The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-24 agreement flows would increase from 130 taf to 185taf. 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 recyclingpotential. 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 studyshowed 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 BayArea. 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 watermarkets in the Bay Area. A limited assessment of agricultural uses immediately south of Santa Clara County will be made, but no further assessment of CentralValley 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 Areawater 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 beconsidered 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 theBMPs are considered as options. All urban conservation options were retained. Reducing outdoor water use to 0.8 ET

o in new development would attain about 2 taf/yr of depletion reductions, while extending this measure to include existing development would reducedepletions 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 theregion and the high SAE attained on average throughout the region, no significant depletion reductions would accrue.
Modify Existing Reservoirs/OperationsNapa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has considered reservoir enlargementoptions 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. TheThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-25 T

ABLE 7-12 San Francisco Bay Region List of Water Management Options

Option Retain Reason for Deferral or Defer

Conservation

Urban

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8ET

o 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-26 T

ABLE 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 RetainThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-27 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 T

ABLE 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 USBRThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 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 havebeen 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 anddroughts years, respectively. (The draft EIR/EIS evaluates alternatives for conveyance of the water. Projectyield remains the same in either of the conveyance alternatives.)
Groundwater Development or Conjunctive Use EBMUD is continuing discussions with SanJoaquin County interests for a joint groundwater storage/conjunctive use project. EBMUD’s CVP contractwater 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 inEBMUD’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 SilveradoCountry 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, andZ7WA 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 fromKCWA, as provided for in SWP’s Monterey Amendments.Several agencies in the region already have banking and exchange agreements with agencies in theTulare 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-termcontracts 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 WaterAuthority and USBR. Under this option, participating member agencies of SLDMWA may receive some of SCVWD’s CVP water allocation in normal andabove-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 16water 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 proposedfor 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 SanThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-29 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 ofgroundwater. 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 BayAqueduct. (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 theregion’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 ambitiousplans 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 thenear 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 theDelta via CVP facilities. In addition, piping to facilitate connections between EBMUD and CCWD andthe 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 SouthBay 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-30 T

ABLE 7-13 Options Ranking for San Francisco Bay Region

Option a Rank Cost ($/af) Potential Gain (taf) Average Drought

Conservation

Urban

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8 ET

o - New Development M 750 2 2
Outdoor Water Use to 0.8 ET

o -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 - 14The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-31 T

ABLE 7-14 Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020 (taf) San Francisco Bay Region a

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 T

ABLE 7-13 Options Ranking for San Francisco Bay Region (continued)

Option a 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, & Vacaville c

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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-32 F IGURE 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 River Salinas

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
nThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-33 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 regionis 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 about10 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 somevalley 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 RegionThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-34service 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 thermalpowerplants 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, althoughthe 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 PeninsulaWater 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 ObispoCounty Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Santa Barbara County Flood Control andWater Conservation District. The Central Coast Water Authority was formed in 1991 to construct, manage, and operate Santa Barbara County’s 42 mile portion T

ABLE 7-15 Population and Crop Acreage

Population Irrigated Crop Acreage (thousands) (thousands of acres)
1995 1,347 572 2020 1,946 570

T ABLE 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-35 of the Coastal Aqueduct. Many small retail agenciesand 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 forSWP water. The two agencies have contractual entitlements totaling 70.5 taf/yr. Due to the 1987-92drought, 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 SantaBarbara 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 theSouth 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 groundwaterhave caused seawater intrusion in the aquifers that supply the Salinas Valley with nearly 100 percent of itsfresh water. Seawater has intruded almost 6 miles inland into the 180-foot aquifer and two miles inlandinto the 400-foot deep aquifer. This intrusion has rendered the groundwater too salty for either municipalor 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-36not 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 NationalMarine 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 preliminarydesign for a Salinas Valley water project to solve seawater intrusion and nitrate contamination. Major components of the project include dam modificationsand 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 Agencyis preparing environmental documents to address water management issues facing the valley, following adoption of a basin management plan in 1993. Theplan includes projects to develop local supplies, recharge groundwater, import new water, and adoptconservation 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. PVWMAis 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 waterdiversions. 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 inthis part of the county, relies primarily on groundwater. As measured in monitoring wells along the Monterey Bay coastline, groundwater quality degradednoticeably 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 forthe 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 includedrecommendations 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 CarmelRiver Basin without valid water rights. SWRCB ordered that diversions from the river be reduced, and that sources outside of the basin be developed. One ofthese 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 forThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-37 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 42taf. The proposed project would increase the city’s annual water supply by about 1.6 taf, but would supplyonly 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, andthe San Simeon Beach State Park installed plants because of the drought. Proposed bonds for a 3 mgdseawater 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 onlyduring dry periods when groundwater supplies are limited. In response to seawater intrusion in its groundwater basin, the Marina Coast Water Districtcompleted 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-38 T

ABLE 7-17 Central Coast Region List of Water Management Options

Option Retain Reason for Deferral or Defer

Conservation

Urban

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8ET

o 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-39 T

ABLE 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 RetainThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 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 ET

o in new development would attain about 4 taf/yr of depletion reductions, while extending this measure to include existing development would reducedepletions 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 withthe urban water management options, only those agricultural conservation efforts which exceed EWMPs are considered as options. Agricultural conservationoptions were deferred for this region, because no significant depletion reductions would be achieved. Excessapplied irrigation water recharges aquifers in the major agricultural areas.
Modify Existing Reservoirs or OperationsIn the Northern PSA, most of these options involve Nacimiento and San Antonio Reservoirs. The options include raising and widening the spillway atNacimiento 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 enlargementsin the Southern PSA. The Salinas Reservoir enlargement project would install a radial gate to raise thespillway 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’sBradbury Dam (Cachuma Reservoir) 50 feet for additional water supply plus an additional 40 feet for flood surcharge storage could result in an additional annualyield 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 isestimated 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 estimatedto 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 T

ABLE 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-41 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 inundatethe 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 todistribute 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 SantaClara 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 bannedexecution 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 agroundwater recharge component alone or in combination with surface water development projects. In thePajaro 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 areresolved, because of SWRCB’s order which encourages the maximum use of supplies from Seaside toreduce 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 inlandareas (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 newwells and deep brackish groundwater wells (with reverse osmosis treatment facilities) in the northern coastarea. 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 bydeveloping 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 alongcoastal 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 SanLuis Obispo County for that county’s existing entitlement to Nacimiento reservoir water or delivered directly through a pipeline constructed at theaqueduct’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 ofCVP water from project agricultural water contractors and opportunities for participation with SCVWD and San Benito County Flood Control and WaterConservation District (existing CVP San Felipe Division contractors) in water marketing arrangements.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-42 Water Recycling For the Northern PSA, water recycling options include an aquifer storage and recovery program whichwould use injection wells to store recycled water produced during the winter, and then would extract this water for irrigation in the Castroville area during thesummer 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 andSanta 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 AreaWastewater 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 inFort Ord, Seaside, and other Monterey Peninsula communities having a potential annual demand of up to 1taf 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 BarbaraCounty 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’ssecondary 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 SanSimeon community services districts had plans, recently put on hold, to jointly construct a 320 af/yr (with ultimate capacity of 1.3 taf annually) seawaterdesalting 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 aweather 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 tafto 68 taf between 1990 to 1994. San Luis Obispo began a 3-year cloud seeding program in January 1991to produce more runoff in the Salinas and Lopez Watersheds. Although this program has ended, futureprograms may be a possibility. Future weather modification options are difficult to quantify and are notevaluated 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 be172 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. T able 7-19 summarizes options that can likely be implemented by 2020 to relieve the short ages.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-43 T

ABLE 7-18 Options Ranking for Central Coast Region

Option a Rank Cost ($/af) Potential Gain (taf) Average Drought

Conservation

Urban

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8ET

o - New Development M 750 4 4

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8ET

o - 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-44 The urban water conservation options beyond BMPs that would likely be implemented would add32 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 watersupply. 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 forthe 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.

