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

Full text of "California water plan update"



' '■•■) 



V\^\ 






■ XT';- 



111 



TC8£4 







»*^ ^*T^i;^^^\ 



'i ' 



r\M' 



- > ' ».^ ■ 



•1 ,'■■ ■■■' ^-" 



■J.Vi 



California 

Water Plan 

Update 



VOUUME 2 

Buaetin 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 



X^OfWATf^ 




© Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, 1994 



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 



Contents 



i 



Summary of Volume II 1 

Public Involvement 2 

Water Supply 2 

Water Demand 12 

Urban Water Demand: Agricultural Water Demand: Environmental Water 

Demand: Demand Reduction — Water Conservation: 

California Water Budget 21 

Local Water Supply Issues 25 

North Coast Region 29 

Population: Land Use 
Water Supply 30 

Supply with Existing Facilities and Water Management Programs: Supplies 

with Additional Facilities and Water Management Programs 
Water Use 35 

Urban Water Use: Agricultural Water Use: Environmental Water Use: Other 

Water Use 

Issues Affecting Lxjcal Water Resource Management 44 

Water Balance 47 



San Francisco Bay Region 51 

Population: Land Use 
Water Supply 52 

Supply with Existing Facilities and Wafer Management Programs: Supplies 

with Additional Facilities and Water Management Programs 
Water Use 62 

Urban Water Use: Agricultural Water Use: Environmental Water Use: Other 

Water Use 
Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 68 

Legislation and Litigation: Local Issues 
Water Balance 71 



Central Coast Region 75 

Population: Ixind Use 
Water Supply 77 

Supply with Existing Facilities and Water Management Programs: Supply with 

Additional Facilities and Water Management Programs 
Water Use 84 

Urban Water Use: Agricultural Water Use: Environmental Water Use: Other 

Water Use: 
Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 89 

Legislation and Litigation: Regional Issues: Local Issues 
Water Balance 93 

Table of Contents 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



South Coast Region 97 

Population: Land Use 
Water Supply 100 

Supply with Existing Facilities and Water Management Programs: Supply with 

Additional Facilities and Wafer Management Programs 
Water Use 1 08 

Urban Water Use: Agricultural Water Use: Environmental Water Use: Other 

Water Demand 
Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 114 

Legislation and Litigation: Local Issues 
Water Balance 118 



Sacramento River Region 121 

Population: Land Use 
Water Supply 124 

Supply with Existing Facilities and Water Management Programs: Supply with 

Additional Facilities and Water Management Programs 
Water Use 130 

Urban Water Use: Agricultural Water Use: Environmental Water Use: Other 

Water Use 
Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 1 40 

Legislation and Litigation: Regional Issues: Local Issues 
Water Balance 147 



San Joaquin River Region 151 

Population: Land Use 
Water Supply 153 

Supply with Existing Facilities and Water Management Programs: Supply with 

Additional Facilities and Water Management Programs 
Water Use 160 

Urban Water Use: Agricultural Water Use: Environmental Water Use: Other 

Water Use 
Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 170 

Legislation and Litigation: Regional Issues 
Water Balance 173 



Tulare Lal<e Region 1 79 

Population: Land Use 
Water Supply 180 

Supply with Existing Facilities and Water Management Programs: Supply with 

Additional Facilities and Water Management Programs 
Water Use 186 

Urban Water Use: Agricultural Water Use: Environmental Water Use: Other 

Water Use 
Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 195 

Regional Issues: Local Issues 
Water Balance 199 



Nortti Lahontan Region 203 

Population: Land Use 
Water Supply 204 

Supply with EMsting Facilities and Water Management Programs: Supply with 

Additional Facilities and Water Management Programs 
Water Use 210 

Urban Water Use: Agricultural Water Use: Environmental Water Use: Other 

Water Use 
Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 218 

Legislation and Litigation: Regional Issues 
Water Balance 220 



Table of Contents 



The Calitornia Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



South Lahontan Region 225 

Population: /airid Use 
Water Supply 228 

Supply imth Existing Facilities and Water Management Programs: Supply with 

Additional Facilities and Water Management Programs 
Water Use 231 

Urban Water Use: Agricullural Water Use: Environmental Water Use: Other 

Water Use 
Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 237 

Legislation and Litigation 
Water Balance 241 

Colorado River Region 245 

Population: Land Use 
Water Supply 248 

Supply tvith Existing Facilities ai\d Water Mai\agement Programs: Supply with 

Additional Facilities and Water Management Programs 
Water Use 251 

Urban Water Use: Agricultural Water Use: Environmental Water Use: Other 

Wafer Use 
Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 259 

Legislation and Litigation: Contracts and Agreements 
Water Balance 265 

Appendix C, Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 269 

Appendix D, Hydroelectric Resources of California 295 

Tables 

Table S- 1 . California Water Supplies with 

Existing Facilities and Programs 4 

Table S-2. Level 1 Demand Management Programs 5 

Table S-3. Level I Water Supply Management Options 6 

Table S-4. California Water Supplies with Level I 

Water Management Programs 7 

Table S-5. State Water Project Supplies 8 

Table S-6. Use of Ground Water by Hydrologic Region 9 

Table S-7. Ground Water Overdraft by hydrologic Region 10 

Table S-8. Total Water Recycling and Resulting New Water Supply 

by Hydrologic Region 11 

Table S-9. California Water Demand 13 

Table S- 10. Population Projections by Hydrologic Region 14 

Table S- 1 1 . Urban Water Demand by Hydrologic Region 15 

Table S-12. California Crop and Irrigated Acreage 

by Hydrologic Region 1990 16 

Table S-13. California Crop and irrigated Acreage by Hydrologic 

Region 2020 (Forecasted) 17 

Table S- 14. Agricultural Water Demand by Hydrologic Region 18 

Table S- 15. Environmental Water Needs by Hydrologic Region 20 

Table S-16. Annual Applied Water and Depletion Reductions Due to 

Conservation from 1990 to 2020 by Hydrologic Region 21 

Table S- 1 7. California Water Budget 22 

Table NC- 1 . Population Projections 30 

Table NC-2. Major Reservoirs 32 



i 



Table of Contents 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



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

Table NC-4. Water Supplies with Level 1 Water Management Programs 35 

Table NC-5. Urban Water Demand 37 

Table NC-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 38 

Table NC-7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 38 

Table NC-8. Agricultural Water Demand 39 

Table NC-9. Environmental Instream Water Needs 40 

Table NC- 10. Wetland Water Needs 41 

Table NC- 1 1 . Total Water Demands 42 

Table NC- 12. Water Budget 48 

Table SF- 1 . Population Projections 52 

Table SF-2. Major Reservoirs 54 

Table SF-3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities 55 

Table SF-4. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs 59 

Table SF-5. Urban Water Demand 63 

Table SF-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 65 

Table SF-7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 65 

Table SF-8. Agricultural Water Demand 66 

Table SF-9. Wetland Water Needs 67 

Table SF- 10. Environmental Instream Water Needs 67 

Table SF- 1 1 . Total Water Demands 68 

Table SF- 12. Water Budget 72 

Table CC- 1 . Population Projections 76 

Table CC-2. Major Reservoirs 79 

Table CC-3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs 80 

Table CC-4. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs 82 

Table CC-5. Urban Water Demand 85 

Table CC-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 86 

Table CC-7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 87 

Table CC-8. Agricultural Water Demand 88 

Table CC-9. Environmental Instream Water Needs 89 

Table CC- 10. Total Water Demands 91 

Table CC- 1 1 . Water Budget 94 

Table SC- 1 . Population Projections 98 

Table SC-2. Major Reservoirs 101 

Table SC-3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs 103 

Table SC-4. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs 107 

Table SC-5. Urban Water Demand 109 

Table SC-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage Ill 

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

Table SC-8. Agricultural Water Demand 113 

Table SC-9. Wetland Water Needs 114 

Table SC- 10. Total Water Demands 116 

Table SC-1 1. Water Budget 119 

Table SR- 1 . Population Projections 122 

Table SR-2. Major Reservoirs 125 

Table SR-3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs 126 

Table SR-4. Water Supplies with Level 1 Water Management Programs 128 



Table of Contents 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Table SR-5. Urban Water Demand 132 

Table SR-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 134 

Table SR-7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 134 

Table SR-8. Agricultural Water Demand 135 

Table SR-9. Environmental Instream Water Needs 137 

Table SR- 10 Wetland Water Needs 138 

Table SR- 1 1. Total Water Demands 142 

Table SR- 12. Water Budget 149 

Table SJ- 1 . Population Projections 152 

Table SJ-2. Major Reserx'oirs 155 

Table SJ-3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs 158 

Table SJ-4. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs 159 

Table SJ-5. Urban Water Demand 162 

Table SJ-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 163 

Table SJ-7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 163 

Table SJ-8. Agricultural Water Demand 165 

Table SJ-9. Wetland Water Needs 167 

Table SJ- 10. Environmental Instream Water Needs 168 

Table SJ- 1 1 . Total Water Demands 170 

Table SJ-12. Water Budget 174 

Table TL- 1 . Population Projections 180 

Table TL-2. Major Resen'Oirs 182 

Table TL-3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs 183 

Table TL-4. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs 184 

Table TL-5. Urban Water Demand 188 

Table TL-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 189 

Table TL-7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 190 

Table TL-8. Agricultural Water Demand 191 

Table TL-9. Wetland Water Needs 192 

Table TL- 10. Total Water Demands 193 

Table TL-1 1. Water Budget 200 

Table NL- 1 . Population Projections 204 

Table NL-2. Major Reservoirs 206 

Table NL-3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs 208 

Table NL-4. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs 209 

Table NL-5. Urban Water Demand 211 

Table NL-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 212 

Table NL-7. 1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 212 

Table NL-8. Agricultural Water Demand 213 

Table NL-9. Wetland Water Needs 214 

Table NL- 10. Total Water Demands 216 

Table NL-1 1. Water Budget 221 

Table SL- 1 . Population Projections 226 

Table SL-2. Major Reservoirs 228 

Table SL-3. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs 229 

Table SL-4. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs 230 

Table SL-5. Urban Water Demand 232 

Table SL-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 233 



i 



Table of Contents 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Table SL-7. 
Table SL-8. 
Table SL-9. 
Table SL-10. 
Table SL- 11. 
Table CR- 1 . 
Table CR-2. 
Table CR-3. 
Table CR-4. 
Table CR-5. 
Table CR-6. 
Table CR-7. 
Table CR-8. 
Table CR-9. 
Table CR- 10 
Table D- 1 . 
Table D-2. 

Table D-3. 

Figures 

Figure S- 1 . 
Figure NC-1. 
Figure NC-2. 
Figure NC-3. 
Figure NC-4. 
Figure NC-5. 

Figure NC-6, 

Figure SF- 1 . 
Figure SF-2. 
Figure SF-3. 
Figure SF-4. 

Figure SF-5. 

Figure SF-6. 

Figure CC-1. 
Figure CC-2. 
Figure CC-3, 
Figure CC-4. 
Figure CC-5. 

Figure CC-6 

Figure SC-1. 
Figure SC-2. 



1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 234 

Agricultural Water Demand 234 

Environmental Instream Water Needs 235 

Total Water Demands 237 

Water Budget 243 

Population Projections 246 

Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs 249 

Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs 250 

Urban Water Demand 253 

Irrigated Crop Acreage 254 

1990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 255 

Agricultural Water Demand 256 

Wetland Water Needs 257 

Total Water Demands 259 

Water Budget 267 

Developed and Undeveloped Hydroelectric Plant Sites 296 

Developed and Planned Development of 

Hydroelectric Resources Summary 297 

Developed and Planned Development of 

Hydroelectric Resources 299 

Hydrologic Regions in California 3 

North Coast Region Land Use, Imports, and Exports 31 

North Coast Region Water Supply Sources 32 

North Coast Region Net Water Demand 36 

North Coast Region Urban Applied Water Use by Sector 36 

North Coast Region 1990 Acreage. ETAW. 

and Applied Water for Major Crops 39 

North Coast Region Hydroelectric Power Plants, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Water Recreation Areas 43 

San Francisco Bay Region Land Use, Imports, and Exports 53 

San Francisco Bay Region Water Supply Sources 56 

San Francisco Bay Region Net Water Demand 62 

San Francisco Bay Region 

Urban Applied Water Use by Sector 62 

1990 San Francisco Bay Region Acreage, ETAW, 

and Applied Water for Major Crops 64 

San Francisco Bay Region 

Hydroelectric Power Plants and Water Recreation Areas 69 

Central Coast Region Land Use, Imports, and Exports 78 

Central Coast Region Water Supply Sources 79 

Central Coast Region Net Water Demand 84 

Central Coast Region Urban Applied Water Use by Sector 84 

1990 Central Coast Region Acreage, ETAW, 

and Applied Water for Major Crops 86 

Central Coast Region 

Hydroelectric Power Plants and Water Recreation Areas 90 

South Coast Region Land Use. Imports, and Exports 99 

South Coast Region Water Supply Sources 1 00 



VIII 



Table of Contents 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure SC-3. South Coast Region Net Water Demand 108 

Figure SC-4. South Coast Region Urban Applied Water Use by Sector 109 

Figure SC-5. South Coast Region Acreage, ETAW, 

and Applied Water for Major Crops 110 

Figure SC-6. South Coast Region Hydroelectric Power Plants, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Water Recreation Areas 115 

Figure SR- 1 . Sacramento River Region 

Land Use, Imports, and Exports 123 

Figure SR-2. Sacramento River Region Water Supply Sources 124 

Figure SR-3. Sacramento River Region Net Water Demand 130 

Figure SR-4. Sacramento River Region 

Urban Applied Water Use by Sector 130 

Figure SR-5. 1990 Sacramento River Region 

Acreage, ETAW, and Applied Water for Major Crops 133 

Figure SR-6. Sacramento River Region Hydroelectric Power Plants, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Water Recreation Areas 143 

Figure SJ-1. San Joaquin River Region 

Land Use, Imports, and Exports 154 

Figure SJ-2. San Joaquin River Region Water Supply Sources 155 

Figure SJ-3. San Joaquin River Region Net Water Demand 161 

Figure SJ-4. San Joaquin River Region 

Urban Applied Water Use by Sector 161 

Figure SJ-5. 1990 San Joaquin River Region 

Acreage. ETAW. and Applied Water for Major Crops 164 

Figure SJ-6. San Joaquin River Region Hydroelectric Power Plants. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Water Recreation Areas 169 

Figure TL-1. Tulare Lake Region Land Use, Imports, and Exports 181 

Figure TL-2. Tulare Lake Region Water Supply Sources 182 

Figure TL-3. Tulare Lake Region Net Water Demand 186 

Figure TL-4, Tulare Lake Region 

Urban Applied Water Use by Sector 187 

Figure TL-5. 1990 Tulare Lake Region Acreage, ETAW, and 

Applied Water for Major Crops 189 

Figure TL-6. Tulare Lake Region Hydroelectric Power Plants, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Water Recreation Areas 194 

Figure NL-1. North Lahontan Region Land Use, Imports, and Exports 205 

Figure NL-2. North Lahontan Region Water Supply Sources 206 

Figure NL-3. North Lahontan Region Net Water Demand 210 

Figure NL-4. North Lahontan Region 

Urban Applied Water Use by Sector 210 

Figure NL-5. North Lahontan Region 1990 Acreage. ETAW, 

and Applied Water for Major Crops 213 

Figure NL-6. North Lahontan Region Hydroelectric Power Plants, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Water Recreation Areas 217 

Figure SL-1. South Lahontan Region 

Land Use. Imports, and Exports 227 

Figure SL-2. South Lahontan Region Water Supply Sources 228 

Figure SL-3 South Lahontan Region Net Water Demand 230 

Figure SL-4. South Lahontan Region Urban Applied Water Use by Sector .... 231 
Figure SL-5. 1990 South Lahontan Region Acreage. ETAW. 

and Applied Water for Major Crops 233 

Figure SL-6. South Lahontan Region 

Water Hydroelectric Power Plants and Recreation Areas 236 



i 



Table of Contents 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Figure CR-1. Colorado River Region Land Use, Imports, and Exports 247 

Figure CR-2. Colorado River Region Water Supply Sources 248 

Figure CR-3. Colorado River Region Net Water Demand 251 

Figure CR-4. Colorado River Region Urban Applied Water Use by Sector 252 

Figure CR-5. Colorado River Region 1990 Acreage, ETAW, 

and Applied Water for Major Crops 254 

Figure CR-6. Colorado River Region Hydroelectric Power Plants 

and Water Recreation Areas 258 

Figure C- 1 . Statewide Land Ownership 27 1 

Figure C-2. Planning Subareas, North Coast Region 272 

Figure C-3. Land Ownership, North Coast Region 273 

Figure C-4. Planning Subareas, San Francisco Bay Region 274 

Figure C-5. Land Ownership, San Francisco Bay Region 275 

Figure C-6. Planning Subareas, Central Coast Region 276 

Figure C-7. Land Ownership, Central Coast Region 277 

Figure C-8. Planning Subareas, South Coast Region 278 

Figure C-9. Land Ownership, South Coast Region 279 

Figure C-10. Planning Subareas, Sacramento River Region 280 

Figure C-1 1. Land Ownership, Sacramento River Region 281 

Figure C- 12. Planning Subareas, San Joaquin River Region 282 

Figure C- 13. Land Ownership, San Joaquin River Region 283 

Figure C- 14. Planning Subareas, Tulare Lake Region 284 

Figure C- 15. Land Ownership, Tulare Lake Region 285 

Figure C- 16. Planning Subareas, North Lahontan Region 286 

Figure C-1 7. Land Ownership, North Lahontan Region 287 

Figure C- 18. Planning Subareas, South Lahontan Region 288 

Figure C- 19, Land Ownership, South Lahontan Region 289 

Figure C-20. Planning Subareas, Colorado River Region 290 

Figure C-2 1 . Land Ownership, Colorado River Region 29 1 

Sidebars 

California's Water Supply Availability 1 

Definitions of Terms 12 



Table of Contents 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Volume II 



i 



Bulletin 160-93 is organized into two volumes. Volume 1 discusses statewide 
issues: presents an overview of current and future water management activities while 
detailing statewide water supplies and water demands: and updates various elements 
of California's statewide water planning. Volume II examines current water demands 
and available supplies in each of the State's ten major hydrologic regions: discusses 
regional and local water-related issues; and details forecasts of supplies and demands 
for each region to the year 2020. 

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

Regional water budgets present 1990 level and future water demands to 2020 
and compare them with supplies from existing facilities and water management 
programs, and with future demand management and water supply augmentation 
programs. Future water management programs are presented in two levels to better 
reflect the status of investigations required to implement them. 

O L-evel 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. 



Summary of 
Volume II 



California's Water Supply Availability 

Average year supply \s the average annual supply of a water development sys- 
tem over o long period. For this report the SWP and CVP average year supply is the 
overage annual delivery capability of the projects over a 70-year study period 
(1922-91 ). For o local project without long-term data, it is the annual average deliv- 
eries 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 environmental flows 
OS required for an average year under specific agreements, water rights, court deci- 
sions, and congressional directives. 

Drought year supply \s the average annual supply of a water development sys- 
tem during a defined drought period. For this report, the drought period is the aver- 
age 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 congressio- 
nal directives. 



Summary of Volume 11 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



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 alternative 
analyses. 

At the end of this chapter is the California Water Budget and a brief overview of 
local water management issues. The remaining chapters of Volume II discuss water 
demands, water supplies, and water management issues related to each of the ten 
major hydrologic regions of the State (Figure S-I). Appendix C presents regional 
planning subarea and land ownership maps and Appendix D lists hydroelectric 
facilities of the State by region. 

Public Involvement 

California's water policies are still evolving as new statutes, court decisions, and 
agreements become effective. In light of this, the California legislature passed and 
Governor Wilson signed AB 799 in 1991 requiring the California Water Plan be 
updated every 5 years. This water plan update was developed with extensive public 
involvement including an outreach advisory committee made up of urban, 
agricultural, and environmental interests. This committee was established in June 
1992 to review and comment on the adequacy of work in progress. That process has 
been valuable in developing Bulletin 1 60-93 into a comprehensive water plan for water 
management in California. 

In addition, the California Water Commission held hearings in each of the State's 
tenhydrologicregionsduring January and February 1994. to receive public comments 
about the November 1993 draft California Water Plan Update. After considering 
comments received from over 100 individuals, the commission developed several 
recommendations which added policy guidance for the final water plan update. Public 
comments are, to the extent applicable, incorporated into this report or are included in 
Appendix B. Volume I. 

Water Supply 

Since the last water plan update in 1987. California Water: Looking lo the Future. 
Bulletin 160-87. evolving environmental policies have introduced considerable 
uncertainty about much of the State's developed water supply. For example, the 
winter-rum 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 (P.L. 102-575) was passed in 1992, reallocating over a 
million acre-feet of CVP supplies for fish and wildlife. Other actions that could have 
far-reaching consequences are the EPA's proposed standards for the Bay-Delta 
Estuary and future State Water Resources Control Board Bay-Delta standards. 



Summary of Volume II 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure S-1. Hydrologic Regions in California 







.— 


^J 


' North 




r 


^ North 


Coast 




< 


Lahontan 


V 




Sacramento 


^'^ 


\ 




River 


J 


) 


~\ 


f 


1 




/ 


Z\. 


\ 


y^*^ 


1 


\ 


) 






\ 



N 






\ 



San Francisco 
Boy 



San Joaquin 
River 



Central 
Coast 



Tulare Lake 



South 
Lahontan 



^' 



South 
Coast 



s 



Colorado 
River 



Summary of Volume II 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



These actions affect the export capability from California's most important water 
supply hub, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, while also imposing restrictions on 
upstream diverters. The Delta is the source from which two-thirds of the State's 
population and millions of acres of agricultural land receive part or all of their supplies. 
Today, areas of the State relying on the Delta for all or a portion of their supplies find 
these supplies unreliable. 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. Table S- 1 shows California water supplies, with 
existing facilities and water management programs (under SWRCB Water Rights 
Decision 1 485) . Water supplies shown do not take into account recent actions to protect 
aquatic species for the 1990 level of development and forecasted 2020 development. 



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

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

Supply 1990 2000 2070 2020 

overage 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'" 

Colorado River 

CVP 

Other federal 

SWPi'i 
Reclaimed 
Ground water'^' 
Ground water overdraft'^' 
Dedicated natural flow 27.2 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] 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 bosins. 
{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. 

Annual reductions in total water supply for urban and agricultural uses could be 
in the range of 500.000 af to 1 ,000,000 af in average years and 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 
af 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 1 ,000,000-to-3,000,000-af range for 
proposed additional environmental demands for protection and enhancement of 
aquatic species, 

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, as 
a result of the 1987-92 drought, water conservation and rationing became mandatory 
for urban users, many agricultural areas had surface water supplies drastically 
curtailed, and environmental resources were strained. Until a Delta solution that 



1.0 


0.7 


1.0 


0.7 


1.0 


0.7 


1.0 


0.7 


5.2 


5.1 


4.4 


4.4 


4.4 


4.4 


4,4 


4.4 


7.5 


5.0 
0.8 


7.7 


5.1 


7.7 
1.3 


5.2 
0.8 


7,7 
1.3 


5.2 


1.2 


1.3 


0.8 


0.8 


2.8 


2.1 


3.2 


2.0 


3.3 


2.0 


3,3 


2.0 


0.2 


0.2 


0.2 
7.1 


0.2 
12.0 


0.2 
7.2 


0.2 

12.1 


0.2 

7.4 


0.2 


7.1 


11.8 


12.2 


1.3 


1.3 


— 


— 


— 



Summary of Volume II 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



meets the needs of urban, agricultural, and environmental interests is identified and 
implemented, there likely will be water supply shortages in both dry and average years. 

While the six-year drought stretched California's developed supplies to their 
limits, innovative water management actions, water transfers, water supply 
Interconnections, and changes in project operations to benefit fish and wildlife all 
helped to reduce the harmful effects of the prolonged drought. Today, water managers 
are looking into a wide variety of demand management and supply augmentation 
programs to supplement, improve, and make better use of existing resources. The 
following sections summarize results from regional and statewide analyses of water 
supplies and the water supply benefits of Level 1 water management programs. Tables 
S-2 and S-3 list the major water management programs included in Level 1 analyses 
and described in more detail in Chapter 11 of Volume 1. The contribution of these 
programs to future regional water supplies is included in Table S-4. which shows water 
supplies for the 1990 level of development and compares them to forecasted supplies 
in 2020. with Level 1 water management programs in place. Note that Delta supplies 
are assumed to be operated under SWRCB D- 1485 criteria, and that areas receiving 
Delta supplies are already impacted by reduced export capability as a result of recent 
actions to protect aquatic species through criteria more stringent than D-1485. As 
such, statewide and regional water supplies are overstated. 



i 



Table S-2. Level I Demand Management Programs 



Program 


Applied Water 
Reduction 


Net Water Demand 
Reduction 


Economic 
Unit Cost 


Comments 




(1,000 AF) 


(1,000 AF) 
average drought 


(S/AFY-' 




Long-term Demand Management: 

Urban Water Conservation 


1,300 


900 


900 


315-390i''i 


Urban BMPs 


Agricultural Water 
Conservation 
Land Retirement 


1,700 
130 


300 
130 


300 
130 


Not 

Available 

60 


Increased irrigation 

efficiency 

Retirement of land with 

drainage problems in west 

San Joaquin Valley; cost is at 

the Delta. 


All American Canal Lining 


68 


68 


68 




Water conservation project; 
increases supply to South 
Coast Region 


Short-term Demand Management: 

Demand Reduction 


1,300 





1,000 


Not 
Available 


Drought year supply 


Land Fallowing/Short-term 
Water Transfers 


800 





800 


125 


Drought year supply; cost is 
at the Delta. 



(al Economic costs include capital ond OMP&R costs discounted over a 50-yeor period ol 6 percent discount rale. These costs do not include applicable transportation and treotment costs, 
(b) Costs ore tor the ultro-low-Rush toilet retrofit ond residentiol water audit programs. 



Summary of Volume II 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Program 



Table S-3. Level I Water Supply Management Options 

Type Capacity Annual Economic 

(1,000 AF) Supply Unit Cost 

llOOOAFj ($/AF)i'i 
average drought 



Comments 



Statewide Water Management: 

Long-term Delta 
Solution 


Delta Water 
Management Program 


— 


200 


400 


Not 
Available 


Under study by Bay/Delta 
Oversight Council; water supply 
benefit is elimination of carriage 
water under D- 1485. 


Interim South Delta 
Water Management 
Program 


South Delta 
Improvement 




60 


60 


60 


Final draft is scheduled to 
be released in late 1994 


Los Bonos Grandes 
Reservoir*^ '" 


Offstream Storage 


1 ,730"! 


250-300 


260 


260 


Schedule now coincides with 
BDOC process 


Kern Water Banki'i 














Kern Fan Element 


Ground Water Storage 


1,000 


90 


140 


105-155 


Evaluation under way 


Local Elements 


Ground Water Storage 


2,000 


90 


290 


180-460 


Schedule now coincides with 
BDOC process 


Coastal Branch- 
Phase II (Santo Ynez 
Extension) 


SWP Conveyance 
Facility 


57 


N/A 


N/A 


630-1,110 


Notice of Determination was 
filed in July 1 992; construction 
began in late 1 993, 


American River 
Flood Control"" 


Flood Control Storage 


54551 


" 


" 


" 


Feasibility report and 
environmental documentation 
completed in 1991, 


Local Water Management: 

Water Recycling 


Reclamation 


1,321 


923 


923 


1 25-840 


New water supply 


Ground Water 
Reclamation 


Reclamation 


200 


100 


100 


350-900 


Primarily in South Coast 


El Dorado County 
Water Agency 
Water Program 


Diversion from South 
Fork American River 




24 


23151 


280 


Certified final Programmatic 
EIR identifying preferred 
alternative; woter rights hearings, 
new CVP contract following 
EIR/EIS preparation 


Los Voqueros 
Reservoir-Contra-Costra 
Water District 


Offstream Storage 

Emergency Supply 

Water Quality 


100 


N/A 


N/A 


320-950 


EIR certified in October 1 993, 
404 permit issued in April 1 994. 


EBMUD 


Conjunctive Use and 
Other Options 




N/A 


43 


370 


Final EIR certified in October 
1993 


New Los Padres 
Reservoir-MPWMD 


Enlarging existing 
reservoir 


24 


22 


18 


410 


T&E species, steelheod resources, 
cultural resources in Cormel River 


Domenigcni Valley 
Reservoir-MWDSC 


Offstream storage of 

SWP and Colorado 

River water, drought year 

supply 


800 





264 


410 


Final EIR certified 


Inland Feeder-MWDSC 


Conveyance Facilities 


- 


— 


— 


- 




San Felipe Extension- 
PVWA 


CVP Conveyance 
Facility 




N/A 


N/Ai» 


140 


Capital costs only; convey 
1 8,000 AF annually 


City of San Luis 
Obispo-Solinos Reservoir 


Enlarging existing 
reservoir 


18 


— 


1.6 


— 


Final EIR is expected to be 
certified in 1994, 



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

(2) Annual supply and unit cost figures are based on Delta water supply availability under D- 1 485 v^ith an Interim South Delta Water Management Program in place. 

(3) Reservoir copocity 

(4) Folsom Lake flood control reservation would return to original 0.4 MAF 

(5) Yield of this project is in port or fully comes from the CVP 

(6) N/A. Not Applicable 

(7) These progroms are only feasible if a Delta Water Management Program is implemented. 



Summary of Volume II 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



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

Ongoing local water supply programs include the Metropolitan Water District of 
Southern California's Domenigoni Valley Reservoir. East Bay Municipal Utility 
District's water management program. El Dorado County Water Agency's water 
program. City of San Luis Obispo's Salinas Reservoir enlargement, and Monterey 
Peninsula Water Management District's New Lxjs Padres Reservoir. By 2020, additional 
local surface water management programs could improve local annual supplies by 
about 40,000 af and 344,000 af for average and drought years, respectively. 

Local imported supplies are undergoing transition. Court-ordered restrictions 
t)n diversion from the Mono Basin and Owens Valley have reduced the amount of water 
the City of Lx)s Angeles can receive. These restrictions have brought into question the 
reliability of Mono-Owens supply for the South Coast Region. 

Table S-4. California Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs 

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



i 



Supply 


1990 


2000 


20T0 


2020 




average 


drought 


overoge 


drought 


crveroge 


drought 


overoge 


drought 


Surface 


10.1 


8.1 


10.2 


8.2 










Local 


10.2 


8.3 


10.3 


8.4 


Local imports"' 


1.0 
5.2 


0.7 
5.1 


1.0 
4.4 


0.8 
4.4 


1.0 
4.4 


1.0 
4.4 


1.0 


1.0 


Colorado River 


4.4 


4.4 


CVP 


7.5 


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 


0.8 


SWPi'i 


2.8 


2.1 


3.4 


2.1 


3.9 


3.0 


4.0 


3.0 


Reclaimed 


0.2 


0.2 


0.7 


0.7 


0.8 


0.8 


0.9 


0.9 


Ground water'^' 


7.1 

1.3 
27.2 


11.8 

1.3 
15.3 


7.1 


11.9 


7.2 


12.2 


7.3 

27.5 


12.3 


Ground water overdraft'^' 


27.5 


15.4 


— 


Dedicated natural flow 


27.5 


15.4 


15.4 


TOTAL 


63.5 


50.4 


63.3 


49.5 


64.0 


51.2 


64.5 


51.6 



(1) 1990 SWP supplies ore 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 the ground 
water bosins- 

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



Summary of Volume II 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Colorado River supplies to the Colorado River and South Coast regions for urban 
and agricultural uses could decline from about 5.200.000 af to California's basic 
apportionment of 4.400.000 af annually. With Arizona and Nevada using less than 
their apportionment of water, their unused supply of Colorado River water was made 
available to meet California's requirements during recent years. Southern California 
was spared from severe rationing during most of the 1987-92 drought primarily as a 
result of about 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 1991. Supplemental Colorado River water cannot be counted on to meet 
needs in the future as Arizona and Nevada continue to use more of their allocated 
share of Colorado River water. 

Local imported supplies are discussed in detail in the following chapters about 
each hydrologic region. Chapter 3. Volume 1. includes a general summary of the major 
local imported water supply projects. 

Central Valley Project yield will remain about the same. The U. S. Bureau of 
Reclamation is required by the CVPIA to study replacement sources for 800,000 af of 
water recently allocated to environmental uses in the Central Valley, but has no 
authority under CVPIA to implement projects identified in this study. Additional 
supplies needed for potential future CVP conveyance facilities, such as the San Felipe 
extension, will probably come from reallocation of already contracted CVP supplies. 

Table S-5. State Water Project Supplies 

(millions of acre-feet) 



Level of 




SWP Delivery Capability^ 




SWP Delta 


Development 


With Existing Facilities 


With Level 1 Water 


Export 
Demand 








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 copability 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 progroms include South Delto Water Management Programs, long-term Delto Water Management Programs, the Kern Water Bonk (including Local Elements), and Los 
Bonos Grandes facilities. 

Note: Feather River Service Areo supplies are not included. FRSA overage and drought supplies are 927,000 and 729,000 AF respectively. 

State Water Project supply studies were conducted to evaluate the delivery 
capability of the Project with: (1) existing facilities and (2) Level 1 water management 
programs under SWRCB D-1485 operating criteria (see Table S-5). SWP supplies for 
the 1990 level were 2,800.000 af and 2.100.000 af for average and drought years, 
respectively. SWP 1990 average supply is normalized and does not reflect additional 
supplies delivered to offset reduction of Mono-Owens deliveries to South Coast Region. 
Additional Level 1 programs include the South Delta Water Management Program, 
long-term Delta water management programs, the Kern Water Bank (including local 
elements). Los Banos Grandes Reservoir, and the Coastal Branch Extension of the 



Summary of Volume II 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



California Aqueduct. With the Level 1 programs. SWP supplies could increase to about 
4.000,000 af and 3.000.000 af in average and drought years by the year 2020. 

Table S-6. Use of Ground Water by Hydrologic Region'" 

(thousands of acre-feet) 



Hydrologic Region 



1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



i 





North Coast 


263 


283 


275 


295 


286 


308 


298 


316 


San Francisco Bay 


100 


139 


126 


174 


160 


174 


165 


174 


Central Coost 


688 


762 


694 


769 


695 


776 


698 


781 


South Coast 


1,083 


1,306 


1,100 


1,325 


1,125 


1,350 


1,150 


1,375 


Sacramento River 


2,496 


2,865 


2,463 


2,985 


2,426 


3,033 


2,491 


3,038 


Son Joaquin River 


1,098 


2,145 


1,135 


2,202 


1,156 


2,227 


1,161 


2,252 


Tulare Lake 


915 


3,773 


918 


3,758 


921 


3,726 


926 


3,758 


North Lahontan 


121 


146 


128 


154 


138 


165 


147 


173 


South Lahontan 


221 


252 


220 


237 


226 


271 


258 


271 


Colorado River 


80 


80 


79 


79 


80 


80 


79 


79 


TOTAL 


7,100 


1 1 ,800 


7,100 


1 2,000 


7,200 


12,100 


7,400 


1 2,200 



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

California's ground water resources played a vital role in helping the State 
through the 1987-92 drought. Recent studies by DWR indicate that many of the San 
Joaquin Valley's ground water aquifers substantially recovered from the 1976-77 
drought during the late 1970s and early 1980s when surface runoff and Delta exports 
were above average. Conjunctive use operations, which helped make this possible, will 
continue to be refined and made more effective in the future. The 1990 level average 
annual net ground water use in California is about 8.400.000 af. including 1,300.000 
af of ground water overdraft. During droughts, ground water use is increased 
significantly to offset reduction in surface water supplies, as shown in Table S-6. 
Annual ground water overdraft has been reduced by about 700.000 af since 1980, 
when ground water overdraft was last studied (see Table S-7). This reduction has 
mainly occurred in the San Joaquin Valley and is due to the benefits of imported 
supplies to the San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake regions, and construction and 
operation of Hidden and Buchanan dams. These local reservoirs provided controlled 
surface water releases and opportunities for greater ground water recharge during the 
1970s and 1980s. 

Average ground water use (not including overdraft) shown in Table S-6 
represents use of the prime supply of ground water. Prime supply of a ground water 
basin is the average annual natviral recharge of the basin by deep percolation of rainfall 
and percolation from streambeds and lakes. 

Ground water overdraft in a basin can induce movement of water from adjacent 
areas. If the adjacent areas contain poor quality water, degradation would occur in the 
basin. There is a west-to-east ground water gradient in the San Joaquin Valley from 
Merced County to Kern County. Poor quality ground water moves eastward along this 
gradient, displacing good quality ground water in the trough of the valley. The total 
dissolved solids in the west side of the valley generally ranges from 2.000 to 7.000 
milligrams per liter: the east-side water from 300 to 700 milligrams per liter. This 



Summary of Volume 11 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



adverse effect of overdraft and possible degradation of ground water quality in San 
Joaquin Valley has been evaluated and included in ground water overdraft analyses. 

Table S-7. Ground Water Overdraft by Hydrologic Region 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

Region 1990 

North Coast 

Son Francisco Bay 

Central Coast 240 

South Coast 20 

Sacramento River 30 

San Joaquin River 210 

Tulare Lake 650 

North Lahontan 

South Lahontan 70 

Colorado River 80 

STATEWIDE 1 ,300 

Because ground water is usually used to replace much of the shortfall in surface 
water supplies, recent limitations on Delta exports will exacerbate ground water 
overdraft in the San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake regions, and in other regions 
receiving a portion of their supplies from the Delta. For example, in 1993. an 
above-normal runoff year, environmental restrictions limited CVP deliveries to 50 
percent of contracted supply for federal water service contractors from Tracy to 
Kettleman City. 

Water reclamation programs such as water recycling, reclamation of 
contaminated ground water, ocean water desalting, and desalting of agricultural 
drainage water were evaluated (see Volume I, Chapter 1 1 for a detailed discussion of 
these problems). Projected water recycling is based on evaluation of water recycling 
data presented in Future Water Recycling Potential. 1993 Survey, a report by the 
WateReuse Association of California, and information provided by local water and 
sanitation districts. Table S-8 shows the estimated water recycling contribution (new 
water supply) to water supply by hydrologic region. 

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



10 Summary of Volume II 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Table S-8. Total Water Recycling and Resulting New Water Supply by Hydrologic Region 

(thousands of acre-feet) 



Hydrologic 
Regions 



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 



i 



North Coast 


Existing - 


14 


n 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Level 1 


— 


— 


23 


14 


23 


17 


23 


20 


Level II 


— 


— 


2 


2 


4 


4 


6 


6 


Son Francisco Bay 


Existing 


36 


36 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Level 1 


— 


— 


74 


74 


Ill 


Ill 


119 


119 


Level II 


— 


— 


20 


20 


40 


40 


59 


59 


Central Coast 


Existing 


40 


15 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Level 1 


— 


— 


74 


59 


87 


70 


87 


70 


Level II 


— 


— 




















South Coast 


Existing 


140 


82 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Level 1 


— 


— 


632 


481 


814 


580 


888 


679 


Level II 


— 


— 


110 


110 


246 


246 


302 


302 


Sacromento River 


Existing 


9 





— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Level 1 


— 


— 


10 





11 





11 





Level II 


— 


— 




















San Joaquin River 


Existing 


24 





— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Level 1 


— 


— 


30 





35 





48 





Level II 


— 


— 




















Tulare Lake 


Existing 


63 





— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Level 1 


— 


— 


68 





73 





80 





Level II 


— 


— 




















North Lahontan 


Existing 


8 


8 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Level 1 


— 


— 


8 


8 


8 


8 


8 


8 


Level II 


— 


— 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


South Lahontan 


Existing 


13 


13 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Level 1 


— 


— 


13 


13 


14 


14 


14 


14 


Level II 


— 


— 


1 


1 


1 


1 


2 


2 


Colorado River 


Existing 


7 


7 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Level 1 


— 


— 


26 


9 


37 


12 


43 


13 


Level II 


— 


— 






















TOTAL 


Existing 


354 


172 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Level 1 


— 


— 


958 


658 


1,213 


812 


1,321 


923 


Level II 


— 


— 


134 


134 


292 


292 


370 


370 





Summary of Volume II 



11 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Water Demand 

Extensive evaluation and analyses of water demand were conducted for this 
water plan update. These analyses recognize the water demands of all beneficial uses: 
urban, agricultural, environmental, and other uses including water-based recreation, 
and power generation. Water-based recreation is discussed more extensively in 
Volume 1, Chapter 9. Table S-9 summarizes statewide estimated water demands. 



Definitions of Terms 

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

□ The intake to a city water system or factory; 

□ The farm headgate; 

□ A marsh or wetland, either directly or by incidental drainage flows; this is 
water for wildlife areas; and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(J Normalized demand: The result 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, etc. 



12 Summary of Volume IT 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Table S-9. California Water Demand 

(millions of acre-feef) 



Category of Use 


1990 


2000 


2070 


2020 




average 


drought 


average 


drought 


overage 


drought 


overoge 


droughf 


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 


16.8 


Depletion 


24.4 


12.9 


24.7 


13.3 


24.7 


13.3 


24.7 


13.3 


Other" 


















Applied water demand 


0.3 


0.3 


0.3 


0.3 


0.3 


0.3 


0.3 


0.3 


Net water demand 


1.5 


1.5 


1.5 


1.4 


1.5 


1.4 


1.5 


1.4 


Depletion 


1.0 


1.0 


1.0 


1.0 


1.0 


1,0 


1.0 


1.0 


TOTAL 


















Applied water demand 


68.0 


58.0 


69.1 


59.2 


69.9 


60.1 


71.1 


61.2 


Net water demand 


63.5 


53.2 


64.3 


53.9 


64.9 


54.5 


65.7 


55.3 


Depletion 


55.3 


45.5 


55.8 


46.1 


56.2 


46.6 


56.9 


47.2 



i 



(1) Includes major conveyance facility losses, recreotion uses, and energy produclion. 

Urban Water Demand 

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

Urban annual net water demand could increase from 6.800,000 af in 1990 to 
10.500,000 afby 2020. after accounting for implementation of conservation measures 
that are forecasted to reduce urban annual net water demand by about 900,000 af. 
Urban water demand forecasts are based on: (1) population projections: and (2) unit 
urban water use values, considering probable effects of future water conservation 
measures, and trends such as increases in multi-family housing and greater growth in 
warmer inland areas of the State. Table S- 1 1 shows urban water demand forecasts by 
hydrologic region. A comprehensive analysis of unit urban water use is presented in 
Volume 1. Chapter 6. 



Summary of Volume II 



13 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Hydrologic Regions 



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



Table S-10. Population Projections by Hydrologic Region 

(millions) 



1990 



2000 



2010 



2020 



0.6 


0.7 


0.8 


0.9 


5.5 


6.2 


6.6 


6.9 


1.3 


1.5 


1.8 


2.0 


16.3 


19.3 


22.1 


25.3 


2.2 


2.9 


3.5 


4.1 


1.4 


»»..»_i.E^MiM 


2.6 


""^B13.2 


1.5 


2.2 


2.8 


3.5 


0.1 


0.1 


0.1 


0.1 


0.6 


1.0 


1.4 


1.9 


0.5 


0.6 


0.8 


1.0 



I 



TOTAL 



30.0 



36.5 



42.5 



48.9 



Agricultural Water Demand 

To compute agricultural water demand, the California Water Plan Update 
integrates the results of three forecasting methods used to estimate irrigated 
agricultural acreage and crop type: 

O Review of local historical crop acreage along with the availability of water and 
impacts of urban encroachment; 

O Crop Market Outlook; and 

O Central Valley Production Model. 

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

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



14 



Summary of Volume II 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Hydrologic Region 



Table S-ll. Urban Water Demand by Hydrologic Region 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



North Coast 


Applied water demand 


168 


177 


186 


195 


204 


214 


219 


230 


Net water demand 


168 


177 


186 


195 


204 


214 


219 


230 


Depletion 


110 


112 


119 


122 


127 


132 


136 


142 


Son Francisco Bay 


Applied water demand 


1,186 


1,287 


1,298 


1,390 


1,365 


1,486 


1,406 


1,530 


Net water demand 


1,186 


1,287 


1,298 


1,390 


1,365 


1,486 


1,406 


1,530 


Depletion 


1,079 


1,175 


1,185 


1,271 


1,247 


1,362 


1,287 


1,403 


Central Coast 


Applied water demand 


273 


277 


315 


321 


365 


373 


420 


429 


Net water demand 


229 


233 


263 


268 


304 


311 


349 


357 


Depletion 


203 


206 


235 


239 


272 


278 


315 


321 


South Coast 


Applied water demand 


3,851 


3,997 


4,446 


4,617 


5,180 


5,381 


6,008 


6,244 


Net water demand 


3,511 


3,641 


4,010 


4,161 


4,623 


4,799 


5,309 


5,514 


Depletion 


3,341 


3,463 


3,536 


3,677 


3,993 


4,158 


4,596 


4,785 


Sacramento River 


Applied water demand 


744 


807 


911 


989 


1,076 


1,167 


1,231 


1,335 


Net water demand 


744 


807 


911 


989 


1,076 


1,167 


1,231 


1,335 


Depletion 


236 


257 


293 


318 


349 


378 


400 


434 


San Joaquin River 


Applied water demand 


495 


507 


663 


684 


839 


867 


1,029 


1,063 


Net water demand 


353 


366 


468 


490 


587 


616 


717 


752 


Depletion 


192 


194 


258 


265 


332 


340 


410 


420 


Tulare Lake 


Applied water demand 


523 


523 


716 


716 


892 


892 


1,116 


1,116 


Net water demand 


214 


214 


292 


292 


364 


364 


454 


454 


Depletion 


214 


214 


292 


292 


364 


364 


454 


454 


North Lahontan 


Applied water demand 


37 


38 


43 


44 


46 


48 


51 


52 


Net water demand 


37 


38 


43 


44 


46 


48 


51 


52 


Depletion 


14 


15 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


21 


South Lahontan 


Applied water demand 


187 


193 


292 


302 


409 


423 


550 


565 


Net wafer demand 


123 


125 


191 


198 


269 


277 


360 


372 


Depletion 


123 


125 


191 


198 


269 


277 


360 


372 


Colorado River 


Applied water demand 


301 


301 


399 


399 


512 


512 


621 


621 


Net water demand 


204 


204 


272 


272 


349 


349 


424 


424 


Depletion 


204 


204 


272 


272 


349 


349 


424 


424 




TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


7,800 


8,100 


9,300 


9,700 


10,900 


1 1 ,400 


1 2,700 


13,200 


Net water demand 


6,800 


7,100 


7,900 


8,300 


9,200 


9,600 


10,500 


1 1 ,000 


Depletion 


5,700 


6,000 


6,400 


6,700 


7,300 


7,700 


8,400 


8,800 






Summary of Volume II 



15 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



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

Some crop shifts are expected to happen as growers move from low price to high 
price crops. Alfalfa and pasture lands are forecasted to decrease by about 33 1 ,000 acres, 
mostly in the San Joaquin and Tulare Lake regions. Crop acreages expected to increase 
include vegetables, nuts (almonds and pistachios), and grapes, while low-quality (bulk) 
wine grape acreage is decreasing in the San Joaquin Valley, the acreage of high-quality 
table wine grapes is increasing in other regions. 

Table S-12. California Crop and Irrigated Acreage by Hydrologic Region* '> 1990 

(normalized, in thousands of acres) 



Irrigated Crop 



NC 



SF 



CC 



SC 



SR 



SJ 



TL 



NL 



SL 



CR Total 





Grain 


82 


2 


28 


11 


303 


182 


297 


6 


1 


76 


988 


Rice 














494 


21 


1 


1 








517 


Cotton 

















178 


1,029 








37 


1,244 


Sugar beets 


2 





5 





75 


64 


35 








35 


216 


Corn 


1 


1 


3 


5 


104 


181 


100 








8 


403 


Other field 


3 


1 


16 


4 


155 


121 


135 





1 


55 


491 


Alfalfa 


53 





27 


10 


141 


226 


345 


43 


34 


256 


1,135 


Pasture 


121 


5 


20 


20 


357 


228 


44 


110 


19 


32 


956 


Tomatoes 








14 


9 


120 


89 


107 








13 


352 


Other truck 


21 


10 


321 


87 


55 


133 


204 


1 


2 


187 


1,021 


Almonds/pistachios 














101 


245 


164 











510 


Other deciduous 


7 


6 


20 


3 


205 


147 


177 





4 


1 


570 


Citrus/olives 








18 


164 


18 


9 


181 








29 


419 


Grapes 


36 


36 


56 


6 


17 


184 


393 








20 


748 


TOTAL crop areai" 


326 


61 


528 


319 


2,145 


2,008 


3,212 


161 


61 


749 


9,570 


Double crops 








98 


30 


44 


53 


65 








102 


392 


Irrigated land area 


326 


61 


430 


289 


2,101 


1,955 


3,147 


161 


61 


647 


9,178 



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



The 1 990 level (base year) crop acreage and crop types are based on agricultural 
land use surveys which have been normalized to take into account the impact of the 
1987-92 drought, government set-aside programs, and other annual crop acreage 
fluctuations. Tables S-12 and S-13 show the 1990 and 2020 level California crop and 
irrigated acreage by hydrologic region, respectively. Forecasts of agricultural water 
needs are based on: (1) agricultural acreage forecasts, (2) crop type forecasts, (3) crop 
unit applied water and unit evapotranspiration of applied water values (in acre-feet for 
each crop acre), and (4) estimates of future water conservation. 



16 



Summary of Volume II 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Table S-13. California Crop and Irrigated Acreage by Hydrologic Region 2020 (Forecasted) 

(thousands of acres) 



Irrigated Crop 



NC 



SF 



CC 



SC 



SR 



SJ 



TL 



NL 



SL 



CR Total 



i 



Grain 

Rice 

Cotton 

Sugar beets 

Corn 

Other field 

Alfalfa 

Pasture 

Tomatoes 

Other truck 

Almonds/pistachios 

Other deciduous 

Citrus/olives 

Vineyard 



72 




10 

1 

3 

65 

122 



28 



7 



38 



2 






1 


4 


11 

6 


40 



23 





5 

6 

15 

24 

15 

15 

347 



19 

16 

81 






2 

6 
6 
4 
43 

3 
116 
3 



295 

482 



72 
115 
158 
152 
320 
132 

65 
125 
217 

29 

24 



179 

15 
178 

45 
183 
122 
156 
171 

88 
201 
263 
151 

11 
189 



258 



949 

25 

98 

130 

240 

22 

85 

350 

173 

178 

190 

363 



9 

1 



1 

52 
104 

2 













26 
19 

1 


2 





70 



67 

40 

3 

26 

226 

30 

14 

203 



2 

30 

15 



909 
498 

1,194 
197 
409 
455 
947 
813 
339 

1,250 
561 
585 
392 
753 



TOTAL crop area 
Double crops 
Irrigated land area 



346 


64 


566 


184 


2,186 


1,952 


3,061 


169 


48 


726 


9,302 








137 


12 


72 


68 


90 








123 


502 


346 


64 


429 


172 


2,114 


1,884 


2,971 


169 


48 


603 


8,800 



Agricultural water needs were evaluated by determining crop types and acreages 
for each region. Forecasts indicate that irrigated agricultural acreage will decline by 
about 378.000 acres between 1990 and 2020, from 9.178.000 acres to about 
8.800.000 acres. This decline represents a 700.000-acre reduction from a peak in 
1980. 

For the State as a whole, agricultural annual net water demand will decrease by 
about 1,900,000 af, from 26,800,000 af in 1990 to 24,900,000 af in 2020. Many of 
agriculture's unit applied water values have decreased during the past decade. Part of 
this decrease is due to improvements in irrigation efficiency and increased emphasis 
on water conservation since the 1976-77 drought. Table S-14 shows the 1990 level 
and future agricultural water demands by hydrologic region. For a comprehensive 
analysis of agricultural water use. refer to Volume 1. Chapter 7. 



Summary of Volume II 



17 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Agricultural Water Demand by Hydrologic Region 

(thousands of acre- feet j 



Hydrologic Region 



1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



North Coast 


Applied water demand 


^K.839 


915 


868 


948 


891 


972 


907 


989 


Net water demand 




7U 


760 


748 


764 


761 


776 


771 


787 


Depletion wmmm^^F 


592 


647 


611 


669 


627 


686 


637 


698 


San Francisco Bay 


Applied water demand 




92 


103 


94 


104 


94 


104 


94 


103 


Net water demand 




88 


99 


90 


100 


90 


100 


90 


99 


Depletion .flHHL. 80 


89 


82 


90 


82 


90 


82 


89 


Central Coast 


Applied water demand 




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 


Depletion 




884 


950 


901 


971 


911 


980 


911 


992 


South Coast 


Applied water demand 


^^mmm: yjj 


753 


632 


655 


499 


518 


382 


396 


Net water demand 




644 


668 


569 


592 


458 


474 


356 


370 


Depletion «mmt^S^ 


«m^m 


^644 


668 


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 


Depletion 




5,477 


6,123 


5,426 


6,149 


5,439 


6,151 


5,437 


6,151 


San Joaquin River 


Applied water demand 




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 


4,777 


4,383 


4,678 


Tulare Lake 


Applied water demand 




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 


7,320 


Depletion «Mai^^||i^m 


7,704 


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 


602 


Net water demand 




460 


511 


458 


510 


457 


508 


469 


521 


Depletion ^^»M»^^ 373 


426 


385 


433 


393 


442 


399 


449 


South Lahontan 


Applied water demand 


^^^M 


S^siz 


321 


266 


270 


258 


262 


253 


257 


Net water demand 




290 


293 


242 


245 


235 


238 


231 


234 


Depletion 




290 


293 


242 


245 


235 


238 


231 


234 


Colorado River 


Applied water demand 




3,705 


3,705 


3,598 


3,598 


3,453 


3,453 


3,363 


3,363 


Net water demand 




3,439 


3,439 


3,362 


3,362 


3,262 


3,262 


3,181 


3,181 


Depletion 




3,439 


3,439 


3,362 


3,362 


3,262 


3,262 


3,181 


3,181 




TOTAL 


Applied water demand 




31,100 


32,800 


30,200 


31,900 


29,400 


31,100 


28,800 


30,400 


Net water demand 




26,800 


28,200 


26,100 


27,400 


25,400 


26,700 


24,900 


26,100 


Depletion 




24,200 


25,600 


23,700 


25,100 


23,200 


24,600 


22,800 


24,100 





18 



Summary of Volume II 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Environmental Water Demand 

Estimates of environmental water demand are based on water needs of managed 
fresh water wetlands (and Suisun Marsh), environmental instream flow needs. Delta 
outflow, and wild and scenic rivers. Wetlands water needs were tabulated from 
investigation of existing public and private wildlife refuges and inclusion of additional 
wetlands water demand required by the CVPIA. Environmental instream flow needs 
were compiled by reviewing existing I'ishery agreements, water rights, and court 
decisions pertaining to water needs of aquatic resources of streams. Additional flows in 
the Trinity River, as noted in the CVPIA. are also included in projections of 
environmental instream demand. Environmental water needs In drought years are 
considerably lower than in average years, reflecting the variability of the natural flows 
of rivers and lower fishery flow requirements such as in D-1485 for the Bay-Delta 
during drought. Table S-15 summarizes environmental water needs by hydrologic 
region. Furthermore, regulatory agencies have proposed a number of changes in 
instream flow needs for major rivers, including the Sacramento and San Joaquin. 
These proposed flow requirements are not necessarily additive: however, an increase 
from 1.000,000 af to 3,000,000 af is presented to envelop potential environmental 
water needs that could result from proposed additional instream needs and actions 
under way by regulatory agencies. (A more comprehensive discussion of environmental 
water needs is presented in Volume 1, Chapter 8.) 

Demand Reduction — Water Conservation 

Water conservation has become an accepted method for helping to reduce water 
demand in California. Therefore, water conservation, including urban Best 
Management Practices and agricultural Efficient Water Management Practices, was 
incorporated into water demand computations and forecasts of demand to 2020. More 
than 100 of California's major urban water agencies have agreed to BMPs. Those 
measures, which are detailed in Chapter 6 of Volume I. are expected to reduce urban 
annual applied water demand by about 1.300,000 af by 2020. The annual depletion 
and net water reduction from urban BMPs could amount to 935,000 af. This amount 
is in addition to 400,000 af annual net savings as the result of urban conservation 
measures put into place between 1980 and 1990. Agricultural water conservation, 
land retirement, and crop shifting would reduce agricultural annual applied water by 
about 2,300,000 af by 2020. Agricultural water conservation, through improved 
irrigation efficiency, could reduce agricultural annual applied water by about 7 1 0.000 
af by 2020 and depletions by 330,000 af. Although water conservation measures will 
reduce water demand, they alone are not sufficient to eliminate forecasted shortages 
during the next 30 years with available supplies. 



i 



Summary of Volume II 19 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Table S-15. Environmental Water Needs by Hydrologic Region 

(thousands of acre-feef) 



Hydrologic Region 



1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



North Coast 


Applied water demand' " 


19,199 


9,299 


19,326 


9,426 


1 9,326 


9,426 


19,326 


9,426 


8 


Net water demand''' 


19,087 


9,187 


19,212 


9,312 


19,212 


9,312 


19,212 


9,312 




Depletion") 


19,085 


9,185 


19,210 


9,310 


19,210 


9,310 


19,210 


9,310 


• 


San Francisco Bay 


Applied water demand 


4,775 


3,245 


4,775 


3,245 


4,775 


3,245 


4,775 


3,245 


1 


Net water demand 


4,775 


3,245 


4,775 


3,245 


4,775 


3,245 


4,775 


3,245 




Depletion 


4,775 


3,245 


4,775 


3,245 


4,775 


3,245 


4,775 


3,245 




Central Coast 


Applied water demand 


4 


2 


4 


2, 


..,**.i^J.^ta^ 2 


4 


2 


a 


Net water demand 


1 





1 





1 





1 







Depletion 


1 





1 





1 





1 





1 


South Coast 


Applied water demand 


2 


2 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


1 


Net water demand 


2 


2 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 




Depletion 


2 


2 


6 


6, 


„«^«.»*.^^ 


»*««, 6 


6 


6 


i 


Sacramento River 


Applied water demand 


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 


168 


168 


207 


207 


207 


207 


207 


208 


J 


Son Joaquin River 


Applied water demand 


599 


511 


744 


656 


744 


656 


744 


656 


1 


Net water demand 


554 


466 


670 


582 


670 


582 


670 


582 




Depletion 


190 


190 


306 


306 


306 


306 


306 


306 


1 


Tulare Lake 


Applied water demand 


82 


82 


136 


136 


136 


136 


136 


136 


1 


Net water demand 


34 


34 


56 


56 


56 


56 


56 


56 




Depletion 


34^^ 


a-iM^ 


.^^.JiL^ 


_A. 




56 


56 


56 


i 


North Lahontan 


Applied water demand 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


1 


Net water demand 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 




Depletion 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


1 


South Lahontan 


Applied water demand 


•■.im., 


122 


128 


122 


128 


122 


128 


122 


1 


Net water demand 


128 


122 


128 


122 


128 


122 


128 


122 




Depletion 


73 


67 


73 


67 


73 


67 


73 


67 


1 


Colorado River 


Applied water demand 


39 


39 


44 


44 


44 


44 


44 


44 




Net water demand 


39 


39 


44 


44 


44 


44 


44 


44 




Depletion 


39 


39 


44 


44 


44 


44 


44 


44 






TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


28,800 


16,800 


29,300 


17,300 


29,300 


1 7,300 


29,300 


17,300 




Net water demand 


28,400 


16,400 


28,800 


16,800 


28,800 


16,800 


28,800 


16,800 




Depletion 


24,400 


1 2,900 


24,700 


1 3,300 


24,700 


13,300 


24,700 


13,300 






( 1 1 Includes 17.8 MAF ond 7.9 MAF (lows for North Coast Wild an- 


d Scenic Rivers Fo 


r overage and drought years, respectively. 











20 



Summary of Volume II 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Table S- 16 summarizes annual applied water reductions and depletions due to 
conservation from 1990 to 2020 by hydrologic region. Reductions in depletion caused 
by water conser\'ation vary greatly, depending on the opportunity for water reuse 
within an area. For example, Sacramento FUver Region water is reused extensively, 
thus the reduction of 265.000 af of applied agricultural water will not result in any 
reduction in depletion for the region. Effective water conservation in any region is the 
reduction in depletion, which is defined as reduction of the ETTAW. irrecoverable losses 
from distribution systems, and outflow to the ocean or a salt sink. Therefore, a larger 
water savings potential exists in the western San Joaquin Valley. Colorado River, and 
coastal regions, where excess applied water generally enters saline sinks (Salton Sea or 
the ocean) or saline ground water basins and cannot be economically reused. Outflow 
from water service areas within the Sacramento region is generally "reused" within the 
region and is also used to maintain water quality and flow standards in the Bay-Delta. 
Reductions in applied water can reduce pumping and treatment costs and diversions 
from streams, thus benefiting fish and wildlife. However, care must be taken to look at 
impacts on downstream reuse such as other farms or managed fresh water wetlands 
that rely on excess applied water from upstream farms. 




Table S-16. Annual Applied Water and Depletion Reductions Due to Conservation 
from 1990 to 2020 by Hydrologic Region 

(thousands of acre-feetj 



Urban 



Agricultural 



Total 



HSA 



Applied 

Water 

Reductions 


Reductions in 
Depletion 


Applied 

Water 

Reductions 


Reductions in 
Depletion 


Applied 

Water 

Reductions 


Reductions in 
Depletion 




65 


55 








65 


55 


250 


250 








250 


250 


30 


30 


20 





50 


30 


610 


490 


65 


10 


675 


500 


110 


25 


265 





375 


25 


60 


20 


40 


20 


100 


40 


65 


20 


130 


90 


195 


110 


5 











5 





50 


10 


10 


10 
200 


60 


20 


40 


35 


200 


240 


235 



NC 

SF 

CC 

SC 

SR 

SJ 

TL 

NL 

SL 

CR 



TOTAL 



1,285 



935 



730 



330 



2,015 



,265 



California Water Budget 

The California Water Budget. Table S- 1 7. compares total net water demand with 
supplies from 1 990 through 2020. (Delta supplies assume SWRCB's D- 1485 operating 
criteria.) Average annual supplies for the 1990 level of development, including 
1.300.000 af of ground water overdraft, were generally adequate to meet average 
demands. However, during drought. 1990 level supplies were insufficient to meet 
demand, which resulted in a shortage of over 2,700,000 af under D-1485 operating 
criteria in 1990. In drought years 1991 and 1992. these shortages were reflected in 
urban mandatory water conservation, agricultural land fallowing and crop shifts, 
reduction of environmental flows, and short-term water transfers. 



Summary of Volume 11 



21 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Table S-17. California Water Budget 

(millions of acre-feetj 

Water Demand/Supply 1990 

average drought 



Net Demand 


Urban — with 1 990 level of conservation flHIIB 


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 conservotion measures (Level 1) 

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










28.4 


16.4 


Other"' 


15 


1.5 


Subtotal 


63.5 


53.2 


Proposed Additional Environmental Water Demands'" 
Case 1 - Hypothetical 1 MAF 


_ 


_ 




MPWMHiH^ 


pe?ta^~ 


Cose III - Hypothetical 3 MAF 


— 


— 


Total Net Demand 


63.5 


53.2 


Cose! 


— 


— 


Case II 


— 


— 


Cose III 


— 


— 


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

Developed Supplies 


Surface WateH^l 


27.9 


22.1 


Ground Water 


7.1 


11.8 


Ground Water OverdroP^i 


1.3 


1.3 


Subtotal 


36.3 


35.2 


Dedicated Natural Flow ||^j^^«»»-*«»«**»««w»™^ 


27.2 


15.3 




TOTAL Water Supplies 


63.5 


50.5 




0.0 


-2.7 


Casel 


— 


— 


Case II 


— 


— 


Case III 


— 


— 


level 1 Water Management Programs"! 

Long-term Supply Augmentation 




Local 


— 


— 




— 


State Water Project 
Short-Term Drought Monaqement 


— 


— 




1.0 


Drought Water Transfers 


— 


0.8 


Subtotal ■ Level 1 Water Monaqement Proqrams MHiMMMi^' 


— 


1.8 


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


- 


0.0 


NET TOTAL Demand Reduction/Supply Augmentation 


0.0 


1.8 


Remaining Demand/Supply Balance Requiring Level II Options 


0.0 


■0.9 


Casel . i.:-. .,..,... . ■■.. .i 


— 


— 


Case II 


— 


— 


Casein 


— 


— 





[ 1 1 Includes major conveyance facility losses, recreation uses, and energy production 

(2) Proposed Environmental Water Demands — Case l-lll envelop potential and uncertain demonds and hove immediate and future 

consequences on supplies from the Delta, beginning with actions in 1 992 and 1 993 to protect winter run salmon and delta smelt [actions 

which could also protect other fish species). 



22 Summary of Volume II 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Table S-17. California Water Budget 

(millions of acre-feet) 

2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought 





8.3 


8.7 


9.9 


10.3 


11.4 


11.9 


-0.4 


-0.4 


■0.7 


■0.7 


-0,9 


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 


■0.3 
■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 


64.3 


53.9 


64.9 


54.5 


65.7 


55.3 


1.0 


1.0 


1.0 


1.0 


1.0 


1.0 


2.0 


2.0 


2.0 


2.0 


2.0 


2.0 


3,0 


3,0 


30 


3.0 


3.0 


3.0 




— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


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 


74 


12,2 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


34.9 


33.5 


35.3 


33.7 


35.6 


33,9 


27.4 


15.4 


27.4 


15.4 


27.4 


15,4 




623 


48.9 


62.7 


49.1 


630 


49.3 




— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


-30 


-6,0 


-3.2 


■6.4 


■3.7 


-7.0 


-4.0 


-7.0 


■4.2 


-7.4 


-4.7 


-8.0 


-5.0 


-8,0 


■5.2 


■8.4 


-5.7 


-9,0 




0.5 


0.5 


0.6 


0.6 


0.8 


0.8 


00 


01 


0.0 


0.3 


0.0 


0.3 


0.0 


0.0 


0.0 


0.0 


0.0 


0.0 


0,2 


0,1 


0.6 


1.0 


0.7 


1.0 


— 


1.0 


— 


1.0 


— 


1.0 


— 


08 


— 


0.8 


— 


0.8 


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 


-33 


-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 overdroft 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. 




Summarv of Volume II 23 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



The forecasted 2020 net demand for urban, agricultural, and environmental 
water needs amounts to 65,700,000 af in average years and 55.300,000 af in drought 
years, after accounting for future reductions of 1 ,300,000 af in net water demand due 
to increased water conservation efforts (resulting from implementation of urban BMPs. 
and increased agricultural irrigation efficiencies) and another 1 30, 000-af reduction 
due to future land retirement. It should be noted that several pending actions designed 
to protect and restore aquatic species will increase environmental water needs in a 
range of 1,000.000 to 3.000,000 af. These actions include: 

O Biological opinions for winter-run salmon and Delta smelt, which place 
operational constraints on Delta exports and vary yearly. 

O Implementation of the CVPIA — the allocation of 800.000 af of annual CVP supplies 
for environmental water use in the Central Valley streams and about 200.000 af 
for wetlands. 

O 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. 

O SWRCB's 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 more frequent and severe water supply shortages for the year 2000 and 
beyond. In 1993. an above-normal year, some CVP contractors had their supplies cut 
by 50 percent. These unanticipated shortages point to the need for a quick resolution 
of Delta problems through federal cooperation and participation as well as 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, annual 
shortages of 3,700,000 to 5.700,000 af could occur during average years, again 
depending on the outcome of various actions listed above. Average year shortages are 
considered chronic and indicate the need for implementing long-term water supply 
augmentation and management measures to improve water service reliability. 
Similarly, by year 2020. annual drought year shortages could increase to 7,000.000 to 
9,000,000 af under D-1485 operating criteria, also indicating the need for long-term 
measures. 

However, water shortages would vary from region to region and sector to sector. 
For example, the South Coast Region's population is expected to increase to over 25 
million people by 2020. requiring an additional 1.800.000 af 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 400.000 af for average years and 850.000 af in drought years: 
this is before consideration of the additional 1.000.000 to 3.000,000 af of 
environmental water needs, which could reduce existing SWP supplies from the Delta. 
Thus, forecasted shortages could be larger if solutions to complex Delta problems are 
not found and implemented along with proposed local water management programs 
and additional facilities for the SWP. 

24 Summary of Volume II 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Implementation of Level 1 water management programs could reduce but not 
eliminate forecasted shortages in 2020 by implementing 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 water recycling, benefits of a long-term Delta solution, more conjunctive use 
programs, and additional south-of-the-Delta storage facilities). These Level I programs 
combined leave a potential shortfall in annual supplies of about 2,100.000 to 
4, 100,000 af in average years and 2.900.000 to 4.900.000 af in drought years by 2020. 
The shortfall must be made up by Level II water supply augmentation and demand 
management programs. (Vohmie I. Chapter 1 1 explains these programs.) The 
California Water Budget, Table S-17, 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. 

Local Water Supply Issues 

The following sections highlight local issues of concern. Each regional chapter 
contains more specific information on water supply issues affecting that region. 

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

In the San Francisco Bay Region. Marin Municipal Water District has relied, in 
part, on imported supply from Sonoma County Water Agency and extensive conserva- 
tion efforts by its customers to ensure adequate supplies throughout the recent 
drought. Under 2025 demand conditions, without supplemental supplies, the district 
estimates a 40-percent deficiency once every 10 years. To improve reliability, MMWD 
has negotiated an agreement with SCWA to import an additional 10.000 af. This sup- 
plemental supply, in conjunction with the districts water conservation and water man- 
agement plans, should limit water shortages to about 10 percent once every 10 years. 

Imported supplies by the City of San Francisco, Santa Clara Valley Water District, 
and East Bay Municipal Utilities District also suffered deficiencies during the 1 987-92 
drought. During 1991, theCity of San Francisco was able to reduce expected rationing 
from 45 to 25 percent through purchases of 50,000 af from the 1991 State Drought 
Water Bank and 20,000 af from Placer County Water Agency, Customers were still 
required to reduce indoor use by 10 percent and outdoor use by 60 percent. During 
1989-91, Santa Clara Valley Water District was able to get through with 25 percent 
rationing by purchasing 69,000 af from Yuba County, 14,000 af from Placer County, 

and 20,000 af from the State Drought Water Bank. 
i 

Water supplies in much of the Central Coast Region are greatly dependent upon 

the region's ground water basins: the storage in these basins is small and fluctuates 
! from year to year. Since ground water and limited local surface supplies are its primary 
I source of water, the region Is vulnerable to droughts. As ground water extractions 

exceed ground water replenishment, several of the region's coastal aquifers are 

experiencing overdraft conditions, allowing sea water intrusion. The 1987-92 drought 




Summary of Volume II 25 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



required many communities in the region to implement stringent water conservation 
programs. The cities of Santa Barbara and Morro Bay constructed sea water 
desalination plants to improve their water service reliability. 

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

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

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

Foothill areas of both the San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake regions share the 
Sacramento River Region's problem of limited water supplies. Major concerns for this 
region's agricultural community are agricultural drainage disposal and treatment 
costs and potential reduction of imported supplies. CVP supplies will be reduced by 
the CVPIA, and both the CVP and SWP supplies are impacted by endangered species 
actions and other actions proposed to protect aquatic species in the Delta. These 
actions will also cause ground water overdraft to increase in these regions. 

In the North Lahontan Region years of disputes over the waters of the Truckee 
and Carson rivers led to the 1990 enactment of the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake 
Water Rights Settlement Act. This federal act makes an interstate allocation of the 
rivers between California and Nevada, provides for the settlement of certain Native 
American water rights claims, and provides for water supplies for specified 
environmental purposes in Nevada. The act allocates to California 23,000 af annually 
in the Lake Tahoe Basin, 32.000 af annually in the Truckee River Basin below Lake 
Tahoe, and water corresponding to existing water uses in the Carson River Basin. 
Provisions of the Settlement Act, including the interstate water allocations, will not 
take effect until several conditions are met. including negotiation of the Truckee River 
Operating Agreement required by the act. 

Growth has long been a major issue in the Tahoe Basin and strict controls have 
been adopted by local agencies under the lead of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 
These controls have been very effective. For example, the City of South Lake Tahoe 
grew by only 4 percent in the 1980s, while population of the Lassen County portion of 
the region increased by nearly 30 percent over the same period. Potential ground water 



26 Summary of Volume II 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



export from the Honey Lake Valley is a controversial issue in the North Lahontan 
Region. TheTruckee Meadows Project, as proposed, could export at least 13.000 af of 
ground water annually from the Nevada portion of Honey Lake Valley to the Reno area. 
Lassen County and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Indian Tribe oppose the project on the 
grounds that it would deplete the local ground water supply and harm the 
environment. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which must issue a right-of-way 
permit before the 80-mile pipeline project can be implemented, released a draft 
Environmental Impact Statement in May 1993. In March 1994. the Secretary of the 
Interior suspended work on the EIS until significant environmental issues are 
resolved. The issues include the ground water model used in the EIS. impacts to 
ground water cleanup activities at the Sierra Army Depot, and reduction of inflows to 

r 

Pyramid Lake. 

Water exports from the South Lahontan Region have been the subject of 
litigation since the early 1970s. In 1972. the County of Inyo sued the City of Los 
Angeles claiming that increased ground water pumping for export was harming the 
Owens Valley. Consequently, the City of Los Angeles and Inyo County implemented 
enhancement projects to mitigate the impacts of ground water pumping. In 1989. the 
parties reached agreement on the long-term ground water management plan for 
Owens Valley and the EIR was accepted by the court. 

Another long-standing issue is the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 
diversions from Mono Lake tributaries and the impact of these diversions on the lake 
level. As a result of extensive litigation between the City of Los Angeles and a number 
of environmental groups. LADWP is now prohibited by court order from diverting from 
the tributaries until the lake level stabilizes. SWRCB concluded Mono Lake water 
rights hearings in February 1994. A draft decision regarding lake levels and stream 
Hows on the four tributaries is expect in late 1994. The Mono-Owens system had 
provided 17 percent of LADWP"s water supply and 1.5 percent of its hydroelectric 
energy supply. Replacement water and energy are being sought. One source of 
replacement water will be from water reclamation projects to be funded by the 
Environmental Water Fund, which was created by the Legislature in 1989 to fund 
projects mutually agreed upon by LADWP and the Mono Lake Committee. 

The Colorado River Region faces increasingly difficult issues involving water 
quality. In the late 1960s. 1970s, and early 1980s, the Salton Sea suffered from high 
water levels caused by increased agricultural runoff treated urban waste water, and 
above-average rainfall. In 1984. the State Water Resources Control Board (responding 
to DWRs referral of the matter to the SWRCB following an investigation at the request 
of a farmer), adopted Water Rights Decision 1600. and required Imperial Irrigation 
District to prepare a conser\'ation plan and take other steps to improve its delivery 
system. Following a 1988 SWRCB order. Imperial Irrigation District implemented a 
program with funds provided by MWDSC to conserve water. The sea level has 
stabilized somewhat during recent years, due in part to conservation measures taken 
by IID. The Salton Sea dilemma illustrates the complexity and opportunities for 
cooperative solutions of water management issues in California. 



i 



Summary of Volume II 27 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



The greenenj surrounding Big Lagoon in Humboldt County is 
typical of the North Coast area. The region has the highest average 
annual rainfall in the State. 




\ 









The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



i 



The North Coast Region comprises all of the California area tributary to the ocean Norfh COQSt 



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

Much of the region is mountainous and rugged. Only 13 percent of the land is 
classified as valley or mesa, and more than half of that is in the northeastern part 
around the Upper Klamath River Basin. The dominant topographic features in the 
region are the California Coast Range and the Klamath Mountains. The eastern 
boundary is formed by mountains that average around 6,000 feet above sea level with 
a few peaks over 8.000 feet. About 400 miles of ocean shoreline form the western 
boundary of the region. 

Average annual precipitation in the North Coast Region is 53 inches, ranging 
from over 100 inches in eastern Del Norte County to less than 15 inches in the Lost 
River drainage area of Modoc County. A relatively small fraction of the precipitation is 
in the form of snow. Only at elevations above 4.000 feet does snow remain on the 
ground for appreciable periods. The heavy rainfall concentrated over the mountains 
makes this region the most water-abundant area of California. Mean annual nmoff is 
about 28.886.000 af. which constitutes about 40 percent of the State's total natural 
runoff. There is also 1 ,860.000 af of average annual runoff flowing into the region from 
Oregon. 

Population 

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

Overall, the North Coast Region's population has grown from 467.890 in 1980 to 
571.750 in 1990 and accounts for 1.9 percent of California's population. During the 

Region Characteristics 
Average Annual Precipitation: 53 inches Average Annual Runoff: 28,886,000 af 
Land Area: 19,590 square miles 1 990 Population: 571, 750 



Region 



North Coast Region 29 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



1980s, the population in the Santa Rosa area grew by 31 percent, due primarily to 
spillover from the Bay Area, while essentially no growth occurred in the Modoc and 
Siskiyou county portions of the region. Average annual population growth rate in the 
northern half of the region has been relatively slow at 3 percent. One exception is 
Crescent City, which had a population increase of 8 1 percent in 1 99 1 , resulting from 
the annexation of the new Pelican Bay State Prison. Previous growth rates in Crescent 
City have been 6.5 percent and 14 percent in 1989 and 1990, respectively. 

Rapid growth is projected for the Santa Rosa area over the next 30 years, while 
only moderate expansion is expected in Humboldt County. The traditional economic 
bases of timber, cattle, and fishing are in a state of flux. Recreation, government, and 
retirees are becoming the major growth generating activities in the north part of the 
region. Table NC-1 shows regional population projections to 2020. 



Table NC- 1 . Population Projections 

(thousands) 



Planning Subarea 



1990 



TOTAL 



572 



2000 



2010 



688 



789 



2020 



Upper Klamath 


29 


34 


39 


43 


Lower Klamath-Smith 


46 


62 


75 


88 


Coastal 


160 


189 


211 


233 


Russian River 


337 


403 


464 


510 



874 



Land Use 

About 97 percent of the land area is forest or range land. Much of this land lies 
within national forests, State and national parks, and Indian reservations. A 
considerable amount of the remainder is privately owned forest land, often held in 
large ownerships. Only about 326,000 acres (2.6 percent) of the region's area are 
irrigated. Of that total, 225,900 acres lie in the Upper Klamath River Basin, above the 
confluence of the Scott and Klamath rivers. (See Appendix C for maps of the planning 
subareas and land ownership in the region.) In the Upper Klamath area, the main 
irrigated crops are pasture and alfalfa, grain, and potatoes. Orchards and vineyards 
are found in the Russian River drainage area. Pasture, alfalfa, and grain are the 
predominant crops in irrigated areas throughout the remainder of the region. 

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



30 



Water Supply 

About 94 percent of the region's 1990 level average water supply is dedicated 
natural runoff, primarily for wild and scenic rivers. Summer water supplies are limited 
because rainfall and rtmoff are much less. The few surface water supply projects that 
exist on tributary streams are small and provide limited carryover capacity to deal with 
extended months of low rainfall. Larger water supply projects include the U.S. Bureau 
of Reclamation's Klamath Project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Russian River 
Project (Lakes Mendocino and Sonoma), and the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water 



North Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



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




Son oma Pe ta ] urn a 

Aqueduct 

26 



Z,e J end 

Urban Land 

Irrigated Land 

Region Water Transfers 

(1,000's of Acre-Feet per Year) 



SCOLE IN MILES 



North Coast Region 



31 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



District's Ruth Reservoir and Eureka to McKinleyville distribution system. The largest 
reservoirs in the region (the Central Valley Project's Clair Engle Lake and the Corps' 
Lake Sonoma) export to adjacent hydrologic regions, while Clear Lake Reservoir 
supplies water to the USBR Klamath Project, which is mainly in Oregon. Table NC-2 
lists major reservoirs in the region. 



