50 gallons of water per
person per day. Many dispersed day-use activities consume less than 10 gallons of
water per visitor day. DPR reports that per capita daity visitor use averages 10 to 14
gallons throughout the diverse State Park System. Recreation facilities provided ty
federal. State, and local governments support about 1 billion recreation days in
California per year. Therefore, using the DPR average and the average recreation day
use, annucd recreationsil-related water consumption at public facilities is probabty

236

Water -Based Recreation

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

less than 50,000 acre-feet. In 1978. the California State Park System (over 200 park
units) used approximately 750 million gallons (550 million for domestic uses, and 200
million gallons for irrigation purposes). Distributed statewide, this small amount of
water can be considered part of water developed for other uses (urban recreation, fish
and wildlife enhancement, etc.). The water used by private recreation developments is
typically included in urban water needs.

The recent drought events have encouraged accelerated installation of low-flow
shower heads, low-flow toilets, and other water-saving devices throughout the State
park system and at many other recreation areas. Since 1978 DPR has endeavored to
Implement water-saving measures throughout the State park system. These measures
include: (1) restricted hours of shower use; (2) flow restrictors for showers; (3) spring-
loaded or self-closing faucets; (4) low-volume flush toilets; (5) inserts in toilet tanks to
reduce use of water; (6) replacing water-using restrooms with chemical toilets; (7) in-
creased efficiency of all water systems by correcting leaks and improving intake
structures and storage facilities; (8) providing information to park visitors on water
shortages; (9) stressing water conservation in interpretive programs; and (10) reduced
watering for landscaped areas. Combined, all of these measures have resulted in
about a 30-percent reduction in water use per State park visitor since 1978.

Water Project Operations and Recreation Benefits

The recreation opportunities provided by reservoirs generate enormous benefits
to California's economy. In 1985, an estimated $500 million was spent on water-re-
; lated activities in the Delta and at major reservoirs. The estimated 7 million visitors to
j the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta generated an estimated $ 1 25 million; the 6.6 mil-
lion visitors to the 12 SWP reservoirs and the California Aqueduct brought in an
estimated $170 million; and benefits of the 1 1.6 million visitors to 10 of the 22 CVP
I reservoirs totaled $208 million. In addition to the half-billion dollars detailed above, a
similar amount was probably spent at the many local and regional reservoirs and

5 streams, statewide.

j The kinds of recreational facilities and activities found at any developed water

' recreation site are usually similar, regardless of whether the site was developed by a
local, federal, or State agency. Given this similarity, this report focuses on the water
recreation at SWP facilities to give the reader an in-depth look at water -based recre-
ation connected with water supply development.

i
State Water Project Recreation

, One of the project purposes of the SWP is recreation, which takes several forms

\ at various facilities. Recreation at SWP facilities includes camping, boating, fishing,

swimming, bicycling, and other activities. Recreation facilities were incorporated into

, SWP facilities from the upper Feather River reservoirs in Plumas County to Lake Perris

!ln Riverside County. More than 6 million recreation days of use were generated by
SWP facilities during 1990.

As designed, the SWP includes the physical and operational capacity to deliver
I up to 45,500 acre-feet of water annually for recreation uses. About half of this amount
\ was developed specifically for recreation-related uses. SWP water allocation exclusive-

Ily for recreational use will be done on a case-by-case basis for future projects and for
operational revisions.

State Water Project Reservoirs. SWP recreation facilities, from north to south,

are at Antelope Lake, Lake Davis, Frenchman Lake, Lake Oroville, Lake Del Valle,

i Bethany Reservoir, San Luis Reservoir, O'Neill Forebay, Los Banos Reservoir, pyramid

Water-Based Recreation 237

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Lake, Castaic Lake, Silverwood Lake, and Lake Perris. A brief description of each area
follows. Estimated current annual and cumulative attendance at each facility, from
facility construction through 1990, is presented in Table 9-2.

Antelope Lake and Dam are in Plumas National Forest on Upper Indian Creek,
tributary to the North Fork Feather River. The reservoir is approximately 43 miles from
Quincy and was created in 1964 to help meet the increasing demand for water-ori-
ented recreation, improve fishing in Indian Creek, and assure a constant, year-round
flow of water below the dam. Antelope Lake Recreation Area is operated by the U.S.
Forest Service. Recreational opportunities include: camping, fishing, picnicking, wa-
ter-skiing, swimming, boating, hunting, hiking, and winter sports such as
snowmobiling. Total visitor use between 1965 and 1990 was 3,617,000.

Lake Davis and Grizzly Valley Dam are in the Plumas National Forest on Big
Grizzly Creek. The lake is 8 miles north of Portola, on a tributary of the Middle Fork
Feather River. Lake Davis was created in 1967 to provide recreation, to improve fish
habitat in Big Grizzly Creek, and to contribute to domestic water supply. Lake Davis
recreation facilities are operated by the U.S. Forest Service and offer camping, fishing,
picnicking, boating, hunting, hiking, and winter sports such as cross-country skiing
and snowmobiling. Total visitor use between 1968 and 1990 was 6,836,000.

Frenchman Lake and Dam also are within the Plumas National Forest on Little
Last Chance Creek, a tributary of the Middle Fork Feather River. The lake is about 30
miles northwest of Reno, Nevada and 15 miles northeast of Portola. Frenchman Lake
was created in 1961 to provide recreation and develop irrigation water for Sierra
Valley. Frenchman Lake Recreation Area is operated by the U.S. Forest Service and
offers camping, fishing, picnicking, water-skiing, swimming, boating, hunting, hiking.
and winter sports such as cross-country skiing and snowmobiling. Total visitor use
between 1962 and 1990 was 7,051,000.

Lake Oroville and Oroville Dam are in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada above the
Central Valley. The dam is 1 mile downstream of the confluence of the Feather River's
three major tributaries. Lake Oroville is 5 miles east of Oroville and about 75 miles
north of Sacramento. Completed in 1967, Lake Oroville is part of a multipurpose proj-

Table 9-2. Estimated Current Annual and Cumulative Attendance
(through 1990) at State Water Project Reservoirs

Facility Cumulative Current

Total Visitation Annual Use

AntebpeLake 3,617,000 300,000

Lake Davis 6,836,000 300,000

Frenchman Reservoir 7,051,000 300,000

Lake Oroville* 14,377,000 750,000

Lake Del Voile 6,793,000 475,000

Bethany Reservoir 586,000 85,000

Son Luis/O'Neill Complex 11,785,000 700,000

Los Bonos Reservoir 1,119,000 100,000

Pyramid Lake 4,950,000 350,000

Castaic Lake 1 8,82 1 ,000 1 ,000,000

Silverwood Lake 10,150,000 750,000

Lake Perris 23,354,000 1,500,000

* Including wildlife area

238 Water -Based Recreation

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

act that includes water storage, power generation, flood control, recreation, and fish
and wildlife enhancement. Lake OrovlUe State Recreation Area is operated by DPR and
offers camping, picnicking, horseback riding, hiking, sail and power boating, water
skiing, fishing, swimming, and boat-in camping. Limited waterfowl hunting is per-
mitted only on Thermalito Afterbay. Total visitor use between 1968 and 1990 was
14.377.000. This figure includes visitation at Oroville Wildlife Area beginning in 1980.

Lake Del Valle and Del Valle Dam are located in Arroyo Del Valle. just south of
Uvermore Valley, about 1 1 miles from Livermore. Lake Del Valle was created in 1968
to provide recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement, flood control for Alameda
Creek, and regulatory storage for the South Bay Aqueduct. Lake Del Valle facilities are
operated by East Bay Regional Park District and offer camping, picnicking, horseback
riding, swimming, hiking, wind surfing, boating, and fishing. Total visitor use between
1970 and 1990 was 6,793,000.

Bethany Reservoir is located 1 ^ /2 miles down the California Aqueduct from Har-
vey O. Banks Delta Pumping Plant, about 10 miles northwest of Tracy, in Alameda
County. Bethany Reservoir was completed in 1967. and serves as a forebay for South
Bay Pumping Plant and a conveyance facility in this reach of the California Aqueduct.
Bethany Reservoir facilities are operated by DPR and offer picnicking, fishing, boating,
wind-surfing, hiking, and bicycling. Total visitor use between 1978 and 1990 was
586.000.

San Luis Reservoir and Dam are located on San Luis Creek in the foothills on the
west side of the San Joaquin Valley in Merced County, 12 miles west of the city of Los
Bancs. San Luis Reservoir is part of the San Luis Joint-Use Facilities, which serve
SWP and the federal CVP. It was completed in 1967 and provides storage for water
diverted from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for later delivery to the San Joaquin
Valley and Southern California. San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area is operated
by DPR. There are extensive recreational developments and three wildlife areas around
the reservoir and at O'Neill Forebay which offer camping, picnicking, sail and power
boating, water-skiing, wind surfing, fishing, swimming, hiking, bicycling, and water-
fowl hunting. Total visitor use of San Luis Reservoir and O'Neill Forebay from 1967
through 1990 was 11.785.000.

Los Bancs Reservoir and Detention Dam are on Los Bancs Creek, about 7 miles
southwest of the City of Los Bancs. The dam provides ficod protection for San Luis
Canal. Delta-Mendota Canal. City of Los Bancs, and other downstream developments.
Los Bancs Reservoir offers camping, picnicking, fishing, swimming, and hiking. Total
visitor use of Los Bancs Reservoir from 1973 to 1990 was 1,1 19,000.

Pyramid Lake and Dam are within the Angeles and Los Padres National Forests,
on Piru Creek about 14 miles north of the town of Castaic. Pyramid was completed in
1973 and is a multipurpose facility that provides regulatory storage for Castaic Power
Plant, normal regulatory storage for water deliveries from the SWP's West Branch,
emergency storage in the event of a shut-down of the SWP to the north, recreational
opportunities, and incidental flood protection. Pyramid Lake facilities are operated by
the U.S. Forest Service and offer camping, picnicking, boating, water-skiing, fishing,
and swimming. Total visitor use from 1974 to 1990 was 4,950,000.

Castaic Lake and Dam are at the confluence of Castaic Creek and Elizabeth Lake
Canyon Creek. 45 highway miles northwest of Los Angeles and about 2 miles north of
the community of Castaic. Castaic was completed in 1972 to act as a regulatory stor-
age facility for water deliveries, to provide emergency storage, and to furnish
recreational development and fish and wildlife enhancement. Castaic Lagoon, down-
Water-Based Recreation 239

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

stream of the dam, provides a recreation pool with a constant water surface elevation
of 1 , 134 feet and also functions as a recharge basin for the downstream ground water
basin. Tlie lagoon provides an additional 3 miles of shoreline and 197 surface acres.
Castaic Lake State Recreation Area is operated by Los Angeles County Department of
Parks and Recreation and offers fishing, boating, water-skiing, sailing, picnicking, and
swimming. Total visitor use firom 1972 to 1990 was 18,821,000.

Silverwood Lake and Cedar Springs £>am are within San Bernardino National
Forest, on the West Fork Mojave River, about 30 highway miles north of the city of San
Bernardino. It is a multipurpose project that was completed in 1971. and is a regulat-
ing facility cind water source for agencies serving the surrounding mountain and
desert areas. There are 2.400 acres of recreation land surrounding Silverwood Lake.
The Silverwood Lake State Recreation Area is operated by DPR and offers camping,
picnicking, boating, water-skiing, fishing, swimming, bicycling, and hiking. Total visi-
tor use from 1972 to 1990 was 10.150.000.

Lake Perris and Perris Dam, the terminal storage facility of the SWP, are in
northwestern Riverside County, about 13 miles southeast of the city of Riverside and
5 miles northeast of the town of Perris. The reservoir was completed in 1974 and is a
multipurpose facility providing water suppfy, recreation, and fish and wildlife en-
hancement. Lake Perris State Recreation Area is operated by DPR and offers camping,
picnicking, horseback riding, sail and power boating, water-skiing, fishing. SAvim-
ming. hiking, bicycling, hunting, and rock climbing. A marina and water slide are
operated by a concessionaire. Total visitor use fix)m 1974 to 1990 was 23.354.000.

Future SWP recreational facilities are tied closefy to future projects. The Los
Banos Grandes Facilities could provide an estimated 465.000 recreation days at the
Los Banos Grandes Reservoir, if constructed.

California Aqueduct Recreation, DWR's focus in developing recreation along
the California Aqueduct Includes bicycling, fishing, and aqueduct safety. The Califor-
nia Aqueduct Bikeway is on the paved service roads along the canal facilities of the
SWP. Two sections of bikeway have been developed, one in the San Joaquin Valley and
the other in Southern CaUfomia.

The San Joaquin VaUey section extends 67 miles down the west side of the vaDqf,
from Bethany Reservoir (west of Tracy) to the San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area
(west of Los Banos). This section of the bikeway has been designated a National Recre-
ation Trail by the Secretary of the Interior.

The Southern California section extends 107 miles through the Antelope Valley,
from Quail Lake to a pwint 2 miles north of Silverwood Lake in the San Bernardino
National Forest. The Southern California section is closed at this time because of
aqueduct enlargement construction. Several reaches will be reopened after aU work on
the enlargement is completed and some safety improvements have been made.

Fishing is permitted in canal reaches along nearly 400 miles of the California
Aqueduct, beginning at Bethany Reservoir (west of Tracy) and extending to just north
of Silverwood Lake. In addition, 17 fishing access sites have parking and toilet facili-
ties. Fish from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta have spread throughout the
aqueduct system. Many types of fish can be caught, depending on the area. Striped
bass and catfish are caught throughout the system, and starry flounder have been
caught in the reach between Bethany Reservoir and OT^eill Forebay. Visits at the fish-
ing access sites between 1971 and 1990 totaled 469,000. and total walk-in fishing
between 1973 and 1990 was 893,000.

240 Water-Based Recreation

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

DWR has an active aqueduct safety program. Water contact is not allowed under
any circumstances because without help it is almost impossible to climb out, except
by using the emergency safety ladders. Brochures such as Safety Along the State Wa-
ter Project and California Aqueduct Fishing Safety are published in several languages.
DWR personnel also visit local communities nceir the aqueduct and conduct safety
seminars for schools and community groups.

Drought Impacts on Recreation

Direct Effects on Facility Availability

Droughts have obvious impacts on water-oriented recreation, particularly if they

' are extended, like the 1987-92 drought in California. During this drought, the runoff

: of major California rivers averaged about 50 percent of normal and the carryover (Sep-

I tember 30) storage in 155 major California reservoirs averaged about two-thirds of

normal. So, major reservoirs were much less full than usual, and many reservoirs did

not fill each spring as they normally do. This was also true of large natural lakes in

California, such as Lake Tahoe, which was below its natural outlet for more than two
I
i years; Goose Lake, which almost dried up; and lower levels in Eagle Lake and Clear

I Lake.

I Reservoir Recreation Impacts

The lower lake levels during droughts have had a variety of impacts on recre-
: ation. These impacts at lakes and reservoirs included the water surface receding far
from developed recreation facilities such as campgrounds, picnic areas, and swim-
j ming beaches; boat ramps and swimming areas becoming unusable because they
were no longer covered by water; boating and water skiing being reduced by declining
surface area; and aesthetic values being generally reduced. Recreation attendance
drops substantially when water levels drop well below major recreation facilities and
'■ boat ramps. During the 1976-77 drought, total attendance at State and federal reser-
voirs in California was reduced about 30 percent, with some reservoirs experiencing
declines of as much as 80 percent, while attendance at a few stable reservoirs actually
increased. A similar pattern developed during the 1987-92 drought although there
were even fewer stable reservoirs.

Several years of low lake levels have sharpened the desire of many recreation
area operators, and water agencies, to store as much water as possible. The extremes

I In annual precipitation within the last decade have accentuated the consequences of
insufficient flood control capacity, as well as the impacts on recreation facilities when
spring runoff does not materialize. The floods of 1983 and 1986 are still relatively re-

, cent, but the importance of flood control can be too easily dismissed following these
several years of drought. It is important to emphasize that a prudent capacity reserve
for flood control throughout the winter and spring months is vital. Property damage

' and liability resulting from flood mismanagement would have the potential to exceed

I the economic impact of less storage and reduced water deliveries. As with other project
purposes, flood control releases must be accepted as a necessary trade-off against
maximizing storage for recreation benefits.

River Recreation Impacts

White-water boating, river floating, and rafting are popular recreation activities

in California. Low river levels reduce the length of the boating season and change the

|i types of craft that can be used. Commercial outfitters experience considerable finan-

' clal loss in years with greatly reduced flow levels. On the other hand, many populsir

boating runs are on streams sustained by water releases from reservoirs.

Water-Based Recreation 241

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

E>en during normal water years, the cold water firaction of reservoir storage is
especicilly valuable for the maintenance of downstream fisheries. If the cold water is
depleted, subsequent warm water releases can be lethal to sensitive species. Storage of
sufficient cold water to meet downstream environmental needs throughout the sum-
mer cmd fall may limit flows available earlier in the year for rafting and other activities.
Consideration of the importance of cold water storage is an important part of water
allocation even though there may be a substantial volume of warm water available.

¥/inter Recreation Impacts

Drought has an enormous impact on the winter sports industry. During recent
years some northern California ski resorts never opened and many others opened only
for short periods of time. During the 1976-77 drought, attendance at ski resorts fell by
nearly 50 percent fi"om pre-drought levels. The impact of reduced attendance also ex-
tends to businesses that manufacture, sell, or rent winter sports equipment. The
economic loss to the industry was estimated at $50 million over the two years of
drought during 1976-77. No accvirate figures are available to describe the Impact of
the 1987-92 drought on winter sports. However, a similar pattern of shortened sea-
sons and reduced attendance, even though many areas installed artificial
snow-making equipment, continued over a longer period of time and the total econom-
ic impact was very large, probably several hundred million dollars.

Most major California ski resorts employ artificial snow-making equipment to
augment the local snowpack during the early part of the season, and during the
drought. Snow-making machinery can consume copious quantities of water consider-
ing that resorts typically operate se\'eral units at a time and for many hours a day
(assuming sufficientty low temperature). For example, at Mt. Reba. an average-sized
resort, about a million gallons of water (3 acre-feet) will be consumed during a
14-hour overnight period. Over a season, a typical report may apply several hundred
acre-feet per year for snow-making during drought periods. Much of this water is not
actually consumed since it normally creates runoff and is avcdlable for future con-
sumption in the spring.

242 Water-Based Recreation

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Water-Based Recreation 243

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Channels wind around Delta islands providing habitat for hundreds of
species, water for agricultural and industrial production, drinking water for two-
thirds of the State's population, and waterways for fishing and boating. Runoff
from 40 percent of California's land area flows into the Delta.

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Chapter 10

For decades, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta has been the focal point for a
wide variety of water-related issues, generating more investigations than any other
waterway system in California. It is the hub from which two-thirds of the State's popu-
lation and millions of acres of agricultural land receive part or all of their supplies. The
Delta provides habitat for many species offish, birds, mammals, and plants while also
supporting extensive farming and recreational activities. Many different interests have
a vital stake in the Delta: farmers, fish and wildlife groups, environmentalists, boaters,
people involved with shipping and navigation, and the people and industries that re-
ceive water from the Delta and the State's two largest export systems, the State Water
Project and Central Valley Project.

At the middle of the last century, the Delta, an area of nearly 750,000 acres, was
mostly a tidal marsh, part of an interconnected estuary system that included the
Suisun Marsh and San Francisco Bay. Until reclaimed by levees, the Delta was a great
inland lake during the flood season; when the flood waters receded, the network of
sloughs and channels reappeared throughout the marsh. The Delta receives runoff
from over 40 percent of the State's land area, including flows from the Sacramento,
San Joaquin, Mokelumne, Cosumnes, and Calaveras rivers, and their tributaries.

The Delta channels were first surveyed In 1841 and again In 1849 by Lt. Com-
mander Cadwalader Ringgold of the U.S. Navy. These surveys helped open up the
Delta and upstream communities to increased trade with the San Francisco Bay area.
Already experiencing a population boom because of the Gold Rush, Delta and north-
ern California communities expanded even more as travel to the area became easier
and less expensive.

The development of today's Delta began In late 1850 when the Swamp Land Act
conveyed ownership of all swamp and overflow land, including Delta marshes, from
the federal government to the State. Proceeds from the State's sale of swamplands
were to go toward reclaiming them. In 1861, the State legislature created the Board of
Swamp and Overflowed Land Commissioners to manage reclamation projects. In
1866, the board's authority was transferred to county boards of supervisors.

Developers first thought levees about 4 feet high and 12 feet wide at the bottom
would protect Delta lands from tides and river overflow. In the 1870s. small-scale rec-
lamation projects were started on Rough and Ready Island and Roberts Island, but the
peat soils showed their weakness as levee material. The peat soils would sink, blow
away when dry, and develop deep cracks and fissures throughout the levee system. In
the late 1870s, developers realized that hand- and horse-powered labor could not
maintain the reclaimed Delta islands. Steam-powered dredges were brought in to
move large volumes of alluvial soils from the river channels; the alluvial soils were
needed to construct the large levees we see today. These dredges were capable of mov-

The

Sacramento-
San Joaquin
Delta

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

245

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

ing material at about half the cost of hand labor. After World War I, the number of
operating dredges decreased greatly, as nearly all Delta marshland had been re-
claimed.

Today the Delta is comprised of about 500,000 acres of rich farmland, much of
which is now below sea level (see Figure 10-1), is interlaced with hundreds of miles of
waterways, and relies on more than 1,000 miles of levees for protection against flood-
ing. The interiors of some of the islands are as much as 25 feet below sea level because
of the continuing loss of peat soil. Soil loss comes primarily from oxidation, compac-
tion, and wind erosion (see Figure 10-2).

Water exports from the Delta began in 1940 after the Contra Costa Canal, a unit
of the CVP, was completed. Beginning in 1951 , water was exported at the CVP's Tracy
Pumping Plant, supplying the Delta-Mendota Canal. The SWP began delivery of water
through the South Bay Aqueduct in 1962 (through an interim connection to the CVP's
Delta-Mendota Canal). The SWP then continued deliveries by pumping from the South
Delta in 1967 (supplying the California Aqueduct) and from the North Delta beginning
in late 1987 (suppl)ang the North Bay Aqueduct). Export water is either uncontrolled
winter runoff or is released from CVP and SWP reservoirs into the Sacramento River
system north of the Delta.

To facilitate movement of Sacramento River water to pumping facilities in the
South Delta, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation completed the Delta Cross Channel in
1951 . This channel connects the Sacramento River to Snodgrass Slough and the Mo-
kelumne River system. The flow from the Sacramento River is controlled by two
60-foot gates at the Sacramento River near Walnut Grove. Downstream from the Delta
Cross Channel, Georgiana Slough also connects the Sacramento River to the Mokel-
umne River system, moving Sacramento River water into the Central Delta.

This chapter briefly describes Delta flows, outlines key Delta issues, profiles the
Delta water resources management and planning process, and presents the options
presently being discussed. Some specific issues are discussed more thoroughly in con-
text with other statewide water supply concerns in other chapters of this report. (For
example, water quality concerns are discussed in Chapter 5, Water Quality.) Readers
are encouraged to refer to the other chapters cited throughout this discussion.

Delta Flows

Most Delta issues are centered around the way water moves into, through, and
out of the Delta. Fresh water flows in the Delta are typically much less than those
caused by tides. Twice a day Pacific Ocean tides move into and out of the Delta (see
Figure 10-3). The average incoming and outgoing Delta tidal flow is about 170.000
cubic feet p>er second. This is in contrast to the currently permitted combined SWP
and CVP export capability of about 1 1,000 cfs.

The average calculated Delta outflow, water that flows through the Delta past
Chipps Island to San Francisco Bay, is about 30,000 cfs or about 2 1 maf per year. The
magnitude of this flow depends on Delta inflow, export, and depletions of channel wa-
ter within the Delta. During the summer months of critically dry years. Delta outflow
can be as low as 3,000 cfs. Fresh water moves into the Delta from three major sources:
the Sacramento River, the San Joaquin River, and eastside stresmis. The Sacramento
River (including the Yolo Bypass) contributes about 77 percent of the fresh water
flows, the San Joaquin River contributes roughly 15 percent, and streams on the east
side and the Mokelumne River provide the remainder. Salty water moves into the Delta
with the tides, from Suisun and Honker bays in the west. Direct Delta exports are

246 The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Figure 10-1. The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

247

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure 10-2. Land Surface Below Sea Level, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

/ /

r^'Nr

ift tm

^5?

— vv

1 1

Abov* Sea Level

A PUMPINO PLAMT(

/thacv ^V

fpUUPINO PUAN^

•^

1 1

Sea Level to -10 feet

\^!SSS-oy^fc

(

*^^

^ SOUTH BAY ^%

1 1

-10 feet to -15 feet

T PUUPINa PLANT

liV.

1 1

-15 feet and deeper

TRA

•

248

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Figure 10-3. Tidal Flows in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

(in cubic feet per second)

340.000

Typical maximum flows over a 25-tx)ur cycle in summer corxttions
(values in culiic feet per second)

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

249

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Delta Precipitation
0.9 MAF

Contra Costa P.P.
0.1 MAF

Consumptive Use &

Channel Depletion

1.7 MAF

Average Annual

Inflows to the Delta

27.8 MAF

Average Annual

Outflows and Diversions

27.8 MAF

Figure 10-4.

Delta Flow

Components

and

Comparisons

made by the CVP, the SWP, and the City of Vallejo. Channel depletions occur due to
crop irrigation, evaporation, and channel seepage in the Delta (see Figure 10-4).

Today, minimum fresh water Delta outflow is maintained by releases from up-
stream storage reservoirs of the SWP and CVP. This outflow establishes a hydraulic
barrier to prevent ocean water from intruding deep into the Delta and affecting munic-
ipal and agricultural water supplies. The hydraulic barrier, where fresh water
gradually mixes with ocean water, is generally maintained near Chipps Island. During
flood flows, the hydraulic barrier moves out into the Bay.

Reverse Flow and Carriage Water

The expression "reverse flow" characterizes a Delta flow problem that stems from
the lack of capacity in certain channels leading to the export pumps (see Figure 10-5).
CVP and SWP water supply exports are obtained from uncontrolled Delta inflows
(when available) and from upstream reservoir releases when Delta inflow is low. Most
of these uncontrolled flows and releases enter the Delta via the Sacramento River and
then flow by various routes to the export pumps in the southern Delta. Some of these
flows are drawn to the SWP and CVP pumps through interior Delta channels, facili-
tated by the CVP's Delta Cross Channel and a natural connection through Georgiana
Slough. In some situations, these interior channels do not have enough capacity to
meet Delta demands for agriculture and the demands of the pumps in the southern
Delta.

The remaining water from the Sacramento River needed to meet pumping de-
mand flows down the Sacramento River to Three-mile Slough and the western end of
Sherman Island and up the San Joaquin River towards the pumps. When freshwater
outflow is relatively low, water in the western Delta is brackish because fresh water
from the Sacramento River mixes with saltier ocean water entering as tidal inflow from
the San Francisco Bay. This water can be drawn upstream (reverse flow) into the San
Joaquin River and other channels by pumping plant operations when San Joaquin
River flow is low and pumping is high. The massive amount of water driven in and out
of the Delta by tidal action dwarfs the actual fresh water outflow and considerably

250

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Figure 10-5. Flow Distribution, With and Without Reverse Flows

INFLOW

OUTFLOW REQUIRED
TO MEET D-1485
STANDARDS

• LODI

GOOD WATER
QUALITY

OUTFLOW REQUIRED
TO MEET D-1485
STANDARDS

•STOCKTON

Flow Distribution
With Reverse Flow

GOOD WATER
QUALITY

•STOCKTON

Flow Distribution
Witliout Reverse Flow

complicates the reverse flow issue. Prolonged reverse flow can deteriorate water quali-
I ty in the interior Delta and at the export pumps and harm fisheries.

Currently, during operational periods of reverse flow, more water than is needed
, for export must be released from project reservoirs to help repel intruding sea water,
\ maintain required water quality in the Delta, and meet export quality standards. This
incremental release of water from the reservoirs is termed carriage water. Carriage wa-
i ter is a function of Delta export. South Delta inflow, tidal cycle, and operation of the
I Delta Cross Channel gates. If the Delta Cross Channel gates are closed when pumping
rates are high and the Delta is under controlled conditions, more water must be re-
leased to repel salinity intrusion.

I Key Delta Issues
Fish and Wildlife Issues

Summarized here are Bay/Delta fish and wildlife issues that are discussed in

; more detail in Chapter 8, Environmental Water Use. Chapter 12. Water Supply and

I' Demand Balance, presents a range of hypothetical environmental water requirements
that could provide additional Delta outflow, with the intent of improving reliability

. of supply for environmental protection of aquatic species in the Delta. Water diver-
sions and their relationship to fish in the Delta are discussed here.

Delta fish are affected by a number of physical and biological problems includ-
ping: inflow that is reduced by upstream uses, upstream diversions that bypass the

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

251

Bulletin 160-93 TTie California Water Plan Update

Delta, direct diversions from the Delta itself, and changes to the food chain from the
introduction of nonnative aquatic species, toxics, and legal and illegal harvest. Direct
diversions include those by power plants and industries in the western Delta; 1,800
local agricultural diversions; the North Bay Aqueduct, serving the northern Bay area;
the Contra Costa Canal, serving the eastern San Francisco Bay Region; and the south-
em Delta diversions by the CVP and the SWP, which serve the southern Bay Area, the
San Joaquin Valley, and Southern California.

Fish screens and protection facilities have been constructed for the North Bay
Aqueduct, the CVP's Tracy Pumping Plant, and the SWP's H.O. Banks Delta Pumping
Plant. Water rights Decision 1485 mandates that the CVP and SWP exports be cur-
tailed during certain months to protect fish and that flows be maintained for
protecting the Delta environment. Concern about entrainment losses due to Delta
agricultural diversions has also resulted in fish screening requirements being estab-
lished in the Fish and Game Code. In April 1992, DWR implemented a three-year
Delta Agricultural Diversion Evaluation Program, with the objectives of developing re-
liable data about entrainment, determining the susceptibility of various fish species,
and testing the effectiveness of experimental fish screens. (See the Agricultural Diver-
sion Screening section later in this chapter.) Other protections include screens and
special mitigation measures for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company's power plant
diversions in the western Delta. Even with these measures, the need for a better un-
derstanding of the aquatic environment and more protection is evident, because some
Delta fish are continuing to decline.

The general decline of several fish, the Delta smelt and winter-run salmon in par-
ticular, has generated much concern and has ultimately resulted in both cited species
being listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. Two other species, the longfin
smelt and the splittail, have also been petitioned for listing. The listing of species has
considerably curtailed SWP and CVP diversions from the Delta, making those supplies
less reliable and more uncertain for urban and agricilltural users.

Local Issues

Local Delta water use is protected by a number of measures, such as the Delta
Protection Act, the Watershed Protection Law, and water rights. DWR negotiated
additional agreements to provide protection in connection with specific local problems.

The most pressing problem in the north Delta area is repeated and extensive
flooding of the leveed tracts and islands. Levee failures have become common and
there have been 14 levee breaks in the north Delta since 1980. Flooding problems are
not limited to the north Delta. Tliere have been 1 7 levee breaks since 1980 throughout
the Delta. Both the limited channel capacities and the inadequate, deteriorating non-
project, or local, levees contribute to this critical problem.

Factors that affect South Delta water levels and water availability at some local
diversion points are natural tidal fluctuations, San Joaquin River inflow, local
agricultural diversions and returns, inadequate channel capacities, and SWP and CVP
operations. Poor San Joaquin River water quality combined with local agricultural
drainage returns, aggravated by poor water cfrculation, has affected channel water
quality, particularly in shallow, stagnant, or dead-end channels. Channels that are too
shallow and narrow also restrict flow and the volimie of water available for export
pumping. Recently, DWR entered into an agreement with the South Delta Water
Agency and the USBR to develop long-term solutions for the SDWA's water problems.

DWR negotiated several long-term agreements with various local entities to pro-
tect thefr use of water fix)m adverse project impacts. To protect agricultural uses.

252 The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

contracts were executed with the North Delta Water Agency and the East Contra Costa
Irrigation District. To protect municipal uses, contracts were negotiated with the Con-
tra Costa Water District and the City of Antioch . Industries near Antioch and Pittsburg
use offshore water for processing. DWR signed two contracts (in 1987 and 1991) with
Gaylord Container Corporation. DWR occasionally pays for providing substitute water
through the Contra Costa Canal when offshore water quality falls below the industries'
requirements.

A Delta Protection Commission was established by the Delta Protection Act of
j 1992 for management of land resources within the Delta. The commission is to devel-
op a long-term resource management plan for the Delta "Primary Zone." As stated in
' the Act, the goals of this regional plan are to "protect, maintain, and where possible,
enhance and restore the overall quality of the Delta environment, including, but not
limited to, agriculture, wildlife habitat, and recreational activities." The Act acknowl-
edges that agricultural land within the Delta is of significant value as open space and
habitat for waterfowl using the Pacific Flyway. The regional plan is to protect agricul-
tural land within the Primary Zone from the intrusion of nonagricultural uses.

Delta Water Quality Standards

Water quality control in California is regulated by the State Water Resources
Control Board. From California's water supply perspective, perhaps the most impor-
. tant of the State's 1 6 water quality basin plans funded under California's Clean Water
P Bond Act of 1970 is the one for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The 1975 Basin
Plan provided for protection of the Delta's varied beneficial water uses through a set of
water quality objectives. These water quality objectives were similar to requirements in
Decision 1379 by the SWRCB, a decision pertaining to water rights for the SWP and
CVP.

In August 1978, the SWRCB adopted the Water Quality Control Plan for the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the Suisun Marsh (the Delta Plan) and the corre-
sponding water right Decision 1485, subsequent to D-1379 (1971). Both documents
amended water quality standards relating to salinity control and fish and wildlife
ll protection in the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary in the 1975 Basin Plan. D-1485
' standards are generally based on the degree of protection that municipal, industrial,
agricultural, and fish and wildlife uses would otherwise have experienced, had the
SWP and CVP not been built. D-1485 standards required that the SWP and CVP
make operational decisions to maintain Delta water quality and to meet Delta fresh-
water outflow within specified limits. About 5 maf of Delta outflow is required in an
average year to meet D-1485 salinity standards.

To help implement these water quality standards, D-1485 mandated an exten-
sive monitoring program. It also called for special studies to provide critical data about
major concerns in the Delta and Suisun Marsh for which information was insufficient.
D-1485 included water quality standards for Suisun Marsh as well as for the Delta.
requiring DWR and the USBR to develop a plan for the marsh that would ensure meet-
ing long-term standards for full protection by October 1984 (later extended to October
1988).

Recognizing that the complexities of project operations and water quality condi-
tions would change over time, the SWRCB also specified that the Delta water right
permit hearings would be reopened, depending upon changing conditions in the Bay/
Delta region and the availability of new evidence on beneficial uses of water.

The following brief discussions of the Racanelli Decision and the SWRCB Bay-
Delta Proceedings are repeated from Chapter 2, Institutvoncd Framework. These issues

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 253

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

The State Water

Resources Control

Board's Water Right

Decision 1485

recognized the Suisun

Marsh as an important

brackish marsh.

D-1485 required that a

plan for protecting the

marsh be implemented

by October 1984.

The plan is being

implemented in

phases, and Phases I

and II have been

completed.

are vitally important to
the Delta and have
institutional implica-
tions.

Racanelli Decision

Lawsuits by vari-
ous interests challenged
Decision 1485, and the
decisionwasoverturned
by the trial court in
1984. Unlike its prede-
cessor, D-1379, whose
standards had been ju-
dicially stayed, D-1485
remained in effect. In
1986, the appellate
court in the Racanelli
Decision (named after Judge Racanelli who wrote the opinion) broadly interpreted the
SWRCB's authority and obligation to establish water quality objectives and its
authority to set water rights permit terms and conditions that provide reasonable
protection of beneficial uses of Delta water and of San Francisco Bay. The court stated
that SWRCB needed to separate its water quality planning and water rights functions.
SWRCB needs to maintain a "global perspective" both in identifying beneficial uses to
be protected (not limited to water rights) and in allocating responsibility for
implementing water quality objectives (not just to the SWP and CVP, nor only through
the Board's own water rights processes). The court recognized the SWRCB's authority
to look to all water rights holders to implement water quality standards and advised
the Board to consider the effects of all Delta and upstream water users in setting and
implementing water quality standards in the Delta, as well as those of the SWP and the
CVP.

SWRCB Bay-Delta Proceedings

Hearings to adopt a water quality control plan and water rights decision for the
Bay-Delta estuary began in July 1987. Their purpose was to develop a San Francisco
Bay/ Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta water quality control plan and to consider public
interest issues related to Delta water rights, including implementation of water quality
objectives. During the first phase of the proceedings. State and federal agencies, in-
cluding DWR, public interest groups, and agricultural and urban water purveyors
provided many expert witnesses to testify on a variety of issues pertaining to the rea-
sonable and beneficial uses of the estuary's water. This phase took place over six
months, and generated volumes of transcripts and exhibits.

The SWRCB released a draft Water Quality Control Plan for Salinity and Pollutant
Policy Document in November 1988. However, the draft water quality control plan, a
significant departure from the 1978 plan, generated considerable controversy
throughout the State. The Pollutant Policy Document was subsequently adopted in
June 1990.

In January 1989, the SWRCB decided to significantly amend the draft plan and
redesign the hearing process. The water quality phase was to continue, an additional
scoping phase would follow, and issues related to flow were to be addressed In the
final water rights phase. Concurrently, DWR and other agencies offered to hold a

254

The Sacramento-Scm Joaquin Delta

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

series of workshops to address the technical concerns raised by the draft plan. These
workshops were open to the public and benefited all parties involved by facilitating a
thorough discussion of technical issues. After many workshops and revisions to the
water quality control plan, the SWRCB adopted a final plan in May 1991. The federal
EPA rejected this plan in September 1991.

With the adoption of the Water Quality Control Plan, the SWRCB began the EIR
scoping phase and held several workshops during 1 99 1 to receive testimony regarding
planning activities, facilities development, negotiated settlements, and flow objectives.
The goal was to adopt an EIR and a water right decision by the end of 1992.

In response to the Governor's April 1992 water policy statement. SWRCB de-
cided to proceed with a process to establish interim Bay-Delta standards to provide
immediate protection for fish and wildlife. Water right hearings were conducted from
July through August 1992, and draft interim standards (proposed Water Right Deci-
sion 1630) were released for public review in December 1992. Concurrently, under the
broad authority of the Endangered Species Act, the federal regulatory process was
proceeding toward development of Delta standards and upstream measures applicable
to the CVP and SWF for the protection of the threatened winter-run chinook salmon.
In February 1993, the National Marine Fisheries Service issued a long-term biological
opinion governing operations of the CVP and SWP with Delta environmental regula-
tions that in certain months were more restrictive than SWRCB's proposed measures.
On March 1 , 1993, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officially listed the Delta smelt as
a threatened species and shortly thereafter indicated that further restrictions of CVP
and SWP operations would be required.

In April 1 993, the Governor asked the SWRCB to withdraw its proposed Decision
1630 and instead focus efforts on establishing permanent standards for protection of
the Delta since recent federal actions had effectively preempted State interim stan-
dards and provided interim protection for the Bay-Delta environment. On December
15, 1993, EPA announced its proposed standards for the estuary in place of SWRCB
water quality standards EPA had rejected in 199 1 ; USFWS proposed to list the Sacra-
mento splittail as a threatened species; and NMFS announced its decision to change
the status of winter-run salmon from threatened to endangered.

In April 1994, the SWRCB began a series of workshops to review Delta protection
standards adopted in its 1991 Water Quality Control Plan for Salinity and to examine
proposed federal EPA standards issued in December 1993. These processes seek to
involve both SWRCB and EPA and are intended to establish a mutually acceptable
draft SWRCB Delta regulatory plan scheduled for release in December 1994. The plan
will be developed in accordance with the Triennial Review requirements of the Clean
Water Act.

Meeting Water Quality Standards

Water quality of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is generally satisfactory for
agriculture. However, the quality of the Delta water could potentially pose problems to
the municipal water purveyors charged with treating the water to meet anticipated fed-
eral standards for trihalomethanes and new standards for other disinfection
byproducts. More stringent standards could force msiny water purveyors to spend bil-
lions of dollars for additional treatment.

Precursors of trihalomethane (THMs) formation include naturally occurring dis-
solved organic matter and bromides. Dissolved organic matter is present in Delta
drainage water primarily as a result of the decomposition of plants, such as the

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 256

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

decayed Delta marsh lands. Bromide is present in sea water and is introduced into the
Delta when fresh water is mixed with ocean water by tidal action. The degree to which
saline water penetrates into the Delta is a function of the interaction of the high and
low tides, fresh-water outflow. Delta export, diversions from the Delta channels, and
atmospheric conditions.

Because THMs can potentially cause cancer, the EPA in 1979 set the standard
for trihalomethanes in treated drinking water at 0. 10 milligram per liter or 100 parts
per billion. One ppb would be the equivalent to two drops in a large bacl^ard swim-
ming pool (25,000 gallons).

It will be difficult or perhaps impossible with existing facilities for water utilities
to achieve compliance with stricter standards for THMs. Urban purveyors of Delta wa-
ter, who serve two-thirds of the State's population, will be forced to redesign their
existing water treatment facilities or limit Delta exports when water quality is not suit-
able unless a solution is found to improve the quality of export water for urban
purveyors. Water quality considerations are presented in more detail in Chapter 5.

Flooding in the Delta

The reliability of Delta water supplies, in terms of water quality, could be
£iffected by levee failures caused by poor levee maintenance, levee instability, high
water, or earthquakes. Protection of certain islands in the western Delta is
particularly importcint because water quality can be degraded by intrusion of brack-
ish water. Large volumes of brackish water could rush into the Delta and deteriorate
Delta water quality if a levee were to fail. Permanent flooding of western Delta islands
could increase the upstream movement of ocean salts, requiring projects upstream of

the Delta to provide more

A levee on Tyler

Iskmd in the north

Delta breaches during

the 1986Jloods. In

all, six Delta islands

and tracts Jlooded, as

did Interstate 5 and

numerous local

roads. The flooding

forced 1,600 people

to evacuate and cost

$20 million in direct

damage.

outflow to repel the salt and
maintain water quality in
the Delta and at the
pumps.

Stability of Deita Levees

The levees act as the
only barriers between low-
lying land and water in the
Delta. Behind these earth-
en walls lie about half a
million acres of agricultu-
ral land and wildlife
habitat; many small com-
munities; and numerous
roads, railroad lines, and
utilities. Delta islands,
which commonly lie 10 to
15 feet below sea level and are composed in part of highly organic (peat) soils, are
constantly in danger of further land subsidence and seepage. The original levees were
constructed to heights of about 4 feet and founded on the soft, organic Delta soils. Due
to continued subsidence of the levees and island interiors, it is necessary to continual-
ly add material to maintain freeboard and structural stability. Over the last century,
many of the levees have significantly increased in size and now average between 15
and 25 feet high. The increasing levee height has meant an increased threat of failure
which requires increasing maintenance and repair costs just to prevent further

256

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

deterioration of levee conditions. The Delta Flood Protection Act enacted in 1988 (see
below) has provided the impetus toward levee improvement rather thanjust maintain-
ing the status quo.

Delta levees are classified as either project or nonproject levees. Project levees are
part of the federal flood control project. Mostly found along the Sacramento and San

I Joaquin rivers, they are generally maintained to Army Corps of Engineers standards
and provide dependable protection. Nonproject. or local, levees (three-fourths of the
Delta levees) are those constructed and maintained to varying degrees by island land-
owners or local reclamation districts. Most of these levees have not been brought up to

j federal standards and are less stable, thereby increasing the chances of flooding.

The Delta Levee Subventions Program, originally known as the "Way Bill" pro-
; gram, began in 1973. The bill authorized funding for levee maintenance and
I rehabilitation costs, with up to 50-percent reimbursement to local agencies. The fund-
I tag for these reclamation projects has grown from $200,000 annually in the 1970s to
$2 million annually in the 1980s, with a 50-percent reimbursement rate to local dis-
tricts.

Seventeen islands have been partially or completely flooded since 1980. costing
roughly $100 million for property recovery and repairs. As a result of floods in 1986.
the Delta Flood Protection Act (Senate Bill 34) was enacted in 1988. Through the Act.
funding for the Delta Subventions Program increased up to $6 million a year smd al-
lowed up to 75-percent reimbursement to the local agencies for their levee work.
Another $6 million is directed toward implementing special flood control projects. Re-
cent activities include planning and designing major levee rehabilitation projects for
Twitchell Island and New Hope Tract; repair of threatened levee sites on Sherman Is-
land, Twitchell Island, Bethel Island, and Webb Tract; and other special projects and

. studies to determine the causes of Delta land subsidence.

t The levees are also potentially threatened by earthquake activity. Several active

faults — the Antioch, Greenville, and Coast Range Sierra Nevada Boundary Zone
faults — are west of the Delta and are capable of delivering moderate to heavy shaking.
There has been continuous concern about the potential for liquefaction of the levees
and of the foundation materials on some islands. There is no record of a levee failure
resulting from earthquake shaking; however, many experts believe that the levee sys-
tem has not really been tested by substantial earthquake shaking. Several studies
indicate there will probably be levee damage or failure induced by earthquake shaking

i within the next 30 years. Further investigations will better define the expected perfor-

I mance of the levees during earthquakes.

Delta Water Resource Management and Planning

Because of its importance to the state- wide water supply, the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta is the most studied body of water in the State. No one in California dis-
putes the need to improve water transfer efficiency, min-imize land subsidence and
flooding, and im-prove conditions for fish and wildlife. The issue is not whether the Delta
I should be fixed, but rather how the Delta problems should be resolved.

