DRAFT REPORT

Sacramento River Settlement

Contractors Environmental

Impact Statement

Prepared for

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

September 2004
September 2004 iii Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.............................................................................. ix

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED................................................................................ 1-1

Introduction................................................................................................................ 1-1

Purpose of and Need for the Action........................................................................... 1-3

Basis for Settlement Contract Renewals.................................................................... 1-4

Decision to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.......................................... 1-4

History of the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors.......................................... 1-5

Study Area.................................................................................................................. 1-6

Study Period............................................................................................................... 1-6

Public Involvement Process....................................................................................... 1-6

Related Projects ......................................................................................................... 1-9

Related Activities....................................................................................................... 1-9

CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ..................................................... 2-1

Introduction................................................................................................................ 2-1

Development of Alternatives ..................................................................................... 2-1

No Action Alternative.................................................................................... 2-2

Alternative 1: Preferred Alternative – Negotiated Contract ........................ 2-10

Alternative 2: Reclamation’s Initial Contract Proposal ............................... 2-19

Alternative 3: SRSCs’ Initial Counter Proposal .......................................... 2-20

Alternative 4: Cutback Provisions Based on Shasta Inflow Sliding Scale .. 2-21

Alternative 5: Cutback Provisions Based on 40-30-30 Sacramento River

Index ................................................................................................ 2-23

Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Detailed Discussion........................ 2-24

No Contract Renewal Alternative................................................................ 2-25

Reduction in Contract Amounts................................................................... 2-26

Selection of the Preferred Alternative...................................................................... 2-26

Summary of Impact Assessment.............................................................................. 2-26

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES .............................................................................................................. 3-1

Introduction................................................................................................................ 3-1

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ........................................ 3-2

Relationship Between Short-term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and

Enhancement of Long-term Productivity....................................................... 3-2

Impact Assumptions................................................................................................... 3-2

Assumptions within Sacramento River Settlement Contractor Districts....... 3-2

Assumptions outside Sacramento River Settlement Contractor Districts...... 3-3

Physical Environment ................................................................................................ 3-5

Air Quality ..................................................................................................... 3-5

Geology and Soils ........................................................................................ 3-11

Surface Water............................................................................................... 3-14
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Draft SRSC EIS iv September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Groundwater ................................................................................................ 3-18

Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin ....................................................... 3-18

Redding Groundwater Basin........................................................................ 3-21

Assessment Approach.............................................................................................. 3-23

Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin Analysis ........................................ 3-46

Multi-year Drought Periods ......................................................................... 3-53

Biological Environment ........................................................................................... 3-59

Terrestrial Biological Resources.................................................................. 3-59

Aquatic Biological Resources...................................................................... 3-75

Economics................................................................................................................ 3-87

Land Use ...................................................................................................... 3-87

Power Supply and Demands ...................................................................... 3-114

Regional Economics .................................................................................. 3-120

Sociocultural Environment .................................................................................... 3-135

Demographic Descriptions......................................................................... 3-135

Cultural Resources..................................................................................... 3-139

Indian Trust Assets..................................................................................... 3-143

Environmental Justice................................................................................ 3-144

Recreation .................................................................................................. 3-148

CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS......................................................................... 4-1

Introduction................................................................................................................ 4-1

Cumulative Impacts Analysis .................................................................................... 4-1

Environmental Water Account (Long Term)................................................. 4-2

Dry-year Water Purchase Program and Drought Risk Reduction

Investment Program ........................................................................... 4-3

Environmental Water Program ...................................................................... 4-3

South Delta Improvements Program.............................................................. 4-4

Potential for Significant Cumulative Impacts............................................................ 4-4

CHAPTER 5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ............................................ 5-1

Introduction................................................................................................................ 5-1

Public Involvement .................................................................................................... 5-1

Scoping Process ............................................................................................. 5-1

Consultation with Other Agencies ............................................................................. 5-1

National Environmental Policy Act ............................................................... 5-2

Endangered Species Act................................................................................. 5-2

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act............................................................... 5-3

National Historic Preservation Act ................................................................ 5-3

Indian Trust Assets......................................................................................... 5-3

Indian Sacred Sites on Federal Land.............................................................. 5-3

Environmental Justice.................................................................................... 5-4

State, Areawide, and Local Plan and Program Consistency .......................... 5-4

CHAPTER 6 WORKS CITED...........................................................................................6-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

September 2004 v Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Appendices

A Sacramento River Settlement Contractors

B Sacramento River Settlement Contractors Environmental Impact Statement

Scoping Report

C Contracts between U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and Sacramento River

Settlement Contractors

D Needs Analyses

Tables

1-1 Twenty Largest (AF) Existing SRSC Contract Totals............................................... 1-2

1-2 Related Projects ......................................................................................................... 1-9

2-1 Project Alternatives Summary ................................................................................... 2-3

2-2 Contract Amounts by Project Alternative.................................................................. 2-7

2-3 Sample of Implementation of Shortage Provisions Based on Historical Period of

Record...................................................................................................................... 2-11

3-1 Summary of Impacts for All Resource Categories..................................................... 3-4

3-2 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards........................................... 3-7

3-3 Attainment Status for Counties within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin................. 3-9

3-4 Typical Well Construction in the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin ............. 3-20

3-5 Typical Well Construction in the Redding Groundwater Basin .............................. 3-22

3-6 Sample of Implementation of Shortage Provisions Based on Historical Period of

Record...................................................................................................................... 3-25

3-7 Contract Supply and Scheduled Monthly Deliveries ............................................... 3-31

3-8 Summary of Drawdown Impacts at the End of the Pumping Season ...................... 3-47

3-9 Summary of Simulated Average and Peak Stream Depletion Rates in the

Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin ................................................................... 3-48

3-10 Summary of Drawdown Impacts at the End of the Pumping Season – Drought

Year 4....................................................................................................................... 3-50

3-11 Summary of Stream Impacts in Sacramento Groundwater Basin after 4 Critically

Dry Years ................................................................................................................. 3-51

3-12 Summary of Drawdown Impacts at the End of the Pumping Season ...................... 3-52

3-13 Summary of Simulated Average and Peak Stream Depletion Rates in the Redding

Groundwater Basin .................................................................................................. 3-54
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Draft SRSC EIS vi September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

3-14 Summary of Drawdown Impacts at the End of the Pumping Season – Drought

Year 4....................................................................................................................... 3-55

3-15 Summary of Stream Impacts in the Redding Groundwater Basin after 4 Critically

Dry Years ................................................................................................................. 3-56

3-16 Acres of Each Habitat Type within Selected SRSC Service Areas ......................... 3-65

3-17 Special-status Wildlife Species with the Potential to Occur in the SRSC Service

Areas ........................................................................................................................ 3-66

3-18 Special-status Plants with the Potential to Occur in the SRSC Service Areas ........ 3-70

3-19 Listed and Candidate Fish Species Potentially Occurring in the SRSC Service

Areas ........................................................................................................................ 3-77

3-20 Resident Fish Species in the SRSC Service Areas .................................................. 3-84

3-21 Total Acres of Farmland and Land Committed to Nonagricultural Uses in

Counties in the SRSC Service Areas, 2000 Data..................................................... 3-89

3-22 Acres Flooded Annually by District to Decompose Rice Straw.............................. 3-93

3-23 ACID Total Irrigated Acres by Crop – 1995 and 2020 Estimates ........................... 3-93

3-24 GCID Total Irrigated Acres – 1995 and 2020 Estimates ......................................... 3-94

3-25 PID Total Irrigated Acres – 1995 and 2020 Estimates............................................. 3-95

3-26 PCGID Total Irrigated Acres – 1995 and 2020 Estimates....................................... 3-96

3-27 MID Total Irrigated Acres – 1995 and 2020 Estimates ........................................... 3-97

3-28 RD 108 Total Irrigated Acres – 1995 and 2020 Estimates ...................................... 3-98

3-29 RD 1004 Total Irrigated Acres – 1995 and 2020 Estimates .................................... 3-99

3-30 MFWC Total Irrigated Acres – 1995 and 2020 Estimates..................................... 3-100

3-31 SMWC Total Irrigated Acres – 1995 and 2020 Estimates..................................... 3-101

3-32 PMWC Total Irrigated Acres – 1995 and 2020 Estimates..................................... 3-102

3-33 NCMWC Total Irrigated Acres – 1995 and 2020 Estimates ................................. 3-103

3-34 Farms, Land in Farms, and Cropland Profiles of Sacramento Valley, 1997.......... 3-104

3-35 Agricultural Revenue and Production Costs ($1,000) ........................................... 3-106

3-36 Production Expenses.............................................................................................. 3-107

3-37 General Plan Land Use Projections ....................................................................... 3-110

3-38 City of Redding Water Service Area – Growth and Water Demand Projections .. 3-111

3-39 City of West Sacramento Projected Water Demand at Build-out......................... 3-112

3-40 Hydroelectric Generation Facilities ....................................................................... 3-115

3-41 Forecast Electricity Demand.................................................................................. 3-117
TABLE OF CONTENTS

September 2004 vii Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

3-42 Power Required to Pump Groundwater ................................................................. 3-118

3-43 Total Non-farm Industry Earnings, Sacramento Valley ($1,000), 2001 ................ 3-121

3-44 Total Non-farm Industry Employment, Sacramento Valley 2001 ......................... 3-122

3-45 2001 Economic Activity Sacramento Valley Region ............................................ 3-123

3-46 Income, Employment, and Output Multipliers for the Sacramento Valley............ 3-124

3-47 Summary of Agricultural Economic Activity by County....................................... 3-125

3-48 Shasta County Leading Commodities.................................................................... 3-126

3-49 Tehama County Leading Commodities ................................................................. 3-126

3-50 Glenn County Leading Commodities..................................................................... 3-128

3-51 Colusa County Leading Commodities ................................................................... 3-129

3-52 Yolo County Leading Commodities ...................................................................... 3-130

3-53 Butte County Leading Commodities...................................................................... 3-131

3-54 Sutter County Leading Commodities..................................................................... 3-132

3-55 Yuba County Leading Commodities...................................................................... 3-133

3-56 Sacramento County Leading Commodities ........................................................... 3-134

3-57 Population Projections for Counties within the Central Valley SRSC Service

Areas ...................................................................................................................... 3-135

3-58 Ethnicities of Counties in the SRSC Service Areas............................................... 3-145

3-59 Summary of Percent of County Populations Living in Cities, Median Income,

and Poverty ............................................................................................................ 3-146

3-60 Recreation Characteristics of Affected Recreation Areas in the SRSC Service

Areas ...................................................................................................................... 3-149

Figures

1-1 Large Irrigation Diverters in the SRSC Service Area ................................................ 1-7

3-1 Sacramento River Hydrologic Region Total Precipitation Breakdown................. 3-149

3-2 Sacramento Valley Groundwater Sub-basins......................................................... 3-159

3-3 Redding Groundwater Basin.................................................................................. 3-161

3-4 Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin Maximum Incremental Shallow Aquifer

Drawdown after One Dry Year .............................................................................. 3-163

3-5 Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin Maximum Incremental Regional Aquifer

Drawdown after One Dry Year .............................................................................. 3-165

3-6 Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin Model Predicted Stream Impacts after

One Dry Year ......................................................................................................... 3-167
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Draft SRSC EIS viii September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

3-7 Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin Maximum Incremental Shallow Aquifer

Drawdown after Four Dry Years............................................................................ 3-169

3-8 Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin Maximum Incremental Regional Aquifer

Drawdown after Four Dry Years............................................................................ 3-171

3-9 Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin Simulated Shallow Aquifer

Hydrographs........................................................................................................... 3-173

3-10 Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin Model Simulated Regional Aquifer

Hydrographs........................................................................................................... 3-175

3-11 Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin Model Predicted Stream Impacts after

Four Dry Years....................................................................................................... 3-177

3-12 Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin Simulated Stream Leakage over Four Dry

Years ...................................................................................................................... 3-179

3-13 Redding Groundwater Basin Maximum Incremental Shallow Aquifer Drawdown

after One Dry Year................................................................................................. 3-181

3-14 Redding Groundwater Basin Maximum Incremental Regional Aquifer Drawdown

after One Dry Year................................................................................................. 3-183

3-15 Redding Groundwater Basin Model Predicted Stream Impacts after One Dry

Year........................................................................................................................ 3-185

3-16 Redding Groundwater Basin Maximum Incremental Shallow Aquifer Drawdown

after Four Dry Years .............................................................................................. 3-187

3-17 Redding Groundwater Basin Maximum Incremental Regional Aquifer

Drawdown after Four Dry Years............................................................................ 3-189

3-18 Redding Groundwater Basin Model Predicted Stream Impacts after Four Dry

Years ...................................................................................................................... 3-191

3-19 Redding Groundwater Basin Simulated Stream Leakage over Four Dry Years.... 3-193

3-20 Vegetation Patterns ................................................................................................ 3-195

3-21 Vegetation Patterns ................................................................................................ 3-197

3-22 Vegetation Patterns ................................................................................................ 3-199

3-23 CVP Power Generation Facilities and Associated Transmission Facilities........... 3-201

3-24 Forecast Market Power Costs (CEC, 2000)........................................................... 3-153
September 2004 ix Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

°F degrees Fahrenheit

Accord Bay-Delta Accord

ACID Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District

AF acre-feet

AFY acre-feet per year

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BWMP Basinwide Water Management Plan

CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game

CDMWC Colusa Drain Mutual Water Company

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CNPS California Native Plant Society

COE Corps of Engineers

CVP Central Valley Project

CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act

D Decision

Department California Department of Water Resources

DPR Department of Parks and Recreation

du

EDD Employment Development Department

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Agency

GCID Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District

gpd gallons per day

KAFY thousand acre-feet per year

M&I municipal and industrial

MAF million acre-feet

MFWC Meridian Farms Water Company

MID Maxwell Irrigation District

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NCMWC Natomas Central Mutual Water Company

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NOAA-Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries

NPS National Park Service

OCAP Operations Criteria and Plan

PCGID Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation District

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

PID Provident Irrigation District

RD 1004 Reclamation District No. 1004

Plan Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan
Acronyms and Abbreviations

Draft SRSC EIS x September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 (respirable) microns in diameter

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 (fine) microns in diameter

PMWC Pelger Mutual Water Company

ppm parts per million

ppm parts per million

RD 108 Reclamation District No. 108

Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Regional Criteria Regional Criteria for Evaluating Water Management Plans for the

Sacramento River Contractors

Regional Plan Regional Water Management Plan

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

SMWC Sutter Mutual Water Company

SRSC Sacramento River Settlement Contractor

State Board State Water Resources Control Board

SVAB Sacramento Valley Air Basin

SWP State Water Project

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFS U.S. Forest Service

WMA Wildlife Management Area

WQCP Water Quality Control Plan
September 2004 1-1 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

INTRODUCTION

This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluates the potential impacts and benefits for

the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), as lead agency, to renew the long-term

Sacramento River Settlement Contracts (Settlement Contracts) between Reclamation and the

Sacramento River Settlement Contractors (SRSC). The Settlement Contracts provide for an

agreement regarding the SRSCs’ diversions of natural flow from the Sacramento River and

tributaries thereto, and Reclamation’s delivery of Central Valley Project (CVP) water for

agricultural and municipal and industrial (M&I) uses.

The SRSCs consist of 145 contractors that can be categorized into the following three groups:

• Irrigation Districts/Water Districts/Mutual Water Companies/Municipalities

• Individuals – Standard-form Contract

• Individuals – Short-form Contract

As part of this action, Reclamation also proposes to renew its contract with the CDWMC.

CDMWC’s contact provides for payment of water diverted from the Colusa Basin Drain that

would otherwise flow into the Sacramento River to satisfy the rights of senior water right

holders. Water in the drain stems from return flows resulting from diverions by upstream

SRSC’s; therefore, Reclamation determined that the EIS should also evaluate the effects of

renewing the CDMWC contract.

Together, 145 SRSCs have rights to divert approximately 2.2 million acre-feet (MAF) per

year from the Sacramento River (except during critical years as defined under the Settlement

Contracts). The CDMWC has a contract entitlement that requires Reclamation to release up

to an additional 100,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) into the Sacramento River, as part of a

negotiated water rights settlement. All of these contractors are listed in Appendix A.

The contract amounts range from 4 to 825,000 AFY. The 20 largest SRSCs listed in

Table 1-1 account for approximately 95 percent of the total contracted amount.

With the exception of Sutter Mutual Water Company (SMWC) and Anderson-Cottonwood

Irrigation District (ACID), the renewed contracts would provide for the continued diversions

and delivery of the same quantities of water as the existing Settlement Contracts. For SMWC

and ACID, the renewed contracts include slightly reduced contract amounts. Table 1-1 shows

the contract amounts under the existing contracts for 20 of the largest SRSCs.

The contract renewals also provide for continued diversions and delivery of water to the same

lands and for the same purposes, with one exception. Natomas Central Mutual Water

Company (NCMWC) has requested a change in authorized use from agricultural to M&I in

the Metro Air Park portion of its service area.
Purpose and Need Chapter 1

Draft SRSC EIS 1-2 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

The term of these Settlement Contracts was not to exceed 40 years, and these contracts were

scheduled to expire on March 31, 2004. On December 1, 2003, however, Congress passed

Public Law 108-37. Section 218 of that Act states,

“The Secretary of the Interior shall extend the term of the Sacramento River

Settlement Contracts, long- and short-form, entered into by the United States with

various districts and individuals, section 14 of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939

(53 Stat. 1197), for a period of 2 additional years after the date on which each of the

contracts, respectively, would expire but for this section, or until renewal contracts are

executed, whichever occurs earlier.”

Pursuant to this congressional mandate, Reclamation has issued written notices to the SRSCs

confirming that all terms and conditions of their existing Settlement Contracts will remain in

full force and effect during the extension period.

TABLE 1-1

TWENTY LARGEST (AF) EXISTING SRSC CONTRACT TOTALS

 CVP Project Water Base Supply

Contractorsa Agricultural M&I Water Rights TOTAL

ACID 10,000 165,000 175,000

GCID 105,000 720,000 825,000

MID 6,000 11,980 17,980

MFWC 12,000 23,000 35,000

NCMWC 22,000 98,200 120,200

PMWC 1,750 7,110 8,860

Pleasant Grove-Verona 2,500 23,790 26,290

PCGID 15,000 52,810 67,810

PID 5,000 49,730 54,730

RD 1004 15,000 56,400 71,400

RD 108 33,000 199,000 232,000

City of Redding 3,150 17,850 21,000

SMWC 95,000 172,900 267,900

Tisdale Irrigation Company 2,000 7,900 9,900

Conaway Conservancy Group 672 50,190 50,862

Davis Ranch 9,800 22,000 31,800

Lomo Cold Storage 6,410 700 7,110

M & T Chico Ranch, Inc. 16,980 976 17,956

Reynen 2,000 8,070 10,070

River Garden Farms 500 29,300 29,800

Subtotalb 360,612 3,150 1,716,906 2,080,668

Miscellaneous Users (125 users) 40,858 94,825 135,683

145 SRSCs Subtotal 401,470 3,150 1,811,731 2,216,351
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

September 2004 1-3 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 1-1

TWENTY LARGEST (AF) EXISTING SRSC CONTRACT TOTALS

 CVP Project Water Base Supply

Contractorsa Agricultural M&I Water Rights TOTAL

CDMWC 100,000 100,000

Totals 501,470 3,150 1,811,731 2,316,351

20 Largest SRSC Contractors –

Percent of Total

93.9%

All Other Miscellaneous SRSC

Users – Percent of Total

6.1%

a

A complete list of SRSCs is provided in Table 3-7.

b

This subtotal represents water diverted by the 20 contractors for which Reclamation prepared needs

analyses. The threshold for needs analyses was 2,000 irrigable acres or more for irrigation use or 2,000

AFY for M&I use. These 20 contractors represent 94 percent of the total water diverted by the SRSCs.

The remaining 125 contractors divert the remaining 6 percent.

Notes:

GCID = Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District

MID = Maxwell Irrigation District

MFWC = Meridian Farms Water Company

PMWC = Pelger Mutual Water Company

PCGID = Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation District

PID = Provident Irrigation District

RD 1004 = Reclamation District No. 1004

RD 108 = Reclamation District No. 108

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE ACTION

The purpose of this project is to renew the Settlement Contracts, consistent with the

applicable provisions of federal Reclamation law and state law.

Long-term contract renewal of the SRSCs is needed for the following reasons:

• To ensure SRSCs of the use of both the regulated and unregulated flow of the

Sacramento River and its tributaries, and to provide for the efficient and economical

operation of the CVP by, and the reimbursement to, the United States for

expenditures made for the CVP.

• To continue beneficial use of water, developed and managed as part of the CVP, with

a reasonable balance among competing demands, including the needs of irrigation and

domestic uses; fish and wildlife protection, restoration, and mitigation; fish and

wildlife enhancement; power generation; recreation; and other water uses consistent

with requirements imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board)

and by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA).

• To incorporate certain administrative conditions into the renewed contracts to ensure

the CVP’s continued compliance with current federal Reclamation law and other

applicable statutes.
Purpose and Need Chapter 1

Draft SRSC EIS 1-4 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

BASIS FOR SETTLEMENT CONTRACT RENEWALS

Reclamation has authority, under several statutes dating from 1902 to 19921, to enter into

agreements with the SRSCs to settle disputes over the respective rights of the parties to divert

and use water from the Sacramento River. These disputes were settled by an agreement that

specifies the quantity of water that can be diverted free of charge (Base Supply), and the

quantity that would be paid for by the SRSCs (Project Water). This agreement resulted in the

Settlement Contracts. The conditions associated with the delivery of CVP water include, but

are not limited to, the following:

• The terms and conditions included within Reclamation’s applicable state water right

permits/licenses

• The amounts of water each contractor can put to reasonable and beneficial use

• For irrigation water, the number of acres of irrigable and eligible lands within the

contractor’s boundaries that are also within the authorized CVP service area and the

places of use designated in the applicable CVP water right permits/licenses

These conditions do not allow Reclamation to limit or regulate Base Supply water except as

provided in the Settlement Contracts.

The Settlement Contracts are distinct from the water service contracts that the United States

has executed with other CVP contractors. Unlike the CVP water service contractors, the

SRSCs hold senior vested water rights that allow them to divert significant quantities of

natural flow from the Sacramento River, regardless of whether they have a contract for CVP

supplies.

DECISION TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

STATEMENT

In determining whether to prepare an EIS, Reclamation noted that public comments and input

from public meetings, among other factors, suggested that the relatively complex history and

unique attributes of the Settlement Contracts including their integral role in the operation of

the CVP are not widely understood. As a result, the proposal to renew the Settlement

Contracts was determined to potentially involve substantial public uncertainty and

controversy regarding the nature of the proposal itself and its potential effects on the quality

of the human and natural environment. Although initial analysis indicated that renewal of the

contracts under the Preferred Alternative would not result in any appreciable changes to the

environment, Reclamation determined that it was appropriate to prepare an EIS given the

potential for controversy. This EIS provides a detailed explanation of the proposal and any

potential for changes in the physical environment, therefore minimizing uncertainty and

maximizing the role of public information and environmental considerations in

 

1 Renewal of the Settlement Contracts is being undertaken pursuant to the following authorities: the Act of June 17, 1902 (32

Stat. 388), and acts amendatory or supplementary thereto, including, but not limited to, the Acts of August 26, 1937 (50 Stat.

844), as amended and supplemented, August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1187), as amended and supplemented, including, but not limited

to, Sections 9 and 14 thereto, July 2, 1956 (70 Stat. 483), or June 21, 1963 (77 Stat. 68), October 12, 1982 (96 Stat. 1262),

October 27, 1986 (100 Stat. 3050), as amended, and Title XXXIV of the Act of October 30, 1992 (106 Stat. 4706).
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

September 2004 1-5 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Reclamation’s decision-making process consistent with the goals of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

HISTORY OF THE SACRAMENTO RIVER SETTLEMENT

CONTRACTORS

The CVP was first authorized as a federal project in 1935, and includes facilities on the

Trinity, Sacramento, and American Rivers; Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta; San Joaquin and

Stanislaus Rivers; and offstream storage and conveyance facilities associated with the

San Luis Reservoir and Delta-Mendota Canal. Construction of dams on the Sacramento and

Trinity Rivers substantially modified the flows of the Sacramento River. Prior to construction

of the CVP, individuals and entities along the Sacramento River were diverting water for

irrigation and M&I use under various claims of right. To settle the controversy over assertions of water rights, the United States, acting through Reclamation, negotiated contracts that

provided for agreement on diversion of natural flows and CVP water service.

The SRSCs include various irrigation districts, reclamation districts, mutual water

companies, and partnerships located in the Sacramento River Basin in Northern California.

All of the SRSCs have senior vested water rights under California law to divert surface water

from the Sacramento River. Without these contracts it would have been difficult, if not

impossible, for the United States to develop the balance of the CVP. As a result, these

contracts have become known as the Sacramento River Water Rights Settlement Contracts or

Settlement Contracts.

Most SRSCs have claims to water rights that pre-exist the CVP. For example, GCID water

rights date back to at least 1883, and include pre-1914 water rights and post-1914

appropriative water rights licenses2

. These collective water rights include adjudicated decreed

rights on Stony Creek and pre- and post-1914 water rights on the Sacramento River. Because

of the nature of the rights GCID holds, the exact magnitude of these rights has never been

fully quantified. However, the claimed rights exceed 1 MAF annually. GCID, ACID and City

of Redding are the only SRSCs with claims to pre-1914 water rights. The other SRSCs have

claims to post-1914 water rights on the Sacramento River or its tributaries, with relatively

small amounts of riparian rights. As discussed above, when the CVP was authorized, the

prior water rights of the SRSCs were recognized. It was acknowledged that for the CVP to be

constructed and operated, and water rights confirmed, the SRSCs’ protests to the granting of

CVP water rights must be resolved.

Ultimately, in 1964, GCID and Reclamation entered into the first of the Settlement Contracts,

and others followed shortly thereafter using the same basic form of agreement. Using jointly

conducted studies and negotiations, the SRSCs and Reclamation arrived at mutually

agreeable quantities of Base Supply and Project Water. For each SRSC, a large portion of the

 

2 With respect to appropriative water rights in California, the year of 1914 was a significant turning point. In that year, the Water

Commission Act became effective, establishing for the first time statutory procedures for appropriating water (those procedures

do not apply to riparian water uses). Because that act was not effective until December 19, 1914, water rights obtained prior to

that date were not governed by those statutory procedures. Such rights are known as “pre-1914” rights. Thus, pre-1914 rights

are rights to appropriate water that were acquired prior to 1914. The key to acquiring and maintaining a pre-1914 right was

beneficial use.
Purpose and Need Chapter 1

Draft SRSC EIS 1-6 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

water quantities addressed in each contract is referred to as Base Supply, which is diverted

without charge. In addition, and in consideration of SRSCs’ willingness to settle on a Base

Supply quantity, Reclamation agreed to provide the SRSCs with certain designated monthly

quantities of CVP water, referred to as “Project Water,” primarily in the months of July,

August and September. This Project Water is provided to the SRSCs and is subject to all of

the pricing and other requirements of federal Reclamation law.

The Settlement Contracts were negotiated documents. The Settlement Contracts recognize

the prior direct diversion rights of the SRSCs. However, as an outgrowth of the negotiations,

it was agreed that the SRSCs would take an average yield of their water rights from the flow

of the Sacramento River and its tributaries thereto, in return for the benefit of the certainty of

flow provided by the operation of the CVP. Conversely, the United States received, among

other things, certainty as to its operation of the CVP, and avoided litigation, including the

potential for a lengthy and expensive adjudication of CVP and other water rights in the

Sacramento River watershed. The original contracts, entered into in 1964 for a period of

40 years, were scheduled to expire on March 31, 2004. As discussed above, Congress

extended the terms of the contracts for 2 years pursuant to Public Law 108-37.

On October 30, 1992, the CVPIA was signed into law. This act modifies the authorized

purposes of the CVP and requires a wide range of environmental improvements and potential

changes in how the CVP is operated. It also specifically addresses contract renewals by

setting new contract lengths for repayment and water service contracts, and allowed interim

renewals until a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, prepared pursuant to the

compliance with NEPA, was complete with a Record of Decision in January 2001. The

CVPIA distinguishes between Settlement Contracts and other types of CVP contracts such as

repayment or water service contracts.

STUDY AREA

The study area boundaries for this EIS are presented on Figure 1-1. This area includes the

service areas of each of the SRSCs, as listed in Appendix A. Each lies wholly within the CVP

service area.

STUDY PERIOD

The analysis for this EIS was conducted for projected conditions in the year 2044, which will

extend through the first period of renewal for the 40-year Settlement Contracts. No interim

time conditions were considered or evaluated with respect to build-out conditions or changes

in the Settlement Contract.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS

Reclamation began preparing this EIS during the scoping phase of the NEPA environmental

impact study process. Scoping activities began on July 19, 2001, when Reclamation issued a

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

September 2004 1-9 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Notice of Intent for the preparation of a NEPA document for the renewal of the SRSCs.

Reclamation then held three scoping meetings and prepared a scoping report, which is

included as Appendix B. Scoping served as a fact-finding process that helped identify public

concerns and recommendations about the NEPA process, issues that would be addressed in

this EIS, and the scope and level of detail for analysis.

RELATED PROJECTS

Several activities are being implemented by Reclamation as part of the obligation to manage

and operate the CVP or are directly related to the contract renewals. The following discussion

identifies these activities and describes their relationship to the renewal of the Settlement

Contracts. Table 1-2 summarizes additional related studies and projects that have been

conducted recently or are currently being completed.

TABLE 1-2

RELATED PROJECTS

Project or Study and Lead Agency Summary

Long-term Contract Renewal of Existing

CVP Water Service Contracts –

Reclamation

Reclamation is negotiating with other CVP water contractors for

renewal of long-term contracts, including contractors for the

American River Division, Feather Water District, Shasta-Trinity

Divisions, Sacramento Canals Unit, San Luis Unit, Contra Costa

Unit, San Felipe Unit, Delta-Mendota Canal Unit, San Joaquin

National Veterans’ Cemetery, City of Lindsay, City of Fresno, Cross

Valley, and Mercy Spring Water District.

Implementation of CVPIA – Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) are

proceeding with implementation of other provisions of the CVPIA,

including stream restoration, refuge water supplies, and further

analysis of yield replacement.

CALFED Bay-Delta Program – CALFED Established in May 1995, the consortium of federal and state

agencies is charged with the development of a long-term solution to

the Delta water concerns. CALFED completed an Environmental

Impact Report (EIR) and EIS as part of this process. Renewal of

long-term CVP contracts is assumed within the CALFED EIR/EIS

and Record of Decision.

Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration

EIS/EIR – Reclamation, Service, Hoopa

Valley Tribe and Trinity County

The Service completed a Final EIS/EIR and Record of Decision.

Because of subsequent litigation, the Service is preparing

responses to the court's comments.

The Service and Reclamation also are implementing a portion of

the recommendations for restoration activities along the Trinity

River.

RELATED ACTIVITIES

Following are descriptions of long-term activities related to long-term contract renewal.
Purpose and Need Chapter 1

Draft SRSC EIS 1-10 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Central Valley Project Improvement Act Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement

The CVPIA Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) provided a functional

evaluation of the impacts of implementing the CVPIA. Four alternatives, 17 supplemental

analyses, a Preferred Alternative, and a No Action Alternative were evaluated in the PEIS.

The impact analysis in the PEIS was completed at a subregional level but presented within

the PEIS on a regional basis for the Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley, and Tulare Lake

regions. The PEIS No Action Alternative assumed that existing water service contracts,

exchange contracts, and Settlement Contracts would be renewed under the same terms as

expiring contracts. The Final PEIS included a Preferred Alternative that addressed the

regional impacts and benefits of the general method that Reclamation anticipated for

implementation of the CVPIA, including long-term contract renewal.

The PEIS evaluated the impacts and benefits of long-term contract renewals under the

CVPIA, including the Settlement Contracts. Following completion of the PEIS, more specific

information related to contract renewal proposals has been developed by Reclamation and the

SRSCs. This EIS for the renewal of the Settlement Contracts includes the Preferred

Alternative of the Final PEIS as the No Action Alternative and evaluates the impacts and

benefits of differences among the contract assumptions in the No Action Alternative, the

Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) and additional project alternatives, as described in

Chapter 2.

Operations Criteria and Plan Biological Assessment

Reclamation and the California Department of Water Resources (Department) propose

operations of the CVP and State Water Project (SWP) to divert, store, and convey CVP and

SWP water consistent with applicable law. These operations are summarized and evaluated

in a Biological Assessment, and described in further detail in the CVP Operations Criteria

and Plan (OCAP). The Biological Assessment addresses continued operation of the CVP and

SWP in a coordinated manner. In addition to current-day operations, the following future

actions are included in this consultation:

• Increased flows in the Trinity River

• Increased pumping at Banks Pumping Plant (referred to as 8,500 Banks)

• Permanent barriers operated in the South Delta

• An intertie between the California Aqueduct and the Delta-Mendota Canal

• A long-term Environmental Water Account

• Freeport Regional Water Project

• Various other operational changes described in detail in the Biological Assessment

The current and ongoing effects of diversions by the SRSCs as part of CVP operations are

included in this Biological Assessment. The consultation addresses impacts to listed species

that could be caused by hydrological and water quality conditions resulting from operation of

the CVP and SWP facilities. With respect to long-term contract renewals with the SRSCs, the

consultation evaluates the impact to listed species that could result from operating the CVP

and SWP to deliver CVP water to the points of diversion of the SRSCs in combination with

other operational and regulatory requirements. The analyses for the OCAP consultation

assume the SRSCs divert their total contract quantity with deficiencies in critically dry years
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

September 2004 1-11 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

in accordance with the existing and renewed contracts. Because maximum contract deliveries

are assumed for the SRSCs, the OCAP opinion fully addresses any in-river effects to listed

species that could result from long-term contract renewal. The consultation does not evaluate

impacts that could result during diversion of water by the contractors or use of diverted water.

It is anticipated that formal consultation on long-term OCAP will be completed by the end of

2004.

Sacramento River Basinwide Water Management Plan and Regional Criteria

In 1996, eight of the larger SRSCs commenced litigation against the United States and others

to establish that Section 3404(c)(3) of the CVPIA did not apply to Settlement Contracts.

Litigation reached settlement in January 1997 through a Stipulated Agreement, wherein the

federal defendants agreed that Section 3404(c)(3) of the CVPIA did not apply to the

Settlement Contracts.

As part of that settlement, the SRSCs and Reclamation entered into a “Memorandum of

Understanding between Named Sacramento River Settlement Contractors and the United

States of America for the Preparation of Data in Aid of the Renewal of Settlement Contracts”

(Contract Renewal MOU).

SRSC participants that were signatories to the Contract Renewal MOU are as follows:

• Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District (ACID)

• Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID)

• Provident Irrigation District (PID)

• Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation District (PCGID)

• Reclamation District No. 108 (RD 108)

• Reclamation District No. 1004 (RD 1004)

• Meridian Farms Water Company (MFWC)

• Sutter Mutual Water Company (SMWC)

• Pelger Mutual Water Company (PMWC)

• Natomas Central Mutual Water Company (NCMWC)

These SRSCs account for more than 80 percent of the total 2.2 MAF of Sacramento River

water currently under Settlement Contracts with Reclamation. Reclamation was also a

signatory to the Contract Renewal MOU. The Contract Renewal MOU identified the

following four major types of data or documents that were to be prepared to aid in contract

renewal negotiations:

• Update and extension of the 1956 Cooperative Study

• A Basinwide Water Management Plan (BWMP) for the Sacramento River

• Contracting principles

• Discussions of obligations, if any, of the SRSCs to meet water quality, endangered

species, and other environmental needs, including the needs of the San Francisco Bay/

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and alternative means, if any, by which these

obligations can be met
Purpose and Need Chapter 1

Draft SRSC EIS 1-12 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

The basic objective of the BWMP was to provide the participating SRSCs with a comprehensive basis upon which to manage water resources to meet their existing and future water

needs. These needs would be met in a manner that could also serve other water needs in the

Sacramento Valley, including, but not limited to, needs for the use of water for the environment. The basic objectives were more specifically defined as follows:

• Maintaining a permanent, reliable, adequate, and economical water supply to meet the

existing and future needs of the SRSCs, including long-term soil salinity control and

nonpoint discharge requirements

• Identifying the opportunities to enhance the water supplies for wildlife refuges and

other uses of water for the environment

• Incorporating other water management considerations in the Sacramento River Basin,

such as other water quality goals, agricultural economics, flood control, power operations, and recreation, to ensure a comprehensive and successful approach to meet the

basic objectives of the BWMP

• Allowing for the potential use with the updated and extended 1956 Cooperative Study

(subsequently mutually agreed would not to be used) and other existing, past, or

ongoing studies to provide a common set of data on which negotiations for renewal of

water Settlement Contracts could be based

Sacramento Valley Water Management Program

Management of water quality in the Bay-Delta has been the topic of many programs and

processes over the years. Water quality in the Bay-Delta is affected by freshwater inflows,

which are influenced by upstream diversions. Possible changes to upstream diversion rights

as part of water quality management in the Bay-Delta has been an extremely complicated and

controversial issue. Certain water users and agencies throughout California, including

Sacramento River water users (many of them SRSCs), the Department, Reclamation, and

CVP and SWP water contractors signed the “Agreement Regarding Resolution of Phase 8

Issues, Development and Management of Water Supplies, and Binding Commitment to

Proceed Pursuant of Specified Terms” (April 3, 2001, and known as the Stay Agreement).

The Stay Agreement proposed goals and principles to resolve issues of the flow-related

standards that would have been argued during the eighth phase (commonly referred to as

“Phase 8”) of the impending State Board hearings. On April 26, 2001, the State Board issued

Order WR 2001-05, which postponed Phase 8 and allowed for automatic dismissal of the

Phase 8 hearing after 18 months in October 2002 (unless Reclamation or the Department had

requested the State Board resume Phase 8 because of a breakdown in the settlement process).

Under the State Board order and as agreed to in the Stay Agreement, Reclamation and the

Department remained committed to meeting the flow-related objectives described in

SWRCB D-1641 (the formal decision governing water quality in the Bay-Delta) during the

term of the Stay Agreement.

One outcome of this process has been the Short-Term Program, which will develop projects

that can provide water to the Bay-Delta. This water will be made available by conjunctively

reducing surface diversions and using groundwater pumping or by re-operation of district or

water agency reservoirs.
September 2004 2-1 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

CHAPTER 2

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION

The Settlement Contracts have a unique history and nature. The SRSCs hold water rights to

Sacramento River water that are senior to the CVP and, cumulatively, claim senior water

rights that entitle them to use a significant portion of the water available for appropriation in

the Sacramento River. If the SRSCs were to fully utilize their senior water rights,

Reclamation’s current ability to operate the CVP would be compromised. It was in recognition of this fact that members of Congress directed Reclamation to negotiate with the SRSCs

and enter into the Settlement Contracts.

The CVPIA states that no contract renewals shall be authorized until appropriate environmental review, including the CVPIA Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS),

has been completed. The PEIS identifies the need for site-specific environmental documents

for the long-term contract renewal process, including the Settlement Contract renewal

process. This Chapter describes the methodology used to develop alternatives to be evaluated

in this EIS for renewal of the Settlement Contracts, the selected alternatives, and alternatives

considered for further evaluation but eliminated from this EIS.

DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

To develop the project Alternatives for this EIS, in 2001, Reclamation initiated public

scoping activities and, with the SRSCs, initiated the process to negotiate the renewal of the

SRSC contracts. Reclamation offered its initial proposed contract on May 15, 2002. Many of

the larger SRSCs responded with their initial counter-proposal on May 31, 2002. A series of

publicly noticed negotiation sessions between Reclamation and the larger SRSCs were held

throughout 2002 and early 2003. The results of the negotiations are reflected in the March 11,

2003 draft form of the contract that has been tentatively approved by both Reclamation and

many of the larger SRSCs. (Copies of the May 15, 2002, May 31, 2002, and March 11, 2003

draft contracts are included in Appendix C.)

Through contract negotiations and scoping activities, five reasonable and feasible alternatives

have been identified for the renewal of the Settlement Contracts between Reclamation and

the SRSCs. These five alternatives represent a range of agreement provisions that could be

implemented for contract renewals. In addition to these five alternatives, the No Action

Alternative was defined to consist of renewing long-term contracts as described by the

adopted and implemented Preferred Alternative of the PEIS.

The negotiated contract is represented by Alternative 1 – the Preferred Alternative;

Reclamation’s initial proposal is represented by Alternative 2, and the SRSCs’ initial counter

proposal is represented by Alternative 3. This approach to developing alternatives based on

various stages in the contract negotiation process is consistent with the approach taken for the

environmental documentation of several other contract renewals, including long-term

contract renewal documents for Westside Canals (i.e., Tehama-Colusa Canal), Shasta-Trinity,
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives

Draft SRSC EIS 2-2 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

San Felipe, San Luis Unit, Friant, Cross-Valley, Contra Costa Water District, and DeltaMendota.

Two additional alternatives, 4 and 5, were developed in response to specific comments

received during scoping and in extensive discussions between Reclamation and the SRSCs.

Alternatives 4 and 5 evaluate different approaches to applying cutbacks of surface water

diversions during years when total water supplies are below normal. These approaches were

not considered in the contract negotiations.

Various contractual provisions define the differences among alternatives, as shown in

Table 2-1. These provisions are addressed differently under the No Action Alternative and

each of the project alternatives, and could result in changes in environmental impacts or

benefits. These provisions include the following: total contract amount, contract period, Base

Supply rescheduling provisions, water costs including Project Water costing mechanisms,

conservation measurement, and shortage provisions.

The No Action, Preferred Alternative, and project alternatives are described below.

No Action Alternative

Selection of the No Action Alternative for Contract Renewals

The No Action Alternative is defined by NEPA as the most likely future that could be

expected to occur in the absence of the project. It is intended to represent a projection of

current conditions to the most reasonable future responses or conditions that could occur

during the life of the project without any action alternatives being implemented.

The No Action Alternative for the SRSC contract renewals has been determined to be the

Preferred Alternative for the CVPIA PEIS. The rationale for this decision is that with the

passage of the CVPIA in 1992 and the completion of the environmental documentation for

the CVPIA (PEIS), in 1999, the operations of the CVP, including the delivery of Sacramento

River water to the SRSCs are guided by the adopted PEIS Preferred Alternative. The CVPIA

Preferred Alternative is therefore the existing conditions for this EIS and the ongoing

implementation of the CVPIA is the most likely future scenario. The Preferred Alternative for

the CVPIA assumed renewal of the Settlement Contracts at existing full contract amounts.

Additional details of the existing contract provisions are provided below.

The rationale for definition of the No Action Alternative also considered that the majority of

the SRSCs and Reclamation have indicated their willingness to renew the contracts and

Congress has approved interim contract extensions. Therefore, the possibility of a future

without contract renewals was not anticipated. The concept of non-contract renewal, rather

then being addressed as part of the no action, was considered as a Project Alternative, but

eliminated from full analysis for several reasons, as discussed later in this Chapter.

The use of the PEIS Preferred Alternative as the No Action is consistent with the definition

of the No Action for several other ongoing contract renewal environmental documents,

including Westside Canals (i.e., Tehama-Colusa Canal), Shasta-Trinity, San Felipe, San Luis

Unit, Friant, Cross-Valley, Contra Costa Water District, and Delta-Mendota.
September 2004 2-3 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 2-1

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY

Alternative No Action Alternative 1:Preferred

Alternative–

Negotiated Contract

Alternative 2:

Reclamation’s Initial

Contract Proposal

Alternative 3: SRSCs’

Initial Counter

Proposal

Alternative 

Provisions 

Shasta 

Total Annual Contract Amount(KAFY)a

2,316 2,227 2,316 2,316 2,227 

Contract Period 40 years 40 years 40 years 40 years 40 years Shortage Provision Specifies reductions in

critical yearsb only;reductions of 25%

Specifies reductions incritical years only;reductions of 25%

Specifies deliveryreductions based onShasta inflowdeficiencies varyingfrom 10 to 25% (slidingscale)

Same as Alternative 2,and SRSCs arecompensated for waterreductions

Sliding-scale (10-20-25%stepped deccutback remlowest level contract amat 4 MAF in Lake

Number of Years Shortage Provision IsActivated (based on historical period ofrecord)

9 years 9 years 16 years 9 years 17 years 

Total Amount Reduced over 4-yearDrought Sequence Based on ShortageProvision (KAFY)

2,127 2,127 2,021 2,127 2,127 

Base Supply Rescheduling Provisions No fees for rescheduling Requires rescheduling

fee for water scheduledfor diversion in April orMay that is diverted inJuly, August,September, or October

Requires reschedulingfee to divert in excessof monthly quantitiescontained in SettlementContract

No fees forrescheduling

Requires refee to divert of monthly qcontained in Contract
September 2004 2-4 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 2-1

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY

Alternative No Action Alternative 1:Preferred

Alternative–

Negotiated Contract

Alternative 2:

Reclamation’s Initial

Contract Proposal

Alternative 3: SRSCs’

Initial Counter

Proposal

Alternative 

Provisions 

Shasta 

Costing Mechanism Take or Pay: Requires

SRSC to pay for ProjectWater at establishedrates with adjustmentsby Contracting Officer ifwater used other thanfor agriculturalpurposes; SRSC paysfor 100% of ProjectWater

Take or Pay: RequiresSRSC to pay for 75% ofthe amount of ProjectWater each year and topay for Project Wateractually diverted inexcess of 75%;Contracting Officer canadjust rates toapplicable rates andcharges if the SRSCdesires to use ProjectWater for other thanagricultural use

Take or Pay: RequiresSRSC to pay for ProjectWater at establishedrates with adjustmentsby Contracting Officer ifwater used other thanfor agriculturalpurposes; SRSC paysfor 100% of ProjectWater

Take or Pay: Limitspayment to ProjectWater actually divertedby the SRSC; does notspecifically includeadjustment for waterused other than foragricultural purposes

Same as Alt

Conservation Measures Prior to diversion of

Project Water, requiresSRSC to beimplementing a waterconservation andefficiency programbased on the BWMPand/or the SRSC’swater conservation planthat has beendetermined by theContracting Officer tomeet requirementsunder federal law, whichallows the SRSC toreduce the amount ofProject Water for whichpayment is requiredunder Article 8(a)

Prior to diversion ofProject Water, requiresSRSC to beimplementing a waterconservation andefficiency programbased on the BWMPand/or the SRSC’swater conservation planthat has beendetermined by theContracting Officer tomeet requirementsunder federal law,which allows the SRSCto reduce the amount ofProject Water for whichpayment is requiredunder Article 8(a)

Prior to diversion ofProject Water, requiresSRSC to beimplementing a waterconservation andefficiency programbased on the BWMPand/or the SRSC’swater conservationplan that has beendetermined by theContracting Officer tomeet requirementsunder federal law,which allows the SRSCto reduce the amountof Project Water forwhich payment isrequired under Article8(a)

Same as Alt
September 2004 2-5 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 2-1

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY

Alternative No Action Alternative 1:Preferred

Alternative–

Negotiated Contract

Alternative 2:

Reclamation’s Initial

Contract Proposal

Alternative 3: SRSCs’

Initial Counter

Proposal

Alternative 

Provisions 

Shasta 

aIncludes contract amounts for 145 SRSCs and CDMWC. Total annual amounts vary according to shortage provisions.bShasta critical years defined by the contract between Reclamation and the SRSCs (see Appendix C for complete contract). This shortage provision was tcontracts and, thus, represents the No Action, in addition to Alternatives 1 and 3.cThe 40-30-30 Sacramento River Index is computed as a weighted average of the current water year's April through July unimpaired runoff forecast (40 peOctober through March unimpaired runoff forecast (30 percent), and the previous water year's index (30 percent). A cap of 10 MAF is put on the previous y

flood control reservoir releases during wet years. Unimpaired runoff (calculated in the 40-30-30 Sacramento River Index as the sum of Sacramento River f

Feather River inflow to Oroville, Yuba River flow at Smartville, and American River inflow to Folsom) is the river production unaltered by water diversions, s

year with a 40-30-30 Sacramento River Index equal to or greater than 9.2 MAF is classified as "wet." A water year with an index equal to or less than 5.4 M

Note:KAFY = thousand acre-feet per year
Description of Alternatives Chapter 2

Draft SRSC EIS 2-6 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Similarities of the No Action to the Affected Environment/Existing Conditions

For Projects where the No Action future is different from the existing conditions, NEPA

Guidelines instruct that the differences should be clearly defined. The No Action Alternative

should not automatically be considered to be the same as the existing condition of the

affected environment because reasonably foreseeable future actions may be taken regardless

of whether any of the project action alternatives are chosen.

For the resources that may be affected by this Project, the existing conditions and the No

Action are essentially identical. The existing condition consists of effects of the exercising of

the SRSC contracts and the No Action assumes ongoing implementation of those contracts

under identical contract provisions.

The analysis in Chapter 3 compares the reasonable action alternatives to the No Action

Alternative to determine the net effect or impact of each of the action alternatives. This

allows the analysis to focus upon the impacts that would be the result of the action under

consideration, distinguishing the different impacts associated with each of the

Alternatives. Because in this case, the No Action is the same as the existing conditions, this

comparison of the project alternatives to the No Action is essentially the same as a

comparison of the project alternatives to existing conditions.

Total Contract Amount

The total contract amount for each alternative includes both Base Supply and Project Water

supply to be diverted by the SRSCs in years when shortage provisions are not in effect. The

contract defines Base Supply as the quantity of water that the United States agrees may be

diverted by the SRSCs from the Sacramento River each month from April through October

without charge. This Base Supply reflects the negotiated quantity of surface water agreed to

by both the SRSCs and Reclamation, derived from jointly conducted studies. The Base

Supply represents the larger portion of the water quantities addressed in each contract and is

diverted by the contractor free of any payment to Reclamation.

In addition, and in consideration of the SRSCs’ willingness to settle on a Base Supply

quantity during the term of the Settlement Contract, Reclamation agreed to provide the

SRSCs with designated monthly quantities of CVP water, referred to as “Project Water.” In

the contracts, Project Water refers to all water diverted or scheduled for diversion by the

SRSCs from the Sacramento River each month from April through October of each year that

is in excess of the Base Supply. This CVP Project Water is provided to the SRSCs subject to

all of the pricing and other requirements of federal Reclamation law.

As shown in Table 2-2, the total contract amount for the No Action Alternative is

2,316 KAFY. This alternative assumes renewal of all contracts at the existing contract

amounts. This is the aggregated total amount provided for in all 145 contracts and the

contract with CDMWC. Table 2-2 also shows the Base Supply and Project Water supply for

each of the 20 largest SRSCs for each alternative. These are total contracted amounts, which

may be reduced during years when shortage provisions are activated, as described below.
September 2004 2-7 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 2-2

CONTRACT AMOUNTS BY PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

Contractor No Action

(Renewal of Existing Contracts)

1 – Preferred Alternative

(Negotiated Contract)

2 – Reclamation’s Initial

Contract Proposal

CVP Water Base

Supply

TOTAL CVP Water Base Supply TOTAL

ACID 10,000 165,000 175,000 6,000 122,000 128,000a Same as No Action GCID 105,000 720,000 825,000 105,000 720,000 825,000MID 6,000 11,980 17,980 6,000 11,980 17,980MFWC 12,000 23,000 35,000 12,000 23,000 35,000NCMWC 22,000 98,200 120,200 22,000 98,200 120,200PMWC 1,750 7,110 8,860 1,750 7,110 8,860Pleasant Grove-Verona 2,500 23,790 26,290 2,500 23,790 26,290PCGID 15,000 52,810 67,810 15,000 52,810 67,810PID 5,000 49,730 54,730 5,000 49,730 54,730RD 1004 15,000 56,400 71,400 15,000 56,400 71,400RD 108 33,000 199,000 232,000 33,000 199,000 232,000City of Reddingc 3,150 17,850 21,000 3,150 17,850 21,000SMWC 95,000 172,900 267,900 56,500 169,500 226,0002Tisdale IrrigationCompany

2,000 7,900 9,900 2,000 7,900 9,900

Conaway ConservancyGroup

672 50,190 50,862 672 50,190 50,862

Davis Ranch 9,800 22,000 31,800 9,800 22,000 31,800Lomo Cold Storage 6410 700 7,110 6,410 700 7,110M & T Chico Ranch, Inc. 16980 976 17,956 16,980 976 17,956Reynen 2,000 8,070 10,070 2,000 8,070 10,070River Garden Farms 500 29,300 29,800 500 29,300 29,800Subtotal 363,762 1,716,906 2,080,668 363,762 1,716,906 2,080,668Other 125 Users 40,858 94,825 135,683 40,858 94,825 135,683CDMWC 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000TOTAL 404,620 1,811,731 2,316,351 362,120 1,765,331 2,227,451aNeeds analyses resulted in reduction from 175 to 128 KAFY for ACID and from 267,900 to 226 KAFY for SMWC.bTotal contract amounts under Alternatives 4 and 5 are the same; however, during dry years, shortage provisions may result in varying quantities of reductions in water delivered as cAll CVP Project Water supply is denoted for agricultural use with the exception of the City of Redding supply, which is for M&I use.
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives

Draft SRSC EIS 2-9 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Contract Period

The existing Settlement Contracts were originally executed in 1964, with a term not to

exceed 40 years. Those contracts specified the following: “That under terms and conditions

mutually agreeable to the parties hereto, renewals may be made for successive periods not to

exceed forty (40) years each.” In addition, Section 3404(c) of the CVPIA, which limits the

renewal of existing long-term repayment of water service contracts to a period of 25 years,

does not apply to the Settlement Contracts. Under the No Action Alternative, the contract

period for the renewed contracts would extend for 40 years.

Base Supply Rescheduling

The Base Supply and the Project Water supply for each contractor is allocated on a monthly

basis as specified under Exhibit A of each contract. Base Supply is scheduled during the

months of April through October for all SRSCs, with the exception of the City of Redding,

whose water is scheduled year round for M&I use.

Critical months are defined in all of the contracts as July, August, and September, with the

exception of GCID, ACID, and the City of Redding. Critical months for these three

contractors, because of their claims to senior water rights, are July and August only.

Under the existing contracts (No Action), an SRSC cannot move Base Supply from noncritical months into critical months, but can move Base Supply within critical months or from

critical months into non-critical months. However, after the Base Supply for critical months

is exhausted, contractors can purchase Project Water up to their full contract amount.

Rescheduling of Base Supply within critical months or into non-critical months is permitted

without cost in the No Action Alternative.

Water Costs and Costing Mechanisms

As stated previously, SRSCs divert the Base Supply portion of their contract free of any

payment to Reclamation. No payment is required if Base Supply is rescheduled as described

in the previous section.

The cost for Project Water under the No Action Alternative is as set by the CVPIA and would

apply to 100 percent of the Project Water, whether diverted or not.

Conservation Measures

The water conservation assumptions under the No Action Alternative include water conservation actions for municipal and on-farm uses assumed in Department Bulletin 160-93 and

conservation plans completed under the 1982 Reclamation Reform Act consistent with the

criteria and requirements of the CVPIA. Such criteria address cost-effective Best

Management Practices that are economical and appropriate, including measurement devices,

pricing structures, demand management, public information, and financial incentives.

Shortage Provisions

Under the No Action Alternative, the shortage provisions of the existing Settlement Contracts

would apply. That contract specifies cutbacks of 25 percent in deliveries during critical years
Description of Alternatives Chapter 2

Draft SRSC EIS 2-10 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

only. Critical years are defined by the contract as any year during which either of the

following eventualities exists:

(1) The forecasted full natural inflow to Shasta Lake for the current Water Year, is

equal to or less than three million two hundred thousand (3,200,000) AF; or

(2) The total accumulated actual deficiencies below four million (4,000,000) AF in

the immediately prior Water Year or series of successive prior Water Years each of

which had inflows of less than four million (4,000,000) AF, together with the

forecasted deficiency for the current Water Year, exceed eight hundred thousand

(800,000) acre-feet.

Under these shortage provisions, as shown in Table 2-3, cutbacks would be projected to

occur under the No Action Alternative in 9 years out of 80. This projection is based on the

period of record from 1921 to 2001. Information from this period of record, such as

frequency of various levels of dry years, periods of sequential dry years resulting in long-term

droughts, and wet years, is typically used by Reclamation as a reliable predictor of the pattern

of hydrology that can be expected in the future. During a 4-year drought sequence, such as

that which occurred during the period 1930 through 1934, total cutbacks to SRSCs would

allow for diversion of approximately 2,127 KAFY. Because the contract period is 40 years,

and the period of record is 80 years, a reasonable assumption can be made that during the

contract period, these shortage provisions would occur 4.5 years out of 40.

Alternative 1: Preferred Alternative – Negotiated Contract

Total Contract Amount

As shown in Table 2-2, the total contract amount for the Preferred Alternative is

2,227 KAFY. This total contract quantity of water is less than the No Action Alternative by

89 KAFY in response to the needs analyses prepared by Reclamation, which resulted in a

proposed reduction in total supplies (Base and Project water) to two SRSCs (SMWC and

ACID).

To determine contract amounts for the renewed contracts, and assist in demonstrating

beneficial use, Reclamation developed a needs analysis methodology to evaluate the use of

CVP water supplies. The water rights granted to the United States for the CVP require that

the water be used in accordance with the law and in the interest of the public welfare to

prevent waste and unreasonable use.

The needs analysis for the SRSCs used a multi-step approach to identify existing and

projected water demands and support the assignment of contract amounts in the contract

negotiations and the Preferred Alternative and alternatives. As discussed previously, the

Settlement Contracts were negotiated to settle disputes over claims of water rights and

resulted in agreement of the quantities of water that could be diverted free of charge (Base

Supply) and that would be paid for by the SRSCs (Project Water). There was no requirement

that the SRSCs had to use other sources of water supply, if available, in lieu of diverting Base

Supply and Project Water, a fact that was taken into account in completing the water needs

analysis. Beneficial and efficient future water demands were also identified for each district

and then compared to each SRSC’s Base Supply and Project Water.
September 2004 2-11 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 2-3

SAMPLE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF SHORTAGE PROVISIONS BASED ON HISTORICAL PERI

Water Year –

Period of Record

Inflow to

Shasta

Reservoir in

MAF

Percentage Cutback Alternative 2 –

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease; no

cutback if previous water

year greater than 4.0, and no

reset requirement at 4 MAF

Alternative 4 –

Using Shasta Inflow,

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease;

cutback remains at

lowest level until full

contract amount reset

at 4 MAF

No Action, Alternative 1

(Preferred Alternative), and

Alternative 3 –

25% cutback in Shasta

critical years onlya

1921-1922 4.6 100% 100% 100% 1922-1923 3.6 100% 90% 90% 1923-1924 2.5 75% 75% 75% 1924-1925 5.1 100% 100% 100% 1925-1926 3.7 100% 90% 90% 1926-1927 7.0 100% 100% 100% 1927-1928 5.1 100% 100% 100% 1928-1929 3.2 100% 75% 75% 1929-1930 4.2 100% 100% 100% 1930-1931 2.5 75% 75% 75% 1931-1932 3.7 75% 80% 75% 1932-1933 3.5 75% 75% 75% 1933-1934 3.3 75% 75% 75% 1934-1935 4.9 100% 100% 100% 1935-1936 4.7 100% 100% 100% 
September 2004 2-12 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 2-3

SAMPLE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF SHORTAGE PROVISIONS BASED ON HISTORICAL PERI

Water Year –

Period of Record

Inflow to

Shasta

Reservoir in

MAF

Percentage Cutback Alternative 2 –

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease; no

cutback if previous water

year greater than 4.0, and no

reset requirement at 4 MAF

Alternative 4 –

Using Shasta Inflow,

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease;

cutback remains at

lowest level until full

contract amount reset

at 4 MAF

No Action, Alternative 1

(Preferred Alternative), and

Alternative 3 –

25% cutback in Shasta

critical years onlya

1936-1937 4.1 100% 100% 100% 1937-1938 9.5 100% 100% 100% 1938-1939 3.5 100% 75% 80% 1939-1940 7.0 100% 100% 100% 1940-1941 8.7 100% 100% 100% 1941-1942 7.6 100% 100% 100% 1942-1943 5.9 100% 100% 100% 1943-1944 3.7 100% 80% 90% 1944-1945 4.9 100% 100% 100% 1945-1946 5.9 100% 100% 100% 1946-1947 3.9 100% 100% 90% 1947-1948 5.4 100% 100% 100% 1948-1949 4.3 100% 100% 100% 1049-1950 4.1 100% 100% 100% 1950-1951 6.3 100% 100% 100% 
September 2004 2-13 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 2-3

SAMPLE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF SHORTAGE PROVISIONS BASED ON HISTORICAL PERI

Water Year –

Period of Record

Inflow to

Shasta

Reservoir in

MAF

Percentage Cutback Alternative 2 –

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease; no

cutback if previous water

year greater than 4.0, and no

reset requirement at 4 MAF

Alternative 4 –

Using Shasta Inflow,

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease;

cutback remains at

lowest level until full

contract amount reset

at 4 MAF

No Action, Alternative 1

(Preferred Alternative), and

Alternative 3 –

25% cutback in Shasta

critical years onlya

1951-1952 7.8 100% 100% 100% 1952-1953 6.5 100% 100% 100% 1953-1954 6.5 100% 100% 100% 1954-1955 4.1 100% 100% 100% 1955-1956 8.8 100% 100% 100% 1956-1957 5.4 100% 100% 100% 1957-1958 9.7 100% 100% 100% 1958-1959 5.1 100% 100% 100% 1959-1960 4.7 100% 100% 100% 1960-1961 5.1 100% 100% 100% 1961-1962 5.3 100% 100% 100% 1962-1963 7.0 100% 100% 100% 1963-1964 3.9 100% 100% 100% 1964-1965 7.0 100% 100% 100% 1965-1966 5.3 100% 100% 100% 
September 2004 2-14 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 2-3

SAMPLE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF SHORTAGE PROVISIONS BASED ON HISTORICAL PERI

Water Year –

Period of Record

Inflow to

Shasta

Reservoir in

MAF

Percentage Cutback Alternative 2 –

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease; no

cutback if previous water

year greater than 4.0, and no

reset requirement at 4 MAF

Alternative 4 –

Using Shasta Inflow,

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease;

cutback remains at

lowest level until full

contract amount reset

at 4 MAF

No Action, Alternative 1

(Preferred Alternative), and

Alternative 3 –

25% cutback in Shasta

critical years onlya

1966-1967 7.4 100% 100% 100% 1967-1968 4.8 100% 100% 100% 1968-1969 7.7 100% 100% 100% 1969-1970 7.9 100% 100% 100% 1970-1971 7.3 100% 100% 100% 1971-1972 5.1 100% 100% 100% 1972-1973 6.2 100% 100% 100% 1973-1974 10.8 100% 100% 100% 1974-1975 6.4 100% 100% 100% 1975-1976 3.6 100% 80% 80% 1976-1977 2.6 75% 75% 75% 1977-1978 7.8 100% 100% 100% 1978-1979 4.0 100% 100% 100% 1079-1980 6.4 100% 100% 100% 1980-1981 4.1 100% 100% 100% 
September 2004 2-15 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 2-3

SAMPLE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF SHORTAGE PROVISIONS BASED ON HISTORICAL PERI

Water Year –

Period of Record

Inflow to

Shasta

Reservoir in

MAF

Percentage Cutback Alternative 2 –

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease; no

cutback if previous water

year greater than 4.0, and no

reset requirement at 4 MAF

Alternative 4 –

Using Shasta Inflow,

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease;

cutback remains at

lowest level until full

contract amount reset

at 4 MAF

No Action, Alternative 1

(Preferred Alternative), and

Alternative 3 –

25% cutback in Shasta

critical years onlya

1981-1982 9.0 100% 100% 100% 1982-1983 10.8 100% 100% 100% 1983-1984 6.7 100% 100% 100% 1984-1985 4.0 100% 100% 100% 1985-1986 7.5 100% 100% 100% 1986-1987 3.9 100% 100% 100% 1987-1988 3.9 100% 100% 100% 1988-1989 4.7 100% 100% 100% 1989-1990 3.6 100% 80% 80% 1990-1991 3.1 75% 75% 75% 1991-1992 3.6 75% 90% 75% 1992-1993 6.8 100% 100% 100% 1993-1994 3.1 75% 75% 75% 1994-1995 9.6 100% 100% 100% 1995-1996 6.8 100% 100% 100% 
September 2004 2-16 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 2-3

SAMPLE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF SHORTAGE PROVISIONS BASED ON HISTORICAL PERI

Water Year –

Period of Record

Inflow to

Shasta

Reservoir in

MAF

Percentage Cutback Alternative 2 –

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease; no

cutback if previous water

year greater than 4.0, and no

reset requirement at 4 MAF

Alternative 4 –

Using Shasta Inflow,

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease;

cutback remains at

lowest level until full

contract amount reset

at 4 MAF

No Action, Alternative 1

(Preferred Alternative), and

Alternative 3 –

25% cutback in Shasta

critical years onlya

1996-1997 7.4 100% 100% 100% 1997-1998 10.3 100% 100% 100% 1998-1999 7.2 100% 100% 100% 1999-2000 6.8 100% 100% 100% 2000-2001 4.1 100% 100% 100% Number of yearswith cutbacksduring period ofrecord

9 years 16 years 17 years 

Cumulative (4years) cutbackduring 4–yeardrought of 1931-1934

2,127,451 2,021,078 2,127,451 
September 2004 2-17 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 2-3

SAMPLE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF SHORTAGE PROVISIONS BASED ON HISTORICAL PERI

Water Year –

Period of Record

Inflow to

Shasta

Reservoir in

MAF

Percentage Cutback Alternative 2 –

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease; no

cutback if previous water

year greater than 4.0, and no

reset requirement at 4 MAF

Alternative 4 –

Using Shasta Inflow,

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease;

cutback remains at

lowest level until full

contract amount reset

at 4 MAF

No Action, Alternative 1

(Preferred Alternative), and

Alternative 3 –

25% cutback in Shasta

critical years onlya

Notes:aShasta critical years defined by the contract between Reclamation and the SRSCs (see Appendix C for complete contract). This shorta

mechanism used in the original contracts and thus represents the No Action, in addition to Alternatives 1 and 3.

bThe 40-30-30 Sacramento River Index is computed as a weighted average of the current water year's April through July unimpaired ru

the current water year's October through March unimpaired runoff forecast (30 percent), and the previous water year's index (30 percen

on the previous year's index to account for required flood control reservoir releases during wet years. Unimpaired runoff (calculated in thRiver Index as the sum of Sacramento River flow above Bend Bridge near Red Bluff, Feather River inflow to Oroville, Yuba River flow at River inflow to Folsom) is the river production unaltered by water diversions, storage, exports, or imports. A water year with a Sacramen

equal to or greater than 9.2 MAF is classified as "wet." A water year with an index equal to or less than 5.4 MAF is classified as "critical.
Description of Alternatives Chapter 2

Draft SRSC EIS 2-18 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

In only two cases, the projected water needs were less than the contract amount, and the

amount of Project Water was reduced. Because the renewed CVP contract amount is limited

by the existing contract quantity, an increase in the total contract amount was not considered

in the needs analysis.

Reclamation’s threshold for conducting needs analysis for contractors is the irrigation of

2,000 or more acres. Twenty of the SRSCs meet this threshold and together these 20 SRSCs

divert 94 percent of the total water diverted. Because of their small size, needs analyses were

not conducted for 125 of the SRSCs.

The results of the completed needs analyses are summarized in Table 2-2 and are provided in

more detail in Appendix D.

Under Alternative 1, the proposed contracts also provide for continued delivery of CVP water

to the same lands and for the same purposes of irrigation and M&I use as the No Action, with

the exception of NCMWC, which has requested a change in authorized use from agricultural

to M&I for use in the Metro Air Park portion of its service area. This action is being

processed along with the renewal of the Settlement Contracts. Water deliveries would be

made through existing CVP facilities, with no new construction required. The water would be

beneficially used within CVP-authorized places of use (within the SRSCs’ service areas).

Contract Period

The existing Settlement Contracts were originally executed in 1964, with a term not to

exceed 40 years. Those contracts specified the following: “That under terms and conditions

mutually agreeable to the parties hereto, renewals may be made for successive periods not to

exceed forty (40) years each.” Consistent with the existing contract language, and the CVPIA

PEIS, the Preferred Alternative includes a 40-year contract term.

Base Supply Rescheduling

Under the Preferred Alternative, the negotiated contract introduces a fee for the rescheduling

of Base Supply during critical months or into non-critical months (except April and May), in

excess of the monthly quantity shown in Exhibit A of each SRSC’s contract. The fee is equal

to 50 percent of the sum of the storage operations and maintenance rate and the storage

capital rate components of the Project rate setting policy. Rescheduling water from noncritical months into critical months would not be permitted.

Water Costs and Costing Mechanisms

As stated previously, SRSCs divert the Base Supply portion of their contract free of charge.

The only costs related to Base Supply are in the event that Base Supply is rescheduled as

described in the previous section.

Payment for Project Water under the Preferred Alternative would include a costing

mechanism that requires the contractor to pay for 75 percent of the amount of allocated

Project Water each year, whether or not the contractor diverted the water, and to pay for

Project Water actually diverted in excess of 75 percent. The Contracting Officer could adjust

applicable rates and charges if the SRSC desires to use Project Water for other than

agricultural use.
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives

September 2004 2-19 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Conservation Measures

Prior to diversion of Project Water, Alternative 1 requires SRSCs to be implementing a water

conservation and efficiency program based on the BWMP and/or the SRSC’s water conservation plan that has been determined by the Contracting Officer to meet requirements under

federal law. This alternative also allows any of the SRSCs to reduce the amount of Project

Water for which payment is required under Article 8(a) Settlement Contract.

Shortage Provisions

In the existing Settlement Contract and No Action Alternative, cutbacks in deliveries of

25 percent are required during critical years only. Critical years are defined by the contract as

any year in which either of the following eventualities exists:

(1) The forecasted full natural inflow to Shasta Lake for the current Water Year, is

equal to or less than three million two hundred thousand (3,200,000) AF; or

(2) The total accumulated actual deficiencies below four million (4,000,000) AF in

the immediately prior Water Year or series of successive prior Water Years each of

which had inflows of less than four million (4,000,000) AF, together with the

forecasted deficiency for the current Water Year, exceed eight hundred thousand

(800,000) AF.

The Preferred Alternative includes these same shortage provisions. Under these shortage

provisions, as shown in Table 2-3, and based on the period of record, cutbacks would occur

in 9 years within the 80-year period of record or 4.5 years during the 40-year contract period.

During a 4-year drought sequence, such as that which occurred during the period 1930

through 1934, total cutbacks to contractors would allow for diversions of approximately

2,127 KAFY, the same as No Action.

Alternative 2: Reclamation’s Initial Contract Proposal

Alternative 2 represents the initial offer presented by Reclamation to the SRSCs during the

initial phase of contract renewal negotiations.

