The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-24

agreement flows would increase from 130 taf to 185

taf. The district will continue to pursue reliability enhancement options to meet the expected increased

shortage.

Contra Costa Water District is facing several issues with its CVP supply, which is its primary supply

source. CCWD’s CVP contract is scheduled to expire

in 2010, but CVPIA established financial penalties

for not committing to review by 1997. The district is

weighing the potential loss of supply associated with

renewal against the financial penalties, and expects that

the reliability of its 195 taf contractual supply will be

reduced due to CVPIA implementation.

Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program

With passage of Title 16 of PL 102-575 in 1992,

USBR joined with Bay Area water and wastewater

agencies to fund a study of regional water recycling

potential. The Bay Area regional water recycling program (formerly Central California regional water

recycling program) was established in 1993 to develop

a regional partnership for maximizing Bay Area water

recycling. The program is sponsored jointly by USBR,

the Department, and 13 Bay Area water and wastewater agencies. During the first phase of the program,

completed in April 1996, participating agencies explored potential uses for water recycled from Bay Area

wastewater treatment plants. The feasibility study

showed that a regional approach would be productive.

A major component of the 1996 feasibility study

was assessment of potential recycled water use in the

Central Valley and other locations outside the Bay

Area. The study determined that marketing the recycled water for agricultural use in the Central Valley

was not feasible. A regional water recycling master

plan, now in preparation, will focus on recycled water

markets in the Bay Area. A limited assessment of agricultural uses immediately south of Santa Clara County

will be made, but no further assessment of Central

Valley uses will be included. Another major component of the feasibility study was the assessment of

options to improve recycled water quality with respect

to salinity. Two options originally assessed will not be

included in the master plan—on-site agricultural salt

management and management of agricultural drainage.

Water quality, especially salinity levels, will need

to be managed to ensure the feasibility of Bay Area

water recycling. The master plan will consider methods to control salt at the point of origin, including

controlling infiltration of saline groundwater into agencies’ pipelines. Other salt control methods to be

considered include regulation of water softeners, control of industrial discharges, and treatment.

Water Management Options

for the San Francisco Bay Region

Table 7-12 shows a list of options for the region,

and the results of an initial screening of the options.

The retained options were evaluated (Table 7A-2 in

Appendix 7A) based on a set of fixed criteria discussed

in Chapter 6.

Conservation

Urban. Urban water demand forecasts for 2020

assume that BMPs are in place; consequently, only

those urban conservation efforts which exceed the

BMPs are considered as options. All urban conservation options were retained. Reducing outdoor water

use to 0.8 ETo

 in new development would attain about

2 taf/yr of depletion reductions, while extending this

measure to include existing development would reduce

depletions by about 52 taf/yr. Reducing residential indoor water use to 60 and 55 gpcd would attain

depletion reductions of 38 and 77 taf/yr, respectively.

Reducing commercial, institutional, and industrial

water use by an additional 3 percent and 5 percent

would attain 11 and 18 taf/yr of depletion reductions,

respectively. About 13 taf/yr of depletion reductions

would be attained by reducing distribution system

losses to 5 percent.

Agricultural. As with urban demand forecasts,

agricultural water demand forecasts for 2020 assume

that EWMPs are in place and only those efforts which

exceed the EWMPs are considered as options. Due to

the relatively small amount of irrigated acreage in the

region and the high SAE attained on average throughout the region, no significant depletion reductions

would accrue.

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations

Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has considered reservoir enlargement

options which would provide additional offstream storage for Napa River flows. In the South Bay, SCVWD

has evaluated enlarging Leroy Anderson Reservoir,

which could increase SCVWD’s annual supply by

about 25 taf. EBMUD has had several proposals to

enlarge both of its Mokelumne River reservoirs. The

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-25 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

TABLE 7-12

San Francisco Bay Region List of Water Management Options

Option Retain Reason for Deferral

or Defer

Conservation

Urban

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8ETo Retain

Indoor Water Use Retain

Interior CII Water Use Retain

Distribution System Losses Retain

Agricultural

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Flexible Water Delivery Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Canal Lining and Piping Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Tailwater Recovery Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations

Enlarge Lake Hennessey / Napa River Diversion Retain

Enlarge Bell Canyon Reservoir Retain

Enlarge Bell Canyon Reservoir/ Retain

Napa River Diversion

Enlarge Pardee Reservoir Retain

Enlarge Camanche Reservoir Retain

Enlarge Briones Reservoir Defer Geologic hazards.

Enlarge Chabot Reservoir Defer Substantial residential development.

Enlarge Leroy Anderson Reservoir Retain

Upgrade Milliken Treatment Plant Retain

Reoperate Rector Reservoir Retain

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities

Chiles Creek Reservoir Project/ Retain

Napa River Diversion

Enlarge Lake Hennessey /Chiles Creek Project / Retain

Napa River Diversion

Carneros Creek Reservoir / Napa River Diversion Retain

Upper Del Valle Reservoir Retain

Buckhorn Dam and Reservoir Retain

Upper Kaiser Reservoir Retain

Upper Buckhorn Reservoir Retain

Middle Bar Reservoir Retain

(Amador & Calaveras Counties)

Duck Creek Offstream Reservoir Retain

Devils Nose Project (Amador County) Retain

Clay Station Reservoir (Sacramento County) Defer Wetlands, endangered species.

Alamo Creek Reservoir Defer Substantial residential development.

Bolinger Reservoir Defer Substantial residential development.

Cull Canyon Dam Defer Substantial residential development.

Canada del Cierbo Reservoir Defer Storage cost too high ($16,000/af).

Curry Canyon Reservoir Defer Substantial residential development.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-26

TABLE 7-12

San Francisco Bay Region List of Water Management Options (continued)

Option Retain Reason for Deferral

or Defer

Lower Kaiser Reservoir Defer Storage cost too high ($9,000/af).

Bailey Road Reservoir Defer Storage cost too high ($21,000/af).

EBMUD American River Supply Retain

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use

EBMUD/San Joaquin County Conjunctive Use Defer Under discussion; not yet defined.

Milliken Creek Conjunctive Use Retain

Lake Hennessey /Conn Creek Conjunctive Use Retain

Recharge Dumbarton Quarry Pits Defer Unsuitable geologic conditions.

Sunol Valley Groundwater Recharge Defer Limited aquifer production.

Water Marketing

Napa/Solano County WA Exchange Defer SCWA is not interested in exchange.

Solano County WA Defer No proposals identified at this time.

Contra Costa WD Defer No proposals identified at this time.

Zone 7 WA/Kern County WA Retain

Santa Clara Valley WD/SLDMWA Retain

Water Recycling

Bel Marin Keys Golf Course - North Marin Retain

Water District

Black Point Golf Links - North Marin Water Retain

District

Central Marin Water Recycling Project - Marin Retain

MWD

Golf Course Irrigation, City Park Irrigation - Retain

North San Mateo CSD

Hercules/Franklin Canyon WRP-Phase 2 - Retain

EBMUD

Industrial Use - Central Contra Costa Sanitary Retain

District

Lamorinda - Central Contra Costa Sanitary Retain

District

Nonpotable Wastewater Reuse Master Plan - Retain

Union Sanitation District

Phase 1 Water Reclamation Program - Alameda Retain

County WD

Phase 2 Water Reclamation Program - Alameda Retain

County WD

San Francisco Water Recycling Master Plan Retain

San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program - Retain

DSRSD/EBMUD

San Ramon Valley Water Recycling Project - Retain

EBMUD

South Bay Water Recycling Project - City of Retain

Santa Clara

South Bay Water Recycling Project - San Jose Retain

Zone 1 - Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Retain

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-27 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

improvement of system yields associated with these

projects has not been determined.

Reoperating Rector Reservoir in Napa County

would provide an increase of approximately 1.2 taf/yr

in system yield. NCFC&WCD is also considering a

modification of its Milliken Water Treatment Plant,

which would generate a small increase (450 af) in its

annual water supply.

Table 7-15

New Reservoirs and Conveyance Facilities

Ten new reservoirs were evaluated for Bay Area

water agencies. NCFC&WCD investigated several

diversion and storage projects, including Chiles Creek

Reservoir Project and Carneros Creek Reservoir

Project. The viability of these offstream storage projects

depends upon the district’s ability to make Napa River

diversions. (SWRCB has declared the Napa River to

TABLE 7-12

San Francisco Bay Region List of Water Management Options (continued)

Option Retain Reason for Deferral

or Defer

Desalting

Brackish Groundwater

Alameda County WD Aquifer Recovery Project Retain

Seawater

Marin Municipal WD Desalting Project Retain

Other Local Options

New Surface Water Diversion from Sacramento Retain

River by Cities of Benicia, Fairfield, & Vacaville

Statewide Options

— — See Chapter 6.

USBR’s Folsom South Canal

was designed to convey water

from the American River

below Nimbus Dam to

central San Joaquin County.

Only part of the canal was

actually constructed, and the

canal now terminates in

southeastern Sacramento

County.

Courtesy of USBR

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-28

be fully appropriated during parts of the year.) Some

agencies, including ACWD, have examined an Upper

Del Valle Reservoir Project. EBMUD has considered

three new storage reservoirs in its service area and two

new reservoirs in the Mokelumne Basin (Middle Bar

and Devils Nose projects). These storage options have

been inactive since EBMUD’s focus on its supplemental water supply project.

As discussed previously, EBMUD and USBR released a draft EIR/EIS in 1997 for EBMUD’s diversion

of its American River CVP supply. EBMUD estimates

that it would receive 112 taf and 70 taf in average and

droughts years, respectively. (The draft EIR/EIS evaluates alternatives for conveyance of the water. Project

yield remains the same in either of the conveyance alternatives.)

Groundwater Development or Conjunctive Use

EBMUD is continuing discussions with San

Joaquin County interests for a joint groundwater storage/conjunctive use project. EBMUD’s CVP contract

water could be stored in San Joaquin County groundwater basins prior to being diverted into EBMUD’s

Mokelumne River Aqueduct in northeast San Joaquin

County. This option was considered in EBMUD’s

1995 Water Supply Action Plan, but not included in

EBMUD’s draft EIR for conveyance of its CVP contract supply. The yield is currently undefined.

Only two groundwater or conjunctive use options

in Table 7-12 were retained for further evaluation.

NCFC&WCD has two proposals to construct conjunctive use facilities adjacent to existing surface water

facilities. The proposed Milliken Creek conjunctive use

project would allow the City of Napa and the Silverado

Country Club to share surface and groundwater supplies, and would provide an additional drought year

yield of 1.9 taf. The proposed Lake Hennessey/Conn

Creek conjunctive use project would make the City of

Napa’s surface water available to agricultural users in

exchange for rights to pump groundwater during

droughts. This option would provide an estimated 5 taf

during drought years.

Water Marketing

Agencies throughout the Bay Area are proposing

to negotiate for new or additional water imports into

the region. Most of these proposals are preliminary.

Water transfer proposals by SCWA, CCWD, and

Z7WA all include transfers from as-yet-unnamed Sacramento Valley water users. The actual amount of water

available through these proposals is unknown and the

competition for transfers will certainly impact both

price and availability. A likely option for Z7WA is the

permanent transfer of 7 taf of SWP entitlement from

KCWA, as provided for in SWP’s Monterey Amendments.

Several agencies in the region already have banking and exchange agreements with agencies in the

Tulare Lake, South Lahontan, and Colorado River regions. These agreements among SWP contractors

involve exchanges of SWP entitlement. ACWD,

Z7WA, and SCVWD are participating in SWSD’s

groundwater banking program and have long-term

contracts for 50, 43, and 350 taf of storage, respectively. SWP entitlement would be delivered to SWSD

for groundwater recharge in wet years and SWSD, a

member agency of KCWA, would forego a portion of

its entitlement in dry years in exchange. SCWA has a

similar agreement with MWA in San Bernardino

County for up to 10 taf.

SCVWD has also entered into a three-way transfer agreement with the San Luis Delta-Mendota Water

Authority and USBR. Under this option, participating member agencies of SLDMWA may receive some

of SCVWD’s CVP water allocation in normal and

above-normal water years, in exchange for committing to make available a share of their CVP allocation

during drought years. This option would provide

SCVWD with up to 14 taf in drought years and is

discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.

Water Recycling

The 1995 water recycling survey identified 16

water recycling options in the San Francisco Bay Region, with a total potential 2020 yield of 101 taf. The

average price of recycled water from these options

would be just over $500/af, with a range from $100 to

over $2,000/af. The most common use for recycled

water would be for landscape irrigation. A few options

were proposed for industrial or agricultural use.

One consideration in evaluating water recycling

proposals is that a number of options may be proposed

for the same wastewater treatment plant. These options depend upon different distribution systems and

are therefore considered separately for this report. Some

of the larger projects with their associated 2020 yield

include the South Bay water recycling program

(31 taf), the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District

industrial use project (20 taf), the San Francisco water

recycling management plan (12 taf ), and the San

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-29 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

Ramon Valley recycled water project (10 taf). Most of

the remaining water recycling options have 2020 yields

in the range of 1 to 4 taf.

Desalting

Alameda County WD has evaluated the potential

for desalting brackish water to allow increased use of

groundwater. Water pumped from the district’s aquifer recovery project wells would be desalted and

blended with groundwater and Hetch Hetchy water

to provide a quality consistent with other sources of

supply. The plant would produce 9 taf/yr at a cost of

about $500/af.

In the past, Marin MWD examined seawater desalting as an option to augment its water supply. The

district studied constructing a 10 mgd reverse osmosis

desalting plant. The plant’s annual production would

be approximately 10 taf at a cost of $1,900/af.

Other Local Options

Solano County WA and its member agencies have

been examining several surface water management

projects to improve their water supply reliability. One

proposal is to apply for additional water rights from

the Sacramento River. The Cities of Benicia, Fairfield,

and Vacaville have filed an application with the

SWRCB to divert an additional 31 taf/yr. The water

would be conveyed to the cities via the North Bay

Aqueduct. (Vacaville is in the Sacramento River Region and its share is 8.5 taf/yr).

Statewide Options

Statewide water supply augmentation options are

discussed and quantified in Chapter 6.

Options Likely to be Implemented in

San Francisco Bay Region

Water supplies are not available to meet all of the

region’s 2020 water demands in drought years. Applied water shortages are forecasted to be 287 taf. No

average year water shortages are forecasted for 2020.

Ranking of retained water management options for

the San Francisco Bay Region is summarized in Table

7-13. Table 7-14 summarizes options that can likely

be implemented by 2020 to relieve the shortages.

Implementation of BMPs will continue through

2020 and is reflected in the base demand levels for

urban water use. Urban conservation options likely to

be implemented, based on costs and feasibility, would

provide an estimated 57 taf/yr in water savings in the

region.

 Agencies throughout the region have ambitious

plans for water recycling as a future water supply option. These options could provide an additional 24 taf/

yr to the region by 2020. EBMUD’s American River

supply would augment drought year supplies by 70 taf.

Water marketing agreements being negotiated with

Central Valley agencies will likely add 19 taf/yr in the

near future. Statewide options including SWP improvements and drought water bank would likely

augment drought supplies by 100 taf.

Many South Bay water purveyors’ systems are interconnected, reflecting a common reliance on the

SWP, CVP, and Hetch Hetchy facilities for their water

supplies. CCWD and SCVWD are connected to the

Delta via CVP facilities. In addition, piping to facilitate connections between EBMUD and CCWD and

the City of Hayward is in place for emergency transfers. (These connections are of limited capacity to allow

for transfers in a catastrophic event.) SCVWD,

ACWD, and Z7WA are connected by the SWP’s South

Bay Aqueduct. SFPUC now has a permanent connection to the SWP, to allow it to take delivery of water

transfers wheeled by the SWP. These interconnections

facilitate water transfers and are positive factors in water

resources management in the South Bay.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-30

TABLE 7-13

Options Ranking for San Francisco Bay Region

Optiona Rank Cost ($/af) Potential Gain (taf)

Average Drought

Conservation

Urban

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8 ETo- New Development M 750 2 2

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8 ETo-New and Existing Development L b 52 52

Indoor Water Use (60 gpcd) M 400 38 38

Indoor Water Use (55 gpcd) M 600 77 77

Interior CII Water Use (3%) M 500 11 11

Interior CII Water Use (5%) M 750 18 18

Distribution System Losses (5%) M 300 13 13

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations

Enlarge Lake Hennessey /Napa River Diversion M 630 12 -

Enlarge Bell Canyon Reservoir M b b 2

Enlarge Bell Canyon Reservoir/Napa River Diversion M b b 4

Enlarge Pardee Reservoir M b b 30

Enlarge Camanche Reservoir M b b 15

Enlarge Leroy Anderson Reservoir M 4,400 b 25

Upgrade Milliken Treatment Plant M 1,770 1 1

Reoperate Rector Reservoir M 800 - 1

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities

Chiles Creek Reservoir Project/Napa River Diversion L 1,170 12 -

Enlarge Lake Hennessey/Chiles Creek Project/ L 1,030 15 -

Napa River Diversion

Carneros Creek Reservoir/Napa River Diversion L 2,100 12 -

Upper Del Valle Reservoir M 1,600 5 2

Buckhorn Dam and Reservoir M b b 23

Upper Kaiser Reservoir M b b 6

Upper Buckhorn Reservoir L b b 3

Middle Bar Reservoir L b b 15

Duck Creek Offstream Reservoir L b b 15

Devils Nose Project L b b 23

EBMUD American River Supply M 850 112 70

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use

Milliken Creek Conjunctive Use H 150 - 2

Lake Hennessey/Conn Creek Conjunctive Use H 280 - 5

Water Marketing

Z7WA/KCWA (7 taf entitlement) H b 7 5

SCVWD/SLDMWA H b - 14

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-31 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

TABLE 7-14

Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020 (taf)

San Francisco Bay Regiona

Average Drought

Applied Water Shortage 0 287

Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020

 Conservation - 57

 Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations - -

 New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities - 70

 Groundwater/Conjunctive Use - 7

 Water Marketing - 19

 Recycling - 24

 Desalting - 9

 Other Local Options - -

 Statewide Options - 100

 Expected Reapplication - 1

 Total Potential Gain - 287

Remaining Applied Water Shortage 0 0

TABLE 7-13

Options Ranking for San Francisco Bay Region (continued)

Optiona Rank Cost ($/af) Potential Gain (taf)

Average Drought

Water Recycling

Group 1 (Cost < $500/af) H 500 24 24

Group 2 (Cost $500/af - $1,000/af) M 1,000 20 20

Group 3 (Cost > $1,000/af) M 1,500 46 46

Desalting

Brackish Groundwater

Alameda County Water District Aquifer Recovery Project H 510 9 9

Seawater

Marin Municipal Water District Desalting Project L 1,900 10 10

Other Local Options

New Surface Water Diversion from Sacramento River by M b 22 22

Cities of Benicia, Fairfield, & Vacavillec

Statewide Options

See Chapter 6.

a

 All or parts of the amounts shown for the highlighted options have been included in Table 7-14.

b Data not available to quantify.

c

 The three cities have applied for 31 taf/yr of supplemental water, part of which would be used in the Sacramento River Region.

a

 Implementing options to reduce drought year shortages would provide more water than is needed to meet average year needs. In average years, this water

 could be available for transfer to other regions, or some options could be operated at less than their full capacity.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-32

FIGURE 7-4.

Central Coast Hydrologic Region

SAN

BENITO

MONTEREY

SAN LUIS OBISPO

SANTA

BARBARA

SANTA

CRUZ

Loch Lomond

Reservoir

San

Lorenzo

River

Uvas

Reservoir

Pacheco Tunnel

and Conduit

Carmel

Salinas

River

Pajaro

er

San

Benito

River

San

Antonio

River

Nacimiento

River

Nacimiento

Reservoir

Estrella Salinas

River

River

Santa Margarita

Lake

San

Juan

Creek

Santa Maria

River

Cuyama

River

Twitchell

Reservoir

River

Gilbralter

Reservoir

Jameson

Lake

Lopez

Lake

Ynez

San Antonio

Reservoir

Whale Rock

Reservoir

Sisquoc

River

Santa

Whale Rock

Conduit

Hollister

Conduit

Santa Clara

Conduit

San Luis Obispo

Conduit

Riv

Coastal Branch of

California Aqueduct

Cachuma

Reservoir

Big Sur

er Riv

er Riv

South Coast Conduit

P

a

c

i

f

i

c

O

c

e

a

n

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-33 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

Description of the Area

The Central Coast Region (Figure 7-4) extends

from southern San Mateo County in the north to Santa

Barbara County in the south. The region includes the

southern tip of San Mateo County, part of Santa Clara

County, most of San Benito County, all of Santa Cruz,

Monterey, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties, and the northwestern tip of Ventura County. The

major topographic features include Monterey and

Morro Bays; the Pajaro, Salinas, Carmel, Santa Maria,

Santa Ynez and Cuyama Valleys; the Coast Range, and

the coastal plain of Santa Barbara County. The region

is divided into two planning subareas: Northern (including all counties except San Luis Obispo and Santa

Barbara) and Southern (San Luis Obispo and Santa

Barbara Counties). Summer temperatures are cool

along the coastline and warmer inland. In the winter,

temperatures remain cool along the coast but become

cooler inland. Annual precipitation ranges from about

10 inches on valley floors at the south end of the region to as much as 50 inches on some of the highest

peaks. The year-round frost-free climate of the coastal

valleys makes them ideal for production of specialty

crops such as strawberries and artichokes.

The principal population centers in the region are

Santa Cruz, Hollister, Salinas, Monterey, Paso Robles,

San Luis Obispo, Santa Maria, Goleta, and Santa Barbara. Intensive agriculture is found in the Salinas and

Pajaro Valleys in the north and the Santa Maria and

lower Santa Ynez Valleys in the south. Agricultural

acreage has remained fairly stable during recent years,

although urban development is encroaching on some

valley agricultural lands. In the Pajaro and Salinas Valleys, the major crops include vegetables, specialty crops,

and cut flowers. Wine grape acreage has increased in

the upper Salinas Valley. The flower seed industry in

Lompoc Valley is thriving and attracts many tourists

each year. Parts of the upper Salinas Valley and Carrizo

Plain are dry-farmed to produce grains. Table 7-15

shows the region’s population and crop acreage for 1995

and 2020.

Major economic activities include tourism,

agricultural-related processing, and government and

The Pajaro and Salinas Valleys are known for their

production of specialty crops. Castroville is sometimes called

the artichoke capital of the world.

. . .

Central Coast

Hydrologic Region

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-34

service sector employment. Oil production and transportation sites onshore and offshore are important to

the economies of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo

Counties. San Luis Obispo County has major thermal

powerplants at Diablo Canyon and Morro Bay. Military facilities include Hunter-Liggett Military

Reservation, Vandenberg Air Force Base, and Camp

San Luis Obispo.

Water Demands and Supplies

The water budget for the Central Coast Region is

shown in Table 7-16. Groundwater is the primary

source of water supply in the region, followed by local

surface water. CVP water supply is delivered to the

northern part of the region from San Luis Reservoir.

SWP Coastal Branch deliveries to the southern part of

the region began in 1997. Most of the water shortage

in the region is due to groundwater overdraft, although

the overdraft is expected to lessen with SWP water deliveries and decreased agricultural demands.

Northern PSA

This planning subarea includes Santa Cruz

County, Pajaro Valley, the Monterey Peninsula, and

Salinas Valley. Water agencies include Monterey

County Water Resources Agency, Monterey Peninsula

Water Management District, Marina Coast Water District, California-American Water Company (Carmel),

Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, City of Santa

Cruz, and San Benito County Flood Control and

Water Conservation District.

The Northern PSA is comprised of a number of

medium-to-small independent watersheds. There is

limited infrastructure for water transfers among the

watersheds and from outside the region. The only water

import from outside the region comes from CVP’s San

Felipe Unit, which imports 53 taf/yr into southern

Santa Clara and San Benito Counties.

Groundwater is the primary water source for the

subarea. Groundwater recharge is provided by the

Pajaro, Salinas, and Carmel Rivers, and by Arroyo Seco.

San Clemente and Los Padres Dams on the Carmel

River (Monterey County), San Antonio Dam on the

San Antonio River (Monterey County), and

Nacimiento Dam on the Nacimiento River (San Luis

Obispo County) are the region’s main surface water

storage facilities. Water impounded in these reservoirs

is managed to provide groundwater recharge.

Southern PSA

The largest water agencies in the southern PSA

are two countywide agencies—the San Luis Obispo

County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Santa Barbara County Flood Control and

Water Conservation District. The Central Coast Water Authority was formed in 1991 to construct, manage,

and operate Santa Barbara County’s 42 mile portion

TABLE 7-15

Population and Crop Acreage

Population Irrigated Crop Acreage

(thousands) (thousands of acres)

1995 1,347 572

2020 1,946 570

TABLE 7- 16

Central Coast Region Water Budget (taf)a

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 286 294 379 391

Agricultural 1,192 1,279 1,127 1,223

Environmental 118 37 118 37

Total 1,595 1,610 1,624 1,652

Supplies

Surface Water 318 160 368 180

Groundwater 1,045 1,142 1,041 1,159

Recycled and Desalted 18 26 42 42

Total 1,381 1,328 1,452 1,381

Shortage 214 282 172 270

a

 Water use/supply totals and shortages may not sum due to rounding.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-35 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

of the Coastal Aqueduct. Many small retail agencies

and small municipalities provide their own water supplies.

The major source of water in the two counties is

coastal groundwater basins. SLOCFC&WCD and

SBCFC&WCD contract with the Department for

SWP water. The two agencies have contractual entitlements totaling 70.5 taf/yr. Due to the 1987-92

drought, three seawater desalting plants were constructed in the region. The City of Morro Bay’s plant

has an annual capacity of 670 af and is used when

groundwater supplies are limited during dry periods.

The City of Santa Barbara’s plant has an annual capacity of 7.5 taf and is on standby. (Although the Santa

Barbara plant only operated briefly in 1992, it is considered in the base water budget as a drought year

supply under 1995 level of development, and as an

average and drought year supply in 2020.) The plant

at San Simeon Beach State Park has minimal capacity

(45 af) and is also on standby.

There are two USBR projects in the subarea. The

Cachuma Project provides Santa Ynez River water to

the Santa Barbara area; main project facilities are the

205 taf Cachuma Reservoir (Bradbury Dam) and the

South Coast Conduit. The Santa Maria Project provides Cuyama River water for irrigation use in the Santa

Maria area; main project facilities are Twitchell Dam

and Reservoir (240 taf). Another federal reservoir,

USACE’s 26 taf Santa Margarita Lake (Salinas Dam)

provides supply for the City of San Luis Obispo.

Local Water Resources

Management Issues

Seawater Intrusion

With Central Coast’s limited surface supply and

few surface water storage facilities, the growing demand

for water is causing an increased dependence on the

region’s groundwater resources. Because groundwater

extractions have exceeded groundwater replenishment,

seawater has advanced into some coastal freshwater

aquifers, degrading water quality. Seawater intrusion

is a major concern in the region.

Several decades of over-pumping groundwater

have caused seawater intrusion in the aquifers that supply the Salinas Valley with nearly 100 percent of its

fresh water. Seawater has intruded almost 6 miles inland into the 180-foot aquifer and two miles inland

into the 400-foot deep aquifer. This intrusion has rendered the groundwater too salty for either municipal

or agricultural use. Replenishment of groundwater occurs primarily from percolation of surface water from

the Salinas River and its tributaries. The construction

of Nacimiento and San Antonio Dams in 1957 and

1965, respectively, has increased replenishment but has

DWR’s extension of the

Coastal Branch to serve

San Luis Obispo and Santa

Barbara Counties provides

an imported surface water

supply that can help reduce

overdraft of coastal

groundwater basins.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-36

not stopped seawater intrusion. In 1994, SWRCB began investigating the Salinas Valley. The SWRCB

suggested that adjudication may be necessary if the

local agencies could not halt the seawater intrusion.

In 1998, the MCWRA and the MRWPCA jointly

completed a $78 million Salinas Valley reclamation

project and Castroville seawater intrusion project.

These projects consist of a 19.5 taf/yr tertiary treatment plant and a distribution system that will provide

recycled water to 12,000 acres of Castroville area farms.

During the low irrigation demand periods in winter,

early spring and late fall, recycled water will supply

most of the water needed for irrigation. During late

spring, summer, and early fall, growers will receive a

blend of recycled water and groundwater. The projects

will reduce groundwater pumping in the project area,

thus reducing seawater intrusion. Additionally, the

projects will reduce the amount of secondary-treated

wastewater discharged to the Monterey Bay National

Marine Sanctuary. The sanctuary is a federally-protected aquatic ecosystem extending from Point Reyes

to San Luis Obispo with abundant marine resources

including kelp forests, marine mammals, and sea and

shore birds.

MCWRA is preparing an EIR and preliminary

design for a Salinas Valley water project to solve seawater intrusion and nitrate contamination. Major

components of the project include dam modifications

and reservoir reoperation, river conveyance and diversion facilities, groundwater recharge, storage for

recycled water, distribution systems, and conservation.

The project also will include management strategies

to address nitrate contamination problems.

Seawater intrusion is also a problem facing the

Pajaro Valley. Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency

is preparing environmental documents to address water management issues facing the valley, following

adoption of a basin management plan in 1993. The

plan includes projects to develop local supplies, recharge groundwater, import new water, and adopt

conservation measures to help solve groundwater overdraft and attendant seawater intrusion problems.

Failing to implement the plan could result in intervention by SWRCB, potentially resulting in basin

adjudication and restrictions on extractions. PVWMA

is working closely with SWRCB to address groundwater overdraft problems, and SWRCB has reserved

$5 million in low interest loan money from the Proposition 204 Seawater Intrusion Control Fund to help

assist PVWMA in implementing its basin management plan.

Local Water Agency Issues

Santa Cruz County relies mostly on surface water

diversions. Drought years pose a threat of water rationing and shortages because of the lack of adequate

storage facilities. Seawater intrusion is a concern for

groundwater users. For example after years of stable

conditions, groundwater quality in municipal wells in

the Soquel-Aptos area began to degrade in 1993-94.

Soquel Creek Water District, the largest purveyor in

this part of the county, relies primarily on groundwater. As measured in monitoring wells along the

Monterey Bay coastline, groundwater quality degraded

noticeably in less than 4 years, with chloride concentrations increasing from 20 to 40 mg/L to about 250

to 2,500 mg/L. These conditions occurred despite the

district’s managing its extractions to maintain coastal

groundwater levels above sea level and decreasing its

pumping.

Between urban growth and growth in tourism, the

Monterey Peninsula is expected to experience more

frequent shortages in drought years. Water supply for

the area comes from the Carmel River, which has relatively little developed storage. In its Monterey Peninsula

water supply project final EIR/EIS, MPWMD chose

the 24 taf New Los Padres Reservoir on the Carmel

River as its preferred alternative for meeting future

water needs. The proposed reservoir would expand the

Peninsula’s water supply and help protect and restore

natural resources on the Carmel River, by providing

instream flows. However, voters defeated bonds for the

project in a 1995 election. MPWMD staff prepared a

water supply alternatives plan in 1996 which included

recommendations for expanded groundwater production, additional recycled water use, desalting, and

additional conservation programs.

In 1995, SWRCB determined that Cal-Am was

diverting approximately 10.7 taf/yr out of the Carmel

River Basin without valid water rights. SWRCB ordered that diversions from the river be reduced, and

that sources outside of the basin be developed. One of

these sources could be additional groundwater production from the Seaside Basin, but use of this basin as a

replacement for diversions from the Carmel River is

being challenged in litigation. SWRCB indicated that

New Los Padres Reservoir should be reconsidered to

enhance Carmel River habitat values and to provide

for Cal-Am’s water supply. In 1996, Cal-Am decided

to proceed with the New Los Padres Reservoir, but

with a reduced urban yield of 10.7 taf to support only

existing water needs, without providing supplies for

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-37 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

future growth. The remainder of the reservoir’s supply

would be used for instream flow enhancement.

The City of San Luis Obispo has been pursuing a

Salinas Reservoir expansion project to supplement its

water supply. The existing reservoir is owned by

USACE and is managed by SLOCFC&WCD. The

expansion project involves installing spillway gates to

expand the storage capacity from about 24 taf to 42

taf. The proposed project would increase the city’s annual water supply by about 1.6 taf, but would supply

only a portion of the city’s expected future water demands. An initial draft EIR was issued in late 1993. A

revised draft EIR was issued in May 1997.

Seawater Desalting

Current municipal seawater desalting capacity in

the Central Coast Region is almost entirely based on

the City of Santa Barbara’s desalting plant (7.5 taf/yr).

The remainder of the plants are small, less than 750 af/

yr in capacity. During the 1987-92 drought, a number of seawater desalting projects were anticipated, but

the return of average water years put most of these

plants on hold. Only Santa Barbara, Morro Bay, and

the San Simeon Beach State Park installed plants because of the drought. Proposed bonds for a 3 mgd

seawater desalting plant for Monterey Peninsula Water Management District were rejected by voters in

1992. The plants in Santa Barbara and San Simeon

are on standby. The plant at Morro Bay is used only

during dry periods when groundwater supplies are limited.

In response to seawater intrusion in its groundwater basin, the Marina Coast Water District

completed a 300,000 gpd (340 af/yr) seawater desalting plant in 1997. The plant produces about 14 percent

of the district’s water supply.

Water Management Options

for the Central Coast Region

Table 7-17 shows a list of options for the region,

and the results of an initial screening of the options.

The Monterey Bay National

Marine Sanctuary is home

to a variety of species.

The Cuyama River has its headwaters in northwestern

Ventura County and flows onto the Cuyama Valley floor in

San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. As suggested

by this photo, the river’s flow is ephemeral. Valley agriculture

is supported by groundwater.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-38

TABLE 7-17

Central Coast Region List of Water Management Options

Option Retain Reason for Deferral

or Defer

Conservation

Urban

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8ETo Retain

Indoor Water Use Retain

Interior CII Water Use Retain

Distribution System Losses Retain

Agricultural

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Flexible Water Delivery Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Canal Lining and Piping Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Tailwater Recovery Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations

Modify Nacimiento Spillway Retain

Inter-Lake Tunnel - Nacimiento/San Antonio Defer Alternative to preferred Nacimiento spillway

Reservoirs modification.

Enlargement of Salinas Reservoir Retain

Enlargement of Cachuma Reservoir Retain

Enlargement of Lopez Reservoir Defer Excessive unit cost.

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities

College Lake Retain

Bolsa De San Cayetano Reservoir Defer Fishery and foundation issues; excessive cost.

Corncob Canyon Reservoir Defer High level of housing development in canyon.

Pescadero Reservoir Defer Fishery and foundation issues; excessive cost.

Gabilan Creek Dam Defer Questionable water supply.

Feeder Streams (Various Sites) Retain

Chalone Canyon Dam Defer Questionable water supply.

Vaqueros Canyon Dam Defer Questionable water supply.

New Los Padres Reservoir Retain

Nacimiento Pipeline Retain

Arroyo Seco Dam Defer Impacts to environment, residential and

commercial development.

Barloy Dam Defer Questionable water supply.

Mathews Dam Defer Questionable water supply.

Jerret Dam Defer Questionable water supply.

New San Clemente Reservoir Defer Strong regulatory agency objections.

San Clemente Creek Reservoir Defer High probability of inundating spotted owl habitat.

Cachagua Reservoir Defer Questionable supply and located outside

MPWMD boundaries.

Canada Reservoir Defer Questionable geological conditions at dam site.

Klondike Dam Defer Located near active faults; inundation of residential

development.

Chupines Creek Reservoir Defer Questionable supply and located outside

MPWMD boundaries.

Pine Creek Defer Potential impacts to environmentally sensitive

areas.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-39 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

TABLE 7-17

Central Coast Region List of Water Management Options (continued)

Option Retain Reason for Deferral

or Defer

Buckeye Creek Defer Located near active faults; unsuitable dam

foundation.

Lower Jack Defer Environmental impacts; riparian oak grassland.

Santa Rita Defer Environmental impacts; riparian oak grassland.