Planning for Delta improvements to address sea water intrusion into the Delta
has been under way since the late 1800s. Ocean salinity intrusion into the Delta was
first noted in 1841 . long before any upstream water development was in place. Plan-
ning began with an 1874 report by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers suggesting use of
Sacramento Valley water to irrigate both the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys.
That report was followed by a comprehensive State plan for water development issued

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 257

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

* in 1919 by Col. Robert B. Marshall, a topographer with the U.S. Geological Survey.

Our present State water system includes many of Marshall's ideas. Reviewing the plan
in 1926, the California Water Resources Association commented:

. . .whatever plan the Department of Public Works may recommend, (It) must. . .make
some feasible and satisfactory recommendation covering the extremely grave problem
of salt water encroachment in the Delta. . . . This is one of the most vital considerations
before the people of California today ....

Since then, there have been numerous studies for controlling salinity intrusion and im-
proving the water resources management of the Delta for the benefit of all Californians.

Past Delta Water Management Programs

Four broad concepts have been studied for the Delta. These are:

O physical barriers

O hydraulic barriers

O through-Delta facilities

O isolated facilities

During the last 50 years a variety of proposals modifying or combining all these
concepts have been suggested to improve Delta conditions and to allow for beneficial
use of Delta water supplies.

Physical barriers to separate salt and fresh water were predominant in early
studies. During the 1940s and 1950s salt water barriers at numerous sites on the Bay
and Delta system were again studied in detail. However, it was recognized that barriers
in the San Francisco Bay system would not be functionally feasible and that further
barrier consideration should be limited to, or upstream from, the Chipps Island site at
the outlet of the Delta. Installation of barriers in major channels such as the one adja-
cent to Chipps Island would change the flow regime, change the location and area of
the tidal mixing zone, affect the food chain in the Delta, and be an obstacle for ship-
ping and migratory fish passing through the Delta.

Hydraulic barriers were also studied in early planning stages to repel salinity
intrusion in the Delta. The thrust of hydraulic barrier studies was that water transfer
through existing Delta channels for local use and export could be accompanied by wa-
ter releases from upstream reservoirs to control salinity by outflow from the Delta.
This was the basis of the proposals adopted for current SWP and CVP operations.

Through-Delta facilities were first studied in the late 1950s and were pro-
posed by DWR in 1960 as the single-purpose Delta Water Project (later referred to as
the Waterway Control Plan). This alternative proposed such actions as enlarging Delta
channels, closing channels, and constructing siphons, as well as moderate releases of
water from upstream storage reservoirs for salinity control to improve movement of
Sacramento River water to pumps in the South Delta. A similar concept was formu-
lated in a plan proposed by DWR in 1983 under "Alternatives for Delta Water
Transfer." The most recent through-Delta facility proposal is the North Delta Program,
which addresses North Delta flooding issues in addition to improving conveyance ca-
pacity of North Delta channels to reduce reverse flow and salinity intrusion.

Isolated facilities would convey water around the Delta for local supply and
export through a hydraulically isolated channel. Delta salinity control would be ac-
complished by a hydraulic barrier maintained by releases from upstream storage
reservoirs. This concept was formulated in a plan proposed by the Interagency Delta
Committee in 1965 as the Peripheral Canal. A statute that would have authorized this
and many other additions to the SWP was rejected by the voters in 1982.

258 The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Current Delta Regulatory Decision -Making Process

Competing needs and various governmental agencies with different Jurisdictional
claims on the Delta have made today's Delta planning process more complex than
ever. The Delta lies within five counties and is subject to various State and federal reg-
ulations. Consequently, Delta planning programs usually provide forums for many
diverse interests and often generate much controversy. The challenge of Delta plan-
ning is to create a planning strategy that can balance the diverse and often conflicting
interests.

Today, the decision-making process is slow and complicated by an intricate web
of institutional constraints and the number of parties involved. This has made resolu-
tion of Delta problems a divided and sometimes disjointed process. Thus far, no
consensus has been reached. Lx)cal, regional. State, and federal agencies, as well as
environmental and economic concerns, all play a role in the Delta planning and deci-
sion-making process. Delta management decisions are made at every level of
government. DWR is just one component in this complex puzzle. The trend, in recent
years, has been toward more involvement of federal regulatory agencies in Delta water
management planning.

Among the agencies regulating water use from the Sacramento-San Joaquin riv-
er system are:

State Water Resources Control Board U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service
California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

These agencies exercise regulatory control and enforce statutes that Include the
State and federal endangered species acts, the federal Clean Water Act, and water
rights. These laws are discussed in Chapter 2, The Institutional Framework for Water
Management in California. How these laws affect Delta planning and the agencies in-
volved are discussed here.

Virtually anything that can be done to resolve Delta problems will require per-
mits from a number of agencies. Potential permits required for Delta program
implementation are shown in Table 10- 1 . The environmental documentation process,
regulatory permits, and compliance with requirements of the endangered species acts
are the most important components of the decision-making process. The following
sections discuss the environmental review process, regulatory permits, and the en-
dangered species acts as they relate to Delta planning. Figure 10-6 is a flow chart
showing the interrelationships of these three components in the Delta decision-mak-
ing process.

Environmental Review Process. Both the National Environmental Policy Act
and the California Environmental Quality Act require decision makers to document
and consider the environmental impacts of their actions and encourage public partici-
pation in the decision-making process. Both CEQA and NEPA processes start with a
formal public notice announcing to the public and concerned agencies that the plan-
ning and environmental documentation process has begun and that public input is
sought. Public scoping meetings are held to solicit public input in determining the
scope of the environmental document. A draft environmental document is then pre-
pared and released for public review and comments. The draft document includes a
comprehensive evaluation of alternatives and their impacts along with potential miti-
gation measures. Successful completion of the environmental documentation process

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 259

BuUetiii 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

"Ibble 10-1. Major PennHs Required for Implementation of Delta Water ^klnagelnent Programs
Agency PeaaiiDesaipltkm PennkCoridiHons

Corps of Engineers (in coordination
with U.S. Rsh and Wildlife Service
arxJ Environmental Protection
Agency)

Dredging Permit
(Section 404, dean
V/derAa)

Required for any proposal to iocorie a structure, excavode, or dbchaitfe
diedyed or fiH materials into wutus of tfie United Stales or to transport
dredged material for the purpose of dumping it ir4o ocean waters.

Navigation Permit
(Section 10, Rivers and
Harbors Ad)

Required for any proposal to cfivert or alter navigable waters in the Umted
States, irxkiding wetlands.

NatioTKil Marine Rsheries Service

Incidental lake Permit

Required for any action that may result in the take of listed onadromous
species. Permit is issued under authority of ESA.

U.S. Rsh and Wildife Service

biddentai lake Permit

Required for any action that may result in the take of listed species. Permit
is issued under tfie authority of ESA.

Department of Rsh and Game

Navigation Dredging
Permit

Stream or Lakeside
Alteration Agreement

Permit or MOU

Required for any proposal to use suction or vacuum dredging equipment in
any river, stream, or bke designaled as open.

Required for any activity that wil change the natural state of any river,
stream, or lake in California.

Required for any action that may result in the take of a Stale Ested spedes.

Cohrons

ErKToachment Permit

Utility Encroachment

Required for any proposal to do work or place an encroachment on or near
a Stole highway or proposal to develop and mrantain access to or from any
Stale highway.

Required for vi^ork done by public utility companies provisioning services,
such as gas, eledridty, telephone, for most work within the right of vray of
a State highway.

State Lands Commission

Notice of Proposed Use
of Slate Lands

Notice is sent to the Slate Lands Commission for any proposed SWP or CVP
projects in the Delta for review and concurrence.

The Redamalion Board

Encroachment Permit

Required for any activity along or near the bonks of the Sacramento and
Son Joaquin rivers or their tributaries. The Redamalion Board also issues
erKTOochment permits for activity on any 'designated flooAua/' or fkxxJ
conlrol plan adopted by tfie Legislature or the Board within the Central
Vdie/.

Slate Water Resources Control Board Permit to Appropriate

V^^rier

Required for any proposd to (fivert water from a surface stream or other
bod^ of water for use on nonriparian hnd or any proposal to store
unappropriated surface water seasonoly.

Deportment of Water Resources,
Division of Safety of Dams

Approval of Plans and
Specifications and
Certificate of Approval

Required for any proposal to constrict or enlarge a dam 25 feet or mere in
height or impounding a reservoir witfi a capacity of more tfion 50 AF.

RegioncJ Water Qualily Conlrol
Board

Waste Disdnrge Required for any actions that may resuil in the discharge or potenbal

Requirement dbchargeof waste to Deba water.

depends on an agency's aihihty to adequately evaluate and address public comments
and to build consensus and support for the action. Environmental interests, water us-
ers, and local entities in the Delta all have a great interest in any xaaqor decisions made
for the Delta. For any Delta water planning decision to be acceptable, it should protect

260

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Figure 10-6. Delta Decision-Making Process

ndangered Species
Acts (ESA & CESA)

Section 10
J| Process

Biological Assessment

Habitat
Conservarii
Plan

Biological Opinion

Jeopardy
Opinion

Non-Jeopardy ^
Opinion i

Action Plan
Stopped

Action Plan for
Delta

Action Plan
Stopped

Permits Are Issued

Reasonable & Prudent
Alternative

Action Plan Completed

Section 404
Xiean Water Act

—^04(b)(l) Analysis

Other Permii

Action Not Least
Damaging Alternative

Action Plan
Stopped

Mitigation Plan

Plnalysis Satisfies
Corps of Engineers
PA Requirement!^

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

261

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Delta islands from flooding, ensure a reliable water supply of suitable quality for Delta
water users, and guarantee environmental protection for fish and wildlife.

Regulatory Permits. Implementation of a comprehensive program for the Delta
requires a number of permits, including permits under Section 404 of the federal
Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. These two permits are
administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Section 404 regulates the dis-
charge of dredged and fill materials into waters of the United States. Issuance of 404
permits requires EPA approval and coordination with USFWS. A Section 10 permit
(Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act) is required for obstruction of any navigable
water including construction of dams or barriers. The Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines
promulgated by the EPA state, "No discharge of dredged or fill materials shall be per-
mitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have
less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have
other significant adverse environmental consequences." Any Delta program must com-
ply with these guidelines by going through a comprehensive alternative analysis to
determine the "least environmentally damaging practicable alternative." The alterna-
tive analysis along with environmental impacts analyses of the proposed action can be
formulated within the framework of environmental documentation required by NEPA.

Endangered Species Acts. Requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act
and the California Endangered Species Act have altered and now greatly affect water
resources planning in the Delta. Two species, the winter-run chinook salmon and Del-
ta smelt, were listed under the federal and State acts. These listings have changed the
decision-making process for the Delta. In accordance with the ESA, a biological as-
sessment should be prepared for any federal actions or permit applications in the
Delta which may have impacts on listed and proposed species. The assessment con-
tains information concerning listed and proposed species as well as material relating
to the impacts of the proposed project on listed species. The biological assessment is
used to determine whether formal consultation is required for the proposed action af-
fecting the critical habitat or the species. Formal consultation is required if the listed
species or their critical habitat are adversely affected by an action.

Based on the biological assessment, a biological opinion is prepared by either the
USFWS or NMFS depending on the species. NMFS is responsible for ocean and
anadromous species, while USFWS is the authority for inland species. The appropriate
agency then determines whether the action is likely to jeopardize the continued exis-
tence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. If the action would jeopardize the continued existence of the species, the opin-
ion contains a reasonable and prudent alternative to avoid jeopardy. An
incidental-take statement is issued when there may be a taking of a listed species inci-
dental to the action that does not jeopardize the listed species' continued existence or
critical habitat. For the projects that may have an impact on the listed species, but do
not require any federal actions, a Section 10 (Section 10 of the ESA) incidental-take
permit is required.

When a Delta decision is determined to affect species listed under both FESA
and CESA, a State lead agency engages in a consultation with DFG. DFG also partici-
pates in the federal consultation process to ensure that the federal biological opinion
findings are consistent with the State findings. In most cases, DFG would adopt the
federal biological opinion. ^

Role of the U.S. EPA in the Delta M

The U.S. EPA role in the Delta is as follows: ^

262 The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Q EPA has the authority to veto permits issued by the Corps under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act if EPA determines that the project causes unacceptable adverse
effects.

Q The EPA has the authority to implement the Clean Water Act which, among other
things, established a permit system to regulate point-source discharges in
navigable waters of the United States, provided for control of nonpoint pollution
sources, and required the EPA to establish effluent limitations and water quality
criteria. Recently. EPA indicated that, under Clean Water Act authority, it will
formulate water quality standards for the Delta. (In California, the authority to
implement the Clean Water Act has been delegated to the SWRCB, although EPA
retains the authority to step in when it determines State action is not adequate to
protect the quality of U.S. waters.)

O The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act directed the EPA to set national standards for
drinking water quality. EPA is currently reviewing the standards forTHMs and other
disinfectant byproducts with the intent of replacing them with stricter standards.
This would have a significant impact on the urban water agencies receiving their
water from the Delta. Thus, EPA actions through its jurisdiction under the Clean
Water Act and the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act could significantly affect
decisions for the Delta.

The federal government is playing a much greater role in determining what is
ultimately to be done in the Delta than it has in the past. The Delta is an estuary and
a navigable waterway subject to a number of significant federal laws because it in-
cludes wetlands and valuable anadromous fisheries. Any physical solution to Delta
problems will require regulatory permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and
the endangered species acts. Over the years, activities necessary to obtain permits
have evolved into complex and time-intensive processes.

Planning for the Delta generates controversy £uid promotes public and political
debates. Actions by regulatory agencies are not isolated from these debates, and Delta
planners recognize this complex relationship in formulating management strategies
for the Delta. Such strategies require extensive coordination, cooperation, consulta-
tion, negotiation, and consensus between federal. State, and local entities. Building
consensus for an action plan that would balance those interests and concerns of local
entitles requires extensive negotiations among agencies. The interrelationships be-
tween the environmental documentation process, permitting process, and endangered
species actions are complex and continually changing. Delta planners are trying to
find their way through an ever-changing maze of regulatory constraints surrounding
the decision-making process in the Delta.

Options for Enhancing Urban Water Quality, Water Supply Reliability,
and Improving Delta Environmental Conditions

The options discussed briefly here present some of the alternatives that are cur-
rently being evaluated or could be evaluated in the future. Protection of fish and
wildlife and the ultimate Delta solution will determine the feasibility of several water
supply programs. The following programs are intended to show the range of options
being discussed by interest groups and water planners at this time.

Ongoing Delta Planning Programs

Interim South Delta Water Management Program. DWR recently evaluated
the South. North, and West Delta programs to improve conditions in the Delta. The
Interim South Delta Water Management Program is an important part of any water

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 263

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

'* banking program and was implemented in response to an October 1986 agreement

among DWR, USER, and the South Delta Water Agency. The program also addresses
the need to increase the operational flexibility and reliability of the SWP, including Los
Banos Grandes, a south-of-the-Delta offstream storage project authorized in 1984. In
the SDWA agreement, all three parties committed to developing mutually acceptable,
long-term solutions to the water supply problems of local water users within SDWA.

The Interim South Delta Preferred Alternative consists of constructing interim
facilities that include an additional SWP intake structure at Clifton Court Forebay,
limited channel dredging, four flow-control structures, and a permit allowing the SWP
to increase its existing pumping capacity. These facilities are intended to provide for
operational flexibility to improve SWP water supply capability, reduce fishery impacts
(particularly on San Joaquin River salmon populations), and improve water levels and
circulation for local agricultural diverters.

A new multigate intake structure is proposed for the northeastern corner of the
existing Clifton Court Forebay near the confluence of Old River and the Victoria and
North canals as shown on Figure 10-7. This additional intake structure would be oper-
ated according to tidal water elevations to increase peak flow into the forebay. It would
increase average daily diversion into the forebay and allow pumping at the H.O. Banks
Delta Pumping Plant to the maximum design capacity of 10,300 cfs. Some channel
dredging would be required to assure that channel scouring does not occur. This
dredging would be in Old River north of the forebay.

Three of the four flow-control structures are proposed to control water levels,
circulation, and the flow in the South Delta channels. The structures would be tidally
operated during the irrigation season. Operations would retain flood tide flows in
South Delta channels for a longer period of time to raise water levels. During other
times of the year these control structures would be opened and would not affect local
hydrology. The fourth, a control structure on Old River near the San Joaquin River,
would be operated in the fall and spring to help salmon migrating in the San Joaquin
River. During other times of the year this structure would not alter flows. The Interim
South Delta Water Management Program could augment SWP supplies by about
60,000 af per year.

North Delta Program. Limited channel capacity in the north Delta has contrib-
uted to two major problems: reverse flow in the San Joaquin River, a consequence of
SWP and CVP exports from the Delta, and repeated flooding of local leveed tracts. A
proposed solution to both problems is dredging and widening of various interior Delta
channels to allow more unrestricted flows. A primary focus of the North Delta Program
is improving the connection to the Sacramento River, thereby sharply reducing reverse
flow.

For flood control, the biggest problem in the north Delta is the bottleneck caused
by the narrow channels of the Mokelumne River. Its channels are too small to handle
high water flows. Repeated flooding of leveed tracts is a threat to more than 2,000
people, their homes, and thousands of acres of valuable farmlands.

The intent of the North Delta program is to allow greater flood flows to pass safe-
ly, while lowering flood levels throughout the area by dredging and building new
setback levees. The new levees would provide greater protection for Thornton, Walnut
Grove, Tyler Island, New Hope Tract, and other Delta lands.

Increased channel capacity and less or no reverse flow would create a more effi-
cient means of transferring water through the north and central Delta, thus providing

264 The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Figure 10-7. Proposed Interim South Delta Water Management Program

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

265

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

additional water suppty for SWP users. Another benefit to increased channel capacity
and reduced reverse flow is better water quality.

The winter-run 1993 biological opinion requires that the Delta Cross Channel be
closed firom February 1 through April 30 each year to reduce entrainment of winter-
run Chinook salmon into the Central Delta. Closing Delta cross channel gates
increases reverse flow, thus curtailing SWP and CVP exports. Similar concerns would
need to be addressed and resolved if North Delta facilities were in place.

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

This plan would significant^ reduce subsidence by minimizing oxidation and
erosion of the peat soils on the islands. This would be accomplished by replacing pres-
ent agricultural cultivation practices with land use management practices designed to
stabilize the soil. Such practices range firom tninimizlng tillage to establishing wetland
habitat.

Altering land use practices on Sherman and T^vitchell islands could provide up
to 13,600 acres of managed wildlife and waterfowl habitat and responds directfy to the
underlying need for additional wetlands in the Delta, as expressed in national and
State policies for wetlands enhancement and expansion.

J^riadtiUXLl Diversion Screening. EntrainmeAt losses due to agricultural di-
versions in the Delta may be a substantial source of mortality for the eai^ life stages
of some Delta fish species. However, little is known about the extent of these losses or
the factors afiecting them. Due to concerns about water diversions and impacts oo
fishery resources. DWR implemented a three-year Delta Agricultural Diversion Evalu-
ation Program in April 1992. The objectives of the program are to develop reliable data
about entrainment of various fish species, determine the effects of entrainment on the
species' life stages, describe the species susceptibility to agricultural diversions during
the irrigation season, and compare the obtained data with information about abun-
dance and life stages of the same species living in adjacent channels. The 1992 pilot
study focused on refining sampling techniques and assessing the suitability of four
diversion sites fTwitchell Island. Bacon Island. McDonald Tract and Naglee Bulk
Tract). The McDonald Tract tested the effectiveness of an experimental fish screen
installed on the siphon intake for the Central Delta Water Agency Fish Screen Test
Project. The screen was effective in reducing entrainment of larvae 4 to 5 millimeters
and larger. However, the effects of the screen impingement on the larvae are not
known. Generalty. larval fish are usually more abundant than juveniles or older fish
due simply to the natural mortality rate of a population before they reach these later
stages.

Long-Term Delta Planning Programs

Recognizing the complexity of the Delta decision-snaking process, the Governor
provided specific direction and guidance to correct the current "broken" condition oS
the Delta in his 1992 statewide water policy speech. He established the Bay-Delta

266 The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Oversight Council to help guide the planning and decision- making process. BDOC is
to define objectives, evaluate criteria, and formulate alternatives for the Delta. The
council is composed of concerned private citizens from throughout California. BDOC
will evaluate all reasonable options to solve complex Delta problems as part of this
process. However, any recommended long-term solution must be practical, scientifi-
cally sound, improve protection for the Bay-Delta estuary, and provide for more
reliable water supplies. The following are some of the programs that could be investi-
gated for a long-term solution to Delta problems.

Isolated Facility. The isolated facility consists of constructing an isolated canal
from near Hood on the Sacramento River to Clifton Court Forebay (with a fish screen
near Hood), siphons, and the capability to release water to Delta channels to improve
water circulation in Delta channels (see Figure 10-8). This option can improve water
quality for urban and agricultural water users. It would eliminate reverse flow in the
Delta and improve water quality and flow in the Delta by releasing water to South Del-
ta channels. Because the intake gate of this facility would be upstream of much of the
Delta along the Sacramento River, it would significantly reduce bromide and agricul-
tural drainage impacts on water delivered to urban water purveyors. Possible
collateral measures to improve water quality at the intake gate would be to divert ma-
jor Sacramento Valley agricultural drainage and Sacramento Regional Treatment Plant
effluent to the Yolo Bypass. This option would also reduce the effects of CVP and SWP
export facilities on fish by eliminating predation in Clifton Court Forebay, improving
fish migration by closing the Delta cross channel gates, and by eliminating reverse
flow.

The Dual Water Transfer Facility. The dual water transfer facility would also
consist of an isolated canal, with fish screens near Hood, to transfer SWP water from
Hood on the Sacramento River to Clifton Court Forebay on the same alignment as the
above isolated facility, except it that would be smaller. This facility would provide bet-
ter quality water for urban water agencies, but its full potential, in this regard, could
only be realized by separating urban from agricultural supplies using existing facilities
and constructing new conveyance facilities south of the Delta. The Delta cross channel
gates would remain operational. Pumping for SWP and CVP exports from the South
Delta would continue, but at a lower rate and when high flows are available. Dual wa-
ter transfer would allow for release of water to South Delta channels to improve water
supply and circulation in the South Delta channels. This facility would provide some
benefits to fisheries, but benefits would not be as great as with an isolated facility.

Sierra Source. The Sierra source option consists of a new channel transferring
water directly from the Feather and Sacramento rivers, bypassing the Delta, and deliv-
ering water directly to Clifton Court Forebay and the federal export facilities in the
South Delta. This option would reduce THM precursors, provide high quality water for
export, and have the same fish benefit as an isolated facility. In addition, it would
eliminate direct diversion along the Sacramento River and provide for a free-flowing
river from Keswick through the Delta. A more detailed description of this option can be
found in Chapter 1 1 under Westside Sacramento Valley Project.

Delta Agricultural Drainage Management. This management action would
collect all or a major part of the agricultural drainage from Delta islands and discharge
the drainage to another location or treat it to reduce THM precursors at Delta pumps.
This management program improves Delta water quality for urban use by reducing
organic THM precursors; however, bromide precursors will still be present in the wa-
ter. Drainage water collection and disposal could be a major undertaking that may be

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 267

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure 10-8. Proposed Isolated Facilities (1982)

SCALE IN MILEB

268

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

costly for the benefit
gained from the pro-
gram.

Delta Storage.

Storage of unregulated
flood flows in and around
the Delta has been the
subject of several studies
in recent years. DWR
studied Los Vaqueros
Reservoir in the early
1 980s to evaluate the fea-
sibility of augmenting
SWP supplies with the
construction of a 1-maf
storage facility on
Kellogg Creek in Contra
Costa County. This project has been further studied by Contra Costa Water District to
provide water supply reliability to the district; see Chapter 11 for a more detailed
description.

In the late 1980s, a unique wetlands management and water storage project for
j the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta was proposed by a land development company.
I The proposed project. Delta Wetlands, would convert land use on Bouldin, Webb, Hol-
land, and Bacon islands from agricultural use to water storage and managed
wetlands. Two islands. Bacon Island and Webb Tract, would be managed primarily for
, water storage. The stored water would be pumped from the islands to the Delta chan-
I nels for sale to participating water purveyors. The other two islands, Bouldin Island
and Holland Tract, would be operated primarily for wildlife benefits, which would pro-
j vide an opportunity to develop new habitat for endangered species. Because the
I wetlands would be in a wet or semi-moist condition year-round, invertebrate food for
wildlife would be more abundant. Also, nesting opportunities on Bouldin Island and
Holland Tract would be greatly enhanced.

The Delta Wetlands project proposes to convert surplus wet year Delta flows to a
new source of central Delta water, which would be used later in the year when demand
exists (see Figure 10-9). The proposed water supply storage capacity of the project is
about 230,000 af. Water rights applications have been filed for this project. The lead
agencies are the SWRCB for California and the Corps of Engineers for the federal
government. A Draft EIR/EIS was released on December 26, 1990. A redraft of the
document is anticipated to be available In 1994.

Recommendations

The Delta is the hub of California's water supply Infrastructure. It 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 water supplies. The Delta provides valuable habitat and
migration corridors for many species, including winter-run salmon and delta smelt,
which are listed under the State and federal Endangered Species acts. Key problems in
the Delta must be addressed before several other Level I options can progress to help
California meet its water supply needs to the year 2020.

The Governor's water policy statement of April 1992 specifically called for taking
interim actions in the Delta, such as Improvements in the South Delta that will help

Because most agricul-
tural land in the Delta
is near or below sea
level, drainage water
from these areas must
be pumped over levees
into nearby channels or
rivers. These pipes
carry agricultural
drainage Jlows from
Twitchell Island, lifring
the water about 20 feet
and releasing it into the
San Joaquin River

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

269

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure 10-9. Proposed Delta Wetlands Project (1990)

SCALE IN MILES

270

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

restore the environment and improve water supply in the short-term, while starting
the CEQA/NEPA processes to address and develop long-term solutions to Delta prob-
lems. State and federal agencies must work together to resolve these complex issues
and move toward long-term solutions.

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 271

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Orange (Doimty Water District's Factory 21 has been recycling water for 16 years. The
water recycling industry has made important advances in technology, allowing more
efficient and less expensive reuse oj water. Some of the direct uses include landscape
and agricultural irrigation, industrial cooling, toilet flushing in commercial buUdings,
and sea water intrusion barriers.

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Chapter 1 1

The reliability of water supplies in each of California's ten major hydrologic re-
gions depends on the climate, geography, patterns of water use specific to each region,
the abundance of local supplies, and in some cases the availability of imported sup-
plies. California's water supply network is a sophisticated system with many
interconnections, giving local and regional water planners a wide array of options from
which to meet needs. If a region cannot manage water demand through demand man-
agement actions or find sufficient water supplies within its borders, it often goes
beyond those borders and imports water from, or shares water with, other regions.
Conjunctive use, water banking, water marketing, conservation, water recycling, and
conventional supply augmentation projects are all options that can be employed indi-
vidually or collectively because of supply network flexibility.

Whenever a region looks outside of its borders for water supply augmentation,
statewide water management and integrated resource planning come into the picture.
Depending on the package of options chosen, one region's actions can affect another
region's supplies. The statewide planning process involves assessing trends in each re-
gion's water demand and quantifying the cumulative effects of each region's demand
and use patterns on statewide supplies. It basically parallels the planning process at
the local and regional levels. By working through a statewide planning process, the
magnitude of both intraregional and interregional effects can be analyzed. However, in
a number of circumstances, measures that would be taken to manage demand, to in-
crease supplies, and to improve water service reliability are local decisions. These
decisions must weigh the cost of increased reliability with the economic, environmen-
tal, and social costs of expected shortages.

Planners at the local and regional levels face the same increasingly difficult issues
that statewide planners face: the pressures of a continually growing population on exist-
ing supplies, more stringent regulatory requirements, environmental consequences of
developing new sources of supply, and the increasing costs of implementing new pro-
grams or projects. To plan for long-term water supply reliability, these planners must
examine an increasingly wide array of supply augmentation and demand reduction op-
tions to determine the best courses of action for meeting water service needs. Such
options are generally evaluated using the water service reliability planning approach
outlined below. This chapter also summarizes Level I and Level II water management
options for enhancing water supply reliability.

Reliability Planning: Maintaining the Balance Between Water Supply and Demand

Water service planners now evaluate demand management options in much the
same way that supply augmentation options were evaluated in traditional benefit/cost
analyses completed for many of the State's existing major water supply facilities. For
the California Water Plan Update, future long-term demand management options are

Options for
Balancing
Water Supply
and Demand

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

273

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

those that go beyond the actions included in urban Best Management Practices or agri-
'•- cultural Efficient Water Management Practices. (See Chapters 6 and 7 for a discussion

of BMPs and EWMPs.) These long-term options also go beyond retiring unproductive
agricultural land. The costs of demand management or supply augmentation options
to reduce the frequency and severity of shortages are now high enough that planners
must also look more carefully at the costs of unreliability to make the best possible
estimate of the net benefit of taking specific actions, hence the term "reliability plan-
ning." Reliability is a measure of a water service system's expected success in
managing drought shortages.

The objective of reliability planning is to determine the most effective way of
achieving an additional increment of reliability at the least cost and to ascertain wheth-
er the benefits, in terms of avoided shortage-related costs and losses, justify the costs
of adding that increment. Reliability planning requires information about: (1) the ex-
pected frequency and severity of shortages; (2) how additional water management
measures are likely to affect that frequency and severity of shortages; and (3) how
available contingency measures can reduce the impact of shortages when they occur.
The approach also uses information about the costs and losses associated with short-
ages of varying severity and duration as well as the costs of long-term and contingency
water management options. Outlined below are the principles on which water service
reliability planning is based:

O In any given year, available water supply and (to a lesser extent) water demand
primarily depend on weather conditions. Because these conditions can be highly
variable, shortages are projected in terms of their likelihood of occurrence and
expected severity. In some systems, instream flow requirements, based on fish or
habitat protection, can further complicate estimation of available annual supplies.

O The larger the demand, relative to supply, the more likely a shortage will occur in
any given year and, given that a shortage occurs, the greater will be its expected
severity.

O Historical hydrologic records provide useful information for estimating the
frequency, duration, and severity of shortages under various alternative water
management plans. However, hydrologic record is not a complete predictor of
future events and an added measure of conservatism may be required to be
consistent with water service reliability requirements for an area.

O The costs and losses associated with shortages, both economic and
environmental, tend to increase at an increasing rate as shortages increase in
duration and severity.

O Emergency water management actions can effectively mitigate some costs and
losses during shortages, particularly if they are developed ahead of time as a part
of long-term planning.

O Reliability can be enhanced by decreasing demand through reuse and
conservation but at an increasing economic and, in some cases, environmental
cost.

O Reliability can be enhanced by constructing desalting, reclamation, and surface or
ground water storage facilities to increase supply, but at an increasing economic
and environmental cost.

Plans based on these principles are more likely to achieve the best balance be-
tween the costs of increasing reliability and the benefits of reducing the frequency and
severity of shortages.

274 Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Supply Reliability and Demand Variability

Surface and ground water reservoirs provide for water supply reliability through
carryover storage. The success of these facilities in ensuring water availability depends
on a number of factors, including storage capacity, precipitation, use in previous
years, and forecasted use in future years. Use in previous years is a function of de-
mand and decisions made by operators of the reservoir facilities. When water project
planners and operators choose to restrict reservoir releases or ground water pumping
to reduce the risk of shortages in the future, the cost of imposing a shortage in the
current year is traded against the expected cost of future shortages. They use records
of historic hydrologic conditions and trends to forecast future conditions and base
their decisions about the amounts and timing of releases on these predictions.

In addition to climate, other factors that can cause water supply shortages are
earthquakes, chemical spills, and energy outages at treatment and pumping facilities.
Planners should also include the probability of catastrophic outages when using the
reliability planning approach.

Reliability planning, used in conjunction with the Least Cost Planning process,
offers water managers the best opportunity to identify how to integrate demand man-
agement and supply augmentation options into their planning process in the most
productive and justifiable manner. The use of this planning process to evaluate alter-
native water management plans for enhancing an existing system's reliability involves
the following steps:

Least-Cost Planning Process for Evaluating
Water Management Plans

6The least-cost planning process gives all available options an equal chance in
the selection process. If any options, demand management or supply augmenta-
tion, are arbitrarily excluded, it becomes unlikely that the selected plan will cost the
least. Using this criterion does not mean that planning decisions must be limited to
evaluations that translate all costs into dollar amounts. The LCP concept can be in-
corporated into evaluations that rely on relative rankings of social and environmen-
tal impacts as long as the units of measurement used are consistent and the criteria
for assigning values are clear. However, when social and environmental conse-
quences of alternatives can be reasonably expressed in dollars, identifying the pre-
ferred plan will be less subjective.

With LCP, the water manager's objective becomes one of meeting all water-re-
lated needs of customers, not one restricted to looking for ways of providing addi-
tional supply. For example, if a growing service area's need for additional water can
be reduced with an ultra-low-flush toilet retrofit program rather than additional water
supplies, then the retrofit program should be considered on its merits and compared
with all other options when putting together a water management plan.

In addition to its focus on considering all feasible options for meeting customers'
needs, the LCP process requires systematic and comprehensive evaluation of all
costs associated with each option when devising alternative plans, including the
costs of not fully meeting the customers' needs at all times and planning for some
probability of shortages. The option of planned periodic shortages must be as care-
fully evaluated as any other. (Plans which would result in extreme shortages jeopar-
dizing life or health would, of course, be unreasonable.) Expressing this valuation in o
way that can be used in a reliability model is often problematic. While some of the
losses can be quantified (for example, the cost of lawn replacement), others, such as
the loss of aesthetics, environmental cooling, and inconvenience, are difficult to
measure.

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand 275

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

1 . Estimating the shortage-related costs and losses for alternative water
management plcins;

2 . Estimating the costs of construction, operation, and maintenance for
alternative water management plans;

3. Calculating point of minimum total cost (expected costs and losses
from shortages plus expected cost of water management):

4. Incorporating nonmonetary social and environmental costs; and

5. Interpreting results.

Water management programs for the SWP. the E^ast Bay Municipal Water Dis-
trict, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California cire examples of
programs based on this planning process. (See the SWP and Local Water Management
Programs sections under Level I Reliability Enhancement Options.)

Figure 11-1 shows the basic concept of how the alternative plans are compared.
and an optimal plan for increasing water service reliability is identified. Each of the
alternative water management plans that have been analyzed using the least-cost pro-
cess are arrayed according to their water management costs. Plan 1 represents existing
conditions (no additional water management actions). In this example, the least-cost
plan is Plan 8. Water management expenditures lower than those in Plcin 8 would ex-
pose the local area to higher shortage-related costs and losses than would be
necessary. Water mancigement expenditures higher than those of Plan 8 do not "pay for
themselves" in terms of reduced shortage-related costs and losses.

Options for Enhancing Water Supply Reliability

California's increasing urban cind environmental water needs require that exist-
ing supplies be more efficiently managed while programs are developed and
implemented to provide for future water supply needs. Water management plans by
State and local agencies can increase reliability through long-term or contingency mea-
sures, or both. Long-term measures reduce the expected frequency and severity of
shortages, and contingency measures reduce the impacts of shortages when they oc-
cur. TTiree pieces of legislation were enacted to encourage agencies to develop plans

Figure 11-1.

Least-Cost

Reliability Piannir^

Total Costs of

Alternative Plans

276

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

based on all available water management options: the Urban Water Management Plan-
ning Act of 1983; the Agricultural Water Management Planning Act of 1986; and the
Water Shortage Contingency Planning Act of 1 99 1 . (See Chapter 2. Institutional FYame-
work.) Under the auspices of these acts. DWR is working with local agencies in
developing those plans.

Demand management and water supply augmentation options for meeting
California's water needs to 2020 are summarized below. They are broken down into
long-term and short-term demand management measures, available to water agencies
to meet average and drought year needs, and long-term water supply management op-
tions. The future water management programs are presented in two levels to better
reflect the status of investigations required to implement them.

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

The following sections describe Level I options in detail; Level 11 options are
described in general conceptual terms. The options are ordered according to whether
they reduce demands or augment supplies at the statewide, regional, or local level.
Options for solving complex problems in the Delta and improving Delta water quality
for urban water purveyors are discussed in Chapter 10. The Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta,

Water Conservation Bond Laws

[ To assist local agencies in obtaining tinancing for their water management pro-

grams, California voters passed three bond laws, between 1 984 and 1 988, that autho-
rized DWR to provide low-interest loans to fund project feasibility studies or construc-
tion activities. The Clean Water Bond Law of 1 984 (Proposition 25) authorized $ 1 0.5 mil-
lion for water conservation projects; the Water Conservation and Water Quality Bond
Law of 1 986 (Proposition 44) authorized $75 million for water conservation and ground
water recharge projects; and the Water Conser\/ation Bond Law of 1 988 (Proposition
82) authorized $60 million for water conservation, ground water recharge, and new
local water supply improvements. Although most funds for Propositions 25 and 44
have been obligated for projects throughout the State, funds are still available under
Proposition 82.

Water conservation projects with loan applications certified or on file with the
DWR could save an estimated 68,000 of per year. Typical water conservation projects
often involve concrete lining of irrigation canals or replacing leaking water mains.

Ground water recharge projects with applications certified or on file with DWR
could recharge an estimated 266,000 af per year. A Proposition 82 ground water re-
charge project by the Mojave Water Agency will oversize the first reach of the Moron-
go Basin Pipeline and use the extra capacity to provide water for recharging the
aquifer beneath the Mojave River, thereby reducing the overdraft condition in the ba-
sin.

Local water supply projects with loan applications technically certified or on file
with the DWR will provide 18,900 af per year. One Proposition 82 local water supply
project would desalinate brackish ground water In the City of Oceanside and blend
it with existing imported supplies.

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand 277

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Table 11-1. Level I Demand Management Options

Program

Applied Water

Net Water Demand

Economic

Comments

Reduction

Unit Cost

(1000 AF)

(S/AF)""

average

drought

Long-term Demand Management:

Urban Water Conservation

1,300

900

315-390"''

Urban BMPs

Agricultural Water
Conservation

1,700

300

Not
Available

Increased irrigation
efficiency

Land Retirement

130

Retirement of land witfi
drainage problems in west
San Joaquin Valley; cost is at
the Delta.

All American Canal Lining

Water conservation project;
increases supply to South
Coast Region

ShorMerm Demand Monagement:

Demand Reduction

1,300

1,000

Not
Available

Drought year supply

Land Fallowing/Short-term
Water Transfers

800

125

Drought year supply; cost is
at the Delta.

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

(b) Costs are for tfie ultra-low-flush tailet retrofit and residential water audit programs.

Level I — Reliability Enhancement Options

Long-Term Demand Management Options

Demand management options discussed here are water management actions de-
signed to permanently reduce demand for water fwater conservation and land
retirement). Table 11-1 shows demand reductions possible from Level 1 demand man-
agement programs.

Water Conservation. Californians began recognizing and acting on the need for
demand management through water conservation during the 1976-77 drought. Since
then, much attention has been focused on plans, programs, and measures to encour-
age more efficient use of water. The latest of such programs are: Best Management
Practices, as adopted by over 100 major urban water agencies and environmental
groups, and Efficient Water Management Practices under consideration for agricultur-
al water conservation and management. (See Chapter 6, Urban Water Use, or Chapter
7, Agricultural Water Use.) The widespread acceptance of BMPs virtually assures that
they will become the industry standard for water conservation programs. As urban wa-
ter costs increase, urban users will have a strong incentive to accelerate
implementation of BMPs. Accepted future BMPs (measures that are accepted by urbcin
agencies for future implementation) are expected to reduce future urbcin water de-
mands by about 10 percent; this would result in an annual 1 .3 maf reduction in urban
applied water by 2020 and a reduction in depletions of approximately 0.9 maf. These
amounts are in addition to an estimated 0.4 maf annual savings resulting from con-
servation measures put in place between 1980 and 1990.

Increases in agricultural water use efficiency and other EWMPs will reduce future
agricultural applied water demands. These measures could result in an annual
agricultural applied water reduction of about 0.7 maf by 2020 (from 1990 level), which

278 Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

v**»?****

^^^J

"'. <

• # ■

'■■'••-

>'r*.,

i*iT,

..-^i^-f--

«*"*-♦« .

». =>

4 %

would result in an
annual depletion re-
duction of roughly 0.3
maf. However. it
should be noted that
where both surface and
ground water are used,
increased agricultural
water use efficiency
may decrease ground
water recharge and
thus reduce sustain-
able yield.

Water savings
from conservation have
been accounted for in
projections of agricul-
tural and urban water
demand. New water
conservationmeasures

will undoubtedly be suggested and evaluated in the future. (See Level II options.) How-
ever, as water use continues to become more efficient, water agencies will lose some
flexibility to deal with shortages during droughts.

Land Retirement. Land retirement will take place in pcirts of the San Joaquin
Valley where drainage disposal has been a problem and where continued cultivation of
some marginal lands will not be feasible. A Management Plan for Agricultural Subsur-
face Drainage and Related Problems on the Westside San Joaquin Valley, September
1990. evaluated the drainage problems in the San Joaquin Valley and recommended a
plan of action to resolve the drainage problems on the west side of the valley through
the year 2040. The recommendations included source control (water conservation),
reuse of drainage water, and land retirement. For this water plan update, and for the
purpose of agricultural water demand calculations, it was assumed that source control
and land retirement recommendations would be implemented. The 1990 report sug-
gests 45.000 acres of land on the westside of the San Joaquin Valley could be out of
production by 2020 and about 70,000 acres by 2040. These amounts are accounted
for in agricultural acreage projections. The net water demand reduction resulting from
land retirement could be about 0. 13 maf. To facilitate this option, the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act provides federal authority and possible sources of funding for
land retirement. At the State level, the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Relief Act provides
DWR with authority to undertake a program of retiring lands with drainage problems.

Water Transfers. Year-to-year water transfers can augment a water agency's
long-term annual supplies to improve the water service reliability for the receiving
area. Such transfers have been going on since early this century as evidenced by the
construction of several major intrastate transfer facilities described in Chapter 3. The
1987-92 drought caused some water agencies and individuals to begin looking at the
potential of a water transfers market to meet water needs by augmenting long-tenn
supplies as well as short-term drought supplies. (Long-term transfers are ones that
can augment a year-to-year supply of a water-short area, while short-term drought
water transfers can take place by either long-term or spot market agreements.) Howev-
er, areas looking to the water trguisfer market for long-term supplies need an element

Xeriscaping is a
creative way of
conserving water
used for landscape
irrigation.
DroL^ht-tolerant
plants provide shade,
prevent soil erosion,
and corr^xjse
aesthetic designs in
this xeriscape.

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

279

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

of predictability. Uncertainties of Delta transfer capabilities now and in the foreseeable
* future make it difficult to predict transfer capability of the system.

The State Drought Water Bank experience was a good indication that obstacles to
market-based water transfers can be overcome. However, as more and more willing
buyers and sellers got together, problems in completing such deals became more ap-
parent. In response to such problems, the California Legislature has enacted and the
Governor has signed several pieces of legislation that should facilitate market-based
water transfers. Additional market-based water transfer legislation continues to be
introduced with the hopes of further removing impediments to such transfers. The
CVPIA is an example of federal legislation that will help facilitate water transfers in
California, particularly those involving federal supplies.

In some source areas of transfer supplies, such as the upper Sacramento Valley.
there is concern that the health of local economies and environment are at risk if long-
term water transfers are allowed. The same concerns have also been expressed in areas
where the source supply is imported but is allowed to be resold in the transfer market.
To address these concerns, long-term water transfers must be treated as any other
water management option and be planned with a thorough investigative analysis, in-
cluding alternatives, third-party impacts, and environmental documentation in
accordance with CEQA. A good example of a recent long-term transfer that underwent
this type of process is the long-term (permanent) year-to-year transfer of 12,700 af of
State Water Proj ect entitlement supply from Devils Den Water District, on the west side
of the San Joaquin Valley, to Castaic Lake Water Agency, in the South Coast Region.

There is only one long-term water transfer agreement far enough along in its de-
velopment to be considered a Level I option. This transfer would be made possible by
an agreement recently negotiated between the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California and the Imperial Irrigation District. In 1988, Public Law 100-675 was en-
acted authorizing the lining of a portion of the Ail-American Canal and its Coachella
branch. The act allowed the California water agencies-with Colorado River water deliv-
ery contracts to fund the project in exchange for the water conserved in accordance
with the provisions contained in their water delivery contracts and P.L. 100-675.
USBR, Imperial Irrigation District, and MWDSC have been investigating possible alter-
natives for recovery of an estimated 68,000 af of seepage water through preparation of
environmental documentation. In August 1993, the IID and Coachella Valley Water
District boards of directors entered into an agreement with MWDSC relating to the
concrete lining of 23 miles of the Ail-American Canal. The agreement is being nego-
tiated among the parties. When the Secretary of the Interior issues a record of decision
upon review of the final EIS/EIR, and when IID's, MWDSC's, CVWD's, and Palo Verde
ID'S boards approve entering into a construction funding agreement, this program can
be implemented, and MWDSC's supplies could be enhanced by about 68,000 af per
year.

Apart from the MWDSC-IID transfer agreement, there are no other future long-
term, year-to-year water transfers far enough along in the planning process to be
considered Level I options; thus, the California water budget in Chapter 12 does not
include any provision for additional Level I, long-term, year-to-year water transfers.
Such transfers and factors affecting their feasibility are considered as part of the Level
II water management options.

Short-Term Demand Management Options

Short-term demand management options are actions taken by water managers to
reduce water demand during drought. For this report, the "drought year" scenario was

280 Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

defined as a water year when statewide water supplies equal the average supplies of
1990 and 1991 . Drought management options (mandatory conservation and land fal-
lowing) are implemented by water managers during drought years to ensure water
service reliability for critical needs during drought. Critical needs include maintaining
public health and safety, providing for industrial and commercial uses, preserving per-
manent crops such as trees and vines, saving high-investment crops such as cut
flowers and nursery products, and ensuring the survival of fish and wildlife species.