Table NC-2. Major Reservoirs 



Reservoir Name 


River 


Capacity (1,0 


Upper Klamath (Oregon) 


Klamath 


735.0 


Clear Lake 


Klamath 


526.8 


Gerber (Oregon) 


Klamath 


94.3 


Copco 


Klamath 


77.0 


Iron Gate 


Klamath 


58.0 


Lake Shastina 


Shasta 


50.0 


Lewiston 


Trinity 


14.7 


Clair Engle (Trinity) 


Trinity 


2,447.7 


Ruth Lake 


Mad 


48.0 


Lake Pillsbury 


Eel 


80.5 


Lake Mendocino 


Russian 


122.4 


Lake Sonoma Worm Springs Dam 


Dry Creek 


381.0 



Owner 



USBR 
USBR 

USBR 

PP&L Co. 

PP&L Co. 

Montague WCD 

USBR 

USBR 

Humboldt Bay MWD 

PG&E 

US Army Corps of Engineers 

US Army Corps of Engineers 



PP&L = Pacific Power and Light Co PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric Co. 



Figure NC-2. 

North Coast Region 

Water Supply Sources 

(1990 Level 

Average Conditions) 



Supply with Existing Facilities and Water Management Programs 

The Klamath Project, in Klamath County, Oregon, and in Siskiyou and Modoc 
counties, was one of the first federal reclamation projects. It drained and reclaimed 
lakebed lands of Lower Klamath and Tule lakes and developed water supplies from the 
Klamath and Lost rivers to irrigate the reclaimed lands. The principal project storage 
facilities are Upper Klamath Lake in Oregon (735,000 afl and Clear Lake Reservoir on 
the Lost River in California (526,800 af). The project normally irrigates over 230,000 
acres (100,000 of which lie in California) through a network of about 185 miles of 

canals with associated 
diversion dams, 

pumping plants, and 
drainage facilities. 

The Klamath Riv- 
er Basin Compact ad- 
dresses interstate wa- 
ter-sharing matters in 
the Upper Klamath Riv- 
er and Lost River ba- 
sins. Negotiated by the 
states of Oregon and 
California, approved by 
their respective Legisla- 
tures, and consented to 
by the U.S. Congress in 
1957, the compact is to 
( 1 ) facilitate orderly de- 




32 



North Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



velopment and use of water, and (2) further cooperation between the states in the equi- 
table sharing of water resources. The compact is administered by the Klamath River 
Compact Commission, which is chaired by a federal representative appointed by the 
President. The commission provides a forum for communication 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 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 USBR constructed the Trinity River Division in the early 1960s to augment 
CVP water supplies in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys. The principal features 
of this part of the CVP are Trinity Dam and the 2.477,700 af Clair Engle Lake on the 
upper Trinity River and the 10.7-mile Clear Creek Tunnel beginning at Lewiston Dam 
and ending at Whiskeytown Lake in the Sacramento River Basin. Exports from the 
Trinity River began in May 1 963. Long-term average annual exports are about 88 1 .000 
af. From 1980 through 1992. these exports have averaged 864,000 af annually. There 
are no in-basin deliveries of water from the Trinity River Division. However, the CVPLA 
allocated a minimum of 340.000 af per year through 1996 for instream environmental 
use. A permanent tlow release criteria is scheduled to be established by 1996 by the 
Secretary of the Interior based on the results of a 12-year flow evaluation study. 

The Russian River Project, constructed by the Corps of Engineers, includes Lake 
Mendocino (122,400 af), formed by Coyote Dam on the East Fork of the Russian River 
near Ukiah, and Lake Sonoma (381.000 af) behind Warm Springs Dam on Dry Creek 
near Geyserville. Lake Mendocino was completed in 1958 and Lake Sonoma in 1982. 
Both reservoirs provide flood protection, reservoir recreation, and water supply for 
urban, agricultural, and instream uses. Most of the water supply made available by the 
Russian River Project is contracted to the Sonoma County Water Agency. The SCWA 
delivers about 29.000 af per year via aqueduct to Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Cotati, 
and Forestville. In addition, the agency exports approximately 25,000 af per year from 
the North Coast's Russian River Project to the San Francisco Bay Region. This water is 
delivered \1a several aqueducts to Novate. Petaluma, the Valley of the Moon, and 
Sonoma areas. 

The principal reaches and major tributaries of the Klamath. Eel. and Smith rivers 
are designated Wild and Scenic under federal and State law. and therefore are 
protected from large scale water development. Figure NC-2 shows the region's 1990 
level sources of supply and Table NC-3 shows water supplies with existing facilities 
and water management programs. There is no SWP, CVP, or Colorado River water 
supplied to this area, and none of the ground water basins are overdrafted. 

Supplies with Additional Facilities and Water Management Programs 

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

O Level I options are those programs that have undergone extensive investigation 

and en\'ironmental analyses and are judged to have a high likelihood of being 

implemented by 2020. 
O Level II options are those programs that could fill the remaining gap between water 

supply and demand. These options require more investigation and alternative 

analyses to determine their feasibility. 

Water demand within the North Coast Region is met by projects which range 
from relatively large and well-organized municipal systems serving communities such 

North Coast Region 33 




Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



as Yreka. Weaverville, Hayfork, Wllllts, Crescent City, and Fort Bragg to small 
residential or agricultural water systems (usually based on ground water) in locations 
like Mendocino, Garberville, and Shelter Cove. Future improvements in many of these 
systems are planned to improve water supply reliability. For example, Weaverville 
Community Services District, supplied by East Weaver Creek, is planning to construct 
a 5-mile pipeline to the Trinity River to meet its future needs. 

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

(thousands of acre-feet) 



Supply 



1990 

average drought 


2000 

overage drought 


2070 

overoge drought 


2020 

cfveroge drought 




433 
2 




450 
2 














438 


446 
2 




470 
2 


463 
2 


483 


481 


2 


2 


2 






























471 


471 



283 



11 

8,950 


471 



275 

11 
1 8,973 


471 




471 


471 


471 


471 

















263 


295 
11 


286 


308 


298 


316 





— 


— 


— 


n 


11 


11 


11 


11 


18,850 


9,073 


18,973 


9,073 


18,973 


9,073 



Surface 

Local 

Local imports 

Colorado River 

CVP 

Other federal 

SWP 
Ground water 
Overdraff'^i 
Reclaimed 
Dedicated natural flow 



TOTAL 



20,035 10,150 20,182 10,298 20,213 10,328 20,238 10,354 



( 1 } The degree future shortoges ore met by increased overdraft is unknown. Since overdraft is not sustainable, it is not Included as a future supply. 



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

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

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

Present water supplies and modest expansion of local water sources will 
generally be adequate to meet the region's expected municipal and industrial demands 
over the next 30 years. The Humboldt Bay-McKinleyville area will continue to be 
adequately served by Ruth Reservoir on the Mad River, with supplies possibly 



34 



North Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



augmented by ground water. The system draws water from the Mad River through 
Ranney collector wells that are being undercut by erosion of streambed gravels. 
Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District is investigating the problem and hopes to 
solve it soon. HBMWD system may ultimately be expanded to serve the 
Trinidad-Moonstone area, which is experiencing water supply deficiencies. 

Crescent City has an adequate supply from the Smith River but needs to increase 
system transmission and storage capacity. It may also be facing construction of an 
expensive surface water treatment facility. Trinity County Waterworks District No. 1 
serves the town of Hajrfork from the 800-af Ewing Reservoir. Growth in the service area 
has almost reached the design capacity of the existing system, and the district plans to 
enlarge its offstream reservoir within the next few years. This expansion was planned 
at the time the project was constructed in the late 1960s. The Weaverville Community 
Services District plans to divert from the Trinity River at Douglas City to provide 
needed future water supplies. 

Table NC-4 shows water supplies with additional facilities and water 
management programs. There are no CVP or SWF supplies to this area and ground 
water overdraft within the region is not expected. 




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

(thousands of acre-feet) 



Supply 



1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Surface 

Local 

Local imports 

Colorado River 

CVP 

Other federal 

SWP 
Ground water 
Overdraft" 
Reclaimed 
Dedicated natural flow 



438 
2 



471 


263 


n 

18,850 



433 
2 



471 


283 



11 

8,950 



450 
2 



471 


272 

14 

18,973 



446 
2 



471 


292 

14 
9,073 



470 


463 


483 


481 


2 


2 


2 


2 


























471 


471 


471 


471 






302 








280 


289 


307 


— 


— 


— 


— 



17 

18,973 



17 
9,073 



20 
18,973 



20 
9,073 



TOXAl 



20,035 10,150 20,182 10,298 20,213 10,328 20,238 10,354 



(1) The degree future shortoges are met by rncreosed overdroft is unknown. Since overdraft is not sustainable, it is not included as a future supply. 

Water Use 

Although the North Coast Region produces nearly half of California's surface 
runoff, urban and agricultural water use within the region is relatively low because it 
is sparsely populated and has few irrigated acres. Irrigation accounts for 744.000 af of 
the region's net water use, while municipal and industrial use is 168,000 af. These 
water needs are generally met by small local developments and limited ground water 
extractions. Because of economic and physical restrictions on development of new irri- 
gated areas and the small estimated population growth, neither irrigation nor munici- 
pal and industrial uses are expected to increase greatly. Annual water use in the region 
is forecasted to increase 203,000 af by 2020. 



North Coast Region 



35 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Figure NC-3. 

North Coast Region 

Net Water Demand 

(1990 Level 

Average Conditions) 



Urban Water Use 

The current total urban water use in the North Coast Region, 168,000 af per year, 
represents about 2.5 percent of the State's total urban water use. Per capita use varies 
from around 130 gpcd in the Humboldt Bay area to about 300 gpcd in the warmer 

inland area of the Lxjst 
River Basin. Municipal 
use in areas directly in- 
fluenced by the coastal 
climate is up slightly 
from the 1980 level, 
while use in the interior 
valleys remains level. 
Around 54,000 af per 
year was used by high 
water-using industries 
(primarily wood and 
pulp processing plants 
in the Humboldt Bay 
area) in 1990. This has 
at least temporarily de- 
creased by 22.000 af 
per year as a result of 
the recent indefinite 
closure of the Simpson pulp mill. This annual water supply will be available in Hum- 
boldt Bay Municipal Water District's Ruth Reservoir to future users or to supply the 
Simpson pulp mill if it reopens. Because of the present uncertainty over the length of 
the mill closure, the area's water use is forecasted to remain at preclosure levels until 
the year 2000. Table NC-5 shows urban water demands for the region to 2020. 

Volume 1 , Chapters 6 and 7. contains a detailed explanation of the methods used 
in estimating regional water use. The impacts of water conservation and best 
management practices are also discussed in those chapters. 




Figure NC-4. 

North Coast Region 

Urban Applied Water 

Use by Sector 

(1990 Level 

Average Conditions) 




36 



North Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Planning Subarea 



Table NC-5. Urban Water Demand 



(th 



ousan 



ds of 



acre 



feet) 



1990 

average drought 



2000 

average drought 



2010 

average drought 



2020 

average drought 



Upper Klamath 


Applied water demand 


10 


10 


11 


11 


13 


13 


14 


14 


Net water demand 


10 


10 


11 


11 


13 


13 


14 


14 


Depletion 


5 


5 


5 


5 


6 


6 


7 


7 


Lower Klamafti-Smlfh 


Applied water demand 


10 


11 


13 


14 


16 


17 


18 


19 


Net water demand 


10 


11 


13 


14 


16 


17 


18 


19 


Depletion 


6 


6 


8 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


Coastal 


Applied water demand 


78 


80 


84 


84 


87 


88 


92 


93 


Net water demand 


78 


80 


84 


84 


87 


88 


92 


93 


Depletion 


71 


71 


75 


75 


77 


78 


80 


81 


Russian River 


Applied water demand 


70 


76 


78 


86 


88 


96 


95 


104 


Net water demand 


70 


76 


78 


86 


88 


96 


95 


104 


Depletion 


28 


30 


31 


34 


35 


38 


38 


42 




TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


168 


177 


186 


195 


204 


214 


219 


230 


Net water demand 


168 


177 


186 


195 


204 


214 


219 


230 


Depletion ssmaams: 


no" 


112 


119 


122 


127 


132 


136 


142 




Agricultural Water Use 

Total irrigated 
acreage within the 
North Coast Region in 
1990 was 326,000 
acres. The number of 
irrigated acres in the 
region is expected to 
remain nearly level 
over the next three 
decades. Table NC-6 
summarizes irrigated 
land and Table NC-7 
shows evapotrans- 
piration of applied 
water by crop in the 
region. Figure NC-5 
shows 1990 crop 
acreages, evapotran- 
spiration, and ap- 
plied water for major 
crops. The applied 




Sprinkler systems 
sucli as tlie one 
sfiown are 
commonly used to 
irrigate crops, in 
this case pasture 
land, in the North 
Coast Region. In 
the inland valleys, 
there is more 
irrigable land than 
can be irrigated 
with existing 
supplies. 



North Coast Region 



37 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



water and net demand shown in Table NC-8 were derived from irrigated acreages by 
applying unit water use factors determined by DWR. These unit use factors, which are 
unique to each detailed analysis unit (a portion of a planning subarea), reflect local 
conditions of climate and cultural practices. Applied water amounts vary with the 
source of water supply (surface or ground water and the type of water year). In drought 
years additional irrigation is required to replace water normally supplied by rainfall 
and to meet higher-than-normal evapotranspiration demands. The trend of unit water 
use in the region is generally stable. The values employed in the trend calculations are 
representative of current water use in the region and estimates of future agricultural 
use are based on the 1990 unit use values. Net agricultural water use in the region is 
expected to increase by only one percent by 2020. 



Table NC-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 

(thousands of acres) 



Planning Subarea 



1990 



2000 



TOTAL 



326 



334 



2010 



340 



2020 





Upper Klamath 


226 


232 


236 


239 


Lower Klamath-Smith 


13 


13 


13 


13 


Coastal 


32 


34 


36 


38 


Russian River 


55 


55 


55 


56 



346 



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



Table NC-7. 1 990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 



Irrigated Crop 



Grain 

Sugar beets 

Corn 

Other field 

Alfalfa 

Pasture 

Other truck 

Other deciduous 

Vineyard 



Total Acres 


Total ETAW 


(lOOOj 


(1,000 AFj 


82 


119 


2 


4 


1 


2 


3 


4 


53 


128 


121 


253 


21 


33 


7 


10 


36 


26 



TOTAL 



326 



579 



38 



North Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Planning Subarea 



Table NC-8. Agricultural Water Demand 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Upper Klamath 


Applied water demand 


664 


729 


689 


757 


709 


778 


721 


791 


Net water demand 


584 


589 


587 


591 


596 


600 


602 


606 


Depletion 


459 


505 


477 


524 


490 


539 


498 


548 


Lower Klamath-Smith 


Applied water demand 


31 


31 


32 


32 


32 


32 


32 


32 


Net water demand 


29 


29 


29 


29 


29 


29 


29 


29 


Depletion 


22 


22 


22 


22 


22 


22 


22 


22 


Coastal 


Applied water demand 


62 


63 


66 


68 


69 


71 


73 


75 


Net water demand 


62 


63 


64 


66 


68 


69 


72 


74 


Depletion 


49 


49 


51 


53 


54 


55 


56 


58 


Russian River 


Applied water demand' 


82 


92 


81 


91 


81 


91 


81 


91 


Net water demand 


69 


79 


68 


78 


68 


78 


68 


78 


Depletion 


62 


71 


61 


70 


61 


70 


61 


70 




TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


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 



i 




Figure NC-5. 
North Coast Region 
1 990 Acreage, ETAW. 
and Applied Water 
Jar Major Crops 



North Coast Region 



39 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Stream 



Environmental Water Use 

The principal environmental water use for the region is for instream flow needs, 
including wild and scenic rivers, as shown in Table NC-9. The region's total 
environmental instream water needs are 1 8,850,000 af in average years and 8,950,000 
af in drought years. Wetland water needs for six wildlife refuges amount to annual net 
water demands of 237,000 af (Table NC-10). 

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

Instream fishery needs on the Trinity River below Lewiston Dam are under study. 
The study is expected to be finished in 1996 and will then be given to Congress for 
review. This study could result in even more water than the 1990 level of 340,000 af 
per year being allocated to Trinity River instream flows and could reduce Sacramento 
River flows by an equal amount. 

Table NC-9. Environmental Instream Water Needs 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Klamath River 


Applied water demand 


833 


833 


833 


833 


833 


833 


833 


833 


Net water demand 


833 


833 


833 


833 


833 


833 


833 


833 


Depletion mmsmSmS 


1 833 


833 


833 


833 


833 


833 


833 


833 


Trinity River 


Applied water demand 


217 


217 


340 


340 


340 


340 


340 


340 


Net water demand 


217 


217 


340 


340 


340 


340 


340 


340 


Depletion 


217 


217 


340 


340 


340 


340 


340 


340 


Wild and Scenic Rivers 


Applied water demand 


17,800 


7,900 


17,800 


7,900 


17,800 


7,900 


17,800 


7,900 


Net water demand 


1 7,800 


7,900 


17,800 


7,900 


1 7,800 


7,900 


1 7,800 


7,900 


Depletion 


17,800 


7,900 


17,800 


7,900 


17,800 


7,900 


17,800 


7,900 




TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


18,850 


8,950 


18,973 


9,073 


18,973 


9,073 


18,973 


9,073 


Net v/ater demand 


18,850 


8,950 


18,973 


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 



40 



North Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Wetland 



Table NC-10. Wetland Water Needs 



(thousands of acre-feet) 



1990 

average drought 



2000 

average drought 



2010 

average drought 



2020 

average drought 




Applied water demand 


115 


115 


115 


115 


115 


115 


115 


115 


Net water demand 


77 


77 


77 


77 


77 


77 


77 


77 


Depletion 


76 


76 


76 


76 


76 


76 


76 


76 



Applied water demand 


10 


10 10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


Net water demand 


10 


10 10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


Depletion 


10 


'^li^tttt 10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 



Lower Klamath NWR 

Applied wc 

Net water c 

Depletion 
BuHe Valley WA 

Applied wc 

Net water c 

Depletion 
Clear Lake NWR 

Applied water demand 

Net water demand 

Depletion 
Tule Lake NWR 

Applied water demand 

Net water demand 

Depletion 
Shosta Valley Refuge 

Applied water demand 

Net water demand 

Depletion 
Areata Marsh 

Applied water demand 

Net water demand 

Depletion 



42 
28 
28 

180 
120 
119 






2 
2 
2 



42 
28 
28 

180 
120 
119 





0. 

2 
2 
2 



42 
28 
28 

180 

120 
119 

4 
2 
2 

2 
2 
2 



42 
28 
28 

180 

120 
119 

4 
2 
2 

2 
2 
2 



42 
28 
28 

180 
120 
119 

4 
2 
2 

2 
2 
2 



42 
28 
28 

180 

120 
119 

4 
2 
2 

2 
2 
2 



The principal wetland uses of water occur in the Lxjwer Klamath, Tule Lake, and 
Clear Lake national wildlife refuges and the State's Butte Valley Wildlife Area. A major 
share of the wildlife water needs in Butte Valley are met by approximately 3.000 af per 
year of ground water. The other refuges in the region are served from surface supplies. 
The prevalent crops grown in the refuges are wheat, alfalfa, barley, millet, and milo. 
Alkali bulrush is an important naturally occurring food source for wildlife found in 
most of these areas. The predominant types of wildlife using the refuges are Canadian, 
snow, and white-fronted geese: mallard, pintail, gadwall, teal, canvasback, and 
redhead ducks: and pheasant. Other wildlife species such as songbirds, raptors, 
shorebirds. antelope, and deer also depend heavily on the refuges and agricultural 
land during the winter. 

Environmental water use within this region will probably remain relatively 
unchanged to 2020. However, releases below existing dams could be modified in 
response to the findings of future instream flow need studies and the potential 
endangered species listing of declining fish populations. Existing instream flow 



42 
28 
28 

180 

120 
119 

4 
2 
2 

2 
2 
2 



42 
28 
28 

180 
120 
119 

4 
2 
2 

2 
2 
2 



TOTAL 


Applied v/ater demand 349 349 


353 


353 


353 


353 


353 


353 W 


Net water demand 237 237 


239 


239 


239 


239 


239 


239 


^Pl^fion SHH^^K^iL^ 


237 


237 


237 


237 


237 


237 



North Coast Region 



41 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



requirements downstream from a number of major dams are shown in Volume 1, 
Chapter 8. 

Ofher Water Use 

Figure NC-6 shows water recreation areas in the North Coast Region which 
attract over 1 million people annually. This area has rugged natural beauty and some 
of the most renowned fishing streams in North America. It has diverse topography, 
including scenic ocean shoreline: a forested belt immediately inland, which includes 
more than half of California's redwoods; and extensive inland mountainous areas, 
including 10 wilderness areas, managed mainly by the U.S. Forest Service. Over 40 
State parks and one national park are in the region. In addition to the natural 
attractions, the area contains scores of small reservoirs which cire extensively used for 
recreation. Rafting and canoeing are popular on the Smith, Klamath, Salmon, Trinity, 
Eel, and Russian rivers. 

Public recreation use of national forests and small local reservoirs is probably 
several times that of parks. The job base and economic value of travel and recreation 
have exceeded that of the lumber Industry in some Northern California counties. The 
demand for recreation in the region is expected to continue growing. Table NC-11 
shows the total water demands for this region. 

Table NC-11. Total Water Demands 

(thousands of acre-feet) 



Category of Use 


1990 


2000 


2010 


2020 




average 


drought 


average 


drought 


overage 


drought 


overage 


drought 


Urban 


















Applied water demand 


168 


177 


186 


195 


204 


214 


219 


230 


Net water demand 


168 


177 


186 


195 


204 


214 


219 


230 


Depletion 


110 


112 


119 


122 


127 


132 


136 


142 


Agricultural 


















Applied water demand 


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 


Environmental'" 






Applied water demand 


19,199 

19,087 
19,085 


9,299 
9,187 
9,185 


19,326 
19,212 
19,210 


9,426 
9,312 
9,310 


19,326 
19,212 
19,210 


9,426 
9,312 
9,310 


19,326 


9,426 


Net water demand 


19,212 


9,312 


Depletion 


19,210 


9,310 


Otheri'i 


















Applied water demand 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


Net water demand 


36 
9 


35 
9 


36 
9 


35 
9 


36 
9 


35 
9 


36 


35 


Depletion 


9 


9 


TOTAl 


20,207 


10,392 


20,381 


10,570 


20,422 


10,613 






Applied water demand 


20,453 


10,646 


Net water demand 


20,035 
19,796 


10,159 
9,953 


20,182 
1 9,949 


10,306 
10,110 


20,213 
19,973 


10,337 
10,137 


20,238 


10,364 


Depletion 


19,992 


10,159 



(1) Includes 17 8 MAF ond 7.9 MAF for Norfh Coast Wild and Scenic Rivers, respectively. 

(2) Includes major conveyance focility losses, recreation uses, ond energy production. 



42 



North Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure NC-6. North Coast Region 
Hydroelectric Power Plants, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Water Recreation Areas 



R 





Leg e nd 
A Water Recreation Area 
• Hydroelectric Power Plant* 
— " Federal Wild and Scenic River 



SCALE IN MILES 



•From 1992 California Energy Commission Maps. See Table D-3 in Appendix D for plant information. 



North Coast Region 



43 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 

The low population growth in the North Coast Region is not creating any pressing 
water issues that cannot be solved by local water management, planning, and system 
upgrading. An impediment to improving water supply reliability in small communities 
is disagreement between residents who favor growth and those who want to limit it 
through restrictions on water hookups. The principal water-related issues in the 
North Coast Region revolve around water quality (upgraded treatment requirements) 
and growth -related environmental concerns. 

One government action having great impact on North Coast water supplies was 
the CVPIA decision by the Secretary of the Interior to increase instream flow releases to 
the Trinity River below Lewiston Dam to 340,000 af per year instead of the 1990 level 
of 217,000 af per year. The CVPIA directed the Secretary to continue releases at the 
340.000-af level through 1996. The result of this decision is an unquantified 
enhancement of Trinity River fishery habitat and a decrease of 123,000 af per year of 
water supply for the Sacramento River and Delta during drought years. The U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service is presently conducting a 12-year flow evaluation study on the 
Trinity, which is to be completed in 1996 and forwarded to Congress for review. This 
study will recommend an instream flow release schedule which could differ 
substantially from the present releases. The potential exists for further reductions in 
federal CVP yield in exchange for betterment of the Trinity River fishery habitat. 

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

Trinity Hirer Sediment Control. The construction of Buckhorn Mountain Dam 
in 1990, in combination with sediment pool construction at the mouth of Grass Valley 
Creek to collect decomposed granite sand, has largely controlled the flow of sediment 
to the Trinity River. This 70-foot-high dam traps a large portion of the creek's sand 
sediment and prevents it from flowing into the Trinity River where it damages salmon 
spawning and rearing areas. The portion of sediment that flows in below the dam is 
largely controlled by sediment ponds at the mouth of the creek. In addition, the recent 
acquisition of the more erosive portion of the watershed by the Trinity River Task Force 
will help prevent future erosion-causing activities and allow for greater healing of this 
fragile area. 

Instream Flow Issues. At several locations throughout the region, there is 
conflict between water supplies for agricultural and urban use versus fishery needs. 
Examples include the Klamath River below Iron Gate Dam, the Shasta and Scott rivers 
below irrigation diversions, the upper Eel River below Lake Pillsbury. and the reaches 
of the Russian River below Lakes Mendocino and Sonoma. For most of the North Coast 
Region, few major changes in the water supply capabilities of existing facilities are 
expected over the next 30 years. However, on the IClamath River below Iron Gate Dam 
or the Trinity River below Lewiston Dam. flow changes could occur in response to the 
findings of ongoing or proposed instream flow studies below existing reservoirs, and 
could change water supply allocations. Presently, however, there is no reliable means 
of quantifying the effects of potential demands for increased instream flows in the 
Klamath, Trinity, upper Eel, or lower Russian rivers. The effect of the State and federal 
Endangered Species acts on future instream flow requirements as additional species 
are listed cannot be predicted. 



44 North Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Identifying the Primary Causes of Fishery Declines. Fish populations have 
declined precipitously on all north coast streams since the 1 960s. Many people tend to 
identify dams as the main cause of these fishery declines, yet undammed streams such 
as the Smith. Van Duzen, and Mattole rivers have also suffered steep reductions in 
salmon populations. There are many factors contributing to fishery declines, such as 
prolonged drought, commercial ocean fishing, logging, importing of fish from other 
stream systems, poaching, overfishing, and disease. 

Endangered 
Species. Two species 
of sucker fish found 
in the fClamath Proj- 
ect area have been 
listed as endangered 
under the federal and 
State Endangered 
Species acts. In re- 
sponse, the USFWS 
imposed restrictions 
on project operations 
that reduced dry-pe- 
riod water supply ca- 
pabilities. As a result, 
roughly 7.000 acres 
of normally irrigated 
land in California 
was taken out of pro- 
duction in 1992. This 
modified operation of 
the Wamath Project, to accommodate the needs ol tlie listed suckers, also reduced 
flows below Iron Gate Dam that are critical to salmon and steelhead sunaval in the 
middle and lower Klamath. This problem was alleviated in 1993 by heavy rainfall. 

Pelican Bay State Prison. Opened in December 1 989, Pelican Bay State Prison 
houses 4.000 inmates. An independent water supply line serves the prison from 
Crescent City's Ranney collectors on the Smith River. The prison currently uses about 
672 af annually, and waste water from the prison facilities is treated on-site. A Del 
Norte County advisory measure allowing the Department of Corrections to build a 
second prison was passed by the voters and construction is likely to proceed. It 
appears that the increased water demand can be met through increased use of Smith 
River supplies. 

Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District. This district supplies an average of 
62.000 af peryear in the Humboldt Bay area, including Eureka. Areata. McKinleyville, 
and several pulp and lumber mills. The district's supply from Ruth Reserv'oir on the 
Mad River is allocated through existing contracts. About 4.480 af per year of 
unallocated supply is available to meet future demands or alleviate drought 
conditions. The HBMWD considered enlarging Ruth Reservoir, but engineering aspects 
of the project do not appear to be feasible and recent changes in health regulations 
would require expensive additional treatment of water from that source. Complying 
with the surface water treatment rules established in the 1986 amendment to the Safe 
Drinking Water Act presents a difficult, costly challenge for the Eureka area. Further, 
water from HBMWD's Ranney collectors in the Mad River has been designated as 




i 



The Klamath River is 
one of several Wild 
and Scenic Rivers in 
the North Coast 
Region. Tlie Klamath 
and Trinity rivers 
are the focus of 
many regional 
environmental 
issues, including 
increased instream 
Jlows and 
endangered species 
habitat. 



North Coast Region 



45 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



ground water under the influence of surface water and must be filtered. A regional 
filtration plant is estimated to cost $16 million. Thus. HBMWD is considering the 
feasibility of developing ground water to replace a portion of the Mad River supply for 
residential and commercial use only. About 50.400 af of the district's 62.720-af 
average annual water use (80 percent) was normally supplied to the Eureka pulp mills. 
This water does not require treatment. Since closure of the Simpson pulp mill, the 
district will deliver only about 28.000 af per year to this industry. 

Russian River Instream Flow Decision and Supply Allocations. With water 
available from Lake Sonoma [Warm Springs Dam), and State Water Resources Control 
Board Decision 1 6 1 defining instream flow requirements and operating criteria, most 
major water supply reliability questions in the Russian River Basin have been resolved 
to beyond 2010. However, there isgrowingconcernover the extent of sedimentation in 
Lake Pillsbury and Lake Mendocino and the resulting reductions in dry-year carryover 
water supplies. Additionally, Mendocino County is concerned that Decision 1610 will 
prevent the county from obtaining additional water from the Russian River. Through 
the Eel-Russian River Commission, the two counties are exploring possibilities for 
augmenting available water supplies, including construction of additional storage on 
the upper Eel River and conjunctive use of ground water with existing surface 
supplies. 

Water Supply Reliability Problems in Small Comm.unities. A number of 
smaller communities throughout the region have continuing supply problems, often 
related to the lack of economic base to support water supply management and 
development costs. For example, the areas north and south of the town of Trinidad in 
Humboldt County depend on small springs and shallow wells which provide an 
inadequate supply during late summer and fall. They have attempted to hook up to 
Trinidad's system, supplied from Luffenholtz Creek, but have been unsuccessful due 
to local fears of overtaxing this small system. The City of Willits has had chronic 
problems with turbidity, taste, and odor in its Morris Reservoir and high arsenic, iron, 
and manganese levels in its well supply. These problems have been largely solved by 
the construction of Centennial Dam and associated treatment facilities. 

The City of Fort Bragg has water shortage problems and has hired a consultant 
to investigate alternative solutions. The city's historic ability to use surface waters has 
been impaired by several factors, including fish bypass requirements, possible listing 
of the coho salmon as an endangered species, and additional water quality standards 
relating to treatment resulting in substantial new capital and operating expenditures. 
The city has undertaken a substantial amount of study work on alternative sources of 
supply, including ground water, water recycling, additional surface sources, and sea 
water desalination. Desalination is now seriously considered as an alternative to 
increasing the City of Fort Bragg's water supply reliability. 

Many north coast ground water wells located on low terraces near the ocean are 
vulnerable to sea water intrusion if over-pumped. For example, the well serving the 
relocated town of Klamath has recently begun pumping sea water. Several small 
communities along the coast, such as Moonstone, Smith River, and Hiouchi, either 
experience chronic water shortages or have inadequate supplies to meet projected 
growth in the future. Water use is already very low due to extensive conservation, so 
most of these problems will likely need to be solved by constructing or upgrading 
community water systems. Factors hindering development of community systems are 
a low population base contributing to lack of funding, and community disagreements 
on the desirability of growth. 



46 North Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Lakes Earl and Talawa. To increase wildlife habitat, these linked lakes north 
of Crescent City are being allowed to reach higher levels than historically permitted. 
Local fears that these actions would interfere with operation of surrounding septic 
systems have subsided after a year of higher lake levels without significant problems. 
The lake levels are kept higher by breaching an ocean- formed sandbar at the common 
outlet when the water reaches approximately 10 feet in elevation. Agreement among 
agencies on the maximum allowable levels has not been reached yet, and studies 
continue. Higher late-summer levels in these lakes could increase water availability to 
surrounding shallow wells. Recent objections to higher uncontrolled lake levels has 
been expressed by a representative of Pacific Shores subdivision, which was formed in 
the 1960s. 

Water Balance 

Water budgets were computed for each planning subarea in the North Coast 
Region by comparing existing and future water demand forecasts with the forecasted 
availability of supply. The region total was computed by summing the demand and 
supply totals for all the planning subareas. This method does not reflect the severity of 
drought year shortages in some local areas which can be hidden when planning 
subareas are combined within the region. Thus, there could be substantial shortages 
in some areas during drought periods. Local and regional shortages could also be more 
or less severe than the shortage shown. This depends on ( 1) how supplies are allocated 
within the region. (2) a particular water agency's ability to participate in water transfers 
or demand management programs (including land fallowing or emergency allocation 
programs), and (3) the overall level of reliability deemed necessary to the sustained 
economic health of the region. Volume 1. Chapter 1 1 presents a broader discussion of 
demand management options. 

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

Regional net water demands for the 1990 level of development totaled 
20,035,000 and 10,159.000 af for average and drought years, respectively. Those 
demands are forecasted to increase to 20.238.000 and 10.364.000 af. respectively, by 
the year 2020, after accounting for a 55,000-af reduction in urban water demand 
resulting from water conservation measures. Urban net water demand is forecasted to 
increase by about 51.000 af by 2020. primarily due to expected increases in 
population: agricultural net water demand is forecasted to increase by about 27,000 
af. primarily due to an expected increase in vineyards in the region. Environmental net 
water demands are increasing by 125.000 af, due primarily to implementation of the 
CVPIA, which increases Trinity River flows for fisheries by about 123.000 af, and a 
2.000-af increase in wetland water needs. 

Average annualsuppliesare generally adequate to meetaverage net waterdemands 
in this region out to the year 2020. However, during drought, present supplies are 
insufficient to meet present demands and, without additional water management 
programs, annvial drought year shortages are expected to continue to be nearly 9. 000 af . 

The only Level I water management program planned for this region is in the 
Russian River PSA. That program is 9,000 af of water recycling, which will reduce 
ground water pumping for this area by a similar amount. The remaining shortage of 
9,000 af is in the Upper Klamath PSA. which requires both additional short-term 
drought management and future Level 11 water management programs, depending on 
the overall level of water service reliability deemed necessary by local agencies. 




North Coast Region 47 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Table NC-12. Water Budget 

(thousands of acre-feef) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Water Demand/Supply 



Net Demand 

Urban— with 1 990 


















level of conservation 


Bi68 


]77 


210 


219 


247 


257 


274 


285 


— reductions due to 
long-term conservation 
measures (Level 1) 
Agricultural— with 1990 


— 


— 


-24 


-24 


-43 


-43 


-55 


-55 


level of conservation 


B744 


760 


748 


764 


761 


776 


771 


787 


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
























Environmental 


19,087 


9,187 


19,212 


9,312 


19,212 


9,312 


19,212 


9,312 


Otherl'i 


36 


35 


36 


35 


36 


35 


36 


35 



TOTAL Net Demand 



20,035 



10,159 



20,182 



10,306 20,213 



10,337 20,238 



10,364 



Water Supplies v//Existing Facilities 

Developed Supplies 

Surface Water 

Ground Water 

Ground Water Overdraft*^' 
Subtotal 
Dedicated Natural Flow 



922 


917 


934 


930 


954 


947 


967 


965 


263 


283 


275 


295 


286 


308 


298 


316 








— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


1,185 


1,200 


1,209 


1,225 


1,240 


1,255 


1,265 


1,281 


18,850 


8,950 


18,973 


9,073 


18,973 


9,073 


18,973 


9,073 



TOTAL Water Supplies 


20,035 


10,150 


20,182 


10,298 


20,213 


10,328 


20,238 


10,354 


Demand/Supply Balance 





-9 





-8 





-9 





-10 



Level I Water Management Programs 

Long-term Supply Augmentation 
Reclaimed 
Local 

Central Valley Project/ 
Other Federal 
State Water Project 

Subtotal - Level I Water 
Management Programs 

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



3 







6i 



ol 





6 









Remaining Demand/Supply Balance Requiring Short-term Drought Management and/or Level II Options 

0-9 0-8 0-9 -10 

[1 ) Includes major conveyance facility losses, recreation uses, and energy production. 

(2) The degree future sfiortages ore met by increased overdraft is unknov/n. Since overdraft is not sustainable, it is not included as a future supply. 



48 



North Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 




North Coast Region 49 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Looking from Marin County, the Golden Gate Bridge spans 
the bay into San Francisco. The City of San Francisco 
is typical of the densely urbanized areas of the region. 









The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 




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

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

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

Population 

The region is highly urbanized and includes the San Francisco, Oakland, and 
San Jose metropolitan areas. There are large undeveloped areas in the western, 
northern, and southern parts of the region. In 1990, 18 percent of the State's total 
population lived in the region and almost 88 percent, or 4,800,000, of those residents 
lived in the South Bay. During the 1980s, the region's population grew by 
approximately 695,000: the North Bay grew by about 20 percent and the South Bay 
grew by 14 percent. 

In the North Bay PSA. the inland cities of Fairfield, Vallejo, Benicia, and Suisun 
City grew by 33, 36, 59, and 105 percent, respectively, from 1980 to 1990. These cities 

Region Characteristics 
Average Annual Precipitation: 3 1 inches Average Annual Runoff: 1.245.500 af 
Land Area: 4.400 square miles Population: 5,484.000 



San Francisco Bay 
Region 



San Francisco Bay Region 



51 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



alone accounted for an increase of almost 70.000 people during the decade. Over the 
same period, most of the cities in Marin County grew very slowly. San Rafael, the 
county's largest city, grew at a modest 8 percent, while Fairfax actually declined in 
population. Further north and east. Petaluma and Napa grew by 28 and 22 percent, 
respectively. 

The most rapid growth in the South Bay PSA also took place in the eastern part 
of that area. A number of cities had growth rates greater than 40 percent during the 
1980s, including Dublin. Martinez. Pittsburg. Pleasanton. and San Ramon. Hercules, 
in the northern part of the PSA. grew by 282 percent. Growth during the 1980s was 
numerically significant in the larger urban centers: Oakland (32.905). Fremont 
(41.394). San Francisco (44.985). and San Jose (152.702). Table SF-1 shows regional 
population projections. 

Table SF-1. Population Projections 

(thousands) 

Planning Subarea 1990 2000 2010 2020 

North Bay 680 817 889 941 

South Bay 4,804 5,398 5,722 6,003 

TOTAL 5,484 6,215 6,611 6,944 

Land Use 

Land use in the region is truly diverse. The San Francisco Bay Region is home to 
the world-famous Napa Valley and Sonoma County wine industry: international 
business and tourism in San Francisco: the technological development and production 
in the "Silicon Valley": as well as urban, suburban, and rural living. Urban land 
accounts for 23 percent (655.600 acres) of the land area. Irrigated agricultural land in 
1990 was 61,400 acres. Forecasted land use reflects an increase in urban areas to 
870.900 acres, or 37 percent of the region's land area, by 2020. Point Reyes National 
Recreation Area, as well as other federal and State parks and reservoirs, make up a 
small portion of the total region. 

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

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

Water Supply 

Water supply sources include local surface water, imported surface water (both 
locally developed and purchased from other local agencies), ground water. Central 
Valley Project water, other federal project water (Solano Project). State Water Project 



52 San Francisco Bay Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



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



N 



Son oma Petal unia 

Aqueducts 

26 



Putah South 

Canal 

54 



City of Vallejo 
1 

North Bay 

Aqueduct 

27 



Mokelumne Aqueduct 
245 

Contra Costa Canal 
85 



South Bay 

Aqueduct 

155 




Hetch Hetchy 
Aqueduct 
267 



Urban Land 

Irrigated Land 

Region Water Transfers 

(1,000's of Acre-Feet per Year) 



SCALE IN MILES 



San Felipe 

l/nl t 

97 




San Francisco Bay Region 



53 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



water, and a small amount of recycled waste water. About 66 percent of the urban 
supplies are imported to the region. Figure SF-2 shows the region's 1990 level sources 
of supply. 

Supply with Existing Facilities and Water Management Programs 

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

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

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



Reservoir Name 



Table SF-2. Major Reservoirs 

River Capacity (1,000 AFj 



Owner 



Lake Hennessey 
Nicasio 
Kent Lake 
Alpine 
Soulajule 

San Pablo 

New Upper San Leandro 

Chabot 

Briones 

Del Valle 

San Antonio Reservoir 

Coyote 

Leroy Anderson 

Lexington 

Lake Elsman (Austrian) 

Calaveras 
San Andreas 
Crystal Springs 



Conn Creek 
Nicasio Creek 
Lagunitas Creek 
Lagunitas Creek 
Walker Creek 

San Pablo Creek 
San Leandro Creek 
San Leandro Creek 
Bear Creek 
Arroyo del Valle 

San Antonio Creek 
Coyote Creek 
Coyote Creek 
Los Gatos Creek 
Los Gatos Creek 

Calaveras Creek 
San Andreas Creek 
San Mateo Creek 



31.0 
22.4 
32.9 
8.9 
10.6 

38.6 
41.4 
10.4 
60.5 
77.1 

50.5 
22.9 
89.7 
19.8 
6.2 

96.9 
19.0 
58.4 



City of Napa 
Marin MWD 
Marin MWD 
Marin MWD 
Marin MWD 

East Bay MUD 
East Bay MUD 
East Bay MUD 
East Bay MUD 
DWR 

City of San Francisco 
Santa Clara Valley WD 
Santa Clara Valley WD 
Santa Clara Valley WD 
San Jose Water Works 

City of San Francisco 
City of San Francisco 
City of San Francisco 



North Bay. At the 1990 level, the average year local surface water supply for the 
North Bay is 226.000 af. This includes 150,000 af of local surface water used to meet 
Suisun Marsh wetlands requirements, 

Marin Municipal Water District serves the most populated, southeastern portion 
of Marin County. Local supply is obtained from its reservoirs in Marin County which 
can store about 79.600 af and supply up to 32.000 af annually, but have an estimated 
reliable supply of about 25.000 af per year. 



54 



San Francisco Bay Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



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




Supply 



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

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

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Surface 

Local 

Local imports 

Colorado River 

CVP 

Other federal 

SWPi" 
Ground water'^' 
Overdraffi^i 
Reclaimed 
Dedicated natural flow 



365 


253 


365 


253 


365 


253 


365 


253 


539 


503 


563 


514 


587 


514 


591 


514 


























180 


160 


213 


183 


228 


183 


232 


183 


54 


44 


54 


44 


54 


44 


54 


44 


182 


124 


213 


126 


208 


121 


208 


122 


100 



36 


139 



36 


126 


174 


160 


174 


165 


174 


36 


36 


36 


36 


36 


36 


4,615 


3,085 


4,615 


3,085 


4,615 


3,085 


4,615 


3,085 



TOTAL 



6,071 



4,344 



6,185 



4,415 



6,253 



4,410 6,266 



4,411 



( 1 ) SWP supplies may behigherinany year to help recharge ground water basins for drought yean. 

(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 bosins- 

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

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

Marin Municipal Water District currently supplements its local supply with 
4.300 af from Sonoma County Water Agency, according to their "Off-peak Water 
Agreement." MMWD recently negotiated a new agreement with SCWA for an additional 
10,000 af "as available." MMWD is now seeking to make these contracts as reliable as 
possible by working with SCWA, expanding its own conveyance facilities, and 
supporting SCWA in its SWRCB water rights permit application. 

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



San Francisco Bay Region 



55 



Bulletin 1 60-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Figure SF-2. 

San Francisco 

Bay Region 

Water Supply Sources 

(1990 Level 

Average Conditions) 



The larger alluvial basins in the North Bay PSA include Suisun-Fairfield Valley, 
Napa Valley-Sonoma Valley. Petaluma Valley, and Novato Valley. Ground water levels 
indicate the basins are probably not in overdraft. Estimated ground water storage in 
the basins is 1,700,000 af. Salt water intrusion has been a problem in the bayside 
portions of the Sonoma and Napa valleys, but this has been substantially mitigated by 
using imported surface water instead of ground water. The ground water quality in the 
North Bay is generally good. Some isolated areas experience elevated levels of dissolved 
solids, iron, boron, hardness, and chloride. High levels of nitrates occur in the Napa 
and Petaluma valleys as a result of past agricultural practices. 

Other Federal Projects. Solano County Water Agency contracts for water from 
Lake Berryessa via the Solano Project and delivers it to farmers and cities within the 
county. The project was built by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and began operation 
in 1959. The project has an annual dependable supply of 201 ,000 af but can deliver as 
much as 212,000 af. The majority of the Solano Project entitlement water goes to 
agricultural users in the Sacramento River Region. The 1990 level average project 
supply for the North Bay is 54,000 af. The drought year supply shows a 15-percent 
deficiency, which was imposed by the USBR in 1991. Solano County Water Agency 
supplies are projected to increase only slightly through 2020. 

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

Water Recycling. About 800 af of recycled water is used in Marin, Napa, and 
southern Sonoma counties, primarily for landscape irrigation. In Solano County, over 
2.000 af of water is recycled by the Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District for agricultural 
irrigation, mostly on turf farms. The total 1990 average and drought year recycled 

water supply in the 
North Bay is 3,000 af. 

South Bay. The 

1990 average local sur- 
face supply for the 
South Bay is 139,000 
af. The drought year 
shortage is significantly 
affected by a 67-per- 
cent reduction in local 
surface supplies. Fu- 
ture supplies from ex- 
isting facilities should 
remain relatively 

constant through 

2020. 

Imports by Local 
Agencies. San Francis- 
co Water District imports Tuolumne River water via the 150-mile-long Hetch Hetchy 
System. In addition to supplying water to the City and County of San Francisco, SFWD 
sells water wholesale to 30 water districts, cities, and local agencies in Alameda. Santa 




56 



San Francisco Bay Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Clara, and San Mateo counties. SFWD now has three pipelines capable of delivering 
336.000 af annually to the Bay Area. 

EBMUD imports water from the Mokelumne River through its aqueducts and 
delivers water to much of Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The district supplies 
water to approximately 1.200.000 people in 20 cities and 15 unincorporated 
communities. EBIVIUD has water rights and facilities to divert up to 364.000 af 
annually from the Mokelumne River, depending on streamflow and water use by other 
water rights holders. 

Ground water. 
The major ground 
water basins of the 
South Bay PSA in- 
clude Santa Clara 
Valley, Livermore 
Valley, and the Pitts- 
burg Plain. The total 
ground water storage 
in the South Bay ba- 
sins is estimated to 
be 6.500.000 af. 

Artificial re- 
charge programs are 
in place in several 
South Bay localities. 
Alameda County 

Flood Control & Wa- 
ter Conservation Dis- 
trict, Zone 7. uses 

several abandoned gravel pits to recharge ground water in the Livermore Valley. 
Alameda County Water District uses a series of artificial barriers and abandoned gravel 
pits to slow runoff and increase percolation in and along Alameda Creek. 

Santa Clara Valley Water District has supplemented the grovmd water basin yield 
by developing an extensive recharge program. SCVWD augments the natural recharge 
by artificial recharge in percolation ponds and streambeds of major creeks in the Santa 
Clara Valley subbasins. Ground water users pay for ground water replenishment 
through a ground water charge based on measured ground water use. SCVWD 
manages an extensive conjunctive use program and during water supply shortages 
provides a financial incentive to influence water retailers to choose between ground 
water and treated surface water. 

These programs have resulted in a general rise to near-historic highs in ground 
water levels in many of the basins. Recharge and surface water substitution in the 
Pittsburg Plain were successful in restoring ground water basins which were 
overdrafted in the past. These efforts mitigated or eliminated low ground water level 
problems, such as salt water intrxision in the Pittsburg Plain. Land subsidence in 
northern Santa Clara Valley has also been controlled. Alameda County Water District 
has begun an Aquifer Reclamation Program to mitigate salt water intrusion into its 
ground water basin near San Francisco Bay. The program includes pumping and 
disposing of saline water using a series of wells and creating a salinity intrusion barrier 
using 4-5 wells in the upper aquifer. The district anticipates that the basin's annual 





The San Francisco Bay 
Region relies on 
imported water for most 
of its urban and 
agricultural supplies. 
Increases in population 
will require water 
supply planners to face 
the challenges of 
meeting increased 
demand with limited 
supply. 



San Francisco Bay Region 



57 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



perennial yield will be increased 3.500 af at the completion of the Aquifer Reclamation 
Program. 

Ground water quality is still a problem to various degrees in many South Bay 
locations. The Livermore Valley has elevated levels of dissolved solids, chloride, boron, 
and hardness. The highly urbanized areas of the Santa Clara Valley have experienced 
ground water pollution over large areas from organic solvents used in electronics 
manufacturing. However. SCVWD has an extensive ground water protection program 
to administer ground water cleanup operations and to prevent degradation of the 
ground water basin through well sealing and ground water quality monitoring. 

Central Valley Project. CVP water is delivered through the Contra Costa Canal to 
Contra Costa Water District and through the San Felipe Project to SCVWD. CCWD 
delivers water throughout eastern Contra Costa County, including a portion of the 
district in the San Joaquin River Region. CVP water was first delivered by CCWD in 
1940. The current contract with USER is for a supply of 195.000 af per year. The 
district also has a right to divert almost 27.000 af from Mallard Slough on Suisun Bay. 
Most of CCWD's demands are met through direct diversions from the Delta through 
the Contra Costa Canal. CCWD has very little regulatory or emergency water supply 
storage to replace Delta supplies when water quality is poor. As a result. CCWD service 
area voters authorized funding for Lx)s Vaqueros Reservoir in 1988. The proposed 
reservoir will improve supply reliability and water quality by allowing the district to 
pump and store water from the Delta during high flows. 

SCVWD's maximum entitlement from the CVP's San Felipe Division, which 
became operational in 1987, is 152,500 af. Average 1990 deliveries to the region are 
about 93.200 af. By 1989. much sooner than anticipated, the district was requesting, 
but did not receive, its full entitlement to reduce impacts of the 1987-92 drought. 
Normally, about one-half of the CVP water is used for recharge: the rest is used as 
direct supply. 

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

Water Recycling. There are several water recycling projects in the South Bay PSA 
which provide 33,000 af to various uses such as environmental, industrial, landscape, 
and construction. 

Supplies with Addifional Facilities and Water l^anagement Programs 

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

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

O Level 11 options are those programs that could fill the remaining gap between water 
supply and demand. These options require more investigation and alternative 
analyses. 



58 San Francisco Bay Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Supplies in the North Bay are adequate during average years to meet the water 
demand through 2020. For drought years, shortages range from 36.000 af in 1990 to 
67.000 af in 2020 with existing facilities. With additional facilities, drought year 
shortages are reduced to about 33,000 af in 2020. Some areas that may have difficulty 
meeting water demand include MMWD, the Solano Project service area, and SWP 
contractor service areas. MMWD has the ability to use unused conveyance space in 
Sonoma County Water Agency and NMWD aqueducts, thus improving the water 
district's water supply reliability through water transfer. In November 1992, district 
voters approved funding for a program which includes building new facilities to 
eliminate or at least lessen the district's reliance on surplus capacity in NMWD and 
SCWA aqueducts. 

With existing facilities, the South Bay's shortages would be about 30,000 af in 
2020 during average years. During drought years, with existing facilities, shortages 
will increase from 272,000 af in 1990 to 417,000 af in 2020. With additional facilities, 
the South Bay will be able to meet average year demands to 2020 and drought year 
supply shortages would be reduced to about 228,000 af Each of the six major water 
agencies in the South Bay is served by at least one of the import water systems 
connected to the Delta. These connections allow the transfer of water from agencies 
upstream of the Delta. Table SF-4 shows regional water supplies with additional (Level 
1) water management programs. 

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

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




Supply 



1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Surface 

Local 

Local imports 

Colorado River 

CVP 

Other federal 

SWPi'i 
Ground water'^' 
Overdroffi^i 
Reclaimed 
Dedicated natural flow 



365 


253 

503 




365 

563 




253 


365 


253 


365 


253 


539 


557 



587 


557 


591 


557 

















180 


160 

44 

124 

139 


213 

54 
220 


183 


228 


183 
44 


232 
54 


183 


54 


44 

130 


54 


44 


182 


212 


200 


216 


201 


100 


87 


194 


87 


194 


110 


198 







36 

3,085 


— 


— 


— 


— 


119 
4,609 


— 


36 

4,615 


74 
4,609 


74 
3,079 


Ill 
4,609 


Ill 
3,079 


119 
3,079 



TOTAL 



6,071 



4,344 



6,185 4,514 6,253 4,621 



6,296 



4,634 



(1) SWP supplies may be higher in any year to help recharge ground water basins for drought years. 

(21 Averoge ground water use is prime supply of ground water basins and does not include use of ground water which is ortificiolly recharged from surface 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 os o future supply. 

Water Supply Reliability and Drought Management Strategies. The San 

Francisco Bay Region weathered both the 1976-77 and 1987-92 droughts with 
moderate but only temporary impacts. These experiences verify that the region's 
flexibility to move water efficiently is a valuable asset in drought years. Three major 
factors contribute to this flexibility and the region's successful drought strategies: (1) 
effective water conservation and rationing programs, (2) available interconnections 



San Francisco Bay Region 



59 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



between water providers, and (3) diversity of water sources. While the region's 
dependency on somewhat less reliable imported supplies is substantial in drought 
years, water sources are geographically diverse and emergency supplies and water 
transfers can help alleviate drought impacts. The following paragraphs describe some 
recent drought management actions taken in the region. 

During the 1976-77 drought. MMWD received supplemental water through an 
elaborate sequence of interconnections. The transfer involved delivery of SWP water 
made available by agencies in Southern California, which took more water IVom the 
Colorado River. Water was conveyed through the South Bay Aqueduct and then by 
exchange and interconnected through the water systems of the SFWD, City of 
Hayward, and EBMUD, to a temporary pipeline across the Richmond-San Rafael 
Bridge. During the 1987-92 drought, MMWD customers achieved a 39-percent 
reduction in water use during the voluntary reduction period targeted at 25 percent. 

Another example of drought-induced interconnections occurred during the 
recent drought when SFWD requested DWR to install the San Antonio turnout from 
the SWP South Bay Aqueduct that had also been used in the 1976-77 drought. 

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

SCVWD received 32 percent of its maximum CVP supply in 1991. which included 
10,000 af of hardship supply. In addition, it received 30 percent of its SWP supply. As 
a result of these deficient supplies, the district elected to purchase 14,000 af of water 
from Placer County Water Agency, 26,000 af of water from Yuba County, and 20,000 
af from the 1991 State Drought Water Bank. In addition to supplementing its supplies, 
the district instituted conservation programs designed to save 25 percent of 1987 
water use. 

Locally imported supplies by SFWD and EBMUD also suffered deficiencies 
during the recent drought. The Hetch Hetchy deficiency was reduced from an initial 45 
to 25 percent for 1991. Customers were required to reduce indoor use by 10 percent 
and outdoor use by 60 percent. The deficiency reduction was made possible by 
purchases of 50,000 af from the 1991 State Drought Water Bank and 20,000 af from 
PCWA, 

ACWD and ACFC&WCD, Zone 7 were both subject to 80-percent deficiencies in 
their 1991 SWP supplies. ACWD received 14.800 af from the 1991 State Drought 
Water Bank and an increase in its share of Lake Del Valle supplies. These 
supplemental supplies allowed the district to scale back its rationing plan to 25 
percent reductions. ACFC&WCD. Zone 7 was able to make up for SWP deficiencies by 
increased ground water pumping. ACFC&WCD. Zone 7 also acquired a small 
supplemental supply from the 1991 State Drought Water Bank and instituted a 
conservation education program with a 25-percent reduction goal. 

Future Water Management Options. Since 1975 MMWD has had one of the 

least reliable supplies in the Bay Area. The district had to rely on supplemental 
imported supply from Sonoma County Water Agency and a very responsive reduction 
effort by customers to ensure adequate supplies throughout the 1987-92 drought. 



60 San Francisco Bay Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Assuming "base case" growth to 2025 and no supplemental supplies, the district had 
estimated a 40-percent deficiency once every 10 years. MMWD's new contract with 
SCWA will decrease that deficiency to approximately 10 percent. 

MMWD currently has no participation rights in SCWA facilities and uses excess 
capacity in SCWA's and NMWD's systems to convey Russian River water to Novato and 
into the MMWD system. MMWD developed and voters approved an Integrated Water 
Resources Management Program, which includes conservation, recycled water, and 
facilities expansion to accommodate the increased imported supply from the Russian 
River. The program is intended to provide sufficient supply to the district through 2025 
i and allows for manageable deficiencies in dry years, which will minimize costs and 
environmental impacts. 

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



EBMUD's supply is vulnerable in at least three ways: (1) drought, (2) decreasing 

! availability of supplies due to increased use by senior water rights holders and an 

increasing emphasis on environmental needs, and (3) the integrity of its delivery 

system, especially the security of the aqueducts from earthquakes or floods as they 

cross the Delta. EBMUD has recently completed work on an Updated Water Supply 

Management Program that includes a number of improvements to its water supply 

system. A detailed discussion of this program is in Volume I, Chapter 11. A main 

element of EBMUD's program is the conjunctive use of ground water. In average and 

wet years, available water would be stored in ground water aquifers in the lower 

Mokelumne River basin and withdrawn in dry years. This program will yield 43.000 af 

in drought years. EBMUD's Board of Directors has also directed the district's staff to 

continue working with San Joaquin County water interests regarding development of 

I a joint conjunctive use project, with the option of using the district's contract with 

■ USBR for 150.000 af per year of American River water. 

I Local imported supply would increase by 43,000 af in the future for drought 

' years, reflecting EBMUD's conjunctive use alternative. American River water is poten- 
tially available from a previously unused CVP contract for 1 50.000 af that was original- 
ly to be delivered through Folsom South Canal to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The dis- 

1 trict is still considering building its own extension of the Folsom South Canal so water 

i could be delivered to its aqueducts. 

As described previously, CCWD is pursuing the development of Los Vaqueros 
Reservoir near Byron to secure additional reliability and better quality for its water 
supplies. In addition, water recycling projects are becoming a cost-effective method of 
meeting increased demand in the San Francisco Bay Region. By 2020. the region could 
have an additional supply of about 83.000 af of recycled water to help meet its 
demands. 




San Francisco Bay Region 61 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Figure SF3. 

San Francisco 

Bay Region 

Net Water Demand 

(1990 Level 

Average Conditions) 



Figure SF-4. 

San Francisco 

Bay Region 

Urban Applied Water 

Use by Sector 

(1990 Level 

Average Conditions) 




Water Use 

Water use in the region has undergone dramatic changes over the last 40 years. 
A 1949 land use survey recorded 163.000 acres of irrigated agriculture in the region: 
the 1990 level land use analysis showed 61.400 acres, a 62-percent reduction. The 
1990 level agricultural net water demand was 88.000 af. Urban water demand was 

1.186,000 af: and envi- 
ronmental water use 
was about 4.775.000 
af. Almost all environ- 
mental water use in the 
region is associated 
with the Suisun Marsh 
demands and required 
Delta outflow. Total wa- 
ter use is forecasted to 
increase from approxi- 
mately 6.071,000 af in 
1990 to 6.296.000 af in 
2020, primarily due to 
population increases. 
Figure SF-3 shows the 
distribution of 1990 lev- 
el net water demands 
for the San Francisco 
Bay Region. 

Urban Water Use 

Urban water demand is computed using population and per capita water use. Cen- 
sus data and State Department of Finance projections were used to tabulate the region's 
population. Per capita use in the region varies significantly, depending on factors such 
as climate, income, population density, residential yard size, and volume of commercial 
and industrial use. Generally, per capita use showed an upward trend after the 1976-77 

drought to pre-drought 
levels. Recently, per 
capita use values have 
dropped again. al- 
though not to the levels 
of the previous drought. 
This most recent drop is 
due to conservation ef- 
forts during the 
1987-92 drought. After 
a return to near-normal 
use. per capita use is 
forecasted to continue 
to drop slowly over the 
next three decades due 
to implementation of 
Best Management Prac- 
tices fVolume I, Chapter 
6). 




62 



San Francisco Bay Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



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

Santa Clara County's per capita use averages approximately 200 gpcd. The 
warmer and drier climate results in increased outdoor use. Residential areas reflect a 
range of uses, from high-density multi-unit dwellings to some areas of very low density 
suburban homes. The county also has a mix of water-using industries, such as food 
processing and computer and electronics manufacturing, which tend to raise per capi- 
ta use. 

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

Urban water demands are displayed in Table SF-5. With a 27-percent increase in 
population anticipated by 2020, urban water demand is forecasted to increase roughly 
1 9 percent after accounting for increases in household population density and savings 
from implementing water conservation measures such as urban Best Management 
Practices. The overall regional per capita use should decrease by about 6 percent by 
2020. 




Planning Subarea 



Table SF-5. Urban Water Demand 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



North Bay 


Applied water demand 


153 


167 


176 


193 


190 


218 


198 


228 


Net water demand 


153 


167 


176 


193 


190 


218 


198 


228 


Depletion 


135 


148 


156 


171 


168 


194 


176 


203 


South Bay 


Applied water demand 


1,033 


1,120 


1,122 


1,197 


1,175 


1,268 


1,208 


1,302 


Net water demand 


1,033 


1,120 


1,122 


1,197 


1,175 


1,268 


1,208 


1,302 


Depletion 


944 


1,027 


1,029 


1,100 


1,079 


1,168 


1,111 


1,200 




TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


1,186 


1,287 


1,298 


1,390 


1,365 


1,486 


1,406 


1,530 


Net water demand 


1,186 


1,287 


1,298 


1,390 


1,365 


1,486 


1,406 


1,530 


Depletion 


1,079 


1,175 


1,185 


1,271 


1,247 


1,362 


1,287 


1,403 



San Francisco Bay Region 



63 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Vineyard acreage is 

increasing in Ihe Napa 

Valley. Most water for 

irrigation conies from 

ground water or 

diversions from the 

Napa River Drip 

irrigation is one of 

many efficient 

practices that 

agricultural users are 

instituting in the area. 



Agriculfural Water Use 

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

North Bay. 

Agricultural water use 
in the North Bay is in- 
fluenced by the cli- 
mate of the area. The 
cool air entering San 
Pablo Bay from the 
west is a factor in de- 
termining crop viabil- 
ity and irrigation 
practices. There is 
very little agriculture 
remaining in Marin 
County, currently 
about 700 irrigated 
.1 ^^fnil'^iSBWESte ^j^JC ^Uiiitt acres. Sonoma and 

m: ' "^^iClvMBHiHI Napa counties, on the 

Other hand, have ac- 
tually increased agri- 
cultural acreage, due 
to an increase in vine- 
yards and adoption of drip irrigation on lands too steep for furrow or sprinkler irriga- 
tion practices. Most of these agricultural lands are served by ground water or direct 
diversions from the Napa River and other local streams. Forecasts are that vineyard 
acreage will continue to increase, while other crop acreages, with the exception of pas- 
ture (forecasted to decrease 20 percent), are expected to remain about the same. 




>w\j':»» T; 



Figure SF-5. 

1990 San Francisco 

Bay Region 

Acreage. ETAW. 

and Applied Water 

for Mcijor Crops 




64 



San Francisco Bay Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



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

Table SF-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 

(thousands of acres) 




Planning Subarea 



1990 



2000 



2010 



2020 



North Bay 
South Bay 



44 
17 



48 
16 



48 
16 



48 
16 



TOTAL 



61 



64 



64 



64 



The Livermore Valley is partially separated from interior Bay climate patterns by 
the Diablo Range. The valley is significantly warmer, reflected in higher outdoor water 
use. There are appro.ximately 2.500 acres of irrigated agriculture, primarily vineyards, 
grain, and truck crops. 

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



Table SF-7. 1 990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 
Irrigated Crop 



Grain 

Corn 

Other field 

Pasture 

Other truck 

Other deciduous 

Vineyard 



Total Acres 


Total ETAW 


(1000) 


(1,000 AF) 


2 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


5 


11 


10 


19 


6 


10 


36 


27 



TOTAL 



61 



70 



San Francisco Bay Region 



65 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Table SF-8. Agricultural Water Demand 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Planning Subarea 



North Bay 


Applied water demand 


57 


65 


59 


65 


59 


66 


59 


66 


Net water demand 


53 


61 


55 


61 


55 


62 


55 


62 


Depletion 


48 


55 


50 


55 


50 


56 


50 


56 


South Bay 


Applied water demand 


35 


38 


35 


39 


35 


38 


..^^35 


37 


Net water demand 


35 


38 


35 


39 


35 


38 


35 


37 


Depletion 


32 


34 


32 


35 


32 


34 


32 


33 




TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


92 


103 


94 


104 


94 


104 


94 


103 


Net water demand 


88 


99 


90 


100 


90 


100 


90 


99 


Depletion 


80 


89 


82 


90 


82 


90 


82 


89 



Environmental Wafer Use 

The Suisun Marsh and Hayward Marsh are the only identified managed wetlands 
in the San Francisco Bay Region requiring water supplies. The Suisun Marsh consists 
of approximately 55.000 acres of managed wetlands. The State owns about 10,000 
acres while about 44,000 acres are under private ownership and managed as duck 
clubs. The estimated water demand of the marsh is about 150,000 af per year. The 
additional instream demands for the Suisun Marsh are about 15,000 af in an average 
year and 145,000 af during drought years and is included in environmental instream 
water needs (Table SF-10). Additional Suisun Marsh instream demands are based on 
an estimated supplemental flow required over the eight-month period when Suisun 
Marsh Salinity Gates are operational to meet SWRCB D- 1485 standards downstream 
of the gates in the Delta. The Hayward Marsh is a part of the Hayward Shoreline Marsh 
Expansion Project. The project represents an effort by several local agencies working 
together to create the largest wetlands restoration project on the west coast. The 
1,800-acre site is managed by the East Bay Regional Park District. As part of the 
project, 10,000 af of recycled water from the Union Sanitary District is blended with 
the Bay's brackish water and applied to the 145-acre marsh, restoring habitat for fish, 
waterfowl, and the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse. Table SF-9 shows wetlands 
water needs. 



66 



San Francisco Bay Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Table SF-9. Wetland Water Needs 

(thousands of acre- feet) 

Wetland 1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Suisun Marsh 


Applied water demand 


150 


150 


150 


150 


150 


150 


150 


150 


Net water demand 


150 


150 


150 


150 


150 


150 


150 


150 


Depletion 


150 


150 


150 


150 


150 


150 


150 


150 


Hayward Marsh 


Applied water demand 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 
10 


10 


10 


Net water demand 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


Depletion 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


















TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


160 


160 


160 


160 


160 


160 
160 


160 
160 


160 


Net water demand 


160 


160 


160 


160 


160 


160 


Depletion 


160 


160 


160 


160 


160 


160 


160 


160 



The largest environmental water use in the region is for Delta outflow to meet 
SWRCB D- 1485 salinity requirements, which requires about 4,600,000 and 2,940.000 
af for average and drought years, respectively. Other instream flows for small streams 
throughout the region were not included in the water use tables. Environmental 
instream water needs are shown in Table SF- 10 and includes Suisun Marsh instream 
needs. Recent and future actions to protect aquatic species in the Delta will increase 
environmental water needs for this region. Volume I. Chapter 8 presents a broad 
discussion of water needs for the Bay- Delta, 



Table SF-10. Environmental Instream Water Needs 

(thousands of acre-feet) 



Stream 



1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Bay-Delta 


Applied water 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 


















TOTAL 


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 



San Francisco Bay Region 



67 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Other Wafer Use 

Other water demand includes water losses by major conveyance facilities in the 
region, water needs of recreational facilities, and water demand of power plants and 
other energy production. Figure SF-6 shows water recreation areas in the San 
Francisco Bay Area. Table SF- 1 1 shows the total water demand for 1 990 and forecasts 
to 2020 for the San Francisco Bay Region. 



Table SF-11. Total Water Demands 

(thousands of acre-feet) 



Category of Use 


1990 

average drought 


2000 

average drought 


2010 

overage drought 


2020 

overage drought 


Urban 


1,186 
1,186 
1,079 

92 

88 
80 

4,775 
4,775 
4,775 

4 
22 
22 


1,287 
1,287 
1,175 

103 
99 
89 

3,245 
3,245 
3,245 

4 

21 
21 


1,298 
1,298 
1,185 

94 
90 
82 

4,775 
4,775 
4,775 

4 

22 
22 


1,390 
1,390 
1,271 

104 

100 

90 

3,245 
3,245 
3,245 

4 

21 
21 


1,365 
1,365 
1,247 

94 


1,486 






Applied water demand 


1,406 


1,530 


Net water demand 


1,486 
1,362 


1,406 


1,530 


Depletion 


1,287 


1,403 


Agricultural 








Applied woter demand 


104 


94 


103 


Net water demand 


90 
82 


100 


90 


99 


Depletion 
Environmental 


90 


82 

4,775 
4,775 


89 


Applied water demand 
Net water demand 


4,775 
4,775 
4,775 


3,245 
3,245 


3,245 
3,245 


Depletion 
Other" 


3,245 


4,775 


3,245 


Applied water demand 


4 

23 
23 


4 

21 
21 


4 


4 


Net water demand 
Depletion 


25 
25 


21 
21 


TOTAL 

Applied water demand 
Net water demand 


6,057 
6,071 
5,956 


4,639 
4,652 
4,530 


6,171 
6,185 
6,064 


4,743 
4,756 
4,627 


6,238 
6,253 
6,127 


4,839 
4,852 


6,279 
6,296 


4,882 
4,895 


Depletion 


4,718 


6,169 


4,758 



(1) Includes mQ|or conveyance facility losses, recreation uses, and energy production. 



68 



Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 

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

Legislation and Litigation 

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

San Francisco Bay Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure SF-6. San Francisco Bay Region 

Hydroelectric Power Plants and Water Recreation Areas 



N 



1 . Lake Hennessey 

2. Soulajule Reservoir 

3. Lake Nicasio 

4. Lakes Alpine, Bon Tempe, 
Kent, and Lagunitas 

5. San Pablo Reservoir 

6. Lafayette Reservoir 

7. Lake Merced 

8. Lake Chabot 

9. Lake Del Valle R.F. 

10. Lexington and Stevens 
Creek Reservoirs 

1 1 . Calero Reservoir 

12. Anderson Reservoir 

13. Coyote Reservoir 




Leg ind 
A. Water Recreation Area 
Hydroelectric Power Plant 



SCALE IN MILES 

•From 1992 Calltornia Energy Commission Maps. See Table D-3 in Appendix D for plant information. 




San Francisco Bay Region 



69 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



to EBMUD customers. In a separate process, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission is reviewing the district's hydropower operations. In November 1993. 
FERC issued a final EIS which recommends fish flows significantly greater than the 
district's Lower Mokelumne River Management Plan. The district filed a motion for a 
technical conference to provide additional information which the district believes 
should be the basis for revision of FERC's final decision. Final settlement is expected 
in 1994. 

EBMUD diverted its contracted American River water only once, during the 
1976-77 drought, when the district took 25.000 af from the Delta to supplement its 
depleted supplies under an emergency agreement with USBR. In 1972. a suit was filed 
protesting EBMUD's right to divert water at Folsom South Canal. In 1986, the SWRCB 
affirmed the right and referred the lawsuit to Alameda Superior Court for litigation. A 
preliminary decision in 1989 confirmed the right to divert water at Folsom South Canal 
cind established minimum flows for the American River below Nimbus Dam that would 
be required before EBMUD could divert its supplies. A final decision was made in 
1990, which cleared the way for the district to seriously consider a connection between 
the caned and the Mokelumne Aqueducts. An EIS/EIR will focus on technical, public 
health and safety, social, and environmental factors for the project. EBMUD, 
Sacramento County, Environmental Defense Fund, and DFG are cooperatively 
conducting fishery studies on the American River. 

Recently EBMUD filed a lawsuit against Contra Costa County to block use of 
scarce EBMUD water for a housing development. The county certified an EIR for the 
Dougherty Valley development despite the concerns about water supply expressed by 
the district. EBMUD told the county that it does not have the water to supply the 
proposed 1 1,000-home development. 

CVPIA. Implementation of the 1992 CVPIA will have some cost impacts on Bay 
Area water users in the form of higher prices for CVP water. The Act allocates a portion 
of CVP water to environmental uses and allows municipal and industrial users to 
purchase water from agricultural users. (See Volume 1. Chapter 2.) 

Local Issues 

Slow-growth Movement. Anti-growth sentiment is increasing in some Bay Area 
communities as was evident during many of the 1 992 local elections. Napa and Contra 
Costa counties elected several slow-growth candidates. Marin County residents had 
opposed efforts to improve their water system delivery capabilities beyond limited 
expansion of local supplies, fearful that more water would mean uncontrolled growth. 
The Marin Municipal Water District has had for the last three years a moratorium on 
new connections within its service area due to limited water supplies. The operational 
yield of present district facilities indicated a 5.000 af deficit for 1990. After more than 
20 years of consistently rejecting plans to import more surface water, voters narrowly 
approved financing to increase the district's capacity to import water from the Sonoma 
County Water Agency in order to reduce the frequency and severity of drought year 
shortages. 

Contra Costa Water District. The quality and reliability of CCWD's Delta water 
supply has been an issue for the district. The proposal to build Los Vaqueros Reservoir 
addresses a number of related issues for the district's water supply and the Delta. The 
proposed reservoir would be an offstream storage facility and would allow more 
flexibility in CCWD's operations. Specifically, the district could divert higher quality 
water to Los Vaqueros Reservoir during high flows in the Delta. Los Vaqueros water 
would then be available to improve water quality by blending with water delivered 



70 San Francisco Bay Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



throughout the year from the Delta and to provide emergency storage. By storing water 
at certain times of the year, the district could shut down its pumps during periods 
when the fisheries are most sensitive to large diversions. CCWD is planning to have the 
project online by 2000. 

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

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

Water Balance 

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

Table SF-12 presents water demands for the 1990 level and for future water 
demands to 2020 and compares them with: (1) supplies from existing facilities and 
water management programs, and (2) future demand management and water supply 
management options. Regional net water demands for the 1990 level of development 
totaled 6,07 1 .000 and 4.652,000 af for average and drought years, respectively. Those 
demands are forecasted to increase to 6,296,000 and 4,895,000 af, respectively, by the 
year 2020, after accounting for a 250,000-af reduction in urban water demand 
resulting from additional long-term water conservation measures. 

Urban net water demand is forecasted to increase by 470,000 af by 2020, 
without additional long-term water conservation measures, primarily due to expected 
increases in population, while agricultural net water demand remains essentially level. 
Environmental net water demands under SWRCB D- 1485 would remain the same but 
could increase substantially depending on the outcome of several actions currently 
being undertaken to protect aquatic species. 

Average annual supplies with existing water management programs are 
inadequate to meet average net water demands in this region, resulting in a shortage 
of about 30,000 af by 2020. During droughts, without additional water management 
programs, annual drought year shortages are expected to increase to about 484,000 af 
by 2020. 




San Francisco Bay Region 71 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Table SF-12. Water Budget 

(thousands of acre-feetj 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Water Demand/Supply 



Nef Demand 

Urban— with 1 990 


















level of conservation 


1,186 


1,287 


1,409 


1,501 


1,559 


1,680 


1,656 


1,780 


— reductions due to 
long-term conservation 
measures (Level 1) 
Agricultural — with 1990 


— 


— 


-111 


-111 


-194 


-194 


-250 


-250 


level of conservation 


88 


99 


90 


100 


90 


100 


90 


99 


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
























Environmental 


4,775 


3,245 


4,775 


3,245 


4,775 


3,245 


4,775 


3,245 


Other"! 


22 


21 


22 


21 


23 


21 


25 


21 



TOTAL Net Demand 



6,071 



4,652 



6,185 



4,756 



6,253 



4,852 



6,296 



4,895 



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

Developed Supplies 

Surface Water'^' 

Ground Water 

Ground Water Overdraft*^' 
Subtotal 
Dedicated Natural Flow 



1,356 


1,120 


1,444 


1,156 


1,478 


1,151 


1,486 


1,152 


100 


139 


126 


174 


160 


174 


165 


174 








— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


1,456 


1,259 


1,570 


1,330 


1,638 


1,325 


1,651 


1,326 


4,615 


3,085 


4,615 


3,085 


4,615 


3,085 


4,615 


3,085 



TOTAL Water Supplies 


6,071 


4,344 


6,185 


4,415 


6,253 


4,410 


6,266 


4,411 


Demand/Supply Balance 





-308 





-341 





-442 


-30 


-484 



Level I Water Management Programs'*' 

Long-term Supply Augmentation 

Reclaimed 

Local 

Central Valley Project/ 

Other Federal 

State Water Project 
Subtotal ■ Level I Water 
Management Programs 
Net Ground Water or 
Surface Water Use Reduction 
Resulting from Level I Programs 



%»«.*£»;-- 


— 


38 


38 


75 


75 


83 


83 





— 





43 





43 





43 


— 


_-.^T*^ 


r" 




















— 


7 


4 


4 


79 


8 


79 








45 


85 


79 


197 


91 


205 



-45 



-79 



14 



-61 



Remaining Demand/Supply Balance Requiring Short-term Drought Management and/or Level II Options 

-308 -242 -231 -261 

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

(2) Existing and future imported supplies tfiat depend on Delta export capobilities ore based on SWRCB D- 1 485 and do not take into account recent actions to protect aquatic species. As such, 
regional wafer supply shortages ore understated[note. proposed environmental water demands of 1 to 3 MAP ore included in the California water budget}, 

(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 

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



72 



San Francisco Bay Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



With Level 1 water management programs, supplies would meet the future water 
demand of the region in average years. However, during droughts, shortages could be 
reduced to about 26 1 ,000 af per year by 2020. This remaining shortage requires both 
additional short-term drought management, water transfers and demand 
management programs, and future Level II water management programs, depending 
on the overall level of water service reliability deemed necessary by local agencies. This 
region depends on export from the Sacrsmiento-San Joaquin Delta for a portion of its 
supplies. Shortages stated above are based on SWRCB D-1485 operating criteria for 
Delta supplies and do not take into account recent actions to protect aquatic species in 
the estuary. As such, regional water supply shortages are understated. 



San Francisco Bay Region 73 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Motto Rock provides a stunning backdrop 
for these boats anchored in Morro Bay. 
Morro Bay is a popular community on the 
Central Coast whose primary industries 
are commercial ocean fishing and tourism. 







■r^.i 



m 






The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 




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

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

Annual precipitation in the region ranges from 14 to 45 inches, usually in the 
form of rain. The average annual precipitation near the City of Salinas is about 14 
inches while in the higher elevations of the Big Sur area, approximately 30 miles south 
of Monterey along the coast, precipitation averages about 40 inches a year. In 1983, 
the Big Sur area had a surprising 85 inches of rain. Average annual precipitation in the 
southern coastal basins ranges from 12 to 20 Inches, with most of it occurring from 
November through April. The southern interior basins usually receive 5 to 10 inches 
per year, the mountain areas receiving more than the valley floors. 