Camuesa and Salsipuedes Reservoirs Defer Environmental impacts; presence of endangered

species.

Hot Springs, New Gilbraltar, and Round Defer Insufficient yield, high unit cost of water.

Corral Reservoirs

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use

College Lake Injection/Extraction Wells Retain

Increase Groundwater Development in Retain

Seaside Basin

Seaside Conjunctive Use Defer Insufficient yield.

Salinas River Well System Defer Will not produce supply without implementing

other new supply component.

Storage and Infiltration Basins/Recharge Defer Questionable water supply.

Upper/Lower Carmel Valley Well Development Defer Questionable water supply.

Water Marketing

CVP (San Felipe Project Extension) Retain

SWP (Coastal Branch/Salinas River/Nacimiento Defer No current local interest.

transfer)

Water Recycling

Aquifer Storage/Recovery - Monterey County Retain

Water Resources Agency

Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project expansion Retain

Santa Cruz Water Reuse Project - Pajaro Valley Retain

WMA

SSLOCSD Reclamation Project - City of Arroyo Retain

Grande

SVWD Recycled Water Plant - Scotts Valley Retain

Water District

Urban Reuse Project - Monterey Regional Water Retain

Pollution Control Agency

Watsonville Water Resue Project - Pajaro Valley Retain

WMA

Injected Treated Water/Carmel River Mouth Defer Health concerns.

Desalting

Brackish Groundwater

City of Santa Cruz Retain

Seawater

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Retain

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-40

The retained options were evaluated (Table 7A-3 in

Appendix 7A) based on a set of fixed criteria discussed

in Chapter 6.

Water Conservation

Urban. Urban water demand forecasts for 2020

assume that BMPs are in place; consequently, only

those urban conservation efforts which exceed BMPs

are considered as options. Reducing outdoor water use

to 0.8 ETo

 in new development would attain about

4 taf/yr of depletion reductions, while extending this

measure to include existing development would reduce

depletions by about 13 taf/yr. Reducing residential indoor water use to 60 and 55 gpcd would reduce

depletions by 8 and 17 taf/yr, respectively. Reducing

CII water use by an additional 3 and 5 percent would

attain 2 taf and 3 taf of depletion reductions per year,

respectively. Reducing distribution system losses to 7

and 5 percent would save 3 and 8 taf/yr.

Agricultural. The 2020 agricultural water demand

forecasts assume that EWMPs are in place. As with

the urban water management options, only those agricultural conservation efforts which exceed EWMPs

are considered as options. Agricultural conservation

options were deferred for this region, because no significant depletion reductions would be achieved. Excess

applied irrigation water recharges aquifers in the major agricultural areas.

Modify Existing Reservoirs or Operations

In the Northern PSA, most of these options involve Nacimiento and San Antonio Reservoirs. The

options include raising and widening the spillway at

Nacimiento Reservoir, constructing a tunnel or pipeline between the two reservoirs, and changing reservoir

operation rules. Any combination of these reservoir

modification options would likely be combined with

other options (such as improved conveyance facilities

or groundwater recharge projects). Some of these options are estimated to cost about $100/af—raising and

widening the spillway at Nacimiento Reservoir is one

such option. Sediment removal may provide a very

small amount of additional supply, and MPWMD is

studying the effectiveness of sediment removal from

its existing reservoirs (Los Padres and San Clemente).

There are two proposals for reservoir enlargements

in the Southern PSA. The Salinas Reservoir enlargement project would install a radial gate to raise the

spillway height 19 feet above its existing elevation, increasing the reservoir’s storage capacity by about 18 taf,

and the City of San Luis Obispo’s annual yield by almost 2 taf. In Santa Barbara County raising USBR’s

Bradbury Dam (Cachuma Reservoir) 50 feet for additional water supply plus an additional 40 feet for flood

surcharge storage could result in an additional annual

yield of 17 taf at a cost of about $1,200/af. The reservoir would serve coastal areas and the Santa Ynez Valley.

New Reservoirs and Conveyance Facilities

In the Pajaro Valley, constructing a 27-foot high

dam at the existing College Lake drainage pump house

would create a 10 taf reservoir. The reservoir could be

supplied with natural runoff and a supplemental 25 cfs

diversion from Corralitos Creek during the winter. Its

annual yield of 3.4 taf could be supplied to the coastal

or inland distribution systems through a 5-mile,

30-inch diameter pipeline. The cost of this option is

estimated to be under $400/af. Other reservoir options include Corncob Canyon and Pescadero Creek,

both of which could store up to 10 taf; new water supplies produced by either of these options are estimated

to cost about $600/af. Bolsa De San Cayetano (estimated to cost $640/af) could store up to 4 taf. These

latter three options were deferred, as shown in Table 7-17.

A dam on Arroyo Seco was removed from further

consideration as a water supply project, although

TABLE 7-17

Central Coast Region List of Water Management Options (continued)

Option Retain Reason for Deferral

or Defer

Other Local Options

Weather modification Defer Difficult to quantify.

Salinas River Diversion and Distribution Project Retain

Statewide Options

— — See Chapter 6.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-41 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

MCWRA may evaluate it as a flood control project.

The Monterey Peninsula could receive up to 24 taf/yr

from the proposed New Los Padres Reservoir, at a cost

of about $400/af. This new reservoir would inundate

the existing Los Padres Dam on the Carmel River. Although bonds to fund this option were rejected in a

1995 election, Cal-Am announced its intentions to

proceed with a reformulated version of the project with

11 taf of annual yield at a cost of $800/af. SWRCB’s

requirements that Cal-Am provide a new firm supply

for existing uses and improve fishery habitat in the

Carmel River make New Los Padres a likely future

project.

SLOCFC&WCD has an annual 17.5 taf entitlement from Nacimiento Reservoir, only about 1.3 taf

of which is now used. A pipeline would be needed to

distribute the remaining 16.2 taf to 18 water purveyors. The preferred pipeline alignment would go

through the communities of Paso Robles, Templeton,

Atascadero, Santa Margarita, and San Luis Obispo and

terminate near Avila Beach. This option is not affected

by reservoir modifications under consideration by

MCWRA.

There are opportunities to import purchased water wheeled through the CVP or SWP into the

Northern PSA. In the Pajaro Valley, an option involves

connecting a pipeline to USBR’s San Felipe Unit, which

serves CVP water from San Luis Reservoir to Santa

Clara and San Benito Counties. PVWMA could connect to the San Felipe Unit by constructing a 22-mile

pipeline from the Watsonville Turnout. This 42-inch

diameter pipeline with a capacity of 75 cfs would be

able to deliver a maximum of 20 taf/yr. PVWMA does

not have a CVP water service contract. CVPIA banned

execution of new water service contracts for an indefinite period of time. The average annual yield of a

connection to the San Felipe system is estimated to be

13 taf, if a source of purchased water could be found.

Northern Monterey County could also benefit from a

San Felipe extension because of its close proximity to

the Pajaro Valley.

Groundwater Development and Conjunctive Use

Because groundwater is the primary water source

for the Central Coast Region, many options have a

groundwater recharge component alone or in combination with surface water development projects. In the

Pajaro Valley, options include the Pajaro recharge canal (1.5 taf annually) and the College Lake injection/

extraction wells (seven wells to inject diverted surface

runoff currently captured in College Lake). These wells

would be used to extract groundwater during drought

years when deliveries of San Felipe water are reduced.

On the Monterey Peninsula, the Seaside groundwater

basin has the potential to produce an additional 1 taf/

yr. This option may be pursued if legal challenges are

resolved, because of SWRCB’s order which encourages the maximum use of supplies from Seaside to

reduce diversions from the Carmel River. Another option would be to retrofit existing wells in the Seaside

Basin to accomplish both injection and extraction, to

increase storage and to use Carmel River and other

supplies more efficiently. This option would include a

series of new wells and a pipeline system from inland

areas (Fort Ord) to the Monterey Peninsula. The system would be operated primarily for drought year

supply. Yields and costs of this option are unknown at

present.

In Santa Cruz County, options include several new

wells and deep brackish groundwater wells (with reverse osmosis treatment facilities) in the northern coast

area. The new wells would provide an additional water supply of about 3 taf while the brackish wells would

be used for drought contingency. The groundwater

resources of the north county could be increased by

developing small local recharge projects, such as retention basins. However, the incremental yield of these

projects would be small since the soils in the area are

sandy and runoff is already minimal. There are no

physical facilities available for artificial recharge in the

Southern PSA, but there are some potential sites along

coastal streams in San Luis Obispo County where additional runoff could be used for recharging

groundwater basins.

Water Marketing

In the Salinas Valley, SWP water from the Coastal

Branch could be purchased and either traded with San

Luis Obispo County for that county’s existing entitlement to Nacimiento reservoir water or delivered

directly through a pipeline constructed at the

aqueduct’s crossing of the Salinas River. There are presently no local agencies seeking water marketing

arrangements using this approach.

PVWMA is evaluating options for assignment of

CVP water from project agricultural water contractors and opportunities for participation with SCVWD

and San Benito County Flood Control and Water

Conservation District (existing CVP San Felipe Division contractors) in water marketing arrangements.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-42

Water Recycling

For the Northern PSA, water recycling options

include an aquifer storage and recovery program which

would use injection wells to store recycled water produced during the winter, and then would extract this

water for irrigation in the Castroville area during the

summer months. This program has an estimated annual yield of up to 8.3 taf.

In the Pajaro Valley, a 12 or 18 mgd recycling plant

would be constructed adjacent to the existing

Watsonville Wastewater Treatment Plant. The 12 mgd

plant (about 13.4 taf annually) would treat water from

the Watsonville area; the 18 mgd plant (about 20.1 taf

annually) would treat water from both Watsonville and

Santa Cruz. The 18 mgd option would require constructing a pipeline from Santa Cruz to Watsonville to

transport treatment plant effluent.

On the Monterey Peninsula, the Carmel Area

Wastewater District/Pebble Beach Community Services District treatment plant could be expanded to

provide more recycled water (up to 100 af annually)

for use on golf courses, open space, or cemeteries. In

1992, local water agencies studied potential markets

for recycled water produced by the regional recycling

plant near Marina. Potential uses of recycled water in

Fort Ord, Seaside, and other Monterey Peninsula communities having a potential annual demand of up to 1

taf were identified, but the uses were deemed economically infeasible at that time. This study is currently

being updated to reflect the conversion of Fort Ord to

civilian use.

For the Southern PSA, recycled water projects have

been proposed in conjunction with construction of new

or expanded municipal wastewater treatment plants.

In coastal areas—such as San Luis Obispo Bay, Estero,

and south San Luis Obispo County—treated wastewater is discharged to the ocean, and reusing the

wastewater would help reduce water supply shortages.

(In the City of San Luis Obispo and in communities

along the Salinas River, the wastewater recharges the

groundwater basin.)

Planned recycling projects in Santa Barbara

County include the Santa Barbara regional water reuse project, which would provide 1.6 taf of recycled

water annually for landscape irrigation within the City

of Santa Barbara, Montecito Water District, and

Summerland County Water District. This project

would replace potable water being used for irrigation.

Other potential projects involve expanding Lompoc’s

secondary treatment facilities and Santa Barbara’s tertiary treatment facilities for an additional annual yield

of 2 taf by the year 2000.

Desalting

Several coastal cities in the region have identified

desalting options for additional water supply. The City

of Santa Cruz is conducting a feasibility study on a

4.5 taf/yr brackish groundwater desalting plant to

supplement local water supplies. The Cambria and San

Simeon community services districts had plans, recently put on hold, to jointly construct a 320 af/yr

(with ultimate capacity of 1.3 taf annually) seawater

desalting plant. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District’s plans for a 3.4 taf/yr seawater desalting

plant were defeated by voters in the 1992 election.

Other Local Options

In the Salinas Valley, a Salinas River diversion and

distribution project is being planned to transfer up to

35 taf/yr to northern Salinas Valley to halt seawater

intrusion. In the Northern PSA, MCWRA has a

weather modification program which targets the watersheds of the Nacimiento and San Antonio Rivers

and the Arroyo Seco. MCWRA estimates that increased

annual flows into reservoirs ranged from about 8 taf

to 68 taf between 1990 to 1994. San Luis Obispo began a 3-year cloud seeding program in January 1991

to produce more runoff in the Salinas and Lopez Watersheds. Although this program has ended, future

programs may be a possibility. Future weather modification options are difficult to quantify and are not

evaluated in this Bulletin. Weather modification programs are often operated on a year-to-year basis by

water agencies, and usually not reliable supply sources

in drought years due to a lack of storm systems to seed.

Statewide Options

Statewide water supply augmentation options are

discussed and quantified in Chapter 6.

Options Likely to be Implemented

in Central Coast Region

Water supplies are not available to meet all of the

region’s 2020 water demands in average or drought

years. Applied water shortages are forecasted to be

172 taf and 270 taf in average and drought years, respectively. Ranking of retained water management

options for the Central Coast Region is summarized

in Table 7-18. Table 7-19 summarizes options that can

likely be implemented by 2020 to relieve the shortages.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-43 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

TABLE 7-18

Options Ranking for Central Coast Region

Optiona Rank Cost ($/af) Potential Gain (taf)

Average Drought

Conservation

Urban

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8ETo - New Development M 750 4 4

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8ETo

- New and Existing Development M b 13 13

Indoor Water Use (60 gpcd) M 400 8 8

Indoor Water Use (55 gpcd) M 600 17 17

Interior CII Water Use (3%) M 500 2 2

Interior CII Water Use (5%) M 750 3 3

Distribution System Losses (7%) M 200 3 3

Distribution System Losses (5%) M 300 8 8

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations

Modify Nacimiento Spillway H 120 20 b

Enlargement of Salinas Reservoir M 400 2 b

Enlargement of Cachuma Reservoir L 1,200 17 b

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities

College Lake M 350 3 -

Feeder Streams (Various Sites) M 400 b b

New Los Padres Reservoir M 800 11 11

Nacimiento Pipeline M 950 16 16

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use

College Lake Injection/Extraction Wells M 130 2 2

Increase Groundwater Development in Seaside Basin L 410 1 1

Water Marketing

CVP (San Felipe Project Extension) M 580 13 2

Water Recycling

Group 1 (Cost < $500/af) H 500 29 29

Group 2 (Cost $500/af - $1,000/af) M 1,000 8 8

Desalting

Brackish Groundwater

City of Santa Cruz L 1,100 5 5

Seawater

Monterey Peninsula WMD L 1,700 3 3

Other Local Options

Salinas River Diversion and Distribution Project M b 35 b

Statewide Options

See Chapter 6.

a

 All or parts of the amounts shown for highlighted options have been included in Table 7-19.

b Data not available to quantify.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-44

The urban water conservation options beyond

BMPs that would likely be implemented would add

32 taf/yr in depletion reductions in the region. Additional reliance on water recycling will be likely in the

future to alleviate shortages. Additional water recycling

in the region could produce 29 taf/yr of new water

supply. Recycled water would be used for landscaping, direct agricultural application, and groundwater

recharge.

In the Pajaro Valley, options that would likely be

implemented by 2020 would include a pipeline to

connect to the CVP’s San Felipe Unit to provide an

opportunity for water transfers.

Modifying existing reservoirs or constructing new

reservoirs are likely options for the region. One likely

option to augment water supplies in the Salinas Valley

would be to modify Nacimiento’s spillway. Raising the

spillway 6.5 feet would increase storage capacity by

34 taf, increasing the reservoir’s yield by about 20 taf.

Other spillway modifications are also being evaluated

to allow more water to be released throughout the year

for recharge. A long-term water management plan for

the Monterey Peninsula would likely include construction of the proposed New Los Padres Dam, which

could augment supplies by 11 taf/yr.

In San Luis Obispo County, current planning focuses on the Nacimiento pipeline, which would convey

a portion of the county’s entitlement of 17.5 taf/yr

from Lake Nacimiento in northern San Luis Obispo

County. Communities potentially receiving supplies

from this option include the City of San Luis Obispo

and Cayucos (through an exchange of water from

Nacimiento and Whale Rock Reservoirs). In addition,

the communities of Paso Robles, Templeton, and

Atascadero may also receive supplies for groundwater

recharge.

If implemented, the identified options would still

leave remaining shortages in drought years of 100 taf.

TABLE 7-19

Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020 (taf)

Central Coast Region

Average Drought

Applied Water Shortage 172 270

Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020

Conservation 32 32

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 22 a

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 27 27

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 2 2

Water Marketing 13 2

Recycling 29 29

Desalting – –

Other Local Options 35 a

Statewide Options 5 57

Expected Reapplication 7 21

Total Potential Gain 172 170

Remaining Applied Water Shortage 0 100

a

 Data not available to quantify.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-45 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-46

FIGURE 7-5

South Coast Hydrologic Region

VENTURA

LOS ANGELES

ORANGE

SAN DIEGO

RIVERSIDE

M E X I C O

SAN BERNARDINO

Lake

Casitas River

Ventura

Bouquet

Reservoir

Pyramid

Lake

Castaic

Lake

Lake

Piru

Santa Clara River

Chatsworth

Reservoir

Los Angeles

Reservoir

Sespe

Creek

Piru

Creek

San

Luis

Rey

San

River

Diego

duct

Lake

Henshaw

Hansen

Reservoir

Tujunga

Big

Can

San Diego River

Otay

Sweetwater

Reservoir

Lower

Otay

Reservoir

Morena

Lake

Barrett

Lake

River

Sweet

River

El Capitan

Reservoir

San Vicente

Reservoir

Lake

Hodges San

uito River

San

Diego

Aqueduct

Sepulveda

Reservoir

water

San Gabriel

Reservoir

Santa Fe

Reservoir

Whittier

Narrows

Reservoir

Los

Angeles River

Prado

Reservoir

Lake

Mathews

Big Bear

Lake

Lake

Perris

San

Jacinto

River

Colorado River

Aqueduct

Santa

Ana

Lake

Elsinore

Railroad

Canyon

Reservoir

Lake

Skinner

Vail

Lake

Lake

Hemet

Morris

Reservoir

Cuyamaca

Lake

yon

Aque

River

East Branch of

California Aqueduct

Dieg

West Branch of

California Aqueduct

Los Angeles

Aqueduct

Colorado River

Aqueduct

San

iel

River

Gabr

P

a

c

i f i

c

O

c

e

a

n

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-47 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

Description of the Area

The South Coast is California’s most urbanized

hydrologic region (Figure 7-5). 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, and a combination of the San Jacinto

Mountains and low-elevation mountain ranges in central San Diego County on the east, and the Mexican

border on the south. 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.

The climate of the region is Mediterranean-like,

with warm dry summers followed by mild winters. In

the warmer interior, maximum temperatures during

the summer can be over 90o

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 from December through

March. Average annual rainfall can range from 10 to

15 inches on the coastal plains and 20 to 45 inches in

the mountains. Precipitation in the highest mountains

commonly occurs as snow. In most years, snowfall is

sufficient to support 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 1.2 maf annually.

The largest cities in the region are Los Angeles,

San Diego, Long Beach, Santa Ana, and Anaheim. Although highly urbanized, about one-third of the

region’s land is publicly owned. About 2.3 million acres

is public land, of which 75 percent is national forest.

Irrigated crop acreage accounts for a small percent of

land use. Table 7-20 shows the region’s population and

crop acreage for 1995 and 2020.

Water Demands and Supplies

Since the turn of the century, extensive water development has been carried out in the South Coast

Region. Steady expansion of population and of the

economy led to the demands and financial resources

to build large water supply projects for importing water to the region. In 1913, the Los Angeles Aqueduct

began importing water from the Owens Valley to the

South Coast Region. Los Angeles diversions from the

TABLE 7-20

Population and Crop Acreage

Population Irrigated Crop Acreage

(thousands) (thousands of acres)

1995 17,299 313

2020 24,327 190

. . .

South Coast

Hydrologic Region

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-48

Mono Basin began in 1940 when the LAA was extended by about 11 miles (a second conduit was added

in 1970). In 1941, MWDSC completed its Colorado

River Aqueduct, which now provides about 25 percent of the region’s supply. SWP began delivering water

from the Delta to the South Coast Region in 1972.

Table 7-21 shows the water budget for the region.

Los Angeles Aqueduct

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

owns and operates the LAA which diverts both surface and groundwater from the Owens Valley and

surface water from the Mono Basin. The combined

carrying capacity of the aqueduct system is about

760 cfs, or about 550 taf/yr. An average of 400 taf/yr

of water is delivered through the LAA with a record

534 taf in 1983. Court-ordered restrictions on diversions from the Mono Basin and Owens Valley have

reduced the amount of water the City of Los Angeles

can divert (see South Lahontan Region).

Colorado River Aqueduct

MWDSC was created in 1928 to construct and

operate the Colorado River Aqueduct to deliver Colorado River water to Southern California. MWDSC

wholesales water supplies from the Colorado River and

the SWP to water agencies throughout Southern California.

MWDSC and its 27 member agencies (Table 7-

22) serve 95 percent of the South Coast Region. Some

agencies rely solely on MWDSC for their water supply, while many, like the City of Los Angeles, rely on

MWDSC to supplement existing supplies. Between

its fiscal years 1970 and 1994, the City of Los Angeles

Although the South Coast

Region has been extensively

urbanized, some species of

wildlife have learned to

coexist with suburban

development. The region’s

remaining riparian areas

still support such common

mammals as skunks and

raccoons.

TABLE 7-21

South Coast Region Water Budget (taf)a

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 4,340 4,382 5,519 5,612

Agricultural 784 820 462 484

Environmental 100 82 104 86

Total 5,224 5,283 6,084 6,181

Supplies

Surface Water 3,839 3,196 3,625 3,130

Groundwater 1,177 1,371 1,243 1,462

Recycled and Desalted 207 207 273 273

Total 5,224 4,775 5,141 4,865

Shortage 0 508 944 1,317

a

 Water use/supply totals and shortages may not sum due to rounding.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-49 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

purchased an average of 130 taf/yr from MWDSC,

about 20 percent of the City’s total water supply. In

1996, almost 90 percent (447 taf) of San Diego County

Water Authority’s total water supply was purchased

from MWDSC.

MWDSC has received Colorado River water since

1941 under contracts with USBR. These contracts have

allowed the diversion of 1.21 maf/yr, as well as 180 taf/

yr of surplus water when available. (The maximum

capacity of the CRA is 1.3 maf/yr.) California’s basic

apportionment of Colorado River water is 4.4 maf/yr

plus one-half of any surplus water, when available. In

the past, California was able to use hydrologic surpluses and the amount apportioned to, but not used

by, Nevada and Arizona. With completion of the Central Arizona Project and Arizona’s 1996 enactment of

a state groundwater banking act, Arizona’s use has

reached it basic apportionment. California’s reduction

of Colorado River use from current levels to 4.4 maf /

yr has significant implications for the South Coast Region. (See the issues section below and the Colorado

River Region in Chapter 9). California’s Colorado River

use reached a high of 5.4 maf in 1974, and has varied

from 4.5 maf to 5.3 maf annually over the past 10 years.

State Water Project

Local agencies contracting with the SWP for part

of their supplies are shown in Table 7-23.

MWDSC is the largest SWP contractor, with an

annual entitlement of more than 2 maf. In 1992,

Castaic Lake Water Agency assumed the SWP contract of Devil’s Den Water District in the Tulare Lake

For much of its length,

LADWP’s aqueduct skirts

the eastern flank of the

Sierra Nevada.

TABLE 7-22

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Member Agencies

Cities Municipal Water Districts Water Authority

Anaheim Calleguas San Diego County

Beverly Hills Central Basin

Burbank Chino Basin

Compton Coastal

Fullerton Eastern

Glendale Foothill

Long Beach Las Virgenes

Los Angeles Orange County

Pasadena Three Valleys

San Fernando West Basin

San Marino Upper San Gabriel Valley

Santa Ana Western of Riverside County

Santa Monica

Torrance

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-50

Region, increasing Castaic’s entitlement to 54.2 taf.

Within the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water

District service area, groundwater is the major water

source, and hence the district has used little of its SWP

water. Ventura County Flood Control District also

relies mostly on groundwater and has taken delivery

of SWP supply only twice, during the drought in 1990

and 1991. San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (which

also serves a portion of the Colorado River Region)

lacks the facilities to take delivery of SWP water, and

to date has received no supply from the SWP.

The Department is working with the SGPWA and

SBVMWD to extend the East Branch of the California Aqueduct to SGPWA, which serves the Banning

Pass area of Riverside County (including the communities of Banning and Beaumont), and to provide system improvements to SBVMWD. The Notice of

Determination for the final supplemental EIR was filed

in March 1998. The project will be constructed in two

phases. Phase I construction is scheduled to begin in

late 1998 and to be completed by late 2000. A second

phase will be constructed to serve the Mentone area if

demand increases.

Local Surface Water Supplies

Table 7-24 lists major local storage reservoirs in

the region. Most of the larger reservoirs in the region

have water supply as their primary purpose. However,

several of the larger water supply reservoirs do not develop local supply—they are the terminal facilities of

the major conveyance facilities that import water to

the region.

Table 7-25 lists local water supply reservoirs in

MWDSC’s service area with at least 10 taf storage capacity.

About 96 percent of San Diego County’s population resides within SDCWA’s service area. SDCWA, a

wholesale water agency, purchases imported water from

MWDSC and delivers the water to its 23 member

agencies (Table 7-26) in the western third of San Diego County through two aqueduct systems. SDCWA’s

maximum annual delivery was 647 taf in 1990. Most

of San Diego’s in-county water supplies are from local

agencies’ surface reservoirs. Twenty-four surface reservoirs are located within its service area, with a combined

capacity of approximately 569 taf. Some reservoirs are

connected to SDCWA’s aqueduct system and can receive imported water in addition to surface runoff. In

1995, local water sources provided 118 taf, or 23 percent of the water used in SDCWA’s service area. (Since

1980, local surface water supplies have ranged from

33 taf to 174 taf annually.)

TABLE 7-23

State Water Project Contractors in the South Coast Region

Agency Contract SWP Deliveries

Entitlement (taf) in 1995 (taf)

Castaic Lake WA 54.2 27.2

San Bernardino Valley MWD 102.6 0.7

San Gabriel Valley MWD 28.8 12.9

San Gorgonio Pass WA 17.3 0

MWDSC 2,011.5 436.0

Ventura County FCD 20.0a 0

a

 Ventura County FCD subleases 1.85 taf/yr to MWDSC.

The Department’s A.D. Edmonston Pumping Plant lifts

California Aqueduct water 1,926 feet across the Tehachapi

Mountains to serve Southern California. The maximum

plant capacity is 4,480 cfs.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-51 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

TABLE 7-24

Major Reservoirs in the South Coast Regiona

Reservoir Owner Capacity Primary

(taf) Purpose

Casitas USBR 254 Water Supply

Lake Piru United WCD 88 Water Supply

Pyramid DWR 171 Water Supply

Castaic DWR 324 Water Supply

Big Bear Lake Big Bear MWD 73 Water Supply

Perris DWR 132 Water Supply

Mathews MWDSC 182 Water Supply

Vail Rancho California WD 51 Water Supply

Henshaw Vista ID 52 Water Supply

San Vicente City of San Diego 90 Water Supply

El Capitan City of San Diego 113 Water Supply

Morena City of San Diego 50 Water Supply

Whittier Narrows USACE 67 Flood Control

Pradob USACE 188 Flood Control

Seven Oaks (under construction) USACE 146 Flood Control

Eastside (under construction) MWDSC 800 Water Supply

a

 Reservoirs with capacity greater than 50 taf.

b 26 taf of storage capacity is used for water supply purposes, for downstream groundwater recharge.

TABLE 7-25

Reservoirs Owned by Water Retailers in MWDSC’s Service Areaa

 Reservoir Agency Capacity (taf)

Bard Calleguas MWD 10

Vail Rancho California 51

Hemet Lake Hemet MWD 14

Westlake Las Virgenes MWD 10

Los Angeles City of Los Angeles 10

Stone Canyon City of Los Angeles 11

Santiago Irvine Ranch WD & Serrano ID 25

Henshaw Vista ID 52

Barrett City of San Diego 38

El Capitan City of San Diego 113

Lake Hodges City of San Diego 34

Morena City of San Diego 50

Lower Otay City of San Diego 50

San Vicente City of San Diego 90

Sutherland City of San Diego 30

Loveland South Bay ID 25

Sweetwater South Bay ID 28

Railroad Canyon Temescal Water Company 12

a

 Reservoirs with capacity of at least 10 taf.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-52

TABLE 7-26

San Diego County Water Authority Member Agencies

Cities

Del Mar

Escondido

National City

Oceanside

Poway

San Diego

Water Districts

Helix

Otay

San Dieguito

Vallecitos

Municipal Water Districts

Carlsbad

Olivenhain

Padre Dam

Rainbow

Ramona

Rincon Del Diablo

Valley Center

Yuima

Irrigation Districts

Santa Fe

South Bay

Vista

Public Utility District

Fallbrook

Reservation

Pendleton Military

Ex-Officio Member

San Diego County

The City of San Diego’s

Murray Dam, shown under

construction in 1917, is a

multiple arch concrete dam

impounding a 6 taf reservoir.

The wooden stave pipeline

below conveyed supplies for

the Cuyamaca Water

Company.

Courtesy of Water Resources Center

Archives, University of California, Berkeley

Groundwater Supplies

Groundwater is a major local supply source in the

remaining counties in MWDSC’s service area. For example local supplies developed by individual retail

agencies, primarily groundwater, presently account for

about 50 percent of Orange County’s water use. There

are numerous groundwater basins (Figure 7-6) along

the coast and inland valleys of the region. Many of

these basins are actively managed by public agencies

or have been adjudicated by the courts. Some groundwater basins are as large as several hundred square miles

in area and have a capacity exceeding 10 maf. The

South Coast’s current estimated annual groundwater

use is about 1.2 maf. Recharge occurs from natural infiltration along river valleys, but in many cases facilities

have been constructed to recharge local, imported, or

recycled supplies. For example, in average years the

Los Angeles Department of Public Works intentionEE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-53 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

FIGURE 7-6

South Coast Groundwater Basins

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-54

ally recharges 230 taf of local flows, 60 taf of imported

water, and 50 taf of recycled water. These surface supplies not only replenish groundwater basins, but can

be banked for later use. Programs are in place to bank

imported water, when available in wetter periods, to

increase groundwater production during the summer

season and in drought years. At a 1995 level of development, about 100 taf is banked in average years. This

water is included as an average year urban water demand in Bulletin 160-98 water budgets for the South

Coast.

Table 7-27 shows adjudicated groundwater basins

in the South Coast Region. In the adjudicated groundwater basins, the court appoints watermasters to oversee

the court judgement. The court judgement limits the

amount of groundwater that can be extracted by parties to the judgement.

Local Water Resources

Management Issues

Water Supply Reliability

Since local supplies are insufficient to meet water

demands, the region imports more than 60 percent of

its supply. A natural disaster or other emergency that

would curtail or limit imports to the region would be

detrimental. Water supply reliability is a critical issue

for the region and water agencies are seeking to ensure

a more reliable and adequate supply in case of emergencies.

Eastside Reservoir. MWDSC provides about

60 percent of the water used by the nearly 16 million

people living on the coastal plain between Ventura

County and the Mexican border. MWDSC is constructing Eastside Reservoir to better manage its water

supplies between wet and dry years. The 800 taf reservoir, located near Hemet in southwestern Riverside

County, will nearly double the region’s existing surface storage capacity and will provide increased terminal

storage for SWP and Colorado River supplies. When

completed, Eastside Reservoir would provide the entire region with a six-month emergency supply after

an earthquake or other disaster. It would also provide

water supply for drought protection and peak summer demands.

Under construction in the Domenigoni and Diamond Valleys, the $2 billion project consists of two

embankments to block the east and west ends of the

valleys, and a saddle dam located along a low point in

the hills which form the northern boundary of the reservoir. The reservoir includes a forebay and pumping

plant, and the 8-mile, 12-foot diameter Eastside Pipeline. After reservoir completion in 1999, up to four

years will be needed to fill the reservoir with imported

water. Water from the Colorado River Aqueduct will

be delivered through the San Diego Aqueduct to the

reservoir forebay and pumped into the reservoir. SWP

water will either be delivered from the Santa Ana Valley Pipeline and bypassed around Lake Perris, or taken

from Lake Perris and conveyed through MWDSC’s

system into the reservoir forebay.

The Inland Feeder is a new conveyance facility to

deliver SWP water made available by enlargement of

the East Branch of the California Aqueduct. Upon its

completion in 2004, the Inland Feeder will deliver

Plans to construct a San

Diego emergency storage

project reflect the area’s

vulnerability to natural

disasters such as earthquakes.

Much of the area’s supplies

are imported through the

Colorado River Aqueduct.

This photo shows an early

example of local conveyance

projects—a wooden trestle

carrying a flume across the

Sweetwater River.

Courtesy of Water Resources Center

Archives, University of California, Berkeley

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-55 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

TABLE 7-27

Adjudicated Groundwater Basins in the South Coast Region

Court Name Filed in Final Watermaster Basin Name, County

Court Decision

Upper Los Angeles 1955 1979 Superior Court appointee San Fernando Valley Basin (entire

River Area watershed), Los Angeles County

Raymond Basin 1937 1944 Raymond Basin Management Northwest part of San Gabriel

Board Valley Basin, Los Angeles County

Main San Gabriel 1968 1973 9-Member Board appointed by San Gabriel Valley Basin, excluding

Basin the Los Angeles County Superior Raymond Basin, Los Angeles

Court County

Central Basin 1962 1965 DWR Northeast part of Coastal Plain of

Los Angeles County Basin, Los

Angeles County

West Coast Basin 1946 1961 DWR Southwest part of Coastal Plain of

Los Angeles County Basin, Los

Angeles County

Puente 1985 1985 Two consultants, one Southwest part of San Gabriel

representing the Walnut Valley Valley Basin, Los Angeles County

WD and Rowland WD; and one

for the City of Industry and

Industry Urban Development

Agency; and a third neutral party

Santa Margarita 1951 1966 U.S. District Court appointee The entire Santa Margarita River

River Watershed watershed, including Santa

Margarita Coastal, MurrietaTemecula and Anza-Cahuilla

groundwater basins, San Diego and

Riverside Counties

Santa Paula Basin 1991 1996 3 person Technical Advisory Sub-basin of Santa Clara River,

Committee from United Water Ventura County

Conservation District, City of

Ventura, and Santa Paula Basin

Pumpers Association

Chino Basin 1978 1978 9-Member Board Chino Basin, northwest part of

Upper Santa Ana Valley Basin, San

Bernardino and Riverside Counties

Cucamonga Basin N/A 1958 Cucamonga County WD and Cucamonga Basin, north-central

San Antonio Water Company part of Upper Santa Ana Valley

Basin, San Bernardino County

San Bernardino 1963 1969 One representative each from Northeast part of Upper Santa Ana

Basin Area Western Municipal Water Basin, San Bernardino and

District and San Bernardino Riverside Counties

Valley Municipal Water District

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-56

water by gravity to Eastside Reservoir via 43.7 miles of

tunnels and pipeline that start at Devil Canyon and

tie into the CRA and Eastside Pipeline. The Inland

Feeder will provide system reliability by linking together the SWP and Colorado River systems, and will

improve water quality by allowing greater blending of

SWP and Colorado River waters.

San Diego Emergency Water Storage Project.

SDCWA does not own or operate treatment or storage facilities. It has a contractual agreement with the

City of San Diego to store up to 40 taf of water in San

Vicente and Lower Otay Reservoirs. To increase local

supplies that would be available during times of emergency, SDCWA has proposed an emergency storage

project that could increase the county’s total water storage by 90 taf. Use of the project would be limited to

emergency situations, such as prolonged drought or

catastrophic failure of the San Diego Aqueduct during

an earthquake. Although not a water supply development project, the emergency water storage project

would provide incidental local supply benefits by allowing capture of additional winter runoff.

Four project alternatives were evaluated. All involved increased surface storage and new distribution

systems. Three alternatives additionally involved reservoir reoperation.