Demand Reduction. For this water plan update, a shortage of 1 5 percent for the
urban sector during a 1990 level drought is used as a drought contingency measure.
The 15-percent level reflects the actual 1990 urban water use experience for areas in
California impacted by moderate shortages. It was chosen as a management planning
tool for drought periods to illustrate its potential as an option rather than as an action
that could impose severe hardships on affected communities. Most of the urban areas
which implemented special conservation programs during the recent drought achieved
cutbacks at or above this level. However, it does not mean that every type of urban
water user within an area had similar cutbacks. Generally, most business users had
smaller cutbacks than residential users, reflecting local water agencies' actions to
avoid or minimize adverse economic and employment impacts. DWR studies indicate
that some individual sectors of local economies, such as the green industry, suffered
substantial income and employment losses in 1991. (The "green industry" includes
nurseries, self-employed gardeners, landscapers, and landscape-related businesses.)
However, from a statewide perspective, a shortage of 1 5 percent, based on the 1990-9 1
drought experience, is considered manageable at the 1990 level for drought events
which would occur about once every 20 years.

As more conservation measures such as BMPs are developed and implemented in
the future, a 1 5-percent shortage criterion will become more difficult to implement be-
cause of the increased efficiency in overall urban water use. These increases in
efficiency mean that current drought contingency measures will be less productive in
the future because opportunities to further reduce or eliminate water use (for example,
putting displacement bags in more toilet tanks or installing more low-flow shower
heads), for the most part, will have been exhausted. Consequently, smaller water sup-
ply shortages can result in greater adverse impacts. By 2020, the 1990 level of 15

Figure 11-2.
Relationship
Between Drought
Contingency
Measures and
BMPs.

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

percent would be reduced to a 10-percent voluntary or mandatory shortage criterion
* for urban applied water use. while implementing urban BMPs would reduce water de-

mand by 10 percent for a total demand reduction of 20 percent in 2020 during drought
years. Potential future measures, such as urban rationing programs and changing wa-
ter price rate structures, while not mandated by the State, are assumed to be
implemented during drought periods to attain the overall 10-percent cutback.

This demand management option is considered a Level 1 program because it gen-
erally doesn't require extensive investigations to implement. However, many water
agencies object to this being a Level 1 option because prudent planning already re-
quires that agencies thoroughly investigate the costs of shortages and reduce or
eliminate such shortages based on their water conservation plans, supply availability,
and other relevant factors. Figure 11-2 shows the relationship between drought con-
tingency measures and BMPs. Urban demand reductions firom drought contingency
measures could be about 1 .2 maf in drought years by 2020. However, such programs
will vary from region to region depending on each region's water service reliability
needs. During less firequently occurring and more severe droughts (that is. an event
that occurs once every 100 years), much greater shortages could occur, causing sub-
stantial economic impacts to urban and agricultural areas and impacts on fish and
wildlife.

Short-Term. Water Transfers. Short-term water transfers can be an expedient
means of alleviating the most severe impacts of water shortages during drought. Such
transfers generalty reallocate existing suppty and can enhance water service reliability
in the areas receiving transfers. These transfers can be temporary transfers with short-
term agreements or drought transfers with long-term agreements. Temporary
transfers are generally interim supply measures taken until long-term measures can
be implemented to improve water service reliability. The following sections describe
short-term water transfers and potential land fallowing and water bank operations.

Table 11-2 shows major short-term transfers between water purveyors in recent
years. Transfers between water projects for operational reasons are not included.
Much of the transferred water was fi-om reserve suppUes or was replaced by alternative
soiu-ces (such as ground water), and had little, if any, adverse economic effect on the
source areas.

Some water transfers benefit fish and wildlife. Refiige managers can use water
transfers to augment their supplies. Table 11-3 shows major water transfers for envi-
ronmental uses in recent years.

MWDSC is looking to water conservation and land fallowing programs through
long-term agreements for short-term drought transfers to increase Colorado River sup-
plies. Through a variety of irrigation management measures, there is a potential for
conservation and transfer of 0.2 maf firom the Colorado River Region to the South
Coast R^on.

In recent years. MWDSC and other water agencies have been actively n^otiating
to secure additional supplies through short-term water transfer agreements to en-
hance reliability of their water supplies. Following are some examples of such
transfers:

O MWDSC implemented a two-year test land fallowing program with Palo Verde
Irrigation District b^irming August 1. 1992. Under the program, 20.000 acres of
agricultural land in PVID is not being irrigated with Colorado River water. MWDSC
is compensating the landowners/lessees in the Palo Verde Vall^ who voluntarily

282 Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

fallow approximately 25 percent of their land. Such payments will total $25 million
during the two-year period. Approximately 93,000 af of Colorado River water a
. year will be saved, stored in Lake Mead, and made available by the USER to
MWDSC when needed prior to the year 2000.

Q MWDSC also negotiated an agreement with Areias Dairy Farms in Merced County
for transfer of 35.000 af to Southern California over the next 1 5 years. Areias Dairy
Farms would receive $175/af for water. The transfer is the first transfer under
provisions of the CVPIA and requires review and approval by the Secretary of the
Interior.

Q MWDSC and Semitropic Water Storage District have agreed to an exchange
program that basically encompasses the Semitropic local element of the Kern
Water Bank. This program would allow MWDSC to temporarily store a portion of
its SWP entitlements for later withdrawal and delivery to MWDSC's service area. A
minimum pumpback of 40,000 to 60.000 af per year is expected and, in addition,
Semitropic WSD could exchange a portion of its SWP entitlement water for
MWDSC's stored water. An initial agreement to store water in 1993 has been
executed and approximately 45,000 af of MWDSC's 1992 SWP carryover water
was stored. MWDSC and Semitropic are currently preparing environmental
documentation and completing negotiations for a long-term storage program.

O Short-term water transfers have become an increasingly significant part of water
supplies for Westlands Water District. As CVP supplies to the district have
decreased in recent years (primarily beginning with the 1987-92 drought and
followed by reduced allocations due to operations criteria under the biological
opinions for winter-run salmon and Delta smelt), the district, and water users
within the district, have been looking to water transfers to augment supplies. For
example, in 1993 (a wet year) when CVP supplies to the district were reduced by
50 percent, the district purchased about 129,000 af of water from a number of
water agencies in the San Joaquin Valley. In addition, about 157,000 af was
transferred by individual users within the district for a total of 286,700 af in 1993.

Westlands Water District is concerned about the reliability of water available for fu-
ture transfers. Generally, the district has transferred water that was surplus to the
needs of the transferor (as determined by the transferor) based on water supply
conditions at the time. Such transfers cannot be counted on from year to ye£ir with
any degree of certainty . However, reliability can be improved to some extent by pur-
chasing water which has a greater likelihood of being available in a dry year, such
as water transferred among agencies within the San Joaquin Valley, and by long-
term contracts for dry year supplies. If the district can secure a combination of
long-term and temporary transfer agreements, water transfers can augment the
district's supplies by as much as 100,000 af per year.

Land fallowing and water bank operations are another option under short-term
water transfers during periods of drought. The State Drought Water Bank began in
1991. During the first year of operation, it purchased 820.000 af. About 50 percent of
i the water came from land fallowing (420.000 af), followed by ground water exchange
i (258,000 af) and stored water reserves (142,000 af). Operations were short-term (one-
|i year drought supply) for areas with critical needs as determined by State Drought Wa-
ter Bank criteria. Since overall statewide water supply £md water service reliability was
not improved for the long-term, the drought water bank is considered a contingency or
drought management supply option.

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand 283

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Yecur

Table 11-2. Short-Term Water Transfers 1982 Through 1992*
Transferred From Transferred To

Contracted Amount,

(acre-feet) i

1982
1984
1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

Yuba County WA

Newhall

5,000

Yuba County WA

Newhall

2,266

East Bay MUD

Contra Costa WD

5,000

USBR

DWR

12,800

USBR

Grasslands

22,000

East Bay MUD

Contra Costa WD

5,000

Arvin-Edison WSD

Dudley Ridge WD

8,000

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

Kern County Water Agency

6,171

Kern County WA

Misc. Kern

83,000

CVP

Cawelo WD

10,000

CVP

Lakeside IWD

10,000

CVP

Kings County WD

10,000

Tulare Lake BWSD

Westlands WD

1,600

USBR

DWR

100,000

Yuba County WA

DWR/SWP

110,000

Yuba County WA

DWR/SWP

1 2,000

Payne

Heidrick

1,450

Dudley Ridge WD

San Luis WD

1,600

USBR

DWR

10,000

Dudley Ridge WD

Tulare Lake BWSD

2,400

Yuba County WA

East Bay MUD

66,000

Yuba County WA

Napa

7,000

Yuba County WA

DWR/SWP

200,000

Kern County WA

Westlands WD

55,000

Dudley Ridge WD

Munco Farms

1,700

La Hacienda

SWP^

98,000

Payne

Heidrick

1,450

DWR

Sayler

8,500

Yuba County WA

Tudor Mutual WD

6,500

Placer County WA

Westlands WD et.al.

28,000

East Contra Costa ID

Westlands WD

3,500

Western Canal WD

DWR

1,500

Yuba County WA

Feather ID

1,500

Modesto ID

SFWD

9,000

Yuba County WA

Napa

7,000

Yuba County WA

DWR/SWP

146,000

Oroville-Wyandotte ID

Westlands WD

15,000

Placer County WA

Westlands WD

40,500

Tulare Lake BWSD

Westlands WD

1,500

Byron-Bethany ID

DWR

8,000

Joint Water DB

DWR

3,000

Placer County WA

SFWD

15,000

Thousand Trails

Westlands WD

1,000

Modesto ID

SFWD

9,000

Mojave Water Agency

Antelope Valley-East Kern WA

1,391

Antelope Valley-East Kern WA

Kern County Water Agency

1,000

Placer County Water Agency

Santa Clara Valley WD

14,000

Modesto Irrigation District

City of San Francisco

4,808

Oroville-Wyandote ID

Westlands WD

8,500

North Marin Water District

Marin Municipal WD

2,500

284

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Table 11-2. ShorMerm Water Transfers 1982 Through 1992* (Continued)

Year

Transferred From

Transferred To

Contracted Amount

(acre- feet)

various

390,945

Bella Vista Water District

1,400

Napa

7,500

City of San Francisco

40,000

various

134,250

1992

State of California Drought Water Bank

City of Redding

Yuba County WA

Placer County Water Agency

State of California Drought Water Bank

'Water transferred for environmenhal uses and transfers less ttran 1 ,000 AF are not included. Amounts shown ore contracted amounts and actual transferred water may be less.

The Department of Water Resources is considering making the State Drought
Water Bank a permanent water transfer program available for future drought manage-
ment. A draft program EIR was published in January 1993, and after public review, a
final EIR was released in November 1993. The EIR reports DWR's experiences in run-
ning the 1991 and 1992 drought water banks and evaluates potential environmental
impacts associated with different categories of transfers. Figure 11-3 shows the cate-
gories ofsources and allocations under the 1991 and 1992 drought water banks. Table
1 1-4 shows 1991 and 1992 drought water bank purchases and allocations. The pro-

Table 1 1 -3. Recent Major Water Transfers for Environmental Uses

(acre-feet)

^ar

Supplier

Purchaser

Facilities Used
or Facilitator

Use

Contracted
Amount

1985

USBR

DFG

DWR

Grasslands Refuge

28,000

1985

USER

DFG

DWR

Kern National Wildlife Refuge

3,100

1986

USBR

DFG

DWR

Kern National Wildlife Refuge

4,000

1987

USBR

USFWS

DWR

Kern Notional Wildlife Refuge

6,100

1987

USBR

DFG

DWR

Winter Run Salmon

9,300

1988

USBR

DFG

DWR

Winter Run Salmon

125,000

1988

USBR

USFWS

DWR

Kern National Wildlife Refuge

8,200

1988

USBR

DFG

DWR

Stanislaus Salmon Spawning

45,000

1989

EBMUD

DFG

DWR

Grasslands Refuge

39,000

1989

YCWA

DFG

DWR

Sacramento- San Joaquin River
Salmon Spawning and Migration

30,000

1989

USBR

USFWS

DWR

Kern National Wildlife Refuge

7,200

1990

USBR

USFWS

DWR

Kern National Wildlife Refuge

6,200

1990

WCWD

DWR

USBR

San Joaquin Wildlife Refuge

3,500

1991

USBR

USFWS

DWR

Kern Notional Wildlife Refuge

6,200

1991

SFWD

DFG

DWR/USBR

American River Salmon

5,920

1991

DWR

DFG

DWR

Various Wildlife Refuges

13,400

1985-91

USBR

USFWS

DWR

Kern National Wildlife Refuge

42,835

1992

BWD

DFG

DWR

Gray Lodge Wildlife Area

5,000

1992

BVID

DFG

DWR

Gray Lodge Wildlife Area

5,000

1992

MID

DFG

Fish and Wildlife on Merced River, Volto,
Los Bonos, and Mendota Areas

15,000

BVID: Browns Valley irrigation District

BWD: Butte Water District

DWR: California Department of Water Resources

EBMUD: East Bay Municipol Utility District

MID: Merced Irrigation District
SFWD: San Francisco Water Department
USBR: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
WCWD: Western Conol Water District

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

285

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure 11-3.

Water Sources and

Allocations of the

1991 and 1992 State

Drought Water Banks

(thousands of

acrefeet)

gram EIR only discusses a State-run drought water bank involving short-term
transfers during supply shortages or drought periods over the next five to ten years.
Judging from the 199 1 and 1992 experience, the operation of a drought water bank in
the future could probably reallocate 600,000 af of supplies during droughts.

In October 1993, the State Water Contractors negotiated a Short-Term Water ;
Purchase Agreement with DWR to purchase options to buy 9,000 to 14,000 af of water .
from the San Joaquin Valley area in 1994. To minimize environmental impacts in the '
Delta, no water was to be purchased from sources north of the Delta. The agreement !
was primarily to test a process for buying and exercising options in the new climate of j
regulations and requirements to protect threatened aquatic species in the Delta. Due
to the onset of a dry spring in 1994, the SWC requested that a direct water purchase
of 73,000 af be implemented, most of it from north of the Delta. The 1994 Drought
Water Bank would allow DWR to purchase water on behalf of outside agencies and
SWP contractors. On June 10, 1994, DWR opened the drought water bank with those
agencies as well as with SWP contractors that will have a need for 93,000 af or more.

Water Supply Management Options

Water supply management options discussed here are those actions designed to
augment supply in water-short areas of California. Table 11-5 shows the capacity and
annual supply for statewide and local water supply management programs possible
under Level I programs.

286

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Table 1 1-4. 1991 and 1992 Drought Water Bank Purchases and Allocations

1991 Drought Water Bank

Area Where Water
Was Purchased

Amount Purchased Agency Water Was
(acre-feet) Allocated To

Allocation

(acre-feet)

Above Shasta Reservoir

Sacramento River

Yolo Bypass

Delta

Yuba, Feather Rivers

6,707

American Canyon WD

73,981

City of San Francisco

61,950

Contra Costa WD

341,819

Alameda CWC

336,208

Alameda CFC&WCD

Santa Clara VWD

Oak Flat WD

WesHands WD

Dudley Ridge WD

Kern County WA

MWDSC

Crestline-Lake Arrowhead

SWP (in storage)

370

50,000

6,717

14,800

500

19,750

975

13,820

13,805

53,997

215,000

236

265,000

TOTAL

820,665

1 992 Drought Water Bank

654,970

Area Where Water
Was Purchased

Amount Purchased Agency Water Was
(acre-feet) Allocated To

JUIocation

(acre-feet)

Sacramento River

Yolo Bypass

Yuba, Feather Rivers

American River

Delta

Stanislaus, Merced Rivers

1 2,302

City of San Francisco

42,372

Contra Costa WD

64,419

Westside Son Joaquin Valley

10,000

Department of Fish and Game

2,500

Wesrionds WD

61,705

Tulare Lake Basin WD

Kern County WA

MWDSC

19,000
10,000

4,530
24,465
51,000
31,550

8,170
10,000

TOTAL

1 93,298

158,715

SWP Water Supply Augmentation. Presented below, in addition to a discus-
sion about SWP reliability, are several statewide programs designed to augment SWP
.supplies. A water conveyance project, the Coastal Branch, Phase II. is also described.
iThe water supply benefits of these programs are included in the Level 1 future supplies
lof the SWP presented in Chapter 12. However, it must be noted that fixing the Sacra-
■mento-San Joaquin Delta is integral to any statewide water management program.
'More information about the Delta and available options for solving complex Delta
oroblems are presented in Chapter 10.

SWP supply reliability under D- 1485 depends on demand for water in SWP ser-
Hice areas and delivery capability of the project. Delivery capability of the SWP varies
)ased on water year tj^je. o

Figure 1 1-4 shows the SWP delivery capability for year 2020 with existing and
^el 1 water supply management programs under D-1485. In terms of "full service
Reliability," with existing facilities, the SWP will be able to meet its requirements of 4.2

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

287

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Table 1 1 -5. Level I Water Supply Management Options

Program

Type

Capacity Annual Economic

(1,000 AF) Supply Unit Cost

(1000 AF) ($/AF)''>
average drought

Comments

Statewide Water Management:

Long-term Delta Delta Water

Solution Management Program

Interim South Delta
Water Management
Program

Los Bonos Grandes
ReservolH^*^

Kern Water Bank'^
Kern Fan Element
Local Elements

Coastal Branch-
Phase II (Santa Ynez
Extension)

American River
Flood Control''"

Local Water Management:

Water Recycling

South Delta
Improvement

Offstream Storage

Ground Water Storage
Ground Water Storage

SWP Conveyance
Facility

Flood Control Storage

Reclamation

1 ,730<3i

1,000
2,000

545'="

1,321

Ground Water
Reclamation

Reclamation

200

El Dorado County
Water Agency
Water Program

Diversion from South
Fork American River

Los Vaqueros

Reservoir-Con tra-Costra
Water District

Offstream Storage

Emergency Supply

Water Quality

100

EBMUD

Conjunctive Use and
Other Options

New Los Padres
Reservoir-MPWMD

Enlarging existing
reservoir

Domenigoni Valley
Reservoir-MWDSC

Offstream storage of

SWP and Colorado

River water, drought year

supply

800

Inland Feeder-MWDSC

Conveyance Facilities

—

San Felipe Extension-
PVWA

CVP Conveyance
Facility

City of San Luis
Obispo- Salinas Reservoir

Enlarging existing
reservoir

200

250-300

90
90

N/A

923
100

N/A

N/A
22
0

N/A

400

260

Not
Available

260

Under study by Bay/Delta
Oversight Council; water supply
benefit is elimination of carriage
water under D- 1 485.

Final draft is scheduled to
be released in late 1 994

Schedule now coincides with
BDOC process

140

105-155

Evaluation under way

290

180-460

Schedule now coincides with
BDOC process

N/A 630- 1,110 Notice of Determination was

filed in July 1 992; construction
began in late 1993.

— — Feasibility report and

environmental documentation
completed in 1991 .

923 1 25-840 New water supply

1 00 350-900 Primarily in South Coast

23151 280 Certified final Programmatic

EIR identifying preferred
■• alternative; water rights hearings,

new CVP contract following
EIR/EIS preparation

N/A 320-950 EIR certified in October 1 993,

404 permit issued in April 1 994.

43 370 Final EIR certified in October

1993

18 410 T&E species, steelhead resources,

cultural resources in Carmel River

264 410 Final EIR certified

N/A'^ 1 40 Capitol costs only; convey

1 8,000 AF annually

1 .6 — Final EIR is expected to be

certified in 1 994.

(1 ) Economic costs include capital and OMP&R costs discounted over a 50-year period of 6 percent discount rote. Ttiese costs do not include applicable transportation and treolnnent costs.

(2) Annual supply and unit cost figures are based on Delta water supply availability under D-1485 with an interim Sootti Delta Water Management Program in place.

(3) Reservoir capacity.

(4) Folsom Lake flood control reservation would return to original 0.4 MAP.

(5) Yield of this project is in part or fully comes from ttie CVP.

(6) N/A: Not Applicable

(7) These programs are only feasible if a Delta Water Management Program is implemented.

288

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Figure 1 1 -4.
2020 Delivery
CapabUity ofSWP
with Existing
Facilities and
Level I Programs
Based on D- 1485

maf about 20 percent of the time. Planned programs under D-1485 could enable the
SWP to meet its requirements about 75 percent of the time. Table 11-6 shows SWP
supplies for 1990 to 2020 with and without additional Level I programs.

To illustrate the impact of drought periods on SWP deliveries to agricultural and
urban users, frequency diagrams are presented showing deliveries based on a 3.2-maf
level of demand for 1990 and on a 4.2-maf level of demand for 2020 (Figure 11-5).
These diagrams reflect the future reliability of the SWP with existing SWP facilities and
with planned Level I water management programs. These analyses are based on
D-1485 standards and show that, with planned Level I water management programs.

Table 11-6. State Water Project Supplies

(millions of acre-feef)

Level of
Development

SWP Delivery Capability'

SEP Delta
Export Demand

With Existing
Facilities

average

drought

With Level I Additional
Programs '^'

average

drought

1990
2000
2010
2020

2.8131

2.1

3.0

3.2

2.0

3.4

2.1

3.7

3.3

2.0

3.9

3.0

4.2

3.3

2.0

4.0

3.0

4.2

(1 ) Assumes D-1 485. SWP capability is uncertain until solutions to complex Delta problems ore implemented and future actions to protect aquatic species are identified. Includes SWP
conveyance losses.

(2) Level I programs include Soutfi Deha Water Management Program, long-term Delta water monogement programs, tfie Kern Water Bonk and Local Elements, end Los Bonos Grondes Facilities.

(3) 1 990 level SWP deliveries do not reflect additional supplies needed to offset tfie reduction of Mono ond Owens basins to tfie Soutfi Coast Region. Reduction of Mono-Owens supplies in 1 990
were offset by additional exports from tfie Delta to the Soutfi Coast Region.

Note: Feattier River Service Area supplies ore not included. FRSA average and drougfit supplies ore 927,000 and 729,000 AF respectively.

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

289

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure 11-5.

SWP Urban and

Agricultural

Deliveries with

Existing

Facilities and

Level I Programs

Based on

D-1485 1990

and 2020 Levels

of Demand

Percent Time At or Above

1990 Existing SWP M & I
2020 Existing SWP M & I
2020 Level I' SWP M & I

1990 Existing SWP Agriculture
2020 Existing SWP Agriculture
2020 Level I* SWP Agriculture

*SWP Level I Water Management Programs:

Interim South Delta Water Management Program
Kern Water Bank - Kern Fan Elements
Kern Water Bank - Local Elements

Los Bonos Grandes Facilities

Long-term Delta Water Management Program

the SWP could provide full service delivery to urban contractors about 80 percent of j
the time. Figure 11-6 compares future delivery capability of the SWP (with Level 1 pro- 1
grams) with EBMUD and MWDSC reliability objectives. 1

Various restrictions imposed on Delta exports limit the delivery capability of the !
SWP. Recent Endangered Species Act biological opinions for winter -run salmon and i
Delta smelt and the proposed federal EPA Bay- Delta standards place further opera- ,
tional constraints on Delta exports. Figure 11-7 illustrates CVP and SWP Delta-
capabilities under various Delta export restrictions for average and drought years. Ex-
port capabilities were computed for the 1990 level of development for: (1) pre-D-1485;
SWRCB Bay-Delta Standards; (2) D-1485; (3) D-1485 with winter-run and Delta smelt
biological opinions; and (4) D-1485 with winter-run and Delta smelt biological opin-|
ions and EPA- proposed Bay- Delta standards. Restrictions imposed by biological i
opinions for winter-run salmon and Delta smelt, and by the EPA's proposed Bay-Delta ,
standards, could reduce delivery capabilities of SWP and CVP by about 1.1 and 1.6 j
maf for average and drought years respectively. The reduction of SWP and CVP delivery!
capabilities do not reflect reductions in exports that may result from take limits re-(
quired by winter-run salmon and Delta smelt biological opinions. Delta exportj
capabilities shown in Figure 11-7 are based on monthly operation studies and do notj
reflect additional outflow that may be required to provide substantial buffers so as not!
to violate the proposed EPA salinity standards (to provide for 95 percent compliancei
with EPA standards). If required, such buffers could potentially double water supplyi
impacts. j

Los Banos Grandes Facilities. In 1983, DWR initiated a comprehensive investiga-j
tion of alternative offstream storage reservoirs south of the Delta. In 1984, after arij
initial examination of 18 sites, a DWR study recommended that Los Banos Grandes be

290

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Percent of Deliveries
inn . ...

^^^^^^^^^^^H

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^1

^^^^^^^^H

•>ft

^^^^^^^^^1

iSJ

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
Percent Time At or Above

EBMUD' Urban Retail — — SWP" AgrkuHure — -^—

MWDSC Objective — — — SWP" Urban ^—

* from EBMUD EIR

"SWP Level 1 Water Management Programs:

Interim South Delta Water Management Program Los Bonos Grandes Facilities

Kem Water Bank - Kern Fan Elements Long-term Delta Water Management Program

Kern Water Bonk - Local Elements

Figure 11-6.
Future Delivery
Capability Objectives
of Various Projects

investigated to determine the most cost-effective reservoir size and its engineering,
economic, and environmental feasibility. The proposed facilities would be located on
Los Banos Creek in western Merced County, southwest of Los Banos and about 5 miles
upstream from the existing Los Banos Detention Dam (see Figure 11-8).

Based on the feasibility investigation, a 1 .73-maf reservoir was selected as a tech-
nically feasible and cost-effective solution to help offset projected future SWP water
shortages and to provide the highest net benefits to the SWP. However, due to the re-
cent endangered species actions in the Delta, the feasibility of the project is being
reassessed. The actual sizing and schedule is highly dependent on the selection of a
long-term solution for resolving fishery issues and facilitating efficient water transfer
through the Delta.

The project will require several permits and agreements which would be issued

by various agencies including a Section 404 permit (Section 404 of the federal Clean

; Water Act), and a Final Biological Resources Mitigation Plan being developed with DFG

I and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, among others, to address potential impacts on

blologlcal resources.

Los Banos Grandes facilities could augment SWP supplies by about 300,000 af
. in average years (under D-1485). Yield of LBG in drought years would be about
260.000 af. The schedule for the investigation of this project has been slowed down in
order to coincide with the Bay- Delta Oversight Council process (see Chapter 12). Fi-
nancing of LBG has also been a continuing concern for several of the SWP water
, contractors, primarily agricultural users, who are concerned that the cost may be too
Ithigh for them to pay.

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

291

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Figure 11-7.
CVP and SWP

Delta Export

Capabilities
Under Various

Delta Elxport
Restrictions

Total Exports
Imillion acre-feel)

' m-WH^^^^^

■fc-l

n,m

t J

P^^^H

Ih^ -fll

i 1 1 -i L.,.,...i ..,1... J L. — i. — i.,..,.,.J. L...

.1 1 1

1975 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^1

^v^^^ ^ "

D-1370 D-1485

(1} D- 1485 + Winfer Run Sdmon + Deha Smdt.
mD-148S + Winter Run Sainton + DehaSmeh+ EPA.

NOTE: Figures A> no! nlkclreduclion in exports ihatnxiyfesuk from 'take Smils'
letfuireo by winter fun sobnon ono oeho stnatbtoioQHAM opuuons,

<h no! refkcl€i(UilioniJouHhw required to praifide a subslattlial buffer so as nol to
violate the proposed EPA daily stAnhy standards.

1995

The Kern Water Bank, established under an agreement between DWR and the
Kem County Water Agency, would take advantage of available opportunities to store
and extract SWP water in the Kem County ground water basin. There are eight poten-
tial elements, or separate comf)onents, to the Kern Water Bank; seven will be
sponsored by local water districts and the eighth element is DWR's Kem Fan Element.
DWR is awaiting the analysis of future water supply impacts that may result from a
long-term solution for resolving fishery issues and facilitating efficient water transfer
through the Delta. For now, the planning progremi is focused on completion of a Habi-
tat Conservation Plan, incidental-take permits for terrestrial aspects of the KFE.
analysis of delayed implementation on the economic viability of the KFE, and analysis
of reduced levels of water supply on project economics. Once the supply impacts are
identified and it appears that adequate water is available, the KFE will be reassessed,
final environmental documentation will be issued, and a program for further evalua-
tion of local elements will be considered.

The Kem Fan Element Programmatic EIR was completed in 1986. The EIR pro-
posed acquiring up to 46,000 acres for recharging, extracting, and storing SWP water
in the Kem River Fan area. DWR acquired 20,000 acres for the bank in 1988. Initial
studies indicate that the Kem Fan Element could be developed to store as much as 1
maf and contribute as much as 140,000 af per year to the SWP in drought years.

The seven loccd elements are in various stages of investigation. A feasibility study
and a negative declaration for local project impacts are essentially complete for a local

292

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Figure 11-8. Los Banos Grandes Facilities Location

LOS BANOS GRANDES
RESEEVOIE

PROJECT AREA

Legend

EXISTING

PLANNED

0 12 3 4 5

SCALE IN MILES

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demcind

293

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

element sponsored by the Semitropic Water Storage District. Reconnaissance-level in-
vestigations for the six remaining elements are essentially completed. These six
elements are sponsored by North Kern Water Storage District, Cawelo Water District,
Kern County Water Agency Improvement District Number 4, Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water
Storage District, Kern Delta Water District, and (jointly) Buena Vista Water Storage
District and West Kern Water Storage District.

There is considerable variation in size and potential among the local elements.
With a potential ground water storage capacity of more than 900,000 af and a pro-
posed annual recharge capacity of about 1 14,000 af, the Semitropic Lxjcal Element is
the largest of the local elements. Cawelo Water District has the smallest element pro-
posed to date, with a ground water storage capacity of about 1 10,000 af and an annual
recharge capacity of about 20,000 af. Taken together, the local elements have the po-

SWP Reliability Planning Process

DWR has done substantial planning to improve the water supply reliability of the
SWP. Since the mid-1980s, DWR has employed the water service reliability planning
approach in the economic analyses of SWP supply augmentation programs. For this
purpose, the Economic Risk Model, an urban water management simulation model,
was used to identify least-cost plans by combining information about the costs and
effectiveness of both contingency and long-term water management options with a
method of estimating the economic costs and losses due to shortages.

For a proposed addition to the SWP, local urban water management options
were first evaluated using the principle of least-cost planning to identify the optimal
service area water management strategy without the proposed addition in question.
The costs and losses associated with that strategy were then compared to the strate-
gy identified as optimal under conditions with the proposed SWP additions in place.
In this way, the benefits of having the proposed SWP facility in place were identified
and then compared to the respective costs of those facilities.

Economic losses due to shortages were based -on a contingent-value survey
done for MWDSC for the SWRCB's Bay-Delta hearing process. The model was run with
an SWP delivery capability sequence produced by DWR's Planning Simulation Model
for each planning scenario. Weather-related changes in year-to-year urban water
demand were also simulated by the ERM. The model produced "snapshots" of reli-
ability-related costs and losses for selected future years over the planning horizon.

Using this approach, the potential contributions of all feasible local urban de-
mand management and local supply augmentation options were explicitly taken
into account on a "level playing field" in the process of estimating the benefits of the
proposed SWP facilities. Local options that were the true alternatives to the proposed
SWP facilities were discovered by eliminating as alternatives those local options that
would be used under the least-cost planning principle irrespective of the existence of
the proposed facilities. The total benefits of the proposed addition to the SWP were
the avoided costs of the urban water management alternatives displaced and the
reduction in costs and losses associated with a higher level of M&l water service reli-
ability.

Under provisions of the SWP water supply contracts, when shortages in water
supply occur, SWP shall reduce the water delivery to agricultural uses " not to exceed
50 percent in any one year or a total of 100 hundred percent in any series of seven ^
consecutive years. " The reductions in deliveries allowable under this provision will be "':
made before any reduction is made in deliveries for urban uses. Increases in water ■
demand in SWP service areas and increased environmental water demand in the
Delta, as a result of actions to protect listed species, would result in more frequent
and severe shortages in both future urban and agricultural supplies until new pro-
grams are implemented to augment SWP supplies.

294 Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

tential to provide over 2 maf of ground water storage and a capability to store and
extract about 370.000 af annually (under D-1485). When the Delta issues and their
Impacts on the water available for the local elements are better defined, planning inves-
tigations to examine the feasibility of the local elements of the KWB will resume.

In a 1990 demonstration program by DWR and Semitropic WSD. about 100,000
af of SWP supply was stored in the ground water basin underlying Semitropic WSD. In
1992. Semitropic WSD exchanged about 42,000 af by pumping ground water for local
use and allowing a like amount of SWP entitlement water to be delivered to SWP con-
tractors. After accounting for losses, a balance of about 50,000 af remains in ground
water storage for later withdrawal. More recently, MWDSC and Semitropic WSD have
agreed to an exchange program that is similar to the Semitropic element of the Kern
Water Bank. This program would allow MWDSC to temporarily store a portion of its
SWP entitlements for later withdrawal and delivery to MWDSC's service area, as de-
scribed earlier in this chapter under Short-Term Demand Management Options. If
MWDSC and Semitropic WSD decide to carry out a permanent and long-term water
banking program. KWB local elements storage will shift from the SWP to a local
MWDSC project.

Coastal Branch, Phase II. Anticipating future supplemental water supply needs.
San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation
districts signed contracts for SWP water deliveries in 1963. At the request of the two

SWP Drought Year Suppi

For this water plan update, the drought year scenario is defined as a water
year when statewide water supplies equal the average supplies of 1990 and 1991 .
For the 1 990 level of development, SWP drought year supplies were estimated using
the average of historical deliveries for these two years. The frequency of occurrence
of such an event was evaluated by examining past hydrology and SWP delivery ca-
pabilities.

The Sacramento River Index runoff for water years 1990 and 1991 totaled 1 7.7
mat. A review of the index from 1906 through 1992 indicates that there have been
four two-year drought periods with a two-year total runoff of 1 7. 7 maf or less (includ-
ing 1990 and 1991).

Sacramento River Index Summary of Two- Year Drought Periods

6.60

8.65

8.80

8.85

Based on the Sacramento River Index (see Chapter 3), the frequency of the
1990-91 drought would be 4 out of 87 years, or about once every 22 years. This
means the Sacramento River Index runoff for any two-year period will exceed
the 1990-91 runoff about 95 percent of the time.

The drought year delivery capability of a project is determined by a combina-
tion of demand, hydrology, and carryover storage in the reservoirs. For the SWP,
71 -year operation studies (1922-1992) showed that the lowest two-year deliveries
occurred in 1990-91 (4.4 maf), 1933-34 (4.3 maf), 1976-77 (4.0 maf), and 1977-78(4.0
maf). This pattern indicates that the 1990-91 delivery would recur about once every
18 years.

(in millions of acre-feet)

Years

: Two- Year Total Ru

1976-77

13.2

1991-92

17.3

1933-34

17.6

1990-91

17.7

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

295

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

districts, construction of Coastal Branch, Phase 11, and delivery of SWP water was def-
^ erred several times until 1986, when S1X)CFX:WCD and SBCFXZWCD asked DWR to

begin planning for Coastal Branch completion.

Water demand during the 1980s exceeded dependable water supplies by an aver-
age of 60,000 af per year in Santa Barbara County and by 61 ,000 af per year in San
Luis Obispo County. In both San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbcira counties, the lower-
ing of ground water levels has resulted in overdraft conditions and deteriorating water
quality. During the recent drought a number of communities in the two counties had
severe water shortages. The Phase II aqueduct is designed to deliver 4,830 af per year
of SWP water to San Luis Obispo County and 42,486 af per year to Santa Barbara
County.

The Coastal Branch, Phase n, is planned as a 102-mile buried pipeline which will
complete the Coastal Branch of the SWP (see Figure 1 1-9). The existing Phase I, a
15-mile canal finom the California Aqueduct to Devils Den in northwestern Kern
County, was completed in 1968. Under current plans. Phase n wiU start at De\ils Den,
traverse San Luis Obispo County, extend 14 miles into Santa Barbara County, and
terminate on Vandenberg Air Force Base. Three pimaping plants will lift the water
approximatety 1 ,500 feet to Polonio Pass where the water wiU be treated at a regional
treatment plant, constructed and operated by the local water purveyors. There will be
a power recovery plant east of the city of San Luis Obispo. A fourth pimiping plant near
Casmalia will lift the water approximatefy 400 feet over the Casmalia Hills to Tank 5,
the terminus of Phase n. From there, local facilities will convey the water 42 miles to
Lake Cachuma, which serves the south cocistal area of Santa Barbara County.

Potential benefits of SWP water for the area include improved municif»al and in-
dustrial water quality, improved ground water quality, reduced ground water
overdraflU and increased reliability of urban water supplies. While this project in-
creases supplies in the Central Coast R^on, it only reallocates existing SWP suppfy
capabilities of the California Aqueduct.

In June 1990, the Draft EIR for the Coastal Branch, Phase 11, and the Mission
Hills Ebctension (a local pipeline in Santa Barbara County) was released. The Final EIR
was completed in May 1991 and the Notice of Determination was filed in July 1992.
Construction b^an in late 1993 and is scheduled to be completed in earfy 1997.

CVP Supply Augmentation, Over the years, various projects have been studied
for possible augmentation of CVP water supplies or improvement of water conveyance
within the CVP service area. Examples include the Shasta Dam enlargement study and
the San Joaquin Vall^ conveyance investigation described later in this chapter. Many
of the CVP studies in recent years have focused on alternative strategies for managing
existing water supplies, rather than development of new sources of supplies.

Recently, there has been a new mandate to investigate increasing CVP yield. The
CVP Improvement Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to submit a plan to Con-
gress by late 1 995 for increasing the yield of the CVP by the amount of water dedicated
for environmental purposes imder the act. Methods of increasing yield can include
nonstructural approaches such as water transfers and purchases, as well as structural
measures such as modifications or additions to existing facilities (see CVP Level n op-
tions). The act further directs the secretary to develop and implement a plan for
obtaining supplemental water supplies for fish and wildlife.

AmerUxm River Flood Control (Auburn Dami. In 1991, the Army Corps of Engi-
neers completed a Feasibility Report and environmental documentation for a

296 Options for Balancing Water Suppty and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Figure 11-9. Proposed Coastal Branch Phase II and
Central Coast Water Authority Extension

KINGS

CENTRAL COAST

WATER AUTHORITY

EXTENSION

SCALE IN MILES

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

297

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

545,000-af flood detention dam at the Auburn Dam site which would provide
l-in-200-year flood protection for Sacramento and vicinity. The cost of the proposed
425-foot dam, along with the proposed levee improvements in the Natomas area of
Sacramento, is estimated at $700 million. These improvements would provide about
$134 million of flood protection benefits annually.

Although considered by Congress, the American River Flood Control Dam (which
was not a water supply augmentation project) was not authorized in 1992. Congress
expressed concerns in two areas: (1) that the environmental protections being pro-
posed by the project were not fully documented, and (2) that the guarantees offered by
the project's supporters were insufficient to ensure that the dam would not impact fu-
ture water supply development at the Auburn site. Studies addressing these concerns
could be presented to Congress before 1996. This Level I option would have flood con-
trol benefits for the Sacramento area. Current temporary reoperation of Folsom Dam
to provide limited flood control improvements has reduced the water supply available
from Folsom Reservoir. Implementing this option could increase CVP supplies to the
extent that Folsom Reservoir could be operated based on its original flood control crite-
ria.

Local Water Supply Augmentation. Existing local surface water projects were
among the first projects developed to meet regional water needs. Currently, in an aver-
age year local agencies provide about 11.1 maf of annual supply, including 1 .0 maf of
imported water supply. Future local water projects and demand management pro-
grams will also play a major role in providing water supply reliability out to 2020. Local
water development programs are expected to add an additional 0.2 maf to average year
supplies and 0.6 maf to drought year supplies by 2020. The following is a brief descrip-
tion of some local projects currently under investigation. More detailed discussions of
the local projects are presented in the regional chapters of Volume II.

Water Recycling. Water recycling for the 1990 level is based on evaluation of data
presented in Water Recycling 2000, a September 1991 report by the State Water Con-
servation Coalition Reclamation/Reuse Task Force, a work group of the SWRCB's
Bay-Delta proceedings, and information provided by local water and sanitation dis-
tricts. Projected water recycling is based on the July 1993 survey. Future Water
Recycling Potential, by the WateReuse Association of California and input from local
water and sanitation districts.

The 1 993 survey indicates that there is potential for accelerating the pace of wa-
ter recycling in the future. However, current budgetary problems and the economic
recession have had a negative impact on water recycling project development in the
State. That report indicated that the State's goal of achieving and surpassing 1 maf of
water recycling by year 2010 "is definitely within reach."

Additional water supply would be generated by water recycling where the outflow
of water treatment plants would otherwise enter a salt sink or the Pacific Ocean. In the
Central Valley, the outflow from waste water treatment plants is put into streams and
ground water basins and is generally reused. Recycling of such outflow would not gen-
erate any new supply but would be a change in the waste water treatment and use
process. In coastal regions recycled water would generally be considered as new water
supply. In the areas where water supply contains high total dissolved solids, such as
Colorado River water, the TDS of recycled water would be too high for direct use. Re-
cycled water with high TDS could be used if desalination techniques were employed to
improve it or by blending it with high-quality water. In the South Coast Region local
water agencies are concerned that the lack of future adequate high-quality water for

298 Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

blending supplies or the cost of desalination of recycled water could affect the timing
of future water recycling facilities by delaying their cost effective implementation until
adequate good quality source water is available.

To estimate how much additional supply would be generated by Level I and Level
II water recycling, a set of criteria was established. Total annual Level I water recycling
for 2020 is projected to be about 1,321,000 af. This would contribute about 923,000
af of new water to the State Water Project supply. Table 11-7 shows 1990 and projec-
tions of total water recycling and new water supply by hydrologic region.

Ground Water Reclamation. High total dissolved solids and nitrate levels are the
most common ground water quality problems. Ground water reclamation programs
are designed to recover this degraded ground water. Currently, most of the ground wa-
ter reclamation programs under consideration are located in Southern California
(excluding ground water reclamation solely to remediate contamination at hazardous
waste sites). Some of the polluted water must be treated, some can be blended with
fresh water to meet water quality standards, and some can be applied untreated for
landscape irrigation. Total annual contribution of ground water reclamation by year
2000 is about 90,000 af and is accounted for in evaluations of the South Coast Re-
gion's ground water supply.

£1 Dorado County Water Agency Water Program. The El Dorado County Water
Agency is preparing a water resources development and management plan to meet the
long-term needs of the local water districts within its jurisdiction. In May 1993, EDC-

Criteria for Determining Level i and Level II Water Reclamation
and Available Supplies for Bulletin 160-93

1 . Additional water supplies resulting from recycled water occur where the exist-
ing outflow from a waste water treatment plant is directly discharged to a salt
sink or the Pacific Ocean. These supplies were counted as new water supplies.
In other areas, reuse of existing agricultural drainage and waste water treat-
ment outflow already occurs and thus recycling of this water will not add to the
State's overall water supplies. For example, outflow from waste water treat-
ment plants in the Central Valley is generally put into streams or ground water
basins and is reused. Recycling of such outflow does not generate new supply
but would be a change in the waste water treatment and use process. There-
fore, recycling in this area of the State will not contribute additional supplies for
the State. An exception is in the westside of the Tulare Lake Region where out-
flow from treatment plants could be lost to a salt sink (such as unusable ground
water) without any reuse.

2. Recycled water added to a coastal stream for environmental enhancement
was counted as both a supply and an environmental demand.

3. Recycled water used for ground water recharge for ocean salinity barriers in
coastal basins was not counted as a supply because, in general, it prevents fur-
ther degradation of the existing ground water supply rather than adding new
supply. Recycled water used within the treatment plants was not counted as a
supply.

4. Future water recycling: for Bulletin 160-93, the total future water recycling was
based on the WateReuse Association's 1993 survey and is divided into Level I
and Level II facilities as follows; Level I water recycling projects are projects that
are moving forward after having undergone extensive investigation and have
a 75 percent or greater likelihood of being implemented; Level II water recycl-
ing projects are the remaining projects.

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand 299

BuUeUn 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Table 1 1 -7. Total Water Recycling and Resulting New Water Supply by Hydrologic Region

(thousands of acre-feet)

Hydrologic
Region

Level I
Level II
Central Coast

Existing

Level I

Level II
South Coast

Existing

Level I

Levelii
Sacramento River

Existing

Level I

Level N
Joaquii

Existin

Level I

Level II
Tulare Lake

Existing

Level I

Level II
North Lahontan

Existing

Level I

Levelll
South Lahontan

Existing

Level I

Level II
Colorado River

1990 2000 2010 2020

Total New Total New Total New Total New

Water Water Water Water Water Water Water Water

Recycling Supply Recycling Supply Recycling Supply Recycling Supply

North Coast

Existing ^^^^^^H

■ u

—

.^^s

Level!

—

Levelll

—

San Francisco Boy

Existing ^^^^^H

^H 36

36 1

■■■■

■■■1

■■■■

-^^

74
20

74
0

632
110

74
20

59
0

481
110

111
40

87
0

814
246

73
0

70
0

580

246

119
59

87
0

888

302

80
0

119
59j

679

3021

Level 1

—

Level H^^HI^^^^H

m -

—

Joaquin River

Existing jm^^^^

^B 24

—

^^1

Level 1

—

35 .

Level II IMI^^H

■H^^^K

—

fli

IHHH

■ 0

Existing

^ 13

—

Level 1

—

Level II

BHH

V 2

Existing

^V^^

w/m^—

—

Level 1

—

Levelll

—

(5~

TOTAL

Existing

354

172

—

Level 1

—

958

658

1,213

812

1,321

923

Levelll

—

134

292

370

37^1

300

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

WA certified a final Water Program EIR for the El Dorado Irrigation District Service
Area.