Total Contract Amount

As shown in Table 2-2, the total contract amount for Alternative 2 is 2,316 KAFY. This is

the aggregated total amount provided for in all 145 contracts and the contract with the

CDMWC. Table 2-2 also shows the Base Supply and Project Water supply for each of the

20 largest SRSCs for each alternative. Note that these are total contracted amounts, which

may be reduced during years when shortage provisions are activated, as described below.

This amount is the same as under the No Action Alternative because, at the time that contract

negotiations were initiated, the needs analyses of a few SRSCs had not been completed by

Reclamation, and no reductions in contract amounts had been identified.

Contract Period

Alternative 2 includes a 40-year contract term, which is the same as the No Action and

Preferred Alternatives.
Description of Alternatives Chapter 2

Draft SRSC EIS 2-20 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Base Supply Rescheduling

Alternative 2 includes the same Base Supply rescheduling fee provision as in the Preferred

Alternative.

Water Cost and Costing Mechanism

Payment for Project Water under Alternative 2 is a costing mechanism that requires the

contractor to pay for 100 percent of the amount of allocated Project Water each year, whether

or not the contractor diverted the water. The Contracting Officer can adjust rates to applicable

rates and charges if the SRSC desires to use Project Water for other than agricultural use.

Conservation Measures

Prior to diversion of Project Water, Alternative 2 requires that SRSCs already be implementing a water conservation and efficiency program based on the BWMP and/or the SRSC’s

water conservation plan that has been determined by the Contracting Officer to meet requirements under federal law, and allows the SRSC to reduce the amount of Project Water for

which payment is required under Article 8(a) of the Settlement Contract. Each SRSC is

responsible for preparing a individual conservation plan to comply with this contract term.

Shortage Provisions

Under Alternative 2, shortage provisions would be implemented on a 10-20-25 percent

sliding scale that is tied to Shasta Lake inflow deficiencies. A 10 percent reduction is applied

if inflows to Shasta Lake are between 3.6 and 3.8 MAF. A 20 percent reduction occurs if

inflows are between 3.4 and 3.59 MAF, and 25 percent reduction occurs if inflows are below

3.4 MAF.

Under this shortage provision, as shown in Table 2-3, and based on the period of record,

cutbacks would occur in 16 years during the 80-year period of record or 8 years during the

40-year contract period. During a 4-year drought sequence, such as that which occurred

during the period 1930 through 1934, total cutbacks to SRSCs would allow for diversions of

approximately 2,021 KAFY. This projection assumes cutbacks in 7 additional years (20

percent of years) over the 80-year period of record, versus 11 percent of years under the No

Action Alternative.

Alternative 3: SRSCs’ Initial Counter Proposal

Alternative 3 represents the contract provisions contained in the SRSCs’ response to

Reclamation’s initial proposal for terms of the renewed contract.

Total Contract Amount

As shown in Table 2-2, the total contract amount for Alternative 3 is 2,316 KAFY. This is

the aggregated total amount provided for in all 145 contracts and the contract with the

CDMWC. Table 2-2 also shows the Base Supply and Project Water supply for each of the 20

largest SRSCs for each alternative. These are total contracted amounts that may be reduced

during years when shortage provisions are activated, as described below.
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives

September 2004 2-21 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

This amount is the same as under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 2 because, at the

time that contract negotiations were initiated, the needs analyses of a few SRSCs had not

been completed by Reclamation, and no reductions in contract amounts had been identified.

Contract Period

Alternative 3 includes a 40-year contract term, which is the same as the No Action and

Preferred Alternatives.

Base Supply Rescheduling

Alternative 3 includes the same Base Supply rescheduling provision as provided in the

Preferred Alternative.

Water Cost and Costing Mechanism

Under Alternative 3, there is no provision to pay for CVP Project water not diverted. SRSC

payments are limited to Project Water actually diverted by the SRSC. Additionally, there is

no adjustment of cost for water used other than for agricultural purposes. These costs and

mechanisms are the same as for the No Action Alternative.

Conservation Measures

Prior to diversion of Project Water, Alternative 3 requires that SRSCs be implementing a

water conservation and efficiency program based on the BWMP and/or the SRSC’s water

conservation plan that has been determined by the Contracting Officer to meet requirements

under federal law, and allows the SRSC to reduce the amount of Project Water for which

payment is required under Article 8(a) of the Settlement Contracts.

Shortage Provisions

Under Alternative 3, the mechanism for the shortage provision is the same as Alternative 2.

However, the SRSCs would receive payment in exchange for using quantities of water below

their contracted amounts. Such payment would be based on mutually acceptable terms

between Reclamation and the SRSCs.

Alternative 4: Cutback Provisions Based on Shasta Inflow Sliding

Scale

Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 1, except that it considers a variation in the shortage

provision that was not considered in the contract negotiations between Reclamation and the

SRSCs, and would result in more frequent reductions.

Total Contract Amount

As shown in Table 2-2, the total contract amount for Alternative 4 is 2,227 KAFY. This is

the aggregated total amount provided for in all 145 contracts and the contract with the

CDMWC. Table 2-2 also shows the Base Supply and Project Water supply for each of the 20

largest SRSCs for each alternative. These are total contracted amounts that may be reduced

during years when shortage provisions are activated, as described below.

Total contract amount for Alternative 4 is the same as the Preferred Alternative because it

includes adjustments made for ACID and SMWC total contracted amount on the basis of
Description of Alternatives Chapter 2

Draft SRSC EIS 2-22 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Reclamation’s needs analyses conducted for those contractors and subsequent negotiations. It

also includes adjustments for NCMWC’s requested change in authorized use from

agricultural to M&I in the Metro Air Park portion of its service area. Water deliveries would

be made through existing CVP facilities, with no new construction required. The water would

be placed to beneficial use within CVP-authorized places of use (within the SRSCs’ service

areas).

Contract Period

Alternative 4 includes a 40-year contract term, which is the same as the No Action and

Preferred Alternatives.

Base Supply Rescheduling

Alternative 4 includes the same Base Supply rescheduling provision as provided under the

Preferred Alternative.

Water Cost and Costing Mechanism

Under Alternative 4, there is no provision to pay for CVP Project water not diverted.

Contractor payments are limited to Project Water actually diverted by the SRSC.

Additionally, there is no adjustment of cost for water used other than for agricultural

purposes. These costs and mechanisms are the same as for the No Action Alternative.

Conservation Measures

Prior to diversion of Project Water, Alternative 4 requires that SRSCs be implementing a

water conservation and efficiency program based on the BWMP and/or the SRSC’s water

conservation plan that has been determined by the Contracting Officer to meet requirements

under federal law, and allows the SRSC to reduce the amount of Project Water for which

payment is required under Article 8(a) of the Settlement Contract.

Shortage Provisions

Under Alternative 4, shortage provisions are similar to those under Alternative 2, and would

be implemented on a 10-20-25 percent sliding-scale basis that is tied to Shasta inflow

deficiencies. A 10 percent reduction is applied if inflows to Shasta Lake are between 3.6 and

3.8 MAF. A 20 percent reduction occurs if inflows are between 3.4 and 3.59 MAF, and a

25 percent reduction occurs if inflows are below 3.4 MAF. However, under Alternative 4, as

reductions are applied, they are sustained at their greatest level until inflows to Shasta Lake

return to 4.0 MAF.

Under this shortage provision, as shown in Table 2-3, and based upon the 80-year period of

record, cutbacks would be projected to occur in 17 years or 8.5 years during the 40 year

contract period. During a 4-year drought sequence, such as that which occurred during the

period 1930 through 1934, total cutbacks to SRSCs would allow for diversions of

approximately 2,127 KAFY. This projection assumes cutbacks in 8 additional years

(21 percent of years) over the 80-year period of record versus 11 percent of years for the

No Action Alternative.
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives

September 2004 2-23 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Alternative 5: Cutback Provisions Based on 40-30-30 Sacramento

River Index

Alternative 5 introduces a 25-year contract term and another variation of the shortage

provision that is based on the 40-30-30 Sacramento River Index, as described below.

Total Contract Amount

As shown in Table 2-2, the total contract amount for Alternative 5 is 2,227 KAFY. This is

the aggregated total amount provided for in all 145 contracts and the contract with the

CDMWC. Table 2-2 also shows the Base Supply and Project Water supply for each of the

20 largest SRSCs for each alternative. Note that these are total contracted amounts that may

be reduced during years when shortage provisions are activated, as described below.

This amount is the same as the Preferred Alternative because it includes adjustments made

for ACID and SMWC total contracted amounts on the basis of Reclamation’s needs analyses

conducted for those contractors and subsequent negotiations. It also includes adjustments for

NCMWC’s requested change in authorized use from agricultural to M&I in the Metro Air

Park portion of its service area. Water deliveries would be made through existing CVP

facilities, with no new construction required. The water would be placed to beneficial use

within CVP-authorized places of use (within the SRSCs’ service areas).

Contract Period

The contract period for Alternative 5 is 25 years. The CVPIA authorizes renewal of long-term

repayment or water service contracts for 25 years. Settlement Contracts are distinct from

these types of contracts; however, a 25-year period is considered in this alternative to

evaluate the potential for lessening any potential impacts with a shorter contract term, as

suggested by comments received during scoping.

Base Supply Rescheduling

Alternative 5 includes the same Base Supply rescheduling provision as Alternative 1.

Water Cost and Costing Mechanism

Under Alternative 5, there is no provision to pay for CVP Project water not diverted.

Contractor payments are limited to Project Water actually diverted by the SRSC.

Additionally, there is no adjustment of cost for water used for other than for agricultural

purposes.

Conservation Measures

Prior to diversion of Project Water, Alternative 5 requires that SRSCs be implementing a

water conservation and efficiency program based on the BWMP and/or the SRSC’s water

conservation plan that has been determined by the Contracting Officer to meet requirements

under federal law, and allows the SRSC to reduce the amount of Project Water for which

payment is required under Article 8(a) of the Settlement Contract.

Shortage Provisions

Under Alternative 5, shortage provisions are similar to those under Alternative 2, and would

be implemented on a 10-20-25 percent sliding-scale basis that is tied to the 40-30-30

Sacramento River Index rather than Shasta inflows.
Description of Alternatives Chapter 2

Draft SRSC EIS 2-24 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

The 40-30-30 Sacramento River Index is computed as a weighted average of the current

water year’s April through July unimpaired runoff forecast (40 percent), the current water

year’s October through March unimpaired runoff forecast (30 percent), and the previous

water year’s index (30 percent). A cap of 10 MAF is put on the previous year’s index to

account for required flood control reservoir releases during wet years. Unimpaired runoff

calculated in the 40-30-30 Sacramento River Index is the sum of Sacramento River flow

above Bend Bridge near Red Bluff, Feather River inflow to Oroville, Yuba River flow at

Smartville, and American River inflow to Folsom. The result is the river production unaltered

by water diversions, storage, exports, or imports. A water year with a 40-30-30 Sacramento

River Index equal to or greater than 9.2 MAF is classified as “wet.” Indexed water years are

classified as follows:

• A water year with an index greater than 7.8 and less than 9.2 MAF is classified as

“above normal.”

• A water year with an index greater than 6.5 and equal to or less than 7.8 MAF is

classified as “below normal.”

• A water year with an index greater than 5.4 and equal to or less than 6.5 MAF is

classified as “dry.”

• A water year with an index equal to or less than 5.4 MAF is classified as “critical.”

A 10 percent reduction is applied in years identified as below normal by the index. A

20 percent reduction occurs in dry years and a 25 percent reduction occurs in critical years.

Under this shortage provision, as shown in Table 2-3, and based on the period of record,

cutbacks would occur in 43 years out of 80 or 10.5 years of the 25-year contract period.

During a 4-year drought sequence, such as that which occurred during the period 1930

through 1934, total cutbacks to the SRSCs would allow for diversions of approximately

2,021 KAFY. This projection assumes cutbacks in 34 additional years (42 percent of years)

during the 80-year period of record, versus 11 percent of years under the No Action

Alternative.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED

DISCUSSION

Several alternatives were identified by Reclamation and the SRSCs during preliminary

planning efforts and scoping activities for this EIS. The following discussion identifies two

alternatives that were considered, but eliminated from further discussion in this document.

Each of these alternatives was eliminated from detailed discussion in this EIS for one or more

of the following reasons: (1) it fails to meet the requirements of the purpose of and need for

the action, or (2) the alternative is prohibitively greater in cost or in environmental impacts

than the other alternatives, or ( 3) it cannot be reasonably implemented.
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives

September 2004 2-25 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

No Contract Renewal Alternative

This alternative was suggested by comments received during the scoping process for the EIS

and would assume that the Settlement Contracts between the SRSCs and Reclamation were

not renewed.

This alternative was eliminated from further consideration in this EIS because it would not

meet the objectives of both Reclamation and the SRSCs to provide water supplies to the

various M&I and agricultural water users within the contractors’ service areas, and would not

meet the purpose of the proposed action. It is difficult to speculate how both Reclamation and

the SRSCs may respond in a scenario where the Settlement Contracts were not renewed.

However, at least two possible scenarios are imagined. In the first, the status quo could

prevail. Operations of the CVP would continue as they have in the recent past under existing

contracts and the SRSCs would continue to divert Base and Project Water supplies in the

quantities and during the months that they have historically. This scenario is not a feasible

alternative as it does not meet the purpose for and need of the project to ensure the use of the

Sacramento River to the SRSCs. Without a contract in place there would be no legally

binding document to support both Reclamation and the SRSCs in the event of a dispute.

Continuing water deliveries and diversions in the absence of a contract is not considered to

be a reasonable alternative by either Reclamation or the SRSCs.

A second and possibly more probable scenario of a no contract renewal alternative would

result in the inability of the SRSCs to divert water during the critical irrigation months. The

existing contracts and the CVP provide the SRSCs with the ability to divert water during the

hot summer, peak irrigation months. Without contracts in place and in the absence of current

CVP operations, the SRSCs could possibly revert to their original water rights. Those rights

would enable them to divert water in accordance with the natural hydrograph of the River;

greater flows in the winter and spring months and lesser or none during the peak irrigation

months. The existing diversion facilities are currently limited as to diversion capacity and the

SRSCs do not have the capability to divert greater amounts of water during non-peak periods

and store it onsite for use during periods of peak demand. This scenario would likely result in

a greater reliance on local groundwater supplies to fulfill summer irrigation demands of the

SRSCs. Consistent increased use of local groundwater supplies could lead to depletion of

groundwater resources, and impacts to local streams and the biological resources reliant on

those streams such as wildlife and vegetation of riparian habitats. In addition to

environmental effects of groundwater use, the cost of pumping groundwater could become

burdensome on the SRSCs, resulting in economic hardship, which could lead to fallowing

and potentially the indirect effects associated with fallowing, such as air quality or soil

erosion. These impacts would be greater than those projected under both the No Action

Alternative and the Preferred Alternative. Therefore this alternative was eliminated from

further consideration.

Additionally, Public Law 88-44 (77 Stat. 68) provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall,

upon request of the other party to any long-term contract for municipal, domestic, or

industrial water supply hereafter entered into under the Reclamation Project Act of 1939

(53 Stat. 1195, 43 U.S.C. 485h), include provision for contract renewal subject to

renegotiation. Thus, nonrenewal of the contracts is also legally infeasible.
Description of Alternatives Chapter 2

Draft SRSC EIS 2-26 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Reduction in Contract Amounts

Alternatives that included a significant reduction of contract amounts for all contractors were

considered but eliminated from further consideration for two major reasons. First, water

needs analyses have been completed for all contractors with more than 2,000 irrigable acres,

accounting for over 95 percent of the contract water supply provided to the SRSCs. In all but

two cases, the needs exceed or equal the current total contract amount. Reduced contract

amounts would therefore not meet the purpose and need of the project to ensure the SRSCs

the use of the Sacramento River. Additionally, reduced contract amounts could have a similar

effect as the no contract renewal alternative described above by forcing the SRSCs to rely on

local groundwater supplies. Ongoing, increased use of local groundwater supplies could lead

to depletion of groundwater resources, and impacts to local streams and the biological

resources reliant on those streams such as wildlife and vegetation of riparian habitats. In

addition to environmental effects of groundwater use, the cost of pumping groundwater could

become burdensome on the SRSCs, resulting in economic hardship, which could lead to

fallowing and potentially the indirect effects associated with fallowing, such as air quality or

soil erosion. For these reasons, an alternative that would include reduced contract amounts,

beyond those included in the Preferred Alternative, was considered but eliminated from

further analysis.

SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The Preferred Alternative is Alternative 1, renewal of the SRSC contracts under the contract

terms negotiated by Reclamation and the SRSCs. These terms were determined to be

agreeable by both parties and such make this Alternative the most feasible to implement.

Additionally, because this Alternative is essentially a continuation of existing conditions,

there are no environmental effects of the Preferred Alternative and thus it can be considered

to be environmentally superior.

SUMMARY OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The alternatives considered in this EIS were analyzed to determine the potential for adverse

and beneficial impacts associated with their implementation as compared to continuation of

existing conditions, which are reflected in the No Action Alternative. The results of this

analysis are summarized in Table 3-1 and presented in Chapter 3 of this EIS.
September 2004 3-1 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

CHAPTER 3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the affected environment and the environmental consequences

associated with renewing the Settlement Contracts under all alternatives described in

Chapter 2 as compared to renewing the contracts under the No Action Alternative. This

chapter also describes potential mitigation measures that could be used to avoid, reduce, or

otherwise minimize potential adverse impacts to the environment resulting from an

alternative. Cumulative effects are presented in Chapter 4.

The resources and issues included in this chapter were identified through a review of NEPA

guidance documents and through the scoping process. The resources and issues described in

this chapter are as follows:

• Physical Environment

− Air Quality

− Geology and Soils

− Surface Water

− Groundwater

• Biological Environment

− Terrestrial Biological Resources

− Aquatic Biological Resources

• Economics

− Land Use and Agricultural Production

− M&I Land Use and Water Costs

− Power Supply and Demands

− Regional Economics

• Sociocultural Environment

− Demographics Description

− Cultural Resources

− Indian Trust Assets

− Environmental Justice

− Recreation

The descriptions of the affected environment are first organized by issue and, then, further

discussed by county, city, irrigation district, or province. The analyses for these areas include

summaries of evaluations completed by cities, counties, irrigation districts, and federal and

state agencies.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-2 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF

RESOURCES

NEPA Section 102(C)(v) requires federal agencies to consider to the fullest extent possible

irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved if the

Preferred Alternative were implemented. The Preferred Alternative is the renewal of existing

contracts and does not involve construction or use of resources except water. There is no

commitment of nonrenewable resources, and the Preferred Alternative would not commit

future generations to permanent use of natural resources.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM

PRODUCTIVITY

NEPA Section 102(C)(iv) requires all federal agencies to disclose the relationship between

local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity. These water delivery contracts are temporary (40 years), yet result in longterm benefits to the sustainability and reliability of agricultural production and economic

growth. Long-term productivity would be enhanced through the water supply that sustains

agricultural economics, social benefits, and the long-term productivity of urban and rural

populations by continuing to provide CVP water.

IMPACT ASSUMPTIONS

In conducting analyses of environmental impacts, it is necessary to make basic assumptions

regarding secondary effects. For the analyses conducted in the following sections, basic

assumptions were required regarding the use of water under the various alternatives. This was

particularly relevant for Alternatives 4 and 5, which make water available for other uses

through increased frequency of contract reductions. Following is a basic discussion of the

assumptions guiding impact analysis.

Assumptions within Sacramento River Settlement Contractor

Districts

In all but two cases (ACID and SMWD), contract amounts remain unchanged; therefore,

typical water use among the districts would also remain unchanged. Contract reductions for

ACID and SMWD were based on Reclamation’s needs analyses, whereby water needs were

evaluated according to irrigated acreage and crop patterns that represent typical district

operations. Reclamation has determined that because these analyses are based on historical

data of actual use, it is reasonable to assume that operations would be unchanged under

reduced contract totals, given the contract reductions for ACID and SMWD result in

matching water needs with actual use. Therefore, there is no assumed on-field change

between current and revised contract totals. However, some SRSCs disagree with the

assumptions used in the needs analysis, particularly with regard to irrigated acreage.

Regardless, all parties have agreed upon the final contract amounts.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-3 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

The second assumption necessary to assess impacts is how SRSCs would respond to drought

conditions. Under the existing contracts (i.e., the No Action condition), SRSCs are subject to

a 25 percent reduction in critical years. Reviewing input from the SRSC representatives, it

was determined that in critical years, districts and member farmers turn to short-term supplies

for water; typically increased use of groundwater and drainwater.

Using this information, there are no anticipated impacts under Alternatives 1 and 3 during

drought conditions because the definition of critical years and the application of a shortage

provision are the same as under No Action. Over the period of record (1922 through 2001),

there were 9 critical years, and future responses are likely to be identical to past drought

operations; thus, no change would occur. Under Alternatives 2, 4, and 5, the frequency of

drought conditions is effectively increased because the definition of cutback years has been

expanded. For Alternatives 2 and 4, there would be 16 years with drought shortage conditions

(varying between 10 and 25 percent of full contract supply). Under Alternative 5, there would

be 43 years with drought shortage conditions. It was expected that an increase in drought

frequency would result in a change in cropping pattern; however, the agricultural impact

analysis noted that cropping patterns would not change.

Potential increases in groundwater pumping under Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 are anticipated to

have less than significant effects on groundwater supplies, even under very conservative

modeling conditions. Although seasonal depth to groundwater may increase in some areas in

the range of 20 to 40 feet, it is not anticipated to substantially change the economics of

pumping groundwater during drought years, nor would new wells be required because

drought-year supplies are currently being met. Also, the increased pumping would not lead to

long-term declines in groundwater levels. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 also include provisions

stating that additional terms would be added to ensure that the additional drought years

included compensation to offset additional costs, meaning that the additional cost of pumping

would be offset by Reclamation. Therefore, drought operations, although occurring more

frequently, would not result in substantial land use or cropping changes; thus, no significant

secondary impacts would occur.

Assumptions outside Sacramento River Settlement Contractor

Districts

Assessing impacts outside the SRSCs also requires basic assumptions about drought

operations. As noted above, Alternatives 1 and 3 are identical to No Action in terms of

drought-year frequency; therefore, operations would remain unchanged and no impacts would

occur. The overall decrease in SRSC diversion associated with the reduction of ACID and

SMWC contract amounts would provide Reclamation with additional flexibility in meeting

other contract and environmental water needs. Under Alternatives 2, 4, and 5, frequencies of

drought years would increase, meaning that deliveries to SRSCs would decrease, potentially

allowing water to be re-allocated from SRSCs to other contract and environmental uses.

However, it is speculative to predict specifically where the water would be allocated.

Many resources are potential recipients of the water not delivered to SRSCs. Water could be

allocated for water quality in the Sacramento River or Bay Delta, for use by other agricultural

or municipal water contractors, for habitat enhancement, as a benefit to recreational use, or
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-4 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

simply as carryover supply for the subsequent water year. In some cases, these uses may be

complementary. To assess impacts, or benefits, in these areas, it is necessary that the

additional water be potentially available for various uses. Actual use would be determined at

a future date, and could change on the basis of administrative policy, hydrology,

demographics, or other considerations.

Table 3-1 provides a basic overview of the general impact direction for all the resource

categories under each of the alternatives.

TABLE 3-1

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FOR ALL RESOURCE CATEGORIES

Alternative Alternative 1:

Preferred

Alternative -

Negotiated

Contract

Alternative 2:

Reclamation's

Initial Contract

Proposal

Alternative 3:

SRSCs'

Counter

Proposal

Alternative 4:

Cutback

Provisions

Based on

Sliding Scale

Alternative 5:

Cutback

Provisions

Based on

Sacramento

Index

Physical

Environment

 

Air Quality No impact No impact No impact Significant

impact

Significant

impact

Geology and

Soils

No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact

Surface

Water

No impact Small potential

benefit -

increased flow in

the Sacramento

River/ small

potential impact

– decreased

flow in tributaries

No impact Small potential

benefit -

increased flow

in the

Sacramento

River/ small

potential impact

– decreased

flow in

tributaries

Small potential

benefit -

increased flow

in the

Sacramento

River/ small

potential impact

– decreased

flow in

tributaries

Groundwater 

Sacramento

Valley

Groundwater

Basin

No impact No impact No impact Less than

significant

Less than

significant

Redding

Groundwater

Basin

No impact No impact No impact Less than

significant

Less than

significant

Biological

Environment

 

Terrestrial

Biological

Resources

No impact Less than

significant

No impact Less than

significant

Less than

significant

Aquatic

Biological

Resources

No impact Potential benefit No impact Potential benefit Potential benefit
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-5 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-1

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FOR ALL RESOURCE CATEGORIES

Alternative Alternative 1:

Preferred

Alternative -

Negotiated

Contract

Alternative 2:

Reclamation's

Initial Contract

Proposal

Alternative 3:

SRSCs'

Counter

Proposal

Alternative 4:

Cutback

Provisions

Based on

Sliding Scale

Alternative 5:

Cutback

Provisions

Based on

Sacramento

Index

Economics 

Agricultural

Land Use and

Production

No impact Less than

significant

No impact Less than

significant

Less than

significant

M&I Land Use

and Water

Costs

No impact Potential benefit No impact Potential benefit Potential benefit

Power Supply and

Demands

No impact Potential benefit No impact Potential benefit Potential benefit

Regional

Economics

No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact

Socioculture

Environment

 

Demographic

s Description

No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact

Cultural

Resources

No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact

Indian Trust

Assets

No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact

Environmenta

l Justice

No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact

Recreation No impact Potential benefit No impact Potential benefit Potential benefit

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Air Quality

Affected Environment

The Preferred Alternative is located entirely within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin

(SVAB), which is composed of Shasta, Tehama, Butte, Glenn, Colusa, Sutter, Yolo, and

Sacramento Counties and portions of Placer and Solano Counties.

Air Quality Standards. Air quality in the SRSCs service area is regulated at the

federal, state, and local levels. At the federal level, the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is responsible for overseeing implementation of the federal Clean Air Act

amendments. Pursuant to this act, EPA established National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for the following air pollutants (termed “criteria” pollutants): carbon monoxide
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-6 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

(CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter less than

10 (respirable) and 2.5 (fine) microns in diameter (PM10 and PM2.5, respectively), and lead.

in 1977, the federal Clean Air Act was amended to require each state to maintain a State

Implementation Plan for achieving compliance with NAAQS. In 1990, the federal Clean Air

Act was again amended to strengthen regulation of both stationary and mobile emission

sources.

The California Air Resources Board oversees California’s air quality policies. California

Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) were established starting in 1969, pursuant to the

Mulford-Carrell Act. These standards are generally more stringent and include more

pollutants than the NAAQS. The California Clean Air Act was approved in 1988, and

requires each local air district in the state to prepare an Air Quality Plan to achieve compliance with CAAQS. Table 3-2 summarizes NAAQS and CAAQS and represents safe levels

to avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant.

Several air districts are located within the SVAB. The local air districts with jurisdiction

within the project study area include the following:

• Shasta County Air Quality Management District

• Glenn County Air Pollution Control District

• Tehama County Air Pollution Control District

• Colusa County Air Pollution Control District

• Butte County Air Quality Management District

• Feather River Air Quality Management District (mainly Sutter County)

• Placer County Air Pollution Control District

• Yolo/Solano Air Quality Management District
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-7 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-2

NATIONAL AND CALIFORNIA AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Pollutant Averaging

Period

California Standardsa National Standardsb

 Primaryc Secondaryd

Ozone 8-hour -- 0.08 ppm 0.08 ppm

 1-hour 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm 0.12 ppm

Carbon Monoxide 8-hour 9.0 ppm 9 ppm --

 1-hour 20 ppm 35 ppm --

Nitrogen Dioxide Annual arithmetic

mean

-- 0.053 ppm 0.053 ppm

 1-hour 0.25 ppm -- --

Sulfur Dioxide Annual arithmetic

mean

-- 0.030 ppm --

 24-hour 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm --

 3-hour -- -- 0.5 ppm

 1-hour 0.25 ppm -- --

PM10 Annual arithmetic

mean

20 μg/m3 50 μg/m3 50 μg/m3

 24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 150 μg/m3

PM2.5 Annual arithmetic

mean

12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3 15 μg/m3

 24-hour -- 65 μg/m3 65 μg/m3

Sulfates 24-hour 25 μg/m3 -- --

Lead 30-day average 1.5 μg/m3 -- --

 Calendar quarter -- 1.5 μg/m3 1.5 μg/m3

Hydrogen Sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm -- --

Vinyl Chloride 24-hour 0.01 ppm -- --

Visibility-reducing

Particles

8-hour See notee -- --

a

California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended

particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5,and visibility-reducing particles) are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are

not to be equaled or exceeded.

b

National standards, other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic

means, are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-

hour concentration in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour

standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration

above 150 μg/m3

 is equal to or less than 1. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily

concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. c

National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect human

health.

d

National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect human welfare from any known or

anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

e

Insufficient amount to produce an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer due to particles when the relative

humidity is less than 70 percent.

Notes:

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.

ppm = parts per million (by volume).

Source: California Air Resources Board, 2003.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-8 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Pursuant to the 1990 federal Clean Air Act amendments, EPA has classified air basins (or

portions thereof) as either “attainment” or “nonattainment” for each criteria air pollutant,

according to whether NAAQS have been achieved. Similar designations are assigned for

attainment and nonattainment of CAAQS. The “nonattainment” designation means that the

air quality standards for the criteria pollutants are not consistently met. Table 3-3 shows the

attainment classification for each county represented in the SVAB.

Regional Climate and Weather. The climate in the SVAB is considered

Mediterranean, with average maximum and minimum temperatures of 97 degrees Fahrenheit

(°F) and 58°F, respectively. Annual sunshine is approximately 75 percent of daytime hours,

and annual precipitation ranges from approximately 15 inches in the northwest to 60 inches

in the northeast. Prevailing winds within the SVAB originate offshore of the San Francisco

Bay Area and flow through the Carquinez Strait and then north through the Sacramento

Valley. Elevations within the Sacramento Valley Floor range from 60 to 500 feet above mean

sea level. The Sacramento Valley is bordered to the north by the Sierra Cascade Mountains,

to the east by the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and to the west by the Coast Range.

The topography and climate in the SVAB create a high potential for air inversions. Air

inversions occur when air of one temperature is contained beneath a layer of air of another

temperature, and air circulation is impeded. Inversions occur frequently within the SVAB

during all seasons. The most stable of these inversions occurs in the late summer and early

fall, when cool coastal air is trapped beneath a warm air mass. During late fall and winter, air

inversions occurring at ground level often result in low-lying fog when valley air becomes

trapped and does not mix with coastal air. Under these conditions, the SVAB experiences the

highest concentrations of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide (NOx), and airborne particulate

matter.

Factors contributing to the existing air quality within the SVAB, and especially within the

SRSCs service area, are rural-type pollution and pollution transported from urban areas.

Local emissions stem from the region’s predominantly agricultural economy, which

necessitates land cultivation and produces agricultural byproducts. Overall, SVAB emissions

are a result of industries, automobiles, and land disturbances from urban areas, such as

metropolitan Sacramento and surrounding communities including Yuba City, Marysville,

Woodland, Davis, Chico, and, to a lesser extent, the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition,

local, regional, and interstate automobile and truck traffic is a continually increasing,

predominant air pollutant emission source within the basin (Navigant Consulting, Inc., 2000).

Environmental Consequences. The effects of Alternatives 1 through 5 on air

quality in the SRSCs service area are compared to conditions under the No Action

Alternative.

No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative does not include new facilities

or construction. The No Action Alternative assumes that dry-year reductions would remain

the same as existing conditions, and the renewed contract period would be 40 years.
September 2004 3-9 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-3

ATTAINMENT STATUS FOR COUNTIES WITHIN THE SACRAMENTO VALLEY AIR 

Pollutant Shasta Tehama Glenn Colusa Solano Sutter Butte 

StateOzone Nonattainment Nonattainment Nonattainment

– Transitional

Nonattainment Nonattainment Nonattainment Nonattainment

– Transitional

PM10 Nonattainment Nonattainment Nonattainment Nonattainment Nonattainment Nonattainment Nonattainment Carbon Monoxide Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Attainment Attainment Attainment FederalOzone (1-hour Standard) Unclassified/

Attainment

Unclassified/Attainment

Unclassified/Attainment

Unclassified/Attainment

Nonattainment(severe)

Nonattainment(southernportion –severe;northern portion– Section 185A)

Nonattainment 

Ozone (8-hour Standard) Unclassified/

Attainment

Unclassified/Attainment

Unclassified/Attainment

Unclassified/Attainment

Nonattainment(portions –serious)

Nonattainment(southernportion –serious;northern portion– basic)

PM10 Unclassified/

Attainment

Unclassified/Attainment

Unclassified/Attainment

Unclassified/Attainment

Unclassified/Attainment

Unclassified/Attainment

Unclassified/Attainment

Carbon Monoxide Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Note: Attainment or Unclassified = sufficient data were not available to make a designation.Source: California Air Resources Board, 2002.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-10 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Alternative 1. Air quality in the SRSCs service area under Alternative 1 would be

similar to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 would not significantly

alter current CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities, or the

maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSCs, with the exception of reduced contract

amounts to ACID and SMWC. However, these reductions would not result in increased

pumping activities by these districts; therefore, the reductions would not result in impacts to

air quality.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSCs would continue to be

managed in the same manner under Alternative 1 as under the No Action Alternative.

No adverse impacts are associated with this alternative.

Alternative 2. Air quality in the SRSCs service area under Alternative 2 would be

identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 2 would not alter current

CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities, or the maximum

volume of water delivered to the SRSCs.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSCs would continue to be

managed in the same manner under Alternative 2 as under the No Action Alternative.

No adverse impacts are associated with this alternative.

Alternative 3. Air quality in the SRSCs service area under Alternative 3 would be

identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 3 would not alter current

CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities, or the maximum

volume of water delivered to the SRSCs.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSCs would continue to be

managed in the same manner under Alternative 3 as under the No Action Alternative.

No adverse impacts are associated with this alternative.

Alternative 4. It is assumed that use of the assigned CVMP water by SRSCs would

continue to be managed in the same manner under Alternative 4 as under the No Action

Alternative. Air quality in the SRSCs service area under Alternative 4 would be potentially

decreased in comparison to the No Action Alternative. Alternative 4 would not significantly

alter current CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities, or the

maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSCs, with the exception of reduced contract

amounts to ACID and SMWC, and sliding-scale reduced diversions to all contractors in dry

years. Increased frequency of dry-year reductions would take place during years when the

irrigation district would have otherwise maintained full contract amounts, but are still within

the range of reductions for critical years as defined under No Action. Therefore, the amount

of irrigated acreage would be within the normal range associated with the No Action

condition, and no additional fallowing would be required, although some additional crop

acreage reductions would occur in lands served by short-form contractors. Possible results of

these reductions are discussed in the Agricultural Land Use and Production section.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-11 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Alternatively, farmers may supplement surface water with groundwater, which would cause

increased diesel emissions from pumping activities, particularly PM10 and NOx. The quantity

of pumping that would occur as a result of this alternative is outlined in the Groundwater

section. However, all project-related emissions would be produced in nonattainment areas;

thus, the project could potentially contribute to an existing air quality violation, which would

be considered a significant impact.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by SRSCs would continue to be managed in

the same manner under Alternative 4 as under the No Action Alternative.

Alternative 5. It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSCs

would continue to be managed in the same manner under Alternative 5 as under the No

Action Alternative. Air quality in the SRSCs service area under Alternative 5 would be

potentially decreased in comparison to the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would not

significantly alter current CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP

facilities, or the maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSCs, with the exception of

reduced contract amounts to ACID and SMWC, and Shasta Inflow Index-reduced diversions

to contractors in dry years. Increased frequency of dry-year reductions would take place

during years when the irrigation district would have otherwise maintained full contract

amounts, but are still within the range of reductions for critical years as defined under No

Action. Therefore, the amount of irrigated acreage would be within the normal range

associated with the No Action condition, and no additional fallowing would be required,

although some additional crop acreage reductions would occur in lands served by short-form

contractors. Possible results of these reductions are discussed in Agricultural Land Use and

Production section.

Alternatively, farmers may supplement surface water with groundwater, which would cause

increased diesel emissions from pumping activities, particularly PM10 and NOx. The quantity

of pumping that would occur as a result of this alternative is outlined in the Groundwater

section. However, all project-related emissions would be produced in nonattainment areas;

thus, the project could potentially contribute to an existing air quality violation, which would

be considered a significant impact.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSCs would continue to be

managed in the same manner under Alternative 5 as under the No Action Alternative.

Geology and Soils

Geology Affected Environment. The SRSCs service area includes portions of two major

physiographic provinces, the Sacramento Valley Province and the Klamath Mountains

Province. The following sections provide a brief description of these provinces.

Sacramento Valley Province. The majority of the SRSCs service area, which

includes Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Placer, Sutter, Tehama, Sacramento, and Yolo Counties,

overlies the Sacramento Valley Province. The Sacramento Valley Province is a 400-milelong by 60-mile-wide sedimentary basin positioned among the Sierra Nevada, Klamath

Mountains, Cascade Range, and Coast Range Provinces. Rocks of the Sacramento Valley
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-12 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Province include Upper Jurassic to Cretaceous marine sedimentary rocks, fluvial deposits,

and recent alluvium (CALFED, 2000).

Klamath Mountains Province. The Klamath Mountains Province occurs at the

northern end of the Sacramento Valley Province. Within the SRSCs service area, Shasta and

Tehama Counties fall within the boundaries of this province. Klamath Mountains Province is

approximately 70 miles wide and extends northward into Oregon. Rocks of this province

range in age from Paleozoic to Jurassic. The province consists of several well-defined

mountain ranges, including the Trinity, Marble, Scott, and Salmon Mountains

(CALFED, 2000).

Soils

Affected Environment. The SRSCs service area includes the following five types

of landforms that are associated with distinct characteristic soil compositions

(CALFED, 1998):

• Floodplain – Composed of nearly level, recent alluvium with deposits of silt, sand,

and gravel that were deposited by streams from the hills and mountains. These recent

deposits consist mainly of reddish, sandy clay and black humus topsoil overlying

unconsolidated sand, silt, clay, and gravel. The valley alluvium deposits increase in

thickness toward the center of the valley, ranging from only a few inches near the

foothills to over 200 feet near the Sacramento River (Butte County, 1977). Floodplain

soils support highly productive agricultural land (CALFED, 1998).

• Basin Rim/Basin Floor – Consists of poorly drained soil, and saline and alkali soils

in the valley trough and on the basin rim. This soil is typically used for pasture, rice,

and cotton (CALFED, 1998).

• Terraces – Terraces consist of deposits of poorly consolidated, deeply red-stained

gravel, sand, silt, and clay. These deposits typically are found near the eastern edge of

the Sacramento Valley. The terraces were apparently formed as ancient floodplains

during glacial periods (County of Sacramento, 1993). These soils are typically used

for grazing and timberland (CALFED, 1998).

• Delta – Delta soils are primarily fertile peat composed of slow-to-decay organic

material (County of Sacramento, 1993).

• Foothills and Mountains – This type of soil is formed in place through the

decomposition and disintegration of underlying parent material. These soils are

typically used for grazing and timberland (CALFED, 1998). A list of the most

common soil groups in this category follows:

− Soils with a deep depth (greater than 40 inches) to bedrock, which typically

occur in high-rainfall zones at higher elevations

− Soils with a shallow depth (less than 20 inches) to bedrock, which typically

occur in the medium- to low-rainfall zones at lower elevations
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-13 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

− Soils with a very shallow depth (less than 12 inches) to bedrock, which

typically occur on steep slopes at high elevations

Environmental Consequences. The effects of Alternatives 1 through 5 on

geology and soils of the SRSCs service area are compared to conditions under the No Action

Alternative.

No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative does not include new facilities

or construction. The No Action Alternative assumes that dry-year reductions would remain

the same as existing conditions, and the renewed contract period would last 40 years.

Alternative 1. Geology and soils in the SRSCs service area under Alternative 1

would be similar to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 would not

significantly alter current CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP

facilities, or the maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSC, with the exception of

reduced contract amounts to ACID and SMWC. However, these reductions would not result

in activities that would cause disturbance to soils; therefore, the reductions would result in no

impacts.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSC would continue to be managed

in the same manner under Alternative 1 as under the No Action Alternative.

No adverse impacts are associated with this alternative.

Alternative 2. Geology and soils in the SRSCs service area under Alternative 2

would be identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 2 would not

alter current CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities, or the

maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSCs.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by SRSCs would continue to be managed in

the same manner under Alternative 2 as under the No Action Alternative.

No adverse impacts are associated with this alternative.

Alternative 3. Geology and soils in the SRSCs service area under Alternative 3

would be identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 3 would not

alter current CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities, or the

maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSC.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSCs would continue to be

managed in the same manner under Alternative 3 as under the No Action Alternative.

No adverse impacts are associated with this alternative.

Alternative 4. Geology and soils in the SRSCs service area under Alternative 4

would be similar to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 4 would not

significantly alter current CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP

facilities, or the maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSC, with the exception of

reduced contract amounts to ACID and SMWC and sliding-scale reduced diversions to all

contractors in dry years. Increased frequency of dry-year reductions would take place during
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-14 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

years when the irrigation district would have otherwise maintained full contract amounts, but

are still within the range of reductions for critical years as defined under No Action.

Therefore, the amount of irrigated acreage would be within the normal range associated with

the No Action condition, and no additional erosion or loss of soil would occur.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSCs would continue to be

managed in the same manner under Alternative 4 as under the No Action Alternative.

No significant adverse impacts are associated with this alternative.

Alternative 5. Geology and soils in the SRSCs service area under Alternative 5

would be similar to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would not

significantly alter current CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP

facilities, or the maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSCs, with the exception of

reduced contract amounts to ACID and SMWC, and Shasta Inflow Index-reduced diversions

in dry years. Increased frequency of dry-year reductions would take place during years when

the irrigation district would have otherwise maintained full contract amounts, but are still

within the range of reductions for critical years as defined under No Action. Therefore, the

amount of irrigated acreage would be within the normal range associated with the No Action

condition, and no additional erosion or loss of soil would occur.

No significant adverse impacts are associated with this alternative.

Surface Water

Affected Environment

The CVP is the largest surface water storage and delivery system in California, covering 35

of the state’s 58 counties. The project includes 20 reservoirs, with a combined storage

capacity of approximately 11 MAF, and 9 power plants and 2 pump-generating plants, with a

combined generation capacity of approximately 2 million kilowatts. Operations of the CVP

are quite complex given the multiple demands that must be met. Key Shasta Division

operational issues include the following:

• Flood control

• Storage and release of water for agricultural, M&I, fish and wildlife, refuges, and

other needs

• Navigation flows

• Temperature control as specified by the 1993 Biological Opinion for Sacramento

Winter-run Chinook Salmon

• Bay-Delta water requirements

• Generation of hydroelectric energy

Historically, the vast majority of CVP water has been delivered to agricultural users.

However, continued urban growth is resulting in greater demand from CVP M&I customers.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-15 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

The CVP operations are guided by a series of documents, including the 1992 CVP-OCAP

(currently undergoing revisions), various Biological Opinions for endangered species, the

Coordinated Operating Agreement (COA) between the CVP and SWP, and Regional Water

Resources Control Board water quality plans.

Flows in the upper Sacramento River are primarily regulated by Shasta Dam and are reregulated 15 miles downstream at Keswick Dam. The watershed above Shasta Dam drains

approximately 6,650 square miles with an average annual runoff of 5.7 MAF. With a capacity

of 4.6 MAF, Shasta Dam has the largest capacity of any reservoir in the state. Annual releases

range from 9 MAF in wet years to 3 MAF in dry years. From 1964-1996, Keswick releases

averaged 7.3 MAF annually. In more recent years (1986 to 1996), Keswick annual releases

averaged 5.9 MAF.

The 1993 Winter-run Biological Opinion is one of the most influential factors governing

Shasta releases, both in terms of quantity and timing. The Biological Opinion sets temperature requirements below Keswick Dam for April through October, and established an end-ofSeptember minimum carryover storage for Shasta Lake of 1.9 MAF. In years when CVP

facilities cannot be operated to meet required temperature and storage objectives,

Reclamation re-initiates consultation with National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration-Fisheries (NOAA-Fisheries).

Aside from making water available for downstream uses, exports for the remainder of the

water year are managed to maximize the following:

• Movement of water through Whiskeytown Reservoir to minimize warming

• Conservation of Shasta coldwater reserves

• Production of high-value summer and early fall power generation

The agricultural contractors account for the vast majority of consumptive uses of water along

the Sacramento River. Of the total amount that is diverted for agricultural use, the portion of

the water that is applied to fields but is not actually used by crops is assumed to return to the

Sacramento River either through surface water or groundwater. This water is then available

for other downstream uses, including CVP contractors within the Bay Area (e.g., Contra

Costa Water District) or those served through Delta exports (e.g., the San Joaquin Exchange

contractors, or agricultural and M&I water service contractors located south of the Delta).

The CVP annually supplies up to approximately 6.2 MAF to water contractors in the Central

and Santa Clara Valleys and Contra Costa County. The CVP is required by contracts to make

deliveries up to the contract amount, if requested, except in periods of water shortage. During

periods of reduced supply, water deliveries are decreased according to terms in the contracts.

Contractors are grouped into the following three general categories:

1. Sacramento River Water Rights Settlement Contractors. These contractors claimed

water rights in the Sacramento River Basin prior to construction of Shasta Dam. Contract

provisions allow for reductions of up to 25 percent of contracted amounts during dry

conditions (as determined by the Shasta Inflow Index).

2. San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors. These contractors claimed water rights in

the San Joaquin River and agreed to forgo these rights in exchange for CVP water
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-16 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

diverted from the Bay-Delta and delivered to the Mendota Pool. Contract provisions

allow for reductions of up to 25 percent of contracted amounts under dry conditions (as

determined by the Shasta Inflow Index).

3. CVP Water Service Contractors. These agricultural and M&I water service contractors

entered into agreements with Reclamation for delivery of CVP water as a supplemental

supply. Water deliveries to agricultural water service contractors can be reduced up to

100 percent in particularly dry years. Maximum curtailment levels are not specified for

most M&I water service contractors. Historically, Reclamation has limited maximum

curtailments to M&I contractors to 25 percent; future system demands are assumed to

potentially require curtailments of up to 50 percent. Water availability for delivery to

CVP water service contractors during periods of insufficient supply is determined using a

combination of operational objectives, hydrologic conditions, and reservoir storage

conditions.

Environmental Consequences. The effects of Alternatives 1 through 5 on

surface water within the SRSCs service area are compared to conditions under the No Action

Alternative.

No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative does not include new facilities

or construction. The No Action Alternative assumes that dry-year reductions would remain

the same as existing conditions, and the renewed contract period would last 40 years.

Alternative 1. Surface water in the SRSCs service area under Alternative 1 would

be similar to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 would not

significantly alter current CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP

facilities, or the maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSCs, with the exception of

reduced contract amounts to ACID and SMWC. However, these reductions are the result of

needs analyses and are reflective of past water use by these SRSCs. Therefore, these

reductions in contract amounts would not result in activities or conditions that would result in

impacts to surface water. It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSCs

would continue to be managed in the same manner under Alternative 1 as under the No

Action Alternative.

No adverse impacts are associated with this alternative.

Alternative 2. Surface water in the SRSCs service area under Alternative 2 would

be identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 2 would not alter

current CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities, or the

maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSCs.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSCs would continue to be

managed in the same manner under Alternative 2 as under the No Action Alternative.

No adverse impacts are associated with this alternative.

Alternative 3. Surface water in the SRSCs service area under Alternative 3 would

be identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 3 would not alter
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-17 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

current CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities, or the

maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSCs.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSCs would continue to be

managed in the same manner under Alternative 3 as under the No Action Alternative.

No adverse impacts are associated with this alternative.

Alternative 4. Surface water in the SRSCs service area under Alternative 4 would

be similar to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 4 would not

significantly alter current CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP

facilities, or the maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSCs, with the exception of

reduced contract amounts to ACID and SMWC and sliding-scale reduced diversions to all

contractors in dry years. This reduction could result in increased pumping activities in

irrigation districts experiencing water cutbacks during dry years when the irrigation district

would have otherwise maintained full contract amounts. Increased pumping activities

associated with these cutbacks would result in temporary drawdown of groundwater levels in

the aquifer system underlying the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin. Over time,

increased pumping activities could result in a reduction in local streamflow by (1) increasing

infiltration of surface water through the streambed, (2) intercepting groundwater that would

have recharged surface waterbodies, or (3) a combination of 1 and 2.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSCs would continue to be

managed in the same manner under Alternative 4 as under the No Action Alternative.

No significant adverse impacts are associated with this alternative.

Alternative 5. Surface water in the SRSCs service area under Alternative 5 would

be similar to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would not

significantly alter current CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP

facilities, or the maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSCs, with the exception of

reduced contract amounts to ACID and SMWC, and Shasta Inflow Index-reduced diversions

in dry years. This reduction could result in increased pumping activities in irrigation districts

experiencing water cutbacks during dry years when the irrigation district would have

otherwise maintained full contract amounts. Increased pumping activities associated with

these cutbacks would result in temporary drawdown of groundwater levels in the aquifer

system underlying the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin. Over time, increased pumping

activities could result in a reduction in local streamflow by (1) increasing infiltration of

surface water through the streambed, (2) intercepting groundwater that would have recharged

surface waterbodies, or (3) a combination of 1 and 2.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSCs would continue to be

managed in the same manner under Alternative 5 as under the No Action Alternative.

No significant adverse impacts are associated with this alternative.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-18 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Groundwater

Affected Environment

Sacramento River Hydrologic Region. The project area is located within the

Sacramento River Hydrologic Region. The Sacramento River Hydrologic Region covers

approximately 17.4 million acres and extends south from the Modoc Plateau and Cascade

Range at the Oregon border to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The hydrologic region

contains both the Redding and Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basins. Collectively, the

Redding and Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basins extend from Redding in the northern

portion of the Sacramento Valley to the Sacramento metropolitan area in the southern portion

of the Sacramento Valley. This discussion focuses on the land within the Sacramento Valley

Groundwater Basin.

The Sacramento River Hydrologic Region is the main water supply source for much of

California’s urban and agricultural areas. Annual runoff in the hydrologic region averages

approximately 22.4 MAF, which is nearly one-third of the state’s total natural runoff. Major

water supplies in the region are provided through surface storage reservoirs. The two largest

surface reservoirs are Reclamation’s Shasta Lake (CVP) on the upper Sacramento River and

Lake Oroville (the Department’s SWP) on the Feather River. M&I and agricultural demands

in the region are approximately 8 MAF, with groundwater providing approximately 2.5 MAF

of that total. This 2.5 MAF represents approximately 11 percent of the total annual runoff, as

shown on Figure 3-1 (all figures are located at the end of this chapter). Much of the

remainder of the runoff goes to dedicated natural flows, which support various environmental

requirements, including in-stream fishery flows and flushing flows in the Delta. (Department,

2003a).

Climatic Influence on Groundwater Levels. Since 1980, California has

experienced a variety of climate conditions, including a 5-year drought from approximately

1987 through 1992. During this drought, decreasing groundwater levels were experienced

across much of the region; however, after the drought ceased, groundwater levels generally

recovered. This suggests that the variability in the seasonal recovery of groundwater levels in

the Sacramento Valley through time has been largely due to climate conditions (i.e.,

precipitation).

Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin

The Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin extends from the southern edge of the Redding

Groundwater Basin to the San Joaquin Valley and includes portions of Tehama, Glenn, Butte,

Yuba, Sutter, Colusa, Placer, Solano, Sacramento, and Yolo Counties. It is bordered by the

Red Bluff Arch to the north, the Coast Range to the west, the Sierra Nevada to the east, and

the San Joaquin Valley to the south. Department Bulletin 118 further divides the Sacramento

Valley Groundwater Basin into sub-basins (Department, 2003a). Figure 3-2 shows the areal

extent of the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin and defined sub-basins within the area

of analysis.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-19 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Geology, Hydrogeology, and Hydrology

The Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin is a north-northwestern-trending asymmetrical

trough filled with as much as 10 miles of both marine and continental rocks and sediment

(Page, 1986). On the eastern side, the basin overlies basement bedrock that rises relatively

gently to form the Sierra Nevada, and on the western side, the underlying basement bedrock

rises more steeply to form the Coast Ranges. Overlying the basement bedrock are marine

sandstone, shale, and conglomerate rocks, which generally contain brackish or saline water

(Department, 2001). The more recent continental deposits, overlying the marine sediments,

contain freshwater. These continental deposits are generally 2,000 to 3,000 feet thick

(Page, 1986). The depth (bgs) to the base of freshwater typically ranges from 1,000 to

3,000 feet (Bertoldi, 1991). Along the eastern and northeastern portion of the basin are the

Tuscan and Mehrten Formations, derived from the Cascades and Sierra Nevada. The Tehama

Formation in the western portion of the basin is derived from Coast Range sediments. In most

of the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, the Tuscan, Mehrten, and Tehama Formations

are overlain with relatively thin alluvial deposits.

Groundwater is recharged by deep percolation of applied water and rainfall, infiltration from

streambeds, and lateral inflow along the basin boundaries. Average annual precipitation in

the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin ranges from 13 to 26 inches, with the higher

precipitation quantities occurring along the eastern and northern edges of the basin.

Typically, 80 to 90 percent of the basin’s precipitation occurs from November to April.

Farther east in the Sierra Nevada, precipitation ranges from 40 to 90 inches, much in the form

of snow (Bertoldi, 1991).

The quantity and timing of snowpack melt are the predominant factors affecting the surface

water and groundwater hydrology, and peak runoff in the basin typically lags peak

precipitation by 1 to 2 months (Bertoldi, 1991). The main surface water feature in the

Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin is the Sacramento River, which has several major

tributaries draining the Sierra Nevada, including the Feather, Yuba, and American Rivers.

Stony, Cache, and Putah Creeks, draining the Coast Range, are the main western tributaries

of the Sacramento River. Surface water and groundwater interact on a regional basis, and,

thus, gains and losses to groundwater vary significantly geographically and temporally. In

areas where groundwater levels have declined, such as in Sacramento County, streams that

formerly gained flow by groundwater discharge now lose water to the groundwater system

through seepage.

The exact quantity of groundwater that is pumped in the valley is not known. However,

estimates by the Department and others, based on land use and crop requirements, suggest

that approximately 2.5 MAF of water is pumped annually from M&I and agricultural

production wells in the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region3. This magnitude of pumping

represents approximately 11 percent of the average annual runoff into the Sacramento Valley

Groundwater Basin. As described above, groundwater levels have historically recovered

during the wet season within a given annual cycle.

 

3 http://www.groundwater.water.ca.gov/bulletin118/update2003/index.cfm
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-20 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

To further evaluate the nature of groundwater production from the Sacramento Valley

Groundwater Basin, information contained in Department records is summarized in

Table 3-4. These data suggest that the approximate 2.5 MAF of groundwater production from

the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin occurs from a combination of about 5,800

irrigation and municipal wells along with 18,000 domestic wells. Municipal and

irrigation wells appear to be screened slightly deeper within the aquifer (200 to 400 feet bgs)

than the domestic wells in the basin (screened 100 to 250 feet bgs).

TABLE 3-4

TYPICAL WELL CONSTRUCTION IN THE SACRAMENTO VALLEY

GROUNDWATER BASIN

Sub-basin Number of

Domestic Wells

Average Deptha

(feet bgs)

Number of

Irrigation Wells

Average Deptha

(feet bgs)

Red Bluff 3,293a 197a 18a 207b

Bend No Data No Data No Data No Data

Antelope 702a 104a 92a 176b

Dye Creek 432a 94a 56a 188b

Los Molinos 311a 92a 42a 327a

Corning 1,667a 135a 822a 246b

Vina 2,215a 139a 715a 330b

Colusa 2,599a 155a 1,515a 368b

West Butte 1,469a 136a 1,038a 321a

East Butte 1,477a 101a 699a 285a

Sutter 510c 127c 106c 195c

North Yuba 262c 131c 61c 251c

South Yuba 275c 186c 92c 343c

Yolo 380c 243c 189c 395c

North American 665c 190c 105c 396c

South American 422c 247c 78c 372c

Solano 954c 235c 111c 422c

TOTALS 17,663 5,739

aBased on well completion reports (Department, 2003a).

bIncludes both municipal and irrigation wells.

cNiblack (2004), Well Completion Reports received from 1979-2002.

Groundwater Production, Levels, and Storage

Irrigated agriculture in the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin increased steadily from

less than 500,000 acres in the 1940s to more than 1.5 million acres by 1980 (Reclamation,

1997). Correspondingly, groundwater production to support agriculture rose from less than

500,000 AF annually to more than 2.5 MAF annually by the mid-1990s (Department, 2003c).

In general, groundwater flows inward from the edges of the basin and south parallel to flow

in the Sacramento River. Depth to groundwater throughout most of the valley averages about

30 feet, with shallower depths along the Sacramento River and greater depths along the basin
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-21 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

margins. Additionally, several local groundwater depressions are associated with areas of

groundwater extraction.

The information presented in Table 3-4 suggests that, with the exception of the extreme

northern end of the valley, most irrigation wells in the valley are at least 300 feet deep. Where

construction data are not available, it is assumed that the “typical” irrigation well is screened

over the bottom half of the total depth of the well. This fact, along with the depth-to-water

measurements, implies that the top of a typical irrigation well screen lies at least 100 feet

below the water table, and seasonal fluctuations on the order of tens of feet should not

substantially impact well productivity.

Redding Groundwater Basin

The Redding Groundwater Basin is in the northernmost portion of the Sacramento Valley.

Underlying Tehama and Shasta Counties, it is bordered by the Klamath Mountains to the

north, the Coast Range to the west, and the Cascade Mountains to the east. The Red Bluff

Arch, between Cottonwood and Red Bluff, separates the Redding Groundwater Basin from

the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin to the south. Department Bulletin 118 subdivides

the Redding Groundwater Basin into six sub-basins: Anderson, Enterprise, Millville,

Rosewood, Bowman, and South Battle Creek (Department, 2003a). Figure 3-3 shows the

areal extent of the Redding Groundwater Basin.

Geology, Hydrogeology, and Hydrology

The Redding Groundwater Basin consists of a sediment-filled, southward-plunging

symmetrical trough (Department, 2001). Simultaneous deposition of material from the Coast

Range and the Cascade Range resulted in two different formations, which are the principal

freshwater-bearing formations in the basin. The Tuscan Formation in the east is derived from

Cascade Range volcanic sediments, and the Tehama Formation in the western and northwest

portion of the basin is derived from Coast Range sediments. These formations are up to

2,000 feet thick near the confluence of the Sacramento River and Cottonwood Creek, and the

Tuscan Formation is generally more permeable and productive than the Tehama Formation

(Department, 2001). Groundwater recharge occurs in the higher elevations by stream seepage

and direct infiltration of precipitation. Rivers and streams transition to gaining streams at

lower elevations and receive direct groundwater discharge. Areas of riparian vegetation occur

along surface water features throughout the basin.

The water budget of the Redding Groundwater Basin is dominated by a large annual influx of

water falling as precipitation on the surrounding mountains and on the valley floor. A large

portion of recharge to the Redding Groundwater Basin is from precipitation and snowmelt

from higher elevations. Average annual precipitation in the Redding Groundwater Basin

ranges from 22 inches to as much as 40 inches in the higher elevations. As is typical

throughout the Central Valley, 80 to 90 percent of the area’s precipitation occurs from

November to April. In the surrounding mountain ranges, precipitation ranges from 40 to 75

inches, much of it in the form of snow. A portion of this water is consumed by evapotranspiration by native vegetation, and the remainder occurs as runoff and groundwater recharge.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-22 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

It has been estimated that the Redding Groundwater Basin yields an average of 850,000 AF

of annual runoff (CH2M HILL, 2003). Much of this water is potentially available to recharge

the Redding Groundwater Basin and replenish water levels that have been depressed because

of groundwater pumping. Applied water totals approximately 270,000 AF in the Redding

Groundwater Basin (CH2M HILL, 1997). The exact quantity of groundwater that is pumped

from the basin is not known; however, it has been estimated that approximately 55,000 AF of

water is pumped annually from M&I and agricultural production wells (CH2M HILL, 2003).

This magnitude of pumping represents approximately 6 percent of the average annual runoff

into the basin.

To further evaluate the nature of groundwater production from the Redding Groundwater

Basin, Table 3-5 summarizes information contained in Department records. These data

suggest that the approximately 55,000 AF of groundwater production from the Redding

Groundwater Basin occur from a combination of about 170 irrigation and municipal wells

and approximately 6,000 domestic wells. Municipal and irrigation wells appear to be

screened slightly deeper within the aquifer (200 to 300 feet bgs) than the domestic wells in

the basin (screened 140 to 250 feet bgs).

Seasonal groundwater fluctuations range from 2 to 3 feet in shallow unconfined aquifers and

2 to 5 feet in semi-confined to confined aquifers in normal years. During drought years,

unconfined aquifer levels could fluctuate by as much as 10 feet, and semi-confined and

confined aquifer levels could fluctuate as much as 16 feet. The principal surface water

features in the Redding Groundwater Basin are the Sacramento River and its tributaries

Battle, Cow, Little Cow, Clear, Dry, and Cottonwood Creeks. Surface water and groundwater

interact in many areas in the Redding Groundwater Basin.

In general, groundwater flows southeasterly on the west side of the basin and southwesterly

on the east side, toward the Sacramento River. The Sacramento River is the main drain for

the basin (Department, 2003a).

TABLE 3-5

TYPICAL WELL CONSTRUCTION IN THE REDDING GROUNDWATER BASIN

Sub-basin Number of

Domestic Wells

Average Depth

(feet bgs)a

Number of

Municipal and

Irrigation Wells

Average Depth

(feet bgs)a

Anderson 2,239 140 48 302

Bowman 804 257 27 312

Enterprise 1,970 139 65 180

Millville 487 156 8 265

Rosewood 447 181 15 311

South Battle Creek 18 189 5 227

Totals 5,965 168

aBased on well completion reports (Department, 2003c).
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-23 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Groundwater Production, Levels, and Storage

Total annual groundwater pumping for the Redding Groundwater Basin is approximately

40,000 AF (CH2M HILL, 2003). This quantity represents less than 10 percent of the basin’s

average (during years of normal precipitation) groundwater discharge to surface water,

estimated at approximately 670,000 AF (CH2M HILL, 2003). The majority of the

groundwater discharge to surface water in the basin occurs to the Sacramento River in the

lower portions of the basin.

Groundwater levels typically range from greater than 460 feet above mean sea level (msl)

around the fringes of the basin, to less than 390 feet msl near the confluence of Cottonwood

Creek and the Sacramento River. Historically, groundwater levels have remained stable, with

no long-term trend of declining or increasing. However, groundwater levels are affected by

changes in precipitation, falling during droughts but rising quickly when normal or abovenormal precipitation occurs. For example, some short-term declines were noticeable during

the droughts of 1976 through 1977 and in 1987 through 1992. These declines were followed

by recovery to pre-drought levels after several successive normal or above-normal

precipitation events occurred.

ASSESSMENT APPROACH

To evaluate the potential impacts associated with each of the proposed contract alternatives,

some method of assessing the potential impacts that may occur to surface water flows and

groundwater levels under various contract options was required. It was recognized early in

the project planning process that sufficient time and resources were not available to develop a

comprehensive water-budget based numerical model of the entire Sacramento Valley. This

type of model would require simulation of spatial and temporally varying hydrologic

processes including the recharge of precipitation, surface water/groundwater interactions,

cropping patterns, and the recharge of applied irrigation water. As an alternative, a

superposition approach was taken to estimating project impacts. A superposition model

simulates the incremental impacts that would occur solely due to the changes in water

contracting strategies, and these impacts would be superimposed on existing baseline

groundwater conditions in the valley.

Impacts associated with changes to the current contracting strategy are simulated by the

model, and model output provides estimates of impacts on surrounding groundwater levels

and changes in streamflow due to changes in groundwater pumping in the basin. Model

estimates represent the incremental impacts that would occur solely due to changes in

groundwater pumping that would occur as a result of modifications to the current contracting

approach. Simulations were performed to evaluate potential impacts projected during the

April through October pumping period. In addition, potential impacts that would occur in the

November through December time frame were also simulated because it was assumed that

significant winter recharge would not yet occur. Finally, it was assumed that winter recharge

would replenish groundwater levels over the winter months (January through March),

eliminating any residual impacts; therefore, this period was not explicitly modeled.

The assumption of seasonal basin refilling is based on a comprehensive review of historical

water-budget components and water-level trends in the Sacramento River Hydrologic
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-24 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Region. Under current conditions, the Sacramento Valley and Redding Groundwater Basins

are full and spill excess recharge to streams. In general, as pumping increases, the amount of

discharge to streams decreases, but the groundwater basin would remain virtually full unless

pumping rates exceed the water available for groundwater recharge. Existing data indicate

that a large amount of water is available to replenish the groundwater basin after pumping.

Furthermore, evaluation of water-level hydrographs from wells across the valley indicate that

in almost all areas groundwater levels have been stable over the past 25 years, and water

levels recover to pre-pumping conditions over the winter recharge period.

The impacts that may occur due to implementation of various contracting alternatives were

evaluated by comparing the magnitude of cutbacks to surface water deliveries that would

occur under current contracting practices, versus the magnitude of cutback that would occur

under the proposed contracting alternatives. It was assumed that any decrease in surface water

deliveries would immediately be replaced by groundwater pumping. In other words, during a

period of reduced surface water deliveries, water districts would use the same quantity of

irrigation water with the same timing simply by replacing surface water supplies with

groundwater production. The estimated percentage of contract amounts that would be

delivered under each alternative during the 1921-2001 hydrology period is shown in

Table 3-6. Using this information, it was possible to compare the difference in surface water

deliveries predicted under current contracting methodology, and under each of the proposed

contracting alternatives. These data suggest that the greatest difference in surface water

deliveries would occur during the early stages of drought periods, where the current

contracting approach would result in full delivery of contracted amounts, whereas several

alternative approaches would result in a 25 percent cutback in deliveries, and therefore a

switch to groundwater pumping to meet irrigation needs. The impacts of this additional

pumping on groundwater levels and streamflows were evaluated using the groundwater flow

model as described below.

Several major assumptions were made in preparing the groundwater modeling simulations.

These assumptions are summarized as follows:

• The quantity and timing of the contracted surface water deliveries for the contractors

were used as a basis for assigning the additional groundwater pumping rates to the

model. This was done on a monthly time step. If a contractor has a 25 percent cutback

in deliveries for the year, it was assumed that the cutback occurs uniformly to the

contracted delivery each month, and groundwater pumping would occur during that

same time period to make up the difference in irrigation water supplies. A list of

SRSCs included in the modeling effort, as well as monthly contract supplies can be

found in Table 3-7.

• The timing of irrigation deliveries, and therefore groundwater pumping, for the

districts where monthly contract delivery data were not available was estimated by

calculating the percentage of contract delivery that occurs during each month of the

irrigation season based on the all other districts, and applying those monthly

percentages to the remaining contracts.