• San Vicente stand-alone. Expand San Vicente

Reservoir by raising the dam 83 feet to contain

90.1 taf of emergency storage.

• Moosa Canyon construction/Lake Hodges

reoperation. Construct a new dam at Moosa Canyon to hold 68 taf and reoperate Lake Hodges to

provide 22 taf.

• San Vicente expansion and reoperation. Raise the

dam by 65 feet, adding 68 taf of emergency storage and reoperate the reservoir to provide an

additional 22 taf.

• Olivenhain construction, Lake Hodges

reoperation, and San Vicente expansion. Build a

new 320-foot high dam at the Olivenhain site to

create 18 taf of emergency storage (24 taf total

capacity, with 4 taf reserved for Olivenhain

MWD). Reoperate Lake Hodges to provide an additional 20 taf and raise San Vicente Dam by

54 feet to hold an additional 52 taf.

The preferred alternative is the OlivenhainHodges-San Vicente project. A new reservoir would

be constructed about 1 mile northwest of Lake Hodges

in conjunction with Olivenhain Municipal Water District. Olivenhain Reservoir, which would also serve as

operational storage for Olivenhain MWD, would be

connected to Lake Hodges by a 1.5-mile pipeline. San

Vicente Dam would be raised from 234 feet to

288 feet. The Olivenhain-Hodges-San Vicente project

would add 90 taf of emergency storage capacity. The

final EIR was certified in 1996. In 1997, USACE issued a record of decision on the final EIS and a permit

for the project under Section 404 of the federal Clean

Water Act. Construction of the $550 million project

is scheduled to begin in 1999 and be completed by

2011. SDCWA has agreements with the City of San

Diego regarding joint use of San Vicente Reservoir and

Lake Hodges, and with Olivenhain MWD concerning joint use of the Olivenhain Reservoir. (Olivenhain

MWD had planned to construct a 5 to 8 taf reservoir

at the site for its own use if SDCWA did not go forward with a joint project.) Olivenhain MWD would

construct a 20 mgd water treatment plant (to be expanded to 80 mgd ultimately) in conjunction with

storage at Olivenhain reservoir.

Management of California’s

Colorado River Water

A major water management issue facing the South

Coast Region is California’s use of Colorado River water

in excess of its basic annual apportionment of 4.4 maf.

In the past, Arizona and Nevada were not using the

full amount of their annual apportionments, and California was able to use the amount apportioned to, but

not used by, Nevada and Arizona, and to use wet year

surplus flows. As described in more detail in Chapter

9, the Colorado River Board’s draft 4.4 Plan describes

how California would reduce its use of river water over

time.

The draft CRB 4.4 Plan includes actions that

would be taken in two phases. The first phase, extending from the present to 2010 or 2015, would comprise

those actions that are now in some stage of planning

and implementation. These programs are intended to

reduce California’s annual use of Colorado River water to about 4.6 to 4.7 maf. The second phase would

comprise actions that have not yet been formulated

and quantified. Examples of phase one actions include

the SDCWA/IID transfer, lining of parts of the AllAmerican and Coachella Canals, and groundwater

banking projects associated with surplus Colorado

River water that could be conveyed in MWDSC’s aqueduct. Examples of potential phase two actions

include proposals to desalt water in Salton Sea tributaries and to convey the treated water to the South

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-57 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

Coast Region. (Actions such as agricultural water conservation programs or desalting proposals that would

reduce the amount of fresh water inflow to the Salton

Sea are subject to environmental review to ensure that

they will not significantly affect the sea. A description

of the Salton Sea and its environmental resources is

provided in Chapter 9.)

The draft CRB 4.4 Plan would in essence reduce

California’s use of Colorado River water in agricultural

areas in the Colorado River Region, transfer conserved

Colorado River water to the South Coast Region for

urban use, and define how water from wet year surpluses (and the unused apportionments of other states,

when available) could be used to help keep the Colorado River Aqueduct full. When California is limited

to its basic apportionment of 4.4 maf, MWDSC would

only be able to exercise its fourth priority right to 550

taf, as compared to maximum aqueduct capacity of

1.3 maf.

Mono Basin

The City of Los Angeles’ water diversions from

Mono Basin lowered Mono Lake’s water level by more

than 40 feet since 1941 and also increased the lake’s

salinity. (See the South Lahontan Region in Chapter 9

for more detailed discussion of Mono Lake issue.) In

1994, SWRCB adopted Water Right Decision 1631

amending the city’s water rights for diverting water

from Mono Basin. The decision restricts diversions

from the basin to increase and maintain Mono Lake’s

level to 6,391 feet above sea level. During the period

of Mono Lake’s transition to the 6,391-foot level (estimated to take about 20 years), the maximum amount

of water that Los Angeles can divert from the basin is

16 taf/yr. Long-term Los Angeles diversions from the

Mono Basin are projected to be about 31 taf/yr after

Mono Lake has reached the 6,391-foot level, or onethird of the city’s historical diversions from the Mono

Basin.

Restoration of Coastal Wetlands and Estuaries

Ballona Wetlands Preserve. Although the majority of California’s wetlands habitat is found in the

Central Valley and San Francisco Bay area, there are

significant wetlands in the South Coast, as described

below. The Ballona wetlands is one of the more wellknown South Coast wetlands.

The Ballona Wetlands Preserve, located in Los

Angeles County near Marina Del Rey, is one of the

few tidal marshes in Southern California. It is a complex of estuary, lagoon, salt marsh, freshwater marsh,

and dune habitats. It provides nesting grounds for

migrating waterfowl, supports a variety of plant, fish,

and animal life, and is home to two endangered species—Belding’s Savannah sparrow and the California

least tern. The present Ballona wetlands is a small remnant of what existed in the early 1800s, when the

wetlands comprised more than 2,000 acres. At the

present time, it has been reduced to a little more than

180 acres.

The Ballona Wetlands Preserve was the subject of

a long-running debate among private property owners and environmental groups that began in 1984 when

the California Coastal Commission approved a land

use plan to develop the wetlands. In the years that followed, the parties negotiated a settlement to litigation

over the development. The settlement provides for:

• Restoration of 190 acres of salt marsh habitat. Plans

are underway to provide the eastern portion of the

salt marsh with full tidal flow and expanded habitat for sub-tidal and mudflat organisms. The

western portion would be provided with muted

tidal flow to protect and enhance existing salt

marsh habitat for pickleweed and the Belding’s Savannah sparrow.

• A 34-acre freshwater marsh.

• A 25-acre corridor of riparian habitat along

Centinela Creek. This area will potentially provide appropriate vegetation for the least Bell’s vireo

and a wide variety of other birds which nest in

riparian trees.

• Restoration of 48 acres of upland, bluff edge, and

coastal strand habitat.

When completed, the Ballona Wetlands Preserve

will be one of the largest wildlife sanctuaries in any

major U.S. city.

Santa Monica Bay. Santa Monica Bay extends

about 50 miles from Point Hume to Palos Verdes Point.

A coordinated effort to improve the Santa Monica Bay

ecosystem began with establishment of the Santa

Monica Bay restoration project. SMBRP was included

in the Clean Water Act’s National Estuary Program in

1988, and was charged with assessing the bay’s problems and with producing a bay restoration plan.

Implementation of the plan, approved by the Governor in 1994, and by the Administrator of EPA in 1995,

is currently under way.

Prado Wetlands Project. OCWD owns

2,150 acres behind Prado Dam in Riverside County

where the district operates constructed freshwater wetEE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-58

lands to reduce the nitrogen concentration of river

water. USACE’s Prado Flood Control Basin is operated primarily for flood control. Under an agreement

with USACE and USFWS, OCWD uses 25.75 taf of

the reservoir’s capacity for water supply. OCWD diverts Santa Ana River water through 465 acres of

constructed wetlands for biochemical nitrogen removal.

Because Santa Ana River water provides much of the

recharge for Orange County’s coastal plain groundwater basin, nitrogen removal is important to improving

water quality.

The Prado wetlands are home to several rare and

endangered bird and waterfowl species. As part of the

three party agreement, OCWD set aside more than

226 acres as habitat for the endangered least Bell’s vireo

and southwestern willow flycatcher.

Flood Control

As noted earlier, groundwater constitutes most of

the local water supply in the region. Local surface water resources are relatively limited. In the Los

Angeles-Orange County coastal strip, most of the rivers and streams that drain to the Pacific Ocean have

been developed primarily for flood control purposes,

rather than for surface water supply. (Some of these

reservoirs are operated to provide surface flows for

groundwater recharge.) A few of the existing flood

control reservoirs are now being evaluated for their

potential to provide some, albeit small, water supply

benefits, usually by reoperation of the facilities to enhance groundwater recharge and provide limited

year-round storage. Several of these facilities are discussed in the water management options section. Below

are a few examples of flood control-related water management issues in the region.

Los Angeles River. USACE, in cooperation with

Los Angeles County, has constructed an extensive network of flood control facilities on the Los Angeles River,

which passes through one of the most intensively urbanized areas in the South Coast Region. (In fact,

discussions on transportation issues in the region sometimes mention converting the existing concrete channel

into a freeway or high-occupancy-vehicle transit route.)

USACE’s flood control facilities on the Los Angeles

River and its tributaries include 5 major dams, 22 debris basins, and 470 miles of channel modifications.

Flood control operations in coastal Southern California and their interaction with reservoir operations

for water supply typically differ from those in Northern California. The Sierran reservoirs in the Central

Valley that provide most of California’s developed surface water supply are, as a broad generalization,

operated from a water supply standpoint to manage

snowmelt runoff that occurs over a period of several

months, and to hold large volumes of carryover storage throughout the year. Flood control reservoirs in

coastal Southern California are operated to provide

short-term detention (days to weeks) of peak flows from

rainfloods. Many of these reservoirs impound ephemeral streams, or streams whose runoff is so small that

little water supply benefit is available.

USACE’s facilities on the Los Angeles River were

designed to provide temporary detention of peak flows,

allowing the floodflows to be released to the Pacific

Ocean without exceeding downstream channel capacities. Continually increasing water demands in the

South Coast Region have prompted reevaluting operations of some of the larger facilities, to determine if

their operations could be modified to provide limited

additional water supply. One example is a 67 taf flood

control detention basin impounded by Whittier Narrows Dam on Rio Hondo, a Los Angeles River

tributary, described in the water management options

section.

An aerial view of the

constructed wetlands behind

Prado Dam.

Courtesy of Orange County Water District

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-59 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

Santa Ana River. The Santa Ana River has been

channelized for almost its entire length throughout the

highly urbanized part of Orange County, from the

river’s mouth near Costa Mesa upstream to the vicinity of Yorba Linda. Prado Dam, located in the Corona

area between the Chino Hills and the Santa Ana Mountains, impounds a large flood control detention basin.

USACE has constructed several flood control features

of the Santa Ana mainstem project, with the most recent facility of that project being Seven Oaks Dam.

The 550-foot high Seven Oaks Dam is under construction about 35 miles upstream from Prado Dam

and will have a gross storage capacity of about 146 taf.

The existing 134-foot high earthfill Prado Dam

has a storage capacity of 188 taf. OCWD manages the

water supply provided by the dam for groundwater

recharge. Future plans entail enlarging Prado’s capacity to 363 taf for flood control and water supply storage.

After Prado Dam is enlarged, OCWD would propose

to raise the reservoir’s minimum pool level to increase

water supply benefits. Enlargement would be accompanied by development of a new flood forecasting

system for the reservoir. The district is currently undertaking a feasibility study with USACE to evaluate

potential water supply gains from Prado’s enlargement.

Modifying flood control operations would provide an

additional 3 to 5 taf of annual supply for groundwater

recharge.

Salinity Management Actions

Imported Colorado River water is a significant

source of supply for the South Coast Region. The total dissolved solids concentration in imported water

has water management implications for the region,

affecting the feasibility of water recycling and groundwater recharge programs. Because residential use of

water increases TDS concentration, water recycled

from a moderately high TDS source water can result

in unacceptably high TDS concentrations. Groundwater recharge potential may be restricted because the

RWQCB has established TDS requirements for recharge water in some groundwater basins, to protect

existing basin water quality.

In 1996, USBR and MWDSC began a joint salinity management study to develop information to

support adoption of regional salinity management

policies by MWDSC and to coordinate interagency

action to solve salinity problems. The study’s initial

phase focused on identifying problems and salinity

management needs in MWDSC’s service area.

Phase I identified the average TDS concentration

of MWDSC’s Colorado River water in 1996 as being

about 700 mg/L, and average TDS of MWDSC’s SWP

supplies as being about 300 mg/L. The City of Los

Angeles’ water supply from the eastern Sierra Nevada

had significantly lower TDS concentration, typically

about 160 mg/L. TDS levels in local groundwater supplies in the South Coast Region vary considerably,

ranging from 200 mg/L (Cucamonga Basin near Upland) to more than 1,000 mg/L (Arlington Basin near

Corona). Table 7-28 shows groundwater supplies by

salinity.

Local sources of salinity also contribute significantly. Municipal and industrial use of water add

between 250 to 500 mg/L of TDS to wastewater. Key

sources of local salts include water softeners (typically

contributing from 5 to 10 percent of the salt load) and

industrial processes.

The long-term salt balance of South Coast groundwater basins is an important management problem.

Smaller basins like the Arlington and Mission groundwater basins were abandoned for municipal supply

because of high salinity levels. These basins have only

recently been restored through construction of desalting projects. Blending SWP and Colorado River

supplies or using the SWP’s relatively low TDS supplies for groundwater replenishment has been a goal

in some areas. However, without an ocean outfall or

stream discharge, some inland agencies that reuse

wastewater have salt accumulation problems in their

groundwater basins. Some inland agencies have access

to a brine line for exporting salt and concentrated

wastes to a coastal treatment plant and ocean outfall,

while others have not found construction of a brine

line economical.

During droughts when use of recycled water

projects and marginal quality groundwater are most

important, some local supplies may be constrained by

water quality problems. Concerns about wastewater

TDS have grown with the expansion of water recyTABLE 7-28

Salinity of South Coast Region Groundwater

Supplies

Annual Production TDS Percent

(maf) (mg/L)

<500 1.06 78

500 to 1,000 0.15 11

>1,000 0.15 11

Total 1.36 100

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-60

cling programs. In general, TDS more than 1,000 mg/L

is a quality problem for irrigation and industrial reuse

customers.

The MWDSC/USBR study’s second phase will

evaluate regional applications of four TDS management options: local water service control, imported

water source control, desalting, and blending.

Groundwater Issues

San Gabriel and San Fernando Valleys. Groundwater contamination in the San Gabriel Valley and San

Fernando Valley Basins has come from many sources

dating back to the 1940s. Each basin has four areas on

EPA’s Superfund list.

More than 30 square miles of groundwater under

the San Gabriel Valley Basin may be contaminated.

Contamination from volatile organic compounds was

first detected in 1979 when Aerojet Electrosystems in

Azusa sampled nearby wells in Valley County Water

District. Subsequently, DHS initiated a well sampling

program to assess the extent of contamination. By

1984, 59 wells were found to be contaminated with

high levels of VOCs. The most prevalent contaminants

were trichloroethene, perchloroethylene, and carbon

tetrachloride.

The San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority

was created by the Legislature in 1993 to be the agency

responsible for remediating groundwater contamination in San Gabriel Valley. The authority’s mission is

to plan and implement groundwater quality management programs and to protect the basin from future

contamination. The SGBWQA is governed by a 5-

member board, comprised of one member from each

of the overlying municipal water districts, one from a

city with prescriptive water pumping rights and one

from a city without prescriptive water pumping rights.

(The three municipal water districts are San Gabriel

Valley MWD, Three Valleys MWD, and Upper San

Gabriel Valley MWD.)

Currently, four areas of the basin are of concern:

Whittier Narrows, Puente Basin, Baldwin Park/Azusa,

and El Monte/South El Monte. The SGBWQA is involved in groundwater cleanup projects in these areas.

The Whittier Narrows and Puente Basins are also being managed by EPA under its Superfund program.

Another concern is that contamination in the South

El Monte area might migrate from the San Gabriel

Basin through Whittier Narrows and into the Central

Basin.

The Arrow Well Treatment Plant in Baldwin Park

was the first project implemented by SGBWQA, with

a $1.3 million construction grant from SWRCB. The

project, completed in 1992, extracts about 3 taf/yr of

contaminated groundwater, treats the water, and distributes it to customers. The Big Dalton Well

Treatment Project was the second in a series of projects

focusing on contamination problems in the Baldwin

Park area. The facility, designed to extract and treat

approximately 4 taf/yr of contaminated groundwater,

is part of a three-well barrier to stop migration of contaminated groundwater. The Monrovia Wells project

currently treats approximately 4.6 taf/yr of contaminated groundwater with airstripping, giving the City

of Monrovia the ability to use water from contaminated aquifers while preventing the spread of

contamination to adjacent clean aquifers. In 1996, legislation was enacted extending SGBWQA’s authority

to remediate groundwater contamination in the San

Gabriel Basin through July 1, 2002.

About 50 percent of the water supply wells in the

eastern portion of the San Fernando Valley Basin were

found to be contaminated with volatile organic compounds. Many of the wells have been shut down. The

RWQCB is investigating area-wide sources of groundwater contamination for four Superfund sites in the

San Fernando Valley Basin. Interim clean-up measures

include groundwater pumping and treatment.

Actions taken to address groundwater contamination included a basin-wide Superfund investigation,

completed in 1992. The study included installation of

87 monitoring wells, development of a basin-wide

groundwater flow model, and evaluation of the extent

of contamination. Presently, two large-scale plants are

in operation—the North Hollywood Treatment Plant

(2,000 gpm) which uses aeration with GAC scrubbing

and the Burbank Operable Unit (9,000 gpm) which

uses aeration with GAC scrubbing and liquid-phase

GAC polishing units. The Pollock Wells Treatment

Plant (3,000 gpm) is under construction with a startup date in 1998, and two additional plants, the 5,000

gpm Glendale Operable Unit and the 13,500 gpm

Headworks Wells Treatment Plant, are in the planning/

preliminary design phase. These plants will collectively

treat over 48 taf/yr of San Fernando Basin’s groundwater supply. The basin provides urban water supply

for Los Angeles, Burbank, Glendale, and La Crescenta.

San Bernardino Valley. As late as the 1940s, the

lowest portion of San Bernardino Valley was largely

marshlands with abundant springs. Downtown San

Bernardino is located over a confined aquifer which

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-61 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

experiences high groundwater levels. Buildings have

experienced seepage of water into basements or ground

floors. High groundwater conditions increase soil liquefaction potential in an area that could be affected by

movement along the Cucamonga, San Jacinto, or San

Andreas Faults. The presence of unreinforced masonry

buildings above the confined aquifer increases the risk

of damage in the event of liquefaction.

The Bunker Hill Basin groundwater extraction

project involves extracting groundwater from the basin to lower groundwater levels, thereby reducing

seismic risks. The water could potentially be sold to

help offset project costs. Groundwater extraction for

this project will not exceed the perennial yield of the

San Bernardino Basin (which includes both Bunker

Hill and Lytle Creek Basins). The ultimate goal of the

extraction project is to reduce the unacceptably high

groundwater levels in the basin. A suggested minimum

depth target of 30 feet below ground surface in the

confined zone would minimize the risk of liquefaction and other adverse impacts associated with high

groundwater. One plan being considered is for San

Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District to pump

between 20 taf/yr and 70 taf/yr, with larger volumes

being extracted as necessary after exceptionally wet

seasons.

Ventura County. Groundwater is the main water

supply for agricultural and urban use in much of the

coastal plain of Ventura County, including Oxnard

Plain. Seawater intrusion was initially observed in the

late 1940s, following the widespread development of

agriculture and food processing in the Oxnard Plain.

Increasing water demands in the 1940s led to overdraft of groundwater aquifers underlying the plain.

In the 1990s demand has decreased due to agricultural and urban water conservation measures.

Recent estimates show an approximate balance between

extractions and recharge because of increased artificial

recharge and a reduction in groundwater extraction

required by Fox Canyon Groundwater Management

Agency. The agency adopted ordinances requiring

meter installation on wells extracting more than 50 af/

yr, and restricting drilling of new wells in some areas.

In 1991, United Water Conservation District completed construction of the Freeman Diversion

improvement project on Santa Clara River. This project

increased average annual diversions from the river from

40 taf to 60 taf. The diverted water is used for groundwater recharge and irrigation, reducing agricultural

demand for groundwater.

Southern California Comprehensive Water

Reclamation and Reuse Study

In 1993 USBR, seven local agencies and the Department began evaluating the feasibility of regional

water recycling in Southern California. The seven participating local agencies are: Central and West Basin

Municipal Water Districts, City of Los Angeles, City

of San Diego, MWDSC, SDCWA, Santa Ana Water

Project Authority, and South Orange County Reclamation Authority. Regional planning would take

advantage of potential surpluses of recycled water which

could serve needs in areas throughout Southern California. The plan of study called for a three-part, six-year

comprehensive effort to identify a regional recycling

system and develop potential projects.

The study has identified regional and area-wide

water recycling potential for 20 and 50 year planning

horizons. An economic distribution model will be used

to maximize the allocation of recycled water at minimum cost throughout the region.

Water Marketing

The highly urbanized South Coast Region relies

substantially on imported water. Water wholesalers

serving the region expect to acquire part of their future supplies from water marketing arrangements,

using the Colorado River Aqueduct and California Aqueduct to convey the acquired water.

A difficulty associated with future supply from

water marketing arrangements—as opposed to from

fixed facilities such as reservoirs or water recycling

plants—is the greater uncertainty involved in forecasting future contractual arrangements for transfers. For

example, SDCWA recently released a request for proposals for entities interested in selling water both on a

short-term or long-term basis. Details of marketing

arrangements developed would depend on specific

terms and conditions negotiated for each arrangement.

An urban agency may plan to acquire water from agricultural users in the Central Valley or the Colorado

River Region, but terms and conditions of the transfers are subject to negotiation with potential sellers and

the availability of conveyance. There are many ways to

structure marketing arrangements—long-term agreements for base year transfers that occur every year

regardless of hydrology, drought year transfers tied to

specific hydrologic criteria, or transfer options that may

be exercised based on negotiated criteria. Marketing

may also be accomplished through short-term (one year

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-62

or less) agreements on the spot market. Of note in the

South Coast Region, local agencies are now planning

to use water transfers for part of their base supplies, a

change from past years when marketing arrangements

were viewed as primarily drought year supplies.

An example of a base year transfer is the SDCWA/

IID transfer described in Chapter 9. The two agencies

executed an agreement in 1998 for a long-term transfer that would build up over time to 200 taf/yr.

SDCWA would need to use MWDSC’s Colorado

River Aqueduct to convey the transferred water to the

South Coast Region. SDCWA and MWDSC have

negotiated an initial wheeling agreement.

New Conveyance Facilities from Colorado

River Region to South Coast Region

SDCWA has been studying the feasibility of constructing a new aqueduct from the Imperial Valley to

its service area. Two alternatives have been considered—an aqueduct on the U.S. side of the international

border that would be used to convey Colorado River

water acquired through marketing arrangements with

water users in the Colorado River Region, and a joint

aqueduct on the Mexican side of the border with the

City of Tijuana. SDCWA has completed the first phase

of a feasibility study for the U.S. alignment; Proposition 204 authorizes funding for further feasibility-level

study of conveyance alternatives. In addition to the

usual engineering and environmental considerations

associated with large-scale conveyance projects, the

ability to implement this project would be affected by

the other Colorado River Basin states’ concerns about

a new California diversion on the river, and by international considerations involved in financing and

constructing a project with the Mexican government.

Water marketing arrangements established

through the draft CRB 4.4 Plan would be a source of

water for a new conveyance facility. Other sources could

result from responses to SDCWA’s 1998 request for

proposals for short-term and long-term marketing arrangements. While new conveyance may be a possible

option for the South Coast Region in the long term,

the time required to implement such a large scale

project and the schedule presently contemplated for

implementing the draft CRB 4.4 Plan suggest that a

facility would not be constructed within the Bulletin

160-98 planning horizon.

Mexican Border Environmental Quality Issues

Tijuana’s excess sewage has plagued San Diego area

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 problem was in 1965, when the city

agreed to treat Tijuana’s wastewater on an emergency

basis. In 1983, the 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 InterAmerican Development Bank to help finance the

expansion and was to spend an additional $11 million

to build a wastewater treatment plant 5 miles south of

the border. The plant became fully operational in 1988.

In 1990, the United States and Mexico, through

the International Boundary and Water Commission,

agreed to construct international wastewater treatment

facilities in the United States to solve continuing border sanitation problem. Facilities included a 25 mgd

secondary treatment plant at a site just north of the

international border and a 3.5 mile ocean outfall. Construction of the first phase of the international plant, a

25 mgd advanced primary treatment plant is being

completed. Construction of the secondary phase of the

international plant is on hold pending the completion

of a supplemental environmental impact statement on

alternative methods of secondary treatment. The second phase is expected to be complete by December

2000.

EPA and IBWC have completed a supplemental

EIS on interim options for discharge of effluent from

the international plant prior to completion of the ocean

outfall and the secondary treatment component of the

plant. The preferred option is a combination of discharging the effluent to the City of San Diego’s

metropolitan sewerage system and constructing a detention basin to hold flows for discharge during

off-peak hours.

Water Management Options

for South Coast Region

Southern California’s challenge in managing its

water resources is driven by one of the most fundamental realities of the West—it is an arid region. The

major water agencies in the South Coast Region are

extensively involved in water resources management

planning. A mixture of water management options will

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-63 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

be needed to replace California’s reduced supply from

the Colorado River and to offer long-term reliability

to the region. Table 7-29 shows a list of options for the

region, and the results of an initial screening of the

options. The retained options were evaluated (Table

7A-4 in Appendix 7A) based on a set of fixed criteria

discussed in Chapter 6.

Water Conservation

Urban. Urban water demand forecasts for 2020

assume that BMPs are in place; consequently, only

those urban conservation efforts which exceed BMPs

are considered as options. Reducing outdoor water use

to 0.8 ETo in new development would attain 67 taf/yr

of depletion reductions, while extending this measure

to include existing development would reduce depletions by 246 taf/yr. Reducing residential indoor water

use to 60 and 55 gpcd would reduce depletions by

110 and 220 taf/yr, respectively. Reducing commercial, institutional, and industrial water use by an

additional 3 percent and 5 percent would attain 30

taf/yr and 49 taf/yr of depletion reductions, respectively. Reducing system losses to 5 percent would

reduce depletions by 84 taf/yr.

Agricultural. The 2020 agricultural water demand

forecasts assume that EWMPs are in place. As with

the urban water management options, only those agricultural conservation efforts which exceed EWMPs

are considered as options. Agricultural water conservation options are limited in the region because of the

relatively high SAEs that currently exist, the reliance

on high cost, pressurized potable water or groundwater, and the limited agricultural acreage. Improving

irrigation management to raise SAEs to 76, 78, and

80 percent in the South Coast would reduce depletions by 4, 7, and 10 taf/yr, respectively. Flexible water

deliveries are deferred because most of the water applied for agriculture is delivered on-demand in the

region. Canal lining and piping are deferred because

of the absence of open canal systems in the region.

The spill recovery and tailwater systems option is deferred because of the relatively small acreage under

furrow or border irrigation in the region.

Modify Existing Reservoirs or Operations

USACE operates flood control reservoirs in the

Los Angeles and San Gabriel River Basins of Los Angeles County. Water conservation benefits could be

realized if storage was established in these reservoirs

for temporarily impounding storm flows for later release to downstream recharge facilities. The Los Angeles

County Department of Public Works and USACE are

evaluating the potential for reoperating USACE flood

control reservoirs. Preliminary studies have indicated

that an additional 17 taf of conservation storage is possible, and USACE is currently performing a feasibility

study expected to conclude in 1998.

Prado Dam. As discussed in the water management issues section, construction of Seven Oaks Dam

on the Santa Ana River and pending enlargement of

the existing Prado Dam create an opportunity to increase water supply storage in Prado Reservoir for

recharging Orange County groundwater basins. Modifying Prado Reservoir’s flood control operation would

provide an additional 3 to 5 taf of annual supply for

groundwater recharge.

Hansen and Lopez Dams. Hansen Dam on

Tujunga Wash and Lopez Dam on Pacoima Wash are

small USACE flood control detention reservoirs (essentially debris basins) located on adjoining drainages

in Los Angeles County, in the San Gabriel Mountains

above Pacoima. The combined storage capacity of the

two reservoirs is about 25 taf. Los Angeles County has

cooperated with USACE in completion of a reconnaissance study (1994) and preparation of a

feasibility-level study to evaluate possible water supply benefits from reoperating the reservoirs for limited

water supply storage. The feasibility study is scheduled to be completed in 1998.

Santa Fe and Whittier Narrows Dams. Santa

Fe Dam (32 taf storage capacity) on the San Gabriel

River and Whittier Narrows Dam (67 taf storage capacity) on Rio Hondo are USACE dams that impound

flood control detention basins in Los Angeles County.

The county cooperated with USACE in a 1994 reconnaissance study and feasibility-level evaluation of

possible water supply benefits from reoperating the

reservoirs to provide limited water supply storage. The

feasibility study, scheduled to be completed in 1998,

is examining allowing a permanent water conservation

pool to be maintained at Santa Fe Dam and expanding the existing conservation storage pool at Whittier

Narrows.

New Reservoirs

In an average year, about 200 taf of storm runoff

from the Los Angeles River flows to the ocean. A proposed freshwater reservoir project in Long Beach would

include an inflatable weir across the Los Angeles River

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-64

TABLE 7-29

South Coast Region List of Water Management Options

Option Retain Reason for Deferral

or Defer

Conservation

Urban

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8ETo Retain

Indoor Water Use Retain

Interior CII Water Use Retain

Distribution System Losses Retain

Agricultural

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements Retain

Flexible Water Delivery Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Canal Lining and Piping Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Tailwater Recovery Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations

Reoperate Prado Dam Retain

Reoperate Hansen and Lopez Dams Retain

Reoperate Santa Fe and Whittier Narrows Dams Retain

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities

Freshwater Reservoir in Long Beach Harbor Retain

New Aqueduct from Imperial Valley to San Diego Defer Interstate issues.

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use

Local Groundwater Banking/Conjunctive Use Retain

Water Marketing

Castaic Lake Water Agency Retain

Water Recycling

Alamitos Barrier - Los Angeles County Sanitation Retain

Districts

Alamitos Barrier Recycled Water Project - Water Retain

Replenishment District

Carlsbad Water Reclamation Plan - Encina Basin - Retain

P2 - Carlsbad MWD

Castaic Lake Water Agency Reclaimed Water Retain

Master Plan - LACSD

Central City/Elysian Park Water Recycling Project Retain

- LADWP

City of Escondido Regional Water Recycling Retain

Program

City of Poway - Escondido Expansion Retain

City of Poway - S.D. Expansion Retain

City of West Covina - LACSD Retain

Dominguez Gap Barrier Recycled Water Project - Retain

Water Replenishment District

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-65 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

TABLE 7-29

South Coast Region List of Water Management Options (continued)

Option Retain Reason for Deferral

or Defer

E. Thornton Ibbetson Century Recycled Water Retain

Project - City of Downey

East Valley Water Recycling Project Expansion - Retain

LADWP

El Toro Water District Reclamation Retain

Esteban Torres Water Recycling Project - Central Retain

Basin MWD

Green Acres-Phase 2 - Orange County WD Retain

Headworks Water Recycling Project - LADWP Retain

Irvine Ranch Water District Retain

Los Angeles Harbor Water Recycling Project - Retain

LADWP

Montebello Forebay Advanced Treatment Plant - Retain

Water Replenishment District

Non-domestic Irrigation System - Capistrano Retain

Valley Water District

North City Reclamation Plant - Poway Resources Retain

Expansion - City of Poway

North San Diego County Reclamation Project Retain

Phase 2 - Leucadia County WD

OCR Project - CSDOC - Orange County Retain

Sanitation District

Orange County Regional Reclamation Project - Retain

Orange County Water District

Puente Hills/Rose Hills Reclaimed Water District Retain

System - LACSD

San Elijo Joint Powers Authority - Santa Fe Retain

Irrigation District

San Elijo Joint Powers Authority WRF Retain

San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Recharge Retain

Demonstration - LACSD

San Pasqual Groundwater Management Program - Retain

City of San Diego

Sepulveda Basin Water Recycling Project - Retain

LADWP

South Bay Water Reclamation Project - City of Retain

San Diego

Verdugo-Scholl-Brand Project - City of Glendale Retain

Water Repurification Project - City of San Diego Retain

West Basin Recycling Project-Phase 2 - West Basin Retain

MWD

West Los Angeles Extension Expansion - West Retain

Basin MWD

Westside Water Recycling Project - LADWP Retain

Whittier Narrows Recreation Area - Los Angeles Retain

County Sanitation Districts

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-66

TABLE 7-29

South Coast Region List of Water Management Options (continued)

Option Retain Reason for Deferral

or Defer

Desalting

Brackish Groundwater

Capistrano Beach Desalter Retain

Huntington Beach Colored Water Retain

IRWD Colored Water Treatment Project Retain

Laguna Beach GW Treatment Project Retain

Mesa Colored Water Project Retain

Oceanside Desalter No. 2 Retain

OCWD Undetermined Colored Water Projects Retain

Corona/Temescal Basin Desalter Retain

Otay/Sweetwater Desalter Retain

Perris Basin Desalter Retain

Rubidoux/Western Desalter Retain

San Dieguito Basin Desalter Retain

San Juan Basin Desalter No. 2 Retain

San Pasqual Basin Desalter Retain

Santee/El Monte Basin Desalter Retain

Sweetwater Desalter No.2 Retain

Tijuana River Valley Desalter Retain

Torrance Elm Ave. Facility Retain

West Basin Desalter No. 2 Retain

West Basin Desalter No. 3 Retain

Western/Bunker Basin Treatment Project Retain

Winchester/Hemet Desalter Retain

Seawater

Reverse Osmosis Facilities at South Bay Retain

Powerplant

Reverse Osmosis Facilities at Encina Powerplant Retain

Reverse Osmosis Facilities at Alamitos Powerplant Retain

Multiple-effect Distillation Process Retain

Other Local Options

Draft CRB 4.4 Plan Retain

Multipurpose Flood Control Basins Retain

Statewide Options

— — See Chapter 6.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-67 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

near its mouth, to direct some of the storm flows into

intakes along existing river levees. From the intakes,

the storm flow would be pumped or flow by gravity

via culverts or tunnels to an offshore reservoir. The

reservoir site would be in the vicinity of the existing

Long Beach Breakwater in San Pedro Bay. Reservoir

dikes would be constructed in the bay with a diaphragm

wall constructed through the dikes to prevent leakage

of fresh water through the walls of the dam. A bulb of

fresh water would be maintained at the bottom of the

reservoir to repel seawater. The reservoir could be sized

to store 100 taf to 300 taf of storm water during the

wet season. This captured storm water could subsequently be distributed for a number of uses, with the

most likely use being groundwater recharge. A final

feasibility report was issued in March 1998.

The option analyzed consisted of a 100 taf reservoir sited within San Pedro Bay supplying the

Montebello Forebay spreading grounds with 71 to

129 taf/yr. The annual cost of the water would be about

$1,700/af at 71 taf of supply, decreasing to $1,000/af

at 129 taf of supply. Expansion of the project to use

additional captured storm water runoff would maximize the reservoir yield at 172 taf/yr, decreasing the

annual cost to $800/af.

Groundwater Development and Conjunctive Use

As a result of MWDSC’s seasonal storage service

pricing program, local agencies are storing imported

water in groundwater basins and increasing their

groundwater use during the summer and during

drought years. It is estimated that an average of 100 taf/

yr of groundwater supply is now produced as a result

of MWDSC’s discount pricing for winter season deliveries. The program provides imported water at an

average discount of $125/af during the winter.

MWDSC had identified the potential for 200 taf of

additional groundwater production during drought years.