Water demand for the EID service area is projected to increase from a 1990 level
of 34.000 af to 60.000 af in 2020. EDCWA proposes to provide a long-term water sup-
ply to the EID service area by implementing a water management program that
involves use of various combinations of water rights, water storage, and water convey-
ance facilities. The preferred alternative is a combination of the El Dorado Project, the
Folsom Reservoir Project, the White Rock Project, and a diversion and conveyance
project which would not provide any additional water supply. The El Dorado Project
consists- of securing water rights to certain direct diversion and storage amounts from
the South Fork of the American River using PG&E's El Dorado Canal. The combined
average supply from these rights could be up to 17,000 af per year.

The Folsom Reservoir Project involves recently enacted federal legislation (PL
101-514) designating 15,000 af of water stored in the CVP's Folsom Reservoir for mu-
nicipal and industrial supply for EDCWA. EDCWA proposes to make this water supply
available to both EID and Georgetown Divide Public Utility District. EID*s portion of
the Folsom Reservoir would be about 7,000 af and 6,000 af for average and drought
years, respectively.

Other alternatives considered involve the construction of new dams and reser-
voirs. Such options would be more costly and involve greater environmental impacts.
To a certain extent, the EDCWA approach relied on least-cost planning concepts, in
that both structural and nonstructural options were evaluated on an equal basis.

Contra Costa Water District — Los Vaqueros Project. Water quality and reliability
; are the objectives of Contra Costa Water District's Los Vaqueros Project. The Environ-
mental Impact Report for this $450-million project was certified in October 1993, and
, in April 1994, the Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit for the project under Sec-
! tlon 404 of the Clean Water Act. The 100,000-af offstream reservoir near Byron would
store high-quality Delta water during wet periods for blending with lesser quality Delta
supplies in dry seasons. The reservoir is also designed to meet the district's need for
storage in the event of an emergency, such as a temporary loss of Delta supplies.

The project includes a new supplemental Delta intake location, and conveyance
I and storage facilities necessary for project operations. The proposed reservoir would
Inundate about 1 ,400 acres along Kellogg Creek. The district purchased about 20,000
acres in the canyon along the creek, which would be used for open space and protected
from future development. Careful land management would improve habitats for some
I rare and endangered species in the canyon. The Los Vaqueros Project would improve
the reliability of the district's supplies but would not add any new water, as water for
the project is provided by the CVP under an existing contract.

East Bay Municipal Utility District Water Supply Management Program. The East
jtBay Municipal Utility District is a multipurpose regional agency with water supply as
a major function, serving an estimated 1.2 million people and industrial, commercial,
I and institutional water users in the East Bay region of the San Francisco Bay Area.

EBMUD forecasts its customer demand to increase from an average 1990 level of
246,000 af to 280,000 af in 2020. This projection includes demand reductions as a
result of additional conservation and reclamation programs. It is projected that in-
jpreased use of Mokelumne River water by senior water rights holders will decrease
availability of Mokelumne River supply for EBMUD. With increases in customer de-
Tiand and the projected increased use by senior water rights holders, and possible

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand 301

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

EBMUD Reliability Planning Process

The source for 95 percer^t of EBMUD's supply is the Mokelumne River in the Sierro Nevo-
do, with o diversion point at Pardee Reservoir in the foothills. This reservoir is used in conjunc-
tion Vi/ith Comanche Reservoir, immediately downstream of Pardee, and with five smallerj
terminal reservoirs in the East Boy Service Area.

Reservoir storage is used to meet EBMUD's needs for service area water supply reliabil-
ity and downstream obligations, including releases for irrigation, streomflow regulation J
flood control, fishery needs, and the senior water rights of riparian and other appropriativel
entitlements. The existing storage capacity is vital to the district's ability to meet its obliga-j
tions, to provide reliable service to its customers, and to provide water for instreom uses in]
dry years.

In wet years, any portion of the district's water right entitlement that is not directly di-
verted for current use in the district's service area, or diverted to storage in Pardee or
Comanche reservoirs, continues to flow downstream and is no longer available to the dis-l
trict. In dry years, the runoff is less than needed to meet demand and the district must use!
storage from prior years. In extended critically dry periods, the existing storage capacity onj
the Mokelumne River is not sufficient to supply all consumptive and instreom needs.

Approach Used to Analyze Water Service Reliability. The analysis of water supply be-
gins by defining each of the supply, demand, and operational factors affecting EBMUD's
need for water (see Figure E-1). The specific conditions, or assumptions, associated with
each factor affecting the need for water ore then defined.

The combined effects of each of the factors affecting the need for woter and the re-^
lated assumptions were analyzed using the district's water supply planning computer ^'
model. The water balance model of Mokelumne River operations allows for the simulta-
neous consideration of many interrelated factors. The model is used as a water supply
planning tool by estimating reservoir storage levels, river flow rotes, deliveries to customers,
shortages, and hydroelectric generation for the next year and over the 70-year
Mokelumne River study period under various conditions.

As a matter of policy, EBMUD uses a three-year "worst-case" scenario as its drought
planning sequence. It assumes the historical 1 976-77 sequence plus o third year which is the
hydrologic mean of the previous two. During prolonged dry periods, such as the drought
planning sequence, EBMUD imposes deficiencies (rationing) on customers based on rules
which use the projected storage at the end of September. By applying these deficiencies
in the early years of a drought ("early deficiencies"), EBMUD attempts to minimize rationing
in subsequent years if o drought persists while continuing to meet its current and subse-
quent year fish-release requirements and obligations to downstream agencies.

The deficiency rules ore used to achieve the system-wide annualized demand reduc-
tion target of no more than 25 percent. The limit of 25 percent was adopted by the EBMUD
Board of Directors as a reasonable planning criterion in 1989. Although the impacts of
shortage were not evaluated in terms of overall economic costs and losses, general im-
pact studies by user type for various levels of shortage hove been done by EBMUD. If the
decision is mode to do the additional work necessary to balance the total costs of reliabil-
ity enhancement against the reduction in total shortage-related economic costs and
losses, the framework to do this exists.

The 25-percent criterion is an overall use reduction target which will result in an esti-
mated 31 -percent reduction to residential users, a 25-percent reduction to commercial
and institutional users, and a 10-percent reduction to most industrial users. The higher re-
duction experienced by the residential users is the result of on exemption process during
shortage events which has as o major goal the protection of the economic well-being of
commercial and industrial firms and the area's economic health.

302 Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

^, Figure E - 1 . Factors Used by EBMUD in Projecting the Need for Water

Factor 2020

Assumptions

(OMUD'S

and for Water in Normal Years

280 TAF/yr
(250 MGD)

EBMUD's Deficiency Rules ^

25% Limit on

Rationing

I Future Mokelumne River
I Runoff/Pardee Inflow 3'*

[^■■■(p— T — -smmm

130 -1,595 TAF/yr

Drought Planning Sequence
& Related Minimum Storage
Criteria ^

1976, 1977, 185 TAF
40 TAF (Dead Storage)

Operations and Diversions of
Other Water Agencies ^ '^
Upstream Agencies
Downstream Agencies

32 TAF/yr
59 -104 TAF/yr

Annual Mokelumne River Releases
for Fisheries

19- 114 TAF/yr

Future Amount of Mokelumne It is assumed that river

River Water Needed to Meet releases for Mokelumne

New Boy/Delta Standards ' fisheries addresses this factor.

Notes:

1 Conditions odding to tfie District's need for water

2 Conditions reducing the District's need for water

3 Conditions wfiich could add to or reduce the District's need for water

4 Conditions largely outside District's control

TAF/yr = thousand acre-feet per year
MGD = million gallons per day

Source: EDAW, Inc., and EBMUD

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

303

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

■< EBMUD Reliability Planning Process (continued) **

Long-Term Management Options and Reliability. In February 1 990, EBMUD began for-
mal preparation of an Updated Water Supply Management Program. The Updated
WSMP addresses an extensive range of alternatives to help meet EBMUD's 2020 water
needs. Alternatives include reducing demand on the Mokelumne supply through con-
servation and reclamation (the use of recycled v\/ater) and augmenting supplies through
ground v^ater storage/conjunctive use, reservoir storage, and supplemental supply.

A thorough alternatives screening process, including the use of the district's water
supply planning model by EBMUD, reduced the range of alternatives within each of the
component categories based on evaluation using the district's planning objectives and
related screening criteria. The district's planning objectives and screening criteria ore very
comprehensive and cover a brood array of issues. These are organized into the the follow-
ing categories: operational, engineering, legal, and institutional; economic; public
health, public safety, and socioculturol; and biological.

The surviving component alternatives were then used to develop alternative Com-
posite Programs, or groups of demand-reduction and supply components that together
would provide EBMUD with an adequate water supply based on the water supply reliabil-
ity analysis described earlier in this chapter. Six Composite Programs were identified to
represent a reasonable range of alternatives. (See table 1 .)

Assumptions, including EBMUD'S demand and physical system characteristics, oper-
ating practices and criteria, water supply demands of the agencies, fishery releases, flood
control requirements, and releases for channel losses were evaluated in operation studies
and included in updated water supply management programs. WSMP is discussed in de-
tail under Level 1— Reliability Enhancement Options. Any short-term or long-term need for
additional water is determined by using water system mode! runs to estimate projected
shortages during upcoming months or EBMUD's drought planning sequence. Figure 2
shows the results of making model runs for three planning scenarios: existing conditions,
2020 conditions with no water management planning actions, and 2020 conditions with
proposed increased fishery flows under the EBMUD Lower Mokelumne River Management
Plan. The increases in shortage frequency and magnitude can be clearly seen.

Table E- 1 . Primary Composite Programs for EBMUD

\. Components
Primary \.
Composite \.
Programs \.

DMP

Conservation
(Savings)'

Reclamation
(Savings)'

Groundwater

Reservoir

Supplemental
Supply

Aqueduct
Security

IMRMP

Composite

Program

Screening

Designation^

Maximum
Deficiency'

II
(13 MGD)

IV
135 MGD)

A1
(8 MGD)

A2
(21 MGD)

A6
(8 MGD)

Agricultural
Exchange

River
Substitution

Direct to
Aqueducts

Raise

Pardee

+150

TAP

Delta

Folsom

South

Connection

Demand-Side
Management

35%

•

Groundwater

25%

•

Delta Supply

25%

•

Groundwater and
Folsom South
Connection

25%

•

Raise Pardee

25%

•

Groundwater Only
(Least Cost)

25%

•

Notes!

1 Savings indicated ore in addition to savings from existing and adopted conservation and reclamation programs.
Combining conservation and reclamation is not necessarily additive due to overlapping.

2 Drought Management Programs (DMP) are short-term rationing or demand deficiencies imposed on customers
during droughts. A DMP is used in addition to some level of conservation.

3 During screening of alternative composite programs, the alternatives v/ere identified by these letters.

Source: EDAW, Inc.

^^ Components included in
^P Primary Composite Programs

304

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Figure E - 2. Projected EBMUD Customer Deficiencies

Annualized EBMUD Customer Deficiencies Under 1 990 Existing Conditions

Percent of
1990 demand

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

1 1 1 1 iBL I 1 1 iM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 ■ 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960

III

1970

1980

1990

For period of hydrologic record (1921 - 1990), 185 TAF substituted for 1978 runoff.

Annualized EBMUD Customer Deficiencies Under 2020 No Action Conditions

1 I Percent of
2020 demand

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

I I I I I iWi I 1 i-i-i^ iWi

■ ■■■■■■'■■'■■'■'■■■ ^^^" I I 1 I 1 I I
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

For period of hydroiogic record (1921 - 1990), 185 TAF substituted for 1978 runoff.

■L JB -B

1980

1990

Annualized EBMUD Customer Deficiencies Under 2020 Proposed LMRMP Conditions

Percent of
2020 demand

60
50
40
30

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

For period of hydrologic record (1921 - 1990), 185 TAF substituted for 1978 runoff.

1980

1990

Source: EBMUD

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

305

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

additional Mokelunme River fishery flow requirements. EBMUD projects a drought
year shortage of 130,000 af per year by 2020. To address this deficiency. EBMUD has
been studying a wide range of potential water management options to help meet its
future water demands. Tliese include: several additional conservation programs, water
recycling programs, conjunctive use options on the lower Mokelumne River, use of its
CVP contract for Folsom-South Canal water, and raising the height of Pardee Dam.

After several hearings and extensive evaluation. EBMUD's Board of Directors
designated two of the six composite programs as preferred alternatives. The main ele-
ment of each alternative is the use of ground water storage. One of the preferred
alternatives (Alternative II) would store available surface water in an underground ba-
sin during wet years. During dry years, this water would either be: (1) used for
agricultural irrigation in the lower Mokelumne River basin; or (2) pumped into aque- ,
ducts for use by EBMUD's customers. The conjunctive use element of this program j
would require cooperation of San Joaquin County where ground water storage is lo-
cated. The other preferred alternative (Alternative IV) includes the same components
mentioned above, plus a supplemental water suppfy fix>m the American River. Rights
to use of this suppfy are regulated by court order. American River water could be deliv-
ered to the Mokelumne aqueduct by a 16-mile pipeline tapping into the existing
Folsom South Canal. EBMUD's proposed new water supply program specifies in-
stream flows, reservoir operations, and hatchery operations and spawning habitat
enhancements to improve fisheries in the Mokelumne River. The water supply benefit
of this program is about 43,000 af in drought years. In October 1993. EBMUDs Board
of Directors certified the WSMP final EIR and voted to focus planning efforts on the use
of ground water storage in San Joaquin County. The Board directed EBMUD staff to
continue working with San Joaquin County water interests regarding development of
a joint conjunctive use project, with the option of using the District's contract with
USBR for 150,000 af jjer year of American River water.

The District's need for water could change, depending on the outcome of various
actions by federal agencies and the SWRCB Mokelumne River water rights hearing.
Should any of these actions result in a significant increase in the District's water
needs, the District would reexamine aU the alternatives contained in the WSMP EIR for
meeting the demand.

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project To improve the reliability of water

supplies in the Monterey Bay area, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District I

has taken a number of actions including water conservation and water reclamation.

and has investigated several other water development alternatives. Improvements to

the system also are needed to provide water for municipal and industrial users as well

I
as for environmental water needs of the area. Current suppfy is inadequate during

drought years when shortages develop due to lack of adequate carryover storage facili-
ties. The district has investigated 32 alternatives. The current preferred alternative is
enlarging a dam and reservoir on the Carmel River. Enlarging Los Padres Resen'oir to
approximatefy 24,000 af could provide an average annual water suppfy of 22.000 af
and a drought year suppfy of about 1 8,000 af to the Monterey Peninsula's water supply'
system.

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern Caltfomia Water Management Pro-
grams. MWDSC supplies about 60 percent of the water delivered by its member j
agencies. These agencies, which cover cdl or part of six of California's most highty pop-
ulated counties, serve over 1 5 million residents. MWDSC's major sources of suppfy are ,
the SWP and the Colorado River. Ninety percent of the demand on MWDSC's supplies j

306 Options for Balancing Water Suppfy and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

is from municipal and industrial users; the remaining demand is from agricultural us-
ers.

Population in MWDSC's service area is expected to increase from 14.8 million in
1990 to more than 22.7 million by 2020. In 1988, MWDSC began a preliminary effort
to expand reservoir

storage capacity to
meet the projected wa-
ter demands in its
service area. Reservoir
storage requirements
were evaluated in a
two-step process de-
signed to establish the
combined ground and
surface storage needs

j and to determine the

1 minimum surface

j storage needed. Three

I alternative sites for

I surface storage were
selected, including the

i preferred alternative

! Domenigonl Valley In western Riverside County, based on the minimum reservoir stor-

! age need and a comparison of several sites.

i The Domenigonl Valley Reservoir involves constructing two main embankments

as well as a large roller -compacted concrete saddle dam as shown on Figure 1 1-10.
The site is near the junction of the Colorado River Aqueduct, the San Diego Pipeline,
and the terminus of the East Branch of the California Aqueduct. The reservoir, which

[ could receive water from both the Colorado River and California aqueducts, will have

i a capacity of 800,000 af.

The reservoir would provide emergency storage, drought year storage, carryover
storage, and seasonal storage and enhance operational reliability of MWDSC's system.

[ It would also assist with ground water basin recharge as part of a regional conjunctive
use program. Approximately 50 percent of the reservoir capacity would be allocated to
emergency storage. The remainder would be used for seasonal regulation and to aug-

[iment MWDSC supplies by 264,000 af per year during drought years. In October 1991,

;MWDSC certified the final Environmental Impact Report for the Domenigonl Valley
Reservoir Project. The current MWDSC schedule Indicates that the project would be
operational by the end of this decade. However, it could take five or more years to fill
the reservoir, so the full benefit of the reservoir may not be realized until after the year

12004.

Arvin-Edlson — MWDSC Conjunctive Use Program is another supply augmenta-
tion program that MWDSC is investigating. The Arvin-Edison Water Storage District
and MWDSC agreed on a complex conjunctive use program which allows Arvin-Edison
to provide CVP entitlement water to MWDSC in dry years and use ground water
pumped from previously stored ground water supplies made available by MWDSC
jfrom SWP supply in wet years. As originally envisioned, the project would have pro-
jWded 93,000 af of drought year supply. However, recent actions to protect aquatic

An artist's
photocomposite of
proposed
Domenigoni Valley
Reservoir. The
reservoir would
make MWDSC's
supplies more
reliable by
providing
drought-year and
emergency
storage.

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

307

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

MWDSC Reliability Planning Process

MWDSC concentrates on the development and management of sufficient and higl-
quality water to meet the needs of its service area in an innovative and cost-effective man-
ner that will sustain the economy and qualit/ of life in Southern California. MWDSC's water
supply reliability objective is as follows:

Even under the most severe hydrologic event, MWDSC will never provide less than 80
percent of full service to its customers; full sen/ice meaning wholesale demand for imported
water, after accounting for the implementation of water management programs and con-
servation best management practices, within its service area.

This water supply reliability objective was developed after balancing the costs of re-
source expansion, economic impacts of water shortages, and practical levels of implement-
ing water conservation and other management programs. In order to assess and review the
water reliability objective, MWDSC follows an on-going systematic procedure to ensure thot
the objective is effective. This procedure is summarized below:

1 . Project Water Demands

2. Determine Quantities and Probabilities of Water Supply

3. Identify Potential Water Management Strategies to Meet Demand

4. Compare Total Available Water Supplies to Water Demands

5. Determine Frequency of Water Supply Shortages

6. Determine Costs and Benefits of Increasing Supply Reliability

Water Demand Projections. MWDSC forecasts water demands using a sophisticated
computer model known as MWDSC-MAIN, a regional version of the national IWRMAIN water
demand model, calibrated for the South Coast Region. MWDSC-MAIN projects water de-
mands based on demographic and economic trends such as population, housing, family
size, personal income, commercial and industrial employment, labor rates, climate, and the
price of water service. The model also takes into account long-term water conservation,
such as that anticipated from the implementation of the "best management practices,"
These projected water demands can vary substantially frOm one year to the next. The varia-
tion in water demands is attributed mainly to weather and economic cycles such as reces-
sions. Therefore, MWDSC presents its demand projections ranging from low to high.

Quantities and Probability of Water Supplies. Water supplies will vary due to hydrology,
weather, and operation of the supply system. Since it is impossible to accurately predict
weather, historic years of hydrologic record are used to estimate the future probability of
supply. MWDSC uses the DWRSIM operations model to determine the probability of SWP sup-
plies using 70 years of historic hydrology. The other major supplies available to Southern
California are: (1) Colorado River water; (2) local ground and surface water; and (3) the Los
Angeles aqueducts. The probabilities of receiving these water supplies were also estimated
based on similar hydrologic analyses.

Estimating Potential Water Management Strategies. MWDSC explores all feasible de-
mand management and water supply options in meeting the growing water needs of its ser-
vice area. These options not only include traditional supply sources mentioned previously
and voluntary water transfers, but also water management programs such as waste water
reclamation, ground water recovery programs, conjunctive use and storage, and conserva-
tion. MWDSC's approach in determining how to meet future demands is to evaluate all of its
available water supply and management programs based on reliability, costs, flexibility,
and other considerations. Projections of supply resulting from water management programs
are estimated based on existing and potential local and regional projects.

Comparisons of Water Supply to Demand. After the projections of water supplies are de-
termined, they are compared to the projections of water demands. Figure M-1 presents the
minimum supplies available during the record drought and a projection of future supplies.

mtmmmiiimmmm

308 Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

MWDSC Reliability Planning Process (continued)

The water demand forecast reflects: (1) \he latest demographiic projections; (2) ttie recent
effect of ttie statewide drought; and (3) the effects of the current economic recession. The
existing supplies, which are identified, do not meet full service demands. Even with aggres-
sive water conservation and waste water reclamation (which together represent about one-
half of all new supplies and demand reduction efforts), there is a substantial shortage
throughout the planning period. Additional aqueduct supplies, surface and ground water
storage programs, and water transfers are needed to meet the full service needs of the re-
gion.

Comparing all possible water demand and supply projections yields the frequency of
supply shortages for Metropolitan. Figure M-2 presents the water supply reliability for
MWDSC's wholesale deliveries. The vertical axis represents the percentage of MWDSC short-
age in the year 2010. The horizontal axis represents the frequency of the shortage occurring.
The reliability is presented in four scenarios.

The first scenario represents "no new investment" for either water management pro-
grams or water supply expansion. Under the "no new investment" scenario, MWDSC would
experience a wholesale supply shortage of at least 60 percent (on average) every other
year At the retail level, regional water shortages for this same scenario would be about 30
percent every other year (since MWDSC supplies about half of the total water supplies to the
region).

The second scenario adds the conservation BMPs, which improve the supply reliability.
Potential waste water reclamation is added in the third scenario, which further improves the
supply reliability. Under the third scenario, the wholesale supply shortages would be at least
27 percent every other year.

In order to achieve the fourth scenario, substantial investment is needed to improve
aqueduct supplies, build an 800,000-af storage reservoir, implement ground water programs,
build and improve pipelines and treatment facilities, and purchase water through voluntary
transfer agreements. This scenario is the reliability goal determined by MWDSC to be justified
by a cost and benefit analysis.

Estimating Costs and Benefits of Reliability. Estimating the costs and benefits of increas-
ing supply reliability is difficult because it is impossible to account for and quantify many of
the true economic costs caused by supply shortages. While some economic impacts of ra-
tioning can be estimated, other economic and social consequences of severe water short-
ages are intangible. In addition, rationing becomes less effective and more costly over time
because of the implementation of long-term institutionalized conservation practices, such as
the BMPs. Accounting for this phenomenon of demand hardening is critical to the deter-
mination of shortage costs.

In order to determine a lower bound estimate of the benefits of increased supply reli-
ability, MWDSC attempted to quantify as many of the economic impacts due to rationing as
possible. To estimate the effect that rationing has on the residential sector, a contingent valu-
ation survey was used to determine how much households would pay to avoid severe water
shortages. The survey, conducted in 1987, found that customers would pay (on overage) an
additional $ 1 0 to $20 per month every other year to avoid shortages greater than what was
experienced in 1991 . This willingness to pay for reliability improvement for all residential cus-
tomers in MWDSC's service area totals over $1 .5 billion per year.

To estimate how shortages impact the industrial sector, MWDSC used the results of the
Cost of Industrial St)ortages (prepared for the California Urban Water Agencies in 1991 ). This
study indicated that the impact of allocating a 1 5-percent shortage to Southern California's
industrial sector would be a loss of about 16,000 jobs and over $3 billion in production.

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand 309

Bulletin 160-93 TTie California Water Plan Update

Figure M - 1. MWDSC Water Supply and Demand: Critical Drought Year

Million Acre-Feet

1.0

0.0

Proj iction

Projected Demands

Conse'

^o^onSaV^'^5^^-'

Capital Improvements, Groundwater, Transfers
and Other State Water Project Increases

Colorado River Aqueduct Incr^s

New Reclamation

Existing Dependable Supplies i

1980

I I I I I
1985

Existing Reclamation Projects
State Water Project

Colorado River Aqueduct

Los Angeles Aqueduct

Local Worler

1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure M - 2. MWDSC Supply Reliability in Year 20 1 0

Percent

Shortage

0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Probability of Occurrence

NOTE: Proiections for existing supplies are cunsMwIlve since ihey do no» account for the probability of having surplus w<*er.

2010

s^^

^^^^

NoNewlmfeslmeia

V ^

'\j

/
/

«^^

'***'^

! i

Add ConservaHon BA

m^ 1 1

~ —

^"^■^

4P's

1 -*^

^„^^_^

I 1 ^

— '

— 1 .^

^""^

AddF

iuct Supplies, Storage
IP

1 ' '

" *-

— ^

If'

Aque<

"- —

S^D^-

bilHyGoa

^^^ Refia

310

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Figure 11-10. Domenigoni Valley Reservoir Site and Facilities

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

311

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

species in the Delta and implementation of the CVPIA. have restricted operations in the
'< Delta. Consequently, MWDSC and Arvin-Edison are currently reassessing the project.

MWDSC's Inland Feeder is a 45-mile-long conveyance facility which will bring
supplemental SWP water supplies to Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Orange,
and Los Angeles counties. The facility would be intended to help MWDSC preserve op-
erational reliability, optimize use of existing water resources, and meet increasingly
stringent State and federal water quality standards through blending of supplies.

Pcyaro Valley Water Authority Water Augmentation Program (San Felipe Exten-
sion). The Pajaro Valley Water Management Authority is analyzing whether or not to
take water from the CVP's San Felipe Division. The proposed San Felipe extension
would consist of a 22-mile pipeline from the Santa Clara Conduit to the Watsonville
area which could supply a maximum of 19,900 af annually of CVP water for municipal
and industrial, as well as agricultural, use in the Watsonville area. The San Felipe ex-
tension is a water conveyance rather than a water supply augmentation project. The
supply for the project will come from reallocation of CVP supply pumped from the Del-
ta.

City of San Luis Obispo — Salinas Reservoir. The City of San Luis Obispo has ac-
tively been pursuing the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project to supplement its water
supply. The project involves installation of spillway gates to increase the storage capac-
ity of the existing reservoir by about 17,950 af— from about 23,840 af to 41,790
af — and the city's supplies would increase by about 1,650 af. The Environmental Im-
pact Report for the project is expected to be certified in 1994.

Level II — Reliability Enhancement Options

Following is a brief discussion of demand management and supply augmentation
concepts or projects which are not specifically quantified but, through some combina-
tion of actions, could fill the gap between supply and demand shown in the California
water budget. Chapter 12. Plans for some of these projects are on hold for various rea-
sons, including the need for a long-term solution to Delta problems, but work could be
resumed at any time to help meet California's growing water needs. Some others, pro-
grams such as San Diego County Water Storage Project and Conjunctive Use
Programs, are very active but are in the early stages of planning and further studies are
needed to determine the water supply benefits of such programs. Table 11-8 summa-
rizes Level II water management options.

Long-Term Demand Management Options

Increased Agricultural Water Use Efficiency. A 73-percent seasonal applica-
tion efficiency is defined as a statewide target in Chapter 7 and has been supported by
many irrigation experts in a variety of reports. This coincides with the draft report On-
Farm Practices prepared for the Agricultural Task Force of the State Water
Conservation Coalition. The 73-percent target efficiency relies on: (1) subtracting any
effective precipitation from the evapotranspiration requirement of the crop; (2)
attaining an 80-percent distribution uniformity; and (3) adding a very small leaching
requirement. This target assumes that all portions of farm fields will be fully irrigated.
The target efficiency considered an appropriate Level I option is shown by the formula
below.

SAE = ETAW + LR = 73%
AW

where: SAE is the seasonal application efficiency; EH^AW is the evapotranspiration mi-
nus effective precipitation; LR is leaching requirement; and AW is the applied water.

312 Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Table 1 1 -8. Level II Water Management Options

Program

Type Supply Augmentation
or Demand Reduction
(1000 AF)

Comments, CotKems,
Problems

Demand Management:

Agricultural Water Conservation

Urban Water Conservation
Land Retirement

Water Transfer

Demand Reduction 300 '"' Increased agricultural water use efficiency

Demand Reduction 220 '"' Increased urban water use efficiency

Demand Reduction 477'°' Retirement of land with poor drainage disposal in

west side San Joaquin Valley

— 800** Institutional constraints

Statewide Supply Management:

Stanislaus-Calaveras River -
Water Use Program

Conjunctive Use

80 w

Sacramento Valley Conjunctive
Use Program

Conjunctive Use

lOOW

Red Bank Project

Storage

4010

Shasta Lake Enlargement

Storage

1,450'"

Clair Engle Lake Enlargement

Storage

700'"

Westside Sacramento Valley Project

Conveyance

—

Westside Reservoirs

Storage

up to 2,000'=

Mid-Valley Canal

Conveyance

—

Folsom South Canal Extension

Conveyance

—

American River Water

Storage

—

Resources Investigation

Local Water Management:

Use of Gray Water

Water Recycling

Water Desalting

Reuse of Agricultural Brackish Water

San Diego County Water Authority
Water Resources Plan

Santa Clara Valley Water
Management

Delta Storage

Watershed Management

Reclamation

IBQW

Reclamation

370 w

Reclamation

390 '0

Reclamation

—

iety of Programs

85'=>

DWR, USBR, and local agencies are conducting
studies.

Initial studies under way by DWR and kxal

agencies.

Storage

IGQW

Requires investment in separate plumbing; health
concerns.

Estimated ultimate potential

High salt accumulation in soil

Plan includes water recycling, ground water
development, and desalination of brackish water.

Studies by district in progress; will need 100,000-
150,000 AF additional supplies by 2020.

Water quality, THM concerns

Increases runoff from the watershed, environmental

(a) Reduction in applied water.

(b) Reallocation of supply for short- or long-term transfers.

Level II agricultural demand reduction is based on a statewide agricultural irriga-
tion efficiency of 75 percent. The feasibility of increasing agricultural irrigation
efficiency over 73 percent should be further investigated because of potential reduction
in yield due to under-irrigation. which may occur in part of each field. For example,
Westlands Water District has estimated that irrigation efficiencies could reach 75 per-
cent in their service area at an 80-percent distribution uniformity. However.

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

313

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

approximately 12.5 percent of each field is under -irrigated using this formula accord-
ing to Westlands Water District's Water Conservation Plan (July 1992). If
under-irrigation of this magnitude is considered acceptable, an additional statewide
annual reduction in applied water of approximately 300,000 af could be attained and
considered as a Level II option. Reduction in depletion would occur only in areas from
which outflow enters a saline sink such as the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and
Imperial Valley. However, because irrigation.efficiency in Imperial Valley and Westlands
Water District has already reached 75 percent, this option will not reduce depletions.
The positive or negative effects of reducing applied water would have to be evaluated on
a case by case basis.

Increased Urban Water Use Efficiency. The Level I urban water conservation
estimates were based on Best Management Practices, which included three landscape-
related BMPs that were quantified and ultra- low flush toilet replacement, among
others. Two of the three landscape BMPs relied on the Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance developed by DWR. The criteria developed under this ordinance resulted in
the following formula used to estimate the maximum applied water allowance in a
landscape plan:

MAWA= 0.8(Eto)xLA

where: MAWA is the maximum applied water allowance; 0.8 is an ET adjustment factor
based on an irrigation efficiency of 62 . 5 percent; Eto is the reference evapotranspiration
of well watered pasture; LA is the landscaped area; and CF is a conversion factor to
hundreds of cubic feet.

For a Level II option, an increase in irrigation efficiency of 5 percent should be
investigated. The rationale behind this assumption is that this would parallel the in-
crease in agricultural efficiency over the same period. If landscape irrigation efficiency
is increased by 5 percent, an additional 220,000 af in applied water reduction would be
realized. This amount would be commensurate with a 190,000-af reduction in net wa-
ter use. Other potential Level II options that need further evaluation include: greater
increases in landscape irrigation efficiencies; evapotranpiration reduction from xeris-
caping; and horizontal axis washing machines.

Applied Water Reduction Due to Land Retirement. A Management Plan for
Agricultural Subsurface Drainage and Related Problems on the Westside San Joaquin
Valley (San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program, 1 990) reported that many of the valley's
water and drainage districts and individual growers had begun to take actions similar
to those recommended in the report. Therefore, it was assumed in Chapter 6, Agricul-
tural Water Use, that the source control (irrigation efficiency improvements) and land
retirement elements of the recommended plan developed by the SJVDP would be im-
plemented by 2020. Implementation of these two elements would result in an applied
water reduction of 232,000 af by 2020. This was adopted in the Level I scenario and
included in water demand projections.

The SJVDP report also suggested that if no portion of the recommended plan
were implemented, applied water could be reduced by 1,040,000 af due to the aban-
donment of 460,000 acres of irrigated land by 2040. Assuming that the abandoned
acreage increases linearly over time results in an estimate of 276,000 acres abandoned
by 2020 and a reduction in applied water of 689,000 af if no portion of the plan were
implemented. The analysis also assumed that approximately 20,000 af of source con-
trol would occur.

314 Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Therefore, to establish a Level II option scenario, it is assumed that the SJVDP
recommended plan will be partially implemented by 2020. reflecting the status of vari-
ous recommendations in the report, resulting in a potential applied water reduction of
about 477.000 af from land abandonment and source control. This amount would cor-
respond to a reduction in net water use of 390.000 af. Table 1 1-9 illustrates what
could be available due to partial implementation of that preferred plan. However, more
detailed analysis is required to determine whether the water would be used for other
agricultural production in the region.

Water Transfers. Water transfers can augment an area's water supplies on a
short- or long-term basis. Short-term transfers are generally either one-time spot mar-
ket or long-term agreements for drought year supplies. Long-term annual transfers are
generally designed to augment a water agency's year-to-year supplies over the long-
term to improve the water service reliability for the receiving area. Such transfers have
been going on since early this century as evidenced by the construction of several ma-
jor intrastate transfer facilities (described in Chapter 3). and they are indeed the
backbone of the State's long-existing water delivery system. However, the 1987-92
drought caused some water agencies and individuals to begin looking at the potential
of a water transfers market to meet their needs by augmenting long-term supplies as
well as short-term drought supplies.

There are currently physical limits to water transfers. Total usable transfer ca-
pacity of existing major conveyance facilities from the Delta, under D-1485, during
drought years is about 1 .4 maf per year. Level I drought water transfers from the Delta
are estimated at 0.6 maf. resulting in a remaining Level II transfer potential of about
0.8 maf. (See Short-Term Water Transfers in the Level I— Reliability Enhancement Op-
tions section of this chapter.) The unused capacity of conveyance facilities is
considerably less during average years when both projects would be able to export
more of their own water. However, recent actions taken to protect fisheries in the Delta
have considerably curtailed the pumping capability of the projects, resulting in in-
creased limitations on the SWF and CVP facilities to convey or wheel transfer water.
Drought year usable transfer capacity of the SWF and CVP at the 1990 level is esti-
mated to be about 0.7 maf when projects are operated to comply with Delta smelt and
winter-run chinook salmon 1993 biological opinion, as discussed in detail below. The
primary sources of water for transfer have been ground water substitution, unallo-
cated developed supply, and land fallowing. This section presents the factors affecting

Table 11-9. Applied Water Reductions by 2020 With and Without Implementation of the Plan
Recommended by the San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Drainage Program'^)

Without Recommended Plan With Recommended Plan '^'

Water made available by land abandonment'^'

689,000

Water made available through land retirement'^'

119,000

Water conserved through source control '^'

20,000

113,000

Subtotal

709,000

232,000

Difference (Without-With)

477,000

(1) Source: straight-line interpolation from data in "A Management
Joaquin Valley Drainage Program," September 1 990.

Plan for Agricultural Subsurface Drainage and Related Problems

on the Westside San Joaquin Volley, Find Report of the Son

(2) Recommended plan elements adopted in DWR Bulletin 1 60-93

projections.

(3) Land abandonment due to 276,000 acres forced out of production due to no drainage

plan

Implemenlotion by 2020.

(4) Land retirement refers to tfie planned retirement of 45,000 selenium-laden acres.

(5) Source control is equivalent to applied water reductions to reduce drainage volumes.

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

315

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

the feasibility of transferring water along with a general discussion of sources of water
* for transfer.

Ground water substitution makes surface irrigation water available for transfer
by pumping an equivalent amount of ground water for use on irrigated lands. Local
water districts usually coordinate ground water pumping with reduced surface water
diversions by growers, although growers not affiliated with a local water district have
also participated in ground water substitution contracts. Replacement pumping must
be far enough from perennial streams, rivers, and Delta tributaries to not induce addi-
tional immediate percolation to ground water, thus reducing surface water supplies
and negating the transfer.

Unallocated developed supply, which would have stayed in storage and possibly
spilled in future years, can be available for transfer if the transferee obtains approval
from the SWRCB and makes assurances that reregulation of reservoir operations will
not adversely affect operations of the SWP or CVP. This is essential, because SWP and
CVP facilities are used to transport most transferred water and must meet downstream
water quality standards obligations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Temporary fallowing of irrigated crop land is the water transfer alternative with
the most potential for providing short-term water supply during drought, thus improv-
ing water service reliability for areas receiving the water. By not planting a crop, or by
withholding irrigation from a crop already planted, or by shifting from a high-water-
using crop to a lower-water-using crop, growers are able to free up irrigation supplies
for transfer. Since drainage water is normally used on other farms, or mciintains wild-
life habitat, the amount of water transferred is usually limited to the average
consumptive use (evapotranspiration of applied water for specific crops) on the trans-
ferring farm, plus drainage if it goes to a saline sink.

Permanent fallowing or land retirement is a long-term transfer strategy similar to
temporary fallowing. The most attractive agricultural land for this t)T)e of transfer is
land with salinity problems, or of only marginal production. The 1992 Castaic Lake
Water Agency transfer of Devil's Den Water District SWP supplies is a good example of
permanent land retirement although the actual retirement of the land is still several
years away.

Physical limitations to water transfers exist within the conveyance capability of
the various water systems. The San Francisco Bay. the South Coast, the west side of
the San Joaquin Valley, and the Tulare Lake regions are regions with water shortages,
and these regions would likely be primary purchasers of water transfers. A key factor
in water transfers to these regions is the Delta because the potential sellers of surplus
water for interregional water transfers would primarily be in areas of surplus, such as
the Sacramento River Region, and to a lesser degree, the San Joaquin River Region.

The following water transfer discussions involving the hub of California's water
supply infrastructure, the Delta, are based on SWRCB D- 1485 and project operations
under winter-run salmon and Delta smelt criteria. Actions taken in 1992 and 1993 to
protect fisheries in the Delta have already considerably reduced export capabilities.

Most major water transfer actions require participation of SWP or CVP as facilita-
tor to convey the transferred water to the areas of need, and approval from the SWRCB
to change the point of diversion and place of use. Availability of unused capacity of
pumping plants and conveyance facilities is critical in determining the feasibility of
wheeling water to the receiving agency, particularly for long-term fixed annual deliver-
ies.

316 Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

The CVP's Tracy Pumping Plant is generally used to almost full capacity to meet
existing contractual commitments. However, during times of drought, there is unused
CVP capacity which is considered in this analysis. The SWP's California Aqueduct ca-
pability is constrained at several critical locations which restrict excess capacity to
convey transfer water. These constraints are Banks Pumping Plant. Reach 13 of the
California Aqueduct upstream of Buena Vista Pumping Plant in the lower San Joaquin
Valley, and Edmonston Pumping Plant, where water is pumped over the Tehachapi
Mountains into the upper desert and South Coast Region.

Under D- 1485. and the USCE permit (public notice 5820A. amended) with exist-
ing facilities. Banks Pumping Plant restricted capacity is about 6.400 cfs with limited
additional capacity in winter and spring. The Banks Pumping Plant is physically capa-
ble of pumping approximately 10,300 cfs. With implementation of the proposed south
Delta water management program and USCE pumping restrictions removed. Banks
Pumping Plant capacity could increase to approximately 10.300 cfs under certain
conditions. Edmonston Pumping Plant would then become the critical constraint in
conveying water to the South Coast Region. Under endangered species operation crite-
ria, constraints at Tracy and Banks pumping plants significantly reduce water transfer
capabilities.

Two operation studies were evaluated to determine the unused capacity of SWP
and CVP facilities for the 1990 level of development, with D- 1485 and with endangered
species criteria based on the 1993 Delta smelt and winter-run chinook salmon biologi-
cal opinions. The "take limitations" criteria imposed by the opinions cannot be
modeled and are not included in the analyses. Another set of studies was conducted to
evaluate year 2020 usable transfer capacity of the conveyance systems with existing
facilities and with Level I water management programs based on D-1485 criteria.

Table 1 1-10 shows annual SWP and CVP usable transfer capacity from Banks
Pumping Plant to the South Coast and San Francisco Bay regions, based on D-1485
operating criteria. Unused CVP capacity at Tracy Pumping Plant and Delta Mendota
Canal are also included in the analyses. Unused capacity of the projects is directly re-
lated to annual hydrologic variations and the demand for water in the SWP/CVP
service areas. During drought periods when supplies are insufficient to meet demands
and deficiencies are imposed on SWP and CVP water contractors, more unused capac-
ity is available in the conveyance systems. In addition, as demands for water in SWP

Table 11-10. SWP and CVP Usable Transfer Capability from the Delta

(millions of acre-feet)

To the South Coast Region (based on D-1485)

average drought

1 990, Base Case 0.6 1 .4

2020, with Existing Facilities 0.3 1.5

2020, with Level I Programs 0.3 1.1

To the San Francisco Bay Region (based on D-1485)

average drought

1990, Base Case 0.2 0.3

2020, with Existing Facilities 0.1 0.3

2020, with Level I Programs 0.1 0.2

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand 317

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

service areas Increase and additional facilities are completed to meet contractual de-
mands, unused capacity of the SWP decreases.

For the South Coast Region, the 1990 level of usable transfer capacities in
drought and average years under D-1485 criteria are about 1.4 and 0.6 maf, respec-
tively. By year 2020, with Level I water management programs, unused capacity of the
projects will be reduced to 1 . 1 and 0.3 maf in drought and average years, respectively.
Similar analyses conducted for the San Francisco Bay Region indicate that the com-
bined usable transfer capacity of the SWP North and South Bay Aqueducts and the
CVP San Felipe unit (Santa Clara Conduit) for the 1990 level varies from 0.3 to 0.2 maf
for drought and average years respectively. By year 2020, with Level I water manage-
ment programs, usable transfer capacity will be reduced slightly to 0.2 and 0. 1 maf for
drought and average years respectively.

Transfer capability from the South Delta shown for the San Francisco and South
Coast regions was computed independently and is not additive. The Delta Pumping
Plant's unused capacity is not adequate to convey enough water to fill the combined
unused capacity of the aqueduct systems conveying water to the two regions. SWP and
CVP usable transfer capability from the Delta to the San Francisco Bay Region is
shown in Table 11- 10.

Figure 11-11 compares the SWP and CVP water transfer capacity from the Delta
to the South Coast Region under D-1485 and endangered species criteria. This figure
shows that average and drought year usable transfer capacities of the SWP and CVP
are reduced to about 0.3 and 0.7 maf, respectively, forthe 1990 level when projects are
operated under endangered species criteria for winter run salmon and Delta smelt, re-
flecting pumping curtailments resulting from endangered species biological opinions.
Among the factors limiting Delta exports are reverse-flow criteria and take limitations.

Figure 11-11.

Usable Transfer

Capacity with E^xisting

SWP/ CVP Facilities

for Transfers from

the Delta to the South

Coast Region

(thousands of

acrefeet)

Transfer Capacity
(thousand acre-fed)

D-1485 ESA Operation

Average

D-1485 ESA Operation

Drought

Usable transfer capacity from ifie Delta under D-1485 conditions.

Usable transfer capacity from the Delta under historic Delta flow patterns with ESA restrictions.

Usable transfer capacity including capability to transfer south of the Delta source supplies itiot
do not add to reverse flow problems thus allowing more water to be pumped than under historic
Deha flow patterns.

Based on 1993 Delta Smelt Biological Opinion and Winter Run Salmon Biological Opinion,
"--'ever, figures do not reflect pumping curtailments due to 'take' limitations.

318

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Usable transfer capabilities discussed here do not reflect pumping limitations due to
take limits under the biological opinions.

Water transfers with source water from south of the Delta, for example the San
Joaquin Region, would not have reverse-flow limitations, but would be subject to other
pumping restrictions. If source water for transfer is from the San Joaquin River, an
additional pumping of about 0.2 maf in drought years could be realized as shown in
Figure 11-11. Therefore, the water transfer capabilities mentioned for through-Delta
transfers are less than those for source water from south of the Delta. Thus, consider-
ing pumping limitations in the Delta and Edmonston Pumping Plant, an envelope of
usable transfer capacity can be developed. The envelope for water transfers to the
Southern California ranges from an upper limit of 1 .4 maf (under SWRCB D- 1485) to
about 0.9 maf in drought years (under endangered species actions). Similarly, the av-
erage year Delta water transfer envelope for exports to Southern California would be
about 0.3 to 0.6 maf under endangered species actions and SWRCB D-1485, respec-
tively. None of these restrictions consider potential pumping curtailments at the Delta
due to take limits imposed by biological opinions.

Other considerations that could impair water transfers include lack of willing
buyers and sellers, potential third-party impacts, and timing of availability of unused
capacity of the facilities. Figure 11-12 shows the monthly variation of unused capacity
of the SWP and CVP, under D-1485 for the 1990 level, and indicates that unused ca-
pacity of conveyance facilities is extremely limited from May through July when
demand for water is high and SWP and CVP pumping is limited by D-1485 criteria.
Therefore, most long-term water transfers are limited to those agencies that have re-
regulation and storage capabilities that can be operated to take advantage of timing of
available transfer capability. However, short-term drought year transfers, such as
Drought Water Bank transfers, can use unused SWP/CVP storage (nonproject contrac-
tors may have a lower priority for storage) and re-regulation capabilities to facilitate
transfer of water to agencies without storage capacity.