T

ABLE 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-45The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-46 F IGURE 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 River San 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

wat er 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

nThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-47 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 hometo 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 JacintoMountains 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, gentlysloping interior valleys, and mountain ranges of moderate elevations. The largest mountain ranges in the region are the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, SanJacinto, 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 90 o 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 SuppliesSince 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 resourcesto 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

T

ABLE 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 RegionThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-48Mono 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 ColoradoRiver 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 Powerowns 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 record534 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 andoperate the Colorado River Aqueduct to deliver Colorado River water to Southern California. MWDSC wholesales water supplies from the Colorado River andthe SWP to water agencies throughout Southern California. MWDSC and its 27 member agencies (Table 7- 22) serve 95 percent of the South Coast Region. Someagencies 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.

T

ABLE 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-49 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. Inthe past, California was able to use hydrologic surpluses and the amount apportioned to, but not usedby, 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.

T ABLE 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 TorranceThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 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 andSBVMWD to extend the East Branch of the California Aqueduct to SGPWA, which serves the BanningPass 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 inMWDSC’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 memberagencies (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 localagencies’ surface reservoirs. Twenty-four surface reservoirs are located within its service area, with a combined capacity of approximately 569 taf. Some reservoirs areconnected to SDCWA’s aqueduct system and can receive imported water in addition to surface runoff. In1995, 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.) T

ABLE 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 20.0 a 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-51 T

ABLE 7-24 Major Reservoirs in the South Coast Region a

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 Prado b 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.

T

ABLE 7-25 Reservoirs Owned by Water Retailers in MWDSC’s Service Area a

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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-52 T

ABLE 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 theremaining 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 agenciesor 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 groundwateruse 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 theLos Angeles Department of Public Works intentionThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-53 F IGURE 7-6
South Coast Groundwater BasinsThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-54 ally recharges 230 taf of local flows, 60 taf of importedwater, 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 summerseason and in drought years. At a 1995 level of development, about 100 taf is banked in average years. Thiswater 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 basinsin the South Coast Region. In the adjudicated groundwater basins, the court appoints watermasters to oversee the court judgement. The court judgement limits theamount 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 ensurea 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 VenturaCounty and the Mexican border. MWDSC is constructing Eastside Reservoir to better manage its watersupplies between wet and dry years. The 800 taf reservoir, located near Hemet in southwestern RiversideCounty, will nearly double the region’s existing surface storage capacity and will provide increased terminal storage for SWP and Colorado River supplies. Whencompleted, Eastside Reservoir would provide the entire region with a six-month emergency supply after an earthquake or other disaster. It would also providewater 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 inthe hills which form the northern boundary of the reservoir. The reservoir includes a forebay and pumpingplant, 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. SWPwater 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, BerkeleyThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-55 T

ABLE 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 SantaMargarita 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 DistrictThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 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 InlandFeeder 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 localsupplies that would be available during times of emergency, SDCWA has proposed an emergency storageproject 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 duringan earthquake. Although not a water supply development project, the emergency water storage projectwould provide incidental local supply benefits by allowing capture of additional winter runoff.Four project alternatives were evaluated. All involved increased surface storage and new distributionsystems. 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 Hodgesreoperation. 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 thedam 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 OlivenhainMWD). 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 Hodgesin 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. Thefinal 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 andLake Hodges, and with Olivenhain MWD concerning joint use of the Olivenhain Reservoir. (Olivenhain MWD had planned to construct a 5 to 8 taf reservoirat the site for its own use if SDCWA did not go forward with a joint project.) Olivenhain MWD wouldconstruct 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 thefull 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 thatwould 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 toreduce 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 includethe SDCWA/IID transfer, lining of parts of the AllAmerican and Coachella Canals, and groundwater banking projects associated with surplus ColoradoRiver water that could be conveyed in MWDSC’s aqueduct. Examples of potential phase two actionsinclude proposals to desalt water in Salton Sea tributaries and to convey the treated water to the SouthThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-57Coast 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 forurban 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 periodof 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 afterMono 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 describedbelow. 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 thefew 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 Californialeast 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 ofa long-running debate among private property owners and environmental groups that began in 1984 when the California Coastal Commission approved a landuse 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 thesalt 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 saltmarsh habitat for pickleweed and the Belding’s Savannah sparrow. • A 34-acre freshwater marsh. • A 25-acre corridor of riparian habitat alongCentinela 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 in1988, 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 Countywhere the district operates constructed freshwater wetThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-58 lands to reduce the nitrogen concentration of riverwater. USACE’s Prado Flood Control Basin is operated primarily for flood control. Under an agreement with USACE and USFWS, OCWD uses 25.75 taf ofthe 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 therecharge 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 ofthe local water supply in the region. Local surface water resources are relatively limited. In the LosAngeles-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 supplybenefits, usually by reoperation of the facilities to enhance groundwater recharge and provide limitedyear-round storage. Several of these facilities are discussed in the water management options section. Beloware a few examples of flood control-related water management issues in the region. Los Angeles River. USACE, in cooperation withLos 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 AngelesRiver 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 operationsfor water supply typically differ from those in Northern California. The Sierran reservoirs in the CentralValley 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 severalmonths, 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 fromrainfloods. 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 PacificOcean without exceeding downstream channel capacities. Continually increasing water demands in theSouth 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 floodcontrol 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 DistrictThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-59 Santa Ana River. The Santa Ana River has been channelized for almost its entire length throughout the highly urbanized part of Orange County, from theriver’s mouth near Costa Mesa upstream to the vicinity of Yorba Linda. Prado Dam, located in the Coronaarea between the Chino Hills and the Santa Ana Mountains, impounds a large flood control detention basin. USACE has constructed several flood control featuresof 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 groundwaterrecharge. 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 increasewater supply benefits. Enlargement would be accompanied by development of a new flood forecastingsystem 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 significantsource 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 resultin unacceptably high TDS concentrations. Groundwater recharge potential may be restricted because theRWQCB 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, typicallyabout 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 onlyrecently been restored through construction of desalting projects. Blending SWP and Colorado Riversupplies 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 wastewaterTDS have grown with the expansion of water recyT