• Groundwater pumping was assumed to occur at a uniform rate over the entire water

district service area.
September 2004 3-25 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-6

SAMPLE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF SHORTAGE PROVISIONS BASED ON HISTORICAL PERI

Percentage Cutback

Water Year –

Period of Record

Flow in

Shasta in

MAF

No Action, Alternative 1

(Preferred Alternative), and

Alternative 3 –

25% cutback in Shasta

critical years onlya

Alternative 2 –

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease; no

cutback if previous water

year greater than 4.0, and no

reset requirement at 4 MAF

Alternative 4 –

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease;

cutback remains at

lowest level until full

contract amount reset

at 4 MAF

1921-1922 4.6 100% 100% 100% 1922-1923 3.6 100% 90% 90% 1923-1924 2.5 75% 75% 75% 1924-1925 5.1 100% 100% 100% 1925-1926 3.7 100% 90% 90% 1926-1927 7.0 100% 100% 100% 1927-1928 5.1 100% 100% 100% 1928-1929 3.2 100% 75% 75% 1929-1930 4.2 100% 100% 100% 1930-1931 2.5 75% 75% 75% 1931-1932 3.7 75% 80% 75% 1932-1933 3.5 75% 75% 75% 1933-1934 3.3 75% 75% 75% 1934-1935 4.9 100% 100% 100% 1935-1936 4.7 100% 100% 100% 1936-1937 4.1 100% 100% 100% 1937-1938 9.5 100% 100% 100% 1938-1939 3.5 100% 75% 80% 
September 2004 3-26 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-6

SAMPLE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF SHORTAGE PROVISIONS BASED ON HISTORICAL PERI

Percentage Cutback

Water Year –

Period of Record

Flow in

Shasta in

MAF

No Action, Alternative 1

(Preferred Alternative), and

Alternative 3 –

25% cutback in Shasta

critical years onlya

Alternative 2 –

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease; no

cutback if previous water

year greater than 4.0, and no

reset requirement at 4 MAF

Alternative 4 –

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease;

cutback remains at

lowest level until full

contract amount reset

at 4 MAF

1939-1940 7.0 100% 100% 100% 1940-1941 8.7 100% 100% 100% 1941-1942 7.6 100% 100% 100% 1942-1943 5.9 100% 100% 100% 1943-1944 3.7 100% 80% 90% 1944-1945 4.9 100% 100% 100% 1945-1946 5.9 100% 100% 100% 1946-1947 3.9 100% 100% 90% 1947-1948 5.4 100% 100% 100% 1948-1949 4.3 100% 100% 100% 1049-1950 4.1 100% 100% 100% 1950-1951 6.3 100% 100% 100% 1951-1952 7.8 100% 100% 100% 1952-1953 6.5 100% 100% 100% 1953-1954 6.5 100% 100% 100% 1954-1955 4.1 100% 100% 100% 1955-1956 8.8 100% 100% 100% 1956-1957 5.4 100% 100% 100% 1957-1958 9.7 100% 100% 100% 1958-1959 5.1 100% 100% 100% 
September 2004 3-27 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-6

SAMPLE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF SHORTAGE PROVISIONS BASED ON HISTORICAL PERI

Percentage Cutback

Water Year –

Period of Record

Flow in

Shasta in

MAF

No Action, Alternative 1

(Preferred Alternative), and

Alternative 3 –

25% cutback in Shasta

critical years onlya

Alternative 2 –

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease; no

cutback if previous water

year greater than 4.0, and no

reset requirement at 4 MAF

Alternative 4 –

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease;

cutback remains at

lowest level until full

contract amount reset

at 4 MAF

1959-1960 4.7 100% 100% 100% 1960-1961 5.1 100% 100% 100% 1961-1962 5.3 100% 100% 100% 1962-1963 7.0 100% 100% 100% 1963-1964 3.9 100% 100% 100% 1964-1965 7.0 100% 100% 100% 1965-1966 5.3 100% 100% 100% 1966-1967 7.4 100% 100% 100% 1967-1968 4.8 100% 100% 100% 1968-1969 7.7 100% 100% 100% 1969-1970 7.9 100% 100% 100% 1970-1971 7.3 100% 100% 100% 1971-1972 5.1 100% 100% 100% 1972-1973 6.2 100% 100% 100% 1973-1974 10.8 100% 100% 100% 1974-1975 6.4 100% 100% 100% 1975-1976 3.6 100% 80% 80% 1976-1977 2.6 75% 75% 75% 1977-1978 7.8 100% 100% 100% 1978-1979 4.0 100% 100% 100% 
September 2004 3-28 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-6

SAMPLE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF SHORTAGE PROVISIONS BASED ON HISTORICAL PERI

Percentage Cutback

Water Year –

Period of Record

Flow in

Shasta in

MAF

No Action, Alternative 1

(Preferred Alternative), and

Alternative 3 –

25% cutback in Shasta

critical years onlya

Alternative 2 –

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease; no

cutback if previous water

year greater than 4.0, and no

reset requirement at 4 MAF

Alternative 4 –

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease;

cutback remains at

lowest level until full

contract amount reset

at 4 MAF

1079-1980 6.4 100% 100% 100% 1980-1981 4.1 100% 100% 100% 1981-1982 9.0 100% 100% 100% 1982-1983 10.8 100% 100% 100% 1983-1984 6.7 100% 100% 100% 1984-1985 4.0 100% 100% 100% 1985-1986 7.5 100% 100% 100% 1986-1987 3.9 100% 100% 100% 1987-1988 3.9 100% 100% 100% 1988-1989 4.7 100% 100% 100% 1989-1990 3.6 100% 80% 80% 1990-1991 3.1 75% 75% 75% 1991-1992 3.6 75% 90% 75% 1992-1993 6.8 100% 100% 100% 1993-1994 3.1 75% 75% 75% 1994-1995 9.6 100% 100% 100% 1995-1996 6.8 100% 100% 100% 1996-1997 7.4 100% 100% 100% 1997-1998 10.3 100% 100% 100% 1998-1999 7.2 100% 100% 100% 
September 2004 3-29 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-6

SAMPLE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF SHORTAGE PROVISIONS BASED ON HISTORICAL PERI

Percentage Cutback

Water Year –

Period of Record

Flow in

Shasta in

MAF

No Action, Alternative 1

(Preferred Alternative), and

Alternative 3 –

25% cutback in Shasta

critical years onlya

Alternative 2 –

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease; no

cutback if previous water

year greater than 4.0, and no

reset requirement at 4 MAF

Alternative 4 –

Sliding-scale cutback

(10-20-25%) based on

stepped decrease;

cutback remains at

lowest level until full

contract amount reset

at 4 MAF

1999-2000 6.8 100% 100% 100% 2000-2001 4.1 100% 100% 100% Number of yearswith cutbacksduring period ofrecord

9 years 16 years 17 years 

Cumulative(4 years) cutbackduring 4–yeardrought of 1931-1934

2,127,451 2,021,078 2,127,451 

aShasta critical years defined by the contract between Reclamation and the SRSCs (see Appendix C for complete contract). This shorta

mechanism used in the original contracts and thus represents the No Action, in addition to Alternatives 1 and 3.

bThe Sacramento Valley 40-30-30 Index is computed as a weighted average of the current water year's April through July unimpaired ru

the current water year's October through March unimpaired runoff forecast (30 percent), and the previous water year's index (30 percen

on the previous year's index to account for required flood control reservoir releases during wet years. Unimpaired runoff (calculated in th30-30 Index as the sum of Sacramento River flow above Bend Bridge near Red Bluff, Feather River inflow to Oroville, Yuba River flow a

River inflow to Folsom) is the river production unaltered by water diversions, storage, exports, or imports. A water year with a Sacramen

equal to or greater than 9.2 MAF is classified as "wet." A water year with an index equal to or less than 5.4 MAF is classified as "critical.
September 2004 3-31 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-7

CONTRACT SUPPLY AND SCHEDULED MONTHLY DELIVERIE

Contractor Name Contract Number

Total Contract

Supply (AF)

January Delivery

(AF)

February Delivery

(AF)

March Delivery

(AF)

April Delivery

(AF)

May Delivery

(AF)

June Delivery

(AF)

July Delivery

(AF)

Au

City of WestSacramento

0-07-20-W0187 23,600 0 0 0 2,776 4,533 4,628 4,864 

Howald Farms, Inc. 14-06-200-1042A 2,760 0 0 0 170 440 510 590 A & F Boeger Corp.and Boeger LandCompany (EastsideMWC)

14-06-200-1053A 2,804 0 0 0 390 540 460 506 

King, Barbara 14-06-200-1086Y 19 0 0 0 1 4 4 5 Dommer, Elizabeth(King)

14-06-200-1086Z 26 0 0 0 2 4 4 8 

Reische, Laverne C.,et ux

14-06-200-1150A 450 0 0 0 0 50 108 142 

Reische, Eric 14-06-200-1150X 90 0 0 0 0 10 22 28 Furlan, Emile, et ux 14-06-200-1175A 920 0 0 0 50 180 165 180 Heidrick, Joe, FamilyTrust

14-06-200-1176A 560 0 0 0 20 120 120 120 

Reynen, John; Bardis,Christo (BroomsideFarms)

14-06-200-1286A 10,070 0 0 0 1,320 2,260 1,550 2,160 

Lauppe, Burton 14-06-200-1289A 950 0 0 0 0 10 250 230 Driver, John A. andClare M., FamilyRevocable Trust

14-06-200-1314A 230 0 0 0 10 40 50 50 

ELH Sutter Properties(Natomas BasinConservancy)

14-06-200-1364A 490 0 0 0 28 50 96 120 

Lauppe, B & K 14-06-200-1364X 350 0 0 0 20 36 69 85 ELH Sutter Properties,Inc. & Lauppe, B.

14-06-200-1364Y 40 0 0 0 2 4 8 10 

Wakida, Masaru, et ux 14-06-200-1415A 325 0 0 0 0 25 45 115 Ritchey, E.J (Jansen) 14-06-200-1426A 190 0 0 0 20 50 30 40 Furlan Joint Venture(Byrd/Osborne)

14-06-200-1595A 1,700 0 0 0 160 360 340 350 

Baber, Jack, et al 14-06-200-1604A 6,260 0 0 0 0 1,160 1,703 1,188 Heidrick, Emmett &Mildred, Trust

14-06-200-1616A 120 0 0 0 6 19 24 27 

Hale & Marks 14-06-200-1638A 75 0 0 0 6 21 17 17 Odysseus Farms 14-06-200-1664A 2,070 0 0 0 
September 2004 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-7

CONTRACT SUPPLY AND SCHEDULED MONTHLY DELIVERIE

Contractor Name Contract Number

Total Contract

Supply (AF)

January Delivery

(AF)

February Delivery

(AF)

March Delivery

(AF)

April Delivery

(AF)

May Delivery

(AF)

June Delivery

(AF)

July Delivery

(AF)

Au

Anderson, Ray E., et ux(1) & (2)

14-06-200-1726A 190 0 0 0 15 25 35 50 

Amen, Henry, Estate(RD 900&1000)

14-06-200-1779A 404 0 0 0 12 55 92 104 

Zelmar Ranch 14-06-200-1827A 164 0 0 0 16 32 40 40 Martin, Andrew(Gomes)

14-06-200-1827X 246 0 0 0 24 48 60 60 

Davis, Grover L., et ux 14-06-200-1851A 85 0 0 0 7 17 21 25 Andreotti, Arthur, et al 14-06-200-1898A 3,620 0 0 0 380 610 600 790 Locvich, Paul 14-06-200-1945A 150 0 0 0 0 30 50 40 Tarke, James 14-06-200-1949A 2,700 0 0 0 230 650 500 550 Nelson, Thomas L.,et ux

14-06-200-1954A 136 0 0 0 0 18 36 38 

Butte Creek Farms(Mayfair Farms)

14-06-200-1976A 204 0 0 0 18 47 55 51 

Howard, Theodore &Linda

14-06-200-1976X 76 0 0 0 7 18 20 19 

Colusa Properties, Inc. 14-06-200-2042A 940 0 0 0 40 230 200 220 Windswept Land &Livestock

14-06-200-2045A 4,040 0 0 0 220 690 720 730 

Chilton, Barbara(Siddiqui)

14-06-200-2065A 130 0 0 0 0 20 30 40 

Pelger Mutual WaterCompany

14-06-200-2073A 8,860 0 0 0 1,210 3,250 1,670 1,010 

Swinford Tract IrrigationCompany(Montgomery/Mehrhof/McPherson)

14-06-200-2145A 181 0 0 0 16 36 56 44 

Davis, Olive P., et al 14-06-200-2146A 31,800 0 0 0 3,200 6,900 6,400 7,200 Knaggs WalnutRanches Co., L.P.

14-06-200-2148A 630 0 0 0 40 110 180 110 

Deseret Farms ofCalifornia (SacramentoRiver Ranch)

14-06-200-2149A 4,000 0 0 0 500 1,000 1,100 600 

Quad H Ranches 14-06-200-2153A 500 0 0 0 40 100 100 100 Freeman, Frank, et ux 14-06-200-2212A 30 0 0 0 2 4 6 6 Drew, Jerry 14-06-200-2250A 36 0 0 0 2 6 7 8 
September 2004 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-7

CONTRACT SUPPLY AND SCHEDULED MONTHLY DELIVERIE

Contractor Name Contract Number

Total Contract

Supply (AF)

January Delivery

(AF)

February Delivery

(AF)

March Delivery

(AF)

April Delivery

(AF)

May Delivery

(AF)

June Delivery

(AF)

July Delivery

(AF)

Au

Butler, Leslie, et ux 14-06-200-2365A 460 0 0 0 30 70 110 110 Elliot, Marlene, andHradecky, Denton,Co-Tenancy (Rubio)

14-06-200-2368A 16 0 0 0 1 2 2 3 

Driver, John A., et ux 14-06-200-2398A 16 0 0 0 1 3 3 4 Sartain Mutual WaterCompany (CarterMWC)

14-06-200-2401A 7,122 0 0 0 560 1,950 1,610 1,154 

Sacramento, County of 14-06-200-2404A 750 0 0 0 20 100 180 220 Oji, Mitsue, FamilyPartnership

14-06-200-2427A 4,740 0 0 0 590 920 910 910 

Davis, Marilyn(Lamb/Wirth)

14-06-200-2486A 520 0 0 0 10 110 110 120 

McLaughlin, Jack 14-06-200-2514A 650 0 0 0 70 110 110 140 J.B. Unlimited, Inc. 14-06-200-2519A 510 0 0 0 10 60 110 110 Kary, Carol 14-06-200-2520A 1,000 0 0 0 0 190 220 270 Young, Russell L., et al 14-06-200-2552A 10 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 Tisdale Irrigation andDrainage Company

14-06-200-2781A 9,900 0 0 0 1,200 2,000 1,900 1,800 

Butte Creek Farms (Y) 14-06-200-2851A 36 0 0 0 3 13 8 10 Redding, City of 14-06-200-2871A 21,000 900 800 1,100 1,400 1,925 2,700 3,000 Griffin, Joseph, et al 14-06-200-2895A 2,760 0 0 0 20 400 668 652 Wells, Joyce M(Otterson/Azevedo)

14-06-200-2896A 1,815 0 0 0 120 580 360 160 

Fedora, Sib, et al 14-06-200-2916A 210 0 0 0 10 30 40 50 Hollins, Mariette B. 14-06-200-2993A 1,560 0 0 0 30 620 340 150 Seaver, Charles 14-06-200-3296A 480 0 0 0 40 80 100 130 Anderson-CottonwoodIrrigation District

14-06-200-3346A 128,000 0 0 0 15,360 18,286 19,749 20,846 

Willey, Edwin, et ux 14-06-200-3556A 95 0 0 0 5 15 20 25 Westfall, Ralph D. 14-06-200-3591A 490 0 0 0 20 80 100 110 Oji Brothers Farm, Inc. 14-06-200-3753A 3,200 0 0 0 240 550 600 760 Chicago AlmondProducts Co. andAmerican AlmondProducts Co., Inc.(Exchange Bank/The

14-06-200-3774A 780 0 0 0 40 90 130 190 
September 2004 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-7

CONTRACT SUPPLY AND SCHEDULED MONTHLY DELIVERIE

Contractor Name Contract Number

Total Contract

Supply (AF)

January Delivery

(AF)

February Delivery

(AF)

March Delivery

(AF)

April Delivery

(AF)

May Delivery

(AF)

June Delivery

(AF)

July Delivery

(AF)

Au

Nature Conservancy)Gjermann, Hal 14-06-200-4010A 12 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 Giusti, Richard, et al 14-06-200-4076A 1,610 0 0 0 130 310 310 340 Lockett, William P. &Jean B. 1998 FamilyRevocable Trust

14-06-200-4105A 417 0 0 0 10 60 110 110 

O'Brien, Janice 14-06-200-4105X 839 0 0 0 75 90 179 175 Leiser, Dorothy L. 14-06-200-4178A 60 0 0 0 1 13 13 13 Daniell, Harry 14-06-200-4348A 20 0 0 0 1 3 3 4 Richter Brothers, et al 14-06-200-4362A 2,780 0 0 0 155 550 490 530 McLane, Robert 14-06-200-4446A 40 0 0 0 3 6 7 9 Wilson RanchPartnership

14-06-200-4520A 370 0 0 0 30 60 150 40 

Wallace Construction(Tenhumfeld)

14-06-200-4604A 3,640 0 0 0 210 640 1,088 674 

Carter, Jane Foster 14-06-200-4617A 1,470 0 0 0 140 620 440 140 Driscoll StrawberryAssociates,Incorporated

14-06-200-4736A 820 0 0 0 80 130 130 170 

Spence, Ruth Ann 14-06-200-4829A 730 0 0 0 120 100 180 210 Lake CaliforniaProperty OwnersAssociation

14-06-200-4961A 780 0 0 0 60 100 150 170 

M & L Farms 14-06-200-5200A 355 0 0 0 0 10 85 135 Wakida, Masaru, et ux 14-06-200-5200X 160 0 0 0 0 10 25 55 Butte Creek Farms (A) 14-06-200-5206A 95 0 0 0 0 25 30 30 Cannell, Fred (GreenValley Corp)

14-06-200-5210A 890 0 0 0 60 110 160 245 

Stegeman StationRanch (Green ValleyCorp)

14-06-200-5211A 880 0 0 0 70 130 195 245 

Cribari, Emile (Wisler) 14-06-200-5215A 35 0 0 0 1 2 11 18 Pleasant Grove-VeronaMutual Water Company

14-06-200-5520A 26,290 0 0 0 2,360 5,250 6,690 3,680 

Morehead, Joseph A.,et ux

14-06-200-5789A 255 0 0 0 20 45 50 50 

Maxwell Irrigation 14-06-200-6078A 17,980 0 0 0 1,990 3,520 2,410 2,220 
September 2004 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-7

CONTRACT SUPPLY AND SCHEDULED MONTHLY DELIVERIE

Contractor Name Contract Number

Total Contract

Supply (AF)

January Delivery

(AF)

February Delivery

(AF)

March Delivery

(AF)

April Delivery

(AF)

May Delivery

(AF)

June Delivery

(AF)

July Delivery

(AF)

Au

DistrictMunson, James T.,et ux

14-06-200-7049A 155 0 0 0 0 10 45 60 

Lee Farms 14-06-200-7206A 180 0 0 0 20 30 40 40 Churkin, Michael, et al 14-06-200-7227A 130 0 0 0 10 20 25 30 Tuttle, Charles 14-06-200-7296A 390 0 0 0 20 30 75 95 Leviathan, Inc. 14-06-200-7308A 700 0 0 0 55 65 135 155 Eggleston, Ronald H.,et ux

14-06-200-7339A 65 0 0 0 6 18 15 14 

Conaway ConservancyGroup

14-06-200-7422A 50,862 0 0 0 6,890 13,970 14,690 5,374 

Mirbach-Harff Antonius 14-06-200-7556A 170 0 0 0 0 10 60 60 Hale & Marks 14-06-200-7572A 130 0 0 0 11 36 29 29 Forry, Laurie 14-06-200-7691A 2,285 0 0 0 80 570 500 500 Pires, Lawrence J.,et ux

14-06-200-7744A 280 0 0 0 10 75 85 55 

Butte Creek Farms (P) 14-06-200-7744X 640 0 0 0 30 105 130 140 Alexander, Thomas,et ux

14-06-200-7754A 22 0 0 0 2 3 4 5 

MCM Properties, Inc. 14-06-200-7827A 1,470 0 0 0 50 320 320 320 Siddiqui, Javed & Amna 14-06-200-7941A 1,060 0 0 0 90 120 190 220 Hershey LandCompany

14-06-200-7972A 3,020 0 0 0 400 570 560 530 

Micke, Daniel 14-06-200-7995A 100 0 0 0 11 13 20 32 Gillaspy, Fay 14-06-200-8117A 210 0 0 0 30 45 45 45 Beckley, Ralph, et ux 14-06-200-8118A 300 0 0 0 45 60 65 65 Sutter Mutual WaterCompany

14-06-200-815A 226,000 0 0 0 20,000 42,500 48,000 53,500 

Riverview Golf &Country Club

14-06-200-8286A 280 0 0 0 30 35 45 55 

Heidrick, Emmett &Mildred, Trust

14-06-200-8322A 430 0 0 0 5 30 120 145 

Ehrke, Allen A., et ux 14-06-200-8330A 380 0 0 0 20 60 75 85 Meridian Farms WaterCompany

14-06-200-838A 35,000 0 0 0 4,400 6,200 5,900 7,000 
September 2004 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-7

CONTRACT SUPPLY AND SCHEDULED MONTHLY DELIVERIE

Contractor Name Contract Number

Total Contract

Supply (AF)

January Delivery

(AF)

February Delivery

(AF)

March Delivery

(AF)

April Delivery

(AF)

May Delivery

(AF)

June Delivery

(AF)

July Delivery

(AF)

Au

Princeton-CodoraGlenn IrrigationCompany

14-06-200-849A 67,810 0 0 0 10,800 13,500 13,190 12,740 

Glenn-Colusa IrrigationDistrict

14-06-200-855A 825,000 0 0 0 100,000 140,000 150,000 185,000 

Provident IrrigationDistrict

14-06-200-856A 54,730 0 0 0 7,210 10,830 12,920 10,000 

Odysseus FarmsPartnership

14-06-200-8574A 630 0 0 0 0 70 140 135 

Driver, Gary, et al 14-06-200-8585A 30 0 0 0 1 2 6 8 Lonon, Michael, et al 14-06-200-8658A 1,155 0 0 0 120 190 220 260 Steidlmayer, Francis J.,et al

14-06-200-874A 1,310 0 0 0 230 210 160 360 

Reclamation District#108

14-06-200-876A 232,000 0 0 0 34,000 50,500 49,000 47,500 

River Garden Farms 14-06-200-878A 29,800 0 0 0 4,300 6,500 5,800 5,800 Hiatt, Glenwood J., et al 14-06-200-880A 1,486 0 0 0 75 258 244 420 Hiatt, Thomas et al 14-06-200-880X 584 0 0 0 28 102 96 165 Natomas CentralMutual Water Company

14-06-200-885A 120,200 0 0 0 14,000 27,700 23,000 18,700 

Schreiner, Joe & Cleo 14-06-200-889A 200 0 0 0 0 10 40 100 Reclamation District#1004

14-06-200-890A 71,400 0 0 0 6,300 14,700 12,200 12,100 

Wilson, Neil (Edson,W&M)

14-06-200-906A 104 0 0 0 8 16 24 16 

Chesney, R & A,Bypass Trust et al

14-06-200-930A 700 0 0 0 60 170 140 170 

Lomo Cold Storage 14-06-200-931A 7,110 0 0 0 1,400 2,900 1,670 450 Henle Family LimitedPartnership

14-06-200-932A 935 0 0 0 120 300 210 120 

Riverby Limited 14-06-200-934A 500 0 0 0 30 60 130 110 Robert's Ditch IrrigationCompany, Inc.

14-06-200-935A 4,440 0 0 0 660 670 950 600 

Driver, William, et al 14-06-200-939A-1 160 0 0 0 0 18 45 44 Driver, Gregory E. 14-06-200-939A-2 20 0 0 0 0 2 5 6 M & T Chico Ranch(Pacific Realty)

14-06-200-940A 17,956 0 0 0 1,200 1,640 3,002 4,330 
September 2004 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-7

CONTRACT SUPPLY AND SCHEDULED MONTHLY DELIVERIE

Contractor Name Contract Number

Total Contract

Supply (AF)

January Delivery

(AF)

February Delivery

(AF)

March Delivery

(AF)

April Delivery

(AF)

May Delivery

(AF)

June Delivery

(AF)

July Delivery

(AF)

Au

Penner, H.H., et ux 14-06-200-960A 180 0 0 0 9 24 37 38 Giovannetti, B.E. &Mary

14-06-200-991A 520 0 0 0 60 80 90 120 

Sekhon, Arjinderpal &Daljit

7-07-20-W0001 820 0 0 0 60 170 150 165 

Jaeger, William, et al 7-07-20-W0002 870 0 0 0 90 145 185 205 High-Low Nursery, Inc. 7-07-20-W0006 205 0 0 0 10 30 45 50 Verona FarmingPartnership

7-07-20-W0054 300 0 0 0 20 55 50 75 

Forster, RosemaryTrust & Jerome

8-07-20-W0117 3,160 0 0 0 250 710 540 670 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

September 2004 3-45 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

• Groundwater pumping was assumed to occur from the regional aquifer beneath each

district. The regional aquifer is defined as the aquifer from which the majority of

existing irrigation wells draw water in a given area.

• Groundwater production rates are assumed to be constant in a given month with

groundwater production occurring 24 hours per day, 7 days a week.

The superposition approach was used to simulate two pumping scenarios. The first

simulation represents a single year where all of the contract supplies are decreased by

25 percent. The second simulation represents a hypothetical 4-year drought. During this

simulation, all contractor supplies are decreased by 25 percent for 4 consecutive years. It was

assumed that there is a seasonal recovery of 40 to 50 percent (for the Sacramento Valley and

Redding Groundwater Basins, respectively) during each winter. The recovery factor is based

on the average seasonal recovery observed during the 1976-1977 drought in the Sacramento

Valley and Redding Groundwater Basins (Department, 2003a).

Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin Modeling Tool

The Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin modeling tool covers the Sacramento Valley

extending south from the Red Bluff Arch in Tehama County to the Sacramento-San Joaquin

Delta. It includes specific information on the thickness and properties of the aquifers and the

relationships between the streams and underlying aquifers. The extent of the groundwater

modeling tool is presented on Figure 3-2. The total thickness and lateral extent of the model

represent the freshwater aquifer defined by Berkstresser (1973). Thickness was divided into

six model layers based on assumed construction of typical irrigation wells in the Sacramento

Valley Groundwater Basin. A no-flow boundary was assumed along the margins of the model

domain to simulate the lateral extent of freshwater-bearing sediments in the Sacramento

Valley Groundwater Basin. A head-dependent boundary condition was used to simulate

40 individual streams throughout the model domain. The distribution of aquifer properties,

such as transmissivity and specific yield, were derived from those reported by Bloyd (1978).

Redding Groundwater Basin Modeling Tool

To evaluate the impacts of the project on groundwater conditions and streamflows in the

Redding Groundwater Basin, a superposition groundwater model was used similar to that

constructed for the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin (referred to as the “Redding Basin

Groundwater Model [RBGM]). Initial conditions for the modeling simulations assume a flat

water table and with streams in direct hydraulic connection with the groundwater aquifer.

The boundary of the RBGM generally coincides with the boundary of the Redding

Groundwater Basin and is shown on Figure 3-3. The RBGM boundary was extended slightly

beyond the boundary in the following areas:

• North of the Redding Groundwater Basin boundary and south of Shasta Lake

• West of the Redding Groundwater Basin boundary and east of Clear Creek below

Whiskeytown Lake

The RBGM boundaries were extended in these areas to fully encompass local water purveyor

service areas for future simulations involving potential water transfers and impacts. The total

aquifer thickness in the RBGM was estimated by subtracting the depth to bedrock (i.e., Chico
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-46 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Formation) (Department, 1968) from average groundwater levels. The total aquifer thickness

was subdivided into four model layers based on typical screened intervals of wells in the

Redding Groundwater Basin. A no-flow boundary was used along the margins of the model

domain to simulate the lateral extent of freshwater-bearing sediments in the basin. A headdependent boundary condition was used to simulate 31 individual streams throughout the

model domain. The distribution of aquifer properties that resulted from the calibration

process, such as transmissivity, were originally derived from specific capacity data obtained

from M&I and, where available, domestic water supply wells. An additional head-dependent

boundary was applied to the surface of the RBGM to simulate the loss of shallow

groundwater to evapotranspiration.

Due to the contracted surface water deliveries to the City of Redding water service area,

pumping scenarios simulated with the RBGM were run using monthly time steps from April

through March. Additionally, because well locations were known for the three largest

contractors in the Redding Groundwater Basin, pumping was assigned to these discrete

locations as opposed to being distributed over the district area.

Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin Analysis

The following sections describe the modeling results for the Sacramento Valley Groundwater

Basin.

Groundwater Levels

Under a 25 percent cutback scenario, annual SRSC pumping within the Sacramento Valley

Groundwater Basin would total approximately 495,000 AF. A decrease in surface water

supplies to SRSCs, and subsequent increase in groundwater pumping, would result in

temporary additional drawdown of groundwater levels in the aquifer system underlying the

Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin. Model forecast drawdown was evaluated in both the

shallow and regional aquifers. The shallow aquifer is defined as the unconfined aquifer that

exists in the upper 50 feet of saturated sediments. The regional aquifer is defined as the

deeper portions of the aquifer that are typically tapped by irrigation wells in the basin. Figures

3-4 and 3-5 are maps of maximum incremental drawdown due to increased SRSC pumping

in both the shallow aquifer and the deeper regional aquifer at the end of an average pumping

season. Drawdown in the shallow aquifer could influence streams and riparian vegetation.

Drawdown in the deeper aquifer could affect pumping water levels in nearby wells and

potentially induce subsidence. The degree of anticipated impact and relative potential for

significance is discussed below.

Shallow aquifer drawdown, shown on Figure 3-4, refers to changes in water levels within the

upper 50 feet of the unconfined aquifer. This figure is based on the maximum computed

drawdown that would occur at the end of the April through October pumping season. The

model indicates that shallow aquifer drawdown resulting from increased SRSC pumping

generally ranges from 0 to 22 feet, with drawdown not exceeding 10 feet in most areas (Table

3-8). The maximum projected drawdown of 22 feet occurs in the GCID area.

Regional aquifer drawdown, shown Figure 3-5, is the maximum incremental drawdown,

attributable to increased pumping, in groundwater levels in the aquifer where most irrigation

pumping occurs. Model results suggest that drawdown of groundwater levels would range
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-47 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

from 0 to 22 feet (Table 3-8). This maximum drawdown is forecast to occur in the GCID

area. However, predicted drawdown in all other areas of the Sacramento Valley Groundwater

Basin would generally be less than 10 to 15 feet. The areal extent of regional aquifer

drawdown is similar to that of shallow aquifer drawdown, but of slightly greater magnitude.

TABLE 3-8

SUMMARY OF DRAWDOWN IMPACTS AT THE END OF THE

PUMPING SEASON

Sub-basin Maximum Incremental

Drawdown – Shallow

Aquifer (feet)

Maximum Incremental

Drawdown - Regional Aquifer

(feet)

North Colusa 22 22

South Colusa 10 9

West Butte 6 6

East Butte 5 5

North Yuba <1 <1

South Yuba <1 <1

Sutter 15 15

Yolo 5 5

North American 10 9

Surface Water/Groundwater Interaction. Implementation of any cutback of

SRSC surface water supply, and resultant increase in groundwater pumping, would result in a

reduction in local streamflow by: (1) increasing infiltration of surface water through the

streambed, (2) intercepting groundwater that would have recharged surface waterbodies, or

(3) a combination of 1 and 2.

Impacts to Sacramento River flows are anticipated to result in a peak instantaneous

streamflow reduction rate shortly before the end of the 214-day pumping period of 148 cfs,

and an average streamflow reduction of 103 cfs between April and December. Peak impacts

to flows in the Feather River are predicted to be 16 cfs, with an average reduction of 11 cfs.

For comparison, the historical mean monthly flow in the Sacramento River ranges from

12,390 (October) to 41,060 (February) cfs at the Freeport gauge. The historical mean monthly

flow in the Feather River, as measured at the Nicolaus gauge, ranges from 2,630 (August) to

15,520 (February) cfs. Table 3-9 summarizes the predicted streamflow depletion rates, along

with average measured streamflows during the month of peak depletion, where available.

Streamflow impacts on several outlying streams are predicted to continue to increase once

pumping has stopped. However, the influence of winter recharge, assumed to begin January

1, would cause these impacts to decline over the winter, and cease altogether once

groundwater levels return to pre-pumping conditions. Therefore, the impacts on these streams

are assumed to peak on December 31. The spatial variation in streamflow depletion rates

across the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, at the end of the 214-day stress period, is

shown on Figure 3-6.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-48 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Table 3-9 lists the average and peak stream impacts estimated for streams in the Sacramento

Valley, along with the percentage of streamflow that each impact represents. The simulated

peak stream depletion rate for each stream was compared to the corresponding measured

historical streamflow for each stream (where data were available) to quantify the peak

reduction in average streamflow. Results suggest that forecast changes in streamflow in the

Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin would be insignificant and likely unmeasureable.

TABLE 3-9

SUMMARY OF SIMULATED AVERAGE AND PEAK STREAM DEPLETION

RATES IN THE SACRAMENTO VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN

Stream Average April

through

December Stream

Depletion Rate

(cfs)

Peak Stream

Depletion Rate

(cfs)

Month of Peak

Stream Depletion

Rate

Historical Mean

Measured Streamflow

(cfs) for Month of

Simulated Peak Impact –

Gauge Location

Predicted Peak

Reduction in

Average Flows

(%)

Sacramento River 102.8 147.8 September 14,850 – Freeport 1%

Feather River 10.5 16.1 October 3,375 – Nicolaus 0.5%

GCID Canal 9.5 13.8 October N/A N/A

Colusa Basin Drain 5.6 8.0 September N/A N/A

Stone Corral Creeka 4.3 6.3 October 0 – Sites

Butte Creek 2.9 4.3 October 138 – Chico 3%

Funks Creek 2.5 3.6 October N/A N/A

Willow Creek 1.6 2.4 October N/A N/A

Stony Creek 1.0 1.5 September 136 – Orland 1%

Salt Creek 0.8 1.2 October N/A N/A

American River 0.6 0.9 October 1,160 – Fair Oaks 0.1%

Cache Creek 0.3 0.5 October 14 – Yolo 3%

Big Chico Creek 0.3 0.5 September 24 – Chico 2%

Angel Slough 0.2 0.3 Decemberb N/A N/A

Walker Creek 0.1 0.3 Decemberb 27 – Artois 1%

Little Chico Creek 0.1 0.2 September N/A N/A

Wilson Creek 0.1 0.2 Decemberb N/A N/A

South Fork Willow

Creek

0.1 0.2 Decemberb 2 - Fruto 12%

TOTALS 143.4 208.0

a

The assumption that Stone Corral Creek flows year-round is conservative. Drawdown impacts are not underestimated as the total

depletion from this stream (410 AF) represents only 0.30% of the total program supply (155,000 AF).

b

It is assumed that the influence of winter recharge, beginning January 1, would cause stream impacts to decline over the winter, and

cease altogether once groundwater levels return to pre-pumping conditions. Therefore, the impacts on these streams are assumed to

peak on December 31.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-49 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Multi-year Drought Periods

The analysis of impacts presented above assumes that groundwater levels in the Sacramento

Valley return to pre-pumping levels each spring due to recharge of precipitation and

streamflow during the winter months. However, during periods of extreme drought

conditions occurring over multiple years, it is likely that groundwater levels would not

recover completely each spring, and some residual drawdown would persist into the

subsequent irrigation season.

The groundwater flow model that was developed to estimate the SRSC groundwater and

streamflow impact is a superposition model, which means that is does not explicitly simulate

the recharge of applied water and precipitation that occurs over the course of the year. This

modeling approach simply assumes that no groundwater recharge occurs during the pumping

season (April through October) or the 2 months following, and that recharge during the

winter months (January through March) is sufficient for full recovery of groundwater levels

prior to the subsequent pumping season. Thus, it is not possible to use the existing model to

simulate specific climatic trends such as the 1976-1977 drought or the 1928-1934 drought.

As an alternative, the approach taken to evaluate the impacts of decreases in SRSC surface

water deliveries during multiple dry years is much more simplistic. This hypothetical 4-year

drought scenario assumes that surface water deliveries are decreased by 25 percent each year,

and that there is a seasonal recovery in groundwater levels of 40 percent (based on a review

of historical hydrographs of water levels measured during the 1976-1977 drought). It was

assumed that even in these extreme conditions, seepage from the Sacramento and Feather

Rivers continued to occur, as these streams would continue to be fed by reservoir releases.

Groundwater Levels. The simulated maximum incremental drawdown in the

shallow and regional aquifers after 4 consecutive dry years is presented as Figures 3-7

and 3-8, respectively. These results suggest that drawdown after 4 dry years would be greater

than the single-year scenario (up to 15 to 20 feet of drawdown in most areas, but up to 37 feet

in the GCID area, Table 3-10), but still supportable by the basin with current well

construction (depth to screen). In other words, after a series of critically dry years, the basin

would still be capable of producing the 495,000 AF of water associated with a cutback of

25 percent in SRSC supplies. It should be noted that the estimated drawdown is due to the

SRSC pumping only, and does not include the influence of the other 2.5 MAF of pumping in

the Sacramento Valley, which is assumed to occur under No Action. Figures 3-9 and 3-10

show the simulated drawdown over time by sub-basin in the model for the 4-year drought

scenario in the shallow and regional aquifers, respectively. These figures demonstrate that

under the multiple dry-year condition, a dynamic equilibrium is slowly established under

which the groundwater removed from storage by pumping is replenished by seepage from

surface water sources.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-50 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-10

SUMMARY OF DRAWDOWN IMPACTS AT THE END OF THE

PUMPING SEASON – DROUGHT YEAR 4

Sub-basin Maximum Incremental

Drawdown - Shallow Aquifer

(feet)

Maximum Incremental

Drawdown – Regional Aquifer

(feet)

North Colusa 36 37

South Colusa 16 15

West Butte 10 10

East Butte 8 8

North Yuba <1 <1

South Yuba 1 1

Sutter 24 24

Yolo 8 8

North American 15 14

Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction. From a streamflow perspective, the model

predicts a peak streamflow impact of about 352 cfs from all streams in the model after 4

drought years, 241 cfs of that coming from the Sacramento River (Table 3-11). These figures

are shown graphically on Figure 3-11. To put this number into perspective, the minimum

mean monthly flow in the Sacramento River during the 1976-1977 drought, as measured at

the Freeport gauge, was 4,494 cfs in October 1977. Streamflow at this gauge increased to

over 45,000 cfs by January 1978.

Figure 3-12 is a time series plot of stream seepage rates over the drought for several major

streams. This figure shows that near the end of the drought, the magnitude of increase instream seepage rates begin to level off, illustrating the equilibrium that is reached between

groundwater pumping and stream leakage.

Table 3-11 lists the peak stream impacts estimated for streams in the Sacramento Valley,

along with the percentage of streamflow that each impact represents. The simulated peak

stream depletion rate for each stream was compared to the corresponding measured historical

streamflow for each stream, during a drought period (where data were available) to quantify

the peak reduction in average streamflow.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-51 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-11

SUMMARY OF STREAM IMPACTS IN SACRAMENTO GROUNDWATER BASIN AFTER 4

CRITICALLY DRY YEARS

Stream Peak Instantaneous

Stream Depletion Rate

(cfs)

Month of Peak Stream

Depletion Rate

Measured Streamflow

during Month of Peak

Stream Depletion

(cfs)

Percent Instantaneous

Depletion of Measured

Streamflow

Sacramento River 240.7 August 8,718a 3%

Feather River 29.7 October 1,120b 3%

GCID Canal 25.2 September N/A N/A

Colusa Basin Drain 15.0 September N/A N/A

Stone Corral Creek 10.9 September 0

Butte Creek 7.6 October 114a 7%

Funks Creek 6.3 September N/A N/A

Willow Creek 4.6 October N/A N/A

Stony Creek 2.7 August N/A N/A

Salt Creek 2.4 October N/A N/A

American River 1.6 September 857a 0.2%

Cache Creek 0.9 October 0a

Walker Creek 0.9 March 0b

South Fork Willow

Creek

0.7 March 0b

Big Chico Creek 0.7 August 16b 4%

Wilson Creek 0.6 March N/A N/A

Angel Slough 0.6 December N/A N/A

Little Chico Creek 0.3 September N/A N/A

Bear River 0.2 March 487a 0.04%

Sand Creek 0.2 March N/A N/A

French Creek 0.2 March N/A N/A

Putah Creek 0.1 March 42.9a 0.2%

Yuba River 0.1 March 804a 0.01%

Totals: 352.1

a

1992

b

1977
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-52 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Redding Groundwater Basin

Groundwater Levels. Under a 25 percent cutback scenario, annual SRSC pumping

within the Redding Groundwater Basin would total approximately 38,000 AF. A decrease in

surface water supplies to SRSCs, and subsequent increase in groundwater pumping, would

result in temporary additional drawdown of groundwater levels in the aquifer system

underlying the Redding Groundwater Basin. Model forecast drawdown was evaluated in both

the shallow and regional aquifers. The shallow aquifer is defined as the unconfined aquifer

that exists in the upper 50 feet of saturated sediments. The regional aquifer is defined as the

deeper portions of the aquifer that are typically tapped by irrigation wells in the basin. Figures

3-13 and 3-14 are maps of maximum incremental drawdown due to increased SRSC pumping

in both the shallow aquifer and the deeper regional aquifer at the end of an average pumping

season. Drawdown in the shallow aquifer could influence streams and riparian vegetation.

Drawdown in the deeper aquifer could affect pumping water levels in nearby wells and

potentially induce subsidence. The degree of anticipated impact and relative potential for

significance is discussed below.

Shallow aquifer drawdown, shown on Figure 3-13, refers to changes in water levels within

the upper 50 feet of the unconfined aquifer. This figure is based on the maximum computed

drawdown that would occur at the end of the April through October pumping season. The

model indicates that shallow aquifer drawdown resulting from increased SRSC pumping

generally ranges from 0 to 15 feet, with drawdown not exceeding 5 to 10 feet in most areas

(Table 3-12). The maximum projected drawdown of 15 feet occurs in the ACID area.

Regional aquifer drawdown, shown on Figure 3-14, is the maximum incremental drawdown,

attributable to increased pumping, in groundwater levels in the aquifer where most irrigation

pumping occurs. Model results suggest that drawdown of groundwater levels would range

from 0 to 21 feet (Table 3-12). This maximum drawdown is forecast to occur in the ACID

area. However, predicted drawdown in all other areas of the Redding Groundwater Basin

would generally be less than 5 to 10 feet. The areal extent of regional aquifer drawdown is

similar to that of shallow aquifer drawdown, but of slightly greater magnitude.

TABLE 3-12

SUMMARY OF DRAWDOWN IMPACTS AT THE END OF THE PUMPING

SEASON

Sub-basin Maximum Incremental Drawdown –

Shallow Aquifer (feet)

Maximum Incremental Drawdown –

Regional Aquifer (feet)

Anderson 15 21

Bowman 5 6

Enterprise 4 4

Millville 2 3

Rosewood 1 2

South Battle Creek 1 1
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-53 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Surface Water/Groundwater Interaction. Implementation of any cutback of SRSC

surface water supply, and resultant increase in groundwater pumping, would result in a

reduction in local streamflow by: (1) increasing infiltration of surface water through the

streambed, (2) intercepting groundwater that would have recharged surface waterbodies, or

(3) a combination of 1 and 2.

Impacts to Sacramento River flows are anticipated to result in a peak instantaneous

streamflow reduction rate at the end of the 214-day pumping period of 27 cfs, and an average

streamflow reduction of 16 cfs between April and December. Peak impacts to flows in

Cottonwood Creek are predicted to be 3 cfs, with an average reduction of 2 cfs. For

comparison, the historical mean monthly flow in the Sacramento River ranges from 5,866

(October) to 13,200 (February) cfs at the Keswick gauge. The historical mean monthly flow

in Cottonwood, as measured at the Olinda gauge, ranges from 20 (September) to

1,444 (March) cfs. Table 3-13 summarizes the predicted streamflow depletion rates, along

with average measured streamflows during the month of peak depletion, where available.

Streamflow impacts on several outlying streams are predicted to continue to increase once

pumping has stopped. However, the influence of winter recharge, assumed to begin

January 1, would cause these impacts to decline over the winter, and cease altogether once

groundwater levels return to pre-pumping conditions. Therefore, the impacts on these streams

are assumed to peak on December 31. The spatial variation in streamflow depletion rates

across the Redding Groundwater Basin, at the end of the 214-day stress period, are shown on

Figure 3-15.

Table 3-13 lists the average and peak stream impacts estimated for streams in the Redding

Groundwater Basin, along with the percentage of streamflow that each impact represents. The

simulated peak stream depletion rate for each stream was compared to the corresponding

measured historical streamflow for each stream (where data were available) to quantify the

peak reduction in average streamflow. Results suggest that forecast changes in streamflow in

the Redding Groundwater Basin would be insignificant and likely unmeasureable.

Multi-year Drought Periods

The analysis of impacts presented above assumes that groundwater levels in the Redding

Groundwater Basin return to pre-pumping levels each spring due to recharge of precipitation

and streamflow during the winter months. However, during periods of extreme drought

conditions occurring over multiple years, it is likely that groundwater levels would not

recover completely each spring, and some residual drawdown would persist into the

subsequent irrigation season.

The groundwater flow model that was developed to estimate the SRSC groundwater and

streamflow impact is a superposition model, which means that is does not explicitly simulate

the recharge of applied water and precipitation that occurs over the course of the year. This

modeling approach simply assumes that no groundwater recharge occurs during the pumping

season (April through October) or the 2 months following, and that recharge during the

winter months (January through March) is sufficient for full recovery of groundwater levels

prior to the subsequent pumping season. Thus, it is not possible to use the existing model to

simulate specific climatic trends such as the 1976-1977 drought or the 1928-1934 drought.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-54 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-13

SUMMARY OF SIMULATED AVERAGE AND PEAK STREAM DEPLETION RATES

IN THE REDDING GROUNDWATER BASIN

Stream

Average April

through

December

Stream

Depletion Rate

(cfs)

Peak Stream

Depletion

Rate

(cfs)

Month of Peak

Stream

Depletion Rate

Historical Mean

Measured Streamflow

(cfs) for Month of

Simulated Peak

 Impact – Gauge

Location

Predicted

Peak

Reduction in

Average Flows

Sacramento River 15.8 26.5 October 5,866 - Keswick 0.5%

Cottonwood Creek 1.9 3.0 October 42.2 - Olinda 7%

Anderson Creek 0.9 1.2 October N/A N/A

Stillwater Creek 0.9 1.4 October N/A N/A

Cow Creek 0.6 1.0 October 125 1%

Clover Creek 0.4 0.6 October N/A N/A

Battle Creek 0.3 0.5 October 298 - Coleman Hatchery 0.2%

Churn Creek 0.3 0.4 October N/A N/A

Bear Creek 0.2 0.4 October 21.2 - Millville 2%

Ash Creek 0.1 0.2 December N/A N/A

Dry Creek 0.1 0.1 Decembera N/A N/A

TOTALS 21.5 35.4

a

 It is assumed that the influence of winter recharge, beginning January 1, would cause stream impacts to decline

over the winter, and cease altogether once groundwater levels return to pre-pumping conditions. Therefore, the

impacts on these streams are assumed to peak on December 31.

As an alternative, the approach taken to evaluate the impacts of decreases in SRSC surface

water deliveries during multiple dry years is much more simplistic. This hypothetical 4-year

drought scenario assumes that surface water deliveries are decreased by 25 percent each year,

and that there is a seasonal recovery in groundwater levels of 50 percent (based on a review

of historical hydrographs of water levels measured during the 1976-77 drought). It was

assumed that even in these extreme conditions, seepage from the Sacramento River continued

to occur, as this stream would continue to be fed by reservoir releases.

Groundwater Levels. The simulated maximum incremental drawdown in the shallow and

regional aquifers after 4 consecutive dry years is presented as Figures 3-16 and 3-17,

respectively. These results suggest that drawdown after 4 dry years would be greater than the

single-year scenario (up to 5 to 10 feet of drawdown in most areas, but up to 23 feet in the

ACID area, Table 3-14), but still supportable by the basin with current well construction

(depth to screen). In other words, after a series of critically dry years, the basin would still be

capable of producing the 38,000 AF of water associated with a cutback of 25 percent in

SRSC supplies. It should be noted that the estimated drawdown is due to the SRSC pumping
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-55 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

only, and does not include the influence of the other 55,000 AF of pumping in the Redding

Groundwater Basin, which is assumed to occur under No Action.

TABLE 3-14

SUMMARY OF DRAWDOWN IMPACTS AT THE END OF THE

PUMPING SEASON – DROUGHT YEAR 4

Sub-basin Maximum Incremental

Drawdown – Shallow

Aquifer (feet)

Maximum Incremental

Drawdown – Regional Aquifer

(feet)

Anderson 18 23

Bowman 7 8

Enterprise 5 5

Millville 5 3

Rosewood 2 3

South Battle Creek 1 2

Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction. From a streamflow perspective, the model

predicts a peak streamflow impact of about 41 cfs from all streams in the model after 4

drought years, 34 cfs of that coming from the Sacramento River (Table 3-15). These figures

are shown graphically on Figure 3-18. To put this number into perspective, the minimum

mean monthly flow in the Sacramento River during the 1976-1977 drought, as measured at

the Keswick gauge, was 3,431cfs in October 1977 (USGS, 2004). Streamflow at this gauge

increased to over 6,200 cfs by January 1978.

Figure 3-19 is a time series plot of stream seepage rates over the drought for several major

streams. This figure shows that near the end of the drought, the magnitude of increase in

stream seepage rates begin to level off, illustrating the equilibrium that is reached between

groundwater pumping and stream leakage.

Table 3-15 lists the peak stream impacts estimated for streams in the Redding Groundwater

Basin portion of the Sacramento Valley, along with the percentage of streamflow that each

impact represents. The simulated peak stream depletion rate for each stream was compared to

the corresponding measured historical streamflow for each stream, during a drought period

(where data were available) to quantify the peak reduction in average streamflow.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-56 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-15

SUMMARY OF STREAM IMPACTS IN THE REDDING GROUNDWATER BASIN

AFTER 4 CRITICALLY DRY YEARS

Stream Simulated Peak

Stream Seepage

Rate

(cfs)

Month of

Simulated

Peak Stream

Seepage Rate

Measured

Streamflow during

Month of Peak

Stream Depletion

(cfs)

Percent Instantaneous

Depletion of Measured

Streamflow

Sacramento River 34.2 October 3,741b 1%

Cottonwood Creek 3.6 October 17.4c 21%

Stillwater Creek 1.5 October N/Ad N/A

Cow Creek 1.4 October 90.9b 2%

Anderson Creek 1.3 October N/Ad N/A

Battle Creek 0.8 October 139b 1%

Clover Creek 0.7 October N/Ad N/A

Churn Creek 0.4 November N/Ad N/A

Bear Creek 0.4 November N/Ad N/A

Ash Creek 0.2 December N/Ad N/A

Hooker Creek 0.1 Decembera N/Ad N/A

Dry Creek 0.1 Decembera N/Ad N/A

Inks Creek 0.1 Decembera N/Ad N/A

South Fork Cottonwood

Creek

0.1 Decembera 521c 0.01%

Clough Creek 0.1 Decembera N/Ad N/A

a

 It is assumed that the influence of winter recharge, beginning January 1, would cause stream impacts to

decline over the winter, and cease altogether once groundwater levels return to pre-pumping conditions.

Therefore, the impacts on these streams are assumed to peak on December 31.

b

1992

c

1977

d

No data for either the 1976-1977 or 1989-1992 drought

No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative does not include new facilities or

construction. The No Action Alternative assumes that dry-year reductions would remain the

same as existing conditions, and the renewed contract period would last 40 years.

Alternative 1. Groundwater recharge and groundwater use by the SRSCs under

Alternative 1 would be similar, if not identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative.

Alternative 1 would not significantly alter current CVP operations, water storage or release
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-57 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

patterns from CVP facilities, or the maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSCs with

the exception of reduced contract amounts to ACID and SMWC. These reductions in contract

amounts are based on needs analyses and historical use and are not expected to result in less

water use by these contractors. Therefore, groundwater pumping is not expected to increase

as a result of this alternative.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSCs would continue to be

managed in the same manner under Alternative 1 as under the No Action Alternative.

Therefore, there are no environmental impacts of this alternative as compared to the No

Action Alternative.

Alternative 2. Groundwater recharge and groundwater use by the SRSCs under

Alternative 2 would be identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 2

would not alter CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities, or the

maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSCs as compared to the No Action

Alternative.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSCs would continue to be

managed in the same manner under Alternative 2 as under the No Action Alternative.

Therefore, there are no environmental impacts of this alternative as compared to the No

Action Alternative.

Alternative 3. Groundwater recharge and groundwater use by the SRSCs under

Alternative 3 would be similar to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 3

would not alter CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities, or the

maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSCs as compared to the No Action

Alternative.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSCs would continue to be

managed in the same manner under Alternative 3 as under the No Action Alternative.

Therefore, there are no environmental impacts of this alternative as compared to the No

Action Alternative.

Alternative 4.

Groundwater Levels. Increased frequency of pumping within the Sacramento Valley

Groundwater Basin could occur during dry years within the Sacramento Valley Groundwater

Basin. This increased frequency would result from sliding-scale cutbacks in water deliveries

during years where cutbacks would otherwise not have occurred. Assuming pumping were

equal to reduced diversions, the increased pumping would total approximately 212,745 AF

during Shasta inflow deficits of 200,000 to 400,000 AF, and 425,490 AF during inflow

deficits of 400,000 to 600,000 AF. When deficits are greater than 600,000 AF, pumping

would be the same as under No Action critical years.

Increased pumping activities associated with these cutbacks would result in temporary

drawdown of groundwater levels in the aquifer system underlying the Sacramento Valley

Groundwater Basin. Drawdown in the deeper aquifer could affect pumping water levels in

nearby wells and potentially induce subsidence. However, as stated above, even under the
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-58 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

multi-year drought analysis, the overall impact to the Sacramento Valley and Redding

Groundwater Basins is less than significant.

Land Subsidence. Groundwater extraction under this alternative may decrease

groundwater levels, increasing the potential for localized land subsidence. Typically,

permanent subsidence only occurs when groundwater levels are lowered for many years.

Implementation of this alternative would not cause a permanent lowering of groundwater

levels because it is expected that the basin would refill except during extreme drought

conditions. Therefore, the potential for permanent subsidence of the land surface as a result

of Alternative 4 is expected to be less than significant, even under the worst-case analysis

considered here.

Groundwater Quality. Migration of Reduced-quality Groundwater. Although

groundwater in this area is generally of good quality, elevated levels of TDS and nitrates have

been detected in some localized areas of the basin. Areas of naturally occurring high TDS are

west of the Sacramento River between Putah Creek and the confluence of the Sacramento

and San Joaquin Rivers, and in the area south of the Sutter Buttes, in the vicinity of the

confluence of the Sacramento and Yuba Rivers. Elevated nitrate levels occur in two areas

within the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin: one in northern Yuba and southern Butte

Counties, east of Sutter Buttes, and another in northern Butte and southern Tehama Counties

(Reclamation, 1997). Any movement or migration of reduced-quality water under each of the

contract alternatives would be similar to the No Action Alternative because the distribution

of pumping across the valley would not change. However, the increase in the frequency of

pumping may result in a slight increase in groundwater migration rates. This impact is

considered less than significant.

Alternative 5.

Groundwater Levels. Increased pumping within the Sacramento Valley

Groundwater Basin could occur during dry years within the Sacramento Valley Groundwater

Basin. This increase would result from sliding-scale cutbacks in water deliveries during years

where cutbacks would otherwise not have occurred under the No Action Alternative. The

increased pumping would total approximately 212,745 AF during Sacramento Index below

normal years, and 425,490 AF during Sacramento Index dry years. Pumping under

Sacramento Index critically dry years would be equivalent to critical years under the No

Action.

Increased pumping activities associated with these cutbacks would result in temporary

drawdown of groundwater levels in the aquifer system underlying the Sacramento Valley

Groundwater Basin. Drawdown in the deeper aquifer could affect pumping water levels in

nearby wells and potentially induce subsidence. However, as stated above, even under the

multi-year drought analysis, the overall impact to the Sacramento Valley and Redding

Groundwater Basins is less than significant.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-59 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Land Subsidence. Groundwater extraction under this alternative could decrease

groundwater levels, increasing the potential for localized land subsidence. Typically,

permanent subsidence only occurs when groundwater levels are lowered for many years.

Implementation of this alternative would not cause a permanent lowering of groundwater

levels, because it is expected that the basin would refill except during extreme drought

conditions. Therefore, the potential for permanent subsidence of the land surface as a result

of Alternative 5 is expected to be less than significant, even under the worst-case analysis

considered here.

Groundwater Quality. Migration of Reduced-quality Groundwater. Although

groundwater in this area is generally of good quality, elevated levels of TDS and nitrate have

been detected in some localized areas of the basin. Areas of naturally occurring high TDS are

west of the Sacramento River between Putah Creek and the confluence of the Sacramento

and San Joaquin Rivers, and in the area south of the Sutter Buttes, in the vicinity of the

confluence of the Sacramento and Yuba Rivers. Elevated nitrate levels occur in two areas

within the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin: one in northern Yuba and southern Butte

Counties, east of Sutter Buttes, and another in northern Butte and southern Tehama Counties

(Reclamation, 1997). Any movement or migration of reduced-quality water under each of the

contract alternatives would be similar to the No Action Alternative because the distribution

of pumping across the valley would not change. However, the increase in the frequency of

pumping may result in a slight increase in groundwater migration rates. This impact is

considered less than significant.

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

Terrestrial Biological Resources

Affected Environment.

This section describes the wildlife habitats that occur in the SRSCs service area and the

wildlife species typically found in each habitat. Special-status wildlife and plant species with

the potential to occur in the SRSCs service area are identified, and their general habitat

associations are summarized.

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. Historically, the Sacramento Valley contained a

mosaic of riverine, wetlands, and riparian habitat along rivers and streams with surrounding

terrestrial habitats consisting of perennial grassland and oak woodland. With settlement of

the Sacramento Valley, agricultural and urban development converted land from native

habitats to cultivated fields, pastures, residences, water impoundments, flood-control

structures, and other developments. As a result, native habitats generally are restricted in their

distribution and size and are highly fragmented. Agricultural land comprises most of the

SRSCs service area and includes row and field crops, rice, pasture, and orchards. The

following discussion describes the various terrestrial habitats that are present in or near the

service areas of the SRSC and CDMWC.

The types, amounts, and distribution of habitats in the service areas were derived from the

California GAP Analysis Project (California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG], 1998a).
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-60 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

In the California GAP Analysis, habitats were typed using the California Wildlife Habitats

Relationship System (CWHR) (Mayer and Laudenslayer, 1988). This project focused on

mapping habitats at a landscape scale and has a resolution of 274 acres (100 hectares) for

upland habitats and 98.8 acres (40 hectares) for wetlands habitat. The database identifies

general habitat types throughout the service area but does not distinguish small habitat

patches, such as stringers of riparian habitat or small wetlands, which can have high wildlife

value. Where available, additional information is provided on the occurrence of important

habitat types not distinguished in the California GAP Analysis.

Wetlands Habitat. California supports a wide variety of wetland habitats. The

plants and wildlife species supported in wetlands vary depending on the hydrologic regime,

substrate, water source, and water quality of the site. Types of wetlands in the SRSCs service

area are freshwater emergent wetlands and vernal pools.

Freshwater Emergent Wetlands. Freshwater emergent wetlands occur in areas that

are seasonally or perennially inundated. They form a transitional habitat between open water

and upland habitats and occur in backwater areas of rivers, streams, and lakes, and in the

floodplains of rivers and streams. Emergent wetlands are characterized by erect, rooted,

herbaceous vegetation that emerges above the water surface. Water depths are shallow, up to

about 1 to 2 feet. Common plant species include cattails (Typha spp.), bulrushes (Scirpus

spp.), and rushes (Juncus spp.).

Urban and agricultural development, as well as hydrologic changes from flood control and

water supply development, have substantially reduced the amount of wetlands habitat in the

Central Valley. In the 1940s, freshwater emergent wetlands occupied about 554,000 acres of

the Central Valley (Frayer et al., 1989; Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture, 1990). By 1990,

only 86,704 acres remained (CDFG, 1998a). Regional reductions in freshwater emergent

wetlands have been estimated at 88.7 percent in the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin,

96.2 percent in the San Joaquin Basin, 99.2 percent in the Tulare Basin, 98.3 percent in the

Delta, and 97.2 percent in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Freshwater wetlands are among the most important habitats for wildlife. In winter, waterfowl

rely on wetlands in the Central Valley as a stopover during their migration or as habitat

throughout the winter. Raptors such as golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) and northern

harriers (Circus cyaneus) frequent wetlands while foraging. Birds such as marsh wrens

(Cistothorus palustris), tricolored blackbirds (Agelaius tricolor), red-winged blackbirds

(Agelaius phoeniceus), American bitterns (Botaurus lentiginosus), great egrets (Ardea alba),

great blue herons (Ardea herodias), black-crowned night herons (Nycticorax nycticorax), and

green herons (Butorides virescens) are common in wetland habitats in the SRSCs service area

and depend on this habitat. Numerous amphibians and mammals also depend on wetlands or

frequent this habitat because of its high productivity and diversity. Because much of the

wetlands habitat in California has been lost, a number of species that require wetlands have

been listed as threatened or endangered, or are species of concern to the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service) or CDFG. Special-status species associated with wetlands in the

SRSCs service area include giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas), tricolored blackbird,

white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi), and western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata).
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-61 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Vernal Pool. Vernal pools are typically found in association with annual grassland

habitat, and constitute a unique habitat type. Vernal pools form in shallow depressions that

are underlain by hardpan or volcanic rock. The hardpan or volcanic rock impedes drainage

such that, in winter, the depressions fill with water and retain moist soil into late spring. The

pools are then dry during the summer and fall until the rains commence the following winter.

The soils and moist microhabitat of these pools provide a unique habitat within a general

matrix of annual grassland habitat. Plant species of vernal pools differ from those of the

surrounding annual grassland habitat, and many animals associated with annual grassland

habitat depend on the occurrence of vernal pools to persist in the annual grassland landscape.

Common plant species found in vernal pools include popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys

stipitata), navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala), toad rush (Juncus bufonius), goldfields

(Lathenia chrysostoma), yellow carpet (Blennosperma nanum), coyote thistle (Eryngium

vaseyi), tidy tips (Layia spp.), water buttercup (Ranunculus spp.), and hairgrass

(Deschampsia danthonioides).

The number and distribution of vernal pools in the Central Valley has been greatly reduced as

a result of agricultural practices and conversion to urban land uses. Holland (1978) estimated

that 5 to 30 percent of California’s vernal pools are intact today, and 5 percent of the Central

Valley’s vernal pools remain. The reduction in vernal pool habitat has resulted in several

plant and animal species being listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. Listed

species associated with vernal pools in the SRSCs service area include Bogg’s Lake hedge

hyssop (Gratiola heterosepala), Hoover’s spurge (Chamaesyce hooveri), hairy orcutt grass

(Orcuttia pilosa), Greene’s tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei), vernal pool fairy shrimp

(Branchinecta lynchi), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi). In addition to

the listed species, the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) breeds in vernal

pools. The Central California Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of this species is currently

proposed for federal threatened listing.

Valley Foothill Riparian Habitat. Valley foothill riparian habitat develops in the

floodplains of low-gradient rivers and streams. Riparian habitats form a transitional

community between the aquatic, riverine environment and dry upland habitats. Dominant tree

species of valley foothill riparian habitat are cottonwood (Populus fremontii), California

sycamore (Plantanus racemosa), and valley oaks (Quercus lobata). Typical shrub species

include willows (Salix sp.), elderberry (Sambucus sp.), and wild grape (Vitis californica).

The composition of riparian plant communities is shaped by the timing, intensity, and

duration of flooding. Willows predominate in areas subject to regular inundation and quickly

colonize newly deposited gravel bars or recently scoured areas. Cottonwoods occur farther

from the river channel in areas subject to less frequent and intense flooding. Still, the

persistence of cottonwoods is linked to the natural seasonal pattern of flows. Cottonwoods

evolved to release seeds at the same time that high spring flows deposit nutrient-rich

sediment to enhance germination and seedling survival. Thus, the timing and intensity of

flows is critical to the persistence of riparian vegetation. Flood-control and water supply

projects have resulted in hydrologic alterations that have changed the species composition,

structure, and extent of riparian habitats. In addition, most rivers have been channelized and

confined by levees, which limits the area available to support riparian habitat. These changes

have resulted in the reduction of widespread riparian habitat in the Central Valley.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-62 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

The structural and compositional diversity, abundant food resources, and availability of water

in valley foothill riparian habitat make this habitat particularly valuable to wildlife. Wildlife

species diversity is often higher in riparian habitats than in adjacent habitats. Many resident

birds, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals breed in riparian habitats, and other species

frequent this habitat in winter or during migration (Sanders et al., 1985). Special-status

species associated with riparian habitats in the SRSCs service area include the valley

elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocercus californicus dimorphus), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo

swainsoni), and western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis).

Annual Grassland. Annual grassland is a common habitat type in the SRSCs

service area. Historically, grasslands in the Central Valley were dominated by native perennial grasses such as needlegrass. Currently, most grasslands in the area are dominated by

introduced annual grasses of Mediterranean origin and a mixture of native and introduced

forbs. Introduced annual grasses are the dominant plant species and include wild oats (Arena

sp.), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut brome (Bromus rigidus), red brome (Bromus

rubens), barley (Hordeum sp.), and foxtail (Hordeum murinum). Annual native forbs also

occur in annual grassland habitat and include filaree (Erodium sp.), California poppy

(Eschscholtzia californica), owl’s clover (Gilia spp.), tarweed (Holocarpha virgata) and

various lupines (Lupinus spp.). Yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), a noxious weed,

has invaded many annual grassland habitats and degraded their quality for wildlife and as

livestock pasture. Annual grassland habitat merges with valley oak and blue oak woodlands,

occurring where soil moisture is insufficient to support tree growth or is suppressed because

of grazing.

Many species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians use annual grasslands. Raptors,

such as ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis), red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), white-tailed

kites (Elanus leucurus), American kestrels (Falco sparverius), and northern harriers (Circus

cyaneus) commonly forage in annual grasslands. Short-eared owls (Asio flammeus) and

burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) forage and breed in this habitat. Horned larks

(Eremophila alpestris), western meadowlarks (Sturnella neglecta), and savannah sparrows

(Passerculus sandwichensis) are other common bird species. Characteristic reptiles and

amphibians include western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis), common garter snakes

(Thamnophis sirtalis), and western rattlesnakes (Rotalus viridis). Common mammals include

black-tailed jackrabbits (Lepus californicus), California ground squirrels (Spermophilus

beecheyi), California voles (Microtus californicus), badgers (Taxidea taxus), coyotes (Canis

latrans), and Botta’s pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae). A number of special-status species

use annual grassland habitat, including white-tailed kite, burrowing owl, and prairie falcon

(Falco mexicanus).

Valley Oak Woodland. Valley oak woodland can occur throughout much of the

Central Valley and into the Sierra Nevada foothills up to an elevation of about 2,000 feet.

The overstory canopy of this habitat type is almost exclusively valley oak. California

sycamore, black walnut (Juglans californica), interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii), boxelder

(Acer negundo) and blue oak occur sporadically. Shrubs such as poison-oak (Toxicodendron

diversilobum), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica) can

occur in the understory; although, typically, the understory is composed of annuals such as
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-63 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

wild oats, bromegrass (Bromus sp.), barley (Hordeum sp.), and ryegrass (Lolium sp.) (Mayer

and Laudenslayer, 1988). Valley oak woodland merges with annual grasslands and often

borders agricultural fields. This habitat also occurs adjacent to valley foothill riparian

habitats. As distance from the watercourse increases, tree density declines, thus transitioning

from a forest-like structure, to savanna-like, to grassland.

Like other habitats containing oaks, valley oak woodland is used by a variety of wildlife

species that exploit the acorn food resource. Cavities formed in oaks are also an important

habitat feature for cavity-nesting birds and mammals. Common species inhabiting valley oak

woodland include California quail (Callipepla californica), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo

lineatus), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica),

bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus), mule deer (Odocoileus

hemionus), red-tailed hawk, and white-tailed kite. Special-status species associated with oak

woodland habitats include oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), Lawrence’s goldfish

(Carduelis lawrenci), and Nuttall’s woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii).

Blue Oak Woodland. Blue oak woodland occurs in foothill regions of the SRSCs

service area at elevations of 250 to 3,000 feet (Mayer and Laudenslayer, 1988). Blue oak

(Quercus douglasii) is the dominant overstory species of this habitat, although at the higher

elevations of this habitat’s distribution, gray pine (Pinus sabiniana) becomes an important

overstory species. Where gray pine or other conifers comprise 25 to 49 percent of the

overstory and blue oak comprises at least 50 percent of the overstory canopy, the CWHR

classifies this habitat as Blue Oak - Foothill Pine Woodland. Both CWHR habitat types (Blue

Oak - Foothill Pine Woodland and Blue Oak Woodland) are considered collectively in this

document as “blue oak woodland.” Typical shrub species in blue oak woodland are poisonoak, coffeeberry, redbud (Cercis occidentalis), ceanothus (Ceanothus spp.), and manzanita

(Arctostaphylos spp.) with groundcover consisting of annuals such as bromegrass, wild oats,

foxtail, and filaree (Mayer and Laudenslayer, 1988).

Blue oak woodlands provide habitat for a diversity of wildlife species, although no species

appear to be completely dependent on this habitat type. Verner and Boss (1980) state that

29 species of amphibians and reptiles, 57 species of birds, and 10 species of mammals find

optimal breeding habitat conditions in mature stages of blue oak woodlands. Acorns

produced by blue oaks are an important food resource for a diversity of bird and mammal

species. Typical species inhabiting blue oak woodlands in the SRSCs service area include

scrub jays, yellow-billed magpies (Pica nuttalli), gray squirrels, and California ground

squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi). Special-status species associated with oak woodland

habitats include oak titmouse, Lawrence’s goldfish, and Nuttall’s woodpecker.

Agricultural Habitat. Native habitats in the Sacramento Valley have been largely

replaced by agricultural habitats. The following two primary agricultural types are used to

characterize agricultural habitat in the SRSCs service area: (1) cropland and (2) orchard.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-64 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Cropland. Cropland in the SRSCs service area consists of row and field crops, and

grain crops. Row crops in the SRSCs service area are predominantly tomatoes, sugar beets,

and melons. Grain crops include rice, wheat, and corn. Rice is the predominant crop in the

SRSCs service area.

Agricultural fields have replaced native habitats consisting of grasslands, wetlands, and oak

woodlands. However, some wildlife species have adapted to using agricultural fields.

Pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) and other game birds use tall crops for cover and grain crops

for foraging. Waterfowl and sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) also forage on waste grains

after harvest. Small mammals such as black-tailed jackrabbit and several species of mice are

often abundant in agricultural fields and attract foraging raptors such as red-tailed hawks,

Swainson’s hawks, northern harriers, and white-tailed kites. Special-status species that often

use agricultural fields include Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kites, burrowing owl, and

mountain plover (Charadrius montanus).

Riceland in the Central Valley provides some of the attributes found in seasonal wetlands and

is used by some wetlands-associated species. However, the intensive management of rice

reduces its value relative to natural wetlands. Irrigation ditches used to flood rice fields often

contain dense cattail vegetation and provide habitat for some wetlands-associated species.

Notably, rice fields and the associated water conveyance facilities are important habitat for

the state- and federal-listed giant garter snake.

Orchard. Orchard habitat consists of cultivated fruit- or nut-bearing trees. Typically,

they are open, tree-dominated habitats consisting of a single tree species. This habitat is

planted in a uniform pattern and intensively managed. Understory vegetation is usually

sparse; however, in some areas, grasses or forbs are grown between orchard rows to reduce

erosion. Walnuts and olives are the primary orchard crops in the SRSCs service area.

Wildlife use of orchards is typically limited. Ground squirrels and other small mammals can

inhabit understory areas, and birds such as scrub jays may be seasonally attracted to fruit

orchards. No special-status species rely on orchards or regularly use this habitat type.

Habitat in the Service Areas of the Sacramento River Settlement

Contractors. All of the habitats described above are found within the SRSCs

service area. Blue oak woodland habitat is found primarily within the northern portion of the

SRSCs service area, with large blocks located adjacent to urban and agricultural habitats

(Figure 3-20). The central portion of the SRSCs service area is largely agricultural,

dominated by cropland with a few areas of orchard and vineyard. This portion of the SRSCs

service area also contains some large areas of freshwater emergent wetlands at the federal

wildlife refuges and smaller areas of valley-foothill riparian and annual grassland habitats

(Figure 3-21). The southern portion of the SRSCs service area is almost entirely agricultural,

dominated by cropland with a few small areas of orchard and vineyard. A few small patches

of annual grassland and valley-foothill riparian habitats also are found in the southern portion

of the SRSCs service area (Figure 3-22). Acres of each habitat type within selected SRSC

service areas are identified in Table 3-16.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-65 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-16

ACRES OF EACH HABITAT TYPE WITHIN SELECTED SRSC SERVICE AREAS

Habitat Type

Contractor AGS BAR BOP/BOW CRP/IRF FEW OVN URB VOW VRI

ACID 19,493 3,630 9,539 24

GCID 1,909 198 147,307 19,085 4,347 335 39

MID 5,642 1,196

MFWC 10,342 323 118

NCMWC 39,765 53 144

PMWC 2,963

Pleasant Grove-Verona 7,429

PCGID 11,803 269 <1

PID 16,205 84

RD 1004 942 21,805 1,097 47 344

RD 108 189 58,467 163

City of Redding 21,294 538 16,162 770

SMWC 51,118

Tisdale Irrigation and

Drainage Co.

2,409

Notes:

AGS = Annual Grassland

BAR = Barren

BOP/BOW = Blue Oak-Foothill Pine/Blue Oak Woodland

CRP/IRF = Cropland/Irrigated Row and Field Crops

FEW = Freshwater Emergent Wetland

OVN = Orchard and Vineyard

URB = Urban

VOW = Valley Oak Woodland

VRI = Valley-Foothill Riparian

Special-status Wildlife Species. Many special-status wildlife species potentially

use habitats in the SRSCs service area. The Service provided a list of species that are

federally listed or are considered species of concern with the potential to occur in the SRSCs

service area. This list was reviewed to identify species that use one or more habitats in the

SRSCs service area. Species associated with habitats that do not occur in the service areas of

the SRSC and CDMWC would not be affected by the Preferred Alternative and alternatives

and were not further considered. In addition to the federal-listed species and species of

concern, state-listed species and California Species of Special Concern with the potential to

occur in the SRSCs service area were identified. Table 3-17 lists the special-status wildlife

species with the potential to occur in the SRSCs service area, each species’ state and federal

status, and the general habitat types used by each species. The biological effects of project

alternatives on federally designated critical habitat for wildlife and plants are very minor

because there are no major changes anticipated in on-farm practices or cropping pattern.