Population 

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



Central Coast 
Region 



Region Characteristics 
Average Annual Precipitation: 20 inches Average Annual Runoff: 2.477,000 of 
Land Area: 1 1,280 square miles 1990 Population: 1 ,292.900 



Central Coast Region 



75 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



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



Planning Subarea 



Table CC-1. Population Projections 

(thousands) 



1990 



2000 



2010 



2020 



Northern 
Southern 



702 
591 



823 
699 



969 
792 



1,129 



TOTAL 



,293 



1,522 



1,761 



2,017 



Despite the population increases, much of the region is sparsely populated. The 
principal population centers are Santa Cruz. Salinas. Watsonville. Monterey. San Luis 
Obispo. Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, and Lompoc. Most of the region's future 
population growth continues to be in areas showing recent growth. 

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

Land Use 

Publicly-owned lands constitute approximately 28 percent of the region's area. 
The four major military installations within the region occupy 340.000 acres. (See 
Appendix C for maps of the planning subareas and land ownership in the region.) The 
abundance of state parks and national forest land (Los Padres. 1 .3 million acres) offers 
the public many recreational opportunities. Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine 
Research Reserve, one of the few remaining coastal wetlands, showcases miles of 
scenic wetlands and rolling hills. The slough is on a migratory flyway and is an 
important feeding and resting ground for a variety of waterfowl. Irrigated and 
nonirrigated agriculture still remains the dominant land use for most of the Central 
Coast region. Intensive agriculture exists in the Salinas and Pajaro valleys in the north 
and the Santa Maria and lower Santa Ynez valleys in the south. Moderate levels of 
agricultural activity also occur near the Upper Salinas, South Coast, and Cuyama 
areas. Most of the region's irrigated agriculture is in the northern and southwestern 
valleys, and in recent years irrigated acreage has remained fairly stable. Figure CC-1 
shows land use. along with imports and exports for the Central Coast Region. 

Wine grape acreage has increased in the upper Salinas Valley in San Luis Obispo 
County but decreased in the lower valley within Monterey County. However, acreage 
planted to vegetables and other truck crops far surpassed that planted to vineyards 
and orchards. Cut flowers, strawberries, and specialty crops, such as asparagus, 
mushroom, artichokes, and holly, are distinctive to the region's northern area. The 
flower seed industry in Lompoc 'Valley is a thriving business which also attracts many 



76 



Central Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



tourists each year. Portions of the upper Salinas Valley and Carrizo Plain are 
dry-farmed to produce winter grain. These areas also support sheep and cattle 
ranching. Industries other than agriculture are not well developed, but there are 
petroleum refining operations near Santa Maria and a significant oil well lield in the 
Cuyama Valley, as well as frozen food plants in the Pajaro Valley. 

Urban development is beginning to encroach on the agricultural lands in the 
highly productive inland valleys. Total irrigated agricultural land acreage in the Central 
Coast Region decreased from 459,000 acres in 1980 to 430,000 acres in 1990 (-6 
percent). Total crop acreage decreased from 53 1 .000 acres in 1980 to 528.000 acres in 
1990. Although the Southern PSA total irrigated land decreased from 1 56.000 acres to 
about 145.000 acres, total crop acres increased from about 155,000 acres in 1980 to 
about 182,000 acres in 1990. This indicated an increase in multiple cropping. Urban 
acreage also increased from 182.000 acres to 240. 100 acres during the same period. 

Increases in de- 
fense-related jobs 
associated with the 
space shuttle and 
missile testing pro- 
grams at Vandenburg 
Air Force Base accel- 
erated the urbaniza- 
tion of the Santa Ma- 
ria and lower Santa 
Ynez valleys during 
the 1970s. Growth 
was experienced in 
all areas of urban 
land use. but primar- 
ily in the residential 
and industrial cate- 
gories. Some agricul- 
tural land was lost to 
the initial wave of de- 
velopment. However. 

some local growers have compensated for the agricultural land losses by multiple crop- 
pings and use of nonirrigated pasture lands. 

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

Water Supply 

Ground water is the most significant source of water supply for the region. 
Imported supplies account for only 5 percent of the total. Completion of the Coastal 
Branch of the State Water Project, as well as other local projects, will lessen the 
reliance on ground water supplies. Figure CC-2 shows the region's 1990 level sources 
of supply. 





Houses nestled in the 
Santa Barbara hillside. 
Adequate water supplies 
to serve the area's 
growing urban 
population is an 
important issue facing 
the region. 



Central Coast Region 



77 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



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







San Felipe Unit 


lOCH LOMOm 


Santa Clara 


/ 53 


LAKE ^ 


Canal 


/ 




Urban Land 
Irrigated Land 

Region Water Transfers 

{1,000's of Acre-Feet per Year) 

^ 20 30 

SCALE IN MILES 



78 



Central Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



The average water supply for the Central Coast Region for the 1990 level of 
development is estimated at 1, 143,000 af. In 1990, ground water pumping amounted 
to 82 percent of total supplies. 21 percent of which was in excess of the estimated 
prime supply and is considered overdraft. 

Supply with Existing Facilities and Water l\/lanagement Programs 

There are in excess of 60 reser\'oirs within the Central Coast Region, the majority 
of which are owned by private concerns. The reservoirs in the region are used for 
residential and municipal water needs. Hood control, recreation, irrigation, and 
riparian habitat. The major reservoirs in the region are listed in Table CC-2. 




Reservoir Name 



Table CC-2. Major Reservoirs 

River Capacity (1,000 AF) 



Ov/ner 



Santa Margarito Lake 

San Antonio 

Nacimiento 

Gibralter 

Cochuma (Bradbury) 

Whale Rock 

Lopez 

Voquero (Twitchell) 



Salinas 

San Antonio 

Nacimiento 

Santa Ynez 

Santa Ynez 

Old Creek 

Arroyo Grande Creek 

Cuyama River 



24 

335 

340 

9 

190 

41 

52 

240 



US Army Corps of Engineers 

MCWRA 

MCWRA 

City of Santa Barbara 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Department of Water Resources 

SLOCFCWCD 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 



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

Basins in the 
Southern PSA are 
smaller, but important 
to their local communi- 
ties. These shallow ba- 
sins underlie seasonal 
coastal streams. During 
years with normal or 
above-normal rainfall, 
aquifers in the basins 
are continuously re- 
plenished by creek 
flows. In years of below- 
normal precipitation, 
the creek flows are in- 
termittent, flow is in- 
sufficient for both agri- 
cultural and municipal 
uses, wells become dry, 
and sea water intrudes into some coastal ground water basins. 




Figure CC-2. 
Central Coast Region 
Water Supply Sources 
(1990 Level 
Average Conditions) 



Central Coast Region 



79 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Supply 



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

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

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Surface 

Local 

Local imports 

Colorado River 

CVP 

Other federal 

SWP 
Ground wcter'^' 
Overdroffi'i 
Reclaimed 
Dedicated natural flow 



76 


56 


76 


56 


76 


56 


76 


56 


















































53 


19 


56 


19 


80 


23 


83 


23 


65 


46 


65 


46 


65 


46 


65 


46 


























688 


762 


694 


769 


695 


776 


698 


781 


245 


245 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


15 


15 


23 


23 


23 


23 


23 


23 


1 





1 





1 





1 






TOTAL 



1,143 



1,143 



915 



913 



940 



924 



946 



929 



(1 } Average ground woter 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. 
(2) The degree future shortages ore met by increased overdraft is unknown. Since overdraft is not sustainable, it is not included as a future supply. 

Water Supply Reliability and Drought Management Strategies. Many large 
and small communities in the region have initiated both voluntary and mandatory 
water conservation practices. Practices range from voluntary water conservation and 
limited outdoor watering to mandatory water rationing and little or no outdoor 
watering. The City of Salinas relies on outdoor watering restrictions based upon 
time-of-day water use limitation, and voluntary water conservation practices. 
Recently, many of the communities which mandated water rationing during the 
drought have elected to implement a voluntary water conser\'ation program. For 
example. Monterey has an outdoor watering schedule based upon time-of-day 
restrictions, and the city's water waste ordinance is still in effect. The communities of 
Watsonville and Santa Cruz have voluntary water conservation programs in place. 
Water runoff from overwatering is prohibited in these communities. 

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

Water supply shortages occurred in the South Coast, San Luis Obispo, Morro 
Bay, and North Coast areas of the region because of the 1987-92 drought in the 
Central Coast Region. Dwindling surface water supplies forced retail water agencies in 
these areas to depend more on limited ground water supplies and water conservation 
to make up deficits. Portions of the Southern PSA experienced unprecedented supply 
shortages. In the summer of 1990, retail water agencies in the service area of Lake 



80 



Central Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Cachuma were confronted with the prospect that only 12 months of supply remained 
in that reservoir. Two of these agencies were the Goleta Water District and the City of 
Santa Barbara. The Goleta Water District began implementing a mandatory water 
rationing program in 1988 for all urban and agricultural customers within its service 
area. The historical water use by all customers was evaluated and a percentage 
reduction was assigned to each: financial penalties were established to prevent 
noncompliance. In addition, the agency established a rebate program that involved the 
purchase and installation of ultra-low-flush toilets for residential customers, passed 
ordinances that temporarily banned certain water-related activities, and vigorously 
advertised water conservation. The conservation efforts by retail customers exceeded 
the savings levels imposed by the district and resulted in extra water supplies being 
delivered to agricultural customers. 

The City of Santa Barbara implemented similar strategies in combating supply 
shortages. The city also established a drought patrol to monitor water use behavior, 
and penalties and citationswere handed out to violators. In addition, the city examined 
and approved action to: 1) import emergency SWP water from Ventura County and 2) 
examine the potential of sea water desalination. An emergency pipeline was Installed to 
bring SWP water into the Santa Barbara-Carpenteria area from Casitas Lake in 
Ventura County by exchange, and a sea water desalination plant was constructed in 
1991-92 that is capable of producing 7.500 af per year. The plant operated until early 
June 1992, when it was shut down: the plant will remain on stand-by mode due to 
plentiful surface supplies. The cost to produce the water was relatively high for an area 
that relies on existing local surface supplies and ground water. 

To minimize the impacts of the drought, the City of Morro Bay operated a sea 
water desalting plant with a capacity of 400 gallons per minute. This plant is operated 
under an emergency-only permit (drought emergency). The city has applied to the 
California Coastal Commission for a permit to use the plant on an as-needed basis. 

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

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

Supply with Additional Facilities and Water hAanagement Programs 

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 high likelihood of being 
implemented by 2020. 

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

Increased use of SWP water in the Southern PSA and CVP water in the Northern 
PSA will require additional transportation facilities. As outlined in the water supply 
section, many agencies are looking to these import sources for their future supplies. 



Central Coast Region 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Local alternatives being examined include increasing capacity in local storage 
reservoirs or. in some cases, authorizing new projects. Cloud seeding and desalination 
are showing to be effective in parts of the region. The following sections summarize 
water management programs under active consideration in the region. 

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

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

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

Supply 7990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 

Surface 

Local 76 56 100 78 100 78 100 78 

Local imports 

Colorado River 

CVP 

Other federal 

SWP 
Ground water''' 
Overdraft'^' 
Reclaimed 
Dedicated natural flow 

TOTAL 1,143 1,143 1,036 1,009 1,095 1,056 1,102 1,061 

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

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

Many areas within the Southern PSA use local surface water projects and ground 
water extractions as their primary sources of water. Surface water storage facilities 
include Salinas Reservoir. Twltchell Reservoir, and Lake Cachuma. Annual 
precipitation and spring runoff from nearby mountains determine the reliability of 
these vital water supplies. In some instances, emergency measures, such as those in 
1990 when local and SWP water from Ventura County was wheeled to Santa Barbara, 
must be implemented to ensure an adequate supply of water. In 1992. Santa Barbara 
and San Luis Obispo counties approved extending the Coastal Branch of the SWP, 










19 

46 






56 

65 

































53 


19 


100 


30 


103 


30 


65 


46 


65 


46 


65 


46 








53 


25 


53 


43 


53 


43 


688 


762 


678 


768 


682 


775 


686 


780 


245 


245 
15 


67 


67 


78 


— 


— 


— 


15 


78 


78 


78 


1 





17 


6 


17 


6 


17 


6 



82 Central Coast Region 



The Calilornia Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



which will increase their future water supply reliability. Table CC-4 shows water 
supplies with additional Level I water management programs. 

Agencies within San Luis Obispo County have requested 4.830 af from the SWP, 
while requests from Santa Barbara County total 42.486 af. Availability of SWP supplies 
in Santa Barbara and to a lesser degree San Luis Obispo counties will lessen the 
severity and frequency of water supply shortages and will help alleviate ground water 
overdraft. The County of San Luis Obispo is also negotiating to take delivery of its full 
entitlement of 17,500 af of Nacimiento Reservoir water by the year 2000. 

The City of San Luis Obispo has actively been pursuing the Salinas Reservoir 
Expansion Project to supplement its water supply. The project involves Installation of 
spillway gates to expand the storage capacity of the existing reservoir from about 
23.840 af to 41.790 af. This project will increase the reservoir storage by about 17.950 
af and increase the City annual supplies by about 1 ,650 af. The Environmental Impact 
Report for the project is expected to be certified in 1994. 

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

Other measures to augment water supplies are under consideration by various 
water agencies. Cloud seeding has been effective in the Monterey County mountains. 
Desalination, reservoir enlargement, and importing surface water are options to 
increase surface water supplies. The USBR completed a study of the cost effectiveness 
of extending the San Felipe Project of the federal CVP. which would deliver water to the 
Pajaro Valley. Several local government and water agencies are preparing water 
management plans which will address short-, medium-, and long-term schemes to 
reduce water use and bring in additional water. 

Water recycling will play an increasing role in supplies for nonconsumptive use. 
The Carmel Area Wastewater District will begin construction during 1 993 of a water 
recycling project that will serve seven golf courses and two recreational areas in the 
Pebble Beach area of Monterey County. Plans call for enough recycled water to meet 
almost 100 percent of the users' irrigation demands. The project is being developed 
with the Pebble Beach Community Services District. 

Water recycling facilities have been built by the City of Santa Barbara and by the 
Goleta Water District. The City recently completed Phase 11 of its project, bringing the 
total delivery capability of the City to about 1,200 af per year. Goleta Sanitary District 
and Goleta Water District have recently dedicated a desalination plant with a capacity 
of 2.300 gallons per minute. 

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

The Monterey County Water Resources Agency is in the process of screening nine 
major project alternatives, each with several components, to bring the Salinas Basin 




Central Coast Region 83 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Figure CC-3. 
Central Coast Region 
Net Water Demand 
(1990 Level 
Average Conditions) 



into balance and reduce sea water intrusion. Some otthe alternatives include enlarging 
the capacities of San Antonio and Nacimiento reservoirs, constructing a tunnel to 
transport water from Nacimiento to San Antonio, constructing dams on the Arroyo 
Seco River and Chalone Creek, and developing a dispersed well system and 
transportation system to convey water from south Monterey County to water deficient 
areas in north Monterey County. 

Water Use 

In 1990. water use in the region was divided 60 and 40 percent between the 
Northern and Southern PSAs, respectively. Agricultural water use accounts for 78 

percent of the region's 
total water use, while 
urban water use is 20 
percent of the total. The 
remainder of the 
region's water use is for 
energy production, 

environmental needs, 
conveyance losses, and 
recreation. The 1990 
level net water use in the 
region is about 

1,143,000 af. Forecasts 
indicate that average 
annual water demand 
will increase about 13 
percent to 1.291,000 af 
by 2020. Figure CC-3 
shows net water 
demand for the 1990 level of development. The 1990 level drought demand is 
1.213.000 af and is projected to increase to 1.379.000 by 2020. 




Urban Wafer Use 



Figure CC-4. 

Central Coast Region 

Urban Applied Water 

Use by Sector 

(1990 Level 

Average Condilions) 



Govemmenlal 




6% 




Commercial \ 
16% > 




Residential 


Unaccounted 


60% 


10% 




Industrial 




8% 







Population in the 
Central Coast is ex- 
pected to grow by about 
56 percent by 2020 to 
over 2 million people. 
Figure CC-4 shows ap- 
plied urban water de- 
mand, by sector, for the 
1990 level of develop- 
ment. Table CC-5 
shows urban water de- 
mand projections to 
2020. 

In the Southern 
PSA, average 1990 
level per capita use for 
the San Luis Obispo 
and Santa Barbara 



84 



Central Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



areas was 190 and 187 gallons, respectively. The per capita water use lor the Southern 
PSA is 187 gallons, while that in the Upper Salinas Valley area, in the region's warmer 
interior, is 223 gallons. 

In the Northern PSA. the average per capita use for the region is about 190 
gallons per day. This value varied from a high of about 250 gallons per day in the 
warmer inland communities of Hollister and King City to a low of about 1 50 gallons per 
day in the chronically water-short Monterey-Carmel area. 

With a few exceptions, most cities and metropolitan centers as well as 
predominant urban water demands in the region are geographically near U.S. Highway 
101. Construction is primarily in the form of single-and multiple-family style housing 
units and commercial services. Even though demand has generally increased in the 
region, per capita water use values have not changed significantly. This is because: (1) 
higher water-using industries have not established themselves in areas with new 
construction and. (2) the number of multiple-family dwelling units built 
counterbalance the single-family units. 

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

Table CC-5. Urban Water Demand 

(thousands of acre-feet) 




Planning Subarea 



1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Northern 


Applied water demand 


151 


152 


176 


178 


207 


210 


242 
209 


245 


Net water demand 


131 


132 


152 


154 


179 


182 


212 


Depletion 


118 


118 


137 


138 


160 


162 


187 


189 


Southern 


Applied water demand 


122 


125 


139 


143 


158 


163 


178 


184 


Net water demand 


98 


101 


111 


114 


125 


129 


140 


145 


Depletion 


85 


88 


98 


101 


112 


116 


128 


132 




TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


273 


277 


315 


321 


365 


373 


420 


429 


Net water demand 


229 


233 


263 


268 


304 


311 


349 


357 


Depletion 


203 


206 


235 


239 


272 


278 


315 


321 



Agricultural Water Use 

Forecasts indicate that agricultural water use will increase, from the 1990 level, 
by 3 percent by 2020. Irrigated agriculture in the northern Central Coast Region has 
remained relatively stable during the past decade. Total agricultural land acreage has 
not changed significantly and total crop acreage has increased due to an increase in 
multiple cropping of vegetables in the Salinas Valley. There has been a slight shift away 
from permanent crops such as grapes and apples to annual crops. Acreage planted in 
strawberries, a very high-market value annual crop, has increased. Lettuce and other 
annual crops have also increased acreage since 1980. In the southern portion of the 



Central Coast Region 



85 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



region, irrigated agricultural acreage is forecasted to increase slightly by 2020. 
Although total irrigated land will gradually decrease, while planted and harvested crop 
acres will increase because of the: (1) intensification of multiple-cropping and (2) 
conversion of undeveloped and formerly nonirrigated lands to irrigable lands. 
Vineyards (primarily wine grapes) show the most significant acreage expansion. Truck 
crop and citrus and subtropical fruit orchard acres will remain relatively stable, while 
other crop categories will experience decreases. Table CC-6 shows irrigated acreage 
projections to 2020. Figure CC-5 shows the 1990 level irrigated acreage, ETAW. and 
applied water for major crops in the region. 



Table CC-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 

(thousands of acres) 



Planning Subarea 



1990 



2000 



2010 



2020 



Northern 
Southern 



346 

182 



356 

186 



371 
187 



379 

187 



TOTAL 



528 



542 



558 



566 



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



Figure CC-5. 

1990 

Central Coast Region 

Acreage. ETAW. 

and Applied Water 

for Major Crops 




86 



Central Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Table CC-7, 1 990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 
Irrigated Crop 



Grain 

Sugar beets 

Corn 

Other field 

Alfalfa 

Pasture 

Tomatoes 

Otfier truck 

Otfier deciduous 

Vineyard 

Citrus/olives 

TOTAL 



Total Acres 


Total ETAW 


(lOOOj 


(1,000 AF) 


28 


5 


5 


8 


3 


3 


16 


17 


27 


68 


20 


51 


14 


21 


321 


415 


20 


28 


56 


61 


18 


27 




528 



704 



About one-third of the wine grape acreage in the Salinas Valley has been con- 
verted to low-volume irrigation systems in recent years. There has also been a slight 
trend towards buried drip irrigation in vegetable crops in the same area. This trend is 
even more pronounced in San Benito County. About one-fourth of these plantings are 
currently using this method. In this same area the small acreage of new deciduous tree 
plantings are on low-volume systems. Water conservation measures implemented by 
growers for their ir- 
rigation operations '^^^K 
are often related to 
operating-cost re- 
ductions. Drip, low- 
tlow emitters, and 
sprinklers are used 
for many of the 
grape, citrus, and 
subtropical fruit or- 
chards (vineyardsare 
also retrofitted with 
overhead sprinklers 
for frost protection). 
Growers also use 
hand-moved sprin- 
klers to meet pre-ir- 
rigation and seed 
germination require- 
ments for most 
truck, corn, tomato, 
and some field crops: 

this is usually followed by furrow irrigation. Seedling transplants for some truck crops 
eliminate the need for seed germination irrigation. 




Rows of lettuce stretch 
out to the horizon in 
Salinas Valley. 
Irrigated crop acreage 
in the region is 
forecasted to increase 
only slightly. 



Central Coast Region 



87 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Table CC-8. Agricultural Water Demand 

(fhousands of acre-feef) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Planning Subarea 



Northern 


Applied water demand 


705 


711 


735 


742 


766 


773 


781 


787 


Net water demand 


551 


594 


569 


615 


587 


634 


593 


647 


Depletion 


542 


583 


560 


604 


578 


623 


583 


636 


Southern 


Applied water demand 


435 


467 


431 


464 


416 


447 


408 


446 


Net water demand 


342 


367 


341 


367 


333 


357 


328 


356 


Depletion 


342 


367 


341 


367 


333 


357 


328 


356 




TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


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 


Depletion 


884 


950 


901 


971 


911 


980 


911 


992 



Sea gulls sun 

themselves on rocks 

along the shore of 

Monterey Bay. The bay 

is home to the 

California sea otter. 

which is now enjoying 

a resurgence in its 

population. 



Environivenfal Water Use 

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

The Carmel Riv- 
er. San Luis Obispo 
Creek. Santa Ynez 
River. and other 
coastal streams have 
historically been habi- 
tats for steelhead. 
However. steelhead 
migration has been 
reduced by dam 
construction. low 

flows due to surface 
water diversions, 

ground water pump- 
ing, poor water quali- 
ty, and habitat degra- 
dation. A number of 
projects have been 
proposed for these 
systems, ranging from 
dam enlargements on 
the Carmel and Santa Ynez rivers to a water reclamation project on San Luis Obispo 
Creek. Environmental net water demand accounts for 1 .000 af. Table CC-9 shows the 
total environmental instreara water needs for the region. 





88 



Central Coast Region 



The Calilornia Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



In the Southern portion of the Central Coast Region, there are no federal or State 
wildlife refuges. To the north. Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve is a 
1.340-acre coastal area which protects the habitat of many species of birds, fish, and 
invertebrates. Thereserveisowned by the Department ofFishandGame.Thesloughisone 
ofthefewrelatively undisturbed coastalwetlandsremainingin California, llalsoservesas 
a feeding and resting ground for migratory fowl. The reserve receives no fresh water. 

Table CC-9. Environmental Instream Water Needs 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

Stream 1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 




Carmel River 


Applied water demand 


A 


2 


4 


2 


4 


2 


4 


2 


Net water demand 


1 





1 





1 





1 





Depletion 


1 





1 





1 





1 







TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


4 


2 


4 


2 


4 


2 


4 


2 


Net water demand 


1 





1 





1 





1 





Depletion 


1 





1 





1 





1 






Other Water Use 

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

Cooling water is integral to the operations of electrical power plants (gas, oil. and 
nuclear). Many of the region's power plants are located along the coastline and use sea 
water for cooling. Injection of freshwater into the underground oil fields accounted for 
almost 14.000 af of water use in 1990 for the Santa Ynez area. Table CC- 10 shows the 
total water demands for this region. 

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 

The Central Coast Region, with its inland valleys and coastal ground water basins, 
presents diverse water management issues. With limited surface supply and few surface 
waterstorage facilities, thegrowingdemand for water placesan increased dependenceon 
ground water pumping, which is necessary to meet the region's needs. As ground water 
extractions exceed ground water replenishment, many of the region's aquifers are 
experiencing overdraft conditions. This condition has allowed sea water to advance into 
some coastal freshwater aquifers. Sea water intrusion is a continuing threat to ground 
water reservoirs, and limits on ground water pumping and use are currently being 
discussed. The recent drought required many communities in the region to implement 
stringent water rationing programs. Unless additional water supplies are secured, the 
region will not be able to support existing water uses, let alone additional water users. 



Central Coast Region 



89 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Figure CC-6. Central Coast Region 
Hydroelectric Power Plants and Water Recreation Areas 



LOCH LOIHOND 
LAKE 



Santa Clara 
Canal 



'' HoJ li ster 
Condui t 



1 . Loch Lomond and 
and Henry Cowell 
Redwoods 

2. Pfeiffer Big Sur S.R 

3. Lake San Antonio R.A. 

4. Lake Nacimiento R.A. 

5. Lopez Lake R.A. 




/ Q g Q nd 
A Water Recreation Area 
• Hydroelectric Power Plant * 
■"— Federal Wild and Scenic River 



SCftLE IN MILES 



*From 1992 California Energy Commission Maps. See Table D-3 in Appendix D for plant information. 



90 



Central Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Table CC-10. Total Water Demands 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Category of Use 



Urban 


















Applied water demand 


273 


277 


315 


321 


365 


373 


420 


429 


Net water demand 


229 


233 


263 


268 


304 


311 


349 


357 


Depletion 


203 


206 


235 


239 


272 


278 


315 


321 


Agricultural 


















Applied water demand 


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 


Depletion 


884 


950 


901 


971 


911 


980 


911 


992 


Environmental 


















Applied water demand 


4 


2 


4 


2 


4 


2 


4 


2 


Net water demand 


1 





1 





1 





1 





Depletion 


1 





1 





1 





1 





Other" 


















Applied water demand 


17 


18 


17 


18 


17 


18 


17 


18 


Net water demand 


20 


19 


20 


19 


20 


19 


20 


19 


Depletion 


20 


19 


20 


19 


20 


19 


20 


19 


TOTAL 


















Applied water demand 


1,434 


1,475 


1,502 


1,547 


1,568 


1,613 


1,630 


1,682 


Net water demand 


1,143 


1,213 


1,194 


1,269 


1,245 


1,321 


1,291 


1,379 


Depletion 


1,108 


1,175 


1,157 


1,229 


1,204 


1,277 


1,247 


1,332 



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

Legislation and Litigation 

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

Regional Issues 

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



Central Coast Region 



91 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



16 to 20 percent for water year 1991-92, and preliminary results show an increase 
from 12 to 21 percent for water year 1992-93. 

Santa Barbara County proposed a cloud seeding design for the 1 992-93 winter 
program similar to the previous year. The proposed project design is ideally suited to 
conduct a state-of-the-art operation. The key components are a dedicated weather 
radar, a seeding aircraft, remotely controlled ground generators, a computerized 
GUIDE model, and an experienced weather modification meteorologist familiar with 
the area. 

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

Local Issues 

Pajaro Valley Shortages. The Pajaro Valley is experiencing adverse effects from 
the recent drought, most notably ground water overdraft and accelerated sea water 
intrusion. About 70 homes in one development along the coastline have had their 
water supply affected by sea water intrusion. Local homeowners installed expensive 
water purification equipment, purchased bottled water, or trucked in water to solve the 
problem. The homeowners currently are negotiating with City of Watsonville officials to 
obtain a potable water supply. Watsonville officials proposed a pipeline from the city 
limits to the Sunset Beach area at a cost of $10,000 per home. The pipeline 
construction project will take approximately three years to complete, but will provide 
a potable water supply for the residents. 

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

Pajaro Valley Water Augmentation. A Basin Management Plan for the Pajaro 
Valley was approved in December 1993 by the directors of the Pajaro Valley Water 
Management Agency. Key elements of the preferred alternative include a dam on 
College Lake to create a 10,000-af reservoir and a connection to the San Felipe branch 
of the CVP, and a coastal pipeline to meet the needs of agricultural users between 
Highway 1 and the ocean. The proposed San Felipe extension involves transporting 
water from the existing Santa Clara Conduit, a key feature of the San Felipe Division, 
which delivers water from San Luis Reservoir into Santa Clara County, with a fork into 
San Benito County, The pipeline, with a capacity up to 67 cfs, could provide a 
maximum annual volume of 19,900 af annually for municipal and industrial, as well 
as agricultural, water use in the Watsonville area. The supply for the San Felipe 
extension will probably come from reallocation of CVP supply. To date, no contract 
negotiations have occurred to bring water into the Watsonville area; however, PVWMA 
and USBR held several discussions to develop a process to address PVWMA needs 
under the CVPL^. 

The Salinas Basin aquifers have been in a state of overdraft for many years 
resulting in sea water intrusion in the coastal areas. The rate of sea water intrusion has 
increased rapidly because of increased agricultural production, urban development, 
and the effects of the recent drought. Evidence of seawater intrusion has been detected 
in wells a few miles from the City of Salinas. 



92 Central Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



The Monterey County Water Resources Agency continues to investigate several 
methods to bring the Salinas Basin into balance. These methods include both water 
management measures and capital facilities projects. 

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

Water Balance 

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

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

Regional net water demands for the 1990 level of development totaled 1 ,143,000 
and 1,213,000 af for average and drought years, respectively. Those demands are 
forecasted to increase to 1 ,29 1 ,000 and 1 ,379,000 af, respectively, by the year 2020, 
after accounting for a 30.000-af reduction in urban water demand resulting from 
additional long-term water conservation measures. 

Urban net water demand is forecasted to increase by about 52 percent by 2020, 
due to projected increases in population. Agricultural net water demand is forecasted 
to increase by about 3 percent, primarily due to an expected increase in double 
cropping in the region. Environmental net water demands, under existing rules and 
regulations, will remain essentially level: however, there are several Central Coast 
Region streams where increases in instream flow for fisheries have been proposed. 

Average annual supplies, including 245,000 af of ground water overdraft, were 
generally adequate to meet average net water demands in 1990 for this region. 
However, during drought, present supplies are insufficient to meet present demands 
and, without additional water management programs, annual average and drought 
year shortages by 2020 are expected to increase to about 345,000 and 450.000 af, 
respectively. 



Central Coast Region 93 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Water Demand/Supply 



Table CC-1 1 . Water Budget 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Net Demand 

Urban— with 1 990 


















level of conservation 


1 .. 229 ,,. „ 


233 


276 


281 


327 


334 


379 


387 


— reductions due to 
long-term conservation 
measures (Level 1) 
Agricultural— with 1990 
level of conservation 


— 


— 


-13 


-13 


-23 


-23 


-30 


-30 


893 


961 


910 


982 


920 


991 


921 


1,003 


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
























Environmental 


1 





1 





1 





1 





Otheri'i 


20 


19 


20 


19 


20 


19 


20 


19 



TOTAL Net Demand 



1,143 



1,213 



1,194 



,269 



,245 



1,321 



1,291 



,379 



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

Developed Supplies 

Surface Water''' 

Ground Water 

Ground Water Overdraft*'" 
Subtotal 
Dedicated Natural Flow 



f 209 


136 


220 


144 


244 


148 


247 


148 


688 


762 


694 


769 


695 


776 


698 


781 


245 


245 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


1,142 


1,143 


914 


913 


939 


924 


945 


929 


1 





1 





1 





1 






TOTAL Water Supplies 


1,143 


1,143 


915 


913 


940 


924 


946 


929 


Demand/Supply Balance 





-70 


-279 


-356 


-305 


-397 


-345 


-450 



Level I Water Management Programs'"*' 

Long-term Supply Augmentation 
Reclaimed 
Local 

Central Valley Project/ 
Other Federal 
State Water Project 
Subtotal - Level I Water 
Management Programs 
Net Ground Water or 
Surface Water Use Reduction 
Resulting from Level I Programs 



&!S^SiSi 




m^^^^mMimi, 


"^'^^^M 




■l,«55 . 


55 


55 


— 


— 


24 


22 


24 


22 


24 


22 


fe- 


— 








20 


7 


20 


7 




— 


53 


25 


53 


43 


53 


43 








121 


91 


152 


127 


152 


127 



-19 



-16 



-15 



Remaining Demand/Supply Balance Requiring Short-term Drought Management and/or Level II Options 

-70 -177 -269 -169 -274 -208 -327 

( 1 } Includes major conveyance facility losses, recreation uses, and energy production. 

(2) Existing and future imported supplies tfiat depend on Delto export capabilities ore based on SWRCB D- 1 485 and do not take into account recent actions to protect aquatic species As such, 
regional water supply sfiortoges are understated {note proposed environmental water demands of 1 to 3 MAF ore included in the California water budget) 

(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 

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



94 



Central Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



With planned Level 1 water management programs, average and drought year 
shortages could be reduced to 208,000 and 327,000 af, respectively. The remaining 
shortage requires both additional short-term drought management, water transfers, 
and demand management programs, and future long-term Level II water management 
programs, depending on the overall level of water service reliability deemed necessary 
by local agencies, to sustain the economic health of the region. This region depends on 
export from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for a portion of its supplies. Shortages 
stated above are based on D- 1485 operating criteria for Delta supplies and do not take 
into account recent actions to protect aquatic species in the estuary. As such, regional 
water supply shortages are understated. 




Central Coast Region 95 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Los Angeles is California's most populated urban area. 
Urban land use accounts for 25 percent of the total land 
area in the South Coast Region. 



m^' 



-'.-t-^-r.i 



jf \:;^ 






'^:fJ: 



%.»• 



'Au.^7t^'.'- '.' Tr.-^ k^; 



.^r. >••' 






f:! 3. *-•.:* 



- .. - •- 









The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



The most urbanized region in California is the South Coast. Although it covers 
only about 7 percent of the State's total land area, it is home to roughly 54 percent of 
the State's population. Extending eastward from the Pacific Ocean, the region is 
bounded by the Santa Barbara-Ventura county line and the San Gabriel and San 
Bernardino mountains on the north, the Mexican border on the south, and a 
combination of the San Jacinto Mountains and low-elevation mountain ranges in 
central San Diego County on the east. Topographically, the region is comprised of a 
series of broad coastal plains, gently sloping interior valleys, and mountain ranges of 
moderate elevations. The largest mountain ranges in the region are the San Gabriel, 
San Bernardino, San Jacinto. Santa Rosa, and Laguna mountains. Peak elevations are 
generally between 5,000 and 8.000 feet above sea level; however, some peaks are 
nearly 11, 000 feet high. (See Appendix C for maps of the planning subareas and land 
ownership in the region.) 

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

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

There are several prominent rivers in the region, including the Santa Clara, Los 
Angeles, San Gabriel, Santa Ana, Santa Margarita, and San Luis Rey. Some segments 
of these rivers have been intensely modified for flood control. Natural runoff of the 
region's streams and rivers averages around 1,200,000 af annually. 

Population 

Growth has been fairly steady since the first boom of the 1880s. The 1990 
population was up 26 percent from 12,970,000 in 1980. Much of the population 

Region Characteristics 
Average Annual Precipitation: 18.5 inches Average Annual Runoff: 1.227,000 af 
Land Area: 10.950 square miles 1990 Population: 16.292.800 



South Coast 
Region 



South Coast Region 



97 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



increase is due to immigration, both from within the United States and from around 
the world. Most of the region's coastal plains and valleys are densely populated. The 
largest cities are Los Angeles. San Diego. Long Beach, Santa Ana. and Anaheim. Each 
of these is among California's top ten most populated cities: Los Angeles and San Diego 
also are the second and sixth largest cities in the United States, respectively. The 
region is also home to six of the State's ten fastest growing cities in the 50.000 to 
200.000 population range. These are Corona. Fontana, Tustin. Laguna Niguel. 
National City, and Rancho Cucamonga. Areas undergoing increased urbanization 
include the coastal plains of Orange and Ventura counties, the Santa Clarita Valley in 
northwestern Los Angeles County, the Pomona/San Bernardino/Moreno valleys, and 
the valleys north and east of the City of San Diego. The region's population is expected 
to increase by 55 percent by 2020. Table SC- 1 shows regional population projections 
to 2020. 



Table SC-1. Population Projections 

(thousands) 



Planning Subarea 



1990 



2000 



2010 



2020 



Santa Clara 

Metropolitan Los Angeles 
Santa Ana 
San Diego* 



834 


1,063 


1,301 


1,556 


8,501 


9,445 


10,376 


11,505 


4,023 


5,155 


6,230 


7,384 


2,935 


3,610 


4,191 


4,870 



TOTAL 



16,293 



1 9,273 



22,098 



25,315 



■ The San Diego PSA includes parts of Riverside and Orange counties. 



Land Use 

Despite being so urbanized, about one-third of the region's land is publicly 
owned. Approximately 2,300,000 acres is public land, of which 75 percent is national 
forest. Urban land use accounts for about 1.700.000 acres, and irrigated cropland 
accounts for 288.000 acres. Figure SC-1 shows land use in the South Coast Region. 

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

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



98 



South Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



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



Call fornia Aqueduct 
1,225 



Los Angeles 

Aqueduct 

425 



N 




Colorado River 

Aqueduct 

1,265 




^rrrrco 



Lug ind 

H Urban Land 
I Irrigated Land 
.^ Region Water Transfers 

(1,000's of Acre-Feet per Year) 



SCALE IN MILES 




South Coast Region 



99 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



The largest amount of irrigated agriculture is in Ventura County, where 1 16.600 
acres of cropland are cultivated. Most of it is fresh market vegetables, strawberries, 
and citrus and avocados. San Diego planning subarea has more than 1 10.600 acres in 
irrigated agriculture, most of which is planted in citrus and avocados. Fresh market 
vegetables and other crops are grown in some of the county's coastal and inland 
valleys. The region is also ideally suited for growing other high-value crops, such as 
nursery products and cut flowers. Other irrigated agriculture includes forage and field 
crops related to the dairy industry and vineyards. 



Figure SC-2. 

South Coast Region 

Water Supply Sources 

(1990 Level 

Average Conditions) 



Water Supply 

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

Supply with Existing Facilities and Water Management Programs 

Local and imported surface water account for about 73 percent of the region's 
1990 level water supply. In 1913. the Los Angeles Aqueduct began importing water 
from the Mono-Owens area to the South Coast region. With the addition of a second 
conduit in 1970. the Mono-Owens supply is about 10 percent of the region's 1990 level 
water supply. Court-ordered restrictions on diversions from the Mono Basin and 

Owens Valley have re- 
duced the amount of 
water the City of Los An- 
geles can receive and 
have brought into ques- 
tion the reliability of 
Mono-Owens supply for 
Los Angeles (see South 
Lahontan Region). In 
1941. the Metropolitan 
Water District of South- 
ern California com- 
pleted the Colorado Riv- 
er Aqueduct, which now 
provides about 29 per- 
cent of the region's sup- 
ply with Colorado River 
water. The State Water 
Project began delivering 
water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the South Coast region in 1972. and 
today furnishes about 28 percent of the region's supply. The remainder of the surface 
supply (about 6 percent of the 1990 level total) is provided by local projects. Table SC-2 
lists the major reservoirs in the region. 




100 



South Coast Region 



The Calilornia Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Table SC-2. Major Reservoirs 



Reservoir Name 


River 


Capacity (1,000 AFj 


Owner 


Casitas 


Coyote Creek 


254 


USBR 


Lake Piru 


Piru Creek 


88.3 


United V\/CD 


Pyramid 


Piru Creek 


171.2 


DWR 


Matilija 


Matilija Creek 


1.5 


Ventura CO FCD 


Castaic 


Castaic Creek 


323.7 


DV^R 


Cogswell 


San Gabriel 


8.9 


Los Angeles CO FCD/Dept. of Public Works 


San Gabriel 


San Gabriel 


42.4 


Los Angeles CO FCD/Dept. of Public V\/orks 


Big Bear Lake (Bear Valley) 


Bear Creek 


73.4 


Big Bear MV^D 


Perris 


Bernosconi Pass 


131.5 


DWR 


Martiews 


Trib Cajalco Creek 


179.3 


MWDSC 


Lake Hemet 


San Jacinto River 


13.5 


Lake Hemet MWD 


Railroad Canyon 


San Jacinto River 


11.9 


Temescal Water Co. 


Irvine Lake (Santiago Creek) 


Santiago Creek 


25.0 


Serrano ID/Irvine Ranch WD 


Skinner 


Tucalota Creek 


44.2 


MWDSC 


Vail 


Temecula Creek 


50.0 


Rancho California WD 


Henshow 


San Luis Rey River 


53.4 


Vista ID 


Lake Hodges 


San Dieguito River 


37.7 


City of San Diego 


Sutherland 


Santa Ysobel Creek 


29.0 


City of San Diego 


San Vicente 


San Vicente Creek 


90.2 


City of San Diego 


El Copitan 


Son Diego River 


112.8 


City of San Diego 


Cuyamaco 


Boulder Creek 


11.8 


Helix WD 


Lake Jennings 


Quail Canyon Creek 


9,8 


Helix WD 


Murray 


Chaparral Canyon 


6,1 


City of San Diego 


Lake Lovelond 


Sweetwater River 


25.4 


Sweetwater Authority 


Sweetwater 


Sweetwater River 


28.1 


Sweetwater Authority 


Lower Otay 


Otay River 


49.5 


City of San Diego 


Moreno 


Cottonwood Creek 


50.2 


City of San Diego 


Barrett 


Cottonwood Creek 


37.9 


City of San Diego 


Miromor 


Big Surr Creek 


7.3 


City of San Diego 


Seven Oaks 


Santa Ana 


146 


COE under construction 


Prodo 


Santo Ana 


183.2 


COE1941 




There are numerous ground water basins along the coast and Inland valleys of 
[ the region. Many of these basins are adjudicated or managed by a public agency (see 
I Volume I, Chapters 2 and 4). Recharge occurs from natural infiltration along river 
I valleys, but in many cases, basin recharge facilities are in place using local, imported, 
i or reclaimed supplies. Some ground water basins are as large as several hundred 
j square miles in area and have a capacity exceeding 10.000.000 af. The current 
' estimated annual net ground water use approaches 1.100.000 af. 

I 

Basins close to the coast often have troubles with sea water intrusion. 

Historically, additional recharge or a series of injection wells forming a barrier have 
I been used to mitigate this problem. Other ground water quality concerns are high TDS. 
I nitrates. PCE. sulfates, pesticide contamination (DBCP). selenium, and leaking fuel 

storage tanks. 

I Approximately 82.000 af of new water was produced by recycled water in 1990. 

I about 2 percent of the region's supply. Recycled water is most often used for irrigating 
; freeway and other urban landscaping, golf courses, and some agricultural land: it is 



South Coast Region 



101 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



also used in ground water recharge and sea water barrier projects. The Central and 
West Basin Water Replenishment Districts recharge the Central and West Coast 
ground water basins with 50.000 af per year of recycled water. The Orange County 
Water District injects about 5,000 af of recycled water into the ground at the Alamitos 
Barrier Project. This process prevents further sea water intrusion into the district's 
ground water supply and frees imported supplies for other uses. 

Drought Water Management Strategies. To minimize the impacts caused by 
the shortfalls in imported surface water supplies, most agencies in the region 
established and implemented rationing programs during the 1 987-92 drought to bring 
demand in line with supplies. Customer rationing allotments were determined by the 
customer's use prior to the drought. Rationing levels, or reductions, ranged from 15 to 
50 percent. 

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

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

Water Management Options with Existing Facilities. MWDSC is pursuing 
additional supplies to replace those it has lost under recent court rulings. Water use in 
its service area has increased from 2.800.000 af in 1970 to 4.000.000 af in 1990. The 
increase reflects a large population growth. Moreover, the City of Los Angeles is 
increasing its reliance upon MWDSC's water to make up for its loss of imported water 
from the Mono-Owens Basin. Following are highlights of major MWDSC water supply 
and demand management programs, most of which are in place, that would provide 
options for additional supplies, especially in critical years. 

The Imperial Irrigation District-MWDSC Water Conservation program began in 
January 1990. In return for financing certain conservation projects, MWDSC is 
entitled to the amount of water saved by IID except under limited conditions specified 
in the agreement. Conservation projects include lining existing canals, constructing 
local reservoirs and spill interceptor canals, installing nonleak gates and automation 
equipment, and instituting distribution system and on-farm management activities. 



102 South Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



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

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



Supply 



Surface 

Local 

Local imports'" 

Colorado River*'' 

CVP 

Other federal 

SWPi'i 
Ground water'-" 
Overdraft'"' 
Reclaimed 
Dedicated natural flow 



1990 


2000 


2070 


2020 


average 


drought 


overage 


drought 


overoge 


drought 


average 


drought 


254 


118 


254 


118 


254 


118 


254 


118 


425 


208 


425 


208 


425 


208 


425 


208 


1,266 


1,230 


656 


656 


656 


656 


656 


656 


























22 


21 


22 


21 


22 


21 


22 


21 


1,225 


1,032 


1,744 


1,085 


1,899 


1,152 


1,901 


1,156 


1,083 


1,306 


1,100 


1,325 


1,125 


1,350 


1,150 


1,375 


22 


22 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


82 


82 


82 


82 


82 


82 


82 


82 




























TOTAL 



4,379 4,019 



4,283 



3,495 4,463 3,587 4,490 



3,616 



(1) 1990 supplies ore normalized and do not reflect additional supplies delivered to offset the reduction of supplies from the Mono and Owens basins. SWP supply was used in 1990 
to reploce reduction of supplies from Mono and Owens basins, putting additional demand on Delta supplies. SWP supplies may be higher in any year to help recharge ground 
water basins for drought years. 

(2) Colorado River supplies for the yeor 2000 and beyond reflect elimination of surplus and unused Colorado River supplies and the availability of 106,000 AF from the Colorado 
River region os o result of currently agreed upon conservation progroms being implemented by Imperiol Irrigation District, Miscellaneous perfected rights and future court 
decision on Indian water rights could impoct Colorado River supplies to the South Coast Region. 

(3) Averoge ground water is prime supply of ground water basins ond does not include use of ground water which is artificially recharged from surface sources into ground water 
basins. However, the ground water includes ground water reclomotion. 

(4) The degree future shortages are met by increosed overdraft is unknown. Since overdraft is not sustainable, it is not included as o future supply. 



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

Under the Chino Basin and San Gabriel Basin Cyclic Storage Agreement, 
imported water is delivered to and stored in the Chino and San Gabriel basins. When 
water supplies are abundant, advance deliveries of MWDSC"s ground water 
replenishment supplies are provided for later use. When imported supplies are limited. 
MWDSC has the option of meeting the replenishment demands through surface 
deliveries or a transfer of the stored water. MWDSC's maximum storage entitlements 
are 100,000 af in the Chino Basin and 142,000 af in the San Gabriel Basin. As of July 
1990. 28.000 af was stored in the Chino Basin and 58,000 af in the San Gabriel Basin, 
MWDSC is also planning for additional conjunctive use programs. 

MWDSC promotes water reclamation through its Local Projects Program of 1 98 1 . 
Under this program, the district provides financial assistance for local water 
reclamation projects which develop new water supplies. The program's primary focus 
is on increasing the use of recycled water in landscape irrigation and industry, thereby 
reducing the demand for potable water supplies. To date. MWDSC is participating in 
32 projects, with a total ultimate yield of 147,000 af per year. Currently, four 
additional projects submitted to MWDSC for inclusion in the program are in various 



South Coast Region 



103 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



stages of review. These proposed projects have a combined estimated ultimate yield of 
21.700 af per year. 

MWDSC promotes conjunctive use at the local agency level under its Seasonal 
Storage Service Program of 1989 by discounting rates for imported water placed into 
ground water or reservoir storage. The discounted rate and program rules encourage 
construction of additional ground water production facilities allowing local agencies to 
be more self-sufficient during shortages. Additionally, the program is designed to 
reduce the member agencies' dependence upon district deliveries during the peak 
summer demand months. As of December 31, 1992, approximately 1,240,000 af of 
water was delivered as Seasonal Storage Service. 

The West Basin Municipal Water District began reclaiming 1.5 mgd (1,680 af 
annually) of brackish ground water with a new desalination plant in the City of 
Torrance in 1993. This facility will help contain a seawater plume that has moved 
inland since the construction of the West Coast seawater injection barrier in the late 
1950s. 

Other water management options include water banking, short-term fallowing of 
farm land, desalination, reclaiming waste water (water recycling) and brackish ground 
water, water conservation, and additional offstream storage facilities for imported 
supplies. 

Supply with Additional Facilities and Water Management Programs 

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

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

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

With planned Level I programs, 2020 average and drought year shortages could 
be reduced to 373,000 and 848,000 af, respectively, under Decision 1485 operating 
criteria for Delta supplies, A shortage of this magnitude could have severe economic 
impacts on the region. This remaining shortage requires both additional short-term 
drought management, water transfers, and demand management programs, and 
future long-term and Level II programs depending on the overall level of water service 
reliability deemed necessary, by local agencies, to sustain the economic health of the 
region. In the short-term, some areas of this region that rely on Delta exports for all or 
a portion of their supplies face greater uncertainty in terms of water supply reliability 
due to the uncertain outcome of actions undertaken to protect aquatic species in the 
Delta. Local water districts are seeking to improve water service reliability of their 
service area through water transfers, water recycling, conservation, and supply 
augmentation. The following paragraphs summarize the various water management 
programs under active consideration in the South Coast Region, 

Water Management Options with Additional Facilities. The U.S. Bureau of 
Reclamation is studying the potential for recycled water use under its "Southern 
California Comprehensive Water Reclamation Study." The goal of the $6 million, 
three-phase study is to "identify opportunities and constraints for maximizing water 
reuse in Southern California." Phase I is expected to be complete in one year; the 
scheduling of phases II and III will be determined during the first phase. Expected 

104 South Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



completion date is March 1999. The USBR believes the success of the study depends 
on the active participation of local and State agencies. 

MWDSC authorized preliminary studies for a 5-mgd (5.600-af-per-year) 
desalination pilot plant (distillation method) . Although the location is undecided, plans 
call for the plant to be near an existing power plant on the coast. Planned ultimate 
capacity of the plant is 100 mgd (1 12,000 af per year). 

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

MWDSC. the Southern Nevada Water Authority, and the Central Arizona Water 
Conservation District have implemented a program to demonstrate the feasibility of 
interstate underground storage of Colorado River water From 1992 to 1993, 100,000 
af of Colorado F^ver water, unused by Arizona, California, and Nevada, was diverted 
through the Central Arizona Project to water users in Central Arizona who reduced 
ground water pumping and used Colorado River water instead, thereby increasing wa- 
ter in ground water storage. In the future, following a flood-control release from Lake 
Mead or a determination that surplus Colorado River water is available, MWDSC and 
SNWA will be able to divert a portion of Arizona's Colorado River water while Arizona 
water users use the previously stored water. This arrangement protects Central Arizo- 
na water users from shortages and creates an additional water supply for MWDSC and 
SNWA. MWDSC and 
SNWA have expressed 
interest in storing 
additional Colorado 
River water under- 
ground in Central Ari- 
zona. 

A draft Environ- 
mental Impact Re- 
port/Statement for a 
water storage and ex- 
change program be- 
tween MWDSC and 
Arvin-Edison was is- 
sued in 1992. The 
program would allow 
MWDSC to store up 
to 800.000 af of water 
in Arvin-Edison's 

ground water basin. 
This stored water 
would be recovered in dry years when Arvin-Edison would pump MWDSC's stored wa- 
ter in exchange for MWDSC receiving a portion of Arvin-Edison's Central Valley Project 





A scene of typical new 
housing starts in the 
South Coast Region, in 
this case in the City of 
Irvine. The region's 
population is projected to 
increase substantially by 
2020. creating an even 
larger demand for not 
only housing, but water 
supplies as well. 



South Coast Region 



105 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



water via the California Aqueduct. Arvin-Edison would benefit from the program by 
higher ground water levels and an improved distribution system, to be funded by 
MWDSC, while MWDSC would have water in storage. The final EIR/EIS for the pro- 
gram has been delayed pending resolution of environmental and institutional issues in 
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. 

The Semitropic/Metropolitan Water Storage and Exchange Program would in- 
volve ground water storage and recovery operation. Under the program. MWDSC 
would store water in the ground water basin underlying the Semitropic Water Storage 
District when Metropolitan's water supplies are in excess of its demand. During short- 
age years, Semitropic would pump MWDSC's stored water from the ground water ba- 
sin into the California Aqueduct through facilities owned and operated by Semitropic. 
A minimum pumpback of 40.000 to 60.000 af per year would be guaranteed. In addi- 
tion, Semitropic could exchange a portion of its SWP entitlement water for MWDSC's 
stored water, thereby substantially increasing the annual yield of this program. An ini- 
tial agreement to store water in 1993 was executed and approximately 45,000 af of 
MWDSC's 1992 SWP carryover entitlement water was stored. 

In October 1991, MWDSC certified the final EIR for the Eastside Reservoir 
Project (Domenigoni Valley Reservoir). Final design and land acquisition activities for 
the reservoir are proceeding. The ERP, combined with the ground water storage 
program, will: (1) maximize ground water storage by regulating imported water 
supplies for conjunctive use programs, (2) provide emergency water reserves if facilities 
are damaged as a result of a major earthquake, (3) provide supplies to reduce water 
shortages during droughts, (4) meet seasonal operating requirements, including 
seasonal peak demands, and (5) preserve operating reliability of the distribution 
system. This conjunctive use program should eventually provide two years of drought 
or carryover storage protection for MWDSC (528.000 af). The project should be 
completed by 1999. 

Under the Ground Water Recovery Program of 1991, MWDSC will improve 
regional water supply reliability by providing financial assistance for local agencies to 
recover contaminated ground water. The goal of the Ground Water Recovery Program 
is to recover 200,000 af per year of degraded ground water. About half of this ultimate 
annual production will be untapped local yield. The remainder will require 
replenishment from MWDSC's imported water to avoid basin overdraft. Those projects 
will produce water, including during droughts, but will only receive replenishment 
water when imported supplies are available. Currently, MWDSC has approved 
participation of eight projects, with an estimated ultimate production of 21,800 af per 
year. The program is expected to reach its goal of 200.000 af per year by the year 2004. 
The net projected yield associated with natural replenishment from the Ground Water 
Recovery Program through the year 2020 is: 

Year Net Projected Yield 

Acre-Feet Per Year 

1993 1,554 

2000 86,100 

2010 95,540 

2020 95,540 

Local surface water supplies provide a small contribution to the South Coast 
Region, making up only about 6 percent of the region's total supplies. For the most 
part, during drought years, these surface supplies dry up. However, during the winter. 

106 South Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



this region can be hit with devastating floods. Many people speculate that more local 
surface reservoirs could help alleviate the region's need for increased imported 
supplies. However, the cost of developing local surface water supply projects for rare or 
limited runoff makes them impractical at present. Table SC-4 shows water supplies 
with additional Level 1 facilities and programs. 

San Diego County Water Authority has developed a Water Resources Plan that 
evaluates current and future demands, and available local and imported supplies. A 
specified plan of resource development was adopted that satisfies the SDCWA"s 
reliability goal of meeting all demand during average years, and no less than 88 percent 
of demand during a drought year. The recommended resource mix includes imported 
supplies, additional local supply development, and full implementation of Best 
Management Practices. Local supply development includes water recycling, ground 
water, and desalination. Carryover storage and transfers were identified to help meet 
the dry-year supply reliability goal. The plan examines both average water year 
supplies and drought year supplies and recommends a practical implementation 
schedule for resource development. 

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

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

Supply 



Surface 

Local 

Local imports'" 

Colorado River*^' 

CVP 

Other federal 

SWPi'i 
Ground woteH^' 
Overdroffi"! 
Reclaimed 
Dedicated natural flow 



1990 


2000 


2070 


2020 


cjveroge 


drought 


overoge 


drought 


overage 


drought 


overage 


drought 


254 


118 


254 


118 


254 


118 


254 


118 


425 


208 


425 


208 


425 


472 


425 


472 


1,266 


1,230 


724 


724 


724 


724 


724 


724 


























22 


21 


22 


21 


22 


21 


22 


21 


1,225 


1,032 


1,770 


1,067 


2,142 


1,832 


2,235 


1,832 


1,083 


1,306 


1,159 


1,384 


1,195 


1,419 


1,219 


1,444 


22 


22 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


82 


82 


481 


481 


580 


580 


679 


679 



























TOTAL 



4,379 



4,019 4,835 4,003 5,342 5,166 5,558 



5,290 



(1| 1990 supplies are normalized and do not reflect odditionol supplies delivered to offset the reduction of supplies from tt>e Mono ond Owens basins. SWP supply wos used in 1990 

to replace reduction of supplies from Mono and Owens basins, putting additional demand on Delta supplies. SWP supplies moy be higher in any yeor to help recharge ground 

water basms for drought yeors- 
(21 Colorodo River supplies for the yeor 2000 and beyond reflect eliminotion of surplus and unused Colorado River supplies, the availability of 106,000 AF from the Colorado River 

region os o result of currently agreed upon conservation progroms being implemented by Imperial Irrigotion District, ond the ovailobility of 68,000 AF from the Colorodo River 

region os o result of an IID/MWDSC ogreement negotiated but not yet executed relating to the lining of o portion of the All Americon Canal. Miscellaneous perfected rights and 

future court decision on Indian water rights could impact Colorodo River supplies to the South Coast Region. 
(3| Average ground water is prime supply of ground water bosins and does not include use of ground water which is artificially recharged from surfoce sources into ground water 

basins. Ground water includes supply from ground woter reclomotion. For example, the MWDSC ground water recovery progrom could provide additional supplies of 85,000 AF 

by year 2000 ond 95,000 AF by 2010 and beyond. 
(41 The degree future shortages ore met by increased overdraft is unknown. Since overdraft is not sustainable, it is not included as o future supply. 



South Coast Region 



107 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Figure SC-3. 

South Coast Region 

Net Water Demand 

(1990 Level 

Average Conditions) 



Water Use 

Urban water demands for the South Coast Region have progressively increased 
over the last decade due to tremendous population growth rates and rapidly expanding 
urbanized areas. In many areas, urban expansion has led to reductions in agricultural 
acreage and water use. Figure SC-3 shows the distribution of 1990 level net water 
demands for the region. 

Urban Water Use 

Total municipal and industrial applied water use in 1 990 was about 3.85 1 ,000 af 
(Table SC-5). an increase of 1 .07 1 .000 af from 1980. The increase is attributed to pop- 
ulation and economic growth. Table SC-5 shows that 1990 applied urban water use in 

the Metropolitan Lx)s 
Angeles planning sub- 
area is about half of the 
region's total. Forecasts 
indicate that urban ap- 
plied water use in the 
region will increase by 
56 percent between 
1990 and 2020. 

Although overall 
demands have in- 
creased since 1980, per 
capita water use has 
leveled off somewhat in 
older urbanized areas. 
There are modest in- 
creases in the newer ur- 
banized areas, particu- 
larly in the warmer 
interior sections of the region. Since there is little space for expansion, the older urban 
core areas are being renovated and converted from one type of use to another, such as 
single-family residential to multi-family residential. Such conversions tend to decrease 
household water use because of associated reductions in exterior water use with multi- 
family housing structures. 

Average 1990 per capita water use by PSA for the region is 2 1 1 gpcd. This daily 
per capita value ranges from 246 gallons for the Santa Ana PSA to 204 gallons in the 
Metropolitan Lx)s Angeles PSA. With continued water conservation, the region's 
average per capita water use is expected to increase slightly to 212 gpcd by 2020, 
primarily due to growth in inland areas of the region. Figure SC-4 shows 1990 level 
applied urban water demand by sector. 




108 



South Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Table SC-5. Urban Water Demand 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Planning Subarea 



Santa Clara 


Applied water demand 


183 


190 


231 


240 


287 


298 


345 


358 


Net water demand 


153 


158 


194 


201 


241 


250 


290 


301 


Depletion 


150 


155 


171 


178 


212 


221 


259 


270 


Metropolitan Los Angeles 


Applied water demand 


1,911 


1,985 


2,055 


2,135 


2,270 


2,359 


2,520 


2,620 


Net water demand 


1,833 


1,904 


1,971 


2,048 


2,177 


2,263 


2,417 


2,512 


Depletion 


1,802 


1,873 


1,759 


1,836 


1,900 


1,986 


2,135 


2,231 


Santa Ana 


Applied water demand 


1,067 


1,111 


1,344 


1,401 


1,665 


1,736 


2,020 


2,108 


Net water demand 


848 


882 


1,045 


1,087 


1,265 


1,317 


1,500 


1,564 


Depletion 


720 


746 


872 


905 


1,036 


1,077 


1,209 


1,257 


San Diego 


Applied water demand 


690 


711 


816 


841 


958 


988 


1,123 


1,158 


Net water demand 


677 


697 


800 


825 


940 


969 


1,102 


1,137 


Depletion 


669 


689 


734 


758 


845 


874 


993 


1,027 




TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


3,851 


3,997 


4,446 


4,617 


5,180 


5,381 


6,008 


6,244 


Nef 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 


4,785 



Recent State laws require that most urban water wholesale and retail agencies 
prepare urban water management and water shortage contingency plans. Under the 
Urban Water Management Act of 1 985 most agencies must analyze their water convey- 
ance operations and water use in their service areas, identify areas for improvement, 
and develop and imple- 
ment plans to correct 
any inefficiencies. The 
plans must be updated 
at 5-year intervals. The 
act requires that agen- 
cies examine opera- 
tions and demands in 
their service area dur- 
ing droughts and devel- 
op plans to cope with 
the shortfall in supply. 
These plans will com- 
plement existing urban 
water management 
plans. 

Most of the water 
conservation programs 





^^dl 




Unaccounted 

9% 


6% 
1 


L 


Industrial 

8% 


Commercial 
18% 




Resid 
55 


enlial 



Figure SC-4. 
South Coast Region 
Urban Applied Water 
Use by Sector 
(1990 Level 
Average Conditions) 



South Coast Region 



109 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



identified in these plans are a part of a package known collectively as the Best Manage- 
ment Practices (a more detailed discussion about urban BMPs is in Volume I, Chapter 
6) . BMPs help agencies develop specific strategies to augment or stretch their depend- 
able water supplies to meet ever-increasing water demands within their service areas. 
Plans must be implemented on a set timetable once an agency decides to adopt these 
practices. 

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

Agriculfural Water Use 

Total agricultural applied water use for the normalized 1990 level was 
approximately 727.000 af, a decrease of approximately 26 percent since 1980. The 
Santa Clara PSA used the most agricultural water in 1990. roughly 34 percent of the 
total, followed closely by San Diego PSA with 33 percent and Santa Ana PSA with 31 
percent. The Metropolitan Los Angeles PSA had the least demand, using only about 2 
percent of the region's total applied agricultural water. Figure SC-5 shows the irrigated 
acreage, ETAW, and applied water for major crops grown in the region. 

The South Coast Region's 1990 normalized crop acreage was almost 319.000 
acres (Table SC-6). The major agricultural operations in the region are found in the 
Santa Clara, San Diego, and Santa Ana PSAs. A 42-percent decrease in total irrigated 
crop acres (including multiple cropped acres) is forecast for the region, to about 
184.000 acres by 2020. This is primarily due to urbanization of irrigated lands, while 
rising water costs and reduced water supply reliability are also contributing factors. 
The region's total irrigated land acreage is forecasted to decrease by about 1 17,000 
acres over the same time period. 



Figure SC-5. 
South Coast Region 

Acreage. ETAW. 
and Applied Water 

for Major Crops 




110 



South Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Table SC-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 

(thousands of acres) 



Planning Subarea 



1990 



2000 



2010 



2020 



Santa Clara 

Metropolitan Los Angeles 
Santa Ana 
San Diego' 



118 

7 

83 

ni 



no 

6 

66 

105 



94 

5 

48 

88 



71 

5 

30 

78 



TOTAL 



319 



287 



235 



184 



' The Son Diego PSA includes poflions of Riverside and Orange counties 

The five major crops produced in the region are subtropical fruit, truck 
(vegetables and nursery products), improved pasture, grains, and alfalfa (Table SC-7). 
Slightly more than half of the total cropped acres and gross applied water in the region 
is associated with citrus and subtropical fruit orchards. Citrus (mostly oranges, 
lemons, and grapefruit) is found in all parts of the South Coast Region, but the largest 
amounts are in the San Diego and Santa Clara PSAs. Avocados are generally grown in 
the hills above the Santa Clara River in Ventura County and in the hills in the extreme 
southwestern part of Riverside County (Santa Ana PSA) and San Diego County. The 
region also has a substantial cut-flower industry. Truck crops follow citrus and 
subtropical fruit in terms of planted and harvested acres and use of applied water. 
Small acreages of irrigated grain are cultivated in southern San Diego County, 
southwestern San Bernardino County, and southwestern Riverside County. Irrigated 
pasture and alfalfa are grown primarily in southwestern San Bernardino County. 



Table SC-7. 1 990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 



Irrigated Crop 



Groin 

Corn 

Other field 

Alfalfa 

Pasture 

Tomatoes 

Other truck 

Other deciduous 

Vineyard 

Citrus/olives 



Total Acres 


Total ETAW 


llOOO) 


(1,000 AFj 


11 


2 


5 


7 


4 


8 


10 


26 


20 


55 


9 


20 


87 


123 


3 


8 


6 


9 


164 


282 



TOTAl 



319 



540 



South Coast Region 



111 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Unharvested avocados 

hang in trees in 

Fallbrook. an agricultural 

community near San 

Diego. Agricultural land 

use is declining in the 

region. 



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

Even though the 
region's forecasted 
acres are expected to 
decline, subtropical 
fruits, vegetables and 
flowers, truck crops, 
and nursery products 
will continue to pro- 
duce significant reve- 
nues on the remaining 
acres. 

Water conserva- 
tion efforts by the 
growers will contrib- 
ute to the reduction of 
agricultural water de- 
mands in the region. 
Most citrus and sub- 
tropical growers use 
the latest irrigation 
system technologies of 
drip emitters and low-flow sprinklers. Growers are also managing their irrigation op- 
erations with more efficiency. The best potential for conservation beyond current 
achievements will be in the citrus and subtropical orchard irrigation operations. Much 
of the potential for savings will occur by the end of the decade, possibly up to an addi- 
tional 5 percent. Increased use of drip irrigation. Improved furrow irrigation, plastic 
mulches, and irrigation scheduling services will save water in the other crop categories 
too. 

Table SC-8 shows 1990 level and forecasted agricultural water demand in the 
region. Drought year demands reflect the need for additional irrigation to replace water 
normally supplied by rainfall and to meet higher-than-normal evapotranspiration 
demands. The region's total applied agricultural water use is expected to decrease 47 
percent by 2020. Urbanization of irrigated agricultural land is the main factor in this 
reduction. Other factors include continued improvements in on-farm irrigation 
operations and irrigation system technologies. Decreases range from about 66 percent 
to 34 percent among the PSAs. 




112 



South Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Planning Subarea 



Table SC-8. Agricultural Water Demand 

(fhousands of acre-feet) 



1990 

average drought 



2000 

average drought 



2010 

average drought 



2020 

average drought 



Santa Clara 


Applied water demand 


245 


256 


222 


233 


184 


193 


138 


145 


Net water demand 


214 


224 


197 


207 


167 


175 


126 


133 


Depletion 


214 


224 


197 


207 


167 


175 


126 


133 


Metropolitan Los Angeles 


Applied water demand 


15 


16 


11 


12 


10 


11 


9 


9 


Net water demand 


13 


14 


10 


11 


9 


9 


8 


8 


Depletion 


13 


14 


10 


11 


9 


9 


8 


8 


Santa Ana 


Applied water demand 


227 


232 


179 


181 


127 


129 


77 


78 


Net water demand 


186 


190 


149 


152 


109 


no 


68 


69 


Depletion 


186 


190 


149 


152 


109 


no 


68 


69 


San Diego 


Applied water demand 


240 


249 


220 


229 


178 


185 


158 


164 


Net water demand 


231 


240 


213 


222 


173 


180 


154 


160 


Depletion 


231 


240 


213 


222 


173 


180 


154 


160 




TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


727 


753 


632 


655 


499 


518 


382 


396 


Net water demand 


644 


668 


569 


592 


458 


474 


356 


370 


Depletion 


644 


668 


569 


592 


458 


474 


356 


370 




Environmental Wafer Use 

Currently, the State's San Jacinto Wildlife Area occupies approximately 5.000 
acres, and there are applications to increase the size of the facility by 1,600 acres. The 
SJWA is n.m by the Department of Fish and Game. It is unique in that it is the first 
such operation in the State to use recycled water. Eastern Municipal Water District 
supplies the facility with recycled water from its Hemet/San Jacinto Water 
Reclamation Plant. Recycled water allocations to the SJWA are 2,200 af a year, even 
though only 400 af and 800 af were used in 1990 and 1991, respectively. By the year 
2000, the allocation will be 4.500 af. Table SC-9 shows wetland water needs to 2020. 

Additional environmental water supply requirements may be needed for the 
Sespe Wilderness. This preserve is in the Ventura County portion of the Los Padres 
National Forest and totals approximately 2 19.700 acres. A portion of Sespe Creek has 
been added to the federal list of Wild and Scenic Rivers. 



South Coast Region 



113 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Table SC-9. Wetland Water Needs 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

Wetland 1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



San Jacinto WA 


Applied water demand 


2 


2 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


Net water demand 


2 


2 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


Depletion 


2 


2 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 




TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


2 


2 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


Net water demand 


2 


2 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


Depletion 


2 


2 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 



Other Water Demand 

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

Conveyance losses account for 160.000 af and are realized in the transmission of 
water via the three major aqueducts in the region. Cooling water for power plants 
amounts to 35,000 af. while approximately 5,000 af is used to inject water in deep 
wells to extract oil. Table SC-10 shows total water demand forecasts to 2020 for the 
South Coast Region. 

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 

Each PSA in the region has its own set of geographic and demographic conditions 
which present several water management issues. In general, though, the South Coast 
Region faces several critical water supply issues, most notably increasing demand with 
limited ability to increase supply, and ground water degradation. The most significant 
events in recent years regarding regional water supplies were the court decisions 
regarding Mono Lake and Colorado River diversions. 



114 



South Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure SC-6. South Coast Region 
Hydroelectric Power Plants, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Water Recreation Areas 



N 





1. Pyramid Lake S.R.A. 

2. Castaic Lake S.R.A. 

3. Baldwin Hills S.R.A. 

4. Kenneth B. Hahn S.R.A, 

5. Lake Ferris S.R.A. 

6. Lake Elsinore S.R.A. 

7. Palomar Mountain S.R 

8. Cuyamaca Rancho S.P. 

9. Border Field S.R 



mT^^^ 



Le g e nd 
j^ Water Recreation Area 
• Hydroelectric Power Plant 
•— Federal Wild and Scenic River 

Q 10 20 30 

SCALE IN MILES 
•From 1992 California Energy Commission Maps See Table D-3 in Appendix D for plant information. 




South Coast Region 



115 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Category of Use 



Table SC-10. Total Water Demands 

(thousands of acre-feet) 



1990 

average drought 



2000 2010 

average drought average drought 



2020 

average drought 



Urban 

Applied water ciemand 
Net water demand 
Depletion 

Agricultural 

Applied water demand 
Net water demand 
Depletion 

Environmental 

Applied water demand 
Net water demand 
Depletion 

Other"! 

Applied water demand 
Net water demand 
Depletion 



3,851 


3,997 


4,446 


3,511 


3,641 


4,010 


3,341 


3,463 


3,536 


727 


753 


632 


644 


668 


569 


644 


668 


569 


2 


2 


6 


2 


2 


6 


2 


2 


6 



62 
222 
222 



57 
210 
210 



67 
227 
227 



4,617 
4,161 
3,677 

655 
592 
592 

6 

6 
6 

62 

215 
215 



5,180 
4,623 
3,993 

499 
458 
458 

6 
6 
6 

72 
232 
232 



5,381 


6,008 


6,244 


4,799 
4,158 


5,309 
4,596 


5,514 
4,785 


518 


382 


396 


474 


356 


370 


474 


356 


370 





6 
6 
6 

67 
220 
220 



72 


67 


232 


220 


232 


220 





TOTAL 

Applied water demand 
Net water demand 
Depletion 



4,642 
4,379 
4,209 



4,809 


5,151 ; 


4,521 
4,343 


4,812 
4,338 



5,340 
4,974 
4,490 



5,757 


5,972 


6,468 


6,713 


5,319 


5,499 


5,903 


6,110 


4,689 


4,858 


5,190 


5,381 



(1) Includes major conveyonce focjiity losses, recreation uses, and energy production. 



Legislation and Litigation 

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

MWDSC is the largest water purveyor in the region; it has 27 member agencies, 
some of whom rely solely on MWDSC for their water supply. Many other agencies, like 
the City of Los Angeles, rely on MWDSC to supplement their existing water supplies. 
MWDSC lost a large part of an extremely important supply of water when its Colorado 
River entitlement was cut by 662.000 af; the City of Los Angeles lost a large part of an 
important supply of water when its Mono Lake and Owens Valley water supplies were 
reduced. 

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

Untreated Sewage from Mexico. Tijuana's excess sewage has plagued the City 
of San Diego and its South Bay beaches since the 1930s. During frequent failures of 
Tijuana's inadequate, antiquated sewage treatment system, millions of gallons of raw 
sewage have been carried across the border through the Tijuana River to its estuary in 
San Diego County. San Diego's first attempt to alleviate this nuisance was in 1965, 
when the city agreed to treat Tijuana's waste on an emergency basis. In 1983. the 



116 



South Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



United States and Mexico signed an agreement stating that Mexico would modernize 
and expand Tijuana's sewage and water supply system and build a 34-mgd sewage 
treatment plant. 

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

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

San Bernardino Ground Water. As late as the 1940s, the lowest portion of the 
San Bernardino Valley was composed mainly of springs and marshlands. It now boasts 
a thriving urban complex and industrial center, but ground water levels in the area 
remain high, impairing the use of some buildings. The San Bernardino Valley 
Municipal Water District began alleviating the high ground water problem by pumping 
ground water from the pressure area to the Colton-Rialto Basin through the Baseline 
Feeder. 

In 1969. the Superior Court of Riverside County, in response to a lawsuit filed by 
the Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County against the East San 
Bernardino County Water District, limited the amount of water that can be produced 
or exported from the San Bernardino Basin area. The ruling requires the SBVMWD to 
replenish the basin when ground water pumping exceeds the specified amount. 

Local Issues 

Ventura County Ground Water. Ground water is the main water supply for 
irrigation and urban uses over much of the coastal plain of Ventura County (including 
the Oxriard Plain). As a result of increasing water demand, the ground water aquifers 
underlying the plain have been overdrafted. The overdraft wathin the United Water 
Conservation District averaged 18.900 af per year during 1976-85. The Fox Canyon 
Ground Water Management Agency was formed to manage the ground water resources 
underlying the Fox Canyon aquifer zone. To eliminate the overdraft in all aquifer zones, 
the agency adopted ordinances requiring meter installation on all wells pumping more 
than 50 af per year. The objective of the ordinances is to limit the amount of ground 
water that can be pumped and to restrict drilling of new wells in the North Las Posas 
Basin. In February 1991. United Water Conservation District completed construction 
of the Freeman Diversion Improvement Project on the Santa Clara River. The improved 
structure increases average annual diversions by about 43 percent, from 40.000 af to 
57,000 af. The diverted water is used for ground water recharge and agricultural 
irrigation, thereby reducing agricultural ground water demand. 

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




South Coast Region 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Water Balance 

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

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

Regional net water demands for the 1990 level of development totaled 4,379,000 
and 4,521,000 af for average and drought years, respectively. Those demands are 
forecasted to increase to 5,903,000 and 6. 1 10,000 af respectively, by the year 2020, 
This forecast accounts for a 490,000-af reduction in urban water demand resulting 
from implementation of long-term conservation measures, and a 10,000-af reduction 
in agricultural demand resulting from additional long-term water conservation 
measures. 

Urban net water demand is projected to increase by about 1 ,798,000 af by 2020, 
primarily due to expected increases in population: agricultural net water demand is 
forecasted to decrease by about 288,000 af primarily due to lands being taken out of 
production resulting from the high cost of imported water supplies and urbanization. 
Environmental net water demands, under existing rules and regulations, are 
forecasted to increase from 2,000 to 6,000 af annually due to increased acreage at the 
San Jacinto Wildlife Area, 

Average annual supplies, including 22,000 af of ground water overdraft, were 
generally adequate to meet average net water demands in 1990 for this region. 
However, during drought, present supplies are insufficient to meet present demands 
and, without additional water management programs, annual average and drought 
year shortages are expected to increase to nearly 1 ,4 13,000 and 2.494,000 af by 2020, 
respectively. With implementation of l^vel 1 programs, shortages could be reduced to 
373.000 af and 848,000 af for average and drought years, respectively. This region 
depends on exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for a portion of its 
supplies. Shortages stated above are based on Decision 1485 operating criteria for 
Delta supplies and do not take into account reduction of Delta supplies due to recent 
actions to protect aquatic species in the estuary. As such, regional water supply 
shortages are understated. 



118 South Coast Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Water Demand/Supply 



Table SC-1 1 . Water Budget 

(thousands of acre- feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Net Demand 

Urban— with 1990 


















level of conservation 


3,511 


3,641 


4,228 


4,379 


5,004 


5,180 


5,799 


6,004 


— reductions due to 
long-term conservation 
measures (Level 1) 
Agricultural— with 1990 


— 


— 


-218 


-218 


-381 


-381 


-490 


-490 


level of conservation 


5^ 644 


668 


572 


595 


465 


481 


366 


380 


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






-3 


-3 


-7 


-7 


-10 


-10 


Environmental 


m 2 


2 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


OtheH'l 


222 


210 


227 


215 


232 


220 


232 


220 


TOTAL Net Demand 


4,379 


4,521 


4,812 


4,974 


5,319 


5,499 


5,903 


6,110 


Water Supplies w/Existing Facilities Under D-1485 foi 

Developed Supplies 


r Delta Suppli 


ies 












Surface WateH^' 


3,274 


2,691 


3,183 


2,170 


3,338 


2,237 


3,340 


2,241 ^ 


Ground Water 


1,083 


1,306 


1,100 


1,325 


1,125 


1,350 


1,150 


1,375 


Ground Water Overdraft*^' 


22 


22 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Subtotal 


4,379 


4,019 


4,283 


3,495 


4,463 


3,587 


4,490 


3,616 


Dedicated Natural Flow 


■: 









































TOTAL Water Supplies 


4,379 


4,019 


4,283 


3,495 


4,463 


3,587 


4,490 


3,616 


Demand/Supply Balance 





-502 


-529 


-1,479 


-856 


-1,912 


-1,413 


-2,494 



Level I Water Management Programs'"'' 

Long-term Supply Augmentation 
Reclaimed 
Local 

Colorado River 
State Water Project 

Subtotal ■ Level I Water 
\Aanagement Programs 

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



^::j^ -Ss^-*': S;;*i; -- 




68 
26 

493 
36 




68 
22 

489 



36 



498 



68 

243 

809 



47 



498 

264 

68 

680 

1,510 
46 



597 



68 

334 

999 

41 




597 

264 

68 

676 

,605 
41 



temaining Demand/Supply Balance Requiring Short-term Demand Management and/or Level II Options 

-502 -954 -356 -373 -848 

(1) Includes major conveyonce facility losses, recreation uses, and energy production 

(2) Existing and future imported supplies that depend on Delta export capabilities are based on SWRCB D- 1 485 and do not take into account recent actions to protect aquatic species As such, 
regional water supply shortages ore understated [note: proposed environmental water demands of 1 to 3 MAF ore included in the California water budget} 

(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 

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



South Coast Region 



119 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Sunset over the Sacramento River 
near Redding. The river provides many 
recreational opportunities, habitat for fish and wildlife, 
and water supplies for much of the region. 