ABLE 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 100The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 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 willevaluate 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 agencyresponsible for remediating groundwater contamination in San Gabriel Valley. The authority’s mission isto 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 ofcontaminated 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 projectcurrently treats approximately 4.6 taf/yr of contaminated groundwater with airstripping, giving the Cityof Monrovia the ability to use water from contaminated aquifers while preventing the spread ofcontamination 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 werefound to be contaminated with volatile organic compounds. Many of the wells have been shut down. TheRWQCB 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 TreatmentPlant (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 collectivelytreat 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 whichThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-61 experiences high groundwater levels. Buildings have experienced seepage of water into basements or groundfloors. 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 extractionproject 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 theconfined 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 from40 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 regionalwater 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 WaterProject Authority, and South Orange County Reclamation Authority. Regional planning would take advantage of potential surpluses of recycled water whichcould 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 usedto 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 wholesalersserving 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 recyclingplants—is the greater uncertainty involved in forecasting future contractual arrangements for transfers. Forexample, 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 ColoradoRiver Region, but terms and conditions of the transfers are subject to negotiation with potential sellers and the availability of conveyance. There are many ways tostructure 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 yearThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 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 agenciesexecuted 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 RegionSDCWA has been studying the feasibility of constructing a new aqueduct from the Imperial Valley toits 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 phaseof 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 abouta 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 forproposals 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 ofTijuana’s inadequate, antiquated sewage treatment system, millions of gallons of raw sewage have been carriedacross 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. Mexicoreceived 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 treatmentfacilities in the United States to solve continuing border sanitation problem. Facilities included a 25 mgd secondary treatment plant at a site just north of theinternational 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 onalternative 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 theplant. The preferred option is a combination of discharging the effluent to the City of San Diego’smetropolitan 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 itswater 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 willThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-63 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 ET

o in new development would attain 67 taf/yr of depletion reductions, while extending this measureto include existing development would reduce depletions by 246 taf/yr. Reducing residential indoor water use to 60 and 55 gpcd would reduce depletions by110 and 220 taf/yr, respectively. Reducing commercial, institutional, and industrial water use by an additional 3 percent and 5 percent would attain 30taf/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 withthe urban water management options, only those agricultural conservation efforts which exceed EWMPsare considered as options. Agricultural water conservation options are limited in the region because of the relatively high SAEs that currently exist, the relianceon high cost, pressurized potable water or groundwater, and the limited agricultural acreage. Improving irrigation management to raise SAEs to 76, 78, and80 percent in the South Coast would reduce depletions by 4, 7, and 10 taf/yr, respectively. Flexible waterdeliveries 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 theLos 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 indicatedthat 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 ofthe existing Prado Dam create an opportunity to increase water supply storage in Prado Reservoir forrecharging 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 aresmall 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 hascooperated with USACE in completion of a reconnaissance study (1994) and preparation of afeasibility-level study to evaluate possible water supply benefits from reoperating the reservoirs for limitedwater 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 GabrielRiver 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 conservationpool 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 runofffrom 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 RiverThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-64 T

ABLE 7-29 South Coast Region List of Water Management Options

Option Retain Reason for Deferral or Defer

Conservation

Urban

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8ET

o 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 DistrictThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-65 T

ABLE 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 DistrictsThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-66 T

ABLE 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-67 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 thewet 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 useadditional 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 resultof 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 theLas 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. Thesearrangements 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 CentralValley. 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 purchasesof water through the drought water bank or other similar spot markets. MWDSC is currently banking water with Semitropic Water Storage District under a long-termtransfer agreement to store up to 350 taf. The agreement allows MWDSC to deliver available SWP waterin wetter years to SWSD for in-lieu groundwater recharge. In drought years SWSD would release its SWPallocation 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 permanenttransfers 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-68 Implementing the CRB’s Draft 4.4 Plan The draft CRB 4.4 Plan would reduce California’suse 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 providewater supplies for the South Coast are described below. More detail on the draft plan and its elements isprovided in Chapter 9. Chapter 9 also presents an overview of how the use of Colorado River water isapportioned among the basin states and among California entities. Bulletin 160-98 water budgets assume that theSouth 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 fillthe 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 anothersource of water for Colorado River/South Coast marketing arrangements, in addition to those actions thatBulletin 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 madeavailable 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 weremade in 1997 and 1998. The more significant impediment to implementing revised operating guidelineswould 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 difficultto 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, anddirect 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 largerange 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 existingplant. For example, projects designed for groundwater recharge are often located near the treatment plant—reducing the costs for distribution. As anotherexample, projects that are designed for landscape irriThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-69 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, theCity of San Diego has conducted research into advanced treatment and ultimate use of recycled wateras 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 costsused 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 or der of magnitude of proposed projects’ costs.A proposed Orange County regional water recycling project is being developed jointly by the OrangeCounty 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. Thetreated wastewater would be used to recharge an aquifer along the Santa Ana River, in lieu of using importedwater 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-70ary effluent produced by an existing wastewater treatment plant would be constructed, with a transmissionpipeline 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 by2020, 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 usuallyexpensive—because it involves sophisticated technologies and high energy costs. Some groundwater recoveryprojects serve the dual purpose of managing migration of plumes to prevent further contamination of usable aquifers. Groundwater desalting plants currently operatinginclude 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 BasinMWD’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 plantexpansions 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 wasformed 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, EasternMunicipal 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 ofwaste 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 brinedisposal 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-71 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 OptionsChino 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 astorm 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 theChino 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 944and 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 theSouth 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. Demandreduction 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 relianceon 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 theSouth Coast Region. Additional banking and marketing arrangements, as well as permanent transfer of SWPentitlement, are likely options for the region, amounting to 37 taf and 27 taf in average and drought years, respectively. Local groundwater conjunctive use programs willlikely 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 providean additional 367 taf/yr by 2020. Groundwater desalting projects could provide an additional 27 taf/yr.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-72 T

ABLE 7-30 Options Ranking for South Coast Region

Option a Rank Cost ($/af) Potential Gain (taf) Average Drought

Conservation

Urban

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8 ET

o - New Development M 750 67 67

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8 ET

o -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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-73 T

ABLE 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 0The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-74A PPENDIX 7A 7A-1 The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 7A 

# 7A

Options Evaluations for Coastal Regions7A-2 A

PPENDIX 7A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 7ATABLE7A-1Options Evaluation North Coast RegionEvaluation ScoresOption Engineering Economics Environ- Institutional/ Social/ Other Overall RankmentalLegal Third Party Benefits ScoreConservationUrbanOutdoor Water Use - New Development 3 2 4 2 2 114 MOutdoor Water Use - New and Existing 3 1 4 2 2 113 MDevelopmentIndoor Water Use (60 gpcd) 3 3 4 2 2 115 MIndoor Water Use (55 gpcd) 2 2 4 2 2 113 MInterior CII Water Use (3%) 3 3 4 2 2 115 MInterior CII Water Use (5%) 3 2 4 1 2 113 MDistribution System Losses (7%) 3 4 4 2 2 116 MDistribution System Losses (5%) 2 3 4 2 2 114 MGroundwater/Conjunctive UseNew wells - Fort Bragg and other small 3 4 4 4 3 018 Hcoastal communitiesAgricultural Groundwater Development 3 1 3 3 3 013 MDesaltingBrackish GroundwaterCity of Fort Bragg project 3 1 3 2 2 011 LA PPENDIX 7A 7A-3 The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 7ATABLE7A-2Options Evaluation San Francisco Bay RegionEvaluation ScoresOption Engineering Economics Environ- Institutional/ Social/ Other Overall RankmentalLegal Third Party Benefits ScoreConservationUrbanOutdoor Water Use - New Development 3 2 4 2 2 114 MOutdoor Water Use - New and Existing 31412112 LDevelopmentIndoor Water Use (60 gpcd)33422115 MIndoor Water Use (55 gpcd)22422113 MInterior CII Water Use (3%)33422115 MInterior CII Water Use (5%)32412113 MDistribution System Losses (5%)23422114 MModify Existing Reservoirs/OperationsEnlarge Lake Hennessey / Napa River Diversion 32233114 MEnlarge Bell Canyon Reservoir32223214 MEnlarge Bell Canyon Reservoir / Napa River 31233113 MDiversionEnlarge Pardee Dam32222314 MEnlarge Camanche Dam32222314 MEnlarge Leroy Anderson Reservoir30233213 MUpgrade Milliken Treatment Plant30344115 MReoperate Rector Reservoir31334115 MNew Reservoirs/Conveyance FacilitiesChiles Creek Reservoir Project / Napa River 3 0 2 3 3 112 LDiversionEnlarge Lake Hennessey / Chiles CreekProject / Napa River Diversion 3 0 2 2 3 111 LCarneros Creek Reservoir / Napa RiverDiversion 3 0 1 2 3 110 LUpper Del Valle Reservoir 3 0 2 3 3 213 MBuckhorn Dam and Reservoir 3 1 1 2 3 313 MUpper Kaiser Reservoir 3 1 1 3 3 314 M7A-4 A