To accomplish this additional drought year production,

about 600 taf of dedicated storage capacity within the

local basins may be required. The cost of the water would

be about $350/af. MWDSC is working with Calleguas

Municipal Water District on a Las Posas Basin aquifer

storage and recovery project. CMWD would develop up

to 300 taf of storage in the lower aquifer system of the

Las Posas groundwater basin. The project currently provides 70 taf of water supply in drought years, which has

been included as 2020 supply in the water budget.

MWDSC is pursuing an additional 130 taf/yr of groundwater production in the region.

Water Marketing

Water from the Colorado River Region. Several

water marketing arrangements are being planned or

implemented as part of the draft CRB 4.4 Plan. These

arrangements are described in the section on implementing the draft CRB 4.4 Plan.

Water from the Central Valley. More than half

of California’s agricultural water use is in the Central

Valley. The California Aqueduct could be used for voluntary transfers of some of this water to the South

Coast. It is estimated that potential future marketing

arrangements from the Central Valley to the South

Coast Region could be about 200 taf/yr. Voluntary

marketing arrangements would be developed through

option agreements, storage programs, and purchases

of water through the drought water bank or other similar spot markets.

MWDSC is currently banking water with

Semitropic Water Storage District under a long-term

transfer agreement to store up to 350 taf. The agreement allows MWDSC to deliver available SWP water

in wetter years to SWSD for in-lieu groundwater recharge. In drought years SWSD would release its SWP

allocation to MWDSC, and if necessary pump groundwater back into the California Aqueduct to meet its

obligations. The drought year yield would be about

60 taf/yr.

A long-term agreement has been completed between MWDSC and Arvin-Edison Water Storage

District to store up to 350 taf of water for MWDSC

in Arvin-Edison’s groundwater basin. Water banked

in this program would be provided by both MWDSC

and AEWSD. MWDSC would withdraw about 60 taf

in drought years under this program.

As specified in the Monterey Amendment, agricultural contractors will make available up to 130 taf

of annual SWP entitlement for permanent transfer to

urban contractors, on a voluntary basis. Berrenda-Mesa

Water District has already completed the transfer of

25 taf of entitlement to MWA. Similar permanent

transfers could be negotiated in the South Coast Region. Castaic Lake Water Agency is preparing an EIR

for the proposed transfer of 40 taf of SWP entitlement

from Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District,

a member agency of KCWA. The CLWA service area

includes the Santa Clarita Valley in northwestern Los

Angeles County and extends into eastern Ventura

County.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-68

Implementing the CRB’s Draft 4.4 Plan

The draft CRB 4.4 Plan would reduce California’s

use of Colorado River to the State’s basic apportionment while using marketing arrangements and other

options to keep a full Colorado River Aqueduct for

the South Coast. Phase one elements of the draft CRB

4.4 Plan that have been quantified and would provide

water supplies for the South Coast are described below. More detail on the draft plan and its elements is

provided in Chapter 9. Chapter 9 also presents an overview of how the use of Colorado River water is

apportioned among the basin states and among California entities.

Bulletin 160-98 water budgets assume that the

South Coast Region’s 2020 base supply from the Colorado River will be limited to MWDSC’s fourth priority

right of 550 taf, plus any marketing arrangements that

have already been implemented (i.e., 107 taf from the

MWDSC/IID agreement described in Chapter 3).

Actions taken as part of the draft CRB 4.4 Plan to fill

the CRA’s remaining capacity are treated as future options in the water budgets. As described in Chapter 9

(and shown in Table 9-25), the base water demand

forecasts for Bulletin 160-98 include implementation

of EWMPs. This conserved water would be another

source of water for Colorado River/South Coast marketing arrangements, in addition to those actions that

Bulletin 160-98 categorizes as water management options.

Water management options contained in phase

one of the draft CRB 4.4 Plan include the SDCWA/

IID water transfer, MWDSC intrastate groundwater

banking programs, interstate groundwater banking in

Arizona, drought year land fallowing programs (such

as an MWDSC/PVID program), lining parts of the

All American and Coachella Canals, and agricultural

water conservation beyond EWMP implementation.

As described in Chapter 9, potential South Coast supplies from these options are assumed to be made

available for the region after shortages due to groundwater overdraft in the Colorado River Region have been

balanced out.

The draft CRB 4.4 Plan further proposes criteria

for reoperating Colorado River system reservoirs. The

Colorado River has a high ratio of storage capacity to

average annual runoff. Projections of consumptive use

for the upper basin states suggest that those states will

not attain full use of their Compact apportionments

until 2060. USBR’s surplus declarations to date have

not adversely impacted the other states’ use of their

apportionments—reservoir flood control releases were

made in 1997 and 1998. The more significant impediment to implementing revised operating guidelines

would be concerns of the other basin states about impacts of an extended period of reoperation on the ability

to avoid future shortages. Reservoir reoperation is not

numerically evaluated in Bulletin 160-98, because

implementing new operations criteria would require

agreement of USBR and the remaining basin states,

and there is presently no generally accepted proposal

available for quantification.

Water management options in phase two of the

draft CRB 4.4 Plan have not yet been quantified;

implementation of some may extend beyond the Bulletin 160-98 planning horizon. Examples of phase two

actions include desalting tributary inflows to the Salton

Sea or weather modification programs. For example,

USBR had developed a 1993 proposed pilot program

to evaluate cloud seeding potential in the upper basin,

but had not implemented the program because of opposition from the upper basin states. Large-scale

weather modification programs are typically difficult

to implement due to institutional and third-party concerns.

Water Recycling

Since the 1970s, Southern California has been a

leader in developing water recycling projects. Recycled

water is currently used for applications that include

groundwater recharge, hydraulic barriers to seawater

intrusion, landscape and agricultural irrigation, and

direct use in industry. Currently some 80 local recycling projects are producing about 210 taf/yr of new

water supply. It is estimated that these existing projects

will provide an additional 70 taf /yr of water supply by

year 2020.

Almost 40 new water recycling projects were evaluated as future water supply augmentation options for

the region. Water recycling could potentially increase

by 639 taf by 2020, yielding about 527 taf of new

water. The price of recycled water from these options

ranges from $180/af to more than $2,500/af. This large

range is due to the individual characteristics of proposed projects—some entail major capital costs for

construction of new treatment plants while others may

involve only distribution systems from an existing

plant. For example, projects designed for groundwater recharge are often located near the treatment

plant—reducing the costs for distribution. As another

example, projects that are designed for landscape irriEE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-69 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

gation or direct industrial uses will generally be higher

in cost because of the extensive distribution system

needed for delivery.

In an effort to broaden the potential application

of recycled water to include indirect potable use, the

City of San Diego has conducted research into advanced treatment and ultimate use of recycled water

as a supplement to potable water supplies. This indirect potable reuse concept has been termed

repurification by San Diego. The City of San Diego is

currently working on a water repurification project

(described in Chapter 5) that would produce about

16 taf/yr of repurified water to augment local supplies.

The repurified water would be stored in the San Vicente

Reservoir and blended with local runoff and imported

water.

To evaluate and compare recycling options with

other water management options, the water recycling

options were grouped by cost into three groups. Group

I included those options which cost under $500/af;

Group II included those options which cost between

$500 and $1,000/af; and Group III included those

options which cost more than $1,000/af. The costs

used to group these projects are based on the costs reported by local agencies in the Department’s 1995

water recycling survey. (These costs are not likely to

have all been calculated on the same basis by the local

project sponsors.) The local agencies’ costs were used

to judge the order of magnitude of proposed projects’ costs.

A proposed Orange County regional water recycling project is being developed jointly by the Orange

County Water District and County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. Wastewater currently

discharged into the Pacific Ocean would be recycled

to supplement Orange County’s potable supplies. The

treated wastewater would be used to recharge an aquifer along the Santa Ana River, in lieu of using imported

water provided by MWDSC. A plant to treat secondSan Diego Area Water Reclamation Programs

The San Diego County Water Authority and its member agencies are engaged in a long-term effort to reduce regional

reliance on imported water supplies. Water recycling is critical to the success of that effort. Two major programs are currently

underway.

The San Diego Area water reclamation program is a system of interconnected reclamation facilities designed to serve southern

and central San Diego County. When completed, the program will serve an area of more than 700 square miles and add more

than 60 taf/yr to the San Diego region’s local water supply. Summarized below are the eight participating agencies and each

agency’s planned reuse. Facilities to be constructed include up to ten new or expanded water recycling plants, a water repurification

facility, and hundreds of miles of recycled water delivery pipelines.

Agency New Water Supply (taf/yr)

City of Escondido 3.2

City of Poway 2.3

City of San Diego 26.9

City of San Diego/San Diego

County Water Authority 15.0

Otay Water District 2.9

Padre Dam Municipal Water District 1.9

Sweetwater Authority 7.2

Tia Juana Valley County Water District 2.2

Total 61.6

Padre Dam MWD has completed construction of its treatment facility, and has begun delivery of recycled water. The City

of San Diego’s North City water recycling plant and distribution system have also been completed and are delivering recycled

water.

The North San Diego County Area water recycling project will provide more than 15 taf/yr of recycled water to northern

coastal and inland San Diego County. The project is a cooperative effort of Carlsbad and Olivenhain MWDs, the Leucadia

County Water District and the San Elijo JPA. When completed, the system of interconnected recycling facilities will serve an

area of more than 100 square miles, from the coastal communities of Carlsbad, Encinitas and Solana Beach inland to the San

Dieguito River Valley. Facilities to be constructed include three new or expanded water recycling facilities, about 65 miles of

recycled water delivery pipeline and associated pump stations and storage facilities, and new groundwater recharge and extraction

facilities.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-70

ary effluent produced by an existing wastewater treatment plant would be constructed, with a transmission

pipeline to convey the recycled water to existing spreading basins located in the Orange County Forebay in

Anaheim. Some recycled water would also be injected

into a seawater intrusion barrier in Fountain Valley.

Another benefit would be that water recycling would

decrease the total wastewater treatment discharge to

the ocean, which would eliminate or delay the need

for a new or expanded ocean outfall. Phase I is planned

to produce 50 taf/yr of recycled water by 2002. Phases

II and III would produce an additional 50 taf/yr by

2020, reducing Orange County’s dependence on imported water.

Desalting

Groundwater. Recovery of mineralized groundwater supplies is an important resource strategy for

Southern California. This resource option is usually

expensive—because it involves sophisticated technologies and high energy costs. Some groundwater recovery

projects serve the dual purpose of managing migration of plumes to prevent further contamination of

usable aquifers.

Groundwater desalting plants currently operating

include Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority’s Arlington Desalter (6.7 taf), the City of Oceanside’s

Oceanside Desalter No.1 (2.2 taf), and West Basin

MWD’s West Basin Desalter No.1 (1.7 taf). Construction of Sweetwater Authority’s groundwater

demineralization plant (3.6 taf) in the Sweetwater River

Valley began in 1998. Plans are to expand the plant to

produce an additional 4 taf. Additional plants and plant

expansions are being planned or constructed throughout the coastal areas of the Los Angeles Basin, with an

estimated total installed capacity of 33 taf/yr by 2000.

The estimated total net groundwater recovery potential in the South Coast is about 150 taf/yr.

The Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority was

formed in 1972 to plan and operate facilities to protect water quality in the Santa Ana River’s watershed.

The authority is a joint powers agency composed of

the five larger water districts that share the watershed—

Chino Basin Municipal Water District, Eastern

Municipal Water District, Orange County Water District, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District,

and Western Municipal Water District. SAWPA operates a brine disposal line which facilitates disposal of

waste brine from regional desalting plants and operates the Arlington Desalter.

While increases in groundwater recovery are technically feasible, they are challenged by the need for

development of new brine lines (or alternative brine

disposal options) for inland projects as well as requirements for replenishment in certain groundwater basins.

Approximately 20 potential groundwater recovery

projects were evaluated with a net yield of 95 taf/yr.

Supply costs range from $300/af to $900/af. The

groundwater recovery projects are grouped by cost into

two groups, those projects less than $500/af and those

more than $500/af.

Seawater. Seawater desalting is sometimes described as the ultimate solution to Southern California’s

water supply shortfall. Although there is often public

support for this resource, seawater desalting is currently

limited by high costs, environmental impacts of brine

disposal, and siting considerations. Based on current

technology, the costs for desalting seawater for potable

use ranges from about $1,000 to $2,000/af depending

on the type of treatment and the distribution system

that would be required to deliver the water. Although

high costs may currently limit this resource, seawater

desalting may prove to be an important strategy in the

future. MWDSC, with joint funding from the U.S.

Government and Israel Science and Technology Foundation, recently embarked on a demonstration project

Brackish Water Reclamation

Demonstration Facility

The Port Hueneme Water Agency was formed to develop

and operate a brackish water desalting demonstration facility

for its member agencies, all of whom are located in Ventura

County. The BWRDF is the cornerstone of the program to

improve water quality and reliability and reduce groundwater

extractions and seawater intrusion in the Oxnard Plain.

BWRDF will provide a full-scale demonstration of side-byside operation of three brackish water desalting technologies

(reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, and electrodialysis reversal).

The feasibility of using desalting concentrate for wetlands

enhancement is also being studied. Construction of the project

has begun and is expected to be completed in 1998. The

total capital costs are estimated to be $15.2 million.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-71 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

using a multiple-effect distillation process, as described

in Chapter 5.

In the past, SDCWA has evaluated the possibility

of constructing two reverse osmosis desalting facilities

in conjunction with the proposed repowering of the

San Diego Gas and Electric South Bay Powerplant and

the Encina Powerplant. The capacity of the two plants

would total 20 taf/yr. The City of Long Beach and the

Central Basin MWD are also collaborating on a study

of a reverse osmosis plant with 5.6 taf annual capacity

to be located at Southern California Edison’s Alamitos

Powerplant.

Other Local Options

Chino Basin Water Conservation District has prepared a scoping report on the construction and

operation of multipurpose storm water detention and

groundwater recharge basins. The proposed project

involves San Bernardino County Flood Control

District’s plans for additional flood control facilities in

the City of Ontario. SBCFCD plans to construct a

storm water conduit to convey water to existing multipurpose flood control and groundwater recharge

basins and to develop a new flood control detention

basin. Converting the proposed single-purpose basin

into a flood control and groundwater recharge basin

could provide additional water supply benefits for the

Chino Basin. Although the volume of water to be conserved and developed by these projects is relatively small

(about 1 taf), the projects meet specific local needs.

Statewide Options

Statewide water supply augmentation options are

discussed and quantified in Chapter 6.

Options Likely to be Implemented

in South Coast Region

Water supplies are not available to meet all of the

region’s 2020 water demands in average or drought

years. Applied water shortages are forecasted to be 944

and 1,317 taf in average and drought years, respectively. Ranking of retained water management options

for the South Coast Region is summarized in Table 7-

30. Table 7-31 summarizes options that can likely be

implemented by 2020 to relieve the shortages. These

shortages are primarily attributed to increased urban

demands and reduced Colorado River supplies.

To meet the water shortages, water agencies in the

South Coast Region are planning to implement additional conservation programs, water recycling, and

groundwater recovery, as well as water marketing and

other water supply augmentation options. Demand

reduction options such as urban conservation are currently an important program for all water agencies in

the South Coast. Supply augmentation options to be

implemented would include the draft CRB 4.4 Plan

and a combination of local and statewide options.

Implementation of BMPs and EWMPs will continue through 2020 and is reflected in the base demand

levels for urban and agricultural water use. Additional

conservation options likely to be implemented, based

on costs and feasibility, would provide 91 taf/yr in

depletion reduction.

The South Coast Region will increase its reliance

on water marketing as Colorado River supplies are reduced. Options in the first phase of the draft CRB 4.4

Plan could make available up to 172 taf in average

years and 410 taf in drought years for transfer to the

South Coast Region. Additional banking and marketing arrangements, as well as permanent transfer of SWP

entitlement, are likely options for the region, amounting to 37 taf and 27 taf in average and drought years,

respectively.

Local groundwater conjunctive use programs will

likely add 130 taf of production in drought years. Water recycling will continue to be a source of water supply

for Southern California. New projects could provide

an additional 367 taf/yr by 2020. Groundwater desalting projects could provide an additional 27 taf/yr.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-72

TABLE 7-30

Options Ranking for South Coast Region

Optiona Rank Cost ($/af) Potential Gain (taf)

Average Drought

Conservation

Urban

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8 ETo - New Development M 750 67 67

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8 ETo -New and Existing Development L b 246 246

Indoor Water Use (60 gpcd) M 400 110 110

Indoor Water Use (55 gpcd) M 600 220 220

Interior CII Water Use (3%) M 500 30 30

Interior CII Water Use (5%) M 750 49 49

Distribution System Losses (5%) M 300 84 84

Agricultural

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements (76%) H 100 4 4

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements (78%) M 250 7 7

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements (80%) M 450 10 10

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations

Reoperate Prado Dam H 60 5 5

Reoperate Hansen and Lopez Dams M b bb

Reoperate Santa Fe and Whittier Narrows Dams M b bb

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities

Freshwater Reservoir in Long Beach Harbor L 1,000 172 —

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use

Local Groundwater Banking/Conjunctive Use H 350 — 130

Water Marketing

Castaic Lake WA/Kern County WA (40 taf entitlement) H — 37 27

Water Recycling

Group 1 (Cost < $500/af) H 500 391 391

Group 2 (Cost $500/af- $1,000/af) M 1,000 75 75

Group 3 (Cost > $1,000/af) M 1,500 61 61

Desalting

Brackish Groundwater

Group 1 (Cost < $500/af) M 500 27 27

Group 2 (Cost $500/af- $1,000/af) M 1,000 68 68

Seawater

Reverse Osmosis Facilities at South Bay Powerplant L 920 5 5

Reverse Osmosis Facilities at Encina Powerplant L 1,220 15 15

Reverse Osmosis Facilities at Alamitos Powerplant L 1,700 6 6

Multiple-Effect Distillation Process L <1000 85 85

Other Local Options

Multipurpose Flood Control Basins H b cc

Draft Colorado River Board 4.4 Plan H 230 172 410

Statewide Options

See Chapter 6.

a All or parts of the amounts shown for highlighted options have been included in Table 7-31.

b Data not available to quantify.

c

 Less than 1 taf.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-73 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

TABLE 7-31

Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020 (taf)

 South Coast Region

Average Drought

Applied Water Shortage 944 1,317

Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020

Conservation 91 91

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 5 5

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities - -

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use - 130

Water Marketing 37 27

Recycling 367 367

Desalting 27 27

Colorado River Board’s Draft 4.4 Plan 172 410

Statewide Options 150 144

Expected Reapplication 95 116

Total Potential Gain 944 1,317

Remaining Applied Water Shortage 0 0

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-74

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
7A-1 APPENDIX 7A

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 7A

7A

Options Evaluations for Coastal Regions

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 7A 7A-2

Appendix 7A The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

TABLE 7A-1

Options Evaluation North Coast Region

Evaluation Scores

Option Engineering Economics Environ- Institutional/ Social/ Other Overall Rank

mental Legal Third Party Benefits Score

Conservation

Urban

Outdoor Water Use - New Development 3 2 4 2 2 1 14 MOutdoor Water Use - New and Existing 3 1 4 2 2 1 13 MDevelopmentIndoor Water Use (60 gpcd) 3 3 4 2 2 1 15 MIndoor Water Use (55 gpcd) 2 2 4 2 2 1 13 MInterior CII Water Use (3%) 3 3 4 2 2 1 15 MInterior CII Water Use (5%) 3 2 4 1 2 1 13 MDistribution System Losses (7%) 3 4 4 2 2 1 16 MDistribution System Losses (5%) 2 3 4 2 2 1 14 M

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use

New wells - Fort Bragg and other small 3 4 4 4 3 0 18 Hcoastal communitiesAgricultural Groundwater Development 3 1 3 3 3 0 13 M

Desalting

Brackish Groundwater

City of Fort Bragg project 3 1 3 2 2 0 11 L

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
7A-3 APPENDIX 7A

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 7A

TABLE 7A-2

Options Evaluation San Francisco Bay Region

Evaluation Scores

Option Engineering Economics Environ- Institutional/ Social/ Other Overall Rank

mental Legal Third Party Benefits Score

Conservation

Urban

Outdoor Water Use - New Development 3 2 4 2 2 1 14 MOutdoor Water Use - New and Existing 3 1 4 1 2 1 12 L

DevelopmentIndoor Water Use (60 gpcd) 3 3 4 2 2 1 15 M

Indoor Water Use (55 gpcd) 2 2 4 2 2 1 13 M

Interior CII Water Use (3%) 3 3 4 2 2 1 15 M

Interior CII Water Use (5%) 3 2 4 1 2 1 13 M

Distribution System Losses (5%) 2 3 4 2 2 1 14 M

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations

Enlarge Lake Hennessey / Napa River Diversion 3 2 2 3 3 1 14 M

Enlarge Bell Canyon Reservoir 3 2 2 2 3 2 14 M

Enlarge Bell Canyon Reservoir / Napa River 3 1 2 3 3 1 13 M

DiversionEnlarge Pardee Dam 3 2 2 2 2 3 14 M

Enlarge Camanche Dam 3 2 2 2 2 3 14 M

Enlarge Leroy Anderson Reservoir 3 0 2 3 3 2 13 M

Upgrade Milliken Treatment Plant 3 0 3 4 4 1 15 M

Reoperate Rector Reservoir 3 1 3 3 4 1 15 M

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities

Chiles Creek Reservoir Project / Napa River 3 0 2 3 3 1 12 LDiversionEnlarge Lake Hennessey / Chiles CreekProject / Napa River Diversion 3 0 2 2 3 1 11 LCarneros Creek Reservoir / Napa RiverDiversion 3 0 1 2 3 1 10 LUpper Del Valle Reservoir 3 0 2 3 3 2 13 MBuckhorn Dam and Reservoir 3 1 1 2 3 3 13 MUpper Kaiser Reservoir 3 1 1 3 3 3 14 M

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 7A 7A-4

Appendix 7A The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

TABLE 7A-2

Options Evaluation San Francisco Bay Region (continued)

Evaluation Scores

Option Engineering Economics Environ- Institutional/ Social/ Other Overall Rank

mental Legal Third Party Benefits Score

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities (continued)

Upper Buckhorn Reservoir 3 1 1 1 2 3 11 LMiddle Bar Reservoir 3 1 1 2 2 2 11 LDuck Creek Offstream Reservoir 3 1 1 2 2 3 12 LDevils Nose Project 3 1 1 2 2 1 10 L

EBMUD American River Supply 4 1 3 3 3 2 16 M

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use

Milliken Creek Conjunctive Use 3 4 3 3 4 1 18 H

Lake Hennessey / Conn Creek Conjunctive Use 4 3 4 3 4 1 19 H

Water Marketing

Zone 7 WA/KCWA 4 4 4 4 3 0 19 H

SCVWD/SLDMWA 4 4 4 4 3 0 19 H

Water Recycling

Group 1 (Cost < $500/af) 4 3 3 3 3 1 17 H

Group 2 (Cost $500/af - $1,000/af) 4 2 3 3 3 1 16 M

Group 3 (Cost > $1,000/af) 4 0 3 3 3 1 14 M

Desalting

Brackish Groundwater

Alameda County WD Aquifer RecoveryProject 4 2 3 3 3 2 17 H

Seawater

Marin Municipal WD Desalting Project 3 0 2 0 3 1 9 L

Other Local Options

New Surface Water Diversion from SacramentoRiver by Cities of Benicia, Fairfield, & Vacaville 3 3 2 2 3 0 13 M

Statewide Options

See Chapter 6.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
7A-5 APPENDIX 7A

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 7A

TABLE 7A-3

Options Evaluation Central Coast Region

Evaluation Scores

Option Engineering Economics Environ- Institutional/ Social/ Other Overall Rank

mental Legal Third Party Benefits Score

Conservation

Urban

Outdoor Water Use - New Development 3 2 4 2 2 1 14 MOutdoor Water Use - New and Existing 3 1 4 2 2 1 13 MDevelopmentIndoor Water Use (60 gpcd) 3 3 4 2 2 1 15 MIndoor Water Use (55 gpcd) 2 2 4 2 2 1 13 MInterior CII Water Use (3%) 3 3 4 2 2 1 15 MInterior CII Water Use (5%) 3 2 4 1 2 1 13 MDistribution System Losses (7%) 3 4 4 2 2 1 16 MDistribution System Losses (5%) 2 3 4 2 2 1 14 M

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations

Modify Nacimiento Spillway 3 4 4 4 4 0 19 HEnlarge Salinas Reservoir 3 3 3 3 3 0 15 MEnlarge Cachuma Reservoir 2 0 3 3 3 0 11 L

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities

College Lake 2 3 2 1 3 2 13 MFeeder Streams (Various Sites) 2 3 3 2 3 0 13 MNew Los Padres Reservoir 3 1 3 2 3 3 15 MNacimiento Pipeline 4 1 3 3 3 0 14 M

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use

College Lake Injection/Extraction Wells 3 4 3 3 3 0 16 MIncrease Groundwater Development in 3 3 2 1 2 0 11 LSeaside Basin

Water Marketing

CVP (San Felipe Project Extension) 3 2 3 2 3 1 14 M

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 7A 7A-6

Appendix 7A The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

TABLE 7A-3

Options Evaluation Central Coast Region (continued)

Evaluation Scores

Option Engineering Economics Environ- Institutional/ Social/ Other Overall Rank

mental Legal Third Party Benefits Score

Water Recycling

Group 1 (Cost < $500/af) 4 3 3 3 3 1 17 HGroup 2 (Cost $500/af - $1,000/af) 4 2 3 3 3 1 16 M

Desalting

Brackish Groundwater

City of Santa Cruz 3 0 3 2 3 0 11 L

Seawater

Monterey Peninsula Water 3 0 3 1 2 0 9 LManagement District

Other Local Options

Salinas River Diversion and 3 2 3 3 2 2 15 MDistribution Project

Statewide Options

See Chapter 6.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
7A-7 APPENDIX 7A

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 7A

TABLE 7A-4

Options Evaluation South Coast Region

Evaluation Scores

Option Engineering Economics Environ- Institutional/ Social/ Other Overall Rank

mental Legal Third Party Benefits Score

Conservation

Urban

Outdoor Water Use - New Development 3 2 4 2 2 1 14 MOutdoor Water Use - New and Existing 3 1 4 1 2 1 12 LDevelopmentIndoor Water Use (60 gpcd) 3 3 4 2 2 1 15 MIndoor Water Use (55 gpcd) 2 2 4 2 2 1 13 MInterior CII Water Use (3%) 3 3 4 2 2 1 15 MInterior CII Water Use (5%) 3 2 4 1 2 1 13 MDistribution System Losses (5%) 2 3 4 2 2 1 14 M

Agricultural

SAE Improvements (76%) 3 4 3 4 3 1 18 HSAE Improvements (78%) 3 3 3 3 2 1 15 MSAE Improvements (80%) 2 3 3 2 2 1 13 M

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations

Reoperate Prado Dam 3 4 4 3 3 0 17 HReoperate Hansen and Lopez Dams 3 3 3 2 3 0 14 MReoperate Santa Fe and Whittier Narrows Dams 3 3 3 2 3 1 15 M

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities

Freshwater Reservoir in Long Beach Harbor 2 1 2 2 3 0 10 L

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use

Local Groundwater Banking/Conjunctive Use 4 3 4 3 4 0 18 H

Water Marketing

Castaic Lake Water Agency 4 4 4 4 3 0 19 H

Water Recycling

Group 1 (Cost < $500/af) 4 3 3 3 3 1 17 HGroup 2 (Cost $500/af - $1,000/af) 4 2 3 3 3 1 16 MGroup 3 (Cost > $1,000/af) 4 0 3 3 3 1 14 M

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 7A 7A-8

Appendix 7A The California Water Plan Update 

BULLETIN 160-98

TABLE 7A-4

Options Evaluation South Coast Region (continued)

Evaluation Scores

Option Engineering Economics Environ- Institutional/ Social/ Other Overall Rank

mental Legal Third Party Benefits Score

Desalting

Brackish Groundwater

Group 1 (Cost < $500/af) 3 3 3 3 3 1 16 MGroup 2 (Cost $500/af - $1,000/af) 3 2 3 3 3 1 15 M

Seawater

Reverse Osmosis Facilities at South Bay Powerplant 2 1 2 3 3 0 11 LReverse Osmosis Facilities at Encina Powerplant 2 0 2 3 3 0 10 LReverse Osmosis Facilities at Alamitos Powerplant 2 0 2 3 3 0 10 LMultiple-effect Distillation Process 1 1 2 3 3 0 10 L

Other Local Options

Draft CRB 4.4 Plan 4 4 3 3 3 3 20 HMultipurpose Flood Control Basins 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 H

Statewide Options

See Chapter 6.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
7A-9 APPENDIX 7A

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 7A

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-1 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

Options for Meeting

Future Water Needs in

Interior Regions of California

This chapter covers the interior regions of the State: the Sacramento River,

San Joaquin River, and Tulare Lake Hydrologic Regions (Figure 8-1).

These regions constitute the Central Valley, which makes up about 38

percent of the State’s land area and almost 80 percent of the State’s irrigated acres.

The SWP’s

California

Aqueduct.

TABLE 8-

Interior

Hydrologic

Regions

FIGURE 8-1

Sacramento

River

Tulare

Lake

San Joaquin

River

Sacramento

River

Tulare

Lake

San Joaquin

River

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-2

FIGURE 8-2

Sacramento River Hydrologic Region

MODOC

SHASTA

TEHAMA

GLENN

LAKE

COLUSA

BUTTE

YUBA

SUTTER

NEVADA

SIERRA

SACRAMENTO

YOLO

PLACER

PLUMAS

SISKIYOU

LASSEN

NAPA

SOLANO

EL DORADO

O R E G O N

Goose

Lake

Creek

Cloud

Thomes

Lake

Almanor

Battle

Cotton

Creek wood

Mill

Deer

Creek

Elder Creek

Black Butte

Reservoir

Stony Gorge

Reservoir

Creek

Lake

Oroville

North Fork

Feather River

Middle Fork Feather

Folsom

Lake

Feather

River

Clear

Lake Indian Valley

Reservoir

Lake

Berryessa River

Cow

Creek

River

Lake

Davis

Creek

YubaRiver

French Meadows

Reservoir

con River

River Bear

North

Middle

Fork

Fork

South Fork

Englebright

Reservoir

Camp Far West

Reservoir

Shasta

Lake

Corning

Canal

Clear

Whiskeytown

Lake Creek

Ash

Pit River

South

Fork

Amer can River

Cache

Creek Putah

Creek

to

River

Lake

Natoma

East Park

Reservoir

Creek

Big Sage

Reservoir

Mc

Union Valley

Reservoir

Hell Hole

Reservoir

Folsom South

Canal

Sacramento

River

Antelope

Lake

Frenchman

Lake

Big Chico

Creek

Butte

Creek

Glennusa

Canal

Clear Creek

Tunnel

Thermalito

Facilities

Putah South

Canal

North Bay

Aqueduct

Red Bluff

Diversion Dam

Keswick

Dam

StonyCreek

South Fork

i

North

Middle Fork

Fork

Rubi

New Bullards

Bar Reservoir

Sacra

Tehama-Colusa

Canal

men

l Co

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-3 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

Description of the Area

The Sacramento River Region, the drainage area

of the Sacramento River and its tributaries, extends

300 miles from the Oregon border south to Collinsville

in the Delta (Figure 8-2). The crest of the Sierra Nevada forms the eastern border of the Sacramento River

Region, while the western side is defined by the crest

of the Coast Range. The southern portion includes

the American River watershed and the northern Delta.

The Sacramento River Region includes all or large

portions of Modoc, Siskiyou, Lassen, Shasta, Tehama,

Glenn, Plumas, Butte, Colusa, Sutter, Yuba, Sierra,

Nevada, Placer, Sacramento El Dorado, Yolo, Solano,

Lake, and Napa Counties. Small areas of Amador and

Alpine Counties are also within the Sacramento River

Region. The State’s largest river, the Sacramento, flows

the length of the valley before entering the Delta. The

Sacramento Valley is comprised of eight planning subareas, all of which are hydrologically connected by the

Sacramento River.

The region is defined by two distinct features—

the foothill and mountain areas of the Sierra Nevada,

Cascade, and Coast Ranges, and the valley floor. Mountain elevations range from 5,000 feet along the coast

to more than 10,000 feet in the Sierra Nevada. The

elevation of the valley floor gradually decreases from

500 feet in the Redding area to just below sea level in

the Delta.

 Precipitation in the region varies substantially

depending on location and elevation. In the foothill

and higher mountain areas, precipitation ranges from

40 to more than 80 inches annually. The valley receives less rainfall, with average annual rainfall for

Redding and Sacramento being 35 inches and 18

inches, respectively. The mountain areas have cold, wet

winters with snow contributing runoff for summer

water supply. The valley has mild winters and dry, hot

summers.

Base year and future population and crop acreage

for the region are provided in Table 8-1. Most of the

region’s population growth is expected to occur in the

southern part of the region in Sacramento, Placer, El

Dorado, Sutter, Yolo, and Solano Counties. The Sacramento metropolitan area and surrounding

communities are expected to experience significant

population growth, as is the Yuba City-Marysville area

in Sutter and Yuba Counties. The region includes extensive irrigated agricultural acreage. Rice, irrigated

pasture, alfalfa, grain, fruits, nuts, and tomatoes account for about 80 percent of the irrigated crop acreage.

Irrigated acreage in the region is expected to change

little during the planning period.

Water Demands and Supplies

Water shortages are expected to occur under average and drought conditions, as shown in Table 8-2.

The 1995-level average year shortage reflects that

groundwater overdraft is not treated as a source of supply. Most of the drought year water shortage is

TABLE 8-1

Population and Crop Acreage

Population Irrigated Crop Acreage

(thousands) (thousands of acres)

1995 2,372 2,139

2020 3,813 2,150

. . .

Sacramento River

Hydrologic Region

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-4

associated with agricultural water use, primarily on the

valley floor area north of Sacramento.

Excluding supplies dedicated to environmental

purposes, surface water accounts for about 70 percent

of the region’s average year water supply. Groundwater provides the remaining supply. During drought

years, additional groundwater is pumped to compensate for reduced surface water supplies. The region has

43 major reservoirs, with a combined storage capacity

of almost 16 maf. About half of this surface capacity is

contained in the CVP’s Shasta Lake and the SWP’s

Lake Oroville.

CVP Water Supply

Most of the water delivered by CVP facilities in

the Sacramento River Region is for agricultural use.

Sacramento and Redding receive part of their water

supply from CVP facilities.

The Tehama-Colusa and Corning Canals, supplied

from Red Bluff Diversion Dam on the Sacramento

River, deliver CVP water to agricultural users and to

wildlife refuges. The Tehama-Colusa Canal extends 110

miles south of RBDD, terminating south of Dunnigan

in Yolo County. The Corning Canal extends 25 miles

south of RBDD, terminating near Corning. Together,

the canals serve about 160,000 acres of land in Tehama,

Glenn, Colusa, and Yolo Counties. CVP contractors

and water rights settlement users also make direct diversions from the Sacramento River. Some of the larger

water agencies receiving CVP supplies are listed in Table

8-3. The supplies shown include, where applicable,

both project water and water rights settlement (base

supply) water.

Releases from Folsom Reservoir on the American

River serve Delta and CVP export needs, as well as

providing supplies to agencies in the Sacramento metropolitan area. The City of Sacramento is the largest

water rights contractor on the American River, with a

contract for almost 300 taf/yr. Placer County Water

Agency, one of the largest American River project water contractors, also holds a water rights settlement

contract for 120 taf/yr. EBMUD holds the largest contract for project water on the American River system

(150 taf/yr), which it had originally planned to receive

via an extension of the existing Folsom South Canal.

(EBMUD’s American River supply is described in

The 3.5 maf Lake Oroville is the largest of the SWP’s storage

facilities.