Water Rights Law is paramount in any discussion about water transfer. Virtually
all of California's developed surface water is committed under riparian or appropriative
water rights. Water rights laws and institutional constraints constrain the ability to

Transfer Capacity
(thousand acre-ket)

1990 Level

^^B

■■ 1

1 j

g 1

■ 1

■ 1 ■ 1 ■ 1

R 1 IR

R ■■■■

« 1 1

R J

Figure 11-12.
Monthly Variation of
Usable Transfer
Capacity with Existing
SWP/CVP Facilities for
Transfers from the
Delta to the
South Coast Region
Based on D-1485
(thousands of acre-feet)

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep

Average

Drought L^

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

319

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

make water transfers. Statutes governing California water rights are generally admin-
istered by the SWRCB . Water transfers lasting more than a year generally require the
water right holder to petition the SWRCB for approval. There are different procedures
for temporary (one-year) and permanent (long-term) transfers.

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act permits water districts and individu-
als receiving CVP water to transfer that supply to any other individual or entity subject
to conditions specified in the Act, and subject to a federal approval process. The trans-
fer must be approved by the affected district if the amount of the proposed transfer
would exceed 20 percent of a district's CVP contract amount.

Transfers carried out in accordance with the Act must meet the conditions speci-
fied therein, and must comply with relevant State and federal laws such as CEQA,
NEPA, and the State and federal Endangered Species Acts. Transfers must also comply

Water Transfer Costs

Water transfer costs include more than the amount that prospective sellers would
be willing to accept for their water. Other associated costs can be a substantial or
even the major part of the cost of a water transfer. Mitigation for adverse third-party
economic impacts in the area of origin may require payments to local agencies; as o
consequence, freeing up water for transfer has at least two cost components.

Purchase prices can be set by a drought water bank-type operation or directly
negotiated between prospective buyers and sellers. Negotiated prices will fall be-
tween the cost to the sellers of foregoing the use of that water and the willingness of the
buyers to pay.

The cost to the sellers is affected by the magnitude of the transfer. If available, ini-
tial quantities probably involve in-lieu ground water pumping or releases of uncom-
mitted stored water. These sources are likely to be least costly to the sellers in terms of
pumping energy or foregone income. Further increments of water likely will involve
crop fallowing or switching to lower-water-using crops. Jhese actions result in substan-
tial income losses to sellers and, as a consequence, are likely to require higher water
prices to make them palatable.

Higher prices are more likely in a spot market than under a long-term agreement.
Spot markets favor the seller; there is little doubt about the buyer's immediate need for
the water. Buyers have a certain advantage under long-term agreements. Under long-
term agreements the seller is trying to reduce or eliminate the uncertainty of income
from water sales and the buyer is not necessarily facing an immediate crisis, but is plan-
ning to augment supply reliability. Prices paid by buyers of transferred water reflect the
cost of conveyance, which depends upon the facilities used.

The conveyance losses reduce the water delivered compared to the amount pur-
chased. Alternatively, these losses may be thought of as increasing the unit cost of the
remaining water to the buyer, that is, as water surcharges. If the transferred water has
to be moved across the Delta under controlled flow conditions, a portion of the woter
must be dedicated to Delta outflow as a means of meeting Delta salinity standards.
This is an example of a conveyance loss. Other conveyance losses include evapora-
tion from reservoirs and canals as well as canal seepage.

Water surcharges for environmental mitigation needs, such as increasing stream
flows for anadromous fish spawning, can also be a requirement for permitting transfers.

Short-term emergencies generally are characterized by the prospect of large
economic losses from unmet demands and the high cost or limited nature of the op-
tions to meet those demands or to mitigate the losses. Under these conditions even a
relatively small quantity of transferred water can eliminate the most serious impacts of
shortage. The willingness of buyers to pay is correspondingly high.

320 Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

with USER'S interim Guidelines for Water Transfers and must eventually comply with
long-term water transfer rules and regulations when they are promulgated. The
restrictions contained in the guidelines apply in particular to transfers of project water,
rather than to transfers of water rights settlement water conveyed by the CVP. Given
the restrictions placed on transfers of project water, it is likely that transfers of water
rights settlement water may constitute much of the total CVP-related supply being
made available for transfer. The CVP Improvement Act also contains provisions allow-
ing use of project facilities to Ccirry out water banking programs, including banking
programs for fish and wildlife.

Delta Outflow Requirements are another factor affecting water transfers. Mini-
mum water quality standards for the Delta are set by the SWRCB and the SWP and
CVP must be operated to meet those standards. Presently, Delta outflow is maintained
by either limiting exports or increasing releases from upstream reservoirs. Since most
transfers of water originating in the Sacramento Region must be conveyed through ei-
ther the SWP or CVP Delta facilities, transfers must conform to existing and future
Delta outflow requirements.

Threatened and Endangered Species must £dso be considered when discussing
water transfers. Potential impacts of transfers on listed species must be evaluated un-
der the State and federal Endangered Species Acts. CVP/SWP pumping from the Delta
is currently restricted to protect listed species. The lack of Delta transfer capacity rath-
er than the general availability of supply may be a common occurrence.

Environmental Impacts of a water transfer are another factor to consider. The
quantity and timing of reservoir releases are very important and can have significant
impact upon instream fish flows. Careful consideration and coordination with DFG is
required. For example, the Drought Water Bank water was transferred later in the year
to minimize impacts upon chinook salmon and Delta smelt. However, conjunctive use
programs can have a positive effect on aquatic resources by using ground water for
irrigation during dry years, thereby reducing direct pumping from the river which re-
sults in fewer fish being taken through unscreened intakes.

Not all negative impacts on wildlife can be eliminated. Land fallowing has some
negative impact on wildlife habitat, by cutting off some food sources, vegetation for
cover, and nesting. Any future fallowing contracts are expected to contain provisions to
minimize these impacts. Water transfers also can substantially reduce surface flows to
waterfowl areas which are depended on to provide habitat for migrating and resident
birds using cultivated crops as food and nesting sources.

Impacts on Transferring Area are important. Two concerns with water transfers
involve the impacts on local ground water levels and impacts on local tax revenues and
economies. For example, those issues arose during the 199 1 Drought Water Bank due
to the replacement of transferred surface water with ground water, sale of pumped
ground water, and the fallowing of more than 150,000 acres.

Review and evaluation of ground water data indicate little impact on ground wa-
ter levels from the State Water Bank transfers that took place in 1991 and 1992.
^Monitoring programs have been established in areas where such ground water pump-
ing took place. Approximately 100 wells, part of DWR's usual semi-annual monitoring
program in Butte, Colusa, and southern Glenn counties, were monitored monthly dur-
ing the transfer and subsequent recovery periods. The monitoring program did not
indicate any significant impact on the ground water basins in these counties as the
result of ground water pumping for the State Drought Water Bank. Local concerns re-
garding future water transfers will be assessed through expanded ground water

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand 321

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

monitoring similar to those implemented as part of the 1991 and 1992 Drought Water
« Bank programs.

Transfer from agricultural water use to urban use is a concern because many
agricultural areas are considered more economiccilly vulnerable than urban areas. Al-
though not all water transfers from land fallowing go to urban areas, urban areas have
a relatively higher ability and willingness to pay for water during shortages, which
makes them the likely recipients of water transfers to shore up water service reliability.

The economic health of farm conmiunities is tied to the farm activity within their
spheres of influence. For many local businesses the goods and services furnished to
farmers is a major part of their income. If farm production declines, whether because
of drought, government programs, or crop lamd fallowing for water transfers, a ripple
effect happens in the local economy. These supporting businesses will likely see less
sales income, smd if there is less business income, employees may be terminated or
asked to work fewer hours, reducing the amount of salaries paid. In turn, the em-
ployees spend less money in the comanunity, smd another round of adverse impacts
results.

Any resulting unemplojrment can be an additional burden on local governmental
and private agencies that provide services to unemployed and indigent people. Com-
pounding this problem is the likelihood that, due to the aforementioned decline in
business activity, these same agencies will be facing revenue cutbacks from falling tax
income and fewer charitable contributions. However, payments for the transferred wa-
ter, water surcharges, and controls on land fallowing can be used to mitigate these
impacts. For example, the 1991 State Drought Water Bank experience showed that
many farmers used water sales income to make improvements to their land, providing
jobs and income within the local area. Restricting the percentage and frequency of land
fallowed within any one area can allow affected conununities to avoid much of the po-
tential permanent economic or social damage.

Water Supply Management Options

Level 11 supply management options discussed here are those actions that could
augment supplies in water-short areas of California. Table 11-8 also shows statewide
and local water supply management programs under Level II options.

SWP Water Supply Augmentation. The following conjunctive use options offer
potential means to further enhance the SWP reliability. These are not, by any means,
meant to be all-inclusive; other options could also be identified and investigated in the
future for augmenting SWP supplies.

Corywictive use of surface and ground water supplies can be an efficient means
of augmenting supplies to help meet Csdifomia's ftiture water needs. Conjunctive use
is the operation of a ground water basin in coordination with a surface water supphr
system to optimize the combined yield. A surface water storage and conveyance system
is used to recharge a ground water basin, either directly or indirectfy, during wet years
to provide storage of water that can be used during dry years. Several conjunctive use
programs are under study in the State today.

Currently. DWR USBR. and local agencies are conducting planning studies for
the Stanislaus River Basin and Calaveras River Water Use Program. The Stockton E^t
Water District and the Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District have con-
tracted for 155.000 af from New Melones Reservoir, a CVP facility on the Stanislaus
River. The two districts propose to divert thefr contract water from the Stanislaus River
during wet. above-average, and average years. During below-average, dry, and critical

322 Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

years the agencies would pump ground water to meet their needs and release their
contract water down the Stanislaus River to provide increased flows for fish, water
quality improvement in the south Delta channels, and increased yield to the SWP. The
ground water basin would be replenished during wet years. A draft EIR/EIS is sched-
uled for release by fall 1994. Currently the effects of proposed Delta water quality and
flow standards, implementation of the CVPIA, and Delta smelt and winter-run salmon
biological opinions on this program are being evaluated.

DWR has also started investigations to identify conjunctive use projects in the
Sacramento Valley which could further supplement SWP supplies. Initial studies are
focused in eastern Yolo County, Butte County, and southern Sutter County. Other
areas could be studied in the future, as agreements are reached with local agencies.
Sacramento Valley conjunctive use programs could potentially augment drought year
SWP supplies by as much as 100,000 af annually by the year 2000. These conjunctive
use programs are in the early planning stages, and their yields are not included in SWP
future supplies. (For more details about conjunctive use programs, see Chapter 4,
Ground Water Supplies.)

Red Bank Project. The project, about 20 miles west of Red Bluff, would consist of
two storage reservoirs, Dippingvat on the South Fork of Cottonwood Creek and
Schoenfield on Red Bank Creek. The combined storage would be about 354,000 af and
could produce an estimated 40,000 af of water supply benefit annually. The estimated
cost of this project is $209 million. The project would provide increased water supply
reliability for the SWP, increased flood protection along Cottonwood Creek and the
Sacramento River, recreational opportunity, and anadromous fish restoration. The
project is essentially on hold because of the uncertainty of Delta transfer facilities and
escalating SWP costs.

Westside Sacramento Valley Storage and Conveyance Concept. This concept was
first presented in Bulletin 3, The California Water Plan, published in 1957. The West-
side storage and conveyance facilities, as envisioned by CH^M Hill Engineering, would
tie together Shasta, Clair Engle, and Oroville reservoirs and some proposed offstream
reservoirs on the west side of the Sacramento Valley and would be operated for multi-
ple uses including flood control, environmental, and water supply. A number of sites
on the west side of the Sacramento Valley have been investigated for offstream reser-
voirs, including, among others, various sites on Cottonwood Creek, Stony Creek, Red
Bank Creek, and Sites Reservoir (west of Maxwell). Under this option, a portion of the
Sacramento River flood flows would be diverted and stored in offstream reservoirs for
later use, thus reducing flood flows downstream.

A conveyance facility originating above Keswick Dam on the Sacramento River
would convey water along the west side of the Sacramento Valley, and could be ex-
tended to Clifton Court Forebay in the South Delta. Anderson-Cottonwood Canal,
Tehama-Colusa Canal, Glenn-Colusa Canal, Corning Canal, and a number of smaller
Sacramento River diverters could be supplied by the Westside Canal. Under this op-
tion. Red Bluff Diversion Dam and major pumping plants and diversions along the
Sacramento River could be removed, providing a free-flowing river from Keswick to the
Delta. A cross-valley conveyance facility could also connect the Oroville complex with
the Westside facility, to convey SWP water to the Banks Pumping Plant. The facility
could deliver over 3 maf of CVP water to Sacramento Valley service areas, eliminating
over 300 unscreened diversions along the Sacramento River. If the canal were extended
to the Clifton Court Forebay, it would replace the isolated facility discussed in Chapter
10 (see Figure 11-13).

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand 323

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

This option could greatly reduce the impact of diversions on the Sacramento Riv-
^ er fishery; would improve conditions for Sacramento River fish migrations, thus

enhancing the recovery of the winter-run chinook salmon: would begin the restoration
of the Delta by reducing direct diversions and pumping fi-om the Delta; and would pro-
vide additional water supply and good quality water for urban users.

CVP Water Supply Augmentation. The following options summarize the pro-
grams that could be investigated in the future or have been studied in the past, but are
on hold for a variety of reasons. These programs could be reevaluated at any time to
augment CVP supplies.

Central Valley Pmject Impntvement Act Studies. This effort to identify elements of
new yield totaling 800.000 af is just beginning, and no specifics are available.

Shasta Lake Enlargement. Both the USBR and DWR have studied enlarging
Shasta Lake. Prior planning efforts looked at increasing the storage capacity by
approximately 9.7 maf to a total capacity of 14.25 maf. This would require raising the
existing dam approximately 213 feet. The enlargement would increase the firm yield to
the SWP and CVP by 1.45 maf annually, and would cost about $4.5 billion. The en-
largement would also provide instream flows for fish, increased flood protection on the
Sacramento River, and provide greater amounts of dependable hydroelectric energy.

Some of the issues surrounding Shasta Dam enlargement are the inundation of
significant cultural sites, environmental impacts, and relocations of 1-5 and the South-
em Pacific Railroad. Because of these issues and the high capital cost of construction,
this project has been deferred indefinitely.

Clair Engle Lake Enlargement An alternative to the Shasta Lake enlargement is
enlarging Clair Engle Lake by raising Trinity Dam. The capital cost of this project
would be less than the Shasta Lake Enlargement because of lower relocation costs.
This option would raise Trinity Dam by about 200 feet to increase reservoir storage by
about 4.8 maf (see Figure 11-13).

As envisioned by Harza Engineering Company, unregulated flood flows fi-om the
Sacramento River would be pumped to Clair Engle Lake through a pump/generation
facility. Water would then be released to Shasta Reservoir to meet water needs during
the dry season. Enlarging Clair Engle Lake would have a water supply benefit of about
700,000 af per year. Production of hydroelectric power during on-peak periods could
provide revenues to help finance the project. The environmental impacts have not been
identified.

Mid-VaUey CanaL The USBR investigated options to provide supplemental water
supplies to the east side of the San Joaquin Valley to improve the ground water over-
draft problem. A Report on the San Joaquin. Valley Conveyance Inuestigation, released
in June 1 990, identified the Mid-Valley Canal as the best option to develop a long-term
solution to the valley overdraft problem.

The San Joaquin VaU^ Conveyance Investigation involves issues and activities
affecting CVP water yield and project management. These include fish agreements and
negotiations, the CVP Improvement Act of 1992, Delta point of diversion and rediver-
sion under CVP water rights, consolidated place of use for CVP water rights.
cross-Delta facilities, conveyance capacity south of the Delta, and the CVP water con-
tracting program.

Because these unresolved issues will have an impact on the availability of a sup-
plemental water supply for the canal, further work has been deferred on the San
Joaquin Valley Conveyance Investigation.

324 Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Figure 11-13. Westside Sacramento Valley Storage
and Conveyance Concepts

CJair Engle Lake

Lewiston Lake-

Clair Engle Enlargement

and

Clair Engle / Shasta Inter-tie

Shasta Lake

Storage

Oroville Inter-tie

Lake Oro vi 1 le

Thermali to Afterbay

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

325

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Folsom South Canal Elxtension. Folsom South Canal originates at Nimbus Dam
* on the American River and extends southward toward San Joaquin County. The origi-

nal plan was for a 68.8-mile-long canal, terminating about 20 miles southeast of the
City of Stockton to deliver American River water to agricultural and urban contractors.
The first two reaches of the canal were completed in 1973 to a point just south of State
Highway 104. Construction of the three remaining reaches, a total of 42. 1 miles, has
been suspended pending completion and consideration of alternative studies.

American River Water Resources Investigation. A five-year study of water needs
and water supply alternatives in the American River Watershed and adjacent counties
began in 199 1 . The study is governed by a memorandum of agreement between USBR
and the Sacramento Metropolitan Water Authority. Costs are shared on a fifty-fifty ba-
sis. Other local cost-sharing partners include the American River Authority,
Sacramento County Water Agency, and San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District. DWR is represented at the executive and management level and
provides in-kind services. The study area includes portions of El Dorado, Placer, Sac-
ramento. San Joaquin, and Sutter counties. The results of this study will be
coordinated with early stages of design of the American River Flood Control Project, if
authorized by Congress.

This study, under the leadership of the USBR will evaluate alternatives for sup-
plying unmet water demands in the study area. Included as alternatives are water
transfers, conjunctive use. water conservation, cind development of additional water
supplies on the American River and other rivers in the study area. The feasibility report
and environmental documentation for this study should be completed in 1996.

Local Water Supply Augmentation. Several possibilities for augmenting local
water supplies are discussed below.

Gray Water Use. Gray water use could help reduce the demand for potable fresh
water over the long term. Most households produce between 24 and 36 gallons of gray
water per person per day. Many population centers in California are located in areas
where the climate requires landscape irrigation at least seven months of the year, so
gray water could replace potable water during that time span. Gray water would gener-
ally only be practical in larger lots where adequate side clearances can be maintained
for subsurface irrigation fields.

A more substantial use of gray water in residential areas would require major
investments in plumbing and may not be practical for existing housing. The expected
population increase between 1990 and 2020 is about 19 million people. If half of these
people live in single-family dwellings in new housing with gray water plumbing, the
potential for gray water use, at 30 gallons per person per day, could be about 180,000
af of water in 2020.

Water Recycling. The WateReuse Association of California conducted a Survey for
Future Water Recycling Potential (final report. July 1993). The survey indicates that
there is potential for accelerating the pace of water recycling in the future. Statewide
total water recycling could increase to about 1 .69 1 ,000 af per year and create about
1.293,000 af of new water supply (see Table 11-7).

Level 1 total water recycling was estimated to be 1,321,000 af. producing about
923.000 af of new supply. The remainder would be Level 11 water recycling. Therefore,
there is a potential for 370.000 af of additional water recycling per year by 2020. which
should be investigated under Level 11 options.

Water Desalting. Engineers and scientists have been working on economical ways
to desalt water for the last fifty years. The major limitation of desalting has been its

326 Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Table 1 1-1 1. Annual 1990 and Potential Future Water Desalting

(thousands of acre-feet)

Type of Desalting

1990

2000

Recycled Water
Sea Water

5.6
11.4 3

33.6
149.4

TOTAL

183

2070

33.6
259.4

293

2020

33.6
369.4

403

high cost, much of which is directly related to high energy requirements. A recent,
principal development is the availability of relatively low cost desalting systems for re-
claiming brackish (low- salinity) ground water (ground water reclamation) and for
recycling municipal water. Both ground water reclamation and desalting of recycled
municipal water are being successfully practiced in California and are projected to
grow. The cost of desalting using these systems can range from $300 to $500 per acre-
foot (plus other costs of treatment in the case of water recycling). Ground water
reclamation is discussed in this chapter under Level I — Reliability Enhancement Op-
tions.

Sea water desalting costs from $900 to $2,000 per acre-foot; additional costs are
required to convey the water to the place of use. With few exceptions, the combined
costs are greater than obtaining water from most other sources. However, sea water
desalting can be a feasible option for coastal communities that are relatively far from
the statewide water distribution system and have limited water supplies. Because of
such circumstances, sea water desalting plants have been constructed in the City of
Avalon (Santa Catalina Island) and the Cities of Santa Barbara and Morro Bay in the
Central Coast Region. Sea water desalting plants can be designed to operate only dur-
ing droughts to improve water supply reliability. They can also be downsized and
operated continuously in conjunction with ground water (reducing ground water
pumping during wet periods and providing more ground water supplies for drought
periods). The reliability of supply is very high, although at a generally higher cost.

Future desalting programs depend on several factors including the success of pi-
lot projects, the determination of environmental requirements for concentrate disposal
and, most importantly, the availability and cost of other sources of supply. Table 11-11
shows current and potential desalting volumes by tjrpe of desalting. Because of its rela-
tively high costs and uncertain future, desalting is considered a Level II option for
future water supply. Its use is not likely to be widespread and, therefore, is not in-
cluded in water supply projections and the water budget in this report. The potential
desalting water supply production shown in Table 11-11 was derived from various fea-
sibility studies in the last five years, and the amounts represent a potential for Level II
future supply as other water sources become unavailable or too costly. The increasing
potential for sea water desalting represents future additions of desalting systems to
existing power plants during refurbishment and repowering projects. This combina-
tion of power generation and desalting is generally the most cost-effective form for sea
water desalting facilities. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and San
Diego County Water Authority, in conjunction with San Diego Gas and Electric Com-
pany, are among the utilities considering such projects.

Reuse ofBrackisti Agricultural Drainage Water. Agricultural drainage is reused
extensively throughout the State. As drainage water is reused, its salinity can be in-
creased to a level that prohibits further reuse for most crops. Some salt-tolerant crops

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand

327

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

can be grown with a portion of applied water having a relatively high concentration of
* dissolved solids. Fresh water use might be reduced by substituting brackish agricul-

tural drainage water or brackish shallow ground water for irrigation during the mid-
and late growing season. Using drainage water for irrigation of some salt- tolerant crops
was studied and discussed in the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program report, A Mcai-
agewent Plan for AgricLdtwal Subsurface Drainage and Related Pmblems on the
Westside San Joaquin VaUey.

The primary concern in long-term use of brackish drainage water for irrigation is
the impact of salt accumulation on the integrity and productivity of the soil. Before a
decision can be made about large-scale reuse of brackish agricultural drainage water
for irrigation, field-sized pilot experiments should be conducted during the next decade
to examine the impact of salt accumulation on soil and the feasibility of commercial
farming with brackish water.

Local Conjunctive Use Pmgrams. Local agencies are also considering conjunctive
use of surface and ground water supplies to enhance reliability of their supplies. Calle-
guas Municipal Water District, through a cooperative agreement with MWDSC. is
pursuing the development of a large-scale conjunctive use project in the North Las Po-
sas Basin in Ventura County. This project could provide storage of up to 300,000 af of
imported water. When available, water would be injected into the ground water basin
and subsequently recovered as demand dictates.

San Diego County Water Authority Water Resources Plan and Emergency Water
Storage Project The San Diego County Water Authority has recently completed a Water
Resources Plan which identifies future water demands, reviews water supply options,
and recommends a preferred mix of ftiture supplies. TTiis preferred mix will guide the
authority in securing adequate water supplies to meet ftiture demands. The plan in-
cludes the development of an additional 85,000 af of local supplies by 2010. These
supplies include sources such as water recycling, ground water development, and
brackish water desalination. Also, an estimated 70,000 af per year of conservation re-
sulting ft-om implementation of urban BMPs is included in the plan. Currently the
authority receives less than ten percent of its average water suppfy fi^om local sources.
or about 60,000 af per year.

TTie county relies on water imported fi-om MWDSC via the California and the Col-
orado River aqueducts. However, the imported water supply pipelines cross three
major earthquake faults and the flood-prone San Luis Rey River. Currently, San Diego
County's 105,000 af of emergency storage is considered inadequate. The latest popula-
tion growth projections indicate that the county will need as much as 100.000 af in
Increased storage capacity by 2030. The SDCWA is also studying to determine the best
method for meeting the county's emergency water storage needs; the project's goal is to
provide sufficient water storage capacity so the county can endure up to a six-month
suppty interruption without severe economic and environmental damage.

The objective of the current study is to identify combinations of various elements
that are capable of meeting the requirements for emergency storage. Each system
alternative may be composed of any or all of the following elements: construction of
new or enlargement of existing surface reservoirs, emergency reoperation of existing
reservoirs, and new pipeline facilities. There are currentty thirteen primary storage sys-
tems being considered, including expansion and reof)eration of San Vicente Resenoir.
reoperation of El Capitan Reservoir, and potential construction of Mossa Canyon.
Geujito VaU^, or Olivenhain reservoirs. The reoperation scenario consists of reconfi-

328 Options for Balancing Water Suppfy and Demand

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

guring and enlarging the existing distribution system so that pipelines can shift water
among the existing reservoirs in the county.

The reservoir sites and reoperation of existing facilities can be combined in many
different systems to meet the county's emergency storage needs. The study review pro-
cess is designed to select the least environmentally darhaging, most practicable system
alternatives.

Santa Clara Valley Water District Investigation. Santa Clara Valley Water District
is currently investigating various ways of providing additional drought year supplies
for its service area. Investigations include increased water conservation programs (to
reduce demand), water reclamation, permanent water transfers, and additional long-
term storage. Existing facilities and contracts can meet current and future demands
during average years through the year 2020. Additional supplies are needed to meet
the district's demand during drought periods. Projected drought year deficiencies are
approximately 125,000 af annually.

Other Water Management and Supply Alimentation Options. Other options could
include watershed management, local rainfall collection and storage, and ground water
recharge with storm water. Potential water supply management benefits from imple-
menting watershed management in national forests could be about 100,000 af
statewide. There is also some potential for watershed management on lands other than
those owned by the U.S. Forest Service. Small local rainfall collection and storage faci-
lities are used for water supplies in remote areas, such as Point Reyes Lighthouse, and
in Southern California to fill fire-fighting water tanks on ridge tops. Supply from this
option is relatively expensive.

Options for Balancing Water Supply and Demand 329

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Cracked earth near Naciemiento Reservoir in San Luis Obispo County. During the
1 987-92 drought, part of the Central Coast Region endured unprecedented water
shortages; Santa Barbara County fared the worst. The region's population is
expected to increase about 56 percent, to more than 2 million people by 2020.

Vtff^i

.»

" J^^

P^m.

-M

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Chapter 12

Benjamin Franklin wrote in Poor Richard's Almanack, "When the well's dry, we
know the worth of water." This simple truism embodies the key to determining the
value of water — the scarcer it is, the more valuable. Furthermore, the consequences of
poor quality water or deficient supplies can range from minor inconveniences to dam-
aging economic and environmental effects. In extreme cases, the consequences
endanger human health. Water must be available in the quantity and quality expected
for stability, productivity, growth, and a healthy environment. The water supply must
be reliable to achieve these ends.

The term reliability, as used in the day-to-day planning and management of
California's water resources, is a measure of a water service system's expected success
in managing shortages, without detrimental effects, and providing a supply that meets
expected demands. It is not strictly a characteristic of water supply because it includes
demand management and any actions, such as emergency water allocation programs
during drought years, that can mitigate the effects of shortages. Given this definition,
California essentially had an adequate average annual developed supply that could
nieet the 1990 level urban, agricultural, and environmental water demands. However,
he actual 1990 drought experience found many California communities and the envi-
ronment suffering from a somewhat less-than-reliable drought supply to meet drought
year needs.

This water plan update presents two water supply and demand scenarios to best
illustrate overall demand and supply availability. An average year and a drought year
are presented for the 1990 level of development and for projections to 2020. Shortages

California's Water Supply Availability

Average year supply \s 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 capability of the projects over a 70-year study pe-
riod (1922-91). For a local project without long-term data, it is the annua! aver-
age deliveries of the project during the 1984-86 period. For dedicated natural
flow, it is the long-term average natural flow for wild and scenic rivers, or it is envi-
ronmental flows as required for an average year under specific agreements, wa-
ter rights, court decisions, and congressional directives.

Drought year supply is 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 1990 and 1991 . For dedicated natural flow, it is the aver-
age 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.

Water Supply and
Demand Balance

Water Supply and Demand Balance

331

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

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.

This chapter presents 1990 level and future water needs to 2020 and balances
them with supplies from existing facilities and water management programs, along
with future demand management and water supply augmentation options (the
California Water Budget). Future water management options are presented in two lev-
els to better reflect the status of investigations required to implement them.

O Level 1 options are those programs that have undergone extensive investigation
and environmental analyses and are judged to have a higher likelihood of being
implemented by 2020.

Recommended actions follow the California Water Budget. Implementation of
these actions must be undertaken as part of a water resource management program to
restore the health of our rivers and aquatic species while making our water supply
infrastructure more reliable. A discussion of the economic costs of unreliability ends
this chapter.

Water Supply

California should be able to meet its future water service reliability needs through
a variety of water management actions designed to supplement, improve, and make
better use of existing systems while protecting and enhancing the aquatic environ-
ment. Level 1 and Level II demand management and supply augmentation options
include increased water conservation, expanded conveyance system capabilities,
additional storage facilities, additional water recycling, more reliance on conjunctive
use of ground water basins, and increasing the use of water transfers and water bank-
ing. The following sections summarize the benefits of existing water management
programs and future Level I and Level II water management options that can be
implemented to meet California's water service reliability needs.

Existing Water Management Programs

Table 12-1 shows California's water supply with existing facilities and programs.
(Supplies from the Delta were calculated under D-1485 operating criteria.) The 1990
level average annual supply is about 63.5 million acre-feet (including natural flows
dedicated for instream use) and could decrease to 63.0 maf by 2020 without ground
water overdraft or any additional facilities or programs. A possible substantial
reduction in Colorado River supplies could be offset largely by short-term transfers
and increased SWP Delta diversions. The 1990 level annual drought year supply is
about 50.5 maf and could decrease to 49.3 maf by 2020 without additional storage and
water management options. Note that supplies shown under D- 1 485 for Delta exports
do not take into account: (1) 800.000 af of CVP water now dedicated to environmental
needs pursuant to the CVPIA, and (2) recent and proposed actions to protect aquatic
species in the Delta. As a result of these actions, urban and agricultural water supplies
are overstated.

Annual reductions in total water supply for urban and agricultural uses could be
in the range of 500,000 af to 1 maf in average years and 2 to 3 maf in drought years.

332 Water Supply and Demand Balance

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Table 12-1. California Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs

(Decision 1485 Operating Criteria for Delta Supplies)
(millions of acre-feet)

Supply 1990 2000 2010 2020

average drought average drought average drought average drought

Surface

Local

10.1

8.1

10.1

8.1

10.2

8.3

10.3

8.4

Local imports'^'

1.0

0.7

1.0

0.7

1.0

0.7

1.0

0.7

Colorado River

5.2

5.1

4.4

4.4 f

CVP

7.5

5.0

7.7

5.1

7.7

5.2

7.7

5.2

Other federal

1.2

0.8

1.3

0.8

1.3

0.8

1.3

0.8 '

SWP")

2.8

2.1

3.2

2.0

3.3

2.0

3.3

2.0

Reclaimed

0.2

Ground water'^'

7.1

11.8

7.1

12.0

7.2

12.1

7.4

12.2

Ground water overdraft<^>

1.3

27.2

1.3

—

— 1

Dedicated natural flow

15.3

27.4

15.4

27.4

15.4

27.4

15.4

TOTAL

63.5

50.4

62.4

48.9

62.7

49.1

63.0

49.4

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

(2) Averoge ground water use is prime supply of ground water basins ond does not include use of ground water which is artificially recharged from surface sources into ttfe ground
water bosins.

(3) The degree future shortages are met by increased overdraft is unknown. Since overdraft is not sustainable, it is not included as a future supply.

These reductions result mainly from compliance with the ESA biological opinions and
proposed EPA Bay-Delta standards. While these impacts do not consider the potential
reductions in Delta exports due to "take limits" under the biological opinions, they
basically fall within the l-to-3-maf range for proposed additional environmental de-
mands included in the California Water Budget.

The largest single source of water supply in California is ground water. On aver-
age, ground water provides about 15 maf of applied water annually. However, because
of deep percolation and extensive reuse of applied surface and ground water, current
average annual net ground water use is about 8.4 maf, including about 1.3 maf of
ground water overdraft. In drought years, the net use of ground water increases signifi-
cantly to 13. 1 maf (including overdraft), which indicates the importance of the State's
ground water basins as storage facilities to meet drought year water needs.

Annual ground water overdraft in 1990 was reduced by about 0.7 maf from the
1980 level of 2 maf. The reduction is mostly in the San Joaquin Valley and is due pri-
marily to the benefits of imported supplies to the Tulare Region and construction and
operation of new reservoirs in the San Joaquin Region during the 1960s and 1970s.
However, until solutions to complex Delta problems are identified, the reductions in
overdraft seen in the last decade in the San Joaquin Valley will reverse as more ground
water is pumped to make up for lost surface water supplies from the Delta.

Level I Water Management Options

Water managers are looking into a wide variety of water management actions to
supplement, improve, and make better use of existing resources. The single most
important action will be solving key issues in the Delta. The challenge is to continue to
explore new and innovative water management methods while implementing various
programs and facilities to meet the water demands of the State's growing population.

Water Supply and Demand Balance 333

Bulletin 160-93 TTie California Water Plan Update

agriculture, and the environment. Level I demand management and water supply
management options are described in detail in Chapter 11.

The following sections summarize the water suppfy benefits of Level 1 Water
Management Programs. The contribution of these programs to future California water
supplies is included in Table 12-2. Level I options could contribute up to an additional
1 .6 maf in an average year by the year 2020. The drought year contribution could be
an additional 4. 1 maf by 2020. Most of the increase would be through new State and
local facilities and programs as summarized below.

Demand Mcmagement Programs. These programs are designed to reduce long-
term demand for water (water conservation and land retirement), or to manage
supplies during short-term drought conditions (mandatory conservation and land fal-
lowing) to ensure water service for critical needs. Critical needs include maintaining
public health and safety, providing for industrial and commercial uses, preserving
permanent croj>s such as trees and vines, saving high investment crops such as cut
flowers and nursery products, and ensuring the survival of fish and wildlife.

Level I urban water conservation, through implementation of urban Best
Management Practices, could reduce urban applied water by 1.3 maf and reduce net
water demand by 0.9 maf by 2020. Level I agricultural water conservation, through
increased irrigation efficiencies and implementation of Efficient Water Mancigemeni
Practices, could reduce agricultural applied water by 1.7 maf and reduce net water
demand by 0.3 maf by 2020. Agricultural land retirement of 45,000 acres (primarify
lands with poor drainage disposal conditions) under Level I could further reduce agri-
cultural net water demand by 0. 15 maf by 2020.

Short-term demand management options during periods of drought, such as
demand reduction through virban rationing programs, could reduce net water de-
mands by 1 .0 maf. The urban rationing program is illustrative of a 1 0-percent shortage

Table 12-2. Califomia Water Supplies with Level 1 Water Manogement Programs

(Decision 1485 Operating Criteria for Delta Supplies)

(mi/Zfons of oae-feef)

01 1990 S>^suppfa ore nonmfcedcMid do not reflect od<ilwnoliuppteidefc»WT»d to o*to

hydrologK region. ^

(2) ADewige ground wolef use is prwue mppty of ground wutoi boawond does twlindudeiae of ground wc«er which a uiigkjuly ledK^gedfrow
woter bosins.

(3) The degree futuro shortages ore met by increosedoweidiuJt if unbiown. Since tfiieiihuftii not »M*luiiiuUi^i if not include

334 Water Supply and Demand Balance

Supply

1990

average dbrougfrf

2000

average drought

2010

average dmughf

2020
average drought

Surface

Locd

10.1

8.1

10.2

8.2

10.2

8.3

10.3

8.4

Local imporfs'''

1.0
5.2
7.5

0.7

1.0

0.8

1.0

Gilorado River

5.1

4.4

CVP

5.0

7.7

5.2

7.7

5.2

7.7

5.2

Other federal

1.2

0.8

1.3

0.8

1.3

0.8

1.3

SWP"

2.8

2.1

3.4

2.1

3.9

3.0

4.0

3.0

RedcMmed

0.2

0.7

0.8

0.9

o4l

Ground water"'

7.1

11.8

7.1

11.9

7.2

12.2

7.3

12J

1.3
27.2

1.3

—

-•

Dedicated natural flow

15.3

27.5

15.4

27.5

15.4

273

15.4

TOTAL

63.5

50.4

63.3

49.5

64.0

51.2

64.5

51.6

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

for drought events that
could occur about once
every 20 years. During
less frequently occur-
ring and more severe
droughts (that is, an
event that occurs once
every 100 years), much
greater shortages would
occur, causing substan-
tial economic impacts
on urban and agri-
cultural areas and
environmental impacts
on fish and wildlife.

Rationing be-

comes less effective and
more costly over time
because of the imple-
mentation of long-term institutionalized conservation practices, such as the urban
BMPs. Accounting for this phenomenon of demand hardening is critical to the
determination of shortage costs. A 10-percent shortage is used to illustrate the Level
1 option. Planning for such drought rationing programs must include evaluation of
the cost of shortages versus the cost of providing the supply. Further, drought ration-
ing programs will vary from region to region depending on each region's water service
reliability needs. See Chapter 1 1 for a full discussion of these Level 1 options.

Local Agency Programs. Local water management programs are designed to
augment both average and drought year supplies, with some programs primarily
providing drought year supplies. Water reclamation (including water recycling and
ground water reclamation) is expected to increase local average and drought year sup-
plies by about 0.8 maf per year by 2020 (the 1990 level of water recycling is about 0.2
maf per year). Other Level I local water management programs under study could im-
prove local drought supplies by about 0.3 maf annually by 2020. These programs
include additional supplies planned by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California from construction of Domenigoni Valley Reservoir, East Bay Municipal
Utility District's water management program, Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District's construction of New Los Padres Reservoir on the Carmel River, City of San
Luis Obispo's Salinas Reservoir enlargement, and benefits from El Dorado County Wa-
ter Agency's water resources development and management program. The water
supply of Contra Costa Water District's Los Vaqueros Reservoir and the CVP portion of
El Dorado County Water Agency's water management program are accounted for un-
der existing CVP supplies.

Offsetting some of the supply improvements to the South Coast Region are
actions that reduce reliability of existing supplies. The City of Los Angeles has histori-
cally imported a major portion of its supply from the Mono-Owens basin in the South
Lahontan Region. Export of water from these basins has been the subject of litigation
since the early 1970s. In 1972, the County of Inyo filed suit against the City of Los
Angeles claiming that increases in ground water pumping for export were harming the
Owens Valley environment. The parties recently reached agreements on the long-term
ground water management plan for the Owens Valley. Flow diversions from Mono Ba-

Hetch Hetchy Reservoir,
in Tuolumne County,
stores up to 360,000
acre-feet for customers
in the San Francisco
Bay area. The area suf-
fered significant water
shortages during the
1987-92 drought In
1991, after two years
of well-below-normal
supplies, customers
had to reduce indoor
water use by 10 per-
cent and outdoor use
by 60 percent.

Water Supply and Demand Balance

335

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

^ sin also have been the subject of extensive litigation. The Los Angeles Department of

* Water and Power is now prohibited by court order from diverting from Mono Lake trib-

utaries until the lake level stabilizes at 6,377 feet above sea level. These lawsuits,
together with the impact of the recent drought, resulted in an estimated reduction of
over 0.3 maf in 1990 exports from the basins by LADWP. Due to these reductions in
imported supplies from Mono and Owens basins, LADWP increased its request for
supplemental water supplies from MWDSC. As a result, MWDSC increased its request
for deliveries of SWP supplies, thus increasing its demand for Delta supplies.

In addition, California in recent years has received about 5 maf of Colorado River
water annually, including about 0.8 maf of surplus or unused water. As Arizona and
the states in the Upper Colorado River Basin increase the use of their apportionments,
the availability of surplus supplies for California will be diminished. This will also
affect supplies in the Colorado River Region, but will have the greatest impacts on im-
ports to the South Coast Region. MWDSC is looking to water conservation and land
fallowing programs to maintain its Colorado River supplies. (See the following section
on water marketing and transfers.)

State Water Project Programs. With existing facilities and SWRCB D-1485
operating criteria, average annual SWP supplies could increase from the 1990 level of
2.8 maf to 3.3 maf by 2020 due to increased demand in the SWP service areas. This
possible increase reflects the ability to maximize the diversion capability of the SWP
that was possible with existing facilities operated under SWRCB D-1485. SWP 1990
level drought year annual supplies, without additional facilities, is about 2. 1 maf
(based on 1990-9 1 drought conditions) and would decrease to about 2.0 maf by 2020.
However, recent and future actions to protect aquatic species in the Delta will greatly
limit SWP export capability from the Delta, thus reducing the reliability of existing
SWP supplies, the feasibility of additional storage facilities, and the ability to transfer
water until solutions to complex Delta problems are identified and put into place. (See
Chapter 10 for a review of Delta problems.)

Average annual SWP delivery capability could increase from the 1990 level of 2.8
maf to about 4.0 maf in 2020 with additional Level I facilities to augment SWP supplies
(under D-1485 criteria). These programs include the South Delta Water Management
programs, long-term Delta facilities, the Kern Water Bank (including Local Elements),
and the Los Banos Grandes Facilities. These projects, which are included as Level I

Table 1 2-3. State Water Project Supplies

(millions of acre-feet)

Level of SWP Delivery Capabiliff> SWP Delta

Development Export

With Existing Facilities With Level I Water ^ ^j

Management Programs^^'

average drought average drought

1990

2.8

2.1

3.0

2000

3.2

2.0

3.4

2.1

3.7

2010

3.3

2.0

3.9

3.0

4.2

2020

3.3

2.0

4.0

3.0

4.2

(1) Assumes D-1485. SWP capability is uncertain until solutions to complex Delta problems are implemented and future actions to protect aquatic species are identified. Includes SWP
conveyance losses.

(2) Level I programs include South Delta Water Management Programs, long-term Delta Water Management Programs, the Kern Water Bank (including Local Elements), and Los
Banos Grandes facilities.

Note: Feather River Service Area supplies ore not included. FRSA average and drought supplies ore 927,000 and 729,000 AF respectively.

336 Water Supply and Demand Balance

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

options, have been planned in significant detail, including environmental impact
assessments. As planning is finalized, implementation of these projects is authorized
under existing DWR authority and financing. Table 12-3 shows the projected SWP
delivery capability and SWP water demands. By the year 2020 the annual SWP con-
tractor demand on the SWP would be about 4.2 maf. SWP average annual delivery
capability, with additional facilities, would be about 4.0 maf, just short of meeting con-
tractor water demands in average years. In drought years, the 2020 supplies would be
reduced to 3.0 maf, reflecting the severity of the 1990 and 1991 drought event.

Central Valley Project Programs. CVP exports from the Delta through the
Tracy Pumping Plant will not increase above historical levels because of existing
pumping limitations. Future increases in CVP deliveries to the San Joaquin and San
Francisco Bay regions would be primarily from increased Delta supplies to the Contra
Costa Water District and supply development from New Melones Reservoir in the San
Joaquin Region.

CVP deliveries to urban contractors north of the Delta could increase as urban
demand increases with existing CVP facilities. Supplies will most likely come from any
presently developed surplus that may exist and from reallocation of existing CVP sup-
plies. The CVP Improvement Act of 1992 and recent actions to protect aquatic species
greatly affect current and future CVP operations and the reliability of its supplies. The
USER Is preparing a programmatic EIS to implement provisions of the CVPIA.

The USER is required by the CVPIA to find replacement sources for 800,000 af of
water recently allocated to environmental uses. The 1990 level CVP supplies for aver-
age and drought years were about 7.5 maf and 5.0 maf respectively, and are expected
to increase slightly to 7.7 maf and 5.2 maf by 2020 under D-1485 criteria. However,
recent endangered species actions will greatly affect the feasibility of additional CVP
storage facilities until solutions to complex Delta problems are identified and put into
place.

Water Marketing and Transfers. Water marketing and transfers can
significantly Increase the reliability of drought year supplies for some agricultural and
urban areas and the environment. Such short-term transfers most often result in a
reallocation of existing supplies, by either temporary (spot market) or long-term
agreements. Sources of transfer water include reserve surface supplies, conjunctive
use of ground water, and water made available by agricultural land fallowing. The con-
tribution of such water transfers among willing sellers and buyers could be 0.6 maf or
more during drought years (as experienced in 1991), depending on location of the
source and availability of short-term drought transfers capacity in conveyance
systems. Based on recent MWDSC actions to secure additional Colorado River sup-
plies, it is estimated that there is a 0.2-maf potential for Level 1 transfer from the
Colorado River Region to the South Coast Region. (Chapter 1 1 presents a discussion of
water transfer limitations.) Drought water transfer operations similar to the 199 1 and
1992 State Drought Water Bank are being planned to lessen drought impacts In the
future.

Although water transfers are expected to significantly reduce overall economic
impacts of droughts, from a statewide demand and supply perspective, water
marketing would not significantly augment long-term average annual water supplies,
^ng-term transfers (ones that require supplies to be transferred every year, not only
during drought years) are limited by available capacity In the major transportation and
onveyance systems which are normally used at capacity during wet and average
^ears. Nevertheless, transfer programs such as the IID-MWDSC agreement, which

Water Supply and Demand Balance 337

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

provides conserved IID water for transfer to the MWDSC service area by using available
♦ capacity in the Colorado River Aqueduct, will contribute to the State's long-term water

supplies.