PPENDIX 7A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 7ATABLE7A-2Options Evaluation San Francisco Bay Region (continued)Evaluation ScoresOption Engineering Economics Environ- Institutional/ Social/ Other Overall RankmentalLegal Third Party Benefits ScoreNew Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities (continued)Upper Buckhorn Reservoir 3 1 1 1 2 311 LMiddle Bar Reservoir 3 1 1 2 2 211 LDuck Creek Offstream Reservoir 3 1 1 2 2 312 LDevils Nose Project31122110 LEBMUD American River Supply41333216 MGroundwater/Conjunctive UseMilliken Creek Conjunctive Use34334118 HLake Hennessey / Conn Creek Conjunctive Use 43434119 HWater MarketingZone 7 WA/KCWA44443019 HSCVWD/SLDMWA44443019 HWater RecyclingGroup 1 (Cost < $500/af)43333117 HGroup 2 (Cost $500/af - $1,000/af)42333116 MGroup 3 (Cost > $1,000/af)40333114 MDesaltingBrackish GroundwaterAlameda County WD Aquifer RecoveryProject42333217 HSeawaterMarin Municipal WD Desalting Project 3020319 LOther Local OptionsNew Surface Water Diversion from SacramentoRiver by Cities of Benicia, Fairfield, & Vacaville 33223013 MStatewide OptionsSee Chapter 6.A PPENDIX 7A 7A-5 The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 7ATABLE7A-3Options Evaluation Central Coast RegionEvaluation ScoresOption Engineering Economics Environ- Institutional/ Social/ Other Overall RankmentalLegal Third Party Benefits ScoreConservationUrbanOutdoor Water Use - New Development 3 2 4 2 2 114 MOutdoor Water Use - New and Existing 3 1 4 2 2 113 MDevelopmentIndoor Water Use (60 gpcd) 3 3 4 2 2 115 MIndoor Water Use (55 gpcd) 2 2 4 2 2 113 MInterior CII Water Use (3%) 3 3 4 2 2 115 MInterior CII Water Use (5%) 3 2 4 1 2 113 MDistribution System Losses (7%) 3 4 4 2 2 116 MDistribution System Losses (5%) 2 3 4 2 2 114 MModify Existing Reservoirs/OperationsModify Nacimiento Spillway 3 4 4 4 4 019 HEnlarge Salinas Reservoir 3 3 3 3 3 015 MEnlarge Cachuma Reservoir 2 0 3 3 3 011 LNew Reservoirs/Conveyance FacilitiesCollege Lake 2 3 2 1 3 213 MFeeder Streams (Various Sites) 2 3 3 2 3 013 MNew Los Padres Reservoir 3 1 3 2 3 315 MNacimiento Pipeline 4 1 3 3 3 014 MGroundwater/Conjunctive UseCollege Lake Injection/Extraction Wells 3 4 3 3 3 016 MIncrease Groundwater Development in 3 3 2 1 2 011 LSeaside BasinWater MarketingCVP (San Felipe Project Extension) 3 2 3 2 3 114 M7A-6 A

PPENDIX 7A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 7ATABLE7A-3Options Evaluation Central Coast Region (continued)Evaluation ScoresOptionEngineering Economics Environ- Institutional/ Social/ Other Overall RankmentalLegal Third Party Benefits ScoreWater RecyclingGroup 1 (Cost < $500/af) 4 3 3 3 3 117 HGroup 2 (Cost $500/af - $1,000/af) 4 2 3 3 3 116 MDesaltingBrackish GroundwaterCity of Santa Cruz 3 0 3 2 3 011 LSeawaterMonterey Peninsula Water 3 0 3 1 2 09 LManagement DistrictOther Local OptionsSalinas River Diversion and 3 2 3 3 2 215 MDistribution ProjectStatewide OptionsSee Chapter 6.A PPENDIX 7A 7A-7 The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 7ATABLE7A-4Options Evaluation South Coast RegionEvaluation ScoresOption Engineering Economics Environ- Institutional/ Social/ Other Overall RankmentalLegal Third Party Benefits ScoreConservationUrbanOutdoor Water Use - New Development 3 2 4 2 2 114 MOutdoor Water Use - New and Existing 3 1 4 1 2 112 LDevelopmentIndoor Water Use (60 gpcd) 3 3 4 2 2 115 MIndoor Water Use (55 gpcd) 2 2 4 2 2 113 MInterior CII Water Use (3%) 3 3 4 2 2 115 MInterior CII Water Use (5%) 3 2 4 1 2 113 MDistribution System Losses (5%) 2 3 4 2 2 114 MAgriculturalSAE Improvements (76%) 3 4 3 4 3 118 HSAE Improvements (78%) 3 3 3 3 2 115 MSAE Improvements (80%) 2 3 3 2 2 113 MModify Existing Reservoirs/OperationsReoperate Prado Dam 3 4 4 3 3 017 HReoperate Hansen and Lopez Dams 3 3 3 2 3 014 MReoperate Santa Fe and Whittier Narrows Dams 3 3 3 2 3 115 MNew Reservoirs/Conveyance FacilitiesFreshwater Reservoir in Long Beach Harbor 2 1 2 2 3 010 LGroundwater/Conjunctive UseLocal Groundwater Banking/Conjunctive Use 4 3 4 3 4 018 HWater MarketingCastaic Lake Water Agency 4 4 4 4 3 019 HWater RecyclingGroup 1 (Cost < $500/af) 4 3 3 3 3 117 HGroup 2 (Cost $500/af - $1,000/af) 4 2 3 3 3 116 MGroup 3 (Cost > $1,000/af) 4 0 3 3 3 114 M7A-8 A