TABLE 8-2

Sacramento River Region Water Budget (taf)a

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 766 830 1,139 1,236

Agricultural 8,065 9,054 7,939 8,822

Environmental 5,833 4,223 5,839 4,225

Total 14,664 14,106 14,917 14,282

Supplies

Surface Water 11,881 10,022 12,196 10,012

Groundwater 2,672 3,218 2,636 3,281

Recycled and Desalted 0 0 0 0

Total 14,553 13,239 14,832 13,293

Shortage 111 867 85 989

a

 Water use/supply totals and shortages may not sum due to rounding.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-5 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

Chapter 7.) Jenkinson Lake (Sly Park Dam) and Sugar

Pine Reservoir serve communities in the foothills east

of Sacramento.

Supply from Other Federal Water Projects

Monticello Dam in Napa County impounds Putah

Creek to form Lake Berryessa, the principal water storage facility of USBR’s Solano Project. The project

provides urban and agricultural water supply to Solano

County (partly in the Sacramento River Region and

partly in the San Francisco Bay Region) and agricultural water supply to the University of California at

Davis in Yolo County. Napa County uses about 1 percent of the supply for developments around Lake

Berryessa.

Solano County Water Agency is the regional water contractor for both the federal Solano Project and

the SWP. Within the Sacramento River Region, SCWA

member entities with contracts for Solano Project water include the City of Vacaville (which also receives

SWP water and uses groundwater), Solano Irrigation

District and Maine Prairie Water District. (The Cities

of Fairfield, Vallejo, and Suisun City in the San Francisco Bay Region have SCWA contracts for Solano

Project water, as discussed in Chapter 7.) SID contracts for 141 taf/yr of Solano Project water from SCWA

and delivers it to agricultural users in Solano County.

SWP Water Supply

Lake Davis, Frenchman Lake, and Antelope Lake

are located on Feather River tributaries in Plumas

County and are used primarily for recreation, but also

provide water supply to the City of Portola and to local agencies having water rights agreements with the

Department. Lake Oroville and Thermalito Afterbay

also provide supply within the region. Local agencies

that receive water rights water delivered through

Thermalito Afterbay include Western Canal Water

District, Richvale Irrigation District, Biggs-West

Gridley Water District, Butte Water District, and Sutter

Extension Water District. Agencies in the region holding long-term contracts for SWP supply are Plumas

County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Butte County, Yuba City, and SCWA. SCWA

receives its SWP supply from the Delta through the

North Bay Aqueduct.

Local Surface Water Supply

Water stored and released from Clear Lake and

Indian Valley Reservoir into Cache Creek is diverted

Monticello Dam,

impounding Lake Berryessa,

is the principal feature of

USBR’s Solano Project.

Solano Irrigation District

was formed in 1948 to

sponsor construction of a

reclamation project to serve

Solano County.

TABLE 8-3

Major Sacramento River CVP Water Users

Agency Total Supplies from

CVP Facilities (taf)

Anderson-Cottonwood ID 175.0

Glenn-Colusa ID 825.0

Natomas Central MWC 120.2

Princeton-Codora-Glenn ID 67.8

Reclamation District 108 232.0

Reclamation District 1004 71.4

Sutter Mutual WC 268.0

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-6

by the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for irrigation in Yolo County. Since

1950, the district has diverted an average of 130 taf

annually at Capay Diversion Dam on lower Cache

Creek. No water supply from these sources was available during the 1977 and 1990 drought years.

In Sutter County and in western Placer County,

agricultural water is supplied by South Sutter Water

District from Camp Far West Reservoir on the lower

Bear River. SSWD also purchases surface water from

Nevada Irrigation District to supplement irrigators’

groundwater supplies. NID’s supplies come from its

reservoirs on the Yuba-Bear River system. Yuba River

supplies have also been developed by Yuba County Water Agency, which owns the 966 taf New Bullards Bar

Reservoir, the river’s largest reservoir.

The Sacramento metropolitan area, served by more

than 20 water purveyors, is the largest urban area in

the Sacramento Region and is also the largest urban

surface water user. Within Sacramento County, the

City of Sacramento relies primarily on surface water

(approximately 80 to 90 percent); water purveyors in

unincorporated areas use both surface water and

groundwater. The City of Sacramento diverts its CVP

water supply from the American River at H Street,

and also diverts from the confluence of the American

and Sacramento Rivers. The City of Folsom takes surface water from Folsom Lake.

Groundwater Supply

Most groundwater used in the region comes from

alluvial aquifers on the valley floor. The Sacramento

Valley is a major groundwater basin, with an estimated

114 maf of water in storage at depths of up to 600

feet. (Only a portion of this amount can be economically used, however.) Well yields in alluvial areas vary

significantly depending on location; pumping rates

typically range from 100 to 4,000 gpm. Foothill communities using groundwater generally rely on fractured

rock sources having yields lower than those found in

valley floor alluvium.

Redding supplements its CVP surface water supply with groundwater. Smaller communities in the

northern and central Sacramento Valley, such as Anderson, Red Bluff, Marysville, Olivehurst, Wheatland,

Willows, Corning, and Williams, rely almost entirely

on groundwater and have adequate supplies to meet

local demands for the foreseeable future. Woodland,

Davis, and Dixon are completely dependent on

groundwater. Most residents in unincorporated areas

rely on groundwater.

In the Sacramento metropolitan area, groundwater is used by the Cities of Sacramento and Galt,

Sacramento County, and local water agencies. Two

areas of overdraft exist in Sacramento County, one near

McClellan Air Force Base and the other in the Elk

Grove area.

Local Water Resources

Management Issues

Sierra Nevada Foothills Water Supply

Urbanization of agricultural lands in the Central

Valley is an issue currently attracting public attention.

An alternative to urban development on valley floor

agricultural lands is increasing development on nonarable lands in the adjoining Sierra Nevada foothills.

However, the foothill areas also have land use and water supply concerns associated with development

pressure, particularly for communities within commuting distance of the valley’s major population centers.

Historically the rural foothill counties have had

economies based on natural resource development

(ranching and logging). Tourism is becoming increasingly important. Although individual foothill

communities have experienced relatively high growth

rates, the area’s overall population is small, and future

development is constrained by the high percentage of

Cache Creek, with Capay Diversion Dam in foreground.

Clear Lake and Mount Konocti are in the background.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-7 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

federal lands managed by the USFS and the National

Park Service.

Although extensive development of large-scale

water projects has occurred in the foothills, that development serves downstream urban and agricultural

water users. The foothills’ local water supply infrastructure is limited, with some water users still being served

by open ditch and flume systems dating back to gold

rush-era mining operations. The area’s development

pattern of small, geographically dispersed population

centers and its lack of a financial base for major capital

improvement projects constrains the ability to interconnect individual water systems and to develop

centralized sources of water supplies, limiting options

for water marketing. The area’s small population translates into high per capita costs for water supply

improvements. Many individual residences and subdivision developments rely on self-supplied

groundwater from wells tapping fractured rock aquifers. Groundwater resources from fractured rock

sources are highly variable in terms of water quantity

and quality, and are an uncertain source for large-scale

residential development.

Management of existing water supplies, especially

meeting increasingly stringent drinking water quality

requirements, is a challenge for some foothill water

systems. As with water supply, interconnections for

water treatment purposes are difficult due to geographic

and topographic constraints. System consolidations are

also complicated by the relatively large percentage of

the foothill population living in unincorporated areas,

and the correspondingly high number of small, independent water systems. Historically, many isolated

developments relying on groundwater as a source of

supply also used septic tank systems for waste disposal.

Eventually, some of these systems experience groundwater contamination problems, requiring a new water

supply or connection to a regional wastewater system,

if one exists.

Conveyance system reliability is a concern in foothill areas where sources of surface supply are often

limited. Conveyance facilities are vulnerable to localized flooding and earthquake or landslide damage.

After the 1997 floods, a landslide destroyed a 30-foot

section of Georgetown Divide Public Utility District’s

canal which supplied water to 9,000 customers in six

towns in rural El Dorado County. Nearby, El Dorado

Irrigation District also lost the use of a flume diverting

from the American River due to another landslide. The

district is currently developing alternatives to repair or

replace the flume. EID has released a draft EIR for the

project, and is proposing to make temporary canal repairs to allow for 40 cfs summer deliveries until

permanent repairs can be made.

The communities of Cohasset and Forest Ranch

in Butte County are considering building a pipeline

to convey part of Butte County’s SWP supply to urban users east of Chico. During extended drought

conditions some of the wells serving the area have gone

dry, requiring that water be hauled by truck. Also in

Butte County, the Department’s Division of Safety of

Dams reduced the allowable operating capacity of Paradise Irrigation District’s Magalia Reservoir because of

seismic safety concerns. The 2.9 taf capacity reservoir

is impounded by a hydraulic fill dam built in 1918.

Restoring the 1.5 taf reduction in storage capacity is

estimated to cost about $10 million.

Through 2020, no average year water shortages

are anticipated in the entire Sierra foothill area stretching from Modoc County on the north to Kern County

on the south and including adjacent parts of the Cascade Range foothills. Drought year shortages in 2020

are forecast to be 220 taf, over 60 percent of which are

associated with agricultural water use. The area’s limited payment capacity and its need for drought year

supplies suggests that participation in regional water

supply projects with larger water agencies is a viable

option. Although local agencies have evaluated a number of new reservoir projects in the past (see water

management options section), these projects have not

gone forward.

Foothill Area Water Supply

from American River Basin

El Dorado County water agencies have made several attempts to develop local supplies in the American

River Basin, in anticipation of their service area’s future water needs. Originally, USBR’s multipurpose

Auburn Dam was to provide local supply. When Auburn Dam did not go forward, EID and El Dorado

County Water Agency proposed a joint water supply

and hydropower project in the late 1970s. The South

Fork American River project would have included a

large dam at the Alder Creek site, Texas Hill Reservoir

on Weber Creek, two diversion dams, and several

powerplants. When the SOFAR project did not prove

to be financially feasible, a small Alder Creek Reservoir project with a storage capacity of 31 taf was

investigated. In 1993, EDCWA released a final EIR

for water supply development in EID’s service area.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-8

Alternatives included a 7.5 taf/yr CVP water service

contract for deliveries from Folsom Reservoir (authorized in PL 101-514), the El Dorado project, Texas

Hill Reservoir, Small Alder Reservoir, and the White

Rock project. The preferred alternative was identified

as a combination of the water service contract, the El

Dorado project, and the White Rock project.

EDCWA subsequently executed the CVP water

service contract and EID sought to implement the El

Dorado project, a proposal to acquire rights to consumptively use water that had been developed by

PG&E for hydropower generation. In 1996, SWRCB’s

Decision 1635 approved EID’s water rights filing for

17 taf/yr of consumptive use from PG&E’s Caples,

Aloha, and Silver Lakes on the South Fork of the

American River and its tributaries, based in part on a

PG&E agreement to sell facilities of the hydropower

project to EID. Several other water right holders petitioned SWRCB to reconsider its decision. EID and

PG&E subsequently went to litigation over the sale of

the facilities, and EID’s EIR for the El Dorado project

was found inadequate by a Superior Court judge. The

project is currently on hold.

EID’s White Rock project is a diversion and conveyance project that would build about 4.5 miles of

pipeline, connecting a proposed treatment plant with

an existing Sacramento Municipal Utility District penstock. The project would allow more efficient use of

El Dorado project water, but would not provide additional water supply.

Alternatives to meeting GDPUD’s future water

needs were identified in a 1992 planning report that

examined a potential reservoir project on Canyon

Creek. The reservoir project was found to be

unaffordable for the service area. The most promising

option to meet future water demands in GDPUD’s

service area is to divert and convey CVP water from

the American River (as part of EDCWA’s CVP water

service contract authorized by PL 101-514). The additional supplies would be 7.5 and 5.6 taf for average

and drought years, respectively.

In the 1990s, USBR conducted an American River

water resources investigation to evaluate local area water

supply options that would replace the water supply

that was to have been provided by the original multipurpose Auburn Dam. The study proposed two

alternatives for meeting municipal and agricultural water supply needs in portions of Sacramento, San

Joaquin, El Dorado, Placer, and Sutter Counties

through 2030—a conjunctive use alternative and an

Auburn Dam alternative. Three alternative Auburn

Reservoir sizes were studied: 430 taf, 900 taf, and 1,200

taf. The final EIS for this investigation was completed

in 1997. In May 1998, USBR issued a record of decision to not proceed with federal actions to meet future

water needs in the study area.

Sacramento Area Water Forum

The Sacramento Area Water Forum was formed

in 1993 to discuss ways to accommodate two co-equal

objectives, providing water supply for the area’s planned

development and preserving fishery, wildlife, recreational, and aesthetic values of the lower American

River. Forum membership includes the Cities of Sacramento, Galt, and Folsom; County of Sacramento;

more than twenty urban and agricultural water agencies; several environmental groups; and representatives

from the business community and other community

Many foothill areas are

served by conveyance systems

that had their origins in gold

rush-era mining systems.

Another reminder of the

region’s mining history is the

ringtail, also known as the

“miner’s cat”. Some early

settlers kept ringtails as pets,

to control mice. The ringtail

lives in rocky and wooded

areas in the foothills and in

valley riparian areas.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-9 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

groups. In 1995 the forum began meeting jointly with

water interests in Placer and El Dorado Counties.

Working together, they developed proposed draft

recommendations for their objectives, releasing a Draft

Recommendations for a Water Forum Agreement in 1997.

The proposed solution included seven elements:

• Increased surface water diversions

• Actions to meet customers’ needs while reducing

diversion impacts on the Lower American River

in drier years

• Support for an improved pattern of fishery flow

releases from Folsom Reservoir

• Lower American River habitat management

• Water conservation

• Groundwater management

• Water Forum successor effort

Generally, water interests would increase their diversions from the American River in average and wet

years and decrease diversions in drought years. PCWA

would release stored water from its reservoirs on the

Middle Fork of the American River for many of the

participating water agencies during drought years as

replacement water for their decreased American River

diversions. PCWA’s participation in these agreements

is dependent upon SWRCB approval for changes to

conditions of its existing water rights.

The proposal calls for conjunctively managing

surface and groundwater supplies to help control declining groundwater levels in parts of Sacramento

County, and for implementing water conservation

measures. An example of the regional cooperation for

stabilizing groundwater levels is a joint pipeline project

being carried out by San Juan Water District and

Northridge Water District. SJWD has completed the

first phase and NWD has completed the second phase

of a joint pipeline project which will provide surface

water to northern Sacramento County water purveyors. Phase III would extend the pipeline to the Rio

Linda WD, McClellan AFB, the westerly Citizen’s

Utilities service area, and Natomas Central Mutual

Water Company area. By providing surface water supplies, the retail purveyors along the pipeline route can

reduce their dependence on groundwater, allowing the

groundwater basin to recharge.

Colusa Basin Drainage District

A 1995 study by the Colusa Basin Drainage District identified projects to meet six objectives: protect

against flood and drainage damages, preserve and enhance agricultural production, capture surface or storm

water for increased water supplies, facilitate groundwater recharge to help reduce overdraft and land

subsidence, improve and enhance wetland and riparian habitat, and improve water quality. Some projects

selected for feasibility and preliminary design studies

have potential water supply benefits—two small

onstream reservoirs and one groundwater recharge

project. These projects are described in the discussion

of water management options. Much of the present

supply for agricultural water users in the Colusa Basin

comes from return flows from CVP water contractors.

These irrigation return flows have become an increasingly unreliable supply for Colusa Basin Drain diverters

as a result of increased water conservation measures by

upstream water users.

Groundwater Management Actions

The Sierra Valley Groundwater Management District adopted an ordinance in 1980 limiting the amount

of groundwater extraction in Sierra Valley. A legal challenge led to a repeal of the ordinance by the SVGMD.

The district has since focused its efforts on monitoring the basin’s groundwater levels and requesting

voluntary reductions in extractions.

In 1992, the Tehama County Board of Supervisors amended its county code to enact urgency

ordinances prohibiting groundwater mining within the

county and extraction of groundwater for export without a permit from the board. In 1996, the Tehama

County Flood Control and Water Conservation District adopted a resolution of intent to develop a

countywide AB 3030 plan and prepared a draft plan

to serve as the basis for developing agreements with

groundwater users.

Butte County has enacted two ordinances regulating groundwater extraction. The purpose of one

ordinance was to “attempt to reduce potential well interference problems to existing wells and potential

adverse impacts to the environment which could be

caused by the construction of new wells or the repair

or deepening of existing wells. . . .” The ordinance

limited pumping rates to 50 gpm per acre. The ordinance also established well spacing requirements based

on well pumping capacity; spacing requirements range

from 450 feet for a 1,000 gpm well to 2,600 feet for a

5,000 gpm well. The other ordinance was approved

by voters in 1996 and regulated export of groundwater out of the county and substitution of groundwater

for surface water when surface water is sold. The ordinance gave the Butte County Water Commission

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-10

permitting authority over groundwater export or

groundwater substitution.

Glenn County enacted a groundwater ordinance

in 1977. This ordinance required a permit to export

groundwater outside the county. A permit can be issued only if it is found that export will not result in

overdraft, adverse impacts to water levels, or water

quality degradation. The Board of Supervisors may

impose permit conditions. Glenn County is preparing an AB 3030 groundwater management plan that

is expected to be completed in 1998.

American River Flood Protection

Following the floods of February 1986, USACE

reanalyzed American River basin hydrology and concluded that Folsom Dam did not provide an adequate

level of flood protection to the downstream Sacramento

area, significantly less than the 250-year protection

estimated in the late 1940s when Folsom Dam was

designed. Local, State, and federal agencies worked

together to identify ways to provide additional flood

protection for the American River Basin. In December 1991, an American River watershed investigation

feasibility report and EIR/EIS were completed, presenting flood protection alternatives. The report

recommended a flood control detention dam near Auburn. In 1992, Congress directed USACE to perform

additional flood control studies. Three main alternatives were evaluated. Two of the alternatives would

increase flood control storage in Folsom Lake, modify

the dam’s spillway and outlet works, and improve

downstream levees. The third alternative would construct a detention dam at Auburn, with downstream

levee improvements. USACE studies identified the detention dam as the plan that maximized national

economic benefits. The State Reclamation Board endorsed the detention dam as the best long-term solution

to reliably provide greater than 1-in-200 year flood

protection. In 1996, USACE recommended deferring

a decision on long-term solutions and proceeding with

the levee improvements common to all three alternatives. Congress authorized $57 million in 1996 for

construction of the levee improvements.

The Central Valley’s January 1997 flood disaster

prompted another examination of American River

hydrology. Based on that hydrologic review, the 1986

and 1997 floods are now considered to be about 60-

year events. The 1997 flooding also triggered payback

provisions of the Sacramento Area Flood Control

Agency’s agreement with USBR, under which USBR

sets aside up to 270 taf of additional winter flood control space in Folsom Lake. (This additional flood

control space in the reservoir raises Sacramento’s level

of protection to about a 77-year event level.) Because

the January 1997 flood event was followed by an unusually dry spring, reoperation of Folsom Lake for

additional flood control resulted in a loss of supply to

USBR. The federal government and SAFCA purchased

100 taf to offset the loss of supply—50 taf from YCWA,

35 taf from PCWA, and 15 taf from GCID.

In its Resolution No. 98-04, the Reclamation

Board restated its conclusion that the best long-term

engineering solution to reliably provide greater than

1-in-200 year flood protection is to develop additional

flood detention storage at Auburn. As an incremental

measure to increase the level of flood protection, the

Board also voted to support SAFCA’s Folsom Modification Plan, described in SAFCA’s February 1998

report Next Steps for Flood Control along the American

River. This plan, costing $75 to $140 million, would

Sacramento River Flood Control Project

Congress authorized the Sacramento River Flood Control

Project in 1917 after a series of major Sacramento Valley floods

in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The project was built with

local, State, and federal funding. The project includes levees,

overflow weirs, bypass channels, and channel enlargements.

Overflow weirs allow excess water in the main river channel

to flow into bypasses in the Sutter Basin and Yolo Basin. The

bypass system was designed to carry 600,000 cfs of floodwater

past Sacramento—110,000 cfs in the Sacramento River

through downtown Sacramento and West Sacramento, and

the remainder in the Yolo Bypass. The system has worked

exceedingly well over the years.

The capability of the SRFCP was improved upon

completion of Shasta Dam in 1945 and Folsom Dam in 1956.

The Feather and Yuba River systems did not share in the

SRFCP’s flood control benefits; however, supplemental

protection was provided by the completion of Oroville Dam

on the Feather River in 1968 and New Bullards Bar Dam on

the Yuba River in 1970. These are large multipurpose

reservoirs in which flood control functions share space with

water supply functions.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-11 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

increase flood protection to approximately a 1-in-110

year level. In addition, the Board strongly urged

SAFCA to advocate federal flood insurance for all residents and businesses in the Sacramento area having

less than a 1-in-200 year level of flood protection. As

of July 1998, SAFCA was seeking congressional authorization for USACE participation in Folsom Dam

modifications and downstream levee enlargements. The

Board currently does not support raising and strengthening the levees downstream from the dam, and would

not support State cost-sharing in this effort. Two competing flood control bills, HR 4111 and HR 3698, are

pending before Congress. HR 4111 would authorize

construction of a small flood control dam, while HR

3698 would rely mostly on levee improvements for

flood protection for the Sacramento area.

Yuba River Flood Protection

The Marysville-Yuba City area, located at the

confluence of the Feather and Yuba Rivers, relies on

levees for much of its flood protection. New Bullards

Bar Reservoir on the Yuba River, the only Yuba River

Basin reservoir with dedicated flood control storage,

regulates less than half the river’s runoff. The middle

and south forks of the Yuba River, and Deer Creek,

have no dedicated flood storage. A large reservoir site

(the former Marysville project, and similar sites near

the Yuba River Narrows) was studied by USACE,

YCWA, the Department, and others at various times

in the 1950s and through the 1980s for both water

supply and flood control purposes.

USACE, in cooperation with the State Reclamation Board and YCWA, conducted a feasibility study

of water resources problems and opportunities in the

Yuba River Basin in 1991, after a 1990 reconnaissance

study identified a significant flood threat. Preliminary

alternatives included modifying existing levees, implementing nonstructural measures, constructing a large

or small bypass, reregulating existing flood storage at

Oroville and New Bullards Bar Reservoirs, providing

new flood storage at Englebright Reservoir, raising

Englebright Dam and reregulating flood storage at

Englebright and New Bullards Bar Reservoirs, and

constructing a single purpose or multipurpose reservoir at the Parks Bar or Narrows damsites. The

recommended plan in USACE’s 1998 Yuba River BaThe City of Sacramento

experienced several major

floods during its early years.

The following description

of the floods of 1862 is taken

from the journal of William

Brewer, a member of

the California State

Geological Survey.

 “Such a desolate scene I hope

never to see again. Most of the

city is still under water, and

has been for three months. ...

Not a road leading from the

city is passable, business is at a

dead standstill, everything

looks forlorn and wretched.

Many houses have partially

toppled over... some have

been carried from their

foundations, several streets

(now avenues of water) are

blocked up with houses that

have floated in them, dead

animals lie about here

and there. . . .”

Courtesy of California

State Library

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-12

sin Investigation final feasibility report and EIR/EIS

was to modify existing levees along the Yuba and

Feather Rivers. In response to the significant flood

problems experienced in the Marysville-Yuba City area

during the January 1997 flood, YCWA began a new

investigation of flood control alternatives. The multiyear study will examine a range of alternatives,

including storage facilities such as the Parks Bar site.

During the 1997 flood event, 35,000 people were

evacuated from the Marysville area and 75,000 people

were evacuated downstream in Sutter County.

Sacramento River Mainstem

Flood Protection and Water Supply

Enlargement of Shasta Reservoir has been examined in the past by USBR and the Department as a

water supply option. Reservoir enlargement would also

provide additional flood protection on the Sacramento

River mainstem. When the project was last reviewed

in the 1980s (at a cursory level of detail), its financial

costs were high, reflecting the project’s magnitude (up

to 10 maf of additional storage capacity). Railroad and

highway relocations were a substantial cost item. In

the wake of the January 1997 flooding, there was renewed interest in reexamining Shasta’s enlargement,

and in considering a range of potential reservoir sizes.

USBR conducted a preliminary study for the CALFED program, reviewing three options. One option

would raise the dam 6 feet to add 300 taf of storage at

a cost of $123 million. Raising the dam 100 feet would

add 4 maf of storage and cost $3.9 billion. Raising the

dam 200 feet would add 9.3 maf of storage and cost

$5.8 billion. Enlarging Shasta as a statewide water management option could provide the opportunity for local

agencies in the region to participate in the project, especially smaller agencies that lack the resources to

develop new local projects themselves.

Putah Creek Adjudication

USBR’s Solano Project stores and diverts water

from Putah Creek. Solano Project operations are subject to a condition reserving water for users upstream

of Monticello Dam in Lake Berryessa. In 1990, two

project water users (SID and SCWA) commenced an

action in Solano County Superior Court to determine

all rights to the use of water from Putah Creek and its

tributaries. Among other issues, the action required a

determination of how rights can be exercised among

USBR and upstream water users. An agreement was

negotiated among SID, SCWA, USBR, and upstream

water users. In 1996, the SWRCB adopted Order WR

96-2, amending appropriative water rights in the upper Putah Creek watershed to be consistent with the

negotiated agreement.

Fish Passage at Red Bluff Diversion Dam

USBR’s Red Bluff Diversion Dam, completed in

1966, spans the Sacramento River. The dam diverts

river water into the Tehama-Colusa and Corning Canals, supplying irrigation and wildlife refuge water.

Severe fishery declines in the upper river during the

1970s and 1980s, were partly attributed to the dam

Flooding on the American

River in 1986 and again

in 1997 severely tested levee

system capabilities. Releases

from Folsom Dam in 1986

actually exceeded design

capacity of the levee system.

In 1997, voluntary

evacuation advisories were

issued for some parts of the

Sacramento metropolitan

area. This photo shows the

American River at the

H Street bridge.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-13 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

and the canal intake screens. The dam delayed upstream

passage of migrating adult salmon and steelhead and

disoriented downstream migrating juveniles, which

made them vulnerable to predation by squawfish. The

original fish screens also permitted passage of many

juvenile fish into the canals.

In 1986, USBR began raising the gates of the dam

between December and March to allow unimpeded

fish passage. The gates-up period has been expanded

in response to ESA requirements for winter-run

chinook salmon; the current objective is to raise the

gates for eight consecutive months (September 15 to

May 15) each year to allow unimpeded fish passage.

New drum fish screens and bypasses were installed at

the canal headworks in 1991 and are now operating

successfully. As discussed in Chapter 2, USBR and

USFWS are operating a research pumping plant at the

dam to evaluate the effects of different pump types on

fish. The plant supplies a limited amount of water to

the canals during the eight months when the dam gates

are raised.

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Fish Screen

The 175,000 acre Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District has the largest diversion on the mainstem

Sacramento River, with a maximum capacity of 3,000

cfs. GCID may divert up to 825 taf from April through

October for irrigation supply. GCID also conveys CVP

water to three national wildlife refuges—Sacramento,

Delevan, and Colusa.

GCID’s pumping plant is located on a river side

channel upstream of Hamilton City, near Chico. DFG

constructed a 40-drum rotary screen fish barrier at the

plant’s intake in 1982, to prevent entrainment of juvenile fish. The fish barrier did not perform as intended,

resulting in an unacceptably high rate of juvenile fish

mortality. ESA listing of the winter-run chinook

salmon resulted in a 1991 court order restricting

GCID’s pumping and requiring installation of a new

fish screen. CVPIA required DOI to improve fish passage at the pumping plant. GCID installed a temporary

flat-plate screen in 1993 while a permanent solution

was being developed. An environmental document

identifying a preferred fish passage alternative—a new

flat-plate screen with a river gradient control facility

in the main channel of the Sacramento River—was

released in 1997. Construction of the new screen began in 1998.

Fish and Wildlife Restoration

Activities in the Sacramento Valley

Many fishery restoration actions or projects are

ongoing in the Sacramento Valley. Some of the larger

projects are described below.

Mill and Deer Creeks support spring-run chinook

salmon, a candidate species under the California ESA.

In 1995, State legislation restricted future water development on the creeks, to protect salmon habitat.

In addition, local landowners formed the Mill and Deer

Creek Watershed Conservancies. The conservancies

USBR’s Red Bluff Diversion

Dam, with gates raised. The

dam was designed to divert

Sacramento River water into

the Tehama-Colusa Canal.

The intake channel for the

Corning Canal Pumping

Plant connects to the

Tehama-Colusa Canal.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-14

Local agencies have made extensive efforts to improve Butte

Creek fish passage, in response to declines in the population

of spring-run chinook salmon.

A 1917 construction photo

of Anderson-Cottonwood

Irrigation District’s diversion

dam on the Sacramento River.

Flashboards are installed

during the irrigation season

to raise the river’s water level

for diversions to ACID’s main

canal. ACID’s diversion is one

of many Sacramento River

Basin sites under study for

fish passage Improvements.

Courtesy of Water Resources Center Archives,

University of California, Berkeley

have begun a watershed planning and management

process, with funding assistance from an EPA grant.

The Department has participated with Mill Creek

landowners in a test project to construct wells to provide groundwater supplies in lieu of creek diversions

for irrigation during spring fish migration periods. A

similar project is being negotiated with Deer Creek

water users.

Big Chico Creek supports a small population of

spring-run salmon, and some fall-run salmon. M&T

Chico Ranch and Parrott Ranch pumps were relocated

from the creek to the Sacramento River in 1996 to

eliminate reverse flows at the mouth of the creek. Other

fishery improvement actions—modification of small

temporary dams and a permanent fish ladder, revegetation of Lindo Channel, and development of a fishery

management plan—are being investigated.

Butte Creek is presently receiving considerable fishery restoration attention. The creek has a large

spring-run salmon population and also supports a small

fall run. Recent fishery restoration efforts on Butte

Creek began in 1993 when Western Canal Water District and private landowners agreed to remove the Point

Four Diversion Dam near Nelson. M&T Chico Ranch

and DFG agreed to install a new fish ladder and fish

screens at the Parrott-Phelan Dam in 1995. M&T

Chico Ranch also dedicated 40 cfs of instream flow

for fishery needs on Butte Creek. WCWD installed a

siphon under Butte Creek in 1998, allowing removal

of its two main dams and two smaller downstream

dams from the creek. The siphon separates WCWD’s

canal system from Butte Creek and eliminates fish

losses previously caused by creek diversion. Work began in 1998 on fishery facility modifications to

Durham Mutual, Adams, and Gorrill Dams. The Nature Conservancy and California Waterfowl

Association are evaluating diversion dams in the Butte

Slough and Sutter Bypass for potential fish passage improvements.

Pelger Mutual Water Company and Maxwell Irrigation District installed fish screens on their

Sacramento River diversions in 1994. PrincetonCodora-Glenn Irrigation District and Provident

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-15 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

Irrigation District started construction on a new

screened pumping plant on the Sacramento River,

which is expected to be operational in 1998. Reclamation District 108 started building its new fish screen

at its Wilkins Slough Diversion on the Sacramento

River in 1997. The new screen is expected to be operational in 1999. Reclamation District 1004 is

completing final design and will begin construction

on its new fish screen and pumping facility in 1998.

Natomas Central Mutual Water Company will soon

begin feasibility studies for a large screening project

on the lower Sacramento River. On the Yuba River,

Browns Valley Irrigation District will install a fish screen

in 1998.

Clear Creek is another location in the Sacramento

River Basin where fishery restoration work has been

performed. Additional planned work includes fish passage around McCormick-Saeltzer Dam, gravel

placement, and sediment control. Much of the riparian land along Clear Creek below Whiskeytown

Reservoir has been acquired by BLM and the Wildlife

Conservation Board to preserve its habitat values.

Other Sacramento River Region streams with environmental restoration studies underway are Battle

Creek and Lower Stony Creek. Potential restoration

work at Battle Creek includes studies of fish passage,

instream flows, screened diversions, and hatchery modernization. Glenn County is seeking funding for

planning of a Lower Stony Creek watershed restoration program.

Water Needs for Rice Field Flooding

Sacramento Valley rice fields provide overwintering areas for about one-third of all migrating waterfowl

in California. Historically, many farmers in the Sacramento Valley have flooded harvested rice fields to

attract waterfowl for hunting. Additional rice acreage

is now being flooded for rice straw decomposition, due

to air quality restrictions on burning rice straw. Most

flooding of harvested rice lands begins in mid-October and continues into November. Flooded conditions

are usually maintained through March. In 1994-95,

the Department studied three Sacramento Valley planning subareas (Northwest Valley, Central Basin West,

and Central Basin East) to evaluate fall and winter water

use. The study area included approximately

123,000 acres of flooded rice land. The estimated applied water requirement was 260 taf or about 2 af/

acre; the estimated ETAW was 107 taf. Fields used for

waterfowl hunting have higher water demands than

those used for rice straw decomposition. Water demands for flooding to decompose rice straw may

decrease in the future if growers are able to find commercial uses for rice straw.

Water Management Options

for the Sacramento River Region

Water management options in the Sacramento

River Region have been extensively investigated by federal, State and local governments over the last 70 years.

Many of the federal and State options were explored

for their potential to augment CVP or SWP water supplies. Some projects, once studied as statewide options,

are now being reconsidered for meeting future local

water supply and flood control needs in the Sacramento

River Region. Most large onstream and offstream reservoirs are beyond the development capacity of local

water agencies, and are being considered as CALFED

options, described in Chapter 6.

Table 8-4 shows a list of options for the region,

and the results of an initial screening of the options.

The retained options were evaluated (Table 8A-1 in

Appendix 8A) based on a set of fixed criteria discussed

in Chapter 6.

Water Conservation

Urban. Urban water demand forecasts for 2020 assume that BMPs are in place; consequently, only those

urban conservation efforts which exceed BMPs are considered as options. Urban conservation options were

deferred from detailed evaluation because they provide

little cost-effective potential to create new water through

depletion reductions in the Sacramento River Region.

Agricultural. The 2020 agricultural water demand

forecasts assume that EWMPs are in place. As with

the urban water management options, only those agricultural conservation efforts which exceed EWMPs

are considered as options. Agricultural conservation

options were deferred. Water that is not consumed by

evapotranspiration is recoverable either as surface or

groundwater for reapplication downstream.

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations

Two reservoir enlargement options were deferred

in initial screening. Enlargement of Camp Far West

Reservoir was deferred based on economic criteria. A

Lower Bear River expansion project that would increase

the storage of Lower Bear Reservoir by more than 26

taf was deferred because of several uncertainties includEE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-16

TABLE 8-4

Sacramento River Region List of Water Management Options

Option Retain Reason for Deferral

or Defer

Conservation

Urban

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8 ETo Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Indoor Water Use Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Interior CII Water Use Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Distribution System Losses Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Agricultural

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Flexible Water Delivery Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Canal Lining and Piping Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Tailwater Recovery Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations

Enlarge Camp Far West Reservoir Defer Economics.

Lower Bear River Expansion Project Defer Uncertainties with water rights issues.

Reoperate Caples, Aloha, and Silver Lakes Retain

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities

Wilson Creek Reservoir (Glenn County) Defer Undetermined yields; primarily flood control

project.

Golden Gate Reservoir (Funks Creek, Defer Undetermined yields; primarily flood control

Colusa County) project.

Dry Creek Reservoir (Lake County) Retain

Bear Creek Reservoir (Colusa County) Defer Environmental concerns. Conflicts with federal

land management policies.

Wilson Valley Reservoir (Lake County) Defer Environmental concerns. Conflicts with federal

land management policies.

Garden Bar Reservoir (Placer and Nevada Counties) Defer Economics.

Long Bar Reservoir (Yuba County) Defer Undetermined yields; primarily hydropower

project.

Wambo Bar Reservoir (Yuba County) Defer Undetermined yields; primarily hydropower

project.

Marysville Dam (Yuba County) Defer Undetermined yields; economics.

Blue Ridge Reservoir (Yolo County) Defer Environmental concerns. Conflicts with federal

land management policies.

Thurston Lake Pump-Storage Project Retain

(Lake County)

Parks Bar Reservoir (Yuba County) Retain

Waldo Reservoir (Yuba County) Retain

White Rock Project (El Dorado County) Defer Reoperation of existing supply; would not provide

new water supply.