Total usable transfer capacity of existing major conveyance facilities firom the
Delta, under D-1485, during drought years is about 1 .4 maf per year. Level I drought
water transfers from the Delta are estimated at 0.6 maf. resulting in a remciining Level
II transfer potential of about 0.8 maf. TTie unused capacity of conveysmce facilities is
considerably less during average years when both projects would be able to export
more of their own water. However, recent actions taken to protect fisheries in the Delta
have considerably curtailed the pumping capability of the projects through limitations
placed on operations of SWP amd CVP facilities to convey or wheel water-transfer
water. The 1990 drought year usable transfer capacity of the SWP and CVP is esti-
mated to be about 0.7 maf when the projects are operated to compfy with Delta smdt
and winter-run salmon 1993 biological opinions.

Level II Water Management Options

There are a number of Level II water management options requiring more
extensive investigation and alternative analyses that could either further reduce de-
mand or augment supplies to meet remaining demands to 2020. Level II water
management programs are not inclusive of all available future options, but rather a
starting point to begin investigations to fill the remaining gap shown in the balance
between supply and urban, agricultural, and en\aronmental demands. Chapter 11
presents a more extensive discussion of Level n options.

Water Demand

California's estimated total net demand for water at the 1990 level of develop-
ment was 63.5 maf for the average year scenario and 53.2 maf for the drought year
scenario. Urban and agricultural demands cire discussed in detail in Chapters 6 and 7
respectively. Environmental water demands are existing instream flow requirements,
wild and scenic river flows. Bay-Delta protection requiliements under SWRCB D- 1 485.
and supplies for managed fresh water wetlands. Potential increases in environmental
water demamds are broken down into hjrpothetical Cases I through III (1 to 3 maQ.
representing the envelope or range of potential and uncertain environmental water de-
mands that have immediate and future consequences on supplies available fix)m the
Delta, beginning with actions taken in 1992 and 1993 to protect winter-run salmtm
and Delta smelt (actions that could also indirectly protect and enhance conditions for
other aquatic species) and water dedicated to environmental needs in the CVHA.
Environmental water needs are discussed in Chapter 8.

Table 12-4 shows the urban, agricultural, and environmental water demand for
1990 through 2020. Note that the net water demand is usually much less than applied
water, because of the extensive reuse that takes place within a basin. Factors affecting
California's water demand are briefly discussed below.

Water conservation effects on net water demand vary greatly, depending on the
opportunity for water reuse within an area. Effective water conservation in a region is
the reduction in depletion, which is defined as reduction of the evapotranspiration of
applied water, irrecoverable losses from a distribution system, and outflow to a salt
sink. For example, in the Sacramento River Region water is reused extensively, so the
potential for effective conservation is limited, but a large water savings potential exists
in the coastal and Colorado River regions, where excess applied water generally enters
saline sinks (for example, the Salton Sea or the Pacific Ocean) or saline ground water
basins and cannot be economically reused.

338 Water Supply and Demand Balance

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Reductions in applied water can often be beneficial because they reduce the

pumping and treatment costs for urban uses and could reduce overall diversions from

streams and rivers to benefit fish and wildlife. However, care must be taken to look at

1 Impacts on downstream reuse such as other farms or wetlands that rely on excess

applied water for their supplies.

Average demand for water for the 1990 level of development is normalized.
I Normalization of agricultural net water demand is based on adjusted irrigated acreages
1 due to changes in crop markets, government intervention (farm programs), and the
effect of annual hydrologic conditions on water use, such as drought. Normalization of
I urban water demand is based on adjusted per capita use to take into account the im-
pact of the drought on urban water use (see Chapters 6 and 7).

Unit water demand during drought years increases because crops and land-
scapes require more irrigation earlier in the season to replace lost precipitation.
However, insufficient supplies force demand management measures, such as more in-
tensive irrigation management, water rationing, and land fallowing. These measures
help reduce the actual water use during extreme drought, but overall demand for water
during drought periods is generally greater than average.

California's annual net water demands in 2020 are projected to reach 65.7 maf in
average years and 55.3 maf in drought years. With the range of 1 to 3 maf for proposed
additional environmental water demands. California's annual net water demand could
increase to 66.7 to 68.7 maf in average years and 56.3 to 58.3 maf in drought years.

Table 12-4. California Water Demand

(millions of acre-feet)

Category of Use

1990

average drought

2000

average drought

2070

overage drought

2020

average drought

Urban

Applied water demand

7.8

8.1

9.3

9.7

10.9

11.4

12.7

13.2

Net water demand

6.8

7.1

7.9

8.3

9.2

9.6

10.5

11.0

Depletion

5.7

6.0

6.4

6.7

7.3

7.7

8.4

8.8

Agricultural

Applied water demand

31.1

32.8

30.2

31.9

29.4

31.1

28.8

30.4

Net water demand

26.8

28.2

26.1

27.4

25.4

26.7

24.9

26.1

Depletion

24.2

25.6

23.7

25.1

23.2

24.6

22.8

24.1

Environmental

Applied water demand

28.8

16.8

29.3

17.3

29.3

17.3

29.3

17.3

Net water demand

28.4

16.4

28.8

16.8

28.8

16.8

28.8
24.7

16.8

Depletion

24.4

12.9

24.7

13.3

24.7

13.3

Other''

Applied water demand

0.3

Net water demand

1.5

1.4

1.5

1.4
1.0

1.5
1.0

1.4

Depletion

1.0

TOTAL

71.1
65.7
56.9

Applied water demand

68.0

58.0

53.2

69.1

59.2

69.9

60.1

61.2

Net water demand

63.5

64.3

53.9

64.9

54.5

55.3

Depletion

55.3

45.5

55.8

46.1

56.2

46.6

47.2

(1) Includes major conveyance facility losses, recreation

uses, and energy

' production.

Water Supply and Demand Balance

339

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

i<>-

These demand projections include the effects of existing
* agricultural water conservation efforts to reduce applied and

Urban Water Use

California's population is projected to increase to 49 milli
about 30 million in 1990) and even with extensive water cons
net water demand wiU increase by about 3.7 maf. Nearly half (
tion is expected to occur in the South Coast Region, increasi
urban water demand by 1 .8 maf (see Chapter 6).

Agricultural Water Use

Irrigated agricultural acreage is expected to decline b}
from the 1 990 level of 9.2 million acres to a 2020 level of 8.8 1
ing a 700,000-acre reduction from the 1980 level. Reductioi
acreage are due primarity to urban encroachment onto agrici
tirement in the western San Joaquin VaUey where poor
conditions exist. Increases in agricultural water use efficienc
tions in agricultural acreage and shifts to growing lower-wate
to reduce agricultural annual net water demand by about 1 .£
ter 7).

Environmental Water Use

The 1 990 level and projections of environmental water needs include water needs
of managed fresh water wetlands (including increases in supplies for refuges resulting
from implementation of the CVPI^^, instrccim fishery requirements. Delta outflow, and
wild and scenic rivers. Average annual net water demand for environmental needs is
expected to increase by 0.4 msif by 2020. Environmental water needs during drought
years are considerably lower than average years, reflecting principalty the variability of
natural flows in the North Coast wild and scenic rivers. Furthermore, regulatory agen-
cies have proposed a number of changes in instream flow needs for major rivers,
including the Sacramento and San Joaquin. TTiese proposed flow requirements are not
additive; however, an increase from 1 to 3 maf is presented to envelop potential envi-
rormiental water needs as a result of proposed additional instream needs and actions
under way by regulatory agencies, both of which benefit fisheries (see Chapter 8).

California Water Balance

The California Water Budget. Table 12-5, compares total net water demand with
supplies from 1 990 through 2020. (Delta supplies assume SWRCB's D- 1485 operating
criteria without endangered species actions.) Average annual suppUes for the 1 990 lev-
el of development were generalfy adequate to meet average demands. However, during
drought. 1990 level supplies were insufficient to meet demand, which results in a
shortage of over 2.7 maf under D-1485 criteria in 1990. In drought years 1991 and
1 992, these shortages were reflected in urban mandatory water conservation, agricul-
tural land fallowing and crop shifts, reduction of envirormiental flows, and short-term
water transfers.

The forecasted 2020 net demand for urban, agricultural, and environmental
water needs amounts to 65.7 maf in average years and 55.3 maf in drought years, after
accounting for future reductions of 1 .3 maf in net water demand due to increased wa-
ter conservation efforts (resulting from implementation of urban BMPs. agricultural
EWMPs, and increased agricultural irrigation efficiencies (discussed in Chapters 6 and
7) and another 0. 1-maf reduction due to future land retirement. It should be noted

340 Water Supply and Demand Balance

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

that several pending actions to protect and restore fisheries could require additional
environmental water in the range of 1 to 3 maf. These actions include:

J Biological opinions for the winter-run salmon and Delta smelt, which place
operational constraints on Delta exports and vary yearly.

J Implementation of the CVPIA: reallocation of 800,000 af of annual CVP supplies
for environmental use in the Central Valley streams, about 120.000 af of
additional flow in the Trinity River, and about 200.000 af for wetlands.

J EPA's proposed Bay-Delta standards: the total impacts on urban and agricultural
water supplies will not be known until final standards are adopted sometime in
1994 and later implemented.

Q SWRCB water quality control plan for the Bay-Delta and subsequent water right
proceedings: In March 1994, SWRCB began a series of workshops to review Delta
protection standards and examine proposed EPA standards. The total impacts on
water supply for urban and agricultural use will not be known until a final plan is
adopted and the water rights proceedings are completed.

Considering that much of the hypothetical range for additional environmental
water has now been mandated or formally proposed by the above actions, California is
now facing the more frequent and severe water supply shortages forecasted for the year
2000 and beyond. In 1993, an above-normal year, some CVP contractors had their
supplies reduced by 50 percent. These unanticipated shortages point to the need for a
quick resolution of Delta problems, through federal cooperation and participation,
and the need to move forward with demand management and supply augmentation
programs at both the State and local levels.

By 2020, without additional facilities and improved water management, an
annual shortage of 3.7 to 5.7 maf could occur during average years, again depending
on the outcome of the various actions listed above. 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 2020, annual
drought year shortages could amount to 7 to 9 maf under D-1485 criteria, also indi-
cating 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 1 .8 maf of water each year. Population
growth and increased demand, combined with a possibility of reduced supplies from
the Colorado River, mean the South Coast Region's annual shortages for 2020 could
amount to 0.4 maf for average years and 0.8 maf in drought years; this is before
consideration of the additional 1 -to-3-maf environmental water needs, which could re-
duce existing SWP supplies from the Delta. Thus, projected shortages could be larger
if solutions to complex Delta problems are not found and implemented along with pro-
posed local water management programs and additional facilities for the SWP.

Implementation of Level I water management programs could reduce but not
eliminate forecasted shortages in 2020 by implementing short-term drought manage-
ment options (demand reduction through urban rationing programs or water transfers
that reallocate existing supplies through use of reserve supplies and agricultural land
fallowing programs) and long-term demand management and supply augmentation
options (increased water conservation, agricultural land retirement, additional water
recycling, benefits of a long-term Delta solution, more conjunctive use programs, and
additional south-of-the-Delta storage facilities). Combined, these Level I programs

Water Supply and Demand Balance 341

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Idble 12-5. California Water Budget
(millions of acre-feetj

Water Demand/Supply

1990

average

Net Defnand

Urixm — with 1 990 leveJ of conservaiion

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

Agriaiiiural— wflh 1990 level of oonservolion

— reductions due to long-term conservation measures (Level I]

— land retirement in poor drairxige areas of Son Joaquin VaWey (Level I)

Efwironmental

OtfT€f<'>

Proposed Additional Environmenlal Water Demands'^
Case I - Hypothetical 1 AAAF ^^^^^

I Casel-HypQAeiia]l2MAF -fSSKBKM
Cose III - Hypothetical 3 MAP

fatal Net Demmd
Case I
Cosel
CoselH

63.5

^Mer Supplies vy/Exisiing Focilifies Under D-14S5 for Delta Supplies
Developed Supplies

piiiii—ff.Surface )MjIui*^ <%gBii|[|||||||||||||iiM|^^

Ground Water

"^'''*'^' Grourxl Wbtef Ovefdn#>^HHIH

SubMal

Deckated ^4aiural Flow

JOWL Mbter Supplies

63.5

Dtiiwwi/Supply Buluitce
OmI

0.0

Casein

Level 1 Water Management Programs'^

Long-term Supply Augmentation

KuuuHiieo mHIHHIHHI

Local

Central Vdiey Projecf ^HHH
State Water Project

Shor^^e^n Drought Management ^______

Pbtenliai Demand ManagementfimH
Drought Water Transfers
Su6tofcrf - Level I Wulu Management Programs

Net Ground Water or Surface Water use Reauciion

Resulting from Level I Programs

NET TOTAL Demand Redvction/Suppiy Augmentation

0.0

Remaining Demond/Suppty Balonce Requiring Level H Options
Cose!

Case II ^,,__,_,_______,_

Case III flHHHHHHIl

0.0

drought

6.8

7.1

26.8

28.2

28.4

16^ 3

1.5

63.5

53^ i

53^ -i

- ;l

7.1

VL8

36.3

1.3

35.2

27.2

15.3

50.5

-2.7

iil

0.0

1.8

-0.9

( 1 ) hidudes moior conveyoncc todfay losses, reowiion uses, end energy production.
(2)PlropoaedEiiviiUMiiei*ul>A<nterDBnmA Gm Hi erwelop pclwiid orid WKgrtain detnonds ortd ho»e imrnedwte arid K*ye

omequencm on suppfes trorn #» Deho. begpnra^ wiii odiorB in 1 992 and 1 993 to protect winier rw

viihich could clso protect otfier fish species).

342

Water Supply and Demand Balance

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Table 1 2-5. California Water Budget

(millions of acre- feet)

2000

average drought

i
I

8.3

-0.4
26.4
-0.2
-0.1
28.8
1.5
64.3

-0.4
27.7
-0.2
-0.1
16.8
1.4
53.9

average

2010

drought

^^.9

10.3

-0.7

25.8

27.1

-0.3
-0.1

-0.3

-0.1

28.8

16.8

1.5

1.4

64.9

54.5

2020

average drought

11.4
-0.9
25.4

-0.4
-0.1

28.8
1.5

65.7

11.9
-0.9
26.6
-0.4
-0.1
16.8
1.4
55.3

1.0
2.0
3.0

1.0

3.0

1.0

3.0

1.0
2.0
3.0

1.0
2.0

3.0

55.5
56.5

57.5

66.7
67.7
68.7

56.3
57.3

58.3

62.3

48.9

62.7

49.1

63.0

49.3

-3.0
-4.0
-5.0

-6.0
-7.0
-8.0

-3.2
-4.2
-5.2

-6.4
-7.4
-8.4

-3.7
-4.7
-5.7

-7.0
-8.0

-9.0

0.5
0.0
0.0
0.2

0.5
0.1
0.0
0.1

0.6
0.0
0.0
0.6

0.3
0.0
1.0

0.8
0.0
0.0
0.7

0.8
0.3
0.0
1.0

0.1

1.0
0.8
2.5

0.0

0.1

0.8

0.2

1.5
0.1

1.0
0.8
3.9

0.2

0.7

2.5

1.4

4.0

1.6

4.1

I -2.3

-3.3

i -4.3

-2.9
-3.9
-4.9

(3) The degree future shortages are met by increosed overdraft is unknown. Since overdraft is not sustainable, it is not included as a future supply.

(4) 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.

Water Supply £ind Demand Balance

343

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

leave a potential shortfall in annual supplies of about 2. 1 maf to 4. 1 mcif in average
years and 2.9 maf to 4.9 maf in drought years by 2020. The shortfall must be made up
by Level II water supply augmentation and demand management programs. (Chapter
1 1 explains these programs.)

The California Water Budget indicates the potential magnitude of water short-
ages that can be expected in average and drought years if no actions are taken to
improve water supply reliability. Figure 12-1 illustrates the water supply benefits of
short- and long-term water management programs under Level I options and the need
for further investigating and implementing Level II options.

Figure 12-1.

California

Water Balance

344

Water Supply and Demand Balance

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Recommendations

The Delta is the hub of California's water supply infrastructure: key problems in
the Delta must be addressed before several of the Level 1 options in the California Water
Plan Update can be carried out. It is recommended that finding solutions to those
problems be the first priority. Also, a proactive approach to improving fishery
conditions — such as better water temperature control for spawning, better screening of
diversions in the river system to reduce incidental take, and better timing of reservoir
releases to improve fishery habitat — must be taken so that solutions to the Delta
problems mesh with basin-wide actions taken for improving fishery conditions. To
that end. many of the restoration actions identified in the Central Valley Project Im-
provement Act for cost sharing with the State can improve conditions for aquatic
species. Once a Delta solution is in place and measures for recovery of listed species
have been initiated, many options requiring improved Delta export capability could be-
come feasible.

Following are the major Level I options recommended for implementation to meet
California's water supply needs to 2020. along with their potential benefits. Many of
them still require additional environmental documentation and permitting, and in
some instances, alternative analyses. Before these programs can be implemented, en-
vironmental water needs must be identified and prioritized and funding issues
addressed.

Demand Management

^ Water conservation — by 2020, implementation of urban BMPs could reduce
annual urban applied water demand by l.Smaf. and net water demand by 0. 9 maf,
after accounting for reuse. Implementation ofagriculturalEWMPs. which increase
agricultural irrigation efficiencies, could reduce agricultural applied water
demands by 1 .7 maf and net water demand by 0.3 maf. after accounting for reuse.
In addition, lining of the All-American Canal will reduce net water demand by
68.000 af.

► Land fallowing and water bank programs during droughts — temporary,
compensated reductions of agricultural net water demands and purchases of
surplus water supplies could reallocate at least 0.6 maf of drought-year supply.
However, such transfers are impaired until solutions to Delta transfer problems
are identified and implemented.

► Drought demand management — ^voluntary rationing averaging 10 percent
statewide during drought could reduce annual drought-year urban applied and
net water demand by 1.0 maf in 2020.

► Land retirement — retirement of 45.000 acres with poor subsurface drainage and
disposal on the western San Joaquin Valley could reduce annual applied and net
water demand by 0. 13 maf by 2020.

Supply Augmentation

► Water reclamation — plans for em additional 1 .2 maf of water recycling and ground
water reclamation by 2020 could provide annual net water supplies of nearly 0.8
maf after accounting for reuse.

► Solutions to Delta water management problems — improved water service
reliability £md increased protection for aquatic species in the Delta could provide
0.2 to 0.4 maf annually of net water supplies (under D- 1 485) and make many other
water management options feasible, including water transfers.

Water Supply and Demand Balance 345

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

^ Conjunctive use — more efficient use of major ground water basins through
programs such as the Kern Water Bank could provide 0.4 maf of drought-year net
water supplies (under D-1485).

^ Additional storage facilities — projects such as Los Banos Grandes (SWP), could
provide 0.3 maf of average and drought-year net water supplies (under D-1485),
and Domenigoni Valley Reservoir (MWDSC) could provide 0.3 maf of drought-year
net water supplies.

In the short-term, those areas of California relying on the Delta for all or a
portion of their supplies face uncertain water supply reliability due to the unpredict-
able outcome of actions being undertaken to protect aquatic species and water quality.
At the same time, California's water supply infrastructure is severely limited in its
capacity to transfer marketed water through the Delta due to those same operating
constraints. Until solutions to complex Delta problems are identified and put in place,
and demand management and supply augmentation options are implemented, many
Californians will experience more frequent and severe water supply shortages. For ex-
ample, in 1993, an above-normal runoff year, environmental restrictions limited CVP
deliveries to 50 percent of contracted supply for federal water service contractors in the
area from Tracy to Kettleman City. Such limitations of surface water deliveries will ex-
acerbate ground water overdraft in the San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake regions
because ground water is used to replace much of the shortfall in surface water sup-
plies. In addition, water transfers within these areas will become more common as
farmers seek to minimize water supply impacts on their operations. In urban areas,
water conservation and water recycling programs will be accelerated to help offset
short-term reliability needs.

Fincdiy, it is recommended that Level II options be evaluated, expanded to in-
clude other alternatives, and planned for meeting the potential range of average-year
shortages of 2. 1 to 4. 1 maf and the potential range of drought-year shortages of 2.9 to
4.9 maf. Level II options include demand management and supply augmentation mea-
sures such as additional conservation, land retirement, increased water recycling and
desalting, and surface water development. Several mixes of State and local Level II op-
tions should be examined, and their economic feasibility ascertained, to address the
range of demand and supply uncertainty illustrated in the California Water Budget.
Such uncertainty will affect the identification and selection of Level II options needed
to meet California's future water supply needs.

346 Water Supply and Demand Balance

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Economic Costs of Unreliability

The economic cost of unreliability is significant and could impact the economic
well-being of the State if nothing is done to improve the long-term reliability of sup-
plies. For example, the economic cost of drought-induced water shortages in 1991 is
estimated to have been well over $1 billion in business-related costs and losses; this
does not include the large value of losses to residential users in terms of inconve-
nience, the aesthetic cost of putting up with stressed and dead landscaping during the
drought, and the cost of replacing that landscaping after the drought. Substantial envi-
ronmental damage was also experienced. This loss indicates an immediate need for
more reliable supplies. The size of these losses is a strong indication that there are
economically, socially, and environmentally justified water management options, in-
cluding both demand management and supply augmentation, that should be
implemented to increase reliability. This portion of Chapter 12 is presented to illustrate
the economic costs of unreliability. Chapter 1 1 presented a discussion on reliability
planning that guides the alternative analyses and option selection process. The follow-
ing sections discuss contingency losses and long-term impacts resulting from frequent
and severe shortages.

The most important element in analyzing the costs of unreliability is under-
standing the consequences of shortages as completely as possible in terms of where
the costs occur and why. For this discussion, the costs of shortages are limited to
short- and long-term contingency losses, loss of sales, and increased costs of produc-
tion.

The costs discussed below do not include all possible costs of unreliable water
supplies. The social costs of unreliability can be substantial, but they are not easily
translated into consistently measurable units, such as dollars, and social impacts
often result from the adverse effects of unreliability on economic welfare. Looking sole-
ly at economic value may not be completely satisfactory, but it is the most practical
and rational method currently available. Two distinct consequences of unreliability in-
cur economic costs: contingency losses and long-term losses. Contingency losses arise
from failure to meet existing needs within any given year, whereas long-term losses
stem from the perception that future shortages will be greater than what is considered
tolerable.

Basically, these losses are caused by shortages, and shortages occur because of
insufficient water quantity or unacceptable quality. Often these two factors combine,
creating a shortage that is difficult to alleviate for the short- or long-term. For
example, water supply conditions that limit the amount of water available for export
from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta also make it difficult to maintain export water
quality, as well as water quality for users within the Delta.

Areas that experience surface water shortages may be forced to turn to additional
ground water pumping or rely on alternative surface water deliveries, both of which
may result in higher costs or lower supply quality. Furthermore, increased reliance on
ground water due to more frequent or more severe shortages can have long-term water
quality consequences. (The adverse effects of reduced water quality are discussed in
Chapter 5.)

^ Co

Contingency Losses

The size and duration of a shortage will determine the contingency losses suf-
ed. Some of the major costs incurred during water shortages are: loss of sales, loss
of market share, costs of landscape replacement, damage to wildlife habitat, loss of
recreational opportunities or aesthetic values, loss of convenience, and costs of short-

Water Supply and Demand Balance 347

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Water Service Reliability

Reliability is a measure of a water service system's expected success in avoiding detri-
mental economic, social, and environmental effects related to or caused by stiortoges. The
long-term effects on economic activity (including business costs), environmental conditions,
and social well-being, as well as shiortage-related costs and losses, ore important.

How reliable water service is for a particular agency depends on the size, frequency,
and duration of shortages; the types of water use affected; the options available to the
agency and water users for managing shortages; and the costs of contingency water mon-
agement and losses associated with shortages. As water demand goes up over time due to
expanding economic activity or a growing population, the size, frequency, and duration of
shortages all increase, thus reducing reliability.

Long-term water management measures to increase supply or reduce demand can be
put in place to reverse or slow the rate of this increase, but not without economic, social, and
environmental costs. Also, additional contingency measures can be developed to better
manage shortages and reduce their economic consequences when they occur, but such
measures have their own costs.

In general, if the existing level of reliability is inadequate, taking action to increase it will
cost less than not taking action, when all economic, social, and environmental costs end
losses are considered for each alternative action. Conversely, if the existing level of reliability
is adequate, taking action to increase reliability will cost more than not taking action when
all economic, social, and environmental costs and losses are considered for each alterna-
tive action.

When examining the adequacy of the current level of reliability, the long-term conse-
quences and shortage-related costs and losses must be identified by sector: agricultural, res-
idential, commercial, and industrial. The secondary impacts of urban and agricultural short-
ages can also be substantial, a consideration that is particularly important with respect to
the economic and social consequences of agricultural water service reliability.

Both the long-term and shortage-related impacts of unreliability are critically
dependent on the shortage-management options available to local water managers. Con-
tingency water transfers and emergency measures such as alternate-day landscape water-
ing and gutter-flooder patrols can be effective in reducing the economic impacts of an ur-
ban shortage at a relatively minor cost. Beyond that, urban water allocation programs can
compel users with the least to lose to absorb the major part of shortages. In agricultural
areas, local intra- and interagency water exchange programs can be used to allocate sur-
face water shortages to areas which overlie ground water and can substitute this latter sup-
ply to the extent that it is available and the farmers' finances permit. Agricultural shortages
can also be allocated to areas with crops which are the least vulnerable in terms of foregone
income or loss of investment if fields are fallowed, yields are reduced, or the crops are lost.

In urban areas, the desired shortage allocations to minimize overall economic impacts
may be accomplished by specific allocations to different types of users, hardship exemption
programs, punitive water pricing, or some combination of these strategies. The proper ol-
location varies with the size of the overall shortage and relative economic impact of each
additional increment of shortage on the different sectors.

The relative impact of shortages depends on the slack users have at the time shortages
occur (that is, how many low-cost actions can users take to manage shortages before seri-
ous consequences result) and the relative rapidity with which costs and losses escalate be-
yond the manageable point. In some cases, having put long-term measures in place con
reduce the effectiveness of contingency measures when shortages occur. For example, re-
ductions in applied water caused by better landscape management can mean that, in the

348 Water Supply and Demand Balance

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Water Service Reliability (continued)

future, emergency cutbacks may cause stress sooner, or may not be possible at all, because
water use is already at maximum efficiency. Similarly, ctionges in technology for industrial
process water used to increase efficiency may cause reduced production sooner for the
same reasons.

In effect, the result of the urban rationing programs is to shift the worst impacts to resi-
dential exterior and commercial landscaping use and away from industrial use, commercial
non-landscaping use, and residential interior use. Although this strategy is likely to reduce
overall economic impacts, it can have serious impacts on businesses that depend on having
water available for landscaping, such as golf courses, and on businesses dependent on es-
tablishing and maintaining residential landscaping. Also, to the extent that conservation is
being practiced for residential exterior use and commercial landscaping use, this strategy
will be less successful due to the lower level of waste or low-valued uses that are curtailed
during shortages.

Two separate studies illustrate the comparative value of water use in industry and in resi-
dences. The average value foregone by California industries during a shortage of 30 percent
was an estimated $74,000 per acre-foot (Cost of Industrial Water Shortages. California Urban
Water Agencies, November 1 991 ). The average value foregone by California residential wa-
ter users during a shortage of 30 percent would produce a loss of about $2,600 per acre-foot
(interpolated from the results in Economic Value of Reliable Water Supplies. State Water Con-
tractors Exhibit 51 , June 1987).

Because of the strategy of allocating shortages away from non-residential users to pro-
tect local income and employment, a 30-percent overall shortage can translate to some-
what greater than a 35-percent shortage for residential users, thus producing, for example,
on equivalent loss of about $3,400 per acre-foot overall (assuming that the shortage alloca-
tion process has the effect of spreading the pain evenly among the different urban sectors).
The actual loss after reallocation will depend on the relative amounts of the different types of
water use and their relative vulnerability to economic loss.

In agricultural areas, the residential-user water shortage "buffer" available to cushion
the impact on businesses in urban areas is usually not significant: employment impacts, busi-
ness costs increases, and income losses can be more or less immediate. This is an important
distinction in terms of the consequences for the health of the local economy, particularly in
small agricultural communities where providing goods and services to farmers and hauling,
storing, and processing farm products are the major activities.

As an example of the potential water shortage costs to farmers, costs associated with
substituting ground water for unavailable surface water during 1 991 resulted in added water
costs in the San Joaquin Valley ranging from more than $20 per acre-foot of additional
pumping to almost $60 per acre-foot, depending on the area affected. Farm income losses
due to reduced acreage, or yield declines due to on overall shortage of about 6 percent to
the San Joaquin Valley (after accounting for increased ground water pumping), ranged
from about $45 to $ 1 , 1 00 per acre-foot, depending on the area affected (derived from Eco-
nomic impacts of the i 99 / California Drought on San Joaquin Valley Agriculture and Related
Industries, Northwest Economic Associates, IVIarch 1992).

Continuation of the recent drought, which would have had the effect of forcing ground
water levels even lower and further straining the financial ability of farmers to substitute
ground water for unavailable surface supplies, would have had more serious economic
consequences than were experienced. The extent of the drought's impact on higher-in-
vestment crops such as truck, tree, and vine crops would likely hove been greater. For exam-
ple, income lost because vegetable crops were not planted due to water shortages would
be about $470 per acre-foot of applied water. Form income lost for citrus trees killed due to

Water Supply and Demand Balance 349

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Water Service Reliability (continued)

water shortage would be $330 per acre-foot of applied water; this amount would be lost
annually until the trees were replaced at a cost of about $10,500 per acre. The losses
would then decline until the replacement trees reached full maturity in about ten years
(derived from Evaluation of the Economic Impacts of 1991 Drought Alternatives for Kern
County Surface Water Districts. Northwest Economic Associates, January 1991).

These examples of urban and agricultural impacts are related to the economic
consequences of water shortages. The long-term economic consequences of unreliabil-
ity are related to business decisions to make long-term investments in water use technol-
ogies (for example, emergency reuse systems) or alternative sources of supply (for exam-
ple, wells) to better cope with shortages when they occur. Business decisions to locate in
an area, move from an area, add or drop product lines, or expand or reduce overall
production are also affected by water service reliability.

Long-term consequences of unreliability also show up in the value of land. Agricul-
tural land in areas with more reliable supplies has a higher value than land in areas with
less reliable supplies, all other factors being equal. Lower reliability con mean lower pro-
ductivity because of higher losses caused by shortages. Unreliability can also limit the
productivity of land by making farmers (or their lenders) unwilling to expose themselves
to the higher degree of risk of investment loss when growing tree or vine crops, for exam-
ple, although the soil and climate may be suitable and market conditions favorable.

In a similar fashion, property values for residential users and their quality of life may
be lower in on area with less reliable water service if the expected cost of shortage-re-
Idted landscaping replacement is high enough to discourage planting of preferred,
high-investment landscaping. The secondary benefits to the local economy of expendi-
tures on services needed to maintain high-investment landscaping can be another loss,
if this type of landscaping is discouraged because of unreliable water supplies.

age management programs. Although not classifiable as regional economic losses.
reduced water sales can place severe financial stress on water agencies with large fixed
costs to meet.

Loss of Agricultural, Commercial, or Industrial Sales. Water is involved in
the production of goods and services in a number of ways. Agricultural production
probably has the most visible need for large amounts of water. Water also plays a \1tal
role in industry where it is used for cooking, washing, cooling, and conveying as part
of the processing, and water is often part of the product (for example, soft drinks).

In the short term, the production level can be independent of the amount of water
available during a given year, depending on the flexibility of the manufacturer's water
supply system. Emergency conservation and reuse measures can reduce the amount
of water needed for some uses. The degree of flexibility available for managing short-
ages depends on the specific production technology used and the extent to which
conservation and recycling measures already in place have reduced the opportunity for
further conservation and reuse.

At a certain point, further water cuts will curtail business production and affect
employment and sales. In some cases, the effects may extend beyond the shortage
year. Farmers who stress trees due to water shortages may lose production not only
during the shortage year, but also in future years, until the trees recover. Crop produc-
tion can also be affected if shortages force farmers to substitute lower quality water for
their normally available surface water. In the case of farms in the Sacramento-San

350 Water Supply and Demand Balance

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Joaquin Delta, increased salinity intrusion during water shortages reduces the quality
of the irrigation water.

Water shortages indirectly affect businesses too. Housing construction can be
delayed because of a shortage-related water connection moratorium. Drought percep-
tions or hearsay, as well as actual shortages, can hurt businesses catering to
recreation. Landscaping businesses can be affected if customers choose to, or are
forced to, let severely stressed landscaping die during shortages. Decreases in fish pop-
ulations reduce income and employment in commercial fishing. Municipalities
experiencing water shortages can lose revenues from public parks and golf courses.
Water agencies can also experience loss of revenues due to reduced water sales during
a drought.

Increased Costs for Agricultural, Commercial, or Industrial Users. The var-
ious ways businesses can avoid curtailing production may be effective but some can
also be costly. Installing temporary recycling equipment is one example of a cost im-
posed by a water shortage. Reusing cooling water, while allowing continued production
during a shortage, may result in costly mineral-scale removal to restore cooling effi-
ciency later. Retrofit of water-saving equipment can be expensive, but it also has
benefits beyond the immediate shortage, such as reducing the potential effect of future
shortages during the life of the equipment and saving water and effluent charges. Lack
of water for hydroelectric plants and reduced generating ability (as reservoirs are
drawn down) forces electrical utilities to buy energy from other sources or expand the
use of their thermal generation capacity. In either case, more costly operation is the
result.

Farmers who have to substitute ground water to replace unavailable surface
supplies incur increased costs during shortages. This substitution may require instal-
ling new wells or renovating existing ones, and In some cases the ground water is
pumped from great depths, which adds to the expense. These ground water costs are
in addition to the fixed costs agricultural water contract holders must pay for the sur-
face water delivery system, whether or not any water has been delivered. Similarly,
urban water agencies can be financially stressed by the obligation to meet large fixed
delivery system costs with reduced water sales revenues, while being required to pay
for costly supplemental supplies. A farmer can also Institute more intensive (and more
costly) Irrigation management practices.

Cost of Landscaping Replacement. Replacing dead landscaping or invigorat-
ing stressed landscapes after a severe water shortage can be costly for municipalities,
businesses, and homeowners. However, such expenses can help make up for income
lost by seed and plant suppliers and landscape service businesses during a drought.
Furthermore, while the landscaping is stressed, or until dead landscaping can be re-
placed, the cooling effect provided by healthy landscaping is reduced or lost. As a
result, during summer months, city residents use air conditioners more often or for
longer durations, and energy bills increase. Along with the replacement and additional
cooling costs, there is also the loss of the aesthetic enjoyment provided by healthy
grass, shrubs, and trees. Plant growth is also important for air quality because the
plant transpiration process helps remove some pollutants from the air. It may be many
years before replacement plants regain the stature (and the value) of trees and shrubs
that were lost.

Loss of Recreational Opportunities. Water shortages reduce recreational
opportunities in several ways. Reservoir, lake, and instream flow levels drop, causing
water temperatures to rise and adversely affect fish. As water levels and fish popula-

Water Supply and Demand Balance 351

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

tions decrease, so do opportunities for such activities as boating, camping, and fishing.
* The businesses serving these recreation industries and the people using recreational

facilities suffer economic and other losses.

Loss of Convenience. Taking shorter showers or flushing the toilet less fre-
quently in response to emergency water pricing, rationing, or voluntary conservation
programs are inconveniences people would rather avoid. The ability to shower longer
or flush toilets more frequently is worth something to most people.

The values of aesthetics and recreational opportunities, and of avoiding the loss
of certain conveniences, are economic costs of water shortages. These costs can be
measured by water users' responses to changes in water prices or by their responses
to surveys. Although measurement is difficult with existing methods, research shows
water for recreation, aesthetics, and convenience is of substantial value, especially
during extended shortages.

Costs of Shortage Management Programs. Another cost of shortages is borne
by water agencies that employ water shortage management techniques, such as public
information campaigns, "water waster" patrols, retrofit programs, and water allocation
programs. These added costs can be offset somewhat by lower variable costs (such as
costs for energy) because reduced supply availability means less water to be treated
and distributed by the agency. However, due to the nature and timing of shortages,
funds and personnel shifts result in deferred maintenance and capital projects which
increase long-term costs.

Long-Term Losses

Long-term losses are not related to a specific shortage event but are caused by
unfavorable perceptions of the potential frequency and severity of future shortages.
Some of the more damaging long-term losses are reduced economic activity, higher
business costs, and constrained landscaping options.

Reduced Likelihood of Retaining or Acquiring Ek:onomic Activity in a
Region. Many factors influence a company's decision to expand into a new area or
move an existing plant. Examples include work force skills, prevailing wages, proximi-
ty to markets, energy costs, costs and quality of water supply, and costs of effluent
disposal. Public service reliability is a factor when companies consider locating in an
area because a better quality of life is more attractive to potential employees. Water
service reliability to ensure uninterrupted production is another important factor. The
expected costs of maintaining production during water shortages by using self-sup-
plied water (if available), emergency conservation, or other shortage management
measures are also important. If reliability cannot be assured and shortage manage-
ment is costly or infeasible, a company may decide to locate elsewhere; if already
located in an area with unreliable water supply, a company may decide to move. Either
way, the jobs and income would be lost.

Business loans are likely to be more costly, and may be unavailable. Crop pro-
duction loans for farmers are particularly vulnerable if business owners cannot assure
lenders that their water supplies are reliable. Bonding agencies are generally reluctant
to provide financing to a water agency with uncertain supplies that are interrupted
during water shortages. The increased risk of shortage-related damage to costly peren-
nial or truck crops will make farmers less willing to invest in these types of crops,
endangering California's singular advantage in soils and climate for these high-valued
crops. Agricultural markets for some crops are also sensitive to the buyers' perceptions
regarding consistent product availability. Such markets can be lost if an unreliable wa-
ter supply causes buyers to anticipate undependable product availability.

352 Water Supply and Demand Balance

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Higher Business Costs. For urban businesses facing unreliable water utility
supplies, installing self-service capability, including arranging privately negotiated
transfers (if feasible) or installing lower-use process and cooling water technologies,
becomes an important cost consideration. For agricultural users overlying ground wa-
ter, the need to increase reliability by installing increased ground water pumping
capacity, to cope with anticipated surface water shortages, can be a major capital cost.

Environmental Costs of Unreliability

Environmental losses related to unnatural water supply variability can be seri-
ous, although not easily expressed in dollars. During critically dry years, wildlife
habitat often diminishes, and plant and animal mortalities increase. This process oc-
curs naturally, but can be exacerbated by water development that changes the natural
flow patterns.

Wildlife Htibitat. Shortage-related reductions in streamflow and increases in
water temperature can have a devastating effect on fish spawning. Plants not killed
outright by lack of moisture are made more susceptible to disease. In some instances,
the impacts of drought on the environment can be reduced by water project operations.
Projects can be used to either convey water or allow water transfers to environmentally
sensitive areas that otherwise would not have sufficient water available.

Urban Wildlife Habitat. Urban trees, shrubs, and lawns, as well as parks and

golf courses, provide habitat for birds and small mammals. Reduced runoff and short-
ages force irrigation cutbacks during drought which can lead to habitat loss in these
areas.

Agricultural Wildlife Habitat. Irrigated cropland is a source of food for migrat-
ing waterfowl and other wildlife. Habitat provided by border areas and in crop stubble
after harvest is also significant. Fallowing of this cropland can reduce food and habitat.

Economic Impacts of tt)e Drought

The impacts of the 1987-92 California drought illustrate the consequences of
shortages and the degree to which existing water management programs and projects
have been successful in mitigating the drought's effects. Experiences from the recent
drought and the 1976-77 drought have helped identify effective shortage management

strategies.

Agricultural Impacts. DWR studies indicate that in 1990, the drought resulted
in reduced gross revenues of about $220 million to California agriculture. This loss
was attributed to reduced yields on about 75,000 drought-impacted acres and to lost
output from about 194,000 drought-idled acres. Most of the State's drought-idled
acres would have been planted in cotton and grains. However, much of the revenue
loss resulted from reduced acres of high-value vegetable crops in the Central Coast
Region. Commodities hit hardest in the drought were dry grains, dry hay, and beef
cattle; agricultural areas suffering the most drought impacts were the west side of the
southern San Joaquin Valley and the Central Coast Region.

The unusually abundant precipitation in March 1991 greatly helped Central
Coast growers. It also benefited ranchers throughout California with improved range
and pastureland. However, many farmers in the Central Valley and Southern Califor-
nia faced cuts in surface water deliveries of 1 5 to 1 00 percent. Estimated gross revenue
loss to California farms was about $250 million in 1991 (the result of drought-idled
acres of about 347,000 crop acres and reduced crop yields). Growers of barley, rice,
wheat, and corn had the greatest relative declines in gross farm receipts. Again, grow-
ers on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley were hardest hit by the drought.

Water Supply and Demand Balance 353

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

In 1992, California agriculture experienced an estimated gross revenue loss of
* about $ 1 90 million due to continuing drought, roughly $60 million less than the 1 99 1

loss. The associated net amount of drought-idled farmland was about 279,000 acres.
The decrease in idled acres was due largely to relatively abundant precipitation over
most of the State during February and March. While growers along the Southern and
Central coasts experienced the biggest improvements, farmers and ranchers in north-
east California were generally worse off than before. Barley, cotton, and sugar beets
were the hardest hit crops.

A record number of farm wells were drilled or deepened (about 1,700 in 1991
alone), substantially augmenting the ability to use ground water to replace curtailed
surface water deliveries to farms. The continuing success of California's farm produc-
tion is due, in large part, to the availability of ground water supplies. This success
comes at a price, however. For example, in 1991, the cost to farmers for water in-
creased over $160 million, primarily due to the higher cost of ground water use,
causing financial hardship in the San Joaquin Valley [Economic Impacts of the 1991
California Drought on SanJoaquin Valley Agriculture and Related Industries, Northwest
Economic Associates, March 1992). The continued availability and affordability of in-
creased ground water pumping as an agricultural drought management practice may
be Jeopardized in areas without replenishment from the percolation of rainfall or re-
charge from surface supplies.

A successful water bank and local water transfers helped assure normal yields
on 1 13,000 acres of permanent crop land that had drought- impacted supplies in the
San Joaquin Valley during 1991. Farmers made better use of local weather data, in
conjunction with new irrigation technologies, to significantly reduce applied water in
drought-impacted areas. Cropping patterns were changed to produce more revenue
with less water. Growers in areas with adequate water increased their plantings to help
offset drought-idled acres elsewhere in the State.

Municipal and Industrial Impacts. DWR surveyed over 60 urban water dis-
tricts, chambers of commerce, trade groups, and industry associations throughout
California regarding drought impacts to assess the effect of the 1987-92 drought upon
the commercial and industrial sectors. Survey responses indicated that only one major
industry group, the "green industry" (landscape and gardening industry), was signifi-
cantly affected by the drought. Most firms were able to avoid significant reductions in
output or employment in spite of overall water use cutbacks that reached or exceeded
20 percent in many major urban areas. This was partly due to agencies placing a pro-
portionately higher reduction burden on residential customers.

Green industry firms, especially those in the coastal and mountain areas, were
seriously impacted when customers deferred installing new landscapes and reduced
maintenance of existing landscapes because of the drought. Public agencies that pro-
vide maintenance services to parks, schools, and highway landscaping were also
adversely affected, as were public and private golf courses. The green industry lost
about $460 million in gross revenues and 5,600 full-time jobs during 1991. Green in-
dustry firms contributed an estimated $7 billion toward the State's economy in 1990
and employed about 125,000 full-time workers. The industry may recover from the
adverse effects of the drought with a likely short-term increase in business as custom-
ers replace drought-damaged landscapes or change landscapes to cope with future
droughts.

One explanation for the minimal impact on most businesses is that most water
agencies established exemption programs for hardship cases. In some instances, firms

354 Water Supply and Demand Balance

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

that otherwise would have been significantly affected were spared because their utili-
ties granted them exemptions from water allocation limits. The rationale behind these
exemptions for commercial and industrial utility customers was to keep job losses to
a minimum. Some water agencies had water shortage allocation programs which called
for residential customers to cut use to a greater extent than business users for this
purpose, shifting shortage-related costs and losses to residential users. Another likely
reason drought impacts were not as severe as might have been expected is that firms
implemented additional conservation programs to compensate in part for lost supplies.
There was also some additional flexibility to avoid business losses because of reces-
sion-related reductions in industrial production which lowered water demand by
affected companies.

From a statewide perspective, the 1991 drought had a negligible effect on total
urban water costs. However, some demand reductions could have been attributed to
the recession. Additionally, at the local level, certain water purveyors experienced fi-
nancial difficulties because they could not raise unit rates fast enough to offset their
drought-induced revenue decline. The major drought impacts in urban areas has been
the inconvenience and annoyance of lifestyle and comfort changes and the costs to res-
idential water users in inconvenience and lost and damaged landscaping (with the
accompanying loss of ambience and well-being), and delayed landscaping work.

Other Ek:onoinic Impacts. Another economic impact of the drought arose from
reduced hydroelectric generation capability. Energy utilities were forced to substitute
more costly fossil-fuel generation at an estimated statewide cost of $500 million in
1991. The drought also adversely affected snow-related recreation businesses. Some
studies suggest as much as an $85-million loss for snow-related recreation businesses
during the winter of 1990-91.

Environmental Impacts. The impacts on the State's ecosystems were some of
the most important and potentially negative aspects of the recent drought. Important
environmental consequences of the drought are effects on freshwater, marine, and
anadromous fisheries, wetland and marsh area reductions, and substantial forest
damage from pests and fire. (Several of these consequences are discussed in Chapter
8, Environmental Water Use.)

Water Supply and Demand Balance 355

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

356 Water Supply and Demand Balance

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Appendix A

Allocation and Management of California's Water Supplies A. 1 Bibliography,

California Constitution Article X, Section 2 Statutes, and Court

Cases Cited in

Riparian and Appropriative Rigtits ChODter 2

Attwater and Markle, "Overview of California Water Rights and Water Quality Law," 19 Pacific
Law Journal 957 (1988), reprinted in the pocket part of West's Annotated California Codes,
Water Code Sections 1 -6999 (1971).