PPENDIX 7A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 7ATABLE7A-4Options Evaluation South Coast Region (continued)Evaluation ScoresOption Engineering Economics Environ- Institutional/ Social/ Other Overall RankmentalLegal Third Party Benefits ScoreDesaltingBrackish GroundwaterGroup 1 (Cost < $500/af) 3 3 3 3 3 116 MGroup 2 (Cost $500/af - $1,000/af) 3 2 3 3 3 115 MSeawaterReverse Osmosis Facilities at South Bay Powerplant 2 1 2 3 3 011 LReverse Osmosis Facilities at Encina Powerplant 2 0 2 3 3 010 LReverse Osmosis Facilities at Alamitos Powerplant 2 0 2 3 3 010 LMultiple-effect Distillation Process 1 1 2 3 3 010 LOther Local OptionsDraft CRB 4.4 Plan 4 4 3 3 3 320 HMultipurpose Flood Control Basins 3 3 3 3 3 318 HStatewide OptionsSee Chapter 6.A PPENDIX 7A 7A-9 The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 7AThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-1 

# Options for Meeting Future Water Needs in Interior Regions of California 

# T his 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 F IGURE 8-1

Sacramento River

Tulare Lake San Joaquin River Sacramento River

Tulare Lake San Joaquin RiverThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-2 F IGURE 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

Yuba River 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

Stony Creek

South Fork

i North Middle Fork Fork

Rubi New Bullards Bar Reservoir Sacra Tehama-Colusa Canal
men

l CoThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-3 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 Collinsvillein 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. TheSacramento 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 from40 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, ElDorado, 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 areain Sutter and Yuba Counties. The region includes extensive irrigated agricultural acreage. Rice, irrigatedpasture, 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 SuppliesWater shortages are expected to occur under average and drought conditions, as shown in Table 8-2. The 1995-level average year shortage reflects thatgroundwater overdraft is not treated as a source of supply. Most of the drought year water shortage is

T

ABLE 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 RegionThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 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 percentof the region’s average year water supply. Groundwater provides the remaining supply. During droughtyears, 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 contractorsand 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 asproviding 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 WaterAgency, one of the largest American River project water contractors, also holds a water rights settlementcontract 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.

T ABLE 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-5 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 PutahCreek 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 andpartly in the San Francisco Bay Region) and agricultural water supply to the University of California atDavis 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, SCWAmember 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 Citiesof Fairfield, Vallejo, and Suisun City in the San Francisco Bay Region have SCWA contracts for SolanoProject 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 alsoprovide 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 SutterExtension Water District. Agencies in the region holding long-term contracts for SWP supply are PlumasCounty 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.

T

ABLE 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 268.0The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-6by 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 CacheCreek. 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 Riversupplies 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 Americanand 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 600feet. (Only a portion of this amount can be economically used, however.) Well yields in alluvial areas vary significantly depending on location; pumping ratestypically 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 thenorthern 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 flooragricultural 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 developmentpressure, 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-7 federal lands managed by the USFS and the National Park Service. Although extensive development of large-scalewater projects has occurred in the foothills, that development serves downstream urban and agriculturalwater 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 capitalimprovement projects constrains the ability to interconnect individual water systems and to develop centralized sources of water supplies, limiting optionsfor water marketing. The area’s small population translates into high per capita costs for water supplyimprovements. Many individual residences and subdivision developments rely on self-suppliedgroundwater 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 oftenlimited. 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 theproject, 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 pipelineto 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 ofDams 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 shortagesare anticipated in the entire Sierra foothill area stretching from Modoc County on the north to Kern Countyon 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 areassociated 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 viableoption. 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 BasinEl Dorado County water agencies have made several attempts to develop local supplies in the AmericanRiver Basin, in anticipation of their service area’s future water needs. Originally, USBR’s multipurposeAuburn 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 proveto 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-8 Alternatives included a 7.5 taf/yr CVP water servicecontract 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 ElDorado 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 hydropowerproject 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 withan existing Sacramento Municipal Utility District penstock. The project would allow more efficient use ofEl 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 waterservice 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 supplythat was to have been provided by the original multipurpose Auburn Dam. The study proposed twoalternatives 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 completedin 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 planneddevelopment and preserving fishery, wildlife, recreational, and aesthetic values of the lower AmericanRiver. 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-9 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 effortGenerally, 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 managingsurface 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 surfacewater 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 MutualWater 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 DistrictA 1995 study by the Colusa Basin Drainage District identified projects to meet six objectives: protectagainst 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 landsubsidence, 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 ActionsThe Sierra Valley Groundwater Management District adopted an ordinance in 1980 limiting the amountof 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 thecounty and extraction of groundwater for export without a permit from the board. In 1996, the TehamaCounty 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 oneordinance 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 ordinancelimited 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 approvedby voters in 1996 and regulated export of groundwater out of the county and substitution of groundwaterfor surface water when surface water is sold. The ordinance gave the Butte County Water CommissionThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-10 permitting authority over groundwater export or groundwater substitution. Glenn County enacted a groundwater ordinance in 1977. This ordinance required a permit to exportgroundwater 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 mayimpose 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, USACEreanalyzed 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 floodprotection for the American River Basin. In December 1991, an American River watershed investigationfeasibility report and EIR/EIS were completed, presenting flood protection alternatives. The reportrecommended a flood control detention dam near Auburn. In 1992, Congress directed USACE to performadditional 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 improvedownstream levees. The third alternative would construct a detention dam at Auburn, with downstreamlevee 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 withthe 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 USBRsets 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.) Becausethe 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, theBoard 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-11 increase flood protection to approximately a 1-in-110 year level. In addition, the Board strongly urgedSAFCA 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. Asof July 1998, SAFCA was seeking congressional authorization for USACE participation in Folsom Dam modifications and downstream levee enlargements. TheBoard currently does not support raising and strengthening the levees downstream from the dam, and wouldnot 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. Preliminaryalternatives 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, andconstructing a single purpose or multipurpose reservoir at the Parks Bar or Narrows damsites. Therecommended 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 LibraryThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 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 newinvestigation 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 SupplyEnlargement 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. Inthe 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 localagencies 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 waterfrom 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 WR96-2, 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 divertsriver 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-13 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 ScreenThe 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 theplant’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 newfish 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—wasreleased 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 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 Creeklandowners 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 smalltemporary 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 ButteCreek 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 fishlosses previously caused by creek diversion. Work began in 1998 on fishery facility modifications toDurham Mutual, Adams, and Gorrill Dams. The Nature Conservancy and California Waterfowl Association are evaluating diversion dams in the ButteSlough and Sutter Bypass for potential fish passage improvements.Pelger Mutual Water Company and Maxwell Irrigation District installed fish screens on theirSacramento River diversions in 1994. PrincetonCodora-Glenn Irrigation District and ProvidentThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-15 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 SacramentoRiver 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 beenperformed. Additional planned work includes fish passage around McCormick-Saeltzer Dam, gravelplacement, 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 forplanning of a Lower Stony Creek watershed restoration program.
Water Needs for Rice Field FloodingSacramento Valley rice fields provide overwintering areas for about one-third of all migrating waterfowlin 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. Mostflooding 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 approximately123,000 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 maydecrease 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 SacramentoRiver Region have been extensively investigated by federal, State and local governments over the last 70 years. Many of the federal and State options were exploredfor 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 SacramentoRiver 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 thoseurban 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 withthe 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 26taf was deferred because of several uncertainties includThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-16 T

ABLE 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 ET

o 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 RetainThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-17 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 EIDthrough 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 beingconducted 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 T