Texas Hill Reservoir (El Dorado County) Retain

Small Alder Reservoir (El Dorado County) Retain

Canyon Creek Reservoir (Georgetown) Defer Excessive costs.

GDPUD Diversion from American River Retain

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-17 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

ing water rights issues, coordination with PG&E (the

reservoir’s owner), and lack of definitive estimates of

the project’s drought year supply.

The water management issues section described

several projects for EID’s service area. The El Dorado

Project would offer an annual yield of 17 taf for EID

through consumptive use of water developed for hydropower at PG&E facilities (Caples, Aloha, and Silver

Lakes). No new diversion facilities would be required

for the project. Implementation of the El Dorado

Project is currently on hold pending negotiations with

project opponents.

New Reservoirs

An extensive reevaluation of onstream and

offstream Sacramento Valley reservoir sites is being

conducted by the CALFED Bay-Delta program. Chapter 6 discusses reservoir sites (such as the offstream Sites

Reservoir) being evaluated as statewide water supply

options for CALFED.

Onstream Storage. Local efforts to develop American River Basin water supply for rapidly growing

foothill communities were described previously. Most

recently, EID and EDCWA considered the Texas Hill

and Small Alder Reservoir sites, but EDCWA did not

include them as preferred alternatives in its plan for

EID’s service area. The drought year yields from these

reservoirs have been estimated at 9.4 taf and 11.3 taf,

respectively. If implementation of EDCWA’s preferred

alternative does not proceed, these options may still

be viable. GDPUD has examined a reservoir project

on Canyon Creek. The 17 taf reservoir site, located

between the Middle and South Forks of the American

River, would have an estimated drought year yield of

6 taf. This project was not cost-competitive with other

options available to GDPUD.

The Colusa Basin Drainage District has investigated two small reservoirs as part of its integrated

watershed management project—a 2.2 taf Wilson

Creek Reservoir west of Orland in Glenn County, and

TABLE 8-4

Sacramento River Region List of Water Management Options (continued)

Option Retain Reason for Deferral

or Defer

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use

New Wells (Redding, Butte, and Colusa Basins) Retain

USBR/Ducks Unlimited Conjunctive Use Defer Would not create new water supply.

Big Valley Conjunctive Use (Lake County) Retain

Orland-Artois Groundwater Recharge Basin Defer Lack of project data, no yields determined.

Adobe Creek Detention Structure (Lake County) Defer Negative environmental impacts.

Water Recycling

Water recycling options Defer Water recycling options would not generate new

water supply.

Desalting

Brackish Groundwater

— — —

Seawater

— — —

Other Local Options

New Surface Water Diversion from Sacramento Retain

River and Cache Creek by YCFC&WCD

New Surface Water Diversion from Sacramento Retain

River by Cities of Benicia, Fairfield, and Vacaville

Statewide Options

— — See Chapter 6.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-18

a 16.9 taf Golden Gate Reservoir on Funks Creek near

Maxwell in Colusa County. The estimated average

annual runoff at the Wilson Creek site is 2.4 taf. The

construction cost is estimated at $3.3 million. The primary purpose of the proposed reservoir would be flood

control, although it offers limited water supply benefits. Golden Gate Reservoir would be formed by a

76-foot high earthfill dam; this dam site is also a component of the Sites/Colusa Reservoir, a CALFED

storage option presented in Chapter 6. The estimated

average annual runoff at the Golden Gate Dam site is

8.6 taf and the construction cost estimate for the dam

and reservoir is $2.5 million. Neither of these projects

is included in the Bulletin’s detailed options evaluation because potential yields are undetermined. These

reservoirs are too small to provide enough carryover

storage to significantly increase local drought year water supply reliability.

The Department investigated the Dry Creek

Project in Lake County near Middletown in 1965. The

project was designed to irrigate 5,700 acres of agricultural lands in the Collayomi and Long Valleys in Lake

County. The main project feature would be a 129-

foot-high earthfill dam on Dry Creek (a Putah Creek

tributary) forming a 6.6 taf reservoir. Updated cost

estimates range from $150 to $250/af, assuming a

maximum annual yield of 6.6 taf. USACE is conducting a reconnaissance study for a similar facility,

scheduled for completion in 1998.

In 1988, YCFC&WCD studied alternative water

supply projects in the Cache Creek watershed. The

study identified three onstream storage projects—Bear

Creek Reservoir in Colusa County and Wilson Valley

Reservoir in Lake County, with annual yields of 30 taf

each, and Blue Ridge Reservoir in Yolo County, with

an annual yield of 100 taf. None of these sites are under active consideration now. Parts of the Cache Creek

drainage basin that could be impacted by these projects

are managed by BLM and DFG for wildlife habitat

and recreational purposes, and a segment of Cache

Creek is under study for potential federal designation

as a wild and scenic river.

South Sutter Water District had looked at a potential Garden Bar Reservoir on the Bear River,

upstream of Camp Far West Reservoir and had determined that the project was not economically feasible.

Many potential Yuba River reservoir sites have been

studied to meet basin flood protection and water supply needs. Recent local interest has focused on the Parks

Bar Reservoir site on the lower Yuba River (below

Englebright Dam) and on Waldo Reservoir, an

offstream storage option discussed in the next section.

The potential multipurpose Parks Bar Reservoir would

have a 640 taf capacity and could provide up to 160 taf

of drought year yield. Parks Bar Dam is a flood control alternative previously rejected by the USACE in

favor of levee improvements. YCWA is starting a new

three-year study to evaluate all basin flood control and

water supply options. The study will reevaluate levee

improvements, new flood control channels, new storage (including Parks Bar), and reoperation of existing

reservoirs.

Offstream Storage. In 1996, YCWA completed

a reconnaissance evaluation of the proposed 300 taf

offstream Waldo Reservoir. Waldo Dam would be located on Dry Creek, east of Beale Air Force Base in

Yuba County. Water would be diverted from the Yuba

River by gravity through a tunnel from Englebright

Reservoir. The dam would provide flood control benefits on Dry Creek for the City of Wheatland, but

would have no direct flood control benefits on the Yuba

River. Waldo Reservoir could provide offsetting storage for increased flood control reservation at New

Bullards Bar Reservoir and Lake Oroville if YCWA negotiates agreements with the reservoir owners for supply

from Waldo Reservoir in exchange for the flood control storage.

Phase I of a feasibility investigation was conducted

in 1997 to determine reservoir yield, develop cost estimates, and evaluate environmental issues. The

reservoir’s average and drought year yields for YCWA’s

service area would be about 145 and 109 taf, respecSites Reservoir (described in Chapter 6 as a CALFED option)

could provide some local supply for the region, depending on

the project’s formulation. This photo shows the dam site area.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-19 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

tively. The cost of water if served in the area of origin

would be about $110/af. Phase II of the study began

in 1998 and includes analyses of alternatives. Preparation of environmental documentation would begin in

2000 if the project appeared feasible. Environmental

issues include flooding of a portion of the Spenceville

Wildlife and Recreation Area, remediation of an abandoned copper mine, and instream flows. (The

preliminary cost estimates include removal of mine

tailings and site remediation in accordance with regulatory requirements.)

A 1988 YCFC&WCD study investigated a potential offstream storage project at Thurston Lake, a

natural lake in the Clear Lake watershed. The Thurston

Lake pump-storage project was to develop a new water supply and reduce flooding at Clear Lake

communities. The project would provide storage of

up to 300 taf and yield 60 taf/yr. Water would be

pumped from Clear Lake into Thurston Lake during

periods of high runoff, reducing downstream flood

flows. Preliminary investigations suggest that substantial leakage at the site would occur and that potential

water quality problems could result from high boron

levels in Thurston Lake.

New Conveyance Facilities

The White Rock conveyance project would divert

and convey South Fork American River water from

SMUD’s White Rock Penstock to EID’s proposed Bray

Water Treatment Plant near Diamond Springs. The

diversion could be made under a 1957 contract and a

1961 supplemental agreement with SMUD, if water

rights were granted by SWRCB to EDCWA and EID.

The maximum quantity of water that could be diverted

annually is about 40 taf. The project would not generate new water.

Groundwater Development

or Conjunctive Use

Groundwater is expected to be the primary local

option for increasing valley floor water supplies north

of Sacramento within this Bulletin’s planning horizon.

Where supplies are plentiful and of adequate quality,

groundwater has a cost advantage over new reservoirs.

Groundwater can be developed incrementally by individual farms and domestic users, or by water purveyors.

Data are not available to quantify the availability of

additional groundwater development.

USBR, in cooperation with Ducks Unlimited,

studied a conjunctive use project within GCID to provide long-term groundwater supply to supplement

available surface water for rice straw decomposition

and waterfowl habitat. In wet years, surplus Sacramento

River water would be pumped into GCID’s conveyance system for delivery to recharge areas. The study

concluded that the project would not provide new

water supply.

The Lake County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is investigating a small conjunctive

use project in Big Valley near Kelseyville. This project

would modify the primary spillway structure of Highland Creek Reservoir to increase storage. The conserved

water would be released downstream during the spring

and fall for groundwater recharge. Current estimates

indicate a project yield of 400 af/yr at a cost of about

$30/af. Because the yield would be less than 1 taf/yr,

the project was not shown in the list of options likely

to be implemented for the region.

The Colusa Basin Drainage District is investigating the Orland-Artois groundwater recharge project

in southern Glenn County. Water would be delivered

to an abandoned quarry via the Tehama-Colusa Canal

during periods of high Sacramento River flows. Preliminary designs for this project estimate groundwater

recharge capacity of 1.5 taf per season. The estimated

cost of construction ranges from about $363,000 to

$513,000. Evaluation of this option was deferred until project yields are determined.

Water Marketing

Intra- and inter-district water transfers have been

common among CVP water rights settlement contractors on the Sacramento River. Year-to-year transfers

among CVP water users in the region are not considered as new projects for Bulletin 160-98.

Water Recycling

As with conservation, recycling is not a source of

new supply in the Sacramento River Region from a

statewide perspective. Recycling is a potentially important water source for local purposes, but does not

create new water. Several small water recycling projects

serve local water needs for agricultural, environmental, and landscape irrigation purposes. In the 1995 base

year, about 12.5 taf of wastewater was recycled in the

region, an amount expected to increase to 14.5 taf by 2020.

Other Local Options

YCFC&WCD has filed water right applications

for supplemental water from the Sacramento River for

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-20

Davis, Woodland, and Winters, and for agricultural

and fishery uses at UC Davis. YCFC&WCD also filed

an application to divert water from Cache Creek for

groundwater recharge and to replace groundwater currently being used for irrigation. About 95 taf has been

requested under the two applications.

SCWA and its member agencies are examining

several surface water management projects. One potential project is an intertie connecting a Solano

Irrigation District irrigation canal with the SWP’s

North Bay Aqueduct. Another potential SCWA project

involves permanent or long-term water transfers. The

Cities of Fairfield and Benicia in the San Francisco

Bay Region and Vacaville in the Sacramento River

Region have filed a water right application for supplemental water from the Sacramento River, seeking 12,

10.5, and 8.5 taf/yr, respectively.

Statewide Options

Statewide water supply augmentation options are

discussed and quantified in Chapter 6.

Options Likely to be Implemented

in the Sacramento River Region

Water supplies are not available to meet all of the

region’s 2020 water demands in average or drought

years. Applied water shortages are forecasted to be 85

taf and 989 taf in average and drought years, respectively. Ranking of retained water management options

for the Sacramento River Region is summarized in

Table 8-5. Table 8-6 summarizes options that can likely

be implemented by 2020 to relieve the shortages.

Costs of new reservoir projects are often prohibitive for agricultural water users, especially when the

TABLE 8-5

Options Ranking for Sacramento River Region

Optiona Rank Cost ($/af) Potential Gain (taf)

Average Drought

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations

Reoperate PG&E Reservoirs L b b 17

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities

Dry Creek Reservoir (Lake County) L 200 7 b

Thurston Lake Pump-Storage Project M 390 b 60

Parks Bar Reservoir (Yuba County) H b b 160

Waldo Reservoir (Yuba County) H 110 145 109

Texas Hill Reservoir (El Dorado County) L b b 9

Small Alder Reservoir (El Dorado County) L b b 11

GDPUD Diversion from American River M b 8 6

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use

New Wells (Redding, Butte, and Colusa Basins) H b bb

Big Valley Conjunctive Use H 30 — c

Other Local Options

New Surface Water Diversion from Sacramento River and M b 95 95

Cache Creek by YCFC&WCD

New Surface Water Diversion from Sacramento River by M b 8 8

cities of Benicia, Fairfield, and Vacaville

a All or parts of the amounts shown for highlighted options have been included in Table 8-6.

b Data not available to quantify.

c Less than 1 taf.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-21 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

TABLE 8-6

Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020 (taf)

Sacramento River Region

Average Drought

Applied Water Shortage 85 989

Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020

Conservation — —

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations — —

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilitiesa — 160

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use — —

Water Marketing — —

Recycling — —

Desalting — —

Other Local Options — —

Statewide Options 85 51

Expected Reapplication — 56

Total Potential Gainb 85 267

Remaining Applied Water Shortage 0 722

a

 Average year yield of Parks Bar Reservoir has not been quantified.

b With construction of Parks Bar Reservoir, average water year needs of region would be exceeded, although there is a substantial drought year shortage. In

 average water years, the surplus water could be available for use in other regions.

supplies are needed primarily for drought year shortages. However, Yuba River onstream storage at the Parks

Bar site or offstream storage at Waldo Reservoir are

promising options. Parks Bar in particular could reduce the flood threat to the Yuba City-Marysville area

and downstream levee systems on the Feather and Sacramento Rivers. Parks Bar could provide a drought year

yield of 160 taf. Likewise, a 2.3 maf Auburn Dam

would provide the Sacramento metropolitan area with

substantial flood protection as well as augment the

region’s average year and drought year supplies by 85

taf and 51 taf, respectively. If options shown in Table

8-6 are implemented, average water year needs of the

region would be fully met, although a drought year

shortage would remain.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-22

FIGURE 8-3

San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region

EL DORADO

AMADOR

ALPINE

MARIPOSA

MERCED

MADERA

CALAVERAS

SAN JOAQUIN

CONTRA COSTA

TUOLUMNE

STANISLAUS

FRESNO

SACRAMENTO

SAN BENITO

Cosumnes River

Dry

Creek

Creek

umne

Pardee

Reservoir

Camanche

Reservoir

New Hogan

Reservoir Mokelumne Aqueduct

New Melones

Lake

Beardsley

Lake North

Fork

Spicer Meadows

Reservoir

South Fork

Creek Farmington

Reservoir Tulloch

Lake

Hetch Hetchy

Reservoir

Lloyd

Lake

Donnells

Lake

Lake

McClure

Merced

New Don Pedro

Lake River

Tuolumne

River

North

Fork

Jenkinson

Lake

Lower Bear River

Reservoir

Hetch

Hetchy

Stanislaus

River

Modesto

Reservoir

Turlock

Lake

River

Aqueduct

Tuolumne

Littlejohns

San Luis

Reservoir

Los Banos

Creek

Reservoir

O Neill

Forebay

Delta

Mendota

Canal

San

Joaquin

River

Merced

River

Bear

Creek

Eastman

Lake

Owens Creek

Chowchilla River

Fresno River

Hensley

Lake

Mammoth Pool

Reservoir

Lake

Thomas A. Edison

Florence

Lake

Huntington

Lake

Shaver

Lake

Bass

Lake

Redinger

Lake

Millerton

Lake

South

Fork

San Joaquin River

Little Panoche

Creek Reservoir

Clifton

Court

Forebay

South Bay

Aqueduct

Tracy

Pumping

Plant

San

Luis

Canal

Friant-Kern

Canal

Pacheco

Tunnel

Mendota

Pool

Folsom

South

Canal

California

duct

Madera

Canal

Contra Costa

Canal

Mokel

River

Aque

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-23 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

Description of the Area

The San Joaquin River Region is bordered on the

east by the crest of the Sierra Nevada and on the west

by the coastal mountains of the Diablo Range (Figure 8-3). It extends from the Delta and the Cosumnes

River watershed to the San Joaquin River watershed

near Fresno. All or portions of counties within the study

area include Alameda, Alpine, Amador, Calaveras,

Contra Costa, El Dorado, Fresno, Madera, Mariposa,

Merced, Sacramento, San Benito, San Joaquin,

Stanislaus, and Tuolumne.

 Summer temperatures are usually hot in the valley, and slightly cooler in the Delta and upland areas.

In the winter, temperatures are usually moderate in

the valley and cool in the Delta and upland areas. Annual precipitation on the valley floor ranges from about

17 inches in the north to 9 inches in the south.

The principal population centers are the Cities of

Lodi, Stockton, Tracy, Modesto, Turlock, Merced, and

Madera. The northwest part of the area, including Tracy

and surrounding communities, is experiencing rapid

growth as workers in the San Francisco Bay area accept the longer commute from the valley in exchange

for the affordable housing. Table 8-7 shows the 1995

and 2020 population and crop acreage for the region.

TABLE 8-7

Population and Crop Acreage

Population Irrigated Crop Acreage

(thousands) (thousands of acres)

1995 1,592 2,005

2020 3,025 1,935

TABLE 8-8

San Joaquin River Region Water Budget (taf)a

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 574 583 954 970

Agricultural 7,027 7,244 6,450 6,719

Environmental 3,396 1,904 3,411 1,919

Total 10,996 9,731 10,815 9,609

Supplies

Surface Water 8,562 6,043 8,458 5,986

Groundwater 2,195 2,900 2,295 2,912

Recycled and Desalted 0 0 0 0

Total 10,757 8,943 10,753 8,898

Shortage 239 788 63 711

a

 Water use/supply totals and shortages may not sum due to rounding.

. . .

San Joaquin River

Hydrologic Region

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-24

Irrigated crop acreage in the area is forecasted to

decrease, primarily due to urban development on agricultural lands. The primary crops are alfalfa, corn,

cotton, deciduous fruit and nuts, grain, grapes, and

pasture. Major employers include agriculture, food

processing, and service sector businesses.

The area has many wildlife refuge and wetland

areas. The Grasslands area, in western Merced County,

is the largest contiguous block of wetlands in the Central Valley and is an important wintering ground for

migratory waterfowl and shorebirds on the Pacific Flyway. Wetlands and wildlife areas include managed

wetlands on Delta islands, Grassland Resource Conservation District, Los Banos Wildlife Area, Merced

National Wildlife Refuge, North Grasslands Wildlife

Area, San Luis National Wildlife Refuge, and Volta

Wildlife Area. (In 1996, Kesterson National Wildlife

Refuge and San Luis National Wildlife Refuge merged,

with the combined refuge keeping the San Luis name.)

Of the total wetlands in the region, about 40,700 acres

are privately owned.

Water Demands and Supplies

Table 8-8 summarizes the region’s water demands

and supplies. Significant 1995-level and 2020-level

water shortages occur in both average and drought

years.

Surface Water

Much of the valley floor area receives its water supply from Sierra Nevada reservoirs. Some Sierra Nevada

facilities—such as San Francisco’s system and

EBMUD’s system—export water from the region to

serve communities in the San Francisco Bay Region.

Agricultural lands west of the San Joaquin Valley trough

are mostly served by the CVP. Agricultural lands in

the northwest corner of the region receive their water

supply by direct diversion from Delta waterways. In

the foothill and mountain areas, water is either diverted

directly from streams and lakes or from local storage

reservoirs and conveyance facilities.

Flood protection in the

Cosumnes River floodplain

has historically been provided

only by privately-owned

levees. As shown here, rural

residential development in

the floodplain has relied on

this limited protection.

San Francisco’s Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National

Park. The reservoir is impounded by O’Shaughnessy Dam.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-25 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

In north to south order, the major Sierra Nevada

rivers draining to the valley floor in this region are the

Cosumnes, Mokelumne, Calaveras, Stanislaus,

Tuolumne, Merced, Chowchilla, Fresno, and San

Joaquin Rivers. The San Joaquin River, which forms

the southerly boundary of the region, flows westward

out of the mountains then turns north and flows in

the valley trough to the Delta.

The Cosumnes River, one of the smaller Sierra

Nevada rivers, is unique in that it has no significant

reservoirs on its entire length, although it has local irrigation diversions. (USBR’s Jenkinson Lake is located

on Sly Park Creek, a tributary to the Cosumnes River.)

Riparian lands along the lower river are managed as a

nature preserve. Flood protection needs on the

Cosumnes River were highlighted by the January 1997

floods, when numerous breaks in private levees on the

valley floor caused widespread local flooding. As discussed in the following section, proposals for a managed

floodway are under consideration.

The Mokelumne River system includes some hydroelectric power development in the upper watershed,

but the major reservoirs are EBMUD’s Camanche and

Pardee Reservoirs, which develop water supply for urban communities in the San Francisco Bay Region.

Woodbridge Diversion Dam on the Mokelumne River

near Lodi diverts irrigation water from the river to

Woodbridge Irrigation District.

The 317 taf New Hogan Reservoir, the only large

reservoir on the Calaveras River, was constructed by

the USACE to provide flood protection and water supply for the Stockton area. New Hogan maintains a flood

control reservation of up to 165 taf. To the south of

New Hogan on Littlejohns Creek, USACE constructed

Farmington Reservoir to provide additional flood protection for the Stockton area. Stockton East Water

District provides the City of Stockton with supply from

New Hogan. As part of its New Melones water conveyance project, SEWD constructed facilities linking

Farmington Reservoir on Littlejohns Creek to

Goodwin Dam on the Stanislaus River.

The CVP’s 2.4 maf New Melones Reservoir is the

largest reservoir on the Stanislaus River. Up to 450 taf

of New Melones’ capacity is reserved for flood control

storage. Upstream from New Melones are Beardsley

Reservoir (98 taf) and Donnells Reservoir (64 taf),

owned jointly by Oakdale Irrigation District and South

San Joaquin Irrigation District. Downstream from New

Melones are Tulloch Reservoir (67 taf) and Goodwin

Reservoir (0.5 taf), also owned by OID and SSJID.

SSJID also owns the nearby 35 taf Woodward Reservoir on Simmons Creek. By virtue of an agreement

with USBR, OID and SSJID have the ability to store

200 taf in New Melones Reservoir. USBR has entered

into contracts with SEWD and Central San Joaquin

Water Conservation District for New Melones water

supply. SEWD holds a contract for 75 taf/yr of interim supply from New Melones. CSJWCD has CVP

contracts for 80 taf/yr, 31 taf of which is interim supply. (Interim supply in this context means supplies that

are available until future in-basin demands require use

of the water.) USBR must also use New Melones to

meet SWRCB San Joaquin River salinity standards at

Vernalis. As discussed in the following section, enactment of CVPIA and management of project water

dedicated for environmental purposes have created

conflicts in meeting the multiple needs that New

Melones was intended to serve.

The Tuolumne River (largest of the San Joaquin

River tributaries) was developed by three local agencies and the City and County of San Francisco, which

constructed Hetch Hetchy Reservoir (360 taf), Lake

Lloyd (268 taf) on Cherry Creek, and Lake Eleanor

(26 taf) on Eleanor Creek. San Francisco also participated with Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts

in the construction of New Don Pedro Reservoir. (The

reservoir is owned by the irrigation districts, but San

Francisco has a water storage agreement with them.)

This 2 maf reservoir impounds supplies which are diverted into MID’s and TID’s canal systems at La

Grange Dam. Each district has a small regulatory and

offstream storage reservoir on its mainline canal downstream from La Grange—the 29 taf Modesto Reservoir

The 479 foot-high New Exchequer Dam is a rockfill dam.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-26

and the 46 taf Turlock Lake. MID serves lands north

of the Tuolumne River, and TID serves lands to the

south of the river.

New Exchequer Dam impounds Merced ID’s 1

maf Lake McClure, the only large water supply reservoir on the Merced River. Merced ID has two small

dams downstream regulating flow into its canal system. In 1997, Mariposa Public Utility District

completed a small water diversion project on the

Merced River. The project included constructing 8

miles of 12-inch pipeline to convey Merced River water to the town of Mariposa and surrounding areas.

The Chowchilla and Fresno Rivers are small relative to their northern neighbors. Each river has only

one significant water supply reservoir. Buchanan Dam

on the Chowchilla River impounds the 150 taf

Eastman Lake, and Hidden Dam on the Fresno River

impounds the 90 taf Hensley Lake. Both dams were

constructed by the USACE, but their operations were

integrated with the CVP. Chowchilla Water District

holds a water supply contract for Eastman Lake supply, while Hensley Lake supply is contracted to Madera

Irrigation District.

USBR’s Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River

impounds the 521 taf Millerton Lake. Several hydropower reservoirs are located in the river’s upper

watershed above Friant; however, the only consumptive use of water associated with them is reservoir

evaporation. Total system storage including Millerton

Lake is 1.1 maf. CVP water released from Friant Dam

is diverted into the Madera Canal to the north and the

Friant-Kern Canal (to the Tulare Lake Hydrologic

Region) to the south. Chowchilla and Madera Irrigation Districts are the largest CVP water contractors

on the Madera Canal. Central California Irrigation

District’s Mendota Dam, located on the San Joaquin

River at its confluence with Fresno Slough/North Fork

Kings River, forms Mendota Pool, from which more

than 20 agricultural water agencies divert their supplies. As mentioned in Chapter 3, CVP exchange

contractors divert Delta-Mendota water from the pool

to compensate for the impacts of Friant Dam construction on their prior rights to San Joaquin River water.

CVP water delivered to the Mendota Pool from Tracy

Pumping Plant is the source of supply for nearby

USFWS national wildlife refuges.

Surface water supplies for the part of this region

west of the San Joaquin Valley trough are provided

largely by the CVP, through the Delta-Mendota Canal and the San Luis Canal reach of the California

Aqueduct. CVP contractors receiving DMC supplies

in the northern part of the region are small agricultural water agencies. The City of Tracy, with a contract

for 10 taf/yr, is the only urban CVP water user in the

northern end. Oak Flat Water District is the only SWP

contractor served from the California Aqueduct within

this region, with a maximum contract entitlement of

5.7 taf. The California Aqueduct and DMC carry water

from the Delta into San Luis Reservoir for storage and

later delivery. San Luis Reservoir marks the beginning

of the State-federal joint use San Luis Canal. Lands

adjacent to the San Luis Canal downstream from the

reservoir are part of the CVP’s service area, and receive

their water supply through contracts with USBR. San

Luis Water District is one of the larger CVP contractors in this area, receiving its supplies through both

the DMC and the SLC.

The northwest corner of this region, including the

communities of Byron, Brentwood, and Thornton,

receives much of its water supply via direct diversion

of surface water from Delta waterways. Local water

supply agencies include East Contra Costa Irrigation

District and Byron-Bethany Irrigation District.

Groundwater

Groundwater is an important source of supply for

the region. Many urban areas rely solely on groundwater for their supply. Groundwater overdraft occurs

in much of the valley floor.

CCID, USBR, and others have evaluated the possibility of

replacing Mendota Dam with a new facility to improve the

structure’s operational capabilities. The original dam at this

site was constructed in the 1880s by the Miller et Lux

Corporation.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-27 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

Local Water Resources

Management Issues

Cosumnes River Flood Management

The Cosumnes River is unique among Sierra Nevada rivers for its lack of dams and related water

development features. Efforts are ongoing to preserve

and restore a riparian corridor along the river’s path

on the valley floor; the relationship of those efforts to

recently emphasized floodplain management needs is

being evaluated.

The Cosumnes River Preserve was established in

1987 to protect existing stands of valley oak riparian

forest and to restore native habitat in flood-prone agricultural fields. The preserve, located between

Sacramento and Stockton, is a cooperative effort of

organizations including the Nature Conservancy,

Ducks Unlimited, BLM, the Department, DFG, Wildlife Conservation Board, and Sacramento County.

The lack of upstream flood control on the

Cosumnes River and the resulting periodic flooding

have limited urban development in the lower watershed. Much of the agricultural land in the river’s lower

watershed is protected by private levees which experienced numerous breaks during the January 1997

floods. Nonstructural alternatives for flood control are

being investigated, such as breaching levees and establishing levee setbacks to provide more area for flood

waters to spread. Private lands have been identified for

possible acquisition, subject to the willingness of sellers and the availability of funds.

Integrity of Delta Levees

Delta islands are protected by more than 1,000

miles of levees, and commonly lie 10 to 15 feet below

sea level. Failure of these levees could occur as the result of earthquakes or floods, gradual deterioration,

and/or improper maintenance. Composed largely of

peat soils, many islands are vulnerable to seepage and

subsidence. Subsidence of peat soils and settling of levee

foundations increase the risk of levee failure.

Looking upstream at the

California Aqueduct (left

side of photo) and the DeltaMendota Canal (right side).

Bethany Reservoir is in the

upper left corner.

Oak trees at the Cosumnes River Preserve.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-28

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program identified the

Delta levee system as an important resource. The

program’s strategy for improving its levee system integrity is to implement a Delta levee protection plan

that would address levee maintenance, stabilization,

subsidence reduction, emergency levee management,

beneficial reuse of dredged material, and establishment

of habitat corridors.

Interim South Delta Program

and Temporary Barriers Project

In 1990, the Department, USBR and the South

Delta Water Agency agreed to a draft settlement of a

1982 lawsuit by SDWA against the Department and

USBR. The draft agreement focused on short-term and

long-term actions to resolve agricultural water supply

problems in the south Delta and included provisions

to test and construct barrier facilities in certain south

Delta channels. The testing program, referred to as the

South Delta temporary barriers project, was initiated

in 1991. Its objectives were short-term improvement

of water conditions for the south Delta and the development of data for the design of permanent barriers.

Long-term actions would be implemented through the

Interim South Delta Program described in Chapter 6.

ISDP’s purpose is to improve water levels and circulation in south Delta channels for local agricultural

diversions and to enhance the existing water delivery

capability of the SWP through improved south Delta

hydraulics. ISDP’s preferred alternative would cost an

estimated $54 million to construct and includes five

components: constructing a new intake structure at

Clifton Court Forebay; dredging a 4.9-mile reach of

Old River; constructing flow control structures at Old

River, Middle River, and Grant Line Canal; constructing an operable fish barrier at the head of Old River to

benefit San Joaquin River salmon; and increasing diversions into Clifton Court Forebay to maximize

pumping at Banks Pumping Plant.

EBMUD’s Mokelumne River Aqueduct traverses the southern

Delta.

Under the Department’s

temporary barriers program,

small berms have been

seasonally installed in the

South Delta to improve

channel water levels and

water quality for Delta

irrigators. A seasonal fishery

barrier at the head of Old

River is also installed as part

of this program.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-29 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

A draft EIR/EIS for ISDP was released in August

1996. The final EIR/EIS is scheduled for completion

in late 1998. Meanwhile, installation and removal of

temporary barriers in the south Delta continues. The

number of temporary barriers installed and the installation schedule varies with hydrologic conditions and

endangered species concerns.

San Joaquin County Groundwater Overdraft

Eastern San Joaquin County has a long history of

declining groundwater levels. Groundwater extraction

to meet agricultural and urban demands has created

two pronounced pumping depressions since the late

1940s and early 1950s. The larger depression is between the Mokelumne River and the Stanislaus River.

The center of this depression is east of Stockton, where

groundwater levels can be more than 70 feet below sea

level following the irrigation season. This pumping depression caused poorer water quality from the Delta

to migrate toward the City of Stockton. Several municipal wells in west Stockton have been abandoned

because of the decline in groundwater quality. The

other groundwater depression is between the

Cosumnes River and the Mokelumne River, extending north into Sacramento County. Groundwater levels

here are more than 30 feet below sea level.

The Department recently completed a study of

eastern San Joaquin County as part of a StanislausCalaveras conjunctive use project. Data developed for

this study suggested that the annual overdraft in the

eastern San Joaquin County was about 70 taf, at a 1990

level of development. A later study completed by USBR

as part of its American River water resources investigation estimated overdraft to be about 130 taf at a 2030

level of development. This study concluded that 77

taf/yr of additional supply would be needed to prevent migration of poor quality water into the Stockton

area. Several overdraft management options are being

considered, all of which require substituting surface

water supplies for groundwater use. USBR proposed

two major alternatives for providing future water supply—a conjunctive use alternative and a multipurpose

Auburn Dam. In its 1998 record of decision for the

study, USBR decided that it would not take further

action to meet study area future water needs.

San Joaquin County filed a water rights application for an American River diversion of 322 taf in wet

years via the Folsom South Canal. The existing canal

would be extended, and would be used to provide

supplemental supplies to reduce groundwater overdraft.

San Joaquin County is also interested in participating

in a conjunctive use project with EBMUD, in which

EBMUD’s American River CVP water would be stored

in local groundwater basins prior to being diverted into

the Mokelumne River Aqueduct. This approach was

considered in EBMUD’s 1995 water supply action plan

described in the San Francisco Bay Region (Chapter

7), but was not included in EBMUD’s draft EIR for

conveyance of its CVP supply.

Penn Mine Remediation

Penn Mine is an abandoned copper/zinc mine first

worked in the 1860s. Major activity at the site occurred

in the early 1900s and during World War II. Mine

stormwater runoff and acidic drainage historically entered the Mokelumne River near Campo Seco, above

EBMUD’s Camanche Reservoir, and caused fish kills

in the river from the 1930s through the 1970s.

EBMUD, in conjunction with DFG and the Central

Valley RWQCB, made surface drainage improvements

on the mine property and constructed Mine Run Dam

in 1978 to provide storage and to control part of the

mine runoff. EBMUD and the RWQCB began onsite

neutralization and treatment of acid mine drainage in

1993. Litigation against EBMUD and the RWQCB

by environmental organizations led to a negotiated

agreement for long-term site remediation. An EIR/EIS

completed in 1997 calls for excavation and removal of

mine waste materials at the site, removal of Mine Run

Dam, further site regrading, and revegetation.

Conservation Storage in Farmington Reservoir

USACE completed a reconnaissance study of

Stockton metropolitan area flood control needs in

1997, in cooperation with the City of Stockton, San

Joaquin County, and Stockton East Water District. The

study evaluated modifying Farmington Reservoir to

provide carryover storage. USACE also completed a

conjunctive use study in 1997, evaluating Farmington

Reservoir’s potential to reduce groundwater overdraft

in eastern San Joaquin County. Three alternatives were

evaluated, including reservoir reoperation to allow yearround diversions at Rock Creek, dam modification for

seasonal water storage, and dam modification for longterm water storage. (SEWD operates a Rock Creek

diversion structure downstream of Farmington Dam

to convey CVP water from the Stanislaus River to its

service area during the irrigation season.) USACE’s

study showed that reoperating Farmington for yearround diversions at Rock Creek and groundwater

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-30

recharge would be the best alternatives for improving

management of available water supplies from

Littlejohns Creek and the Stanislaus River. If additional

Stanislaus River water supplies became available to

SEWD through CVP water deliveries, flood control

releases from New Melones, or water marketing, storage in Farmington Reservoir might enhance other water

management actions. A USACE study prepared in the

1980s suggested that Farmington Reservoir could be

enlarged by as much as 160 taf for conservation storage.

SEWD identified two other actions to augment

surface supplies—more groundwater recharge and a

short-term transfer of 30 taf from Oakdale Irrigation

District and South San Joaquin Irrigation District. The

districts are preparing an EIR to market up to 30 taf/

yr of their surface supply for 10 years, using existing

conveyance facilities.

New Melones Reservoir

Water Supply and Operations

SEWD and CSJWCD began constructing facilities in 1991 to convey 155 taf of interim CVP contract

supply from New Melones Reservoir to their service

areas. Much of the imported water was to be used to

reduce local groundwater overdraft. Because of changes

in the operation of New Melones Reservoir, little interim CVP water has been delivered to the two districts.

Enactment of CVPIA and the issuance of SWRCB

Order WR 95-6, increased project water requirements

for environmental purposes. Table 8-9 shows the quantities of environmental supplies provided from New

Melones releases.