Water Rigtits Permits and Licenses

Water Commission Act, Water Code Sections 1000 et seq.
See also Water Code Section 102.

Ground Water Management

AB 3030 (Stats. 1992, Ch. 947) repealed Water Code Sections 10750-10767, and adopted new
Sections 10750-10755.4.

Public Trust Doctrine

National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County, 33 Cal. 3d 419, 189 Cal. Rptr. 346
(1983), cert, denied. 464 U.S. 977 (1983).

United States v. State Water Resources Control Board, 182 Cal. App. 3d 82 (1986), sometimes
called the Racanelli decision after Justice Racanelli who authored it.

Environmental Defense Fund v. East Bay Municipal Utility District, 20 Cal. 3d 327 (1977),
vacated, 439 U.S. 81 1 (1978), opinion on remand 26 Cal. 3d 183 (1980).

Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. Sections 791a-793, 796-818, 82(^825.

ReclamaUon Act of 1902. 32 Stat. 388; 43 U.S.C. Section 391.

California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645 (1978).

California v. FERC, 1 10 S. Ct. 2024 (1990), sometimes called the Rock Creek decision.

First Iowa Hydroelectric Cooperative v. Federal Power Commission, 328 U.S. 152 (1946).

Sayles Hydro Association v. Maughan, 985F.2d 451 (1993).

Areo of Origin Statutes

bounty of Origin Statutes (Water Code Sections 10505 and 10505.5) .
\rea of Origin ProtecUons (Water Code Sections 1 1 128, 1 1460-1 1463).
)elta Protection Act (Water Code SecUons 12200 - 12220).

Appendix A 357

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Municipal Liability (Water Code Section 1245).
Water Code Section 1215 through 1220.

The Current Regulatory and Legislative Framework
Piotedion of Rsh and WtdKle end Habilai

Endangered Species AcL 16 U.S-C. Section. 1531 et seq. (1973).

CaUfomia E«ndangered Species AcL Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq. (1984).

Natural Commiinit^ Conservation Planning AcL Fish and Game Code Secticm. 2800 et seq.
(1991).

Dredge and Fill Permits

Section 404 of the Clean Water AcL 33 U.S.C. Section 1344.

Section 10 of the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S. Section 403).
Releases of Water for Fish

Fish and Game Code Section 5937.

CkiliformaTrouLlnc. v. lOwStateWaterResourcesCoritwlBoanL 207Cal. Ai^.3d585.255CaL
Rptr. 184 (1989).

Streambed Alteration Agreements

Fish and Game Code Sections 1601 and 1603 .

Migratoiy Bird Treaty AcL 16 U.S.C. Sections 703 et seq.

Envkonmentai Review and Mitigahon

National Environmental Policy AcL 42 U.S.C. Sections 4321 et seq. (1969).
CaUfomia Ejivinmmental Quality AcL Pub. Res. Code Sections 21000 et seq. (1970).
Fish and ^^dlife Coordination AcL 16 U.S.C. Sections 661 et seq.

Pioleclion of ¥nkl and Natural Areas

Wild and Scenic Rivers AcL (federal) 16 U.S.C. Sections 1271 et seq. (1968).

Wild and Scenic Rivers AcL (California) Public Resources Code. Sections 5093.50 et seq. (1972).

^^Id Trout Streams

The Trout and Steelhead Conservation and Management Planning Act of 1979. Fish and
Game Code Sections 1725-1728.

Fish and Game Code Section 703.

National l^demess AcL 16 U.S.C. Sectfons 1 131 et seq. (1964).

Water Quoity Protection

The Porfer-CoJogne Wafer QualffyCimholActyfateT Code Sections 13000-13999.16
(1969j.

National Pofhriant Disdicrge Elimination System 33 u.s.c. Sections I34i and 1342

(Sections 401 and 402 of the Clean Waaler Acq 11972).

In 1972 the CaMorniaLegislattire passed a law amending the Porter-Cologne Act which ga\T
CaUfcHTiia the ability to qperate the NPDES permits program.

Drinking Water Quality

Safe Drinking Water Act (federal). 42 U.S.C. Sections 300f et seq.

Safe E>rinldng Water Act (CaUfomia). CaUfomia Health and Safety Code Sections 4010 et seq.

358 ^pendjx A

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring Regulations. Title 22, California Code of Regulations
64401 et seq.

California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 1976. Water Code Sections 13850 et seq.

California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 1984. Water Code Sections 13810 et seq.

California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 1986. Water Code SecUons 13895 et seq.

California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 1988. Water Code Sections 14000 et seq.

San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
The State Water Project and Federal Central Valley Project

The California Central Valley Project Act Water Code Section 1 1 100 et seq.

Specific laws authorizing construction of elements of both the State and federal projects are
summarized in A.3 Acts Authorizing the State Water Project and Centred Valley Project .

Decision 1485, State Water Resources Control Board April 29, i976.

Ttie Racanelli Decision united states v. state water Resources Control Board, 182 (Decided
August 1978) Cal. App. 3d 82 (1986).

Coordinated Operation Agreement

Congress enacted legislation authorizing execution of the agreement in October 1986. P.L.
99-546; 100 Stat. 3050.

Fisti Protection Agreement

Department of Water Resources and Department of Fish and Game, December 1986.

Suisun Marst) Preservation Agreement

The Suisun Marsh Preservation and Restoration Act of 1979 authorized the Secretary of the
Interior to enter into a Suisun Marsh cooperative agreement with State of California and
specified the federal share of costs of facilities. P.L. 96-495: 94 Stat. 2581.

Surface Water Management
Regional Water Projects

For a summary of the major regional projects, see Section A.2, Acts Authorizing Regional and
Local Water Projects.

DWR Bulletin No. 155-77: General Comparison of Water District Acts (May 1978), which is being
revised and should be republished in 1994, contains a full listing of water district acts. For a
summary of some of the major acts that include a large number of districts, see Section A.2,
Acts Authorizing Regional and Local Water Projects.

Ttie Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 p.l. 102-575: 106 stat.4706.
Trends In Water Resource Management
Water Transfers

See generally Water Code Sections 1706 and 1725-1746.

In 1 99 1 , temporeuy changes to the law designed to facilitate the State Drought Water Bank
were enacted. Stats. 1991-92, 1st Ex. Section, c. 3.

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, P.L. 102-575: 106 Stat. 4706.

These changes were made permanent in 1992. Stats. 1992, c.481: Water Code Sections
1745-1745.11.

Appendix A 359

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Water Use Efficiency

Article X. Section 2 of the CaUfomla Constituticni.

Water Code Section 275.

Imperial Irrigation District v. State Water Resources CtmtrxA Board, 225 Cal. App.3d 548. 275
Cal. Rptr. 250 (1990).

Urban Water Management Planning Act. Water Code Section 10610 et seq. (1983).

The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act. Government Code. Section 65591 et seq.

The model ordinance was adopted in August 1992. and has been codified in Title 23 of the
California Code of RegulaUons (§ 490-492).

Agricultural Water Management Plarming Act. Water Code, Section 10800 et seq. (1986) .

Agricultural Water Suppliers Efficient Water Management Practices Act. Water Code. Section
10900 et seq. (1990).

Agricultural Water Conservation and Management Act of 1992. Water Code, Section 10521 et
seq.

Urban Best Management Practices MOU.

Water Recycling Act of 1991. Water Code Section 13575 et seq.

Management Programs

Sacramento River Fishery and Riparian Habitat Restoration (SB 1086). SB 1086. passed in
1986. Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 62 (passed 1989).

The San Joaquin VaDey Drainage Pribram.

San Joaquin Valley I>rainage Relief Act (Water Code Sections 14900-14920. Stats. 1992. c.
959).

The Central VaUey Project Improvement Act of 1992. P.L. 102-575; 106 Stat. 4706.

San Joaquin River Management Program. Water Code Sections 12260 et seq. (1990). Stats.
1990. Ch. 1068.

Interstate Water Resource Management

Tmckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rigtits Settlement Act of 1991 Tttie u of

P.L. 10 1-6 1 8; 1 04 Stat. 3289 ( 1 990).

See Water Code Section 5976.

For further information on the history of the Truckee River water rights disputes, and how
they are addressed by the Settlement Act, see DWR's June 1 99 1 Truckee River Atlas, and the
December 1991 Carson Rvuer Atlas.

360 Appendix A

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Hetch Hetchy Project. Raker Act (Act of December 6. 1913: 38 Stat. 242) The Hetch-Hetchy
Project, which supplies water to the City of San Francisco and 33 Bay Area communities,
includes two reservoirs within Yosemite National Park (Hetch-Hetchy Reservoir and Lake
Eleanor) and three within Stanislaus National Forest (Lake Lloyd Project and Moccasin
Reservoir). In the Raker Act, Congress granted the city rights-of-way within the Park and
Stanislaus National Forest to construct these facilities. Federal law has been modified recently
to prohibit new reservoirs or expansion of existing reservoirs within National Parks.

Colorado River Aqueduct. Metropolitan Water District Act (Stats. 1927, Chapter 429, repealed
and reenacted Stats. 1969 Chapter 209, as amended: Cal. Water Code Appendix Sections 109-1
et seq.) The Colorado River Aqueduct supplies water from the Colorado River to serve several
major urban areas in southern California. The Metropolitan Water District Act of 1927 allowed
these areas to form the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Under the act, the
district was granted the authority to acquire water and water rights within and without the
state. It also gave the district the power to acquire real property through purchase, lease or
eminent domain, and the power to acquire, construct, operate, and maintain all works,
facilities, and Improvements necessary to provide water to inhabitants of the district. The
district also was granted the power to issue and sell bonds, levy and collect general taxes,
employ laborers, and enter into contracts.

Los Angeles Aqueduct. The authority for the Los Angeles Aqueduct appears to come solely from
Article 1 1, Section 19 of the California constitution, which authorizes municipal corporations to
establish and operate public works for supplying their inhabltcints with water, and from the
City of Los Angeles charter. In 1905 Los Angeles voters approved a bond for the purchase of the
original rights-of-way for the aqueduct from Owens Valley, with President Roosevelt allowing
rights-of-way over federal lands in 1908.

Mokelumne River Aqueduct. The Municipal Utility District Act of 1927, Stats. 1921, c. 218 as
amended; Public Utility Code Section 11501 et seq. This act grants the East Bay Municipal
Utilities District the power to acquire, construct, own, operate, control, or use. within or
without the district, works for supplying Inhabitants of the district with water and other
utilities. The act also grants the district the powers of eminent domain, taxing, and issuing and
selling bonds. The Mokelumne River Aqueduct began transporting Sierra water to East Bay
cities in 1929.

Regional and Local Water Distribution. There are over 40 different statutes under which
local agencies may be organized, having among their powers the authority to distribute water.
In addition, there are a number of special act districts. DWR Bulletin No. 155-77: General
Comparison of Water District Acts (May 1978), which is currently being revised and should be
republished in 1993, contains a full listing of these statutes. A summary of some of the major
acts which include a large number of districts follows:

County Water Districts. Water Code, Dlv. 12, Sections 30000-33901 (1913). The County
Water District Law authorizes the people of a county, or two or more contiguous counties,
or a portion of a county or counties, to form a county water district. A district may do whatever
is necessary to furnish sufficient water in the district for any present or future beneficial use,
including: acquiring, appropriating, controlling, conserving, storing, and supplying water:
draining and reclaiming lands: generating and selling incidental hydroelectric power: using
any land or water under district control for recreational purposes: acquiring, construcUng,
and operating sewer, fire protection, and sanitation facilities.

Irrigation Districts. Water Code. Dlv. 11, Sections 20500-29978 (1897). Under Irrigation
District law, a majority of the owners of land susceptible of irrigation from a common source,
or 500 or more petitioners residing in the proposed district or owning at least 20 percent in
value of the land therein, may propose the formation of an irrigation district. A district may
do whatever is necessary to furnish sufficient water in the district for any beneficial use.
These powers include controlling, distributing, salvaging, and other acts, any water.
including sewage, for beneficial use, to provide drainage, or develop and distribute electric
power. The district has the power to allocate water according to crops and acreage in certeiin
situations, provide flood control in districts of 200,000 acres or more, provide sewage disposal
upon approval of voters by majority vote, and construct and operate incidental recreational
facilities.

Municipal Utility Districts. Public UtlliUes Code, Div. 6, Sections 1 1501-14401. Under the
Municipal Utility District Act. any "public agency" (city, county water district, county

A.2 Acts Authorizing
Regional and Local
Water Projects

Appendix A

361

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

sanitation district, or sanitary district) together with unincorporated territory, or two or more
public agencies with or without unincorporated territory, may organize and incorporate as
a municipal utility district. These agencies may be in the same separate counties and need
not be contiguous: however, no public agency shall be divided. A district may do all things
necessary to acquire, construct, own, ojierate, control, or use works for supplying
inhabitants of the district with light, water, power, heat, transportation, telephone service,
or other means of communication, or means for the collection, treatment, or disposition of
garbage, sewa^ or refuse matter; and provide for waste water control, including sewage and
industrial wastes.

Municipal Water Districts. Water Code. Dlv. 20. Sections 7 1 000-7300 1 . Under the Municipal
Water District Law of 19 1 1 , the j>eople of any county or counties, or of emy portions thereof,
whether or not such pjortions include unincorporated territory, may organize a municipal
water district. The lands need not be contiguous. A district may acquire, control, distribute.
store, spread, sink, treat, purify, reclaim, recapture, and salvage any water, including sewage
and storm waters, for beneficial uses of the district, its inhabitants, or owners of rights to
water in the district: sell water to cities, public agencies and persons, in the district only,
unless there is a surplus: construct and opierate recreationeil facilities appurtenant to district
reserv^oirs: collect, treat, and dispose of sewage, waste, and storm water: provide fire
protection, first aid. ambulance and paramedic service: collect and dispose of garbage, waste,
and trash: and produce and sell hydroelectric power.

Public Utmty Districts. Public Utilities Code. Div. 7. Sections 1 1501-18055. Under the Public
Utility District Act. the people of unincorporated territory may organize a public utility
district. The district may do whatever is necessary to acquire and operate, within or without
the district, works for supplying inhabitants with light, water, power, heat, transportation,
telephone or other means of communication, means for disposition of garbage, sewage, or
refuse matter: purchase and distribute such services and commodities; acquire and op>erate
a fire department, street lighting system, public parks, playgrounds, golf courses, swlmining
jxx)ls, recreation and other public buildings, and drainage works.

Water Conservation Districts. Water Code. Div. 21, Sections 74000-76501. The Water
Conservation Act of 1931 was declared to be a continuation and re-enactment of the Water
Conservation Act of 1929. and also covers districts organized under the Conservation Act of
California (Stats. 1919. c. 332). The board of supervisors of any county may organize and
establish a district: or qualified electors in an area comprising the whole or a i>art of one or
more watersheds may petition for orgEmization and establishment of a district. TTie district
may be entirely or pariJy within unincorporated territory, may be within one or more
coimties. and need not be contiguous. A district may do all acts necessary for the ftill exercise
of its powers, w^ch include: conserving and storing water by dams, reservoirs, ditches,
spreading basins, sinking wells, sinking basins, etc.: appropriate, acquire, and conserve
water and water rights for any useftil purposes; obtain water bxtm wells: sell, deliver
distribute, or otherwise dispose of waten make surv^s; provide recreational facilities:
provide flood protection: and reclaim sewage and storm waters.

362 Appendix A

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

The State Water Project

The California Central Valley Project Act. Water Code Section 1 1100 et seq. Approved by the
voters in a referendum in 1933, this act authorized construction of the Central Valley Project.
The State was unable to construct the project at that time because of the Great Depression, and
portions of it were subsequently authorized and constructed by the United States (see below).
Other portions of it were constructed by the State after the Depression as part of the State
Water project, which includes: the Feather River Project (§11260). the North Bay Aqueduct
(§11270) and various power facilities (§11295). The act permits the Department to
administratively add units to the project, so long as those units are consistent with the
objectives of the project (§ 1 1290). The Department is authorized to issue Revenue bonds to
finance the project (Sections 1 1700 et seq.).

The Bums-Porter Act. Water Code Section 1 1930 et seq. The act was adopted in 1959 and
approved by the voters in 1960. It authorized the issuance of general obligation bonds in the
amount of $1,750,000,000 and appropriated the California Water Fund for the State Water
Resources Development System, commonly known as the State Water Project (SWP). Principal
facilities include Oroville and San Luis Dams, Delta Facilities, the California Aqueduct, and
North and South Bay Aqueducts. The provisions of the California CVP Act are incorporated into
the Bums-Porter Act.

A.3 Acts Authorizing
Elements of ttie State
Water Project and the
Central Valley Project

Ttie Central Valley Project

Reclamation Act of 1902. 32 Stat. 388; 43 V.S.C. Section 391. This act created the
predecessor to the Bureau of Reclamation and provided the framework for development of water
in the Western states through federal reclamation projects. It established a revolving fund from
the sale of public lands to finance location and construction of irrigation projects (which are
now constructed with general funds), and provided for the repayment of project costs through
contracts with users. It contained acreage limitations and residency requirements for the
farmers using the irrigation water. Section 8 of the act contains a "savings clause," deferring to
state laws relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water for irrigation. (For
more discussion of the savings clause, see the Federal Power Act section in Chapter 2.)

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1937. Authorizes construction of Shasta, Friant. Keswick,
DMC, Coleman Hatchery, etc., subject reclamation laws. P.L. 75-392; 50 Stat. 884. As amended
by the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1940. P.L. 76-868; 54 Stat. 1 198 (added irrigation and
distribution systems).

Reclamation Project Act of 1939. P.L. 75-260; 53 Stat. 1 187. This act provided for a 40-year
term for repayment of contracts, and included provisions for payment and accounting.

San Luis Unit Authorization Act. San Luis Dam and pump-generation, O'Neil Forebay, San
Luis Canal, Pleasant Valley Canal (Coalinga Canal); provisions for assurances from State for
joint use facilities, including master drain; no water for production of excess agricultural
commodities; USBR may turn O&M over to State. P.L. 86-488; 74 Stat. 220.

Flood Control Act of 1962. New Melones. Hidden, and Buchanan dams; includes fish and
wildlife measures, recreation; electric power to preference customers. P.L. 87-874; 76
Stat. 1173.

Reclamation Project Act Amendments of 1956. P.L. 84-643; 70 Stat. 484; 43 U.S.C. Section
485h-5: P.L. 88-44; 77 Stat. 68; 43 U.S.C. Section 485h. Contract terms and conditions were
changed to provide that long-term contractors have first right to stated amount of water on
renewal. It also permitted M&I long-term contracts to include a renewal provision, including
first right to a stated amount of water.

Auburn-Folsom South Unit Authorization Act. Auburn Dam and Powerplant. Sugar Pine
Reservoir. Folsom-South Canal, recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement facilities;
; Secretary recommend to Congress compliance with state laws, including areas of origin.
PL. 89-161; 79 Stat. 615; 43 U.S.C. Section 616b et seq.

San Felipe Division Authorization Act. Pacheco Tunnel, pumping plants; recreation and fish
and wildlife in accordance with Fed. Water Project Recreation Act; contracts with SWP; Excess
land limitations not applicable; surplus crops limitation. P.L. 90-72: 81 Stat. 173.

Trinity River Stream Rectification Act. Authorizes Secretary to design and carry out sand
dredging operation on Trinity River near Grass Valley Creek cind a debris dam on that Creek:

Appendix A

363

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

matching funds firom the State of California; aU costs are nonreimbursable. P.L.96-355: 94
Stat. 1062.

Suisun Marsh Preservation and Restoration Act of 1979. Authorizes Secretary to enter into
Suisun Marsh coojierative agreements with State of California for mitigation of adverse effects
of CVP on fish and wildlife resources of Suisun Marsh; specifies Federal share of costs of
facilities. P.L. 96-495; 94 Stat 2581.

Reclamation Reform Act of 1982. P.L. 97-293: 96 Stat. 1263: 43 U.S.C. Section 390 aa et
seq. This act revises the acreage limitaUon of the 1902 act from 160 acres to 960 acres and
eliminates the residency requirement if a district amends its existing contract to conform to the
1982 act. Districts not electing to amend their contract remain subject to prior law. except that
water may be delivered to their land holdings in excess of 160 acres only at full cost (the
"hcramier clause"). Deliveries to holdings in excess of 960 acres eune also authorized, but only if
such excess lemds are subject to a recordable contract requiring dispiosal of the excess lands
within a reasonable time.

Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildiye Management Act. Directs the Secretary to formulate
£md implement a fish and wildlife restoration program designed to restore fish and wildlife
populations to levels which existed before construction of Trinity River Division facilities;
directs Secretary to enter into MOU with state, local agencies, and Native American tribes to
implement activities not in Secretary's jurisdiction: establishes Trinity River Basin Fish and
Wildlife task force. P.L. 98-541: 97 Stat. 2721 (1984).

Central Valley Project Improvement Act. Title XXXIV of P.L. 102-575 (1992). This act
reauthorizes the CVP to include fish and wildlife among Project purposes, and directs the
Secretary of the Interior to undertake a nimaber of specified actions to protect and restore
anadromous fish and wildlife habitat, and to dedicate specified amounts of water for that
purpose. The act prohibits new CVP water supply contracts until the specified fish and wildlife
restoration activities cire carried out and the SWRCB completes the review of Delta water quality
studies required by the RcuxmeUi decision (see Bay-Delta section of text). The Secretary must
prepare a programmatic envirorunental impact statement on the impacts of fish and wildlife
restoration and renewal of existing water supply contracts. Until that EIS is done, existing
contracts can be renewed for an initial interim period of three years and subsequent interim
periods of two years. Thereafter, the Secretary must renew contracts for a 25-year period, and
may renew contracts for subsequent 25-year periods. The act also authorizes marketing of CVP
water outside the CVP area (see Water Transfer section belov^. subject to a first right of refusal
within the CVP and other specified criteria, and it requires the Secretary to develop water
conservation standards for the CVP.

364 Appendix A

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Following is a summary of environmental statutes not covered In Chapter 2.

Federal

National Historic Preservation Act. 16 U.S.C. Section 470 et seq. This act directs Secretary of
the Interior to expand and maintain a National Register of Historic places and establishes
criteria for state historic preservation programs. It provides for grants and loans for the
preservation of eligible properties and requires federal agencies to take into account the effect of
a proposed federal undertaking or assistance on sites, buildings, or objects included or eligible
for Inclusion in the National Register. It also establishes a number of specific responsibilities for
Federal agencies to assume for historic properties which they own or control.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. P.L. 96-95; 93 Stat. 721; 16 U.S.C.
Section 470 aa et seq. This act requires a Federal permit to disturb or remove any
archaeological resource from specified federal lands, including national forests and wildlife
refuges, and lands included in a National Park or under the jurisdiction of the Smithsonian
Institution.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-pensation, and Liability Act of 1980. P.L.
96-510; 94 Stat. 2772; 26 U.S.C. Section 4611 et seq; 42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et seq. This act
confers broad authority on the EPA to clean up or order the cleanup of hazardous substance
contamination through removal or remedial actions and establishes liability for potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) to either carry out or fund cleanup actions. It sets up a National
Priority List of the most seriously contaminated sites and creates a "Superfund" to help finance
cleanups. The EPA may order PRPs or seek court orders compelling PRP's to undertake response
actions to abate threats to heath, public welfare, or the environment. The act provides civil and
criminal penalties for violations.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq. This act regulates
the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste through a
"cradle to grave" record -keeping process and Includes a corrective-action program to clean up
spills and releases.

State

Hazardous Waste Control Law. Cal. Health & Safety Code Section 25300 et seq. Regulates
hazardous waste from time of generation to final disposal and governs State program pursuant
to the federal RCRA.

Underground Storage Tank Act. Cal. Health & Safety Code Section 25280 et seq. Regulates
construction, permitting, and monitoring of underground storage tanks in lieu of provisions
under the federal RCRA.

Toxic Pits Cleanup Act. Cal. Health & Safety Code Section 25208 et seq. Regulates surface
impoundments of liquid hazardous wastes to protect drinking water supplies.

Hazardous Substance Account Act. Health & Safety Code Section 25300 et seq. Authorizes
State to oversee cleanups of hazardous contamination and establishes a fund to assist in paying
cleanup costs.

Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Act. Health & Safety Code Section 25299. 10
et seq. Establishes fund for cleanups of leaking underground petroleum tanks and governs
State program pursucint to federal RCRA provisions pertaining to underground petroleum
tcmks.

A.4 Several Acts
Regulating Activities
Affecting the
Environment

Appendix A

365

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

366 y^pendix A

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Appendix B

Background

While developing The California Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160-93, the Department of Water
Resources actively sought the public's involvement. An outreach advisory committee of represen-
tatives from urban, agricultural, and environmental interests was established in July 1992 to
guide the Department of Water Resources in preparing the plan. The committee met regularly to
comment on the work in progress. In addition, the California Water Commission held hearings
in each of the State's ten hydrologic regions during January and early February 1994 to receive
comments about the November 1993 draft update. After considering comments received from
over one hundred individuals who attended the hearings, the Commission developed several rec-
ommendations. These recommendations provided added policy guidance for the final water plan
update and are shown In the following copy of the April 1, 1994, memorandum from the Com-
mission to the Department.

This appendix summarizes comments received from December 1993 through mid-February
1994. It is the result of sifting through over a thousand pages of documents acquired at the hear-
ings and throughout the comment period. While most commentators complimented the
Department on the breadth and quality of the report, concerns and Issues were raised and are
summarized here.

The majority of the comments revealed groupings of concerns that were commonly repeated but
worded in varying ways; these are abridged below. Summaries of comments addressing the draft
plan in its entirety are under The Plan as a Whole; the rest are ordered according to the parts of
Bulletin 160-93. Comments that were uncommon are in the MiscefZaneous section of this appen-
dix. At the end of each summary are the sections or chapters in the bulletin that address the
subject of the comment. Specific comments about wording or suggested technical changes and
corrections were considered and included, where appropriate, in the final plan; however, these
comments are not reproduced here due to space limitations. Copies of all the written comments
received are available for readers to review at any of the Department's district offices. (See the
end of this appendix for their addresses.)

Public Comments
on the Draft
California Water
Plan Update

Appendix B

367

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

« Report of the California Water Commission: Hearings on the Draft

California Water Plan Update

State of California The Resources Agency

Memorandum

Date : April 1, 1994

To David N. Kennedy

Director

From : CAUFORNIA WATER COMMISSION

Subject : Report of the California Water Commission on Hearings Held on the November. 1 993
Draft of the California Water Plan Update

Members of the California Water Commission conducted ten hearings on the
Department of Water Resources draft of Bulletin 160-93, California Water Plan Update
("Draft"). These hearings were held in January and early February of this year in each of
the State's ten major hydrologic regions. This memorandum summarizes some of the
major issues raised at the hearings, and it sets forth the Conmiission's comments and
observations. Specific recommendations are shown in italics.

1. Advisory Committee. The Commission believes that the efforts of the Bulletin 160
Advisory Committee members contributed to the overall breadth amd quality of the
Draft. The Commission recommends that the Department consider convening a similar
committee on a continuing basis to assist in the preparation of updates to Bulletin 160
and more frequent periodic updates of the water balance studies. The Commission also
recommends that the Department consider utilizing the assistance of such a committee
in the development of an appropriate action plan, to meet future needs, including
facilitating the development of local plans.

2. Fixing the Delta. A majority of the witnesses concurs that the current impasse
concerning Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta issues must be resolved. The
Commission recognizes that achieving and maintaining a viable ecosystem in the
Bay-Delta Estuary is an essential near-future and long-term objective of California's
water policy. Achieving reasonable consensus among all interests concerned about
the Delta is essential to California's environment and its economy. It must be made
to work for both water visers and the environment, or it wUJ not work well for
either. Some witnesses pointed out that fixing the Delta will be very expensive.
While this may be true, the Commission believes that, regardless of cost, we must
achieve a Delta fix to maintain the State's economy and meet the needs of its
j>eople and its environment.

• The Commission recommends that an ecosystem approach be taken in developing a
solution to the problems of the Bay-Delta estuary. Due consideration needs to be
given to the impacts of water projects, but not to the exclusion of other
significant factors which contribute to the problems of the Delta, including the
proliferation of harmful non-native species, water quality, impacts on riverine
habitat and wetlands and local and worldwide fishing pressure, both legal and
illegal.

368 Appendix B

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Report of the California Water Commission (continued)

David N. Kennedy
April 1, 1994
Page 2

• Achieving reasonable consensus on a long-term solution to the problems of the
Delta will require close cooperation among a number of State and Federal
agencies, as well as water users, fishery interests and other affected parties. The
Commission supports the approach taken by the Governor's Bay-Delta Oversight
Council and it concurs with others in recognizing that the process should be
broadened to include participation by Federal agencies.

• Several speakers made the point that some Delta resources, such as its fisheries
and recreational benefits are of value to the entire State and should be funded
from State general funds (eg. general obligation bonds) rather than exclusively
from the water users. The Commission believes that this issue should be
considered and debated at an early date. It should be stressed that this issue
transcends the completion of Bulletin 160 - 93; and the Commission is not
recommending that the Bulletin address this issue, per se. The Commission
recommends that, as a part of achieving reasonable consensus, serious study and
debate be given to determine which California interests are beneficiaries of specific
Delta resources and accordingly, which interests should contribute to the costs of
rectifying current problems of the Bay-Delta estuary.

• The Draft properly recognizes that water transfers will form a part of the State's
system for allocating Level I future water supplies, obtaining a reasonable
amount of water from voluntary transfers depends on achieving a Delta fix.
Meeting present and future contractual commitments and water needs from the
Federal Central Valley Project and the State Water Project also require a
completely viable Delta ecosystem. The Commission recommends that projections
of future water transfers include, where appropriate, a corresponding reference to the
need for a Delta fix, which is imperative to the success of water transfers on any
significant scale.

3. Urgency of current shortages and the need for future supplies. Most witnesses

stated and the Commission concurs that the Draft does not adequately describe the
shortfall between available supplies and water needs, both now and in the near
future. They noted that the general tone of the Draft does not fully convey the
urgency of present and near-term water needs.

• The Draft appUes 1990 water supply conditions which have been subsequently
impacted by Delta criteria imposed by the administration of the Endangered
Species Act and proposed administration of the Oean Water Act. This is
understandable, because the most recent changes projxDsed for Federal criteria
occurred on December 15 1993, after the Draft was released. Tlie Commission
recognizes that the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed water quality

Appendix B

369

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Report of the California Water Commission (continued)

David N. Kennedy
April 1, 1994
Page 3

standards are not now in effect and may be modified. It also needs to be
recognized that the method of implementing any such standards is uncertain.
Accordingly, the Commission is not recommending that Bulletin 160 speculate on
the sp)ecific impacts of the projxjsed standards or the quantities of water involved
since the impacts probably would occur within the Draft's demand/supply water
balance range of 1 to 3 million acre feet (see Table 12-6). Nonetheless, the
Bulletin should recognize in some appropriate manner that the proposed
standards, Endangered Sjjecies Act requirements and other administrative
actions have reduced supplies available in recent years and have the jxjtential for
further significant reductions in the availability of water for consumptive uses.
Subject to the above considerations, the Commission recommends that the Draft
consider the potential impacts of the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed
December 15 Clean Water Act criteria, current administration of the Endangered
Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service, as well as other criteria imposed by the Stale Water Resources Control
Board and other administrative agencies.

• The Commission recommends that the Department prepare periodic updates of the
water balance studies, comparing the availability of water supplies with water needs,
whenever there are significant changes in potentially applicable operational criteria
affecting (he major water projects.

4. Economic issues. Many speakers pointed out that water shortages adversely affect
California's economy, and they argued that the Draft did not provide sufficient
economic analysis of the impacts of urban, agricultural and environmental water
shortages.

• The Commission recognizes that performing detailed economic studies would
unreasonably delay the completion of Bulletin 160-93. Nonetheless, the Plan
could further highlight that water shortages have adverse economic effects. Tlie
Commission recommends that the Plan include a recommendation for additional
future funding for the Department to provide economic analysis for future updates.
This should include anafysis of the costs required for Level II options which could
reduce anticipated water shortages.

5. Environmental Water Needs. A number of sp>eakers specifically complimented the
Department for including environmental water needs as a part of the statewide
water use data. The Commission supports the inclusion of these data.

• To the extent practicable, the Commission recommends that environmental water
use data be included in Bulletin 160-93 and that they he separated into sub-
categories, such as wild and scenic rivers, fisheries and wetlands.

370

Appendix B

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Report of the California Water Commission (continued)

David N. Kennedy
April 1, 1994
Page 4

• A number of sfjeakers noted that most needs of water for most consumptive uses
and non-consumptive uses, such as hydroelectric p>ower and recreation, can be
specifically quantified; however, the needs of water to sustain fisheries and
endangered species have not been satisfactorily quantified. There is a substantial
lack of good scientific bases to support the quantities asserted to be desirable by
some fishery interests. The Commission believes that there is a serious need to
address this issue and to encourage research and dialogue among Federal and
State agencies, as well as private research groups, water users, fishery interests
and other interested parties. The Commission believes that the Bulletin should
note the need to quantify environmental water needs, particularly fisheries, based
upon sound science.

6. Urban and domestic water use issues.

• A number of speakers urged that water rationing for drought demand
management be treated as a Level II option rather than Level I. The
Commission concurs with the Department's treatment of voluntary rationing as a
Level I issue, but the Bulletin should emphasize that the choice of demand
reduction measures, as well as iheir magnitude and timing, is a decision which each
water supplier should make, based upon its water conservation plan, supply
availability and other relevant factors.

• Some speakers stated that the Plan should analyze the impact of the new Federal
drinking water regulations. The Commission believes that this very significant
issue is beyond the scope of Bulletin 160, and need not be analyzed in finali2:ing
the Bulletin.

• Some speakers jwinted out that the mountain counties face unique water supply
problems due to rapid residential growth and limited surface and ground water
supplies. The Department should consider appropriate additions to Volume II of
the Draft (Regional Issues) to identify the problems faced by the mountain counties
in meeting their present and future needs.

7. Agricultural water use issues.

• Speakers representing agricultural interests pointed out that the Draft should
include recognition that a growing population in California and elsewhere will
require a substantial increase in food supply, whether it is grown in California or
elsewhere. The Commission recognizes that the issue of food supply involves a
number of complex State and Federal p>olicies, both domestic and international,
which are beyond the scope of Bulletin 160. However, the inclusion of this p>oint
would serve to remind policy planners of the relationship of food production to

Appendix B

371

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Report of the Califomfa Water Commission (continued)

David N. Kennedy
April 1. 1994
Page 5

the State's economy. The Commission recommends that Bulletin 160-93 incbtde
an a/ipropriate iHscussion nMch addresses the issues of meeting food suppfy needs,
which dioutd be considered in setting fiaure poBcy, and duu die demand for
developed water for agricubtirul use mof need to be reconsidered when the State
develops this poBiy as to hom ttus need wBt be met.

Water TraiMfcrs.

• Sevnal speakers stated that the Draft does not indude an adequate
identificaticMi oX potential future \v-ater transfeis, both shcHt-term and long-term.
The Onnmission believes that water transfers are an important part of the
aDocatiafi of the State's water suf^ly. However, transfers should be vcduntary,
undertakra between willing buyers and sellers. In addition, careful attmtion
needs to be paid to the potential impacts oi a transfer on other lawful users of
water, cm fish and wildlife, and on the overaB eccMKxny and environment of the
area firom which the water would be transferred. Every proposed transfer is
unique and must be evaluated separately cm its merits and f6r its potential
inqncts. According, the Commission beeves that BuBetin 160 should not
^/eadate on specific sources for fiaure transfers.

Ground Water Overdraft. A number of sjieakers pointed out that the Draft does
not adequately address the problem of continuing overdraft in the State. Some
indicated that they believe the estimates in the San Joaquin and Tulare Lake
hydrcdogic regions app>ear to be too low.

• The Commission recommends that the Draft's discusaon of ground water overdraft
be revised to make it clearer that continuing overdraft is a major problem which
needs to be resolved. The Dqxtrtmera should review the Plan's treatmeru of
overdraft in the San Joaquin and Tulare Lake Basins and clar^ the discussion of
die bases of projected overdntfL

• Ovndraft is an unfortunate result of eadsting practices; it is not a resource which
can be included in water supply ftnecasts. The Commission Recommends that
avetdiuft should ruM be considered as a part of the fiaure aven^ year or drought
year water supplies.

• The Conunission concurs with several speakos «^io pcnnted out that, in many
areas, intTeasing agricultural water use efiBcieny wiD reduce groimd water
rediarge. Thus, in such areas where both surEa<:e water and ground water are
used, increased agricultural water use efiicieiKy may decrease conjunctive use
potential.

372

Appendix B

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Report of the California Water Commission (continued)

David N. Kennedy
April 1, 1994
Page 6

10. Long-term Carryover Storage.

• While a number of Level I options will come into play in meeting California's
present and future needs, the Commission believes that additional long-term
carryover storage will be a key component in meeting future needs during critical
drought periods. The Commission recommends that the Department consider
placing greater emphasis in Bulletin 160-93 on the need for additional long-term
carryover storage both in surface reservoirs and in conjunctive operation of ground
water basins.

• The Commission also recommends that the Department consider seeking funding to
investigate the feasibility of developing additional long term carryover storage on the
west side of the Sacramento Valley.

The Commission appreciates the opportunity to participate in the development of
Bulletin 160. We commend the Department's staff for its substantial efforts in organizing
the hearings, as well as the considerable amount of work in preparing the Draft. We
look forward to publication of the final document.

Audrey Z. Tennis
Chair

Appendix B

373

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

The Plan as a Whole

The majority of the comments about the plan as a whole centered around the use of the State
Water Resources Control Board's Decision 1485 as the basis for assumptions about future £il-
locations and water project operations. Many comments stated that DWR should instead be
using current biological opinions for the winter-run salmon and Delta smelt, along with U.S.
EPA-proposed water quality standards for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, as the base case
for projections of future operations and water allocations. Related to the comments about the
base case were questions asking how the State Water Project would meet its contractucil obliga-
tions in the future and what the State's role would be in implementing the options described in
the plan.

Other comments received about the plan in general suggested that it should contain much more
detailed information about specific projects or actions that should or could be implemented,
their costs, who would manage or oversee the projects and programs, and how they would be
financed. Several organizations suggested that the plan should include more information about
agricultural drainage disposal problems, water recycling, desalination, and conjunctive use. Fol-
lowing are summaries of the most frequent comments and the sections or chapters where the
subjects are addressed.

The Base Case

□ Regulatory actions have already made the plan's base case obsolete. Today, biological opin-
ions for the winter-run salmon and Delta smelt control operations of the State Water Project
and Central Valley Project, [chs. 1, 2, and 12]

□ Using the State Water Resources Control Board's Water Right Decision 1 485 as the basis for
this planning document presents an overly optimistic picture. Instead, use current biologi-
cal opinions and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards for Delta water quality as
the base case. [chs. 1, 2, and 12j

The State's Role

□ The State should develop a management framework for implementing a long-term strategy
for protecting the environment and meeting urban and agricultural water needs. At the
least, the plan should include facilities' costs and financing alternatives for each area of the
State and a discussion of the constraints to building facilities and of institutional impedi-
ments (State and federal) which need to be eliminated or modified, [chs. 2, 10, 1 1, and 12]

□ The State's role in implementing Level I options is not clear. [Options for Enhancing Water
Supply Reliability, Water Supply Management Options, and Table 1 1-5 in ch. 11]

□ Nowhere in the document is there any assessment of institutional capability, no evaluation
of the water planning process, nor consideration of the role of special districts in water
management, [ch. 2; Management of Ground Water Resources and Adjudicated Basins in ch.
4; Delta Planning Programs and Long-Term Delta Planning Programs in ch. 10; and Reliability
Planning: Maintaining the Balance Between Water Supply in ch. 1 Ij

□ The Bulletin 160 series has traditionally been the vehicle for the State to fulfill Article 16(c)
of the State Water Service Contract wherefore the State is required to demonstrate its plan
for developing project facilities and programs to meet the State Water Contractors' de-
mands. The draft bulletin fails to satisfy this requirement, [ch. 2; SWP Water Supply
Augmentation in the Water Supply Management Options in ch. 11]

□ The plan should be revised to include a discussion of how the State will meet its State Water
Project contractual obligations now and in the future. [Water Supply Management Options
section in ch. 11]

□ Be clear that local solutions are best achieved by loccil water agencies, [ch. 1 1]

□ Encourage the development of consistent water reliability standards that are flexible
enough to accommodate local, regional, and state water purveyors, [chs. 1 and 1 1]

□ Tables should include years 2000 and 2010 projections, [chs. 1, 12, Vol. II Summary: de-
mand tables in chs. 6 through 8; tables in Vol. II]

□ At a minimum, DWR should aggressively pursue both short- and long-term water pur-
chases, [ch. 1 1)

374 Appendix B

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Specific Projects or Programs and Their Costs

J The plan does not contain specific projects or actions to be implemented. Detailed recom-
mendations and specific implementation measures are lacking, especially in the areas of
recycled water, conjunctive use, and most importantly, a physical "Delta fix." (chs. 10 and
11]

J The draft bulletin does not present a complete analysis of the costs of or required financing
for assuring reliable water supplies or implementing Level I options, nor does it address the
costs and consequences of not implementing Level I options. It contains no financing alter-
natives and no designations of authority, (chs. 10. 11. and 12]

J Agricultural drainage problems are not fully discussed, no solutions are discussed, and the
disposal problem is not addressed. The plan should include a discussion of Kesterson Reser-
voir and the carrying of drainage water through Morro Bay to the ocean, and there should
be more discussion about the San Joaquin Valley salinity problem. [Management Programs
in ch. 2: ch. 5; Drainage and Salinity and Drainage Reduction in ch. 7; Level II— Reliability
Enhancement Options in ch. 1 1]

_l There is virtually no discussion of desalination. The State should provide leadership in de-
veloping this water source. [Sea Water Desalination in ch. 3; Water Supply Management
Options in ch. 11; and Vol. II chs. on the North, Central, and South Coast regions)

_l The bulletin makes no mention of potable reuse, which has a potential supply of more than
one million acre-feet a year by 2020. [Water Recycling in ch. 3. Level I and Level II—Reliaba-
ity Enhancement Options in ch. 11]

3 The Water Recycling Act of 199 1 should be included in Chapter 2. [Water Use E£iciency in
ch. 2]

Zi The whole section on conjunctive use will benefit from a more complete exploration of this
phenomenon. The draft bulletin's conjunctive use section sounds pessimistic and lacks any
tables or figures on what conjunctive use efficiencies have been created in the past decade
and what can be predicted in the future. [Conjunctive Use Programs in ch. 4]

Water Supply

A few comments asked why flood control had not been addressed, and several entities suggested
that the bulletin's discussion of how the 1987-92 drought affected local communities be expand-
ed. Following are summaries of the more general water supply comments.

^ The draft bulletin focuses on water supply problems. Flooding problems for the state would
seem to have a significcmt, if not comparable, average impact on the state. Planning for
floods and droughts are not mutually exclusive. Maintaining flood storage capacity in reser-
voirs Ccm reduce the amount of water supply available at the beginning of a drought. Land
drainage and local flood control might also significantly affect aquifer recharge in some
areas. A similar trade-off can arise between hydropower releases and water supply op>era-
tions. Ich. 3]

^ Not enough attention is being paid to local supplies being developed by many agencies
throughout the state. Go out to local agencies and assess the projects, [chs. 3 and 1 1 and

Vol. 11]

Ground Water

3 The importance of imported water supplies in reducing ground water overdraft is overstated
as compared to contributions from local supplies. Prudent management of all available sup-
plies during wet years [1980s] is as much responsible for reducing overdraft as imjxjrted
supplies. [Ground Water Overdraft in ch. 4]

Q The draft plan's ground water quantities are misleading, and the potential for recharge is
overstated, especially when you consider how improved irrigation efficiencies and urban
conservation measures reduce the amount of water available for recharge. The bulletin as-
sumes there will be adequate surface water supplies, as well as conveyance capacity, to
replenish ground water basins. However, there will be less surface water available for re-
charge, especially in areas depending on imported supplies, (ch. 4]

Appendix B 375

Bulletin 160-93 TTie California Water Plan Update

3 TTie draft update should mention and emphasize the impact of surface land use decisions on
aquifer rechaiige. Recharging basins is not merely a matter of constructing facilities. It is
also a matter of protecting the best existing natural recharge areas. [Management oJGwund
Water Resources in ch. 4]

□ Table 4-2 as computed for the 1990 level is not realistic, [ch. 4J

□ The total estimated extraction, jjerennial yield, overdraft. £ind usable storage for each
hydrologic r^on should be listed in Table 4-2. (ch. 4)

3 The impacts of current and future ground water substitution need to be addressed. |Con-
Junctive Use Programs in ch. 41

3 The plan's ground water overdraft projections are too low. To accept that 5.5 meif of applied
ground water returns to the basins through reuse and deep percolation may be unrealistic
and the reason for the error in ground water overdraft. A string of wet years in the early
1980s, an abundance of SWP water available to contractors, and the subsequent increase
in artificial ground water recharge is responsible for much of the recovery. Over the last
years of the 1987-92 drought there was some indication that our basins were receding and
they may not completefy recover. Elxpand the discussion about overdraft- [Ground Water
Overdrqfi. in ch. 41

3 By using ground water overdraft as a source of supply, rather than as a striking indicator
of a chronic water shortage, the draft bulletin leads to the erroneous conclusion that cur-
rent supplies can meet current dememds. [E^jostiixg Water Management Programs and
Califomia Water Balance in ch. 12]

□ The recommendations in the Ground Water Supplies chapter are simplistic and so general as
to be of little veJue to policy meikers. Specific ground water management recommendations
need to be part of the plan. The whole section on conjunctive use would benefit fi-om a more
complete exploration of its potential. [Coryunctive Use Programs in ch. 4 and Water Supply
Management Options in ch. 1 IJ

3 Discuss ways to simplify acquisition and delivery of available water to local ground water
basins. [Coryunctive Use Programs in ch. 4 and Water Supply Management Options In ch. 11)

□ The discussion of subsidence is inadequate, [ch. 41

Water Use

Several organizations disagreed with the draft buUetin's water demand forecasts in each of the
categories of use: urban, agricultural, and en\ironmental. Comments also suggested that the
bulletins population forecasts were too high. Some commented that the reported water con-
servation potential for urban emd agricultural uses was too high, while others stated that It was
too low. In addressing the draft bulletin's forecasts about agricultural water use. several entitles
disagreed with the forecasted amount of acres that would be retired fi-om agricultural produc-
tion. Comments about enviroimiental water use said that Wild and Scenic Rivers should not be
included as an envirormaental water use and that the range of projected Avater use was either too
high or too low. Other conmients regarding the en\Tronment suggested that the draft bulletin
had not adequately discussed non-water-project causes of fishery declines, how water project
operations have benefited aquatic species, and the water use problems afi"ecting the Salton Sea.