The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 




Region 



The Sacramento River Region contains the entire drainage area of the SOCrOmsntO RiVSf 
Sacramento River and its tributaries and extends almost 300 miles from Collinsville in 
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta north to the Oregon border. The crest of the Sierra 
Nevada and Cascade Ranges form the region's eastern border: the western side is 
defined by the crest of the Coast Range. The vast watershed of the American River and 
the northern Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta form the southern border. Snow-capped 
Mt. Shasta, rising 14, 162 feet above sea level, dominates the north end of the region, 
followed by Mt. L-assen, at 10.457 feet above sea level. Both mountains are part of the 
Cascade Range. About 100 miles south of those mountain peaks stand the Sutter 
Buttes. which are the remnants of a prehistoric volcano, and have been called the 
smallest mountain range in the world. Winding its way through the entire region is the 
State's largest river, the Sacramento. The region contains 1 7 percent of the State's total 
land area. (See Appendix C for maps of the planning subareas and land ownership in 
the region.) 

The climate varies considerably in the region. However, three distinct climate 
patterns can be defined: (1) The northernmost area, mainly high desert plateau, is 
characterized by cold, snowy winters with only moderate rainfall, and hot, dry 
summers. This area depends on melting snowpack to provide a summertime water 
supply. Average annual precipitation in the area ranges from 10 to 20 inches. (2) Other 
mountainous parts in the north and east have cold, wet winters with major amounts 
of snow providing considerable runoff for the summer water supply. These higher 
mountainous areas may receive precipitation during any month of the year. Summers 
are usually mild and precipitation totals from about 20 to over 80 inches. (3) The 
Sacramento "Valley, the south-central part of the region, has mild winters with less 
precipitation. Precipitation usually occurs from October through May. Summers in the 
valley are hot and dry with virtually no precipitation from June to September. 
Sacramento's average annual precipitation is 18 inches. 

Population 

The 1990 census showed 535,000 more people in the region than in 1980, a 
32-percent increase. Immigration from other parts of California played a big role in the 
increase. The fastest growing town was Loomis. a foothill community about 25 miles 

Region Characteristics 
Average Annual Precipifafion: 36 inches Average Annual Runoff: 22,389.700 at 
Land Area: 26,960 square miles Population: 2.208.900 



Sacramento River Region 121 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



northeast of Sacramento, where there was a 344-percent population increase between 
1980 and 1990. The City of Sacramento had the greatest number of new residents: 
more than 93.600 additional people. More than half of the region's population lives in 
the greater metropolitan Sacramento area. Other fast-growing communities include 
Vacaville, Dixon, Redding, Chico. and various Sierra Nevada foothill towns. Table SR-1 
shows population projections to 2020 for the Sacramento River Region. 



Table SR- 1 . Population Projections 

(thousands) 



Planning Subarea 



1990 



2000 



2010 



2020 



Shasta-Pit 




31 


35 


39 43 


Northwest Valley 




110 


132 


153 176 


Northeast Valley 




187 


258 


31 1 365 


Southeast 




253 


329 


400 467 


Central Basin West 




242 


328 


390 461 


Central Basin East 




1,267 


1,629 


1,977 2,316 


Southwest 


flHT^ 


5f^^n^^.,72 


^^■mr^ 110 


Delta Service Area 




66 


85 


108 125 


TOTAL 


Land Use 


2,209 


2,869 


3,467 4,063 



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

The Sacramento River Region supports about 2,145,000 acres of irrigated 
agriculture (22 percent of State total). About 1 ,847,000 acres are irrigated on the valley 
floor. The surrounding mountain valleys within the region add 298,000 irrigated acres 
(primarily pasture and alfalfa) to the region's total. Crop statistics show that irrigated 
agricultural acreage in the region peaked during the 1980s and has since declined. The 
main reason for this decline is the conversion of irrigated agricultural lands to urban 
development. The comparison of 1980 and 1990 crop patterns shows that grain, field, 
rice, and pasture crops decreased by 137,000 acres. On the other hand, orchard, 
alfalfa, and tomato crops gained a total of 106,000 acres. The net decrease between 
1980 and 1990 was 31.000 acres of irrigated crops. 

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



122 



Sacramento River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure SR-1. Sacramento River Region 
Land Use, Imports, and Exports 



North Fork 
Di tch 



Trinity River 
Di version - CVP 
881 




Putah South 
Cana I 
54 

City of 
Val lej'o 



North Bay 

Aqueduct 

27 



J CIT / StrP Export* 
' 6,051 



Lzg ind 
Urban Lands 
Irrigated Lands 
Region Water Transfers 

{1,000's of Acre-Feet per Year) 



SCftLE IN MILES 



■Transfers from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta are taken from commingled waters originating in botti 
the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River regions. 



Sacramento River Region 



123 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Water Supply 

The Sacramento River Region is the main water supply source lor much of 
California's urban and agricultural areas. Basin runoff averages 22,389,000 af, 
providing nearly one-third of the State's total natural runoff Major supplies in the 
region are provided through surface storage reservoirs and through direct ground 
water pumping. Lx)cal sources supply 9,195,000 af of water to the region. About 
2.529.000 af of net ground water is used in the region. Figure SR-2 shows the region's 
1990 level sources of supply. 



Figure SR-2. 
Sacramento River Region 
Water Supply Sources 
(1990 Level 
Average Conditions) 



Supply with Existing Facilities and Water Management Programs 

Major reservoirs in the region providing water supply, recreation, power, 
en\'ironmental, or flood control benefits are shown in Table SR-2. Table SR-3 shows 
the water supplies with existing facilities and programs. 

The region's water supply moves through a complex natural and engineered 
conveyance system. Water is both imported into the region and exported from the 
region. On the import side, the Clear Creek Tunnel carries roughly 88 1 .000 af annually 
from Lewiston Lake on the Trinity River into Whiskeytown Reservoir. Since 1876, 
Pacific Gas and Electric has imported 2,000 af annually from Echo Lake in the North 
Lahontan Region to the South Fork of the American River. Sierra Valley imports about 
6,000 af annually from the Little Truckee River. Shasta Valley water users export 2.000 
af from Sacramento Basin to the fClamath River watershed, and 3.000 af is exported to 
the Madeline Plains in the North Lahontan Region. About 6,000,000 af of the outflow 
from the Sacramento River Region is also exported to regions to the south and west 
through local. State, and federal conveyance facilities. 

Ground water 
provides about 22 
percent of the water 
supply in the region. 
Ground water is found 
in both the alluvial 
basins and in the 
upland hard rock 
areas. Well yields in the 
alluvial basins vary 
from less than 100 to 
over 4.000 gallons per 
minute. Yields in most 
of the upland hard rock 
areas are generally 
much less but can 
support most domestic 

activities or livestock. 

Some wells in the 
volcanic hard rock areas of the upper Sacramento River and Pit River watersheds yield 
large amounts of water. Grovind water recharge in the region's alluvial basins is 
primarily from river and stream seepage or infiltration of applied agricultural water. 
Additional recharge occurs as rainfall and snow melt percolate into the basins. A 
detailed description of water supplies for the different areas of the region follows. 




124 



Sacramento River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Reservoir Name 



Table SR-2. Major Reservoirs 

River Capacity (1,000 AFj 



Ov/ner 



McCloud 

Iron Canyon 

Loke Britton 

Pit No. 6 

Pit No. 7 

Shasta 

Keswick 

Whiskeytown 

lake Almanor 

Mountain Meadows 

Butt Valley 

Bucks Lake 

Antelope 

Frenchman 

Lake Davis 

Little Grass Valley 

Sly Creek 

Thermalito 

Oroville 

Bullards Bar (New Bullards Bar) 

Jackson Meadows 

Bowman Lake 

French Lake 

Lake Spaulding 

Englebright 

Scotts Flat 

Rollins 

Camp For West 

French Meadows 

Hell Hole 

Loon Lake 

Slab Creek 

Copies Lake 

Union Valley 

Ice House 

Folsom Lake 

Lake Natoma 

East Park 

Stony Gorge 

Black Butte 

Clear Lake 

Indian Valley 

Lake Berryessa 



McCloud River 

Pit River 

Pit River 

Pit River 

Pit River 

Sacramento 

Sacramento 

Clear Creek 

Feather River 

Feather 

Butt Creek 

Bucks Creek 

Indian Creek 

Little Last Chance Creek 

Big Grizzly Creek 

Feather 

Lost Creek 

Feather 

Feather 

Yuba River 

Yuba River 

Canyon Creek 

Canyon Creek 

Yuba River 

Yuba River 

Deer Creek 

Bear River 

Bear River 

American River 

Rubicon River 

Gerle Creek 

American River 

Copies Creek 

Silver Creek 

Silver Creek 

American River 

American River 

Stony Creek 

Stony Creek 

Stony Creek 

Cache Creek 

Cache Creek 

Putoh Creek 



35.2 

24.2 

40.6 

15.9 

346 

4,552.0 

23.8 

241.1 

1,143.8 

23.9 

49.9 

105.6 

22.6 

55.5 

84.4 

94.7 

65.7 

81 3 

3,537.6 

966.1 

692 

685 

13.8 

74.8 

70.0 

48.5 

66.0 

104.0 

136.4 

207.6 

76.5 

16.6 

26.6 

277.3 

46.0 

976.9 

9.0 

50.9 

50.4 

143.7 

313.0 

300.0 

1,600.0 



PG&E 

PG&E 

PG&E 

PG&E 

PG&E 

USBR 

USBR 

USBR 

PG&E 

PG&E 

PG&E 

PG&E 

DV/R 

DWR 

DWR 

Oroville-Wyondotte ID 

Oroville-Wyondotte ID 

DWR 

DWR 

Yuba Co. WA 

Nevada ID 

Nevada ID 

Nevada ID 

PG&E 

USCE 

Nevada ID 

Nevada ID 

South Sutter WD 

Placer Co. WA 

Placer Co. WA 

SMUD 

SMUD 

PG&E 

SMUD 

SMUD 

USBR 

USBR 

USBR 

USBR 

USCE 

Yolo Co. FCWCD 

Yolo Co. FCWCD 

USBR 




Sacramento River Region 



125 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



3,105 


2,818 
8 



3,138 


2,844 


3,238 


2,958 


3,294 


3,015 


8 


8 


8 


8 


8 


8 


8 























2,529 


2,115 


2,628 


2,205 


2,627 


2,206 


2,632 


2,217 


238 


215 

1 


241 

7 


215 
5 


242 


215 


242 


215 


2 


10 


8 


13 


11 


2,496 


2,865 
33 


2,463 


2,985 


2,426 


3,033 


2,491 


3,038 


33 


— 


— 


— 


— 


























3,323 


2,905 


3,323 


2,905 


3,323 


2,905 


3,323 


2,905 



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

(thousands of acre-feet) 

Supply 1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 

Surface 

Local 

Local imports 

Colorado River 

CVP 

Other federal 

SWP 
Ground water 
Overdraffi" 
Reclaimed 
Dedicated natural flow 

TOTAL 11,734 10,960 11,808 11,167 11,874 11,333 12,003 11,409 

(1 ) The degree future shortoges ore met by increosed overdraft is unknown. Since overdraft is not sustainable, it is not included as a future supply. 

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

Mining operations of the Gold Rush era brought about the first water 
development in the Sierra area. When hydraulic mining operations ceased, some of the 
mining ditches were incorporated into what eventually became part of PG&E's 
hydroelectric power system or local water supply systems, such as that of the Nevada 
Irrigation District. Currently, these remnants of the early mining days provide both 
agricultural and urban water supplies. The conveyance systems tend to have large but 
not irrecoverable losses . A number of areas lack distribution systems to convey surface 
water to the places of need. 

Although ground water is a lesser source of water in the foothills, it plays an 
important role in meeting the needs of many individuals. Ground water within the 
mountain counties exists mostly in fractured rock. Ground water quality in this area 
is generally good, depending on the rock type from which the water is produced. 
Locally significant ground water quality problems may occur where ground water is in 
contact with radon-or uranium-bearing rock, or sulfide mineral deposits that contain 
heavy metals. Moderate levels of hydrogen sulfide can be found in the volcanic and 
geothermal areas in the western portion of the region. There is also a potential for 
ground water quality degradation where septic systems have been constructed in high 
density subdivisions. 

Valley Area. Geologically, the Sacramento Valley is a trough partially filled with 
clay, silt, sand, and gravel deposited through millions of years of flooding. Although 



126 Sacramento River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



ground water is in all the younger sediments, only the more permeable sand and gravel 
aquifers provide enough for pumping. Throughout the valley these younger sediments 
overlie older marine sediments that contain brackish or saline water. The depth to 
saline water in the Sacramento Valley ranges from less than 500 feet in the north to 
over 3,000 feet in the south. 

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

While ground water is available in most valley areas, surface water is often less 
expensive and therefore preferred for irrigation use. Agriculture's water supply varies 
considerably, with many irrigation districts supplying surface water through an 
Intricate distribution system of sloughs, ditches, and canals devoted to conveying 
irrigation water. Sacramento Valley water users have some of the oldest rights to the 
surface water. Some water rights go back before the Gold Rush to old Spanish land 
grants. 

Supply with Additional Facilities and Water Management Programs 

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

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

O Level 11 options are those programs that could fill the remaining gap between water 
supply and demand. These options require more investigation and alternative 
analyses. 

No major additional water supply facilities are currently scheduled to come on 
line by the year 2020 in this region. However. El Dorado County Water Agency has 
issued a Final Environmental Impact Report for the El Dorado Project, which will 
augment supplies in the El Dorado Irrigation District service area. The preferred 
alternative includes: (1) obtaining consumptive use rights to PG&E water currently 
used solely for power generation: (2) increasing the district's contract for Central Valley 
Project water from Folsom Reservoir: and (3) constructing the White Rock Project, 
which will convey water from the South Fork American River to proposed EID 
treatment and distribution facilities. The additional supplies from this alternative are 
17,000 af of supply (average and drought) from PG&E water, and 7,500 and 5.600 af 
for average and drought years, respectively, from Folsom Reservoir. (These increments 
of Sacramento River Region supply will come from the allocation of existing CVP 
supplies.) The White Rock Project is strictly a conveyance project, which will not 
supplement ElD's water supply. Table SR-4 shows water supplies with Level 1 water 
management programs. 

Water Service Reliability and Drought Water Management Strategies. 

Urban areas in the central part of the region generally have sufficient supplies to 
survive dry periods with only voluntary cutbacks. However, communities in Butte, 
Lake, and Shasta counties, and areas served from Folsom Lake have had to use 
rationing or water transfers during recent droughts to manage shortages. 

The Redding Basin is fundamentally an area of abundant water supplies, but 
outlying areas are subject to severe shortages in dry years due to the terms of U.S. 




Sacramento River Region 



127 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



3,105 


2,818 

8 



2,115 

215 

1 

2,865 

33 




3,138 
8 


2,628 
241 


2,846 
8 


2,211 
215 


3,238 


2,961 


3,288 
8 



3,021 


8 



8 



8 



8 



2,529 
238 


2,627 
242 


2,212 
215 


2,638 
242 


2,223 
215 


2 


7 
2,463 




5 
2,985 




10 


8 


13 


11 


2A96 
33 


2,426 


3,034 


2,491 


3,040 

















3,323 


2,905 


3,323 


2,905 


3,323 


2,905 


3,323 


2,905 



Bureau of Reclamation contracts and the lack of alternative supplies. Small districts 
located virtually in the shadow of Shasta Dam face chronic water shortages. 

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

{fhousands of acre-feet) 

Supply 1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 

Surface 

Local 

Local imports 

Colorocjo River 

CVP 

Other federal 

SWP 
Ground water 
Overdraft"! 
Reclaimed 
Dedicated natural flow 

TOTAL 11,734 10,960 11,808 11,175 11,874 11,343 12,003 11,423 

(1 ) The degree future shortages are met by increased overdraft is unknown. Since overdraft is not sustoinoble, it is not included OS o future supply. 

Mountain valley areas in the region that depend on surface water are generally 
irrigated to the extent water is available: when water runs low or runs out, irrigation is 
cut back. This type of drought management is a way of life for the ranchers. Holders of 
riparian and pre- 19 14 water rights on perennial streams generally enjoy reliable 
supplies, even during droughts. They are technically subject to restriction during times 
of shortage, but, as a practical matter, such restrictions have not been enforced in the 
past. 

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

Much of the rural foothill area relies on ground water to meet water needs. 
Ground water supplies are highly variable and do not contain significant volumes due 
to the nature of the fractured rock characteristic of the area. Droughts can severely 
reduce supplies in such areas. 

The majority of diverters along the Sacramento and Feather Rivers existed before 
major CVP and State Water Project reservoirs were constructed. Their water rights 
were filed long before the federal and State projects were built: some go back to before 
the turn of the century. The diverters executed water rights settlement contracts with 
the USBR and DWR after the CVP and SWP water rights were filed. These contracts 
generally provide for maximum deficiencies of only 25 to 50 percent in extremely dry 
years, whereas CVP and SWP contractors can receive much larger deficiencies. 

CVP contractors account for 20 percent of the region's water use and are subject 
to sizable cutbacks in drought years: some contractors suffered a 75-percent reduction 



128 Sacramento River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



in 1 99 1 . The effects of sucl i cuts depend on what alternatives are available. Some areas 
can fall back on grovind water: others have no feasible alternatives. 

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

Water Management Options with Existing Facilities. Changes in the surface 
water allocation within the region will probably result from pressure for environmental 
restoration, negotiations for renewal of CVP contracts, expanded conjunctive use of 
surface and ground water, and various proposals and designs for water transfers. 
Cumulatively, these changes could stimulate substantial increases in ground water 
use in the region. Water transfers are becoming increasingly important throvighout 
California. Since the Sacramento River system potentially is the major source of future 
water transfers, this region will probably experience more water transfer activities in 
the future. 

Water conservation efforts in this region usually result in limited actual water 
savings because water not consumptively used is available for reuse downstream. Most 

I water delivered in the Sacramento Region that is not consumptively used is returned 
to surface or ground water sources from which it may be diverted and used again. 
Some water users would find themselves without a supply if upstream users did not 
provide surplus runoff from their "inefficient " application of water. If return flows were 
reduced by upstream water conservation efforts, downstream users who have the 

! rights to do so would elect to divert more water from the Sacramento FUver to meet 
their needs. 

Water Management Options with Additional Facilities. Many potential 

surface water developments within the Sacramento River Region have been examined 

over the last 40 years. Most of these studies were geared primarily to producing 

1 additional water supplies for use in other regions of the State. Agricultural payment 

! capacity within the Sacramento River Region generally is insufficient to justify 

expensive new reservoir projects. 

The most attractive surtace water projects in the Sacramento River Region have 
I already been built. High construction costs and the increasing emphasis on 
I environmental considerations have greatly restricted the remaining options for 
I additional surface water development. A few reservoir projects remain under 
I consideration within the region, but none is far enough along in the planning and 
; environmental review analysis to be constructed within the 30-year forecast presented 
I here. 

I Additional ground water development will most likely meet a significant share of 

] the limited increasing water demands of the region. The potential for developing new 
' supplies from ground water is most favorable in the northern portion of the 
1 Sacramento Valley; the southern portion is already operating close to perennial yield in 

many areas. From the standpoint of overall basin management, increasing use of 
, ground water will come partially at the expense of depleting existing surface supplies. 
I Table SR-4 shows water supplies with additional facilities and programs. The indicated 
j future increases in surface water and CVP supplies reflect the buildup in urban 

demands under existing contracts. 




Sacramento River Region 




Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Figure SR-3. 

Sacramento River Region 

Net Water Demand 

(1990 Level 

Average Conditions) 



Figure SR-4. 

Sacramento River Region 

Urban Applied Water 

Use by Sector 

(1990 Level 

Average Conditions) 




Water Use 

The 1990 level annual net water use in the Sacramento River Region is 
1 1 ,734,000 af, and net use is forecasted to increase to 12.0o6,000 af in the year 2020. 

Since 1980. urban use 
has increased while 
agricultural use has 
remained relatively 

stable except for the 
peak in irrigated acreage 
during the early 1980s. 
A minor increase in 
irrigated agricultural 
acreage is forecast, but 
there will be limited 
reductions in some 
areas, primarily due to 
urban encroachment 
onto agricultural land. 
Overall, agricultural 
water use in the 
Sacramento River 

Region is expected to 
decline slightly during the next 30 years as agricultural irrigation efficiencies continue 
to improve. Environmental use is expected to increase by 143,000 af by 2020 under 
existing fishery and wetland requirements. Figure SR-3 shows net 1990 level water 
demands for the Sacramento River Region. 

Urban Water Use 

A few of the larger cities in the region take a major share of their water supplies 
from the major rivers. But throughout most of the Sacramento River Region, ground 

water is the principal 
source of water for 
urban and rural 
dwellers. In the last 
decade, rapid growth on 
the outskirts of cities 
with surface supplies 
has led to a number of 
residential 

developments using 
ground water. 

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




130 



Sacramento River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



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

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

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





New housing 
construction in 
Sacramento County. 
Many new homes are 
being built in thejlood 
plain. The pumps shown 
in the foreground pump 
rainfall runoff from the 
area into the 
Sacramento Riuer 
during storms. 



Sacramento River Region 



131 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Table SR-5. Urban Water Demand 

(thousands of acre-feet) 



Planning Subarea 



1990 2000 20 W 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Shasta-Pit 


Applied water demand 


11 ^ 


-^i 


13 


15 


14 


16 


15 


18 


Net water demand 


11 


13 


13 


15 


14 


16 


15 


18 


Depletion 


5 


6 


6 


7 


7 


8 


7 


9 


Northwest Valley 


Applied water demand 


53 


54 


61 


63 


68 


70 


77 


79 


Net water demand 


53 


54 


61 


63 


68 


70 


77 


79 


Depletion 


19 


20 


24 


24 


27 


28 


31 


32 


Northeost Valley 


Applied water demand 


55 


58 


75 


79 


90 


95 


104 


110 


Net water demand 


55 


58 


75 


79 


90 


95 


104 


110 


Depletion 


27 


29 


37 


39 


45 


47 


52 


55 


Southeast 


Applied water demand 


74 


81 


92 


101 


110 


120 


126 


138 


Net water demand 


74 


81 


92 


101 


110 


120 


126 


138 


Depletion 


25 


28 


32 


35 


37 


41 


43 


47 


Central Basin West 


Applied water demand 


71 


76 


86 


94 


100 


108 


116 


125 


Net water demand 


71 


76 


86 


94 


100 


108 


116 


125 


Depletion 


22 


22 


26 


28 


31 


33 


36 


38 


Central Basin East 


Applied water demand 


448 


490 


543 


593 


644 


704 


736 


803 


Net water demand 


448 


490 


543 


593 


644 


704 


736 


803 


Depletion 


127 


140 


154 


170 


185 


202 


211 


232 


Southwest 


Applied water demand 


9 


10 


13 


14 


16 


17 


19 


20 


Net water demand 


9 


10 


13 


14 


16 


17 


19 


20 


Depletion 


4 


5 


6 


6 


7 


8 


9 


9 


Delta Service Area 


Applied water demand 


23 


25 


28 


30 


34 


37 


38 


42 


Net water demand 


23 


25 


28 


30 


34 


37 


38 


42 


Depletion 


7 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


11 


12 




TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


744 


807 


911 


989 


1,076 


1,167 


1,231 


1,335 


Net water demand 


744 


807 


911 


989 


1,076 


1,167 


1,231 


1,335 


Depletion 


236 


257 


293 


318 


349 


378 


400 


434 



132 



Sacramento River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Aghculfural Water Use 

Agricultural wa- 
ter use is estimated 
using crop acreages 
and corresponding 
applied water and 
evapotranspiration of 
applied water unit use 
values for each crop. 
Figure SR-5 shows ir 
rigated acreage. 

CTAW. and applied 
water for major crops 
grown in the region. 
On-farm irrigation ef 
ficiencies vary widely, 
depending on individ- 
ual crops, soils, ir- 
rigation methods, sys- 
tem reuse. water 
scarcity, and irriga- 
tion costs. Areas de- 
pending on ground water or limited surface water tend to be very efficient. Others with 
higher priority water rights to dependable supplies are often less conservative in their 
water usage, but excess water applied generally returns to the supply system through 
drainage canals, or recharges ground water. Basin efficiency is usually very good be- 
cause downstream users recycle return flows for their own use. In many places, return 
flows are the only water source for downstream users. The capital investment neces- 
sary to increase on-farm irrigation efficiency is generally not considered warranted un- 
less water supplies are unreliable. 




Rice fields like these can 
be/oimd throughout the 
Sacramento River Valley. 
Much of the water is "put 
back" into the water 
supply system once the 
fields are drained. 




Acres (x 1,000) 



Acre-feet (x 1,000) 



i 



Acreage 



Rice Other Field Alfalfa Pasture Other Deciduous 

£TAW 

Applied Water 



Figure SR-5. 
1 990 Sacramento 
River Region 
Acreage. ETAW. 
and Applied Water 
for Major Crops 



Sacramento River Region 



133 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Planning Subarea 



Table SR-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 

(thousands of acres) 



1990 



2000 



2010 



2020 



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




147 


142 


144 


146 


129 


139 


146 


149 


89 


91 


93 


93 


104 


104 


104 


104 


786 


784 


804 


833 


679 


664 


653 


648 


22 


21 


22 


23sl 


189 


189 


190 


190 



TOTAL 



2,145 



2,134 



2,156 



2,186 



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



Table SR-7. 1 990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 

Irrigated Crop 



Grain 

Rice 

Sugar Beets 

Corn 

Other field 

Alfalfa 

Pasture 

Tomatoes 

Other truck 

Almonds/pistachios 

Other deciduous 

Vineyard 

Citrus/olives 



Total Acres 


Total ETAW 


1 1000) 


(1,000 AF) 


303 


183 


494 


1,458 


75 


165 


104 


232 


155 


197 


141 


326 


357 


809 


120 


303 


55 


65 


101 


234 


205 


475 


17 


28 


18 


35 



TOTAL 



2,145 



4,510 



In the Sacramento River Region, several crops are expected to decrease in 
acreage, especially on the valley floor, due mainly to urban encroachment on irrigated 
agricultural land and changes in market factors and technology. Pasture is the crop 
forecasted to have the largest decrease in acreage at 37,000 acres (10 percent), 
followed by rice at 10,000 acres (2 percent), grains at 8,000 acres (3 percent), and 
sugar beets at 3.000 acres (4 percent). However, between 1990 and 2020, a net 
increase in irrigated crop acreage of about 41,000 acres, or 2 percent, is forecasted. 



134 



Sacramento River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Almost all of this increase is expected to occur north of the Sutter Buttes where there 
exist adequate farmable soils with sufficient available surface and ground water 
supplies. The crops projected to have the largest increase in acreage are almonds, 
miscellaneous truck crops, tomatoes, vineyard, corn, and miscellaneous deciduous 
orchards. 

Environmental Water Use 

I Instream flow requirements of major streams in the region are listed in Table 

SR-9. The instream applied water for each river listed is based on the largest fish flow 



Table SR-8. Agricultural Water Demand 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 




Planning Subarea 



Shaski-Pit 


Applied water demand 


440 


469 


433 


463 


440 


470 


449 


479 


Net water demand 


379 


395 


374 


391 


380 


397 


386 


404 


1 Depletion 


330 


358 


325 


352 


330 


358 


335 


363 » 


Northwest Valley 


Applied water demand 


472 


569 


490 


590 


505 


609 


508 


612 


Net water demand 


466 


487 


485 


507 


504 


527 


510 


534 


Depletion 


356 


433 


374 


455 


388 


471 


392 


476 


Northeast Valley 


Applied water demand 


306 


353 


306 


353 


310 


358 


310 


358 


Net water demand 


298 


312 


299 


314 


304 


319 


303 


318 


Depletion 


231 


268 


235 


272 


239 


278 


239 


278 


Southeast 


1 Applied water demand 


358 


426 


355 


423 


351 


418 


351 


418 


' Net water demand 


343 


388 


341 


384 


338 


380 


338 


380 


Depletion 


261 


306 


261 


306 


261 


304 


261 


306 


Central Basin West 


1 Applied water demand 


2,830 


3,081 


2,804 


3,052 


2,803 


3,049 


2,812 


3,057 


Net water demand 


2,193 


2,483 


2,181 


2,467 


2,173 


2,454 


2,181 


2,451 


1 Depletion 


1,896 


2,153 


1,919 


2,179 


1,947 


2,210 


1,970 


2,235 


' Central Basin East 


Applied water demand 


2,907 


3,124 


2,781 


3,020 


2,660 


2,960 


2,605 


2,799 


1 Net water demand 


2,612 


2,753 


2,471 


2,635 


2,371 


2,588 


2,332 


2,444 


Depletion 


1,950 


2,151 


1,923 


2,132 


1,886 


2,080 


1,852 


2,042 


Southwest 


j Applied water demand 


74 


77 


72 


74 


70 


74 


70 


73 


Net water demand 


71 


72 


68 


69 


67 


69 


68 


68 


Depletion 


50 


51 


47 


48 


46 


47 


45 


46 


i Delta Service Area 


Applied water demand 


461 


546 


457 


542 


453 


537 


453 


537 


Net water demand 


426 


504 


383 


455 


369 


450 


379 


450 


Depletion 


403 


403 


342 


405 


342 


403 


343 


405 




TOTAL 


j Applied water demand 


7,848 


8,645 


7,698 


8,517 


7,592 


8,475 


7,558 


8,333 ^ 


1 Net water demand 


6,788 


7,394 


6,602 


7,222 


6,506 


7,184 


6,497 


7,049 


Depletion 


5,477 


6,123 


5,426 


6,149 


5,439 


6,151 


5,437 


6,151 ^:.. 


— . ^^^__ 



Sacramento River Region 



135 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



specified in the entire reach of the river. Instream net water needs in each river is the 
portion of applied water which flows throughout the river or is the flow leaving the 
region. Total 1990 level instream net water needs for this region were about 3.323.000 
af. 

The Sacramento River Region contains the largest and the most wetlands areas 
in the State, totalling approximately 175.000 acres. Water for these wetlands is from 
several sources, including CVP supplies, agricultural return flows, and ground water 
The estimated wetland applied water, shown in Table SR- 10, is about 484,000 af The 
forecasted needs for year 2000 are expected to go up by 30 percent due to the 1992 
CVP Improvement Act which allocated more water to wetlands. In the year 2000, 
629,000 af would be allocated for wetlands. The CVP Improvement Act is discussed in 
Volume 1, Chapter 2. 

The Butte and Sutter basins contain large wetlands areas which serve as critical 
habitat for migratory waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway. There are about 1 3,000 acres of 
publicly owned and managed waterfowl habitat in the Butte Basin. In addition, private 
hunting clubs maintain more than 30.000 acres of habitat during normal years. The 
Sutter Basin has almost 2,600 acres of publicly owned waterfowl habitat, all in the 
Sutter National Wildlife Refuge. Private duck hunting clubs provide an additional 
1,500 acres of waterfowl habitat. 



1 36 Sacramento River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Stream 



Table SR-9. Environmental Instream Water Needs 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Sacramento River 


1 Applied water demand 


1,903 


1,702 


1,903 


1,702 


1,903 


1,702 


1,903 


1,702 


Net water demand 


1,903 


1,702 


1,903 


1,702 


1,903 


1,702 


1,903 


1,702 


Depletion 


























' Yuba River 


Applied water demand 


280 


240 


325 


240 


325 


240 


325 


240 


Net water demand 


174 


150 


174 


150 


174 


150 


174 


150 


Depletion 


























Feather River 


Applied water demand 


977 


784 


977 


784 


977 


784 


977 


784 


Net water demand 


977 


784 


977 


784 


977 


784 


977 


784 


Depletion 


























American River 


Applied water demand 


234 


234 


234 


234 


234 


234 


234 


234 


Net water demand 


234 


234 


234 


234 


234 


234 


234 


234 


Depletion 


























Others"! 


Applied water demand 


49 


49 


49 


49 


49 


49 


49 


49 


Net water demand 


35 


35 


35 


35 


35 


35 


35 


35 


Depletion 




























TOTAL 


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 


Depklion 





























( 1 1 Includes Clear Creek, Bear River, Cacfie Creek, and Putah Creek. 




Sacramento River Region 



137 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Table SR-10. Wetland Water Needs 

(thousands of acre-feef) 



Wetland 



1990 2000 20 W 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Modoc NWR 


Applied water demand 20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


Net water demand 1 7 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


Depletion , . , 15 . 


15 


15 


15 


15 


15 


15 


15 


Sacramento NWR 


Applied water demand 43 


..^j,^.,-:, 


- " 50 


50 


^■■■■■■■^■50" ■■'■■■■ 


50 


50 


50 


Net water demand 43 


43 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


Depletion 1 8 


18 


18 


18 


18 


18 


18 


18 


Colusa NWR 


Applied water demand ^ ^ ^ , . » 


19 


25 


,25 


25 


25 


25 


25 


Net water demand 1 9 


19 


25 


25 


25 


25 


25 


25 


Depletion ^^^i^s^aJfHHiHlHB 


H^BI 


p--^9- 


"^'^^^ 


^^^SK 


F 9" 


TZ ^ ^ 


9 


Butte Sink NWR 


Applied water demand 2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


Net water demand 1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1^ 


Depletion » - , , v- 1 


1 


! 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


Delevan NWR 


Applied water demand '^^^Jff^^^^f' 


24 


30 


30 


30 


30 


30 


30 


Net water demand 24 


24 


30 


30 


30 


30 


30 


30 


Depletion 1 2 


12 


12 


12 


12 


12 


12 


12 


Sutter NWR 


Applied water demand 9 


9 


30 


30i^^S^p30 


30 


30 


30 


Net water demand 4 


4 


30 


30 


30 


30 


30 


30 


Depletion 4 


'4 


4 ' 


' 4 


4 


4 


4 


4 


Gray Lodge WA 


Applied water demand 44 


44 


44 


44 


44 


44 


44 


44 


Net water demand 38 


38 


38 


38 


38 


38 


38 


38 


Depletion 21 


21 


21 


21 


21 


21 


21 


21 


Ash Creek WA 


Applied water demand 13 


13 


13 


13 


13 


13 


13 


13 


Net water demand 1 2 


12 


12 


12 


12 


12 


12 


12 


Depletion 1 2 


12 


12 


12 


12 


12 


12 


12 


Upper Butte Basin WA 


Applied water demand 





56 


56 


56 


56 


56 


56 


Net water demand 





49 


49 


49 


49 


49 


49 


Depletion ^«,«,^,,Ji^ ' 





27 


27_ 


27 


^ 27 


27 


27 


Yolo Bypass WA 


Applied water demand 





8 


8 


8 


8 


8 


8 


Net water demand 





8 


8 


8 


8 


8 


8 


Depletion 





2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


Stone Lakes NWR 














40 

40 


Applied water demand ^^ ' 





40 


40 


40 


■~ 40 


40 


Net water demand 





40 


40 


40 


40 


40 


Depletion 





10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


Butte Basin Refuge 














Applied water demand 1 25 


125 


125 


125 


125 


125 


125 


125 


Net water demand 79 


79 


79 


79 


79 


79 


79 


79 


Depletion ^^^^HP 33 


33 


33 


33 


33 


33 


33 


33 





138 



Sacramento River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Wetland 



Table SR-10. Wetland Water Needs (Continued) 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Colusa Basin Refuge 


Applied water demand 


108 


108 


108 


108 


108 


108 


108 


108 


Net water demand 


80 


80 


80 


80 


80 


80 


80 


80 


Depletion 


25 


25 


25 


25 


25 


25 


25 


25 


American Basin Refuge 


Applied water demand 


31 


31 


31 


31 


31 


31 


31 


31 


Net water demand 


31 


31 


31 


31 


31 


31 


31 


31 


Depletion 


7 


7 


7 


7 


7 


7 


7 


7 


Sutter Basin Refuge 


Applied water demand 


16 


16 


16 


16 


16 


16 


16 


16 


Net water demand 


16 


16 


16 


16 


16 


16 


16 


16 


Depletion 


4 


4 


4 


4 


4 


4 


4 


4 


Yolo Basin Refuge 


Applied water demand 


21 


21 


21 


21 


21 


21 


21 


21 


Net water demand 


21 


21 


21 


21 


21 


21 


21 


21 


Depletion 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


Sherman Island Refuge 


Applied water demand 


9 


9 


9 


9 


9 


9 


9 


9 


Net water demand 


9 


9 


9 


9 


9 


9 


9 


9 


Depletion 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


Cosumnes River Refuge 


Applied water demand 








1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


Net water demand 








1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


Depletion 




























TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


484 


484 


629 


629 


629 


629 


629 


629 


Net water demand 


394 


394 


537 


537 


537 


537 


537 


538 


Depletion 


168 


168 


207 


207 


207 


207 


207 


208 




Sacramento River Region 



139 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Other Water Use 

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

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 

Legislation and Litigation 

Bay/Delta Proceedings and Other Delta Issues. A comprehensive discussion 
of the Bay/Delta hearings and other Delta issues can be found in Volume 1, Chapters 
2 and 10. 

Sacramento River Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Management Plan 
(Senate Bill 1 086). The salmon and steelhead fishery in the upper Sacramento River 
has declined greatly in the last few decades. Contributing to this decline are problems 
on the river's main stem: unsuitable water temperatures, toxic heavy metals from acid 
mine drainage, degraded spawning gravels, obstructions to fish migration, fish losses 
from diversions and harvest, and riparian habitat loss. In 1986. the Legislature 
enacted Senate Bill 1086. which called for development of a riparian habitat inventory 
and an Upper Sacramento River Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Management Plan. The 
final plan contained a conceptual Riparian Habitat Restoration Plan recommending 
two major actions dealing with riparian habitat along the river and its major 
tributaries. It also contained a more specific Fishery Restoration Plan, listing 20 
actions to help restore the salmon and steelhead fisheries of the river and its 
tributaries. In September 1989, the Legislature approved Senate Concurrent 
Resolution No. 62. declaring a State policy to implement the recommendations of the 
management plan. 

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

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Intake Screen Deficiencies. The GCID has 
720,000 af of prior water rights supplemented by 105.000 afof CVP contract water. In 
May 1972. Department of Fish and Game constructed a 40-drum rotary fish screen at 
the intake to the GCID main pump station. The rotary drum screen is one of the largest 
ever built, allowing a diversion from the Sacramento River of 3.000 cfs. However, the 
design performance of the screens was never realized, primarily because local river bed 
erosion gradually lowered the water surface. This resulted from the cutoff of a large 
downstream river bend during the high water of 1970, which dropped the normal 
water surface elevation at the screen by approximately 31/2 feet. The ensuing 
operational deficiencies caused high juvenile fish mortalities. 

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

140 Sacramento River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



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

The CVPIA of 1992 includes fishery mitigation at the GCID pumping plant in the 

Act's list of mandatory environmental restoration actions. USBR will participate with 

other parties, including the Reclamation Board, in implementing the work required by 

I the Act. In 1993. GCID completed a flat plate screen to provide interim fishery 

protection pending completion of a long-term solution. 

' Regional Issues 

I Water Transfers. Individuals and water districts from several counties have 

recently sold or considered selling surface water and ground water to downstream 
' users. As a result, many north valley water users are concerned about protecting 
' ground water resources from export. Surface water transfers caused considerable 
I controversy in local areas (see Volume I for a more complete discussion of water 
'transfers and the 1991 State Drought Water Bank). Organized ground water 
' management efforts are currently underway in Butte. Colusa, Glenn, Shasta. Solano. 

Sutter, Sacramento. Tehama, and Yolo counties. 

Endangered Species. Threatened and endangered species are affecting 
; management of the region's water supplies. While few specific water supply 
, requirements have yet been established for individual species, a number of operating 
I restrictions may be considered that will impact the statewide water demand balance. 
I For example, the listing of the winter-run chinook salmon has had a major impact on 
i GCID operations, and pumping into the North Bay Aqueduct has been restricted to 
' protect the threatened Delta smelt. Other Sacramento Fiiver water diverters are 
concerned about the listing of additional fish runs. Additionally, the bank swallow, a 
. State threatened species, has limited bank protection efforts along the Sacramento 
1 River. 



• Foothill Development. Although some foothill areas have abundant surface 

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

'contaminated, 

I 

In some areas, current development will cause water supply needs to exceed 

available supplies. Downstream areas have already developed the least costly reservoir 

sites, and a number of recent State and federal mandates further limit water 

; development. Financial and other local agency constraints can make it virtually 

impossible for these regions to develop supplies on their own. 

j Local Issues 

I Sacramento River Water Quality. Water quality in the entire watershed is 

[generally excellent, making it one of the most desirable water sources in the State. 




Sacramento River Region 141 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Table SR-1 1 . Total Water Demands 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Category of Use 



Urban 

Applied water demand 


744 


807 


911 
911 
293 

7,698 


989 
989 
318 

8,517 


1,076 

1,076 

349 

7,592 
6,506 


1,167 

1,167 

378 

8,475 
7,184 


1,231 

1,231 

400 

7,558 
6,497 


1,335 


Net water demand 
Depletion 
Agricultural 


744 
236 


807 
257 


1,335 
434 


Applied water demand 


7,848 
6,788 


8,645 


8,333 


Net water demand 


7,394 


6,602 


7,222 


7,049 


Depletion 


5,477 


6,123 


5,426 


6,149 


5,439 


6,151 

3,638 

3,442 

207 


5,437 

4,117 

3,860 

207 


6,151 


Environmental 








Applied water demand 


3,927 
3,717 


3,493 
3,299 


4,117 


3,638 


4,117 
3,860 


3,638 


Net water demand 


3,860 
207 


3,442 


3,443 


Depletion 


168 


168 


207 


207 


208 


Otheriii 
















Applied water demand 


1 

485 

71 


1 

421 

60 


1 

468 

71 


1 


1 


1 
411 


1 

448 

71 


1 


Net water demand 


412 
60 


465 


411 


Depletion 


71 


60 


60 












TOTAL 


12,520 

11,734 

5,952 


12,946 

11,921 

6,608 














Applied wafer demand 
Nef water demand 


12,727 

11,841 

5,997 


13,145 

12,065 

6,734 


12,786 

11,907 

6,066 


13,281 

12,204 


12,907 
12,036 


1 3,307 
12,238 


Depletion 


6,796 


6,115 


6,853 



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



Figure SR-6. Sacramento River Region 

Water Recreation Areas 









Shovi/i 


-1 on map. 






h 


Goose Lake 


19 


Antelope Lake R,F 


37 


Jackson Meadow 
Recreation Area 


54, 


Englebright Reservoir 


2 


Castle Crags S.P- 


20. 


Woodson Bridge SRA 


38, 


Boca Reservoir 


55. 


Sugar Pine Reservoir 


3. 


West Valley Reservoir 


21. 


Snag Lake 


39, 


Prosser Creek Reservoir 


56. 


French Meadows Reservoir 


4. 


Blue Lake 


22 


Lake Davis 


40 


Plaskett Lake 


57. 


Clear Lake S.P 


5. 


Ahjumow Lava Springs S.P 


23 


Frenctimon Lake 


41. 


Collins Loke 


58, 


Anderson Marsh S.H.P 


6. 


Tule Lake 


24. 


Black Butte Lake 


42. 


South Yuba Trail Project 


59 


Auburn SRA. 


7, 


McArthur-Burney Falls M.S.P 


25. 


Bidwell River Park S R,A 






60 


Stumpy Meadows Reservoir 


8, 


Lake McCloud 


26. 


Plumas-Eureko S P 


43. 
44 


Lake Spaulding 
Lake Valley Reservoir 


61 


Marshall Gold Discovery S H.P 


9. 


Shasta Lake 


27. 


Bucks Lake 


45, 


Eagle Lake 


62 


Hell Hole Reservoir 


10, 


Iron Canyon Reservoir 


28, 


Lakes Basin Recreation Are 


46 


Mortis Creek Lake 


63 


Loon Lake 


n. 


Lake Britton 


29. 


Stony Gorge Reservoir 






64, 


Union Valley Reservoir 


\2. 


Wtiiskeytown Reservoir 


30. 


Ttiermalito Afterbay R,F, 


47, 
48 


Blue Lakes-Lake County 
Lake Pillsbury 


65, 


Jenkinson Lake Sly Park R.A. 


13. 


Crater Lake 


31. 


Ttiermaiito Forebay R,F, 


49 


Coluso-Sacramento 


66 


Ice House Reservoir 


14, 


Monzanita Lake 


32. 


Lake Orovllle SRA 




River S,R,A, 


67, 


Wrights Lake 


15. 


Lake Almanor 


33. 


Little Gross Valley Reservoir 


50 


Scotts Flat Lake 


68. 


Echo Lake 


16. 


William B. Ide Adobe S.H.P 


34 


New Bullards Bar Reservoir 


51 


Indian Valley Reservoir 


69 


Folsom lake SRA. 


17. 


Butte Valley Reservoir 


35. 


MalakoffDiggins S.H.P. 


52 


Camp Far West Lake 


70. 


Lake Natoma 


18. 


Round Valley Reservoir 


36, 


Bowman Lake 


53, 


Rollins Lake 


71. 


Brannan Island SRA. 



142 



Sacramento River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure SR-6. Sacramento River Region 
Hydroelectric Power Plants, Wild and Scenic Rivers and Water Recreation Areas 



OREGON 




N 



'/? 




Leg ind 
4 Water Recreation Area 
• Hydroelectric Power Plant* 
— Federal Wild and Scenic River 

VO 20 30 

SCftLE IN MILES 




Sacramento River Region 



143 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



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

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

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

Sacramento County Supplies. The county is heavily dependent on ground wa- 
ter for its agricultural and urban water needs. However, this reliance has caused 
ground water levels to decline considerably in some areas of the covmty over the past 
70 years. Currently, Sacramento County is responsible for purveying water to only a 
small part of the total urbanized areas of the county: however, the county will serve the 
majority of new growth areas south of the American River. At this time, no surface wa- 
ter supplies exist to meet this future demand, and ground water availability is under 
study. The county is also investigating a multifaceted conjunctive use program to meet 
short-term and long-term water demands in the area. 

North Delta Contract. On January 28, 1981, DWR and North Delta Water 
Agency signed the North Delta Contract. One of the water quality standards in the 
contract is measured at Emmaton on Sherman Island, where salinity fluctuates widely 
in low flow conditions due to tidal influences. The North Delta Contract allows DWR to 
construct an overland facility as an alternative to meeting the Emmaton Standard. The 
Overland Facility would divert water from Threemile Slough and deliver it to other 
parts of the island where offshore water is of higher salinity. In 1986. however 
Sherman Island landowners requested that DWR purchase their land instead ol 
building the overland facility. 

The Western Delta Water Management Program was developed to satisfy and 
include the landowners' desire to develop Sherman Island into a wildlife refuge. The 
program would: (1) improve levees for flood control: (2) protect Delta water quality; (3) 
meet water supply and water quality needs of Sherman Island: (4) provide habitat for 
waterfowl and wildlife: (5) minimize oxidation and subsidence on Sherman Island: (6) 



144 Sacramento River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



protect the reliability of the SWP, Contra Costa Canal, and the CVP: (7) protect 
Highway 160 and utilities: and (8) provide additional recreational opportunities. 

DWR has been negotiating land purchases with the landowners. To date. DWR 
Dwns or has offers accepted for about 13 percent of the island. In 1991. as part of these 
;fforts. DWR negotiated a draft agreement that had elements of water banking and 
lacknowledges the intent to have DWR purchase lands. 

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

I El Dorado County Water Agency has issued a final EIR for the El Dorado Project, 
jvvhich will augment supplies in ElD's service area. EDCWA has determined that 
!:ombining water right permits, contractual entitlements, and water exchanges with 
'.he construction of water facilities will provide a viable supplemental water supply to 
:he year 2020. 



Placer County Distribution. Currently. Placer County lacks sufficient delivery 
'rapacity to meet its future demands. There is currently no permanent system to deliver 
i\merican River water supplies to western Placer County, which has American River 
'Abater rights, entitlement to water from PG&E's Yuba-Bear system, and a CVP contract 
[ror American River water with the USBR. These supplies are sufficient to meet 2020 
peeds. The county is studying various delivery systems to serve western Placer 
[z:ounty's agricultural needs. 



Redding Basin Supplies. An active planning effort is under way to provide for 
he future water supply for developing areas in and around the cities of Redding, 
\nderson, and Shasta Lake in south-central Shasta County. The Redding Area Water 
pouncil is considering local water transfers, conjunctive use of ground water, and 
'additional surface water developments. It is also anticipated that a local ground water 
uanagement program will be developed. 

Cloud Seeding. A number of cloud seeding operations are conducted in the 
"egion. including programs by PG&E in the Feather River Basin and Solano County 
iVater Agency in the Lake Berryessa watershed. In 1991, DWR initiated a prototype 
aroject to augment snowpack by cloud seeding using ground-based propane 
dispensers in Plumas and Sierra counties. These dispensers are expected to produce a 
10-percent increase in snow depths within an area in the upper Middle Fork Feather 
River Basin during average and dry years. Increased snow depths are forecasted to 
I'esult in an additional downstream water yield of 22,400 af in a year of near-normal 
precipitation. The project suspends operation when it appears that the year will have 
'i heavy snow pack. By seeding approximately 50 percent of all suitable storms, it will 
rake an estimated five years to statistically determine the percentage increase in snow 
depth (and ultimate water yield) produced by the project. Environmental monitoring of 
, he effects of this new technology is an important component of the program. There 
lias been local resistance to this program because of the possible additional burden on 
rlumas County resulting from increased snow depths. DWR has committed to pay for 
'iny additional snow removal costs attributed to seeding. 




Sacramento River Region 145 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Control of Upper Sacramento River Water Temperatures. During the 
summer and fall of 1990-92, extremely low water elevations in Shasta Lake caused 
Sacramento River water temperatures to rise above safe levels for fall-and winter-run 
salmon. Large amounts of water from the lowest lake intakes, bypassing the power 
generators, had to be released to prevent fish mortalities. These releases were 
expensive and could have been avoided if the dam was equipped with a multi-level 
temperature control structure. Design of such a structure is presently underway but 
construction is still several years away. The estimated cost is $80 million and the 
funding source will be the CVP Improvement Act. A construction contract could be 
awarded as early as the 1994-95 fiscal year. 

Butte and Sutter Basins. The water-related problems of the Butte and Sutter 
basins include fish passage and habitat degradation, water quality, flooding and 
drainage problems, and water rights. The issues are complex because of competing 
uses and the maze-like pattern of water flow. Spring salmon runs in the Butte Creek 
watershed have decreased from around 20.000 in 1960 to less than 500 in 1992. The 
studies completed under SB 1086 toward a Sacramento River Fisheries Management 
Plan identified Butte Creek as a watershed in urgent need of fisheries mitigation work. 
The Butte and Sutter basins also provide a major part of the waterfowl wetland habitat 
in the Sacramento Valley, but are in need of more dependable water supplies. 

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

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

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

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

The plan in its present form lacks the necessary support to be adopted through 
a district election, and a vote on the plan is currently not scheduled. The board plans 
to consider modifications that could broaden the scope of the initial plan to include 
new district objectives such as water transfers and ground water management. The 



1 46 Sacramento River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



listrict has worked to establish a Memorandum of Understanding with the three 
■ounties and Reclamation District 2047. Negotiations for these agreements are 
'mgoing but the major area of contention is how much private landowners would be 
Assessed to implement the management plan and which landowners should be 
ncluded. 

Water Quality in Clear Lake. The most severe problem in Lake County is the 
lutrient-rich character of Clear Lake water. High nutrient levels cause uncontrollable 
ilgae growth, with its associated odor and aesthetic problems. Nutrient sources 
nclude septic leach lines, sewage treatment plants, and runoff water from upland 
ireas. The predominant blue-green algae form thick mats and scums, which residents 
ind tourists find noxious. Decomposition of the dense algal growths also causes severe 
lissolved oxygen reduction in the water column, which at times kills fish. Lake County 
eceived a Clean Lakes grant from the U.S. EPA to analyze methods for the control of 
he nuisance algae. The county contracted with the University of California at Davis to 
onduct this work. Elevated mercury levels have been found in fish from the "Oaks 
Txa' of the lake, prompting DFG to advise against eating fish from the lake. The source 
f mercury is an abandoned mercury mine at Sulphur Bank near Clear Lake Oaks. In 
ite 1992. the U.S. EPA awarded funds to UCD to investigate the significance of the 
liercury problem and develop remedial measures. 

West Delta Program. DWR is implementing a unique land use management 
jprogram that could effectively control subsidence and soil erosion on Sherman and 
'vitchell islands, while also providing significant wildlife/waterfowl habitat values. 
)WR and DFG have jointly developed the Wildlife Management Plan for Sherman and 
iNvitchell islands to accomplish this objective. The plan is also designed to benefit 
llldlife species that occupy wetland, upland, and riparian habitat on the islands, and 
:rovide recreational opportunities for hunting and wildlife viewing. Property acquired 
nd habitat developed through DWR's contribution will be available for use as 
litigation for impacts associated with ongoing DWR Delta water management 
rograms. 

This plan would significantly reduce subsidence by minimizing oxidation and 

Irosion of the peat soils on the islands by replacing present farming practices with land 

Ise management practices designed to stabilize the soil. Such practices range from 

|iinimizing tillage to establishing wetland habitat. Altering land use practices on 

Iherman and Twitchell islands could provide up to 13.600 acres of managed wildlife 

ind waterfowl habitat and responds directly to the underlying need for additional 

I'etlands, as expressed in national and State policies for wetlands enhancement and 

ixpansion. Delta issues are also discussed in the San Joaquin Region chapter. 

I 

I 

;/ater Balance 

Water budgets were computed for each Planning Subarea in the Sacramento 

iver Region by comparing existing and future water demand forecasts with the 

irecasted availability of supply. The region total was computed by summing the 

emand and supply totals for all the planning subareas. This method does not reflect 

le severity of drought year shortages in some local areas, which can be hidden when 

'lanning subareas are combined within the region. Thus, there could be substantial 

lortages in some areas during drought periods. Local and regional shortages could 

llso be more or less severe than the shortage shown, depending on how supplies are 

jilocated within the region, a particular water agency's ability to participate in water 

lansfers or demand management programs (including land fallowing or emergency 




Sacramento River Region 1^7 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



allocation programs), and the overall level of reliability deemed necessary. Volume i. 
Chapter 1 1 presents a broader discussion of demand management options. 

Table SR-12 presents water demands for the 1990 level and for future water 
demands to 2020 and compares them with: (1) supplies from existing facilities and 
water management programs, and (2) future demand management and water supply 
management programs. Regional net water demands for the 1990 level of development 
totaled 1 1,734,000 and 1 1,921,000 af for average and drought years, respectively. 
Those demands are forecasted to increase to 12,036,000 and 12,238.000 af. 
respectively, by the year 2020, after accounting for a 25,000-af reduction in urban 
water demand resulting from implementation of long-term conservation measures. 

Urban net water demand is forecasted to increase by about 487,000 af by 2020, 
due to expected increases in population, while agricultural net water demand is 
projected to decrease by about 291,000 af, primarily due to changes in cropping 
patterns. Environmental net water demands, under existing rules and regulations, will 
increase by 143,000 af. reflecting increased water allocation to waldlife refuges in the 
Sacramento Valley. 

Average annual supplies, including 33,000 af of ground water overdraft, were 
generally adequate to meet average net water demands in 1990 for this region. 
However, during drought, present supplies are insufficient to meet present demands 
by about 961,000 af per year. Without additional water management programs, 
annual drought year shortages are expected to decrease to about 829.000 af by 2020. 
This decrease is due primarily to reductions in agricultural water use. 

Several environmental improvement actions currently in progress, including 
implementation of the CVPIA, have proposed increases for instream flow for fisheries 
that could further reduce the availability of supplies for urban and agricultural use in 
the region. 

Level 1 water management programs would reduce drought year shortages by 
only about 14,000 af. The remaining 815.000 af drought shortage requires both' 
additional short-term management programs, and future long-term Level II programs 
depending on the overall level of water service reliability deemed necessary, by local 
agencies, to sustain the economic health of the region. 



148 Sacramento River Region 



The California Water F'lan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Water Demand/Supply 



Table SR- 12. Water Budget 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



let Demand 

Urban— with 1990 


















level of conservation 
— reductions due to 
long-term conservation 
measures (Level 1) 
Agricultural— with 1 990 


744 


807 


922 


1,000 


1,095 


1,186 


1,256 


1,360 


— 


— 


-11 


-11 


-19 


-19 


-25 


-25 


level of conservation 


6,788 


7,394 


6,602 


7,222 


6,506 


7,184 


6,497 


7,049 


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
























Environmental 


3,717 


3,299 


3,860 


3,442 


3,860 


3,442 


3,860 


3,443 


OtheH'i 


485 


421 


468 


412 


465 


411 


448 


411 




OTAL Net Demand 



11,734 



,921 



11,841 



1 2,065 



1 ,907 1 2,204 



1 2,036 



12,238 



Voter Supplies w/Existing Facilities 

1 Developed Supplies 

Surface Water 

Ground Water 

Ground Water Overdraft'" 
\ublotal 
ledicated Natural Flow 



8,360 


8,004 


8,467 


8,244 


8,533 


8,410 


8,662 


8,486 


2,496 


2,865 


2,463 


2,985 


2,426 


3,033 


2,491 


3,038 


33 


33 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


10,889 


10,902 


10,930 


11,229 


10,959 


1 1 ,443 


11,153 


11,524 


3,323 


2,905 


3,323 


2,905 


3,323 


2,905 


3,323 


2,905 



OTAL Water Supplies 



11,734 



10,960 



11,808 



167 



1 1 ,874 



11,333 



1 2,003 



1 1 ,409 



emond/Supply Balance 





-961 


-33 


-898 


-33 


-871 


-33 


-829 


|5vel 1 Water Management Programs 

[ Long-term Supply Augmentation 

Recloimedi^i 

Local 

Central Valley Project/ 
1 Other Federal 
1 State Water Project 
lubtotal - Level 1 Water 
!\anagement Programs 


















— 


— 




















— 


— 





2 





3 


-6 


6 


— 


— 





6 





6 


6 


6 


— 


— 





























8 





9 





12 



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











'emaining Demand/Supply Balance Requiring Short-term Drought Management and/or Level II Options 

i -961 -33 -890 -33 -861 -33 -815 
I 

I {1} Includes major conveyance facility losses, recreation uses, and energy production 

[2|Tne degree future sfiorloges are met by increased overdraft is unknown. Since overdraft is not sustainable, it is not included as a future supply, 
(3) Because of existing reuse witfiin region, reclaimed water does not odd supply to tfie region. 



Sacramento River Region 



149 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



The Merced River cascades down rocks in 
Yosemite National Park. The Merced River is one 
of four in the San Joaquin River Region which have 
significant instreamflow requirements. 




The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 




Region 



Located in the heart of California, the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region is Son JOQCIUin RJVer 

bordered on the east by the crest of the Sierra Nevada and on the w^est by the coastal 
mountains of the Diablo Range. It extends from the Delta and the Cosumnes River 
drainage south to include all of the San Joaquin River watershed. (See Volume I. 
Chapter 10 for details about the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area.) It is rich in 
natural wonders, including the Yosemite Valley. Tuolumne Meadows, Moaning 
Caverns, and Calaveras Big Trees. The region comprises about 10 percent of 
California's land area. (See Appendix C for maps of the planning subareas and land 
ownership in the region.) 

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

Population 

About 5 percent of the State's population lives in the region. From 1980 to 1990, 
the region's population grew 41 percent, primarily in Merced. Stanislaus, and San 
Joaquin counties. Communities such as Stockton, Modesto, Merced, and Tracy, once 
I'alley farm centers, are now major regional urban centers. These communities and 
their smaller neighboring cities, such as Lx)di, Gait, Madera, and Manteca, are 
xpected to continue expanding into the mostly agricultural northern San Joaquin 
v'alley. Several counties expect their populations to nearly double by 2010. 

Some of this growth is due to the expansion from the San Francisco Bay Area and 
Sacramento. Nine new communities have been proposed for development in southern 
San Joaquin County, two of which were approved. New Jerusalem and Riverbrook, 
Aath proposed populations of 22,000 and 7,000, respectively. As currently proposed, 
hese developments would increase the county's population by about 30.000 people 

Region Characteristics 
Average Annual Precipitation: 13 inches Average Annual Runoff: 7.933,300 af 
Land Area: 15,950 square miles 1990 Population: 1,430,200 



San Joaquin River Region 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



and require about 4,000 acres. The relatively inexpensive housing available in the area 
offsets the long commute to Bay Area jobs for some San Joaquin County residents. 
Larger cities such as Stockton and Modesto are industrial and commercial centers in 
their own right. 

In contrast to the large valley urban centers, separated by flat agricultural fields 
and linked by freeways, the foothills are sprinkled with small communities connected 
by small two-lane roads. Much of the foothill population lives along the old Mother 
Lode route of the 1849 Gold Rush, Highway 49. Towns such as Jackson, Angels Camp, 
San Andreas, Sonora, and Oakhurst have grown significantly in the last decade. Off 
from the north-south trending Highway 49 is a series of roads that lead to Sierra 
Nevada mountain passes. These mountain roads (Highways 88, 4. 108. 120) generally 
follow east-west trending ridges, which are separated by one of the nine major river 
systems draining the Sierra. The economies of mountain communities along these 
routes depend on tourist and travel industries. These communities are also retirement 
areas for many former Bay Area or Southern California residents. 

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

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



Table SJ-1. Population Projections 

(fhousandsj 



Planning Subarea 



TOTAL 



1990 



1,430 



2000 



1,975 



2010 



2,555 



2020 



Sierra Foothills 


140 


214 


284 


357 


Eastern Valley Floor 


312 


376 


445 


536 


Delta Service Area 


156 


229 


315 


423 


Western Uplands 


64 


109 


150 


197 


East Side Uplands 


44 


60 


66 


92 


Valley East Side 


653 


905 


1,192 


1,489 


Valley WeH Side 


61 


82 


103 


127 


West Side Uplands 















3,221 



Land Use ' 

Much of the Sierra Nevada Range is national forest land, while the San Joaquin 
Valley is predominantly agricultural. In the Sierra Nevada, there are the El Dorado, 
Stanislaus, and Sierra national forests and Yosemite National Park, The valley 
constitutes about 3,500,000 acres, the eastern foothills and mountains total 
5,800,000 acres, and the western coastal mountains comprise 900.000 acres. 

Public lands amount to about one-third of the region. The national forest and 
park lands encompass over 2.900.000 acres of the region: state parks and recreational 
areas and other State-owned property account for about 80,000 acres: and Bureau of 



( 



152 



San Joaquin River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Land Management and military properties occupy some 221,000 and 37,000 acres, 
respectively. 

About 1.955,000 of the region's 10,200,000 acres (19 percent) were devoted to 

irrigated agriculture in 1990, Some of the major crops include almonds, alfalfa, 

I pasture, grain, grapes, cotton, and field corn. Urban land usage in 1990 totaled 

295,300 acres. Figure SJ- 1 shows land use. imports, and exports for the San Joaquin 

River Region, 

I 

' Water Supply 

About 47 percent of the region's 1990 level water supply comes from local surface 
I sources, while 29 percent is from imported surface supplies. Ground water provides 

about 19 percent of the total 1990 level average annual water supply for the region. 
I The pumping facilities of the federal Central "Valley Project, the State Water Project, and 
I the Contra Costa Canal are in the Delta, The CVP provides much of the water supply 

(about 63 percent) for the west side of the region's valley area. The Hetch Hetchy 
' resen'oir system on the Tuolumne River provides water to the southern San Francisco 
; Bay Area and Peninsula through a system of reservoirs, power plants, and aqueducts, 
I The East Bay Municipal Utility District receives water from Pardee Reservoir on the 

Mokelumne River. This water is conveyed by the Mokelumne Aqueduct to the East Bay 

MUD'S service area, which includes Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond, and Walnut Creek, 

Supply with Existing Facilities and Water Management Programs 

Surface water systems in the region form a general pattern. A series of reservoirs 
'gathers and stores snownielt in the upper mountain valleys of the Sierras. Water here 
,is generally used for hydrogeneration as it is released down river. Some diversion for 
I consumptive use occurs for local communities, but most flows are caught downstream 

in other reservoirs located in the foothills or at the eastern edge of the valley floor. 

Irrigation canals, along with municipal pipelines, commonly carry water from these 
Istorage facilities. Water released downstream in the river can be picked up for 

irrigation and other uses on the valley floor as it heads for the Delta. Figure SJ-2 shows 

the region's 1990 level sources of supply. 

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



San Joaquin River Region 153 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



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



Folsom Lake 
Dj version 



Sly Park 
24 



Folsom South 
Canal 

31 \_, 

CVP / SWF Export * 0^^^ 
6,051 



Contra Cos 
Cana 
85 



Costa 

V rn \ EASTERftI 
^^^ ntiTA S VALLEY 



Moke limine 

Aqueduct 

245 

South BayJ^ 
Aqueduct 
155 



Hetch Hetchy 

Aqueduct 

267 



San Felipe Unl t 
150 



N 




DMC - Mendota 
Pool 
130 
Call fornia 
Aqueduct 
and San Luis 
Cana I 
4,003 



Frianl Kern 

Cana I 

1,149 




Lzg nrxi 
Urban Land 
Irrigated Land 
Region Water Transfers 

(1,000's of Acre-Feet per Year) 



SCftLE IN MILES 



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



154 



San Joaquin River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Reservoir Name 



New Melones 

New Don Pedro 

Hetch Hetchy 

Lake McClure 

San Luis 

Shaver 

Pardee 

Salt Springs 

Millerton 

Edison 

Lloyd (Cherry) Lake 

Mammoth Pool 

Comanche 

New Hogon 

Eastman 

New Spicer Meadow 



Table SJ-2. Major Reservoirs 
River Capacity (1,000 AF) 



Stanislaus 

Tuolumne 

Tuolumne 

Merced 

N/A 

San Joaquin 

Mokelumne 

Mokelumne 

San Joaquin 

San Joaquin 

Tuolumne 

San Joaquin 

Mokelumne 

Calaveras 

Chowchilla 

Tuolumne 



Owner 



2,420 
2,030 
360 
1,024 
2,040 
135 
210 
142 
520 
125 
269 
123 
417 
317 
150 
189 



U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts 

City of San Francisco 

Merced Irrigation District 

USBR and Dept. of Water Resources 

Southern California Edison 

East Bay Municipal Utility District 

Pacific Gas & Electric Company 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Southern California Edison 

City of San Francisco 

Southern California Edison 

East Bay Municipal Utility District 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CCWD 




The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation completed New Melones Dam in 1979. and the 
reservoir was initially filled in 1983. According to USBR's 1980 New Melones allocation 
report, this reservoir has an estimated annual additional yield of 180.000 af. None of 
this yield has been delivered yet. To date. Stockton East Water District has contracted 
with USBR for 75.000 af of interim water: Central San Joaquin Water District has con- 
tracted for 49,000 af of average and drought year supply and 3 1 .000 af of interim New 
Melones water. Some of the facilities to transport this water were completed in 1993. 
and 20.000 af was requested by the two districts but no delivery was made because the 
interim water supply was used to meet CVPLA. requirements. Water supplies vary by 
areas in the region, as discussed below. 

Mountain and 
Foothill Areas. The 

major mountain and 
foothill areas of the re- 
gion include the west 
side Sierra Nevada 
mountain counties of 
Mariposa, Tuolumne. 

\ Calaveras. Amador, and 

i portions of Alpine and 

I El Dorado. There are 

I dozens of small com- 

I munities in these coun- 
ties, generally located 

I along Highway 49. 

i Most of these commu- 

I nities, and the sparse 

, agricultural land in the 

I area, receive their water 




Figure SJ-2. 
San Joaquin 
River Region 
Water Supply Sources 
(1990 Level 
Average Conditions) 



San Joaquin River Region 



155 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



from local surface supplies. In the 1850s, hydraulic mining for gold and other minerals 
promoted the construction of an extensive network of canals and ditches to bring water 
from main rivers and tributaries to the mine sites. When the mining industry waned, 
power companies, like Pacific Gas and Electric Company, took control of many of these 
facilities. Today, in addition to supplying water to hydroelectric power plants, these 
facilities convey water to many of the small mountain communities. For example, in 
Amador County, the Cosumnes River supplies water to the community of Plymouth 
and the Mokelumne River supplies water to the communities of Jackson and lone. In 
Calaveras County, water is distributed via pipelines and ditches from the Stanislaus 
and Calaveras rivers to the communities of Angels Camp. Arnold, and Jenny Lind. In 
Tuolumne County, water from the Lyons Reservoir is diverted to several communities 
along Highway 108, including Tuolumne, Jamestown, Columbia, and Sonora. Grove- 
land receives water from the Hetch Hetchy system. 

In addition to surface water, many of these mountain communities pump ground 
water from hard rock wells and old mines to augment their surface supplies. Ground 
water generally is no more than about 15 percent of the total supply for most of them. 
Valley Springs in Calaveras County is an exception; it relies entirely on ground water 
for its water needs. The communities of Plymouth and Mariposa had to turn to ground 
water to supplement surface supplies during the 1976-77 and the 1987-92 droughts. 
Also, for many mountain residents who are not connected to a water conveyance 
system, ground water is their only source. 



The Delta-Mendota Canal 

is one of the major canal 

systems distributing 

water in the San Joaquin 

River Region. The canal is 

part of the Central Valley 

Project 




Valley Area. The nine major river systems feeding into the valley from the Sierra 
Nevada provide more than 50 percent of the region's total supply. Irrigation districts 
transport much of the local surface water to valley agricultural users. Modesto 
Irrigation District and Turlock Irrigation District supply both agricultural and 
municipal users through the Modesto and Turlock Canals. Other irrigation districts, 
such as Merced, Oakdale, and South San Joaquin, operate similar facilities. The 
Folsom South Canal used to divert about 1 7,000 af from the American River for cooling 
at the Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant, which has been closed. The canal continues 
to deliver water for agricultural uses in local districts, such as Gait Irrigation District. 

Adding to the valley's surface water supply are three major canal systems: the 
California Aqueduct, Delta-Mendota Canal, and Madera Canal, The CVP also delivers 
water from its Mendota Pool, O'Neil Forebay, and Millerton Lake facilities. Only the 



156 



San Joaquin River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Oak Flat Water District receives water from the SWP. Within the Delta service area, 
agricultural water users pump directly from Delta sloughs and water courses. The City 
of Stockton can receive up to 25.000-af-per-year surface flows from the New Hogan 
Reser\'oir via the Stockton East Pipeline (from Stockton East Water District) in an effort 
to correct the condition of ground water overdraft in its service area. The community of 
Tracy receives about 5.000 af annually from the CVP Delta-Mendota Canal. 

In an average year, about 19 percent, or 1,307,000 af. of the region's water 
requirements are met by pumping ground water. Agriculture uses about 70 percent of 
the ground water pumped. The other 30 percent is used to meet a variety of water 
demands including urban, rural residential, industrial, and environmental. On the 
valley floor, the majority of communities, industries, and rural residents rely on 
ground water as their primary or only source of water supply. Some of the wildlife 
refuges in the region may also use ground water to supplement their surface water 
supplies, especially in years of below- normal surface deliveries. 

The availability and use of ground water for the region is influenced mainly by 

water quality problems. The valley floor is essentially one large ground water basin 

consisting of alluvial sediments. Much of the western portion of the valley is underlain 

; by the Corcoran clay, which generally lies at depths between 100 and 400 feet. The 

I Corcoran clay divides the basin sediments into confined and unconfined aquifers. On 

the west side, high total dissolved solids and sulfates are found in varying degrees in 

1 both the confined and unconfined aquifers. East of the San Joaquin River, the valley is 

j underlain by older, less productive sediments. The shallow ground water quality is 

I generally very good here and several water districts have drainage wells that pump into 

their distribution systems. However, in some areas of the central and northeastern 

j portion of the valley, nitrates and organic contaminants have been found, mostly 

I loccillzed around point sources. 



Ground water overdraft for the 1 990 level is estimated at about 209,000 af a year. 
Areas most affected are found in San Joaquin and Madera counties, with an estimated 
j 70.000 and 45.000 af of overdraft, respectively. Table SJ-3 shows water supplies with 
t existing facilities and water management programs. 



i 



San Joaquin River Region 1 57 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Supply 



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

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

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Surface 

Local 

Local imports 

Colorado River 

CVP 

Other federol 

SWP 
Ground water 
Overdraft" 
Reclaimed 
Dedicated natural flow 



3,030 


2,844 


3,011 



2,803 


2,979 


2,781 


3,003 


2,797 



























1,388 



2,055 

















1,998 


1,449 


2,066 


1,462 


2,064 


1,462 


155 


34 


156 


34 


158 


36 


160 


37 


5 


3 

2,145 

209 


4 


3 


4 


3 


4 


3 


1,098 


1,135 


2,202 


1,156 


2,227 


1,161 


2,252 


209 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 






243 












243 








331 


331 


243 


331 


331 


243 



TOTAL 



6,826 



6,866 



6,692 



6,734 



6,694 



6,752 



6,723 



6,794 



(1 } The degree future shortages are met by increosed overdraft is unknown. Since overdraft is not sustoinoble, it is not included as a future supply. 



Supply with Additional Facilities and Water Management Programs 

The San Joaquin River Region withstood drought conditions by employing 
several water management options: conservation, exchanges, transfers, and 
supplementing surface supplies with ground water. In the long run. however, with 
continued population growth and shifts in types of water use. the region's water 
resource managers will also look for strategies that increase surface supply reliability 
and provide for additional recharge of ground water basins. Means of improving water 
quality will have to be built into these strategies. Future water management options 
are presented in two levels to better reflect the status of investigations required to 
implement them. ; 

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

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

Other than planned SWP additions, there are no other major water supply 
facilities currently scheduled to come on line by 2020. Table SJ-4 shows water 
supplies with Level I water management programs. 



158 



San Joaquin River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Supply 



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

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

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 




Surface 

Local 

Local imports 

Colorado River 

CVP 

Other federal 

SWP 
Ground water 
Overdraft"! 
Reclaimed 
Dedicated natural flow'^' 



3,030 


2,844 





1,388 

34 

3 

2,145 

209 



243 


3,013 



2,055 


2,804 


2,981 


2,782 




3,005 



2,798 









1,449 






2,066 

















1,998 


1,462 


2,064 


1,462 


155 


156 


34 


158 


36 


160 


37 


5 


5 


4 


5 


3 


5 


3 


1,098 


1,132 


2,200 


1,163 


2,236 


1,158 


2,253 


209 


— 


— 


— 


— 







431 









248 








331 


248 


431 


431 


248 



TOTAL 



6,826 



6,866 6,792 



6,739 6,804 



6,767 



6,823 



6,801 



(1 ) The degree future shortages are met by increased overdraft is unknown. Since overdraft is not sustainable, it is not included os o future supply. 

(2) Increase in dedicated natural flow reflects implementation of EBMUD Woter Supply Monagement Program. 



Water Supply Reliability and Drought Water Management Strategies. From 
|1987 through 1992. the San Joaquin River Region, like much of California, endured 
idrought conditions. Many of the cities in the region had restricted water use even 
ithough ground water is the predominant source of supply. Drought-related problems 
developed, such as increased pumping depths, well failures, and accelerated 
degradation of water quality, but generally, there was no substantial reduction in 
[supply. Nevertheless, conservation programs were introduced in nearly all of the 
'region's communities in reaction to the drought. Cities that were completely metered, 
llike Stockton, implemented comprehensive conservation programs. However, a lack of 
water metering precludes the monitoring or implementing of mandatory rationing in 
jmost communities. A number of other practices have been employed, ranging from 
^voluntary water conservation with limitations on outdoor watering to water rationing 
'by allowing little or no outdoor watering. For example, the City of Modesto restricted 
•outdoor water use based on several factors: the season, the day of the week, and the 
[time of day. For indoor water use. the city relied on voluntary water conservation. The 
jcities of Merced, Tracy, and Turlock had programs similar to Modesto. Because of the 
ability of the east side water agencies, supplying both urban and agricultural users, to 
supplement reduced surface water allocations with ground water, annual crop 
acreages remained fairly stable during the drought. 

The foothill community of Mariposa relies on surface water and was hit hard by 
Ithe reduced surface runoff. Its water supply comes from a 440-af water storage 
jreservoir on Stockton Creek. At one point, residents were on a strict rationing program 
ithat fluctuated with the available water supply. Per capita restrictions were as low as 
, 100 gallons per day for the first person of a household and 50 gpd for each additional 
jperson. In comparison, most San Joaquin Valley residents use ground water, and 
though most cities were practicing time of day or day of week outdoor watering 



San Joaquin River Region 



159 



BulleUn 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



restrictions and other conservation programs, water consumption still averaged about 
250 gpcd. 

On the west side of the region, normally about 90 percent of the surface supply 
is obtained from the CVP. Over 60 percent of this comes by way of exchange contracts 
for San Joaquin River water which pro\'ides farmers with good quality water. These 
contractors received only 75 percent of their normal entitlements in 1991 and 1992. 

Those areas on the west side, which receive contract water from the 
Delta- Mendota or San Luis Canals, experienced severe cuts in water supply during 
1991 and 1992. Only 25 percent of the entitlement amounts were delivered. Many of 
these areas lacked sufficient ground water pumping capabilities to fully make up for 
the cuts. There were substantial reductions in cropped acreage and under irrigation of 
permanent crops, resulting in decreased crop yields. Some State Drought Water Bank 
water and federal hardship water was used primarily to ensure the survival of 
permanent crops. 

Water Management Options with Additional Facilities. In 1984. the 

California Legislature authorized the proposed Los Banos Grandes Reservoir in 
western Merced County as a facility of the SWP. Los Banos Grandes would store water 
pumped from the Delta through the California Aqueduct during wet months, primarily 
November through March. Stored water would be released during water -short periods 
for use by agencies with contracts for water from the SWP. This 1 .730. 000-af reservoir 
would help provide a more dependable water supply for the people and farms served by 
the SWP. (See Volume I. Chapter 11.) Although only one water district in the region 
could benefit directly, the reser\'oir would provide other indirect benefits to the area, 
such as recreational opportunities and supplemental flood protection. The feasibility of 
the reservoir is being reevaluated in the light of proposed Delta standards and 
requirements of Delta smelt and winter-run salmon biological opinions. 

The Mariposa Public Utility District in Mariposa County is developing the Saxon 
Creek Water Project, which will bring additional water to the 2.000 residents living 
within the district. The project involves tapping the Merced River and delivering water 
via a pipeline. The project is small, about 900 af annually at full development, but 
important to the community of Mariposa. It will help to provide a reliable water supply 
in an area that is already straining its water resources. 

Water Use 

Agricultural water demand is about 85 percent of the region's total demand of 
6.826.000 af. Urban demand, which includes urban residential, industrial, and rural 
residential, comprises approximately 5 percent of total demand. Environmental water 
use for the region's wetlands and instream fishery requirements represent about 8 
percent of the total water demand. Other water use includes recreation, water used for 
power plant cooling, and water lost during conveyance; this category constitutes about 
2 percent of total demand. Figure SJ-3 shows net water demand for the 1990 level of 
development. 

Urban Water Use 

The 1990 level urban applied water demand in the region totaled almost 495.000 
af, an increase of about 91,000 af since 1980. This increase was primarily due to an 
increase in population. Average per capita water use is about 309 gallons per day. Per 
capita values range from about 350 gallons per day in Modesto, one of the larger cities, 
to 200 gallons per day and less in small communities like Dos Palos and Riverbank. 
Higher per capita water use in communities like Modesto is generally due to a high 



160 San Joaquin River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



concentration of industries. In the case of Modesto, food processing comprises a large 
segment of the Industrial activity. Figure SJ-4 shows the 1990 level urban applied 
water use by sector. Table SJ-5 shows applied water and net urban water demand to 
2020. 