Simply put, the modest changes to system operations were not deemed to result in significant
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-66 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

changes to aquatic habitat; therefore, potential effects on endangered species were also

deemed minimal.

TABLE 3-17

SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE

SRSC SERVICE AREAS

Species Status General Habitat Association

LISTED AND PROPOSED SPECIES

BIRDS

bald eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Federal – T

State – E; FP

Open-water habitats, lakes, rivers, and marshes

bank swallow

Riparia riparia

Federal – none

State – T

Riparian areas, nest in friable soils of vertical

streambanks

greater sandhill crane

Grus canadensis tabida

Federal – none

State – T

Freshwater wetlands and irrigated fields

little willow flycatcher

Empidonax traillii brewsteri

Federal – none

State – E

Montane riparian areas and wet meadows, in dense

willows

mountain plover

Charadrius montanus

Federal – PT

State – CSC

Agricultural fields

Peregrine falcon

Falco peregrinus anatum

Federal – D

State – E

Wetlands, lakes, rivers, grasslands, and agricultural

fields

Swainson’s hawk

Bueto swainsoni

Federal – none

State – T

Mature riparian forests, oak groves, agricultural fields,

and grasslands

western yellow-billed cuckoo

Coccyzus americanus occidentalis

Federal – C

State – E

Riparian forests with abundant canopy cover of willow

and cottonwood

REPTILES

giant garter snake

Thamnophis gigas

Federal – T

State – T

Wetlands, sloughs, irrigation ditches, rice fields

AMPHIBIANS

California red-legged frog

Rana aurora draytonii

Federal – T

State – CSC

Streams, ponds, marshes, and stock ponds

INVERTEBRATES

conservancy fairy shrimp

Branchinecta conservatio

Federal – E

State – none

Vernal pools

valley elderberry longhorn beetle

Desmocercus californicus

dimorphus

Federal – T

State – none

Elderberry shrubs in riparian areas, savannas, and

woodlands

vernal pool fairy shrimp

Branchinecta lynchi

Federal – T

State – none

Vernal pools

vernal pool tadpole shrimp

Lepidurus packardi

Federal – E

State – none

Vernal pools

OTHER SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES

BIRDS

Aleutian Canada goose

Branta canadensis leucopareia

Federal – D

State – none

Freshwater wetlands and agricultural fields

black swift Federal – SC Coastal bluffs and mountain canyons
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-67 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-17

SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE

SRSC SERVICE AREAS

Species Status General Habitat Association

Cypseloides niger State – CSC

California horned lark

Eremophila alpestris actia

Federal – none

State – CSC

Grasslands and open woodlands

California thrasher

Toxostoma redivivum

Federal – SC

State – none

Chaparral, riparian forest, and scrub

Cooper’s hawk

Accipiter cooperii

Federal – none

State – CSC

Woodlands, riparian forests, and agricultural fields

ferruginous hawk

Buteo regalis

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Grasslands and agricultural fields

golden eagle

Aquila chrysaetos

Federal – none

State – CSC; FP

Grasslands, open woodlands, chaparral, wetlands, and

agricultural areas

Lawrence’s goldfinch

Carduelis lawrencei

Federal – SC

State – none

Oak woodlands

Lewis’ woodpecker

Melanerpes lewis

Federal – SC

State – none

Open woodlands, savannas, and riparian areas

loggerhead shrike

Lanius ludovicianus

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Grasslands, savannas, and chaparral

long-billed curlew

Numenius americanus

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Wetlands and irrigated agricultural fields

northern harrier

Circus cyaneus

Federal – none

State – CSC

Marshes, grasslands, and agricultural fields

Nuttall’s woodpecker

Picoides nuttallii

Federal – SLC

State – none

Riparian forest and oak woodland

oak titmouse

Baeolophus inornatus

Federal – SLC

State – none

Riparian forest and oak woodland

osprey

Pandion haliaetus

Federal – none

State – CSC

Open water habitats, lakes, and rivers

prairie falcon

Falco mexicanus

Federal – none

State – CSC

Grasslands, agricultural fields, river embankment, and

open savannas

purple martin

Progne subis

Federal – none

State – CSC

Grasslands, wet meadows, wetlands, woodlands, and

riparian areas

rufus hummingbird

Selasphorus rutus

Federal – SC

State – none

Riparian areas, open woodlands, chaparral, orchards,

and gardens

sharp-shinned hawk

Accipiter striatus

Federal – none

State – CSC

Woodlands, riparian forests, and shrub thickets

short-eared owl

Asio flammeus

Federal – none

State – CSC

Annual grasslands and wetlands

tri-colored blackbird

Agelaius tricolor

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Wetlands in dense emergent vegetation

Vaux’s swift

Chaetura vauxi

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Mixed oak and conifer woodlands, forage over

grasslands, lakes, and streams

western burrowing owl

Athene cunicularia hypougea

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Grasslands, pastures, agricultural fields, road

embankments, and near open urban areas
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-68 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-17

SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE

SRSC SERVICE AREAS

Species Status General Habitat Association

white-faced Ibis

Plegadis chihi

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Freshwater wetlands and irrigated fields

white-tailed kite

Elanus leucurus

Federal – SC

State – FP

Grasslands, oak savannas, and woodlands, and open

riparian areas and agricultural fields

yellow-breasted chat

Icteria virens

Federal – none

State – CSC

Riparian areas

yellow warbler

Dendroica petechia

Federal – none

State – CSC

Riparian areas

REPTILES

California horned lizard

Phrynosoma coronatum frontale

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Grasslands, chaparral, and riparian areas

San Joaquin coachwhip

Masticophis flagellum ruddocki

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Grasslands, chaparral habitat

western pond turtle

Emys (Clemmys) marmorata

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Wetlands, ponds, irrigation ditches, rivers, and streams

AMPHIBIANS

California tiger salamander

Ambystoma californiense

Central California DPSa

Federal – PT

State – CSC

Vernal pools and associated grasslands

foothill yellow-legged frog

Rana boylii

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Large streams with open gravel bars and rocks

western spadefoot toad

Spea (Scaphiopus) hammondii

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Quiet streams and pools in grasslands and woodlands

INVERTEBRATES

Antioch Dunes anthicid beetle

Anthicus antiochensis

Federal – SC

State –none

Sandbars and sandy riparian areas

California linderiella fairy shrimp

Linderiella occidentalis

Federal – SC

State – none

Vernal pools

midvalley fairy shrimp

Branchinecta mesovallensis

Federal – SC

State – none

Vernal pools

Sacramento anthicid beetle

Anthicus sacramento

Federal – SC

State – none

Sandbars and sandy riparian areas

Sacramento Valley tiger beetle

Cicindela hirticollis abrupta

Federal – SC

State – none

Sandy soils along rivers, streams, and lakes

MAMMALS

fringed myotis

Myotis thysanodes

Federal – SC

State – none

Foothill woodlands and mixed conifer-hardwood forests

greater western mastiff bat

Eumops perotis californicus

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Grasslands, chaparral, woodlands and conifer forests

long-eared myotis

Myotis evotis

Federal – SC

State – none

Chaparral, woodlands, and conifer forests

long-legged myotis

Myotis volans

Federal – SC

State – none

Chaparral, woodlands, and conifer forests
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-69 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-17

SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE

SRSC SERVICE AREAS

Species Status General Habitat Association

Marysville Heerman’s kangaroo rat

Dipodomys californicus eximus

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Grasslands

pale big-eared bat

Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Grasslands, chaparral, woodlands, and conifer forests

San Joaquin pocket mouse

Perognathus inornatus inornatus

Federal – SC

State – none

Grasslands and oak savannas

small-footed myotis

Myotis ciliolabrum

Federal – SC

State – none

Open forests, woodlands, and chaparral

spotted bat

Euderma maculatum

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Grasslands and mixed conifer forests

Townsend’s western big-eared bat

Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Grasslands, chaparral, woodlands, and conifer forests

Yuma myotis

Myotis yumanensis

Federal – SC

State – none

Open forests and woodlands, and open waters

a

DPS = Distinct Population Segment

Notes:

Federal: E = Endangered

T = Threatened

PT = Proposed Threatened

SC = Species of Concern

SLC = Species of Concern

D = Delisted

C = Candidate for Federal Listing

State: E = Endangered

T = Threatened

CSC = California Species of Concern

FP = California Fully Protected

Special-status Plant Species. Many special-status plant species have the

potential to occur in the SRSCs service area. The Service provided a list of species that are

federally listed or are considered species of concern with the potential to occur in the SRSCs

service area. This list was reviewed to identify species that occur in one or more habitats in

the SRSCs service area. Species associated with habitats or environmental conditions that do

not occur in the service areas of the SRSC and CDMWC would not be affected by the

Preferred Alternative and alternatives and were not further considered. In addition to the

federal-listed species and species of concern, state-listed species with the potential to occur in

the SRSCs service area were identified. Table 3-18 lists the special-status plant species with

the potential to occur in the SRSCs service area, each species’ state and federal status, and

the general habitats and conditions each species prefers.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-70 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-18

SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE SRSC

SERVICE AREAS

Species Status General Habitat Associations

LISTED AND PROPOSED SPECIES

Bogg’s Lake hedge hyssop

Gratiola heterosepala

Federal – none

State – E

CNPS – 1B

Vernal pools

Butte County meadowfoam

Limnathes floccosa ssp. californica

Federal – E

State – E

CNPS – 1B

Vernal pools

Greene’s tuctoria

Tuctoria greenei

Federal – E

State – R

CNPS – 1B

Vernal pools

hairy Orcutt grass

Orcuttia pilosa

Federal – E

State – E

CNPS – 1B

Vernal pools

Indian Valley brodiaea

Brodiaea coronaria ssp. rosea

Federal – none

State – E

CNPS – 1B

Chaparral, woodlands, and conifer

forests/serpentine

palmate bracted bird’s-beak

Cordylanthus palmatus

Federal – E

State – E

CNPS – 1B

Grassland and scrub habitats

slender Orcutt grass

Orcuttia tenuis

Federal – T

State – E

CNPS – 1B

Vernal pools

OTHER SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES

Stony Creek spurge

Chamaesyce ocellata ssp. rattanii

Federal – SLC

State – none

CNPS – 1B

Chaparral and grassland

silky cryptantha

Cryptantha crinita

Federal – SC

State – none

CNPS – 1B

Riparian areas and gravelly streambeds

Henderson’s bent grass

Agrostis hendersonii

Federal – SC

State – none

CNPS – 3

Vernal pools and grasslands

woolly meadowfoam

Limnanthes floccosa ssp. floccosa

Federal – none

State – none

CNPS – 4

Vernal pools and wet meadows

Red Bluff dwarf rush

Juncus leiospermus var. leiospermus

Federal – SC

State – none

CNPS – 1B

Vernal pools and wet meadows, riparian areas,

chaparral, and woodlands

Colusa layia

Layia septentrionalis

Federal – SLC

State – none

CNPS – 1B

Serpentine soils in chaparral, woodlands, and

grasslands

adobe lily

Fritillaria pluriflora

Federal – SC

State – none

CNPS – 1B

Grasslands, chaparral, and woodlands

Hoover’s spurge

Chamaesyce hooveri

Federal – T

State – none

CNPS – 1B

Vernal pools
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-71 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-18

SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE SRSC

SERVICE AREAS

Species Status General Habitat Associations

legenere

Legenere limosa

Federal – SC

State – none

CNPS – 1B

Vernal pools

red-flowered lotus

Lotus rubriflorus

Federal – SC

State – none

CNPS – 1B

Woodlands and grasslands

Ahart’s paronychia

Paronychia ahartii

Federal – SC

State – none

CNPS – 1B

Woodlands, grasslands, and vernal pools

Heckard’s pepper-grass

Lepidium latipes var. heckardii

Federal – SLC

State – none

CNPS – 1B

Grasslands

San Joaquin spearscale

Atriplex joaquiniana

Federal – SC

State – none

CNPS – 1B

Scrub habitat, grasslands, and meadows

brittlescale

Atriplex depressa

Federal – SC

State – none

CNPS – 1B

Vernal pools, grasslands, and scrub habitat

lesser saltscale

Atriplex minuscula

Federal – SC

State – none

CNPS – 1B

Alkaline sandy soils in scrub and grassland

habitats

heartscale

Atriplex cordulata

Federal – SC

State – none

CNPS – 1B

Alkaline sandy soils in scrub and grassland

habitats

subtle orache

Atriplex subtilis

Federal – SLC

State – none

CNPS – 1B

Grasslands

vernal pool saltbush

Atriplex persistens

Federal – SC

State – none

CNPS – 1B

Vernal pools

alkali milk-vetch

Astragalus tener var. tener

Federal – SC

State – none

CNPS – 1B

Vernal pools and grasslands

Ferris’ milkvetch

Astragalus tener var. ferrisiae

Federal – SC

State – none

CNPS – 1B

Grasslands

pink creamsacs

Castilleja rubicundula ssp.

rubicundula

Federal – SLC

State – none

CNPS – 1B

Serpentine soils in chaparral, grassland, and

woodland habitats

little mousetail

Myosurus minimus ssp. apus

Federal – SC

State – none

CNPS – 3

Grasslands and vernal pools

valley sagittaria

Sagittaria sanfordii

Federal – SC

State – none

CNPS – 1B

Wetlands

Baker’s navarretia

Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri

Federal – SC

State – none

Woodlands, open conifer forests, grasslands,

and vernal pools
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-72 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-18

SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE SRSC

SERVICE AREAS

Species Status General Habitat Associations

CNPS – 1B

Notes:

CNPS = California Native Plant Society

Federal: E = Endangered

T = Threatened

SC = Species of Concern (Former Category 2 Candidates)

SLC = Species of Local Concern

State: E = Endangered

T = Threatened

R = Rare

CNPS: 1B = Rare or Endangered in California and elsewhere

2 = Rare or Endangered in California, more common elsewhere

3 = Additional information needed to determine status

4= Plants of Limited distribution

Environmental Consequences. The effects of Alternatives 1 through 5 on

terrestrial biological resources of the SRSCs service area are compared to conditions under

the No Action Alternative.

No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative involves renewal of delivery

contracts to SRSCs and the CDMWC with no changes in contract provisions, including total

contract amounts, relative to those included in the original Settlement Agreements.

Alternative 1. Alternative 1 would not significantly affect terrestrial biological

resources of the SRSCs service area, when compared to the No Action Alternative.

The total volume of delivered water (Base Supply and Project Water) would decrease from

2,316 to 2,227 KAFY (4 percent reduction total). Such a reduction would be realized with

reductions in contract totals to ACID and SMWC. It is assumed that use of the contracted

CVP water by the SRSC would continue to be managed in the same manner under

Alternative 1 as under the No Action Alternative.

Reductions in water use by ACID and SMWC could negatively impact terrestrial resources

associated with drain and canal habitat, and with agricultural crops. Such impacts assume

substantial changes in the nature and character of these habitats with less water delivered.

Water needs analyses conducted by Reclamation, however, showed that both ACID and

SMWC have not “...diverted the increments of water [they are entitled to] in recent years.”

(CH2M HILL, 2003). In fact, historical diverted volumes are similar to those volumes

proposed after contract reductions (CH2M HILL, 2003, Appendix D). If implemented,

reductions in contract volumes to these contractors would not pose adverse effects to

terrestrial resources of the service area because in-district operations would be essentially the

same as under current conditions.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-73 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Alternative 2. Terrestrial biological resources in the SRSCs service area under

Alternative 2 would be identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative during years

with full contract delivery. During drought conditions, when contract cutbacks would occur,

less water would be diverted from the Sacramento River than under No Action, although total

irrigated crop acreage would remain unchanged; therefore, on-farm habitat and in-drain

habitat would be effectively the same as under No Action. Terrestrial habitat may be

incrementally reduced between diversion points and on-farm application, but this reduction

would be de-minimis, because canals would be operated with the same water surface

elevations as No Action. Therefore, even if the volume of diversion were less, the amount of

habitat in canals would be the same because the canals would still convey water to the fields

throughout the normal irrigation season. Additional water available for re-allocation during

the additional drought years could be available for habitat improvements, at refuges or other

locations, thus providing a potential benefit. However, any re-allocation would be evaluated

on a case-by-case basis during yearly operational planning activities.

There are no adverse impacts associated with this alternative, although benefits are feasible if

water is re-allocated for terrestrial habitat.

Seasonal Groundwater Drawdown. As discussed in Groundwater section, increased

pumping could occur during dry years within the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin.

Increased pumping activities would occur in association with cutbacks and could result in

temporary drawdown of groundwater levels, which could ultimately result in a reduction in

local streamflow, affecting associated riparian vegetation.

The Sacramento River Riparian Vegetation GIS showed a total of 9,064 acres of vegetation

along the Sacramento River in the project area. Of this acreage, 4,980 acres are Great Valley

cottonwood riparian forest, Great Valley mixed riparian forest, and Great Valley riparian

scrub. If pumping were to increase as a result of this alternative, it is likely that most of the

riparian vegetation would experience minor reductions in groundwater elevations, but not

enough to negatively affect acreage. An estimated 4,741 acres of riparian vegetation would

experience a reduction in groundwater elevations at the end of the pumping season, again, not

enough to affect acreage. The small change in extent of altered groundwater levels is not

likely to cause an adverse impact to riparian vegetation.

Alternative 3. Terrestrial biological resources in the SRSCs service area under

Alternative 3 would be identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 3

would not alter current CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities,

or the maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSC.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSC would continue to be managed

in the same manner under Alternative 3 as under the No Action Alternative.

There are no adverse impacts associated with this alternative.

Alternative 4. Terrestrial biological resources in the SRSCs service area under

Alternative 4 would be identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative during years

with full contract delivery. During drought conditions, when contract cutbacks would occur,

less water would be diverted from the Sacramento River than under No Action, although total

irrigated crop acreage would remain unchanged; therefore, on-farm habitat and in-drain
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-74 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

habitat would be effectively the same as under No Action. Terrestrial habitat might be

incrementally reduced between diversion points and on-farm application, but this reduction

would be de-minimis, because canals would be operated with the same water surface

elevations as No Action. Therefore, even if the volume of diversion were less, the amount of

habitat in canals would be the same because the canals would still convey water to the fields

throughout the normal irrigation season. Additional water available for re-allocation during

the additional drought years could be available for habitat improvements, at refuges or other

locations, thus providing a potential benefit. However, any theoretical re-allocation would be

evaluated on a case-by-case basis during yearly operational planning activities.

There are no adverse impacts associated with this alternative, although benefits are feasible if

water is re-allocated for terrestrial habitat.

Seasonal Groundwater Drawdown. As discussed in the Groundwater section,

increased pumping could occur during dry years within the Sacramento Valley Groundwater

Basin. Increased pumping activities associated with these cutbacks would result in temporary

drawdown of groundwater levels, which would ultimately result in a reduction in local

streamflow, affecting associated riparian vegetation.

The Sacramento River Riparian Vegetation GIS showed a total of 9,064 acres of vegetation

along the Sacramento River in the project area. Of this acreage, 4,980 acres are Great Valley

cottonwood riparian forest, Great Valley mixed riparian forest, and Great Valley riparian

scrub. If pumping were to increase as a result of this alternative, it is likely that most of the

riparian vegetation would experience minor reductions in groundwater elevations. An

estimated 4,741 acres of riparian vegetation would experience a reduction in groundwater

elevations at the end of the pumping season. In neither case would the additional pumping

affect habitat acreage. The small change in groundwater levels is not likely to cause an

adverse impact to riparian vegetation.

Alternative 5. Terrestrial biological resources in the SRSCs service area under

Alternative 5 would be identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative during years

with full contract delivery. During drought conditions, when contract cutbacks would occur,

less water would be diverted from the Sacramento River than under No Action, although total

irrigated crop acreage would remain unchanged; therefore, on-farm habitat and in-drain

habitat would be effectively the same as under No Action. Terrestrial habitat may be

incrementally reduced between diversion points and on-farm application, but this reduction

would be de-minimis, because canals would be operated with the same water surface

elevations as No Action. Therefore, even if the volume of diversion were less, the amount of

habitat in canals would be the same because the canals would still convey water to the fields

throughout the normal irrigation season. Additional water available for re-allocation during

the additional drought years could be available for habitat improvements, at refuges or other

locations, thus providing a potential benefit. However, any theoretical re-allocation would be

evaluated on a case-by-case basis during yearly operational planning activities.

There are no adverse impacts associated with this alternative, although benefits are feasible if

water is re-allocated for terrestrial habitat.

Seasonal Groundwater Drawdown. As discussed in the Groundwater section,

increased pumping within the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin could occur during dry
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-75 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

years within the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin. Increased pumping activities

associated with these cutbacks would result in temporary drawdown of groundwater levels,

which would ultimately result in a reduction in local streamflow, affecting associated riparian

vegetation.

The Sacramento River Riparian Vegetation GIS showed a total of 9,064 acres of vegetation

along the Sacramento River in the project area. Of this acreage, 4,980 acres are Great Valley

cottonwood riparian forest, Great Valley mixed riparian forest, and Great Valley riparian

scrub. If pumping were to increase as a result of this alternative, it is likely that most of the

riparian vegetation would experience minor reductions in groundwater elevations. An

estimated 4,741 acres of riparian vegetation would experience a reduction in groundwater

elevations at the end of the pumping season. In neither case would pumping affect habitat.

The small change in groundwater levels is not likely to cause an adverse impact to riparian

vegetation.

Aquatic Biological Resources

Affected Environment.

 This section describes the various types and characteristics of aquatic habitats in the SRSCs

service area, the fish species inhabiting the SRSCs service area, and the distribution and

habitat requirements of special-status fish species that occur in the SRSCs service area.

Aquatic Habitats. Aquatic habitats in the SRSCs service area fall into two broad

types: riverine and lacustrine.

Riverine Habitat. Riverine habitat is aquatic habitat characterized by moving water.

The nature and characteristics of riverine habitat can vary considerably. Depending on the

size of the drainage basin and topography, riverine habitats can range from large, slowmoving water to small, fast-moving streams found in higher elevation drainages.

Historically, in the Central Valley, smaller creeks and rivers typically were dry in the late

summer. Only the largest rivers were consistently perennial. With construction of reservoirs

on most of the larger streams and rivers in the Central Valley, flows have been regulated,

resulting in more consistent availability of aquatic habitat within and among years. Aquatic

and emergent vegetation is typically sparse in riverine habitats and limited to the margins and

backwaters of the river in areas of shallow, slow-moving water.

In the SRSCs service area, riverine habitat occurs as large, perennial rivers; small, perennial

streams; and small, intermittent streams. The Sacramento River is the dominant riverine

habitat in the SRSCs service area. Other perennial rivers and streams in or near the SRSCs

service area include Clear, Cottonwood, Cow, Butte, Battle, and Bear Creeks, and the Feather

River. Intermittent streams include Stony and Thomes, among others. These intermittent and

perennial streams are tributaries to the Sacramento River.

In addition to the natural watercourses, the SRSCs service area contains an extensive network

of canals and ditches. These canals and ditches were created and are maintained to convey

water to agricultural users and to collect and carry drainwater from the agricultural fields

after application. Canals and drains provide aquatic habitat of widely varying characteristics

within and among years. Depending on the frequency and intensity of maintenance activities
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-76 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

and the consistency of water availability, some canals and drains can support emergent

vegetation or bank vegetation. Water depth, velocity, and water quality also vary dramatically

depending on the channel’s size and use.

Lacustrine Habitat. Lacustrine habitats are inland depressions containing standing

water. They vary in size and characteristics and include natural lakes, reservoirs, dammed

river channels, and ponds. This aquatic habitat type can be associated with rivers and

freshwater emergent wetlands. Shallow, temporary habitats may support rooted plants,

whereas deep permanent waterbodies are primarily open water. Permanent open waters can

support emergent and aquatic plants in shallow areas along the margins of the waterbody.

Lacustrine habitat is uncommon in the SRSCs service area. Lacustrine habitat has been

created behind diversion dams on the Sacramento River and behind several dams on

tributaries to the Sacramento River. The large CVP and State Water Project reservoirs also

provide lacustrine habitat, but these features occur outside of the SRSCs service area.

Essential Fish Habitat. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) mandates federal action agencies that fund,

permit, or carry out activities that may adversely impact the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) of

federally managed fish species to consult with National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Association-Fisheries (NOAA-Fisheries) regarding the potential adverse effects of their

actions on EFH (Section 305 (b)(2)). Section 600.920(a)(1) of the EFH regulations states that

consultations are required of federal action agencies for renewals, reviews, or substantial

revisions of actions if the renewal, review, or revision may adversely affect EFH. The EFH

regulations require that federal action agencies obligated to consult on EFH provide NOAAFisheries with a written assessment of the effects of their action on EFH (50 CFR 600.920).

The statute also requires federal action agencies receiving EFH Conservation

Recommendations from NOAA-Fisheries to provide a detailed written response to NOAAFisheries within 30 days upon receipt detailing how they intend to avoid, mitigate, or offset

the impact of the activity on EFH (Section 305(b)(4)(B)). NOAA-Fisheries may also include

recommendations for other species.

EFH is the aquatic habitat (water and substrate) necessary to fish for spawning, breeding,

feeding, or growth to maturity that would allow a level of production needed to support a

long-term, sustainable commercial fishery and contribute to a healthy ecosystem. “Waters”

include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that

are used by fish, and can include areas historically used by fish in addition to areas currently

used. “Substrate” includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and

associated biological communities. “Necessary” means habitat required to support a

sustainable fishery and a healthy ecosystem; and “spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to

maturity” covers a species’ full life cycle.

Because of their commercial value, consultation is required with NOAA-Fisheries on all runs

of Chinook salmon, including the following:

• Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon

• Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon

• Central Valley fall-/late-fall–run Chinook salmon
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-77 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Effects of the project on EFH are incorporated into the analysis for the listed and candidate

species. A separate analysis to address potential effects on EFH was unnecessary.

Fish Resources. Fish resources of the SRSCs service area include native and nonnative anadromous and resident species. Several native anadromous and resident species have

been listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or

the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or are candidates for listing.

Listed and Candidate Species. Five fish species or Evolutionarily Significant

Units (ESU) listed under the ESA have the potential to occur in watercourses in the SRSCs

service area (see Table 3-19). In addition to these listed species, two species that are

candidates for federal listing have the potential to occur in the SRSCs service area

(Table 3-19).

Central Valley Winter-run Chinook Salmon. Chinook salmon are anadromous,

spawning in freshwater rivers and streams but spending most their life in the ocean. Adult

winter-run Chinook salmon generally spend 1 to 3 years in the ocean before returning to their

natal streams to spawn. Upstream migrants appear during December on the upper Sacramento

River (Vogel and Marine, 1991). Because there are no fish passage facilities at Keswick

Dam, the adults tend to migrate to and hold in deep pools between Red Bluff Diversion Dam

(RBDD) and Keswick Dam before initiating spawning activities. The primary spawning

grounds in the Sacramento River are above the RBDD.

TABLE 3-19

LISTED AND CANDIDATE FISH SPECIES POTENTIALLY

OCCURRING IN THE SRSC SERVICE AREAS

Species Status

Central Valley winter-run Chinook salmon

Onchorhynchus tshawytscha

Federal – E

State – E

Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon

Onchorhynchus tshawytscha

Federal – T

State – T

Central Valley fall-/late-fall-run Chinook salmon

Onchorhynchus tshawytscha

Federal – C

State – CSC

Central Valley steelhead

Onchorhynchus mykiss

Federal – T

State – none

delta smelt

Hypomesus transpacificus

Federal – T

State – T

green sturgeon

Acipenser medirostris

Federal – C

State – CSC

Sacramento splittail

Pogonichthys macrolepidotus

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Notes:

E – Listed as endangered under the federal or state Endangered Species Acts

T – Listed as threatened under the federal or state Endangered Species Acts

C – Candidate for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal or state Endangered

Species Acts

CSC – California Species of Special Concern
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-78 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Winter-run Chinook salmon lay their eggs in late summer in the gravel of the stream bottom

where the eggs incubate for an extended time. Depending on water temperature, they

generally hatch within 40 to 60 days of fertilization. After hatching, fry remain in the gravel

for another 2 to 4 weeks before emerging. After emergence, Chinook salmon fry seek out

shallow, nearshore areas with slow currents and good cover. Rearing Chinook salmon feed on

a variety of aquatic and terrestrial insects and other small invertebrates, and newly emerged

fry are sometimes prey to older steelhead. As they grow, juvenile Chinook salmon move to

deeper, swifter water, but continue to use available cover to minimize the risk of being prey

and to reduce energy expenditure. The emigration of juvenile winter-run Chinook salmon

from the upper Sacramento River is highly dependent on streamflow conditions and wateryear type. Storm events may cause pulses of mass emigration.

Prior to construction of Shasta and Keswick Dams, winter-run Chinook salmon spawned in

the upper reaches of the Little Sacramento, McCloud, and lower Pit Rivers

(Moyle et al., 1995). Shasta Dam, completed in the 1940s, blocked access to historical

winter-run spawning grounds in the McCloud River and other areas upstream. However,

cold-water releases from Shasta and Keswick Dams created more favorable spawning and

rearing conditions in the mainstem Sacramento River than existed there prior to dam

construction (Slater, 1963). Since the construction of Keswick Dam, all spawning of winterrun Chinook salmon has occurred downstream of Keswick Dam.

Critical habitat for Central Valley winter-run Chinook salmon was designated on

March 22, 1999. Critical habitat includes the following:

(1) Sacramento River from Keswick Dam in Shasta County (River Mile [RM] 302) to

Chipps Island (RM 0) at the westward margin of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

(2) All waters from Chipps Island westward to Carquinez Bridge including Honker Bay,

Suisun Bay, and Carquinez Strait

(3) All waters of San Pablo Bay westward of the Carquinez Bridge

(4) All waters of San Francisco Bay (north of the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge)

from San Pablo Bay to the Golden Gate Bridge

Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon. Central Valley spring-run Chinook

salmon include all naturally spawned spring-run populations from the Sacramento-San

Joaquin River mainstem and its tributaries (50 CFR Part 17). Spring-run Chinook salmon are

distinguished from the other runs of Central Valley Chinook salmon in the timing of life

history events. Spring-run Chinook salmon adults leave the ocean and enter the Sacramento

River from March to July (Myers et al., 1998). They move into tributaries where they oversummer in deep, cool pools. They prefer to hold in deep pools with moderate velocities and

bedrock substrates.

Gravel beds at the tails of holding pools are used for spawning (Service, 1995). Chinook

salmon lay their eggs in the gravel of the stream bottom where the eggs incubate for an

extended time, depending on water temperature. The length of time required for eggs to

develop and hatch is quite variable, but hatching generally occurs within 40 to 60 days of

fertilization (Vogel and Marine, 1991). After hatching, fry remain in the gravel for another
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-79 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

2 to 4 weeks before emerging. Timing of emergence is variable among drainages and is

strongly influenced by temperature.

After emergence, Chinook salmon fry seek out shallow, nearshore areas with slow currents

and good cover. Rearing Chinook salmon feed on a variety of aquatic and terrestrial insects

and other small invertebrates, and newly emerged fry are sometimes prey to older steelhead.

As they grow to around 75 millimeters long, juvenile Chinook salmon move to deeper,

swifter water, but continue to use available cover to minimize the risk of being preyed upon.

Suitable rearing habitat for spring-run Chinook salmon includes areas with in-stream and

overhead cover in the form of undercut banks, downed trees, and large, overhanging tree

branches. In the Sacramento River, juveniles may begin migrating downstream almost

immediately following emergence or may remain in riverine and/or estuarine habitats

including their natal tributaries, the Sacramento River, non-natal tributaries, and the Delta for

a year or more.

Historically, spring-run Chinook salmon were found throughout the Central Valley, with

substantial populations in the upper and middle reaches of the San Joaquin, American, Yuba,

Feather, Sacramento, McCloud, and Pit Rivers. Naturally spawning populations of spring-run

Chinook salmon in the Central Valley are currently restricted to accessible reaches in the

upper Sacramento, Feather, and Yuba Rivers, and Antelope, Battle, Butte, Clear, Deer, and

Mill Creeks, and other creeks (CDFG, 1998b). Current surveys indicate that spring-run

Chinook in Cottonwood, Battle, Antelope, and Big Chico Creeks are remnant, nonsustaining

populations (DWR, 1997).

Critical habitat for spring-run Chinook salmon was designated on February 16, 2000. Critical

habitat for Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon is designated to include all river

reaches accessible to listed Chinook salmon in the Sacramento River and its tributaries in

California (e.g., Butte and Beegum Creeks). Also included are adjacent riparian zones, as

well as river reaches and estuarine areas of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta; all waters

from Chipps Island westward to Carquinez Bridge including Honker Bay, Grizzly Bay,

Suisun Bay, and Carquinez Strait; all waters of San Pablo Bay westward of the Carquinez

Bridge; and all waters of San Francisco Bay (north of the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge)

from San Pablo Bay to the Golden Gate Bridge.

Central Valley Steelhead. The life history of steelhead differs from that of Pacific

salmon in several ways. First, steelhead do not necessarily die after spawning; a small portion

survive to become repeat spawners. Secondly, juvenile steelhead have a longer freshwater

rearing requirement (usually from 1 to 3 years). Thirdly, both adults and juveniles show more

variability in the length of time they spend in fresh and salt water. Some individuals may

remain in a stream, mature, and even spawn without ever going to sea; others migrate to the

ocean at less than 1 year in age; and some may return to freshwater after spending less than 1

year in the ocean. Central Valley stocks generally return to spawn after 1 to 2 years (Barnhart,

1986; Busby et al., 1996).

Adult steelhead migrate through the mainstem Sacramento from July through March, with

peaks in September and February (Bailey, 1954; Hallock et al., 1961), and spawn primarily

from January through March, although spawning can begin as early as late December and can
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-80 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

extend through April (Hallock et al., 1961). Similar to other salmonids, steelhead lay their

eggs in the gravel of the stream bottom where they incubate for about 3 to 12 weeks. The

length of time required for eggs to develop and hatch is quite variable and depends on water

temperature. After hatching, pre-emergent fry remain in the gravel for another 4 to 6 weeks,

but factors such as redd depth, gravel size, siltation, and temperature can speed or retard this

time (Shapovalov and Taft, 1954).

Steelhead fry usually emerge from the gravel 2 to 8 weeks after hatching (Barnhart, 1986;

Reynolds et al., 1993). Upon emergence, steelhead fry seek out shallow areas along perennial

streambanks. Streamside vegetation is essential for foraging, cover, and habitat diversity.

Juvenile steelhead are generally associated with the bottom of the stream. The majority of

steelhead inhabit riffles during their first year of life, although larger fish will occupy pools

and deeper runs. In winter, juvenile steelhead become inactive and hide in available cover,

which can include woody debris and the interstices between streambed cobbles. After rearing

for 1 to 3 years in freshwater, juvenile steelhead migrate downstream to the ocean.

Sacramento River steelhead generally emigrate as 1-year olds (Barnhart, 1986; Reynolds et

al., 1993). Although juveniles can emigrate downstream to the ocean from November through

May, most Sacramento River steelhead emigrate in the spring and early summer

(Reynolds et al., 1993). Additionally, there is a much smaller peak in the fall

(Hallock et al., 1961).

Historically, steelhead were found throughout most of the tributaries and headwaters of the

Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins. Compared to Chinook salmon, steelhead generally

migrated farther into tributaries and headwater streams where suitable conditions were

available year-round. Dam construction and water diversions during the nineteenth and

twentieth centuries blocked steelhead migration to these preferred spawning and rearing

habitats. Currently, wild steelhead stocks are mostly confined to upper Sacramento River

tributaries such as Antelope, Deer, and Mill Creeks and the Yuba River (McEwan and

Jackson, 1996). Butte Creek and the upper Sacramento, Feather, American, Mokelumne, and

Stanislaus Rivers also contain naturally spawning populations of steelhead (CALFED, 1999).

Critical habitat for the Central Valley steelhead ESU is designated to include all river reaches

accessible to listed steelhead in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries

in California. Also included are adjacent riparian zones, as well as river reaches and estuarine

areas of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta; all waters from Chipps Island westward to

Carquinez Bridge including Honker Bay, Grizzly Bay, Suisun Bay, and Carquinez Strait; all

waters of San Pablo Bay westward of the Carquinez Bridge; and all waters of San Francisco

Bay (north of the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge) from San Pablo Bay to the Golden

Gate Bridge. Excluded are areas of the San Joaquin River upstream of the Merced River

confluence, tribal lands, and areas above specific dams or above longstanding, naturally

impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years).
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-81 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Delta Smelt. Delta smelt are small, slender-bodied fish that tolerate a wide salinity

range. It spawns in freshwater but has been collected from estuarine waters up to 14 parts per

thousand (ppt) salinity (Moyle et al., 1992). For most of its 1-year life span, this species is

associated with the freshwater edge of the mixing zone (saltwater-freshwater interface),

where the salinity is about 2 ppt.

Shortly before spawning, adult Delta smelt migrate upstream from the brackish-water habitat

associated with the mixing zone to disperse widely into river channels and tidally influenced

backwater sloughs. Delta smelt spawn in shallow, fresh, or slightly brackish water upstream

of the mixing zone (Wang, 1991). Most spawning occurs in tidally influenced backwater

sloughs and channel edgewaters (Moyle, 1976; Wang, 1986 and 1991; Moyle et al., 1992).

Although Delta smelt spawning behavior has not been observed in the wild (Moyle et al.,

1992), the adhesive, demersal eggs are thought to attach to substrates such as cattails, tules,

tree roots, and submerged branches. After hatching, larvae are carried downstream where

they rear at the saltwater-freshwater interface.

Delta smelt are endemic to the Suisun Bay upstream through the Delta in Contra Costa,

Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo Counties. The Delta smelt is thought to have

occurred historically from Suisun Bay upstream to at least the Cities of Sacramento on the

Sacramento River and Mossdale on the San Joaquin River.

Designated critical habitat for Delta smelt consists of all water and all submerged lands

below ordinary high water and the entire water column bounded by and contained in Suisun

Bay (including the contiguous Grizzly and Honker Bays); the length of Goodyear, Suisun,

Cutoff, First Mallard (Spring Branch), and Montezuma Sloughs; and the existing contiguous

waters contained within the Delta, as defined in Section 12220 of the California Water Code

(50 CFR Section 17.95).

Sacramento Splittail. Splittail are endemic to the lakes and rivers of the Central

Valley (Moyle et al., 1995). Splittail are primarily freshwater fish, but are tolerant of

moderate salinity and can live in water with salinities of 10 to 18 ppt. Adults migrate

upstream from brackish areas to spawn in freshwater. The onset of spawning seems to be

associated with increasing water temperature and day length between early March and May.

Spawning begins by late January and early February and continues through July, with most

spawning taking place from February through April.

Splittail typically spawn in dead-end sloughs and slow reaches of large rivers and river

floodplains over submerged vegetation. Spawning occurs primarily in the lower river reaches

and flood bypass of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. Shallow, weedy areas inundated

during seasonal flooding provide habitat for adult spawning and foraging and subsequent egg

development and larval and early juvenile rearing.

As flooded habitat disappears, larvae and juveniles use habitat along the margins of the main

river and Delta channels. Although splittail use deeper, open water as they grow, much of the

population continues to use shallow (less than 10 feet) edge habitat as adults (Meng and

Moyle, 1995). Juvenile splittail are commonly found in Delta sloughs in late winter and

spring and are particularly abundant in the vicinity of Montezuma Slough. As summer
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-82 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

progresses, juvenile splittail occupy the deeper, open-water habitats of Suisun and San Pablo

Bays.

Sacramento splittail are found only in California’s Central Valley where they were once

widely distributed. Historically, splittail were found as far north as Redding on the

Sacramento River and as far south as Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River. Splittail were

common in San Pablo Bay and Carquinez Strait following high winter flows until about

1985. In recent times, dams and diversions have increasingly prevented upstream access in

large rivers, and splittail are now restricted to a small portion of their former range. Splittail

are currently confined largely to the Delta, Suisun Bay, Suisun Marsh, and Napa Marsh, but

will use the Sutter, Sacramento, and Yolo bypasses when flooded (Moyle et al., 1995; Natural

Heritage Institute, 1992; Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc., 1993). Splittail enter the lower

reaches of the Feather and American Rivers on occasion and have been reported as far as Red

Bluff on the Sacramento River.

Sacramento splittail is considered a federal and state Species of Concern.

Central Valley Fall-/Late-fall-run Chinook Salmon. Fall-run and late-fall-run

Chinook salmon have similar habitat requirements and life history traits to spring-run and

winter-run Chinook salmon. They differ from these runs mainly in the timing of life history

events. They are anadromous, spending most of their lives in the ocean before returning to

their natal streams to spawn. Fall-run Chinook salmon enter the Sacramento River as early as

July and continue their upstream migration until about December. Late-fall-run Chinook

salmon follow fall-run Chinook salmon, migrating to spawning areas during October through

April. Fall-run Chinook salmon typically spawn between October and December, followed by

late-fall-run Chinook salmon, which spawn from January to April.

Fall-run and late-fall-run Chinook salmon have similar habitat requirements for spawning

and incubation as the other runs of Chinook salmon. As described for spring-run and winterrun Chinook salmon, the length of time required for eggs to hatch and the fry to develop

sufficiently to leave the gravel is quite variable depending on environmental conditions. After

emergence, fry seek out shallow, nearshore areas with slow currents and good cover. Latefall-run Chinook salmon typically rear in their natal streams through the summer and

emigrate in winter (December through February), and fall-run Chinook salmon typically have

left natal streams by June or July depending on environmental conditions.

Fall-run salmon are well distributed in the Central Valley relative to the other runs of

Chinook salmon. The Sacramento, Feather, Yuba, and American Rivers support sizable

spawning populations of fall-run Chinook salmon. They also occur in smaller tributaries to

the Sacramento River as well as in tributaries to the San Joaquin River. Late-fall-run Chinook

salmon spawn in the mainstem Sacramento River as well as in Battle, Cottonwood, Clear,

and Mill Creeks, and Yuba and Feather Rivers. Fall-run Chinook salmon are the most

abundant of the Central Valley Chinook salmon runs, and late-fall-run Chinook salmon are

the least abundant (Moyle et al., 1995).

Fall-run/late-fall-run Chinook salmon currently are candidates for listing under the ESA.

Because this species is not formally listed, critical habitat has not been designated.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-83 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Green Sturgeon. Green sturgeon are anadromous fish migrating into freshwater to

spawn, but spending most of their adult life in the ocean or estuaries. They are believed to

migrate into the Sacramento River for spawning between late February and late July.

Spawning occurs in deep, fast-moving water during March through July (Moyle et al., 1995).

Habitat requirements for spawning are poorly understood, but sturgeon are believed to prefer

large cobble for spawning, although they spawn over a range of substrates. Sturgeon are

broadcast spawners and spawn in areas of deep water with high water velocity. Embryos are

planktonic and develop as they drift downstream. Juveniles typically migrate to the ocean

before 2 years of age (Moyle et al., 1995).

In California, green sturgeon spawn in the mainstem Sacramento River as far north as Red

Bluff and in the Feather River. They are also known to spawn in the Klamath River, and

historically used the Eel River on the north coast of California. Green sturgeon are a

candidate for federally listing. No critical habitat has been designated because they are not

formally listed under the ESA.

Other Anadromous Fish Species. Several other native and introduced species of

anadromous fish occur in the Sacramento River and tributaries in the SRSCs service area.

Native anadromous species include the following:

• river lamprey (Lampetra ayresi)

• Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata)

• white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus)

Non-native anadromous species include striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and American shad

(Alosa sapidissima). Both species were introduced into the Central Valley waterways for

recreational fishing. The anadromous species share a common life history trait of spawning in

freshwater rivers and streams and then migrating to the ocean where they spend most of their

adult lives. All of these species use the Sacramento River; the adults use it for upstream

migration, and the larvae or juveniles use it for downstream migration.

The ecological requirements and distribution of Pacific and river lampreys in California are

poorly understood. They are known to occur in the Sacramento River and have been reported

passing the RBDD during their upstream migrations, but where they spawn has not been

determined. In other parts of their ranges, these species spawn in small tributaries and,

therefore, could spawn in the numerous tributaries to the Sacramento River. Larvae grow and

develop in natal streams for several years.

In California, white sturgeon are known to spawn only in the Feather River and the mainstem

Sacramento River upstream of the confluence with the Feather River. Embryos are planktonic

and carried downstream to rear in the upper reaches of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River

and Suisun-San Pablo Bay estuary. Except during spawning runs, adults are primarily found

in the lower reaches of the Delta and in Suisun, San Pablo, and San Francisco Bays.

American shad and striped bass are broadcast spawners. American shad spawn in the main

channels of major rivers including the Sacramento, American, and Feather Rivers. Juveniles

and adult shad have been documented as far upstream in the Sacramento River as the RBDD.

The Sacramento River between Sacramento and Colusa is a major spawning area for striped
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-84 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

bass. After spawning, adults return to brackish water and saltwater areas. Larvae are carried

downstream where they rear in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Other Resident Fish Species. Most of the resident fish species in SRSCs service

area waterways are non-native species that have been introduced for recreational fishing (see

Table 3-20). Many of these species are well distributed in the Sacramento River and

tributaries. Some species such as carp, catfish, and mosquitofish are able to tolerate a wide

range of aquatic conditions and are found in water delivery canals and agricultural drains.

Other species have more restricted habitat requirements and are only found in portions of the

natural watercourses.

TABLE 3-20

RESIDENT FISH SPECIES IN THE SRSC SERVICE AREAS

Common Name Scientific Name Status

rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Native

hitch Lavinia exilicauda Native

Hardhead Mylopharodon conocephalus Native

California Species of Special Concern

Sacramento pikeminnow Ptychocheilus grandis Native

speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus Native

California roach Hesperoleucus symmetricus Native

Sacramento sucker Catostomus occidentalis Native

tule perch Hysterocarpus traski Native

prickly sculpin Cottus asper Native

riffle sculpin Cottus gulosus Native

Sacramento blackfish Orthodon microlepidotus Native

threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Native

brown trout Salmo trutta Non-native

threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense Non-native

largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides Non-native

spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus Non-native

smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui Non-native

green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus Non-native

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Non-native

redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus Non-native

pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Non-native
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-85 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-20

RESIDENT FISH SPECIES IN THE SRSC SERVICE AREAS

Common Name Scientific Name Status

black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Non-native

white crappie Pomoxis annularis Non-native

channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus Non-native

white catfish Ictalurus catus Non-native

black bullhead Ictalurus melas Non-native

yellow bullhead Ictalurus nalalis Non-native

Goldfish Carassius auratus Non-native

Carp Cyprinus carpio Non-native

Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis Non-native

Environmental Consequences. The effects of Alternatives 1 through 5 on

aquatic biological resources of the SRSCs service area are compared to conditions under the

No Action Alternative.

No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative is described previously in the

Terrestrial Biological Resources section. A total volume of 2,316 KAFY would be contracted

over a 40-year period, as has been done since 1964.

Alternative 1. Alternative 1 would not significantly affect aquatic resources of the

SRSCs service area.

Aquatic biological resources in the SRSCs service area under Alternative 1 would be similar

to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 would not alter current CVP

operations, with the exception of reduced contract amounts to ACID and SMWC.

As discussed previously in the Terrestrial Biological Resources section, reductions in

contracted water volumes to ACID and SMWC would not differ from volumes actually

diverted by these water agencies in recent years. Therefore, no impacts due to water quantity

reductions are anticipated in association with drain habitat, canal habitat, or agricultural

areas.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSCs would continue to be

managed in the same manner under Alternative 1 as under the No Action Alternative.

There are no adverse impacts associated with this alternative.

Alternative 2. Aquatic biological resources in the SRSCs service area under

Alternative 2 would be identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative during years

with full contract delivery. During drought conditions, when contract cutbacks would occur,
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-86 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

less water would be diverted from the Sacramento River than under No Action. Reduced

diversions of water from the Sacramento River may provide a small benefit for in-stream

habitat. The potential availability of re-allocation of water from drought cutbacks to fishery

benefits is a potential benefit, although there is no assurance that the water would be

allocated for fishery enhancement.

There are no adverse impacts associated with this alternative.

Seasonal Groundwater Drawdown. As discussed in the Groundwater section,

increased pumping within the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin could occur during dry

years within the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin. Increased pumping activities

associated with these cutbacks would result in temporary drawdown of groundwater levels,

which would ultimately result in a reduction in local streamflow as groundwater is

intercepted before it can flow into the Sacramento River, affecting associated aquatic species.

However, this effect is exceptionally small (e.g., no measurable at existing gauges) and is

offset by reduced diversions of surface water; therefore, there are no adverse impact

associated with this alternative.

Alternative 3. Aquatic biological resources in the SRSCs service area under

Alternative 3 would be identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 3

would not alter current CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities,

or the maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSC.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSCs would continue to be

managed in the same manner under Alternative 3 as under the No Action Alternative.

There are no adverse impacts associated with this alternative.

Alternative 4. Aquatic biological resources in the SRSCs service area under

Alternative 4 would be identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative during years

with full contract delivery. During drought conditions, when contract cutbacks would occur,

less water would be diverted from the Sacramento River than under No Action. Reduced

diversions of water from the Sacramento River may provide a small benefit for in-stream

habitat. The potential availability of re-allocation of water from drought cutbacks to fishery

benefits is a potential benefit, although there is no assurance that the water would be

allocated for fishery enhancement.

There are no adverse impacts associated with this alternative.

Seasonal Groundwater Drawdown. As discussed in the Groundwater section,

increased pumping within the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin could occur during dry

years within the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin. Increased pumping activities

associated with these cutbacks would result in temporary drawdown of groundwater levels,

which would ultimately result in a reduction in local streamflow as groundwater is

intercepted before it can flow into the Sacramento River, affecting associated aquatic species.

However, this effect is exceptionally small and is offset by reduced diversions of surface

water; therefore, there are no adverse impacts associated with this alternative.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-87 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Alternative 5. Aquatic biological resources in the SRSCs service area under

Alternative 5 would be identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative during years

with full contract delivery. During drought conditions, when contract cutbacks would occur,

less water would be diverted from the Sacramento River than under No Action. Additionally,

cutbacks would occur with more frequency than in other alternatives. During years when the

shortage provisions are activated, reduced diversions of water from the Sacramento River

may provide a small benefit for in-stream habitat. The potential availability of re-allocation of

water from drought cutbacks to fishery benefits is a potential benefit, although there is no

assurance that the water would be allocated for fishery enhancement.

There are no adverse impacts associated with this alternative.

Seasonal Groundwater Drawdown. As discussed in the Groundwater section,

increased pumping within the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin could occur during dry

years within the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin. Increased pumping activities

associated with these cutbacks would result in temporary drawdown of groundwater levels,

which would ultimately result in a reduction in local streamflow as groundwater is

intercepted before it can flow into the Sacramento River, affecting associated aquatic species.

However, this effect is exceptionally small and is offset by reduced diversions of surface

water; therefore, there are no adverse impacts associated with this alternative.

ECONOMICS

Land Use

Agricultural Land Use and Production.

Affected Environment.

Counties and Districts. The Sacramento Valley is an important agricultural region

for both the state of California and the United States. In 1997, the nine Sacramento River

Valley counties contributed more than 8 percent, by value, of California’s agricultural

production. California producers account for about 10 percent of total United States

agricultural exports. These exports represent almost 25 percent of the gross farm income of

the state. Almost 80 percent of the irrigated land in California is located in the Central

Valley. Water deliveries for agriculture average about 22.5 MAF per year, with the CVP

providing about 25 percent, the State Water Project about 10 percent, local surface water

rights about 30 percent, and groundwater about 35 percent. Most districts that receive CVP

supplies also use other supplies such as groundwater. Use of non-CVP sources varies

annually because of changes in weather and crop market conditions.

Agriculture accounts for the largest land use in each of the counties that are in the SRSCs

service area (see Table 3-21). The region produces a wide variety of crops including rice,

grains, tomatoes, field crops, fruits, and nuts. Sacramento Valley crop production reached

$1.9 billion in 1997, with rice, tomatoes, and orchard crops providing the highest revenues.

Approximately 10 percent of the applied water within the Sacramento Valley is provided

through CVP contracts.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-88 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

The counties within the Sacramento Valley that are within the SRSCs service area include the

following:

• Shasta

• Tehama

• Glenn

• Butte

• Colusa

• Sutter

• Yolo

• Sacramento

• Yuba

Shasta County. Shasta County’s General Plan (updated 1998) identifies four major

categories of land uses: urban, rural, agricultural, and timber. Urban land is primarily

contained in the Cities of Redding, Shasta Lake, and Anderson, with small unincorporated

communities throughout the county.

Shasta County has a total area of approximately 2,428,000 acres. Preservation of agricultural

lands to support full-time and part-time agricultural operations, and to protect future agricultural operations is a stated objective in the Agricultural Element of the Shasta County

General Plan. In 1997, the total land area in farm production was 316,743 acres. Although a

large portion of the county’s most valuable resources are in timberland, a significant portion

of the county’s land area is under agricultural production. Shasta County’s highest reported

crop type in 1997 was hay, accounting for approximately 13,000 acres.

Tehama County. With a total land area of 1,888,640 acres, Tehama County focuses

largely on resource conservation and its relationship to urban development. Urban encroachment upon agricultural areas is regarded as a potentially adverse effect. Tehama County’s

General Plan has established planning strategies specifically for agricultural preservation,

such as minimum parcel sizes and agricultural land preserves.

Agricultural preservation is a top priority in the Tehama County General Plan. Agriculture is

the dominant land use in the county and comprises approximately 58 percent of the total land

area in the county. In 1997, orchards accounted for the majority of the land in agricultural

productivity. The second and third highest acreage in agricultural productivity was in hay

crops and wheat.
September 2004 3-89 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-21

TOTAL ACRES OF FARMLAND AND LAND COMMITTED TO NONAGRICULTURAL USES IN COUNTIES IN 

County Shasta Tehama Glenn Butte Colusa Sutter 

Land Use Category Total

Acres

Percent

of Total

Total

Acres

Percent

of Total

Total

Acres

Percent

of Total

Total

Acres

Percent

of Total

Total

Acres

Percent

of Total

Total

Acres

Percent

of Total

Prime Farmland 19,815 2% 73,772 4% 166,549 20% NA NA 202,232 27% 169,782 44% Farmland of StatewideImportance

4,716 0% 19,760 1% 87,784 10% NA NA 1,811 0% 111,296 29% 

Unique Farmland 405 0% 18,486 1% 11,605 1% NA NA 125,497 17% 20,213 5% Farmland of LocalImportance

10,416 1% 132,763 7% 141,965 17% NA NA 236,354 32% 0 0% 

Farmland Subtotal 35,352 3% 244,781 13% 407,903 48% 257,315a 28%a 565,894 76% 301,291 77% Grazing Land 409,477 40% 706,026 38% 176,071 21% 264,982 29% 7,526 1% 50,896 13% Agricultural Land Subtotal 444,829 44% 950,807 52% 583,974 69% 522,297 57% 573,420 77% 352,187 90% Urban and Built-up Land 32,657 3% 11,459 1% 5,609 1% 40,185 4% 4,257 1% 11,360 3% Other Land 537,852b 53%a 871,007 47% 253,785 30% 333,784 36% 160,877 22% 24,044 6% Water Area 5,875 1% 6,221 0% 5,759 1% 21,643 2% 1,838 0% 1,848 0% Total Area Inventoried 1,021,213 1,839,494 849,127 917,909 740,392 389,439 aIncludes 249,414 acres of irrigated farmland (27%) and 7,901 acres of nonirrigated farmland (1%).b”Other Land” is defined as land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low-density rural developments; brush, timber, wetlands, and riparian areas 

strip mines; borrow pits; and waterbodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mappeSource: Department of Conservation, 2003.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

September 2004 3-91 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Glenn County. Glenn County is situated at the northern end of the Colusa Basin and

has the second lowest population of the counties in the study area. Of the county’s

849,127 acres, approximately two-thirds (583,974 acres) are croplands and pasture, with

approximately 48 percent of that land considered Important Farmland. Rice is the primary

field crop in the county; rice grows well in the poorly drained alkali soils found in the Colusa

Basin. The second and third highest crop types by acreage are orchards and hay, respectively.

Butte County. Butte County is the second most populous county in the study area;

however, the majority of the county’s 1,068,800 acres are rural. In 1997, 404,166 acres of

land were in farm production. The Cities of Chico, Gridley, and Oroville (including East and

South Oroville), the Town of Paradise, and the outlying area of Magalia comprise nearly half

the population of the county.

Urban encroachment onto agricultural lands presents a challenge to agricultural uses within

the county. As development pressures increase in the southern portion of the county, and in

the existing urban centers, parcels are being subdivided and converted to nonagricultural land

uses. Butte County’s General Plan established goals and policies, such as minimum acreage

densities, to help minimize the effects of urban development and encroachment into

agricultural areas.

Colusa County. The majority of Colusa County’s 740,392 acres are used for

agricultural production. Approximately 77 percent of the county’s land area is in orchards

and vineyards, cropland, and undeveloped rangeland. Approximately 4,200 acres in Colusa

County account for urban uses.

Similar to Glenn County, Colusa County’s main crop is rice. The total land in farm production in 1997 was 430,958 acres, and rice accounted for 129,974 acres (30 percent).

Sutter County. Sutter County’s 389,439 acres are composed of two major geographic

units: the valley area and the Sutter Buttes. Approximately 98 percent of the land in the

county is unincorporated, and approximately 98 percent of the unincorporated land is zoned

for agricultural use. Agriculture is identified as a dominant industry in Sutter County

(EDD, 2003).

Yolo County. Yolo County consists of approximately 647,936 acres, the majority of

which is in agricultural production. The Yolo County General Plan identifies policies to

prevent division and/or use of land for anything but agricultural uses. These policies prevent

urban, residential, commercial, or industrial uses in the rural areas of the county.

Nonagricultural land uses are discouraged by the Yolo County General Plan in areas that are

presently farmed or contain prime agricultural soils. To preserve agricultural lands, the

county participates in the Williamson Act Land Conservation Program and applies

Agricultural Preserve Zoning designations where appropriate.

Yuba County. Of Yuba County’s 408,960 acres, approximately 57 percent are in

agriculture. The Yuba County General Plan states that agriculture is the most extensive land

use in Yuba County and the most significant component of the county’s economy. Agricultural lands within the county not only contribute to the county’s economy and food source,
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-92 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

agricultural land preservation provides open space, which in turn contributes benefits for

psychological and aesthetic qualities as well as biological resources.

Sacramento County. The unincorporated area of Sacramento County, excluding the

Delta area, includes approximately 444,000 acres, 250,000 acres of which are in agriculture.

The majority of the land outside of the urban developments within the county are devoted to

agriculture.

Irrigation Districts. The 20 irrigation districts listed in Table 3-22 represent

approximately 90 percent of the annual allocated water in the SRSCs service area. Rice is the

predominant crop for most of the districts because of the prevalence of clay soils within many

of the districts. Water needs for rice are greatest early in the growing season to flood rice

fields. In response to increasingly stringent limitations on burning, many of the district’s

landowners also partially flood their fields in the fall to decompose leftover rice straw.

Table 3-22 summarizes the number of acres flooded annually by each irrigation district. This

trend is expected to continue or increase unless alternative options for disposing of rice straw

(including the sale of stubble for ethanol production) become more economically feasible.

This practice provides additional winter habitat for waterfowl.

Other key crops include processing tomatoes, vineseed (e.g., cucumber seeds), corn,

orchards, pasture, and alfalfa. Water requirements are typically highest during the summer

irrigation season (June, July, and August) because of the area’s hot, dry climate.

In most of the irrigation districts, annual crop patterns have remained stable since the mid1970s. For most of the districts, water needs have been a function of water-year type rather

than changes in crop patterns.

Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District. ACID’s service area encompasses

approximately 32,000 acres and extends south from the City of Redding and encompasses the

City of Anderson and the Town of Cottonwood. ACID’s service area includes portions of

Shasta and Tehama Counties. Although ACID overlaps the service area boundaries of a few

municipalities, ACID does not currently provide water for municipal or industrial uses.

Approximately 90 percent of ACID’s customers irrigate pasture for hay or livestock;

however, some orchard and other crops are also grown.

Land use within ACID’s service area is primarily pasture (approximately 75 percent), in

addition to alfalfa and some deciduous orchards (CH2M HILL, 2003). Groundwater pumping

is limited in the district, and the small amount of water that is pumped is used for deciduous

crops.

Table 3-23 shows 1995 normalized estimates of irrigated acres for the primary crops grown

within the ACID service area, as well as projections for the year 2020. The variation around

these estimates (+/- percentage) accounts for typical and predicted variation in crop acreage

due to year type.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-93 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-22

ACRES FLOODED ANNUALLY BY DISTRICT TO DECOMPOSE RICE STRAW

District Acres Flooded Notes

ACID 0 Rice is not a significant crop in this district

GCID 30,000 Value from 1999; 50,000 acres flooded estimated

for the future

PID No data listed

PCGID No data listed

MID 346

RD 108 6,000

RD 1004 12,000

MFWC 0 Policy against flooding of rice fields to decompose

rice straw for flood protection

SMWC 4,000 Total acres flooded capped at 5,000 under flood

control agreement with Reclamation District 1500

PMWC 1,000

NCMWC 5,780

Pleasant Grove-Verona ID

Tisdale Irrigation Company

Conaway Conservancy Group

Davis Ranch

Lomo Cold Storage

M&T Chico Ranch

Reynen

River Garden Farms

TABLE 3-23

ACID TOTAL IRRIGATED ACRES BY CROP – 1995 AND 2020 ESTIMATES

Crop 1995a 2020b

Pasture 10,500 (+/- 5%)c 9,900 (+/- 5%)c

Other Deciduous 1,600 (+/- 5%)c 1,600 (+/- 5%)c

Alfalfa 400 (+/- 5%)c 200 (+/- 5%)c

Almonds and Pistachios 200 (+/- 5%)c 200 (+/- 5%)c

All Other Crops 1,200 (+/- 5%)c 1,200 (+/- 5%)c

Total Irrigated Acres 13,900 (+/- 5%)c 13,100 (+/- 5%)c

a

Figures are estimates derived from field data that have been normalized (data have been modified to simulate

a condition where hydrology and climate are assumed to be normal, i.e., drought or wet condition assumed

not to occur). Source: CH2M HILL, 2003.

b

Figures are future projections that incorporate current and historical trends, as well as anticipated local and

regional development and economic trends in the year 2020. Source: CH2M HILL, 2003. c

Percentages obtained from ACID.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-94 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Future irrigation-season cropping patterns and associated water requirements are anticipated

to remain relatively constant in terms of crop mix; however, ACID anticipates an overall

decrease in irrigated acres because of urban encroachment.

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District. GCID is located in the central portion of the

Sacramento Valley to the west of the Sacramento River and is the largest irrigation district in

the Sacramento Valley, encompassing approximately 170,000 acres. GCID’s service area

extends from northeastern Glenn County, near Hamilton City, to Colusa County, south of

Williams. GCID boundaries also encompass the communities of Willows and Maxwell, but

GCID does not supply water to municipal or industrial users. Rice is the predominant crop

and accounts for approximately 85 percent of the GCID’s irrigated acreage. Other important

crops include tomatoes, orchards, vineseed, cotton, alfalfa, and irrigated pasture.

GCID provides water to three National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) (Sacramento, Delevan, and

Colusa) that encompass approximately 22,500 acres. Although surface water is the primary

source of irrigation water, groundwater is used in drought years by individual growers.

Table 3-24 shows 1995 normalized estimates of irrigated acres and projections for the year

2020 for the primary crops grown within GCID’s service area. The variation around the

estimates (+/- percentage) accounts for typical and anticipated variations in crop acreage due

to year type.

TABLE 3-24

GCID TOTAL IRRIGATED ACRES – 1995 AND 2020 ESTIMATES

Crop 1995a 2020b

Rice 99,300 (+/- 10%)c 99,100 (+/- 10%)c

Grain 5,500 (+/- 10%)c 5,000 (+/- 10%)c

Alfalfa 4,300 (+/- 50%)c 4,500 (+/- 50%)c

Pasture 4,100 (+/- 20%)c 3,300 (+/- 20%)c

Tomatoes 3,800 (+/- 40%)c 6,400 (+/- 40%)c

All Other Crops 13,200 (+/- 10%)c 18,500 (+/- 10%)c

Total Irrigated Acres 130,200 (+/- 10%)c,d 136,800 (+/- 10%)c,d

a

Figures are estimates derived from field data that have been normalized (data have been modified to simulate

a condition where hydrology and climate are assumed to be normal, i.e., drought or wet condition assumed

not to occur). Source: CH2M HILL, 2003.

b

Figures are future projections that incorporate current and historical trends, as well as anticipated local and

regional development and economic trends in the year 2020. Source: CH2M HILL, 2003. c

Percentages obtained from GCID.

dIncludes 200 double-cropped acres for 1995, and 3,700 double-cropped acres for 2020.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-95 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Provident Irrigation District. PID lies to the west of the Sacramento River in the

Colusa Basin and includes portions of Glenn and Colusa Counties. PID encompasses

approximately 15,965 acres (including 800 acres recently annexed) and serves 120 landowners. Rice is the predominant crop and accounts for approximately 98 percent of irrigated

acres in PID. Other crops include pasture and grains. Many of PID’s operations are coordinated with the PCGID, located directly adjacent and east of PID. PID operates a pumping

plant, with a capacity of 300 cfs, on the Sacramento River located at Sidd’s Landing north of

the community of Glenn.

The majority of water needs are met through contracted surface water, although groundwater

is used in drought years by individual growers.

Table 3-25 shows 1995 normalized estimates and projections for the year 2020 of irrigated

acres for the primary crops grown within PID’s service area. The variation around these

estimates (+/- percentage) accounts for typical and anticipated variations in crop acreage due

to year type.

TABLE 3-25

PID TOTAL IRRIGATED ACRES – 1995 AND 2020 ESTIMATES

Crop 1995a 2020b

Rice 14,600 (+/- 10%)c 14,600 (+/- 10%)c

All Other Crops 200 (+/- 10%)c 400 (+/- 10%)c

Total Irrigated Acres 14,800 (+/- 10%)c 15,000 (+/- 10%)c

a

Figures are estimates derived from field data that have been normalized (data have been modified to simulate a

condition where hydrology and climate are assumed to be normal, i.e., drought or wet condition assumed not

to occur). Source: CH2M HILL, 2003.

b

Figures are future projections that incorporate current and historical trends, as well as anticipated local and

regional development and economic trends in the year 2020. Source: CH2M HILL, 2003.

c

Percentages obtained from PID.

Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation District. PCGID is located in the western

Sacramento Valley and is adjacent to the Sacramento River. PCGID covers portions of Glenn

and Colusa Counties. The Colusa Basin Drain runs along most of PCGID’s western

boundary. The community of Princeton lies within PCGID’s boundaries, but is not served by

the district. PCGID encompasses approximately 11,700 acres and serves 125 landowners.

Rice is the major crop grown within PCGID’s service area, in addition to orchard and row

crops. Rice accounts for approximately 75 percent of PCGID’s irrigated acreage

Although surface water is the primary source of irrigation water, groundwater is used in

drought years by individual growers.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-96 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Table 3-26 shows 1995 normalized estimates and projections for the year 2020 of irrigated

acres for the primary crops grown within PCGID’s service area. The variation around these

estimates (+/- percentage) accounts for typical and anticipated variations in crop acreage due

to year type.

Future irrigation-season cropping patterns and crops would likely shift, but overall water

requirements are anticipated to remain relatively the same as current conditions.

TABLE 3-26

PCGID TOTAL IRRIGATED ACRES – 1995 AND 2020 ESTIMATES

Crop 1995a 2020b

Rice 7,700 (+/- 20%)c 7,700 (+/- 30%)c

Other Deciduous 700 (+/- 20%)c 700 (+/- 30%)c

Alfalfa 200 (+/- 10%)c 500 (+/- 10%)c

All Other Crops 1,400 (+/- 10%)c 1,400 (+/- 10%)c

Total Irrigated Acres 10,000 (+/- 10%)c,d 10,300 (+/- 10%)c,d

a

Figures are estimates derived from field data that have been normalized (data have been modified to simulate a

condition where hydrology and climate are assumed to be normal, i.e., drought or wet condition assumed not

to occur). Source: CH2M HILL, 2003.

b

Figures are future projections that incorporate current and historical trends, as well as anticipated local and

regional development and economic trends in the year 2020. The source of water for additional acreage is

undetermined. Source: CH2M HILL, 2003.

c

Percentages obtained from PCGID.

dIncludes 100 double-cropped acres for 1995 and 2020.

Maxwell Irrigation District. MID is located on the west side of the Sacramento

River approximately northwest of the Town of Colusa in Colusa County. MID is located

directly east of the southern portion of GCID and south of the Delevan NWR. MID’s service

area encompasses approximately 6,134 acres and includes 28 landowners.

The primary crop in MID’s service area is rice, due to the fine-textured and poorly drained

soils found in the majority of the district. Rice accounts for over 95 percent of MID’s

irrigated acres (CH2M HILL, 2003).

Table 3-27 shows 1995 normalized estimates and projections for the year 2020 of irrigated

acres for the primary crops grown within MID’s service area. The variation around these

estimates (+/- percentage) accounts for typical and anticipated variations in crop acreage due

to year type.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-97 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-27

MID TOTAL IRRIGATED ACRES – 1995 AND 2020 ESTIMATES

Crop 1995a 2020b

Rice 4,900 (+/- 10%)c 4,900 (+/- 10%)c

All Other Crops 100 (+/- 10%)c 100 (+/- 10%)c

Total Irrigated Acres 5,000 (+/- 10%)b 5,000 (+/- 10%)c

a

Figures are estimates derived from field data that have been normalized (data have been modified to simulate

a condition where hydrology and climate are assumed to be normal, i.e., drought or wet condition assumed

not to occur). Source: CH2M HILL, 2003.

b

Figures are future projections that incorporate current and historical trends, as well as anticipated local and

regional development and economic trends in the year 2020. Source: CH2M HILL, 2003. c

Percentages obtained from MID.

Future irrigation-season cropping patterns and associated water requirements are anticipated

to remain relatively the same as current conditions.

Reclamation District No. 108. RD 108’s 48,000-acre service area is located within

southern Colusa County and northern Yolo County along the west side of the Sacramento

River, between the towns of Grimes and Knights Landing. The service area is surrounded on

three sides by flood-control levees: on the east by the Westerly Levee of the Sacramento

River, on the west and southwest by the Colusa Basin Drain (commonly referenced as the

“Back Levee”), and on the southeast by the Northerly Levee of Reclamation District No. 787.