As discussed in Chapter 2, allocation of responsibility for meeting SWRCB Order WR 95-6 flow

requirements is now pending in a water rights hearing

before the Board. One alternative for meeting San

Joaquin River flow requirements is the Vernalis adaptive management plan, negotiated among the river’s

water users for sharing their responsibilities for actions

such as providing spring pulse flows. USBR is presently analyzing how VAMP implementation would

affect New Melones operations.

Additionally, USBR and USFWS plan to conduct

an appraisal-level temperature control study for New

Melones Reservoir, as called for in CVPIA. The study

will identify structural or nonstructural alternatives to

control water temperatures in the river downstream

from the dam.

Urban Growth Pressures

from San Francisco Bay Area

San Joaquin Valley communities within commuting distance of the San Francisco Bay area are experiencing

rapid growth, as persons who work in the Bay Area are

attracted by lower housing costs in the Valley. During

the real estate boom of the late 1980s and early 1990s,

there was considerable local concern over water supply

availability for proposed new towns on the western edge

of the valley. At least nine new communities had been

proposed in southwestern San Joaquin County, an area

where additional groundwater development is constrained

by both quality and quantity of supply. Few of these communities were ultimately approved by local land use

planning authorities. One proposed community, New

Jerusalem, was initially approved, but an amendment to

the county’s general plan is being processed to remove

the community from the plan. Mountain House is one

of the few new towns actually being developed.

Burrowing owls are ground-dwelling owls found in open

grassland areas and around cultivated fields. Increasing

urbanization in the San Joaquin Valley will reduce the

habitat available for these owls.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-31 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

East County Water Supply Study

The East County Water Management Association

is an organization of eleven cities and local agencies in

eastern Contra Costa County—Antioch, Brentwood,

Pittsburg, Byron-Bethany ID, East Contra Costa ID,

Contra Costa County WA, Contra Costa WD, Diablo

WD, Delta Diablo Sanitation District, Contra Costa

County Sanitation District No.19, and Ironhouse Sanitary District. In response to urban growth pressures,

the association conducted a study to identify and evaluate potential water management strategies for meeting

the east county’s future water needs. The study identified a variety of potential supplies to meet future water

demands through 2040 including in-county surface

water, in-county groundwater, recycled water, water

transfers from outside the county, conjunctive use, and

water conservation.

Because the area has access to surface water supplies through CVP contracts and local diversions, study

results indicated that in-county surface water supplies

could meet future water demands in average years.

Shortages would occur after 2010 in drought years.

Current study area groundwater use is about 14.5 taf/

yr. Some areas (such as Brentwood, Discovery Bay,

Bethel Island, and Hotchkiss Tract) depend entirely

on groundwater. Others (such as Pittsburg, Antioch, and

DWD) use groundwater to supplement surface water

supplies. Groundwater quality problems in the eastern

county may limit future groundwater development.

The study evaluated three water supply scenarios:

• Maximized local pooling of surface water supplies.

This concept would require negotiation of new

agreements for long-term transfer of surplus water supplies from two agricultural districts (ECCID

and BBID) to agencies serving urban areas, and

changes to the place of use/purpose of use in existing water rights.

• Continued groundwater pumping with maximized

local pooling of surface water supplies.

• Continued groundwater pumping with existing

levels of local pooling of surface water supplies.

The second scenario ranked the highest among

the three scenarios. Spot water transfers and short-term

demand reduction would provide drought year supply for this scenario. Recommendations made in the

study included:

• ECWMA should commission a comprehensive

groundwater study of the east county area. The

study should focus on groundwater quantity and

quality, and interactions between surface water and

groundwater supplies. An in-county conjunctive

use program to manage drought year shortages

should be evaluated.

• An aquifer storage and recovery program should

be investigated in the Randall-Bold water treatment plant area, in the event that ECWMA

member agencies are required to limit their Delta

diversions at some times of the year.

• ECWMA members should construct dual water

distribution systems to facilitate future use of recycled water in all water service areas within the

east county.

• Interties between water treatment plant service

areas increase reliability and flexibility during

emergencies. The Cities of Pittsburg and Antioch,

CCWD, and DWD should discuss potential intertie benefits associated with CCWD’s reliability

improvement project.

Los Banos Grandes Reservoir Studies

The Department has studied potential SWP

offstream storage sites south of the Delta, as described

in Chapter 6. These studies led to a December 1990

Los Banos Grandes Facilities Feasibility Report, which

recommended construction of a 1.7 maf reservoir and

associated facilities on Los Banos Creek in western

Merced County. The Department has placed this

project on hold pending a CALFED decision on Delta

TABLE 8-9

New Melones Releases for CVPIA Environmental Purposes (taf)

Water Yeara Dedicated Water Supplemental Water Total

1993 140.9 0.0 140.9

1994 22.7 45.1 67.8

1995 146.3 4.2 150.5

1996 113.4 0.0 113.4

1997 79.9 50.0 129.9

a

 USBR’s water year is from March through February.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-32

improvements. The project could then be reevaluated

in consideration of those improvements and of the

needs and financial capabilities of SWP contractors.

Merced Area Conjunctive Use Study

In 1993, the City of Merced and Merced Irrigation District began a two-year water supply planning

process for eastern Merced County through 2030. The

goals of the study were to manage groundwater, provide a reliable water supply for cities, protect and

enhance the economic base of the region, protect

MID’s water rights, and maintain consensus for the

plan. The advisory committee selected a groundwater

recharge option as the preferred alternative. The

groundwater basin would be operated in combination

with a surface water storage and conveyance system.

Studies to determine groundwater recharge quantities

and locations are currently underway.

Agricultural Drainage

Significant efforts have been made to manage saline drainage water in the region. Closure of San Luis

Drain has made it essential for agricultural districts to

manage irrigation applications as efficiently as possible

onsite until a regional solution for drainage management and disposal is developed. Some agricultural

water districts in the region discharge drainage water

to the San Joaquin River. Much of the salt and selenium loading in the river originate from Grassland

WD’s canals and from two sloughs tributary to the

river—Mud and Salt Sloughs.

Grasslands Bypass Channel Project . Agricultural

drainage from the Grasslands Basin historically discharged to natural channels that meandered through

Grasslands Water District. Flows in these channels

eventually reach the San Joaquin River via Mud and

Salt Sloughs. In an attempt to manage selenium loads

entering the San Joaquin River, USBR is operating a

5-year Grasslands bypass demonstration project. A twomile long channel was constructed to intercept drainage

water that would otherwise flow towards Grasslands

Water District. The new channel carries drainage water to the existing San Luis Drain, allowing the drainage

water to discharge to the San Joaquin River. An agreement for reopening part of the San Luis Drain was

signed by USBR and the San Luis and Delta-Mendota

Water Authority. The agreement established a drainage incentive fee system to provide monetary incentives

for reducing selenium loads discharged to the drain

(see sidebar). The project became operational in 1996

and has significantly reduced salt and selenium loads

entering Grasslands Water District and Salt Slough.

Grasslands Bypass Project Drainage Fee System

The fee system has tiered charges based on percent exceedance of monthly and annual selenium loads. These load targets are

in accordance with RWQCB waste discharge requirements for agricultural drain water. If load targets are exceeded by more

than 20 percent in any given year, the project may be terminated at the discretion of the USBR. An interim review of project

performance will be conducted after two years of operation.

Monthly Fees for Percent Exceedance

(Dollars)

Year 0.1 - 10% 10.1 - 15% 15.1 - 20% 20.1 - 25% 25+ %

1 700 1,400 2,100 2,800 2,800

2 1,200 2,200 3,200 4,200 4,200

3 5,200 7,600 10,100 12,500 12,500

4 6,800 10,100 13,400 16,700 16,700

5 8,300 12,500 16,700 20,800 20,800

Annual Fees for Percent Exceedance

(Dollars)

Year 0.1 - 5% 5.1 - 10% 10.1 - 15% 15.1 - 20% 20+%

1 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 100,000

2 44,000 79,000 115,000 150,000 150,000

3 63,000 92,000 121,000 150,000 150,000

4 81,000 121,000 160,000 200,000 200,000

5 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 250,000

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-33 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

San Joaquin River Real Time Drainage Monitoring Program. Participants in the San Joaquin River

Management Program set up a network of telemetered

flow and salinity monitoring stations on the San

Joaquin River. Data from the stations were linked to a

flow model of the San Joaquin River and its tributaries. Information from the model was distributed to

water managers by e-mail. A demonstration of the realtime monitoring effort was carried out in 1996.

Grasslands Water District managers were informed that

the model predicted a major increase in river flow. The

district discharged a significant amount of high salinity water from its waterfowl ponds by partially draining

them during the high flow event. This timed discharge

resulted in better quality water in the San Joaquin River

later that spring. A significant portion of the salt load

from Grasslands had already passed through the system by the time agricultural diversions began. In 1997,

CALFED approved Category III funding to implement a 2-year program to expand the monitoring

network. The program is scheduled to begin in fall

1998.

Enlargement of Friant Dam

At 520 taf, Millerton Lake has a small storage capacity relative to the San Joaquin River’s average annual

flow. Enlargement of Friant Dam has been considered

in the past to augment regional water supplies. Recently, needs for fishery flows and improved

management of winter/spring floodwaters have been

emphasized. USBR evaluated the potential yield of raising Friant Dam about 140 feet in the 1980s. The

Resources Agency’s 1995 SJRMP Plan recommended

that enlarging Friant be studied for multipurpose use.

Assembly Joint Resolution 7 in 1997 urged the federal government to promptly evaluate raising Friant

Dam. Raising Friant Dam would provide water supplies for CVP water users and downstream riparian

diverters, for SWRCB salinity and fishery flow requirements at Vernalis, and for dilution of agricultural

drainage flows discharged to the river. These supplies

would be obtained by storing surplus winter floodwaters, increasing flood protection levels for lands

downstream. An issue that would need to be addressed

is instream flows in the river immediately downstream

from the dam, as described below.

Instream Flow Requirements Below Friant Dam

In 1988, the Natural Resources Defense Council

filed a suit in U.S. District Court, seeking an injunction and declaratory judgment to prevent USBR from

renewing long-term CVP water supply contracts without preparing environmental documentation and to

require releases for instream uses from Friant Dam,

based on Fish and Game Code Section 5937 and the

public trust doctrine. The legal issues were:

• Does federal law require USBR to renew the water contracts subject to NEPA and ESA review?

• Does Fish and Game Code Section 5937 apply to

federal projects?

• Has CVPIA preempted Fish and Game Code Section 5937?

The court found that CVPIA’s passage had not

caused the NEPA and ESA claims to be moot, nor

had CVPIA preempted the plaintiff’s claim under the

Fish and Game Code. The court also ruled that USBR

failed to comply with Section 7 of the ESA when it

renewed contracts without consulting with federal

wildlife regulatory agencies. The court declared all contracts renewed before CVPIA enactment invalid. The

case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld the District Court’s ruling.

In a setting apart from the litigation, the Friant

Water Users Authority, Natural Resources Defense

Council, and Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s

Associations have agreed to pursue mutually acceptable restoration activities on the San Joaquin River.

Initially, the group has agreed to work on riparian habitat restoration along a 150-mile reach of the river from

Friant Dam to the Merced River confluence. The objectives of the effort are to implement a plan for

restoring a continuous riparian corridor in the study

reach and to construct riparian habitat restoration

projects.

Environmental Restoration Activities

in the San Joaquin River Basin

Many restoration actions are being evaluated for

the San Joaquin River system. Examples of completed

actions include:

• A spawning gravel restoration project on the lower

Stanislaus River was completed in 1996. This

project consisted of constructing riffles and placing gravel for salmon spawning habitat at three

sites, river miles 47.4, 50.4, and 50.9.

• A spawning gravel restoration project below

Crocker-Huffman Dam on the Merced River was

completed in 1990 and repaired in 1996.

• The Magneson Pond isolation project on the

Merced River, completed in 1996, consisted of isoEE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-34

lating a gravel pit from the river and replacing

spawning gravel.

• The M. J. Ruddy spawning gravel project was completed in 1993 on the Tuolumne River. Another

project was completed in 1996 to construct channels above the M. J. Ruddy project, to equalize

river flows to protect the spawning habitat from

washout.

• The La Grange spawning riffle project, completed

in 1994, consisted of constructing riffles and placing spawning gravel at three sites along the

Tuolumne River.

• Funds from the SWP Four-Pumps Agreement have

been used since 1994 to support one DFG warden assigned to enforce fishing regulations (reduce

poaching of anadromous fish) on the San Joaquin

River system.

• Temporary fish barriers have been constructed and

removed on a seasonal basis every year at Hills Ferry

on the San Joaquin River (downstream of the

mouth of Merced River) and at the head of Old

River in the Delta.

• Implementation of the CVPIA dedicated water

provision and the Bay-Delta Accord have increased

San Joaquin River instream flows. Spring pulse

flows have also been provided.

• The 1996 Tuolumne River FERC settlement

agreement among Turlock ID, Modesto ID, City

and County of San Francisco, DFG, and others

increased instream flows from New Don Pedro

Reservoir, extended and supplemented fish monitoring requirements, and provided for non-flow

fish habitat improvement measures.

Several programs are under way to provide additional fishery benefits in the region. Examples of

ongoing fishery restoration projects include:

• The Category III program has contributed funding for a feasibility study of screening at

Banta-Carbona Irrigation District’s Main Lift Canal intake channel on the San Joaquin River.

• Plans for construction of Tuolumne Fish Hatchery are under way, although several environmental

hurdles need to be addressed before a final decision is made to build the fish hatchery. Land for

the hatchery was acquired by the Four-Pumps program in 1996.

• USBR is preparing plans to replace CCID’s

Mendota Dam. Replacement of the dam would

improve fish passage and provide increased water

supply to Mendota NWR.

• DFG and USFWS plan to restore the channel of

a six-mile stretch of the Tuolumne River by isolating or filling gravel pits along the river and

restoring spawning gravel habitat.

San Joaquin River Parkway Development

The San Joaquin River Conservancy is a State

agency charged with acquiring and managing public

lands within the San Joaquin River Parkway. The goal

of the conservancy is to preserve and enhance the San

Joaquin River’s biological diversity, protect its cultural

and natural resources, and provide educational and

recreational opportunities to local communities.

The San Joaquin River Parkway includes the San

Joaquin River and about 5,900 acres of land on both

sides of the river, and extends about 22 miles from

Friant Dam downstream to the Highway 99 crossing

of the river. The parkway is planned as a riparian corridor with trails for hiking, horseback riding, and

biking; boating access points; wildlife areas; and education areas. Approximately 1,900 acres are located in

Madera County and 4,000 acres in Fresno County, of

which approximately 1,600 acres are in public ownership. The conservancy, working with the Wildlife

Conservation Board and the San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Trust, has been making land

acquisitions for the parkway. Other completed projects

include habitat restoration efforts and construction of

5 miles of a multiple-use recreation trail.

January 1997 San Joaquin

River Region Flood Event

The January 1997 flood event was notable for its

sustained rainfall intensity, the volume of floodwater,

and the extent of the storm pattern—from the Oregon border down to the southern end of the Sierra.

Over a three day period, warm moist winds from the

southwest blew over the Sierra Nevada, pouring over

30 inches of rain on watersheds already saturated by

one of the wettest Decembers on record. The volume

of runoff exceeded the flood control capacity of New

Don Pedro Reservoir and Millerton Lake. Although

the peak flood release from New Don Pedro Dam was

less than half the peak Tuolumne River inflow of

120,000 cfs, it was more than six times the downstream

channel’s flood control limit of 9,000 cfs. In all, thirtysix levee failures occurred along the San Joaquin River

system, along with extensive damage related to high

flows and inundation. Most of the damage occurred

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-35 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

downstream of the Tuolumne River confluence.

The primary flood control issue facing the San

Joaquin River Region is the lack of flood channel capacity. Channels and levees are generally designed for

50-year flood protection. Insufficient channel capacity is especially problematic in the lower San Joaquin

River below the Merced River. At the lower end of the

system, sediment deposition continues to raise the river

bed and reduce channel capacity. Sediment deposition

also promotes vegetation growth, thereby increasing

channel roughness and further impeding flows. As

urban development occurs on lands formerly used for

agriculture, the need for higher levels of flood protection becomes more important.

The 1997 Final Report of the Flood Emergency Action Team to the Governor detailed several

recommendations and possible actions for the San

Joaquin River watershed, such as:

• A USACE reconnaissance study for the Tuolumne

River to evaluate constructing a flood control impoundment on Dry Creek, restricting

development in the floodplain, and developing

offstream flood storage to be integrated with water supply storage.

• Acquisition of flood-prone lands (largely agricultural lands) in Stanislaus County which could be

added to USFWS’s San Joaquin National Wildlife Refuge. The lands would be managed to allow

periodic flooding, and would provide temporary

storage of flood peaks. A similar approach could

be taken at the West Bear Creek Unit of the San

Luis National Wildlife Refuge, where floodflows

could be temporarily stored on existing refuge

lands.

• Increasing the capacity of the lower San Joaquin

River by measures such as channel dredging, setback levees, and improving bridge crossings.

Water Management Options

for the San Joaquin River Region

Table 8-10 shows a list of options for the region,

and the results of an initial screening of the options.

The retained options were evaluated (Table 8A-2 in

Appendix 8A) based on a set of fixed criteria discussed

in Chapter 6.

Water Conservation

Urban. Urban water demand forecasts for 2020

assume that BMPs are in place; consequently, only

those urban conservation efforts which exceed BMPs

are considered as options. Urban water conservation

options were deferred from detailed evaluation because

they provide little cost-effective potential to create new

water through depletion reductions.

Agricultural. The 2020 agricultural water demand

forecasts assume that EWMPs are in place. As with

the urban water management options, only those agricultural conservation efforts which exceed EWMPs

are considered as options. Changes in irrigation management practices to attain SAEs of 76 to 80 percent

would yield less than 1 taf/yr depletion reduction. Flexible water delivery, canal lining and piping, and

tailwater recovery could each yield 2 taf/yr depletion

reduction.

Modify Existing Reservoirs

Various agencies have looked at raising or modifying existing water supply and/or multipurpose

reservoirs. USACE and SEWD are evaluating modifications or reoperation of Farmington Reservoir. Local

runoff, plus New Melones or American River supplies,

could be used to fill an enlarged reservoir.

New Reservoirs

Onstream Storage. Amador County Water

Agency developed preliminary proposals for the Irish

Hill and Volcano Reservoir projects. Irish Hill Reservoir, on Dry Creek, would serve areas near Ione with

up to 23.7 taf of drought year supply. Volcano Reservoir, on Sutter Creek, would serve the communities of

Sutter Creek and Amador City, in addition to providing flood control benefits for Sutter Creek. The

estimated drought year supply would be 14.7 taf. Studies on both projects are inactive.

Amador County has participated in studies of the

larger Middle Bar and Devils Nose reservoir projects.

Alternatives for Middle Bar included a low and high

dam, with drought year supplies of 12 taf and 159 taf,

respectively. The larger Middle Bar Dam has been considered by EBMUD as a water supply option for its

service area in the San Francisco Bay Region. The reservoir, however, could provide some local supply to

Amador, Calaveras, and possibly San Joaquin Counties. A number of obstacles such as water rights, a FERC

license, and financing would need to be addressed before proceeding with the project. The proposed Devils

Nose project would be a hydroelectric power project

with incidental water supply benefits, along the north

fork and mainstem of the Mokelumne River. As conEE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-36

TABLE 8-10

San Joaquin River Region List of Water Management Options

Option Retain Reason for Deferral

or Defer

Conservation

Urban

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8 ETo Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Indoor Water Use Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Interior CII Water Use Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Distribution System Losses Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Agricultural

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Flexible Water Delivery Retain

Canal Lining and Piping Retain

Tailwater Recovery Retain

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations

Reoperate/Enlarge Farmington Reservoir Retain

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities

Montgomery Reservoir Offstream Storage Retain

(Merced County)

Fine Gold Creek Offstream Storage Retain

(Madera County)

Irish Hill Reservoir (Amador County) Retain

Volcano Reservoir (Amador County) Defer Geologic constraints.

Middle Bar Reservoir (Amador County) Retain

Devils Nose Reservoir (Amador County) Retain

Cape Cod Reservoir (Cosumnes River) Defer Major storage unlikely on Cosumnes River.

Bakers Ford Reservoir (Cosumnes River) Defer Major storage unlikely on Cosumnes River.

Mid-Valley Canal Defer Questionable water supply availability.

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use

EBMUD/San Joaquin County Conjunctive Use Defer Under discussion; not yet defined.

Stockton East WD Retain

Madera Ranch Retain

Water Recycling

Water recycling options Defer Water recycling options would not generate new

water supply in this region.

Desalination

Brackish Groundwater

Agricultural Drainage Defer No present local agency plans.

Seawater

— ——

Other Local Options

— ——

Statewide Options

— — See Chapter 6.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-37 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

ceived, the project would include a 470-foot high dam

at the Devils Nose site upstream from PG&E’s Tiger

Creek Forebay and below Salt Springs Reservoir. The

reservoir would have a capacity of 145 taf. Water from

the reservoir would be released via a 3-mile tunnel to a

powerhouse with 41 mW of installed capacity. The

proposed Devils Nose project was later merged with a

proposed Cross County project, which included a conveyance system from Tiger Creek Afterbay to a 79 mW

Cross County Powerhouse. Preliminary operation studies indicate a system yield of 23 to 30 taf/yr. EBMUD

had also considered participation in the project. The

project is currently dormant.

The Cosumnes River project was examined jointly

by El Dorado, Sacramento, Amador, and San Joaquin

Counties as a multipurpose project. The proposal included up to six reservoirs with hydroelectric power

generation, flood control, and recreation to provide

supplemental water supply benefits. Average year yield

of the project was estimated at 170 taf. The project

would include a 300 taf Cape Cod Reservoir and a

185 taf Bakers Ford Reservoir. The Cosumnes River is

one of the few remaining undeveloped Sierra Nevada

rivers. Interest in preserving the river’s free-flowing

characteristics and the difficulties associated with obtaining a FERC license would make large-scale water

development on the river unlikely. Project planning is

inactive.

Offstream Storage. USBR studied a 240 taf reservoir to store spills from Lake McClure. The proposed

Montgomery Reservoir would be constructed on Dry

Creek, north of the confluence of Merced River and

Dry Creek, near the community of Snelling. Water

would be conveyed by a two-way facility from Merced

Falls Diversion Dam to Montgomery Reservoir. Releases would be used to improve instream flows and to

maintain lower water temperatures for fall-run chinook

salmon in the Merced River. Montgomery Reservoir

would also provide additional flood protection in the

San Joaquin River. About $3 million and three years

would be required to complete the feasibility study and

environmental review. The project, including the reservoir, conveyance, pumping, and appurtenant facilities

has been estimated to cost about $135 million. The

yield is estimated to be 35 taf during drought years.

The drought year cost of this option is estimated to be

$300/af. The project was recommended for further

study in SJRMP’s Plan.

In 1989, Madera Irrigation District asked USBR

to investigate a 350 taf offstream storage project on

Fine Gold Creek, a San Joaquin River tributary. Surplus flood flows would be pumped from Millerton Lake

to the reservoir for water supply and power generation. Potential benefits also include fishery

enhancements and flood protection. The average year

yield is estimated to be 42 taf. According to MID’s

1991 preliminary cost estimate, the project would cost

in excess of $500 million. Project evaluation and investigation was estimated at $3 million, and at least 3

years would be required to complete feasibility and

environmental investigations. The Fine Gold Creek

project, although not originally formulated as such, is

essentially an alternative to enlarging Friant Dam.

New Conveyance Facilities

Since the 1970s, several feasibility studies have

been conducted on importing additional Delta supplies to reduce groundwater overdraft in the San

Joaquin Valley. USBR’s 1981 A Report on the Mid-Valley Canal Feasibility Investigation examined the

possibility of constructing a canal that would supply

portions of Madera, Merced, Fresno, Kings, Tulare,

and Kern Counties with additional imported water.

The report suggested that water from the Delta

could be conveyed to O’Neill Forebay using available

capacity in the California Aqueduct. From O’Neill, a

portion of the water would be delivered to Mendota

Pool by an enlarged Delta-Mendota Canal, while the

remainder would be conveyed to Kern County using

available capacity in the California Aqueduct. To provide water to the rest of the service area, the proposal

called for the construction of two branches of a new

facility called the Mid-Valley Canal. The main branch

would lift water from the Mendota Pool and carry it

southeast to Fresno, Kings, and Tulare Counties.

Madera and Merced Counties would receive their supply via a north branch, also diverting from Mendota

Pool. Introduction of this additional water supply to

the San Joaquin River Region could reduce groundwater overdraft and enhance wetlands, wildlife habitat,

and recreation.

USBR initially identified a firm annual water supply in the Delta of approximately 500 taf available for

export to the proposed service area. It was later determined that this supply was unavailable due to increased

Delta outflow requirements and curtailment of proposed expansion of CVP facilities. Subsequent

enactment of CVPIA and issuance of SWRCB Order

WR 95-6 further limited available CVP water supply.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-38

Groundwater Development or Conjunctive Use

Urban and agricultural water users have relied on

both surface and groundwater supplies. Many local

water purveyors use surface water allocations, purchased water, and excess flood water for groundwater

recharge. Natural waterways, local agency canals, and

State and federal conveyance facilities create opportunities for groundwater recharge, storage and

conjunctive use programs.

EBMUD is continuing discussions with San

Joaquin County interests for a joint groundwater storage/conjunctive use project. This option is part of

EBMUD’s water supply action plan described in Chapter 7; its yield is undefined at this time.

SEWD has proposed to construct a groundwater

recharge facility at the northern terminus of the lower

Farmington Canal. The canal would be extended about

one-half mile, and a series of recharge basins constructed. The proposed facility could include up to 45

five-acre recharge basins, which could provide a combined recharge rate of 100 cfs. Estimated capital costs

for the facility are about $14.25 million.

USBR and SLDMWA are investigating a proposed

water banking project at Madera Ranch, southwest of

the City of Madera. This storage facility would receive

surplus water from the Delta for recharge. Water stored

during wet years could be pumped in drought years

for environmental, urban, and agricultural uses. The

recharge pond area would be 3,500 acres and the potential storage capability is estimated to be about 390

taf. When available, flows in the Delta would be conveyed to Mendota Pool for diversion to the project at

a rate of up to 400 cfs. Withdrawal capacity from the

aquifer would be about 200 cfs, with average annual

yield of about 70 taf at a cost of $226/af.

Phase I of the investigation, including geologic testing, and review of legal, financial, and environmental

issues, was completed in April 1998. USBR recommends proceeding to Phase 2, pending discussions with

the landowner. Two options would be examined in

Phase 2. One would be a multi-year commitment to

lease the facilities and services developed by the landowner. A second would be for USBR to purchase

Madera Ranch property and develop a water banking

facility.

Water Recycling

Most municipal and industrial water use in the

San Joaquin River Region occurs on the east side of

the San Joaquin Valley. Wastewater is generally spread

for groundwater recharge. Wastewater that is directly

or indirectly discharged to the San Joaquin River becomes available for downstream uses, including Delta

outflow requirements. Because of extensive reapplication, no water recycling options within the basin qualify

as new sources of supply from a regional viewpoint.

Several small water recycling projects serve local

water management or wastewater disposal needs. Recycled water is currently used for golf course or pasture

irrigation. The City of Stockton proposes to use recycled water for irrigation, groundwater storage, or

transfer to possible future storage reservoirs such as a

modified Farmington Reservoir.

Desalting

Many studies have explored saline groundwater

desalting on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley.

The Department has been involved in three such studies: a wastewater treatment evaluation facility in

Firebaugh, a Los Banos demonstration desalting facility, and an Adams Avenue agricultural drainage research

center. These studies indicated that production costs

for treating agricultural drainage water were about

$1,000/af. As discussed in Chapter 5, desalting costs

are directly related to feedwater salinity. Today’s costs

for brackish groundwater treatment are in the range

of $500 to $1,000/af, depending on feedwater salinity

and the level of infrastructure already in place. Table

8-11 compares the salinity of various water sources.

The approximately 30 taf/yr of agricultural drainage water now collected for the Grasslands Bypass

Project represents a source of brackish water available

for treatment. Technology is available to treat the water, which would present a new supply to the region

(as well as a means to improve San Joaquin River quality). For such a project to be feasible, a brine disposal

solution would have to be found, as well as project

participants. No such arrangements are currently under negotiation.

Statewide Options

Statewide water supply augmentation options are

discussed and quantified in Chapter 6.

Options Likely to be Implemented

in the San Joaquin River Region

Water supplies are not available to meet all of the

region’s 2020 water demands in average or drought

years. Applied water shortages are forecasted to be

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-39 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

63 taf and 711 taf in average and drought years, respectively. Ranking of retained water management

options for the San Joaquin River Region is summarized in Table 8-12. Table 8-13 summarizes options

that can likely be implemented by 2020 to relieve the

shortages.

Reoperating Farmington Reservoir in conjunction

TABLE 8-11

Comparison of Salinity of Water Sources

Water Source Representative Weight of

Solids in 1 Acre-foot of Water

Mono Lake 110 tons

Salton Sea 60 tons

Seawater 48 tons

Brackish Groundwater (3,000 mg/L TDS) 4 tons

Colorado River at Parker Dam 1 ton

California Aqueduct at Banks Pumping Plant 500 pounds

with SEWD’s plans for conjunctive use could augment

supplies by 22 taf in average years and 8 taf in drought

years.

Constructing Montgomery Reservoir could augment local drought year supplies by about 35 taf. As a

statewide option, enlarging Friant Dam could provide

39 taf of additional average year supply for the region.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-40

TABLE 8-12

Options Ranking for San Joaquin River Region

Optiona Rank Cost ($/af) Potential Gain (taf)

Average Drought

Conservation

Agricultural

Flexible Water Delivery L 1,000 2 2

Canal Lining and Piping L 1,200 2 2

Tailwater Recovery H 150 2 2

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations

Reoperate Farmington Reservoir (surface supply only) H b 7 5

Enlarge Farmington Reservoir M 350 17 8

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities

Montgomery Reservoir Offstream Storage H 300 b 35

Fine Gold Creek Offstream Storage M b 42 b

Irish Hill Reservoir L 430 33 24

Middle Bar Reservoir L b — 159

Devils Nose Reservoir L b b 25

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use

Stockton East WD (includes reoperating Farmington) H 100 22 8

Madera Ranch M 230 — 70

Statewide Options

See Chapter 6.

a All or parts of the amounts shown for highlighted options have been included in Table 8-13.

b Data not available to quantify.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-41 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

TABLE 8-13

Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020 (taf)

San Joaquin River Region

Average Drought

Applied Water Shortage 63 711

Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020

Conservation 2 2

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations — —

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities — 35

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 22 8

Water Marketing — —

Recycling — —

Desalting — —

Other Local Options — —

Statewide Options 39 —

Expected Reapplication — 8

Total Potential Gain 63 53

Remaining Applied Water Shortage 0 658

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-42

FIGURE 8-4

Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region

FRESNO

KINGS

KERN

TULARE

Courtright

Reservoir

Wishon

Reservoir

Lake

Kaweah

North

Fork

Middle

South

St. Johns River

Kings

River Middle

South

Fork

Fork

North

Fork

Fork

Fork

Big Dry Creek

Reservoir

Pine Flat

Lake

Kings

River

Slough

Fresno

Tule

Deer

Success

River

Lake

Creek South

North

Canal

California

Aqueduct

Panoche Creek

Los Gatos Creek

Kern

River

Fork

Fork

Kern River

South

Fork

Buena Vista

Lakebed

Isabella

Lake

Friant Kern

Canal

Coalinga

Coastal

Aqueduct

Tulare

Lakebed

Cross Valley Canal

Kern River

Intertie

Kaweah

River

James

Bypass

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-43 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

Description of the Area

The Tulare Lake Region includes the southern half

of the San Joaquin Valley and the uplands that surround it (Figure 8-4). The San Joaquin River watershed

forms the northern boundary of the region, and the

Tehachapi Mountains form the southern boundary.

The region is bounded to the east by the Sierra Nevada crest and by the Temblor Range to the west. The

climate in the valley varies from fog shrouded winters

to long, hot summers. The valley typically receives

about 6 to 11 inches of rainfall annually, while average

precipitation in the mountains range from 12 to 36

inches, mostly in the form of snow. Most of the region’s

population is located on the east side of the valley. The

area includes several rapidly growing cities, the largest

of which are Fresno, Bakersfield, and Visalia. Other

population centers include Hanford, Clovis, Tulare,

Porterville, and Delano. Table 8-14 shows 1995 and

2020 populations and crop acreages.

The major employment sectors in Tulare Lake

Region are based on agriculture, although the petroleum industry is important in parts of the valley’s west

side and in Kern County. In the sparsely populated

areas on the west side of the valley, industrial water

demands for petroleum recovery and production exceed municipal water demands. Most of the land area

in the valley not devoted to urban and industrial purposes is used for agriculture. The predominant crop is

cotton, followed by permanent orchards and vineyards.

Major orchard crops are almonds and pistachios. Other

major crops are alfalfa and pasture, grain, corn, and

field and truck crops.

This region receives runoff from four main river

basins—the Kings, Kaweah, Tule, and Kern. The principal flood control and regulatory reservoirs for these

rivers are Pine Flat Lake, Lake Kaweah, Success Lake,

The Friant-Kern Canal extends southwards from Friant

Dam, serving lands on the eastern side of the San Joaquin

Valley. The canal is almost 152 miles long, and has a

maximum capacity of 5,000 cfs.

. . .

TABLE 8-14

Population and Crop Acreage

Population Irrigated Crop Acreage

(thousands) (thousands of acres)

1995 1,738 3,127

2020 3,296 2,985

Tulare Lake

Hydrologic Region

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-44

and Isabella Lake. Major water conveyance facilities

for the area include the California Aqueduct, the

Friant-Kern Canal, and the Cross Valley Canal. Water

districts within the region have developed an extensive network of canals, channels, and pipelines to

deliver these water sources to users. Under normal conditions, the region has no natural outlet to the ocean.

During high runoff years, excess water flows down the

Kings River north fork channel toward Mendota Pool

and on to the San Joaquin River. In the wettest years

Kings River floodwaters reach the Tulare Lake via the

south fork of the river. Excess runoff from the Kaweah

and Tule Rivers also flows into Tulare Lakebed, flooding leveed agricultural fields.

The Tulare, Buena Vista, and Kern Lakebeds, once

the region’s drainage sinks, have been converted to

agricultural use. Small areas in Buena Vista Lakebed

are used for regulation of irrigation waters. Since 1977,

excess snowmelt runoff from the Kern River has been

transported to the California Aqueduct via the Kern

River Intertie to alleviate flooding.

The region has several managed wetlands areas,

including Pixley National Wildlife Refuge, Kern National Wildlife Refuge, and Mendota Wildlife

Management Area.

Water Demands and Supplies

Table 8-15 shows regional water demands and

supplies. Shortages at a 1995 level of development in

average water year conditions represent the region’s 820

taf of groundwater overdraft and 50 taf of shortages in

Westlands Water District’s service area.

Under 1995-level average hydrologic conditions,

local surface supplies from the Kings, Kaweah, Tule,

and Kern River systems are the most significant sources

of surface water to the region. The next largest surface

water source is the CVP, which delivers water through

the joint State-federal San Luis Canal, Coalinga Canal, Friant-Kern Canal, and Cross Valley Canal. The

other major source of surface water is the SWP.

The majority of the region’s SWP supply is contracted to Kern County Water Agency. KCWA’s SWP

supply is distributed to fourteen of its member agencies; the largest entitlements go to Wheeler

Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District, Berrenda Mesa

Water District, Belridge Water Storage District, and

Lost Hills Water District. Since these four districts have

limited (or no) groundwater supply, each relies almost

entirely on SWP supplies to meet its water demands.

Most other KCWA member agencies have Kern River,

Friant-Kern Canal, Cross Valley Canal, or groundwater supplies available. Part of the City of Bakersfield’s

water supplies come from the SWP, via KCWA.