ABLE 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 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. Theconstruction cost is estimated at $3.3 million. The primary purpose of the proposed reservoir would be floodcontrol, although it offers limited water supply benefits. Golden Gate Reservoir would be formed by a76-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 projectsis included in the Bulletin’s detailed options evaluation because potential yields are undetermined. These reservoirs are too small to provide enough carryoverstorage to significantly increase local drought year water supply reliability. The Department investigated the Dry Creek Project in Lake County near Middletown in 1965. Theproject 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 amaximum 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, withan 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 beenstudied 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 tafof 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 leveeimprovements, 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 tafoffstream 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 EnglebrightReservoir. 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 YubaRiver. Waldo Reservoir could provide offsetting storage for increased flood control reservation at NewBullards Bar Reservoir and Lake Oroville if YCWA negotiates agreements with the reservoir owners for supplyfrom Waldo Reservoir in exchange for the flood control storage. Phase I of a feasibility investigation was conductedin 1997 to determine reservoir yield, develop cost estimates, and evaluate environmental issues. The reservoir’s average and drought year yields for YCWA’sservice 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-19 tively. The cost of water if served in the area of origin would be about $110/af. Phase II of the study beganin 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 SpencevilleWildlife and Recreation Area, remediation of an abandoned copper mine, and instream flows. (The preliminary cost estimates include removal of minetailings 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 ThurstonLake 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 floodflows. 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 divertedannually 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 SacramentoRiver 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 projectwould 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 Canalduring 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 beencommon among CVP water rights settlement contractors on the Sacramento River. Year-to-year transfersamong 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 astatewide perspective. Recycling is a potentially important water source for local purposes, but does not create new water. Several small water recycling projectsserve 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 forThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 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 forgroundwater 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 examiningseveral 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 RiverRegion 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 85taf 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

T

ABLE 8-5 Options Ranking for Sacramento River Region

Option a 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-21 T

ABLE 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 Facilities a

— 160 Groundwater/Conjunctive Use

— — Water Marketing

— — Recycling

— — Desalting

— — Other Local Options

— — Statewide Options 85 51 Expected Reapplication

— 56
Total Potential Gain b 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 arepromising options. Parks Bar in particular could reduce the flood threat to the Yuba City-Marysville areaand 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-22 F IGURE 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

Tuol umne 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

AqueThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-23 Description of the Area The San Joaquin River Region is bordered on the east by the crest of the Sierra Nevada and on the westby 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 inthe 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 rapidgrowth 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. T

ABLE 8-7 Population and Crop Acreage

Population Irrigated Crop Acreage (thousands) (thousands of acres)

1995 1,592 2,005
2020 3,025 1,935

T

ABLE 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 RegionThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-24 Irrigated crop acreage in the area is forecasted todecrease, 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 managedwetlands 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 WaterMuch 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-25 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 significantreservoirs 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 thevalley 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 andPardee 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 bythe 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 constructedFarmington Reservoir to provide additional flood protection for the Stockton area. Stockton East Water District provides the City of Stockton with supply fromNew 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 watersupply. SEWD holds a contract for 75 taf/yr of interim supply from New Melones. CSJWCD has CVPcontracts 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 atVernalis. 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 JoaquinRiver 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 andoffstream 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 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 1maf Lake McClure, the only large water supply reservoir on the Merced River. Merced ID has two smalldams 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 8miles 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 Districtholds 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 Riverimpounds the 521 taf Millerton Lake. Several hydropower reservoirs are located in the river’s upperwatershed 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 HydrologicRegion) 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 morethan 20 agricultural water agencies divert their supplies. As mentioned in Chapter 3, CVP exchange contractors divert Delta-Mendota water from the poolto 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 providedlargely by the CVP, through the Delta-Mendota Canal and the San Luis Canal reach of the California Aqueduct. CVP contractors receiving DMC suppliesin 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. SanLuis 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 forthe 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-27 Local Water Resources Management Issues Cosumnes River Flood ManagementThe 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 riparianforest 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 floodinghave limited urban development in the lower watershed. Much of the agricultural land in the river’s lowerwatershed is protected by private levees which experienced numerous breaks during the January 1997 floods. Nonstructural alternatives for flood control arebeing investigated, such as breaching levees and establishing levee setbacks to provide more area for flood waters to spread. Private lands have been identified forpossible 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 belowsea 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 (leftside of photo) and the DeltaMendota Canal (right side).

Bethany Reservoir is in the upper left corner.

Oak trees at the Cosumnes River Preserve.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-28 The CALFED Bay-Delta Program identified the Delta levee system as an important resource. Theprogram’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 improvementof 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 OldRiver, Middle River, and Grant Line Canal; constructing an operable fish barrier at the head of Old River tobenefit 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-29 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. Thenumber 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 late1940s 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 sealevel following the irrigation season. This pumping depression caused poorer water quality from the Deltato 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 theCosumnes 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 ofeastern 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 USBRas 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 77taf/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 proposedtwo 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. Minestormwater 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 wereevaluated, including reservoir reoperation to allow yearround diversions at Rock Creek, dam modification forseasonal 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’sstudy showed that reoperating Farmington for yearround diversions at Rock Creek and groundwaterThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 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 controlreleases 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 OperationsSEWD 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 changesin 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 requirementsfor 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 SanJoaquin River flow requirements is the Vernalis adaptive management plan, negotiated among the river’s water users for sharing their responsibilities for actionssuch 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 AreaSan 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 constrainedby 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-31 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 CostaCounty 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 meetingthe 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. O thers (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 newagreements for long-term transfer of surplus water supplies from two agricultural districts (ECCID and BBID) to agencies serving urban areas, andchanges 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-termdemand 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 shouldbe 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 waterdistribution 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 T

ABLE 8-9 New Melones Releases for CVPIA Environmental Purposes (taf)