Rice is the predominant crop grown within RD 108’s service area. Other key crops include

tomatoes, safflower, wheat, alfalfa, corn, and vineseed. Rice accounts for approximately 40 to

50 percent of RD 108’s irrigated acreage. Water needs are met through the contract surface

water supply, although groundwater is used by a few individual growers to supplement the

surface supply, particularly in dry years.

Table 3-28 shows 1995 normalized estimates and projections for the year 2020 of irrigated

acres for the primary crops grown within RD 108’s service area. The variation around these

estimates (+/- percentage) accounts for typical and anticipated variations in crop acreage due

to year type.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-98 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-28

RD 108 TOTAL IRRIGATED ACRES – 1995 AND 2020 ESTIMATES

Crop 1995a 2020b

Rice 21,500 (+/- 10%)c 21,600 (+/- 10%)c

Grain 8,200 (+/- 45%)c 8,100 (+/- 45%)c

Safflower 5,500 (+/- 35%)c 5,100 (+/- 35%)c

Tomatoes 5,400 (+/- 70%)c 6,600 (+/- 70%)c

All Other Crops 10,400 (+/- 30%)c 9,300 (+/- 30%)c

Total Irrigated Acres 51,000 (+/- 5%)c,d 52,500 (+/-5%)c,d

a

Figures are estimates derived from field data that have been normalized (data have been modified to simulate a

condition where hydrology and climate are assumed to be normal, i.e., drought or wet condition assumed not

to occur). Source: DWR, Northern and Central Districts.

b

Figures are future projections that incorporate current and historical trends, as well as anticipated local and

regional development and economic trends in the year 2020. Source: DWR, Northern and Central Districts. c

Percentages obtained from RD 108.

dIncludes 1,400 double-cropped acres for 1995, and 1,800 double-cropped acres for 2020.

Reclamation District No. 1004. RD 1004 is located on the east side of the

Sacramento River east of the Town of Colusa and directly west of the Sutter Buttes. RD 1004

is primarily in Colusa County, with the southeasternmost portion extending into Sutter

County. Butte Creek runs along a portion of the eastern edge of RD 1004. RD 1004’s service

area encompasses approximately 26,000 acres and serves 48 landowners.

The primary crop in RD 1004’s service area is rice, due to the fine-textured and poorly

drained soils found in the majority of the district. Rice accounts for over 80 percent of

RD 1004’s irrigated acres (CH2M HILL, 2003). Water needs are met through the contract

surface water supply, although groundwater is used by a few individual growers to

supplement the surface supply, particularly in dry years as per agreements with RD 1004.

Table 3-29 shows 1995 normalized estimates and projections for the year 2020 of irrigated

acres for the primary crops grown within RD 1004’s service area. The variation around these

estimates (+/- percentage) accounts for typical and anticipated variations in crop acreage due

to year type.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-99 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-29

RD 1004 TOTAL IRRIGATED ACRES – 1995 AND 2020 ESTIMATES

Crop 1995a 2020b

Rice 12,800 (+/- 10%)c 11,600 (+/- 10%)c

Dry Beans 1,400 (+/- 10%)c 1,200 (+/- 15%)c

Cotton 500 (+/-10%)c 1,500 (+/- 10%)c

Tomatoes 300 (+/-5%)c 300 (+/- 5%)c

Cucurbits 200 (+/-10%)c 600 (+/- 10%)c

All Other Crops 500 (+/-5%)c 500 (+/- 5%)c

Total Irrigated Acres 15,700 (+/-10%)c 15,700 (+/- 10%)c

a

Figures are estimates derived from field data that have been normalized (data have been modified to simulate

a condition where hydrology and climate are assumed to be normal, i.e., drought or wet condition assumed

not to occur). Source: CH2M HILL, 2003.

b

Figures are future projections that incorporate current and historical trends, as well as anticipated local and

regional development and economic trends in the year 2020. Source: CH2M HILL, 2003.

c

Percentages obtained from RD 1004.

Future irrigation-season cropping patterns and associated water requirements are anticipated

to remain relatively the same as current conditions.

Meridian Farms Water Company. MFWC is located on the east side of the

Sacramento River east of the community of Meridian and directly southwest of the Sutter

Buttes. MFWC encompasses approximately 9,900 acres and serves 73 landowners. The main

pumping facility is located at River Mile 134 on the Sacramento River.

Rice has typically accounted for less than half of MFWC’s irrigated acreage; other key crops

include tomatoes, safflower, alfalfa, and walnuts. MFWC uses recycled drainwater and stores

water in canals and Long Lake to warm the water, which increases rice production. Several

fields in MFWC’s service area have recently been certified as organic rice farms. Organically

grown rice is a higher value crop that requires additional water to offset herbicides commonly

used for weed control. Irrigation water requirements are met through contract surface water

supplies, drainwater recycling, and groundwater.

Rice production was increased in the MFWC service area, and tomato production has

decreased because of changing market conditions. This increase in rice production has placed

additional demands on MFWC’s water delivery system, which has limited capacity in the

middle of the company due to relatively flat slope and the need to maintain full canals to

recirculate drainwater.

Table 3-30 shows 1995 normalized estimates and projections for the year 2020 of irrigated

acres for the primary crops grown within MFWC’s service area. The variation around these
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-100 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

estimates (+/- percentage) accounts for typical and anticipated variations in crop acreage due

to year type.

TABLE 3-30

MFWC TOTAL IRRIGATED ACRES – 1995 AND 2020 ESTIMATES

Crop 1995a 2020b

Rice 3,500 (+/- 44%)c 3,500 (+/- 44%)c

Safflower 2,400 (+/- 11%)c 2,400 (+/- 11%c

Tomatoes 1,300 (+/- 32%)c 1,300 (+/- 32%)c

Grain 1,000 (+/- 13%)c 1,000 (+/- 13%)c

Other Deciduous 600 (+/- 8%)c 600 (+/- 8%)c

All Other Crops 900 (+/- 5%)c 11,100 (+/- 5%)c

Total Irrigated Acres 9,700 (+/- 5%)c,d 9,700 (+/- 5%)c,d

a

Figures are estimates derived from field data which have been normalized (data have been modified to simulate

a condition where hydrology and climate are assumed to be normal, i.e., drought or wet condition assumed not to

occur).

 bFigures are future projections that incorporate current and historical trends, as well as anticipated local and

regional development and economic trends in the year 2020.

c

Percentages obtained from MFWC.

dIncludes 500 double-cropped acres for 1995 and 2020.

The MFWC Board of Directors issued a policy directive against the use of winter water for

rice straw decomposition. During a flood event, the existing drain pumps would not be able

to remove flood water and decomposition water. Removal of rice straw has not been an issue

in the service area because rice straw is usually disked under after the growing season, and

the field is planted with a different crop the following year.

Future irrigation-season cropping patterns and associated water requirements are anticipated

to continue the current trend toward increased rice production and a reduction in tomato

production, with rotations of beans, wheat, and safflower.

Sutter Mutual Water Company. SMWC is located northwest of Sacramento and is

bordered by three levee systems. SMWC encompasses approximately 50,000 acres and serves

150 landowners. The service area encompasses the Town of Robbins.

The two major crops grown within the service area are tomatoes (grown in rotation with

wheat, safflower, and beans) and rice (sometimes grown in rotation with wheat, safflower,

beans, and melons, or grown 7 or 8 years consecutively without rotation).

Rice is the predominant crop grown within SMWC’s service area, accounting for approximately 35 to 40 percent of the irrigated acreage. The majority of irrigation water needs are
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-101 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

met through the contract surface water supply, although drainwater is used depending on

availability and quality.

Annual cropping patterns have changed over the last few decades as rice acreage has declined

substantially. The prevalence of relatively rich, well-drained soils allows for a diversity of

crops within the service area. Tomatoes have been the primary crop that has supplanted

former rice-growing lands. However, the recent closure of two tomato canneries in the area

may lead to a reduction in tomato production in the near future.

Table 3-31 shows 1995 normalized estimates and projections for the year 2020 of irrigated

acres for the primary crops grown within SMWC’s service area. The variation around these

estimates (+/- percentage) accounts for typical and anticipated variations in crop acreage due

to year type.

TABLE 3-31

SMWC TOTAL IRRIGATED ACRES – 1995 AND 2020 ESTIMATES

Crop 1995a 2020b

Rice 17,400 (+/- 10%)c 17,400(+/- 25%)c

Tomatoes 12,200 (+/- 10%)c 12,200 (+/- 20%)c

Grain 8,100 (+/- 15%)c 8,000 (+/- 15%)c

Dry Beans 5,500 (+/- 15%)c 4,900 (+/- 15%)c

All Other Crops 8,900 (+/- 15%)c 8,500 (+/- 25%)c

Total Irrigated Acres 52,100 (+/- 5%)c,d 51,000 (+/- 5%)c,d

a

Figures are estimates derived from field data that have been normalized (data have been modified to simulate a

condition where hydrology and climate are assumed to be normal, i.e., drought or wet condition assumed not

to occur).

b

Figures are future projections that incorporate current and historical trends, as well as anticipated local and

regional development and economic trends in the year 2020.

c

Percentages obtained from SMWC.

dIncludes 5,500 double-cropped acres for 1995, and 4,900 double-cropped acres for 2020.

Future irrigation-season cropping patterns and associated water requirements are anticipated

to remain relatively the same as current conditions.

Pelger Mutual Water Company. PMWC is located approximately northwest of

Sacramento and is bordered by SMWC on three sides. PMWC encompasses approximately

2,900 acres and serves 10 landowners.

PMWC has a relatively small service area, but operates similarly to larger districts in terms of

cropping patterns and agricultural practices. Rice typically accounts for less than half of the

irrigated acreage; other key crops include tomatoes and corn (CH2M HILL, 2003). Irrigation
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-102 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

water needs are met through contract surface water supplies, drainwater recycling, and

groundwater. There is high variability in crop mix from year to year.

Table 3-32 shows 1995 normalized estimates and projections for the year 2020 of irrigated

acres for the primary crops grown within PMWC’s service area. The variation around these

estimates (+/- percentage) accounts for typical and anticipated variations in crop acreage due

to year type.

TABLE 3-32

PMWC TOTAL IRRIGATED ACRES – 1995 AND 2020 ESTIMATES

Crop 1995a 2020b

Corn 700 (+/- 10-25%)c 700(+/- 10-25%)c

Rice 600 (+/- 10-25%)c 600 (+/- 10-25%)bc

Tomatoes 600 (+/- 10-25%)c 600 (+/- 10-25%)c

All Other Crops 1,000(+/- 10-25%)c 1,000 (+/- 10-25%)c

Total Irrigated Acres 2,900(+/- 10%)c,d 2,900 (+/- 10%)c,d

a

Figures are estimates derived from field data that have been normalized (data have been modified to simulate

a condition where hydrology and climate are assumed to be normal, i.e., drought or wet condition assumed

not to occur). Source: CH2M HILL, 2003.

b

Figures are future projections that incorporate current and historical trends, as well as anticipated local and

regional development and economic trends in the year 2020. Source: CH2M HILL, 2003. c

Percentages obtained from PMWC.

dIncludes 100 double-cropped acres for 2020.

Future irrigation-season cropping patterns and associated water requirements are anticipated

to remain relatively the same as current conditions.

Natomas Central Mutual Water Company. NCMWC is located on the east side of

the Sacramento River between the Towns of Knight’s Landing and Sacramento. The service

area includes portions of Sutter and Sacramento Counties and is within the western portion of

the American Basin. NCMWC’s service area encompasses approximately 55,000 acres,

which includes approximately 36,000 irrigated acres. NCMWC serves approximately

238 landowners, and the service area includes the Sacramento Municipal Airport and several

proposed residential developments.

Rice is the predominant crop grown in the service area, accounting for approximately

60 percent of NCMWC’s irrigated acreage. Other crops include tomatoes and sugar beets,

and rotation crops such as wheat and safflower, which are rotated with rice and tomatoes. The

expanding Sacramento Metropolitan Area applies increasing urbanization pressure on

agricultural properties in the service area along the urban fringe.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-103 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Water needs are met through the contract surface water supply, although groundwater is used

by a few individual growers to supplement the surface supply, particularly in dry years as per

agreements with NCMWC.

Table 3-33 shows 1995 normalized estimates and projections for the year 2020 of irrigated

acres for the primary crops grown within NCMWC’s service area. The variation around these

estimates (+/- percentage) accounts for typical and anticipated variations in crop acreage due

to year type.

TABLE 3-33

NCMWC TOTAL IRRIGATED ACRES – 1995 AND 2020 ESTIMATES

Crop 1995a, b 2020c

Rice 18,000 13,700

Sugar Beets 3,700 1,800

Corn 1,000 700

Tomatoes 600 500

All Other Crops 600 4,600

Total Irrigated Acres 23,900 b 21,300

a

Figures are estimates derived from field data that have been normalized (data have been modified to simulate

a condition where hydrology and climate are assumed to be normal, i.e., drought or wet condition assumed

not to occur).

bAcreages are based on NCMWC’s actual deliveries. Potential acreage within Reclamation contract service

area is approximately 35,000 acres.

c

Figures are future projections that incorporate current and historical trends, as well as anticipated local and

regional development and economic trends in the year 2020.

Future irrigation-season cropping patterns and associated water requirements are anticipated

to remain relatively the same as current conditions.

NCMWC has requested a change in authorized use from agricultural to M&I for use in a

specified portion of its service area (i.e., Metro Air Park). Water deliveries would be made

through existing CVP facilities, with no new construction required. The water would be

placed to beneficial use within the CVP authorized places of use (within the SRSCs service

area).

Agricultural Production. Regional economies include the producing, delivering,

and trading of goods and services. Agriculture in the area of analysis is an important element

of the local economy. Social and economic indicators addressed in this chapter include

agricultural net returns, total output, value added, wages and salaries, and employment.

This section describes the social and economic conditions in the area of analysis and the

social and economic effects of the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1 through 5.

The Affected Environment/Existing Conditions section presents recent data related to the

social and economic conditions of the subject areas, and provides background data related to
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-104 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

other social and economic issues, such as county tax revenue generated by the Williamson

Act and agricultural groundwater extraction costs. This section presents most data at the

county level because data regarding regional and agricultural economics area descriptions are

generally available by county.

Area of Analysis. The area of analysis includes the following counties: Shasta,

Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, Yolo, Butte, Sutter, Yuba, and Sacramento. Implementation of the

Preferred Alternative would affect primarily the rural, agricultural portion of these counties,

including small towns, located within the Sacramento Valley.

Agricultural Economics. The number and size of farms, together with ownership

patterns, cropping patterns, production characteristics, and expense characteristics are used to

describe the general structure of agriculture in the region. Table 3-34 summarizes data

provided by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Census of Agriculture for

the number of farms, land in farm production, and area of cropland for counties in the

Sacramento Valley.

In 1997, the average farm size in the Sacramento Valley was 349 acres4

, and the region

supported approximately 2 million acres of cropland, of which approximately 80 percent (1.6

million acres) were irrigated.

TABLE 3-34

FARMS, LAND IN FARMS, AND CROPLAND PROFILES OF SACRAMENTO VALLEY, 1997

County Number

of Farms

Land in

Farms

(acres)a

Average

Size of

Farmsb

(acres)

Total Croplandc Harvested

Croplandd

Irrigated Lande

Farmsf Acres Farms Acres Farms Acres

Shasta 850 316,743 373 612 59,487 401 22,659 605 38,863

Tehama 1,362 885,426 650 1,063 127,019 831 62,038 1,001 85,571

Glenn 1,189 482,583 406 1,070 255,968 916 212,848 1,025 220,235

Colusa 810 430,958 532 759 316,756 722 287,630 723 276,562

Yolo 923 536,595 581 832 380,700 747 324,291 709 294,021

Butte 1,942 404,166 208 1,750 247,368 1,646 222,209 1,686 223,690

Sutter 1,314 348,349 265 1,259 297,109 1,203 266,399 1,199 242,183

Yuba 706 208,462 295 548 96,989 426 79,586 556 85,241

Sacramento 1,288 308,035 239 986 159,059 688 120,220 886 122,550

Total 11,793 4,123,686 349 9,763 2,017,833 8,150 1,627,931 9,371 1,630,571

 

4 USDA data provided assumes the Census Bureau’s most recent definition of a farm, being any place from which $1,000 or

more of agricultural products were produced or sold, or normally would have been sold during the census year.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-105 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-34

FARMS, LAND IN FARMS, AND CROPLAND PROFILES OF SACRAMENTO VALLEY, 1997

County Number

of Farms

Land in

Farms

(acres)a

Average

Size of

Farmsb

(acres)

Total Croplandc Harvested

Croplandd

Irrigated Lande

Farmsf Acres Farms Acres Farms Acres

a

The acreage designated as “land in farms” consists primarily of agricultural land used for crops, pasture, or grazing. All

grazing land, except land used under government permits on a per-head basis, was included as “ land in farms,” provided it

was part of a farm or ranch.

b

All farms were classified into selected size groups according to the total land area in the farm. The land area of a farm is an

operating unit concept and includes land owned and operated as well as land rented from others.

c

This category includes land from which crops were harvested or hay was cut; land in orchards, citrus groves, vineyards,

nurseries, and greenhouses; cropland used only for pasture or grazing; land in cover crops, legumes, and soil-improvement

grasses; land on which all crops failed; land in cultivated summer fallow; and idle cropland.

d

This category includes land from which crops were harvested or hay was cut, and land in orchards, citrus groves, Christmas

trees, vineyards, nurseries, and greenhouses.

e

This category includes all land watered by any artificial or controlled means, such as sprinklers, flooding, furrows or ditches,

and spreader dikes. Included are supplemental, partial, and pre-plant irrigation.

f

Number of farms with some cropland.

Source: 1997 Census of Agriculture, Volume 1 Geographic Area Series, “Table 1. County Summary Highlights: 1997.”

The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis definition of agricultural

net returns is gross crop revenues plus other income less total farming costs. Although higher

costs reduce farm profits, some costs represent farm expenditures in the regional economy. In

1999, total cash receipts for the Sacramento Valley were approximately $1.9 billion, other

income was $0.5 billion, and realized agricultural net income for the valley was estimated to

be approximately $323 million. Table 3-35 shows agriculture revenue and production costs

by county.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-106 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-35

AGRICULTURAL REVENUE AND PRODUCTION COSTS ($1,000)

County Gross Farm Incomea Production

Expensesb

Realized

Net

Incomec

Total Farm

Labor and

Proprietors

Incomed

Total Cash Receipts Other Income

Livestock

Production

Crops Total Govt.

Payments

Total

Other

Income

Shasta 15,417 19,738 35,155 429 4,088 42,374 -3,131 9,669

Tehama 53,611 46,931 100,542 4,775 19,244 123,403 -3,617 20,022

Glenn 50,356 149,606 199,962 48,148 71,885 252,270 19,577 32,451

Colusa 7,412 280,828 288,240 74,895 97,987 307,194 79,033 98,887

Yolo 15,537 330,515 346,052 26,678 57,213 368,957 34,308 99,454

Butte 9,103 234,335 243,438 48,682 75,601 283,349 35,690 58,363

Sutter 6,044 315,158 321,202 54,220 89,966 323,420 87,748 97,658

Yuba 15,434 84,078 99,512 17,639 33,159 115,212 17,459 34,784

Sacramento 78,570 171,819 250,389 43,165 56,828 250,083 57,134 83,510

Total 271,021 1,660,266 1,931,287 325,930 520,264 2,128,372 323,179 541,230

aGross farm income consists of estimates for the following items: cash receipts from marketing of crops and livestock;

income from other farm-related activities, including recreational services and the sale of forest products; government

payments to farmers; value of food and fuel produced and consumed on farms; gross rental value of farm dwellings; and

the value of the net change in the physical volume of farm inventories of crops and livestock.

bProduction expenses consist of purchases of feed, livestock, seed, fertilizer and lime, and petroleum products; hired farm

labor expenses (including contract labor); and all other production expenses (e.g., depreciation, interest, rent and taxes,

and repair and operation of machinery).

cProduction expenses and gross farm income excluding inventory change are used to calculate realized net income of all

farms (gross farm income, excluding inventory change, minus production expenses equals realized net income).

dU.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis estimate of farm proprietors’ income is estimated from

modifying realized net income to exclude the income of corporate farms and salaries paid to corporate officers.

Farm production expenses represent income for farm labor, farm supply companies, custom

operators, and related businesses. A decrease in farm production expenses results in a

decrease in revenues received by farm labor and businesses. In 1999, total production

expenses for the region were about $2.1 billion (Table 3-36). Hired farm labor costs were one

of the largest components of total expenses at 29.5 percent.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-107 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-36

PRODUCTION EXPENSES

County Feed

Purchased

Livestock

Purchased

Seed

Purchased

Fertilizer

and

Lime

Petroleum

Products

Purchased

Hired Farm

Labor

Expensesa

Other

Production

Expensesb

Shasta 2,824 1,309 600 801 1,475 8,806 26,559

Tehama 8,701 8,129 1,248 7,635 3,814 26,550 67,326

Glenn 16,556 6,690 7,276 29,233 8,800 64,369 119,346

Colusa 1,308 1,737 17,989 38,468 12,133 93,877 141,682

Yolo 2,103 3,501 20,370 45,069 14,093 118,942 164,879

Butte 2,634 1,308 8,519 3,379 8,698 96,487 132,324

Sutter 1,702 887 11,412 40,657 12,585 99,412 156,765

Yuba 4,194 1,100 2,335 12,241 3,748 37,814 53,780

Sacramento 43,362 9,805 8,098 17,458 7,268 61,251 102,841

Total 88,232 36,957 80,038 198,838 74,545 619,918 999,803

a

Hired Farm Labor” includes contract labor.

b

Other production expenses includes depreciation, interest, rent, water, taxes, and repair and operation of machinery.

Environmental Consequences. The No Action Alternative represents future

conditions if the Preferred Alternative were not implemented. In general, agricultural

production within the Sacramento Valley is not anticipated to substantially change within the

40-year term of the Preferred Alternative. Rice, grains, tomatoes, oilseeds, forage, and

orchard crops would dominate agricultural production. Trends reported in the most recent

California Water Plan Update (Department, 1998) indicate little change in total irrigated

acreage through 2020, but with some shift in acreage toward permanent crops. These trends

are expected to continue. Farmers would continue to temporarily idle some land and would

continue to rotate other previously idled land back into production. Fallowing fields is a

common land management practice and is done for agronomic purposes as well as in

response to market conditions and water supply shortages. These farming practices cause

normal variations in total value of output, value added, wages and salaries, and employment.

It is anticipated that some lands, primarily those near the urban areas of the Sacramento

Metropolitan Area and to a lesser degree Redding, would be converted to nonagricultural use

in accordance with local general plans and zoning constraints. The conditions under the No

Action Alternative generally reflect the conditions described in the Affected Environment

section.

Alternative 1.

Water Delivery: Contract Quantities and Shortage Provisions

This alternative would not result in any operational changes compared to the No Action

condition.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-108 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Other Contract Provisions

Some savings in cost to SRSCs may occur in years during which they purchase between 75

and 100 percent of their Project Water. The average annual savings are anticipated to be

small and would not affect agricultural production.

No other proposed contract provisions are expected to affect agricultural production.

Alternative 2.

Water Delivery: Contract Quantities and Shortage Provisions

This alternative could result in a small increase in groundwater pumping due to increased

frequency of shortages under the sliding-scale provision. However, such cutbacks would be

infrequent and involove relatively modest amounts of pumping.

Economic analyses prepared for other recent studies indicate that grains, oilseeds, rice, and

forage crops are those likely to be reduced in acreage during years of water shortage

(Reclamation, 1998). These SRSCs lacking groundwater represent a very small portion of the

total Settlement Contract water delivery. No significant impacts to the regional economy are

expected. The incremental changes in frequency of shortage would apply to a very limited

area.

Some increase in water delivery could occur for agricultural water service contractors outside

the SRSCs service area, depending on how the additional years of SRSC shortages affect

CVP water management.

Other Contract Provisions

No other proposed contract provisions are expected to affect agricultural production.

Alternative 3.

Water Delivery: Contract Quantities and Shortage Provisions

Water shortages and frequencies are identical to the No Action Alternative, so there would be

no impacts to agricultural production or land use.

Other Contract Provisions

Some savings in cost to SRSCs may occur in years during which they purchase less than

100 percent of their project water. The average annual savings is anticipated to be small and

would not be expected to affect agricultural production.

No other proposed contract provisions are expected to affect agricultural production.

Alternative 4.

Water Delivery: Contract Quantities and Shortage Provisions

Under this alternative, any increase in groundwater pumping costs would be compensated by

Reclamation; therefore, there would be no net change in agricultural production and net

revenues for lands with access to groundwater.

SRSCs with no ability to pump groundwater in shortage years would be compensated for any

losses in net revenue from agricultural production. Economic analysis prepared for other

recent studies indicates that grains, oilseeds, rice, and forage crops are those likely to be

reduced in acreage during years of water shortage (Reclamation, 1998). These SRSCs

represent a very small portion of the total Settlement Contract water delivery. No significant
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-109 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

impacts to the regional economy are expected. SRSC growers would be compensated, and the

incremental changes in frequency of shortage would apply to a very limited area.

Some increase in water delivery could occur for agricultural water service contractors outside

the SRSCs service area, depending on how the additional years of SRSC shortages affect

CVP water management.

Other Contract Provisions

Some savings in cost to SRSCs may occur in years during which they purchase between 75

and 100 percent of their Project Water. The average annual savings are anticipated to be

small and would not be expected to affect agricultural production.

No other proposed contract provisions are expected to affect agricultural production.

Alternative 5.

Water Delivery: Contract Quantities and Shortage Provisions

Under this alternative, any increase in groundwater pumping costs would be compensated by

Reclamation; therefore, there would be no net change in agricultural production and net

revenues for lands with access to groundwater.

SRSCs with no ability to pump groundwater in shortage years would be compensated for any

losses in net revenue from agricultural production. Economic analysis prepared for other

recent studies indicates that grains, oilseeds, rice, and forage crops are those likely to be

reduced in acreage during years of water shortage (Reclamation, 1998). These SRSCs

represent a very small portion of the total Settlement Contract water delivery. No significant

impacts to the regional economy are expected. SRSC growers would be compensated, and the

incremental changes in frequency of shortage would apply to a very limited area.

Some increase in water delivery could occur for agricultural water service contractors outside

the SRSCs service area, depending on how the additional years of SRSC shortages affect

CVP water management.

Other Contract Provisions

Some savings in cost to SRSCs may occur in years during which they purchase between 75

and 100 percent of their Project Water. The average annual savings are anticipated to be

small and would not affect agricultural production.

The requirement to install measuring devices on all farm gate deliveries would impose

substantial cost obligations on SRSCs. According to estimates prepared for the Independent

Panel on Appropriate Measurement of Agricultural Water Use (California Bay-Delta

Authority, 2003), most agricultural fields in the SRSCs service area do not have measuring

devices that meet Reclamation’s Water Conservation Guidelines for precision. Installation,

operation, and data collection for such measuring devices were estimated to cost $1,500 per

year per device, or $33 per year per affected acre.

The combination of farm gate measuring devices and volumetric pricing of water to growers

would likely result in some reductions in average applied water. The reduction in applied

water could be significant if water is priced high enough to induce major changes in irrigation

techniques. In turn, this would result in decreases in diversions during all years, both full
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-110 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

delivery and shortage years. A portion of the reduced water application would reduce

groundwater recharge, and potentially could impair the groundwater basin’s ability to recover

after drought years when surface water deliveries are cut.

Municipal and Industrial Land Use and Water Costs.

Affected Environment. M&I land uses in the Sacramento Valley are small when

compared to agricultural land use. Continued population growth in the Sacramento Valley

identified in County General Plans and projected by the Department of Finance would likely

cause the conversion of agricultural land uses to M&I uses, particularly near population

centers like Sacramento and Yuba City-Marysville (growing commuter populations). The

new M&I land uses could increase economic activity in population centers and reach

throughout the region by diversifying commercial, industrial, and service industries. The

following describes M&I areas that potentially could be affected by the Preferred Alternative.

These areas either currently receive, or are anticipated to receive water from irrigation

districts for municipal and/or industrial use. Some of these customers would potentially

benefit from additional water available, particularly through Alternatives 4 and 5.

City of Redding. The total population of the City of Redding is 80,865, with an

anticipated annual growth rate of 2.2 percent. Population is projected to reach 126,548 by the

year 2020.

Table 3-37 shows the build-out projections for the City of Redding.

TABLE 3-37

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE PROJECTIONS

Land Use Acres Dwelling

Units

Population Commercial/Industrial

Square Feet (x 1,000)2

Residential 36,817 85,354 201,433

Commercial 2,658 35,019

Heavy Commercial/Industry 6,556 94,751

Othera 25,452 N/A

a

Other land use designation includes: airports, public facilities/institutional, greenways, parks, and recreation

areas.

The City of Redding has two surface water supply contracts with Reclamation, the

Sacramento River Contract and the Buckeye Contract. The Sacramento River Contract

provides up to 21,000 AFY from the Sacramento River (17,850 AF of Base Supply and 3,150

AF of Project Water), and 6,140 AF from Whiskeytown Reservoir. The City of Redding

Water Master Plan indicates that by the year 2005, the city water system would have an

annual demand of approximately 26,100 AF, and by the year 2010, the annual demand would

reach approximately 44,200 AF. Table 3-38 shows the City of Redding’s demand projections

through 2040.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-111 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-38

CITY OF REDDING WATER SERVICE AREA – GROWTH AND WATER DEMAND

PROJECTIONS

Year Service Area

Population

Average

Connections

Annual

Demand (AF)

Average-day

Demand

(mgd)

Maximum-day

Demand

(mgd)

2000 77,782 24,460 23,900 21.34 46.9

2005 84,956 26,716 26,100 23.30 51.3

2010 92,609 29,122 28,400 25.35 55.8

2015 100,357 31,559 30,800 27.49 60.5

2020 108,326 34,065 33,200 29.64 65.2

2025 117,274 36,879 36,00 32.14 70.7

2030 126,961 39,925 39,00 34.81 76.6

2035 137,448 43,223 42,200 37.67 82.9

2040 144,000 45,283 44,200 39.46 86.8

Source: City of Redding Water Master Plan, 2000.

Natomas Central Mutual Water Company. NCMWC has requested a change in

authorized use from agricultural to M&I for use in a specified portion of its service area (i.e.,

Metro Air Park). Water deliveries would be made through existing CVP facilities, with no

new construction required. The water would be placed to beneficial use within the CVP

authorized places of use (within the SRSCs service area).

City of West Sacramento. Land use in the City of West Sacramento is primarily

M&I. The total population of the city is 31,615.

Table 3-39 shows the projected water demand at build-out.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-112 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-39

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO PROJECTED

WATER DEMAND AT BUILD-OUT

Land Use Type Projected Units Water Use Factors Projected Average Day

(mgd)

Single-family Residential 14,992 du 560 gpd/du 8.4

Multi-family Residential 14,143 du 290 gpd/du 4.1

Commercial 2,268 acres 2,950 gpd/acre 6.7

Industrial 1,444 acres 2,950 gpd/acre 4.3

Schools 12,027 students 25 gpd/student 0.3

Parks/Other 528 acres 1,800 gpd/acre 0.9

Total 24.7

Notes:

gpd = gallons per day

du = dwelling unit

City of Sacramento. Sacramento is bordered on the west by the Sacramento River,

and the American River and the Sacramento River converge at the city’s west-central border.

The City of Sacramento contains approximately 63,120 acres, and land uses include the

following:

• 23,510 acres of residential uses

• 22,360 acres of vacant and agricultural uses

• 7,540 acres of public and quasi-public land uses

• 3,300 acres of industrial

• 3,200 acres of recreation

• 3,210 acres of commercial and office parks

Existing agricultural land in the City of Sacramento is located primarily along the northern

and southern perimeters, the western corner of the South Natomas area, and the eastern

portion of East Broadway. The City of Sacramento General Plan indicates the following mix

of planned land uses (Water Forum, 1999):

• 34,470 acres of residential

• 8,770 acres of industrial

• 5,520 acres of recreation

• 8,570 acres of public and quasi-public land uses

• 5,310 acres of commercial and office park

• 490 acres of vacant land
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-113 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Water Costs. During periods of cutbacks, the SRSCs would have to turn to other

sources of water to make up the difference in CVP deliveries. Agricultural water deliveries

are cut back sooner than M&I diversions with the amount of the shortage dependent on the

severity of the drought conditions. In the future, as water contracts are converted from

agricultural purposes to M&I, more M&I water users would benefit from these drought

delivery prioritizations. This would somewhat reduce the risk to M&I land uses and

economic activity. Reclamation is currently working on a new M&I Shortage Policy that

would provide a cutback protocol applicable to long-term contract renewals.

Currently only the City of Redding has an M&I contract among the SRSCs. Water withheld

from agricultural deliveries could go to M&I contractors outside the SRSCs service area,

including those described earlier, and those contractors would realize some benefit in delayed

shortages as well. However, those impacts are beyond the scope of this analysis.

Once the M&I users are shorted CVP water deliveries, they would need to turn to more

expensive alternative sources of water through purchases, transfers, storage, or groundwater

pumping. Spot market purchases are expensive by the nature of needing to acquire water

when supplies are low. They may also create local or regional impacts. For instance, an

agricultural producer could decide not to plant a crop because of existing water shortages and

sells his or her remaining water to an M&I users on the spot market. The crop is not planted

and money is not spent on the process of developing crops (e.g., fertilizer and labor) and is

therefore lost to the local and regional economy. Transfer agreements can be costly in time

and resources to negotiate. Inter-regional support and approvals are also required to

successfully negotiate some transfers. Similarly, storage facilities can require regulatory and

local approval and be expensive to build. Groundwater pumping requires infrastructure in the

form of wells, pumps, and conveyance if they do not already exist. However, the costs of

pumping groundwater under Alternatives 4 and 5 would be compensated by Reclamation

under the assumptions of these alternatives.

Environmental Consequences. The effects of Alternatives 1 through 5 on M&I

water costs and land use in the SRSCs service area are compared to conditions under the No

Action Alternative.

No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative does not include new facilities

or construction. The No Action Alternative assumes that dry-year reductions would remain

the same as existing conditions and the renewal contract period would last 40 years. M&I

land uses and economic growth are anticipated to follow trends already identified in county

master plans and by the California Department of Finance. The impacts of the No Action

Alternative are consistent with existing land use conditions. With the current level of

population growth, additional water costs would be incurred to develop new water supplies,

but increased water demands due to population growth have been accounted for in county

general plans and are integrated into existing conditions.

Alternative 1. Land use and economic growth under Alternative 1 would be

identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. There are no significant changes in

project infrastructure or operations. The reduction in contract amounts for ACID and SMWC

would have no impact on land use or economic growth because the contract reductions are
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-114 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

based on current agricultural development levels. No adverse land use and water cost impacts

are associated with this alternative.

Alternative 2. Land use and economic growth under Alternative 2 would be

identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. There are no significant changes in

project infrastructure or operations. No adverse land use and water cost impacts are

associated with this alternative. Some increase in water delivery could occur for M&I water

service contractors outside the SRSCs service area, depending on how the additional years of

SRSC shortages affect CVP water management.

Alternative 3. Land use and economic growth under Alternative 3 would be

identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. There are no significant changes in

project infrastructure or operations. No adverse land use and water cost impacts are

associated with this alternative.

Alternative 4. Land use and economic growth under Alternative 4 would be

identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. There are no significant changes in

project infrastructure or operations. The reduction in contract amounts for ACID and SMWC

would have no impact on land use or economic growth because contract reductions are based

on current agricultural development levels. No adverse land use and water cost impacts are

associated with this alternative. Some increase in water delivery could occur for M&I water

service contractors outside the SRSCs service area, depending on how the additional years of

SRSC shortages affect CVP water management.

Alternative 5. Land use and economic growth under Alternative 5 would be

identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. There are no significant changes in

project infrastructure or operations. The reduction in contract amounts for ACID and SMWC

would have no impact on land use or economic growth because contract reductions are based

on current agricultural development levels. No adverse land use and water cost impacts are

associated with this alternative. Some increase in water delivery could occur for M&I water

service contractors outside the SRSCs service area, depending on how the additional years of

SRSC shortages affect CVP water management.

Power Supply and Demands

Central Valley Project Hydroelectric Operations and Generation Facilities.

Western Area Power Authority (Western) operates, maintains, and upgrades the transmission

grid that was constructed by the CVP. Hydroelectric generation facilities were constructed as

part of 11 CVP water supply facilities (Figure 3-23). Hydroelectric generation facilities

include the turbines, generators, and powerplant substations and switchyards used to generate

electricity and deliver it to a transmission system. CVP hydroelectric facilities have an

installed generation capability of approximately 2,000 megawatts (MW) (Table 3-40).

Western dispatches and markets CVP power to preference power customers. Preference

power customers are entities such as municipalities and irrigation districts that are

specifically entitled to preference under Reclamation law. Western is also responsible for

meeting all project use load, which is the power required to operate CVP facilities. Although

developed primarily for irrigation, this multiple-purpose project also provides flood control,
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-115 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

improves Sacramento River navigation, supplies domestic and industrial water, generates

electric power, conserves fish and wildlife, creates opportunities for recreation, and enhances

water supply. Although the generation of power is not the primary operational objective, it is

nonetheless a major economic benefit of CVP operations and, accordingly, affects project

operations.

TABLE 3-40

HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION FACILITIES

CVP Division Powerplant Location Generating

Units

Capability

(kW)

Trinity River Trinity Trinity Dam/Trinity River 2 139,650

Lewiston Lewiston Dam/Trinity River 1 350

J.F. Carr Whiskeytown Dam 2 157,000

Spring Creek Spring Creek Power Conduit 2 200,000

Shasta Shasta Shasta Dam/Sacramento River 7a 625,000b

Keswick Keswick Dam/Sacramento River 3 105,000

American River Folsom Folsom Dam/American River 3 215,000

Nimbus Nimbus Dam/American River 2 14,900

Delta San Luis San Luis Reservoir 8

(total)

202,000

(CVP share)

(424,000 total)

O’Neill San Luis Canal 6 29,000

East Side New Melones New Melones Dam/Stanislaus

River

2 383,000

Total Capability 2,070,900

a

Includes two station service units.

b

Installed capacity after all rewinds were completed in year 2000.

Note:

kW = kilowatt

Power Generation and Purchase. Power generation from CVP facilities

fluctuates with reservoir releases and storage levels. Climatic conditions such as drought or

wet conditions are the primary factors affecting releases and storage, and the associated

ability to generate power. For example, dry periods reduced the water level in the New

Melones Reservoir to below the minimum power-pool levels, resulting in no power being

generated at the facility from August through January in 1991 and August through January in

1992. Reservoir releases are also affected by mandated minimum streamflow requirements,

flow-fluctuation restrictions, water delivery contracts, and water quality requirements. For

example, prior to construction of the Shasta Dam Temperature Control Device (TCD), the

Biological Opinion (BO) on Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon required

Reclamation to release cold water from Shasta Dam outlets that bypass the powerplants. The

BO has also increased the winter and spring water releases into the Sacramento River,

thereby resulting in less water being available for release in the summer, when power needs

are highest (the installation of the Shasta TCD in 1997 essentially eliminated the need to

bypass the powerplants at Shasta Dam). These factors have resulted in actual generation

typically being less than full capability.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-116 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Peak power loads typically occur in summer months when water conveyance, groundwater

pumping, industrial loads, and air conditioning loads are greatest. In the past, CVP generation

has been integrated with other power generation resources operated by Pacific Gas and

Electric Company (PG&E) to meet project use load and CVP preference power customer

loads. The integration of CVP and PG&E generation is subject to a contract signed by the

Department of the Interior (DOI) and PG&E, referred to as Contract 2948-A. In recent years,

this integration has also been affected by changes in the power supply industry. Contract

2948-A will expire after 2004 and will not be renewed. Future project power operations will

be based on project use loads and CVP preference power customer loads. Currently, project

use loads account for about 30 percent of the energy generated by CVP. In Fiscal Year

(FY) 2001, CVP net generation was 4,175 gigawatt hours (GWh), and project use was

1,158 GWh (28 percent of net generation). In FY 2002, CVP net generation was 4,280 GWh,

and project use was 1,375 GWh (32 percent of net generation). During droughts and other

times of low CVP generation, Western has exchanged or banked power with PG&E and

purchased power from other entities (particularly those in the Pacific Northwest) to meet

demands.

Reclamation, Western, and PG&E work together on a daily basis, comparing hydropower

availability, total loads (including PG&E loads), and availability of PG&E resources and

transmission capabilities. Daily operations are scheduled 1 day prior to actual use when the

Reclamation dispatch center determines the necessary releases from Keswick, Lewiston,

Tulloch, and Nimbus Reservoirs to meet hourly streamflows, water demands, water quality

requirements, and power generation needs. Reclamation communicates the dam releases to

Western’s Folsom dispatch office, which coordinates with the PG&E dispatch center. The

three entities confirm and, if necessary, adjust the schedule.

Current Power Marketing. Western sets prices for CVP hydropower according to

its costs for delivering power to customers. However, the value of the electricity that Western

sells to customers is set by the external markets and can fluctuate according to supply and

demand. Although the value and annual project output can fluctuate, Western’s costs remain

essentially unchanged. This causes Western’s per-unit cost of electricity to vary. When longterm average generation decreases, Western’s customers receive less electricity and are

required to pay a higher per-unit cost. If Western rates are relatively low, Western customers

are likely to continue to purchase power from Western as part of their long-term resource

mix. For planning purposes, power customers evaluate capacity resources according to dry

conditions to ensure reliability.

Western has wide discretion within its statutory guidelines regarding with whom and on what

terms it will contract for the sale of federal power. The sale of excess power is conducted so

as not to impair the efficiency of CVP irrigation deliveries. Contract 2948-A allows for the

sale, interchange, and transmission of electrical power and energy between the federal

government and PG&E. The agreement allows PG&E to provide energy and capacity as

required to meet project use and preference power customer loads; in return, the CVP

generating units provide energy and capacity for integration with other PG&E resources. The

agreement also recognizes the federal government’s 400-MW entitlement on the Pacific

Northwest/ Pacific Southwest Intertie.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-117 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Under the terms of Contract 2948-A, Western delivers the generation of CVP powerplants to

PG&E, along with its wholesale purchases; and PG&E supports firm power deliveries to the

preference power customers up to a maximum simultaneous demand of 1,152 MW. Western

also purchases additional power to support the CVP marketing program and primarily

imports it through use of Western’s share of the Pacific Northwest/ Pacific Southwest Intertie

and the California-Oregon Transmission Project.

Market Trends in Electricity Demand. The California Energy Commission has

forecast that electricity usage in California will grow an average of 1.8 percent per year

between now and 2010; the growth rate in the PG&E service area is forecast to grow a

similar 1.7 percent per year (California Energy Commission, 2000). Peak capacity

requirements are forecast to grow at similar rates. Table 3-41 shows the forecast energy use

and peak demand for the PG&E service area and the state.

TABLE 3-41

FORECAST ELECTRICITY DEMAND

Year Energy Use (GWh) Peak Capacity Demand (MW)

PG&E California PG&E California

2000 (estimated) 101,172 262,441 20,320 53,439

2003 (forecast) 103,335 273,063 20,881 57,643

2010 (forecast) 119,968 313,674 24,335 66,095

Change, 2003-2010 16,633 40,611 3,454 8,452

% Change 2003-2010 16.1% 14.9% 16.5% 14.7%

Source: California Energy Commission, 2000. The Commission is in process of preparing the “2003

Integrated Energy Policy Report” that will include updated forecasts.

Value of Electricity Production. Hydroelectric power generated from existing

facilities is one of the lowest-cost sources available and represents about 10 to 20 percent of

California’s electricity generation, depending on weather. It is often generated during peak

demand periods with the ability to rapidly vary output levels, making it more valuable than

average. New sources of electricity generation are being developed in California and other

western states that will include gas-fired combustion and combined-cycle plants, cogeneration plants, and renewable sources such as windmills. The cost of these new sources is

expected to be substantially greater than the cost of producing power with existing

hydroelectric facilities.

The California Energy Commission has made estimates of what it calls the market-clearing

price for new power. This is defined as the price that would be paid for additional power in a

day-ahead auction such as California’s former energy-trading market, the Power Exchange.

The Commission examined a rapid supply development scenario and a cautious development
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-118 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

scenario. In the cautious scenario, estimated average costs for increments of purchased power

rise from about $25 per megawatt-hour (MWh) in 2003 to over $40 per MWh in 2010.

Purchase costs for on-peak power are higher, rising from an estimated $29 per MWh in 2003

to $48 per MWh in 2010 (see Figure 3-24). These estimates were made prior to the very large

price spikes observed in 2001. As a comparison, the Energy Commission recently estimated

the cost of replacing peak generation on the Klamath Project at $50 per MWh (CEC, 2003).

Power Requirements for Groundwater Pumping. One of the main alternative

sources of water when CVP cutbacks are in effect is groundwater. Electric or diesel-driven

pumps are used by SRSCs to pump groundwater to supplement CVP water during years of

delivery cutbacks. Table 3-42 summarizes the amount of electricity needed to pump

groundwater under different cutback scenarios. These estimates assume that the pumps are

driven by electric motors – energy required by diesel-driven pumps would be roughly

equivalent. For purposes of illustrating potential impacts, total average pumping lift is

assumed to be 60 feet and well pumping efficiency is assumed to be 70 percent. Actual lifts

and efficiency will vary by location.

TABLE 3-42

POWER REQUIRED TO PUMP GROUNDWATER

Shasta Inflow Deficiency Water Pumped (AF) Energy Used (MWh)a

200,000 to 400,000 AF 212,745 18,600

400,000 to 600,000 AF 425,490 37,200

Greater than 600,000 AF 531,863 46,500

aAssumes 60-foot average total lift and 70 percent pumping efficiency.

Environmental Consequences. The effects of Alternatives 1 through 5 on

hydroelectric power generation and power consumption through changes to groundwater

pumping of the SRSCs service area are compared to conditions under the No Action

Alternative.

No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative does not include new facilities

or construction. The No Action Alternative assumes that dry-year reductions would remain

the same as existing conditions, and the renewed contract period would last 40 years.

Alternative 1. Alternative 1 would not change water operations compared to No

Action; therefore, hydroelectric power generation would also remain unchanged.

The demand for electricity to pump groundwater would be exactly the same as under No

Action. Implementation of this alternative would not result in any impact compared to No

Action.

Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would potentially result in changed water operations

compared to No Action, particularly during drought operations when the SRSCs would be

subject to more frequent water cutbacks than in the No Action. Any additional water

available for hydropower generation would be beneficial for hydropower resources. Notably,
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-119 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

if the additional water were allocated for hydropower, it could be reserved to generate power

during nonirrigation and peak electrical demand periods, when the value of hydropower

generation is highest.

The demand for electricity to pump groundwater during cutbacks would increase in frequency

relative to No Action. Expressed as an average over the 80-year hydrologic record, about

32,000 AF of Sacramento River delivery per year would need to be replaced by groundwater

pumping. Using the assumptions described above, up to 2,800 MWh of electricity would be

consumed by that increased level of pumping. At a price of 9.3 cents per kWh (PG&E, 2004),

the annual cost would average up to about $0.3 million. Under assumptions of the alternative,

any additional costs to SRSCs and their growers would be compensated by Reclamation,

resulting in no net change in cost of agricultural production. The increased demand for

electricity to pump groundwater during cutbacks would be less than significant.

Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would not change water operations compared to No

Action; therefore, hydroelectric power generation would also remain unchanged. The demand

for electricity to pump groundwater would not change relative to No Action.

Alternative 4. Alternative 4 would potentially result in changed water operations

compared to No Action, particularly during drought operations when the SRSCs would be

subject to more frequent water cutbacks. Any additional water available for hydropower

generation would be beneficial for hydropower resources. Notably, if the additional water

were allocated for hydropower, it could be reserved to generate power during nonirrigation

and peak electrical demand periods, when the value of hydropower generation is highest.

The demand for electricity to pump groundwater during cutbacks would increase in frequency

relative to No Action. Expressed as an average over the 80-year hydrologic record, about

121,000 AF of Sacramento River delivery per year would need to be replaced by groundwater

pumping. Using the assumptions described above, up to 10,500 MWh of electricity would be

consumed by that increased level of pumping. At a price of 9.3 cents per kwh (PG&E, 2004),

the annual cost would average up to almost $1 million. Under assumptions of the alternative,

any additional costs to SRSCs and their growers would be compensated by Reclamation,

resulting in no net change in cost of agricultural production. The increased demand for

electricity to pump groundwater during cutbacks would be less than significant.

Alternative 5. Alternative 5 would potentially result in changed water operations

compared to No Action, particularly during drought operations when the SRSCs would be

subject to more frequent water cutbacks. Any additional water available for hydropower

generation would be beneficial for hydropower resources. Notably, if the additional water

were allocated for hydropower, it could be reserved to generate power during nonirrigation

and peak electrical demand periods, when the value of hydropower generation is highest. The

demand for electricity to pump groundwater during cutbacks would increase in frequency

relative to No Action. Expressed as an average over the 80-year hydrologic record, about

241,000 AF of Sacramento River delivery per year would need to be replaced by groundwater

pumping. Using the assumptions described above, up to 21,000 MWh of electricity would be

consumed by that increased level of pumping. At a price of 9.3 cents per kwh (PG&E, 2004),

the annual cost would average up to almost $2 million. Under assumptions of the alternative,
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-120 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

any additional costs to SRSCs and their growers would be compensated by Reclamation,

resulting in no net change in cost of agricultural production. The increased demand for

electricity to pump groundwater during cutbacks would be less than significant.

Regional Economics

The total population for the counties in the Sacramento Valley was approximately 2,824,000

in the year 2001. In 2001, the total employment for the area was 1,482,000 jobs, with the

most jobs (approximately 22 percent) existing in the government and government enterprises

industry. It should be noted that a substantial majority of the Sacramento Valley population is

located in the Sacramento metropolitan area and in other urban centers (e.g., Redding and

Yuba City/Marysville).

Regional Employment and Income

Table 3-43 shows the total non-farm earnings. The sectors with the largest earnings are

Government and Government Enterprises (29 percent), Health Care and Social Assistance (9

percent), Construction (9 percent), Retail Trade (8 percent), and Transportation and

Warehousing (8 percent). Table 3-44 shows estimated non-farm industry employment for

potentially affected counties in the Sacramento Valley area. As mentioned above,

Government and Government Enterprise provide approximately 22 percent of the jobs in the

Sacramento Valley, followed by Retail Trade (12 percent), Health Care and Social Assistance

(9 percent), Construction (7 percent), and Accommodation and Food Services (7 percent).

Table 3-45 summarizes personal income measures, industry earnings, employment and

population. The range of per capita income in 2001 was Sacramento County with the highest

at $29,548 and Glenn County with the lowest at $18,031. Non-farm personal income is

highest in Sacramento County and lowest in Colusa County. Farm income is highest in Yolo

County and lowest in Butte County. Non-farm income represents the majority of the income

for the region.
September 2004 3-121 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-43

TOTAL NON-FARM INDUSTRY EARNINGS, SACRAMENTO VALLEY ($1,000), 200

Industry Shasta Tehama Glenn Colusa Yolo Butte Sutter Yuba 

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities, and Other N/A N/A 12,375 14,082 43,346 36,599 32,415 12,932 Mining N/A N/A 1,924 86 19,275 1,965 2,091 5,633 Utilities 51,422 4,571 3,174 846 N/A 26,069 1,480 N/A Construction 264,243 32,009 17,338 8,505 322,247 184,238 111,706 53,272 Manufacturing 140,344 95,856 28,907 56,839 330,415 162,622 84,678 36,178 Wholesale Trade 59,804 6,072 13,114 13,454 N/A 64,833 45,894 N/A Retail Trade 270,358 58,162 19,584 17,110 271,715 282,655 119,042 41,554 Transportation and Warehousing 114,320 65,473 16,207 11,047 292,589 72,311 32,129 14,617 Information 48,388 3,802 2,137 1,456 55,642 57,031 7,363 7,886 Finance and Insurance 82,070 17,044 4,462 4,889 98,410 108,220 25,894 9,368 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 39,847 5,327 3,286 1,714 58,087 61,534 23,704 5,191 Professional and Technical Services 143,094 15,717 10,371 3,408 207,366 155,364 N/A 33,770 Management of Companies and Enterprises 31,737 4,228 0 105 152,356 18,478 N/A 1,094 Administrative and Waste Services 76,399 17,920 2,858 1,980 104,090 119,402 30,144 23,053 Educational Services 23,606 2,388 N/A N/A 12,664 7,088 6,383 872 Health Care and Social Assistance 401,893 53,609 N/A N/A 181,637 411,592 120,854 74,383 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 22,985 2,936 604 633 19,894 20,924 4,877 3,437 Accommodation and Food Services 103,916 20,098 11,200 8,645 83,055 101,585 36,130 14,243 Other Services, Except Public Administration 105,739 22,930 10,477 6,447 97,710 141,942 47,210 19,502 Government and Government Enterprise 545,123 136,787 86,009 64,914 1,287,629 606,759 171,893 456,058 Total 2,525,288 564,929 244,027 216,160 3,638,127 2,641,211 903,887 813,043 Note: N/A = Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals.
August 2004 3-122 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-44

TOTAL NON-FARM INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT, SACRAMENTO VALLEY 2001

Industry Shasta Tehama Glenn Colusa Yolo Butte Sutter Yuba 

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities, and Other N/A N/A 686 553 1,832 1,516 1,510 566 Mining N/A N/A 53 26 374 117 74 109 Utilities 577 84 67 27 N/A 418 50 N/A Construction 6,140 1,006 543 212 6,201 5,261 2,552 1,334 Manufacturing 3,658 2,576 718 871 6,353 4,585 2,428 1,204 Wholesale Trade 1,869 236 383 352 N/A 1,978 1,190 N/A Retail Trade 11,706 2,696 1,136 755 10,035 12,836 5,699 2,000 Transportation and Warehousing 3,257 1,941 480 324 7,905 2,407 1,156 489 Information 1,297 142 87 41 1,207 1,706 293 244 Finance and Insurance 3,140 744 227 199 2,671 3,980 1,370 459 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 3,629 704 275 203 3,020 4,118 1,957 501 Professional and Technical Services 4,168 624 327 186 6,272 4,702 N/A 925 Management of Companies and Enterprises 709 113 0 27 3,161 446 N/A 52 Administrative and Waste Services 4,419 848 221 113 4,489 5,687 1,615 1,075 Educational Services 1,231 123 N/A N/A 985 623 436 77 Health Care and Social Assistance 10,944 2,174 N/A N/A 6,435 13,235 3,571 2,084 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1,495 260 83 60 1,770 1,994 643 343 Accommodation and Food Services 6,118 1,296 618 613 5,527 6,927 2,247 1,161 Other Services, Except Public Administration 5,395 1,230 575 385 4,224 8,011 2,621 1,055 Government and Government Enterprise 13,949 3,710 2,173 1,878 28,618 15,662 4,397 10,147 Total 83,701 20,507 8,652 6,825 101,079 96,209 33,809 23,825 Note: N/A = Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

September 2004 3-123 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-45

2001 ECONOMIC ACTIVITY SACRAMENTO VALLEY REGION

County Personal Income ($1,000)a Total

Industry

Earnings

($1,000)c

Total

Employment

(jobs)d

Total

Population

(persons)

Total Non-farm % of

Total

Farm % of

Total

Per

Capita

(Dollars)b

Shasta 4,210,746 4,202,674 99.81 8,072 0.0019 25,175 2,577,432 86,655 167,257

Tehama 1,128,994 1,106,902 98.04 22,092 0.0196 19,868 602,520 23,722 56,824

Glenn 475,866 470,418 98.86 5,448 0.0114 18,031 261,165 11,723 26,392

Colusa 413,767 369,297 89.25 44,470 0.1075 21,668 272,062 9,992 19,096

Yolo 4,792,716 4,734,413 98.78 58,303 0.0122 27,332 3,943,138 110,249 175,351

Butte 4,700,738 4,696,386 99.91 4,352 0.0009 22,818 2,645,563 100,379 206,007

Sutter 1,935,941 1,923,530 99.36 12,411 0.0064 24,075 969,872 40.075 80,413

Yuba 1,177,888 1,164,491 98.66 13,397 0.0114 19,236 848,621 26,271 61,232

Sacramento 37,466,330 37,408,287 99.85 58,043 0.0015 29,548 29,770,293 742,414 1,267,969

Total 79,599,209 79,367,614 99.71 231,595 0.0029 301,669 54,595,887 1,482,175 2,824,498

s

Personal income is the income that is received by persons from participation in production, from both government and

business transfer payments, and from government interest.

b

Per capita personal income is measure of income calculated as the total personal income of the residents of an area divided

by the population of the area. Per capita personal income is often used as an indicator of the economic well being of the

residents of an area.

c

Total industry earnings include all farm and non-farm earnings.

d

Total employment includes all industry sector employment estimates of both full and part-time jobs.

Regional Economic Multipliers

Regional employment and income impacts are often divided into direct, indirect, and induced

components. Direct impacts are the initial changes in the economy, such as an increase in

expenditure of $1,000 by an agricultural producer for seed. The indirect effect of that increase

in expenditure is the new business expenditure on inputs for products or services that it

causes. For example, the seed purchase prompts an increased demand for fertilizer by the

seed producer to grow more seed stock. The induced effects are the additional spending of

wages on goods and services caused by the initial expenditure. For example, the seed grower

realizes an increase in income due to the sale and purchases the services of a mechanic with
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-124 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

the additional income. The combined economic effect from the $1,000 expenditure rippling

through the economy is the total economic effect and it is larger than the initial expenditure.

This is known as the multiplier effect.

Taking the nine-county Sacramento Valley study area as one economic region, multipliers

were generated using the IMPLAN® regional economic model and 2001 data and are

reported in Table 3-46. The economic sectors were aggregated into agricultural and

nonagricultural related. The agricultural multipliers are interpreted as for every dollar of

agriculture related income generated, the total effect in the economy will be an additional

$1.60 of income; for every agricultural job created, an additional 0.78 job is created; and for

every $1.00 of output produced, an additional $0.98 of output will result. The nonagricultural

multipliers may be interpreted similarly.

TABLE 3-46

INCOME, EMPLOYMENT, AND OUTPUT MULTIPLIERS FOR THE

SACRAMENTO VALLEY

Multiplier Agricultural Sector Nonagricultural Sector

Income 2.60 1.93

Employment 1.78 1.94

Output 1.98 1.93

Source: IMPLAN, 2001

County Settings.

The following sections describe the existing social and economic setting in counties in the

project area. Trends from the nine counties in the SRSCs service area are identified in

Table 3-47.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-125 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-47

SUMMARY OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY BY COUNTY

County Total Land

Area of

Countya

Acres in

Farm

Productiona

Percent of

Total Acres

in Farm

Productiona

Agricultural

Gross Value

(million)

Percent Farm

Personal

Income of

Total from All

Sectors

Percent of

Labor Force

Employed

by

Agricultureb

County

Unemployment Rateb

Shasta 2,422,400 316,743 13% 52.2 0.2% 1.4% 6.7%

Tehama 1,904,640 885,000 46% 126 1.9% 8.1% 6.4%

Glenn 846,636 482,583 57% 303.9 6.5% 18.6% 12%

Colusa 736,450 430,958 59% 290.2 22.4% 29.5% 17.6%

Yolo 646,500 536,595 83% 299.8 2.1% 4.6% 4.2%

Butte 1,035,897 404,000 39% 288 1.3% 3.8% 7%

Sutter 385,600 248,349 64% 291 5.0% 14.8% 12.3%

Yuba 208,461 108,400 52% 133 3.1% 9% 11.7%

Sacramento 618,240 308,035 50% 276 0.2% >1% 4.2%

Total 8,804,824 3,720,663 42% 2,063.1 1.0%

a Source: USDA,1997.

b

 Source: EDD, 2002.

In six out of the nine counties in the SRSCs service area, agriculture is the largest land use;

however, the amount of personal income derived from agriculture as a percentage of personal

income from all sectors in each county is significantly less. Agriculture employed a

significant percentage of the total labor force in Glenn, Colusa, and Sutter Counties.

Shasta County. Shasta County is the northernmost county in the SRSCs service

area. The City of Redding, located in the southwestern portion of the county on I-5, is the

primary trade and commerce center for the far north-central and northeastern portion of

California. Historically, Shasta County’s economic base relied heavily on the timber industry;

however, in recent years, education employment, construction, services, retail trade, and

manufacturing industries have all shown an increase (Employment Development Department

[EDD], 2002).

Table 3-48 summarizes the value of production of Shasta County’s leading commodities.

The EDD labor statistics indicate that the services, retail trade, and government industries

were the predominant employers in the county during 2001. These three industries accounted

for approximately 73.4 percent of total county employment, and EDD projections estimate

that the majority of the non-farm job growth will be in these industries. Agriculture

comprised approximately 1.4 percent of total county employment in 20015 (EDD, 2002).

 

5 Agricultural employment includes agricultural workers who are employed by farm labor contractors; employment data do not

include unpaid family workers
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-126 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-48

SHASTA COUNTY LEADING COMMODITIES

Commodity Value of Production

($1,000)

Cattle, Stockers and Feeders 8,700

Nursery, Strawberry Plants 6,193

Hay, Other 4,955

Hay, Alfalfa 3,856

Pasture, Range 3,475

Pasture, Irrigated 3,300

Rice, Wild 2,629

Livestock 2,432

Nursery Products 2,383

Cattle, Beef Cows, Breeding 2,381

Source: Summary of County Agricultural Commissioners’

Reports, 2001-02. California Agricultural Statistics Service.

Tehama County. Because Tehama County has an abundant supply of water, the

economic base has been composed primarily of timber, agriculture, and sport and commercial

fishing industries. According to the Tehama County 1993 General Plan, agriculture has been

and will continue to represent the major focus of the county’s economic base. About 10

percent of employed individuals in the county are directly employed by the agricultural

industry. Many more provide indirect or secondary service to the agricultural sector.

Although government, services, and retail trade are growing industries, agriculture still

comprises a significant portion of the county’s economic production.

Table 3-49 summarizes the value of production of Tehama County’s leading commodities.

TABLE 3-49

TEHAMA COUNTY LEADING COMMODITIES

Commodity Value of Production

($1,000)

Walnuts, English 25,109

Plums, Dried 22,281

Milk, Market 11,172

Olives 11,138

Almonds 9,460
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-127 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-49

TEHAMA COUNTY LEADING COMMODITIES

Commodity Value of Production

($1,000)

Cattle, Stockers and Feeders 7,410

Pasture, Range 6,510

Fruit and Nut Crops 3,390

Cattle, Fed Heifers and Steers 3,150

Cattle, Dairy Replacement Heifers 3,000

Source: Summary of County Agricultural Commissioners’

Reports, 2001-02. California Agricultural Statistics Service.

The EDD labor statistics indicates that the retail trade, government, and services industries

comprised the majority of employment in the county during 2001. These three industries

account for approximately 67.4 percent of total county employment, and EDD projections

estimate that the majority of the non-farm job growth will be in these industries. Agriculture

comprised approximately 8.1 percent of the total county employment in 2001 (EDD, 2002).

Glenn County. Glenn County is located about 100 miles northwest of Sacramento,

along the I-5 corridor. Agriculture, agriculturally dependent industries, and government

employment comprise a disproportionately high percentage of employment in the county.

Local government was the dominant employer in 2001, and is expected to continue to

provide the majority of jobs (EDD, 2002).

Glenn County was the fourth largest producer of rice in California, contributing over

18 percent of the total for the state. The total production value for rice was nearly

$100 million. Table 3-50 summarizes the value of production and acreage of Glenn County’s

leading commodities.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-128 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-50

GLENN COUNTY LEADING COMMODITIES

Commodity Value of Production

($1,000)

Rice, Paddy 97,829

Almonds 46,728

Dairy Products 38,477

Cattle and Calves 15,099

Hay, Alfalfa 13,309

Walnuts 12,607

Corn 11,517

Olives 11,339

Plums, Dried 10,040

Grapes 5,488

Source: Summary of County Agricultural Commissioners’

Reports, 2001-02. California Agricultural Statistics Service.

Government was the primary job-producing sector in Glenn County in 2001, employing

29.9 percent of the county’s labor force compared to 18.6 percent for agriculture (EDD

2002). Non-farm industry projections indicate that the majority of the job growth in the

county will be in services, manufacturing, and retail trade (EDD, 2002).

Colusa County. Colusa County is located about 35 miles northwest of Sacramento

along the I-5 corridor. The county’s economy depends highly on agriculture. The county has a

high labor surplus for much of the year because of the seasonal nature of agriculture.

Colusa County ranks as the leading rice-producing county in the United States and is the

leading producer of field crops in the region, with a total field crop production of about

$170 million in 2002. Colusa County is currently in a transition from row crops to perennial

crops (almonds, grapes, and walnuts) and from low-value agronomic crops to higher value

vegetables or other row crops”. Table 3-51 summarizes the value of production of Colusa

County’s leading commodities.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-129 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-51

COLUSA COUNTY LEADING COMMODITIES

Commodity Value of Production

($1,000)

Rice 136,832

Tomatoes, Processing 39,481

Almond Meats 27,197

Rice Seed 9,092

Cotton Lint 8,539

Cattle and Calves 7,685

Walnuts, English 6,530

Beans, Dry 4,717

Wheat 4,676

Cucumber Seed 4,056

Source: Summary of County Agricultural Commissioners’

Reports, 2001-02. California Agricultural Statistics Service.

Colusa County is primarily a rural agricultural county, with a total population of about 18,800

in 2000. Agricultural employment in Colusa County during 2001 was 29.5 percent of total

employment, which was the highest percentage of the counties in the Sacramento Valley

(EDD, 2002). In comparison, 25.1 percent of the workforce was employed in the government

sector and 14.5 percent in retail trade (EDD, 2002). Other major employers in the county

include trucking and courier services, amusement and recreation services, oil and gas field

services, and groceries and related products.

Yolo County. Yolo County is located immediately west of the Sacramento

Metropolitan Area near the southern end of the Sacramento Valley. Although the majority of

the county’s land area is in agriculture, a large portion of the economy is tied to education

facilities and the Sacramento urban economy.

Processing tomatoes were the most valuable crop in Yolo County and were planted on

48,575 acres. Processing tomatoes from Yolo County generated about 13 percent

($76.5 million) of California’s tomato processing income in 2000. Gross agricultural

production was $299.8 million in 2002. Table 3-52 summarizes the value of production of

Yolo County’s leading commodities.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-130 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-52

YOLO COUNTY LEADING COMMODITIES

Commodity Value of Production

($1,000)

Tomatoes, Processing 74,135

Grapes, Wine 44,675

Hay, Alfalfa 32,804

Rice, Milling 27,688

Vegetable Crops 13,704

Walnuts, English 11,465

Wheat, All 8,537

Cattle and Calves 7,695

Safflower 6,697

Almonds 6,694

Source: Summary of County Agricultural Commissioners’

Reports, 2001-02. California Agricultural Statistics Service.

In 2000, agriculture employed 4.6 percent of the civilian workforce, and other major

employers in the county included state-local government (32.9 percent), retail trade

(16.9 percent), and services (17 percent) (EDD, 2002).

Butte County. Butte County is located about 60 miles north of Sacramento along

the Highway 99 corridor. Historically, Butte County has been agriculturally based, and

commercial agriculture continues to be the county’s principal economic base, which is

supplemented by nonagricultural industry located in Chico.

The most valuable crop in Butte County is rice, which is 18.7 percent ($101.2 million) of

California’s gross production of rice in 2002. Table 3-53 summarizes the value of production

of Butte County’s leading commodities.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-131 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-53

BUTTE COUNTY LEADING COMMODITIES

Commodity Value of Production

($1,000)

Rice 101,192

Almonds 65,762

Walnuts, English 45,055

Plums, Dried 18,286

Nursery Stock 7,178

Peaches, Clingstone 7,123

Cattle and Calves 5,227

Field Crops 4,801

Rice Seed 4,740

Kiwifruit 3,206

Source: Summary of County Agricultural Commissioners’

Reports, 2001-02. California Agricultural Statistics Service.

According to EDD labor statistics, the services sector was the largest employer in the county,

employing 30 percent of the labor force in 2001. Recent growth within the service industry

has been in health services and the social services components. Aircraft and parts, colleges

and universities, and amusement and recreation services are some of the other major

employers in the county. Government comprised 22.6 percent of the workforce in 2001

compared to 3.8 percent for agriculture.

Sutter County. Sutter County is located about 40 miles north of Sacramento, along

the State Highway 99 corridor. Sutter County’s main economic base is in agriculture, food

processing, lumber and wood products, and government.

In 2000, Sutter County accounted for 19.1 percent of total rice produced in the state. Table 3-

54 summarizes the value of production of Sutter County’s leading commodities.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-132 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-54

SUTTER COUNTY LEADING COMMODITIES

Commodity Value of Production

($1,000)

Rice 109,923

Peaches 37,437

Walnuts 29,669

Plums, Dried 19,262

Tomatoes 16,960

Nursery Products 8,929

Melons 8,579

Cattle and Calves 6,963

Almonds 5,375

Hay, Alfalfa 4,789

Source: Summary of County Agricultural Commissioners’

Reports, 2001-02. California Agricultural Statistics Service.

According to the 1996 Sutter County General Plan, agriculture and agriculturally related

services and industries have dominated employment in the county. In 2001, 14.8 percent of

Sutter County’s workforce was employed in agriculture compared with retail trade (21.1

percent) and service industries (21.5 percent) (EDD, 2002).

Yuba County. Yuba County is located east of Sutter County, with the Sacramento

River creating the westernmost boundary. Beale Air Force Base, located in Yuba County,

provides a large number of federal jobs for the county. The majority of job growth in the

county is predicted to be in local government, specifically in local education, city and county

government, and Indian tribal government.

Yuba County ranked fifth in the state in overall rice production. Table 3-55 summarizes the

value of production of Yuba County’s leading commodities.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-133 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-55

YUBA COUNTY LEADING COMMODITIES

Commodity Value of Production

($1,000)

Rice 35,284

Peaches 20,765

Plums, Dried 19,983

Cattle and Calves 17,129

Walnuts 14,805

Milk 7,652

Pasture, All 3,356

Kiwifruit 3,118

Almonds 1,024

Source: Summary of County Agricultural Commissioners’

Reports, 2001-02. California Agricultural Statistics Service.

Local government has had the highest growth rate in the county, and comprises the majority

of the workforce at 39.3 percent (EDD, 2002). Industry projections for non-farm employment

indicate that government, services, and retail trade will account for the highest percentage of

job growth in the county.

Sacramento County. Sacramento County is situated at the southern portion of the

SRSCs service area and is the most developed of the counties in the SRSCs service area. The

City of Sacramento is the state’s capital, and the majority of the workforce is in the government sector.

Grapes were the county’s highest crop, in terms of gross value, providing nearly 27 percent of

the total gross value of agriculture production. Table 3-56 summarizes the value of

production of Sacramento County’s leading commodities.