Most urban water 
supply agencies in the 
region do not meter de- 
liveries to residential 
customers. Generally, 
commercial and indus- 
trial deliveries are me- 
|tered. Outdoor use 
iprobably accounts for 
I about one-half of total 
j urban use for most of 
'the region. Warm sum- 
imers and associated 
high water require- 
ments for landscaping 
are the main factors be- 
hind this region's urban 
water use being higher 
than the statewide aver- 
.age. 

Population projections indicate that more than twice as manj' people would 
ireside in the San Joaquin River Region by 2020. Such growth is expected to drive the 
conversion of some agricultural lands to urban development. This may further stretch 
iwater supplies in some areas, orjust shift water use from agricultural to urban. Given 
these population increases, urban net water demand could double by 2020. 




Figure SJ-3. 

San Joaquin 

River Region 

Net Water Demand 

(1990 Level 

Average Conditions) 





Figure SJ-4. 

San Joaquin River Region 
Urban Applied Water 
Use by Sector 
(1990 Level 
Average Conditions) 



San Joaquin River Region 



161 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Planning Subarea 



Table SJ-5. Urban Water Demand 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Sierra Foothills 

Applied water demand 

Net water demand 

Depletion 
Eastern Valley Floor 

Applied water demand 

Net water demand 

Depletion 
Delta Service Area 

Applied water demand 

Net water demand 

Depletion 
Western Uplands 

Applied water demand 

Net water demand 

Depletion 
East Side Uplands 

Applied water demand 

Net water demand 

Depletion 
Valley East Side 

Applied water demand 

Net water demand 

Depletion 
Valley West Side 

Applied wal 

Net water d 

Depletion 
West Side Uplands 

Applied water demand 

Net water demand 

Depletion 



36 

38 

JO 

'IT 

80 
23 

35 
35 
10 

37 

37 
4 

11 
5 
5 

279 

149 
131 



40 
43 
11 

84 
84 
24 

37 
37 
lO" 

38 

38 
4 

11 
5 
5 

280 
150 
131 



54 
56 
15 

97 
97 
27 

50 

50 

^14 

45 

45 
6 

15 
6 
6 

378 
202 
178 



59 
62 
16 

105 

105 

30 

54 
54 
16 

46 

46 

6 



15 
6 
6 

381 
205 
179 



71 
73 
20 

114 

114 

32 

65 

65 
19 

51 
51 



16 

7 
7 

493 
263 
232 



77 
80 
22 

124 

124 

35 

71 
71 
21 

53 
53 
8 

16 

7 
7 

497 
267 
233 



87 
89 
25 

134 

134 

39 

85 
85 
25 

59 

59 
10 

23 

10 
10 

605 
322 
284 



95 

98 
27 

147 

147 

42 

92^ 

92 
27 ^ 

60|| 

60 

11* 

23 

10 
10 

610 
327 
286 



Applied water demand 


17 


17 


24 


24 


29 


29 


36 


36 


Net water demand 


9 


9 


12 


12 


14 


14 


18 


18 


Depletion 


9 


9 


12 


12 


14 


14 


17 


17 




















TOTAL 

Applied water demand 



Net water demand 


353 


366 


Depletion 


192 


194 



507 


663 


684 


839 


867 


1,029 


1,063 


366 


468 


490 


587 


616 


717 


752 


194 


258 


265 


332 


340 


410 


420 



Agricultural Water Use 

Agriculture accounts for 85 percent of the total applied water in the San Joaquin 
Region. The industry can best be described as widely diverse. Major crops in the region 
that encompass over 100,000 acres each are alfalfa, almonds, grapes, grain, corn, and 
cotton. Table SJ-6 shows irrigated crop acreage for the region to 2020. Table SJ-7 
shows 1990 crop acreages and evapotranspiration of applied water. Figure SJ-5 shows 
crop acreages, ETAW, and applied water for major crops. 



162 



San Joaquin River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Planning Subarea 



TOTAL 



Table SJ-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 

(fhousands of acres} 



1990 



2,008 



2000 



1,990 



2010 



2020 



Sierra Foothills 




7 


8 


9 


11 




Eastern Valley Floor 




273 


272 


271 


269 




Delta Service Area 




277 


276 


273 


271 




Western Uplands 




13 


12 


12 


12 




East Side Uplands 




2 


2 


2 


2 




Valley East Side 




1,003 


985 


965 


950 




Valley West Side 


...».JHiM&^ 


433 


435 


436 


437 


'« 


West Side Uplands 



















1,968 




,952 



Estimates of future agricultural water use were generally based on the 1990 unit 
use values. There may be room for some minor improvements in irrigation efficiencies: 
however, increased efficiencies would only slightly reduce the overall agricultural water 
use. Double cropping accounted for about 52.700 acres in 1990. a decrease of about 
35 percent since 1980. The double-cropped acres represent less than 3 percent of the 
irrigated acreage. Table SJ-8 shows agricultural water demands to 2020. 



Table SJ-7. 1 990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 



Irrigated Crop 



Total Acres 


Total ETAW 


1 1000 j 


(1,000 AFj 


182 


130 


21 


75 


178 


453 


64 


157 


181 


342 


121 


153 


226 


665 


228 


704 


89 


181 


133 


164 


245 


513 


147 


380 


184 


364 


9 


16 



Groin 

Rice 

Cotton 

Sugar beets 

Corn 

Other field 

Alfalfa 

Pasture 

Tomatoes 

Other truck 

Almonds/pistachios 

Other deciduous 

Vineyard 

Citrus/olives 



TOTAL 



2,008 



4,297 



San Joaquin River Region 



163 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Drip lines are suspended 

on hooks at this San 

Joaquin Valley vineyard. 

More efficient irrigation 

practices are being used 

throughout the region. 



Figure SJ-5. 

1990 

San Joaquin 

River Region 

Acreage. ETAW. 

and Applied Water 

for Major Crops 



Over the past 20 years, agricultural net water demand in the region has fluctu- 
ated, primarily as a result of changing crop patterns. For example, rice acreage nor- 
mally planted near the City of Merced has nearly disappeared due to the recent water 

shortages. Rice has 
been replaced by sug- 
ar beets and cotton, 
which require less 
water. In some areas. 
sugar beets have 
been replaced with 
other crops due to 
disease. Another fac- 
tor is the trend of us- 
ing low-volume ir- 
rigation systems in 
new plantings of or- 
chards and vine- 
yards. Some mature 
plantings are being 
converted to these 
systems as well. 

A gradual de- 
crease of about 10 
percent in agricultur- 
al net water demand is predicted over the next 30 years. The majority of this reduction 
is expected in the Valley East Side and Valley West Side planning subareas . About one- 
third of this decrease is attributed to reduced plantings due to urbanization. The re- 
gion's irrigated crop acreage is expected to decrease by 57.000 acres (3 percent), most- 
ly in the Valley East Side PSA. The rest of the decrease in net water demand is primarily 
due to changing crop trends and slight increases in irrigation efficiencies. 





164 



San Joaquin River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Planning Subarea 


Table SJ-8. Agricultural Water Demand 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 

average drought average drought average drought 


2020 

average drought 


Sierra Foottiills 


Applied water demand 


20 


24 


22 


26 


25 


34 


29 


34 


Net water demand 


17 


21 


19 


23 


22 


31 


26 


31 


Depletion 


15 


17 


16 


19 


20 


25 


21 


25 


Eastern Valley Floor 


Applied water demand 


886 


1,038 


850 


996 


823 


946 


809 


946 


Net water demand 


873 


1,027 


827 


987 


791 


903 


778 


903 


Depletion 9Hmp 


' 639 


749 


630 


737 


621 


717 


614 


717 


1 Delta Service Area 


Applied water demand 


739 


830 


719 


805 


694 


774 


681 


755 


Net water demand 


690 


772 


673 


749 


650 


721 


639 


705 


Depletion 


552 


620 


542 


606 


532 


591 


522 


578 


Western Uplands 


' Applied water demand ^^^ 


l^^^n 


^ 47 


38 


44 


36 


42 


34 


40 


Net water demand 


43 


49 


40 


46 


38 


44 


37 


42 


Depletion 


30 


35 


29 


34 


28 


32 


27 


31 


East Side Uplands 


Applied water demand 


7 


7 


7 


7 


7 


7 


7 


7 


Net water demand 


4 


4 


4 


4 


4 


4 


4 


4 


Depletion WS^^^ 


■ • 4 - 


4 


4 


4 


4 


4 


4l 


IB^ 


Valley East Side 


Applied water demand 


3,193 


3,366 


3,059 


3,230 


2,926 


3,086 


2,841 


3,012 


Net water demand 


2,840 


2,995 


2,726 


2,881 


2,608 


2,757 


2,533 


2,691 


Depletion 


2,340 


2,468 


2,271 


2,398 


2,200 


2,326 


2,138 


2,269 


Valley West Side 


1 Applied water demand 


1,413 


1,445 


1,357 


1,392 


1,306 


1,338 


1,264 


1,286 


Net water demand 


1,311 


1,349 


1,272 


1,277 


1,233 


1,235 


1,198 


1,196 


Depletion 


1,139 


1,171 


1,113 


1,111 


1,085 


1,082 


1,057 


1,054 


West Side Uplands 


Applied water demand 


























Net water demand 


























Depletion 


' 


'-■' •'■-•6 


"o"" 














■■ ^^0 -^^ 




TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


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 










San Joaquin 


River Region 




165 




Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Environmental Wafer Use 

The region contains wildlife refuges, wetlands, and stretches of rivers that are 
designated Wild and Scenic under the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The 
Grasslands area in western Merced County is an important stop along the Pacific 
Flyway for migrating waterfowl. In addition to the Grasslands area, there are ten other 
major wetlands that contribute to the region's environmental water demands. Water 
for conserving these wildlife habitats accounts for about 3 percent of the region's total 
net water demand. Refuges also provide areas for recreational use, a habitat for native 
vegetation, and flood and erosion control. Table SJ-9 summarizes forecasted wetland 
water needs for the region. 

Instream flows are waters flowing in a natural stream channel providing vital 
support for fisheries. Four rivers in the region, the Mokelumne. Merced, Stanislaus, 
and Tuolumne, have significant instream flow requirements. (See Volume 1. Chapters.] 
The region's annual water requirement for Instream flows is 331.000 af. Table SJ-10 
summarizes environmental instream needs for the region. In addition, the following 
minimum instream flows are required which are not included in Table SJ-10. At 
Merced Falls on the Merced River, 3 cubic feet per second is required for the minimum 
flow through the fish ladder. Below New Exchequer Dam on the Merced River, DFG 
requires annual flow release of 180 to 220 cfs during November 1 to April 1. plus 
spring flushing flows. 

The California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1972 provides for the preservation of 
the natural watercourse and character of certain rivers in the State. In the San Joaquin 
FUver Region portions of the Tuolumne and Merced rivers are designated wild and 
scenic. The upper stretch of the Tuolumne River, below Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and 
above New Don Pedro Reservoir, was designated wild and scenic in 1984. In 1992, a 
bill was passed designating an eight-mile stretch of the Merced River from Briceburg to 
Bagby as wild and scenic. Much of the river was already given this status in 1987. In 
addition to protecting the river from development, the 1992 bill allows the county to 
proceed with the Saxon Creek Water Project, providing a reliable water supply to the 
community of Mariposa. Waterways designated as wild and scenic are protected by law 
from the construction of dams or diversion structures that would alter the natural 
free-flowing character of these rivers. The Saxon Creek Project involves pumping water 
from the Merced River at times when flows are high enough that the waterway would i 
not be adversely affected. The region's current environmental net water demands are 
about 554,000 af annually: this is expected to increase by 21 percent to 670,000 al 
annually by 2020. 



166 San Joaquin River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Table SJ-9. Wetland Water Needs 

(thousands of acrefeef) 

Wetland 1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 

Cosumnes River Preserve 



Applied water demand 


























Net water demand 


























Depletion 


























San Luis NWR 


Applied water demand 


13 


13 


19 


19 


19 


19 


19 


19 


Net water demand 


11 


11 


15 


15 


15 


15 


15 


15 


Depletion 


11 


11 


15 


15 


15 


15 


15 


15 


Merced NWR 


Applied water demand 


14 


14 


16 


16 


16 


16 


16 


16 


Net water demand 


11 


11 


13 


13 


13 


13 


13 


13 


Depletion 


11 


11 


13 


13 


13 


13 


13 


13 


Voita WA 


Applied water demand 


10 


10 


16 


16 


16 


16 


16 


16 


Net water demand 


8 


8 


13 


13 


13 


13 


13 


13 


Depletion 


8 


8 


13 


13 


13 


13 


13 


13 


Los Bancs WA 


Applied water demand 


17 


17 


25 


-'. 25 


25 


25 


25 


25 


Net water demand 


13 


13 


20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


Depletion 


13 


13 


20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


Los Banos-Wolfson Refuge 


Applied water demand 


7 


7 


7 


7 


7 


7 


7 


7 


Net water demand 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


Depletion 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


Kesferson NWR 


Applied water demand 


4 


4 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


Net water demand 


3 


3 


8 


8 


8 


8 


8 


8 


Depletion 


3 


3 


8 


8 


8 


8 


8 


8 


Grassland RCD 


Applied water demand 


125 


125 


180 


180 


180 


180 


180 


180 


Net water demand 


100 


100 


144 


144 


144 


144 


144 


144 


Depletion 


100 


100 


144 


144 


144 


144 


144 


144 


East Grassiond Refuge 


Applied water demand 


38 


38 


38 


38 


38 


38 


38 


38 


Net water demand 


31 


31 


31 


31 


31 


31 


31 


31 


Depletion 


31 


31 


31 


31 


31 


31 


31 


31 


Kesferson Mitigation Refuge 


Applied water demand 








62 


62 


62 


62 


62 


62 


Net water demand 








49 


49 


49 


49 


49 


49 


Depletion 








49 


49 


49 


49 


49 


49 


Delta Refuge 


Applied water demand 


40 


40 


40 


40 


40 


40 


40 


40 


Net water demand 


40 


40 


40 


40 


40 


40 


40 


40 


Depletion 


7 


7 


7 


7 


7 


7 


7 


7 




TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


268 


268 


413 


413 


413 


413 


413 


413 


Net water demand 


223 


223 


339 


339 


339 


339 


339 


339 


Depletion 


190 


190 


306 


306 


306 


306 


306 


306 




San Joaquin Fliver Region 



167 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Stream 



Table SJ-10. Environmental Instream Water Needs 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Mokelumne River 


Applied water demand 


14 


14 


14 


14 


14 


14 


14 


14 


Net water demand 


14 


14 


14 


14 


14 


14 


14 


14 


Depletion 


























Merced River 


Applied water demand 


84 


67 


84 


67 


84 :,, 


67 


., 84 , 


67 


Net water demand 


84 


67 


84 


67 


84 


67 


84 


67 


Depletion 


"6' 














' 





^ 


Stanislaus River 


Applied water demand 


110 


98 


110 


98 


110 


98 


110 


98 


Net wafer demand 


110 


98 


no 


98 


no 


98 


no 


98 


Depletion JpSBK'.^,, 




















p 


': "'t^jok^^^^H 


Tuolumne River __^^H 


Applied water demand 


123 


"64 


123 


64 


123 


64 


123 


64 


Net water demand 


123 


64 


123 


64 


123 


64 


123 


64 


Depletion 




























TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


331 


243 


331 


243 


331 


243 


331 


243 


Net water demand 


331 


243 


331 


243 


331 


243 


331 


243 


Depletion ^^^K;i.Mgtaay 























^s^i^^ 



H 



other Water Use 

Recreation in the national forests and Yosemite National Park includes camping, 
hiking, snow skiing, white water rafting, hunting, bike riding, rock climbing, and 
spelunking, to name only a few. An estimated 4 million visitors from all over the world 
toured Yosemite in 1992. 

San Luis, New Melones, and New Don Pedro reservoirs, and Lake McClure are 
just four of the region's many public access reservoirs that provide facilities for 
boating, swimming, water skiing, wind surfing, and fishing. Near the City of Los 
Banos. in western Merced County, is the Grasslands area where several public and 
private wildlife refuges provide areas for waterfowl hunting, fishing, and nature study. 
Figure SJ-6 shows water recreation areas in the San Joaquin River Region. 

Water used in the region's recreation areas amounted to 4,500 af in 1990. Most 
of it was distributed to campgrounds for drinking water and sanitation. Other minor 
usage in the region includes water for power plant cooling. 20.000 af annually. 
Together these make up about 1 percent of the total regional demand. Table SJ-U 
shows the total water demand for the region. 



168 



San Joaquin River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure SJ-6. San Joaquin River Region 
Hydroelectric Power Plants, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Water Recreation Areas 



N 



EL DORADO 




i 



1. Silver Lake 

2. Caples Lake 

3. Woods Lake 

4. Lower Bear River Reservoir 

5. Salt Springs Reservoir 

6. Blue Lakes Alpine County 

7. Lake Amador 

8. Highland Lake 

9. Rancho Seco Park 

10. Lake Camanche 

1 1 . Pardee Reservoir 

12. Calaveras Big Trees 

13. Haniey Lake 

14. Pinecrest Lake 

15. Franks Tract S.R.A. 

16. New Hogan Reservoir 

17. New Melones Reservoir 

18. Cherry Lake 

19. LakeTulloch 

20. Woodward Reservoir R.R 

21. Clitton Court Forebay R.A. 

22. Bethany Reservoir S.R.A. 

23. Caswell Memorial S.R 

24. Modesto Reservoir R.R 

25. New Don Pedro Reservoir 



26. La Grange R.R 

27. Yosemite National Park 

28. Turlock Lake S.R.A. 

29. Lake McClure 

30. Lake McSwain 

31. George Hatfield S.R.A. 

32. McConnell S.R.A. 

33. Lake Yosemite 

34. Fremont Ford S.R.A. 

35. Eastman Lake 

36. Bass Lake 

37. O'Neill Forebay R.F 

38. San Luis Reservoir S.R.A. 

39. Los Banos Reservoir R.R 

40. Millerton Lake S.R.A. 

41. Little Panoche Reservoir R.R 




Le g e nd 
A Water Recreation Area 
• Hydroelectric Power Plant* 
""" Federal Wild and Scenic River 



SCALE W MILES 



■From 1992 California Energy Commission Maps See Table D-3 in Appendix D for plant information. 



San Joaquin River Region 



169 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Table SJ-11. Total Water Demands 

(fhousands of acre-feef) 



Category of Use 


1990 


2000 


2010 


2020 




average 


drought 


average 


drought 


overoge 


drought 


overage 


draught 


Urban 


















Applied water demand 


495 


507 


663 


684 


839 


867 


1,029 


1,063 


Net water demand 


353 


366 


468 


490 


587 


616 


717 


752 


Depletion 


192 


194 


258 


265 


332 


340 


410 


420 


Agricultural 


















Applied water demand 


6,298 


6,757 


6,052 


6,500 


5,817 


6,227 


5,665 


6,080 


Net water demand 


5,778 
4,719 


6,217 


5,561 


5,967 
4,909 


5,346 
4,490 


5,695 
4,777 


5,215 
4,383 


5,572 


Depletion 


5,064 


4,605 


4,678 


Environmental 


















Applied water demand 


599 

554 


511 
466 


744 


656 


744 
670 


656 
582 


744 
670 


656 


Net water demand 


670 


582 


582 


Depletion 


190 


190 


306 


306 


306 


306 


306 


306 


Other"! 


















Applied water demand 


24 


24 


36 


36 


48 


48 


48 


48 


Net water demand 


141 
84 


141 
84 


148 
84 


148 
84 


161 
84 


162 


161 


162 


Depletion 


84 


84 


84 


TOTAL 


















Applied water demand 


7,416 


7,799 


7,495 


7,876 


7,448 


7,798 


7,486 


7,847 


Net water demand 


6,826 


7,190 


6,847 


7,187 


6,764 


7,055 


6,763 


7,068 


Depletion 


5,185 


5,532 


5,253 


5,564 


5,212 


5,507 


5,183 


5,488 



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



Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 

Each area of the San Joaquin River Region has its own set of geographic and 
demographic conditions which present several water management issues. For 
example, during the 1987-92 drought, the Valley West Side planning subarea 
experienced severe shortages, primarily due to cutbacks in CVP water deliveries. This 
predominantly agricultural area receives about 95 percent of its total water supply 
from the CVP, The cutbacks prompted nine water-supplying agencies in the PSA to 
purchase a total of 2,630 af in 1992 from the State Drought Water Bank. For the most 
part, the municipal and industrial water demands are met by pumping ground water, 
and these demands have been met satisfactorily. However, meeting the demands 
during the drought increased pumping costs and accelerated ground water 
deterioration in some areas. 

Legislation and Litigation 

Statutes and court decisions have influenced water allocation and use in the San 
Joaquin River Region considerably. An overview of the major statutes and proceedings 
follows. 

Bay-Delta Proceedings. In July 1 978. the State Water Resources Control Board 
began hearings to adopt a water quality control plan and water rights decision for the 
Bay-Delta estuary. In addition, several other regulatory actions affecting the Bay-Delta 
have taken place, which are discussed in Volume 1, Chapters 2 and 10, 



170 



San Joaquin River Region 



I 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



South Delta Water Agency Lawsuit. In July 1982, SDWA filed a lawsuit 
claiming that SWP and CVP operations harmed their agricultural production by 
causing low water levels, poor water quality, and poor circulation. In October 1986, 
DWR. USER, and SDWA signed an agreement solidifying a framework for settling the 
litigation. As a result of the agreement, during 1986 through 1993, DWR implemented 
operational criteria regarding Clifton Court gate openings, completed dredging and 
installed siphons in Tom Paine Slough, and constructed the Middle pyver barrier to 
improve water levels, circulation, and quality within parts of the SDWA area. 

Continuing negotiations resulted in a draft long-term contract in 1990, The 
contract commits the three agencies to constructing and operating three permanent 
barriers — Middle River. Old River near Tracy, and Grant Line Canal — after a period of 
testing. 

Other Litigation. Litigations affecting water resources management of the San 
Joaquin River Region include the following: (1) Stockton East Water District, Central 
San Joaquin Water Conservation District, the City of Stockton, San Joaquin County, 
and California Water Service Company have challenged the USBR's refusal to deliver 
water from the New Melones Project as well as implementation of the CVPLA by the 
United States: (2) Westlands Water District, San Benito County Water District. San 
Luis Water District, and Panoche Water District are raising similar challenges for 
implementation of the CVPIA by the USER {Westlands Water District v. United States); 
and (3) the Natural Resources Defense Council has challenged the USER that the 
Friant Project must make releases pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 5937. 

Delta Levees. More than 1 .000 miles of levees act as the only barriers between 
land and water in the Delta. Behind these earthen walls lie over half a million acres of 
agricultural land and valuable wildlife habitat, many small communities, numerous 
roads, railroad lines, and utilities. With each passing year, the promise of protection 
provided by these levees grows weaker. The Delta islands, which commonly lie 10 to 15 
feet below sea level and are composed mainly of highly organic (peat) soils, are 
constantly in danger of land subsidence and seepage. 

The original levees were constructed in the late 1800s with heights of about 4 feet 
and founded on the soft, organic Delta soils. Due to continued subsidence of the levees 
and island interiors, it was necessary to continually add material to maintain freeboard 
and structural stability. Over the last century, the levees have significantly increased 
in size and are now between 15 and 25 feet high. 

Several active faults, for example, the Antioch, Greenville, and Coast Range 
Sierra Nevada Boundary Zone faults, are west of the Delta and are capable of delivering 
moderate to large shaking. There has been ongoing concern about the potential for 
liquefaction of the Delta levees and of the foundation materials on some islands. 
However, there is no record of a levee failure resulting from earthquake shaking, 
meaning the levee system has not really been tested for earthquake shaking. Several 
studies indicate there would probably be levee damage or failure induced by 
earthquake shaking within the next 30 years. Further investigations are needed to 
better define the expected performance of the levees. 

Delta levees are classified as either "project" or "nonproject." Project levees are 
part of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Flood Control Projects. Mostly 
found along the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, they are maintained to U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers standards and generally provide dependable protection. 
Nonproject, or local, levees (65 percent of Delta levees) are those constructed and 
maintained to varying degrees by island landowners or local reclamation districts. 



San Joaquin River Region 171 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Most of these levees have not been brought up to federal standards and are less stable, 
increasing the area's chances of flooding. 

The Delta Levee Subventions Program, originally known as the "Way Bill" 
program, began in 1973. The bill authorized funding, which grew from $200,000 
annually in the 1970s to $2 million annually in the 1980s, for levee maintenance and 
rehabilitation costs with up to 50 percent reimbursement to local agencies. 

Since 1 980. 1 7 islands have been partially or completely flooded, costing roughly 
$ 1 00 million dollars for recovering property and completing repairs. As a result of 1986 
floods, the Delta Flood Protection Act of 1988. Senate Bill 34, was enacted. It provides 
$12 million a year for 10 years for the long-standing Delta Levees Subventions 
Program and for developing special flood control programs to protect eight western 
Delta islands and the communities of Walnut Grove and Thornton. 

Senate Bill 34 was enacted partly because of a commitment the State made in its 
1 983 Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Delta. (Hazard Mitigation Plans are required by the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency.) The plan recommended an increase in 
funding to the Subventions program to aid the districts in maintaining and upgrading 
their levees to minimum standards until a major federal levee rehabilitation project 
could be implemented. Through SB 34, legislative intent for funding the Delta 
Subventions program increased up to $6 million a year and allows up to 75-percent 
reimbursement to the local agencies for their levee work. The other $6 million is for 
implementing special flood control projects. Recent activities include planning and 
designing major levee rehabilitation projects on Twitchell Island and New Hope Tract, 
repairing threatened levee sites on Sherman Island, Twitchell Island, Bethel Island, 
and Webb Tract, and other special projects and studies to determine the causes of 
Delta land subsidence. On Twitchell Island, a five-mile reach of levees along the San 
Joaquin River has been significantly upgraded. 

In 1991. the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. DWR, and the Reclamation Board 
signed an agreement to work further toward solving Delta flood control and 
environmental problems. The agreement calls for a six-year special study that will 
define the extent of federal interest in implementing a long-term flood control plan for 
the Delta. The study will attempt to find long-term solutions to Delta problems after SB 
34 lapses in 1999. 

San Joaquin River Management Program. The San Joaquin River 
Management Program was created to address the needs of the San Joaquin River 
system. Existing conditions on the San Joaquin River do not fully satisfy present water 
supply, water quality, flood protection, fisheries, wildlife habitat, and recreational 
needs. Continuing present river management practices would further deteriorate the 
river system, adversely affecting all users. On September 18. 1990, the Governor 
signed Assembly Bill 3603 (Chapter 1068, 1990 statutes), which charges SJRMP with 
the following: 

O Provide a forum where information can be developed and exchanged to pro\ade for 

the orderly development and management of the water resources of the San 

Joaquin River system. 
O Identify actions which can be taken to benefit legitimate uses of the San Joaquin 

River system. 
O Develop compatible solutions to water supply, water quality, flood protection, 

fisheries, wildlife habitat, and recreation needs. 



172 San Joaquin River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Regional Issues 

West-Side Drainage Problem. On the west side of the region, over 100.000 
acres of land are underlain by shallow, semi-impermeable clay layers that prevent 
water from percolating downward. Inadequate drainage and accumulating salts have 
been long-standing problems in this area of the valley. With the importation of 
irrigation water from northern California during the last 20 years, the problem has 
intensified. Where water tables are high, subsurface drainage is necessary to remove 
and dispose of the water. 

In 1984. the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program was established as a joint 
federal-State effort to investigate drainage and drainage-related problems. In 1 990. the 
SJVDP published its recommended plan for managing the west side drainage problem, 
and at the end of 1991. a Memorandum of Understanding was executed that allows 
federal and State agencies to coordinate activities for implementing the plan. Work on 
this program is ongoing. 

Ground Water Quality — Radon. Concentrations of radioactive elements in 
ground water vary widely throughout the Sierra Nevada. Radon is a radioactive gas 
generated by naturally occurring uranium deposits in the earth's crust. Radon is not 
a problem in surface water because the gas is released to the atmosphere. It can be 
found in outdoor air and can seep into homes through basements or foundations. 
Ground water can also release the odorless radon gas when residents wash dishes or 
the laundry, or when they shower. Inhalation of radon's decay products increases the 
risk of lung cancer. 

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, radon is the second 

leading cause of lung cancer in the United States. In October 1990. DWR published 

I Natural Radioactivity in Ground Water of the Western Sierra Nevada, which reported 

' the quality of water sampled from 20 wells in the mountain and foothill areas of 

Mariposa and Madera counties. The highest concentrations of radon, uranium, and 

radium are found in wells drilled in granitic rock, while lower concentrations are 

associated with metamorphic rock formations. A notable radon and uranium "hot 

spot" in the region is near Bass Lake in Madera County. Granitic rock formations can 

I be found in Alpine. Amador. Calaveras. El Dorado, and Tuolumne counties. 

, Water Balance 

' Water budgets were computed for each Planning Subarea in the San Joaquin 

i River Region by comparing existing and future water demand forecasts with the 
forecasted availability of supply. The region total was computed by summing the 
demand and supply totals for all the planning subareas. This method does not reflect 
the severity of drought year shortages in some local areas, which can be hidden when 
planning subareas are combined within the region. Thus, there could be substantial 
shortages in some areas during drought periods. Local and regional shortages could 
also be more or less severe than the shortage shown, depending on how supplies are 

f I allocated within the region, a particular water agency's ability to participate in water 
' transfers or demand management programs (including land fallowing or emergency 
allocation programs), and the overall level of reliability deemed necessary. Volume 1, 
Chapter 1 1 presents a broader discussion of demand management options. 

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



San Joaquin River Region 173 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Table SJ-12. Water Budget 

(thousands of acre-feetj 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Wafer Demand/Supply 



Net Demand 


















Urban— with 1 990 


















level of conservation 


353 


366 


477 


499 


603 


632 


737 


772 


— reductions due to 


















long-term conservation 


















measures (Level 1) 


— 


— 


-9 


-9 


-16 


-16 


-20 


-20 


Agricultural— with 1 990 


















level of conservation 


5,778 


6,217 


5,571 


5,977 


5,365 


5,714 


5,245 


5,602 


— reductions due to 


















long-term conservation 


















measures (Level 1) 


— 


— 


-7 


-7 


-13 


-13 


-20 


-20 


— reductions due to 


















land retirement in poor 


















drainage areas of Son 


















Joaquin Valley (Level 1 ) 


— 


— 


-3 


-3 


-6 


-6 


-10 


-10 


Environmental 


554 


466 


670 


582 


670 


582 


670 


582 


Other! " 


141 


141 


148 


148 


161 


162 


161 


162 



TOTAL Net Demand 



6,826 



7,190 



6,847 



7,187 



6,764 



7,055 



6,763 



7,068 



Water Supplies v*r/Existing Facilities Under D-1485 for Delta Supplies 

Developed Supplies 

Surface Water'" 

Ground Water 

Ground Water Overdraft*-" 
Subtotal 
Dedicated Natural Flow 



5,188 


4,269 


5,226 


4,289 


5,207 


4,282 


5,231 


4,299 


1,098 


2,145 


1,135 


2,202 


1,156 


2,227 


1,161 


2,252 


209 


209 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


























331 


243 


331 


243 


331 


243 


331 


243 



TOTAL Water Supplies 


6,826 


6,866 


6,692 


6,734 


6,694 


6,752 


6,723 


6,794 


Demand/Supply Balance 





-324 


-155 


-453 


-70 


-303 


-40 


-274 



Level I Water Management Programs''" 

Long-term Supply Augmentation 
Reclaimed'^' 
Local 

Central Valley Project 
State Water Project 

Subtotal - Level I Water 
Management Programs 

Net Ground Water or 
Surface Water Llse Reduction 
Resulting from Level I Programs 



— 


— 











aa^aoB. 








' 


— 


— 


2 


1 


2 




1 


2 


1 


— 


— 






















— 


— 


1 


1 


1 







1 











3 


2 


3 




1 


3 


1 



-3 



Remaining Demand/Supply Balance Requiring Short-term Drought Management and/or Level II Options 

-324 -155 -453 -60 -293 -40 -272 

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

(2) Existing and future imported supplies that depend on Delta export copabilities are based on SWRCB D- 1 485 and do not take into account recent actions to protect aquatic species, As such, 
regional water supply shortages are understated (note proposed environmental water demands of 1 to 3 AAAF are included in the California water budget). 

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

(41 Protection of fish and wildlife and a long-term solution to complex Delta problems will determine the feosibility of several water supply augmentation proposals end their water supply benefits 
(5) Because of existing reuse within region, reclaimed water does not odd supply to the region _ 



174 



San Joaquin River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulk-tin 160-93 



Regional net water demands lor the 1990 level of development totaled 6,826,000 
and 7.190,000 af for average and drought years, respectively. Those demands are 
forecasted to decrease slightly to 6,763.000 and 7.068.000 af, respectively, by the year 
2020. This decrease accounts for a 20,000-af reduction in urban water demand 
resulting from implementing long-term conservation measures, a 20. 000-af reduction 
in agricultural demand resulting from additional long-term agricultural water 
conser\'ation measures, and a 10, 000-af reduction due to land retirement in poor 
drainage areas. 

Urban net water demand is forecasted to increase by about 364,000 af by 2020, 
due to expected increases in population. Agricultural net water demand is forecasted 
to decrease by about 563.000 af. primarily due to lands being taken out of production 
because of ubanization of irrigated lands and land retirement. Environmental net 

i water demands, under existing rules and regulations, will increase 1 16,000 af over the 
next 30 years, reflecting increased supplies for managed wetlands resulting from 
implementing the CVPIA. However, there are several actions currently in progress. 

including further implementation of the CVPIA. that have proposed increases in 
Instream flow for fisheries that will affect the availability of supplies for urban and 

i agricultural use now and in the future. 

Urban and environmental water demands will increase over the next 30 years. 
' but the agricultural water demand will decrease significantly causing total net water 
' demand for the region to decrease for both average and drought conditions. The 
{majority of the decrease will come from the southern half of the region. 

Future average annual supplies are not adequate to meet average net water 
demands in the San Joaquin Region, resulting in shortages of about 40.000 af by 
2020. During drought conditions, substantial shortages occur at the 1990 level of 
development, as was evident during the 1987-92 drought. Drought year shortages are 
forecasted to decrease to about 272.000 af at the 2020 level of development due to 
reduced water demands and implementation of Level 1 water management programs. 

In the Eastern Valley Floor PSA distribution and conveyance facilities to receive 

I New Melones water are nearly completed: some segments which are completed could 

have received water in 1993 from New Melones Reservoir, but no deliveries were made. 

Two area water districts have contracts with USER for 1 55,000 af. 106.000 af interim, 

and 49.000 af average and drought years, of New Melones Project water. If the districts 

receive additional surface supply, this PSA could rely less on ground water pumping. 

thereby reducing ground water overdraft. However, with the CVPLA requirements on 

I New Melones supplies, it is unknown how much water is available to meet the 

1 155,000-af contracts. 

Total agricultural and urban net water demands in the Valley East Side PSA are 
expected to decrease 134.000 af by 2020. Existing surface and ground water supplies 
should meet future demands. Ground water overdraft could also be reduced or 
eliminated in this planning subarea. 

The Valley West Side PSA supplies are mainly imported from the Delta by the 
CVP. Changes in CVP Delta supplies will affect the Valley West Sides ability to meet 
future demands. 

! The San Joaquin River Region depends on exports from the Sacramento-San 

, Joaquin Delta for a portion of its supplies. Shortages stated above are based on 
I D-1485 operating criteria for Delta supplies and do not take into account recent 
j actions to protect aquatic species in the estuary. As such, regional water supply 
, shortages are understated. 




San Joaquin River Region 175 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Year 2020 average and drought years shortages require both additional 
short-term drought management, water transfers and demand management 
programs, and future long-term Level II programs depending on the overall level of 
water service reliability deemed necessary. In the short-term, some areas of this region 
that rely on the Delta exports for all or a portion of their supplies face great uncertainty 
in terms of water supply reliability due to the uncertain outcome of actions undertaken 
to protect aquatic species in the Delta. For example, in 1993, an above normal runoff 
year, environmental restrictions limited CVP deliveries to 50 percent of contracted 
supply for federal water service contractors from Tracy to Kettleman City. Because 
ground water is used to replace much of the shortfall in surface water supplies, 
limitations on Delta exports will exacerbate ground water overdraft in this region. 



176 San Joaquin River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 




San Joaquin River Region ^ 77 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



TJiis mature almond orchard is in Kern County. 
Almond and pistachio orchards typically use 
about 2.5 acre-Jeet of applied water per acre. 




^ 



''^^. 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 




The Tulare Lake Region includes the southern San Joaquin Valley from the 
southern limit of the San Joaquin River watershed to the crest of the Tehachapi 
Mountains. It stretches from the Sierra Nevada Crest in the east to the Coast Range in 
the west. Many small agricultural communities dot the eastern side of the valley, and 
the rapidly growing cities of Fresno and Bakersfield anchor the region, which 
encompasses almost 10 percent of the State's total land area. (See Appendix C for 
maps of the planning subareas and land ownership in the region.) 

Four main geographical areas make up this mostly agricultural region: the 
western side of the San Joaquin Valley floor, the Sierra Nevada foothills on the region's 
eastern side, the central San Joaquin Valley floor, and the Kern Valley floor. The major 
rivers in the region, the Kings, Kaweah, Tule, and Kern, begin in the Sierras and 
generally flow east to west into the San Joaquin Valley. They are sustained by snow 
melt from the upper mountain elevations. The Kern River follows a more north-south 
alignment for much of its path. All of the rivers terminate on the valley floor in lakes or 
sinks: water does not find its way to the ocean from the basin, as it once did under 
natural conditions, except in extremely wet years. There is also a considerably large 
drainage area on the west and south sides of the valley, but scant rainfall has not 
produced water development there. 

The region's climate varies between valley and foothill areas. The valley areas 
experience mild springs and hot, dry summers. Winters are typically cold with some 
temperatures below freezing, but snowfall is rare. In some parts of the valley, thick tule 
fog is common at times during the winter. Climate in the foothills is typical of 
mountainous foothill areas where winters and springs are cold and where snowfall 
occurs at higher elevations. 

Most of the region's winter and spring runoff is stored for later use in the summer 
for supplying the drier valley floor areas. In most years, imported water from northern 
California supplements local supplies to meet the regions large agricultural water 
demand. 

Population 

' Population in the region increased substantially in the 1980s, led by 50- to 

60-percent growth in the Fresno, Bakersfield, and Visalia-Tulare urban areas. Fresno's 



Tulare Lake 
Region 



i 



Region Characteristics 
Average Annual Precipitation: 14 inches Average Annual Runoff: 3,3 13,500 of 

Land Area: 16,520 square miles 1990 Population: 1,554,000 



Tulare Lake Region 



179 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



population, which had one of the highest growth rates among large metropolitan areas 
in the United States during the 1980s, grew by more than 60 percent — from 217,000 
in 1980 to 354,000 in 1990. A high birth rate contributed to this growth and relatively 
low-cost housing encouraged immigration from out-of-state as well as from the San 
Francisco Bay and Los Angeles areas. 

The region's population is projected to more than double in the next 30 years. 
Most of the future growth is expected in Fresno, the Visalia-Tulare area, and 
Bakersfield. Limited population growth is projected in the foothill communities. Little 
economic growth is expected there and limited ground water supplies will most likely 
restrict urban development. Table TL-1 shows population projections to 2020 for the 
Tulare Lake Region. 



Table TL-1. Population Projections 

(thousands) 



Planning Subarea 



1990 



2000 



2010 



2020 



Uplands 

Kings-Kaweah-Tule 
San Luis West Side 
Western Uplands 
Kern Valley Floor 



55 

1,022 

39 

7 
431 



81 


117 


158 


,411 


1,827 


2,327 


52 


60 


68 


10 


14 


18 


612 


754 


929 



TOTAL 



1,554 



2,166 



2,772 



3,500 



Land Use 

The State and federal governments own about 3 percent of the land in the region, 
including 1.7 million acres of national forest. 0.8 million acres of national parks and 
recreation areas, and 0.5 million acres of land managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land 
Management. The region's foothills border Kings Canyon and Sequoia National Parks 
and Sierra National Forest. Privately owned land totals about 7.4 million acres. 
Irrigated agriculture accounts for more than 3 million acres of the private land, while 
urban areas take up 176.300 acres. Other agricultural lands and areas with native 
vegetation cover an additional 1 ,400,000 acres. The principal crops grown in the region 
are cotton, grapes, and deciduous fruits. Substantial acreages of almonds and 
pistachios are also grown, as well as increasing acreages of truck crops, such as 
tomatoes and corn. 

In the eastern Sierra Nevada foothills, agriculture and timber production account 
for most of the land use. Deciduous and citrus trees are the main agricultural crops in 
the lower foothills, while timber harvesting occurs throughout many of the higher 
elevation areas. Figure TL- 1 shows land use. along with imports and exports for the 
Tulare Lake Region. 

Water Supply 

The main local surface water supplies in the Tulare Lake Region come from Sierra 
Nevada rivers. Imported water is by way of the federal Central Valley Project's 
Delta-Mendota Canal and Friant-Kern Canal, and the State Water Project's California 
Aqueduct, which enters the region as part of the Joint-Use Facilities vnth the CVP's 
San Luis Unit. Ground water pumping meets the remaining water demands. Figure 
TL-2 shows the region's 1990 level sources of supply. 



180 



Tulare Lake Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure TL-1. Tulare Lake Region 
Land Use, Imports, and Exports 



DMC - Mendota f riant Kern 



Pool 
130 

Call forni a 
Aqueduct 
and San Luis 
Cana 1 \ > 
4,003 ^ 





Ca li fornia 
Aqueduct 
1,352 




£,eff cnrf 

Urban Land 

Irrigated Land 

Region Water Transfers 

(1,000's of Acre-Feet per Year) 

] 10 20 30 

SCALE IN MILES 



Tulare Lake Region 



181 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Supply with Existing Facilities and Water Management Programs 

LxDcal surface supplies on the western side of the region come from the fCings. 
Tule, Kaweah, and Kern rivers. Excess flows from the Kings River flow through Fresno 
Slough to the Mendota Pool. Local supplies from snowmelt and runoff in Sierra Nevada 
systems are more plentiful than imported sources in the central portion and eastern 
edge of the valley, but not as reliable throughout the year. Major reservoirs in the 
region are listed in Table TL-2. Table TL-3 shows water supplies with existing facilities 
and water management programs. 



Reservoir Name 



Table TL-2. Major Reservoirs 
River Capacity (1,000 AF) 



Owner 



Courtright 

Wishon 

Pine Flat 

Lake Kaweah (terminus) 

Success Lake 

Isabella Lake 



Helms Creek 


123 


Kings 


128 


Kings 


1,000 


Kaweah 


143 


Tule 


82 


Kern 


568 



Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 



Figure TL'2. 

Tulare Lake Region 

Wafer Supply Sources 

(1990 Level 

Average Conditions] 



Mountain and Foothill Areas. Cities in the Sierra Nevada foothills often have 
less dependable drought supplies than valley communities. In many foothill areas, 
local surface water connections are not available. Ground water is limited to small 
pockets of water formed from runoff trickling into fissures in the rock strata. During 
drought years, the ground water in the fissures is scarcely replenished and urban 
water supplies in foothill areas are often exhausted. A few cities, such as Lindsay in 
eastern Tulare County and Orange Cove in eastern Fresno County, receive imported 

surface water through 
the CVPs Friant-Kern . 
Canal. 

Valley Area. 

Many valley cities, in- 
cluding Fresno and 
Bakersfield, rely pri- ' 
marily on ground water 
for urban use, occa- 
sionally obtaining sup- 
plemental supplies 
from local surface wa- 
ter and some imported 
water, Fresno, for ex- 
ample, uses ground wa- 
ter for its main urban 
supply, Fresno also 
purchases local Kings 
River water and im- 
ported water from the Friant-Kern Canal and replenishes ground water through re- 
charge basins. In Bakersfield, the Kern County Water Agency treats CVP Cross Valley 
Canal water to supplement its urban ground water supply (26,000 af in 1991, more 
than 10 percent of its municipal and industrial supply). In isolated parts of the valley's 




182 



Tulare Lake Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



western side, smaller cities like Avenal, Huron, and Coalinga rely on imported surface 
water from the San Luis Canal for their municipal demands. 

The SWP. through San Luis Reservoir and the California Aqueduct, provides an 
average of about 1 .200.000 af of surface wateryearly to the region. The U.S. Bureau of 
Reclamation supplies an average of 2,700.000 af during normal years from the CVP via 
Mendota Pool, the Friant-Kern Canal, and the San Luis Canal of the CVP/SWP San 
Luis Joint-Use Facilities. The Friant-Kern canal receives water from Millerton Lake on 
the San Joaquin River: Mendota Pool and the California Aqueduct receive water from 
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. 




Supply 



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

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

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Surface 

Local 

Local imports 

Colorado River 

CVP 

Other federal 

SWP 
Ground water 
Overdraffi'i 
Reclaimed 
Dedicated natural flow 



2,398 


1,239 


2,398 


1,240 


2,398 


1,240 


2,398 


1,240 


















































2,705 


1,288 


2,705 


1,288 


2,705 


1,288 


2,705 


1,288 


243 





243 





243 





243 





1,225 


846 


1,047 


679 


950 


609 


987 


612 


915 


3,773 


918 


3,758 


921 


3,726 


926 


3,758 


650 


650 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 



















































TOTAL 



8,136 7,796 



7,311 



6,965 7,217 



6,863 7,259 



6,898 



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

The valley floor overlies mostly one large ground water basin that consists of 
alluvial sediments. In the western half to three quarters, the Corcoran clay layer, which 
generally lies at depths of 300 to 900 feet, divides the ground water basin into two 
aquifers. South of the Kern River, the Corcoran horizon drops below well depths but 
other clay layers provide some confinement. On the eastern side of the valley, both 
north and south of the Kern County line, older formations are tapped by wells that 
usually exceed 2,000 feet in depth. A small ground water subbasin, with little 
hydraulic connection to the main aquifers, exists on the western side of Fresno, ICings, 
and Kern counties from Coalinga to Lost Hills. Two other small subbasins in Kern 
County are separated from the main basin by the White Wolf and Edison faults. 
Productive aquifers viath good quality water are the general rule, except in the Tulare 
Lake area where lakebed clays yield little water, along the extreme eastern edge of the 
region where shallow depth to granite limits aquifer yields, and along the western side 
where water quality is poor. 

The Kings-Kaweah-Tule River Planning Subarea accounts for just over 50 
percent of net water demand of the Tulare Lake Region. Supplies for the KKT PSA are 
split three ways: local surface provides about 46 percent, imported water provides 25 
percent, and ground water provides 29 percent. The San Luis West Side and Kern 



Tulare Lake Region 



183 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Valley Floor PSAs will be heavily affected by reduced CVP and SWP deliveries. The 
SLWS meets over 90 percent of its demand with imported water, especially CVP water 
from the Delta. With future CVP deliveries unknown and limited available ground 
water and local surface supplies, the SLWS could have problems meeting future 
demand. Although ground water and local surface supplies are available, the KVF PSA 
could face similar problems as the SLWS PSA: more than 60 percent of its demand is 
met by imported water. Changes in SWP deliveries from the Delta would have the most 
effect in this PSA. 

The City of Bakersfield operates a 2,800-acre recharge facility southwest of 
Bakersfield where the city and some local water agencies recharge surplus Kern River 
and occasionally. SWP and Friant-Kern Canal water: this water then is "banked" and 
withdrawn in drier years. The recharge facility is one of the largest single recharge 
areas in California, and during wet years, more than 100.000 af of water may be 
recharged. 

Supply with Additional Facilities and Water Management Programs 

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

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

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

Some of the water management options available to the region include increasing 
local reservoir storage by raising existing dam heights and encouraging more urban 
water conservation while protecting water quality in city wells. 

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

(Decision 1485 Operating Criteria for Delta Supplies) 
{thou%ar\ds of acre-feet) 

Supply 1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 

Surface 

Local 2,398 1,239 2,398 1,240 2,398 1,240 2,398 1,240 

Local imports 

Colorado River 

CVP 

Other federal 

SWP 
Ground water 
Overdraft''' 
Reclaimed 
Dedicated natural flow 

TOTAL 8,136 7,796 7,371 6,865 7,502 7,056 7,509 7,048 

(1) The degree future shortages ore met by increased overdraft is unknov/n. Since overdraft is not sustoinoble, it is not included as o future supply. 










1,288 




































2,705 





2,705 


2,705 
243 


1,288 



2,705 


1,288 


1,288 


243 


243 





243 

1,237 

926 





1,225 


846 


1,111 


704 


1,235 


749 


741 


915 


3,773 


914 


3,633 


921 


3,779 


3,779 


650 


650 


— 


— 










— 


— 





































1 84 Tulare Lake Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Water Supply Reliability and Drought Water Management Strategies. 

During drought, as surface supplies dwindle and carryover storage in reservoirs is not 
replaced, ground water pumping increases tremendously. The number of new wells 
drilled during the recent drought (1987-92) more than doubled compared to normal 
periods. 

Along the eastern side of the region, the ability to make up deficits by ground 
water pumping was crucial to sustaining agricultural production during the drought. 
Allotments from the Friant-Kern Canal, which delivers CVP water along the eastern 
side of the region from Fresno County to Kern County, were greatly decreased in the 
1987-92 drought. Some growers who receive Friant-Kern Canal water along the 
eastern side of the region were not able to pump enough water to make up the 
deficiencies. In these cases, permanent crops did not receive full irrigations and yields 
suffered. State Water Project agricultural contractors received only 50 percent of their 
normal delivery in 1990 and then received no delivery in 1991. but 45 percent was 
available during 1992. 

Although ground water pumping in western Fresno County reached all time 
highs during the 1987-92 drought, unprecedented since the arrival of CVP and SWP 
water, growers still could not afford to pump enough water to make up for the surface 
water deficiencies from reductions in CVP and SWP water. As a consequence, some 
acreage was fallowed. The situation was even worse in western Kern County, where 
ground water is not generally available. Some water was obtained from the State 
Drought Water Bank to ensure the survival of permanent crops in 1991. Still, over 
125.000 acres were fallowed in 1991 due to lack of water. 

Most communities enacted water use restriction ordinances during the recent 
drought, generally including time-of-day watering and odd-even-day watering, a 
prohibition of driveway or other paved surface washing, and water waste patrols. In 
addition, some well problems involving water quality have been experienced in the 
region's urban areas. 

Water Management Options with Existing Facilities. Due to their hot 
climates. Fresno and Bakersfield have had relatively high per capita water use, when 
i compared to statewide averages. As a result of continued urban growth and stricter 
federal drinking water standards, which have closed some wells with high contaminant 
levels. Fresno may have problems meeting its future urban water demand. The City of 
Fresno receives water allotments from the Kings Fiiver and the federal Friant-Kern 
Canal and uses some of this water to recharge its ground water basins. The city also 
makes use of its many flood control ponds throughout the metropolitan area for 
recharge. 

1 DWR. in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, is assisting local 

water agencies and districts in developing conservation plans that are required of all 

CVP water users because of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment 

Act. With proper conservation planning, local agencies may better be able to deal with 
j shortages of imported water during drought periods. 

Water Management Options with Additional Facilities. To meet future 

agricultural water needs along the eastern half of the central San Joaquin Valley area, 

theTule River Association wants to increase the reservoir capacity of Lake Success on 

the Tule River by 28.000 af. The extra capacity would be used for flood control and 
I better irrigation scheduling during summer months. Construction would be completed 
I by the year 2000. if approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This project is in 

the planning stage. 

Tulare Lake Region 1 85 




Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



The Kaweah-St. Johns Rivers Association also has a project in the planning stage 
that could raise the spillway ol Terminus Dam on Lake Kaweah by 21 feet and add 
43.000 af of flood control capacity and off-basin storage of Kaweah River water by 
1999. Projects like the conservation program started by the Orange Cove Irrigation 
District will probably be more common in the future as area farmers look to 
cost-effective conservation rather than new and expensive water sources to alleviate 
shortages. OCID plans to replace 98 miles of 40-year-old pipelines to reduce leakage 
losses and add six regulating reservoirs and new metering equipment to make water 
delivery more precise. 

Farmers on the Kern Valley floor will benefit from water transfers and banking of 
the Kern Water Bank Project when it is completed. Water districts and the SWP will be 
able to divert surplus water in wet years to recharge basins in the KWB project area, 
where the water will be stored in a vast underground aquifer. In dry years, users will be 
able to withdraw banked water from KWB to supplement SWP and other project 
deliveries. 

Local supplies should remain at the 1990 level since there are no firm plans to 
increase reservoir capacity in the region. As surplus SWP supplies decline and urban 
water demand increases, increased ground water pumping will probably continue to 
make up for reductions in surface water. Although the Central Valley Project 
Improvement Act could reduce agricultural water supplies to the region, its effects on 
future CVP deliveries are, as yet, unknown. Table TL-4 shows water supplies with 
additional Level 1 water management programs. Very little new agricultural land is 
expected to be brought into production, since most available productive agricultural 
land with a water supply is already in use. 



Figure TL-3. 

Tulare Lake Region 

Net Water Demand 

(1990 Level 

Average Conditions) 



Water Use 

Water supplies in 
the Tulare Lake Region 
are mostly used for ir- 
rigated agriculture. In 
a normal year, irri- 
gated agriculture uses 
7,723,000 af, about 95 
percent of the region's 
total water use; this is 
the largest agricultural 
demand for water of 
any hydrologic region 
in California. Munici- 
pal and industrial 
needs are about 
214.000 af annually. 
Wildlife refuges and 
other nature areas ac- 
count for one-third of one percent of the region's water needs. Agriculture will continue 
to be the major water user in the region in the future. However, as the population 
grows, municipal and industrial use will increase considerably. Figure TL-3 shows net 
demand for the 1 990 level of development. 

Municipal and industrial net water use is expected to increase 1 12 percent by 
2020 due to large population increases throughout the region, while agricultural water 




186 



Tulare Lake Region 



The Caliiornia Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



use may decline by 554.000 at (7 percent) as farm irrigation efficiencies continue to 
increase and some agricultural land is converted to urban land. The total net water use 
for the region is projected to decrease by 292.000 af (or by 4 percent) by 2020. 

Urban Wafer Use 

In 1990. total urban applied water for the region was 523,000 af; urban net water 
use for the region was 214.000 af. The Sierra Nevada foothill area (Uplands planning 
subarea) had a net water use of about 6.000 af. Since 1980 per capita use has declined 
in most San Joaquin Valley communities. Table TL-5 shows urban applied and net 
water demand to 2020. 

The average per capita daily water use within the Tulare Lake Region was about 
301 gallons. Water use in the foothills was 202gpcd. while that of the Kern Valley floor 
was 374 gpcd. The region has a fairly high urban water consumption rate primarily 
due to its hot summers, which cause greater demand for drinking, cooling, and 
landscaping water. Additionally, the per capita consumption rate in the Kern Valley 
area represents an average of many urban areas and water districts that serve 
high-water-use industries such as food processing and petroleum refining and 
production. 

Municipal water use in valley cities represents up to 80 percent of total municipal 
and industrial net water use. About 60 percent of the total municipal and industrial 
net use occurs outdoors: landscaping accounts for 90 percent of this percentage and 
swimming pools the remaining 10 percent. Indoor water use (for drinking, washing, 
and cooking) accounts for 40 percent of total municipal and industrial net water use. 
Both Fresno and Bakersfield have a high per capita water use. about 280 and 330 
gpcd. respectively. Both cities have water use regulations and water education 
programs to promote water conservation. Figure TL-4 shows the 1990 level applied 
urban water demands by sector. 

For the year 2020. 
municipal and indus- 
trial applied water is ex- 
pected to increase in the 
Tulare Lake Region due 
to population increases 
in Fresno and other ci- 
ties. The population for 
the valley and the foot- 
hills will more than 
double by 2020. Per 
capita water consump- 
tion in the central San 
Joaquin Valley floor 
area (Kings-Kaweah- 
Tule rivers planning 
subarea) is expected to 
decline because of im- 
plementation of addi- 
tional water conservation measures. On the Kern Valley floor, per capita use should de- 
crease, while use in the foothills should average about 1 90 gallons. Per capita water use 
on the western side of the valley floor should average about 225 gallons. 





Figure TL-4. 
Tulare Lake Region 
Urban Applied Water 
Use by Sector 
(1990 Level 
Average Conditions) 



Tulare Lake Region 



187 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Table TL-5. Urban Water Demand 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Planning Subarea 



Uplands 


Applied water demand 


12 


12 


18 


18 


26 


26 


35 


35 


Net woter demand 


5 


5 


7 


7 


10 


10 


14 


14 


Depletion 


.5 . 


5 


7 


7 


10 


10 


14 


14 , 


Kings-Kcweah-Tule 


















Applied water demand 


" 3t9 ' 


"319' ■ 


432 


432 


548 


548 


694 


694 "■ 


Net water demand 


134 


134 


181 


181 


230 


230 


290 


290 


Depletion 


134 


134 


181 


181 


230 


230 


290 


290 


Son Luis West Side 


Applied water demand 


_..,,. -.10. .,_-. 


- IP 


14 


14 


16 


16 


18 


18 


Net water demand 


4 


4 


6 


6 


7 


7 


7 


7 


Depletion JHI 


|p.r,-^^-.,-. 


^' 4 


' ■ - ^6 " 


6 ' "^ 


7 


7 


ggg-aaw^Kf^: 


m,,-Lm 


Western Uplands 


Applied water demand 


2 


2 


2 


2 


3 


3 


4 


4W 


Net water demand 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


2 


2 


Depletion 


1 


1_ 


1 


1 


1 


1 


2 


2* 


Kern Valley Floor 


Applied water demand 


"^ I8t) ■ 


180 


250 


250 


299 


299 


365 


365 


Net water demand 


70 


70 


97 


97 


116 


116 


141 


141 


Depletion 


70 


70 


97 


97 


116 


116 


141 


141 





TOTAL 



Applied water demand 


523 


523 


716 


716 


892 


892 


1,116 


1,116 


Net v/ater demand 


214 


214 


292 


292 


364 


364 


454 


454 


Depletion ™_ _, 


214 


214 


292 


292 


364 


364 


454 


454 ^ 



Agricultural Water Use 

Irrigated agriculture accounts for more than 95 percent of the 1990 level water 
use in the Tulare Lake Region. Many different crops are grown throughout the region. 
In the future, however, urbanization, increasingly high costs for water, and the 
reliability of water supplies could reduce the variety and acreages of crops and thus, 
ultimately, agricultural water use. Figure TL-5 shows 1990 crop acreages, 
evapotranspiratlon, and applied water for major crops. 

Climate, water supply, and salt buildup in the soils may limit the crops that can 
be grown profitably throughout the region. Most good irrigable land with access to 
dependable imported or local surface water has been developed. Crop acreages have 
generally declined in the region over the last decade, due to the limited availability of 
surface water and a drop in agricultural demand due to the sluggish economy. Cotton 
acreages, for example, declined from 1989 to 1992. Its price dropped from about 75 
cents per pound in the late 1980s to about 50 cents per pound in 1992. In addition to 
decreased demand for cotton, the drought reduced SWP deliveries along the western 
side of the region. Table TL-6 shows irrigated crop acreage projections to 2020. Table 
TL-7 shows 1990 evapotranspiratlon of applied water by crop. 



Tulare Lake Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



The average year applied water and net water demands were derived from irri- 
gated acreages by applying water use factors for average year conditions. The unit use 
[factors reflect local conditions of climate and cultural practices. Applied water 
lamounts vary with the source of water supply (surface or ground water and the type of 
i water year). During drought years, there will be a need for additional irrigation to re- 
place water normally supplied by rainfall and to meet higher-than-normal evapotran- 
spiration demands. 



Table TL-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 

(thousands of acres) 



Planning Subarea 



1990 



2000 



2010 




2020 



Uplands 

Kings-Kaweah-Tule 
San Luis West Side 
Western Uplands 
Kern Valley Floor 



8 


9 


9 


9 


,721 


1,690 


1,661 


1,630 


620 


606 


594 


581 














863 


854 


850 


841 



TOTAL 



3,212 



3,159 



3,114 



Applied water use amounts could be reduced further in some areas writh more 
efficient irrigation management. On the western side of the San Joaquin Valley, 
farmers are using more sprinkler irrigation and less flood or furrow irrigation. In 1 990, 
less than half of the irrigated land was flood irrigated, where only five years ago, 
farmers irrigated over 60 percent of the land in the area with flood methods. Now, 
many use sprinklers and drip irrigation, especially on truck crops where small 
applications of water early in the growing season are highly beneficial. Also, almost all 
new plantings of trees and vines are on drip or trickle systems. 



3,061 




Figure TL5. 

1990 Tulare Lake Region 

Acreage. EH'AW. and 

Applied Water for Major Crops 



Tulare Lake Region 



189 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



In the central San Joaquin Valley, much of the citrus-growing area, which had 
converted to drip irrigation years ago. is now moving towards highly efficient microjet 
irrigation through use of microsprinklers. In addition, about half of all new plantings 
of table grape vineyards are on drip irrigation and some existing vineyards have 
changed from furrow to drip irrigation. Finally farmers throughout the area are 
improving irrigation management based on better knowledge of evapotranspiration 
requirements and soil moisture content. Table TL-8 shows agricultural water demand 
projections for the Tulare Lake Region to 2020. 



Table 11-7. 1 990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 

Irrigated Crop 



Grain 

Rice 

Cotton 

Sugar beets 

Corn 

Other field 

Alfalfa 

Pasture 

Tomatoes 

Other truck 

Almonds/pistachios 

Other deciduous 

Vineyard 

Citrus/olives 

TOTAL 3,212 7,147 



Total Acres 


Total ETAW 


(1,000) 


(1000 AF] 


297 


294 


1 


3 


1,029 


2,569 


35 


91 


100 


199 


135 


262 


345 


1,045 


44 


141 


107 


245 


204 


275 


164 


392 


177 


470 


393 


817 


181 


344 



190 Tulare Lake Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Planning Subarea 



Table TL-8. Agricultural Water Demand 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Uplands 


Applied water demand 


29 


29 


29 


29 


29 


29 


29 


29 


Net water demand 


20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


Depletion 


20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


KIngs-Kaweah-Tule 


Applied water demand 


5,205 


5,393 


5,043 


5,226 


4,924 


5,099 


4,780 


4,950 


Net water demand 


4,007 


4,147 


3,920 


4,055 


3,842 


3,970 


3,749 


3,870 


Depletion 


3,988 


4,128 


3,901 


4,036 


3,823 


3,951 


3,730 


3,851 


San Luis West Side 


Applied water demand 


1,695 


1,721 


1,636 


1,646 


1,590 


1,600 


1,547 


1,559 


Net water demand 


1,514 


1,532 


1,454 


1,472 


1,403 


1,419 


1,357 


1,374 


Depletion 


1,514 


1,532 


1,454 


1,472 


1,403 


1,419 


1,357 


1,374 


Western Uplands 


Applied water demand 


























Net water demand 


























Depletion 


























Kern Valley Floor 


Applied water demand 


2,684 


2,706 


2,598 


2,617 


2,532 


2,553 


2,477 


2,500 


Net water demand 


2,182 


2,196 


2,124 


2,138 


2,082 


2,096 


2,043 


2,056 


Depletion 


2,182 


2,196 


2,124 


2,138 


2,082 


2,096 


2,043 


2,056 




TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


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 


7,320 


Depletion 


7,704 


7,876 


7,499 


7,666 


7,328 


7,486 


7,150 


7,301 



i 



Environmental Water Use 

Wetlands in the region are mainly freshwater wetlands that provide habitat for 
migratory waterfowl. In Fresno County, the Mendota Wildlife Area has an applied water 
demand of 30.000 af for development of the refuge's 10,851 acres. The refuge has only 
received an average of 23,000 af. This supply of water for the Mendota Wildlife Area is 
fairly reliable, however, since the refuge is a regulating basin for the Delta-Mendota 
Canal. 

In Kern County, the Kern National Wildlife Refuge, also a habitat for migratory 
waterfowl, needs an annual water supply of 25.000 af for management of its 2,800 
acres of natural wetlands. However, the refuge has no firm supplies and usually relies 
on surplus SWP water and ground water. In an average water year, the refuge receives 
about 10.000 af of applied water. 

In Tulare County, the Pixley National Wildlife Refuge has a water demand of 
6,000 af for development of its 5, 1 00 acres, used for migratory waterfowl. However, the 
refuge has no firm supplies and relies on flood flows from Deer Creek and ground water 
from recharge basins in the Pixley Irrigation District. Consequently, the refuge has 
received an average of about 1 ,000 af of water in recent years. 



Tulare Lake Region 



191 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Besides these refuges, there are 2.879 acres of privately managed wetlands in the 
region, including duck clubs, nature preserves owned by nonprofit organizations, and 
rice lands. In average water years, an estimated 6.910 af is supplied to duck club 
properties. In the Tulare lakebed area, most of the original wetlands surrounding the 
old Tulare Lake have been drained for agriculture. However, evaporation ponds 
established to deal with agricultural drainage disposal in the area are potentially 
hazardous to migrating waterfowl. Table TL-9 shows wetland water needs to 2020. 



Table TL-9. Wetland Water Needs 

(thousands of acre-feet) 



Wetland 



1990 

average drought 



2000 

average drought 



2010 

average drought 



2020 

average drought 



Kern NWR 


Applied water demand 


10 


10 


25 


25 


25 


25 


25 


25 


Net water demand 


8 


8 


21 


21 


21 


21 


21 


21 


Depletion 


8 


8 


21 


21 


21 


21 


21 


21 


Pixley NWR 


Applied water demand 


1 


1 


6 


6 


- - ■■^'~ 


6 


•- 6' 


6 


Net water demand 


1 


1 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


Depletion 


1 


1 


5 


5 


H 


^^g^ ^ 


5 


5 fi 


Mendota WA 


Applied water demand 


23 


23 


30 


30 


30 


30 


30 


30 


Net water demand 


19 


19 


24 


24 


24 


24 


24 


24 


Depletion :IHHF^^ 


-19 


24 


24 


24 


■B^ 


24 


24 1 


Tulare Basin NWR 


Applied water demand 


7 


7 


7 


7 


7 


7 


7 


7 f 


Net water demand 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


Depletion 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 


6 » 




TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


41 


41 


68 


68 


68 


68 


68 


68 


Net water demand 


34 


34 


56 


56 


56 


56 


56 


56 


Depletion SHP^ 


34 


" 34 


56 


56 


56 


56 


56 


56 ;i 



Another environmental water consideration involves the water conveyance 
facilities in the region. Certain endangered species, such as the San Joaquin kit fox 
and the blunt-nosed leopard lizard, are using the canal banks, flood control channels, 
and banks of the California Aqueduct for habitat as native vegetation grows around the 
facilities. DWR monitors these areas to prevent maintenance operations from 
disturbing these species and their habitat. DWR's Kern Water Bank in western Kern 
County will provide wetlands and refuges for endangered species as part of its overall 
program. Of the 20.000 acres that will be used for the Kern Water Bank, several 
thousand acres will be used for wildlife needs. 



192 



Tulare Lake Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Other Water Use 

Kings Canyon National Park and Sequoia National Park together use about 500 
af of water annually for drinking water and other domestic uses. The parks obtain most 
of their water from groimd water wells and local surface water diversions from the 
upper Kings River. During the 1987-92 drought, some campgrounds in Kings Canyon 
and Sequoia that relied on wells were closed for part of the camping season due to low 
[ ground water levels. 

Some water use in recreation areas can be described as indirect usage. Along the 
California Aqueduct, there are many specially designated areas for fishing that include 
easy access from area roads and vehicle parking areas. In the Tulare Lake Region, 
there are five fishing access areas: Three Rocks. Huron. Kettleman City. Lost Hills, and 
I Buttonwillow. In the foothills, three major lakes (Pine Lake. Lake Success, and Isabella 
i Lake) have recreation areas that are used for fishing, boating, camping, and other 
recreational uses. Both the fishing access and the recreation areas show reduced use 




I during drought periods and low-flow months. 



Category of Use 



Table TL-10. Total Water Demands 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Urban 

Applied water demand 
Net water demand 
Depletion 

Agricultural 

Applied water demand 
Net water demand 
Depletion 

Environmental 

Applied water demand 
Net water demand 
Depletion 

Other'i 

Applied water demand 
Net water demand 
Depletion 



523 
214 


523 

214 


716 
292 


214 

9,613 
7,723 


214 

9,849 
7,895 


292 

9,306 
7,518 


7,704 


7,876 


7,499 



41 
34 
34 

102 

165 
165 



41 
34 
34 

102 

165 
165 



68 
56 
56 

102 

165 
165 



716 
292 
292 

9,518 
7,685 
7,666 

68 
56 
56 

102 
165 
165 



892 
364 
364 

9,075 
7,347 
7,328 

68 
56 
56 

102 
165 
165 



892 

364 
364 

9,281 
7,505 
7,486 

68 
56 
56 

102 
165 
165 



1,116 
454 
454 

8,833 
7,169 
7,150 

68 
56 
56 

102 
165 
165 



1,116 
454 
454 

9,038 
7,320 
7,301 

68 
56 
56 

102 
165 
165 



TOTAL 

Applied water demand 
Net water demand 
Depletion 



10,279 10,515 10,192 10,404 10,137 10,343 
8,136 8,308 8,031 8,198 7,932 8,090 
8,117 8,289 8,012 8,179 7,813 8,071 



10,119 10,324 
7,844 7,995 
7,825 7,976 



(1) Includes major conveyonce facility tosses, recreation uses, and energy production. 



Tulare Lake Region 



193 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Figure TL-6. Tulare Lake Region 
Hydroelectric Power Plants, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Water Recreation Areas 




1 . Pine Flat Lake R.A. 

2. Avocado Lake Park 

3. Fairfax Fish Access 

4. Three Rocks Fish Access 

5. Huron Fish Access 

6. Kettleman City Fish Access 

7. Kettleman City Aquatic S.R.A 

8. Lost Hills Fish Access 

9. Buttonwillow Fish Access 

10. Buena Vista Aquatic R.A. 

11. Lake Kaweah R.A. 

12. Success Lake R.A. 

13. Isabella Lake R.A. 




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



30 



SCALE IN MILES 



•From 1992 California Energy Commission Maps. See Table D-3 in Appendix D for plant informatic 



194 



Tulare Lake Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



During normal years, white water rafting is a popular activity on the Kings and 
Kern rivers. The Kings River supports white water rafting above Pine Flat Reservoir for 
the experienced rafters while the river below the reservoir is satisfactory for beginners. 
The Kern River has expert-level white water rafting and kayaking above Isabella Lake 
while below the reservoir, beginners as well as experts can practice their white water 
rafting. Stretches of the upper Kings and Kern rivers have been declared wild and 
scenic by federal legislation. The Kings River is designated as such on both the middle 
and south fork of the upper portion above Mill Flat Creek. The Kern River is designated 
wild and scenic on both the north and south fork of the upper portion above Isabella 
Lake. 

The many reservoirs and lakes throughout the Tulare Lake Region support 

recreational activities including fishing, camping, hiking, water skiing, and boating. 

Courtright and Wishon reservoirs on the Kings River have native trout fisheries. 
I camping, and hiking on the trails of the John Muir and Dinkey Lakes wilderness areas. 
I Also. Pine Flat Reservoir on the Kings. Isabella Lake on the Kern. Lake Kaweah on the 
' Kaweah River, and Lake Success on Tule River are popular recreational areas in the 

region. Figure TL-6 shows water recreation areas in the region. Table TL- 10 shows the 

total water demand for the region. 

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Managemerit 

Each area of the Tulare Lake Region has its own set of geographic and 
I demographic conditions that have led to varied water supply circumstances. For 
example, the foothill cities along the eastern edge of the region experienced severe 
water shortages in the recent drought, while the Fresno area managed to meet most of 
its water needs. The following sections summarize major regional and local Issues 
affecting water resources management. 

Regional Issues 

Population Growth. One of the most important issues in the Tulare Lake Region 
is whether to allow growth and development to continue at its current rate and location 
or restrict urban de- 
velopment to preserve 
prime agricultural 
land, wetlands, and 
other wildlife habitat. 
Although converting 
agricultural land to 
urban use can in- 
crease water use 
slightly, urban water 
use often requires 
higher water quality, 
and water supplies 
must be more reli- 
able. 

For example. 
Fresno and sur- 
rounding towns draw 
ground water from 
the same basin. As 





An aerial view of 
Bakersfield. Central 
Valley cities like 
Bakersfield are expected 
to grow substantially over 
the next few decades, 
causing more agricultural 
land to be converted to 
urban use. 



Tulare Lake Region 



195 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Fresno has expanded into former agricultural areas, it has encountered degraded 
ground water quality, in some places by pesticide contamination from DBCP and other 
farm chemicals used before the 1 980s. This degraded water quality has shifted depen- 
dence to wells that produce good-quality water. Urban growth in Fresno is also occur- 
ring in outlying areas at higher elevations than many older portions of the city. These 
new suburbs have switched from the surface water supplies used by agriculture to new- 
ground water wells. The urban ground water demand has created a fast drawdown of 
the aquifer, which has increased the depth to ground water, raised the cost of pump- 
ing, and decreased water quality. 

Finally, converting agricultural land to urban use tends to diminish natural 
recharge and deep percolation of agricultural applied water to the ground water basins 
because of the nonporous nature of concrete and asphalt used in urban areas. While 
Fresno has existing recharge facilities, it may raise development taxes to finance more 
recharge basins to maintain current ground water levels underlying the city. 

Ground Water Overdraft Problems. Agriculture, in areas with no surface water 
supply and good quality ground water, has overdrafted ground water basins where 
long-term replenishment is inadequate to maintain the water table. This in turn has 
induced subsurface How from adjacent districts. Such an area exists along the valley 
trough from Madera to Kern counties and affects adjacent districts. Other overdrafted 
areas are in the subbasin around Coalinga and in Westlands Water District, where 
subsidence has occurred during droughts. 

In western Fresno County and southern Kern County subsidence has stabilized, 
except during droughts. No subsidence data have been available for Madera, Kings.; 
Kern, and Tulare counties since 1970. Subsidence can potentially compact the 
sediments and lower infiltration capabilities of a ground water aquifer and therefore 
has an undesired impact on conjunctive use programs in the region. Canals and wells 
have also required repair because of the effects of subsidence. 

Reliability of Supplies in Foothill and Mountain Communities. In foothil 
and mountain areas, some urban water needs are met by ground water. However, th( 
ground water is found in thin layers of alluvial sediments and in underlying hard rocli 
fractures. Recharge to these underground reservoirs is very slow and during the receni 
drought, some foothill communities relied on imported surface water to supplemen 
their supplies. 

Orange Cove is a typical foothill community that relies on imported wate 
delivered through the Friant-Kern Canal: it is the most economical alternative ti 
limited ground water supplies, especially during drought periods. Ground water in thi 
foothills can be scarce and expensive to extract. During severe drought conditions ii 
1990. Orange Cove allowed residents to use only 125 gpcd. A water transfer agreemen 
enabled the city to relax this standard during 1991. Small foothill towns like Orang 
Cove will need to buy transfer water during droughts to prevent future sever 
rationing. 

Water supply is often more limited in mountain communities than in valley o 
foothill cities of the region. Wofford Heights in eastern Kern County is a typicE 
mountain community. Although Lake Isabella is nearby, the Arden Water Compan 
would have to install almost 40 miles of pipeline to provide water service from th£ 
source, and it cannot afford the connection. During the recent drought, seven c 
Wofford Heights' 10 existing wells went dry and had to be abandoned. Arden Wate 
Company was able to drill three new wells, but it had to drill them 450 to 500 feet deej 
Previous wells had only been drilled to 300 feet. The sites for the new wells wei 



196 Tulare Lake Region 



The Calilornia Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



(-arelully chosen to intersect two or more pockets of water, and Arden built new 
above-ground storage tanks to provide more dependable deliveries during droughts. 

Reliability of Supplies for Wildlife. Many of the region's environmental needs, 
including maintenance of the Mendota Wildlife Area, the Kern National Wildlife Refuge, 
and various duck clubs and wetlands, require firm water supplies that are currently 
unavailable. The CVP water supplied to the Mendota area and the surplus water 
supplied to the Kern Refuge are usually the only water supplies available. The duck 
clubs and wetlands have relied partly on tail water from upstream sources. 

Transfers and Exchanges. In western Kern County. 85 percent of the land 

related to SWP water entitlements of the Devil's Den Water District has been bought by 

the Castaic Lake Water Agency, which has transferred the water to the South Coast 

Region for urban use in the Santa Clarita urban area. The transfer resulted in the loss 
j of some seasonal agricultural Jobs and more than 20 full-time agricultural positions 
I within the district. State planners in the future will be faced with this situation again, 

as metropolitan areas seek alternative water supplies. The needs of urban residents 

will have to be balanced against the potential loss of agricultural jobs and of 

agricultural production capacity brought on by the reallocation of water and its 

impacts on rural economies. 

! The final Environmental Impact Report for the Arvin-Edison Conjunctive Use 

Program, involving an agreement between MWDSC and the Arvin-Edison Water 
1 Storage District, is on hold until the program is reformulated under new Delta 

operating criteria. Arvin-Edison is a Central Valley Project contractor in southeastern 

Kern County. Its CVP water is delivered through the California Aqueduct by 

arrangement with the State. According to the proposed contract. MWDSC will help 
I construct Arvin-Edison's partially completed distribution system and deliver a portion 
! of its SWP water in wet years for use in Ar\'in-Edison's ground water replenishment 

programs. In return. MWDSC will receive some of Arvin-Edison's CVP water during dry 

years. Through this proposed agreement, MWDSC expects to store SWP water in the 

southern San Joaquin Valley during wet periods. In dry periods, the program could 

make up to 93.000 af per year available for MWDSC. In another exchange program, 

MWDSC negotiated with Kern County Water Agency to store SWP supplies in the 

Semitropic Water Storage District's ground water basin. (See Volume I. Chapter 1 1.) 

Local Issues 

Drinking Water in Fresno. As a result of continued urban growth and stricter 
federal drinking water standards, more than 40 wells have been shut down (closed) in 
the region. As mentioned earlier, these wells have a high level of dibromochloropropane 
or other contaminants, including trichloroethylene. Because ofthese well closings and 
future strict EPA requirements that the water be tested for a wide variety of chemical 
contaminants, the City of Fresno could have problems meeting its future urban water 
demand. 

In addition, during past years. Fresno did not have to chlorinate its municipal 
supply because of its high-quality ground water in storage under the city. With recent 
EPA standards for coliform and other bacteria levels, Fresno has begun to chlorinate 
the municipal water supply at the wellheads. Although the city expects no problems 
with trihalomethanes, a byproduct of chlorination often found in chlorinated surface 
water, there have been some complaints about the taste and smell of the chlorinated 
water. As urban development continues, Fresno may attempt to supplement its ground 
water supply with surface water from the Friant-Kern Canal and the Kings River. 

Tulare Lake Region 197 




Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Arroyo Pasqjero. DWR .is currently seeking solutions to flood problems 
threatening the California Aqueduct near the intersection with a natural drainage 
channel called Arroyo Pasajero. The aqueduct, completed in 1967. formed a barrier to 
arroyo water and sediment flow. By design, arroyo runoff was retained in a 1 .900-acre 
ponding basin and periodically discharged into the aqueduct through four inlet gates. 
Unfortunately, the runoff for the arroyo was found to be greater than anticipated. After 
a 1980 investigation determined that arroyo runoff was also raising asbestos levels in 
aqueduct water, concerns were voiced over possible health risks associated with 
consuming water containing high levels of asbestos. DWR has been studying methods 
of managing arroyo runoff without discharging it into the aqueduct. A nonstructural 
method of routing arroyo discharge is being considered and environmental studies are 
under way. 