Water Year a 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 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 StudyIn 1993, the City of Merced and Merced Irrigation District began a two-year water supply planning process for eastern Merced County through 2030. Thegoals 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 DrainageSignificant 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 possibleonsite until a regional solution for drainage management and disposal is developed. Some agricultural water districts in the region discharge drainage waterto 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 . Agriculturaldrainage 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 a5-year Grasslands bypass demonstration project. A twomile long channel was constructed to intercept drainage water that would otherwise flow towards GrasslandsWater District. The new channel carries drainage water to the existing San Luis Drain, allowing the drainagewater 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-MendotaWater 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 5 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 250,000The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-33San 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 aflow model of the San Joaquin River and its tributaries. Information from the model was distributed towater 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. Thedistrict 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 loadfrom 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 DamAt 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 consideredin the past to augment regional water supplies. Recently, needs for fishery flows and improved management of winter/spring floodwaters have beenemphasized. 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 FriantDam. Raising Friant Dam would provide water supplies for CVP water users and downstream ripariandiverters, for SWRCB salinity and fishery flow requirements at Vernalis, and for dilution of agricultural drainage flows discharged to the river. These supplieswould 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 Councilfiled a suit in U.S. District Court, seeking an injunction and declaratory judgment to prevent USBR fromrenewing 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 federalwildlife regulatory agencies. The court declared all contracts renewed before CVPIA enactment invalid. Thecase 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’sAssociations 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 fromFriant 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. Thisproject 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 theMerced River, completed in 1996, consisted of isoThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 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. Anotherproject 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, completedin 1994, consisted of constructing riffles and placing spawning gravel at three sites along the Tuolumne River. • Funds from the SWP Four-Pumps Agreement havebeen 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 PedroReservoir, 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 atBanta-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 environmentalhurdles need to be addressed before a final decision is made to build the fish hatchery. Land forthe 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 ofa 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 crossingof the river. The parkway is planned as a riparian corridor with trails for hiking, horseback riding, andbiking; boating access points; wildlife areas; and education areas. Approximately 1,900 acres are located in Madera County and 4,000 acres in Fresno County, ofwhich approximately 1,600 acres are in public ownership. The conservancy, working with the WildlifeConservation 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 downstreamchannel’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 occurredThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-35 downstream of the Tuolumne River confluence. The primary flood control issue facing the SanJoaquin River Region is the lack of flood channel capacity. Channels and levees are generally designed for50-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 foragriculture, 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 TuolumneRiver to evaluate constructing a flood control impoundment on Dry Creek, restricting development in the floodplain, and developingoffstream flood storage to be integrated with water supply storage.• Acquisition of flood-prone lands (largely agricultural lands) in Stanislaus County which could beadded 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 JoaquinRiver 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 withthe urban water management options, only those agricultural conservation efforts which exceed EWMPsare considered as options. Changes in irrigation management practices to attain SAEs of 76 to 80 percentwould 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 ReservoirsVarious agencies have looked at raising or modifying existing water supply and/or multipurposereservoirs. 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 IrishHill and Volcano Reservoir projects. Irish Hill Reservoir, on Dry Creek, would serve areas near Ione withup to 23.7 taf of drought year supply. Volcano Reservoir, on Sutter Creek, would serve the communities ofSutter Creek and Amador City, in addition to providing flood control benefits for Sutter Creek. Theestimated 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 itsservice area in the San Francisco Bay Region. The reservoir, however, could provide some local supply toAmador, Calaveras, and possibly San Joaquin Counties. A number of obstacles such as water rights, a FERClicense, 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 northfork and mainstem of the Mokelumne River. As conThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-36 T

ABLE 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 ET

o 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-37 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 aproposed Cross County project, which included a conveyance system from Tiger Creek Afterbay to a 79 mWCross 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 JoaquinCounties 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-flowingcharacteristics 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 MercedFalls 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 andenvironmental 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 Laketo 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 costin 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 havebeen 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 usingavailable 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 tothe 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 forexport to the proposed service area. It was later determined that this supply was unavailable due to increasedDelta 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-38 Groundwater Development or Conjunctive Use Urban and agricultural water users have relied on both surface and groundwater supplies. Many localwater purveyors use surface water allocations, purchased water, and excess flood water for groundwater recharge. Natural waterways, local agency canals, andState and federal conveyance facilities create opportunities for groundwater recharge, storage and conjunctive use programs. EBMUD is continuing discussions with SanJoaquin County interests for a joint groundwater storage/conjunctive use project. This option is part ofEBMUD’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 aboutone-half mile, and a series of recharge basins constructed. The proposed facility could include up to 45five-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. Therecharge pond area would be 3,500 acres and the potential storage capability is estimated to be about 390taf. 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 environmentalissues, 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 tolease 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 directlyor indirectly discharged to the San Joaquin River becomes available for downstream uses, including Deltaoutflow 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 localwater management or wastewater disposal needs. Recycled water is currently used for golf course or pastureirrigation. 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 inFirebaugh, 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 availablefor 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 projectparticipants. 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 beThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-3963 taf and 711 taf in average and drought years, respectively. Ranking of retained water managementoptions 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 T

ABLE 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-40 T

ABLE 8-12 Options Ranking for San Joaquin River Region

Option a 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-41 T

ABLE 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 658The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-42 F IGURE 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 Lake River 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 Coal inga

Coastal Aqueduct Tulare Lakebed

Cross Valley Canal

Kern River Intertie Kaweah River James BypassThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-43 Description of the Area The Tulare Lake Region includes the southern halfof 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 LakeRegion 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 waterdemands for petroleum recovery and production exceed municipal water demands. Most of the land areain 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 riverbasins—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. . . .

T

ABLE 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 RegionThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 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. Waterdistricts within the region have developed an extensive network of canals, channels, and pipelines todeliver 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 Kaweahand 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 throughthe 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 SWPsupply 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 thelargest contractors for Friant-Kern supply are ArvinEdison Water Storage District, Lower Tule River Irrigation District, and Delano-Earlimart IrrigationDistrict. 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-45 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 waterexchange agreements with ten agencies in the FriantKern Canal service area. The exchange water is delivered through the California Aqueduct and theCross Valley Canal to AEWSD facilities. AEWSD receives 128 taf annually of exchange water and makes available to exchange entities the first 174 taf of itsClass 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 theregion. Since groundwater provides a buffer for fluctuating year-to-year surface supplies, its availability is of great importance to the region. Although urban useis 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. T ABLE 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 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 theregion 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 WaterBank 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. Thisproject 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 waterbanking/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 thewater 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-47 rich westside must contend with high groundwatertables and drainage problems. Typically, applied irrigation water builds up above semi-impervious claylayers, 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-DrainagesThe 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 ofArroyo 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 SWPinclude 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 originalproject construction, riparian habitat restoration downstream of the dam, potential operating strategies tominimize 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. USACEis also implementing a related project to install a bypass at the dam’s powerplant so that releases can bemade 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 waterthrough depletion reductions in the Tulare Lake Region. Advances in well drillingtechnology 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, BerkeleyThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-48 T

ABLE 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 ET

o 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

— ——The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-49 Agricultural. The 2020 agricultural water demand forecasts assume that EWMPs are in place. As withthe 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, reducingdepletions by 17 taf/yr. Flexible water delivery is deferred because existing delivery systems in the region are highly developed, and further improvements wouldresult 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. PineFlat 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 Riverflows. In order of cost-effectiveness, they were enlargement of Pine Flat Dam, Rodgers Crossing project, and Mill Creek project. A 1989 USACE reconnaissance study investigatedKings 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 heightappeared 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. T ABLE 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 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, aproposed 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 projectwould 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 beoperated 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 KaweahRiver and identified three alternative solutions—enlarge Terminus Dam, construct a flood detention damon Dry Creek above Lake Kaweah, or construct a reservoir on Dry Creek with a connecting tunnel to LakeKaweah. Upon further study, only Terminus enlargement was considered feasible due to environmental and cultural impacts of facilities on Dry Creek. EnlargingTerminus 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. Congressauthorized 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. A1992 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 watersupply 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, andfloodwater for groundwater recharge. Local distribution systems and CVP and SWP conveyance facilitiescreate 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-51such 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 IIwater from Millerton Lake. Currently, the city’s surface water supply is used exclusively for groundwater recharge. Existing facilities can recharge approximately7.8 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 needsgrow, 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 currentlyin 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 ESASection 7 consultation, allowing the authority to recharge winter floodwaters. Since May 1995, KWBA has recharged about 700 taf on behalf of its memberagencies. 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 storeexcess Kern River water. The new facilities are estimated to cost about $250,000. Cawelo Water District recently entered into anagreement 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 pipelineto 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 MarketingAs 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 fordrought year supplies with SCVWD. Westlands Water District has initiated a short-term buy-back programfor 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 thisprogram would be intra-regional. WWD is also currently preparing a draft programmatic EIR onpurchasing 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 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 useoccurs on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley. Wastewater produced from urban use is generally recharged to groundwater basins where it reduces groundwateroverdraft, 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 theSan 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 720taf 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 willbe 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 tobe 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 developmentopportunities are limited. Modification of existing facilities through the enlargement of Lake Kaweah andPine Flat Lake could produce about 21 taf/yr of additional yield for irrigation supply.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-53 T

ABLE 8-17 Options Ranking for Tulare Lake Region

Option a 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.