EDD labor statistics indicate that the government and services sectors accounted for over half

the total employment in the county at 55.8 percent (EDD, 2002). EDD projections estimate

that the majority of the non-farm job growth will be in the government, retail trade, and

services industries. Agriculture accounted for less than 1 percent of total county employment

in 2001.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-134 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-56

SACRAMENTO COUNTY LEADING COMMODITIES

Commodity Value of Production ($1,000)

Grapes, Wine 73,876

Milk, Market 38,029

Pears, Bartlett 27,352

Nursery Stock 26,378

Cattle and Calves 11,771

Poultry 11,116

Corn, Field 11,022

Hay, Alfalfa 10,544

Rice 9,870

Tomatoes, Processing 9,497

Source: Summary of County Agricultural Commissioners’ Reports, 2001-02.

California Agricultural Statistics Service.

Environmental Consequences. The effects of Alternatives 1 through 5 on of the

SRSCs service areas are compared to conditions under the No Action Alternative.

No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative represents future conditions if

the Preferred Alternative were not implemented. In general, agricultural economies within the

Sacramento Valley are not anticipated to change substantially within the term of the Preferred

Alternative. Rice, grains, tomatoes, oilseeds, forage, and orchard crops will dominate

agricultural production. Trends reported in the most recent California Water Plan Update

(Department, 1998) indicate little change in total irrigated acreage through 2020, but with

some shift in acreage toward permanent crops. These trends are expected to continue. It is

anticipated that some lands, primarily those near the urban areas of the Sacramento

Metropolitan Area and to a lesser degree Redding, will be converted to nonagricultural use in

accordance with local general plans and zoning constraints. The conditions under the No

Action Alternative generally reflect the conditions described in the Affected Environment

section.

Alternative 1. A substantial increase in agricultural production costs would result

from the required installation of water measurement devices at farm gates. The installation

and operation of these devices would generate additional economic activity in the region, but

these gains would be offset by reduced spending by growers on other production items or

personal consumption. No significant impacts to agricultural production or other economic

activities were identified. Therefore, net changes to the regional economy are judged to be

not significant.

Alternative 2. No significant impacts to agricultural production or other economic

activities were identified. Therefore, net changes to the regional economy are judged to be

not significant.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-135 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Alternative 3. No significant impacts to agricultural production or other economic

activities were identified. Therefore, net changes to the regional economy are judged to be

not significant.

Alternative 4. No significant impacts to agricultural production or other economic

activities were identified. Therefore, net changes to the regional economy are judged to be

not significant.

Alternative 5. No significant impacts to agricultural production or other economic

activities were identified. Therefore, net changes to the regional economy are judged to be

not significant.

SOCIOCULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

The following subsections describe settings and potential impacts to sociocultural resources.

Sociocultural resources generally refer to resources associated with human communities.

Demographic Descriptions

Affected Environment.

Table 3-57 shows the population projections for counties within the SRSCs service area. In

2000, the nine counties that comprise the service area accounted for approximately six

percent of the total population in the state.

TABLE 3-57

POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR COUNTIES WITHIN THE CENTRAL VALLEY

SRSC SERVICE AREASa

Years 2000a 2010 2020 2030 2040

Shasta County 163,000 213,000 241,000 268,000 294,000

City of Reddingb 81,000 105,000 127,000 -- --

Tehama County 56,000 71,000 94,000 98,000 114,000

Glenn County 26,000 39,000 49,000 61,000 75,000

Butte County 203,000 259,000 307,000 363,000 420,000

Colusa County 19,000 31,000 41,000 54,000 68,000

Sutter County 79,000 100,000 116,000 134,000 152,000

Yolo County 167,000 195,000 225,000 260,000 298,000

Sacramento County 1,223,000 1,436,000 1,652,000 1,884,000 2,123,000

Yuba County 60,219 73,935 94,610 96,563 109,934

Total $2,077,219 $2,522,935 $2,946,610 $3,218,563 $3,653,934

a

U.S. Census Bureau: State and County Quick Facts, 2002.

bCity of Redding, General Plan, March 2000.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-136 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Shasta County. The population of Shasta County has increased from 147,036 in

1990 to 163,256 in 2000. The majority of the county’s population (approximately 61 percent)

is located in the urban areas of the Cities of Redding, Anderson, and Shasta Lake, all of

which are situated along the I-5 corridor.

According to the general plan, the annual growth rate of the county is estimated to be

approximately 1.75 percent. The projected population in the year 2020, is 241,000, and

294,000 by the year 2040.

Tehama County. The population of Tehama County in the year 2000 was 56,039,

with approximately 23 percent (13,147 people) of the population residing in the City of Red

Bluff. The county population increased by approximately 12 percent from 1990 to 2000. The

two main urban centers in the county are the Cities of Red Bluff, which contains approximately 23 percent of the county’s population (13,147), and Corning, population 6,741.

Tehama County’s General Plan zones urban development along the I-5 corridor on lands with

relatively low agricultural capability. Thus, the county encourages future growth while

maintaining agricultural resources.

Glenn County. The population in Glenn County in the year 2000 was 26,453. The

largest urban areas in the county include the City of Orland (population 6,281) and the City of

Willows (population 6,220). Both cities are situated near the I-5 corridor. Population

increases countywide are estimated at 0.7 percent per year.

Butte County. Butte County’s General Plan states an anticipated growth rate of

approximately 3 percent. From 1990 to 2000, total county population increased

approximately 12 percent from 182,120 to 203,171. The largest urban areas in the county

include the City of Chico (population 59,954), City of Oroville (population 13,004), Paradise

(population 26,408) and the City of Magalia (population 10,569).

Colusa County. The population of Colusa County in 2000 was 18,804, an

approximate 14 percent increase in population since 1990. Communities including the Cities

of Williams, Colusa, and Arbuckle contain over 60 percent of the county’s population.

Growth and urban development is targeted to take place near the existing urban centers of

Arbuckle, College City, Colusa, Grimes, Maxwell, Princeton, Stonyford, and Williams. The

Colusa County General Plan includes strict policies to preserve agricultural lands.

Sutter County. The two main urban areas within the county include the Cities of

Yuba (population 36,758) and Live Oak (population 6,229).

Sutter County’s population increased approximately 23 percent from 1990 to 2000. The

population in 2000 was 78,930. Nearly half the county’s population resides in Yuba City.

Yolo County. From 1990 to 2000, population in the county increased approximately

20 percent, from 141,092 in 1990 to 168,660 in 2000. Residential/urban land uses are

primarily located in major urban centers including the Cities of Davis (population 60,308),

Winters (population 6,125), Woodland (population 49,151), and the unincorporated area of

West Sacramento (population 31,615).
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-137 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Sacramento County. Urban uses are distributed within a 650-square-mile area of

Sacramento County surrounding and including the City of Sacramento. The population of

Sacramento County in 2000 was 1,223,499, an approximate increase of 182,000 from 1990.

Agricultural and rural residential land uses are primarily located south and east of Elk GroveFlorin Road, south of the Cosumnes River, near Folsom and Rio Linda, and in the

northernmost portion of the county along the county line (Water Forum, 1999).

Yuba County From 1990 to 2000, Yuba County’s population increased

approximately 3 percent from 58,228 to 60,219. The majority of the population in the county

resides in the Cities of Linda (13,474), Marysville (12,268), Olivehurst (11,061), and South

Yuba City (12,651).

Environmental Consequences. The effects of Alternatives 1 through 5 on land

uses of the SRSCs service area are compared to conditions under the No Action Alternative.

No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative does not include new facilities

or construction. The No Action Alternative assumes that dry-year reductions would remain

the same as existing conditions, and the renewed contract period would last 40 years. It is

anticipated that growth would continue to occur as described in the county general plans and

as projected by the Department of Finance.

It should be noted that the use of CVP water through the Settlement Contracts is not a

primary factor driving growth and land use change, and in most areas of urban growth ample

groundwater is available to support the predicted growth. Demographic, economic, political,

and other factors, independent of the contract renewal process, are causing changes with

direct and indirect effects to land use that are beyond the range of Reclamation’s

responsibilities. Virtually all of the renewal actions are within the range of existing

conditions. This includes the area of use, type of use, range of river flows, and reservoir

fluctuations. No additional infrastructure would be constructed, deliveries would not

increase, and no existing natural habitat would be converted into farmland or other uses.

In some instances, the responsibility to address effects to land uses would be with the local

government as part of their California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance for

their actions. For example, Reclamation is not responsible for the development of housing

tracts or industrial development in a community. Such actions are approved locally and at the

state level. Furthermore, if a farmer changes from one irrigated crop to another because of

economic reasons, Reclamation does not control the farmer’s decision. On the other hand,

Reclamation would need to consider the effects to land uses when Reclamation approves new

lands being brought into an irrigation district and when Reclamation approves a change

in use.

Alternative 1. Land use in the SRSCs service area under Alternative 1 would be

identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 would not significantly

alter current CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities, or the

maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSCs, with the exception of reduced contract

amounts to ACID and SMWC. However, these reductions would not result in activities that

would cause any changes to existing land uses in these districts; therefore, there would be no

impacts.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-138 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSC would continue to be managed

in the same manner under Alternative 1 as under the No Action Alternative.

No adverse impacts to land use are associated with this alternative.

Alternative 2. Land use in the SRSCs service area under Alternative 2 would be

identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 2 would not alter current

CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities, or the maximum

volume of water delivered to the SRSCs.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSCs would continue to be

managed in the same manner under Alternative 2 as under the No Action Alternative.

No adverse impacts are associated with this alternative.

Alternative 3. Land use in the SRSCs service area under Alternative 3 would be

identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 3 would not alter current

CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities, or the maximum

volume of water delivered to the SRSCs.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSCs would continue to be

managed in the same manner under Alternative 3 as under the No Action Alternative.

No adverse impacts are associated with this alternative.

Alternative 4. Land use in the SRSCs service area under Alternative 4 would be

similar to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 4 would not significantly

alter current CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities, or the

maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSCs, with the exception of reduced contract

amounts to ACID and SMWC, and sliding-scale reduced diversions to all contractors in dry

years. This reduction could result in increased pumping activities in irrigation districts

experiencing water delivery cutbacks during dry years when the irrigation district would have

otherwise maintained full contract amounts.

Alternatively, reduced diversions to the SRSC could result in increased diversions in dry

years to districts that would have otherwise experienced water cutbacks. This would create

beneficial impacts to new recipients.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSCs would continue to be

managed in the same manner under Alternative 4 as under the No Action Alternative.

No adverse impacts are associated with this alternative.

Alternative 5. Land use in the SRSCs service area under Alternative 5 would be

similar to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would not significantly

alter current CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities, or the

maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSCs, with the exception of reduced contract

amounts to ACID and SMWC, and Shasta-Index reduced diversions to all SRSCs in dry

years. This reduction could result in increased pumping activities in irrigation districts
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-139 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

experiencing water deliveries cutbacks during dry years when the irrigation district would

have otherwise maintained full contract amounts.

Alternatively, reduced diversions to the SRSCs could result in increased diversions in dry

years to districts that would have otherwise experienced water cutbacks. This would create

beneficial impacts to new recipients.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by the SRSCs would continue to be

managed in the same manner under Alternative 5 as under the No Action Alternative.

No adverse impacts are associated with this alternative.

Cultural Resources

Affected Environment

The cultural resources analysis focuses on the project study area. Discussion of the project

area generally proceeds from north to south from Shasta County to Solano, Yolo, and

Sacramento Counties, including the Counties of Butte, Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, Yuba, and

Sutter.

Regulatory Setting. Preserving the culture and history of the nation’s past are the

goals of regulations that include the National Historic Preservation Act, Antiquities Act of

1906, Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979, and Historic Sites Act of 1935. The

National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 regulations (36 CFR 800), require that

federal agencies seek information, as appropriate, from the State Historic Preservation

Officer (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Indian tribes (e.g., Tribal

Historic Preservation Officer [THPO]), and other individuals and organizations likely to have

knowledge of, or concerns with, historic properties in the area of potential effect.

Similar state regulations protect archaeological, paleontological, and historical sites and

specifically provide for identification and protection of traditional Native American gathering

and ceremonial sites on state land. These regulations include CEQA (Public Resources

Code [PRC] Section 21000) and various provisions within PRC Division 5 (Parks and

Monuments).

Prehistory/Archaeology. Archaeological evidence of human occupation in the

Sacramento Valley and nearby areas extends back several thousand years B.C. Tribal oral

histories would place Native American occupation back to “time immemorial.”

In the span between about 10,000 B.C. and A.D. 1850, prehistoric societies occupying the

greater Sacramento Valley and surrounding areas underwent a series of slow but important

changes in subsistence and economic orientation, population densities and distribution, and

social organization. The evidence for these changes is found within the known archaeological

record. Several models of prehistoric culture history are available for the region and are

summarized by Moratto (1984:167-216), Jensen and Reed (1979:90-108), Basgall and

Hildebrandt (1989:66-72); and Johnson and Theodoratus (1984a:7-12, 1984b:7-12).

Ethnology/Ethnohistory. The Sacramento Valley includes a broad geographic

area that encompassed a great deal of environmental and cultural diversity in prehistoric
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-140 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

times and during the contact period when Native Americans encountered Spanish and EuroAmerican explorers and settlers. The Sacramento Valley was home to several California

Native American groups, including the Wintu, Yana, River Nomlaki, Hill Nomlaki, Konkow,

Nisenan, Patwin, Bay Miwok, and Plains Miwok.

The Wintu territory covered parts of what are now Trinity, Shasta, Siskiyou, and Tehama

counties, including the area north of Cottonwood Creek and west of Little Cow Creek and the

Sacramento River. Detailed ethnographic information on the Wintu is available in Du Bois

(1935), Lapena (1978:324-340), and Kroeber (1925).

The Yana traditionally occupied the upper Sacramento River valley and foothills east of

Little Cow Creek and the Sacramento River (generally east of Redding, Bloody Island,

Red Bluff, and Tehama). Detailed ethnographic information on the Yana is available in

J.J. Johnson (1978) and Kroeber (1925).

The Nomlaki consisted of two groups; the River Nomlaki lived in the Sacramento River

Valley in present Tehama County south of Cottonwood Creek; and the Hill Nomlaki lived

in the foothills to the west, extending to the summit of the Coast Range in what is now

Tehama and Glenn Counties (Goldschmidt, 1978). Detailed ethnographic information on

the Nomlaki is available in Du Bois (1939), Goldschmidt (1951, 1978), and Kroeber

(1925).

The Konkow, also known as Northwestern Maidu, occupied territory below the high

Sierra in the foothills where the south, middle, north, and west branches of the Feather

River converge. Konkow territory included the upper Butte and Chico Creeks and part in

the Sacramento Valley along the lower courses of the same streams. Detailed

ethnographic information on the Konkow is available in Kroeber (1925, 1932), Hill

(1970), and Riddell (1960-1974, 1978).

The Nisenan territory was the drainages of the Yuba, Bear, and American Rivers and the

lower drainages of the Feather River southward to a few miles below the confluence of

the American River. Their territory in the project area includes Marysville, Sacramento,

and the territory between and along the Feather River and Sacramento River.

The Patwin occupied the southern portion of the Sacramento River Valley to the west of

the river, from the town of Princeton south to San Pablo and Suisun Bays. Detailed

ethnographic information on the Patwin can be found in McKern (1922, 1923), Kroeber

(1932), and P.J. Johnson (1978).

The Bay Miwok and Plains Miwok, which lived just south of the Colusa Sub-basin, are

part of the Eastern Miwok. The Bay Miwok were located in the inner Coast Ranges in the

vicinity of Mount Diablo and extended northeasterly from there into the Sacramento-San

Joaquin river delta. Most of the delta and plains along the Cosumnes and Mokelumne

rivers were the territory of the Plains Miwok. Detailed ethnographic information on the

Eastern Miwok is also available in Kroeber (1925).

Euro-American History. Many areas in the northern Sacramento Valley saw the

first major wave of white settlement following the Gold Rush. By the time the local Indians

had been forcibly taken to reservations, many small towns and settlements had already been
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-141 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

established. White settlement was further stimulated by the 1862 Homestead Act and the

arrival of the railroad. White settlement included establishment of farms, ranches, gold

mines, and lumber and other extractive industries.

In 1897, copper replaced gold as the main mineral produced in Shasta County. Smoke and

fumes from Shasta County smelters killed vegetation, fish, and fruit trees as far south as

Anderson and Cottonwood. By 1919, all the smelters were closed by court order.

Through the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the spread of riverboat and ferry

transportation, and, later railroad and highway transportation, infrastructure increased access

to more distant markets. The northern end of the Sacramento Valley developed a growing

population sustained by a mix of mineral and timber extraction industries and farm and ranch

operations. Large-scale irrigation of farms and ranches was made possible in the midtwentieth century by completion of Shasta Dam and other large water reservoirs and aqueduct

projects. Today, the area enjoys a more diversified economy that is fully integrated with the

rest of California and nearby states. In recent decades, recreation and tourism have emerged

as important components of the local economy.

The central region of the Sacramento Valley includes Sutter County – named after John

Sutter (of Sutter’s Fort fame). John Sutter received a grant of 50,000 acres in 1841 from the

Mexican government; he named his settlement New Helvetia. He established a farm, the first

large-scale agricultural settlement in Northern California, near what is now Yuba City. By

1844, he had nearly completed Sutter’s Fort. The United States seized control of California

from Mexico in 1846, at the start of the Mexican War. John Marshall, an employee of Sutter,

discovered gold on the American River in 1848. In 1856, Yuba City became the permanent

County Seat.

Following the Gold Rush, white settlers developed the rich farmland in the region and made

use of its abundant water. Several agricultural developments were introduced, including

Edward Proper’s development in 1868 of a strain of wheat known for its suitability for

shipment over long distances; William and George Thompson’s development in 1873 of the

Thompson seedless grape; and A.F. Abbott and Joseph Phillips’ development in the 1880s of

a strain of cling peach. Today, this portion of the Sacramento Valley enjoys a diverse

population and industry, and vast stretches of rich farmland.

The more southern region of the Sacramento Valley includes portions of Yolo, Glenn,

Solano, and Colusa Counties. After the Gold Rush, many disappointed miners became

permanent settlers who raised cattle, sheep, wheat, and barley. One of the first pioneering

irrigation projects in the region was started on Cache Creek as early as 1865. Initially, the

location of towns and settlements was influenced by access to water and water transportation

routes. In the late nineteenth century, emphasis shifted from livestock grazing to grain

growing and orchard crops.

In the 1870s, the railroad progressed northward, which enabled such towns as Arbuckle,

Williams, Maxwell, Willows, and Orland to be established and carried new settlers to the

area. Certain areas became known for specific orchard crops: almonds in Arbuckle, oranges

in Orland, prunes in Colusa, or olives in Corning. With the advent of large-scale flood control

and irrigation projects, the Colusa Sub-basin has become noted for growing rice and
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-142 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

tomatoes. Large-scale, diversified farming was introduced as new lands were irrigated and

brought into production, and as shipment of local products to domestic and international

markets increased by the improved railroad and highway transportation system.

Environmental Consequences. The effects of Alternatives 1 through 5 on

cultural resources of the SRSCs service area are compared to conditions under the No Action

Alternative.

No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative does not include new facilities

or construction. The No Action Alternative assumes that dry-year reductions would remain

the same as existing conditions, and the renewed contract period would be 40 years.

It should be noted that use of CVP water through the Settlement Contracts is not a primary

force driving growth and land use change. Demographic, economic, political, and other

factors, independent of the contract renewal process, are causing changes with direct and

indirect effects to cultural resources that are beyond the range of Reclamation’s Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) responsibilities. With little exception,

virtually all of the contract renewal actions are within the range of existing conditions. This

includes the area of use, types of use, range of river flows, and reservoir fluctuations. No

additional infrastructure would be constructed, and there would be no increase in deliveries

and no conversion of existing natural habitat into farmland or other uses.

Alternative 1. Implementation of the contract renewals would not require the

construction of new facilities and thus would not impact cultural resources in the study area.

However, this alternative would result in the availability of water for development of the

Metro Air Park as a result of the re-assignment of agricultural water for M&I use for

NCMWC. However, the Final EIS for the Metro Air Park Project (Service, 2001) stated that

“The likelihood of the disturbance of any prehistoric or historic archaeological resource from

development of the Metro Air Park project is low as cultural resource surveys of the site

found no such resources present ...”

Alternative 2. Implementation of the contract renewals would not require the

construction of new facilities and thus would not impact cultural resources in the study area.

Alternative 3. Implementation of the contract renewals would not require the

construction of new facilities and thus would not impact cultural resources in the study area.

Alternative 4. Implementation of the contract renewals would not require the

construction of new facilities and thus would not impact cultural resources in the study area.

Alternative 5. Implementation of the contract renewals would not require the

construction of new facilities and thus would not impact cultural resources in the study area.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-143 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Indian Trust Assets

Affected Environment. Potential effects on Indian Trust Assets (ITA) stem from actions

or activities that would affect federally reserved Indian lands and hunting, fishing, gathering,

water rights, or other rights. This section addresses potential ITAs that could be affected by

the project. The area of analysis is the Sacramento Valley.

Regulatory Setting

ITAs are legal interests in property held in trust by the United States for federally recognized

Indian tribes or individual Indians. Land assets held in trust for individual Indians are more

specifically referred to as “public-domain allotments” (PDA). An Indian trust has the

following three components: (1) the trustee, (2) the beneficiary, and 93) the trust asset. ITAs

can include lands; minerals; federally reserved hunting and fishing rights; federally reserved

water rights; and in-stream flows associated with a reservation, rancheria, or PDA.

Beneficiaries of the Indian trust relationship are federally recognized Indian tribes and

individual Indians with trust land; the United States is the trustee.

By definition, ITAs cannot be sold, leased, or otherwise encumbered without approval from

the United States government, or one of its executive agencies. The definition and application

of the U.S. trust relationship has been defined by case law that supports congressional acts,

executive orders, and historical treaty provisions.

Consistent with President Clinton’s April 29, 1994, Memorandum, agencies assess the effect

of programs on tribal trust resources and federally reserved tribal governmental rights and

concerns. Agencies must actively engage federally recognized tribal governments and consult

with such tribes on a government-to-government level. The DOI’s Department Manual Part

512, Chapter 2 (Departmental Responsibilities for Indian Trust Resources) ascribes the

responsibility for ensuring protection and preservation of ITAs from loss, damage, and

unlawful alienation, waste, and depletion to the heads of bureaus and offices.

The DOI’s policy is to carry out activities in a manner that protects ITAs and avoids adverse

effects whenever possible (Reclamation Indian Trust Asset Policy, July 2, 1993).

Project Area Setting

All projects discussed in this section occur in the Sacramento Valley region along the

Sacramento River. ITAs are described from north to south along this river system.

Sacramento River

The northernmost indigenous California people in the project area were the Achowami,

Atsugewi, Ajumawi, Wintun, Pit River, and the Yana. Descendants of these tribes live on the

Big Bend, Burney Tract, Montgomery Creek, Redding, and Roaring Creek Rancherias in

Shasta County. Shasta County also has 15 PDAs.

Maidu and Wintun people inhabited the downstream Colusa Basin section of the Sacramento

River. The Wintun Tribe is composed of three divisions: Patwin, Nomlaki, and Wintu.

Present-day descendants of the Wintun live on the Colusa (Cachil Dehe) and Cortina

Rancherias in Colusa County and Rumsey Rancheria in Yolo County. Wintun-Wailaki

descendants in Glenn County live on the Grindstone Creek Rancheria. The Paskenta Band of
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-144 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Nomlaki Indians has a large tract of trust land in Glenn County, just northwest of Orland,

near I-5. Colusa County has one PDA; there are no PDAs in Glenn and Yolo Counties.

Environmental Consequences. The effects of Alternatives 1 through 5 on ITAs

of the SRSCs service area are compared to conditions under the No Action Alternative.

No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative does not include new facilities

or construction. The No Action Alternative assumes that dry-year reductions would remain

the same as existing conditions, and the renewed contract period would last 40 years.

Alternative 1. There would be no impacts to ITAs in the Sacramento Valley region

as a result of this alternative.

Alternative 2. There would be no impacts to ITAs in the Sacramento Valley region

as a result of this alternative.

Alternative 3. There would be no impacts to ITAs in the Sacramento Valley region

as a result of this alternative.

Alternative 4. There would be no impacts to ITAs in the Sacramento Valley region

as a result of this alternative.

Alternative 5. There would be no impacts to ITAs in the Sacramento Valley region

as a result of this alternative.

Environmental Justice

The concept of environmental justice embraces two principles: (1) fair treatment of all people

regardless of race, color, nation of origin, or income; and (2) meaningful involvement of

people in communities potentially affected by program actions. Executive Order 12898,

Section 2-2, signed by President Clinton in 1994, requires all federal agencies to conduct

“programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment,

in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies, and activities do not have the effect of

excluding persons (including populations) from participation in, denying persons the benefits

of, or subjecting persons to discrimination because of their race, color or national origin.”

Section 1-101 requires federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate,

“disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of programs on

minority and low-income populations.

A total of 81 percent of all farm workers in 1997-98 were foreign-born, 95 percent of which

were born in Mexico. In the 1990s, approximately 52 percent of all farm workers were

married; however, the majority of these families had incomes below the poverty level. The

individual median annual personal income is less than $7,500, with real income having

declined over 11 percent in the last decade. Average wages for farm workers are almost 50

percent less than average hourly wages for non-farm private-sector workers. The median

level of educational achievement for these farm workers is the sixth grade (U.S. Department

of Labor, 2000).
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-145 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

These identifying factors place these workers into a low income, minority group that is

considered to represent the environmental justice community – a community that can

potentially bear the greatest burden (or share in the benefits) of a given project’s effects.

Affected Environment/Existing Conditions.

Area of Analysis. The following discussion provides a general description of the

ethnic composition, unemployment, and poverty rates for counties affected by the Preferred

Alternative. The counties included in the discussion includes the following:

• Shasta

• Tehama

• Glenn

• Colusa

• Yolo

• Butte

• Sutter

• Yuba

• Sacramento

Regional Setting. Table 3-58 lists the ethnic compositions of each county in the

SRSCs service area.

TABLE 3-58

ETHNICITIES OF COUNTIES IN THE SRSC SERVICE AREAS

County

White

Persons

Black or

African

American

Persons

American Indian

and Alaska

Native Persons

Asian

Persons

Native

Hawaiian and

Other Pacific

Islander

Persons of

Hispanic or

Latino Origin

Shasta 89.3 0.8 2.8 1.9 0.1 5.5

Tehama 84.8 0.6 2.1 0.8 0.1 15.8

Glenn 71.8 0.6 2.1 3.4 0.1 29.6

Colusa 64.3 0.5 2.3 1.2 0.4 46.5

Yolo 67.7 2.0 1.2 9.9 0.3 25.9

Butte 84.5 1.4 1.9 3.3 0.1 10.5

Sutter 67.5 1.9 1.6 11.3 0.2 22.2

Yuba 70.6 3.2 2.6 7.5 0.2 17.4

Sacramento 64.0 10.0 1.1 11.0 0.6 16.0

Note: Values do not equal 100 percent because of multi-race reporting.

Source: Source U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population Estimates,

2000 Census of Population and Housing, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Small Area Income and

Poverty Estimates, County Business Patterns, 1997 Economic Census, Minority- and Women-Owned Business,

Building Permits, Consolidated Federal Funds Report, 1997 Census of Governments.

The data in Table 3-59 underestimates the number of people who live in urbanized areas,

because many people live in urban, unincorporated communities surrounding cities. The
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-146 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

counties with established metropolitan areas (Yolo and Sacramento) tend to have higher

median incomes, and Sacramento County also has a lower percentage of residents living in

poverty.

Environmental Consequences. The effects of Alternatives 1 through 5 on

environmental justice within the SRSCs service area are compared to conditions under the

No Action Alternative.

No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative does not include new facilities

or construction. The No Action Alternative assumes that dry-year reductions would remain

the same as existing conditions, and the renewed contract period would last 40 years. There

would be no impacts to environmental justice under the No Action Alternative.

TABLE 3-59

SUMMARY OF PERCENT OF COUNTY POPULATIONS LIVING IN CITIES,

MEDIAN INCOME, AND POVERTY

County

Percentage of

County

Population

Living in Cities

Major Cities in the

County (Percent of

County Population)

Household Median

Income

Percentage of County

Population Living in

Poverty

Shasta 58% Redding, Shasta Lake,

and Anderson

$34,000 15%

Tehama 35% Red Bluff (23%) and

Corning (12%)

$28,000 20%

Glenn 47% Willows (23%) and

Orland (24%)

$32,000 18%

Colusa 49% Williams (20%) and

Colusa (29%)

$35,000 16%

Yolo 84% Davis, West Sacramento,

and Woodland

$41,000 18%

Butte 50% Chico, Oroville, Town of

and Paradise

$32,000 20%

Sutter 45% Yuba City $38,000 16%

Yuba 20% Communities of Linda,

Marysville, and Olivehurst

$30,000 21%

Sacramento 54% Sacramento (33%),

Elf Grove (8%),

Citrus Heights (7%),

Folsom (4%),

Galt (2%), and

Isleton (0.1%)

$44,000 14%

Alternative 1. Impacts to environmental justice issues in the SRSCs area under

Alternative 1 would be identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 1

would not alter current CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities,
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-147 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

or the maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSCs, with the exception of reduced

contract amounts to ACID and SMWC. These reductions would not change actual diversions

and thus would not result in changes to job availability within these districts.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by SRSCs would continue to be managed in

the same manner under Alternative 1 as under the No Action Alternative.

Therefore, there are no impacts to environmental justice under this alternative.

Alternative 2. Impacts to environmental justice issues in the SRSC area under

Alternative 2 would be similar to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 2

would not alter current CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities,

or the maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSCs, with the exception of reduced

contract amounts to ACID and SMWC, and sliding-scale reduced diversions to all

contractors in dry years. These dry-year reductions would take place during years when the

irrigation district would have otherwise maintained full contract amounts. It is assumed that

these reductions would not result in land fallowing or other reductions in agricultural

production. Therefore, no impact to seasonal migrant farmworkers is anticipated due to the

loss of jobs. Additionally, water that would have been diverted to the SRSCs may be diverted

to other irrigation districts that would have otherwise had water cutbacks in dry years. This

could increase the number of jobs available to migrant farmworkers outside of the SRSCs

service area. Therefore, impacts to environmental justice would be considered less than

significant.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by SRSCs would continue to be managed in

the same manner under Alternative 2 as under the No Action Alternative.

Therefore, there are no impacts to environmental justice under this alternative.

Alternative 3. Impacts to environmental justice issues in the SRSC area under

Alternative 3 would be identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 3

would not alter CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities, or the

maximum volume of water to be delivered to the SRSCs.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by SRSCs would continue to be managed in

the same manner under Alternative 3 as under the No Action Alternative.

Therefore, there are no impacts to environmental justice under this alternative.

Alternative 4. Impacts to environmental justice issues in the SRSC area under

Alternative 4 would be similar to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 4

would not significantly alter current CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from

CVP facilities, or the maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSCs, with the exception

of reduced contract amounts to ACID and SMWC, and sliding-scale reduced diversions to all

contractors in dry years. These dry-year reductions would take place during years when the

irrigation district would have otherwise maintained full contract amounts. It is assumed that

these reductions would not result in land fallowing or other reductions in agricultural

production due to increased groundwater use. Therefore, no impact to seasonal migrant

farmworkers is anticipated due to the loss of jobs. Additionally, water that would have been
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-148 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

diverted to the SRSCs may be diverted to other irrigation districts that would have otherwise

had water cutbacks in dry years. This would increase the number of jobs available to migrant

farmworkers outside of the SRSCs service area. Therefore, impacts to environmental justice

would be considered less than significant.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by SRSCs would continue to be managed in

the same manner under Alternative 4 as under the No Action Alternative.

Therefore, there are no impacts to environmental justice under this alternative.

Alternative 5. Impacts to environmental justice issues in the SRSC area under

Alternative 5 would be similar to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5

would not significantly alter current CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from

CVP facilities, or the maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSCs, with the exception

of reduced contract amounts to ACID and SMWC, and Shasta-Index reduced diversions to all

contractors in dry years. These dry-year reductions would take place during years when the

irrigation district would have otherwise maintained full contract amounts. It is assumed that

these reductions would not result in land fallowing or other reductions in agricultural

production. Therefore, no impact to seasonal migrant farmworkers is anticipated due to the

loss of jobs. Additionally, water that would have been diverted to the SRSCs may be diverted

to other irrigation districts that would have otherwise had water cutbacks in dry years. This

would increase the number of jobs available to migrant farmworkers outside of the SRSCs

service area. Therefore, impacts to environmental justice would be considered less than

significant.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by SRSCs would continue to be managed in

the same manner under Alternative 5 as under the No Action Alternative.

Therefore, there are no impacts to environmental justice under this alternative.

Recreation

Affected Environment.

The following description includes recreational areas that could be affected by the renewal of

the Settlement Contracts. The CVPIA PEIS provides a detailed description of recreation

resources within the SRSCs service area (Reclamation, 1997).

The SRSCs service area includes several key lakes, reservoirs, rivers, NWRs, Wildlife

Management Areas (WMA), and private hunting clubs. Table 3-60 lists key recreation areas

in the SRSCs service area and summarizes recreation characteristics.

Reservoirs. Construction of reservoirs has provided extensive flatwater recreation

opportunities. The following sections describe the major reservoirs located within the SRSCs

service area.

Shasta Lake. Shasta Lake is located approximately 10 miles north of Redding. The

surface area of the lake is approximately 30,000 acres, which provides 370 miles of shoreline

when the reservoir is full. The Sacramento River, McCloud River, Pit River, and Squaw

Creek are tributaries to Shasta Lake and form the main branches of the reservoir.
September 2004 3-149 

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE 3-60

RECREATION CHARACTERISTICS OF AFFECTED RECREATION AREAS IN THE SRSC SER

Recreation Area Owner/Recreation

Manager

Year Constructed

or Established

Use (1,000 visitor

daysa

)

b

Number of Key Facilities 

Marinas Boat

Launches

Picnic Areas Campgrounds Swimming

Areas

Reservoirs and LakesShasta Reclamation/USFS 1945 2,422 13 6 1 22 0 SWhiskeytown Reclamation/NPS 1963 279 1 3 0 3 2 BKeswick Reclamation/Shasta

County

1945 0.5 0 1 0 0 0 N

Lake Red Bluff Reclamation/Reclamation 1964 86 0 1 1 1 0 RLake OrovilleComplex

DWR/DPR 1968 418 2 3 3 9 1 N

Folsom Reclamation/DPR 1955 362 1 8 5 4 1 NEnglebright COE/COE 1941 92 2 4 1 17 0 NNew Bullards Bar YCWA/USFS 1970 52 1 2 1 4 0 NCamp Far West SSWD/ Private

concessionaire

1963 72 1 2 2 2 2 N

RiversSacramento NA/BLM, Reclamation,

DPR, counties, private

NA 54 49 40 26 26 1 N

American NA/DPR, Sacramento

County

NA 27 1 16 12 0 0 N

Feather NA/Private NA 69 0 3 0 0 0 NYuba NA/Private NA 2 0 0 0 0 0 AClear Creek NA/NPS, Private NA 1 0 0 0 0 0 ABear NA/Private NA NA 0 0 0 0 0 DWildlife RefugesSacramento NWR Service/Service 1937 NA 0 3 0 0 0 LDelevan NWR Service/Service 1962 NA 0 0 0 0 0 LSutter NWR Service/Service 1944 NA 0 3 0 0 0 LColusa NWR Service/Service 1944 NA 0 0 0 0 0 LGray Lodge NWR CDFG/CDFG 1931 NA 0 0 0 0 0 LaReservoir use reported in 12-hour visitor days, river use reported in 6-hour visitor days, and wildlife refuge use reported in 5-hour visitor days. bReservoir and river use based on 1992 data.

Source: Reclamation, 1997.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

Draft SRSC EIS 3-150 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Approximately 75 percent of the recreational use at Shasta Lake occurs between May and

September. Shasta Lake provides a variety of water-dependent recreation activities including

the following:

• Power boating

• House boating

• Water skiing

• Fishing

• Camping

Sightseeing, boating, and visiting resorts are most popular recreation activities at Shasta

Lake. Fishing is also popular, and rainbow trout, smallmouth bass, and crappie are the most

frequently caught species.

Whiskeytown Lake. Whiskeytown Lake is located approximately 8 miles west of

Redding. The surface area of the reservoir is approximately 3,250 acres, and the shoreline is

36 miles long when the reservoir is full. The most recreational use occurs between June and

August, accounting for approximately 50 percent of the total annual use. The most popular

water-dependent activities include swimming/beach use, boating, and fishing. The most

popular water-enhanced activities are camping and sightseeing.

Lake Oroville Complex. The Lake Oroville recreational complex consists of Lake

Oroville and the Thermalito Forebay and Afterbay. The California Department of Parks and

Recreation administers recreation facilities. Peak travel to the area occurs between April and

September. Day use and overnight camping account for most of the recreational use.

Table 3-60 summarizes the recreation facilities at Lake Oroville.

The Oroville recreation area provides recreation facilities to support the following activities:

• Boating

• Water skiing

• Sailing

• Fishing

• Swimming

• Boat-in camping

• Overnight camping

The reservoir is stocked with game fish, and rainbow trout and smallmouth bass are the most

frequently caught species in the reservoir. The surface area of Oroville Lake is approximately

15,800 acres, which provides 167 miles of shoreline when the reservoir is full.

Recreation facilities in the 600-acre Thermalito Forebay include a picnic area, swimming

beach, and boat ramp for nonmotorized boats. Recreation activities at the Thermalito

Afterbay include fishing and motorized boating. Rainbow trout, catfish, and largemouth and

smallmouth bass are the most frequently caught species in the Forebay and Afterbay.

Folsom Lake State Recreation Area. Folsom Lake State Recreation Area

(SRA), located east of Sacramento on the America River, includes both Folsom Lake and

Lake Natoma. The surface area of the Folsom Lake is approximately 11,450 acres, which

provides 75 miles of shoreline when the reservoir is full. Lake Natoma, located 6 miles
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-151 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

downstream of Folsom Lake, has a surface area of approximately 500 acres and provides

approximately 10 miles of shoreline when full.

Most recreational use occurs between April and September. Water-oriented recreational

activities at the Folsom SRA includes the following:

• Boating

• Fishing

• Swimming

• Jet skiing

• Windsurfing

• Sailing

More than 80 percent of the annual recreation use of Folsom Lake includes water-oriented

activities. Additionally, water-enhanced activities include camping, picnicking, and hiking.

New Bullards Bar Reservoir. New Bullards Bar Reservoir is located on the Yuba

River in Yuba County. The surface area of the reservoir is approximately 4,800 acres, and

recreational facilities at the reservoir are administered by the Service. Water-orientated

activities include boating, water skiing, fishing, and swimming. Boating activities account for

the majority of water-orientated use. The CDFG stocks the reservoir with approximately

220,000 to 250,000 kokanee salmon (landlocked sockeye salmon) annually. The reservoir

also provides water-enhanced activities such as picnicking, camping, and hiking.

Englebright Lake. Englebright Lake is located on the Yuba River downstream of

New Bullards Bar Reservoir. The surface area of Englebright Lake is approximately 760

acres when the reservoir is full. Most recreational use occurs between April and September.

Water-dependent recreation activities include boating, water skiing, fishing, and boat-in

camping. Species typically caught on the lake include stocked rainbow trout, kokanee

salmon, and warmwater species. The CDFG stocks the lake with approximately 22,000

catchable-sized trout per year.

Lake Red Bluff. Lake Red Bluff is located on the Sacramento River in the City of

Red Bluff. The lake consists of backwater from a diversion dam for the Tehama-Colusa

Canal, which began operation in 1967. When the diversion structure gates are closed, the lake

has a surface area of approximately 530 acres. The diversion structure gates are opened from

September 15 to May 15 to provide unimpeded upstream and downstream passage for winterrun Chinook salmon.

Most use of this river segment occurs between May and September when the diversion gates

are closed. Annual boat drag races held during the Memorial Day weekend attract

approximately 7,500 visitors. Lake Red Bluff provides both water-related and waterenhanced recreation activities when the diversion gates are closed, including fishing, boating,

water skiing, camping, and picnicking. When the lake gates are open, flatwater recreation

activities are eliminated. Because most recreation activities occur during the summer,

opening of the diversion gates does not cause substantial impacts to recreation. Fishing is the

primary recreation activity impacted by opening of the diversion gates because of the

decrease in water surface area.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft SRSC EIS 3-152 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Lake Red Bluff is maintained at a constant pool elevation for water diversions when the

diversion gates are closed.

Keswick Reservoir. Keswick Reservoir is located on the Sacramento River in a

steep canyon approximately one-half mile downstream of Shasta Dam. The reservoir’s

surface area is approximately 640 acres, which provides about 19 miles of shoreline. The

primary recreation activities at the reservoir include fishing, boating, sightseeing, and

hunting. Fishing is the most popular activity at the reservoir, and rainbow trout, bass, and

crappie are the most frequently caught species. Water-contact recreational activities are

limited on the lake because of the cold water released from Shasta Dam.

Camp Far West Reservoir. Camp Far West Reservoir, constructed in 1963, is

located on the Bear River at the junction of the Nevada, Placer, and Yuba County lines. The

reservoir’s surface area is approximately 2,680 acres when full and provides about 32 miles

of shoreline. Most use is recorded between April and September. Water-dependent activities

include fishing, water skiing, and swimming. Water-enhanced activities include picnicking

and camping.

Rivers. Key rivers and streams in the SRSCs service area include the Sacramento,

American, Feather, Bear, and Yuba Rivers and Clear Creek. The Draft PEIS for the CVPIA

states that recreational use of these waterways likely has increased with increases in regional

population. However, no comprehensive data are available on recreational uses of these

rivers and streams.

Sacramento River, Upper Reach. The upper reach of the Sacramento River is

defined as the 60-mile portion of the river between Keswick Reservoir and Lake Red Bluff.

The reach flows through the foothills of the northern Sacramento Valley, which are largely

unpopulated besides the Cities of Redding and Anderson. This reach of the river is

characterized by rapid flow and scenic views. The upper reach of the Sacramento River

provides more public access opportunities than the lower reaches of the river. Popular public

access areas include a 3-mile segment between Keswick Reservoir and Lake Redding, Lake

Redding Park, Turtle Bay Recreation Area, Anderson River Park, and a 7-mile segment

below Jelly’s Ferry.

Fishing is one of the primary water-dependent activities on the reach, with salmon, steelhead,

and trout being the most frequently caught species. Although fishing is popular year-round,

most fishing occurs in September and October during the fall salmon run. Water-enhanced

activities in the upper reach include camping, picnicking, and sightseeing.

Sacramento River, Middle Reach. The middle reach of the Sacramento River is

defined as the 160-mile segment of the river between Lake Red Bluff and the confluence with

the Feather River. The meandering river channel is characterized by relatively slow-moving

water, and the channel is lined with riparian forest and orchards. California DPR and

Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, and Sutter Counties provide public access points along the river.

Additionally, private facilities, such as fishing access points, marinas, and resorts, also

provide access to the river.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-153 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Water-dependent activities include fishing, boating, swimming, and beach use. The middle

portion of the Sacramento River provides the widest variety of game fish, including salmon,

trout, steelhead, American shad, striped bass, sturgeon, and catfish. The relatively warm

water present in this reach makes it a popular location for water-contact activities. Waterenhanced activities include camping, picnicking, and sightseeing.

Sacramento River, Lower Reach. The lower reach of the Sacramento River is

defined as the 80-mile segment between the confluence with the Feather River and

Courtland. The channel in the upstream portion of the reach meanders across the floodplain.

Closer to Sacramento, the channel is confined by levees and commercial development. The

downstream portion of this reach flows through agricultural areas.

The City and County of Sacramento provide public access points along the river, such as

Discovery Park. In addition, private access points, such as marinas, exist throughout the

reach. Water-dependent activities along the lower reach of the Sacramento River include

fishing, boating, swimming, and beach use. Game fish present within the lower reach include

salmon, steelhead, American shad, striped bass, sturgeon, and catfish. Water-enhanced

activities include camping, picnicking, and sightseeing.

Feather River. The lower Feather River is defined as the 40-mile segment of the

river between Oroville Dam and the confluence with the Sacramento River. Major recreation

areas within this reach include the Oroville Wildlife Areas south of Lake Oroville, Riverfront

Park in Marysville, and Lake of the Woods Wildlife Area near the confluence with Bear

River. Several other undeveloped public access points also exist within the reach.

The lower Feather River provides both water-enhanced activities (camping, picnicking, and

sightseeing) and water-dependent recreation activities (boating, fishing, and swimming). The

frequently caught fish within this reach include American shad, salmon, striped bass, and

steelhead.

American River. The American River Parkway consists of a 23-mile corridor

between Nimbus Dam and the confluence with the Sacramento River. Sacramento County

Parks and Recreation Department manages the parkway, which traverses the Sacramento

Metropolitan Area and includes a series of 14 parks distributed on publicly owned lands. The

parkway provides approximately 6,000 acres of open space, which include 28 automobile

access points and 68 access points for pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists.

Water-enhanced activities include the following:

• Picnicking

• Hiking

• Jogging

• Nature study

• Bicycling

• Equestrian recreation

Water-dependent recreation activities include the following:

• Rafting
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft SRSC EIS 3-154 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

• Boating

• Fishing

• Swimming

• Beach use

The most frequently caught fish within this reach include salmon, trout, striped bass, and

steelhead.

Yuba River. The lower Yuba River is defined as the 20-mile reach between

Englebright Lake and the confluence with the Feather River at Marysville. No public

recreation facilities are located in this reach, and limited public access is available along this

reach. Boating is constrained by flows and the presence of a barrier at Daguerre Point Dam,

located approximately 10 miles upstream of the confluence with the Feather River. The river

provides water-related recreation activities, such as fishing for salmon, steelhead, striped

bass, and American shad.

Clear Creek. The Clear Creek reach flows approximately 17 miles from

Whiskeytown Lake to the confluence with the Sacramento River, south of Redding. The

upstream portion of the creek is characterized by steep terrain with falls and cascades, which

transitions to a flatter gradient in the downstream portion of the creek.

The upper 4 miles of the reach flows through the Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National

Recreation Area (NRA). Although several miles of stream frontage are now owned by BLM,

no formal recreation areas exist along the remaining portion of the creek, which flows

through private lands. Public access is provided at the Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity NRA and

the National Environmental Education Camp, which is primarily used by nearby schools.

Water-dependent recreation activities include fishing, tubing, swimming, and beach use.

Water-enhanced recreation activities include relaxing, hiking, and camping.

Bear River. The Bear River reach is defined as the 20-mile segment between Camp

Far West Reservoir and the confluence with the Feather River. There are no public recreation

facilities or public access points along this reach. However, several informal access sites exist

along the reach. Water-dependent recreation activities include fishing for bass, catfish, and

other warmwater species. Water-enhanced recreation activities include sightseeing and

informal picnicking.

Recreation opportunities provided by Bear River typically are poor because the reach is

usually dry during the peak summer recreation season.

Wildlife Refuges. Five key wildlife refuges are located within the SRSCs service

area: the Sacramento, Delevan, Sutter, and Colusa NWRs and Gray Lodge WMA. The

Sacramento, Delevan, Sutter, and Colusa NWRs are managed as the Sacramento NWR

Complex, and Gray Lodge WMA is managed by CDFG. Most recreation use at the

Sacramento NWR Complex and the Gray Lodge WMA occurs between October and January

when migratory birds are present.

Recreation facilities on the refuges include a visitor center, interpretive trails, viewing

platforms, and self-guided driving tours, which are designed to enhance wildlife observation
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-155 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

opportunities. Nonconsumptive recreation opportunities consist of wildlife viewing, which

accounts for most of the recreation use at the refuges. Consumptive recreation opportunities

include fishing and hunting. Hunting of ducks, geese, coots, snipes, and pheasants is

permitted on all refuges in the Sacramento NWR Complex between October and January.

Hunting recreation opportunities are also provided on the Gray Lodge WMA. Fishing

opportunities are provided on the Delevan NWR, which permits fishing for catfish and

largemouth bass from February to October, and the Gray Lodge WMA. The primary goal of

the refuges is to provide habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife, and visitor access is

restricted in certain areas during specified periods to limit disturbances to wildlife.

Private Hunting Clubs. The SRSCs service area includes 516 private hunting

clubs covering 227,000 acres, and approximately 96,700 acres are flooded annually.

Consumptive recreation opportunities include hunting for ducks, geese, snipes, coots, and

pheasants.

Economic Value of Recreation The economic value of recreation is commonly

measured in dollars per user day. The recreation associated with the CVP in the Sacramento

Valley is predominantly reservoir and river based. An estimate of the user day value of

reservoir recreation is $12 (Bay-Delta Authority, 2004). This value was updated to 2002

dollars from the CVPIA PEIS. The existing value of recreation at a particular reservoir would

be the number of visitors to the reservoir times the number of days in total they spent

recreating times $12.

Environmental Consequences. The effects of Alternatives 1 through 5 on

recreational activities in the SRSCs service area are compared to conditions under the No

Action Alternative.

No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative does not include new facilities

or construction. The No Action Alternative assumes that dry-year reductions would remain

the same as existing conditions, and the renewed contract period would last 40 years.

Alternative 1. Recreation activities and benefits in the SRSC area under Alternative

1 would be identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 would not

significantly alter current CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP

facilities, or the maximum volume of water delivered to the SRSCs.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by SRSCs would continue to be managed in

the same manner under Alternative 1 as under the No Action Alternative.

Therefore, there are no impacts to recreation under this alternative.

Alternative 2. Recreation activities and benefits in the SRSC area under

Alternative 2 would be similar to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 2

would not alter CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities, or the

maximum volume of water to be delivered to the SRSCs, with the exception of reductions in

water deliveries due to sliding-scale cutbacks in dry water years. The cutbacks associated

with this alternative could result in additional water in the storage reservoirs, as well as

additional surface water flows through the Sacramento River, into the Delta. This could
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft SRSC EIS 3-156 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

create beneficial impacts to recreational resources in the SRSCs service area. Impacts could

include small increases in visitor-days to CVP reservoirs and streams in the affected area.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by SRSCs would continue to be managed in

the same manner under Alternative 4 as under the No Action Alternative.

Therefore, there are no impacts to recreation under this alternative.

Alternative 3. Recreation activities and benefits in the SRSC area under

Alternative 3 would be identical to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 3

would not alter CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities, or the

maximum volume of water to be delivered to the SRSCs.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by SRSCs would continue to be managed in

the same manner under Alternative 3 as under the No Action Alternative.

Therefore, there are no impacts to recreation under this alternative.

Alternative 4. Recreation activities and benefits in the SRSC area under Alternative

4 would be similar to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 4 would not

alter CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities, or the maximum

volume of water to be delivered to the SRSCs, with the exception of reductions in water

deliveries due to sliding-scale cutbacks in dry water years. The cutbacks associated with this

alternative could result in additional water in the storage reservoirs, as well as additional

surface water flows through the Sacramento River, into the Delta. This could create

beneficial impacts to recreational resources in the SRSCs service area. Impacts could include

small increases in visitor-days to CVP reservoirs and streams in the affected area.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by SRSCs would continue to be managed in

the same manner under Alternative 4 as under the No Action Alternative.

Therefore, there are no impacts to recreation under this alternative.

Alternative 5. Recreation activities and benefits in the SRSC area under

Alternative 5 would be similar to conditions under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5

would not alter CVP operations, water storage or release patterns from CVP facilities, or the

maximum volume of water to be delivered to the SRSCs, with the exception of reductions in

water deliveries due to Sacramento-Index cutbacks in dry water years. The cutbacks

associated with this alternative could result in additional water in the storage reservoirs, as

well as additional surface water flows through the Sacramento River, into the Delta. This

could create beneficial impacts to recreational resources in the SRSCs service area. Impacts

could include small increases in visitor-days to CVP reservoirs and streams in the affected

area.

It is assumed that use of the assigned CVP water by SRSCs would continue to be managed in

the same manner under Alternative 5 as under the No Action Alternative.

Therefore, there are no impacts to recreation under this alternative.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-157 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

FIGURE 3-1

SACRAMENTO RIVER HYDROLOGIC REGION TOTAL PRECIPITATION BREAKDOWN







DRAFT SACRAMENTO SET

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FIGURE 3-9SACRAMENTO GROUSIMULATED SHALLO

0123

DROUGHT YEAR

-10

-8-6-4-2

0

INCREMENTAL DRAWDOWN (FT)

SUB-BASINS

SUTTERNORTH COLUSASOUTH COLUSAWEST BUTTENORTH AMERICAN

RDD \\Hel\Proj\SettlementContractors\Figures\DraftFigures\Figure3-09.grf
DRAFT SACRAMENTO SET

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FIGURE 3-10SACRAMENTO GROUSIMULATED REGIONA

0123

DROUGHT YEAR

-10

-8-6-4-2

0

INCREMENTAL DRAWDOWN (FT)

SUB-BASINS

SUTTERNORTH COLUSASOUTH COLUSAWEST BUTTENORTH AMERICAN

RDD \\Hel\Proj\SettlementContractors\Figures\DraftFigures\Figure3-10.grf

DRAFT SACRAME

ENVIRONMENTAL FIGURE 3-12SACRAMENTO SIMULATED SOVER 4 DRY Y

0123

DROUGHT YEAR

0

100200300400

STREAM SEEPAGE RATE (CFS)

STREAMS

ALL STREAMSSACRAMENTO RIVERFEATHER RIVERGCID CANAL

RDD \\Hel\Proj\SettlementContractors\Figures\DraftFigures\Figure3-12.grf


5

DEER CR

ELDER CR

LITTLE COW CR

PAYNES CREEK

COTTONWOOD CR, M FK

MILL CREEK

BATTLE CR

ELDER CR, N FK

COTTONWOOD CR

ELDE R CR, S FK

BEAR C R, N FK

COW CR

COTTONWOOD CR, N

FK

SEVE N MIL E CR

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO RIVER

TEHAMA COUNTY

SHASTA COUNTY

WHISKEYTOWN

LAKE

WHISKEYTOWN

LAKE

SHASTA LAKE SHASTA LAKE

99

273

299

36

REDDING

RED BLUFF

0 4 8

Miles D R A F T

LEGEND

GROUNDWATER SUB-BASINS

COUNTY LINE

MAJOR ROADS

CANAL

LAKE/RESERVOIR

STREAM LEAKAGE (CFS/MI)

0 TO 0.1

0.1 TO 0.5

0.5 TO 1

1 TO 1.5

1.5 TO 2

2 TO 3

3 TO 4.5

SCALE IS APPROXIMATE

RDD \\HEL\PROJ\SettlementContractors\Figures\DraftFigures\Figure3-15.mxd

FIGURE 3-15

REDDING BASIN MODEL PREDICTED

STREAM IMPACTS AFTER

ONE DRY YEAR

DRAFT SACRAMENTO RIVER SETTLEMENT

CONTRACTORS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT


5

DEER CR

ELDER CR

LITTLE COW CR

PAYNES CREEK

COTTONWOOD CR, M FK

MILL CREEK

BATTLE CR

ELDER CR, N FK

COTTONWOOD CR

ELDE R CR, S FK

BEAR C R, N FK

COW CR

COTTONWOOD CR, N

FK

SEVE N MIL E CR

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO RIVER

TEHAMA COUNTY

SHASTA COUNTY

WHISKEYTOWN

LAKE

WHISKEYTOWN

LAKE

SHASTA LAKE SHASTA LAKE

99

273

299

36

REDDING

RED BLUFF

0 4 8

Miles D R A F T

LEGEND

GROUNDWATER SUB-BASINS

COUNTY LINE

MAJOR ROADS

CANAL

LAKE/RESERVOIR

STREAM LEAKAGE (CFS/MI)

0 TO 0.1

0.1 TO 0.5

0.5 TO 1

1 TO 1.5

1.5 TO 2

2 TO 3

3 TO 4.5

SCALE IS APPROXIMATE

RDD \\HEL\PROJ\SettlementContractors\Figures\DraftFigures\Figure3-18.mxd

FIGURE 3-18

REDDING BASIN MODEL PREDICTED

STREAM IMPACTS AFTER

FOUR DRY YEARS

DRAFT SACRAMENTO RIVER SETTLEMENT

CONTRACTORS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
DRAFT SACRAM

ENVIRONMENTAFIGURE 3-19REDDING GRSIMULATED SOVER 4 DRY Y

0123

DROUGHT YEAR

0

1020304050

STREAM SEEPAGE RATE (CFS)

STREAMS

ALL STREAMSSACRAMENTO RIVERCOTTONWOOD CREEKCOW CREEK

RDD \\Hel\Proj\SettlementContractors\Figures\DraftFigures\Figure3-19.grf



	








	




	




	

	
	




	









 












!





! "


!



#


!



$



!



%"

&


%"


!








'(


 










#



)





*


!






+*&


!



+


!



 



#*
*

 ,-+


!

 



#*
*




$






.

! "/%"012

#/ 012

/%"012

 /%"0/012

%"/

)

0/012

/ 



012


	






322

	


/

 



012

 



/)

0/012



*/

)

012&



*/

+*&3

)/#

0/012

/#012

 



/#012

%"/

 





0/012

 !"#

 $4



&5
4 6


47 6!8.
5

& 

*/)
"


*/

	
)	
)/)

 )/#
"
)/9

9/#

$$%"&'(!' )#

:; 
*!

'(:'
)
(*



<=:*

!<

=


!
>**

?


 !&
5


&


#*
$

	 !&"6



52022@22@	==A2B01B2@
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

September 2004 3-203 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

FIGURE 3-24

FORECAST MARKET POWER COSTS (CEC, 2000)

$-

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

$50.00

$60.00

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

$/MWh

Average

On-Peak
September 2004 4-1 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

CHAPTER 4

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

INTRODUCTION

As required by NEPA, this section assesses the cumulative impacts of implementing the

Preferred Alternative when combined with other projects that could result in impacts to the

same environmental resources as the Preferred Alternative. NEPA provides the following

guidelines for assessing cumulative impacts.

The CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR Section 1508.7) define a “cumulative

impact” for purposes of NEPA as follows:

Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person

undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor

but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS

The No Action Alternative for this EIS is also the Preferred Alternative for the CVPIA PEIS,

which assumed that the Settlement Contracts would be renewed at full contract amounts. The

CVPIA PEIS considered the cumulative effect of future programs including the entirety of

the CVPIA with contract renewal of the Settlement Contracts. The cumulative impacts

analysis of the CVPIA PEIS is hereby incorporated into this EIS by reference.

The cumulative impact analysis for the CVPIA PEIS is found in Chapter V of that document.

The CVPIA PEIS alternatives (including the PEIS No-Action Alternative) are limited to

those actions clearly addressed by the CVPIA and the environmental consequences of closely

related actions. However, it is recognized that the provisions of the CVPIA may be

implemented in an interactive manner with other concurrent and subsequent projects. The

non-CVPIA actions implemented concurrently with CVPIA might affect the overall

conditions in the study area and the results of implementation of the CVPIA, and might have

impacts different from those associated with implementation of CVPIA in isolation.

Other actions that might contribute to cumulative effects of the CVPIA (including renewal of

the Settlement Contracts) include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Accord

• Conformed Place-of-use EIR for CVP Water Supplies

• Recommendations for increased in-stream flows in the Trinity River

• Implementation of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive

Study
Cumulative Impacts Chapter 4

Draft SRSC EIS 4-2 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

• Implementation of the CALFED EIS/EIR

• Implementation of the Sacramento Area Water Forum Proposal (American River)

• Implementation of the Environmental Water Account (EWA) (long term)

• Implementation of the Dry-year Water Purchase Program

• Implementation of the Drought Risk Reduction Program

• Implementation of the Environmental Water Program

• Changes in non-CVPIA water transfer actions

• Changes in federal farm programs

• Changes in demand for agricultural products

• Changes to the commercial and recreational harvest actions for commercial fishing

• Implementation of Yield Increase Plan

• Implementation of the Water Acquisition Program

• Creation of additional wetlands

• Additional listings of special-status species

The CVPIA PEIS includes an in-depth cumulative impact analysis of the effect of the CVPIA

Preferred Alternative in combination with the projects listed above and other related projects.

That analysis indicated that future projects could potentially improve CVP water supply

reliability. These types of programs would modify water supply reliability but not change

long-term CVP contract amounts or deliveries from within the historical ranges.

In addition, the PEIS cumulative analysis addressed potential impacts from CVPIA projects

that might have occurred during preparation of or following the completion of the PEIS.

These actions include early implementation of CVPIA provisions, the Least-cost Yield

Increase Plan, development of additional wetlands, and contract renewals. The potential

effects of these actions and how they might influence the effects of implementing the

alternatives are considered in Chapter V of the PEIS. In addition to these projects, additional

recent programs that are being coordinated between Reclamation and the Department or are

being wholly managed by the Department are summarized below.

Environmental Water Account (Long Term)

The EWA is a CALFED implementation action, the primary focus of which is to provide

environmental benefits while ensuring CVP/SWP operations are not adversely affected. The

EWA program makes environmentally beneficial changes in the operations of SWP and

CVP, at no uncompensated water loss to the CVP and SWP water users. Protective actions

for at-risk native fish species would range from reducing Delta export pumping to

augmenting in-stream flows and Delta outflows. Beneficial changes in SWP and CVP

operations could include changing the timing of some flow releases from storage and the

timing of water exports from the Delta pumping plants to coincide with periods of greater or

lesser vulnerability of various fish species to environmental conditions in the Delta. The
Chapter 4 Cumulative Impacts

September 2004 4-3 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

CALFED Record of Decision states that an EWA program would replace any regular water

supply interrupted by the environmentally beneficial changes to SWP and CVP operations.

The timing of the protective actions and operational changes would vary from year to year,

depending on many factors such as hydrology and real-time monitoring that indicates fish

presence at the pumps.

Dry-year Water Purchase Program and Drought Risk Reduction

Investment Program

The Dry-year and Drought Programs would assists water users in dry conditions and

compensate willing sellers in coordination with Reclamation and the Department. In midJanuary 2001, several SWP and CVP contractors requested that Reclamation and the

Department initiate planning for a dry-year water acquisition program, based on the dry-year

hydrology to date. The Department announced the 2001 Dry-year Water Purchase Program

(Dry-year Program) in March 2001. This program represented the first dry-year acquisition

program by the Department since the 1991, 1992, and 1994 Drought Bank programs. The

Dry-year Program was implemented again in 2002 and 2003, and may be activated in the

future to help public agencies throughout California supplement their water supplies in dry

years. During dry years, the Department and Reclamation would likely initiate water acquisitions first from reservoirs upstream from the Delta, followed sequentially by groundwater

substitution, crop substitution, and crop idling in areas upstream from the Delta. In addition,

as part of the implementation of the CALFED Plan, Governor Gray Davis convened a panel

to develop plans for California to respond to a future drought. In December 2000, the panel

published its report, titled the Critical Water Shortage Contingency Plan, which is now

referred to as the Drought Risk Reduction Investment Program (DRRIP). The plan recommended a multi-pronged set of preparations and responses to future water shortages. The

water acquisition element of the plan is the Critical Water Shortage Reduction Marketing

Program (CWSRMP). CWSRMP is an as-needed water purchasing and allocation program

and is activated whenever parts of the state are suffering from critical water shortages.

Environmental Water Program

CALFED agencies created the Environmental Water Program (EWP) to carry out flowrelated goals of the Ecological Restoration Program Plan. The EWP will acquire water from

sources throughout the Bay-Delta watershed and provide flows to facilitate the following:

• Improvement in habitat conditions for fishery protection and recovery

• Restoration of critical in-stream and channel-forming flows in Bay-Delta tributaries

• Improvement in Delta outflow during critical periods

• Improvement of salmon spawning and juvenile survival in upstream tributaries by

purchasing up to 100,000 AF of water per year by the end of Stage 1

The EWP focuses on enhancing in-stream conditions, but program managers would also

consider potential benefits to offstream resources. The EWP intends to purchase water from

willing sellers in its effort to meet program objectives. CALFED agencies intend to first try

the program with pilot water acquisitions. CALFED agencies will then evaluate the results to
Cumulative Impacts Chapter 4

Draft SRSC EIS 4-4 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

determine the program effectiveness and to refine the EWP framework (CALFED, 2002).

Once the CALFED agencies gather sufficient information, they will prepare an environmental document that covers full implementation of the EWP.

South Delta Improvements Program

The Department and Reclamation are currently evaluating the potential benefits and impacts

associated with implementing CALFED’s South Delta Improvements Program (SDIP).

Actions contemplated as part of the SDIP include providing for more reliable long-term

export capability by the state and federal water projects, protection of local diversions, and

reducing impacts on San Joaquin River salmon. Specifically, the CALFED actions in the

South Delta Improvements Program include considering placement of a fish barrier at the

head of Old River, up to three hydraulic barriers in south Delta channels, dredging and

extending some agricultural diversions, and increasing diversion capability of Clifton Court

Forebay to 8,500 cfs.

POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The Preferred Alternative for the SRSC Contract Renewals EIS includes slightly reduced

contract amounts compared to the Preferred Alternative of the CVPIA PEIS and, therefore,

increased CVP flexibility to assist in meeting other contract needs. As discussed above, the

CVPIA PEIS Cumulative Impact Analysis is incorporated into this EIS by reference. The

potential cumulative effects of future and proposed projects are summarized in Table V-1 of

the cumulative effects chapter of the PEIS and is duplicated below for convenience. None of

the additional four projects described above would adversely affect the cumulative condition

described and evaluated in the PEIS or change the conclusions in that document regarding

cumulative impacts of the Preferred Alternative.

TABLE V-1

SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Effects of Cumulative Actions on

Results of Impacts of PEIS

Action Potential Results Alternatives

Implementation of the BayDelta Plan AcordChanges in Delta inflow and

associated instream releases.

Changes in instream and Delta flows

may influence methodology for

reoperation, (b)(2) water, or water

acquisition for instream or Delta flows.

Restoration of habitat in streams and

actions to improve water quality.

Programs that could lead to

partnerships with CVPIA actions or

eliminate need for specific AFRP

actions to be implemented under

CVPIA.

Development of new storage and/or

Delta conveyance facilities.

Water delivery shortages may not be as

severe as identified in PEIS.

Unknown cumulative effects on

CPVIA water requirements.

May lead to partnerships with CVPIA

actions or eliminate the need for

specific AFRP actions to be

implemented under CVPIA.
Chapter 4 Cumulative Impacts

September 2004 4-5 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE V-1

SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Effects of Cumulative Actions on

Results of Impacts of PEIS

Action Potential Results Alternatives

Place of Use EIR for CVP

Water Supplies

Permitting or cessation of CVP water

service areas currently served with

CVP water but outside of authorized

No anticipated change.

Place of Use.

Trinity River Studies Changes in instream flow Could change (b)(2) water management

requirements for Trinity River. and CVP water reliability.

Sacramento and San

Joaquin River Basins

Comprehensive Study

Develop a program to provide

offstream storage, channel

modifications, and other actions to

reduce flood potential and improve

habitat.

Could change channel cross-sections;

instream flows; and offstream storage.

Habitat improvements could be

integrated with CVPIA actions.

Sacramento Water Forum Changes in water demands and flow Could change (b)(2) and (b)(3) water

Proposal requirements on American River. management and CVP water reliability.

Changes in Water Transfer

Actions

More extensive non-CVPIA water

transfers than assumed in Base

Competition for water from water rights

holders would reduce available water

Transfer Scenario for alternatives with

CVPIA transfers.

supplies for transfers under CVPIA

water acquisition programs or increase

cost of water beyond assumptions for

PEIS. Both of these impacts could

reduce the amount of water acquired by

Interior or increase the price of water

purchased by Interior.

Changes in Federal Farm

Programs

If lands fallowed or retired due to

CVPIA actions continue to

accumulate support payments, the

net revenue to farmers may increase

and the revenue to the Federal

Treasury may not increase.

Farmers may decide to increase

participation in water transfer programs,

including water acquisition programs by

Interior. The price of water also may be

reduced, which could lead to an

opportunity for higher purchases by

Interior.

Changes in Demand for

Agricultural Products

If changes in demand increase crop

value, the price of water would

increase and/or farmers would be less

willing to sell water.

Increases in price or reduction in willing

sellers would improve the ability of

Interior to acquire water.

If changes in demand decrease crop

value, the price of water could

decrease and/or farmers would be

more willing to sell water.

Decreases in price or an increase in

willing sellers would improve the ability

of Interior to acquire water.

Changes in demand may cause

farmers to change cropping patterns.

Changes in cropping patterns could

change the impacts of water shortages,

especially if the ratio of permanent to

annual crops changes.

Changes in Future Use of

Hatcheries

Changes in use of hatcheries could

occur based upon future studies.

Changes in harvest limitations could

occur in the future.

Whether changes in hatchery

operations increase fish populations

may depend Changes in harvest

limitations may increase fish population.

However, the upon habitat, hatchery

practices, and other factors such as

predation. Use of hatcheries also could

reduce natural stock and the overall

population through competition or

reduction in genetic diversity. impact of
Cumulative Impacts Chapter 4

Draft SRSC EIS 4-6 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

TABLE V-1

SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Effects of Cumulative Actions on

Results of Impacts of PEIS

Action Potential Results Alternatives

domestic harvest may not be noticeable

if larger numbers of fish are lost to

international harvest, ocean conditions,

or predation.

Yield Increase Plan Development of facilities and

programs to increase CVP water

supplies could reduce impact of

shortages from CVPIA actions.

Associated programs may increase the

amount of water available for use by

Interior for fish and wildlife purposes or

may result in adverse impacts to fish

and wildlife habitat due to new storage

or conveyance facilities. The programs

also may compete for the same sources

of water that the PEIS identified as

sources for the water acquisition

program.

Additional Wetlands Improve reliability of water supplies to

private wetlands and develop new

wetlands. A portion of the new

wetlands proposal is considered in

the PEIS alternatives.

For the new wetlands, water supplies

would probably be obtained with the

land. Water obtained from other

sources

could be acquired for multiple purposes

or water available for transfers may be

reduced.

Future Listings under ESA

of Special-Status Species

Initiation of consultation with the

Service and NMFS.

Possible additional measures (flow and

non-flow) to avoid a jeopardy

determination. However, measures

being taken under the AFRP, (b)(1)

“other” program, and the Conservation

Program may suffice to avoid

substantial additional requirements.

The potential for cumulative impacts addressed in the PEIS would be slightly reduced given

the Preferred Alternative would include a slightly reduced contract quantity from the contract

renewals evaluated in the PEIS. Accordingly, implementation of the Preferred Alternative

would not result in additional significant cumulative impacts beyond those described in the

PEIS.
September 2004 5-1 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

CHAPTER 5

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

INTRODUCTION

Prior to preparation of this EIS, input was solicited and incorporated from a broad range of

cooperating and consulting agencies and the public. This chapter summarizes the public

involvement program and key issues raised by the public and interest groups.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Reclamation started the preparation of this EIS with scoping meetings. Public input continued during long-term contract negotiations to define the contract language. Discussions

also were held with the SRSCs and their representatives during the preparation of this

document. Comments received during this period are summarized below.