Agricultural Drainage. On the western side of the valley, where ground water 
quality is marginal to unusable for agriculture, farmers use good quality surface water 
to irrigate crops. This irrigation causes the shallow aquifer to fill, and this results in 

drainage problems. 
The high water table is 
exacerbated by 

clay-rich soils that 
slow drainage in some 
areas. Poor-quality 
ground water in the 
unconfined aquifer in 
Westlands Water 

District is increasing 
by about 110.000 al 
per year. In Kern 
County, west of the 
California Aqueduct, 
the few available wells 
also show rising water 
levels. This marginal 
to poor quality ground 
water has reached 
plant root zones in 
many areas along the 
western side and 
must be removed by drains if agriculture is to continue in these areas. 



Nearly one-third of the 

Tulare Lake Region's 

total irrigated crop 

acreage is planted in 

cotton. 




Ground Water Quality. Most naturally occurring, poor-quality ground water is 
found along the region's western side. Total dissolved solids, sulfate, boron, chloride, 
and selenium limit the usefulness of ground water in this area. Several contaminants 
are present, including pesticides, petroleum products, and industrial solvents. One ol 
the pesticides, dibromochloropropane. is also found over large areas on the eastern 
side of the valley. Concentrations of DBCP (which the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency banned in 1977) are declining but are still above acceptable limits in many 
areas. Rising levels of nitrates have been found in numerous wells in rural areas. Many 
of them contain nitrate levels above the maximum contaminant level for nitrates in 
drinking water. 



198 



Tulare Lake Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Water Balance 

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

Table TL-11 presents water demands for the 1990 level and for future water 
Idemands to 2020 and balances them with: (1) supplies from existing facilities and 
Iwater management programs, and (2) future demand management and water supply 
Imanagement options. 

Regional net water demands for the 1990 level of development totaled 8, 136.000 
and 8.308,000 af for average and drought years, respectively. Those demands are 
iforecasted to decrease to 7,844.000 and 7.995.000 af, respectively, by the year 2020, 
jafter accounting for a 20,000-af reduction in urban water demand resulting from 
implementation of long-term conservation measures, a 90,000-af reduction in 
agricultural demand resulting from additional long-term agricultural water 
I conservation measures, and a 1 20,000-af reduction due to land retirement on the west 
I side of the region. 

r 

[ Urban net water demand is expected to increase by about 112 percent by 2020, 

!due to expected increases in population, while agricultural net water demand is 
projected to decrease by about 7 percent, primarily due to lands being taken out of 
production because of poor drainage conditions on the west side of the San Joaquin 
[Valley, urbanization, and increases in irrigation efficiency. Environmental net water 
demand, under existing rules and regulations, will increase by 22,000 af. However, 



(there are several actions currently in progress, including implementation of the Central 
I Valley Improvement Act, that have proposed increases in instream flow for fisheries 
jthat will affect the availability of supplies for urban and agricultural use. 

I Average annual supplies, including about 650,000 af overdraft, were generally 

I adequate to meet average net water demands in 1990 for this region. However, during 
I drought, present supplies are insufficient to meet present demands, resulting in 
jshortages of about 512.000 af in 1990. Without additional water management 
1 programs, drought year annual shortages are expected to be about 1,097,000 af by 
,2020. 

I With planned Level I programs, overall ground water use could be reduced, 

(Reduction in ground water use will reduce ground water overdraft. Therefore, the net 
effect of improved surface water deliveries would be to reduce long-term ground water 
1 overdraft in this region, as well as reduce shortages. 

The remaining shortages of about 335,000 and 947,000 af in average and 
idrought years, respectively, by 2020 requires both additional short-term drought 
Imanagement (water transfers and demand management programs) and other future 
' long-term Level II programs depending on the overall level of water service reliability 



Tulare Lake Region 199 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Table TL-11. Water Budget 

(thousands of acre-feet) 



Water Demand/Supply 



1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Net Demand 

Urban— with 1 990 ^ ^ 

level of conservation 214 214 

— reductions due to 

long-term conservation 

measures (Level I) — — 

Agricultural— with 1990 

level of conservation 7,723 7,895 

— reductions due to 

long-term conservation 

measures (Level I) — — 

— reductions due to 

land retirement in poor 

drainage areas of San 

Joaquin Valley (Level I) — — 

Environmental 34 34 

Other"! 165 165 



301 



-30 



-40 
56 

165 



301 



-30 



-40 

56 

165 



380 



380 



-60 



-80 
56 

165 



-60 



-80 

56 

165 



474 



-90 



-120 

56 

165 



474 



-9 


-9 


-16 


-16 


-20 


-20 


7,588 


7,755 


7,487 


7,645 


7,379 


7,530 



-90 



-120 
56 

165 



TOTAL Net Demand 



8,136 



8,308 



8,031 



8,198 



7,932 



8,090 



7,844 



7,995 



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

Developed Supplies 

Surface WateH^' 

Ground Water 

Ground Water Overdraft*^' 
Subtotal 
Dedicated Natural Flow 



6,571 


3,373 


6,393 


3,207 


6,296 


3,137 


6,333 


3,140 


915 


3,773 


918 


3,758 


921 


3,726 


926 


3,758 


650 


650 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


8,136 


7,796 


7,311 


6,965 


7,217 


6,863 


7,259 


6,898 



























TOTAL Water Supplies 


8,136 


7,796 


7,311 


6,965 


7,217 


6,863 


7,259 


6,898 


Demand/Supply Balance 





-512 


-720 


-1,233 


-715 


-1,227 


-585 


-1,097 



Level I Water Management Programs''" 

Long-term Supply Augmentation 
Reclaimed'^' 
Local 

Central Valley Project 
State Water Project 

Subtotal - Level I Water 
Management Programs 

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



— 


flHI 




















— 


— 




















i - 
























— 


64 


25 


285 


140 


250 


129 








64 


25 


285 


140 


250 


129| 



-125 







53 



Remaining Demand/Supply Balance Requiring Short-term Drought Management and/or Level II Options 

-512 -660 -1,333 -430 -1,034 -335 -947 

[1 1 Includes major conveyance facility losses, recreation uses, and energy production, 

(2) Existing and future imported supplies that depend on Delta export capabilities are based on SWRCB D* 1 485 and do not take into account recent actions to protect aquatic species As such, 
regional water supply shortages ore understated (note proposed environmental woter demands of 1 to 3 ^AAF are included in the California water budget) 

(3) The degree future shortages ore met by increased overdraft is unknown Since overdraft is not sustoinoble, 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 

(5) Becouse of existing reuse within region, reclaimed water does not add supply to the region 



200 



Tulare Lake Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



deemed necessary by local agencies to sustain the economic health of the region. This 
region depends on exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for a portion of its 
supplies. Shortages stated above are based on D-1485 operating criteria for Delta 
supplies and do not take into account reduction of supplies due to recent actions to 
protect aquatic species in the Bay-Delta estuary. As such, regional water supply 
shortages are understated. In the short-term, some areas of this region that rely on the 
Delta exports for all or a portion of their supplies face great uncertainty in terms of 
water supply reliability. For example, in 1993, an above-normal runoff year, 
environmental restrictions limited CVP deliveries to 50 percent of contracted supply for 
federal water service contractors from Tracy to Kettleman City. Because ground water 
is used to replace much of the shortfall in surface water supplies, limitations on Delta 
exports will exacerbate ground water overdraft in this region. 



Tulare Lake Region 201 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



The waters of the Carson River and its tributaries support 
a variety of uses such as serving agricultural users, providing 
urban water supplies, and sustaining fish and wildlife habitat. 




The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



The eastern drainages of the Cascade Range and the eastern Sierra Nevada, north Norfh Lohonton 



of the Mono Lake drainage, make up the North Lahontan Region. The region forms part 
of the western fringe of the Great Basin (a large landlocked drainage that includes most 
of Nevada and northern Utah) and stretches about 270 miles from the Oregon border 
to the southern boundary of the Walker River drainage in Mono County. At its widest 
part, the region measures about 60 miles across: it narrows to scarcely 5 miles in 
Sierra County. Its land area represents less than 3 percent of the State's total land 
area. The topography is generally mountainous and rugged with large desert valleys 
between mountain ranges in the north and narrow alpine valleys in the south. The 
mountain crests forming the western boundary of the region range up to 11 .000 feet In 
elevation. (See Appendix C for maps of the planning subareas and land ownership in 
the region.) 

The region comprises two planning subareas; the northernmost is the Lassen 
Group PSA, which includes the Modoc and Lassen county portions of the region, plus 
a small corner of northeastern Sierra County that drains to Honey Lake. The southern 
PSA is the Alpine Group from mid-Sierra County to near Mono Lake, which includes 
Lake Tahoe and the Truckee, Carson, and Walker river drainages. 

Annual precipitation is as much as 70 inches at the crest of the Sierra Nevada, 
closest to Lake Tahoe, and as little as 4 inches at the Nevada boundary in Surprise 
Valley and in the Honey Lake Basin, The region's streams flow either to Nevada or to 
intermittent lakes in California. Natural rrmoff of the streams and rivers averages 
around 1,842,000 af per year: about three-quarters comes from the region's southern 
portion. 

Population 

Almost 65 percent of the 78,000 residents in the North Lahontan Region live in 
the Truckee-Tahoe Basin, where the largest community is the City of South Lake 
Tahoe with a 1990 population of 21,600, The main population center of the Lassen 
subarea is Susanville. the county seat of Lassen County, with 7,300 residents. Also in 
the region are Bridgeport, the county seat of Mono County, and Markleeville, the 
county seat of Alpine County. Population is quite sparse between these towns, 
consisting of ranches and tourist and service centers primarily along Highway 395, 

Region Characteristics 
Average Annual Precipitation: 32 inches Average Annual Runoff: 1,842,000 af 
Land Area: 3,890 square miles Population: 78.000 



Region 



North Lahontan Region 203 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Only about one-fourth of one percent of California's people live in the region. Table 
NL-1 shows population projections to 2020 for the North Lahontan Region. 



Planning Subarea 



Table NL-1. Population Projections 

(thousands) 



1990 



2000 



2010 



2020 



Lassen Group 
Alpine Group 



25 

53 



32 
63 



36 

71 



39 

79 



TOTAL 



78 



95 



107 



118 



Land Use 

Much of the North Lahontan Region is either national forest land or under the 
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. The major privately owned lands are 
in the valley areas of Modoc and Lassen counties. Relatively small portions of the 
Truckee-Tahoe area and the Carson and Walker river basins are in private ownership, 
but those small areas are of considerable economic significance. 

Cattle raising is the principal agricultural activity in the region, although the 
acreage of irrigated land is relatively small (less than 4 percent of the region's land 
area). Commercial crop production is limited because of the short growing season. 
Although growing seasons vary from year to year, the mountain valleys are usually 
frost-free from late May to mid-September, or about 120 days. Pasture and alfalfa are 
the dominant irrigated crops. About 75 percent of the irrigated land is in Modoc and 
Lassen counties, and most of the remainder is in the Carson and Walker river valleys 
in Alpine and Mono counties. The irrigated land in the Carson and Walker river valleys 
is almost exclusively pasture at elevations above 5.000 feet. 

Tourism and recreation are the principal economic activities in the 
Truckee-Tahoe area and the surrounding mountains. On a typical summer day. the 
number of recreationists within the Tahoe Basin may equal the number of full-time 
residents. A similar but smaller peak in the number of recreationists visiting the basin 
occurs during the winter. Figure NL- 1 shows land use, along with water imports and ' 
exports for the North Lahontan Region. i 

Water Supply ' 

About 75 percent of the region's 1990 level water supply comes from surface 
sources. Ground water supply amounts to 23 percent. Throughout most of the North 
Lahontan Region, water development has been carried out on a modest scale by local 
interests, with many projects built in the late 1800s. In the northern portion of the 
region, these developments include numerous small reservoirs which store winter 
runoff for summer irrigation. The Lassen Irrigation District developed three small 
reservoirs in the Susan River drainage beginning in 1891 — McCoy Flat Reservoir. Hog 
Flat Reservoir, and Lake Leavitt. About 3,000 af per year is imported through the Moon 
Lake project from the South Fork Pit River for irrigation in the Madeline Plains area. 
Figure NL-2 shows the region's 1990 level sources of supply. 



204 



North Lahontan Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure NL-1. North Lahontan Region 
Land Use, Imports, and Exports 



OREGON 



Moon Lake 

Ditch 

3 



Urban Land 

Irrigated Land 

Region Water Transfers 

(1,000's of Acre-Feet per Yeer) 

iO 20 

SCALE IN MILES 



I LASSEN GROUP 




N 



North Lahontan Region 



205 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Supply with Existing Facilities and Water Management Programs 

One of the most cost-effective storage structures ever built is a small dam at the 
outlet of LakeTahoe. This 14-foot-high dam, constructed in the 1870s, controls the 
upper 6. 1 feet of the lake and creates up to 732,000 af of storage capacity. The Lake 
Tahoe Dam is operated by the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District and controlled by the 
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation under an easement from Sierra Pacific Power Company. 
Its operations are supervised by the federal watermaster under the Orr Ditch Decree. 
Similar outlet dams constructed on natural lakes during the 1930s increased storage 
at Independence Lake by 18.000 af and at Donner Lake by 10,000 af. These dams are 
operated by Sierra Pacific Power Company. Table NL-2 lists major reservoirs in the 
region. 



Reservoir Name 



Table NL-2. Major Reservoirs 
River Capacity (1,000 AF] 



Owner 



Stampede 
Boca 

Prosser Creek 
Lake Tahoe* 
Bridgeport 
Mortis Creek Lake 



Little Truckee 
Little Truckee 
Prosser Creek 
Truckee 
East Walker 
Martis Creek 



226 
41 
30 

744 
43 
20 



U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 



Walker River Irrigation District 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 



' Lake Tahoe Dam is constructed and controlled by USBR under on easement from Sierra Pacific Power Company, 



Figure NL-2. 

North Lahontan Region 

Water Supply Sources 

(1990 Level 

Average Conditions) 



Federal water storage projects in the region include Stampede Reservoir, Boca 
Reservoir, and Prosser Creek Reservoir. These three USBR reservoirs were constructed 
on tributaries of the Truckee River, primarily to provide water supply for service areas 
in Nevada, downstream flood protection, and local recreation. The U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers completed the 20, 000-af Martis Creek Dam in 1971: this single-purpose 
structure provides flood protection for the Reno-Sparks area. Operations criteria for 
these projects are changing, mostly due to water requirements of the cui-ui and Lahon- 
tan cutthroat trout. The 
cui-ui is classified as 
endangered and the 
Lahontan cutthroat as 
threatened under the 
federal Endangered 
Species Act. 

An average of 
about 2,000 af per year 
is exported from the Ta- 
hoe Basin to the South 
Fork American River in 
conjunction with a pow- 
er development that be- 
gan in 1876. Another 
6,000 af is diverted 
from the Little Truckee 
River for irrigation use 
in Sierra Valley (Feather 




206 



North Lahontan Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



I 



River Basin of Sacramento River Region). Much of the supply froni the Truckee. Car- 
son, and Walker rivers is reserved for use by Nevada interests under various water 
rights settlements and agreements. 

The major ground water basins in the Lassen Group PSA are Long. Honey Lake, 
Willow Creek, and Surprise valleys and the Madeline Plains. Interbasin ground water 
flow is limited by geologic structures between basins. Of the 109,000 af of net ground 
water used in this area, about 96,000 af are for irrigation and the remaining 13.000 af 
are for municipal and industrial purposes. Well yields are greatest in alluvial sand and 
gravel deposits around the margins of the valleys and from buried basalt flows. Some 
wells yield greater than 3,000 gallons per minute. Yields from hard rock wells are 
usually low but are generally sufficient for domestic uses. 

Ground water quality in the Lassen Group PSA ranges from excellent to poor. 
Wells that obtain their supply from lake deposits can have high levels of boron, arsenic, 
and fluoride and high adjusted sodium absorption ratio. Some domestic wells in the 
Standish area of Honey Lake Valley have arsenic levels above safe drinking water 
standards. The total ground water in storage within this group is estimated to be 
5,000,000 af. 

The major 

ground water basins 
in the Alpine Group 
PSA include the 
Bridgeport. Antelope, 
Carson, and Martis 
valleys as well as the 
Tahoe Basin. Ground 
water recharge oc- 
curs primarily from 
infiltration of snow- 
melt and precipita- 
tion, while discharge 
from the basins oc- 
curs mainly from 
streams flowing east 
into Nevada. The esti- 
mated total net 
ground water use 
from these basins is 
12,000 af annually. 

There is some agricultural ground water pumping in Antelope Valley; however, most 
occurs on the Nevada side of the basin. Ground water pumping in the hard rock area 
occurs at scattered locations throughout the subarea but is most heavily relied on in 
the area east of Martis Valley. Yields from these hard rock wells are usually low but 
sufficient to provide domestic or livestock supplies. Although pumping and ground wa- 
ter level information within the subarea is limited, there are no reported instances of 
basin overdraft, so current pumping is probably within the perennial yield. The total 
ground water in storage is estimated at 1.800,000 af. Although water quality in the 
Alpine Group PSA is usually good, some areas do have problems with water quality. 

Some municipal wells in the Lake Tahoe Basin produce water high in uranium, 
radon, or radionuclides. Because of the granitic rocks and sediments from which 





Emerald Bay at Lake 
Tahoe. Lake Tahoe 
supplies water to 
communities surrounding 
the lake and for urban 
and agricultural uses 
downstream in Nevada. 



North Lahontan Region 



207 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



ground water is produced, elevated levels of uranium or radon, or both, may occur in 
ground water in other areas of the PSA. Some test wells on the west side of the Lake 
Tahoe Basin produce poor-quality water that contains high concentrations of arsenic. 

Table NL-3 shows water supplies with existing facilities and water management 
programs. 

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

(thousands of acre-feet) 

Supply 1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



340 


371 
3 


340 
3 


379 


344 


3 


3 


3 






























































154 


138 


165 


147 


173 



Surface 

Local 382 338 379 

Local imports 3 3 3 

Colorado River 

CVP 

Other federal 

SWP 

Groundwater 121 146 128 

Overdraffi'i — 

Reclaimed 88888888 

Dedicated natural flow 00000000 

TOTAL 514 495 518 505 520 516 537 528 

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

Supply with Additional Facilities and Water l\/lanagenrtent Programs 

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 high likelihood of being 
implemented by 2020. 

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

Water supplies are not expected to change in the North Lahontan Region through 
the year 2020. Irrigated agriculture is already constrained by economically available 
water supplies; only a small amount of agricultural expansion is expected in areas that 
can support some additional ground water development. Similarly, the modest needs 
for additional municipal and industrial supplies can be met by minor expansion of 
present surface systems or by increased use of ground water. No significant additional 
Level 1 or I^evel II surface water development in the region is anticipated. The following 
sections summarize water management programs under active consideration in the 
region. 

Table NL-4 shows water supplies with additional Level I water management 
programs. Since there are no planned Level 1 water management programs, the table is 
identical to Table NL-3. 



208 North Lahontan Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



About 5,500 at of recycled waste water is exported out of the Tahoe Basin by 
South Tahoe Public Utility District for agricultural use in the Carson River watershed. 
Truckee Tahoe Sanitation Agency treats waste water from the Tahoe Basin and returns 
about 4,000 af (which is used downstream in Nevada and does not contribute to 
California's supplies) to the Truckee River. The Susanville Sanitary District reclaims 
over 3,000 af of waste water for use on nearby irrigated pasture lands. 

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

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



Supply 



1990 


2000 


20?0 


2020 


average 


drought 


average 


drought 


overoge 


drought 


overoge 


drought 




338 






371 


340 


379 




382 


379 


340 


344 


3 


3 




3 




3 




3 




3 




3 


3 
















































146 

8 





128 









165 



147 





121 

8 


154 


138 


173 


8 



8 



8 




8 



8 


8 












Surface 

Local 

Local imports 

Colorado River 

CVP 

Other federal 

SWP 
Ground water 
Overdrafti'i 
Reclaimed 
Dedicated natural flow 



TOTAL 



514 



495 



518 



505 



520 



516 



537 



528 



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

In the northern portion of the region, drought is a way of life for agriculture: 
irrigators use the water available and then do without. In most irrigated areas there is 
little storage, and surface water runs out early in dry years. Drought water 
management consists mainly of making the best use of what water is available. 

The Truckee River and Lake Tahoe Basin will be regulated by the Truckee Fliver 
Operating Agreement if and when agreement is reached. The Carson and Walker rivers 
are controlled by federal watermasters according to federal court decrees. Further 
water development in these basins is unlikely. It is anticipated that water transfers will 
be used to meet changing or higher priority needs within the basins. In California, this 
has meant acquiring some agricultural land and water rights for both environmental 
needs throughout the basin and municipal needs downstream in Nevada. 

In the Walker River basin, agricultural supplies may be supplemented by 
increasing use of ground water and conjunctive use in areas such as Antelope Valley. 
Water conservation for agricultural users (that is, ditch lining and soil moisture 
controlled irrigation scheduling) may become increasingly important as more water 
rights are sold or otherwise transferred to urban and environmental uses. 



North Lahontan Region 



209 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Water Use 

The 1990 level annual net water use within the North Lahontan Region is about 
514.000 af per year. About 90 percent is for irrigated agriculture. Most of the 37,000 
af of municipal and industrial use takes place in the Susanville and Tahoe-Truckee 

areas. Despite the im- 
portance of recreation 
in the region's econo- 
my, the water needs of 
recreation are a small 



Figure NL-3. 

North Lahontan Region 

Net Water Demand 

(1990 Level 

Average Conditions) 



Figure NL-4. 

North Lahontan Region 

Urban Applied Water 

Use by Sector 

(1990 Level 

Average Conditions) 




component of total wa- 
ter use. The principal 
environmental water 
needs are instream 
flows, and those of the 
State's Honey Lake and 
Willow Creek wildlife 
areas in southern Las- 
sen County. 

The primary users 
of ground water in the 
Alpine subarea are the 
municipalities in the 
Lake Tahoe Basin and 

Martis 'Valley, and to a lesser extent in Bridgeport Valley. Figure NL-3 shows net water 

demand for the 1990 level of development. 

Urban Water Use 

Population projections indicate that by 2020. the region's population will in- 
crease by 51 percent over 1990 levels. Most people will still be in the Alpine subarea. 
Average water use is about 42 1 gallons per capita daily. In the two planning subareas, 
use ranges from 607 gpcd in the Lassen Group to 337 gpcd in the Alpine Group. The 
significantly larger per capita use in the northern PSA is due to high-water-use indus- 
try (mostly energy pro- 
duction — cogeneration 
and geothermal). which 
accounts for about half 
of the urban water use 
in this area. Per capita 
use values for areas 
such as the Tahoe Ba- 
sin are distorted be- 
cause they are based on 
permanent population, 
while a substantial 
share of the water use is 
by tourists and tempo- 
rary residents. Figure 
NL-4 shows the 1990 
level urban applied wa- 
ter use by sector. 




210 



North Lahontan Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Table NL-5 shows applied water and net urban water demand through 2020. 
Urban water use is not expected to increase proportionately with population due to 
water-saving techniques employed with new construction and other water 
conservation measures. 

The 1 7.000 af of urban water use within the Lassen Group is mostly from ground 
water. The 4,000 af of surface water used as an urban water supply is almost all used 
by the City of Susanville. Susanville. the largest city in the northern group, derives 
most of its municipal water from Cady and Bogwell Springs and some ground water 
wells. Increased population and the recent drought have forced Susanville to increase 
ground water pumping to supplement reduced surface water supplies. 

The area's water demand is expected to increase. The State Department of 
Corrections is planning to expand the Susanville Correctional Center from 4.000 to a 
maximum of 8,000 inmates. The city also is requiring the developer of one large 
subdivision to produce a water supply for its project that is independent of existing city 
sources. Present plans are to meet this demand with ground water supplies. 

In the Alpine Group there are 12.000 af of ground water and 8.000 af of surface 
water supplies for municipal use. Some systems divert directly from the lake, some 
from streams or springs, and some use wells. The Alpine Group has the largest 
population center in the region, the Lake Tahoe Basin. Municipal supplies in the 
Truckee Basin downstream of L-ake Tahoe are almost entirely from ground water wells; 
the largest purveyor is the Truckee-Donner Public Utility District. 



Table NL-5. Urban Water Demand 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Planning Subarea 




Lassen 

Applied water demand 
Net water demand 
Depletion f^i^gg^^gi^ 

Alpine 

Applied water demand 
Net water demand 
Depletion 



17 

17 

7 

20 

20 

7 



17 
17 

7 

21 

21 

8 



i TOTAL 

' Applied wafer demand 

Net water demand 

Depletion 



37 

37 
14 



38 
38 
15 



19 


19 


19 


19 


8 


8 




24 


25 


24 


25 


9 


10 






43 


44 


43 


44 


17 


18 



20 

20 

9 

26 
26 
10 



20 

20 

9 

28 
28 



30 
30 
12 



21 

21 

9 

31 
31 
12 



46 
46 
19 



48 
48 
20 



51 
51 
21 



52 
52 
21 



Agricultural Water Use 

; Total irrigated land within the North Lahontan Region in 1990 was 161.000 

jacres. an increase of about 7 percent since 1980. Table NL-6 shows irrigated crop 
I acreage for the region. The number of irrigated acres in the region is expected to 
increase slightly over the next three decades. Table NL-7 shows 1990 crop acreages 
and evapotranspiration of applied water. Figure NL-5 shows 1990 crop acreages, 
,evapotranspiration. and applied water for major crops. 



North Lahontan Region 



211 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Planning Subarea 



Table NL-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 

(thousands of acres) 



1990 



2000 



2010 



2020 



Lassen Group 
Alpine Group 



120 
41 



122 
41 



125 
41 



128 
41 



TOTAL 



161 



163 



166 



169 



Table NL-8 summarizes 1990 and forecasted agricultural water demand in the 
region. The applied water use values were derived by applying unit water use factors to 
the irrigated acreages in the region. Applied water amounts vary according to crop, soil 
type, cultural practices, and the quantity, timing, and availability of irrigation water 
During drought years, there is an increased need for additional irrigations to replace 
water normally supplied by rainfall and to meet higher -than-normal evapotranspiration 
demands. 



Table NL-7. 1 990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 



Irrigated Crop 



Grain 
Rice 
Alfalfa 
Pasture 
Otfier truck 



Total Acres 


Total ETAW 


(hOOO) 


(1000 AFj 


6 


10 


1 


2 


43 


103 


110 


233 


1 


2 



TOTAL 



161 



350 



The majority of the area irrigated by surface water, particularly in the Lassen 
Group, has limited water storage facilities and is dependant on snowmelt and spring 
and summer rainfall. Since most of the surface water irrigation operates with a 
nonfirm water supply, irrigated acreage and the length of time irrigation water is 
available fluctuates annually. The crop most subject to these changes is irrigated 
pasture. Even though acreage in some areas can remain relatively stable, the length of 
the irrigation season is often shortened since runoff generally decreases as summer 
progresses. As in most situations when water is in short supply, water is used 
sparingly and irrigation efficiencies increase. There is no evidence that there will be 
significant changes in future irrigation efficiencies; however, some increase can be 
anticipated due to improved irrigation management and the water conservation ethic 
in the area. The agricultural economy and water users have adapted to the erratic 
water supply. 



212 



North Lahontan Region 



Planning Subarea 



Lassen 

Applied water demand 
Net water demand 
Depletion 
Alpine 

Applied water demand 
Net water demand 
Depletion 

TOTAL 

Applied water demand 
Net water demand 
Depletion 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Table NL-8. Agricultural Water Demand 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



344 

294 
270 

178 
166 
108 



380 

316 
301 



352 

299 
277 



389 

322 
308 



362 

306 
285 



400 
329 
317 



522 

460 
378 



587 

511 
426 



523 

458 
385 



589 

510 
433 



525 

457 
393 



591 

508 
442 



Ground water accounts for 23 percent of the region's irrigation water needs and 
is often used to supplement nonfirm surface water supplies. Most areas irrigated by 

i ground water are either sprinkler irrigated or are using a closed-basin type of irrigation 

; system, both of which are very efficient. In contrast to land irrigated by ground water. 

i land irrigated by surface water during the spring months has a higher-than-normal 
applied water rate. Some of the surplus water from the uncontrolled outflow from 
irrigated fields is spread on the soil where it deep-percolates and recharges ground 

I water basins. Much of this water, if not applied for irrigation, would flow to the saline 
lakes in the area and evaporate. 



371 
316 
291 



536 

469 
399 



409 
340 
324 




207 


171 


200 


163 


191 


165 


193 


195 


159 


188 


151 


179 


153 


181 


125 


108 


125 


108 


125 


108 


125 



602 

521 
449 




Figure NL-5. 
Nortli Latxontan Region 
1 990 Acreage. ETAW. 
and Applied Water 
for Major Crops 



North Lahontan Region 



213 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



The Madeline Plains area has shown a dynamic increase in irrigation water use. 
Dviring the past eight years, alfalfa acreage has increased from 300 acres to over 
10,000 acres. Wild rice, a new crop in the area, was estimated at about 500 acres in 
1990. Most of the above mentioned crops were planted on land not irrigated prior to 
1980. Much of the increase in irrigation can be attributed to an innovative method of 
collecting winter runoff and irrigation drainage in a large sump in a closed basin, then 
using it in conjunction with ground water for irrigation. 

Environmental Water Use 

The principal environmental water use in the region is for wetlands near fioney 
Lake. The Honey Lake Wildlife Area in southern Lassen County consists of the 
4,271 -acre Dakin Unit and the 3.569-acre Fleming Unit. The two units provide 
important habitat for several threatened or endangered species, including the bald 
eagle, sandhill crane, bank swallow, and peregrine falcon. This wildlife area has winter 
storage rights from the Susan River from November 1 until the last day of February, 
The HLWA also operates eight wells, each producing between 1 ,260 and 2. 100 gallons 
per minute. In an average year, the HLWA floods 3,000 acres by March 1 for waterfowl 
brood habitat. 

In 1989. the California Department of Fish and Game purchased the 2,714-acre 
Willow Creek Wildlife Area in Lassen County to preserve existing wetlands and to 
increase the potential for waterfowl production and migration habitat. About 2,000 
acres are wetland and riparian habitats. The endangered bald eagle and sandhill crane 
also inhabit this area. In addition to the Honey Lake and Willow Creek Wildlife Areas, 
DFG operates the Doyle Wildlife Area, also in the Honey Lake Basin. This wildlife area 
is preserved as dryland winter range for deer and requires less water than the Honey 
Lake or Willow Creek areas. Table NL-9 summarizes projected wetlands water needs 
for the region. 



Wetland 



Table NL-9. Wetland Water Needs 

(thousands of acre-feetj 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Honey Lake WA 


Applied water demand 


14 


14 


14 


14 


14 


14 


14 


14 


Net water demand 


14 


14 


14 


14 


14 


14 


14 


14 


Depletion ™«™,^, »™»«»s»». 


, U 


14 


14 


14 


14 


14 


14 


14 


Willow Creek WA 


Applied water demand 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


Net water demand 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


Depletion 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 




TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


Net water demand 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


Depletion 


17 


17 


17- 


17 . 


17 


17 


17 


17 



DFG is concerned about maintaining instream flows and reservoir levels in the 
California portions of the Carson and Walker river basins. Portions of these rivers are 
protected by the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, In conjunction with American 



214 



North Lahontan Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Land Conservancy, a private land trust organization, DFG has been acquiring lands 
and water rights at Heenan Lake in the upper watershed of the East Fork Carson River. 
This small reservoir, formerly used to supply irrigation water for lands in Nevada, is 
now being used by DFG to raise Lahontan cutthroat trout to stock in other locations 
throughout the Sierras. Parts of the upper Carson River are managed by DFG as wild 
trout waters, where stocking of hatchery fish is not allowed. Recreational trout fishing 
is a popular activity on both the upper Carson and Walker rivers. 

The productive, highly alkaline waters of Eagle Lake near Susanville in Lassen 
County support a renowned trout fishery. The endemic Eagle Lake rainbow trout, a 
recognized subspecies, is a variety also suitable for widespread planting and has 
become an important hatchery strain. Eagle Lake is a fishing recreation center for 
Northern California and Nevada. 

Bridgeport Reservoir on the East Walker River near the California-Nevada border 
was the site of a recent State Water Resources Control Board action regarding water 
requirements for the trout fishery. This reservoir supplies water to agricultural lands in 
Nevada. The operation of the reservoir during the recent drought caused a fishery 
resource to decline in the river downstream. As part of ensuing legal actions, instream 
flow releases and other conditions were imposed on reservoir operation. The SWRCB's 
modifications to the permits for Bridgeport Reservoir are being challenged in the U.S. 
District Court in Nevada. 

' Other Wafer Use 

By far. the heaviest concentration of recreation use in the North Lahontan Region 
occurs within the Lake Tahoe Basin. Recreation development in other areas of the 
region is limited due to the relatively low population density and remoteness. Roughly 
half of the visitors to this region come from the San Francisco metropolitan area, about 
30 percent from the Los Angeles metropolitan area, and 15 percent from out-of-state. 

Public recreation areas include three national forest districts. 12 Bureau of Land 
Management recreation complexes, seven State parks, and six county parks. There are 
more than 30 major private recreation areas which include ski areas, golf courses, 
resorts, and marinas. 

Several natural waterways in the region provide access for fishing, swimming, 
boating, hiking, and picnicking. River touring, a popular sport in California, is a 
common activity in the Truckee. Carson, East Fork Carson, West Walker, and East 
Walker rivers. Figure NL-6 shows water recreation areas in the region. 




North Lahontan Region 215 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Category of Use 



Table NL-10. Total Water Demands 

(thousands of acre-feet) 



1990 

average drought 



2000 

average drought 



2010 

average drought 



2020 

average drough 



Urban 

Applied water demand 
Net water demand 
Depletion 

Agricultural 

Applied water demand 
Net water demand 
Depletion 

Environmental 

Applied water demand 
Net water demand 
Depletion 

Other"! 

Applied water demand 
Net water demand 
Depletion 



37 
37 

14 

522 
460 
378 

17 
17 
17 







38 

15 


43 
17 


44 
18 


587 


523 


589 


511 


458 


510 


426 


385 


433 



46 
46 
19 



48 
48 
20 



51 
51 
21 



17 

17 
17 







17 
17 
17 







17 
17 
17 







525 


591 


536 


457 


508 


469 


393 
17 


442 
17 


399 
17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 











52 
52 
21 

602 

521 
449 

17 

17 
17 

























TOTAL 












656 
573 






Applied water demand 


576 


642 


583 


650 


588 
520 


604 
537 


671 
590 


Net water demand 


514 


566 


518 


571 



Depletion 


409 


458 


419 


468 


429 


479 


437 


487 1 





































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



216 



North Lahontan Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure NL-6. North Lahontan Region 
Hydroelectric Power Plants, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Water Recreation Areas 



OREGON 



1. Donner Memorial S.R 

2. Kings Beach S.R.A. 

3. Tahoe S.R.A. 

4. Sugar Pine Point S.P 

5. D.L. Bliss S.P 

6. Emerald Bay S.P 

7. Grover Hot Springs S.P 



Le g ^ n d 
A Water Recreation Area 

Hydroelectric Power Plant* 
State Wild and Scenic River 




N 




SCALE IN MILES 

j •From 1992 California Energy Commission Maps. See Table D-3 in Appendix lor plant information. 



North Lahontan Region 



217 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



The Carson River in 

Alpine County. The 

Carson and Truckee 

rivers were the center oj 

a years-long water rights 

dispute which was 

settled in 1990 in the 

congressional 

Truckee-Carson-Pyramid 

Lake Water Rights 

Settlement Act. 



Current visitor attendance to the region is estimated at 1 2 million visitor days 
annually. Total consumptive water use for recreation in the region is small. Table 
NL- 10 shows the total water demands for this region. 

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 

The principal water-related issues in the North Lahontan Region center around 
interstate water allocations, population growth, limitations of existing water supply 
systems, water quality protection, and ground water management. 

Legislation and Litigation 

Interstate River Issues. Years of disputes over the waters of the Truckee and 
Carson rivers finally led to congressional enactment of the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid 
Lake Water Rights Settlement Act in 1990. The act makes an interstate allocation of 
the waters between California and Nevada, provides for the settlement of certain Native 
American water rights claims, and provides for water supplies for specified 
environmental purposes in Nevada. The act allocates to California: 23,000 af annually 
in the Lake Tahoe Basin; 32,000 af annually in the Truckee River Basin below Lake 
Tahoe: and water corresponding to existing water uses in the Carson River Basin. 
Provisions of the Settlement Act. including the interstate water allocations, will not 
take effect until several conditions are met, including negotiation of the Truckee River 
Operating Agreement required in the act. 

DWR and 

SWRCB staff have 
represented Califor- 
nia interests in nego- 
tiating the Truckee 
River Operating 

Agreement. DWR is a 
lead agency, along 
with the U.S. Bureau 
of Reclamation and 
the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, in de- 
veloping the Environ- 
mental Impact Re- 
port/Statement for 
the agreement. A ma- 
jor purpose of the 
TROA is to establish 
detailed river opera- 
tions procedures to 
meet the goals laid 

out in the act. It may also address some aspects of implementing California's water 
allocation. Issues of concern to California include implementation of surface and 
ground water allocations, including the amount of water allocated for snow-making at 
ski resorts, and allocations for operation of Truckee River storage facilities to protect 
lake and instream beneficial uses. 

Present-day operations of the Truckee. Carson, and Walker rivers are governed in 
large part by existing federal court water rights decrees administered by 
court-appointed watermasters. The interstate nature of the rivers, combined with the 




218 



North Lahontan Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



long history of disputes over water rights, has created a complex system of river 
management criteria. On the Carson River for example, it took the federal court 55 
years to sort out the water rights and issue the Alpine Decree, which governs operation 
of the river today. 

Regional Issues 

Population Growth. Growth has long been a major issue in the Tahoe Basin and 
strict controls have been adopted by local agencies under the leadership of the Tahoe 
Regional Planning Agency. These controls have been very effective. For example, the 
City of South Lake Tahoe grew by only 4 percent in the 1980s. 

I Population of the Lassen County portion of the region increased by nearly 30 

percent over the past decade. A major contributor to this growth was the construction 
of the California Correctional Center at Susanville, which houses about 4.000 
prisoners and employs a staff of about 1.000. This growth and the 1987-92 drought 
: have revealed the limits of local surface water supplies. There is increasing interest in 
' assuring that water will be available to meet urban needs without reducing agricultural 
supplies or overdrafting the ground water basin. State proposals to double the capacity 
of the correctional facility led to intense local debate in 1991. One of the principal 
issues was the growth-inducing impact of the proposal and the resulting increased 
pressure on existing water supplies. The question was eventually put on the ballot, and 
a substantial majority of the voters approved the expansion. 

Reno Water Supplies. Although not strictly a California issue, local interests in 
ithe northern part of the region have been apprehensive about the Reno area's 
' aggressive quest for additional water supplies. In the late 1980s, the Silver State Plan 
triggered concerns as far north as Modoc County (over 150 miles north of Reno). The 
plan envisioned constructing a pipeline north nearly to the Oregon border to tap 
ground water basins, some of which extend across the California-Nevada line. More 
recently, the proposed Truckee Meadows Project generated concerns about depletion 
of ground water supplies. 

I Ground water management is closely related to the issue of water supply for the 

Reno area. Concern over protecting local ground water resources has led to 

establishment of formal ground water management mechanisms in the Honey Lake 

.and Long Valley basins in Lassen and Sierra counties. Similar arrangements are being 

jconsidered in Surprise Valley and the pending interstate allocation establishes limits 

:on ground water withdrawals in the Lake Tahoe and Truckee River basins. At present. 

[neither the Honey Lake nor Long Valley ground water management districts is active, 

,but either can be activated whenever a need is perceived. 

i 

I Water Quality. There is a potential for future ground water pollution in those 

[areas where single-family septic systems have been installed in high density 

Isubdivisions, especially in the hard rock areas. Water quality has also become a greater 

•issue for many surface water systems around Lake Tahoe. The recent drought dropped 

llake levels to all-time lows and left some system intakes in shallow water. In addition. 

ithe 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act are forcing many of the smaller 

iprivate systems to consolidate or change ownership since they are unable to afford the 

!new monitoring and treatment requirements of the amended act. South Tahoe Public 

Utility District, the largest water purveyor in the basin, is also experiencing some 

difficulty in planning to meet these requirements. 

The Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board has been concerned about 
j^round water contamination and eutrophication at Eagle Lake since 1982. Numerous 




North Lahontan Region 219 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



studies, including one completed by DWR in October 1990. have shown widespread 
bacterial contamination in domestic wells in this area. Blooms of noxious species of 
algae appear to be increasing in frequency in the lake in response to nutrient 
enrichment, a suspected result of increased residential development in the basin. The 
regional board issued Cease and Desist Orders in 1 99 1 requiring subdivision residents 
to abandon use of septic tanks. The State Water Resources Control Board was 
petitioned by residents of Spalding Tract and Stones-Bengard subdivisions for relief 
from these orders, and the SWRCB agreed to allow the formation of a septic system 
maintenance district in lieu of a regional waste water collection system. The regional 
board will be establishing guidelines for forming this district and monitoring 
requirements to ensure that ground water contamination does not continue. 

A study of the potential contamination of Cady Springs by septic tank leachfield 
effluent from up-slope urban development is also being conducted. Cady Springs is the 
primary water supply for the City of Susanville. Until the completion of the study, 
further urban development of this area, west of Susanville. has been constrained by 
concerns expressed by the city and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 

Truckee Meadows Ground Water Transfer Project. In the mid-1980s, a plan 
for the Truckee Meadows Project was developed to export ground water from Nevada's 
portion of Honey Lake Valley ground water basin to the Reno area. Applications were 
filed with the Nevada State Engineer to transfer about 23.000 af per year. Concerns 
about the transfers and possible side effects resulted in a 1987 agreement between 
DWR, the State of Nevada, and the U.S. Geological Survey to jointly determine the 
ground water flow system in eastern Honey Lake Valley. When the USGS study was 
completed, the Nevada State Engineer opened hearings in the summer of 1990 
regarding applications to transfer ground water from Honey Lake Valley to the Reno 
area. The Nevada State Engineer ruled that only about 13,000 af could be transferred 
from the basin. Currently, the Truckee Meadows Project developers are completing an 
Environmental Impact Statement for the 80-mile pipeline to transfer ground water. 
Lassen County and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe have challenged the State 
Engineers decision in a Nevada Court. 

Long Valley Ground Water Transfers. In the late 1980s, there was a proposal 
to export about 3,000 af per year from Long Valley to the Reno area. The project 
developers were asked to submit an application to the Long Valley Ground Water 
Management District for a permit to export ground water from the district. To date, the 
project proponents have not filed an application. 

Water Balance 

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



220 North Lahontan Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Water Demand/Supply 



Table NL-1 1 . Water Budget 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 

average drought average drought average drought 



2020 

average drought 



Net Demand 

Urban— with 1 990 
level of conservation 
— reductions due to 
long-term conservation 
measures (Level I) 

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

Environmental 

OtheH'i 



., 37 


38 


43 


44 


46 


48 


51 


52 


— 


— 




















460 


511 


458 


510 


457 


508 


469 


521 
























17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 



TOTAL Net Demand 



514 



566 



571 



520 



573 



537 



590 



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

j Developed Supplies 

Surface Water 

Ground Water 

Ground Water Overdraft^ ^' 
Subtotal 
Dedicated Natural Flow 



393 


349 


390 


351 


382 


351 


390 


355 


121 


146 


128 


154 


138 


165 


147 


173 








— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


514 


495 


518 


505 


520 


516 


537 


528 



























TOTAL Water Supplies 


514 


495 


518 


505 


520 


516 


537 


528 


Demand/Supply Balance 





-71 





-66 





-57 





-62 



. Level I Water Management Programs 

! Long-term Supply Augmentation 
Reclaimed 
I Local 

I Central Valley Project 

I State Water Project 

i Subtotal ■ Level I Water 
I Management Programs 

I Net Ground Water or 

i Surface Water Use Reduction 

I Resulting from Level I Programs 



— 


— 




















— 


— 




















— 


— 




















— 


— 













































I Remaining Demand/Supply Balance Requiring Short-term Drought Management and/or Level II Options 



-71 



-66 



-57 



-62 



: (l]lncludes major conveyance facility losses, recreation uses, and energy production 

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



North Lahontan Region 



221 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Table NL-11 presents water demands for the 1990 level and for future water 
demands to 2020 and balances them with: (1) supplies from existing facilities and 
water management programs, and (2) future demand management and water supply 
management options. 

Regional net water demands for the 1990 level of development totaled 514,000 
and 566.000 af for average and drought years, respectively. Those demands are 
forecasted to increase to 537.000 and 590.000 af. respectively, by the year 2020. 
Urban net water demand is forecasted to increase by about 1 4.000 af. primarily due to 
expected increases in population, while agricultural net water demand remains 
essentially level. Environmental net water demands are also expected to remain level 
out to 2020. 

Average annual supplies are generally adequate to meet average water demands 
in this region to the year 2020. However, during drought, present supplies are 
insufficient to meet present and future demands without additional water 
management programs: annual drought year shortages are expected to be about 
62,000 af by 2020. 

The 1990 drought year shortage of about 71,000 af was reflected in reduced 
surface water supplies available for irrigation primarily in Alpine, Mono, Lassen, and 
Modoc counties. The shortages mentioned above for drought conditions are typically 
managed locally according to water availability. Specifically, available water supplies 
determine the amount of agricultural land in production in any given year. In most of 
these areas, supplies are delivered according to water rights or court decisions by local, 
state, and federal watermasters. 

There are no major water management programs planned for this region. Plans 
for augmenting supplies for the Reno-Sparks area, such as ground water import from 
California, could affect future supplies in the region. The Truckee River operating 
agreement is currently being negotiated with Nevada interests but is not expected to 
limit supplies through 2020. Future water management programs depend on 
economic viability of such programs and the overall level of water service reliability 
deemed necessary by local agencies to sustain the economic health of the region. 



222 North Lahontan Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 




North Lahontan Region 



223 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Aerial view of the southern Sierra Nevada snow pack. 
Runojfjrom the eastern face of the Sierras is an integral part of 
the South Lahontan Region's water supply, part of which is exported 
to the South Coast Region. 







>"» .-^ 






The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 




The South Lahontan Region accounts for about 18 percent of California's total SOUth Lahonton 



land area. It encompasses the area from the mountain divide north of Mono Lake to the 
divide south of the Mojave River, which runs through the Mojave Desert. It is bordered 
on the east by the Nevada state line and on the west by the crest of of the Sierra 
Nevada. 

The region is a closed basin with many desert valleys that contain central playas, 
or dry lakes, especially in the south. The northern portion is dominated by the Sierra 
Nevada and the WhiteTnyo Mountain Ranges. In the south are smaller mountain 
ranges with broad alluvial fans. Other prominent topographic features in the region 
include Mt. Whitney (the highest mountain in the contiguous 48 states, with an 
elevation of 14,495 feet), the Mono volcanic tableland. Death Valley (the lowest point at 
elevation 282 feet below mean sea level), and the Owens Valley. (See Appendix C for 
maps of the planning subareas and land ownership in the region.) 

Average annual precipitation for the region's valleys generally ranges between 4 
and 10 inches. Variations above and below this range do occur: for example. Death 
Valley receives only 1 .9 inches annually. The Sierra Nevada Mountains can receive up 
to 50 inches annually, much of it in the form of snow. In some years, the community 
of Mammoth Lakes can have snow accumulations of more than 10 feet, 

Populafion 

In 1990, the South Lahontan Region's population was almost 600,000, about 2 
percent of California's total. Although not densely populated, the region contains some 
of the fastest growing urban areas in California, including the cities of Lancaster and 
Palmdale in the Antelope Valley of Los Angeles County and the Victor and Apple valleys 
of San Bernardino County. Many of the new residents in these valleys are workers who 
have accepted a long commute to the greater Los Angeles area in exchange for 
affordable new homes. Future population grow^th in the region will probably be 
concentrated in these vicinities. Major local employment includes the aerospace 
industry at Palmdale Airport and Edwards Air Force Base. Bishop. Ridgecrest, and 
Barstow are the other important centers in the region. The City of Ridgecrest's 
continued growth will be tied to the economic conditions of the nearby China Lake 
Naval Weapons Center and mining operations at Searles Lake. 



Region Characteristics 
Average Annual Precipitation: 8 inches Average Annual Runoff: 1.334,000 af 
Land Area: 29,020 square miles 1 990 Population: 599.900 



Region 



South Lahontan Region 225 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



While the identified growth centers will probably continue to expand, there is 
little reason to expect much population growth elsewhere in the region. The Owens 
Valley and eastern Sierra area should remain sparsely populated, with the string of 
small communities serving recreationists and travelers along U,S, Highway 395, 
Barstow, a service center for railroads and travelers, is strongly tied to the U,S, Army's 
Fort Irwin, which has grown modestly in recent years. Most of the other towns and 
communities in this portion of the region are highway service centers or farm service 
centers. Table SL-1 shows population projections to 2020 for the South Lahontan 
Region. 



Table SL-1. Population Projections 

(fhousands) 



Planning Subarea 



TOTAL 



1990 



599 



2000 



,003 



2010 



1,429 



2020 



AAono-Owens 


25 


29 


35 


43 


Death Valley 1111 


Indian Wells 


48 


75 


108 


141 


Antelope Valley 


260 


499 


738 


986 


Mojave River H 


11— P 265 


399 


547 


748 





1,919 



Land Use 

Public lands constitute about 75 percent (14 million acres) of the regions area. 
Much of this land is national monument and scenic areas, national forests, and 
military reservations. 

About 1 percent of the 18.6 million acres in the South Lahontan Region is used 
for urban and agricultural activities. In 1990, urban and suburban land uses occupied 
about 170,000 acres, a 21 -percent increase from 1980, Over 80 percent of this 
increase was in urban acreage concentrated in the Antelope and Mojave River valleys. 
The only other area showing much urban growth was the Indian Wells Valley, Much of 
this increase was associated with construction of new single- and multiple-family 
dwellings. Modest increases are associated with new commercial services and light 
industry. Industries supporting the region's economy include the military, recreation 
and tourism, travelers' services, agriculture, and mining. 

About 61,000 acres are irrigated crop land (less than 1 percent of the region's 
total land area). Multiple cropping is not generally practiced in the region. Most of the 
irrigated acreage is in the Mono-Owens planning subarea where roughly 30,000 acres 
are irrigated. This PSA includes the Owens Valley, the Lake Crowley area northwest of 
Bishop, and the Hammil and Fish Lake valleys. Alfalfa and pasture are the primary 
crops. 

Moderate levels of irrigated agriculture subsist in the Mojave River, Antelope, and 
Indian Wells valleys. Most of the activity and acreage produces alfalfa, pasture, or 
deciduous fruit. Figure SL- 1 shows land use, along with imports and exports for the 
South Lahontan Region, 



226 



South Lahontan Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure SL-1. South Lahontan Region 
Land Use, Imports, and Exports 





Ca J i forni a 
Aqueduc t 

(East & 
ffest Branch) 

1,225 

Los .4/7^6-/^ VALLEY 
Aqueduct 

I Urban Land 
I Irrigated Land 
-<- Region Water Transfers 

(1,000's of Acre-Feet per Year) 

10^^^20 30 



SCALE IN MILES 



South Lahontan Region 



227 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Water Supply 

Historically, the South Lahontan Region has relied mostly on ground water, the 
mainstay of many of the local urban and farming communities. Natural surface water 
supplies, such as the Mono Lake tributaries, the Owens River, and the Mojave River, 
also contribute to the domestic and agricultural supplies. Table SL-2 lists the major 
reservoirs of the region. Figure SL-2 shows the region's 1990 level water supplies. 



Table SL-2. Major Reservoirs 



Reservoir Name 


River ( 


Capacify (1,0^ 


Saddlebag Lake 


Lee Vining Creek 


11 


Gem Lake 


Rush Creek 


17 


Grant Lake 


Rush Creek 


48 


South Lake 


South Fork Bishop Creek 


13 


Lake Crowley 


Owens 


183 


Tinemaha 


Owens 


16 


Haiwee 


Rose Valley 


41 


Lake Silverwood 


West Fork Mojave 


75 



Ovfner 



Southern California Edison Co. 
Southern California Edison Co. 
Los Angeles Dept. Water & Power 
Southern California Edison Co. 
Los Angeles Dept. Water & Power 
Los Angeles Dept. Water & Power 
Los Angeles Dept. Water & Power 
Department of Water Resources 



Figure SL-2. 

South Lahontan Region 

Wafer Supply Sources 

(1990 Level 

Average Conditions) 



In 1913 and 1970, the first and second Los Angeles aqueducts were completed 
and began conveying water from the Mono-Owens area to the City of Los Angeles. The 
combined carrying capacity of both aqueducts amounts to 780 cubic feet per second. 
Court-ordered restrictions on diversions from the Mono Basin and Owens Valley have 
reduced the amount of water the city can receive and have brought into question the 

reliability of the Mono- 
Owens supply for Los 
Angeles. (See the Legis- 
lation and Litigatton sec- 
tion under Issues Af- 
fecting Local Water 
Resource Management.) 
As demand continues to 
grow, the decreased di- 
versions have forced the 
City of Los Angeles to 
become more 

dependent on other 
sources. 

In the 1970s, the 
Antelope Valley-East 
Kern Water Agency be- 
gan receiving deliveries 
of State Water Project 
water and recharging 
the valley's ground water basin. Ground water levels in some portions of the basin are 
reported to have risen 40 feet or more since the introduction of SWP water. 




228 



South Lahontan Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Supply with Existing Facilities and Water Management Programs 

Table SL-3 shows water supplies with existing facilities and water management 
programs. Ground water is the only source of domestic and agricultural water in the 
Death Valley and Indian Wells planning subareas. Very little, if any. of the surface 
water tlow in these PSAs is used for other than natural ground water recharge. The 
Antelope Valley receives over 66 percent of its domestic and agricultural water supply 
from the State Water Project, with the remainder drawn from ground water and local 
surface supplies. The Mono-Owens and Mojave River PSAs rely on both surface and 
ground water supplies to meet demands. 

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

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

Supply 1990 2000 2010 2020 

overage drought average drought average drought average drought 

Surface 

Local 

Local imports 

Colorado River 

CVP 

Other federal 

SWP 
Ground water 
Overdraft" 
Reclaimed 
Dedicated natural flow 




57 


44 


57 


44 


57 


44 


57 


44 


































































































69 


47 


133 


87 


142 


88 


153 


90 


221 


252 

67 

13 

122 


220 


237 


226 


271 


258 
13 


271 


67 


13 
128 


13 
122 


— 


13 


13 


13 


13 


128 


128 


122 


128 


122 



TOTAL 



555 



545 



551 



503 



566 



538 



609 



540 



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

Ground water is extremely important in supplying water to the region. As many 
as 47 distinct ground water basins covering thousands of square miles have been 
j identified in the South Lahontan Region. Storage capacities vary by basin. Ground 
■ water basin capacities in both the Mojave River and Antelope Valley PSAs, for example. 
. total about 70.000,000 af each. Economically usable storage is significantly less but 
provides the major, if not the only, water source in many areas. Water quality also 
' varies and this influences water supply. Basins are recharged through percolation 
I from irrigation return flow, natural stream flow, and intermittent stream flow from 
' snowmelt, depending on location. 

I Natural runoff, carried by numerous streams on the eastern slopes of the Sierras. 

; is about 1.300.000 af annually in average years. Estimated projected average year 

I deliveries to the City of Los Angeles are about 425,000 af a year for 2000 to 2020. 

j Under drought conditions, deliveries are projected to be 208,000 af a year for 2000 to 

; 2020. 

Supply witti Additional facilities and Water Management Programs 

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

I 



South Lahontan Region 



229 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



O 



O 



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

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

Table SL-4 shows water supplies with Level 1 water management programs. 



Supply 



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

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

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Surface 

Local 

Local imports 

Colorado River 

CVP 

Other federal 

SWP 
Ground water 
Overdraff'^i 
Reclaimed 
Dedicated natural flow 



57 


44 


57 


44 


57 


44 


57 


44 


































































































69 


47 


143 


107 


164 


141 


185 


142 


221 


252 


219 


237 


226 


237 


236 


271 


67 


67 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


13 


13 


13 


13 


14 


14 


14 


14 


128 


122 


128 


122 


128 


122 


128 


122 



TOTAL 



555 



545 



560 



523 



589 



558 



620 



593 



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



Figure SL-3 

South Lahontan Region 

Net Water Demand 

(1990 Level 

Average Conditions) 



The larger urban and agricultural areas of the South Lahontan Region— Owens 
Valley, Victorville, Hesperia. and Antelope Valley— have several water management op- 
tions that can improve 
the reliability of sup- 
plies, including: forma- 
tion of ground water 
management agencies 
or replenishment dis- 
tricts: reclamation of 
brackish ground water: 
desalination: water re- 
cycling: and institution 
of conjunctive use op- 
erations to make more 
efficient use of surface 
and ground water sup- 
plies. 

Most of the water 
demands of the region 
are being met with 




230 



South Lahontan Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



ground water and local surface water. Several of the ground water basins are in over- 
draft. SWP water is being delivered to residents in the Antelope Valley and will be deliv- 
ered to the Mojave Water Agency after the Morongo Pipeline is completed in 1994. Also, 
a feasibility study is being initiated for the Mojave Water Agency's proposed Mojave 
River Pipeline to the City of Barstow and the communities of Newberry Springs (Helen- 
dale. Hinkley. Lenwood, Daggett). More on this water management plan can be found 
in the LA-gislalion and Liligalton section later in this chapter. 



Water Use 

Estimated 1990 level annual net water use within the South Lahontan Region is 
about 555,000 af per year. Irrigated agriculture accounts for 52 percent of the region's 
1990 level net water use, while urban use amounts to about 22 percent, and 
emironmental and other water use account for 26 percent. Net water use for urban 
and agricultural purposes in the South Lahontan Region increased by almost 4 percent 
between 1980 and 1990. By 2020. net water demand for the region is forecasted to 
climb an additional 32 percent because of continued expansion of urban centers. 
Figure SL-3 show net water demand for the 1990 level of development. 

Since the 1970s, population in some urban centers in Antelope, Mojave River. 
Apple, and Victor valleys has increased dramatically. Urban development alone in the 
Antelope and Mojave River valleys increased net water use by almost 125 percent since 
1980. 

Urban Water Use 

Population projections indicate that from 1990 to 2020. the region's population 
will increase by over 200 percent. Medium-sized cities such as Lancaster. Palmdale. 
Apple Valley. Victorville. Hesperla. and Barstow will continue to expand; however, 
development in the rest of the region will be sporadic. 

Total municipal and industrial applied water use in 1990 was about 187,000 af. 
an Increase of about 97 percent from the 1980 level. The 1990 level urban net water 
demand was about 123.000 af and is forecasted to increase by almost 200 percent by 
2020. Most of the in- 
crease in new water use 
will be in the residential 
categon,'. while in- 
creases in industrial 
water use will be mod- 
est. Figure SL-4 shows 
the 1990 level urban ap- 
plied water use by sec- 
tor. 

Normalized 1990 
per capita water use for 
the region was 280 gal- 
lons daily. However, 
daily per capita use 
ranged from 1 24 gallons 
for the Death Valley PSA 
to 503 gallons for the 
Mono-Owens PSA. Pos- 
sible reasons for the relatively high per capita values in the Mono-Owens area are the 




Figure SL-4. 

South Lahontan Region 

Urban Applied Water 

Use by Sector 

(1 990 Level 

Average Conditions) 



South Lahontan Region 



231 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



large numbers of tourists (greatly exceeding the residential population). In Death 
Valley, there is little outdoor residential water use, which accounts for the relatively low 
per capita use value for the area. 

In 1990, the Antelope Valley and Mojave River PSAs combined accounted for 
about 86 percent of the region's total urban applied water, while the Mono-Owens and 
Indian Wells PSAs accounted for the remaining 14 percent. Regional applied water 
demands for urban use are forecasted to climb to almost 550,000 af by 2020, an 
increase of 194 percent over the 1990 level. Table SL-5 shows urban water demand to 
2020. 



Table SL-5. Urban Water Demand 

(thousands of acre-feet) 



Planning Subarea 


1990 

average drought 


2000 

average drought 


2070 

average drought 


20 

average 


20 

drought 


Mono-Owens 


Applied water demand 


14 


'■™i'r*^' 16 


17 


19 


20 


24 


24 


Net water demand 


8 


8 


9 


9 


11 


11 


13 


14 


Depletion 


8 


8 


9 


9 


11 


11 


13 


14 i 


Death Valley 


Applied water demand 


























Net water demand 


























Depletion 


























Indian Wells 


Applied water demand 


12 


12 


18 


19 


27 


28 


36 


37 


Net water demand 


7 


7 


10 


11 


15 


16 


20 


21 


Depletion 


7 


...,,....:.:.....,. :Z.,:. 


10 


11 


15 


16 


20 


21 


Antelope Valley 


Applied water demand 


■'■■■■■■ 66'-'* 


68 


122 


126 


180 


186 


243^ ' 


250 


Net water demand 


45 


46 


83 


86 


123 


126 


165 


170 


Depletion 


45 


46 


83 


86 


123 


126 


165 


170 


Mojave River 


Applied water demand 


95 


98 


136 


140 


183 


189 


247 


254 


Net water demand 


63 


64 


89 


92 


120 


124 


162 


167 


Depletion 


63 


64 


89 


92 


120 


124 


162 


167 




TOTAL _^ 


Applied water demand 


187 


193 


292 


302 


409 


423 


550 


' ■s&S'm 


Net water demand 


123 


125 


191 


198 


269 


277 


360 


372 


Depletion 


123 


125 


191 


198 


269 


277 


360 


372 



232 



South Lahontan Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Agricultural Water Use 

Agricultural average annual net water use is expected to decline from the 1990 
level of 290.000 af to 231.000 af annually by 2020. reflecting reductions in irrigated 
crop acreage from the 1990 level of 61.000 acres to 48,000 acres in 2020. This 
decrease in regional crop acres is due to urbanization and land going out of production 
for economic reasons. The area forecasted to undergo the most significant 
transformation is the Antelope Valley PSA. Between 1990 and 2020, the forecasted 
irrigated acreage for this PSA is expected to decrease from slightly less than 1 1,000 to 
about 1 ,000 acres. Other PSAs are expected to experience less dramatic decreases. 
Table SL-6 shows irrigated crop acreage for the region. Table SL-7 shows 1990 crop 
acreage and evapotranspiration of applied water. 




Table SL-6. Irrigated Crop Acreage 

(thousands of acres) 



Planning Subarea 



1990 



TOTAL 



61 



2000 



50 



2070 



49 



2020 



Mono-Owens 


29 


29 


29 


29 


Death Valley 


2 


2 


2 


2 


Indian Wells 


4 


3 


3 


3 


Antelope Valley 


11 


2 


1 


1 


MoJGve River 


15 


14 


14 


13 





48 



Figure SL-5 shows the 1990 crop acreage. ETAW, and applied water for the major 
crops in the region. Table SL-8 shows agricultural water demands to 2020 for this 
region. Forecasts indicate the regions total agricultural applied water will decrease by 
about 20 percent between 1990 and 2020. 




Figure SL-5. 

1990 

South Lahontan Region 

Acreage. ETAW. 

and Applied Water 

for Major Crops 



South Lahontan Region 



233 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



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

Irrigated Crop 



Grain 
Other field 
Alfalfa 
Pasture 
Ottier truck 
Other deciduous 

TOTAL 



Total Acres 


Total ETAW 


11,000] 


(1,000 AF) 


1 

1 


1 
2 


34 


147 


19 


83 


2 


3 


4 


8 



61 



244 



Plartnmg Subarea 



Environmental Water Use 

Spring runoff and snowmelt from the eastern Sierra Nevada create a unique eco- 
logical setting in the Mono Lake and Owens Valley areas. Preserving a balance between 
environmental, agricultural, and domestic water needs of the Mono-Owens area and 

Table SL-8. Agricultural Water Demand 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Mono-Owens 


Applied water demand 


161 


165 


156 


160 


156 


160 


156 


160 


Net water demand 


147 


150 


144 


147 


144 


147 


144 


147 


Depletion 


147 


150 


144 


147 


144 


147 


144 


147 


Death Valley 


Applied water demand 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


Net water demand 


9 


9 


9 


9 


9 


9 


9 


9 


Depletion 


9 


9 


9 


9 


9 


9 


9 


9 


Indian Wells 


Applied water demand 


18 


18 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


Net water demand 


17 


17 


15 


15 


15 


15 


15 


15 


Depletion mbsmbore 


17 


17 


15 


15 


15 


15 


15 


15 


Antelope Valley 


Applied water demand 


49 


49 


9 


9 


5 


5 


3 


3 


Net water demand 


47 


47 


8 


8 


4 


4 


3 


3 


Depletion 


47 


47 


8 


8 


4 


4 


3 


3 


Mojave River 


Applied water demand 


79 


79 ""' 


74 


74 


70 


70 


67 


67 


Net water demand 


70 


70 


66 


66 


63 


63 


60 


60 


• Depletion 


70 


70 


66 


66 


63 


63 


60 


60 




TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


317 


321 


266 


270 


258 


262 


253 


257 


Net water demand 


290 


293 


242 


245 


235 


238 


231 


234 


Depletion 


290 


293 


242 


245 


235 


238 


231 


234 





234 



South Lahontan Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 




T7ie East Branch of the 
State Water Project winds 
across sparsely 
vegetated hillsides past 
recently developed urban 
areas in the distance. 
Urban growth in the high 
desert area is expected to 
continue its rapid pace. 



those ofthe Los Angeles area is a vital concern in the region. This situation is discussed 
under Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management later in this chapter. The 
Mono Lake and Owens River average annual instream water needs are about 73,000 
and 55.000 af. respectively, and drought year water needs are 67.000 and 55.000 af. 
respectively. There are no measurable wetlands water needs in the South Lahontan 
Region. Table SL-9 shows environmental instream water needs for the region. 

Other Water Use 

Other water 

uses in the region in- 
clude energy produc- 
tion and water used 

at recreational facili- 
ties for public service. 

showers, toilets, and 

watering some limited 

landscaping. Power 

plant cooling water 

accounted for about 

6.000 af of the region- 
I al water use in 1990: 
I 4.000 af were used in 

the Mojave River PSA. 

and 1.000 af each in 

the Antelope Valley 

and Indian Wells 

PSAs. Water used at 

recreational facilities 

during 1990 was 

3.000 af. 



Table SL-9. Environmental Instream Water Needs 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

Stream 1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 




Mono Lake 


Applied water demand 


73 


67 


73 


67 


73 


67 


73 


67 


Net water demand 


73 


67 


73 


67 


73 


67 


73 


67 


Depletion 


73 


67 


73 


67 


73 


67 


73 


67 


Owens River 


Applied water demand 


55 


55 


55 


55 


55 


55 


55 


55 


Net water demand 


55 


55 


55 


55 


55 


55 


55 


55 


Depletion 




























TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


128 


122 


128 


122 


128 


122 


128 


122 


Net water demand 


128 


122 


128 


122 


128 


122 


128 


122 


Depletion 


73 


67 


73 


67 


73 


67 


73 


67 





South Lahontan Region 



235 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Figure SL-6. South Lahontan Region 
Water Hydroelectric Power Plants and Recreation Areas 



1. Mono Lake Tufa S.R. 

2. Quail Lake R.F. 

3. Silverwood Lake S.R. A. 




Lzg z nd 
k. Water Recreation Area 
• Hydroelectric Power Plants* 



10 20 30 



SCALE IN MILES 



•From 1992 California Energy Commission Maps, See Table D-3 in Appendix D tor plant information. 



236 



South Lahontan Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Water-related recreation in the region includes fishing and skiing, and region 
recreational areas offer opportunities for camping and hiking. For instance. Lake 
Crowley, about 25 miles northwest of Bishop, is operated to provide optimum 
emironmental and recreational benefits, as well as providing water and power to the 
Los Angeles Aqueduct system. Fishing, camping, water skiing, sailing, and water jet 
skiing are among the prevalent recreational activities. Figure SL-6 shows water 
recreation areas in the region. Table SL-10 shows the total water demands for this 
region. 



Table SL-10. Total Water Demands 

(thousands of acre-feet) 




Category of Use 


1990 


2000 


20J0 


2010 




average 


drought 


average 


drought 


average 


drought 


average 


drought 


Urban 




193 
125 
125 






409 
269 
269 


423 


550 




Applied water demand 
Net water demand 
Depletion 


187 
123 
123 


292 
191 
191 


302 
198 
198 


565 


277 


360 


372 


111 


360 


372 


Agricultural 

Applied water demand 


317 


321 


266 


270 


258 








262 


253 


257 


Net water demand 


290 


293 


242 


245 


235 


238 


231 


234 


Depletion 


290 


293 


242 


245 


235 


238 


231 


234 


Environmental 


















Applied water demand 
Net woter demand 


128 
128 


122 


128 


122 
122 


128 
128 


122 
122 


128 
128 


122 


122 


128 


122 


Depletion 
Other"' 


73 


67 


73 


67 


73 


67 


73 


67 








Applied wafer demand 
Net water demand 


9 

14 


9 

14 


9 

16 


9 

16 


9 

16 


9 


9 


9 


16 


16 


16 


Depletion 


14 


14 


16 


16 


16 


16 


16 


16 


TOTAL 


















Applied water demand 


641 


645 


695 


703 


804 


816 


940 


953 


Net water demand 
Depletion 


555 
500 


554 
499 


577 


581 


648 
593 


653 
598 


735 
680 


744 


522 


526 


689 









{1} Includes mojor conveyance facilify losses, recreation uses, and energy production. 

Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 

The 1987-92 drought raised several water management issues in the South 
Lahontan Region. In 1991. retail urban water agencies in the region implemented 
ordinances requesting that their customers reduce their overall demand. Reductions 
ranged from 10 to 25 percent. Most agricultural operations were generally not 
hindered, as ground water supplies were generally adequate to meet demands. 
However, the City of Los Angeles cut back its deliveries to growers and ranchers in the 
Owens Valley, which resulted in a minor decline in planted and harvested acreage and 
yield. In addition, some alfalfa acreage in the Antelope Valley was fallowed so ground 
water supplies could be used to irrigate deciduous fruit orchards that were affected by 
reduced supplies from the State Water Project. (The ground water was pumped into the 
California Aqueduct and transported to the orchards.) 



South Lahontan Region 



237 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Legislation and Litigation 

Of the many factors influencing water resource management, legislation and 
litigation have significantly changed water supply management in the South Lahontan 
Region. Several court cases have altered water diversions and ground water pumping 
in the region. A few of the landmark cases are described here. 

Owens Valley Area. At the turn of the century, the City of Lx)s Angeles faced a 
severe shortage of water due to a growing urban population. In 1913, the City of Los 
Angeles completed its first aqueduct from Owens Valley to the City of Los Angeles. This 
aqueduct has a carrying capacity of 480 cubic feet per second. Due to increased 
population and industries in Los Angeles, a second aqueduct was completed in 1970 
with a capacity of 300 cfs. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power diverts 
both surface and ground water from the Owens Valley and surface water from the 
Mono Basin. 

In 1972, the County of Inyo filed suit against the City of Los Angeles, claiming 
that increased ground water pumping for the second aqueduct was harming the 
Owens Valley environment. The County of Inyo asked that LADWP's ground water 
pumping be analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report in accordance with the 
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. 

Since 1984, the City of Los Angeles and Inyo County have spent about $5 million 
to determine the effects of ground water pumping on native vegetation. Together with 
the U.S. Geological Survey, the two parties gathered the data needed to formulate a 
long-term ground water management plan and develop an EIR. Within the scope of 
these studies, numerous enhancement and mitigation projects were implemented. 
Revegetation and irrigation of certain wildlife habitats and recreation areas constituted 
the bulk of these projects. 

As of August 1. 1989. the parties reached agreement on the long-term ground 
water management plan for the Owens Valley. However, the EIR has been rejected by 
the Third District Court of Appeals in Sacramento, which required a more 
comprehensive environmental assessment of the agreement. The highlights of the 
agreement are: 

O Formation of a technical group and a standing committee to oversee all operations 
pertaining to water and how its use affects the environment in the Owens Valley 
and adjacent areas. 

Q Formation of designated management areas. 

O Development of a ground water pumping program including new wells and 
allowable production capacity. 

O Construction of ground water recharge facilities including location and operation. 

Q Modification of Haiwee Reservoir operations. 

O Provisions of financial assistance required by the City of Los Angeles. 

Q Release of city-owned lands. 

O Development of projects and other provisions involving numerous enhancement 
and mitigation measures and transfer of ownership of the water systems of several 
towns. 

Continued study of the Owens Valley appears to benefit all concerned. 

Mono Basin. Mono Lake, which lies just east of Yosemite National Park at the 
base of the eastern Sierra Nevada, is the second largest lake completely within 



238 South Lahontan Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



California. It has long been recognized as a valuable environmental resource because 
of its rare scenic and biological characteristics. The area is famous for its tufa towers 
and spires, structures formed by years of mineral deposition in the lake's unique saline 
waters. The lake has no outlet, and there are two islands in the lake that provide a 
protected breeding area for large colonies of California gulls and a haven for migrating 
waterfowl. 

Much of the water flowing into Mono Lake comes from snowmelt via five fresh- 
water creeks. Since 1 94 1 . the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has diverted 
water from Lee Vining. Walker. Parker, and Rush creeks into tunnels and pipelines that 
carry the water to the Owens Valley drainage: it is eventually transferred, together with 
Owens River flows, to 
Los Angeles via the 
Los Angeles Aque- 
duct. 

Diversions of in- 
stream flow from its 
tributaries lowered 
Mono Lake's water 
level to an historic low 
of 6.372 feet above 
sea level, reached in 
December 1981. With 
decreased inflow of 
fresh water, the lake's 
salinity has increased 
dramatically, which 
may eventually 

threaten local food 
chains. There is evi- 
dence that higher sa- 
linities reduce algal 

blooms, the food supply for the lake's abundant brine shrimp and brine flies. Such a 
change poses a threat to bird populations that feed on the shrimp and brine flies. In 
addition, when water levels drop to 6,375 feet or lower, a land bridge to Negit Island, 
one of the lake's two islands, is created, allowing predators to reach gull rookeries: this 
first happened in 1978 and again during the 1987-92 drought. Large areas of the lake 
bed have also become exposed, and the dust formed by dried alkali silt can cause air 
quality problems, especially during wind storms. The U.S. EPA. in November 1993, 
designated the Mono Basin as a nonattainment area under the Clean Air Act due to 
dust emissions from the dry lake bed. 

As a result of these impacts, the lake and its tributaries have been the subject of 
extensive litigation between the City of Los Angeles and a number of environmental 
groups since the late 1970s. (A more detailed discussion of key court cases is provided 
in Volume I, Chapter 2.) Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is now prohibited 
by court order from diverting the tributaries water until the lake level stabilizes at 
6.377 feet above sea level, the level identified by state and federal agencies to protect 
the ecosystem and control air pollution. During the 1987-92 drought. Mono Lake 
remained near the target level, but the diversion limit resulted in an estimated loss of 
100,000 af per year to Los Angeles' water supply by the end of 1992. In addition, 
releases into four of the lake's tributaries have been ordered by another court ruling to 





An aerial view of Mono 
Lake shows the island 
which is used as an 
avian nursery. Recent 
courl decisions have set 
minimum water levels for 
the lake. 



South Lahontan Region 



239 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



protect and restore once-thriving trout fisheries. Instream flow requirements for the 
tributaries have been set on an interim basis and will be reviewed once field studies are 
completed. SWRCB concluded Mono Lake water rights hearings in February 1994. A 
draft decision regarding lake levels and streamflows on the four tributaries is expected 
in late 1994. The final decision will be forwarded to the Alpine Superior Court for its 
approval. In the meantime. Lxis Angeles is making efforts to conserve water and has 
approved a mandatory conservation ordinance during the drought. Since 1 989, annual 
water deliveries to the City of Los Angeles from the Mono-Owens system have 
decreased by an average of 39 percent from previous levels in the 1980s. The decrease 
is in part drought related. LADWP is also investigating potential alternative sources of 
water. The Mono Lake Committee recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding 
with LADWP. As a result of the MOU, an application is now being made for funds 
authorized by the Environmental Water Act to develop recycled water in Los Angeles to 
replace a portion of its lost supply. The CVPLA authorizes funds for replacing the water 
diverted from Mono Lake by a 25-percent contribution to develop recycled water. 

Antelope Valley Area. In December 1991, the Palmdale Water District made 
public its intentions to create, through state legislation, a ground water management 
agency so that long-term overdrafting in the valley could be stopped. Several 
constituents within the Antelope Valley expressed their opposition. In the ensuing 
months, several local groups held meetings to reach a consensus on formation of the 
agency. The Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency suggests that a ground water 
management agency is "premature" and unnecessary. Due to public outcry over this 
issue, the Palmdale Water District Board of Directors has withdrawn its proposal. The 
Antelope Valley agencies have since formed an advisory board to discuss water issues, 
including ground water. 

High Desert Area. Recent court cases involving, among others, the Cities of 
Barstow. Victorville. and Hesperia. have led to concerns over water rights in the Mojave 
River Basin. The Mojave Water Technical Advisory Committee reports that a 
preliminary estimate of overdraft for 1990 is between 65,000 and 75,000 af 
Forecasted overdraft for the year 2015 amounts to 90,000 af, based on 2015 
population forecasts. To help resolve the problem, the Mojave Water Agency completed 
a report for a 37-mile Mojave Fiiver Pipeline to convey State Water Project water to the 
City of Barstow and the community of Newberry Springs. 

In addition, the SWP water will provide a supplemental supply for a district 
within the Mojave Water Agency, which now has only ground water available and 
whose extraction is exceeding replenishment. In June 1990, the district voted to 
approve issuing $66.5 million in general obligation bonds to finance the Morongo 
Pipeline. Construction of the 70-mile pipeline is expected to be completed in summer 
1994. The Morongo Basin has an entitlement to 7.257 af of SWP water. The Board of 
Directors of the Mojave Water Agency decided to oversize the pipeline to provide 
capacity for water to recharge the Mojave River. Increasing the pipeline's first section 
from 30 inches in diameter to 54 inches gives it the capacity to put as much as 30.000 
af a year into the river for ground water replenishment. 

The City of Barstow filed a suit in 1 990 against major Upper Basin water districts 
requesting that the Superior Court guarantee an annual supply of at least 30,000 af of 
Mojave River water at the USGS gaging station at Barstow. Barstow alleges that this 
was the natural river flow to the city in 1950, before Victor Valley's growth began to 
cause overdrafting of the Mojave River Basin's ground water. It further alleges that it 
now receives less than half the flow that it did 40 years ago. The Mojave Water Agency, 

240 South Lahontan Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



after attempting a settlement, opted to expand the instream adjudication filed by 
Barstow to a "general stream" adjudication, encompassing the area both upstream and 
downstream of Barstow. A cross-complaint was filed by MWA to achieve this purpose 
in May 1991. The parties to the lawsuit, with the assistance of a facilitator, drafted a 
set of principles of adjudication and proceeded to draft a stipulated judgment for 
consideration by the court . In September 1993, the Riverside Superior Court issued an 
interim order basically binding those parties that had stipulated to the proposed 
judgment. This interim order has allowed a physical solution to the overdraft to 
proceed until the trial process is concluded with nonstipulating parties. A trial date 
has been set for February 1995. 

In another suit, filed by Barstow regarding development proposed by the City of 
Hesperia. the court's ruling emphasized the necessity for Mojave Water Agency to 
exercise its authority as a key agent in settling the region's long-term water problems. 
Currently. Mojave Water Agency is developing a water management plan to address 
issues raised by the court. 