The Friant-Kern Canal conveys CVP supply to

24 long-term contractors in the region. Among the

largest contractors for Friant-Kern supply are ArvinEdison Water Storage District, Lower Tule River

Irrigation District, and Delano-Earlimart Irrigation

District. The San Luis Canal also distributes CVP supply, most of which goes to Westlands Water District.

With an allocation of 1,150 taf/yr, Westlands Water

District is CVP’s largest contractor. Westlands supplies

primarily agricultural users; however, about 5.5 taf/yr

is supplied to urban users such as Lemoore Naval Air

Station. (Even with a full CVP contract supply,

The Buena Vista Aquatic

Recreation Area, operated by

Kern County, is located at

the north end of the former

Buena Vista Lakebed. The

California Aqueduct (seen

crossing the top of the photo,

at the base of Elk Hills) skirts

the lakebed’s western edge.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-45 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

Westlands purchases about 200 taf/yr from other

sources to meet its growers’ normal crop needs.)

Arvin-Edison Water Storage District and KCWA

entered into agreements in 1974 for participation in

the Cross Valley Canal. AEWSD also entered into water

exchange agreements with ten agencies in the FriantKern Canal service area. The exchange water is

delivered through the California Aqueduct and the

Cross Valley Canal to AEWSD facilities. AEWSD receives 128 taf annually of exchange water and makes

available to exchange entities the first 174 taf of its

Class I and Class II CVP entitlements from the FriantKern Canal.

Including overdraft, 2020 average year groundwater extraction is forecasted to be about 5.1 maf for the

region. Since groundwater provides a buffer for fluctuating year-to-year surface supplies, its availability is

of great importance to the region. Although urban use

is expected to increase about 410 taf by 2020, groundwater overdraft is expected to decrease 150 taf (from

820 taf to 670 taf) within the planning horizon due to

declining agricultural use. Most of the urban water use

in the region is served from groundwater, although the

Cities of Fresno and Clovis are taking actions to begin

treating surface water supplies.

Local Water Resources

Management Issues

Groundwater Overdraft

Annual fluctuations in groundwater levels vary

with availability of surface water. About 70 percent of

The Kern River near

Oildale, at the edge of the

Sierra Nevada foothills.

TABLE 8-15

Tulare Lake Region Water Budget (taf)a

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

 Urban 690 690 1,099 1,099

Agricultural 10,736 10,026 10,123 9,532

Environmental 1,672 809 1,676 813

 Total 13,098 11,525 12,897 11,443

Supplies

Surface Water 7,888 3,693 7,791 3,593

Groundwater 4,340 5,970 4,386 5,999

Recycled and Desalted 0 0 0 0

 Total 12,228 9,663 12,177 9,592

Shortage 870 1,862 720 1,851

a

 Water use/supply totals and shortages may not sum due to rounding.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-46

the region’s overdraft occurs in the Kings-Kaweah-Tule

Rivers planning subarea. Urban water demands in the

subarea are met almost exclusively by groundwater.

Agricultural development in the subarea includes

645,000 acres of permanent crops. Overdraft in the

region is mitigated to a certain extent by planned recharge programs, over-irrigating crops in wet years, and

allowing seepage from unlined canal systems.

Groundwater Banking Programs

The Department, in cooperation with KCWA and

local water districts, began developing the Kern Water

Bank conjunctive use program in 1985 as a component of the SWP. The proposed KWB program

consisted of eight separate projects or elements. The

Kern Fan Element was to be constructed on lands

owned by the Department. Pursuant to the SWP’s

Monterey Amendment, the KFE was subsequently

transferred to the Kern Water Bank Authority.

Semitropic Water Storage District is participating

in an in lieu groundwater banking project with

MWDSC, SCVWD, ACWD, and Z7WA. This

project involves expanding SWSD’s conveyance system, so that areas normally relying on groundwater

will have surface water available in wet years. SWSD

water users will receive excess surface water from its

banking partners’ SWP supply in wet years. In drier

years, SWSD would release its SWP allocation to its

partners and, if necessary, pump groundwater back into

the California Aqueduct to meet its obligations. The

maximum storage capacity of SWSD’s groundwater

basin is 1 maf. Commitments have been made for

about 80 percent of the project. The remaining 200

taf of storage is available to other potential banking

partners or for expansion of commitments by existing

partners.

MWDSC and Arvin-Edison Water Storage District completed negotiations on a 350 taf water

banking/exchange program. Water banked in this program would be provided by both AEWSD and

MWDSC. AEWSD would provide up to 150 taf of

its supplies to MWDSC, depending on the quantity

of new water yield developed by the program.

MWDSC would provide the remaining portion of the

water supplies from its own sources. AEWSD will construct 500-600 acres of new infiltration basins, 15 new

extraction wells, and a 4.5 mile pipeline intertie with the

California Aqueduct.

Agricultural Drainage

Much of the Tulare Lake Region’s agriculturally

The former Tulare Lakebed has been reclaimed for farming.

Floodwaters from the Sierra now reach the lakebed only in

the wettest years.

California Aqueduct in

foreground with the gates

at the Kern River Intertie,

which was constructed to

allow Kern River

floodwaters to enter the

aqueduct. (In 1995, the

intertie was operated in

reverse under emergency

conditions, to protect the

aqueduct from overtopping

due to upstream flood

inflows.) The design flow for

the intertie is 3,500 cfs.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-47 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

rich westside must contend with high groundwater

tables and drainage problems. Typically, applied irrigation water builds up above semi-impervious clay

layers, creating a shallow, unconfined aquifer of generally poor to unusable quality. Efforts of the San

Joaquin Valley Interagency Drainage Program to

address westside drainage problems are described in

Chapter 4.

Arroyo Pasajero and

Other Westside Cross-Drainages

The Department, USBR, and USACE are completing a 5-year feasibility study to identify long-term

solutions to flooding and sedimentation problems

threatening the California Aqueduct at its crossing of

Arroyo Pasajero. The SWP’s problems at this uncontrolled ephemeral stream are similar to those being

experienced by others in the area. Arroyo flows during

the 1995 flood washed out a bridge on Interstate 5,

resulting in the deaths of 7 motorists. Long-term solutions currently under consideration for the SWP

include a substantial increase in floodwater and sediment storage. The Department is also investigating a

similar problem 20 miles north of Arroyo Pasajero at

the Cantua Creek stream group. These streams present

similar flooding and sedimentation problems for the

Aqueduct.

Kings River Fishery Restoration Actions

Kings River Conservation District and the Kings

River Water Association are cooperating with USACE

in a feasibility study of Kings River fishery habitat

improvements associated with USACE’s Pine Flat

Dam. The study is evaluating impacts of original

project construction, riparian habitat restoration downstream of the dam, potential operating strategies to

minimize lake level fluctuations during spawning periods, and temperature control methods for trout

populations. One component of the study includes a

new multi-level intake structure for the reservoir, to

better manage downstream river temperatures. USACE

is also implementing a related project to install a bypass at the dam’s powerplant so that releases can be

made through the existing penstocks when the turbines are not in operation. This project will provide

temperature control for the downstream trout fishery.

Water Management Options

for the Tulare Lake Region

Table 8-16 shows a list of options for the region,

and the results of an initial screening of the options.

The retained options were evaluated (Table 8A-3 in

Appendix 8A) based on a set of fixed criteria discussed

in Chapter 6.

Water Conservation

Urban. Urban water demand forecasts for 2020

assume that BMPs are in place; consequently, only

those urban conservation efforts which exceed BMPs

are considered as options. Urban conservation options

were deferred from evaluation because they provide

little cost-effective potential to create new water

through depletion reductions in the Tulare Lake Region.

Advances in well drilling

technology were key to largescale development of

groundwater in the Central

Valley. This photo show the

state of technology circa

1914.

Courtesy of Water Resources Center Archives,

University of California, Berkeley

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-48

TABLE 8-16

Tulare Lake Region List of Water Management Options

Option Retain Reason for Deferral

or Defer

Conservation

Urban

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8 ETo Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Indoor Water Use Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Interior CII Water Use Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Distribution System Losses Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Agricultural

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements Retain

Flexible Water Delivery Defer Already highly developed; no significant depletion

reductions attainable.

Canal Lining and Piping Defer No additional depletion reductions attainable.

Tailwater Recovery Defer No additional depletion reductions attainable.

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations

Enlarge Pine Flat Dam Retain

Enlarge Lake Kaweah (Terminus Dam) Retain

Enlarge Success Lake Defer Being enlarged for flood control, not water supply.

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities

Rodgers Crossing Project Defer Segment of Kings River designated as a special

management area, under the Wild and Scenic

Rivers Act.

Mill Creek Reservoir Defer Cost too high.

Mid-Valley Canal Defer Questionable water supply availability.

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use

City of Clovis Expansion of Recharge Facilities Retain

Kaweah River Delta Corridor Defer Minimal yield.

Enhancement Recharge

Kern Water Bank Authority Recharge Facilities Retain

Buena Vista WSD Recharge Retain

Cawelo Water District Recharge Retain

Water Marketing

SLDMWA Internal Reallocation of CVP Supply Retain

Water Recycling

Water recycling options Defer Water recycling options would not generate new

water supply.

Desalting

Brackish Groundwater

Agricultural Drainage Defer No present local agency plans.

Seawater

— ——

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-49 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

Agricultural. The 2020 agricultural water demand

forecasts assume that EWMPs are in place. As with

the urban water management options, only those agricultural conservation efforts which exceed EWMPs

are considered as options.

Improving irrigation scheduling would increase

SAE to 76 percent, reducing depletions by 7 taf/yr.

System improvements including pressure regulation

and filtration and better irrigation scheduling would

increase SAE to 78 percent and reduce depletions by

12 taf/yr. To reach 80 percent SAE, conversion to more

efficient irrigation systems would be needed, reducing

depletions by 17 taf/yr. Flexible water delivery is deferred because existing delivery systems in the region

are highly developed, and further improvements would

result in little depletion reduction at a high cost. Canal lining is deferred because areas in the region where

lining and piping could reduce water depletions (the

west side of the valley) already have such improvements.

Tailwater recovery is not a significant future option

because extensive tailwater recovery already occurs in

the region.

TABLE 8-17

Modifying Existing

Reservoirs and New Reservoirs

Additional Storage in Kings River Basin. Pine

Flat Dam, completed in 1954, is a USACE flood control project that also provides supplemental water

supply to Kings River Basin water users. In 1974, the

Kings River Conservation District commissioned a

master plan to evaluate local solutions to flood control

and water supply problems. This study identified three

projects to improve storage and regulate Kings River

flows. In order of cost-effectiveness, they were enlargement of Pine Flat Dam, Rodgers Crossing project, and

Mill Creek project.

A 1989 USACE reconnaissance study investigated

Kings River Basin flood control and water supply opportunities. After screening several alternatives,

enlargement of Pine Flat Dam was retained for further study. A 15-foot increase of gross pool height

appeared to have the best benefit/cost ratio. This alternative would increase the reservoir’s storage capacity

about 92.8 taf and provide an average of 12.7 taf/yr of

Flooding from Arroyo

Pasajero spreads out as

sheetflow over the lower

portion of the Arroyo’s

alluvial fan. The Arroyo’s

periodic flooding closes

State Highway 269 and

threatens the integrity of the

California Aqueduct.

TABLE 8-16

Tulare Lake Region List of Water Management Options (continued)

Option Retain Reason for Deferral

or Defer

Other Local Options

— — —

Statewide Options

— — See Chapter 6.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-50

additional average year yield. The major benefit would

be flood control. The alternative was not economically

feasible at the time. The Rodgers Crossing project, a

proposed reservoir located upstream of Pine Flat Reservoir, was rendered infeasible when the damsite was

included in a river segment subsequently designated

as wild and scenic.

Mill Creek is a small, uncontrolled, intermittent

stream tributary to the Kings River below Pine Flat

Dam. The creek’s 77,000 acre watershed produces an

average annual runoff of approximately 30 taf. Heavy

local rainstorm events occasionally result in flows in

excess of 10,000 cfs, high enough to cause damage

along the Kings River channel downstream. In the

1970s, USACE studied the feasibility of constructing

a dam on Mill Creek, just upstream of its confluence

with the Kings River. The benefits of such a project

would include additional flood protection, water conservation, power generation, and recreation. The

proposed reservoir would have a capacity in excess of

600 taf and would be directly linked with Pine Flat

Reservoir by a tunnel, allowing the reservoirs to be

operated conjunctively. In wet years, Kings River water that would flood agricultural lands in Tulare

Lakebed could be diverted and stored in Mill Creek

Reservoir. USACE’s studies indicated that the project

was not economically viable.

Additional Storage in Kaweah River Basin. Lake

Kaweah is located on the Kaweah River about 20 miles

east of Visalia. Terminus Dam, completed in 1962 by

the USACE, provides flood protection and irrigation

water supply to downstream users. A draft USACE

feasibility report investigated continuing flood control

problems and water resource needs on the Kaweah

River and identified three alternative solutions—enlarge Terminus Dam, construct a flood detention dam

on Dry Creek above Lake Kaweah, or construct a reservoir on Dry Creek with a connecting tunnel to Lake

Kaweah. Upon further study, only Terminus enlargement was considered feasible due to environmental and

cultural impacts of facilities on Dry Creek. Enlarging

Terminus Dam would involve raising the spillway, increasing flood control storage by about 42 taf. On an

average annual basis, the study estimates that in-basin

irrigation water supply would increase by 8.4 taf

through better regulation of flood flows. Congress

authorized enlargement of Terminus Dam in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. Construction

is tentatively scheduled to begin in 2000 and to be

completed in 2002. The Terminus Dam enlargement

is projected to have a capital cost of about $37 million.

Additional Storage in Tule River Basin. In response to flood protection problems experienced

during large storms, Tulare County and the Tule River

Association requested USACE to consider providing

additional storage in the basin by enlarging Success

Lake. Success Lake is estimated to provide about a 55-

year level of protection for the City of Porterville. A

1992 reconnaissance study found that a 10-foot increase in gross pool height with a corresponding

increased storage capacity of 28 taf was the preferred

alternative. The enlargement would provide a 100-year

level of flood protection and increase irrigation water

supply by 2.8 taf annually. USACE entered into a feasibility cost-sharing agreement with Lower Tule River

ID for updating the 1992 study and for preparing an

EIR/EIS. The draft feasibility study and EIR/EIS are

scheduled to be released in 1998. Since the reservoir

enlargement’s primary purpose is flood control, the

project is not considered further in this chapter as a

water supply option.

New Conveyance Facilities

The Mid-Valley Canal and the constraints on its

implementation were discussed in the San Joaquin

River Hydrologic Region. The conveyance project is

presently not feasible because it has no water supply.

Groundwater Development or Conjunctive Use

Many water districts and cities in the region use

excess surface water allocations, purchased water, and

floodwater for groundwater recharge. Local distribution systems and CVP and SWP conveyance facilities

create opportunities for agencies to exchange and purchase surface supplies for groundwater recharge.

Opportunities for groundwater recharge or conjunctive use projects are limited in some parts of the region,

Westlands Water District

Distribution System

Westlands Water District is the CVP’s largest water

contractor. Among Central Valley agricultural water

districts, WWD is unique both for its size (almost 1,000

square miles) and for its irrigation distribution system—

which is based entirely on pipelines, rather than open

canals. Altogether the distribution system has over 1,000

miles of buried pipe, varying in diameter from 10 to 96

inches. The basic design flow rate for each farm delivery

system is 1 cfs per 80 acres.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-51 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

such as the west side of the valley, because of nearsurface poor quality groundwater.

The City of Clovis has an agreement with Fresno

Irrigation District entitling the city to an average of

14.9 taf of Kings River water and 1.1 taf of Class II

water from Millerton Lake. Currently, the city’s surface water supply is used exclusively for groundwater

recharge. Existing facilities can recharge approximately

7.8 taf/yr. As the city expands into surrounding agricultural lands and acquires additional water supplies,

average annual surface supplies are expected to increase

to 30.1 taf by 2015. With this increase in supply, the

city is developing new recharge sites to recharge an

additional 3.5 taf/yr.

Visalia plans to develop new wells as its water needs

grow, estimating that 15 additional wells will be necessary to meet average year water demands in 2020.

Visalia is also working with the Kaweah Delta Water

Conservation District and Tulare County on a Kaweah

River Delta corridor study to investigate multiple use

sites for groundwater recharge, floodwater management, and habitat restoration. The study is currently

in the feasibility stage. The project would include recharge basins with a storage capacity of about 750 af.

A demonstration project has been proposed to model

integration of the multiple uses.

Pursuant to Monterey Agreement contract amendments and the transfer of the KFE, KWBA has been

operating about 3,000 acres of recharge basins under

an emergency CEQA exemption and an interim ESA

Section 7 consultation, allowing the authority to recharge winter floodwaters. Since May 1995, KWBA

has recharged about 700 taf on behalf of its member

agencies. KWBA prepared a 75-year habitat conservation plan/natural community conservation plan

covering the use of the 20,000-acre property. The HCP

sets aside about 10,000 acres for habitat purposes. ESA

listed species found in the project area include the kit

fox, kangaroo rat, and blunt-nosed leopard lizard.

KWBA plans to expand the recharge facility to 6,800

acres. The cost for this expansion, including additional

conveyance structures, is about $30 million.

Buena Vista Water Storage District is planning to

construct up to 200 acres of additional facilities to store

excess Kern River water. The new facilities are estimated to cost about $250,000.

Cawelo Water District recently entered into an

agreement with Texaco Inc. for water generated during oil recovery. A significant amount of water is

trapped in oil bearing zones. The quality of much of

this water is good, once it has been separated from the

oil. The agreement negotiated by Texaco and CWD

made possible the construction of an 8 mile pipeline

to carry as much as 25 taf/yr of this water to the district. Additionally, Cawelo purchased almost 90 acres

of land straddling Poso Creek in 1996. The district

will allow the land to be flooded during high flows to

enhance groundwater recharge. Work will begin shortly

on a feasibility study to address the district’s long-term

plans for more recharge facilities.

Water Marketing

As described in Chapter 6, the San Luis and DeltaMendota Water Authority has negotiated an internal

reallocation of its members’ CVP supplies with USBR.

Under this agreement, participating member agencies

of SLDMWA may exchange wet year supplies for

drought year supplies with SCVWD. Westlands Water District has initiated a short-term buy-back program

for its water users who wish to sell their unused allocation or other supply to the district. The buy-back

program would be implemented only if WWD had

not finalized transfers from other sources to meet its

total supplemental water needs. Marketing under this

program would be intra-regional. WWD is also currently preparing a draft programmatic EIR on

purchasing and transferring up to 200 taf/yr to its service area. Because details on proposed transfers are not

yet available, this program is not included in the water

management options evaluation.

Looking at the upstream face of Terminus Dam, with the

outlet works structure in the background.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-52

Urban and agricultural

development have

reduced the habitat

available to the San

Joaquin Valley kit fox,

a listed species.

Water Marketing—WaterLink Program

In 1996, an electronic water marketing system went

on-line in Westlands Water District. The WaterLink

system was designed by the University of California

Berkeley and Davis campuses, the Natural Heritage

Institute, and farmers and water district staff. The project

was funded by a grant from USBR. WaterLink allows

district growers to use their home computers to post

and read bids, access information on average prices and

trading volumes, and negotiate transactions. WaterLink

can also be used to schedule water deliveries and

eventually to obtain water account balances, a feature

that will enable water users to manage their water

supplies more effectively. WaterLink is an intra-net

system, available only to district growers, to allow them

to make internal trades of in-district supplies.

Water Recycling and Desalting

In the Tulare Lake Region, most urban water use

occurs on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley. Wastewater produced from urban use is generally recharged

to groundwater basins where it reduces groundwater

overdraft, or is extracted for other uses. No water recycling projects in the region qualify as new sources of

supply from a regional perspective. As discussed in the

San Joaquin River Region section, options for desalting agricultural drainage water were deferred for the

Tulare Lake Region.

Statewide Options

Statewide water supply augmentation options are

discussed and quantified in Chapter 6.

Options Likely to be Implemented in

the Tulare Lake Region

Water supplies are not available to meet all of the

region’s 2020 water demands in average or drought

years. Applied water shortages are forecasted to be 720

taf and 1,851 taf in average and drought years, respectively. Ranking of retained water management options

for the Tulare Lake Region is summarized in Table 8-

17. Table 8-18 summarizes options that can likely be

implemented by 2020 to relieve the shortages.

Improvements in agricultural irrigation demand

management will likely occur over the entire region,

although much of the region is already efficient in its

agricultural water management. Areas where further

efficiency improvements will have the most effect will

be where agricultural lands overlie shallow groundwater of poor quality. The west side of the valley will receive the most benefits from irrigation water

conservation practices. These practices could reduce

depletion annually by 17 taf if system upgrades are

employed to increase SAEs to 80 percent.

The portion of the region’s 2020 water shortage

attributable to groundwater overdraft is estimated to

be 670 taf. Several plans exist to expand recharge facilities or to construct new ones.

The region’s local surface supplies have already

been extensively developed and further development

opportunities are limited. Modification of existing facilities through the enlargement of Lake Kaweah and

Pine Flat Lake could produce about 21 taf/yr of additional yield for irrigation supply.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

8-53 OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS

TABLE 8-17

Options Ranking for Tulare Lake Region

Optiona Rank Cost ($/af) Potential Gain (taf)

Average Drought

Conservation

Agricultural

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements (76%) H 100 7 7

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements (78%) M 250 12 12

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements (80%) M 450 17 17

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations

Enlarge Pine Flat Dam H 470 13 b

Enlarge Lake Kaweah (Terminus Dam) H 370 8 b

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use

City of Clovis Expansion of Recharge Facilities H 280 — 11

Kern Water Bank Authority Recharge Facilities H 60 — 339

Buena Vista Water Storage District Recharge H 75 — 29

Cawelo Water District Water Banking Project H 50 — 13

Water Marketing

SLDMWA internal reallocation of CVP supply H b 10 —

Statewide Options

See Chapter 6.

a All or parts of the amounts shown for highlighted options have been included in Table 8-18.

b Data not available to quantify.

TABLE 8-18

Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020 (taf)

Tulare Lake Region

Average Drought

Applied Water Shortage 720 1,851

Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020

Conservation 17 17

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 21 —

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities — —

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use — 392

Water Marketing 10 —

Recycling — —

Desalting — —

Other Local Options — —

Statewide Options 466 387

Expected Reapplication 4 187

Total Potential Gain 518 983

Remaining Applied Water Shortage 202 868

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - INTERIOR REGIONS 8-54

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
8A-1 APPENDIX 8A

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 8A

8A

Options Evaluations for Interior Regions

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 8A 8A-2

Appendix 8A The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

TABLE 8A-1

Options Evaluation Sacramento River Region

Evaluation Scores

Option Engineering Economics Environ- Institutional/ Social/ Other Overall Rank

mental Legal Third Party Benefits Score

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations

Reoperate PG&E Reservoirs 3 3 2 0 1 0 9 L

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities

Dry Creek Reservoir (Lake County) 3 3 2 1 3 0 12 LThurston Lake Pump-Storage Project 2 3 2 2 2 2 13 MParks Bar Reservoir (Yuba County) 3 2 2 3 3 4 17 HWaldo Reservoir (Yuba County) 3 2 2 3 3 4 17 H

Texas Hill Reservoir 3 2 2 2 2 1 12 L

Small Alder Reservoir 3 2 2 2 2 1 12 L

GDPUD Diversion from American River 3 3 3 3 3 0 15 M

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use

New Wells (Redding, Butte, and Colusa Basins) 4 4 3 4 3 0 18 H

Big Valley Conjunctive Use 3 4 3 2 3 2 17 H

Other Local Options

New Surface Water Diversion from 3 3 2 2 3 0 13 M

Sacramento River and Cache Creek byYCFC&WCDNew Surface Water Diversion from Sacramento 3 3 2 2 3 0 13 M

River by Cities of Benicia, Fairfield, and Vacaville

Statewide Options

See Chapter 6.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
8A-3 APPENDIX 8A

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 8A

TABLE 8A-2

Options Evaluation San Joaquin River Region

Evaluation Scores

Option Engineering Economics Environ- Institutional/ Social/ Other Overall Rank

mental Legal Third Party Benefits Score

Conservation

Agricultural

Flexible Water Delivery 3 0 3 3 2 1 12 LCanal Lining and Piping 3 0 3 3 2 1 12 LTailwater Recovery 3 4 3 3 3 1 17 H

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations

Reoperate Farmington Reservoir 3 3 3 2 3 3 17 HEnlarge Farmington Reservoir 2 3 3 2 3 3 16 M

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities

Montgomery Reservoir Offstream Storage 3 3 3 2 3 3 17 HFine Gold Creek Offstream Storage 3 2 2 2 3 3 15 MIrish Hill Reservoir 3 2 2 1 3 1 12 LMiddle Bar Reservoir 3 1 1 2 2 2 11 LDevils Nose Reservoir 3 1 1 2 2 1 10 L

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use

Stockton East WD 3 3 4 2 3 3 18 HMadera Ranch 3 3 4 2 2 2 16 M

Statewide Options

See Chapter 6.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 8A 8A-4

Appendix 8A The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

TABLE 8A-3

Options Evaluation Tulare Lake Region

Evaluation Scores

Option Engineering Economics Environ- Institutional/ Social/ Other Overall Rank

mental Legal Third Party Benefits Score

Conservation

Agricultural

SAE Improvements (76%) 3 4 3 4 3 1 18 HSAE Improvements (78%) 3 3 3 3 2 1 15 MSAE Improvements (80%) 2 3 3 2 2 1 13 M

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations

Enlarge Pine Flat Dam 3 3 3 4 3 2 18 HEnlarge Lake Kaweah (Terminus Dam) 3 3 3 4 3 3 19 H

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use

City of Clovis Expansion of Recharge Facilities 4 3 4 3 4 0 18 HKern Water Bank Authority Recharge Facilities 4 4 3 3 4 0 18 HBuena Vista Water Storage District Recharge 4 4 3 4 3 0 18 HCawelo Water District Recharge 4 4 4 4 4 0 20 H

Water Marketing

SCVWD/SLDMWA Reallocation 4 4 4 4 3 0 19 H

Statewide Options

See Chapter 6.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
8A-5 APPENDIX 8A

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 8A

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

9-1 OPTIONS - EASTERN SIERRA AND COLORADO RIVER REGIONS

Options for Meeting

Future Water Needs in

Eastern Sierra and Colorado

River Regions of California

This chapter covers the North and South Lahontan

Hydrologic Regions in the eastern Sierra, and the

Colorado River Hydrologic Region (Figure 9-1). These sparsely

populated regions constitute 33 percent of the State’s land area.

USBR’s Parker

Dam on the

Colorado River.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - EASTERN SIERRA AND COLORADO RIVER REGIONS 9-2

FIGURE 9-2

North Lahontan Hydrologic Region

NEVADA

SIERRA

PLACER

EL DORADO

ALPINE

TUOLUMNE

LASSEN

MODOC

OREGON NEVADA

Upper

Lake

Eagle

Lake

Honey

Lake

River

Lake

Tahoe

Truckee

Pine

Creek

Middle

Alkali

Lake

Fallen

Leaf

Lake

Twin

Lakes

Bridgeport

Reservoir

E.

ker

Wal

W. Walker

Long

Valley

Creek

Susan River

Horse

Lake

W.

Fork

E. Fork

Carson RiverRiver

Stampede

Reservoir

Prosser Creek

Reservoir

Boca

Reservoir

Martis Creek

Reservoir

Donner

Lake

Independence

Lake

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

9-3 OPTIONS - EASTERN SIERRA AND COLORADO RIVER REGIONS

Description of the Area

The North Lahontan Region has two planning

subareas (Figure 9-2), the Lassen Group and the Alpine Group. The Lassen Group PSA consists of Lassen

and Modoc Counties. This high desert area is arid,

with relatively flat valley areas adjacent to mountains.

Valley elevations are about 4,000 and 4,500 feet for

Honey Lake and Surprise Valleys. The Warner Mountains, which form the western boundary of Surprise

Valley, range in elevation from about 7,000 to more

than 9,000 feet. Annual precipitation ranges from as

little as 4 inches in Surprise Valley in Modoc County

to over 50 inches in the mountains of the Susan River

watershed in Lassen County. The Alpine Group PSA

includes parts of Sierra, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado,

Alpine, and Mono Counties. The subarea includes the

Truckee, Carson, and Walker River drainages. These

rivers originate at high elevations on the eastern slopes

of the Sierras and flow to terminal lakes or desert sinks

in Nevada. Annual precipitation ranges from 8 inches

in the valleys to more than 70 inches in the Sierra

(much of this amount is snow).

The Lassen Group PSA is rural and sparsely populated. The City of Susanville is the largest population

center in the subarea. In the Alpine PSA, more than

90 percent of the population lives in the Lake Tahoe

and Truckee areas. The City of South Lake Tahoe and

Town of Truckee are the largest communities in the

subarea. The Tahoe-Truckee region has many part-time

residents and visitors during the summer and winter

recreational seasons, reflecting the importance of tourism to the area. Tourism and related recreational

opportunities are vital to the region’s economy and to

much of the region’s service-sector employment.

Cattle ranching is the main agricultural land use

in the Lassen Group PSA. Irrigated land acreage is small

(less than 4 percent of the region’s land area). Commercial crop production is limited because of the short

growing season. Pasture and alfalfa are the dominant

irrigated crops. About 75 percent of the region’s irrigated land is in Modoc and Lassen Counties, and most

of the remainder is in the Carson and Walker River

Basins in Alpine and Mono Counties. Irrigated lands

in the Carson and Walker River Basins are almost exclusively pasture at elevations above 5,000 feet. Most

of the uplands areas are federally owned and managed

as national forest lands. Table 9-1 shows population

and crop acreage for the region.

Water Demands and Supplies

The water budget for the North Lahontan Region

is shown in Table 9-2. Agricultural water demands are

generally met with local surface water supplies, when

available. Throughout the northern portions of the

region, runoff is typically scant and stream flow decreases rapidly after the snowpack melts in the higher

elevations.

No major changes in North Lahontan Region water use are anticipated within the Bulletin’s planning

horizon. Irrigated agriculture is constrained by climate

TABLE 9-1

Population and Crop Acreage

Population Irrigated Crop Acreage

(thousands) (thousands of acres)

1995 84 161

2020 125 165

. . .

North Lahontan

Hydrologic Region

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

OPTIONS - EASTERN SIERRA AND COLORADO RIVER REGIONS 9-4

and by economically available water supplies. A small

amount of agricultural expansion is expected, but only

in areas that can support minor additional groundwater development. Likewise, the modest need for

additional municipal supplies can be met by expanding present surface systems or increasing groundwater

use. Drought year shortages are caused by a reduction

in surface water supplies for agriculture and an increase

in unit crop irrigation requirements for pasture and

alfalfa. No urban water shortages are forecast.

Most of Susanville’s water supply comes from

groundwater and from Cady and Bagwell Springs. The

city has not experienced any water supply shortages

nor does it expect any shortages within the next

20 years.

The Honey Lake Valley Groundwater Basin is an

interstate groundwater basin. The California portion

of the basin is about 45 miles long and 10 to 15 miles

wide. Groundwater extracted from the basin is used

mainly for irrigation. Groundwater use in the basin

appears to be near the basin’s perennial yield. A 1987

agreement among the Department, the State of Nevada, and USGS resulted in a study of the groundwater

flow system in eastern Honey Lake Valley. Upon conclusion of the study in 1990, the Nevada State Engineer

ruled that only about 13 taf could be safely transferred

from Nevada’s portion of the basin for proposed new

water development for Washoe County in Nevada. The

Nevada out-of-basin transfer project has not been

implemented.

The 7,840-acre Honey Lake Wildlife Area is on

the north edge of Honey Lake about 20 miles southeast of Susanville. The HLWA consists of intensively

managed wetlands, cropped fields, and uplands adjacent to the 60,000-acre Honey Lake. It provides

important habitat for migratory waterfowl, sandhill

A majority of the land in the North Lahontan Region is

owned by the federal government, managed primarily by

USFS and BLM. National forest lands provide habitat for

many species of wildlife, including some of California’s larger

mammals.

TABLE 9-2

North Lahontan Region Water Budget (taf)a

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 39 40 50 51

Agricultural 530 584 536 594

Environmental 374 256 374 256

Total 942 880 960 901

Supplies

Surface Water 777 557 759 557

Groundwater 157 187 183 208

Recycled and Desalted 8 8 8 8

Total 942 752 950 773

Shortage 0 128 10 128

a

 Water use/supply totals and shortages may not sum due to rounding.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

9-5 OPTIONS - EASTERN SIERRA AND COLORADO RIVER REGIONS

cranes, and other birds migrating on the Pacific Flyway. During the irrigation season, most of HLWA’s

water supply comes from Willow Creek and its tributaries. HLWA has adjudicated water rights,

administered by the Department, as established in the

1940 Susan River Decree. Groundwater at the refuge

is used for crop irrigation, for maintaining wetlands

water levels, and for domestic purposes.

The Truckee River originates above Lake Tahoe.

The river’s flow downstream from Tahoe City is controlled by a small dam on the lake’s outlet. The river

flows through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada and terminates in Pyramid Lake, located

within the Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation in Nevada. Additional Truckee River Basin storage facilities

are listed in Table 9-3.

Most of the water supply developed by Truckee

River Basin reservoirs is used in Nevada to meet urban

demands in the Reno/Sparks area, irrigation demands,

and fish and wildlife requirements in the lower Truckee

River in Nevada and in Pyramid Lake. On average,

about one-third of the Truckee River’s annual flow is

diverted through the Truckee Canal in Nevada to irrigate land in the Carson Division of USBR’s Newlands

Project near Fallon, Nevada.

Truckee River operations have evolved in response

to litigation, negotiation, court decrees, agreements,

and legislation. The 1915 Truckee River General Electric Decree and the 1935 Truckee River Agreement

form the basis of current river operations. The 1944

Orr Ditch Decree established individual water rights

in Nevada and, by incorporating the Truckee River

Agreement, provided criteria for operating the federal

reservoirs to serve those rights.

Modification of Truckee River operations occurred

when two Pyramid Lake fish species were listed under

the ESA. Cui-ui, the Indian name for a species of sucker

found only in Pyramid Lake, were listed as an endangered species in 1967. Lahontan cutthroat trout were

initially listed as endangered in 1970 and were subsequently reclassified as threatened in 1975. USBR’s

Stampede Reservoir, constructed in 1970 to serve irrigation and municipal uses, is operated to provide water

for these fish, as required by a 1982 federal court decision. Proposed changes in Truckee River operations

are described in the following water management issues section.

In the Truckee Basin within California, the urban

water use occurs in and around the Town of Truckee,

and is supplied by Truckee Donner PUD. TDPUD is

the largest purveyor in the basin, accounting for about

half of the water delivered to commercial and residential customers; its supplies are derived from

groundwater. The Martis Valley groundwater basin is

the principal source of water supply. The areas of

Northstar, Squaw Valley, and Glenshire use groundwater from smaller basins or from fractured rock

sources. The developed area around Donner Lake is

TABLE 9-3

Major Reservoirs in the Truckee River Basin in California

Reservoir Owner Operator Usable Construction Height Drainage Area

Storage (taf) Datea (Feet) (Square Miles)

Tahoe Sierra Pacific Truckee-Carson 744.6 1913 18 506

Power Companyb Irrigation District

Donner Sierra Pacific Sierra Pacific 9.5 1927 14 14

Power Company/ Power Company

Truckee-Carson

Irrigation Dist.

Martis Creekc USACE USACE 20.4 1971 113 40

Prosser Creek USBR USBR 29.8 1962 163 50

Independence Sierra Pacific Sierra Pacific 17.5 1939 31 8

Power Company Power Company

Stampede USBR USBR 226.5 1970 239 136

Boca USBR Washoe County 41.1 1937 116 172

Water Conservation

District

a

 Date existing dam was completed.

b USBR manages the facilities under easement from Sierra Pacific Power Company.

c

 Flood control storage only.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A