Scoping Process

Scoping served as a fact-finding process to identify public concerns and recommendations

about the Settlement Contract that would be addressed in this EIS, and the scope and level of

detail for analyses. Scoping activities began in July 2001, after a Notice of Intent to prepare

environmental documentation for long-term contract renewals was filed in the Federal

Register. The scoping period formally ended in August 2001. The Scoping Report was

released in December 2001.

At public scoping meetings, Reclamation provided information about the contract renewal

process and solicited public comments, questions, and concerns. At these meetings, participants had comments and questions about how important issues would be considered in the

EIS. The majority of the comments received during the scoping process addressed the

contract terms and negotiations process, the environmental document, and the public

involvement process.

CONSULTATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES

This EIS was prepared in accordance with the policies and regulations for the following

issues:

• National Environmental Policy Act

• Endangered Species Act

• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

• National Historic Preservation Act

• Indian Trust Assets

• Indian Sacred Sites on Federal Land

• Environmental Justice

• State, Areawide, and Local Plan and Program Consistency
Consultation and Coordination Chapter 5

Draft SRSC EIS 5-2 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

National Environmental Policy Act

This EIS was prepared pursuant to regulations implementing NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.).

NEPA provides a commitment that federal agencies will consider the environmental effects

of their actions. This EIS provides information regarding the No Action Alternative and

alternatives, environmental impacts of the alternatives, potential mitigation measures, and

adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided.

Endangered Species Act

Reclamation has prepared a Biological Assessment to determine if the Preferred Alternative

will affect listed, threatened, and endangered species. The Biological Assessment addresses

all species affected by the renewal of the Settlement Contracts. Reclamation is consulting

with both the Service and NOAA-Fisheries pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. The

terms and conditions, reasonable and prudent measures, and all environmental commitments

identified in the Service and NOAA-Fisheries Biological Opinions are hereby incorporated

by reference.

Additionally, as described in Chapter 1, Reclamation and the Department have proposed to

operate the CVP and SWP to divert, store, and convey CVP and SWP (Project) water

consistent with applicable law. These operations are summarized and evaluated in a draft

Biological Assessment, and described in further detail in the CVP Operations Criteria and

Plan (OCAP). The Biological Assessment addresses continued operation of the CVP and

SWP in a coordinated manner. In addition to current-day operations, the following future

actions are included in this consultation:

• Increased flows in the Trinity River

• Increased pumping at Banks Pumping Plant (referred to as 8500 Banks)

• Permanent barriers operated in the South Delta

• An intertie between the California Aqueduct and the Delta-Mendota Canal

• A long-term EWA

• Freeport Regional Water Project

• Various other operational changes described in detail in the Biological Assessment

The current and ongoing effects of diversions to the SRSCs as part of CVP operations are

included in this Biological Assessment. The consultation addresses impacts to listed species

that could be caused by hydrological and water quality conditions resulting from operation of

the CVP and SWP facilities. With respect to long-term contract renewals with the SRSCs, the

consultation evaluates the impact to listed species that could result from operating the CVP

and SWP to deliver CVP water to the points of diversion of the SRSCs in combination with

other operational and regulatory requirements. The analyses for the OCAP consultation

assume the SRSCs divert their total contract quantity with deficiencies in critically dry years

in accordance with the existing and renewal contracts. Because maximum contract deliveries

are assumed for the SRSCs, the OCAP opinion fully addresses any in-river effects to listed

species that could result from long-term contract renewal. The consultation does not evaluate

impacts that could result during diversion of water by the SRSCs or use of diverted water. It

is anticipated that formal consultation on long-term OCAP will be completed by the end of

2004.
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination

September 2004 5-3 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires that Reclamation consult with fish and

wildlife agencies (federal and state) on all water development projects that could affect

biological resources. The implementation of the CVPIA, of which this action is a part, has

been jointly analyzed by Reclamation and the Service and is being jointly implemented. This

continuous consultation and consideration of the views of the Service in addition to their

review of this document and consideration of their comments satisfies any applicable

requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.

National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that federal agencies evaluate

the effects of federal undertakings on historical, archaeological, and cultural resources and

afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation opportunities to comment on the

proposed undertaking. The first step in the process is to identify cultural resources included

on (or eligible for inclusion on) the National Register of Historic Places that are located in or

near the project area. The second step is to identify the possible effects of preferred

Alternatives. The lead agency must examine whether feasible alternatives exist that would

avoid such effects. If an effect cannot reasonably be avoided, measures must be taken to

minimize or mitigate potential adverse effects.

During preparation of this EIS, it was determined that renewal of the Settlement Contracts

would result in no impacts to cultural resources. The counties within the project study area

are required to initiate separate consultations with respect to land use planning activities that

would result in effects to cultural resources.

Indian Trust Assets

The United States Government’s trust responsibility for Indian resources requires

Reclamation and other agencies to take measures to protect and maintain trust resources.

These responsibilities include taking reasonable actions to preserve and restore tribal

resources. Indian Trust Assets are legal interests in property and rights held in trust by the

United States for Indian tribes or individuals. Indian reservations, rancherias, and allotments

are common Indian Trust Assets.

In compliance with 36 CFR 800.4(a) (4), Reclamation has sent letters to Indian tribes

requesting their input regarding the identification of any properties to which they might attach

religious and cultural significance within the area of potential effect. To date, no comments

or formal response have been received from the tribes.

During preparation of this EIS, it was determined, using the information provided by

Reclamation, that no Indian Trust Assets exist within the study area for this EIS.

Indian Sacred Sites on Federal Land

Executive Order 13007 provides that in managing federal lands, each federal agency with

statutory or administrative responsibility for management of federal lands shall, to the extent
Consultation and Coordination Chapter 5

Draft SRSC EIS 5-4 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

practicable and as permitted by law, accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian

sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, and avoid adversely affecting the physical

integrity of such sacred sites. No sacred sites were identified during the scoping or planning

process and, therefore, were not included in the impact assessment of this EIS.

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 requires each federal agency to achieve environmental justice as part

of its mission, by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human

health or environmental effects, including social or economic effects, of programs, policies,

and activities on minority populations and low-income populations of the United States. This

EIS has evaluated the environmental, social, and economic impacts on minority and lowincome populations in the impact assessment of alternatives.

State, Areawide, and Local Plan and Program Consistency

Agencies must consider the consistency of a preferred alternative with approved state and

local plans and laws. This EIS was prepared with extensive information from local planning

agencies.
September 2004 6-1 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

CHAPTER 6

WORKS CITED

Bailey, E.D. 1954. Time pattern of 1953-1954 migration of salmon and steelhead into the

upper Sacramento River. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game unpublished report. 4pp. Cited in U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 2004. Long-term Central Valley Project

and State Water Project Operations Criteria and Plan Biological Assessment. Sacramento,

CA.

Barnhart, R.A. 1986. Species Profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of

coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Southwest), steelhead. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol.

Rep. 82(1160), 21pp.

Berkstresser, C.F. 1973. Base of Fresh Ground Water, Approximately 3000 μMhos, in the

Sacramento Valley and Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta, California. California Department

of Water Resources Investigation 40-73.

Bertoldi, G. L. 1991. Ground Water in the Central Valley, California – A Summary Report,

Regional Aquifer-System Analysis-Central Valley, California. U.S. Geological Survey,

Professional Paper 1401-A.

Bloyd, R.M. Jr. 1978. Ground-Water Conditions in the Sacramento Valley, California 1912,

1961, and 1971. Report to USGS.

Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, and

I.V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho,

Oregon and California. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27. 261pp.

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 1999. Revised Draft Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan,

Volume 2. February.

California Bay-Delta Authority. 2003. Final Report of the Independent Panel on Appropriate

Measurement of Agricultural Water Use. Sacramento, CA.

California Bay-Delta Authority. 2004 Draft Finance Options Report. May.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1998a. Geographic Assistance to Planning (GAP)

data.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1998b. A report to the Fish and Game

Commission: A status review of the spring-run chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the

Sacramento River drainage. Candidate Species Status Report 98-01. June 1998.

California Department of Water Resources (Department). 1968.

California Department of Water Resources (Department). 1978. Bulletin 118-6. Evaluation of

Ground Water Resources: Sacramento Valley. August.

California Department of Water Resources (Department). 1998. California Water Plan

Update. Bulletin 160-98. Sacramento, CA.
Works Cited Chapter 6

Draft SRSC EIS 6-2 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

California Department of Water Resources (Department). 2001. Interim Department of Water

Resources Water Quality Criteria for Acceptance of Non-Project Water into the State Water

Project.

California Department of Water Resources (Department). 2002. Draft Water Transfers Papers

for Water Transfers in 2002 Involving the Department of Water Resources. Water Transfers

Office.

California Department of Water Resources (Department). 2003a. Sacramento River

Basinwide Water Management Plan – Groundwater Hydrology. January.

California Department of Water Resources (Department). 2003b. Groundwater Level Data –

Water Data Library. http://wdl.water.ca.gov/gw/admin/main_menu_gw.asp.Accessed 2002

through 2004.

California Department of Water Resources (Department). 2003c. California’s Groundwater.

Bulletin 118 Update. http://www.groundwater.water.ca.gov/bulletin118/index.cfm. Accessed

2002 through 2004.

California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, 2003.

County Snapshots.

California Energy Commission. 2003. Preliminary Assessment of Energy Issues Associated

With the Klamath Hydroelectric Project. Staff Report 700-03-007.

California Energy Commission. March, 2000. Market Clearing Prices Under Alternative

Resource Scenarios. Publication # 200-00-004.

Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture. 1990. Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture

Implementation Plan: A component of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.

Sacramento, CA.

CH2M HILL, Shasta County Water Agency, and California Department of Water Resources

(the Department). 1997. Shasta County Water Resources Master Plan Phase 1 Report,

Current and Future Water Needs.

CH2M HILL. 2003. Draft Redding Basin Water Resources Management Plan, Phase 2C

Report. Prepared for the Redding Area Water Council. May.

Frayer, W.E., D.D. Peters, and H.R. Powell. 1989. Wetlands of the California Central Valley

Status and Trends, 1939 to mid-1980s. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland,

OR. Cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Draft Biological Opinion on Operation of

the CVP and Implementation of the CVPIA. Sacramento, CA.

Hallock, R.J., W.F. Van Woert, and L. Shapovalov. 1961. An evaluation of stocking hatchery

reared steelhead rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri gairdneri) in the Sacramento River system.

Calif. Dept. Fish and Game Bull. No. 114. 74pp.

Holland, R.F. 1978. Geographic and Edaphic Distribution of Vernal Pools in the Great

Central Valley, California. Berkeley, CA. California Native Plant Society, Special
Chapter 6 Works Cited

September 2004 6-3 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Publication Number 4. Cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Draft Biological

Opinion on Operation of the CVP and Implementation of the CVPIA. Sacramento, CA.

IMPLAN. 2001.

Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. 1993. Sutter Bypass Technical Memorandum II: Potential

Entrapment of Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Proposed Gravel Mining Pond: (JSA 91-272).

Prepared for Teichert Aggregates, Sacramento, CA. Cited in U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Reclamation. 2004. Long-term Central Valley Project and State Water Project

Operations Criteria and Plan Biological Assessment. Sacramento, CA.

Mayer, K.E. and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr. eds. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of

California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Sacramento, CA.

McEwan, D., and T. Jackson. 1996. Steelhead restoration and management plan for

California. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, February 1996. 234pp.

Meng, L., and P. B. Moyle. 1995. Status of splittail in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124(4):538-549.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2004. IMPLAN 2001 Data Files.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2004. IMPLAN Professional 2.0.

Moyle, P.B., B. Herbold, D.E. Stevens, and L.W. Miller. 1992. Life History and Status of

Delta Smelt in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, California. Transactions of the

American Fisheries Society, Vol. 121.

Moyle, P.B., R.M. Yoshiyama, J.E. Williams, and E.D. Wikramanayake. 1995. Fish Species

of Special Concern. Second Edition. Prepared for State of California. Department of Fish and

Game, Rancho Cordova, CA.

Moyle, P.B.. 1976. Inland Fishes of California. Berkeley, University of California Press.

Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grant,

F.W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook

salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon and California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA

Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443pp. Available at

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm35/

Natural Heritage Institute. 1992. Petition for Listing Under the Endangered Species Act,

Longfin Smelt and Sacramento Splittail. San Francisco, CA.

Niblack, Bob. 2004. Personal Communication.

Page, R. W (U.S. Geological Survey). 1986. Geology of the Fresh Ground-Water Basin of

the Central Valley, California, with Texture Maps and Sections. U.S. Geological Survey,

Professional Paper 1401-C.

PG&E. 2004. Rate Schedule 5B, Large agricultural time-of-use rates.
Works Cited Chapter 6

Draft SRSC EIS 6-4 September 2004

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Reynolds, F.L., T. Mills, R. Benthin, and A. Low. 1993. Restoring Central Valley Streams: A

Plan for Action. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division.

Sacramento, CA.

Sanders, S.D., E.C. Beedy, R.F. Holland, and V. Dains. 1985. Vegetation and wildlife

resources along the lower American River and their relationships to instream flows. Prepared

for McDonough, Holland, and Allen. Unpublished report. Sacramento, CA.

Shapovalov, L., and A.C. Taft. 1954. The life histories of the steelhead rainbow trout (Salmo

gairdneri gairdneri) and silver salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) with special reference to

Waddell Creek, California, and recommendations regarding their management. Calif. Dept.

Fish Game, Fish Bull. 98, 375pp.

Slater, D. 1963. Winter-run chinook salmon in the Sacramento River, California, with notes

on water temperature requirements at spawning. Special Scientific Report – Fisheries No.

461. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1997. Central Valley Project Improvement Act Draft

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1998. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement,

Central Valley Project Improvement Act. Mid-Pacific Region, Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Department of Labor. 2000. Findings for the National Agricultural Workers Survey

(NAWS) 1997-1998, A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States

Farmworkers. March.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2001. Final Environmental Impact Statement for

the Metro Air Park Habitat Conservation Plan. July.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Native Fishes Recovery

Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1983. Groundwater in the Redding Basin, Shasta and Tehama

Counties, CA. Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4052.

Verner, J. and A.S. Boss, technical coordinators. 1980. California Wildlife and Their

Habitats: Western Sierra Nevada. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Berkeley, CA. Gen. Tech. Rpt. PSW-37.

Vogel, D.A., and K.R. Marine. 1991. Guide to Upper Sacramento River chinook salmon life

history. Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project. 55pp.

Wang, J.C.S. 1986. Fishes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary and Adjacent Waters,

California: a Guide to the Early Life Histories. (FS/10-4ATR 86-9, Technical Report 9,

Interagency Ecological Studies Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.)

Sacramento, CA. California Department of Water Resources.
Chapter 6 Works Cited

September 2004 6-5 Draft SRSC EIS

RDD\040820010 (CLR2513.doc)

Wang, J.C.S. 1991. Early Life History of the Delta Smelt, Hypomesus transpacificus, in the

Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, with Comparison of Early Life Stages of the Longfin

Smelt, Spirinchus thaleichthys. (FS/BIO-IATR/91-28, Technical Report 28, Interagency

Ecological Studies Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.) Sacramento, CA,

California Department of Water Resources.
Appendix A

Sacramento River Settlement Contractors
RDD/041600033 (CAH2719.DOC) A-1

APPENDIX A

Sacramento River Settlement Contractors

Standard-form Contract – Districts, Water Companies, and Municipalities

1) Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District

2) Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District

3) Maxwell Irrigation District

4) Meridian Farms Water Company

5) Natomas Central Mutual Water Company

6) Pelger Mutual Water Company

7) Pleasant Grove-Verona Mutual Water Company

8) Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation Company

9) Provident Irrigation District

10) Reclamation District No. 1004

11) Reclamation District No. 108

12) Redding, City of

13) Robert’s Ditch Irrigation Company, Inc.

14) Sartain Mutual Water Company

15) Sutter Mutual Water Company

16) Swinford Tract Irrigation Company

17) Tisdale Irrigation and Drainage Company

Standard Form – Individuals

1) A& F Boeger Corp. and Boeger Land Company

2) Andreotti, Arthur, et al.

3) Baber, Jack, et al.

4) Cannell, Fred, et al.

5) Carter, Jane Foster

6) Colusa Properties, Inc.

7) Conaway Conservancy Group

8) Davis, Olive P., et al.

9) Deseret Farms of California

10) Dommer, Elizabeth

11) Forry, Laurie

12) Forster, Rosemary Trust and Jerome

13) Furlan Joint Venture

14) Griffin, Joseph, et al.

15) Henle Family Limited Partnership

16) Hershey Land Company

17) Hiatt, Glenwood J., et al.

18) Hollins, Mariette B.

19) Howald Farms, Inc.

20) King, Barbara
APPENDIX A SACRAMENTO RIVER SETTLEMENT CONTRACTORS

A-2 RDD/041600033 (CAH2719.DOC)

21) Knaggs Walnut Ranches Co., L.P.

22) Lockett, William P. and Jean B., 1998 Family Revocable Trust

23) Lomo Cold Storage

24) M & T, Inc.

25) MCM Properties, Inc.

26) O’Brien, Janice

27) Odysseus Farms

28) Oji Brothers Farm, Inc.

29) Oji, Mitsue, Family Partnership

30) Reynen, John, et al.

31) River Garden Farms

32) Siddiqui, Javed and Amna

33) Spence, Ruth Ann

34) Tarke, James

35) Wallace Construction, Incorporated

36) Wells, Joyce M.

37) Whitney Construction

38) Wilson Ranch Partnership

39) Windswept Land & Livestock

Short-form Contracts

1) Alexander, Thomas,

2) Amen, Henry, Estate

3) Anderson, Ray E., et ux. (1) & (2)

4) Beckley, Ralph, et ux.

5) Butler, Leslie, et ux.

6) Butte Creek Farms (A)

7) Butte Creek Farms (P)

8) Butte Creek Farms (Y)

9) Chesney, R and A, Bypass Trust et al.

10) Chicago Almond Products Co. and American Almond Products Co., Inc.

11) Chilton, Barbara

12) Churkin, Michael, et al.

13) Cribari, Emile, et ux.

14) Daniell, Harry

15) Davis, Grover L., et ux.

16) Davis, Marilyn, et al.

17) Diamond Holdings, Inc., A

18) Drew, Jerry

19) Driscoll Strawberry Associates, Incorporated

20) Driver, Gary, et al.

21) Driver, Gregory E.

22) Driver, John A. and Clare M., Family Revocable Trust

23) Driver, John A., et ux.

24) Driver, William, et al.

25) Eggleston, Ronald H., et ux.
APPENDIX A SACRAMENTO RIVER SETTLEMENT CONTRACTORS

RDD/041600033 (CAH2719.DOC) A-3

26) Ehrke, Allen A., et ux.

27) ELH Sutter Properties, Inc.

28) Sutter Properties, Inc. and Lauppe, B.

29) Elliot, Marlene, and Hradecky, Denton, CoTenancy

30) Fedora, Sib, et al.

31) Freeman, Frank, et ux.

32) Furlan, Emile, et ux.

33) Gillaspy, Fay

34) Giovannetti, B. E. and Mary

35) Giusti, Richard, et al.

36) Gjermann, Hal

37) Hale & Marks

38) Hale & Marks

39) Heidrick, Emmett and Mildred, Trust

40) Heidrick, Emmett and Mildred, Trust

41) Heidrick, Joe, Family Trust

42) HighLow Nursery, Inc.

43) J.B. Unlimited, Inc.

44) Jaeger, William, et al.

45) Kaiser Development Co.

46) Kary, Carol (1) & (2)

47) Lake California Property Owners Association

48) Lauppe, B. and K.

49) Lauppe, Burton

50) Lee Farms

51) Leiser, Dorothy L.

52) Leviathan, Inc.

53) Locvich, Paul

54) Lonon, Michael, et al.

55) M & L Farms

56) Martin, Andrew

57) Mayfair Farms

58) McLane, Robert

59) McLaughlin, Jack

60) Micke, Daniel

61) MirbachHarff Antonius

62) Morehead, Joseph A., et ux.

63) Morey, Richard T.

64) Munson, James T., et ux.

65) Nelson, Thomas L., et ux.

66) Odysseus Farms Partnership

67) Penner, H. H., et ux.

68) Pires, Lawrence J., et ux.

69) Quad H Ranches

70) Reische, Laverne C., et ux.

71) Richter Brothers, et al.

72) Ritchey, E. J., et ux.
APPENDIX A SACRAMENTO RIVER SETTLEMENT CONTRACTORS

A-4 RDD/041600033 (CAH2719.DOC)

73) Riverby Limited

74) Riverview Golf & Country Club

75) Sacramento, County of

76) Schreiner, Joe and Cleo

77) Seaver, Charles

78) Sekhon, Arjinderpal and Daljit

79) Stegeman Station Ranch

80) Steidlmayer, Francis J., et al.

81) Tuttle, Charles

82) Verona Farming Partnership

83) Wakida, Masaru, et ux.

84) Wakida, Masaru, et ux.

85) Westfall, Ralph D.

86) Willey, Edwin, et ux.

87) Williams Co., G.W.

88) Wilson, Neil

89) Young, Russell L., et al.
Appendix B

Sacramento River Settlement Contractors

Environmental Impact Statement

Scoping Report







































Appendix C

Contracts between U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and

Sacramento River Settlement Contractors
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

Contract No.

Standard Irrigation District Form

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Central Valley Project, California

CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND

___________________________________________________,

DIVERTER OF WATER FROM SACRAMENTO RIVER SOURCES,

SETTLING WATER RIGHTS DISPUTES AND

PROVIDING FOR PROJECT WATER 

Table of Contents

Article No. Title Page No.

Preamble 1

Explanatory Recitals 2-3

1 Definitions 3-6

2 Term of Contract 7

3 Water to be Furnished to Contractor 7-10

4 Return Flow 10-11

5 Constraints on the Availability of Water 11-12

6 Integrated Water Management and Partnerships 12-13

7 Use of Water Furnished to Contractor 13

8 Rate and Method of Payment for Water 14-18

9 Agreement on Water Quantities 19-21

10 Measurement of Water 21-23

11 Rules and Regulations 23

12 General Obligation – Benefits Conditioned 

Upon Payment 23-24

13 Charges For Delinquent Payments 24

14 Quality of Water 24-25

15 Water and Air Pollution Control 25

16 Equal Opportunity 25-26

17 Compliance With Civil Rights Laws 

And Regulations 26-27
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

Table of Contents – continued

Article No. Title Page No.

18 Mingling of Contractor’s Project and 

Non-Project Water 27-28

19 Books, Records, and Reports 28

20 Change Of Place Of Use Or Organization 28-29

21 Consolidation Of Contracting Entities 29

22 Notices 29

23 Assignment Limited – Successors and 

Assigns Obligated 29-30

24 Officials Not to Benefit 30

25 Contingent Upon Appropriation or

Allotment of Funds 30

26 Confirmation of Contract 30

27 Unavoidable Groundwater Percolation 30

28 Privacy Act Compliance 31

29 Water Conservation 31-33

30 Opinions And Determinations 33

31 Contractor to Pay Certain Miscellaneous Costs 34

32 Waiver of Default 34

Signatures 35

Exhibit A Schedule of Monthly Diversions of Water

Exhibit B Map of Contractor’s Ownership

Exhibit C Unit Duties

Exhibit D Rates and Charges
1 R.O. Draft 02/26-2003

2 Contract No.

3 Standard Irrigation District Form

4

5 UNITED STATES

6 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

7 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

8 Central Valley Project, California

9

10 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND

11 _______________________________________________

12 DIVERTER OF WATER FROM SACRAMENTO RIVER SOURCES

13 SETTLING WATER RIGHTS DISPUTES AND

14 PROVIDING FOR PROJECT WATER 

15

16

17 THIS CONTRACT, hereinafter referred to as “Settlement Contract,” is 

18 entered into by THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, hereinafter referred to as the 

19 United States, made this _____ day of ____________________, 2004, pursuant to the 

20 applicable authority granted to it generally in the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and 

21 acts amendatory or supplementary thereto, including, but not limited to, the Acts of 

22 August 26, 1937 (50 Stat. 844), as amended and supplemented, August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 

23 1187), as amended and supplemented, including, but not limited to, Sections 9 and 14 

24 thereto, July 2, 1956 (70 Stat. 483), June 21, 1963 (77 Stat. 68), October 12, 1982 (96 

25 Stat. 1262), October 27, 1986 (100 Stat. 3050), as amended, and Title XXXIV of the Act 

26 of October 30, 1992 (106 Stat. 4706), all collectively hereinafter referred to as Federal 

27 Reclamation law, and _______________________, hereinafter referred to as the 

28 Contractor, a public agency of the State of California, duly organized, existing, and 

29 acting pursuant to the laws thereof, with its principal place of business in California; 

30 [may change depending on contracting entity]

31 WITNESSETH, that:
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

2

1 EXPLANATORY RECITALS

[1 2

st] WHEREAS, the United States has constructed and is operating the Central 

3 Valley Project, California, for multiple purposes pursuant to its statutory authority; and

[2 4

nd] WHEREAS, the Contractor has rights to divert, is diverting, and will 

5 continue to divert for reasonable beneficial use, water from the natural flow of the 

6 Sacramento River and tributaries thereto, that would have been flowing therein if the 

7 Central Valley Project were not in existence; and [Contractor Specific – “Other” 

8 Rights”]

[3 9

rd] WHEREAS, the construction and operation of the integrated and 

10 coordinated Central Valley Project has changed and will further change the regimen of 

11 the Sacramento, American, San Joaquin, and Trinity Rivers and the Sacramento-San 

12 Joaquin Delta from unregulated flow to regulated flow; and

[4 13 th] WHEREAS, the United States has rights to divert, is diverting, and will 

14 continue to divert waters from said Rivers and said Delta in connection with the operation 

15 of said Central Valley Project, and

[5 16 th] WHEREAS, the Contractor and the United States had a dispute over the 

17 respective rights of the parties to divert and use water from the regulated flow of the 

18 Sacramento River which threatened to result in litigation, and as a means to settle that 

19 dispute entered into Contract No. ______________, as amended, hereinafter referred to 

20 as the Existing Contract, which established terms for the delivery to the Contractor of 

21 Central Valley Project Water, and the quantities of Base Supply the United States and the 

22 Contractor agreed may be diverted by the Contractor from the Sacramento River pursuant 

23 to such contract; and
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

3

[6 1

th] WHEREAS, the United States and the Contractor disagree with respect to 

2 the authority of the United States to change the quantities of Base Supply and/or Project 

3 Water specified as available for diversion in this Settlement Contract from the quantities 

4 specified in the Existing Contract, and other issues related thereto. That dispute was the 

5 subject of litigation in a lawsuit entitled Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, et al. v. United 

6 States, et al. [Civ. No. S-01-1816 GEB/JFM (E.D. Cal.)]; that litigation was dismissed, 

7 without prejudice, pursuant to a stipulation of dismissal filed by the parties thereto on 

8 August 29, 2002. Notwithstanding that dismissal, the Contractor and the United States 

9 enter into this Settlement Contract to renew the Existing Contract, pursuant to the terms 

10 of the Existing Contract, Federal Reclamation law, and the laws of the State of 

11 California; and

[7 12 th] WHEREAS, to assure the Contractor of the enjoyment and use of the 

13 regulated flow of the said Rivers and the Delta, and to provide for the economical 

14 operation of the Central Valley Project by, and the reimbursement to, the United States 

15 for expenditures made for said Project.

16 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the performance of the herein 

17 contained provisions, conditions, and covenants, it is agreed as follows:

18 DEFINITIONS

19 1. When used herein, unless otherwise expressed or incompatible with the 

20 intent hereof, the term:

21 (a) “Base Supply” shall mean the quantity of Surface Water 

22 established in Articles 3 and 5 which may be diverted by the Contractor from the 
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

4

1 Sacramento River each month during the period April through October of each Year 

2 without payment to the United States for such quantities diverted;

3 (b) “Basin-Wide Water Management Plan” shall mean the mutually 

4 agreeable Sacramento River Basinwide Water Management Plan, dated _______, 

5 developed by Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, Maxwell Irrigation District, Natomas 

6 Central Mutual Water Company, Pelger Mutual Water Company, Princeton-Codora7 Glenn Irrigation District, Provident Irrigation District, Reclamation District 108, Sutter 

8 Mutual Water Company, Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District, M&T, Inc., Meridian 

9 Farms Water Company, Reclamation District 1004 and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

10 (c) “Charges” shall mean the payments for Project Water that the 

11 Contractor is required to pay to the United States in addition to the “Rates” specified in 

12 this Settlement Contract. The Contracting Officer will, on an annual basis, determine the 

13 extent of these Charges. The type and amount of each Charge shall be specified in 

14 Exhibit D;

15 (d) “Contract Total” shall mean the sum of the Base Supply and 

16 Project Water available for diversion by the Contractor for the period April 1 through 

17 October 31;

18 (e) “Critical Year” shall mean any Year in which either of the 

19 following eventualities exists:

20 (1) The forecasted full natural inflow to Shasta Lake for the 

21 current Water Year, as such forecast is made by the United States on or before February 

22 15 and reviewed as frequently thereafter as conditions and information warrant, is equal 

23 to or less than 3.2 million acre-feet; or
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

5

1 (2) The total accumulated actual deficiencies below 4 million 

2 acre-feet in the immediately prior Water Year or series of successive prior Water Years 

3 each of which had inflows of less than 4 million acre-feet, together with the forecasted 

4 deficiency for the current Water Year, exceed 800,000 acre-feet. 

5 For the purpose of determining a Critical Year, the computation of inflow 

6 to Shasta Lake shall be performed in a manner that considers the extent of upstream 

7 development above Shasta Lake during the year in question, and shall be used as the full 

8 natural flow to Shasta Lake. In the event that major construction has occurred or occurs 

9 above Shasta Lake after September 1, 1963 and which has materially altered or alters the 

10 regimen of the stream systems contributing to Shasta Lake, the computed inflow to 

11 Shasta Lake used to define a Critical Year will be adjusted to eliminate the effect of such 

12 material alterations. After consultation with the State of California, the National Weather 

13 Service, and other recognized forecasting agencies, the Contracting Officer will select the 

14 forecast to be used and will make the details of it available to the Contractor. The same 

15 forecasts used by the United States for the operation of the Project shall be used to make 

16 the forecasts hereunder;

17 (f) “CVPIA” shall mean the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, 

18 Title XXXIV of the Act of October 30, 1992 (106 Stat. 4706);

19 (g) “Eligible Lands” shall mean all lands to which Project Water may 

20 be delivered in accordance with Section 204 of the Reclamation Reform Act of October 

21 12, 1982 (96 Stat. 1263), as amended, hereinafter referred to as RRA;
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

6

1 (h) “Excess Lands” shall mean all lands in excess of the limitations 

2 contained in Section 204 of the RRA, other than those lands exempt from acreage 

3 limitation under Federal Reclamation law;

4 (i) “Full Cost Rate” shall mean that water rate described in Sections 

5 205(a)(3) or 202(3) of the RRA, whichever is applicable;

6 (j) “Ineligible Lands” shall mean all lands to which Project Water 

7 may not be delivered in accordance with Section 204 of the RRA;

8 (k) “Landholder” shall mean a party that directly or indirectly owns or 

9 leases nonexempt land, as provided in 43 CFR 426.2;

10 (l) “Project” shall mean the Central Valley Project owned by the 

11 United States and managed by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation;

12 (m) “Project Water” shall mean all Surface Water diverted or 

13 scheduled to be diverted each month during the period April through October of each 

14 Year by the Contractor from the Sacramento River which is in excess of the Base Supply. 

15 The United States recognizes the right of the Contractor to make arrangements for 

16 acquisition of water from projects of others than the United States for delivery through 

17 the Sacramento River and tributaries subject to written agreement between Contractor 

18 and the United States as to identification of such water which water when so identified 

19 shall not be deemed Project Water under this Settlement Contract;

20 (n) “Rates” shall mean the payments for Project Water determined 

21 annually by the Contracting Officer in accordance with the then current applicable water 

22 ratesetting policies for the Project, as described in subdivision (a) of Article 8 of this 

23 Settlement Contract;
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

7

1 (o) “Secretary” or “Contracting Officer” shall mean the Secretary of 

2 the Interior, a duly appointed successor, or an authorized representative acting pursuant to 

3 any authority of the Secretary and through any agency of the Department of the Interior;

4 (p) “Surface Water” shall mean only those waters that are considered

5 as surface water under California law;

6 (q) “Water Year” shall mean the period commencing with October 1 

7 of one year and extending through September 30 of the next; and

8 (r) “Year” shall mean a calendar year.

9 TERM OF SETTLEMENT CONTRACT

10 2. (a) This Settlement Contract shall become effective April 1, 2004, and 

11 shall remain in effect until and including March 31, 2044: Provided, that under terms and 

12 conditions mutually agreeable to the parties hereto, renewals may be made for successive 

13 periods not to exceed 40 years each. The terms and conditions of each renewal shall be 

14 agreed upon not later than one year prior to the expiration of the then existing Settlement 

15 Contract. 

16 (b) With respect to Project Water and the portions of this Settlement 

17 Contract pertaining thereto, upon written request by the Contractor of the Secretary made 

18 not later than one year prior to the expiration of this Settlement Contract, whenever, 

19 account being taken of the amount then credited to the costs of construction of water 

20 supply works, the remaining amount of construction costs of water supply work which is 

21 properly assignable for ultimate return by the Contractor as established by the Secretary 

22 of the Interior pursuant to (3) of Section 1 of Public Law 643 (70 Stat. 483), probably can 

23 be repaid to the United States within the term of a contract under subsection 9(d) of the 
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

8

1 1939 Reclamation Project Act (53 Stat. 1187), the relevant portions of this Settlement 

2 Contract may be converted to a contract under said subsection 9(d) upon terms and 

3 conditions mutually agreeable to the United States and the Contractor. The Secretary 

4 shall make a determination 10 years after the date of execution of this Settlement

5 Contract, and every five years thereafter, of whether a conversion to a contract under said 

6 subsection 9(d) can be accomplished pursuant to Public Law 643. Notwithstanding any 

7 provision of this Settlement Contract, the Contractor reserves and shall have all rights and 

8 benefits under Public Law 643.

9 WATER TO BE FURNISHED TO CONTRACTOR

10 3. (a) Subject to the conditions, limitations, and provisions hereinafter 

11 expressed, the Contractor is hereby entitled and authorized to divert from the Sacramento 

12 River at the locations shown in Exhibit A, for beneficial use within the area delineated on

13 Exhibit B, (both Exhibits are attached hereto and made a part hereof), the Contract Total 

14 designated in Exhibit A, or any revision thereof, in accordance with the monthly 

15 operating schedule required by Article 3(c) of this Settlement Contract. The quantity of 

16 any water diverted under this Settlement Contract from the Sacramento River, during the 

17 period April through October, for use on any lands delineated on Exhibit B, by the owner 

18 of such lands or otherwise shall constitute a part of the Contract Total as shown on 

19 Exhibit A and shall be subject to all the provisions of this Settlement Contract relating to 

20 such Contract Total as if such diversion were made by the Contractor.

21 [NOTE: contractor-specific language dealing with individual water rights may be 

22 needed.]
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

9

1 (b) The Contractor may have acquired rights to divert water from the 

2 Sacramento River during the period April through October, that were obtained after the 

3 date of execution of the Existing Contract, or the Contractor may acquire such rights in 

4 the future. All diversions made from the Sacramento River, pursuant to such rights, 

5 during the period April through October, shall not be considered a part of the quantity of 

6 Base Supply and Project Water specified in Exhibit A; Provided, that the quantities 

7 diverted pursuant to the above rights shall be identified on the schedule submitted 

8 pursuant to Article 3(c) below, and shall not be substituted for any Base Supply or Project 

9 Water; Provided, further, that any such identified quantities of other acquired rights may 

10 be diverted by the Contractor before incurring any fee pursuant to Article 3(c)(1), below. 

11 (c) Before April 1 and before the first day of each month thereafter 

12 when a revision is needed, the Contractor shall submit a written schedule to the 

13 Contracting Officer indicating the Contract Total to be diverted by the Contractor during 

14 each month under this Settlement Contract. The United States shall furnish water to the 

15 Contractor in accordance with the monthly operating schedule or any revisions thereof. 

16 However, the United States recognizes the need of the Contractor to change from time to 

17 time its monthly diversions of water from the quantities shown in Exhibit A; the 

18 Contractor may make such changes, provided: 

19 (1) that for the quantity of Base Supply diverted in excess of 

20 the monthly quantity shown in Exhibit A, and as may be reduced in accordance with 

21 Article 5(a), during June, July, August, September, or October of any Water Year, the 

22 Contractor shall be charged a rescheduling fee equal to 50% of the sum of the storage 
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

10

1 operations and maintenance rate and the storage capital rate components of the Project 

2 ratesetting policy.

3 (2) that in no event shall the total quantity scheduled for 

4 diversion by the Contractor from the Sacramento River:

5 (i) During the period April through October exceed the 

6 aggregate of the Contract Total for that period shown in Exhibit A or any revision 

7 thereof;

8 (ii) During the period July through September exceed 

9 the aggregate of the Contract Total for that period shown in Exhibit A or any revision 

10 thereof. 

11 (d) In the event conditions warrant, the Contracting Officer reserves 

12 the right to require the Contractor to submit, at least 72 hours prior to the beginning of 

13 each weekly period, its estimate of daily diversion requirements for each such period 

14 from the Sacramento River: Provided, however, that changes during any such period 

15 may be made upon the giving of 72 hours’ notice thereof to the Contracting Officer.

16 (e) No sale, transfer, exchange, or other disposal of any of the 

17 Contract Total designated in Exhibit A or the right to the use thereof for use on land other 

18 than that shown on Exhibit B shall be made by the Contractor without first obtaining the 

19 written consent of the Contracting Officer. Such consent will not be unreasonably 

20 withheld and a decision will be rendered in a timely manner. For short-term actions that 

21 will occur within one year or less, the decision will be rendered within 30 days after 

22 receipt of a complete written proposal. For long-term actions that will occur in a period 

23 longer than one year, the decision will be rendered within 90 days after receipt of a 
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

11

1 complete written proposal. For a proposal to be deemed complete by the Contracting 

2 Officer, it must comply with all provisions required by State and Federal law, including 

3 information sufficient to enable the Contracting Officer to comply with the National 

4 Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and applicable rules or 

5 regulations then in effect; Provided that, such consent does not authorize the use of 

6 Federal facilities to facilitate or effectuate the sale, transfer, exchange or other disposal of 

7 Base Supply. Such use of Federal facilities will be the subject of a separate agreement to 

8 be entered into between the Contractor and Reclamation.

9 (f) For the purpose of determining whether section 3405(a)(1)(M) of 

10 the CVPIA applies to the Contractor as a transferor or transferee of Project Water, the 

11 Contracting Officer acknowledges that the Contractor is within a county, watershed or 

12 other area of origin, as those terms are utilized under California law.

13 (g) Nothing herein contained shall prevent the Contractor from 

14 diverting water during the months of November through March for beneficial use on the 

15 land shown on Exhibit B or elsewhere to the extent authorized under the laws of the State 

16 of California.

17 (h) The United States assumes no responsibility for and neither it nor 

18 its officers, agents, or employees shall have any liability for or on account of:

19 (1) The quality of water to be diverted by the Contractor;

20 (2) The control, carriage, handling, use, disposal, or 

21 distribution of water diverted by the Contractor outside the facilities constructed and then 

22 being operated and maintained by or on behalf of the United States;
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

12

1 (3) Claims of damage of any nature whatsoever, including but 

2 not limited to, property loss or damage, personal injury, or death arising out of or 

3 connected with the control, carriage, handling, use, disposal, or distribution of said water 

4 outside of the hereinabove referred to facilities; and

5 (4) Any damage whether direct or indirect arising out of or in 

6 any manner caused by a shortage of water whether such shortage be on account of errors 

7 in operation, drought, or unavoidable causes.

8 RETURN FLOW

9 4. Nothing herein shall be construed as an abandonment or a relinquishment 

10 by the United States of any right it may have to the use of waste, seepage, and return flow 

11 water derived from water diverted by the Contractor hereunder and which escapes or is 

12 discharged beyond the boundaries of the lands shown on Exhibit B; Provided, that this 

13 shall not be construed as claiming for the United States any right to such water which is 

14 recovered by the Contractor pursuant to California law from within the boundaries of the 

15 lands shown on Exhibit B, and which is being used pursuant to this Settlement Contract 

16 for surface irrigation or underground storage for the benefit of the lands shown on Exhibit 

17 B by the Contractor. [Colusa Basin Drain language may be required]

18 CONSTRAINTS ON THE AVAILABILITY OF WATER

19 5. (a) In a Critical Year, the Contractor’s Base Supply and Project Water 

20 agreed to be diverted during the period April through October of the Year in which the 

21 principal portion of the Critical Year occurs and, each monthly quantity of said period 

22 shall be reduced by twenty-five percent.
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

13

1 (b) The amount of any overpayment by the Contractor shall, at its 

2 option, be refunded or credited upon amounts to become due to the United States from 

3 the Contractor under the provisions hereof in the ensuing Year. To the extent of such 

4 deficiency such adjustment of overpayment shall constitute the sole remedy of the 

5 Contractor.

6 INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT AND PARTNERSHIPS

7 6. The Contractor and United States desire to work together to maximize the 

8 reasonable beneficial use of water for their mutual benefit. As a consequence, the United 

9 States and the Contractor will work in partnership and with others within the Sacramento 

10 Valley, including other Contractors, to facilitate the better integration within the 

11 Sacramento Valley of all water supplies including, but not limited to, the better 

12 management and integration of surface water and groundwater, the development and 

13 better utilization of surface water storage, the effective utilization of waste, seepage and 

14 return flow water, and other operational and management options that may be identified 

15 in the future. [Language cross-referencing other related agreement will be added as 

16 appropriate to the individual Settlement Contracts.]

17 USE OF WATER FURNISHED TO CONTRACTOR

18 7. (a) Project Water furnished to the Contractor pursuant to this 

19 Settlement Contract shall not be delivered or furnished by the Contractor for any 

20 purposes other than agricultural purposes without the written consent of the Contracting 

21 Officer. For purposes of this Settlement Contract, “agricultural purposes” includes, but is 

22 not restricted to, the watering of livestock, incidental domestic use including related 

23 landscape irrigation, or underground water replenishment.
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

14

1 (b) The Contractor shall comply with requirements applicable to the 

2 Contractor in biological opinion(s) prepared as a result of a consultation regarding the 

3 execution of this Settlement Contract undertaken pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered 

4 Species Act of 1973, as amended, that are within the Contractor’s legal authority to 

5 implement. The Contractor shall comply with the limitations or requirements imposed by 

6 environmental documentation applicable to the Contractor and within its legal authority 

7 to implement. The Existing Contract, which evidences in excess of 40 years of 

8 diversions, for agricultural uses, of the quantities of water provided for in Article 3, and 

9 the underlying water rights of the Contractor will be considered in developing an 

10 appropriate base-line for the Biological Assessment prepared pursuant to the Endangered 

11 Species Act, and in any other needed environmental review. Nothing herein shall be 

12 construed to prevent the Contractor from challenging or seeking judicial relief in a court 

13 of competent jurisdiction with respect to any biological opinion or other environmental 

14 documentation referred to in this Article.

15 RATE AND METHOD OF PAYMENT FOR WATER

16 8. (a) The Contractor shall make payments to the United States as 

17 provided in this Article for all Project Water shown in Exhibit A as follows: 

18 (1) seventy-five percent of the amount shown as Project Water 

19 shall be paid for by the Contractor in each Year; and in addition

20 (2) the Contractor shall pay for Project Water actually diverted 

21 in excess of seventy-five percent of the amount shown as Project Water. 

22 Such payments shall be at Rates and Charges established in accordance with: 

23 (i) the Secretary’s then-current ratesetting policies for the Project; and (ii) applicable 
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

15

1 Reclamation law and associated rules and regulations, or policies: Provided, that if the 

2 Contractor desires to use Project Water for other than agricultural use the Rates and 

3 Charges set forth above will be adjusted by the Contracting Officer to the applicable 

4 Rates and Charges for such use. The Rates and Charges applicable to the Contractor 

5 upon execution of this Settlement Contract are set forth in Exhibit D, as may be revised 

6 annually. The Secretary’s ratesetting policies for the Project shall be amended, modified, 

7 or superseded only through a public notice and comment procedure. The Contracting 

8 Officer shall adjust the amount of Project Water for which payment is required to the 

9 extent of any reduction in diversions of Project Water made in accordance with the water 

10 conservation provisions of Article 29(e).

11 (b) The Contracting Officer shall notify the Contractor of the Rates 

12 and Charges as follows:

13 (1) Prior to July 1 of each Year, the Contracting Officer shall 

14 provide the Contractor an estimate of the Charges for Project Water that will be applied 

15 to the period October 1, of the current Year, through September 30, of the following 

16 Year, and the basis for such estimate. The Contractor shall be allowed not less than two 

17 months to review and comment on such estimates. On or before September 15 of each 

18 Year, the Contracting Officer shall notify the Contractor in writing of the Charges to be 

19 in effect during the period October 1 of the current Year, through September 30, of the 

20 following Year, and such notification shall revise Exhibit D.

21 (2) Prior to October 1 of each Year, the Contracting Officer 

22 shall make available to the Contractor an estimate of the Rates for Project Water for the 

23 following Year and the computations and cost allocations upon which those Rates are 
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

16

1 based. The Contractor shall be allowed not less than two months to review and comment 

2 on such computations and cost allocations. By December 31 of each Year, the 

3 Contracting Officer shall provide the Contractor with the final Rates to be in effect for 

4 the upcoming Year, and such notification shall revise Exhibit D.

5 (c) The Contractor shall pay the United States for Project Water in the 

6 following manner:

7 (1) With respect to Rates, prior to May 1 of each Year, the 

8 Contractor shall pay the United States one-half the total amount payable pursuant to 

9 subdivision (a) of this Article and the remainder shall be paid prior to July 1 or such later 

10 date or dates as may be specified by the United States in a written notice to the 

11 Contractor: Provided, however, that if at any time during the Year the amount of Project 

12 Water diverted by the Contractor shall equal the amount for which payment has been 

13 made, the Contractor shall pay for the remaining amount of such water as shown in 

14 Exhibit A in advance of any further diversion of Project Water.

15 (2) With respect to Charges, the Contractor shall also make a 

16 payment to the United States, in addition to the Rate(s) in subdivision (c)(1) of this 

17 Article, at the Charges then in effect, before the end of the month following the month of 

18 delivery or transfer. The payments shall be consistent with the quantities of Project 

19 Water delivered or transferred. Adjustment for overpayment or underpayment of 

20 Charges shall be made through the adjustment of payments due to the United States for 

21 Charges for the next month. Any amount to be paid for past due payment of Charges 

22 shall be computed pursuant to Article 13 of this Settlement Contract.
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

17

1 (d) Payments to be made by the Contractor to the United States under 

2 this Settlement Contract may be paid from any revenues available to the Contractor.

3 (1) All revenues received by the United States from the 

4 Contractor relating to the delivery of Project Water or the delivery of non-Project water 

5 through Project facilities shall be allocated and applied in accordance with Federal 

6 Reclamation law and the associated rules or regulations, and the then current Project 

7 ratesetting policies for Irrigation Water.

8 (e) The Contracting Officer shall keep its accounts pertaining to the 

9 administration of the financial terms and conditions of its long-term water service and 

10 Settlement Contracts, in accordance with applicable Federal standards, so as to reflect the 

11 application of Project costs and revenues. The Contracting Officer shall, each Year upon 

12 request of the Contractor, provide to the Contractor a detailed accounting of all Project 

13 and Contractor expense allocations, the disposition of all Project and Contractor 

14 revenues, and a summary of all water delivery information. The Contracting Officer and 

15 the Contractor shall enter into good faith negotiations to resolve any discrepancies or

16 disputes relating to accountings, reports, or information.

17 (f) The parties acknowledge and agree that the efficient administration 

18 of this Settlement Contract is their mutual goal. Recognizing that experience has 

19 demonstrated that mechanisms, policies, and procedures used for establishing Rates and 

20 Charges and/or for making and allocating payments, other than those set forth in this 

21 Article may be in the mutual best interest of the parties, it is expressly agreed that the 

22 parties may enter into agreements to modify the mechanisms, policies, and procedures for 
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

18

1 any of those purposes while this Settlement Contract is in effect without amendment of 

2 this Settlement Contract. 

3 (g) For the term of this Settlement Contract, Rates under the respective 

4 ratesetting policies for the Project will be established to recover only reimbursable 

5 operation and maintenance (including any deficits) and capital costs of the Project, as 

6 those terms are used in the then current Project ratesetting policies, and interest, where 

7 appropriate, except in instances where a minimum Rate is applicable in accordance with 

8 the relevant Project ratesetting policy. Proposed changes of significance in practices 

9 which implement the ratesetting policies for the Project will not be implemented until the 

10 Contracting Officer has provided the Contractor an opportunity to discuss the nature, 

11 need, and impact of the proposed change. The Contractor retains all rights to challenge 

12 the validity of Rates and Charges imposed pursuant to this Settlement Contract, including 

13 but not limited to operation and maintenance expenses and operation and maintenance 

14 deficits, in an appropriate administrative or judicial proceeding.

15 (h) Except as provided in subsection 3405(a)(1)(B) of the CVPIA, the 

16 Rates for Project Water transferred, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of, by the 

17 Contractor shall be the Contractor’s Rates adjusted upward or downward to reflect the 

18 changed costs of delivery (if any) of the transferred, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of 

19 Project Water to the transferee’s point of delivery in accordance with the then-current 

20 ratesetting policies for the Project. Except as provided in subsection 3407(d)(2)(A) of the 

21 CVPIA, the Charges for Project Water transferred, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of, 

22 by the Contractor shall be the Contractor’s Charges specified in Exhibit D. If the 

23 Contractor is receiving lower Rates and Charges because of inability to pay and is 
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

19

1 transferring, exchanging, or otherwise disposing of Project Water to another entity whose 

2 Rates and Charges are not adjusted due to inability to pay, the Rates and Charges for 

3 transferred, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of Project Water shall be the Contractor’s 

4 Rates and Charges unadjusted for ability to pay.

5 (i) Pursuant to the Act of October 27, 1986 (100 Stat. 3050), the 

6 Contracting Officer is authorized to adjust determinations of ability to pay every five 

7 years.

8 (j) Each payment to be made pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (b) of 

9 this Article shall be made at the office of the Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, 

10 File No. 11546, P.O. Box 6000, San Francisco, California, 94160-1546, or at such other 

11 place as the United States may designate in a written notice to the said Contractor. 

12 Payments shall be made by cash transaction, wire, or any other mechanism as may be 

13 agreed to in writing by the Contractor and the Contracting Officer. In the event there 

14 should be a default in the payment of the amount due, the delinquent payment provisions 

15 of Article 13 shall apply. The Contractor shall not be relieved of the whole or any part of 

16 its said obligation by, on account of, or notwithstanding, as the case may be:

17 (1) Its failure, refusal, or neglect to divert seventy-five percent 

18 of the quantity of Project Water shown on Exhibit A;

19 (2) The default in payment to it by any water user of 

20 assessments, tolls, or other charges levied by or owing to said Contractor;

21 (3) Any judicial determination that any assessment, toll, or 

22 other charge referred to in subsection 8(c)(2) of this Settlement Contract is irregular, 

23 void, or ineffectual; or
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

20

1 (4) Any injunctive process enjoining or restraining the 

2 Contractor from making or collecting any such assessment, toll, or other charge referred 

3 to in subsection 8(c)(2) of this Settlement Contract.

4 AGREEMENT ON WATER QUANTITIES

5 9. (a) During the term of this Settlement Contract and any renewals 

6 thereof:

7 (1) It shall constitute full agreement as between the United 

8 States and the Contractor as to the quantities of water and the allocation thereof between 

9 Base Supply and Project Water which may be diverted by the Contractor from the 

10 Sacramento River for beneficial use on the land shown on Exhibit B which said 

11 diversion, use, and allocation shall not be disturbed so long as the Contractor shall fulfill 

12 all of its obligations hereunder;

13 (2) Neither party shall claim any right against the other in 

14 conflict with the provisions of Article 9(a)(1) hereof.

15 (b) Nothing herein contained is intended to or does limit rights of the 

16 Contractor against others than the United States or of the United States against any 

17 person other than the Contractor: Provided, however, that in the event the Contractor, the 

18 United States, or any other person shall become a party to a general adjudication of rights 

19 to the use of water of the Sacramento River system, this Settlement Contract shall not 

20 jeopardize the rights or position of either party hereto or of any other person and the 

21 rights of all such persons in respect to the use of such water shall be determined in such 

22 proceedings the same as if this Settlement Contract had not been entered into, and if final 

23 judgment in any such general adjudication shall determine that the rights of the parties 
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

21

1 hereto are different from the rights as assumed herein, the parties shall negotiate an 

2 amendment to give effect to such judgment. In the event the parties are unable to agree 

3 on an appropriate amendment they shall, within 60 days of determining that there is an 

4 impasse, employ the services of a neutral mediator, experienced in resolving water rights 

5 disputes, to assist in resolving the impasse. The cost of the mediation will be shared 

6 equally. A failure to reach agreement on an amendment within 60 days of the end of 

7 mediation will cause the immediate termination of this Settlement Contract.

8 (c) In the event that the California State Water Resources Control 

9 Board or a court of competent jurisdiction issues a final decision or order modifying the 

10 terms and conditions of the water rights of either party to this Settlement Contract in 

11 order to impose Bay-Delta water quality obligations, the Contractor and the United States 

12 shall promptly meet to determine whether or not to modify any of the terms of this 

13 Settlement Contract to comply with the final decision or order, including, but not limited 

14 to, the applicability of the rescheduling charge in Article 3(c)(1) of this Settlement 

15 Contract. If within 60 days of the date of the issuance of the final decision or order the 

16 parties are not able to reach agreement regarding either the need to modify this 

17 Settlement Contract or the manner in which this Settlement Contract is to be modified, 

18 the parties shall promptly retain a neutral mediator, experienced in resolving water right 

19 disputes, to assist the parties in resolving their dispute. The cost of the mediator shall be 

20 shared equally. In the event that either of the parties to this Settlement Contract 

21 determines that the parties will not be able to develop mutually-agreeable modification(s) 

22 to this Settlement Contract even with the assistance of a mediator, either of the parties to 

23 this Settlement Contract may attempt to resolve the impasse by seeking appropriate 
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

22

1 judicial relief including, but not limited to, filing a general adjudication of the rights to 

2 the use of water in the Sacramento River system. The foregoing provisions of this sub3 article shall only apply to the incremental obligations contained within a final decision or 

4 order of the State Water Resources Control Board that reflects a modification to the 

5 obligations imposed in State Water Resources Control Board Revised Water Rights 

6 Decision 1641 dated March 15, 2000, and its associated 1995 Water Quality Control Plan 

7 which, taken together, will be considered the baseline for the application of the 

8 provisions of this sub-article.

9 (d) In the event this Settlement Contract terminates, the rights 

10 of the parties to thereafter divert and use water shall exist as if this Settlement Contract 

11 had not been entered into; and the fact that as a compromise settlement of a controversy 

12 as to the respective rights of the parties to divert and use water and the yield of such 

13 rights during the term hereof, this Settlement Contract places a limit on the Contract 

14 Total to be diverted annually by the Contractor during the Settlement Contract term and 

15 segregates it into Base Supply and Project Water shall not jeopardize the rights or 

16 position of either party with respect to its water rights or the yield thereof at all times 

17 after the Settlement Contract terminates. It is further agreed that the Contractor at all 

18 times will first use water to the use of which it is entitled by virtue of its own water 

19 rights, and neither the provisions of this Settlement Contract, action taken thereunder, nor 

20 payments made thereunder to the United States by the Contractor shall be construed as an 

21 admission that any part of the water used by the Contractor during the term of this 

22 Settlement Contract was in fact water to which it would not have been entitled under 

23 water rights owned by it nor shall receipt of payments thereunder by the United States 
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

23

1 from the Contractor be construed as an admission that any part of the water used by the 

2 Contractor during the term of this Settlement Contract was in fact water to which it 

3 would have been entitled under water rights owned by it.

4 MEASUREMENT OF WATER

5 10. (a) All water diverted by the Contractor from the Sacramento River 

6 will be diverted at the existing point or points of diversion shown on Exhibit A or at such 

7 other points as may be mutually agreed upon in writing by the Contracting Officer and 

8 the Contractor. 

9 (b) All water diverted from the Sacramento River pursuant to this 

10 Settlement Contract will be measured or caused to be measured by the United States at 

11 each point of diversion with existing equipment or equipment to be installed, operated, 

12 and maintained by the United States, and/or others, under contract with and at the option 

13 of the United States. The equipment and methods used to make such measurement shall 

14 be in accordance with sound engineering practices. Upon request of the Contractor, the 

15 accuracy of such measurements will be investigated by the Contracting Officer and any 

16 errors appearing therein will be corrected.

17 (c) The right of ingress to and egress from all points of diversion is 

18 hereby granted to all authorized employees of the United States. The Contractor also 

19 hereby grants to the United States the right to install, operate, maintain and replace such 

20 equipment on diversion or carriage facilities at each point of diversion as the Contracting 

21 Officer deems necessary.

22 (d) The Contractor shall not modify, alter, remove, or replace 

23 diversion facilities or do any other act which would alter the effectiveness or accuracy of 
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

24

1 the measuring equipment installed by the United States or its representatives unless and 

2 until the Contracting Officer has been notified with due diligence and has been given an 

3 opportunity to modify such measuring equipment in such manner as may be necessary or 

4 appropriate. In the event of an emergency the Contractor shall notify the United States 

5 within a reasonable time thereafter as to the existence of the emergency and the nature 

6 and extent of such modification, alteration, removal, or replacement of diversion 

7 facilities.

8 (e) The Contractor shall pay the United States for the costs to repair, 

9 relocate, or replace measurement equipment when the Contractor modifies, alters, 

10 removes, or replaces diversion or carriage facilities.

11 (f) Contractor and Contracting Officer shall develop a mutually 

12 agreeable surface water delivery water measurement program which shall be 

13 implemented by the Contractor, and such measurement program shall be consistent with 

14 the conservation and efficiency criteria for evaluating water conservation plans as 

15 provided in Article 29(a).

16 (g) All new surface water delivery systems installed within the lands 

17 delineated on Exhibit B after the effective date of this Settlement Contract shall also 

18 comply with the measurement provisions described in this Article.

19 RULES AND REGULATIONS

20 11. The parties agree that the delivery of Project Water for irrigation use or 

21 use of Federal facilities pursuant to this Settlement Contract is subject to Federal 

22 Reclamation law, including but not limited to, the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (43 
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

25

1 U.S.C. 390aa et seq.), as amended and supplemented, and the rules and regulations 

2 promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior under Federal Reclamation law. 

3 GENERAL OBLIGATION--BENEFITS CONDITIONED UPON PAYMENT

4

5 12. (a) The obligation of the Contractor to pay the United States as 

6 provided in this Settlement Contract is a general obligation of the Contractor 

7 notwithstanding the manner in which the obligation may be distributed among the 

8 Contractor's water users and notwithstanding the default of individual water users in their 

9 obligations to the Contractor. 

10

11 (b) The payment of Charges becoming due hereunder is a condition 

12 precedent to receiving benefits under this Settlement Contract. The United States shall 

13 not make water available to the Contractor through Project facilities during any period in 

14 which the Contractor may be in arrears in the advance payment of water Rates due the 

15 United States. The Contractor shall not furnish water made available pursuant to this 

16 Settlement Contract for lands or parties which are in arrears in the advance payment of 

17 water rates levied or established by the Contractor. 

18

19 (c) With respect to subdivision (b) of this Article, the Contractor shall 

20 have no obligation to require advance payment for water Rates which it levies.

21

22 CHARGES FOR DELINQUENT PAYMENTS

23

24 13. (a) The Contractor shall be subject to interest, administrative and 

25 penalty charges on delinquent installments or payments. When a payment is not received 

26 by the due date, the Contractor shall pay an interest charge for each day the payment is 

27 delinquent beyond the due date. When a payment becomes 60 days delinquent, the 

28 Contractor shall pay an administrative charge to cover additional costs of billing and 

29 processing the delinquent payment. When a payment is delinquent 90 days or more, the 

30 Contractor shall pay an additional penalty charge of six percent per year for each day the 

31 payment is delinquent beyond the due date. Further, the Contractor shall pay any fees 

32 incurred for debt collection services associated with a delinquent payment. 

33

34 (b) The interest charge rate shall be the greater of the rate prescribed 

35 quarterly in the Federal Register by the Department of the Treasury for application to 

36 overdue payments, or the interest rate of one-half of one percent per month prescribed by 

37 Section 6 of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (Public Law 76-260). The interest 

38 charge rate shall be determined as of the due date and remain fixed for the duration of the 

39 delinquent period. 

40

41 (c) When a partial payment on a delinquent account is received, the 

42 amount received shall be applied, first to the penalty, second to the administrative 

43 charges, third to the accrued interest, and finally to the overdue payment.

44
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

26

1 QUALITY OF WATER

2 14. The operation and maintenance of Project facilities shall be performed in 

3 such manner as is practicable to maintain the quality of raw water made available through 

4 such facilities at the highest level reasonably attainable as determined by the Contracting 

5 Officer. The United States does not warrant the quality of water and is under no 

6 obligation to construct or furnish water treatment facilities to maintain or better the 

7 quality of water.

8 WATER AND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

9 15. The Contractor, in carrying out this Settlement Contract, shall comply 

10 with all applicable water and air pollution laws and regulations of the United States and 

11 the State of California, and shall obtain all required permits or licenses from the 

12 appropriate Federal, State, or local authorities.

13 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

14 16. During the performance of this Settlement Contract, the Contractor agrees 

15 as follows:

16

17 (a) The Contractor will not discriminate against any employee or 

18 applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The 

19 Contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that 

20 employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, 

21 sex, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

22 Employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; 

23 layoff or termination, rates of payment or other forms of compensation; and selection for 

24 training, including apprenticeship. The Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, 

25 available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the 

26 Contracting Officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.

27

28 (b) The Contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for 

29 employees placed by or on behalf of the Contractor, state that all qualified applicants will 

30 receive consideration for employment without discrimination because of race, color, 

31 religion, sex, or national origin.

32
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

27

1 (c) The Contractor will send to each labor union or representative of 

2 workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or 

3 understanding, a notice, to be provided by the Contracting Officer, advising the said labor 

4 union or workers' representative of the Contractor's commitments under Section 202 of 

5 Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, as amended, and shall post copies of 

6 the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment.

7

8 (d) The Contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order 

9 No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, as amended, and of the rules, regulations, and relevant 

10 orders of the Secretary of Labor. 

11

12 (e) The Contractor will furnish all information and reports required by 

13 said amended Executive Order and by the rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary 

14 of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to its books, records, and accounts 

15 by the Contracting Officer and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to 

16 ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations, and orders.

17

18 (f) In the event of the Contractor's noncompliance with the 

19 nondiscrimination clauses of this Settlement Contract or with any of the said rules, 

20 regulations, or orders, this Settlement Contract may be canceled, terminated, or 

21 suspended, in whole or in part, and the Contractor may be declared ineligible for further 

22 Government contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in said amended 

23 Executive Order, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked as 

24 provided in said Executive Order, or by rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary of 

25 Labor, or as otherwise provided by law.

26

27 (g) The Contractor will include the provisions of paragraphs (a) 

28 through (g) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by the rules, 

29 regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Section 204 of said 

30 amended Executive Order, so that such provisions will be binding upon each 

31 subcontractor or vendor. The Contractor will take such action with respect to any 

32 subcontract or purchase order as may be directed by the Secretary of Labor as a means of 

33 enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance: Provided, however, 

34 that in the event the Contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with 

35 a subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction, the Contractor may request the 

36 United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.

37

38 COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS AND REGULATIONS

39 (For Districts Only)

40

41 17. (a) The Contractor shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 

42 of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1975 (P.L. 93-112, 

43 as amended), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101, et seq.) and any other 

44 applicable civil rights laws, as well as with their respective implementing regulations and 

45 guidelines imposed by the U.S. Department of the Interior and/or Bureau of Reclamation.

46
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

28

1 (b) These statutes require that no person in the United States shall, on 

2 the grounds of race, color, national origin, handicap, or age, be excluded from 

3 participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination 

4 under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from the Bureau of 

5 Reclamation. By executing this Settlement Contract, the Contractor agrees to 

6 immediately take any measures necessary to implement this obligation, including 

7 permitting officials of the United States to inspect premises, programs, and documents.

8

9 (c) The Contractor makes this agreement in consideration of and for 

10 the purpose of obtaining any and all Federal grants, loans, contracts, property discounts, 

11 or other Federal financial assistance extended after the date hereof to the Contractor by 

12 the Bureau of Reclamation, including installment payments after such date on account of 

13 arrangements for Federal financial assistance which were approved before such date. 

14 The Contractor recognizes and agrees that such Federal assistance will be extended in 

15 reliance on the representations and agreements made in this Article, and that the United 

16 States reserves the right to seek judicial enforcement thereof.

17

18 MINGLING OF CONTRACTOR’S PROJECT AND NON-PROJECT WATER

19 18. (a) Project Water must of necessity be transported by the Contractor to 

20 its water users by means of the same works and channels used for the transport of its non21 Project Water including Base Supply. Notwithstanding such mingling of water, the 

22 provisions of Article 11 hereof shall be applicable only to Project Water, and such 

23 mingling of water shall not in any manner subject to the provisions of Article 11 hereof 

24 the Contractor’s non-Project water including Base Supply.

25 (b) If required in accordance with subdivision (c) of this Article, the 

26 Contractor shall install and maintain such measuring equipment and distribution facilities 

27 and maintain such records as may be necessary to determine the amounts of water 

28 delivered to Excess Lands served by the Contractor. The Contractor shall not within any 

29 month deliver to Ineligible Lands water in excess of the non-Project Water, including 

30 Base Supply, for that month. The Contracting Officer or authorized representative shall 

31 have the right at all reasonable times to inspect such records and measuring equipment.
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

29

1 (c) The Contractor will not be considered in violation of the 

2 requirement that Project Water be delivered only to Eligible Lands during any month of 

3 the irrigation season that the water requirement for beneficial use on Eligible Lands for 

4 that month is equal to or in excess of the Project Water for that month as shown on 

5 Exhibit A or any revision thereof pursuant to subdivision (c) of Article 3. The water 

6 requirement for beneficial use on Eligible Lands will be determined by multiplying:

7 (1) the number of irrigable acres of the particular types of 

8 crops grown in that year on the acreage designated as eligible by

9 (2) the Unit Duties as set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and 

10 made a part hereof, or by such other Unit Duties mutually agreed upon by the Contractor 

11 and the Contracting Officer. In order to make the computation of the water requirement 

12 for Eligible Lands, on April 1 of each Year and concurrently with its order for water for 

13 the irrigation season, the Contractor shall designate the acreage of and type of crops to be 

14 grown on its Eligible Lands that irrigation season. During any month the water 

15 requirement as above determined for crops growing on Eligible Lands during such month 

16 is equal to or in excess of the Project Water for that month as provided herein the 

17 Contractor shall not be required to measure the water delivered to Excess Lands. Any 

18 month the said water requirement is less than the amount of Project Water as provided 

19 herein, the Contractor will be required to measure water delivered to excess land in 

20 accordance with subdivision (b) hereof.

21 BOOKS, RECORDS, AND REPORTS

22 19. The Contractor shall establish and maintain accounts and other books and 

23 records pertaining to administration of the terms and conditions of this Settlement 

24 Contract, including: the Contractor's financial transactions, water supply data, and 

25 Project land and right-of-way agreements; the water users' land-use (crop census), land 
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

30

1 ownership, land-leasing and water use data; and other matters that the Contracting 

2 Officer may require. Reports thereon shall be furnished to the Contracting Officer in 

3 such form and on such date or dates as the Contracting Officer may require. Subject to 

4 applicable Federal laws and regulations, each party to this Settlement Contract shall have 

5 the right during office hours to examine and make copies of each other’s books and 

6 official records relating to matters covered by this Settlement Contract. 

7

8 CHANGE OF PLACE OF USE OR ORGANIZATION

9 20. (a) Unless the written consent of the United States is first obtained no 

10 change shall be made in the place of water use shown on Exhibit B.

11 (b) While this Settlement Contract is in effect, no change shall be 

12 made in the area of the Contractor as shown on its Exhibit B, by inclusion, exclusion, 

13 annexation or detachment of lands, by dissolution, consolidation, or merger or otherwise, 

14 except upon the Contracting Officer’s written consent thereto. Such consent will not be 

15 unreasonably withheld and a decision will be provided in a timely manner. [There may 

16 need to be Contractor specific language added.]

17 (c) In the event lands are annexed to or detached from the area of the 

18 Contractor, as provided herein, the quantity of Project Water to be diverted may be 

19 increased or decreased, as may be appropriate, pursuant to a supplemental agreement to 

20 be executed in respect thereto.

21 CONSOLIDATION OF CONTRACTING ENTITIES

22

23 21. Consolidation of Contractors may be approved by the Contracting Officer 

24 provided: (i) the Contracting Officer approves the form and organization of the resulting 

25 entity and the utilization by it of the Contract Total; and (ii) the obligations of the 

26 Contractors are assumed by such entity.

27 No such consolidation shall be valid unless and until approved by the Contracting 

28 Officer.
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

31

1 NOTICES

2 22. Any notice, demand, or request authorized or required by this Settlement 

3 Contract shall be deemed to have been given, on behalf of the Contractor, when mailed, 

4 postage prepaid, or delivered to the Area Manager, Northern California Area Office, 

5 Bureau of Reclamation, 16349 Shasta Dam Blvd., Shasta Lake, California, 96019, and on 

6 behalf of the United States, when mailed, postage prepaid, or delivered to the Board of 

7 Directors /City Council of the _____________________. The designation of the 

8 addressee or the address may be changed by notice given in the same manner as provided 

9 in this Article for other notices.

10

11 ASSIGNMENT LIMITED--SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS OBLIGATED

12

13 23. (a) The provisions of this Settlement Contract shall apply to and bind 

14 the successors and assigns of the parties hereto, but no assignment or transfer of this 

15 Settlement Contract or any right or interest therein shall be valid until approved in writing 

16 by the Contracting Officer.

17

18 (b) The assignment of any right or interest in this Settlement Contract 

19 by either party shall not interfere with the rights or obligations of the other party to this 

20 Settlement Contract absent the written concurrence of said other party.

21

22 (c) The Contracting Officer shall not unreasonably condition or 

23 withhold his approval of any proposed assignment.

24

25 OFFICIALS NOT TO BENEFIT

26

27 24. (a) No Member of or Delegate to Congress, Resident Commissioner, 

28 or official of the Contractor shall benefit from this Settlement Contract other than as a 

29 water user or landowner in the same manner as other water users or landowners.

30

31 (b) No officer or member of the governing board of the Contractor 

32 shall receive any benefit that may arise by reason of this Settlement Contract other than 

33 as a landowner within the Contractor’s service area and in the same manner as other 

34 landowners within the said service area.