Water Balance 

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

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

Regional net water demands for the 1990 level of development totaled 555.000 
and 554.000 af for average and drought years, respectively. Those demands are 
forecasted to increase to 735.000 and 744.000 af for average and drought years by the 
year 2020. after accounting for a 10.000-af reduction in urban water demand resulting 
from implementation of long-term conservation measures and a 10.000-af reduction 
in agricultural demand resulting from additional long-term agricultural water 
conservation measures. 

Urban net water demand is forecasted to increase by about 237.000 af (193 
percent) by 2020 from the 1990 level of 123.000 af. due to increases in population. 
Agricultural net water demand is forecasted to decrease by about 59.000 af by 2020, 
primarily due to lands being taken out of production as a result of the high cost of 
developed water supplies. Environmental net water demands, under existing rules and 
regulations, will remain essentially level out to 2020, 

Average annual supplies, including 67.000 af of ground water overdraft, were 
generally adequate to meet average net water demands in 1990 for this region. 




South Lahontan Region 241 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



However, during drought, 1990 supplies were insufficient to meet the demands, 
resulting in a shortage of about 9.000 af Without additional water management 
programs, annual average and drought year shortages are expected to increase to 
nearly 126.000 and 204.000 af by 2020. respectively. 

With planned Level 1 programs, average and drought year shortages could be 
reduced to about 115.000 and 151.000 af. respectively. This remaining shortage 
requires both additional short-term drought management, water transfers and 
demand management programs, and other future long-term Level II programs 
depending on the overall level of water service reliability deemed necessary, by local 
agencies, to sustain the economic health of the region. In the short-term, some areas 
of this region will experience more frequent and severe water shortages. This region 
depends on exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for a portion of its 
supplies. Shortages stated above are based on D-1485 operating criteria for Delta 
supplies and do not take into account recent actions to protect aquatic species in the 
estuary. As such, regional water supply shortages are understated. 



242 South Lahontan Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Water Demand/Supply 



Table SL-1 1 . Water Budget 

(thousands of acre-feetj 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Net Demand 

Urban— with 1 990 


















level of conservation 


123 


125 


195 


202 


277 


285 


370 


382 


— reductions due to 
long-term conservation 
measures (tevel 1) 
Agricultural— with 1 990 
level of conservation 


— 


— 


-4 


-4 


-8 


-8 


-10 


-10 


290 


293 


245 


248 


242 


245 


241 


244 


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






-3 


-3 


-7 


-7 


-10 


-10 


Environmental 


128 


122 


128 


122 


128 


122 


128 


122 


Otheri'i 


14 


14 


16 


16 


16 


16 


16 


16 




TOTAL Net Demand 



555 



554 



577 



581 



648 



653 



735 



744 



! Water Supplies w/ExIstIng Facilities Under D-1485 for Delta Supplies 

j Developed Supplies 
i Surface WoteH^i 

j Ground Water 

Ground Water C>verdraft*^' 

Subtotal 

Dedicated Natural Flow 



139 


104 


203 


144 


212 


145 


223 


147 


221 


252 


220 


237 


226 


271 


258 


271 


67 


67 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


427 


423 


423 


381 


438 


416 


481 


418 


128 


122 


128 


122 


128 


122 


128 


122 



TOTAL Water Supplies 


555 


545 


551 


503 


566 


538 


609 


540 


Demand/Supply Balance 





-9 


-26 


-78 


-82 


-115 


-126 


-204 



Level I Water Management Programs''" 

Long-term Supply Augmentation 

Reclaimed 

Local 

Central Valley Project/ 

Other Federal 

State Water Project 
Subtotal ■ Level I Water 
Management Programs 
Net Ground Water or 
Surface Water Use Reduction 
Resulting from Level I Programs 



— 


— 








1 


1 


1 


1 


— 


— 




















— 


— 




















— 


— 


10 


20 


22 


53 


32 


52 








10 


20 


23 


54 


33 


53 



-1 











-34 



-22 



Remaining Demand/Supply Balance Requiring Short-term Drought Management and/or Level II Options 

-9 -17 -58 -59 -95 -115 -151 

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

(2) Existing and future imported supplies that depend on Delta export capabilities ore based on SWRCB D- 1 485 and do not take into account recent actions to protect aquatic species. As such, 
regional water supply shortages ore understated (note: proposed environmental water demands of I to 3 MAF are included in the California water budget). 

(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. 



South Lahontan Region 



243 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



T/iese Joshua trees cast shadows on the desert floor. 

The Joshua Tree National Monument is in the Colorado River Region. 




;t 



^^Z.am- 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 




The Colorado River Region encompasses the southeastern corner of California. ColOrodO River 
The region's northern boundary, a drainage divide, begins along the southern edge of Reaion 
the Mojave River watershed in the Victor Valley area of San Bernardino County and 
extends northeast across the Mojave Desert to the Nevada state line. The southern 
boundary is the Mexican border. A drainage divide forms the jagged western boundary 
through the San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and Santa Rosa mountains and the 
Peninsular ranges (which include the Laguna Mountains), The Nevada state line and 
the Colorado River (the boundary with Arizona) delineate the region's eastern 
boundary. 

Covering over 12 percent of the total land area in the State, the region is 
California's most arid. It includes volcanic mountain ranges and hills: distinctive sand 
dunes; broad areas of the Joshua tree, alkali scrub, and cholla communities: and 
elevated river terraces. Despite its dry climate and rugged terrain, the region contains 
some of the State's most productive agricultural areas and vacation resorts. (See 
Appendix C for maps of the planning subareas and land ownership in the region.) 

Much of the region's topography consists of flat plains punctuated by numerous 
hills and mountain ranges. Faulting and volcanic activities are partially responsible for 
the presence of many abrupt mountain ranges. The San Andreas fault slices through 
portions of the Coachella and Imperial valleys. 

A prominent topographic feature is the Salton Trough in the south-central part of 
the region. Oriented in a northwest-southeast direction, the trough extends from San 
Gorgonio Pass in the north to the Mexican border and beyond to the Gulf of California. 
It includes the Coachella Valley in the north and Imperial Valley in the south. The low 
point of the trough is the Salton Sea. which was created between 1905 and 1907 when 
the headworks of an irrigation canal conveying Colorado River water to Imperial Valley 
broke. Large volumes of water flowed into the Salton Sink, resulting in the sea that 
exists today. In September 1993. the Salton Sea's water surface level was about 227 
feet below sea level. 

The climate for most of the region is subtropical desert. Average annual 
precipitation is much higher in the western mountains than in the desert areas. Winter 
snows generally fall above 5,000 feet; snow depths can reach several feet at the highest 

Region Characteristics 
Average Annual Precipitafion: 5.5 inches Average Annual Runoff: / 78,700 of 
Land Area: 19,730 square miles 1990 Population: 464,200 



Colorado River Region 245 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



levels during winter. Most of the precipitation in the region falls during the winter: 
however, summer thunderstorms can produce rain and local flooding in many areas. 

Drainage in the region is internal except for the eastern portion, which drains 
into the Colorado River. Portions of the Coachella Valley are drained by the Whitewater 
River, which terminates in the Salton Sea. The Imperial Valley is drained by the Alamo 
and New rivers, which originate in Mexico and terminate in the Salton Sea. 

Population 

The Colorado River Region's population increased 48 percent from 313,000 in 
1980 to 464.200 in 1990. Most of the population is concentrated in the Coachella and 
Imperial valleys. Major cities in the Coachella Valley include Palm Springs. Indio. 
Cathedral City, and Palm Desert. Other urban centers in the region include the Cities 
of El Centro. Brawley. Yucca Valley, and Calexico in Imperial Valley; the Cities of 
Beaumont and Banning in the San Gorgonio Pass area: and the cities of Needles and 
Blythe along the Colorado River. Table CR- 1 shows the population projections for this 
region. 



Table CR-1, Population Projections 

(thousands) 



Planning Subarea 



TOTAL 



1990 



464 



2000 



639 



2010 



2020 



Twenty-Nine Palms 


61 


78 


102 


124 


Chuckwalla 


2 


3 


3 


3 


Colorado River 


.....^-i-i-ik^iESS:, 28 


31 


35 


38 


Coachella 


263 


375 


496 


619 


Borrego |P|| 




1 8 


9 


11 


Imperial Valley 


104 


144 


173 


208 



1,003 



Less than 2 percent of California's population resides in the region. Urban 
development in the Coachella Valley is proceeding at a rapid pace due to affordable 
housing and the area's aesthetic appeal. Much of the growth is attributed to retirees 
and others who find the climate and real estate settings attractive. 

Land Use 

Federal and state government-owned lands account for about 14.270 square 
miles, or 72 percent, of the total land area of the region. There are several military 
training and testing grounds, including the large U.S. Marine Corps Military Training 
Center at Twenty-Nine Palms and the gunnery range in the Chocolate Mountains. 
Major parks include Joshua Tree National Monument and Anza-Borrego Desert State 
Park. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management oversees use of much of the desert lands. 

The number one industry and most important source of income for the region is 
agriculture. Almost 90 percent (647,000 acres) of the developed private land is used for 
agriculture, most of which is in the Imperial Valley. Because of a lack of significant 
rainfall, all crops planted and harvested in these areas receive irrigation water, mostly 
from the Colorado River. Some ground water supplies are used as well. Some of the 
more prominent crops include alfalfa, winter vegetables, spring melons, table grapes, 
dates. Sudan grass, and wheat. Figure CR-1 shows land use. along with imports and 
exports, for the Colorado River Region, 



246 



Colorado River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure CR-1. Colorado River Region 
Land Use, Imports, and Exports 



N 



Call fornJ a Aqueduct 
(Exchange Agreemen t ) 
58 




Colorado Ri ver 
Aqueduc t 
1,265 



Colorado 
'7 3,898 







10 20 30 



SCALE IN MILES 



Lege nd 
Urban Land 
Irrigated Land 
Region Water Transfers 

(1,000's of Acre-feet per Year) 



Colorado River Region 



247 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Recreation and tourism together have become the second most important 
industry and source of income for the region. In Coachella Valley, a heavy advertising 
campaign over the past decade has promoted the resort lifestyle and golf, and has 
contributed to the influx of retirees and vacationers from around the world. To 
accommodate and maintain the increase in businesses, developers in the valley have 
constrvicted world-class hotels, country clubs, golf courses, and residential 
communities from Palm Springs to Indio. Over 90 golf courses have been established 
in the valley. Other activities, such as boating, water sports, and fishing on the Salton 
Sea and Colorado River, snow skiing in the higher mountains, and camping, are also 
popular. 

Most of the remaining industries are generally associated with the region's 
intensive agricultural activities. These industries process, pack, and distribute 
harvested crops, or manufacture and sell agricultural equipment and materials. Other 
industries in the region include geothermal and alternative energy developments near 
the Salton Sea and in Imperial Valley, wind farms near San Gorgonio Pass, and gold 
and miscellaneous mining operations. 

The major issue involving land use in the Colorado River Region is how to balcince 
long-term preservation and protection of the land while providing various kinds of 
recreational opportunities. Recent discussions have centered on proposed federal 
legislation that would enlarge and give national park status to the East Mojave 
National Scenic Area and Joshua Tree National Monument. 



Figure CR-2. 

Colorado River Region 

Water Supply Sources 

(1990 Level 

Average Conditions) 



Water Supply 

At first, the region depended mostly on developed ground water supplies 
supplemented with a minimum of surface water. Water demands now are met primarily 
from surface deliveries from the following sources: the Colorado River (through the 
All-American and Coachella canals, local diversions, and the Colorado River Aqueduct 
through an exchange for State Water Project water), ground water, local surface water, 
and reclaimed water. Figure CR-2 shows the region's 1 990 level sources of supply. 

Supply with Existing Facilities and Wafer Management Programs 

In 1938. the U.S. 
Bureau of Reclamation 
began conveying Colora- 
do River water, via the Ail- 
American Canal, to the 
Imperial and Coachella 
valleys. The All-American 
Canal can carry 15,100 
cubic feet per second, 
which has provided these 
areas with an adequate 
and reliable supply of wa- 
ter. There are no major 
water supply reservoirs in 
the region beyond those 
on the Colorado River. 
Table CR-2 shows water 
supplies with existing fa- 
cilities and water man- 
agement programs. 




248 



Colorado River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Table CR-2. Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs 

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



Supply 



1990 


2000 


2010 


2020 


average 


drought 


overage 


drought 


overoge 


drought 


overage 


drought 










6 


4 


6 




6 


4 


6 


4 


4 






3,898 



3,744 









3,744 



3,744 





3,898 


3,744 


3,744 


3,744 































40 




65 
79 












61 
79 





58 


42 
79 


61 
80 


39 
80 


39 


80 


80 
75 


79 


75 


— 


— 


— 


7 


7 


7 


7 


. 7 


7 


7 


7 



























Surface 

Local 

Local imports 

Colorado RiveH" 

CVP 

Other federal 

SWP 
Ground water 
Overdraft'" 
Reclaimed 
Dedicated natural flow 



TOTAL 



4,124 



4,104 3,901 



3,876 3,898 3,874 3,897 



3,873 



(1) Colorado River supplies for the year 2000 ond beyond reflect elimination of surplus and unused Colorado River supplies, and the availability of 106,000 AF of water to the South 
Coost region as o result of a currently agreed-upon conservotion progrom being implemented by the Imperial Irrigation District and MWDSC. 

(2) 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 Colorado River also supplies water to areas served by the Colorado River 
Aqueduct, owned by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The 
California apportionment of Colorado River water is 4.400,000 af annually plus any 
unused Arizona and Nevada water and one-half of any surplus made available by the 
Secretary of the Inte- 




rior. California con- 
sumptively used over 
5.200.000 af of Colo- 
rado River water in 
1990. of which 
3.900.000 af was 
used in the Colorado 
River Region. Water 
from the Colorado 
River makes up 
about 95 percent of 
the region's total 
supply. 

Four State Wa- 
ter Project contrac- 
tors are located in the 
region: Desert Water 
Agency, Coachella 
Valley Water District. 
Mojave Water Agency 
and San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency. The SWP does not extend into the region at this 



The Colorado River 
Aqueduct makes its way 
across the valley floor, 
with Iron Mountain 
providing the backdrop. 
This aqueduct has been 
providing about 
1.000.000 afarviually to 
the South Coast Region. 



Colorado River Region 



249 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



time. (The Morongo Basin Pipeline will bring SWF water into the Colorado Region in 
1994.) MWDSC has an exchange agreement with Desert Water Agency and Coachella 
Valley Water District that allows MWDSC to take the two agencies' SWP entitlement 
water. In return. MWDSC releases water from its Colorado River Aqueduct for ground 
water recharge in the Coachella Valley. Local surface water supply in the Coachella 
subarea amounted to about 6,000 af in 1990. This supply is derived from the Whitewa- 
ter River: however, the supply is not dependable in times of drought. 

About 7.000 af of fresh water was produced by water recycling in 1990. About 
2,000 af of the water recycling occurred in the Coachella. Most of the recycled water 
was applied to golf courses and resort hotel common areas. 

Total ground water supplies for 1990 were about 1 55,000 af, almost 4 percent of 
the region's total supply. The Coachella PSA accounted for about 85.000 af of the 
ground water use in the region, 52,000 af of which was overdraft. Streamflow 
percolation, subsurface inflow, periodic Colorado River flooding, and canal leakage all 
provide ground water basin recharge at various locations in the region. 

Supply with Additional Facilities and Water Management Programs 

Future water management programs 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 high likelihood of being 
implemented by 2020. 

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

Table CR-3. Water Supplies with Level I Water Management Programs 

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



Supply 



1990 2000 2010 2020 

overage drought average drought average drought average drought 



Surface 

Local 

Local imports 

Colorado RiveH'' 

CVP 

Other federal 

SWP 
Ground water 
Overdraft'^' 
Reclaimed 
Dedicated natural flow 



6 




4 



6 



4 



3,898 




3,898 




3,676 




3,676 




58 


40 


70 


42 


80 


80 


79 


79 


75 


75 


— 


— 


7 


7 


9 


9 















6 



3,676 





71 

81 

12 




4 



3,676 





59 

81 

12 




6 



3,676 





71 

80 

13 





4 



3,676 





60 

80 

13 




TOTAL 



4,124 



4,104 



3,840 



3,810 3,846 3,832 3,846 



3,833 



(I| Colorado River supplies for the year 2000 and beyond reflect elimination of surplus and unused Colorodo River supplies, the ovoilobility of 106,000 AF of water to the South 
Coost region as o result of o currently agreed-upon conservation program being implemented by the Imperial Irrigotion District and MWDSC, and on additional 68,000 AF of 
v/ater mode available from the Colorado River region as a result of an IID/MWDSC agreement negotiated, but not yet implemented relating to the lining of o portion of the All 
American Canal, a Level I conservotion program. 

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



250 



Colorado River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



The following sections summarize water management programs under active 
consideration in the region. 

Drought Water Management Strategies. State requirements for water 
shortage contingency plans for urban water providers encourage urban water agencies 
to implement water conservation measures and practices and to plan strategies for 
managing shortages. The Federal Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 and the CVPIA of 
1992 require that water suppliers who contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 
, prepare water conservation plans and update them every five years. Most of the larger 
agencies in the region would be affected. [Volume 1. Chapter 2 of the California Water 
Plan Update presents more details of the 1982 and 1992 acts.) These planning steps 
constitute the major drought water management efforts in the region. The recent 
drought did not adversely affect the area due to ample carryover of supplies in lower 
Colorado River reservoirs. 

Water Management Options with Additional Facilities. The Mojave Water 

Agency is constructing the Morongo Basin Pipeline which will convey State Water 

Project water from the Hesperia turnout of the California Aqueduct to the Morongo 

Basin-Johnson Valley area. The design capacity of the pipeline is 22 cubic feet per 

second. Construction is scheduled to be completed in 1994. The San Gorgonio Pass 

Water Agency has no physical facilities for transporting its SWP entitlement of 1 7,300 

I af. The agency is currently designing facilities to take delivery of its entitlement plus an 

j additional 50.000 af to be used conjunctively in the ground water basin. Under this 

plan, facilities would have a carrying capacity of 32 cfs. The facilities are expected to be 

on-line in 1995 or 1996. An estimated l.OOO.OOOafof storage space is available within 

the San Gorgonio ground water basins. To date, two 1 ,000-foot-deep exploration wells 

and two monitoring wells (100 feet and 250 feet deep) have been established in the 

potential recharge area. San Gorgonio serves the cities of Banning and Beaumont and 

the Morongo Indian Reservation. Table CR-3 shows water supplies with additional 

'. Level 1 water management programs. 




Water Use 

The 1990 level 
annual net water de- 
mand within the Colo- 
rado River Region is 
about 4,124.000 af 
Agricultural irrigation 
accounts for 83 per- 
cent of the region's 
net water use, while 
municipal and indus- 
trial use accounts for 
almost 5 percent. The 
Colorado River Re- 
gion's agricultural wa- 
ter use is the fourth 
highest in the State. 
Even though the re- 
gion has a small per- 
manent population 
base, the water requirements of its recreation and tourism industries make up a large 




Figure CR-3. 
Colorado River Region 
Net Water Demand 
(1990 Level 
Average Conditions) 



I 



Colorado River Region 



251 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



portion of the region's municipal and industrial net water use of 204.000 af. Figure 
CR-3 shows 1990 level net water demands for the Colorado River Region. 

Urban Wafer Use 

Population projections indicate that urban applied water demand will increase 
about 106 percent between 1990 and 2020. due to an expected population increase of 
roughly 117 percent during the same period. Table CR-4 shows the total urban 
applied, net water demand, and depletion for the Colorado River Region through 2020. 
Much of the increase in urban water demand can be attributed to the development of 
recreational and resort facilities in Coachella Valley. Figure CR-4 shows the 1990 level 
urban applied water use by sector. 

Average 1990 level urban net water use for the region was 579 gpcd. However, 
values range from 853 gpcd in the Coachella PSA to 163 gpcd in the less densely 
populated areas of the Twenty-Nine Palms PSA. Average per capita water use is 
expected to decrease by about 4 percent between 1990 and 2020. primarily due to 
increased conservation efforts. 

The high per capita values in 1990 are attributable to a large tourism industry, 
greater landscape irrigation requirements, and a rise in the number of people who 
reside in the region part-time. Lx)wer per capita values are common in areas where the 
residential landscaping requirements are lower and commercial and industrial water 
uses are small. 



Figure CR-4. 

Colorado River Region 

Urban Applied Water 

Use by Sector 

(1990 Level 

Average Conditions) 




252 



Colorado River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Planning Subarea 



Table CR-4. Urban Water Demand 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Twenty-Nine Palms 


Applied water demand 


11 


11 


14 


14 


18 


18 


22 


22 


Net water demand 


6 


6 


8 


8 


H 


11 


13 


13 


Depletion 


6 


6 


8 


8 


11 


11 


13 


13 


Chuckwalla 


Applied water demand 














1 


1 


1 


1 


Net water demand 


























Depletion 


Q^ 




':^nK«Mt.jM(«AKMaib.j-'''Kn 


"^^''o'^H-Q 








mmmo 


Colorado River 


Applied water demand 


11 


11 


12 


12 


14 


14 


15 


15 


Net water demand 


6 


6 


7 


7 


8 


8 


9 


9 


Depletion 


6 


6 


7 


7 


8 


8 


9 


9 


Coachella 


Applied water demand 


251 


251 


335 


335 


431 


431 


524 


524 


Net water demand 


165 


165 


220 


220 


283 


283 


344 


344 


Depletion 


165 


165 


220 


220 


283 


283 


344 


344 


Borrego 


Applied water demand 


2 


2 


2 


2 


3 


3 


3 


3 


Net water demand 


1 


1 


1 


1 


2 


2 


2 


2 


Depletion 


ia 




^^^H 


^^m 


m^^^H 


ifc^-3..:.:. 


^■■■Mi;ii----<:^-^ 


iiiiliSii- ^ 


Imperial Valley 


Applied water demand 


26 


26 


36 


36 


45 


45 


56 


56 


Net water demand 


26 


26 


36 


36 


45 


45 


56 


56 


Depletion 


26 


26 


36 


36 


45 


45 


56 


56 




TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


301 


301 


399 


399 


512 


512 


621 


621 


Net water demand 


204 


204 


272 


272 


349 


349 


424 


424 


Depletion 


204 


204 


272 


272 


349 


349 


424 


424 , 



Agricultural Water Use 

The 1990 level irrigated crop acreage for the Colorado River Region amounted to 
749.000 acres. Table CR-5 shows irrigated crop acreage forecasts to 2020. Most of the 
major agricultural operations in the region are in the Imperial Valley, Colorado River, 
and Coachella PSAs. Minor reductions of about three percent in total irrigated crop 
acres are forecasted to occur between 1990 and 2020. However, increases will occur in 
the planted and harvested acres for certain high-market-value crops, such as fresh 
market vegetables. Demand by both international and domestic markets for fresh 
vegetables will probably encourage growers to maintain current levels of crop 
production and. if possible, plant and harvest additional acres. Other crops expected 
to show minor to moderate increases are grains, citrus and subtropical fruit, sugar 
beets, and cotton. For cotton, current boll worm problems could be rectified and 
additional acres planted, mainly in Imperial Valley. The silverleaf whitefly infestation, 
primarily in Imperial Valley, has caused temporary minor reductions in the recent 
planted and harvested acreage. Eradication and management efforts should mitigate 



Colorado River Region 



253 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



the problems caused by these pests and allow crop acreage to return to normal levels. 
Table CR-6 shows the 1990 level evapotranspiration of applied water for the region. 

The four major crops in terms of acreage and total applied water use are alfalfa, 
truck (vegetables and nursery), grains, and miscellaneous field. In 1990, alfalfa used 
roughly 50 percent of the total applied agricultural water. Figure CR-5 compares 1990 
crop acreages, evapotranspiration, and applied water for major crops. 



Table CR-5. Irrigated Crop Acreage 

(thousands of acres) 



Planning Subarea 



1990 



2000 



2010 



2020 



Twenty-Nine Palms 
Chuckwalla 
Colorado River 
Coachella 
Borrego 
Imperial Valley 




4 


6 


7 


7 


6 


3 


3 


3 


130 


131 


132 


""^"""132 


74 


64 


48 


37 


|io 


12 


13 


13 


525 


530 


534 


534 




TOTAL 



749 



746 



737 



726 



Figure CR 5. 

Colorado River Region 

1990 Acreage. ETAW. 

and Applied Water 

for Major Crops 



Reductions in irrigated acres are expected for crops or crop categories with low or 
fluctuating market values, such as alfalfa, corn, and miscellaneous field crops. Market 
competition (international and domestic) and the pressures from urban encroachment 
may cause decreases in acres planted with table grapes in the Coachella Valley. Total 
1990 agricultural applied water demand was about 3.705.000 af and net water 
demand was about 3.439.000 af. Table CR-7 summarizes the 1990 and forecasted 
agricultural water demand in the region. 




Minor reductions in crop acreage and applied water use are expected for the 
region. Forecasts indicate that the region's total applied agricultural water use will 
decrease by about 9 percent between 1990 and 2020. Improvements in on-farm 



254 



Colorado River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



irrigation operations and irrigation system technologies, the loss of irrigated land 
caused by urbanization, and minor shifts in crop type will contribute to the decrease. 
Table CR-7 shows increases of about 12.000 and 14.000 af in applied agricultural 
water use between 1990 and 2020 in the Twenty-Nine Palms and Borrego PSAs, 
respectively. During the same period, decreases of about 15,000 and 191,000 af are 
forecasted for both the Chuckwalla and Coachella PSAs, respectively. 



Total Acres 


Total ETAW 


(1000) 


(1,000 AF) 


76 


152 


37 


121 


35 


134 


8 


20 


55 


146 


256 


1,594 


32 


176 


13 


32 


187 


310 


1 


5 


20 


65 


29 


123 



Table CR-6. 1 990 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water by Crop 

(thousands of acres) 

Irrigated Crop 



Grain 

Cotton 

Sugar beets 

Corn 

Other field 

Alfalfa 

Pasture 

Tomatoes 

Other truck 

Other deciduous 

Vineyard 

Citrus/olives 

TOTAL 749 2,878 

Since the late 1970s, major efforts have been undertaken by local governments, 
water agencies, and growers to improve agricultural irrigation efficiency in the region. 
The most observable improvements have been made in the Imperial and Coachella 
valleys. Agricultural conservation in the region can be placed into two categories: (1) 
on-farm irrigation system management and operation improvements, and (2) 
conveyance system improvements. Examples of current on-farm improvements 
include: carefully managing and designing furrows, basin and sprinkler systems to 
minimize excessive tailwater runoff from the ends of fields into drains and to evenly 
irrigate the entire field: laser leveling of fields to improve irrigation water movement in 
furrows and basin systems: implementing micro-irrigation technology (drip emitters 
and micro-jet sprinklers) for permanent crops; using different irrigation and 
cultivation techniques (hand-moved sprinklers for pre-irrigation of fields and seed 
germination): reusing tailwater to supplement delivered water for the irrigation of 
other fields: and irrigation scheduling. Subsurface irrigation systems are also being 
tested on certain crops in the region. 

Conveyance system improvements have come in the form of: constructing 
regulatory reservoirs to enhance system delivery and storage capabilities: lining canals 
and laterals with concrete to minimize supply losses due to seepage; automating the 
system with telemetry for improved control over the delivery of water: and installing 
seepage recovery and operational spill interceptor systems. 




Colorado River Region 255 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Planning Subarea 



Table CR-7. Agricultural Water Demand 

(thousands of acre-feet) 



1990 2000 

average drought average drought 



2010 

average drought 



2020 

average drought 



Twenty-Nine Palms 


Applied water demand 


22 


22 


28 


28 


32 


32 


34 


34 


Net water demand 


20 


20 


24 


24 


28 


28 


30 


30 


Depletion 


20 


20 


24 


24 


28 


28 


30 


30 


Chuckwallo 


Applied water demand 


30 


30 


17 


17 


13 


13 


15 


15 


Net water demand 


27 


27 


16 


16 


12 


12 


13 


13 


Depletion 


27 


' '27 


16 


16 


12 


12 


13 


13 


Colorado River 


Applied water demand 


785 


785 


751 


751 


705 


705 


698 


698 


Net water demand 


606 


606 


588 


588 


566 


566 


559 


559 


Depletion 


606 


606 


588 


588 


566 


566 


559 


559 ,. 


Coachella 


Applied water demand 


393 


393 


342 


342 


260 


260 


202 


202 


Net water demand 


313 


313 


277 


277 


215 


215 


168 


168 


Depletion ^M 


■■■P13 


313 


277 


277 


215 


215 


168 


168 


Borrego 


Applied water demand 


37 , 


37 


45 


45 


48 


48 


51 


51 


Net water demand 


35 


35 


42 


42 


46 


46 


48 


48 


Depletion 


"1HHF35 


35 


42 


42 


46 


46 


48 


48 i 


Imperial Valley 


Applied water demand 


2,438 


2,438 


2,415 


2,415 


2,395 


2,395 


2,363 


2,363 


Net water demand 


2,438 


2,438 


2,415 


2,415 


2,395 


2,395 


2,363 


2,363 


Depletion 


2,438 


2,438 


2,415 


2,415 


2,395 


2,395 


2,363 


2,363 




TOTAL 


Applied water demand 


3,705 


3,705 


3,598 


3,598 


3,453 


3,453 


3,363 


3,363 


Net water demand 


3,439 


3,439 


3,362 


3,362 


3,262 


3,262 


3,181 


3,181 


Depletion 


""'*' 3,439 


3,439 


3,362 


3,362 


3,262 


3,262 


3,181 


3,181 



Environmental Wafer Use 

Total 1990 environmental water use for the Colorado River Region amounts to 
nearly 39.000 af. Demands are forecasted to increase 13 percent by 2000 and remain 
at 44,000 af through 2020. Colorado River water supplies most of this use. Currently, 
there are two major areas where water is used for wildlife habitat in the region: the 
Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge and the Imperial Wildlife Area. There are also 
several private wetlands. Table CR-8 shows wetlands water needs in the Colorado 
River Region. 

The Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1930 by federal 
executive order. Originally the refuge contained 23.425 acres, but due to inflow of 
agricultural drain water and a rise in the sea level, most of the refuge is now inundated. 
About 2.500 acres of manageable habitat remain, with about 1 .068 acres managed as 
marsh land. In 1990, the refuge used about 4,900 af of freshwater. Forecasts indicate 
the refuge will require about 10,000 af of freshwater by the year 2000. 



256 



Colorado River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



The Imperial Wildlife Area is operated and managed by the State Department of 
Fish and Game. The area is comprised of two units. The Finney-Ramer unit has a total 
water surface area of about 2,050 acres, with total annual water use estimated at 
7,600 af. The Wister unit has a total water surface area of about 5,500 acres and total 
annual water use of almost 2 1 .000 af. Demands are forecasted to remain level through 
2020. 

Private wetlands in the Colorado River Region occupy about 2,225 acres and 
consumptively use roughly 5,330 af of freshwater annually. These wetlands, scattered 
throughout Imperial and Riverside Counties, are primarily used for duck hunting. 




Weriand 



Table CR-8. Wetland Water Needs 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



SaltonSeaNWR 


Applied water demand 


wm^M^ 


5 


■■■''■"'to''" 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


Net water demand 


5 


5 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


Depletion 


5 


5 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


Imperial WA 


Applied water demand 


29 


29 


29 


29 


29 


29 


29 


29 


Net water demand 


29 


29 


29 


29 


29 


29 


29 


29 


Depletion 


^^^^^^ 


29 


29 


29 


29 


29 


29 


29 


Private Refuges 


Applied water demand 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


Net water demand 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


Depletion 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 




TOTAL 


Applied water demand 39 


39 


44 


44 


44 


44 


44 


44 


Net water demand 


39 


39 


44 


44 


44 


44 


44 


44 


^Pl^*>0" mm^^^^^^^M^ 


39 


44 


44 


44 


44 


44 


44 



Other Water Use 

Conveyance losses in the All-American. Coachella. and intermediate canals 
averaged about 360,000 af in 1990. Both the Imperial Irrigation District and Coachella 
Valley Water District conveyance losses are calculated as the acre-feet of water diverted 
minus the amount of water actually delivered to users by the districts. Conservation 
measures could reduce conveyance losses by 100.000 af per year. Geothermal power 
plants in Imperial Valley PSA produce about 379 megawatts per year and use about 
74.200 af of cooling water annually in their operation. Table CR-9 shows the total 
water demand for this region. 

Recreational facilities are found in all PSAs: most consist of campgrounds and 
parks where water is used for drinking, landscape, toilets, showers, and facility 
maintenance. Total water use in these areas amounted to almost 5,000 af in 1 990. The 
Colorado River PSA accounted for about 3.000 af of that use. Recreation includes 
water skiing, boating, fishing, and swimming. Figure CR-6 shows water recreation 
areas in the Colorado River Region. 



Colorado River Region 



257 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Figure CR-6. Colorado River Region 
Hydroelectric Power Plants and Water Recreation Areas 



N 



1. Saltan Sea S.R.A. 

2. Picacho State Recreation Area 

3. Lake Havasu Recreation Area 




10 20 30 

SCALE IN MILES 

•From 1992 California Energy Commission Maps, See Table D-3 in Appendix D for plant informatlon- 



Le g e nd 
A Water Recreation Area 
* Hydroelectric Power Plants* 



258 



Colorado River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Category of Use 



Urban 

Applied water demand 
Net water demand 
Depletion 

Agricultural 

Applied water demand 
Net water demand 
Depletion 

Environmental 

Applied water demand 
Net water demand 
Depletion 

Otheri'i 

Applied water demand 
Net water demand 
Depletion 



I TOTAL 

Applied wafer demand 
Nef water demand 
Depletion 



Table CR-9. Total Water Demands 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 20 ?0 2020 

overage drought average drought average drought average drought 



301 
204 
204 

3,705 
3,439 
3,439 

39 

39 
39 

82 

442 
442 



301 

204 
204 

3,705 
3,439 
3,439 

39 

39 
39 

82 

442 
442 



399 
272 
272 

3,598 
3,362 
3,362 

44 

44 
44 

83 
363 
363 



399 
272 
272 

3,598 
3,362 
3,362 

44 
44 
44 

83 

363 
363 



512 
349 
349 

3,453 
3,262 
3,262 

44 
44 
44 

83 

363 
363 



512 
349 
349 

3,453 
3,262 
3,262 

44 
44 
44 

83 

363 
363 



4,127 
4,124 
4,124 



4,127 
4,124 
4,124 



4,124 
4,041 
4,041 



4,124 
4,041 
4,041 



4,092 
4,018 
4,018 



4,092 
4,018 
4,018 



621 
424 
424 

3,363 
3,181 
3,181 

44 
44 
44 

83 

363 
363 



4,111 
4,012 
4,012 



621 

424 
424 

3,363 
3,181 
3,181 

44 
44 
44 

83 

363 
363 




4,111 

4,012 
4,012 



(1) Includes major conveycjnce facility losses, recreolion uses, and energy production. 



Issues Affecting Local Water Resource Management 
Legislation and Litigation 

Colorado River Water Allocations. As a result of the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court 
decree in Arizona v. Calijornia. California's allocation of Colorado River water was 
quantified and five Lower Colorado River Indian tribes were awarded 905,496 acre-feet 
of annual diversions, 131,400 af of which were allocated for use in and chargeable to 
California pursuant to a later supplemental decree. 

In 1978. the tribes asked the court to grant them additional water rights, alleging 
that the United States failed to claim a sufficient amount of irrigable acreage, called 
"omitted" lands, in the earlier litigation. The tribes also raised claims for more water 
based on allegedly larger reservation bovmdaries than had been assumed by the court 
in its initial award, called "boundary" lands. In 1982, the special master appointed by 
the Supreme Court to hear these claims recommended that additional water rights be 
granted to the Indian tribes. In 1983, however, the court rejected the claims for omitted 
lands from further consideration and ruled that the claims for boundary lands could 
not be resolved until disputed boundaries were finally determined. Three of the five 
tribes— Fort Mohave Indian Tribe, Quechan Indian Tribe, and Colorado River Indian 
Tribe — are pursuing additional water rights related to the boundary lands claims. A 
settlement may be reached soon on the Fort Mohave claim. The Quechan claim has 
been rejected by the special master on the grounds that any such claim was 



Colorado River Region 



259 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



necessarily disposed of as part of a Court of Claims settlement entered into by the tribe 
in a related matter in the mid-1980s. The Colorado River Indian Tribe case was 
presented to the special master in early 1 993. As with all claims to water from the main 
stem of the Colorado River and any determination by the special master, only the U.S. 
Supreme Court itself can make the final ruling. 

Any Colorado River or Fort Mohave tribal claims granted for additional water 
rights would reduce the amount of water available to satisfy the fourth priority 
demands of MWDSC under the 1931 California Seven Party Agreement, which 
established priorities for use of California's entitlement. Any Quechan tribal claims 
granted for additional water rights would reduce the amount of water available to 
satisfy the third priority demands of the Coachella Valley Water District under this 
agreement because the Quechan Tribe receives Colorado River water under the Yuma 
Project Reservation Division's second priority. If all additional water rights claims were 
granted to the three Indian tribes, MWDSC could effectively lose up to 22,600 af and 
Coachella up to 45,200 af of their Colorado River supplies. The actual amounts to be 
granted, if any, are yet to be determined. 

The Lower Colorado Water Supply Act. On November 14, 1986. the President 
signed the Lower Colorado Water Supply Act. Public Law 99-655, authorizing the U.S. 
Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate, and maintain a project consisting of a 
series of wells along the Ail-American Canal, The project would be capable of providing 
up to 10.000 af of water annually from ground water storage to indirectly benefit the 
City of Needles, the community of Winterhaven, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 
and other municipal, industrial, and recreational users in California with no or 
insufficient rights to Colorado River water. Under PL 99-655, the Imperial Irrigation 
District, the Coachella Valley Water District, or both, would exchange a portion of their 
Colorado River water for an equivalent quantity and quality of ground water pumped 
into the All-American Canal during years that unused apportioned water supplies are 
not available. The Lower Colorado Water Supply Project is now under construction and 
is scheduled for operation in 1994. 

Effects of the Central Arizona Project on Colorado River Allocations. The 

Central Arizona Project, with an annual diversion capacity of 2,100,000 af, started 
delivering water in December 1985. All aqueduct facilities were completed in 1992 and 
about 1,034,000 af of water were diverted for municipal, industrial, and agricultural 
uses in Central Arizona in 1993. Deliveries are expected to increase to 1.500,000 af 
annually under full development, with the capability of up to 2,100,000 af when it is 
available and needed in the future. 

When the Central Arizona Project begins diverting its full allocation of Colorado 
River water. California will be limited to its basic annual apportionment of 4,400,000 
af when the Secretary of the Interior declares that a normal condition exists. Additional 
water can be and has been made available when the Secretary determines a surplus 
condition exists, or when one or both of the other Lower Division states (Arizona and 
Nevada) are not fully using their apportioned water. Since 1985. neither Arizona nor 
Nevada has used its full basic apportionment, and the Secretary of the Interior has 
allowed California to use surplus water or Arizona's and Nevada's apportioned but 
unused Colorado River water. These factors have allowed California to divert and 
consumptively use from 4,500.000 af to 5,200,000 af annually since 1985. 

The availability of Colorado River water to California in 1993 was determined in 
the annual operating plan issued by the Secretary of the Interior in October 1992. The 
1993 annual operating plan makes sufficient water available to supply all of 



260 Colorado River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



I 

j California's reasonable beneficial consumptive use demands, but the plan contains a 
proviso that if the total mainstream consumptive use in the Lower Division states 
exceeds 7.500.000 af. the entity or entities responsible for the overuse will be required 
to compensate for such overuse by 1996. 

Lining of the Ail-American Canal. The Secretary of the Interior (under PL 
1 00-675 enacted in 1 988) is authorized to line portions of the All-American Canal and 
the Coachella Canal, using funds provided by MWDSC. Coachella Valley Water 
District, and Imperial Irrigation District. As of December 1993. the U.S. Bureau of 
Reclamation was preparing a final Environmental Impact Statement /Report regarding 
lining a portion of the Ail-American Canal. Lining the canal or constructing a parallel 
canal from Pilot Knob to Drop Number 3. about 25 miles east of Calexico. would save 
. roughly 67.700 af annually. 

' The draft EIS/EIR for the project identified a parallel concrete-lined canal as the 

preferred alternative. The final EIS/EIR is scheduled to be filed in 1994 and 
construction could begin in 1995. In addition, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 
released a draft EIR/EIS in January 1994 regarding lining another section of the 
Coachella Canal to reduce seepage by about 30.900 af per year. Thus, if both canals 
were lined, as much as 98.600 af of water could be made available for other uses. 

Salinity Concentrations in the Colorado River. Salinity in the Colorado River 
I varies from year to year because the river is subject to highly variable flows. As a result 
I of high river flows from 1983 to 1986. releases from reservoir storage into the lower 
I Colorado River were greatly in excess of the releases required for beneficial uses. These 
record high flows reduced salinity in the lower river. However, since 1987. with 
i below-normal water su pply conditions and fewer reservoir releases, salinity levels have 
: again increased. 
I 
■ Like most western rivers, the Colorado increases in salinity from its headwaters 

' to its mouth, carrying a salt load of about 9 million tons annually (measured at Hoover 
Dam). Roughly 50 percent of the river's salinity results naturally from salt in saline 
springs, ground water discharge into the river, erosion and dissolution of sediments, 
and evaporation and transpiration. About 37 percent of the salt load comes from 
agricultural return flows, which carry dissolved salts from underlying saline soils and 
geologic formations. The remainder of the salt load results from out-of-basin exports. 

I reservoir evaporation, development of energy resources in the Upper Colorado River 
Basin, and other municipal and industrial uses. 

In 1972. the seven Colorado River Basin states adopted a policy that while they 
would continue to develop the Colorado River water apportioned to each of them, they 
i would work with each other to maintain salinity concentrations in the lower main stem 
I of the Colorado River at or below the flow-weighted average annual salinity of 1972. 
I Later that year, amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act required that 
I standards for salinity in the Colorado River be established. In 1973. the seven basin 
j states created the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum to establish criteria 
and develop a plan for implementing a salinity control program. 

In 1975. all the basin states adopted the salinity standards set forth in the report 
Water Quality Standards for Salinity, Including Criteria, and Plan of Implementation for 
Salinity Control. Colorado River System, as recommended by the forum. The 
state-adopted and EPA-approved numeric criteria call for maintenance of average 
annual flow-weighted salinity concentrations of 723 milligrams per liter below Hoover 
Dam. 747 mg/L below Parker Dam. and 879 mg/L at Imperial Dam. 




Colorado River Region 261 



It 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Because of changes in hydrologic conditions and water use within the Colorado 
River Basin, the forum reviews its implementation plan every three years. The most 
recent recommended revisions to the plan appear in the 1993 Review. Water Quality 
Standards for Salinity. Colorado River System. The revised implementation plan is 
designed to control enough salt to maintain the salinity criteria adopted in 1975 under 
a long-term mean water supply of 15,000,000 af per year. The 1993 proposed 
implementation plan includes: 

(J Completion of U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Bureau of Land Management, and 
Department of Agriculture salinity control measures. The plan's current remaining 
federal construction cost for USBR and Department of Agriculture activities are 
about $483 million. 

O Imposition of effluent limitations, principally under the National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System permit program for industrial and municipal 
discharges. 

O Implementation of various Forum-recommended policies on such subjects as use 
of brackish or saline waters for industrial purposes, NPDES standards for 
intercepted ground water, and fish hatcheries. 

O Implementation of nonpoint source management plans developed by the states 
and approved by EPA. 

The forum reported that average salinity concentrations for 1 992 were 657 mg/L 
below Hoover Dam, 688 mg/L below Parker Dam, and 781 mg/L at Imperial Dam, 
which were all below the Forum's numeric criteria. It also reported that there was no 
reason to believe the criteria would be exceeded during the next three years. In fact, 
forecasts appearing in the 1993 review state. 'The plan will control salinity levels so 
that, with long-term mean water supply conditions, salinity levels below Hoover Dam 
will be about 25 mg/L below the numeric criteria." 

Salton Sea. The Salton Sea is a 35-mile-long. 12-mile-wide, 40-foot-deep, saline 
body of water. In 1924, the federal government, recognizing the sea as a depository for 
agricultural drainage waters, placed lands lying 220 below sea level in and around the 
sea in a public water reserve. 

In 1968. California enacted a statute declaring that the primary use of the Salton 
Sea is for collection of agricultural drainage water, seepage, leachate, and control 
waters. In 1980, a local farmer wrote a letter to the State Water Resources Control 
Board alleging that the Imperial Irrigation District was wasting water to the sea and 
causing his land to be flooded. After an investigation by DWR and several hearings by 
the SWRCB, the board, in 1988, ordered IID to develop a plan to conserve 100,000 af 
of water per year by 1 994. The order required IID to make water delivery and irrigation 
practices more efficient and included a reservation of jurisdiction regarding the 
possible future conservation of up to 368,000 af annually. 

The order caused concerns that conservation measures would lower the sea's 
surface level and increase salinity concentrations at a slightly faster rate. The Salton 
Sea became increasingly saline between 1907 and 1934. largely because of high 
evaporation and reduced inflow of freshwater. Since 1934 the salinity has varied from 
33,000 mg/L to 45,000 mg/L. Intlow from Imperial. Coachella, and Mexicali valleys for 
1989, 1990, and 1991 was 977,000 af, 108.000 af, and 141,000 af, respectively. 
Irrigation return flows, precipitation (which averages less than 3 inches per year), and 
local runoff are the only fresh water supplies to the sea. As is common in arid 
environments, the equivalent of several years' rain may arrive in a single storm. With 

262 Colorado FUver Region 



IT 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



a watershed exceeding 8,000 square miles, a large storm can elevate the sea by one 
foot or more. 

Agricultural drainage carries with it varying amounts of nutrients, mainly 
compounds of nitrogen and phosphorus, which encourage the growth of algae. 
Although algae are very productive and support the higher trophic levels, algae blooms 
in the upper water levels discolor the water and. upon death and decomposition, often 
cause temporary local anoxic conditions and produce obnoxious odors. Fish are 
occasionally killed by the temporary lack of oxygen. These conditions reduce the sea's 
aesthetic appeal and, to some extent, depress water-related recreation. 

Recent attention has been focused on the source of the selenium found in the 
Salton Sea. The selenium content in the Colorado Fiiver water delivered to the Imperial 
and Coachella Valleys has been found to be about 2 parts per billion and reflects 
selenium contributions from tributaries to the main stem of the Colorado River in the 
Upper Colorado River Basin. The concentration of selenium in the sea water is about 
2.5 ppb. As the result of a concentration of leachates from the soils irrigated with 
Colorado River water, higher levels of selenium concentrations in agricultural drains 
have been found. Although drainage water consists of components (for example, tile 
water, tail water, and seepage) carrying different concentrations of selenium, the 
mixing that occurs in the drain channels results in a selenium concentration of about 
8 ppb. 

The SWRCB has adopted a California Inland Surface Waters Plan with a 
performance goal of 5 ppb for selenium concentrations in agricultural drain channels. 
In an earlier action, the California Department of Health Services, concerned over the 
concentration of selenium in the tissue of fish in the sea, issued a health advisory that 
fish consumption by humans be limited to avoid any adverse health effects. 

Four bird species residing in the Salton Sea area are potentially adversely 
affected by organochlorine pesticides. Such pesticides are mobilized from farm fields 
and transported to drains by tail water runoff. Resuspension of bottom sediments in 
the New and Alamo rivers and drains is another source of these pesticides. 
Twenty-three different organochlorine pesticides have been found in various types of 
biota in the Imperial Valley. 

The average salt loading of inflow to the sea over the past 30 years has been 4.9 
million tons per year. Since 1980. salinity concentrations have increased at a rate of 
500 to 600 parts per million per year. As of December 1993, salinity levels in the Salton 
Sea were 45,000 parts of salt per million parts of water — saltier than ocean water, 
which averages 35,000 ppm. 

Further increases in salinity could harm fish and wildlife and the recreational 
resources in the area. Salinity concentrations in the sea are forecasted to reach 50.000 
ppm in the next 10 years, even without further conservation measures being 
implemented, which would increase the rate. It is not likely, even under the most 
favorable hydrologic conditions, that the salinity of the sea will return to 
concentrations below 40,000 ppm. On the other hand, occasional flooding has also 
adversely affected shoreline developments and recreation. The sea has maintained 
relatively stable water elevations for the past decade. 

Since 1987, the Salton Sea Task Force, chaired by the State Resources Agency, 
has been studying these problems. This intergovernmental group's objective is to find 
a way to conserve water in the Salton Sea area while stabilizing the sea's salinity and 
water levels. Several plans have been proposed; however, all plans would incur 



i 



Colorado River Region 263 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



A farmer adjusts water 

Jlowjrom the main pipe to 

the sprinkler lines. 

Innovative water 

conservation agreements 

between several water 

agencies in the region 

allow agricultural water to 

be available for future use 

in urban areas. 



substantial costs. The task force is continuing to explore various means of improving 
the financial feasibility of the plans and to seek some form of regional organization as 
a sponsoring entity to carry out and provide funding for preservation measures. 

Contracts and Agreements 

MWDSC Water Conservation Agreements. To compensate for the loss of 
Colorado River water under the Supreme Court decree in Arizona v. California. 
MWDSC is pursuing a number of programs to augment its supplies. In December 
1988, MWDSC and Imperial Irrigation District signed the first of two agreements 
expected to make 106. 1 10 af of conserved water available to MWDSC annually, except 
under certain limited circumstances, by implementing structural and nonstructural 
water conservation projects within IlD's service area. The conservation measures to be 
used are: (1) concrete lining of existing earthen canals. (2) construction of reservoirs 
and canal spill interceptors. (3) installation of non-leak gates and distribution system 
automation equipment, and (4) on-farm management of irrigation water, MWDSC will 
furnish an estimated $222 million (1988 dollars) for the conservation projects. 
Increased conservation in the IID would reduce surface and subsurface fresh water 
inflow to the Salton Sea. thus shortening the time it takes for the seas salinity 
concentration to increase. Of the funds provided by MWDSC, $23 million is for indirect 
costs including, among other items, environmental mitigation and litigation relating to 
the impact, if any, of the water conservation program on the water level or quality of the 
Salton Sea, the New and Alamo rivers, to the extent such costs are not reimbursable. 

The Palo Verde Irrigation District signed an agreement with MWDSC for a two- 
year fallowing program involving 20,000 acres of land that could save 186,000 af of 
Colorado Riverwater (93,000 afperyear). The fallowing beganAugust 1. 1992, and will 

end July 31, 1994. 
Program lands lying 
fallow in 1992 are re- 
quired to lie fallow 
through July 31, 
1994. MWDSC must 
use the water, which 
is being stored in 
Lake Mead, before the 
year 2000. 

IID and MWDSC 
have considered, but 
have not yet imple- 
mented, a test fallow- 
ing and modified ir- 
rigation practice 
program to save up to 
200,000 af of Colora- 
do River water over a 
two-year period for 
MWDSCs use. Fal- 
lowing and modified 

irrigation of alfalfa would be conducted by Imperial Valley farmers on a voluntary basis 

for monetary compensation. 




264 



Colorado River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Water Banking Proposal. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has formed a 
technical work j*roup with representatives from California. Arizona. Nevada, and the 
Colorado River Indian tribes to explore the merits and feasibility of banking water in 
Lake Mead for use by California, Arizona, Nevada, and the tribes. A banking proposal 
is being considered as a provision of proposed regulations being prepared by USER for 
administration of Colorado River entitlements in the Lower Basin. 

Yuma Desalting Plant. The high salinity of Colorado River water in past years 
led to protests from the Republic of Mexico and an agreement between the United 
States and Mexico. To enable the U.S. to comply with the agreement without depriving 
Colorado River basin states of any of their apportioned water, the Yuma Desalting 
Plant was authorized under Title 1 of PL 93-320 in 1974. The purpose of the desalter 
is to remove sufficient salts from irrigation drainage water from the Wellton-Mohawk 
Irrigation and Drainage District in Arizona to meet the established salinity control 
standards at the Northerly International Boundary when the treated drainage water is 
released into the river. At the Yuma Desalting Plant, the brine discharge is disposed of 
in a channel leading to the Santa Clara Slough in Mexico, and the treated water is 
blended with the remaining untreated drainage water and returned to the river. The 
Yuma Desalting Plant began operation at one-third capacity in May 1992. Due to high 
flows in the Gila River early in 1993, the plant was shut down in January 1993. 

Under full operation, the desalter will be able to take about 98,000 af of drainage 
water and produce 68,500 af of water; this will be blended with about 10,000 af of 
untreated drainage water, so that a total of 78,500 af will be returned to the river. 

Water Balance 

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

Table CR-10 presents water demands for the 1990 level and for future water 
demands to 2020 and compares them with: (1) supplies from existing facilities and 
water management programs, and (2) future demand management and water supply 
management programs. Regional net water demands for the 1990 level of development 
totaled 4, 124,000 af for average and drought years. Those demands are forecasted to 
decrease to 4,012.000 af by the year 2020, after accounting for a 35,000 af reduction 
in urban water demand resulting from implementation of long-term conservation 
measures and a 273,000 af reduction in agricultural demand resulting from additional 
long-term agricultural water conservation measures. 

Urban net water demand is expected to increase by about 220.000 af by 2020, 
due to increases in population, while agricultural net water demand is expected to 
decrease by about 258,000 af. Environmental net water demands, under existing rules 




Colorado River Region 265 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



and regulations, will increase from 39.000 to 44,000 af annually as a result of 
increased allocation of water to wildlife refuges. 

Average annual supplies, including 75,000 af of ground water overdraft, were 
generally adequate to meet average net water demands in 1990 for this region. 
However, during drought, present supplies are insufficient to meet present demands 
and. without additional water management programs, annual average and drought 
year shortages are expected to be about 1 15.000 and 139,000 af by 2020, respectively. 

With planned Level I programs, average and drought year shortages could be 
reduced to about 56,000 and 69,000 af respectively. This remaining shortage requires 
both additional short-term drought management and future long-term Level 11 
programs depending on the overall level of water service reliability deemed necessary. 
Because of high priority rights to Colorado River water by such areas in the Palo Verde 
Irrigation District, the Coachella Valley, and the Imperial Valley, any future shortages 
in these areas are expected to be limited. However, this region also depends on exports 
from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for a portion of its supplies. Shortages stated 
above are based on Decision 1485 operating criteria for Delta supplies and do not take 
into account recent actions to protect aquatic species in the estuary. As such, water 
supply shortages are understated for the areas which depend on Delta supplies. 



266 Colorado River Region 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Water Demand/Supply 



Table CR-10. Water Budget 

(thousands of acre-feet) 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

average drought average drought average drought average drought 



Net Demand 

Urban— with 1990 


















level of conservation 


204 


204 


288 


288 


376 


376 


459 


459 


— reductions due to 
long-term conservation 
measures (Level 1) 
Agricultural— with 1990 


— 


— 


-16 


-16 


-27 


-27 


-35 


-35 


level of conservation 


3,439 


3,439 


3,499 


3,499 


3,465 


3,465 


3,454 


3,454 


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






-137 


-137 


-203 


-203 


-273 


-273 


Environmental 


39 


39 


44 


44 


44 


44 


44 


44 ^ 


Other"! 


442 


442 


363 


363 


363 


363 


363 


363 




TOTAL Net Demand 



4 A 24 



4,124 



4,041 



4,041 



4,018 



4,018 



4,012 



4,012 



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

Developed Supplies 

Surface WateH^' 

Ground Water 

Ground Water Overdraff-" 
Subtofai 
Dedicated Natural Flow 



3,969 


3,949 


3,822 


3,797 


3,818 


3,794 


3,818 


3,794 


80 


80 


79 


79 


80 


80 


79 


79 


75 


75 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


4,124 


4,104 


3,901 


3,876 


3,898 


3,874 


3,897 


3,873 



























TOTAL Water Supplies 


4,124 


4,104 


3,901 


3,876 


3,898 


3,874 


3,897 


3,873 


Demand/Supply Balance 





-20 


-140 


-165 


-120 


-144 


-115 


-139 



Level I Water Management Programs''" 

Long-term Supply Augmentation 
Reclaimed 
Local 

Colorado River 
State Water Project 

Subtotal - Level I Water 
Management Programs 

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



— 


— 


2 


2 


5 


5 


6 


6 


— 


— 




















— 


— 


-68 


-68 


-68 


-68 


-68 


-68 


— 


— 


5 





10 


20 


10 


21 








-61 


-66 


-53 


-43 


-52 


-41 



70 



70 



71 



71 



111 



111 



Remaining Demand/Supply Balance Requiring Short-term Drought Management and/or Level II Options 

-20 -131 -161 -102 -116 -56 -69 

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

(2) Existing and future imported supplies that depend on Delta export capabilities are based on SWRCB D- 1 485 and do not toke into account recent actions to protect aquatic species As sucfi, 
regional water supply sfiortages are understated (note proposed environmental water demands of I to 3 MAF are included in the California water budget} 

(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 

(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 tfieir water supply benefits- 



Colorado River Region 



267 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



268 Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Appendix C 




Each hydrologic region is divided into several planning subareas. which, in turn. Planning SubOrSOS 
are divided into detailed analysis units. Data collected at the DAU level is aggregated to nnri I nnH Own^rshin 
the PSA level and then to the hydrologic region level. DWR districts have data for each 
DAU. and specific requests or questions about the DAU data or the aggregations 
should be directed to the appropriate district. For your convenience, the addresses and 
phone numbers of the four district offices are listed below, and a map showing district 
boundaries is shown on the next page. 

Northern District San Joaquin District 

2440 Main Street 3374 East Shields Avenue 

Redding, CA 96080-2398 Fresno, CA 93726-6990 

(916)529-7300 (209)445-5443 

Central District Southern District 

3251 S Street 770 Fairmount Avenue 

Sacramento, CA 95816-7017 Glendale, CA 91203-1035 

(91 6) 445-683 (81 8) 543-4600 



Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 269 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



270 Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure C-1 . Statewide Land Ownership 



Legend 



OWNER 
ACRESIxlOOOl 

PRIVATE 

5U13 

COUNTY/CITY LANDS 

486 

STATE LANDS 

684 

STATE PARKS & REC 

1081 

STATE FISH 81 GAME 

97 

CDF 

68 

MILITARY 

3697 

BUREAU RECLAMATION 

70 

BUREAU INDIAN AFFAIR 

504 

US FISH & WILDLIFE 

210 

NATL PARK/MONUMENT 

4491 

BUREAU LANDMGMT 

17556 

NATIONAL FOREST 

20546 





Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 



271 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Figure C-2. Planning Subareas, North Coast Region 



N 




SCALE IN MILES 



272 



Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure C-3. Land Ownership, North Coast Region 




OWNER 
ACRES 

PRIVATE 

6403100 

COUNTY/CITY LANDS 

600 

STATE LANDS 

13500 

STATE PARKS & REC 

124200 

STATE FISH & GAME 

11500 

CDF 

50000 

MILITARY 

20900 

BUREAU RECLAMATION 



BUREAU INDIAN AFFAIR 

111300 

US FISH & WILDLIFE 

98300 

NATL PARK/MONUMENT 

123700 

BUREAU LANDMGMT 

373500 

NATIONAL FOREST 

6061600 




Planning Siibareas and Land Ownership 



273 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Figure C-4. Planning Subareas, San Francisco Bay Region 



North Bay PSA-01 

West Marin (38) 
Petaluma 

South Sonoma (39a) 

East Marin (39b) 
Napa (40) 
Solano (41) 

South Bay PSA-02 

San Mateo Coast (42) 
South Bay Peninsula (43) 
San Jose (44) 
Livermore (45) 
Walnut Creek (46) 
Oakland (47) 




N 



SCALE IN MILES 



274 



Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure C-5. Land Ownership, San Francisco Bay Region 



Legend 




OWNER 
ACRES 

PRIVATE 

2335100 

COUNTY/CITY LANDS 

66000 
I STATE LANDS 
I 7900 
1 STATE PARKS & REC 

76500 
I STATE FISH & GAME 

1300 
1 CDF 
I 800 

MILITARY 



J 36100 

BUREAU RECLAMATION 


^^^B BUREAU INDIAN AFFAIR 
^^H 

^^^_ US FISH 8> WILDLIFE 
^^^1 20100 

^^^H NATL PARK/MONUMENT 
^^^1 79500 

I 1 BUREAU LAND MGMT 

I I 8800 

I 1 NATIONAL FOREST 

L I 




Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 



275 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Figure C-6. Planning Subareas, Central Coast Region 



LOCH LOMOND 
LAKE 



Santa Clara 
Cana 1 



Hoi lister 
Condul t 



Northern PSA-01 

Pressure (48) 
East Side (49) 
Forebay (50) 
Upper Valley (51) 
Monterey Peninsula (52) 
Arroyo Seco (53) 
Gabilan Range (54) 
Lockwood (55) 
Carmel River (56) 
Santa Lucia Range (57) 
Bolsa Nueva (58) 
Watsonville (59) 
Santa Cruz (60) 
Santa Cruz Mountains (61 ) 
South Santa Clara 

Valley (62) 
Pacheco-Santa Ana 

Creeks (63) 
San Benito River (64) 




Southern PSA-02 

Upper Salinas (65) 
North Coast (66) 
San Luis Obispo (67) 
Arroyo Grande (68) 
Carrizo Plain (69) 
Santa Maria Valley- 

SLO (70) 
Santa Maria Valley-SB (71 ) 
Cuyama Valley-SLO (72) 
San Antonio (73) 
Santa Ynez (74) 
South Coast (75) 
Cuyama Valley-SB (76) 



SCALE IN MILES 



276 



Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure C-7. Land Ownership, Central Coast Region 



^ ^SANTA^ 




^ 










I ""• 


SAN BENI- 


i 








1^ ,Sal!»a#-^^ 




j 


f 






\ 




^ 


EREY 


> 


^ 






^^iBi^ 


1 


^'^v 


i 


^:i^iHatt« 


^-j 





M- n V 



Legend 



OWNER 
ACRES 

PRIVATE 

5188100 

COUNTY/CITY LANDS 

26300 

STATE LANDS 

12600 

STATE PARKS & REC 

74100 
I STATE FISH & GAME 

2200 

CDF 
I 

I MILITARY 
I 340200 

I BUREAU RECLAMATION 
I 9700 

I BUREAU INDIAN AFFAIR 
I 

I US FISH & WILDLIFE 
I 100 
1 NATL PARK/MONUMENT 

I 14800 

™f^ BUREAU LAND MGMT 
>fel 265900 

I NATIONAL FOREST 
I 1274200 



i^SanAntonio Reservoir ;^. ^ If^ 



Nacimielito Hes&o/oir 



N 



V \ 



, Sa^Kflviarij 






SANM BARBARA 



t-Lompd*'"^ Vn^A Lake Ca^uma 



W9ltar Bewvoir 

Sarfta,B8rl?a<;4 



Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 



277 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Figure C-8. Planning Subareas, South Coast Region 



Santa Clara PSA-01 

Ventura County (81) 
Los Angeles 
County (83) 

Metropolitan LA PSA-02 

Malibu (87) 
Coastal (89) 
San Fernando (90) 
San Gabriel (92) 

Santa Ana PSA-03 

Orange (96) 
Riverside North (98) 
San Bernardino (100) 
Riverside South (104) 

San Diego PSA-04 

Temecula (110) 
Vlejo(114) 
San Diego 
County (120) 



N 




M B X 




SCALE IN MILES 



278 



Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure C-9. Land Ownership, South Coast Region 





Legend 



OWNER 
ACRES 

PRIVATE 

4612500 

COUNTY/CITY LANDS 

7600 

STATE LANDS 

16900 

STATE PARKS & REC 

73500 

STATE FISH & GAME 



CDF 



MILITARY 

194100 

BUREAU RECLAMATION 



BUREAU INDIAN AFFAIR 

130900 

US FISH & WILDLIFE 

1900 

NATL PARK/MONUMENT 

100 

BUREAU LANDMGMT 

142800 

NATIONAL FOREST 

1751300 



Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 



279 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Figure C-10. Planning Subareas, Sacramento River Region 



Shasta Lake-Pit River PSA-01 

Goose Lake-Alturas (130) 
Big Valley (132) 
MacArthur-Hat Creek (134) 
Upper Shasta Lake (136) 

Norttiwest Valley PSA-02 

Clear-Cortonwood Creek (137) 
Stony-Elder Creek Group (139) 
Redding West (141) 
Red Bluff-Orland (142) 

Nortlieast Valley PSA-03 

Redding East (143) 
Los Molinos (144) 
Cow-Battle Creek (145) 
Eastside Creek Group (147) 

Soutlieast PSA-04 

Feather River (154) 
Yuba-Bear Rivers (156) 
American River (158) 
Foothill 

Honcul Foothill (159) 

Yuba Foothill (160) 

Placer Foothill (161) 



Central Basin West PSA-05 

Lower Cache (162) 
Willows- Arbuckle (163) 
Glenn-Knights Landing (164) 
Vacaville(191) 

Central Basin East PSA-06 

Meridian-Robbins (165) 
Durham-Sutter (166) 
Butte City (167) 
Yuba City-Gridlev(168) 
Honcut Valley (170) 
Yuba (171) 
Placer (172) 
Sacramento (173) 

Soutliwest PSA-07 

Cache Creek (174) 
Putah Creek (175) 

Delta Service Area PSA-OB 

Sacramento Delta (186) 




SCALE IN Mlt.ES 



280 



Planning Subareas anci Land Ownership 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure C-11. Land Ownership, Sacramento River Region 





OWNER 
ACRES 

PRIVATE 

10736800 

COUNTY/CITY LANDS 



STATE LANDS 

52000 

STATE PARKS & REC 

71000 

STATE FISH & GAME 

51400 

CDF 

12300 

MILITARY 

48200 

BUREAU RECLAMATION 

5930C 

BUREAU INDIAN AFFAIR 

12800 

US FISH & WILDLIFE 

29300 

NATL PARKyMONUMENT 

149300 
1 BUREAU LAND MGMT 
J 808500 

NATIONAL FOREST 

6322500 



Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 



281 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Figure C-12. Planning Subareas, San Joaquin River Region 

N 




Sierra Foothills PSA-01 

Cosumnes-Mokelumne- 

Calaveras(176) 
Stanislaus River (194) 
Tuolumne River (195) 
Stanislaus-Tuolumne 

Interstream (196) 
Eastern Valley Floor PSA-02 
Elk Grove (180) 
lone-Jenny Lind (181) 
Lodi(182) 

Bachelor Valley (184) 
Delta Service Area PSA-03 
San Joaquin Delta (185) 
Western Uplands PSA-04 
Antioch-Corral Hollow (192) 
East Side Uplands PSA-05 
Merced River (197) 
Tuolumne-Merced 

Interstream (198) 
Chowchilla-Fresno River 

Interstream (199) 
Fresno River (200) 
ChoviTchilla River (201) 
Mariposa (202) 
San Joaquin River (203) 
Little Dry Creek (204) 



Valley East Side PSA-06 

South San Joaquin ID (205) 
Modesto-Oakdale (206) 
Modesto Reservoir (207) 
Turlock (208) 
Turlock Lake (209) 
Merced (210) 

Merced Stream Group (211) 
El Nido-Stevinson (212) 
Madera-Chowchilla (213) 
Adobe (214) 
Gravelly Ford (215) 
Valley West Side PSA-07 
West Side (216) 
West Side Uplands PSA-08 
Del Puerto Creek (217) 
Orestimba Creek (218) 
San Luis Creek (219) 
Los Banos Creek (220) 




SCALE IN MILES 



282 



Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 



The California Water flan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure C-13. Land Ownership, San Joaquin River Region 





OWNER 
ACRES 

PRIVATE 

6629300 

COUNTY/CITY LANDS 

4300 

STATE LANDS 

6600 

STATE PARKS & REC 

67300 

STATE FISH & GAME 

6200 

CDF 



MILITARY 

37000 

BUREAU RECLAMATION 

1800 

BUREAU INDIAN AFFAIR 

1200 

US FISH & WILDLIFE 

15900 

NATL PARK/MONUMENT 

795100 

BUREAU LANDMGMT 

220800 

NATIONAL FOREST 

2119700 



Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 



283 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Figure C-14. Planning Subareas, Tulare Lake Region 




Uplands PSA-01 

San Joaquin-Kings 

Interstream (221) 
Kings River (222) 
Kings-Kaweah 

Interstream (223) 
Kaweah River (224) 
Kaweah-Tule 

Interstream (225) 
Tule River (226) 
Deer Creek (227) 
Poso Creek (228) 
Upper Kern River (229) 
Lower Kern River (230) 
Caliente Creek (231) 
Cummings (232) 

KIngs-Kaweah-Tule Rivers PSA-02 

Fresno (233) 
Academy (234) 
Raisin (235) 
Consolidated (236) 
Lower Kings River (237) 
Hanford-Lemoore (238) 
Alta (239) 
Orange Cove (240) 
Tulare Lake (241) 
Kaweah Delta (242) 
Tule Delta (243) 

San Luis West Side PSA-03 

Westlands (244) 
Kettleman Plain (245) 
South Tulare Lake (246) 
Kettleman Hills (247) 
Western Uplands PSA-04 
Panoche Creek (248) 
Ciervo Hills (249) 
Los Gatos Creek (250) 
Reef Ridge (251) 
Grapevine (252) 
Temblor (253) 



Kern Valley Floor PSA-05 

Kern Delta (254) 
Semitropic (255) 
North Kern (256) 
Northeastern Kern (257) 
Arvin-Edison (258) 
Antelope Plain (259) 
Buena Vista Valley (260) 
Wheeler Ridge- 
Maricopa(261) 




SCALE IN MILES 



284 



Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure C-15. Land Ownership, Tulare Lake Region 





Legend 

OWNER 
ACRES 

— I PRIVATE 
7438300 
^ COUNTY/CITY LANDS 

■ 9700 
^ STATE LANDS 

■ 8100 
^ STATE PARKS & REC 

■ 1300 
^ STATE FISH & GAME 

■ 9700 
^ CDF 

■ 4900 
MILITARY 
100200 

f — -■^— 1 BUREAU RECLAMATION 

L . - - I 

^^^K BUREAU INDIAN AFFAIR 

■^^1 54000 

^^^_ US FISH & WILDLIFE 

^^^H 14600 

^^^_ NATL PARK/MONUMENT 

■^^1 803500 

^^^B BUREAU LAND MGMT 

^^■1 518300 

^^^_ NATIONAL FOREST 

^HH 1743400 



Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 



285 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Figure C-16. Planning Subareas, North Laliontan Region 



OREGON 



Lassen Group PSA-01 

Surprise Valley (262) 
Madeline Plains (263) 
Susanvllle (264) 
Herlong (265) 
Upper Honey 
Lake (266) 

Alpine Group PSA-02 

Truckee-Tahoe (268) 
Carson-Walker (270) 



LASSEN GROUP 




N 



SCftLE IN MILES 



286 



Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure C-17. Land Ownership, North Lahontan Region 





Legend 



OWNER 
ACRES 

PRIVATE 

1356100 

COUNTY/CITY LANDS 



STATE LANDS 

51100 

STATE PARKS & REC 

12800 

STATE FISH & GAME 

13700 

CDF 



MILITARY 

83400 

BUREAU RECLAMATION 



BUREAU INDIAN AFFAIR 

6300 

US FISH & WILDLIFE 



NATL PARK/MONUMENT 

500 

BUREAU LANDMGMT 

1103900 

NATIONAL FOREST 

1246200 




Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 



287 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Figure C-18. Planning Subareas, South Lahontan Region 



Mono-Owens Area PSA-01 

Mono (274) 
Adobe (275) 
Long (276) 
Upper Owens (277) 
Lower Owens (278) 
Centennial (279) 
Fish Lake (280) 



Death Valley PSA-02 

Deep Springs (281) 
Eurel<a (282) 
Saline (283) 
Race Track (284) 
Death Valley (285) 
Valjean (286) 
Furnace Creek (287) 
Amargosa (288) 
Pahrump (289) 
Mesquite (290) 
Ivanpah (291) 
Owlshead (292) 
Leach (293) 
Nelson (294) 
Bicycle (295) 
Goldstone (296) 
Superior (297) 
Panamint (298) 
Coyote (315) 




Indian Wells Area PSA-03 

Searles (299) 
Cudoeback (300) 
Coso(301) 
Upper Cactus (302) 
Indian Wells (303) 
Fremont (304) 
Antelope Valley PSA-04 
Mojave (305) 
Rosamond- 
Pal mdale (306) 
Pearblossom (307) 
Mojave River PSA-05 
El Mirage (308) 
Upper Mojave (309) 
Middle Mojave (310) 
Harper (311) 
Lower Mojave (312) 
Afton(313) 
Troy (314) 
Baker (316) 
Kelso (317) 
Broadwell(318) 



D 10 20 30 



SCALE IN MILES 



288 



Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure C-19. Land Ownership, South Lahontan Region 




Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 



289 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Figure C-20. Planning Subareas, Colorado River Region 



Twenty-Nine Palms- Lanfair PSA-01 Chuckwalla PSA-02 



Lucerne (319) 
Johnson (320) 
Bessemer (321) 
Means (322) 
Emerson (323) 
Lavic (324) 
Deadman (325) 
Joshua Tree (326) 
Dale (327) 
Bristol (328) 
Fenner (329) 
Lanfair (330) 
Cadiz (331) 
Ward (332) 



Rice (333) 
Ford (334) 
Palen (335) 
Pinto (336) 
Pleasant (337) 
Hayfield (338) 



N 




Colorado River PSA-03 

Piute (339) 
Needles (340) 
Vidal (343) 
Chemehuevis (341) 
Quien Sabe (342) 
Big Wash (344) 
Palo Verde (345) 
Arroyo Seco (346) 
Yuma (347) 




!^— ^^-i^ X 'i c 



355 



SCftLE IN MILES 



Coachella PSA-04 

Coachella (348) 
East Salton Sea (349) 

Borrego PSA-05 

Clark (350) 

West Salton Sea (351) 

Anza (352) 



Imperial Valley PSA-06 

Imperial (353) 
Coyote Wells (354) 
Davies (355) 
Amos-Agilby (356) 
Salton Sea (357) 



290 



Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Figure C-21. Land Ownership, Colorado River Region 



Lake Havasu 





Legend 



OWNER 
ACRES 

PRIVATE 

3607400 

COUNTY/CITY LANDS 

100 

STATE LANDS 

255800 

STATE PARKS & REC 

556300 

STATE FISH & GAME 



CDF 



MILITARY 

982000 

BUREAU RECLAMATION 



BUREAU INDIAN AFFAIR 

182900 

US FISH & WILDLIFE 

27600 

NATL PARK/MONUMENT 

548800 

BUREAU LAND MGMT 

6401900 

NATIONAL FOREST 

176900 



Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 



291 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



292 Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 




Planning Subareas and Land Ownership 293 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



294 Hydroelectric Resources of California 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Appendix D 




This appendix condenses information from the following sources: 

J The California Energy Commission, California Power Plant Maps. July 1992. 

J The Federal Energy Regulatory Agency. Hydroelectric Power Resources of the 
United States. Developed and Undeveloped. January 1988. 

J The Federal Energy Regulatory Agency. SFRO Project Assignments by Project 
Nurriber September 16, 1992 (unpublished). 

The proposed developments in Tables D-1 and D-3 are only those that have a 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission number or are listed by the California Energy 
Commission. 

There are 416 operating hydroelectric plants in California with an installed 
capacity of 11.4 million kilowatts. Another 76 planned developments are in the 
regulatory process. Table D-1 shows the distribution of developed and planned 
projects among the hydrologic regions, and Table D-2 further breaks down this 
distribution into river basins or planning subareas. Finally. Table D-3 presents a more 
detailed inventory of hydroelectric resources in California. The data sources differ as to 
hydroelectric plant names, owners, and capacities, FERC was generally the preferred 
source for the information in Table D-3. except when information was secured directly 
from the owner. The CEC designation is supplied when it is significantly different from 
that of FERC's or is not the owner's name. 



Hydroelectric 
Resources of 
California 



Hydroelectric Resources of California 



295 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Table D-1. Developed and Undeveloped Hydroelectric Plant Sites 

Hydrologic Region Developed Capacity Proposed Developments Total 

KW Number Number 





North Coast 


210,766 




32 




9 


41 


?*-« 


Son Francisco Bay 


1,087 




3 




3 


6 




Central Coast .,|igj^ 


f'>ma 7,425 




10 




3 


13 


wa 


South Coast ^^^ 


^^ 812,975 




79 




4 


83 




Sacramento River ^^^| 


^^h 4,890,855 




151 




30 


181 




San Joaquin River 


^^^ 3,217,435 




75 




8 


83 




Tulare 


1,853,688 




23 




3 


26 




North Lahontan 


6,450 




2 




1 


3 




South Lahontan 


■'""" ^ 201,302 


■T' 


27 


'"mjnm^ 


9 


36 




Colorado River 


209,395 




14 




4 


18 





J 



TOTAL 11,410,858 416 76 492 



296 Hydroelectric Resources of California 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



Table D-2. Developed and Planned Development of Hydroelectric Resources Summary 

Total 



Hydrographic Region 
River Basin or PSA 



Sacramento 

Sacramento River 
Pit and McCloud Rivers 
West Side 
East Side 



Developed Sites 

KW Number 



Undeveloped Sites 

Number 



North Coast 


Klamath River 


49,532 


9 


4 


13 


Trinity River 


114,526 


9 


4 


13 


Mad River 


4,240 


3 





3 


Eel River 


25,968 


5 





5 


Russian River 


16,500 


6 


1 


7 




TOTAL North Coast 


210,766 


32 


9 


41 


San Francisco Boy 


North Bay 


287 


2 


1 


3 


South Boy 


800 


1 


2 


3 


TOTAL San Francisco Bay 


1,087 


3 


3 


6 


Central Coast 


Northern 


90 


1 


1 


2 


Southern 


7,335 


9 


2 


11 


TOTAL Central Coast 


7,425 


10 


3 


13 


South Coast 


Santa Clara 


212,500 


12 


1 


13 


Metro Los Angeles 


259,791 


24 


2 


26 


Santa Ana 


326,344 


32 


2 


34 


San Diego 


13,820 


10 





10 


TOTAL South Coast 


812,455 


78 


5 


83 



959,640 

817,227 
28,143 
79,460 



r 

22 
10 
28 



9 

27 
11 

31 



i 



Feather River 


1,223,285 


25 


5 


30 


■'mm 


Yuba and Bear Rivers 


708,366 


35 


7 


42 




American River 


1,074,734 


25 


8 


33 






TOTAL Sacramento 


4,890,855 


152 


31 


183 





Hydroelectric Resources of California 



297 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



Table D-2. Developed and Planned Development of Hydroelectric Resources Summary (Continued) 

Total 



Hydrographic Region 
River Basin or PSA 



Developed Sites 

KW Number 



Undeveloped Sites 

Number 



San Joaquin 


Mokelumne River 




246,590 


9 




1 


10 


Calaveras River 




3,940 


3 







3 


Stanislaus River ^^ 


„.„„„„;aiPjr^ 


778,250 


14 


.-:.--. v><»« Jtfs- 


• 1 


^5.ma^ 


Tuolumne River 




483,631 


15 




2 


17 ' 


Merced River 


i^^n 


107,000 


6 







6 


San Joaquin River 




1 ,598,024 


28 




4 


32 


TOTAL San Joaquin 




3,217,435 


75 




8 


83 


Tulare 


Kings River 




1,713,000 


7 




3 


10 


Kowea River 




23,850 


4 







4 


Tule River 


i^^mi 


1 1 ,388 


6 


• i Wf^^-Z i. 