Urixin Water Use

a The draft bulletin's urban water use projections are too high. [Urixm Water Use Forecasts In
ch. 6]

□ The population forecast should be presented as a range and could be too high considering
the cvirrent economic recession. [Population Growth in ch. 6]

3 The bulletin's urban water conservation projections are too high. Show total applied water
instead of net water demands. [Urban Water Conservation in ch. 6]

-^ It's possible to have increasing water demand without an increase in number of dwelling
units. [Per Capita Water Use in ch. 6]

a The severity of drought impacts on memy smedl conmiunities is significantly understated
and needs to be revised, [ch. 6 and Economic Costs oj Unreliability in ch. 12)

376 Appendix B

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Agricultural Water Use

□ The draft plan's agricultural water use projections are too high. [2020 Agricultural Water
Demand in ch. 7]

□ The bulletin's agricultural water conservation projections are too high. Show total applied
water instead of net water demands. [Agricultural Water Conservation in ch. 7]

□ Include a range of up to 78-percent irrigation efficiency from the current level of 70 percent.
The projected amount of water conserved from implementation of drainage programs is too
low. Discuss the impact of water scarcity on cropping patterns and prices, and how pricing
will affect agricultural water use. [Agricultural Water Conservation in ch. 7]

□ The bulletin's view toward the potential for taking less productive irrigated acreage out of
production is limited. In addition to discussing the Impact of Central Valley urbanization,
the bulletin should also address the effect of the increased cost of water in response to scar-
city. [Agricultural Acreage Forecast and 2020 Agricultural Water Demand in ch. 7]

□ The coverage of agricultural water use is cast in a different, and less positive, light than
urban or environmental water uses. Point out to readers that agriculture is but one of many
industries in California, just as many of the water uses in the urban grouping are indus-
trial. Agriculture is not the only industry which must solve challenging water problems for
continued success, (ch. 7]

Volume I contains only one paragraph on land retirement as an "option for reducing water
supply and demand." It would not be unreasonable to retire between 100,000 to 200,000
acres of land in just the SWP service area within the next decade. The net water demand
reduction resulting from retirement of these lands would provide approximately 400,000
acre-feet per year of firm yield, which is equal to the combined firm-yield from proposed Los
Banos Grandes facilities and the completed Kern Water Bank. [San Joaquin Valley Drainage
Program in ch. 7 and Level II — Reliability Enhancement Options in ch. 1 1]

□ The only way that it makes any sense to retire that land is if you accept that there is no way
to solve the drainage problem. Technically, the drainage problem is quite easy to resolve.
The political decisions must be made and leadership must be provided to remove the institu-
tional roadblocks and the $ 1 70 million-per-year economy can go on forever. [San Joaquin
Valley Drainage Program in ch. 7 and Level II — Reliability Enhancement Options in ch. 11 1

J No mention was made of the great environmental benefits that fcirms in this state provide
to waterfowl and wildlife. Without the irrigation water to grow crops, waterfowl and wildlife
on the farms would also suffer. No mention was made regarding the millions of jobs agricul-
ture provides to the people of this state in agriculture-related industries, (chs. 7 and 8]

□ Generally, the forecast that agricultural water use will decline by 2.3 maf annually by 2020
carries with it a potential danger. This prophecy could become self-fulfilling in that the
State's attention will become more focused on providing for expanding environmental and
urban uses and less focused on providing water for agricultural use. [2020 Agricultural Wa-
ter Demand in ch. 7]

Environmental Water Use

3 The tone toward environmental water use is negative; the plan seems to be blaming the
environment for projected shortages, [chs. 1, 2, 8, cmd 12]

J Better environmental science is needed in assessing environmental water needs. The evalu-
ation must be based upon data as sound as that used for urban and agricultural demands.
The biological science used for fish flow and other decisions is questionable. Additional
studies should be conducted prior to the next bulletin. [Environmental Instream Flows in ch.
8]

J The bulletin does not adequately explain the impact that nonproject factors have had on
environmental declines in the Delta and fails to point out that, even with reductions in ex-
port pumping, environmental declines may continue because of the ciltered conditions in
the Delta. [Bay-Delta Estuary in ch. 8)

Zl The draft update portrays environmental water needs on the basis that they are on the rise
and that water to meet such needs will be forthcoming. Unlike the urbEin and agricultural

Appendix B 377

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

water use sections, however, there is no discussion of how economic factors will influence
t the State's ability to satisfy these needs. While the adverse impacts of water development for

urban and agricultural uses are implicated, the benefits thereof for the environment (stored
water and controlled releases), particularly in drought periods, are not discussed. [Biological
Resources and Processes in ch. 8]

^ The bulletin does not consider the environmental water needed for the Salton Sea. Although
the conservation of irrigation flows historically discharging to the Salton Sea will lower the
sea's levels, federal or State regulation requirements may impose mandatory levels for the
Salton Sea and require an allocation of water from the Colorado River. [Colorado River Re-
gion in Vol. II]

Meeting California's Water Needs

Most of the comments received focused on the subject of meeting California's future water needs
and on the draft bulletin's water supply and demand balance figures. Some commented about
the reported benefits from the options, stating that the benefits were either too high or too low
and that the costs of implementing options were not adequately analyzed. Other comments sug-
gested that the bulletin was too optimistic about implementation of the options without a
specific action plan.

The comments that addressed water transfers were almost evenly split between encouraging
transfers and the consequences of water trcmsfers. Some suggested that the draft plan did not
sufficiently emphasize water transfers as an option, while others thought the Department of Wa-
ter Resources was encouraging water transfers and should not depend too heavily on transfers
to help close the gap between supply and demand. Several entities commented that the state-
wide water distribution system's capacity to implement more transfers is lacking. j

Finally, some commented that the rep>orted shortages in the water supply and demand balances
were overstated, while others said the projected shortages would be more severe than the draft
bulletin projected. Comments about the water balance also stated that the draft plan implied
future shortages are manageable: quite a few expressed reservations about whether the reported
options would be implemented and suggested the reported supply benefits from the options were
overstated.

Many of the comments about supply indicated that the draft plan had not conveyed the imme-
diacy of impending water shortages; some stated that the drgift bulletin's projections of future
supply shortages were too low, while others stated the shortages would not likely be as large as
the bulletin projected.

The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta

:j The costs of fixing the Delta, emd of other water management actions, should be analyzed
and shared by all causing parties and investors in the system on a prorated basis. Delta
problems are caused by many different factors and entities, not just SWP and CVP diver-
sions. [Current Delta Regulatory Decision-Making Process in ch. 101

Options

^ Projections for reclaimed water were low. [Optionsjor Enhancir^ Water Supply Reliability in
ch. 11)

:j Urban drought rationing should not be considered a demand management strategy. The
way in which the draft bulletin includes urban rationing understates the actual shortage
remaining after implementing Level 1 options. Urban rationing should be considered a Level
II option, not a Level I option, (ch. 1 1]

□ The bulletin did not provide evidence or jjerform economic and environmental analyses to
support the assertion that 10-percent urban rationing above the implementation of BMPs is
"manageable" and would not cause significant economic impact. Therefore, urban rationing
should not be considered a Level I option, which is defined as those "that have undergone
extensive investigation and environmental analyses." (chs. 1 1 and 12)

Zi It is important to realize that future rationing will be difficult to implement as the so-called
"fat" in water use is gone. A 10- or 15-p>ercent water rationing in year 2000 is not going to
be nearly as easy as a similar reduction in 1990, as mentioned in the dreift update, (ch. 1 1]

378 Appendix B

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

□ Implementation of options must begin now. (ch. 1)

□ Quantily the economic impacts of unreliability, [ch. 1 1)

□ State that implementation of Level I options is uncertain, and implementation for many of
them has not begun. No specific agency has been designated to take charge of Bulletin
160-93 recommendations. There is no clear path of authority or direction to implement cor-
rective action or even initiate its recommendations, (ch. 1]

□ The accomplishments of supply augmentation options may be overstated, (ch. 1 11

□ The plan is too optimistic regarding the completion of the Los Banos Grandes project and
the Kern Water Bank. [ch. 1 1]

□ The effect of price increases is not mentioned as a management option. The demand projec-
tions assume constant prices yet demonstrate that water prices cannot remain constant.
Recent changes to the Federal Reclamation Program have increased the price of water to
CVP contractors; this is one example of government policy raising the price of water. The
CVP contract renewal process and the upcoming regulations on the Reclamation Reform
Act, which could affect the price of water to irrigation districts throughout the San Joaquin
Valley are other important examples. Failure to make ciny attempt to factor in the effect of
price increases will inevitably lead to an overstated gap between supplies and demands. At
the very least, the bulletin should recognize the effect of price on demand and use available
data, for example on agricultural and urban price elasticities, to esUmate how future price
increases can be expected to moderate demands, [chs. 1 1 and 12]

□ Include analyses and cost estimates of Level 11 options, [ch. 1 1]

□ DWR includes under Level I the Auburn Flood Control Dam, with no water supply savings
from Folsom Reservoir. Included in Level II is reuse of brackish agricultural drainage and
conjunctive use, which are both sources of supply in certain areas now. Why are these
sources not considered Level I options? [ch. 1 1]

J The plan should recognize that the "ultimate potential" for recycled water production is the
total waste water discharge stream. Today that figure is over 2.5 maf that is discharged to
coastal waters. DWR is a partner with the USBR and a number of WateReuse member agen-
cies in two studies whose objective is to take all of the unused waste water in California and
put it to beneficial reuse. The water plan should show a range of 1.3 to 2.0 maf for the ulti-
mate potential for water recycling, [ch. 1 1]

J The projections for reclaimed water are low compared to others we have seen and found
credible, [ch. 1 1]

J Level I projections for recycled water use are based on Water Recycling 2000 projections for
fresh water displaced. This is not an appropriate basis for projecting future recycled water
supplies, and the 1993 WateReuse Association survey for "future water recycling potential"
should be used instead, [ch. 1 1]

J Supplies from Level II options are not quantified in the water balance; the total need for
Level II supplies is determined to be the shortage remaining after Level 1. The Level I option
of rationing is economically harmful; increased shortages remaining after Level I programs
point to an increased need for Level II supplies. Inclusion of urban rationing as a Level II
option instead of a Level I option would correct this problem, [ch. 12]

□ The figure of 1 , 140,200 as the ten-year average storage in New Melones is being used as the
average river inflow and, thus, as the availability for allocation and distribution. There is no
way that all the water behind New Melones could be totally allocated or used. There is a
minimum pool that cannot ever be used. The storage, or average storage, is a function of the
management of the reservoir and includes water that has already been allocated or held in
reserve for later diversion and use by others. New Melones yield will be reduced due to: (1)
the CVPIA and other environmental water requirements; (2) demand in the Stanislaus area;
and (3) water used for San Joaquin River water quality purposes. [San Joaquin River Region
in Vol. II]

□ There was no mention of metering as an option; even if it were only partially implemented
by 2020, it could provide additional savings. There are greater savings possible in the indus-
trial/commercial and governmental sectors as well. Again, the effect of pricing increases is
not factored in. [chs. 6 and 1 1]

Appendix B 379

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

□ Suggest that there be State funding available for Implementation of future State-mandated
local water conservation programs, [ch. 6 and ch. Ill

□ The regional water balance tables need a footnote stating, "Additional environmental water
needs and potential rationing have not been included in the table; therefore, shortages dur-
ing drought years may be larger." [ch. 12 and regional tables in Vol. II]

Water Transfers

□ The plan does not include an adequate discussion of the potential for or consequences of
water transfers. The bulletin includes only 800,000 af of transfers throughout the State,
occurring only in drought years. The plan needs to recognize and include as a Level I option
the potential of voluntary water transfers, particularly through the CVPIA. Proper incen-
tives and means of mitigating the impacts associated with transfers should be developed.
California should set the objective of achieving annual transfers to highest use in the range
of 1 to 2 maf or more. [chs. 2 and 1 1]

□ Water transfers cannot be counted as a solution because water cemnot be transported easily
or economically from a distant water source to the place of need; this is especially true of
mountain areas. We are concerned that DWR's efforts would encourage and facilitate trans-
fers on a regular basis. These trEmsfers benefit other areas of the State at the expense of
local economies of regions where water for transfers originate. Transfers of ground water or
use of ground water in lieu of transferred surface water can increase overdraft conditions,
(chs. 2 and 11)

□ Make clear the implications or limitations of area-of-origin rights. Bulletin 160-93 should
state that there is a history of water rights, agreements, and laws that protect the Sacra-
mento Valley as an area of origin from any water leaving the watershed that is otherwise
needed to meet environmental and other beneficial uses. [ch. 2]

□ Water transfers should be included as a supply option for the State Water Project, [ch. 1 1]

□ The State should establish authority to allocate funds to reimburse transfer areas for third-
party impacts due to water transfers. Failure to establish policy that reimburses transfer
areas for third-party impacts may undermine the potential for future transfer arrange-
ments, [ch. 2|

□ DWR, SWRCB, and USBR must develop reasonable procedures for water transfers. Pro-
posed legislation limiting transfers to ten years will have to be changed, [ch. 2]

□ Existing water conveyance facilities have no extra capacity for these transfers and addition-
al conveyance facilities are needed. Further, transfers may be limited by environmental
requirements and other restrictions and opposition, [ch. 1 11

Water Supply and Demand Balance

□ The plan needs to include a best-estimated water balance analysis of the Delta situation as
of December 15, 1993. It presents water balance data as averages on both statewide and
regional bases; this masks the severity of the water shortage situations in some local areas,
[chs. 1 and 12, and Vol. II Summanj]

□ The gap between supply and demand is not likely to be nearly as large as is projected, and
with proper planning, it may not exist at all. [chs. 1, 12, and Vol. II Summary]

□ The plan contains a contradiction. It concludes that water is not quite scarce in the State
but that there is not enough to go around. The only way the projections make sense is if
water crises are constant, [chs. 1 and 12 and Vol. II Summary]

□ The supply accomplishments shown for Level I and Level II supply augmentation options
were taken from previous studies. They were determined based on operational and regulato-
ry constraints in effect at the time those studies were completed. Constraints not
anticipated in those studies have been imposed, and constraints which may yet be imposed,
are likely to reduce the supply benefits shown for some options. The biological opinions, the
CVPLA., and more stringent drinking water quality standards may not only reduce existing
supplies, but may also reduce yield of future supply options, potentially making some op-
tions infeasible. Shortages shown after completion of Level I options may be understated,
[chs. 1 1 and 12]

380 Appendix B

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

□ The need for additional supplies should be more strongly stated, (chs. 1 and 12 and Vol. M
Summary]

□ The plan shows worsening shortages by 2020; these shortages are here today, (chs. 1 and

12 and Vol. II Summary]

□ The supply shortages in the draft plan are not likely to be as large as projected. |ch. 1.12,
and Vol. II Summary]

□ The draft update overestimated drought water supply and did not reflect what really hap-
pened, (chs. 1 and 12; Vol. II Summary]

Miscellaneous

Some of the more uncommon comments were repeated, in slightly different wordings, only a few
times. Topics addressed by these comments were impacts of less water for agriculture, carriage
water and reverse flow in the Delta, the draft bulletin's categories of water use, and the approach
used in cinalyzing water dememd.

□ Is it possible for DWR to: (1) compute the mathematical probability of interruptions in ir-
rigation water flows for 1995-2020; and (2) integrate this data into a sensitivity analysis
measuring the resultant impact on major California agricultural commodities which gener-
ate annual sales approaching $18 billion? [ch. 7)

□ The role of reverse flow in moving salt into the Delta is greatly overestimated by current
models. Draft Bulletin 160-93 notes this to a certain extent where it states: "the massive
amount of tidal action dwarfs the actual fresh water outflow and considerably complicates
the reverse flow Issue." Inclusion of the carriage water model in DWR's planning models
without proper analysis of the underlying uncertainties can lead to erroneous conclusions.
[Reverse Flow and Carriage Water in ch. 10]

_1 These three groupings (urban, agricultural, environmental) are used as a convenient means
to depict the major water uses which are supposedly competing for a limited supply. De-
scribing present and future uses according to these groupings can involve policy
implications which are not properly part of the subject material of DWR's Bulletin 160 se-
ries. Part III should be reviewed with the Intention of rephrasing those sections which
discuss p>olicy implications regcirdtng three water use groupings. (Part III]

_1 We recommend that a clear statement be Included in the preface to convey that the bulletin
reflects the opinions of DWR and the present Governor's application of his water policy.
[Foreword and ch. 1]

;^ The approach in providing only the gross numbers for the entire Central Coast Area makes
It difficult to check or comment on the accuracy of the numbers used in the tables in both
volumes. Break down the water demand and overdraft numbers by detailed analysis units.
[Central Coast Region in Vol. 11]

□ All the regional water balance tables in Volume II should include a footnote stating that
unlike the statewide water balance, shortages indicated in the regional tables do not Include
added environmental needs and drought-year urban rationing. (Vol. II]

Appendix B 381

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

Locations of Department of Water Resources district offices:

Northern District

2440 Main Street
Redding, CA 96080-2398
(916) 529-7300

San Joaquin District

3374 East Shields Avenue
Fresno. CA 93726-6990
(209) 445-5443

Central District

3251 S Street

Sacramento, CA 95816-7017

(916) 445-683

Southern District

770 Fairmount Avenue
Glendale, CA 91203-1035
(818) 543-4600

382

Appendix B

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Glossary

acre-foot (tif) a quantity or volume of water covering one acre to a depth of one foot: equal to
43,560 cubic feet or 325.851 gallons.

active storage capacity the total usable reservoir capacity available for seasonal or cyclic
water storage. It is gross reservoir capacity minus inactive storage capacity.

tifterbay a reservoir that regulates fluctuating discharges from a hydroelectric power plant or a

pumping plant.

agricultural drainage (1) the process of directing excess water away from root zones by
natural or artificial means, such as by using a system of pipes and drains placed below ground
surface level; also called subsurface drainage; (2) the water drained away from irrigated
farmland.

alluvium a stratified bed of sand, gravel, silt, and clay deposited by flowing water.

anadromous pertaining to fish that spend a part of their life cycle in the sea and return to
freshwater streams to spawn.

angler-day the time spent fishing by one person for any part of a day.

applied water demand the quantity of water delivered to the intake of a city's water system or
factory, the farm headgate, or a marsh or other wetland, either directly or by incidental
drainage flows (this is primarily water for wildlife areas). For instream use. it is the portion of
the stream flow dedicated to instream use or reserved under the federal or State Wild and
Scenic Rivers acts.

aquatic algae microscopic plants that grow in sunlit water containing phosphates, nitrates,
and other nutrients. Algae, like edl aquatic plants, add oxygen to the water and are important
in the fish food chain.

aquifer a geologic formation that stores and transmits water and yields significant quantities
of water to wells and springs.

arid a term describing a climate or region in which precipitation is so deficient in quantity or
occurs so infrequently that intensive agricultural production is not possible without irrigation.

artificial recharge addition of surface water to a ground water reservoir by human activity,
such as putting surface water into spreading basins. See also ground water recharge, recharge
basin.

average €uinual runoff for a specified area is the average value of annual runoff amounts
calculated for a selected p>eriod of record that represents average hydrologic conditions.

average year water dem.and demand for water under average hydrologic conditions for a
defined level of development.

average year supply the average annual supply of a water development system over a long
period. For this report, the State Water Project and Central Valley Project average yeeir supply Is
the average annual delivery capability of the projects over a 70-year study period (1922-91).
For a local project without long-term data available, it is the annual average deliveries of the

Glossary 383

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

project during the 1984-1986 period. For dedicated natural flow, it is the long-term average
natural flow for wild and scenic rivers or it is environmental flows as required for an average
year under specific agreements, water rights, court decisions, and congressional directives.

benthic invertebrates aquatic animals without backbones that dwell on or in the bottom
sediments of fresh or salt water. Examples: clams, crayfish, £ind a wide variety of worms.

best mcuiagement practice (BMP) an urban water conservation measure that the California
Urban Water Conservation Coalition agrees to implement among member agencies.

biota all living organisms of a region, as in a stream or other body of water.

brackish water water containing dissolved minerals in amounts that exceed normally
acceptable standards for municipal, domestic, and irrigation uses. Considerably less saline
them sea water.

bromide a salt which naturalty occurs in small quantities in sea water; a compound of
bromine.

chap<irral a major vegetation tyjje in California characterized by dense evergreen shrubs with
thick, hardened leaves.

closed basin a basin whose topography prevents surface outflow of water. It is considered to be
hydrologlcally closed if neither surface nor underground outflow of water can occur.

confined aquifer a water-bearing subsurface stratum that is bounded above and below by
formations of impermeable, or relatively impermeable, soil or rock.

conjunctive use the operation of a ground water basin in combination with a surface water
storage and conveyance system. Water is stored in the ground water basin for later use by
intentionally recharging the basin during years of above-average water supply.

Decision 1485 operating criteria standards for op>eratlng water project facifitles under Water
Right Decision 1485 regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh, adopted
by the State Water Resources Control Board. August 1978.

dedicated natural flow river flows dedicated to environmental use.

deep percolation the percolation of water through the ground and beyond the lower limit of
the root zone of plants into a ground water aquifer.

demand m.anagement cdtematives water management programs — such as water
conservation, drought rationing, or rate incentive programs — that reduce demand for water.

dependable supply the annual average quantity of water that can be delivered during a

drought period.

depletion the water consumed within a service area and no longer available as a source of
supply. For agriculture and wetlands, it is ETAW (and ET of flooded wetlands) plus
irrecoverable losses. For urban water use, it is ETAW (water applied to landscaping or home
gardens), sewage effluent that flows to a salt sink, gmd incidental ETT losses. For instream use.
It is the amount of dedicated flow that proceeds to a salt sink and is not available for reuse.

desalination a process that converts sea water or brackish water to fresh water or an
otherwise more usable condition through removal of dissolved soUds; also called desalting.

detailed analysis unit (DAU) the smallest study area used by Department of Water Resources
for analyses of water demand and supply. Generally defined by hydrologic features or
boundaries of organized water service agencies. In the major agricultural areas, a DAU typically
Includes 100,000 to 300,000 acres.

discount rate the interest rate used in evaluating water (and other) projects to calculate the
present value of future benefits and future costs or to convert benefits and costs to a common
time basis.

384 Glossary

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

dissolved organic compounds carbon substances dissolved in water.

dissolved oxygen (DO) the oxygen dissolved in water, usually expressed in milligrams per liter,
parts per million, or percent of saturation.

distribution uniformity (DU) the ratio of the average low-quarter depth of irrigation to the
average depth of irrigation, for the entire farm field, expressed as a percent.

double cropping the practice of producing two or more crops consecutively on the same parcel

of land during a 12-month period. Also called multi-cropping.

drainage basin the area of land from which water drains into a river; for example, the
Sacramento River Basin, in which all land area dreiins into the Sacramento River. Also called,
"catchment area," "watershed," or "river basin."

drought condition hydrologic conditions during a defined drought period during which
rainfall and runoff are much less than average.

drought year supply the average annual supply of a water development system during a
defined drought period. For this report, the drought period is the average of water years 1990
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.

ecology the study of the interrelationships of living organisms to one another and to their
surroundings.

economic dem.and the consumer's willingness and ability to purchase some quantity of a
commodity based on the price of that commodity.

ecosystem recognizable, relatively homogeneous units, including the organisms they contain,
their environment, and all the interactions among them.

efficient water management practice (E!WMP) an agricultural water conservation measure
that water suppliers can implement. EWMPs are organized into three categories: Irrigation
Management Services; Physical and Structural Improvements; and Institutional Adjustments.

effluent waste water or other liquid, partially or completely treated or in its natural state,
flowing from a treatment plant.

entrapment zone the portion of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay/Delta estuary where
seaward-flowing fresh water overlays more dense, saline ocean water resulting in a two-layer
mixing zone characterized by flocculation, aggregation, and accumulation of suspended
materials from upstream.

environment the sum of all external Influences and conditions affecting the life and
development of an organism or ecological community; the total social and cultural conditions.

environmental water the water for wetlands, for the Instream flow in a major river, or for a
designated wild and scenic river (based on unimpaired flow).

estuary the lower course of a river entering the sea influenced by tidal action where the tide
meets the river current.

evapotranspiration (ET) the quantity of water transpired (given offi, retained in plant tissues,
and evaporated from plant tissues and surrounding soil surfaces. Quantitatively, it is usually
expressed in terms of depth of water per unit area during a specified period of time.

evapotrcuispiration of applied water (ETAW) the portion of the total evapotranspiration
which is provided by irrigation.

firm yield the maximum annual supply of a given water development that is expected to be
available on demand, with the understanding that lower yields will occur in accordance with a
predetermined schedule or probability. See also dependable supply, project yield.

forebay a reservoir or pond situated at the intake of a pumping plsmt or power plant to
stabilize water levels; also a storage basin for regulating water for percolation into ground
water basins.

Glossary 385

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

fry a recently hatched fish.

gray water waste water from a household or small commerclcil establishment. Grajnvater does
not include water from a toilet, kitchen sink, dishwasher, washing machine, or water used for
washing diapers, etc.

gross reservoir capacity the total storage capacity available in a reservoir for all purposes,
from the streambed to the normal maximum operating level. Includes dead (or inactive)
storage, but excludes surcharge (water temporarily stored above the elevation of the top of the
spillway).

ground water water that occurs beneath the land surface and completely fills all pore spaces
of the alluvium, soil, or rock formation in which it is situated.

ground water basin a ground water reservoir, defined by an overlying land surface and the
underlying aquifers that contain water stored in the reservoir. In some cases, the boundaries of
successively deeper aquifers may differ and make it difficult to define the limits of the basin.

ground water overdraft the condition of a ground water basin in which the amount of water
withdrawn by pumping exceeds the amount of water that recharges the basin over a period of
years during which water supply conditions approximate average.

ground water prime supply the long-term average annual percolation into the major ground
water basins from precipitation falling on the land and from flows in rivers and streams.

ground water recharge increases in ground water storage by natural conditions or by human
activity. See also artificial recharge.

ground water storage capacity the space or voids contained in a given volume of soil and
rock deposits.

ground water tcd}le the upper surface of the zone of saturation, except where the surface is
formed by an impermeable body.

hardpan a layer of nearly impermeable soil beneath a more permeable soil, formed by natural
chemical cementing of the soil particles.

head ditch the water supply ditch at the head end of an irrigated field.

hydraulic barrier a barrier developed in the estuary by release of fresh water from upstream
reservoirs to prevent intrusion of sea water into the body of fresh water.

hydrologic balance an accounting of all water inflow to, water outflow from, and changes in
water storage within a hydrologic unit over a specified period of time.

hydrologic basin the complete drainage area upstream from a given point on a stream.

hydrologic region a study area, consisting of one or more planning subareas.

instream use use of water that does not require diversion from its natural watercourse. For
example, the use of water for navigation, recreation, fish and wildlife, aesthetics, and scenic
enjoyment.

irrecoverdble losses the water lost to a salt sink or lost by evaporation or evapotranspiration
from a conveyance facility, drainage canal, or in fringe areas.

irrigated acreage land area that is irrigated, which is equivalent to totcil irrigated crop
acreage minus the amount of acreage that was double cropped.

irrigation efficiency the efficiency of water application and use. Computed by dividing
evapotranspiration of applied water by applied water and converting the result to a percentage.
Efficiency can be computed at three levels: farm, district, or basin.

irrigation return flow applied water that is not transpired, evaporated, or deep-percolated
into a ground water basin but that returns to a surface water supply.

386 Glossary

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

land retirement (as used in this report) taking land out of agricultural production by leaving it
fallow or letUng it return to a natural state.

land subsidence the lowering of the natural land surface in response to earth movements;
lowering of fluid pressure (or lowering of ground water level); removal of underlying supporting
materials by mining or solution of solids, either artificially or from natural causes; compaction
caused by wetting (hydrocompaction); oxidation of organic matter in soils; or added load on the
land surface.

laser land leveling use of instruments featuring laser beams to guide eeirth-moving
equipment for leveling land for surface-type irrigation.

leaching the flushing of salts from the soil by the downward percolation of applied water.

leaching requirement the theoretical amount of irrigation water that must pass (leach)
through the soil beyond the root zone to keep soil salinity within acceptable levels for sustained
crop growth.

level of development in a planning study, the practice of holding constant the population,
irrigated acreage, industry, and wildlife so that hydrologic variability can be studied to
determine adequacy of supplies.

maxim.um. contcuninant level (MCL) the highest concentration of a constituent in drinking
water permitted under federal and State Safe Drinking Water Act regulations.

megawatt one million watts; a measure of power plant output.

milligrams per liter (mg/L) the weight in milligrams of any substance dissolved in one liter of
liquid; nearly the same as parts per million.

mineralization the process whereby concentrations of minerals, such as salts, increase in
water, often a natural process resulting from water dissolving minerals found in rocks and soils
through which it flows.

m.oisture stress a condition of physiological stress in a plant caused by lack of water.

multipurpose project a project designed to serve more than one purpose. For example, one
that provides water for irrigation, recreation, flsh and wildlife, and, at the same time, controls
floods or generates electric power.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System flVPDESj a provision of Section 402 of the
federal Clean Water Act of 1972 that established a permitting system for discharges of waste
materials to water courses.

natural flow the flow past a specified point on a natural stream that is unaffected by stream
diversion, storage. Import, export, return flow, or change in use caused by modifications in
land use.

net water demand (net water use) the amount of water needed in a water service area to meet
all requirements. It is the sum of evapotranspiratlon of applied water (ETAW) in an area, the
irrecoverable losses from the distribution system, and the outflow leaving the service area; does
not include reuse of water within a service area (such as reuse of deep-percolated applied water
or use of tail water).

nonpoint source waste water discharge other than from point sources. See also point source.

nonreimbursdble costs project costs allocated to general statewide or national beneficial
purposes and funded from general revenues.

normalized demand the process of adjusting actual water use in a given year to account for
unusual events such as dry weather conditions, government interventions for agriculture,
rationing programs, or other irregularities.

twerdrqft See ground water overdraft.

Glossary 387

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

pathogens any vinises, bacteria, or fimgl that cause disease.

peak load (potoerj the maximum electrical energy used in a stated pieriod of time. Usually
computed over cin interval of one hour that occurs during the year, month, week, or day. The
term is used interchan^ably with peak demand.

perched, groiuid water ground water supported by a zone of material of low permeability
located above an underlying main body of ground water with which it is not hydrostaticalfy
connected.

per capita water use the water produced by or introduced into the system of a water supplier
divided by the total residential papulation: normally expressed in gallons per capita per day
(gpcd).

percolation the downward movement of water through the soil or alluvium to a ground water
table.

perennial yield the maximum quantity of water that can be annually withdrawn finom a
ground water basin over a long period of time (during which water supply conditions
approximate average conditions) without developing an overdraft condition. Sometimes referred
to as sustained yield.

permeoinlity the capjability of soil or other geologic formations to transmit water.

phjftoplankton minute plants, usually algae, that live suspended in bodies of water and that
drift about because they cannot move by themselves or because they are too small or too weak
to swim effectively against a current.

planning subarea (PSA) an intermediately-sized study area consisting of one or more detailed
analysis unit(s).

point source a specific site fi^m which waste or polluted water is dischaiged into a water
body, the source of which can be identified.

pollution (of water) the alteration of the physical, chemical, or biolc^cal properties of water by
the introduction of any substance into water that adversefy affects any beneficial use of water.

project yield the water supply attributed to all features of a. project, including integrated
ojjeraUon of units that could be operated individually.

pump lift the distance between the ground water table and the overlying lemd surface.

pumped storage project a hydroelectric powerplant and reservoir system using an
arrangement whereby water released for generating energy during peak load periods is stored
and pumped back into the upper reservoir, usually during periods of reduced pjower demzmd.

pamping-generating plant a plant at which the turbine-driven generators can also be used
as motor-driven pumps.

recharge haan a surface facility, often a large pond, used to increase the percolation of
surface water into a ground water basin.

recreation-day jjarticipation in a recreational activity, such as skiing, biking, hiking, fishing,
boating, or camping, by one person for any part of a day.

recycled water urban waste water that becomes suitable, as a result of treatment, for a
sjjecific direct beneficial use. See also water recycUng.

return flow the portion of withdrawn water not consumed by evapotianspiration or system
losses which returns to its source or to emother body of water.

reuse the additional use of previously used water.

reverse osmosis method of removing salts trom water by forcing water through a membrane.

riparian located on the banks of a stream or other body of water.

r^»arian vegetation v^etation growing on the banks of a stream or other body of water.

388 Glossary

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

runoff the surface flow of water from an area; the total volume of surface flow from an area
during a specified time. ^

salinity generally, the concentration of mineral salts dissolved in water. Salinity may be
measured by weight (total dissolved solids), electrical conductivity, or osmotic pressure. Where
sea water is known to be the major source of salt, salinity is often used to refer to the
concentration of chlorides in the water. See also total dissolved solids.

salinity intrusion the movement of salt water into a body of fresh water. It can occur in either
surface water or ground water bodies.

salt sink a body of water too salty for most freshwater uses.

salt-water barrier a physical facility or method of operation designed to prevent the Intrusion
of salt water into a body of fresh water.

seasonal application efficiency (SAE) the sum of evapotranspiratlon of applied water and
leaching requirement divided by the total applied water, expressed as a percentage.

SAE = ETAW + LR
AW

secondary treatment In sewage, the biological process of reducing suspended, colloidal, and
dissolved organic matter in effluent from primary treatment systems. Secondary treatment Is
usually carried out through the use of trickling filters or by the activated sludge process.

sediment soil or mineral material trcinsported by water and deposited In streams or other
bodies of water.

seepage the gradual movement of a fluid Into, through, or from a porous medium.

self-produced water a water supply (usually from wells) developed and used by an individual
or entity. Also called "self-supplied water."

service area the geographical land area served by a distribution system of a water agency.

sewage the liquid waste from domestic, commercial, and Industrial establishments.

soluble minerals naturally occurring substances capable of being dissolved.

spawning the depositing and fertilizing of eggs (or roe) by fish emd other aquatic life.

spreading basin See recharge basin.

spreading grounds See recharge basin.

streamflow the rate of water flow past a specified point in a channel.

striped bass index in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta system, a
number representing the abundance of striped bass.

subsurface drainage See agricultural drainage.

supply augmentation alternatives water management programs — such as conjunctive use,
water banking, or water project facility expansion — that Increase supply.

surface supply water supply from streams, lakes, and reservoirs.

surface water treatment rule federal regulation promulgated on June 29, 1989 (54 FR 124)
requiring filtration and rigorous disinfection of surface water supplies and ground water
supplies directly under the influence of surface water.

surplus water developed water supplies in excess of contract entitlement or apportioned
water.

tail water applied irrigation water that runs off the end of a field. Tail water is not necessarily
lost; it can be collected and reused on the same or adjacent fields.

tertiary treatment in sewage, the additional treatment of effluent beyond that of secondary
treatment to obtain a very high quality of effluent for reuse.

Glossary 389

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

total dissolved solids a quantitative measure of the residual minerals dissolved in water that
remain after evaporation of a solution. Usually expressed in milligrams per liter. Abbreviation:
TDS. See also salinity.

trcuispiration an essential physiological process in which plant tissues give off water vapor to
the atmosphere.

trihalomethane (THM) chlorinated halogen compounds such as chloroform, carbon
tetrachloride and bromoform, formed by reactions between carbonaceous matter and chlorine
or bromine.

visitor-day See recreation-day.

waste water the used water, liquid waste, or drainage from a community, industry, or
institution.

water €Mnservation reduction in applied water due to more efficient water use such as
implementation of Urban Best Management Practices or Agricultural Efficient Water
Management Practices. The extent to which these actions actually create a savings in water
supply depends on how they affect net water use and depletion.

water demand schedule a time distribution of the demand for prescribed qucmtities of water
for specified purposes. It is usually a monthly tabulation of the total quantity of water that a
particular water user intends to use during a specified year.

water quality used to describe the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water,
usually in regard to its suitability for a particular purpose or use.

water reclcunation as used in this report, includes water recycling, seawater desalting,
ground water reclamation, and desalting agricultural brackish water.

water recycling the treatment of urban waste water to a level rendering it suitable for a
specific, direct, beneficial use.

water right a legally protected right to take possession of water occurring in a natural
waterway and to divert that water for beneficial use.

water service relicdjility the degree to which a water service system can successfully manage

water shortages.

watershed See drainage bastn.

water table See grvund water table.

water year a continuous 12-month period for which hydrologic records are compiled and
summarized. In California, it begins on October 1 and ends September 30 of the following year.

390 Glossary

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACFC&WCD Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

af acre-feet

AW applied water

BDOC Bay-Delta Oversight Council
BBfP Best Management Practice

CCWD Calaveras County Water District

CEC California Energy Commission

CMC Crop Market Outlook

CVP Central Valley Project

CCWD Contra Costa Water District

CVPIA Central Vsilley Project Improvement Act

CVWD Coachella Valley Water District

CVWUC Central Valley Water Use Committee

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

DAU detailed ancdysis unit

DBFs disinfection byproducts

DBCP dibromochloropropane

DFG California Department of Fish gmd Game

DWA Desert Water Agency

DWR California Department of Water Resources

EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District

EDCWA El Dorado County Water Agency

EDF Environmental Defense Fund

EID El Dorado Irrigation District

EPA federal Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

ETAW evapotranspiration of applied water

EWMP Efficient Water Management Practice

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

GCm Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District

gpcd gallons per capita daily

Glossary 391

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

HBBfWD Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District
HLWA Honey Lake Wildlife Area

nD Imperial Irrigation District

IFIM Instream Flow Incremental Methodology

LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
LR leaching requirement

maf million acre-feet

MCL maximum contaminant level

BOD Merced Irrigation District or Modesto Irrigation District

MCWRA Monterey County Water Resources Agency

MMWD Marin Municipal Water District

MOU memorandum of understanding

MRWPCA Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency

BSWDSC Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

NlfFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NBfWD North Marin Water District

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

OCID Orange Cove Irrigation District

PCE perchlorethylene

PCWA Placer County Water Agency

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company

P.L. Public Law

PSA planning subarea

FVWMA Pajaro Valley Water Mcmagement Agency

RCD resource conservation district

SAE seasonal application efficiency

SBVMWD San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District

SCE Southern California Ekiison Company

SCVWD Santa Clara Valley Water District

SCWA Solano County Water Agency or Sonoma County Water Agency

SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority

SDWA South Delta Water Agency

SFWD San Francisco Water District

392 Glossary

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

SJWA San Jacinto Wildlife Area

SJVDP San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program

SJRMP San Joaquin River Management Program

SBfUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District

SNWA Southern Nevada Water Authority

SSWD South Sutter Water District

SWP State Water Project

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

SWTR federal Surface Water Treatment Rule

TCE trichlorethylene

TDS total dissolved solids

THM trihalomethane

TID-MID Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District

TROA Truckee River Operating Agreement

UCD University of California at Davis

USBR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior

USCE U.S. Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WSD water storage district

WSBIP water storage management plan

YCFCWCD Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
YCWA Yuba County Water Agency

Glossary 393

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

394

Glossary

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

State of California, Pete Wilson. Governor

The Resources Agency, Douglas p. wheeler. Secretary for Resources

Department of Water Resources, David N. Kennedy. Director

Robert G. Potter, Chief Deputy Director Carroll M. Hamon, Deputy Director

John J. Silveira, Deputy Director Susan N. Weber, Chief Counsel

L. Lucinda Chipponeri, Assistant Director for Legislation

Division of Planning, Edward F. Huntley, Chief

This bulletin was prepared under the direction of
Raymond D. Hart, Chief, Statewide Planning

Naser J. Bateni, Chief Water Resources Evaluation
Edward A. Craddock, Chief Land and Water Use
Ra3miond F. Hoagland, Chief Economic Analysis

Jack A. Berthelot
Dave P. Bilyeu
Bishu Chatterjee
Stephen W. Cowdin
Debbie M. Cunnagin
Baryohay A. Davidoff

Farhad Famam
Maria J. Hambright
Thomas E. Hawkins
Lynda D. Herren
Tracey J. Lindberg
J. Scott Matyac

assisted by

Richard A. Neal

James W. Rich

Richard Soehren

Kenneth M. Turner

Richard J. Wagner

Robert H. Zettlemoyer

with major contributions from

Randal L. Brown, Chief, Environmental Services Office

Katherlne W. Hansel,Wetlands Coordinator

Carl J. Hauge, Chief Hydrogeologist

Maurice D. Roos, Chief Hydrologist

Richard P. Woodard, Chief, Water Quality Assessment

The following people gave special assistance to various studies related to the Investigation:

David B. Anderson
Sushil K. Arora
George W. Barnes, Jr.
Dave Brown
Stan Cummings
Paul C. Dabbs
Donald W. Fisher
John R. Fielden

Brenda Grewell
Judy A. Higley
Kathlin R. Johnson
Hamid Kharazi
John R. Kramer
Claire LeFlore
Doug K. Osugi
Price J. Schreiner

Brian E. Smith

Ted Sommer

A. G. "Bud" Thrapp

Bill T. Smith

Sean Sou

Josephine Turner

Edward D. Winkler

395

Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update

The regional analyses and summaries for Bulletin 160-93 were prepared by DWR's Districts:

Division of Loco! Assistance, Carlos Madrid, chief

Nortt) Coast, Sacramento River, and Nortti Lattontan regional chapters
Linton A. Brown, Chief, Northern District

X. Tito Cervantes
Andrew J. Corry
Douglas N. Denton

Charles L. Ferchaud
Todd L. Hillaire
Ralph N. Hinton

Glen S. Pearson

Eugene M. Pixley

Douglas Rischbieter

San Francisco Bay, Sacramento River, and San Joaquin River regional chapters

Dennis C. Letl, Chief Central District

Dean W. Reynolds

George Sato

James H. Wleklng

Andrew A. Agullar
Richard Cocke
Luis Toccoy Dudley

Sandra R. Maxwell
R. A. "Bud" McGuire
Ed Morris

James R. Haupt
Judy A. Higley

Douglas K. Osugi

Waiman Yip

Central Coast, San Joaquin River, and Tulare Lake Regions
Louis A. Beck, Chief San Joaquin District

Ben B. Igawa Brian E. Smith

Michael E. McGinnis Frederick E. Stumpf

David L. Scruggs Arvey A. Swanson

Ernest D. Taylor
Iris M. Ycimagata

South Coast, South Lahontan, and Colorado River regional chapters
Charles R. White, Chief Southern District
Glenn 1. Bergqulst Charles F. Keene

David A. Inouye

Vem T. Knoop

Michael P. Maisner
Mark R. Stuart

Editing and Production

Susan M. Tatayon, Project Editor Nancy D. Ullrey, Associate Project Editor

Contributing Editors

Nancy L. Pate Eklward A. Pearson Daniel J. Wightman

Graphic Design and Production
Lori E. Thompson. Project Designer

Mapping and Delineation

Gayle E. Dowd Chuck M. Lano Joanne E. Pierce

nwtography

Dale Koike Stephen Payer Peter M. Stoiber

Norm Hughes

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, page 307, Volume I, and page 1 12, Volume II.

California Rice Industry Association, page 133, Volume II.

396

Video Recording

Robert Allinghami

Alan Arroyo

A special acknowledgment for technical consultation goes to

William J. Bennett Wayne MacRostie

Warren J. Cole

The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93

California Water Commission

James J. Lenihan, Chair, Mountain View

Audrey Z. Tennis, Vice-Chair, Forest Ranch

Stanley M. Barnes. Visalia

Katherine B. Dunlap, Los Angeles

Clair A. Hill, Redding

Michael D. Madigan, San Diego

Martin A. Matich, San Bernardino

Orville L. Abbott, Executive Officer and Chief Engineer

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

397

Bulletin 160-93 Water Plan Update

398

2S*i(^.*'.1*-'4--j«i..!-/. ■ =«£.

THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE

STAMPED BELOW

BOOKS REQUESTED BY ANOTHER BORROWER
ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL

RECEIVED

WAN 1 7 2007.

Jui-iiiggejEcszooB

SHIELDS LIBRARY

DEC 11 '96
RECEIVED

I ED

. 1 8 imr

DEC O^i 1996 LsicaiScieacesUMqr
Phyticai Sciences Ubrvy

^ M 1999

RECEIVED

SEP 0 5 1999

PSL

LIBRARY. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

D4613 (7/92)M

Pete Wilson

Governor

State of California

Douglas P. Wheeler
Secretary for Resources
The Resources Agency

David N. Kennedy

Director

Department of Water Resources

■RSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVI:

3 1175 02041 9209

' >:\'.- .

J'--.:^, -.:•:•■ :^^^:i^S^j«^

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"

See other formats