T ABLE 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 868The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - I NTERIOR R

EGIONS 8-548A-1 A PPENDIX 8A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 8A 

# 8A

Options Evaluations for Interior Regions8A-2 A

PPENDIX 8A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 8ATABLE8A-1Options Evaluation Sacramento River RegionEvaluation ScoresOption Engineering Economics Environ- Institutional/ Social/ Other Overall RankmentalLegal Third Party Benefits ScoreModify Existing Reservoirs/OperationsReoperate PG&E Reservoirs 3 3 2 0 1 09 LNew Reservoirs/Conveyance FacilitiesDry Creek Reservoir (Lake County) 3 3 2 1 3 012 LThurston Lake Pump-Storage Project 2 3 2 2 2 213 MParks Bar Reservoir (Yuba County) 3 2 2 3 3 417 HWaldo Reservoir (Yuba County)32233417 HTexas Hill Reservoir32222112 LSmall Alder Reservoir32222112 LGDPUD Diversion from American River 33333015 MGroundwater/Conjunctive UseNew Wells (Redding, Butte, and Colusa Basins) 44343018 HBig Valley Conjunctive Use34323217 HOther Local OptionsNew Surface Water Diversion from33223013 MSacramento River and Cache Creek byYCFC&WCDNew Surface Water Diversion from Sacramento 33223013 MRiver by Cities of Benicia, Fairfield, and VacavilleStatewide OptionsSee Chapter 6.8A-3 A PPENDIX 8A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 8ATABLE8A-2Options Evaluation San Joaquin River RegionEvaluation ScoresOptionEngineering Economics Environ- Institutional/ Social/ Other Overall RankmentalLegal Third Party Benefits ScoreConservationAgriculturalFlexible Water Delivery 3 0 3 3 2 112 LCanal Lining and Piping 3 0 3 3 2 112 LTailwater Recovery 3 4 3 3 3 117 HModify Existing Reservoirs/OperationsReoperate Farmington Reservoir 3 3 3 2 3 317 HEnlarge Farmington Reservoir 2 3 3 2 3 316 MNew Reservoirs/Conveyance FacilitiesMontgomery Reservoir Offstream Storage 3 3 3 2 3 317 HFine Gold Creek Offstream Storage 3 2 2 2 3 315 MIrish Hill Reservoir 3 2 2 1 3 112 LMiddle Bar Reservoir 3 1 1 2 2 211 LDevils Nose Reservoir 3 1 1 2 2 110 LGroundwater/Conjunctive UseStockton East WD 3 3 4 2 3 318 HMadera Ranch 3 3 4 2 2 216 MStatewide OptionsSee Chapter 6.8A-4 A

PPENDIX 8A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 8ATABLE8A-3Options Evaluation Tulare Lake RegionEvaluation ScoresOption Engineering Economics Environ- Institutional/ Social/ Other Overall RankmentalLegal Third Party Benefits ScoreConservationAgriculturalSAE Improvements (76%) 3 4 3 4 3 118 HSAE Improvements (78%) 3 3 3 3 2 115 MSAE Improvements (80%) 2 3 3 2 2 113 MModify Existing Reservoirs/OperationsEnlarge Pine Flat Dam 3 3 3 4 3 218 HEnlarge Lake Kaweah (Terminus Dam) 3 3 3 4 3 319 HGroundwater/Conjunctive UseCity of Clovis Expansion of Recharge Facilities 4 3 4 3 4 018 HKern Water Bank Authority Recharge Facilities 4 4 3 3 4 018 HBuena Vista Water Storage District Recharge 4 4 3 4 3 018 HCawelo Water District Recharge 4 4 4 4 4 020 HWater MarketingSCVWD/SLDMWA Reallocation 4 4 4 4 3 019 HStatewide OptionsSee Chapter 6.8A-5 A PPENDIX 8A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 8AThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - E ASTERN S IERRA A

ND C OLORADO R IVER R

EGIONS 9-1 

# Options for Meeting Future Water Needs in Eastern Sierra and Colorado

River Regions of California 

# T his 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - E ASTERN S IERRA A

ND C OLORADO R IVER R

EGIONS 9-2 F IGURE 9-2 North Lahontan Hydrologic Region

NEVADA SIERRA

PLACER

EL DORADO

ALPINE

TUOLUMNE LASSEN MODOC OREGONNEVADA Upper Lake

Eagle Lake

Honey Lake

River

Lake Tahoe Truc kee 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 River

River Stampede Reservoir

Prosser Creek Reservoir Boca Reservoir

Martis Creek Reservoir Donner

Lake Independence LakeThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - E ASTERN S IERRA A

ND C OLORADO R IVER R

EGIONS 9-3 Description of the Area The North Lahontan Region has two planningsubareas (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 forHoney 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 winterrecreational 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 dominantirrigated 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 landsin 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 theregion, 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 T

ABLE 9-1 Population and Crop Acreage

Population Irrigated Crop Acreage (thousands) (thousands of acres)

1995 84 161
2020 125 165 . . . 

# North Lahontan Hydrologic RegionThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - E ASTERN S IERRA A

ND C OLORADO R IVER R

EGIONS 9-4 and by economically available water supplies. A small amount of agricultural expansion is expected, but onlyin 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 1987agreement among the Department, the State of Nevada, and USGS resulted in a study of the groundwaterflow 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 onthe north edge of Honey Lake about 20 miles southeast of Susanville. The HLWA consists of intensivelymanaged 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.

T ABLE 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - E ASTERN S IERRA A

ND C OLORADO R IVER R

EGIONS 9-5cranes, and other birds migrating on the Pacific Flyway. During the irrigation season, most of HLWA’swater 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 riverflows through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada and terminates in Pyramid Lake, locatedwithin 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 isdiverted 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 suckerfound only in Pyramid Lake, were listed as an endangered species in 1967. Lahontan cutthroat trout wereinitially listed as endangered in 1970 and were subsequently reclassified as threatened in 1975. USBR’sStampede Reservoir, constructed in 1970 to serve irrigation and municipal uses, is operated to provide waterfor these fish, as required by a 1982 federal court decision. Proposed changes in Truckee River operationsare 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 abouthalf 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 ofNorthstar, Squaw Valley, and Glenshire use groundwater from smaller basins or from fractured rock sources. The developed area around Donner Lake is T

ABLE 9-3 Major Reservoirs in the Truckee River Basin in California

Reservoir Owner Operator Usable Construction Height Drainage Area Storage (taf) Date a (Feet) (Square Miles)

Tahoe Sierra Pacific Truckee-Carson 744.6 1913 18 506 Power Company b Irrigation District
Donner Sierra Pacific Sierra Pacific 9.5 1927 14 14 Power Company/ Power Company Truckee-Carson Irrigation Dist.
Martis Creek c 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.