_o 


1.' . i^cssSsMKI 


Kern River 




105,450 


6 







6 1 


TOTAL Tulare 




1,853,688 


23 




3 


26 




North Lahontan 




6,450 


2 




1 


3 


South Lahontan 




201,302 


27 




9 


36 


Colorado River 




209,395 


14 




4 


18 





STATEWIDE TOTAL 



11,410,858 



416 



76 



492 



298 



Hydroelectric Resources of California 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



to 

UJ 

U 

0£ 
3 

o 

»/) 

UJ 

Of 

u 

I— 

u 



O 

O 

>- 

X 



Q. 

2 

UJ 

> 

UJ 

Q 

O 

UJ 

Z 

z 

<i 

a. 
O 
Z 
< 

UJ 

a. 

2 

UJ 

> 

UJ 

Q 



■s o 



c 

3 

6 



° s 



-S o >. 
:^ -S 



0(Niocoiooorv, 



o o- o 

O ^ CM 

■n 00 n 



o 

CO 



o o 
o o 



o o- o 



o 



o o 
o — 



o 
o 

00 


8 


8 

o 


8 


2 


O lO 00 

00 n o 

>0 CN 


8 


CM 


^ 


R 











i 




8 


8 


8 


CN 


8 


ui 




CN 


o 


f— 




n 



o 


o 


O U-) 


O CM 


lO o 






o o 


o ^ 


CN O 


o 


(_) 


o 







CN r\ CN CO 

CM ^ 



n lo CO -— 

O CN — O 

o o o o 



8 

00 


o o o 

O CO lO 

in c^ 




8 


-^ 


■— 


s 





■^CNCNCNCMOOO-n 

iococoaDcoir)r\i\n 

■^OOOOOCNCNO 
'OCNCNCNCNKN.I^O 



O 
O 



O K 00 O 

^ o <} in 

o — — ^ 

t\ *o ^ ^ 



K '■t ^ o- 

-^ '^ '^ vO 



Z 
O 



XLO(/3i/5i/5i/5i/JtOLOCOi/)iOtO 



D D D .E .E .9 ,E .E !e !e !E !e !e 



^ U 



-£ 

i 



o 



05 O) CD . 
O O O 

q: 1^ CO CO 03 



>-" LJ -t -£ -£ *- 

F 1 ^^ t t til 



E a= 



3 u u o 



-:^2 



£ E-a-D-Dr£*:-ii 



9 S 



^ CO -=! i^ ii ^ 



o o o 
U U U 



Q- h= U OO UO 






1— 


UO 


I J 








U 


o 


n 


u_ 


^ ) 


Ti 


^ 






n 


u 


U 


LO 

CD 


E 
o 

Q. 

O 


Ll_ 

o 

1? 


c 

=8 


or 

'c 


c: 


< 


u 
o 

CO 


D 
CD 


CC 


uu 


u 


CO 


1^ 


h^ 


^i: 



_g U U U U 
¥ -F -p r ■? 





■^ 


.O' 


.ro 


gi 


gj 


D 


D 


£ 




«« 


ofl 


ort 


ort 


ofl 




0) 






> 

& 










-n 


-n 


n 


7 


^ 


^ 


* 


* 


o 


o 


i 


u 


i^ 


^ 


Q- 


Q- 


X 


X 


X 


OJ 


tf 


o 


y 


y 


u 


^- 


..- 


>- 






s o 








o 




















O) 


j^ 


O) 


^ 


, 




oe 


U 


oc 


0) 




CM 


s 


zg 


S 


it 


U 


8 

n 


u 


Q 


VJ 




n 


o 


S 


CO 


■£ 


CO 


LI- 
















o 




o 








Z 




z 









a_ a. u- Li_ II — 






oa 







h 


X 


u 






S 








(1) 




1^ 


o 


* 


tu 


c 


^■' 




o 






<) 




(- 


u 


o 


a 


to 



oJ Doo-9-5 •"•^"5 

X q: 5 



in CO CO 



m CO o- 



o 
U 



^ S g 1^ i §, ^ S 



~ ^ 1= 



f =2 



E "- 



'J a. o - 



-^ .^ S =i s 



S I ? m 



O CO -3 ^^ h^ CD CO 



(1) 5 
c > 



^ 



Hydroelectric Resources of California 



299 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



g £-0 



s ,° 



"8 



e 

o 

y. 

10 

UJ 

O 



0£ 



2 

lb 

O 
111 

i 

2 

o 
o 

lu 

z 
z 

a. 
Q 
Z 
< 
o 

ui 

a. 

2 

lU 



i 



9) — 
O) O 

S g 

P c 

4^ 



= 5: 

.0 ^ 



3--^, 






.3 

J5 



as .£. 
■^1 



c 

6 



te 



■a 4 

^ o I. 
cs g 3) o 

:r' -a 



000 
o ■<> o 
— ^ o 



o o 
£ E 



S 3 



2 o 



O X 



g 




■F 













Z 





s 
5 



00 ^O O CO 

•^ ^ ^ VT) 

O CO 



N 











{-) 


N 







CO 




■>» 


CN 


lO 


W) 


»— 












-0 


i\ 


•— 


>o 


00 


CM 








r^ 




— CO 






■0 ^ 






10 











-<J 


CM U-) 


u-) 





CO 




m CM 


o~ 


10 


CO ■<» 



O O CM 



— — -<J 



cn 





K 


U-) 


CM 


CM 





,_ 


00 


-n 


K 


r\ — 




n 


CM 


u-1 


>n 


00 


CM 


-^ 


LO 


n 


-^ 


r\ lo 


H) 


Tj 


SD 


<>- 





00 




00 


>o 


CN 


^n 


n 




n 


-^ 


10 


^ 





f\ 


CM 


-^ 


CO 


CJ~ 


CO 



^ 2> 2- > 



00000 



-D ~D "D "D "D 

c c c c c 

m cj oj 

s s s s s 



E E 



000- 



CO 


ro 


N 


CM 


o^ 


n 


CO 


«o 


U-) 


00 


IS 


fN 


^O 





lO 


K 



Z Z i>i 









^ 


j_ 














U 


^ J 


4 > 




¥ 


C 


U 


;^ 


-n 


-n 
















"D 




CO 




05 

D 
CO 




CO 



q; q; .^ 

















U 


a. 








Ck^ 






;S 





9- 


to 


< 


c 


c 


r 








u 



i 

5 


3 

1/5 

c 
c 

3 






-C 

b 

X 
a. 


Q 

X 

Q_ 


.0 

-it 

u_ 

UJ 




c 

d 


1 

z 


X 
c 
1 


1 



o3 -D 



s V 



O I 



CD CJ) CT) 9 



U ^ -6 
-^-"§ X E 
.5 ^ ./, E 



Sou 



o o 



O 
.y E 



a: X CO CO CO \^ 



3 s 



CO X Q- l/^ O 



-S '^ o 
-■ O ^" 



f ? 



- ° u 



-1^ O 5 y C S: 

t _i£ (5 .- oj o 



s 


_^ 


OJ 


O) 


^ 


u 












a:: 


CO 


cd 


CO 






















i 



E S 



5 S 



Q- .9 
to c 

E J 
I "a 



c -2 ^ E 
a S 2 ^ 
^ ^ ■^ u. 



> ^ O 

u E E 

o -2 -2 

-D (J U 

c o o 

< t/:> to 



5 CM Q u 

_ -CO} 

S ^ S .E 

I/) ^ I- — I 

■^ &: -D -^ 

I 5^ I' 



j; 



300 



Hydroelectric Resources of California 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 






"S.^ 



« 

C 

o 



Z3 

O 






O 

a 

>■ 

X 



2 

UJ 

> 

O 

a 

UJ 

z 
z 

5i 

a 
z 
< 

LU 

a. 

2 

UJ 

> 

UJ 

a 



c 



i 



8^ 

CD O 



■a -a 

^ o w 



o in o ^ o 

>o •— -— r\ lo 



o 




u-> 


SI 


OO 


n 


-<* 


CN 


f^ 




K 


O 


CN 




n 






i 



O O U-) 

lo CO r^ 



o o o o o o 

CM O CO lO o o 

— lO -— •— N. 



o o o- 



o 
o 



o o CM o yi CN 



o^ 
oT K 



o o o 
o o lO 

CM CN K 



CN'^iOOOOCNI^CNOrv 

r^cooococooocooooocooo 







o 


CO 


.— 


^ 






c> 












00 


CN 


CN 


CO 


o 


o 


lO 


to 


c^ 





Q.Q.Q.Q.Q.Q-Q-0 



_Q_Q_Q_Q_Q-Q-0 „ 

ooooooo-e 



_Q _Q _Q _Q N 

O O O D ,*-, 
c£i CD 02 CO KJ 

OOP 



{/lt/)l/)ijOCOLO<^t/)l/)(/5t/)LO 



'O O CO "^ O CO 

CN CN >0 CO — O 

^ ■<* CO "^ CO O 

CN CN O CO 00 O' 



0) dJ <U 



n .— r- O "^ 

in ■— K r\ o 

^ so O CO o 

CN "^ o o •— 



a>C35CJ)CDC35D?a>C35a 
CCCCCCCCL. 

<<<<<<<< -2 



2 5 



°^^-2-S-3-3--j>>>>> 














1/5 


lO 






n 


q: 


fV" 










o 






n 


c 
o 


Q- 




O 




n 






< 


E 




U 


_D 


c 


D 

z 


I- 


-n 


C 


o 
t/> 


$ 


o 


ty^ 


Q 
'.J 


Q 




c 
n 




$■ 


^ 






> 


oa 


ofl 




E 


U 


I ) 


V ; 




t 










u 


D. 


6 


U 


C 




7^ 



< Q. 



Q a- <o 



J (J1 o ^ 

O > t3 O 
LO > LO Q 



Q UJ 

U ^ 

o-a '^ oa 

9" §^ E P 
r^ -Q -P 



•> 


trt 




<■ 


^ 








3 D 










o 


D- O- 


o 


n 




I 




< < 


u 


U 


Q_ 


E 
o 

O 


u 


O O 




X 
Q 

5: 


5 

E 


O 


J5 


$ ^ 


O 


S 


< 



^ - £ 



2 S 



to 

5 



■S -2 CD^ J 



s s 



O 

u 

■ — u^ UJ 1_J _ CD 

§ g O ^ ° D 
LO (-0 CO -< CJ <-o 



° 5 






O O £ 

"- > • 
0-0 

u u o 



CO (/5 



(1) Q Q i 



<u 



Q Q _QJ < 



"c "^ > 
O 



?5 



"O O) 05 £f 05 



< 2 i?^_^_aj p-9^ 
s55£~o"o o"5 



2" .9 

t 2 



Yt 



o 



< .i 3 

(/5 ^ to 



S < 



T^ •;v 15 



X 
E 



S'DooS-'^tjOot 






■£ 



o . 

U 00 

— "^ 

5 5 



s 


n 


g 


E 


n 


-ad 




















n 










Li. 


n 


q: 


u 


5 


1 


o 

c 
o 

LO 


§ 




1 



Hydroelectric Resources of California 



301 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



"2 

-S 
5 



■8 

3 
C 

o 



Of 

O 



■o 
1 



O 

O 
>- 



O 

^- 
Z 
111 

i 

2 



Q 
111 

z 
z 

& 








g 


S 


-0 







10 


1 




li 


i> 






1 


»S 


* 






tr 


I 


0) 












n 






n 


3 







< 


1 


,? 


1 









--- 




■0 


?s 






5 


'G 

1 


-0 






*- 


j> 














^ 


1 






VJ 








85 


.9 












c 
a 

6 



o o 



O CO O ^O 
O O 00 CN 
n CN <N CO 



n o o 00 "o o 

00 00 10 '^ CS '<* 
CN CN 10 GO lO 



CO 00 I\ 
00 00 CM 

r— CS CM 



8 






CD 


■<J 


— 


m 


ri 


fN 




00 


CM 


i\ 


>o 


CO 


^ CN 












CO 




8 






CN 


§ 






S 


CM 


rx 


00 



0000 
o o 10 o 
o o -c o 



o o 

o o 

R p. 

o~ o^ ci irT ro 

CO >0 t\ •— CN 



n n o 



o o o 10 

O O O CN 

00 O ^ lO 

TJ TJ —" —" 






8 


;c 8 

CM 


8 





8 








8 


10 




8 


CN 




§ 


8 


CO 


a> 





.— 


cs 


.— 


in 


.— 


■^ 


CN 





— 







oo-^oooooo^o 

O-— CMOOCOCNOOOC^ 

■^ocNCN'O'^rnoO''— 



CM O O •— 
00 CO r\ CN 
O- O CK O 



o r\ K 

c^ o- o 

^ ^ o 

1^ 10 o 



CM-— OOCN-— ON.N,r\ 
CNrNCMCOCOCOCOCOOO 



^■OCMCMCOOOKn 
0000OCN>0"^C000 



QiQJUiOiOdiOOQiQi 



■^ IT) n CN n o CO 

MD O -O LO CN O -^ 

CN CM CN CO O CO O 

O O O O O CM 10 



Oj 0) <U d) Q} OJ 



•— 00 



4) (U a) <U QJ 



4) 0) (U 0) <U 



0(i)(ucuii}<u<L)<u<i><ud>iU(L)<i)a)a) 



0)aDCDC33CnCTJCDD5a)0505a)Oi05D505CnO)0)C350)D5CD030)CJ) 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 

00000000000000000000000000 



5 5 5 

u 

000 



o ^ -S -S 



-D 


-D 


-0 


n 


u 


c 




r 








i! 
c 
n 


C 




c 
c 


c 
c 


¥ 


h 


-n 


^ 


c 
n 


n 


n 


n 


Q. 






D 








00 


-n 






c 


< 


■t 


Si 


c 
r 


>^ 


D 


J 


> 


(^ 


a) 

1 


c 


3 

n 


D 

rr 



rr 


0) 

rr 


0) 

rr 








E 








1-1 


n 


n 


fi 


b 
& 


c 



c 


< 


< 


< 


< 


^ 




<U 


^ 









5 


j^ 


j^ 


0^ 


LU 


to 


_g 


3 












_g 


^ 


S 


^ 


s 


U- 












a. 
















Q 


Q 


Q 




n 


n 




w 


, 


( J 




^ ; 


r^ 


"5) 














t 


- 


t 




U 


U 




'0 






^ 
"o 


a 




^ 
^ 




1 


0^ 


D- 


Q- 

0^1 


Q- 

0^1 




Q- 


c 


c 

D 

5 


c 

1 









1 

> 




1 


c 

c 


1 



1 


en 


1 





Ol 

_0 




1 

D 

u 


5 

Q- 


Q 

< 


5 

1- 

< 


5 

< 


5 

< 


1 

1 


5 

< 


-fi 






1— 


CD 

1— 


J!" 


-D 
c 

J! 




Q 

ii 



II 


_Q 

c 

D 

to 



* -fi o 



O O O _D _o 

c c c D g 
< < < O O 



to t/3 CO t/3 to CO 



O -D 



-D -O -O 



> 



CO to to Q_ to 



^ O I, 

■t g 5>o 

I" -a 



g" 



O 



g O OJ 






t>0 t/3 > 



o s; o 

Q O i 



I ^ ^ '^ 'c 

'^ £= O LL LL 
000 

LJJ to ti_ C/3 t/3 



5 ^ 



= 


_0 
"0 


10 

r 


E 
n 


p 





q 
be 


E 
h 




^ 










E? 


c 




Ll_ 


to 


3 


$ 


5 


^ 


c)i 



o i;5 o < i^ Q 



3 
6 



302 



Hydroelectric Resovirces of California 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 






-o 

4> 

3 



C 

o 
y. 

(/) 

LU 

u 

3 

O 
I/) 

UJ 

0£ 
U 

Of 

I— 
U 



o 

>- 

X 
u. 
O 

I— 

z 

UJ 

a. 

2 

LU 

> 
UJ 

Q 

a 

UJ 

Z 



z 
< 
o 

UJ 

a. 

2 

UJ 

> 

UJ 



o ~- 



c 



O D 
CO "^ 



CN (N ■— 



.— CO -— 
CM ^ tN 
-^ CN 04 



O O O lO lO O 

CO o- -o CO n in 

r— .— rX r— •— CM 



o o n 

CM N. GO 
CM CM "^ 



Ov O O- O O >— O 
O •<) O -— CN ■— CM 
— .— .— IT) MD O CN 



O CO 00 ^ O 

o o ^o in ■— 

^ CO O CO CO 



^ 



o 

CO 


:8 


§ 


8 

<5 


O 
O 






O 
CO 


CO 


CK 



r~i 


^^ 


r~i 


1— ) 


o 


m 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


f-) 


o 


CO 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 






o 


o 


VO 








CN 


^() 


(. ) 












'-' 






o 


Q 


o 


o 


CO 




o 


■<t 


CM 


CM 


l\ 


*o 


o 




o 






o 


o 


CO 


CO 


o^ 


o 




^ 


CO 








^ 


— 


'^ 




o 


CO 


r\ 


in 


CO 



o o r\ 

O CN CO 



o o in o 
o o CN in 



.— ^ CO -^ 



oor^ooooooino 
ocoooo'oioooo'nin 

CM.— •— rOOOCOOO^-— CN*^ 







o o o o o 


9 9 


o 


o o 


o 


I\ CO o 


in o o c^ o 








CM 


00 


CM O tv 









CM CM -^ rx 



sQinCM.— in"^.— MD-^-^COCOCOOCOCN 

oococooooococscocooocococooogocp 



CO ^ rx "^ -^ ■^ 



-pt ,— o o rx 
00 CO rx o^ •— 
o^ o- o^ o o^ 



LO N. r^ O 00 -^ CM 

CO O CN O CM r\ -^ 

K CM r\ 00 00 >— f^ 

O^ I\ CO CM 00 ^0 O 



MD-— c^ooo■oo■^'OCMOln'nln■^"^^co 

OK.MD'OiOCNNOini^.— CMMDMD'O.— .— -— O 



CO CO CO O 

O CO CO CO 

_ o, o^ ^ 

CN -— .— O 



■T3"TD"T3"T3"Xl'T3'T]"T3~D~0"p"p"0~D"D~p 



(H tU di QJ Qi Q> 



(U 0} (U 0) 



Qj Oi <D Q> <D Qi 



(U <U 0} 



05DlD>CDO5D5CT>roD>O5-5;-^-5;j;'5>'SVi^cfia3cOcQa3cQcDCQc0COcDCQcDCOcQCO 



^ -o 5 S 

< U 4- o- 

Q_ CO LU ^• 

c ^ ro o 

^^ ?; 2 "H 

? > O ^ 

i« S > u 



-D = Oi 



:2 S 



O 



5 






i- I- M 

Q Q 2 

5 ? -I 

S S -3 



< < 



u u u 



< < 



c "C" "C" 



c 


o 


O 
CO 


o 


u 


o 


^ 


o 

c>0 


^ 


Q_ 


U 


U 


Q. 


a_ 




1 1 


w 


i 


c 
a 

t/5 





0} 

5- 


C 
D 

S 


c 


1 


X 


1 



< 

o 



^ < < < 



S 3 



S 2r 






lo tn CO 



> U .^ 



.a -2 

O) c io 
^ o >. 

* o. 






u_ cQ Jj 



5 5 

o o 



i^5 






O .- 



o o 



o 

U 
, o 






S Q Q Q Q 



s s 



o" o~ o" u u u w 



o 



o "2 "E "E "E ° 



0) ^ i -t 



ij < q; 



5 5 5 5 



11 

o -■- 



J) 1^ i; V, 



^ 5 



O O 

c c 



a) (U 0) cu 

O CO cO CO CO 



0) (U CD 

S 5 5 5 



_h LU Q -< 



0) (U 



S -3 -3 



o o o 
u u u 



t/D t/J uo lO 



^5 

o _ 
£ o- 

O Q 
. ^ D O 

u u S 



^ T3 T3 T3 "D 
> LU UJ UJ LU 

^ O O O D 



U U O U 
O O O O 
LO to (/^ LO 



o 5 



11:8 

O -3 :£ 






£ O 



O CN .— 



D O O 
> U to 



_0 ? O 

^ ^ 9 o 



2 -^ =S 

3 ^ o 



u u li 



(N u u u 



O -S 2 < 



z 5- 



_^ CO i/5 i/5 






Hydroelectric Resources of California 



303 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 






f> £-0 



o 



1 



-8 
5 



"2 

3 
C 

o 



UJ 


"S 


U 


^ 


a£ 





3 










fcO 






0£ 



O 

Of 

Q 
>- 
X 



i 

2 
111 

o 

lU 

z 



o 
z 
< 
o 

ui 

a. 

2 

UI 



S .0 



0) o ^ 

O 3 P « 

^ i «R 




c 

3 



o S 



-9 o 1. 
^ -2 



OUIOMOOOCNCNO 

"OCNKOJOOionr^co 



8 

CN 


8 


-0 
00 


8 


.— 


U-) 


r\ 


tv 



0000000000 

OvniOOOOOOOU-) 
'^ CO -^ 0_^ ^^^ CN CO ro 

^^ CN ^"" 10" ^^ 



locoooro-oiohvioio 

CXSOOaOCOOOCOCOCOQO 

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



r^ CN 00 vo 

-<» O 00 rv. 

■— (> 00 ■— 

hv o. o. 



o r\ CN CK o 

r\ o 10 -o — 

o n u-) o U-) 

*0 Wl CO 10 tN. 






COl/)l/^LOcOtOUOl/5t/)(/5 



< 

to 

Q. 






^^ u 



_ o 

3 "? 
o 



£ 2- 

^ ,S O .S Q) 
^ O t/7 UJ U-) 



o 
U 
o 



< 

-D 









> > a ts "o -SJ 






_g 



S U ? i5 
O o o "n o o 

ebb o b b 






i -I. 



= <u 



?^ . - 



— E 



1- CD i_ C 



S E 



u _c 



coLOO£a£ca<coa:: 



O CN l\ IT) 
10 O 00 <N 



in o ■— 

^ CN ■— 



CNiOK-^ioooo — con 
00-— ocNiorxn^oLoo^-— 
nn u^no-ocN'— CN 



o 
o 
o 
10 






U-) 





n 


u-) 















8 


§ 


CN 

n 

CN 


-0 


8 




8 






00 




8 







8 

CO 


^ 


00 
CO 




CO 




n 


CX> 


CN 


0- 


00 


-fl 


g 


0- 






tx -<I -O 





8 



8 8 


'^ 


8 

in 





8 8 




0- 


in 


'^ 


CO 


in 


in 



ro r^ 00 

in — — 



8 



00 

CN 


8 

10 


8 


0- 




CO 


CO 



U-) 10 


r^ 


CN 


10 CN 


CO 


CO 


cs 0- 


c^ 


C> 



on 


<~> 


~o 


00 


n n 





m 


CN 


_ 


sn 


00 


^- 


_ 


on 


rx 


CN 


■^ 


n en 


0^ 


rx 


CN 


K 


(>. 


-9 


vC) 


^0 


-0 


■>j 


K 




r^ CN 


10 


o~ 





>C1 


CN 


10 


^f1 


>o 


CN 


c>. 


CM 







n 


00 


c^ 


CO 


CO 


^0 


CN 


CN 



POPPPDPpO 



_c_e;_c_c:_c:_c_c_c .11 
cot/^i/Oc/)cOcOcoi/)uO 



■e: iil > 



S p o o "' 

C !« C C O I- 



p i>i E 



E E 



P) D) 

.E .E o 



U U 



u 



< £ E E 



7^ Q- .? 






E ^ ^ oa 



L. U U U flJ U 

-p 
> 

X 






>^ o: a: o^ 



t; o o o 



S: K S: c s -p -p 

D D D O D 0) 0) 
C£) CO CQ ^ CO O; Ci^ 



CD CD 



J 

p !? 



_p 

00 00 



i £ 



^ ? c^3 



i/)cocoiyiLOt/)t/Dcoi/)Loco 



o -o 



J y S 



P P r <1> O 



u 


u 










C 






>^ 


h 


cn 

Q. 
LO 








D 

m 






E 


£ 
2> 












I > 


( ) 






5; 




CQ 


Qi 


H 




n 


i 


i 


00 


z 


Q_ 





X 


X 



u_ 


i 


oa 


06 




g 





Ql 


n 


n 






u 


CO 







c 











IJ 


«) 




Q) 








4= 


lo 


^2 


c2 


I 


1 


f 



CQ Z 






oS c^ 



c '^ 


-p 


n 


n 


QJ p 


T 








^ 


s, 


<J 


_u 










S S 


s 


^ 


ci; 



§. -S) 



E .= J= 



^ t 

O 0) 

E E 



P > CN — 



QliESSuiOmSOiX 



304 



Hydroelectric Resources of California 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



"8 

5 



-a 

0) 

3 
_C 

C 

o 
u 



3 

O 

CO 
LU 

Of 

u 



UJ 

O 

o 

>- 



Q. 

2 

LU 

> 
LU 

a 
a 

UJ 

Z 
Z 

<i 

Ol 
O 

z 
< 
o 

LU 

a. 

2 

LU 

> 
UJ 








Groi 
Sto 




Proposed 

Capacity 

KW 


i 


Annual 
Generation 
1,000 KWH 




Installed 

Capacity 

KW 




w3 

^1 




4 



c 

3 

6 



^ o 



w 



•— •— OOiOCNOO-— 

cMmrxcN-— CN-— 'O 



8 






8 


8 


8 


o o 
■^ o 


n 


R 8 


-9 

•o 


CN 


n 






CO 


— o 







■<» n U-) 



o o o 



— o lo -q;^ o 



o o o o o 

o o. o o o 

p. CO o o^ o 

CO O' CN in CN 



o o 
o o 
o o 



CNf\ioo-ioor\^oioio 

OOOOOOCOSDO-OOOOCSOO 



-^ "^ O ro K 

CN CO CO >0 CO 

N. CO .— CO SD 

Tj o lo ro c^ 



. — CM >0 "O ^ "O CO 

CO CO O O O CN CO 

O CM f— ■— .— CO CN 

lO hv CN CN CM ^ 



_c_c_c_c_c-n_c_c_c_c_£:_c_c.^ 

tOtOLOLOtOCOl/ltOtOCOtOtOLOtO 



u 



u 



u 



1^^ 

u u 
" p q 






^ ^ Q^ 



*.J 


u 


U 








m 


m 








c 


i_ 






^ 


n 


n 


o^ 


q: 










.■^ 


.■^ 



iiXj3j3^ii:cQXii:cKQ.Q.D.i^Q. 



_ U 



o o 



n 


Z 


p 


z 


u 

LU 


o 


-n 


-n 


-n 


o5 




■X 




>^ 




o 


T 


() 




o 


u_ 


-D 


LU 


6 


Q. 


a) 


D 


<1) 


u 




^ 


-C 


^ 




1— 


-a 

CO 


X 


CO 


1 



-5 i -2 _3; ^ -H -S 

^ 1 1 I I J 1 III V III 



^ ^ o o o 

c 5 .y .y ,y 
o 3 ^ % ■^ 



.* 



5) c v5 
rx g 5,0 

I" -S 



oe 


X 


u 


CN 


1 






X 


"0 

CO 


_o 



Jj _Zj Q. u- 



J 


U 


u 


?i 















c 


^ 


.■^ 


.V 




"U 


r" 





n 







X 


Ql 






o 



^0:00-0.0-0-0- 



a_ o. -^ CO o- 



10 o. o- 10 iJO -^ 

CO" CN CM ^'' 



n- 


,_ 


n 


10 


n 


0- 


co 


<^ 


on 


en 


00 


03 


Ch 


t> 


0- 


CN 


0- 


cs 



^n o ^n 

o ^ -^ 

00 ^o o 

o ^o o^ 



CO ^ CO o 

O^ ^ -O CO 

— o o t\ 

CO -^ '^ CM 



<:i a CiT5o 3 3li^ ^^ 



u 



000 
u u u 



5 O o o 



^ .^ </> 



u 



U CO 



X iT) Z 



'-' 2 .7 S 






i- > 



5 5 



„- °a 



o u u o u 



O D Li- Li- Q 



77; 77; 71; .5 



c -2 -O -U _Q 



2 i •^ 

X LU ij 

S § 

:i ^ D 



OOOL)iL>^^;ii<>5<ii;L;i 





, 


U 


05 


iu 


CS) 
"0 


1) 


-C 




c 



p 






p 


-0 



(S i u S < S 



^ 



Hydroelectric Resources of California 



305 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



-8 
5 



o"« 8 

■a C ^ 



"8 

3 



C 

o 
u 

UJ 

o 






o 

o 
>- 



O 

I— 
z 

lU 

i 

2 

lU 

Q 
O 

lU 

Z 
Z 

a. 
o 

z 
< 
a 

lU 

CL 

9 



1 


F 


11 

II 


II 


3 


1* 











c 



o o 

CD O 



O) c w> 
^ O I. 

"11 = 

!• -a 



K LO O lO K >0 
IT) ''t CM 00 ■— ■— 
lO lO N. — 



,— ,— ^ T^r 



lO -^ o o o — — 

CN SD O lO C> l\ lO 
r— CN SD U-) -^ lO 



00 O OJ O 

^ c^ cs '^ 

^ IT) ^ 



lO CO o o 
.— 00 '- 
N, ro LO 



i 


8 


8 


8 


CN 


8 

CO 


§ 


5 


o 
o 


o 

8 


n 


o 


— 


00 




.— 


ui 


n 


lO 


K 



IT) 


O 


cs 


o 


o 


O lO o o 


o 


-^ 


o 


00 


o 


lO 


O -t O 00 


o 


00 


0-) 


CO 


o 


m 


o -o o ^ 


ro 



o 
o 


o 
o 


g 


Ul O O O 

^ ^ o 

CO 


o o o 
CO in o 
~o o 


8 


8 


§ 


? 


§ 


-o 


CO 


.— 




CO 


r- 




CK 




CO 



O CO 

o o 
o o 



^ o — — 

.— CN 00 00 
CN CN O- O 



CM ■— -O 



ooooooooo 

lOOOOOOOOO 
CO p^ CN O^ CM — 00^ p^ O^ 

.— "" uo co" ■— "" go"" rsT 



>OiOOrocshvOO 
ooooo-ocoo-— K 
^ o* o^ o^ o^ o^ ^ o^ 



n CO 


-o 


m 


~o 


"^ 


O 


no 


O O 


o- 


n 


-o 


i\ 


m 


^ 


00 CO 


en 


en 


^ 


(M 


n 


i>- 




>o 




K 


~o 


~o 


CO 



r-N.^^ro-OCM'O'OOrx-— o 
CNiOCNCNOO'OtOrxOOiO'OO 
.— CO.— ■— CNIVCN^OCOOCO^O 
^CO.— .— '^lO-OOO'OiOPxOO 



o — 


,_ 


K -^ 


O CN 


CM 


O ^ 


o -- 


r— 


:o r\ 



.— — "O -<» 



E E E E E 



COcQcOcQcQcQcDcQt/)(>Ot/>(/3l/D</5 



<U 



ODOOODODOOD 
LOt/)LOLOUO(-Ol/)COLOCOOO 



lu CO CO CO X X o- 



§- o 
o u 

6 ^ 



O Q 

c° ^ 

O H; O 

CO < CO 



o 



u^ 






U 




s 

^ 




















O- 


































z 


S 

CO 





o 


c 
o 








u 




°) 


u 


u 




0) 




Q. 
UO 


1 


o = 


= 


U- 


Lt- 


% 


c 


o 


o 


-D 


-o 


l-J 


I.; 


-at 

u- 


_ac 


c 


u i 


ii 


in 


z 


u 


U 


u 


u 


o 


u 


CO 


in 


co 


co 


OJ 

LL. 


^ 



o o 



O) 03 o c "5; 






o o 



6 (S 



i£. iS. oi i£ 



O ^ 
^-^ 

O u _ _ 

I- OJ <U QJ 



C -3? 



Q_ O CO CO 



J^ O "2 O O lI: ^- 

Z O- U- Q- Q- OO Z 



o 2 

i J 
s s 



Li- J3 (/3 



o 



j= j= a: 



o p p 
-o 

XXX 

o 



oQ c^ oQ oQ oQ 

c -^ D 5 O O O 
^ O O ^^ O O O 



-^ S 



cp 5P !^ T, ^ 



i>3 _:2 

^ s s o 






q ° 



- :9 s i 



U Q ll: hi; X ci: cE 



E 
o 



.11 



i£ 9 2 "^ 
_ -p -p "o 



U a: > > OO 



V ^ J X 

z s s ^ 



(p _o _:2 _S? 
S U O i2 






l-S 



a: U ^ i>j iE Z Q 



K 



306 



Hydroelectric Resources of California 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



P a-o 



J- 

-s 

5 



-o 

3 
C 



o 
u 

(A) 
UJ 

oe 
O 

CO 

LU 

Q£ 

U 

I— 



O 

>- 



Q. 

2 

LU 

> 
LU 

a 
o 

UJ 

Z 
Z 

o. 

a 

z 
< 
a 

Ul 

Q. 

2 

UJ 

> 

UJ 



9) 
J- 





O 


to 


1 




H 


i- 






1 


1 


1 




<t 


<j 








r 


X 


9) 


- 


o 







n 






n 


3 







1 


i 


9 


1 






O 


~- 




-0 


^ 














n 


o 


^ 












^ 


a 


■o 






^ 


J> 






•& 
















C 
















6 






u 


Z 






§ 


^ 








"5" 



c 
a 






■a -2 

O) c w5 

^ O I. 

I" -2 



CNCor\00^"^iOiO«OaO(N 

>or\r\oococNnO(N--o 



o 



00 lO o 
-O l\ o 
O >0 ro 



^OOI\OCNC0OO«O'O00 



O O CO o 


o o o 
o o o 


o o 


(\ o r\ o 


o o 


o in r\ lo 


.— .— CM 


O tv 



O^ O CO 



^ o o -^ r\ 



n rv 00 



o o 1^ '^ 



o 
o 
r-j 


O 


o 


o 

8 


o 


8 

CO 


§ 


8 


8 


lO 


o 


o 


m 


^ 


lO 


cs 


CM 


.— 



■— ^ oo -— 



o o o o o o 
o o o o o o 

O O •— 00 CN CN 



o- O- O^ CS o 



-o 


8 

o 


O 


§ 


CN 


§ 

CM 


2 § 


o 

8 


o 
o 
n 


o 

8 


o 

8 


o 

8 


o 
o 

00 


o 
■o 
n 


o 

8 


§ 


CN 


ro 


o 


lO 








CN 


^ 


S 




5 


■<» 




CN 





CO K. ro O^ 
-O CO >o ^ 
O CN O O 



Ov lO CO 00 CO ^ 
>0 00 W-> lO lO CN 
O^ O* O- o^ ^ o* 



^ K CM O 

O O ^ CN 

-o -- o -— 

lO CM ■— ^ 



CMOOOOCOOOOCOOO 
-^OOOOCOOOOCOO — 
CNOOO---— ■— O-— CK 
rxCNCNCNCNCNCNCMCMr^, 



Os •— LO lO "O IT) lO 

— 00 o o o o o 

O CN — — '- ^ •— 

'O O CN CN CN CM CM 



Ps. in CM CN 

Tj o >o — 

CM u-) C> -O 

CO O ■— 



oj oj Qj (u (1) a) 



01 <U <D <U 



^^^eEE£E 



EEEEEEEEb 



rOrnfY^rnfQcQrOi-nj-nrnrni-rtrt:ieQeQQ_Q_Q_Q^Q-Q-Q-Q-Q-Q-Q-Q-Q-Q-t/i 



If a: q; ^ _ 



_^gQ;Q:a:ci;Q;2I '-'"li- 



tt 


z 


z 





J 

o 


z 


c 
U 


c 

D 




1 




Qi. 


E 
2 


Qi 


ID 


Qi 







J 


-£ 


Si 




0) 

1 


1 


U 

c 
n 


D 
LU 


u 


o 

0) 


o 

0) 










a. 
E 
o 
U 






















U- 


Lt- 


U- 


u_ 












■£ 
1 


C^ 

5 


u 

c 


Lk. 

z 


LL. 

z 


3 
CO 


00 


00 


3 






s 

u_ 




s 

Lt_ 


c 
o 

o 


1 


1 


LL. 

z 


z 


U- 

z 


_1C 

U- 

z 


U- 

z 


E 
o 

X 


O 

6 


D 
Li- 


U- 

Z 


LU 

z 


















5 


s 


5 


?i 


s 


?i 


Q 


?i 












































m 


n) 


m 


-) 


~i 


-) 


O) 


































Q 


















n 


n 


n 


































o 


o 


n 




n 












1/1 














o 


o 


n 


o 


n 














I.J 




U 


U 


^ 


U 


























u 


u 


U 


U 


U 


u 


".J 





u 


u 






r- 












t 












t 
































LU 


-8 

c 


LU 


LU 


-o 


0) 
LU 


E 
E 
o 


^ 


-D 


? 


3 


n 


"n 


"D 


n 








_5? 

LU 


LU 


UJ 


LU 


LU 


LU 


H 


^ 


LU 


LU 




oO 


oa 


oa 


X 


oe 


s 


5 


s 


$ $ 


? 


O 


^ 


^ 






o6 


o6 


oO 


oa 


oa 


oa 


< 


oa 


oa 


oa 






5 










U 


% % 


% 




'o 


"n 


^ 


o 


o6 


E 




p 


p 


a 


O 


O 


o 




o 


p 




o 


O 

I.; 


O 


r 


o 


o 


_o 


=S 


qj 




"5- 

0) 


Q. 


_a) 


1- 


c" 


u 

c 


O 






O 


O 


O 


en 
o 










•> 




Cl_ 


•]} 


.!•- 




> 


> 


■> 






Pl 


> 


n 




























O 

6 


u 

£ 




s 






6 


o 


o 


o 


o 


D 


o 


o 


< 




b 


<2 


£ 




u 
O 


O 


<2 


1 


O 




1 



S": 



g £ £ 



D Q. 



a: u u u ^ 



II 



l£ 5 



O 



^ — -o 



|,o ^ ■? 1 



E E 



TT O 



LO Li_ t— I— ^ 



^LuOOa^LilfSOu 



^ 











^-- 








E 










O 










, 


, 






o 


-4£ 


■t< 




(3 


■— 


£- 




OJ 


Q) 


!t^ 


Q} 


t>i 


fs 


p 


^ 


£ 


ro 


cn 


^J 


U 


u 


s 




E 


(U 


(U 




'C 




Uj 


















u 


3 


X 


o 


o 


^ 


^ 


o 


,^ 



Hydroelectric Resources of California 



307 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



-a 

0) 

3 
_C 
*<C 

C 

o 
u 

</) 

LU 

oe 

o 

(/) 

UJ 

u 



O 

Of 

o 

>- 



O 

t— 
z 

LU 

a. 

O 

—1 

LU 

> 
LU 

a 
o 

LU 

z 
z 

Q. 

z 
< 
o 

LU 

a. 

2 

LU 

> 
LU 








p 






p 


JJ-o 


(i) 


•^ IS 




I 


1? 


i> 


Propos 

Capac 

KW 




c ^ 


g> 


o ^ 


ffS 


1^ 


n 






o ~- 


"S 


i> 




F 


^ 




.:§ 



^fi 



H 



c 
a 



o o 

CO "O 



•a -a 



n hs. o 00 lo CN 
hs. n -^ ''J in >o 
n 00 -— ^ ^ 



-^ixoonioooKoo 

"^CS-— CO-— "^KCNCO-— 

en •— CO •— en "O 



nioiOr— ■— nooioooooo 
— o — ooo^-^csi — oro'O 






o 
o 
o 


8 

o 


8 


8 

IT) 


V) 


w-) 


o 


CO 



cn -^ n 



§ 


§ 


8 


^ o 


O 


o 
o 
o 


8 


CN 


CM 


8 


§ 


§ 


§ 


8 

00 


"^ 


o o 

>o o 


8 


o 

Csl 


00 
CO 




CN 


'^ 


o 
o 


00 




^ 


CN 




o 


o 

CN 




-o 


o- 


in 



o o 

o o 

lO o 

o-~ -^^ lO' — 



o 
o 
o 



o 
o 


8 


8 


8 

CO 


CO 


-^ 


r\ 


•o 



o o o 

u-1 o O 

n (o o 



o o 
o o 

— K 



— — -^ 



O^ 


cv 


o 


•^ 


•o 


_ 


-o 
















o 


o 


o- 


o 


o 


o 


CK 



in in GO •'J 

'O ^ O 00 

o o cs o 



oooorv'O-oinooO'— n-— •— o 
■—■—■— cocNco>oin'— — ■— ooinnco-— 
nncnoN,ocNCNnrocoo^cNr\csn 

CNCNCNin>OCNCNcnCNCNCSCN>OIN.(NCN 



OOOODDOOOOOOODD 
{t> ty <U (I) Q) 0) 



o 
o 

CO 


o 
o 

CN 


8 


8 

o 


8 

O 


8 

O 


o o 


o 


CN 


5 


-o 

CN 


CM 

CN 


CM 


- 


CO 

o 


o 

CO 


^o 

^ 


•O 


5 


CN 





o in CN 

■— -^ CN 

CO t\ CN 

CM K in 



r^-— ■— ^oocNo-— no 
CKcoooco-— .— ■^■— "^o^n 
oo^o^c^nno^cooocorx 

CMCMCNCNCMCN-OCMinKn 



Hi Qi <u <u Qi a 



ZZZZZZZZZq-q„q_q_ci.q_£i_q_q_ 



oc cii a^ 

J- — ^- c 

S "E "E U ^ q: Qi 

CO U U o (^ o o 

rj c p -Q , _Q _Q 

-i I i :5 g ^ =2 

>- O Q c>0 Q oo (/) 



>- 
in 



D 



"E '" "i- — 

U -E ^ '^ :o 



a. o > 

i>0 _Q > 

% ^ - 

irt Q m Z Z 



E 






S i£ 



-^ -□ _D £ 



o S o S 



CQU0u_<^JcQ*w'cO 





n 


u 












o 




i? 




























m 


U 


a 



a. O- Q- Q- Q- 



u <s o 



0) c ii i: 

U t_ k- i- 

Q 0) QJ 0) 

i/D i/> iy) 



-c 0. '^ -c -g ^ O 
^ ^ ^ 3 ^ i5 -£ 

O H= _i (yo Z ce: CO 



o 


o 


o 












o 


O 


n 










o 




o 
















o 


n 


u 


U 


u 




u 


o 






u 


U 


U 




c: 






U 




U 
















u 


v; 


tl 








h 


I ) 














'• 












c 


























u 
















fV\ 




















































































s 


g 


s 







i 






s 


CD 


■a 




c 
n 






0) 


U 


iij 


E 


Q 


Q 


Q 








^ 


^ 


a3 


ce 


ofi 




1 




LU 


LU 


uu 
o6 




< 

cn 
£ 
F 






LU 


u 

u 


LU 


lE 


5 


5 


5 








LU 
0« 


LU 




o 


D 

o 


o 

-n 


X 


5 


X 

9 


o 
O 






o 

o 


Q 

O 
-n 


a 

o 
-n 


J 


E 
< 


S 


c 
<1> 


ID 

D 
CO 


1 

D 
CO 




c>o 


Q 



-n 






O 

O 


o 
O 


•u- 


•U- 


C4_ 






t 

z 


n 










n 


n 


n 


'IC 






-n 












n 




1- 


u 


u 




Z 


o 

X 


Z 


X 




I 


1 


Z 


Qi 
O 

X 


1 


1 


1 


1 




cS 


D 


3 

c8 


3 

^ 


Z 


Z 


z 








O ^ X 



o 
E 
I • • • 

O CN ^ CO 



CN ^ 

E E 



0) _o ^2 



CN 
CD 



CD CD 5 



E- u i_ OJ 
„ Q Q Q 



!! is is is 



■ o o 

CL Q. 

c/3 i/y 



u, Z 

E .?; 

<u E 
" o 
U 



uf -^ I O 3 



E 


o6 


CO 


CO 










( > 




<u 


<1) 




^ • S 


-p 


-D 


o 


X CQ > 


D 
O 


O 

O 






■^ £ ^ .^ a 
O O o -C D 
> U i^ U Q 



Q < 



o ^ ^ oi 



5 z z 5 






308 



Hydroelectric Resources of California 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



P a-o 







O 


lO 




-o 








1 


■2 
S 






c 


1 


r 




3 




c X 






91 -. 


.o ^ 






0> 




T> 




P => 


? ^ 


a> 








3 




C O 


C 




,'i' ° 








o —-^ 


C 








o 








u 




■p 


^ 


















UJ 


-o 


5 


S^ 




8- 


^ 


^ 


z> 


Tl 






O 


> 
u 




, a 


«/) 


Q 




o^s 


UJ 








u 
















o^ 






o 


— 1 
LU 






rl 


o 






0^ 


0£ 








o 








>- 








X 






i^ 


u. 








O 






g 


1— 






o 


z 








UJ 








S 






•^ 


o. 






Cs 


g 

UJ 






si 


> 






.C £ 


UJ 






» <« 


a 

o 






^1 


UJ 








z 






s 


z 








^ 








Q. 








Q 








Z 








^ 








Q 






^. 


UJ 






Q> 


Q. 

2 






1 


Ul 








> 








UJ 








O 









•a * 

^ -9 o 1. 

I" -a 



U-) 


o 


o o o 


lO 


n t\ 




O CN 




_ 








-^ o^ -o 


(>J 


r\ ao 


r% 


■O lO 








•— 






Ov 


■— CO 




CO 


<N 


o 


o 



o o o o o 
o o o o n 



o 



l\ ■— -o 



•O •— CN CO 

O O K CM 

o o o o 

r\ sQ i> sD 



lo n o -o ^ o 

l\ O ■«? -^ '^ CO 

O "^ CN (N CN K 

CO — CN CN CN -"O 



iouoioLo>>->->->->->- 



_Q _Q _Q 



z z z 



.. ^ ££ u u u 



c 

-£ 
C 

jS 


o 


n 


^ 


^ 


q:: 


u 


o 




^ 


i^ 


^ 


_Q 


^ 


>^ 


*^ 


X 


X 


X 


>- 


o 


z 



>- 

z 



ooooo^ntoo 
nn<— o^ocococo 

•O-^MD'^'OCN-'JO- 



i 



o o 


O 


o 


<-) 


n o 


to 


o 


< ) 


ro 


<N 


■^ 


o 



o o 

CO o 



[\ CN .— "■ 



i 


8 


8 

o 




8 

o 




to 


in 


o 


lO 



§ 


§ 


§ 


o 

8 


o 
•o 


o 

8 


CN 


CN 


lO 


o 

CN 

o 


o 

8 


o 

8 


CO 


8 


8 

o 


8 

O 


CM 


§ 


o 

lO 




CN 








CN 








t\ 


o 


n 




CN 


CN 




no 

CO 


o 


ro 

CN 


00 


5 








(X) 




CO 






CO 


o 
ao 
o 




CO 




^ 






m 

S 



Z >; Z Q 



>^ >^ >. 

\j \J u 

CJJ O) Ol 

< < < 



CL Q_ 



V Gi Qi <li a 



>^ >v 05 _gj 



p X X ,R = 



5 5 

2> 2> 



Z S X X 



X -i 



e- * 

o o 

U CO 



•i_ o 
0} cr 

J o 



oa 

O o o o 
^j u u o 



5 -£ 

2> 2 



u _Q _Q _Q 







t _CT) CO o 

O o ^ O 

Z u -a J 

S 5 -2 "§ 



SiS^iZSZZZtgQ 



iOO"^iO — CNO.— .— "^.— .— .— .— .— ^lOCNCN 
ij-)-— y-JiOOOCOOOOOOOOOCOCSOOCN 
OO"^ — •—'—'— — •—■—.— .— ■—'— O — — ■— K 
U-)CON.CNCNiOCOCNCN CNCNCNCNIN-COCOKN. 



o 


n 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


n 


o 


n 
















o 


■n 


-n 


-n 


-n 


-n 


-O T3 


-n 


-n 


-n 


-n 


-n 


-n 


-n 


-n 


•n 


-n 


-n 


-n 


-n 


" 


" 




u 


(J 


D 


2 2 


u 


a 


C3 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 





o 


o 


o 


o 


n 


n 


o 


n 


o 


O 


o 


n 


n 


o 


o 


n 


n 




n 










Cs 


u 


O 


CI 


n 


O 


a a 


Q 


Q 


Q 


Q 


Q 


O 


O 


O 


O 


Cs 


o 


LJ 


Q 



LU LU LU LU 



UJ LU LU LU 



^^ 



m .^ .^ 



"C c uo U-) 



E 
< 






^- OJ t/) j_~ 



Z l/^ c/5 



— ^ — ^ n ^ ^ 1) d) ■^ .«» 
QiQ£LOtOcn(/lLOl/5H= 









F 








< 


< 


<r 




LL 


if" 


V 




> 










to 


(/5 




u 


t?5 

Z 
7 


Ll_ 


-^ 


c 

C 

n 


_) 


OO 


UO 


U 



o 

en 



< < 



■5; 


i 


Q 


O 


(U 


-) 


.9' 


LU 


5 






o 


n 


n 


r 


CT 


(') 


0) 






t 


o 






n 








o 


y 



. £ O D ^ 






E E E E 



* -R -D 
CD 05 X 

■J -i <u 



Q_m-Zi^(/5LOCl_(/5tOC/)LOXS^^ 



o 
'5> 



j; 



== -?^ C3 



O 



(11 CQ fli L. 



Q--5 

Q- o 



> ° 



-s s s -^ 



u 



3-^i^cNii:ioUJ:l<5 



Hydroelectric Resources of California 



309 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



3 

C 
O 

u 

LU 

e£ 

3 

o 

</» 

LU 
Of 

u 

Of 

I— 
u 



O 

Of 

o 

>- 

X 



a. 

2 

LU 

> 
lU 

Q 

lU 

Z 
Z 

<i 

Q. 
Q 

Z 
< 

UJ 

Q. 

2 

LU 



c 

6 






tS 



-S .0 



^ -a 



O O O^ "t ' — o o^ 
-<J lO >0 lO O •— CO 
^ CN CD vO ^ "^ 



O O CO n 
00 lo "^ n 



88 



o o o 
o o o 
<0> ri o- 



o o 
o o 
o o 



K 'O CN lO O t> >0 



o o 
o o 



' ' * ' ^ ^ ' — ■ ' — ' « — ' > ^ 

— CN K CO 00 CO lO 






— o 



o 


o 

CN 


CO 


00 




" 


to 


wo 



CO-— — C^O'O^OOOOOCNCN 

oooor^rvf^rv.— r^oon-^ 
nrv — ooooroo-^o — 



o 


o 


o 




















T) 


-n 


-n 


























D 




















n 


n 


n 


fn 


fr. 


ni 


0) 


m 


0) 


a) 


a) 


a) 


Q 


O 


Q 




t.j 


(.J 


i.} 


t.j 


u 


u 


U 


u 


_g 


_g 


_g 


_o 


_o 


a 


U 







E E 



UJQ.a.Q-Q-Q-Q-Q-Q-Cl_l/^(/0 



E 
< 



E 
< 



* U 



ft: a: o£ 



y O 



^U § § g 

N gj u >j u 

.2 5; 15 J3 J3 

O O £ £ £ 



Qi O IJ IJ 

£ D (D 0) 

^< «i o o 

_i£ O "D ~D 

"^ 2 O O 

S to Q Q 






O 



c c c c ^ c 

0} <U <U 









m 


' — 


m 


i 






.3 


■ — 






< < < 


< 


u 


< 


« 






^ 


^ 












































5: 
P 




















o 


5-^5" 


i 


oa 


i 


"? 






0) 


cS 


?■ 


F 


O O 

(J u u 





o 


6 


X 


1— 










y 


o 






. ;- 


fr- 


CD 


,_- 


t.- 


2 


2 


? 


n 


o o o 


o 


u 

n 


O 


z 




o 


~3 


Z3 


LU 


to 


Q_ Q_ Q_ 


CU 




Q_ 











p 



QJ dj O c 

P nq -• o 

(So ^ .2 



■q) w 



1/5 i 

_, Z 



o 
S _ 



z ^ 



CN rx 


N 


CN 


CN 


r\ CO 





uo 





lO 


fN 


t^ 




^ in ^ 


CO 


0- 


c ) 




CO 


CN 


CO 


CN (N .— 






-0 



^ CM 



00 











f-) 


(-) 














N 















ro 


CN 


K 


CM 


•0 


IN 





^ 


— 











t^ 


r^ 


CO 





«0 





CO 


■^ 




CN 


CO 


CO 


10 

CO 


10 


Cvl 







8 
00 


8 
-0 


8 




8 


8 



8 




8 







CN 


CN 
0- 


■^ 


CO 


^ 




CO 
00 

c^ 


8 




00 






CO 


CO 






000 
K r^ o 

CM CK fN. 



CX> ^ ■<) K 3 

CO CO ' — n "^ 

n u-) o 

to 10 CN 



,— ,— — ,— .— .— lO 



CO n CO 

CO O CO 

01 O lO 

K CM 00 



000000000 

-D"D"D-D-D-D-0-D~a 
OOOODOOOO 

EEEEEEEEE 
<<<<<<<<< 



.> u_ 



CU QiL OL cm 



cm C£. cm cm C£. 

m <u d) (D 

c c c c c 

E E E E E 



H) 0) <u ii' 



E E E o 



s s s s 



o 2 2 



000 

s s s z 



_i£ _ac _ac -It: -it q 

lj_ LL u_ U_ Ll_ -= 



Z Z Z S 












U 




u 


U 


U 


U 








u 




«J 


«j 


i-t 


u 






































Q 










L^ 


w 


w 


\) 






(11 






(1) 






— 


n 


Q 


LU 


"- 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


i^ 


3 


=) 


od 


Z 


0(3 


ofi 


06 


ofi 


c 



S 


s 


n 


u 


n 


n 





n 


>, 

rS 







-s 







u 



U 














n 


































b 
< 










n 


I! 


O 


n 


n 


r3 


" 


13 






LU 













3 



5 



g'"2 


'5) V . 


s--p 


■1 ° § S 2 
0--B E "2 1i 


J^ 


l°QS.^ 



■- (U .E .E LL. 



F 




, ■ 









.1 


0) 

c 


• 
c 




(U 


c 


Q 

P 


T 


w 


=g 


3 
0- 


? 





O U Z c2 



310 



Hydroelectric Resources of California 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



0) 

3 
C 



o 
I/) 

lu 
U 

3 
O 

CO 



0£ 



Q 

>- 



Q. 

2 

LU 
> 

a 
o 

LU 

z 
z 

<i 

a. 
O 

z 
< 

LU 

o. 

2 

lU 

> 




1 

9> 






■^1 



c 
a 



o o 
a **> 



K CS 
— CO 



-^ -"J ^ CO 

'^ 00 -^ rv 



inroaor^co>oooo 

'^ lO lO CO 00 CN "^ 



8 

«1 



— — o o o 
■^ cc o o o 



CN O^ O^ l\ O CN p 

>o ^ r^ CO ' — 



o 

00 O CO 



o o o 
o o o 

00 ^" o" 

■<J lO K 

CN 



o 
o 
o 



o o 
o o 



00 O O '^ OJ CN 
lO O "^ lO 00 CO 

o o^ o^ o^ o^ o 



^-,c^o-c^-onoo 

CNCNCNCNrOnoOCO 



o 

8 


§ 


8 


§ 


8 


8 


O 
O 


5^ 


o 


r\ 


- 


-o 


o 






CN 

o 


00 


00 

5 



-^-^EEEEEEEEE 



U U U U to to 



^ u 



CO CN n lo o o o 

^ n — (N ^ n o 

^ y-> — 



N. o crt K o 
n o i\ lo rx 

lO (N CN 



^ CN .— CN 



o 
o 



i 



(~l 


>n 




o 


~o 


U-) 


o 


>o 


-O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


•5t 


lO 


fN 


en 


n 


fN 




lO 


u-1 




(-1 


o 






o- 


o 


CO 


o~ 


O 


o 


C_J 


CN 


o- 




o 


o 


o 


(_) 






,_ 




vn 


~o 


o 








CO 


o 


CO 


CN 








CN 




IN 










■"J 






k 



8 


8 


1^ 

CN 


i 


o 

8 


o 

8 


^ c^ f^ 

CO O CN 


§ 


i 


n 




■<? 


CO 


c^ 
o- 


CN 




o 


CN 



o 



O O lO CO -^ .— 
K CO 00 CX> OJ tx 
O^ O^ O* O O- O- 



r-> 


in 


o 


UO 


UO 


O 


CO 


_ 


l\ 


■o 


o^ 


,_ 


o — 


CO 


lO 


,__ 


ro 


N 


CO 




O 


O 


l\ 


|\ 


-^ 




o- 


><> 


CO CO 


o 




CO 




i> 






o 




CO 


CO 






CN 


o 








o 


CN 


CN 


CM 


CN 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


o 


CO 


CM 




O CO 


r\ 




o 



ccccccccccc 
EEEEEEEEEEE 



O D o 2 2 
to i/5 (75 to (/5 



o o o o 



"o-i 



.2 .^ -i? Qj tU P c 

= = = CD t3> S I 

p O £ c c t O 

w» LO en < < in 5 



-° -2 J5 (n 
-2 I if if 



■S -S e 



o o 5 
U U in 



s s 



-S '^ '^ 

-2 if 
± 5 



£ o u 



"- ro o o 5 o 
S X ,2 S S f S 













f 










Li- 


Ll_ 


V 


Q 


< 


1 


V 


n' 


t^ 


lO 


F 


^ 


-C 


U 


(D 

C 


c 


u 


u 


b 


.^ 


■5 


o 


b 

O 


t 

s 


.i 

~5 


J 

"5 


_i<: 

2 

3 






§ 

s 






inuOL±jH-X_itw'h=Oa- 



Q Q 



o o 



O 



o Q ■ £ ■ £ 

' I- u u 

D :S uj LU 



o -g i ° 



S Q 



Q Q i- > E 



_« E O O o 
-S > cS ^ "2 



O U 



in in 
in in 
oa oa 



c E E 
in in o 3 



o- in in 



^ O <« O 

o O j; O 

3 Lj O u U U ¥ 

P ^ -D C^ -D -D > 

flj .— _^ -— _^ _^ O 

? ^ O 1=1 D -5 

eg £ O c2 O O ij 



Q 

— Q 
O — 



^ 



c! 

*© 'o „ oS 
D D > > 

o o > >^ 

- ^-^ IJ 
0) (u a> a; 



E e E 



- -? Q -? ^ -? S^ 



o ~n 
S h2 ^2 



^ d: t^ Ki Hi X 







.^ c! 




;^ 


a 


o« o« 












u 


06 


5 5 

X >- 


c 





u 








a y 


L 


P 


C 

E 


1 1 


"E 


Ll_ 


r r 




c 


~o 


^ « 


X 


LO 


H=! 


X X 


X 



id ^ ^ 



.a -Si 
x' -S 



_J O 

c -o 

.^ £,0 

I _C _£ 

Coo 



-T, -S "P 



O = 



s 5 it 



S -2 
S E 

Z 



o 



in in in CO Q 



to 


c 


*c 



Q 




i 

c 


i 

& 

n 


0) 





'0 

1 

r 


z 


s 


X 


►2 


^ 


Ci. 

ID 


3 


^ 



3 -^ 



a. Q_ LU in 



Q t; .E 

if § 

. P o 



-o 
o 
o 



Sri :g 
_| k q; 
2 U q; Q 



Hydroelectric Resources of California 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



"8 
§■ 

5 



3 
C 



o 
u 



u 

o 



0) 

§• 



o 

>- 



a. 

O 

_j 

UJ 

> 

UJ 

O 
O 

UJ 

z 
z 

a. 
O 

z 
< 

UJ 

Q. 

o 

UJ 

> 

UJ 

O 



P S-o 



2 .0 



= 5 

t) — o > 

O 3 P « 
& g &0 






.3 



o 










VJ? 


o 


rv 


N 


lO 


o! t: 


t^ 


K 


~o 


lO 


Uj s 






-5t 


ri 




CN 


CM 


CN 


n 



c 



° S 






2 9 






o 


o r\ 


ro CO in 


_ 


r> 


in 


■— c^ 


^ — IX. 


ro 


m 


n 


-^ 00 


N. -^ 00 


CN 


CN 



— OOr^-— OCNCNN^iOOOOO 
.— CN'OOOn'— "^.— OOCNOO- 

r\ -^ CO "^ — — yD 



o 



8 

O 


8 


8 


s 

K 


8 

N3 


8 


lO 


■o 


o- 


o 


n 


cn 



lO l\ O l> 



rx o o CN 

^O 00 CO CO 

<>■ o^ o o- 



O O ^3 ^J T3 ^ 

Q. Q. <U <U <U <U 

■^ - U U U U 

O D fe « fe OJ 

s s s s s s 



■§ 



"O -D "D -D "D "D 
<U <U 0) <u - - 



<1] 0) <D 0) 



2 S 2 S S S S 



o 



o - - - 



-D -D -D 



u (J -^ 



5 S 



S S S 



■= s 







5 


o 
O 















LU 


1 


£ 




>3 



8 


8 


o 

o 


§ 


§ 


8 


o 


§ 


§ 


CO 
CN 






5i 


IT) 


lO 


lO 



ro .— 



o o 

CS IT) 
■— 00 


o 


o 
o 

CN 


o 

8 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 

8 


— 


.— 


-^ 


CN 


t^ 


•o 


-o 



CN CN -^ CN 



CO CO "^ 'O 



o 

8 


o 

8 


o 

8 


o 


O 

8 


8 


O 

8 


O 

8 


O 

o 
o 


O 
O 
O 


8 

o 




00 
CO 


CN 


-9 


o 

CN 


(X) 






o 


O 






CO 
CO 




O 
00 




CN 
(5- 


<X3 
CN 


CN 


CN 
C3~ 


5 





8 

O 


CN 


^8 


8 


i 


i 


8 


o 
cs 


o 


o 


lO 


CO 




o 


CO 


■<t 




CO 







^oor^o ^vrvlolO'<3^^oc^o^ocNco 

c^c^-— CN ^o-oKt\N.coo-ooc>-io 

o-— •—•—•— oco.— r\aocs 

CN CNCMCNOJOCOlOCNCN 



ro o CO CO CK o 

CN •— CN CN — O 
O* O*' ^ O^ O* O- 



'^ '^ '^ -^ -^ lO -o 

U-) lO to LO lO CO *o 

CO CO CO CO CO o l\ 

— .— .— .— .— CN lO 



a) Qj i) fl> 1) 



~D-D~D-D~0~0-D-D-0-a-D-D \i \i 



5 S S 5 



S 5 S S 



- - - a: Q, 
i.^ U U .= E 

5 S :S §■ g^ 



0) 0) " 



ck^ ct: q: q: o:: o: 



cr cr cr cr o" cr 



o o o o o b .?> .? .^^ D 



03 =^ =7 



!" ^ c ^ ^ 



o .9 
5 li: 



, 






u 










UO 




w 


* 


■ 


\r\ 


* 


o 


c 






U 


_o 


% 


0) 


§ 


^ 

-^ 


_c 



U (J 
o o 



o U 



S S 5 Z Q 5 5 



T= C U 



UUUUUUUUU 



c! I 



^ KJ \J KJ KJ 



D 
< 



QJ 0) OJ 



o Q = _c == 



-D-D-D-D-O-O-D-D-D^ 



UJ LU LU 



u u u ^j l; u 



ooooeeeeeee 



o 



(1)0)0)0) 



u u y 

_o) _o) _5 

LU LU LU 

ofl ofi ofl ofi ofl 



Tj O '^ 

5 _« _0) 



o a: o 



OOOOO EcS^^ 



Q_Q_LOLOtOLOUOCO(/)COLO 



S i 



oj .ii .i; .^ .i; .ii _c 

n G G 'u 'G 3 

S^ o o o o o o 

a. o- o- Q_ Q_ <y? 



s s s 



° 


0) 
O:: 


E 


fN 










Y 








C 


U- 


v^ 


O 


3 






-iC 


o- 
















u 


LU 


U- 


^ 



, 


^ 


1 


, 


< 


, 


^ 


'^ 


o 


CO 


CN 


CN 


.— 






V 


















































U 


U 


r 


IJ 


U 


U 


U 


m 


m 


_c 


m 


m 


m 


m 































J s If 8 



2 < . CN CO 

^ E O S E 
— ' cr *< cr cr 



5 S 



0) -^ 



J o .2 
ii S i 



s s 



ceo 

o o ,t- 

00 t/^ tj 



312 



Hydroelectric Resources of California 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 



0) 

3 
_C 

C 

o 
y. 

»/> 

u 

3 

O 
(/) 

LU 

Of 

I— 
u 



O 

Q 

>- 



o 

I— 

z 

lU 

i 

9 

Ul 

> 

LU 



5 

a. 

O 

z 
< 



> 

UJ 



s<3 



c 



fe 5 



■a -2 

u. -2 o I. 
~ S ?>° 



(> O^ CO 
ri ri CN 



ID CO «0 



-D "T: ~T3 ~D -D 



s s s s s 



I o u 

c _ -g — -g 

l "g I u I 

§ I o =i 



>0 CO o o 

CO o- rs. 00 

CO f\ O CO 

CN CNJ CN ^ 



■<:t ^ -^ lO 



O O 
V) O 



-^ 


rx 


-o 


lO 


G G -^ O- 


o 


rN. 


(N 


-o 


CN 


i\ 


o- c> ^ ■<> 


n 


ca 




f) 


n 


i\ 


^ lO ^ 




■^ 



o 

CM 


O 


o 


o 


O 


o 

8 


CO 


o 

CM 


5 


CN 







o o o 

p. p. p, 

CO ■<> io~ 

■— .— CN 






i>> Si i_i i£ U 



u- ^ i/y in 



E E 



u — u 



(y -S ly 

u S u 



o 

■g" 



3 ^ .1^ 



CO.— coioioaoiorNoo 
>o-^corNrvooro^o 
OKCKr— ■— o^rvooj 

t— CM •— .— CN 'O n 



H) D d) 0) 



0) <U <U 0) 



o -- o 
r^ >o o 

(X> o lO 



CM ■— 



o 


o 




o 
o 

CM 


o 

8 


o 

8 


o 
o 
o 


o 


8 

o 


o 


8 


8 

o 


o 
o 

CO 


CN 


o 
o 

CO 


■^ 


CO 


8 


§ 


o 

8 


CN 








IT) 
CM 


S3 




CN 


<o 


o 


5 


CN 
CN 


N- 




CN 


CN 






^ 




CN 




00 


en 

C3D 




CO 

o^ 


■o 
o 


CO 
CO 
CN 


CM 
O 


00 


CO 
CN 


CO 
CJ~ 


CO 

o 


g 

o^ 


CM 


CN 

cs 




CO 


CO 
CO 




c^ 


1 


CO 

o- 



N 


CO CO 


,_ 


CO 


00 


M-) 


CO 


rv 


CN 


rs 


-^ 


o c^ 


CO 


o^ 


CO 


CO 


CO 


1^ 


N 




o- 


CN CM 


cs 


CN 


o 




ro 


H) 


ro 




CO 




I\ 




CO 


>o 


■— 


CO 




U) 



> 
S ai a: 



Ol Ol C7) CT) C7J 






i^ ^ ^ ^ — — 






J S Qi 



o 



^ tU u- ly w 



^^2 



Z Z S 5 oo 











o 


o 


o 












V ; 


K ) 


1 1 


t ^ 


1 > 




o 


n 








u 




u 






u 


U 
























£_1 














o S 


o 


























UJ 


UJ 


LU 


LU 


UJ 




<s 


-D 




U 


o6 


o6 


oO 


o6 


oa 




o 


n 




0) 






n 


n 


n 


Q 


'1'-' 


U 


? 




o 


O 


O 


O 


o 


_. Q 


i^ £ 


c 


n 


^ 


u 


y 


.y 


.y 


.y 


o~ ^■ 


J' -g 







c2 O 

;i ^ o 



D Ol "^i '^. "^ ^^ ^^ 



1-= CO LO CD CO 






u 


■^ 


_^ 






-) 








C) 


Q- 


U- 









3 


(D 


3 


.1 






U- 




r 


/^ 


C 


V 


r 




O 
u_ 


o 


o 


o 
to 


0£ 


LL 


b- 



E E 



i.^ CO CO X X 



E J 



_a) cr 5 _gj 

-3 <u o D 
h^ uo J h= 



^ 



i 



Hydroelectric Resources of California 



313 



Bulletin 160-93 The California Water Plan Update 



p 






S .° 



"g 

3 
C 

C 

o 
u 



O 



Of 



>- 



i 

2 

111 

S: 

o 

a 
111 

z 

z 

a. 
a 
z 
< 






u — 
D> O 

s g 



= 5 
.o ^ 



J-^. 



o : 



.3 
is 






c 
a 

vS 



o o 
8 "" 



:^ -2 



lO ^ 


rv 


CN 


,_ 


,_ 


CN n 


O lO 


rs o o — o 


o o 


Is 


ro 


vO 


CN 


00 CO 


O CN 


so r\ ^ ^ CO 


-— CN 


00 




CM 


CO 




^ >o 


CM '^ r— '- n 



o 
o 



o o 

o -"J 



O- lO 



8 

o 


8 

in 


O 

o 

CO 


o 


o 
o 

C>J 


o 

8 


^ 


- 


;^ 


- 


o~ 


CN 
CO 


o 

g 


CN 




o 


cs 

CO 


CM 



o o 

O lO 
CO o 



O CO O IS CN O 

CM Is CO rs CO c^ 

■— ■— O- CO CO CM 

■^ >— CO CN 



lU (U CU <U Q} QJ 

^ :jii ^ ia; i^ ^ 



O CN 
O^ 00 



S S Z 



l^ -R == 



S Q£ tt: q: Q£ ^ i^ 



0) 0) (U lU 



^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ 03 Z 



Q. 


s 


^ 






o 


§ 


LU 




Q£ 


0) 

c 

Q. 


u 

> 


u 

c 


1 
u 

D 


<U 
0) 


< 


lyo 


o 


h^ 





U o u u 



O 



Q_ to _^ LO to 



o 
'5> 



o o o o 

O K CO O 



O O O CN O- 00 
O. ^O CN •— O lO 
^ CN ''J ^ 00 Ch 



O 
O 



8 


8 

O 


8 

00 


>o 


CO 


CO 


CN 


CN 


CM 





o 

8 


o 

8 


O 

8 


o 

8 


o 


o 

8 


o 

8 


CO 


'^ 


CN 


CO 


UO 


CO 


co 



— O lO o o o 
l\ O K o o o 

PO "^ ^ 00 CO U-) 



CO IS 


CN CO 


O CN 


Ch 


CO CO 


CO 00 


00 o 


ro 


O CN 


c^ CK 


o- o- 


c> 



o o 
o o 

O CM 



cs in 

O CN 

cs o- 



o o o o o o 

O O "O ^ CM O 

•o >o CN .— n O^ 

.— "■ ro"" nT K" rs^ u-> 



CO •— O- CO ■— CO 

^ o^ o ^ — o 
o^ o^ o* o* o* o* 



O cs "O 

CO O 00 

»0 O CO 

CO -^ -O 



rs CO CO o- CO 

so -- ^ -— UO 

CM ^ -^ CO ■— 

rs CO 00 00 o 



COOs"^"^"<J'^'^"^ 
CO'OO^O'O^O'O^O^ 

»— ■ococococococo 

sO'^ — — — — '- — 



oooooooo 



>N>^>S>V.>S>^>^>^X>^X>^X>S>^>S.X>.>S>.>S 



66 



-D -D -D 



i i i 



= ~ ? s 



a: S b 



_ _ o 

u u u 





c 


c 


^ ^ i ^ 


aCr 
r, Ower 
r, Ower 
r, Ower 
r, Ower 
r, Ower 


r 


r 


r 


-§ O U U U U 


n 


n 


n 


3- (l> c 


F Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. 


tJ3 


m 


m 




.£ O O O O O 






















i 


> 


^ 


J: -£ b io 


h^ CO CQ CO CO CQ 



aa 



_c _c _c 



:2 


_c 


6 

is 


D 

E 




c 




Q- Q- 










0) 
























n 


.9 


Q- 


c 







0.3 o6 


1 








o 




3 


^ 






n 


n 


n 


o 


O 


n 


"O 





_g 


O 





-0 


$ § 




u 


U 


U 




O 


O 

1 


c 


U 


U 


U 


U 


U 


U 


n 


< 


'u 


g 


< 


1 


0) 0) 




^ 


C 

5 


c 


c 


5 







^ 







■TJ 


o 


o 


o 

T1 


oo 


i 




S 

X 




O^ 


0> CD 

c c 

< < 


CD 
C 
< 


CD 

1 


8 





<jO 
CL 


^3 

o 


CD 
c 
< 


CD 
c 
< 


X 
o 


c 
o 

E 


LU 

D 


LU 


LU 

3 


LU 


LU 

o 
u 


LU 

o 


00 


0) 

X 


CO 


OS 


if 


1 


2 


_2 _o 


^ 


t 
3 


fc 

3 





c 


_2 


^ 


CO 





c^ 


^ 


.^ 


c8 


t^ 



E u 2 =S 



2 E 



o 












S 5 



o 

z 



£?^ 



■£ 



S U u o u 



!_ 


CM 


CO 




CM 




^1 








n 


M3 
V 


lO 




CO 


CN 

V 


V 


F 


































i 


r 


i 


s 


0) 






S 


c^ 

(U 

c 


O 

o 
F 





0) 

n 


o 




n 


n 













CD 






n 


0) 




o 


{> 




























r 




r 


r 












o 


o 


o 


-) 


c 


c 


* y 






c 









.i; 


.i.' 


.^' 


.12 


c 



h^ Q_ Q_ Q 



I— QfcOcDCDCOcQcQ 



314 



Hydroelectric Resources of California 



The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 







S 


S-X) 






o 


lO 




1 


2 


i- 






o 


> 






Q. 


Q-S: 















i 


O 




3 




= 5 






V — 


.o ^ 


_ 




o> o 




^ 




O 3 


o « 


3 




M 


?i§ 


_C 




"? ■< 


(Sif^ 


e 
o 
u 










"S ^ 


















UJ 


-o 


S 


a^ 




Q- 


c 


03 


8 


1 




,"8 


LU 


U 




C 


u 








Of 






o 


h- 






2 


U 






«j -^ 








^^ 


^ 






o 






<5- 


Q^ 








Q 








>- 








X 






i> 


LI. 








o 






g 


1— 






o 


z 








m 








s 






•t 


a. 






ui 


Q 






'^ F 



















> 






,c ^ 


UJ 






n "^ 


O 






In o 


o 






UJ 






5 


z 






<2 


z 








^ 












o 



Of^OOO'OCslN.'-OlCOU^O 



o o 

o tv 



o 

8 


O 
CO 


o 

8 


O lO 

in "^ 


8 

O 


8 

O 


8 

o 


8 

o 


o 

8 




CO 


CO 




lO 


en 


CO 




CN 



8 


8 


o^ 


00 


o 
o 

S3 




o 
o 


o 

8 


8 


8 


1 


8 

o 


ro 








lO 






r\ 






00 


o 


00 


CN 


CO 






o 

CO 


CO 




CN 


CO 

Ov 


■o 


CO 



























< < 



O^ 00 CM C> O 

00 CO r\ lo o 

ro ro (N CN n 

^ ^ CO n ^ 



o o o o O CE 



>^ >v >v >v >s >^ 



£^2^^SSSS 



u u 



< 
Q 

UJ 

D. 

2 

UJ 

> 

UJ 

a 



IV -S o u 
~ 2 5,f 

^ -a 





c 




0) 

c 

Q_ 


a: 


J 


8! 

C 

_o 


D 

cr 
< 


CL. 
U 

u 
n 


-s 

£ 

c£ 


O 
LU 






'c 

> 

_5 


05 

'c 

> 

<u 


U 

c 

s 
5 




1 


Q. 
> 




o6 




Q- 

o6 








$ 




-1 


Q_ Q_ 

oa oa 












D 

g 




5 

^ 




5 


,S 


o 


Q- 


CD 

c 

E 
F 


S 


O 


5 5 

0) 03 


Q 


^ 









n 






< 


3 


1 


-o 


u 


1 


1 


0) QJ 


3 
Q- 


c 

g 


s 


s 
< 


° 


'o 




n> 


m 


Ui 


Q- 




CT 


o 




n 


U> Ul 


n 


LU 


m 


m 




Q. 






























r 








< 




< 


<u 


N 


< 




F 


o 


< < 


<i) 


*.J 


1 


=2 


I.J 


LJ 


1 

c 


^ 


^ 


3 




u 


3 




o 

Q_ 


o 


_o _o 


:> 


<^ 


■^ 




J 










1= 








T? 

















•— t^ ^ ^ ^ O '^ 
— ^ CN in CN CN <— 



CO lO O O O O CO 

o rv o CN o CN r^ 
CO r\ n -^ lo o 



o. lO o 
'^ i\ in 
(M CO in 



^ 



8 

O 


8 

CN 


8 

in 


8 


o 

8 


o 

8 


o 


8 


1 


CN 


'- 


CO 


c^ 

CO 


CO 


o 


00 

CN 




CO 



ooooooooin 
■ocNooooinO'— 
in ■»? o -o CO o 00 o 
'^^ c^ o" o 



o o o o 

o in o o 

o r^ in m 

in co~ CN ^ ^ 



^ — CO 



■— ■^■^■^"^■^■^'O^ocoroo^ 

■OOCOOOCOCOOO^QOCOCNCNCO 



o 
o 
o 



fN 


'^ 


^ 


"«j 


Ul 


o 


o 


Ov 


n 


^ 


o. 


00 




CN 


CN 


fO 


ro 


o 


r-> 


cn 


CO 


-^ 






o- 


O 


o 


o^ 



<U lU 



0) 0) <u 



ODOo~D79797PT5T9 

1 i. i. s. s. s. s. s. s. 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 



z z 



z z 



QJ 

z _ 



_ _ c q: .2 .2 S 



U i_) U U 
o o 



U U U U O O 





oi 


0) 


fl) 


0) 


OJ 


(- 


£ 


t- 


1- 


1- 


h 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 



0) o o o o 

■^07 05 03 0) 
— 50000 



X -^ 



5^<<<<<<UJ? 



c <y^ to -^ 



(/) to CO I/:) 



5 5 



ts 


-5; 


"^ 


"K 


tA 


"5; 


ts 


ts 




Q 


Q 


Q 


Q 


Q 


Q 





a 














m 


n> 


rxt 




















ri 


















_t 


_b 


_b 


_h 


-h 




_b 


-t 




"n 


"0 


"5 


"6 


"5 





"0 


~o 


D 




































(1) 


n 


n 


a 


a 


C3 


D. 


Q. 


cr 




^ 


_fc 


h 


t 


^ 


_b 


h 


^ 


_b 



m 
















t 


< 



c 



c 

s 








X 


X 




r 


-0 

LU 


LU 

n 


^ 


cn 


^ 


_o 





Ji 


U 


U 


r 


r 






0) 









n 








-J 





uo 


UO 


CO 


ca 


u 


u 


ca 



^ ^ s 
000 



= > 



s o 



_3 _^ _c 



u Q u X q: a: < 



j; U O (3 S 



fe $ 



n CN ^ 5 



■g o) 05 m O) — I — J 
5 " " ' ' 



O O 



^-5 g-§ 

=> O 0) o 
c^ e^ -II c^ 



■^ Q. c_ _ _ 
E o o o o 

t2 Q Q Q Q 



Q. Q. ^ ^ 



X I o o o o S 



LO 1/3 CO L/) *^ tj Q- 



o 

VJ 



Hydroelectric Resources of California 



315 



i 






THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
STAMPED BELOW 



BOOKS REQUESTED BY ANOTHER BORROWER 
ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL 



JUL \ \ ^S 




Oil 11 '96 

RECEIVED 

DEC Qhm 

^NfsicaiScieneei Library 



^^aO^ ^# 




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 



3 1175 0204 



305 



« *