35

36 CONTINGENT UPON APPROPRIATION OR ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS

37

38 25. The expenditure or advance of any money or the performance of any 

39 obligation of the United States under this Settlement Contract shall be contingent upon 

40 appropriation or allotment of funds. Absence of appropriation or allotment of funds shall 

41 not relieve the Contractor from any obligations under this Settlement Contract. No 

42 liability shall accrue to the United States in case funds are not appropriated or allotted.

43
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

32

1 CONFIRMATION OF SETTLEMENT CONTRACT

2 26. The Contractor, after the execution of this Settlement Contract, shall 

3 promptly seek to secure a decree of a court of competent jurisdiction of the State of 

4 California, if appropriate, confirming the execution of this Settlement Contract. The 

5 Contractor shall furnish the United States a certified copy of the final decree, the 

6 validation proceedings, and all pertinent supporting records of the court approving and 

7 confirming this Settlement Contract, and decreeing and adjudging it to be lawful, valid, 

8 and binding on the Contractor. This Settlement Contract shall not be binding on the 

9 United States until such final decree has been secured. 

10

11 UNAVOIDABLE GROUNDWATER PERCOLATION

12 27. To the extent applicable, the Contractor shall not be deemed to have 

13 delivered Project Water to Excess Lands or Ineligible Lands if such lands are irrigated 

14 with groundwater that reaches the underground strata as an unavoidable result of the 

15 delivery of Project Water by the Contractor to Eligible Lands.

16 PRIVACY ACT COMPLIANCE

17

18 28. (a) The Contractor shall comply with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 

19 U.S.C. 552a) (the Act) and the Department of the Interior rules and regulations under the 

20 Act (43 CFR 2.45 et seq.) in maintaining Landholder acreage certification and reporting 

21 records, required to be submitted to the Contractor for compliance with Sections 206 and 

22 228 of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 1266), and pursuant to 43 CFR 

23 426.18.

24

25 (b) With respect to the application and administration of the criminal 

26 penalty provisions of the Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(i)), the Contractor and the Contractor's 

27 employees responsible for maintaining the certification and reporting records referenced 

28 in (a) above are considered to be employees of the Department of the Interior. See 5 

29 U.S.C. 552a(m). 

30

31 (c) The Contracting Officer or a designated representative shall 

32 provide the Contractor with current copies of the Interior Department Privacy Act 

33 regulations and the Bureau of Reclamation Federal Register Privacy Act System of 

34 Records Notice (Acreage Limitation--Interior, Reclamation-31) which govern the 

35 maintenance, safeguarding, and disclosure of information contained in the Landholder's 

36 certification and reporting records. 

37

38 (d) The Contracting Officer shall designate a full-time employee of the 

39 Bureau of Reclamation to be the System Manager who shall be responsible for making 

40 decisions on denials pursuant to 43 CFR 2.61 and 2.64 amendment requests pursuant to 
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

33

1 43 CFR 2.72. The Contractor is authorized to grant requests by individuals for access to 

2 their own records. 

3

4 (e) The Contractor shall forward promptly to the System Manager 

5 each proposed denial of access under 43 CFR 2.64; and each request for amendment of 

6 records filed under 43 CFR 2.71; notify the requester accordingly of such referral; and 

7 provide the System Manager with information and records necessary to prepare an 

8 appropriate response to the requester. These requirements do not apply to individuals 

9 seeking access to their own certification and reporting forms filed with the Contractor 

10 pursuant to 43 CFR 426.18, unless the requester elects to cite the Privacy Act as a basis 

11 for the request.

12

13 WATER CONSERVATION

14 29. (a) Prior to the diversion of Project Water, the Contractor shall be 

15 implementing an effective water conservation and efficiency program based on the 

16 Basin-Wide Water Management Plan and/or Contractor's water conservation plan that 

17 has been determined by the Contracting Officer to meet the conservation and efficiency 

18 criteria for evaluating water conservation plans established under Federal law. The water 

19 conservation and efficiency program shall contain definite water conservation objectives, 

20 appropriate economically feasible water conservation measures, and time schedules for 

21 meeting those objectives. Continued diversion of Project Water pursuant to this 

22 Settlement Contract shall be contingent upon the Contractor’s continued implementation 

23 of such water conservation program. In the event the Contractor's water conservation 

24 plan or any revised water conservation plan completed pursuant to subdivision (c) of 

25 Article 29 of this Settlement Contract have not yet been determined by the Contracting 

26 Officer to meet such criteria, due to circumstances which the Contracting Officer 

27 determines are beyond the control of the Contractor, Project Water deliveries shall be 

28 made under this Settlement Contract so long as the Contractor diligently works with the 

29 Contracting Officer to obtain such determination at the earliest practicable date, and 
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

34

1 thereafter the Contractor immediately begins implementing its water conservation and 

2 efficiency program in accordance with the time schedules therein.

3 (b) The Contractor shall submit to the Contracting Officer a report on 

4 the status of its implementation of the water conservation plan on the reporting dates 

5 specified in the then existing conservation and efficiency criteria established under 

6 Federal law.

7 (c) At five year intervals, the Contractor shall revise its water 

8 conservation plan to reflect the then current conservation and efficiency criteria for 

9 evaluating water conservation plans established under Federal law and submit such 

10 revised water management plan to the Contracting Officer for review and evaluation. 

11 The Contracting Officer will then determine if the water conservation plan meets 

12 Reclamation’s then current conservation and efficiency criteria for evaluating water 

13 conservation plans established under Federal law.

14 (d) If the Contractor is engaged in direct ground-water recharge, such 

15 activity shall be described in the Contractor’s water conservation plan.

16 (e) In order to provide incentives for water conservation, the 

17 Contractor may reduce the amount of Project Water for which payment is required under 

18 Article 8(a) in accordance with the provisions of this Article 29(e).

19 (1) On or before February 15 of any Water Year, the 

20 Contractor may file with Reclamation an offer to reduce Project Water use, hereinafter 

21 referred to as Offer. The Offer shall specify the maximum quantity of Project Water to 

22 be diverted by the Contractor for each month that Project Water is available for that 

23 Water Year under this Settlement Contract. The Contracting Officer shall provide the 
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

35

1 Contractor with a decision, in writing, to the Offer on or before March 15 of that Water 

2 Year. The dates specified in this Article 29(e)(1) can be changed if mutually agreed to, in 

3 writing, by the Contractor and Contracting Officer.

4 (2) If Reclamation accepts the Offer, the Contractor’s payment 

5 obligation under Article 8(a)(1) shall be reduced to the maximum quantity of Project 

6 Water to be diverted by the Contractor as specified in the Offer. The Contractor shall not 

7 divert Project Water in excess of the quantities set forth in the Offer: Provided, however, 

8 if the Contractor’s diversions of Project Water exceed the quantities set forth in the Offer, 

9 the Contractor shall pay to Reclamation the applicable Rates and Charges plus an amount 

10 equal to the applicable Rates and Charges, unadjusted for ability to pay, for each acre11 foot of Project Water diverted in excess of the quantities set forth in the Offer.

12 (3) If Reclamation decides not to accept the Offer, the 

13 Contractor’s payment obligation will remain as specified in Article 8(a)(1).

14 (4) The provisions of this Article 29(e) shall be in addition to 

15 and shall not affect the provisions of Article 3(e) pertaining to the sale, transfer, exchange 

16 or other disposal of the Contract Total designated in Exhibit A.

17 OPINIONS AND DETERMINATIONS

18

19 30. (a) Where the terms of this Settlement Contract provide for actions to 

20 be based upon the opinion or determination of either party to this Settlement Contract, 

21 said terms shall not be construed as permitting such action to be predicated upon 

22 arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable opinions or determinations. Both parties, 

23 notwithstanding any other provisions of this Settlement Contract, expressly reserve the 

24 right to seek relief from and appropriate adjustment for any such arbitrary, capricious, or 
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

36

1 unreasonable opinion or determination. Each opinion or determination by either party 

2 shall be provided in a timely manner. Nothing in subdivision (a) of Article 30 of this 

3 Settlement Contract is intended to or shall affect or alter the standard of judicial review 

4 applicable under Federal law to any opinion or determination implementing a specific 

5 provision of Federal law embodied in statute or regulation. 

6 (b) The Contracting Officer shall have the right to make 

7 determinations necessary to administer this Settlement Contract that are consistent with 

8 the provisions of this Settlement Contract, the laws of the United States and of the State 

9 of California, and the rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior. 

10 Such determinations shall be made in consultation with the Contractor to the extent 

11 reasonably practicable.

12 CONTRACTOR TO PAY CERTAIN MISCELLANEOUS COSTS

13 31. (a) In addition to all other payments to be made by the Contractor 

14 pursuant to this Settlement Contract, the Contractor shall pay to the United States, within 

15 60 days after receipt of a bill and detailed statement submitted by the Contracting Officer 

16 to the Contractor for such specific items of direct cost incurred by the United States for 

17 work requested by the Contractor associated with this Settlement Contract plus indirect 

18 costs in accordance with applicable Bureau of Reclamation policies and procedures. All 

19 such amounts referred to in this Article shall not exceed the amount agreed to in writing 

20 in advance by the Contractor. This Article shall not apply to costs for routine contract 

21 administration.

22 (b) All advances for miscellaneous costs incurred for work requested 

23 by the Contractor pursuant to Article 31 of this Settlement Contract shall be adjusted to 
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

37

1 reflect the actual costs when the work has been completed. If the advances exceed the 

2 actual costs incurred, the difference will be refunded to the Contractor. If the actual costs 

3 exceed the Contractor's advances, the Contractor will be billed for the additional costs 

4 pursuant to Article 31 of this Settlement Contract.

5 WAIVER OF DEFAULT

6 32. The waiver by either party to this Settlement Contract as to any default 

7 shall not be construed as a waiver of any other default or as authority of the other party to 

8 continue such default or to make, do, or perform, or not to make, do, or perform, as the 

9 case may be, any act or thing which would constitute a default.
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

38

1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Settlement 

2 Contract as of the day and year first hereinabove written.

3

4 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

5

6

7

8 By: __________________________

9 Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region 

10 Bureau of Reclamation

11

12

13 (SEAL)

14

15

16 (Contractor)

17

18

19 By:______________________________

20 President

21

22

23 ATTEST:

24

25

26 ________________________________

27 Secretary

28

29

30 (I:\sac river renewal\contract drafts\StdIrrDft Contract Final.doc)
R.O. Draft 03/11-2003

39

1 2003 Water Rates and Charges for Contract No. ##-##-###-#####

2 Contractor Name - Sacramento River

3

4

5

6 Per Acre-Foot 

7

8 COST OF SERVICE RATES:

9

10 Capital Rates $4.24 

11

12 O&M Rates:

13

14 Water Marketing $5.66

15 Storage $4.87

16

17 Deficit Rates:

18

19 Interest Bearing $3.34

20

21 TOTAL $18.11

22

23 FULL-COST RATES:

24

25 Section 202(3) Rate is applicable to a

26 Qualified Recipient or to a Limited

27 Recipient receiving irrigation water

28 on or before October 1, 1981. $22.12

29

30 Section 205(a)(3) Rate is 

31 applicable to a Limited Recipient that

32 did not receive irrigation water on or

33 before October 1, 1981. $24.47

34

35

36 CHARGES UNDER P.L. 102-575 TO THE

37 RESTORATION FUND 1/

38

39 Restoration Payments (3407(d)(2)(A)) $7.54

40

41

42 1/ Restoration fund charges are payments in addition to the water rates and were 

43 determined pursuant to Title XXXIV of Public Law 102-575. Restoration fund charges 

44 are on a fiscal year basis (10/1 - 9/30).
R.O. Draft 05/15-2002

Contract No.

Standard Irrigation District Form

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Central Valley Project, California

CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND

___________________________________________________

DIVERTER OF WATER FROM SACRAMENTO RIVER SOURCES PROVIDING 

FOR PROJECT WATER SERVICE AND AGREEMENT ON DIVERSION OF 

WATER

Table of Contents

Article No. Title Page No.

Preamble 1

Explanatory Recitals 2-3

1 Definitions 3-6

2 Term of Contract 6-7

3 Water to be Furnished to Contractor 7-9

4 Return Flow 9

5 Constraints on the Availability of Water 10-11

6 Use of Water Furnished to Contractor 11

7 Rate and Method of Payment for Water 11-16

8 Agreement on Water Quantities 16-18

9 Measurement of Water 18-20

10 Rules and Regulations 20-21

11 General Obligation – Benefits Conditioned 

Upon Payment 21

12 Charges For Delinquent Payments 21

13 Quality of Water 22

14 Water and Air Pollution Control 22

15 Equal Opportunity 22-23

16 Compliance With Civil Rights Laws 

And Regulations 23-24

17 Mingling of Contractor’s Project and 

Non-Project Water 24-25

18 Books, Records, and Reports 25-26

19 Change Of Place Of Use Or Organization 26
Table of Contents – continued

Article No. Title Page No.

20 Consolidation Of Contracting Entities 26

21 Notices 26-27

22 Assignment Limited – Successors and 

Assigns Obligated 27

23 Officials Not to Benefit 27

24 Contingent Upon Appropriation or

Allotment of Funds 27

25 Confirmation of Contract 27

26 Unavoidable Groundwater Percolation 28

27 Privacy Act Compliance 28

28 Water Conservation 29-30

29 Opinions And Determinations 30-31

30 Contractor to Pay Certain Miscellaneous Costs 31

31 Waiver of Default 31

Signatures 32

Exhibit A Schedule of Monthly Diversions of Water

Exhibit B Map of Contractor’s Ownership

Exhibit C Unit Duties

Exhibit D Rates and Charges
1 R.O. Draft 05/15-2002

2 Contract No.

3 Standard Irrigation District Form

4

5

6 UNITED STATES

7 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

8 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

9 Central Valley Project, California

10

11 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND

12 _______________________________________________

13 DIVERTER OF WATER FROM SACRAMENTO RIVER SOURCES PROVIDING 

14 FOR PROJECT WATER SERVICE AND AGREEMENT ON DIVERSION OF 

15 WATER

16

17 THIS CONTRACT, made this _____ day of ____________________, 2002, 

18 in pursuance generally of the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and acts amendatory or 

19 supplementary thereto, including, but not limited to, the Acts of August 26, 1937 (50 

20 Stat. 844), as amended and supplemented, August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1187), as amended 

21 and supplemented, July 2, 1956 (70 Stat. 483), June 21, 1963 (77 Stat. 68), October 12, 

22 1982 (96 Stat. 1262), October 27, 1986 (100 Stat. 3050), as amended, and Title XXXIV 

23 of the Act of October 30, 1992 (106 Stat. 4706), all collectively hereinafter referred to as 

24 Federal Reclamation law, between THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, hereinafter 

25 referred to as the United States, and _______________________, hereinafter referred to 

26 as the Contractor, a public agency of the State of California, duly organized, existing, and 

27 acting pursuant to the laws thereof, with its principal place of business in California; 

28 (may change depending on contracting entity)

29 WITNESSETH, That:
2

1 EXPLANATORY RECITALS

2 WHEREAS, the United States has constructed and is operating the Central Valley 

3 Project, California, for diversion, storage, carriage, distribution and beneficial use, for 

4 flood control, irrigation, municipal, domestic, industrial, fish and wildlife mitigation, 

5 protection and restoration, generation and distribution of electric energy, salinity control, 

6 navigation and other beneficial uses, of waters of the Sacramento River, the American 

7 River, the Trinity River, and the San Joaquin River and their tributaries; and

8 WHEREAS, the Contractor asserts that it has rights to divert, is diverting, and 

9 will continue to divert for reasonable beneficial use, water from the natural flow of the 

10 Sacramento River and tributaries thereto, that would have been flowing therein if the 

11 Central Valley Project were not in existence; and

12 WHEREAS, the construction and operation of the integrated and coordinated 

13 Central Valley Project has changed and will further change the regimen of the 

14 Sacramento, American, San Joaquin, and Trinity Rivers and the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

15 Delta from unregulated flow to regulated flow; and

16 WHEREAS, the United States asserts that it has rights to divert, is diverting, and 

17 will continue to divert waters from said Rivers and said Delta in connection with the 

18 operation of said Central Valley Project, and

19 WHEREAS, the Contractor and the United States entered into Contract No. 

20 ______________, as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Existing Contract, which 

21 established terms for the delivery to the Contractor of Central Valley Project Water and 

22 the quantities of Base Supply the Contractor may divert from the Sacramento River from 

23 ____________ through ______________________; and
3

1 WHEREAS, the Contractor has requested the long-term renewal of the Existing 

2 Contract, pursuant to the terms of the Existing Contract, Federal Reclamation law, and 

3 the laws of the State of California, and the United States has determined that the 

4 Contractor has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Existing Contract; and

5 WHEREAS, to assure the Contractor of the enjoyment and use of the regulated 

6 flow of the said Rivers and the Delta, and to provide for the economical operation of the 

7 Central Valley Project by, and the reimbursement to, the United States for expenditures 

8 made for said Project; 

9 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the performance of the herein 

10 contained provisions, conditions, and covenants, it is agreed as follows:

11 DEFINITIONS

12 1. When used herein, unless otherwise expressed or incompatible with the intent 

13 hereof, the term:

14 (a) “Base Supply” shall mean the quantity of water established in Articles 3 

15 and 5 which the United States agrees may be diverted by the Contractor from the 

16 Sacramento River each month during the period April through October of each Year 

17 without payment to the United States for such quantities diverted;

18 (b) “Charges” shall mean the payments for Project Water required by Federal 

19 Reclamation law in addition to the Rates specified in this Contract as determined 

20 annually by the Contracting Officer pursuant to this Contract;

21 (c) “Contract Total” shall mean the sum of the Base Supply and Project 

22 Water available for diversion by the Contractor for the period April 1 through October 

23 31;
4

1 (d) “Critical Year” shall mean any Year in which either of the following 

2 eventualities exists:

3 (1) The forecasted full natural inflow to Shasta Lake for the current Water 

4 Year, as such forecast is made by the United States on or before February 15 and 

5 reviewed as frequently thereafter as conditions and information warrant, is equal to or 

6 less than three million two hundred thousand (3,200,000) acre-feet; or

7 (2) The total accumulated actual deficiencies below four million 

8 (4,000,000) acre-feet in the immediately prior Water Year or series of successive prior 

9 Water Years each of which had inflows of less than four million (4,000,000) acre-feet, 

10 together with the forecasted deficiency for the current Water Year, exceed eight hundred 

11 thousand (800,000) acre-feet. For the purpose of determining a Critical Year the 

12 computed inflow to Shasta Lake under present upstream development above Shasta Lake 

13 shall be used as the full natural inflow to Shasta Lake. In the event that major 

14 construction occurs above Shasta Lake after April 1, 2004, which materially alters the 

15 present regimen of the stream systems contributing to Shasta Lake, the computed inflow 

16 to Shasta Lake used to define a Critical Year will, be adjusted to eliminate the effect of 

17 such material alterations. After consultation with the State of California, the National 

18 Weather Service, and other recognized forecasting agencies, the Contracting Officer will 

19 select the forecast to be used and will make the details of it available to the Contractor. 

20 The same forecasts used by the United States for the operation of the Project shall be 

21 used to make the forecasts hereunder;

22 (e) “CVPIA” shall mean the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Title 

23 XXXIV of the Act of October 30, 1992 (106 Stat. 4706);
5

1 (f) “Eligible Lands” shall mean all lands to which Project Water may be 

2 delivered in accordance with Section 204 of the Reclamation Reform Act of October 12, 

3 1982 (96 Stat. 1263), as amended, hereinafter referred to as RRA;

4 (g) “Excess Lands” shall mean all lands in excess of the limitations contained 

5 in Section 204 of the RRA, other than those lands exempt from acreage limitation under 

6 Federal Reclamation law;

7 (h) “Full Cost Rate” shall mean that water rate described in Sections 

8 205(a)(3) or 202(3) of the RRA, whichever is applicable;

9 (i) “Ineligible Lands” shall mean all lands to which Project Water may not be 

10 delivered in accordance with Section 204 of the RRA;

11 (j) “Landholder” shall mean a party that directly or indirectly owns or leases 

12 nonexempt land, as provided in 43 CFR 426.2;

13 (k) “Project” shall mean the Central Valley Project owned by the United 

14 States and managed by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation;

15 (l) “Project Water” shall mean all water diverted or scheduled to be diverted 

16 each month during the period April through October of each Year by the Contractor from 

17 the Sacramento River which is in excess of the Base Supply. The United States 

18 recognizes the right of the Contractor to make arrangements for acquisition of water from 

19 projects of others than the United States for delivery through the Sacramento River and 

20 tributaries subject to written agreement between Contractor and the United States as to 

21 identification of such water which water when so identified shall not be deemed Project 

22 Water under this contract;
6

1 (m) “Rates” shall mean the payments for Project Water determined annually 

2 by the Contracting Officer in accordance with the then current applicable water 

3 ratesetting policies for the Project, as described in subdivision (a) of Article 8 of this 

4 Contract;

5 (n) “Secretary” or “Contracting Officer” shall mean the Secretary of the 

6 Interior, a duly appointed successor, or an authorized representative acting pursuant to 

7 any authority of the Secretary and through any agency of the Department of the Interior;

8 (o) “Water Year” shall mean the period commencing with October 1 of one 

9 year and extending through September 30 of the next; and

10 (p) “Year” shall mean a calendar year.

11 TERM OF CONTRACT

12 2. This contract shall become effective April 1, 2004, and shall remain in effect 

13 until and including March 31, 2044: Provided, That under terms and conditions mutually 

14 agreeable to the parties hereto, renewals may be made for successive periods not to 

15 exceed forty (40) years each. The terms and conditions of each renewal shall be agreed 

16 upon not later than one (1) year prior to the expiration of the then existing contract: 

17 Provided further, That upon written request by the Contractor of the Secretary made not 

18 later than one (1) year prior to the expiration of this contract, whenever, account being 

19 taken of the amount then credited to the costs of construction of water supply works, the 

20 remaining amount of construction costs of water supply work which is properly 

21 assignable for ultimate return by the Contractor as established by the Secretary of the 

22 Interior pursuant to (3) of Section 1 of Public Law 643 (70 Stat. 483), probably can be 

23 repaid to the United States within the term of a contract under subsection (d), Section 9 of 
7

1 the1939 Reclamation Project Act (53 Stat. 1187), this contract may be converted to a 

2 contract under said subsection (d) upon terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the 

3 United States and the Contractor. Notwithstanding any provision of this contract, the 

4 Contractor reserves and shall have all rights and benefits under Public Law 643.

5 WATER TO BE FURNISHED TO CONTRACTOR

6 3. (a) Subject to the conditions, limitations, and provisions hereinafter expressed, 

7 the Contractor is hereby entitled and authorized to divert from the Sacramento River at 

8 the locations shown in Exhibit A, for beneficial use within the area delineated on Exhibit 

9 B, (both Exhibits are attached hereto and made a part hereof), the Contract Total 

10 designated in Exhibit A, or any revision thereof, in accordance with the monthly 

11 operating schedule required by Article 3(b) of this contract. The quantity of any water 

12 diverted from the Sacramento River for use on any lands delineated on Exhibit B, by the 

13 owner of such lands or otherwise shall constitute a part of the Contract Total as shown on 

14 Exhibit A and shall be subject to all the provisions of this contract relating to such 

15 Contract Total as if such diversion were made by the Contractor.

16 (b) The United States recognizes the need of the Contractor to vary from time 

17 to time its monthly diversions of water from the quantities shown in Exhibit A, or any 

18 revision thereof. Before April 1 of each Year the Contractor shall submit a written 

19 schedule to the Contracting Officer indicating the Contract Total to be diverted by the 

20 Contractor during each month. The United States shall furnish water to the Contractor in 

21 accordance with the monthly operating schedule or any revisions thereof: Provided, That 

22 in no event shall the total quantity scheduled for diversion by the Contractor from the 

23 Sacramento River:
8

1 (1) During the period April through October exceed the aggregate of the 

2 Contract Total for those months shown in Exhibit A or any revision thereof;

3 (2) During the period July through September exceed the aggregate of the 

4 Contract Total for those months shown in Exhibit A or any revision thereof; and 

5 Provided, further, That with the prior written approval of the Contracting Officer, water 

6 to be diverted in April, May, or June may be diverted in September or October, or vice 

7 versa. The Contractor shall be charged a fee based upon the appropriate components of 

8 the water ratesetting policy for the Project for the Base Supply scheduled for diversion in 

9 April, May, or June that is diverted in September or October, or vice versa. 

10 (c) In the event conditions warrant, the Contracting Officer reserves the right 

11 to require the Contractor to submit, at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the beginning 

12 of each weekly period, its estimate of daily diversion requirements for each such period 

13 from the Sacramento River: Provided, however, That changes during any such period 

14 may be made upon the giving of seventy-two (72) hours’ notice thereof to the 

15 Contracting Officer.

16 (d) No sale, transfer, exchange, or other disposal of any water or the right to 

17 the use thereof for use on land other than that shown on Exhibit B shall be made by the 

18 Contractor without: 

19 (1) First obtaining the written consent of the Contracting Officer; and

20 (2) Compliance with all applicable State and Federal laws, including but 

21 not limited to the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, 

22 and applicable guidelines or regulations then in effect. 
9

1 (e) Nothing herein contained shall prevent the Contractor from diverting 

2 water during the months of November through March for beneficial use on the land 

3 shown on Exhibit B to the extent authorized under the laws of the State of California.

4 (f) The United States assumes no responsibility for and neither it nor its 

5 officers, agents, or employees shall have any liability for or on account of:

6 (1) The quality of water to be diverted by the Contractor;

7 (2) The control, carriage, handling, use, disposal, or distribution of water 

8 diverted by the Contractor outside the facilities constructed and then being operated and 

9 maintained by or on behalf of the United States;

10 (3) Claims of damage of any nature whatsoever, including but not limited 

11 to, property loss or damage, personal injury, or death arising out of or connected with the 

12 control, carriage, handling, use, disposal, or distribution of said water outside of the 

13 hereinabove referred to facilities; and

14 (4) Any damage whether direct or indirect arising out of or in any manner 

15 caused by a shortage of water whether such shortage be on account of errors in operation, 

16 drought, or unavoidable causes.

17 RETURN FLOW

18 4. The United States reserves the right to the use of all waste, seepage, and return 

19 flow water derived from water diverted by the Contractor hereunder and which escapes 

20 or is discharged beyond the boundaries of the lands shown on Exhibit B. Nothing herein 

21 shall be construed as an abandonment or a relinquishment by the United States of the 

22 right to the use of any such water; Provided, That this shall not be construed as claiming 

23 for the United States any right to such water which is recovered by the Contractor 
10

1 pursuant to California law from within the boundaries of the lands shown on Exhibit B, 

2 and which is being used pursuant to this contract for surface irrigation or underground 

3 storage on the lands shown on Exhibit B by the Contractor. (Colusa Basin Drain 

4 language may be required)

5 CONSTRAINTS ON THE AVAILABILITY OF WATER

6 5. (a) In any Water Year that (1) the forecasted full natural inflow to Shasta Lake 

7 for the current Water Year, as such forecast is made by the United States on or before 

8 February 15 and reviewed as frequently thereafter as conditions and information warrant, 

9 is equal to or less than three million eight hundred thousand (3,800,000) acre-feet; or

10 (2) If the total accumulated actual deficiencies in the full natural inflow to Shasta 

11 Lake in the immediately prior Water Year or series of successive prior Water Years, each 

12 of which had inflows of less than four million (4,000,000) acre-feet, together with the 

13 forecasted deficiency for the current Water Year, are between 200,000 acre-feet and 

14 800,000 acre-feet, then the following reductions in the Contractor’s monthly Contract 

15 Total shall be imposed:

16 Deficiency (acre-feet) Reduction

17 200,000 – 400,000 10 percent

18 400,001 – 600,000 15 percent

19 600,001 – 800,000 20 percent

20

21 (b) In a Critical Year, the Contractor’s Base Supply and Project Water agreed 

22 to be diverted during the period April through October of the Year in which the principal 

23 portion of the Critical Year occurs and, each monthly quantity of said period shall be 

24 reduced by twenty-five percent (25%). 

25 (c) The amount of any overpayment by the Contractor shall, at its option, be 

26 refunded or credited upon amounts to become due to the United States from the 
11

1 Contractor under the provisions hereof in the ensuing Year. To the extent of such 

2 deficiency such adjustment of overpayment shall constitute the sole remedy of the 

3 Contractor.

4 USE OF WATER FURNISHED TO CONTRACTOR

5 6. (a) Project Water furnished to the Contractor pursuant to this contract shall not 

6 be delivered or furnished by the Contractor for any purposes other than agricultural 

7 purposes, including, but not restricted to, the watering of livestock, incidental domestic

8 use, or underground water replenishment without written consent of the Contracting 

9 Officer.

10 (b) The Contractor shall comply with requirements applicable to the 

11 Contractor in biological opinion(s) prepared as a result of a consultation regarding the 

12 execution of this Contract undertaken pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

13 Act of 1973, as amended, that are within the Contractor’s legal authority to implement. 

14 The Contractor shall comply with the limitations or requirements imposed by 

15 environmental documentation applicable to the Contractor and within its legal authority 

16 to implement regarding specific activities, including conversion of Irrigation Water to 

17 M&I Water. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the Contractor from 

18 challenging or seeking judicial relief in a court of competent jurisdiction with respect to 

19 any biological opinion or other environmental documentation referred to in this Article.

20 RATE AND METHOD OF PAYMENT FOR WATER

21 7. (a) The Contractor shall make payments to the United States as provided in 

22 this Article for all Project Water shown in Exhibit A of this contract at Rates and Charges 

23 established in accordance with: (i) the Secretary’s then-current ratesetting policies for the 
12

1 Project; and (ii) applicable Reclamation law and associated rules and regulations, or 

2 policies: Provided, That if the Contractor desires to use Project Water for other than 

3 agricultural use the Rates and Charges set forth above will be adjusted by the Contracting 

4 Officer to the applicable Rates and Charges for such use. The Rates and Charges 

5 applicable to the Contractor upon execution of this Contract are set forth in Exhibit “D”, 

6 as may be revised annually. The Secretary’s ratesetting policies for the Project shall be 

7 amended, modified, or superseded only through a public notice and comment procedure. 

8 (b) The Contracting Officer shall notify the Contractor of the Rates and 

9 Charges as follows:

10 (1) Prior to July 1 of each Year, the Contracting Officer shall provide the 

11 Contractor an estimate of the Charges for Project Water that will be applied to the period 

12 October 1, of the current Year, through September 30, of the following Year, and the 

13 basis for such estimate. The Contractor shall be allowed not less than two (2) months to 

14 review and comment on such estimates. On or before September 15 of each Year, the 

15 Contracting Officer shall notify the Contractor in writing of the Charges to be in effect 

16 during the period October 1 of the current Year, through September 30, of the following 

17 Year, and such notification shall revise Exhibit “D.”

18 (2) Prior to October 1 of each Year, the Contracting Officer shall make 

19 available to the Contractor an estimate of the Rates for Project Water for the following 

20 Year and the computations and cost allocations upon which those Rates are based. The 

21 Contractor shall be allowed not less than two (2) months to review and comment on such 

22 computations and cost allocations. By December 31 of each Year, the Contracting 
13

1 Officer shall provide the Contractor with the final Rates to be in effect for the upcoming 

2 Year, and such notification shall revise Exhibit “D”.

3 (c) The Contractor shall pay the United States for Project Water in the 

4 following manner:

5 (1) With respect to Rates, prior to May 1 of each Year, the Contractor 

6 shall pay the United States one-half (1/2) the total amount payable pursuant to 

7 subdivision (a) of this Article and the remainder shall be paid prior to July 1 or such later 

8 date or dates as may be specified by the United States in a written notice to the 

9 Contractor: Provided, however, That if at any time during the Year the amount of Project 

10 Water diverted by the Contractor shall equal the amount for which payment has been 

11 made, the Contractor shall pay for the remaining amount of such water as shown in 

12 Exhibit A in advance of any further diversion of Project Water.

13 (2) With respect to Charges, the Contractor shall also make a payment to 

14 the United States, in addition to the Rate(s) in subdivision (c)(1) of this Article, at the 

15 Charges then in effect, before the end of the month following the month of delivery or 

16 transfer. The payments shall be consistent with the quantities of Project Water delivered 

17 or transferred. Adjustment for overpayment or underpayment of Charges shall be made 

18 through the adjustment of payments due to the United States for Charges for the next 

19 month. Any amount to be paid for past due payment of Charges shall be computed 

20 pursuant to Article 12 of this Contract.

21 (d) Payments to be made by the Contractor to the United States under this 

22 Contract may be paid from any revenues available to the Contractor.
14

1 (d1) (Contractor Specific)All revenues received by the United States from 

2 the Contractor relating to the delivery of Project Water or the delivery of non-Project 

3 water through Project facilities shall be allocated and applied in accordance with Federal 

4 Reclamation law and the associated rules or regulations, and the then current Project 

5 ratesetting policies for Irrigation Water.

6 (e) The Contracting Officer shall keep its accounts pertaining to the 

7 administration of the financial terms and conditions of its long-term water service and 

8 settlement contracts, in accordance with applicable Federal standards, so as to reflect the 

9 application of Project costs and revenues. The Contracting Officer shall, each Year upon 

10 request of the Contractor, provide to the Contractor a detailed accounting of all Project 

11 and Contractor expense allocations, the disposition of all Project and Contractor 

12 revenues, and a summary of all water delivery information. The Contracting Officer and 

13 the Contractor shall enter into good faith negotiations to resolve any discrepancies or 

14 disputes relating to accountings, reports, or information.

15 (f) The parties acknowledge and agree that the efficient administration of this 

16 Contract is their mutual goal. Recognizing that experience has demonstrated that 

17 mechanisms, policies, and procedures used for establishing Rates and Charges and/or for 

18 making and allocating payments, other than those set forth in this Article may be in the 

19 mutual best interest of the parties, it is expressly agreed that the parties may enter into 

20 agreements to modify the mechanisms, policies, and procedures for any of those purposes 

21 while this Contract is in effect without amendment of this Contract. 

22 (g) For the term of this contract, Rates under the respective ratesetting 

23 policies for the Project will be established to recover only reimbursable operation and 
15

1 maintenance (including any deficits) and capital costs of the Project, as those terms are

2 used in the then-current Project ratesetting policies, and interest, where appropriate, 

3 except in instances where a minimum Rate is applicable in accordance with the relevant 

4 Project ratesetting policy. Proposed changes of significance in practices which

5 implement the ratesetting policies for the Project will not be implemented until the 

6 Contracting Officer has provided the Contractor an opportunity to discuss the nature, 

7 need, and impact of the proposed change.

8 (h) Except as provided in subsections 3405(a)(1)(B) and 3405(f) of the 

9 CVPIA, the Rates for Project Water transferred, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of , by 

10 the Contractor shall be the Contractor’s Rates adjusted upward or downward to reflect the 

11 changed costs of delivery (if any) of the transferred, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of 

12 Project Water to the transferee’s point of delivery in accordance with the then-current 

13 ratesetting policies for the Project. If the Contractor is receiving lower Rates and 

14 Charges because of inability to pay and is transferring, exchanging, or otherwise 

15 disposing of Project Water to another entity whose Rates and Charges are not adjusted 

16 due to inability to pay, the Rates and Charges for transferred, exchanged, or otherwise 

17 disposed of Project Water shall be the Contractor’s Rates and Charges unadjusted for 

18 ability to pay.

19 (i) Pursuant to the Act of October 27, 1986 (100 Stat. 3050), the Contracting 

20 Officer is authorized to adjust determinations of ability to pay every five (5) years.

21 (j) Each payment to be made pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (b) of this 

22 Article shall be made at the office of the Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, 

23 File No. 11546, P.O Box 6000, San Francisco, California, 94160-1546, or at such other 
16

1 place as the United States may designate in a written notice to the said Contractor. 

2 Payments shall be made by cash transaction, wire, or any other mechanism as may be 

3 agreed to in writing by the Contractor and the Contracting Officer. In event there should 

4 be a default in the payment of the amount due, the delinquent payment provisions of 

5 Article 12 shall apply. The Contractor shall not be relieved of the whole or any part of its 

6 said obligation by, on account of, or notwithstanding, as the case may be:

7 (1) Its failure, refusal, or neglect to divert the quantity of Project Water as 

8 hereinabove provided;

9 (2) The default in payment to it by any water user of assessments, tolls, or 

10 other charges levied by or owing to said Contractor;

11 (3) Any judicial determination that any assessment, toll, or other charge 

12 referred to in subsection 8(c)(2) of this Contract is irregular, void, or ineffectual; or

13 (4) Any injunctive process enjoining or restraining the Contractor from 

14 making or collecting any such assessment, toll, or other charge referred to in subsection 

15 8(c)(2) of this Contract.

16 AGREEMENT ON WATER QUANTITIES

17 8. (a) During the term of this contract and any renewals thereof:

18 (1) It shall constitute full agreement as between the United States and the 

19 Contractor as to the quantities of water and the allocation thereof between Base Supply 

20 and Project Water which may be diverted by the Contractor from the Sacramento River 

21 for beneficial use on the land shown on Exhibit B which said diversion, use, and 

22 allocation shall not be disturbed so long as the Contractor shall fulfill all of its obligations 

23 hereunder;
17

1 (2) The Contractor shall not claim any right against the United States in 

2 conflict with the provisions hereof.

3 (b) Nothing herein contained is intended to or does limit rights of the 

4 Contractor against others than the United States or of the United States against any 

5 person other than the Contractor: Provided, however, That in the event the Contractor, 

6 the United States, or any other person shall become a party to a general adjudication of 

7 rights to the use of water of the Sacramento River system, this contract shall not 

8 jeopardize the rights or position of either party hereto or of any other person and the 

9 rights of all such persons in respect to the use of such water shall be determined in such 

10 proceedings the same as if this contract had not been entered into, and if final judgment 

11 in any such general adjudication shall determine that the rights of the parties hereto are 

12 different from the rights as assumed herein, the United States shall submit it to the 

13 Contractor an amendment to give effect to such judgment and the contract shall be 

14 deemed to have been amended accordingly unless within sixty (60) days after submission 

15 of such amendment to the Contractor, the Contractor elects to terminate the contract or 

16 within the same period of time the parties agree upon mutually satisfactory amendments 

17 to give effect to such judgment: Provided, further, That if, during the term of this 

18 Contract, the Contractor’s or the United States’ water rights are adjusted or affected, or 

19 the responsibility to meet flow, water quality and/or environmental requirements under 

20 those water rights is modified (e.g., changes to the Delta Water Quality Control Plan and 

21 associated water right actions), by or through any final administrative or judicial 

22 proceeding, the Contractor and the United States shall negotiate appropriate adjustments 

23 to this contract. 
18

1 (c) In the event this contract terminates, the rights of the parties to thereafter 

2 divert and use water shall exist as if this contract had not been entered into; and the fact 

3 that as a compromise settlement of a controversy as to the respective rights of the parties 

4 to divert and use water and the yield of such rights during the term hereof, this contract 

5 places a limit on the Contract Total to be diverted annually by the Contractor during the 

6 contract term and segregates it into Base Supply and Project Water shall not jeopardize 

7 the rights or position of either party with respect to its water rights or the yield thereof at 

8 all times after the contract terminates. It is further agreed that the Contractor at all times 

9 will first use water to the use of which it is entitled by virtue of its own water rights, and 

10 neither the provisions of this contract, action taken thereunder, nor payments made 

11 thereunder to the United States by the Contractor shall be construed as an admission that 

12 any part of the water used by the Contractor during the term of this contract was in fact 

13 water to which it would not have been entitled under water rights owned by it nor shall 

14 receipt of payments thereunder by the United States from the Contractor be construed as 

15 an admission that any part of the water used by the Contractor during the term of this 

16 contract was in fact water to which it would have been entitled under water rights owned 

17 by it.

18 MEASUREMENT OF WATER

19 9. (a) All water diverted by the Contractor from Sacramento River will be 

20 diverted at the existing point or points of diversion shown on Exhibit A or at such other 

21 points as may be mutually agreed upon in writing by the Contracting Officer and the 

22 Contractor. 
19

1 (b) All water diverted from the Sacramento River pursuant to this contract 

2 will be measured or caused to be measured by the United States at each point of diversion 

3 with existing equipment or equipment to be installed, operated, and maintained by the 

4 United States, and/or others, under contract with and at the option of the United States. 

5 The equipment and methods used to make such measurement shall be in accordance with 

6 sound engineering practices. Upon request of the Contractor, the accuracy of such 

7 measurements will be investigated by the Contracting Officer and any errors appearing 

8 therein will be corrected.

9 (c) The right of ingress to and egress from all points of diversion is hereby 

10 granted to all authorized employees of the United States. The Contractor also hereby 

11 grants to the United States the right to install, operate, maintain and replace such 

12 equipment on diversion or carriage facilities at each point of diversion as the Contracting 

13 Officer deems necessary.

14 (d) The Contractor shall not modify, alter, remove, or replace diversion 

15 facilities or do any other act which would alter the effectiveness or accuracy of the 

16 measuring equipment installed by the United States or its representatives unless and until 

17 the Contracting Officer has been notified with due diligence and has been given an 

18 opportunity to modify such measuring equipment in such manner as may be necessary or 

19 appropriate. In the event of an emergency the Contractor shall notify the United States 

20 within a reasonable time thereafter as to the existence of the emergency and the nature 

21 and extent of such modification, alteration, removal, or replacement of diversion 

22 facilities.
20

1 (e) The Contractor shall pay the United States for the costs to repair, relocate, 

2 or replace measurement equipment when the Contractor modifies, alters, removes, or 

3 replaces diversion or carriage facilities. 

4 (f) (Contractor Specific) By __________________[DATE] ________, the 

5 Contractor shall ensure that, unless the Contractor establishes an alternative measurement 

6 program satisfactory to the Contracting Officer, all surface water delivered for irrigation 

7 purposes on the lands delineated on Exhibit B is measured at each agricultural turnout. 

8 The water measuring devices or water measuring methods of comparable effectiveness 

9 must be acceptable to the Contracting Officer. The Contractor shall be responsible for 

10 installing, operating, and maintaining and repairing all such measuring devices and 

11 implementing all such water measuring methods at no cost to the United States. The 

12 Contractor shall inform the Contracting Officer in writing by April 30 of each Year of the 

13 monthly volume of surface water delivered to the lands delineated on Exhibit B during 

14 the previous Year. This information will be used by Reclamation to satisfy the water 

15 measurement requirements of the Contractor’s water conservation plan, as set forth in 

16 Article 28 of this Contract.

17 (g) All new surface water delivery systems installed within the lands 

18 delineated on Exhibit B after the effective date of this Contract shall also comply with the 

19 measurement provisions described in this Article.

20 RULES AND REGULATIONS

21 10. The parties agree that the delivery of Project Water for irrigation use or use of 

22 Federal facilities pursuant to this Contract is subject to Federal Reclamation law, 

23 including but not limited to, the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C.390aa et 
21

1 seq.), as amended and supplemented, and the rules and regulations promulgated by the 

2 Secretary of the Interior under Federal Reclamation law. 

3 GENERAL OBLIGATION--BENEFITS CONDITIONED UPON PAYMENT

4

5 11. (a) The obligation of the Contractor to pay the United States as provided in 

6 this Contract is a general obligation of the Contractor notwithstanding the manner in 

7 which the obligation may be distributed among the Contractor's water users and 

8 notwithstanding the default of individual water users in their obligations to the 

9 Contractor. 

10

11 (b) The payment of charges becoming due hereunder is a condition precedent 

12 to receiving benefits under this Contract. The United States shall not make water 

13 available to the Contractor through Project facilities during any period in which the 

14 Contractor may be in arrears in the advance payment of water rates due the United States. 

15 The Contractor shall not furnish water made available pursuant to this Contract for lands 

16 or parties which are in arrears in the advance payment of water rates levied or established 

17 by the Contractor. 

18

19 (c) With respect to subdivision (b) of this Article, the Contractor shall have 

20 no obligation to require advance payment for water rates which it levies.

21

22 CHARGES FOR DELINQUENT PAYMENTS

23

24 12. (a) The Contractor shall be subject to interest, administrative and penalty 

25 charges on delinquent installments or payments. When a payment is not received by the 

26 due date, the Contractor shall pay an interest charge for each day the payment is 

27 delinquent beyond the due date. When a payment becomes sixty (60) days delinquent, 

28 the Contractor shall pay an administrative charge to cover additional costs of billing and 

29 processing the delinquent payment. When a payment is delinquent ninety (90) days or 

30 more, the Contractor shall pay an additional penalty charge of six (6%) percent per year 

31 for each day the payment is delinquent beyond the due date. Further, the Contractor shall 

32 pay any fees incurred for debt collection services associated with a delinquent payment. 

33

34 (b) The interest charge rate shall be the greater of the rate prescribed quarterly 

35 in the Federal Register by the Department of the Treasury for application to overdue 

36 payments, or the interest rate of one-half of one (0.5%) percent per month prescribed by 

37 Section 6 of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (Public Law 76-260). The interest 

38 charge rate shall be determined as of the due date and remain fixed for the duration of the 

39 delinquent period. 

40

41 (c) When a partial payment on a delinquent account is received, the amount 

42 received shall be applied, first to the penalty, second to the administrative charges, third 

43 to the accrued interest, and finally to the overdue payment.

44
22

1 QUALITY OF WATER

2 13. The operation and maintenance of Project facilities shall be performed in 

3 such manner as is practicable to maintain the quality of raw water made available through 

4 such facilities at the highest level reasonably attainable as determined by the Contracting 

5 Officer. The United States does not warrant the quality of water and is under no 

6 obligation to construct or furnish water treatment facilities to maintain or better the 

7 quality of water.

8 WATER AND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

9 14. The Contractor, in carrying out this Contract, shall comply with all applicable 

10 water and air pollution laws and regulations of the United States and the State of 

11 California, and shall obtain all required permits or licenses from the appropriate Federal, 

12 State, or local authorities.

13 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

14

15 15. During the performance of this Contract, the Contractor agrees as follows:

16

17 (a) The Contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant 

18 for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Contractor 

19 will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees 

20 are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or 

21 national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

22 Employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; 

23 layoff or termination, rates of payment or other forms of compensation; and selection for 

24 training, including apprenticeship. The Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, 

25 available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the 

26 Contracting Officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.

27

28 (b) The Contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees 

29 placed by or on behalf of the Contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive 

30 consideration for employment without discrimination because of race, color, religion, 

31 sex, or national origin.

32

33 (c) The Contractor will send to each labor union or representative of workers 

34 with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a 
23

1 notice, to be provided by the Contracting Officer, advising the said labor union or 

2 workers' representative of the Contractor's commitments under Section 202 of Executive 

3 Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous 

4 places available to employees and applicants for employment.

5

6 (d) The Contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order No. 

7 11246 of September 24, 1965, as amended, and of the rules, regulations, and relevant 

8 orders of the Secretary of Labor. 

9

10 (e) The Contractor will furnish all information and reports required by said 

11 amended Executive Order and by the rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of 

12 Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to its books, records, and accounts by 

13 the Contracting Officer and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to 

14 ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations, and orders.

15

16 (f) In the event of the Contractor's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination 

17 clauses of this Contract or with any of the said rules, regulations, or orders, this Contract 

18 may be canceled, terminated, or suspended, in whole or in part, and the Contractor may 

19 be declared ineligible for further Government contracts in accordance with procedures 

20 authorized in said amended Executive Order, and such other sanctions may be imposed 

21 and remedies invoked as provided in said Executive Order, or by rule, regulation, or 

22 order of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by law.

23

24 (g) The Contractor will include the provisions of paragraphs (a) through (g) 

25 in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by the rules, regulations, or 

26 orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Section 204 of said amended 

27 Executive Order, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or 

28 vendor. The Contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase 

29 order as may be directed by the Secretary of Labor as a means of enforcing such 

30 provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance: Provided, however, That in the event 

31 the Contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor 

32 or vendor as a result of such direction, the Contractor may request the United States to 

33 enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.

34

35 COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS AND REGULATIONS

36 (For Districts Only)

37

38 16. (a) The Contractor shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

39 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1975 (P.L. 93-112, as 

40 amended), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101, et seq.) and any other 

41 applicable civil rights laws, as well as with their respective implementing regulations and 

42 guidelines imposed by the U.S. Department of the Interior and/or Bureau of Reclamation.

43

44 (b) These statutes require that no person in the United States shall, on the 

45 grounds of race, color, national origin, handicap, or age, be excluded from participation 

46 in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any 
24

1 program or activity receiving financial assistance from the Bureau of Reclamation. By 

2 executing this Contract, the Contractor agrees to immediately take any measures 

3 necessary to implement this obligation, including permitting officials of the United States 

4 to inspect premises, programs, and documents.

5

6 (c) The Contractor makes this agreement in consideration of and for the 

7 purpose of obtaining any and all Federal grants, loans, contracts, property discounts, or 

8 other Federal financial assistance extended after the date hereof to the Contractor by the 

9 Bureau of Reclamation, including installment payments after such date on account of 

10 arrangements for Federal financial assistance which were approved before such date. 

11 The Contractor recognizes and agrees that such Federal assistance will be extended in 

12 reliance on the representations and agreements made in this Article, and that the United 

13 States reserves the right to seek judicial enforcement thereof.

14

15 MINGLING OF CONTRACTOR’S PROJECT AND NON-PROJECT WATER

16 17. (a) Project Water must of necessity be transported by the Contractor to its 

17 water users by means of the same works and channels used for the transport of its non18 Project Water. Notwithstanding such mingling of water, the provisions of Article 11 

19 hereof shall be applicable only to Project Water, and such mingling of water shall not in 

20 any manner subject to the provisions of Article 11 hereof the Contractor’s non-Project 

21 water.

22 (b) If required in accordance with subdivision (c) of this Article, the 

23 Contractor shall install and maintain such measuring equipment and distribution facilities 

24 and maintain such records as may be necessary to determine the amounts of water 

25 delivered to Excess Lands served by the Contractor. The Contractor shall not within any 

26 month deliver to Ineligible Lands water in excess of the non-Project Water for that 

27 month. The Contracting Officer or authorized representative shall have the right at all 

28 reasonable times to inspect such records and measuring equipment.

29 (c) The Contractor will not be considered in violation of the requirement that 

30 Project Water be delivered only to Eligible Lands during any month of the irrigation 
25

1 season that the water requirement for beneficial use on Eligible Lands for that month is 

2 equal to or in excess of the Project Water for that month as shown on Exhibit A or any 

3 revision thereof pursuant to subdivision (b) of Article 3. The water requirement for 

4 beneficial use on Eligible Lands will be determined by multiplying:

5 (1) the number of irrigable acres of the particular types of crops grown in 

6 that year on the acreage designated as eligible by

7 (2) the Unit Duties as set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and made a 

8 part hereof, or by such other Unit Duties mutually agreed upon by the Contractor and the 

9 Contracting Officer. In order to make the computation of the water requirement for 

10 Eligible Lands, on April 1 of each Year and concurrently with its order for water for the 

11 irrigation season, the Contractor shall designate the acreage of and type of crops to be 

12 grown on its Eligible Lands that irrigation season. During any month the water 

13 requirement as above determined for crops growing on Eligible Lands during such month 

14 is equal to or in excess of the Project Water for that month as provided herein the 

15 Contractor shall not be required to measure the water delivered to Excess Lands. Any 

16 month the said water requirement is less than the amount of Project Water as provided 

17 herein, the Contractor will be required to measure water delivered to excess land in 

18 accordance with subdivision (b) hereof.

19 BOOKS, RECORDS, AND REPORTS

20 18. The Contractor shall establish and maintain accounts and other books and 

21 records pertaining to administration of the terms and conditions of this Contract, 

22 including: the Contractor's financial transactions, water supply data, and Project land and 

23 right-of-way agreements; the water users' land-use (crop census), land ownership, land24 leasing and water use data; and other matters that the Contracting Officer may require. 

25 Reports thereon shall be furnished to the Contracting Officer in such form and on such 

26 date or dates as the Contracting Officer may require. Subject to applicable Federal laws 

27 and regulations, each party to this Contract shall have the right during office hours to 
26

1 examine and make copies of each other’s books and official records relating to matters 

2 covered by this Contract. 

3

4 CHANGE OF PLACE OF USE OR ORGANIZATION

5 19. (a) Unless the written consent of the United States is first obtained no change 

6 shall be made in the place of water use shown on Exhibit B. 

7 (b) While this contract is in effect, no change shall be made in the area of the 

8 Contractor as shown on its Exhibit B, by inclusion or exclusion of lands, by dissolution, 

9 consolidation, or merger or otherwise, except upon the Contracting Officer’s written 

10 assent thereto. 

11 (c) In the event lands are excluded from the area of the Contractor, as 

12 provided herein, the quantity of Project Water to be diverted may be decreased pursuant 

13 to a supplemental agreement to be executed in respect thereto.

14 CONSOLIDATION OF CONTRACTING ENTITIES

15

16 20. Consolidation of Contractors may be approved by the Contracting Officer 

17 provided: (i) the Contracting Officer approves the form and organization of the resulting 

18 entity and the utilization by it of the Contract Total; and (ii) the obligations of the 

19 Contractor are assumed by such entity. 

20 No such consolidation shall be valid unless and until approved by the Contracting 

21 Officer.

22 NOTICES

23 21. Any notice, demand, or request authorized or required by this Contract shall 

24 be deemed to have been given, on behalf of the Contractor, when mailed, postage 

25 prepaid, or delivered to the Area Manager, Northern California Area Office, Bureau of 

26 Reclamation, 16349 Shasta Dam Blvd., Shasta Lake, California, 96019, and on behalf of 

27 the United States, when mailed, postage prepaid, or delivered to the Board of Directors 

28 /City Council of the ________________________. The designation of the addressee or 
27

1 the address may be changed by notice given in the same manner as provided in this 

2 Article for other notices.

3

4 ASSIGNMENT LIMITED--SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS OBLIGATED

5

6 22. (a) The provisions of this Contract shall apply to and bind the successors 

7 and assigns of the parties hereto, but no assignment or transfer of this Contract or any 

8 right or interest therein shall be valid until approved in writing by the Contracting 

9 Officer.

10

11 (b) The assignment of any right or interest in this Contract by either party 

12 shall not interfere with the rights or obligations of the other party to this Contract absent 

13 the written concurrence of said other party.

14

15 (c) The Contracting Officer shall not unreasonably condition or withhold his 

16 approval of any proposed assignment.

17

18 OFFICIALS NOT TO BENEFIT

19

20 23. (a) No Member of or Delegate to Congress, Resident Commissioner, or 

21 official of the Contractor shall benefit from this Contract other than as a water user or 

22 landowner in the same manner as other water users or landowners.

23

24 (b) No officer or member of the governing board of the Contractor shall 

25 receive any benefit that may arise by reason of this contract other than as a landowner 

26 within the Contractor’s service area and in the same manner as other landowners within 

27 the said service area.

28

29 CONTINGENT UPON APPROPRIATION OR ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS

30

31 24. The expenditure or advance of any money or the performance of any 

32 obligation of the United States under this Contract shall be contingent upon appropriation 

33 or allotment of funds. Absence of appropriation or allotment of funds shall not relieve 

34 the Contractor from any obligations under this Contract. No liability shall accrue to the 

35 United States in case funds are not appropriated or allotted.

36

37 CONFIRMATION OF CONTRACT

38 25. The Contractor, after the execution of this Contract, shall promptly seek to 

39 secure a decree of a court of competent jurisdiction of the State of California, if 

40 appropriate, confirming the execution of this contract. The Contractor shall furnish the 

41 United States a certified copy of the final decree, the validation proceedings, and all 

42 pertinent supporting records of the court approving and confirming this Contract, and 

43 decreeing and adjudging it to be lawful, valid, and binding on the Contractor. This 

44 Contract shall not be binding on the United States until such final decree has been 

45 secured.
28

1 UNAVOIDABLE GROUNDWATER PERCOLATION

2 26. To the extent applicable, the Contractor shall not be deemed to have delivered 

3 Project Water to Excess Lands or Ineligible Lands if such lands are irrigated with 

4 groundwater that reaches the underground strata as an unavoidable result of the delivery 

5 of Project Water by the Contractor to Eligible Lands.

6 PRIVACY ACT COMPLIANCE

7

8 27. (a) The Contractor shall comply with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C.

9 552a) (the Act) and the Department of the Interior rules and regulations under the Act (43 

10 CFR 2.45 et seq.) in maintaining Landholder acreage certification and reporting records, 

11 required to be submitted to the Contractor for compliance with Sections 206 and 228 of 

12 the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 1266), and pursuant to 43 CFR 426.18.

13

14 (b) With respect to the application and administration of the criminal penalty 

15 provisions of the Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(i)), the Contractor and the Contractor's employees 

16 responsible for maintaining the certification and reporting records referenced in (a) above 

17 are considered to be employees of the Department of the Interior. See 5 U.S.C. 552a(m). 

18

19 (c) The Contracting Officer or a designated representative shall provide the 

20 Contractor with current copies of the Interior Department Privacy Act regulations and the 

21 Bureau of Reclamation Federal Register Privacy Act System of Records Notice (Acreage 

22 Limitation--Interior, Reclamation-31) which govern the maintenance, safeguarding, and 

23 disclosure of information contained in the Landholder's certification and reporting 

24 records. 

25

26 (d) The Contracting Officer shall designate a full-time employee of the 

27 Bureau of Reclamation to be the System Manager who shall be responsible for making 

28 decisions on denials pursuant to 43 CFR 2.61 and 2.64 amendment requests pursuant to 

29 43 CFR 2.72. The Contractor is authorized to grant requests by individuals for access to 

30 their own records. 

31

32 (e) The Contractor shall forward promptly to the System Manager each 

33 proposed denial of access under 43 CFR 2.64; and each request for amendment of records 

34 filed under 43 CFR 2.71; notify the requester accordingly of such referral; and provide 

35 the System Manager with information and records necessary to prepare an appropriate 

36 response to the requester. These requirements do not apply to individuals seeking access 

37 to their own certification and reporting forms filed with the Contractor pursuant to 43 

38 CFR 426.18, unless the requester elects to cite the Privacy Act as a basis for the request.

39
29

1 WATER CONSERVATION

2 28. (a) Prior to the diversion of Project Water, the Contractor shall be 

3 implementing an effective water conservation and efficiency program based on the 

4 Contractor's water conservation plan that has been determined by the Contracting Officer 

5 to meet the conservation and efficiency criteria for evaluating water conservation plans 

6 established under Federal law. The water conservation and efficiency program shall 

7 contain definite water conservation objectives, appropriate economically feasible water 

8 conservation measures, and time schedules for meeting those objectives. Continued 

9 diversion of Project Water pursuant to this Contract shall be contingent upon the 

10 Contractor’s continued implementation of such water conservation program. In the event 

11 the Contractor's water conservation plan or any revised water conservation plan 

12 completed pursuant to subdivision (c) of Article 28 of this Contract have not yet been 

13 determined by the Contracting Officer to meet such criteria, due to circumstances which 

14 the Contracting Officer determines are beyond the control of the Contractor, Project 

15 Water deliveries shall be made under this Contract so long as the Contractor diligently 

16 works with the Contracting Officer to obtain such determination at the earliest practicable 

17 date, and thereafter the Contractor immediately begins implementing its water 

18 conservation and efficiency program in accordance with the time schedules therein.

19 (b) The Contractor shall submit to the Contracting Officer a report on the 

20 status of its implementation of the water conservation plan on the reporting dates 

21 specified in the then existing conservation and efficiency criteria established under 

22 Federal law.
30

1 (c) At five (5)-year intervals, the Contractor shall revise its water 

2 conservation plan to reflect the then current conservation and efficiency criteria for 

3 evaluating water conservation plans established under Federal law and submit such 

4 revised water management plan to the Contracting Officer for review and evaluation. 

5 The Contracting Officer will then determine if the water conservation plan meets 

6 Reclamation’s then current conservation and efficiency criteria for evaluating water 

7 conservation plans established under Federal law. 

8 (d) If the Contractor is engaged in direct ground-water recharge, such activity 

9 shall be described in the Contractor’s water conservation plan.

10 OPINIONS AND DETERMINATIONS

11

12 29. (a) Where the terms of this Contract provide for actions to be based upon the

13 opinion or determination of either party to this Contract, said terms shall not be construed 

14 as permitting such action to be predicated upon arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable 

15 opinions or determinations. Both parties, notwithstanding any other provisions of this 

16 Contract, expressly reserve the right to seek relief from and appropriate adjustment for 

17 any such arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable opinion or determination. Each opinion 

18 or determination by either party shall be provided in a timely manner. Nothing in 

19 subdivision (a) of Article 29 of this Contract is intended to or shall affect or alter the 

20 standard of judicial review applicable under federal law to any opinion or determination 

21 implementing a specific provision of federal law embodied in statute or regulation. 

22 (b) The Contracting Officer shall have the right to make determinations 

23 necessary to administer this Contract that are consistent with the provisions of this 

24 Contract, the laws of the United States and of the State of California, and the rules and 
31

1 regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior. Such determinations shall be 

2 made in consultation with the Contractor to the extent reasonably practicable.

3 CONTRACTOR TO PAY CERTAIN MISCELLANEOUS COSTS

4 30. (a) In addition to all other payments to be made by the Contractor pursuant to 

5 this Contract, the Contractor shall pay to the United States, within sixty (60) days after 

6 receipt of a bill and detailed statement submitted by the Contracting Officer to the 

7 Contractor for such specific items of direct cost incurred by the United States for work 

8 requested by the Contractor associated with this Contract plus indirect costs in 

9 accordance with applicable Bureau of Reclamation policies and procedures. All such 

10 amounts referred to in this Article shall not exceed the amount agreed to in writing in 

11 advance by the Contractor. This Article shall not apply to costs for routine contract 

12 administration.

13 (b) All advances for miscellaneous costs incurred for work requested by the 

14 Contractor pursuant to Article 30 of this Contract shall be adjusted to reflect the actual 

15 costs when the work has been completed. If the advances exceed the actual costs 

16 incurred, the difference will be refunded to the Contractor. If the actual costs exceed the 

17 Contractor's advances, the Contractor will be billed for the additional costs pursuant to 

18 Article 30 of this Contract.

19 WAIVER OF DEFAULT

20 31. The waiver by either party to this contract as to any default shall not be 

21 construed as a waiver of any other default or as authority of the other party to continue 

22 such default or to make, do, or perform, or not to make, do, or perform, as the case may 

23 be, any act or thing which would constitute a default.
32

1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this contract as of 

2 the day and year first hereinabove written.

3

4 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

5

6

7

8 By: __________________________

9 Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region 

10 Bureau of Reclamation

11

12

13 (SEAL)

14

15

16 (Contractor)

17

18

19 By:______________________________

20 President

21

22

23 ATTEST:

24

25

26 ________________________________

27 Secretary

28

29

30 (I:\sac river renewal\Sac R Long Form Draft.doc)

31
1

R.O. Draft 05/15-2002

R.O. Draft 06/21-2002

Contract No.

Standard Irrigation District Form

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Central Valley Project, California

CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND

___________________________________________________

DIVERTER OF WATER FROM SACRAMENTO RIVER SOURCES PROVIDING 

FOR PROJECT WATER SERVICE AND AGREEMENT ON DIVERSION OF 

WATER

Table of Contents

Article No. Title Page No.

Preamble 1

Explanatory Recitals 2-3

1 Definitions 3-6 7

2 Term of Contract 6-7

3 Water to be Furnished to Contractor 7-9 8-10

4 Return Flow 9 10-11

5 Constraints on the Availability of Water 10-11-12

6 Integrated Water Management and Partnerships 12

6 7 Use of Water Furnished to Contractor 11 12-13

7 8 Rate and Method of Payment for Water 11-16 13-18

8 9 Agreement on Water Quantities 16-18-20

9 10 Measurement of Water 18-20-22

10 11 Rules and Regulations 20-21 22

11 12 General Obligation – Benefits Conditioned 

Upon Payment 21 22-23

12 13 Charges For Delinquent Payments 21 23

13 14 Quality of Water 22 23

14 15 Water and Air Pollution Control 22 24

15 16 Equal Opportunity 22-23 24-25

16 17 Compliance With Civil Rights Laws 

And Regulations 23-24 25

17 18 Mingling of Contractor’s Project and 

Non-Project Water 24-25 26-27

18 19 Books, Records, and Reports 25-26 27

19 20 Change Of Place Of Use Or Organization 26 27-28
Table of Contents – continued

Article No. Title Page No.

20 21 Consolidation Of Contracting Entities 26 28

21 22 Notices 26-27 28

22 23 Assignment Limited – Successors and 

Assigns Obligated 27 28-29

23 24 Officials Not to Benefit 27 29

24 25 Contingent Upon Appropriation or

Allotment of Funds 27 29

25 26 Confirmation of Contract 27 29

26 27 Unavoidable Groundwater Percolation 28 29

27 28 Privacy Act Compliance 28 29-30

28 29 Water Conservation 29-30-31

29 30 Opinions And Determinations 30-31 32

30 31 Contractor to Pay Certain Miscellaneous Costs 31 32-33

31 32 Waiver of Default 31 33

Signatures 32 33-34

Exhibit A Schedule of Monthly Diversions of Water

Exhibit B Map of Contractor’s Ownership

Exhibit C Unit Duties

Exhibit D Rates and Charges 35
1

1 R.O. Draft 05/15-2002

2 R.O. Draft 06/21-2002

3 Contract No.

4 Standard Irrigation District Form

5

6

7 UNITED STATES

8 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

9 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

10 Central Valley Project, California

11

12 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND

13 ___________________________________________________

14 DIVERTER OF WATER FROM SACRAMENTO RIVER SOURCES PROVIDING 

15 FOR PROJECT WATER SERVICE AND AGREEMENT ON DIVERSION OF 

16 WATER

17

18 THIS CONTRACT, made this _____ day of ____________________, 2002, 

19 in pursuance generally of the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and acts amendatory or 

20 supplementary thereto, including, but not limited to, the Acts of August 26, 1937 (50 

21 Stat. 844), as amended and supplemented, August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1187), as amended 

22 and supplemented, July 2, 1956 (70 Stat. 483), June 21, 1963 (77 Stat. 68), October 12, 

23 1982 (96 Stat. 1262), October 27, 1986 (100 Stat. 3050), as amended, and Title XXXIV 

24 of the Act of October 30, 1992 (106 Stat. 4706), all collectively hereinafter referred to as

25 Federal Reclamation law, between THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, hereinafter 

26 referred to as the United States, and _______________________, hereinafter referred to 

27 as the Contractor, a public agency of the State of California, duly organized, existing, and 

28 acting pursuant to the laws thereof, with its principal place of business in California;

29 (may change depending on contracting entity)

30 WITNESSETH, That:
2

1 EXPLANATORY RECITALS

2 [1st] WHEREAS, the United States has constructed and is operating the Central 

3 Valley Project, California, for diversion, storage, carriage, distribution and beneficial use, 

4 for flood control, irrigation, municipal, domestic, industrial, fish and wildlife mitigation, 

5 protection and restoration, generation and distribution of electric energy, salinity control, 

6 navigation and other beneficial uses, of waters of the Sacramento River, the American 

7 River, the Trinity River, and the San Joaquin River and their tributaries; and

[2nd 8 ] WHEREAS, the Contractor asserts that it has rights to divert, is diverting, 

9 and will continue to divert for reasonable beneficial use, water from the natural flow of 

10 the Sacramento River and tributaries thereto, that would have been flowing therein if the 

11 Central Valley Project were not in existence; and [Contractor Specific – “Other” Rights]

[3rd 12 ] WHEREAS, the construction and operation of the integrated and 

13 coordinated Central Valley Project has changed and will further change the regimen of 

14 the Sacramento, American, San Joaquin, and Trinity Rivers and the Sacramento-San 

15 Joaquin Delta from unregulated flow to regulated flow; and

[4th 16 ] WHEREAS, the United States asserts that it has rights to divert, is diverting, 

17 and will continue to divert waters from said Rivers and said Delta in connection with the 

18 operation of said Central Valley Project, and

[5th 19 ] WHEREAS, the Contractor and the United States had a dispute over the 

20 respective rights of the parties to divert and use water from the regulated flow of the 

21 Sacramento River which threatened to result in litigation, and as a means to settle that 

22 dispute, entered into Contract No. ______________, as amended, hereinafter referred to 

23 as the Existing Contract, which established terms for the delivery to the Contractor of 
3

1 Central Valley Project Water, and the quantities of Base Supply the United States and the

2 Contractor agreed may be diverted by the Contractor from the Sacramento River pursuant 

3 to such contract from ____________ through March 31, 2004; and

[6th 4 ] WHEREAS, although the Contractor and the United States has requested the 

5 long-term renewal of the Existing Contract, disagree with respect to the authority of the 

6 United States to change the quantities of Base Supply and/or Project water specified in 

7 this Contract from the quantities specified in the Existing Contract and that dispute is 

8 being litigated in a lawsuit entitled GCID v. United States of America, Civ. No. S-01-

9 1816 GEB/JFM (E.D. CA), both the Contractor and the United States are willing to agree 

10 to the dismissal of that lawsuit without waiving or otherwise prejudicing their respective 

11 right to assert whatever arguments and defenses either of them believe is appropriate if 

12 that issue is subsequently litigated and enter into this Contract pursuant to the terms of 

13 the Existing Contract, Federal Reclamation law, and the laws of the State of California, 

14 and the United States has determined that the Contractor has fulfilled all of its obligations 

15 under; and

[7th 16 ] WHEREAS, to assure the Contractor of the enjoyment and use of the 

17 regulated flow of the said Rivers and the Delta, and to provide for the economical 

18 operation of the Central Valley Project by, and the reimbursement to, the United States 

19 for expenditures made for said Project; 

20 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the performance of the herein 

21 contained provisions, conditions, and covenants, it is agreed as follows:
4

1 DEFINITIONS

2 1. When used herein, unless otherwise expressed or incompatible with the intent 

3 hereof, the term:

4 (a) “Base Supply” shall mean the quantity of water established in Articles 3 

5 and 5 which the United States agrees may be diverted by the Contractor from the 

6 Sacramento River each month during the period April through October of each Year 

7 without payment to the United States for such quantities diverted;

8 (b) “Charges” shall mean the payments for Project Water which the 

9 Contractor is required by Federal Reclamation law to pay to the United States in addition 

10 to the Rates specified in this Contract as determined annually by the Contracting Officer 

11 pursuant to this Contract. The type and amount of each Charge shall be specified in 

12 Exhibit D;

13 (c) “Contract Total” shall mean the sum of the Base Supply and Project 

14 Water available for diversion by the Contractor for the period April 1 through October 

15 31;

16 (d) “Critical Year” shall mean any Year in which either of the following 

17 eventualities exists:

18 (1) The forecasted full natural inflow to Shasta Lake for the current Water 

19 Year, as such forecast is made by the United States on or before February 15 and 

20 reviewed as frequently thereafter as conditions and information warrant, is equal to or 

21 less than three 3.2 million two hundred thousand (3,200,000) acre-feet; or

22 (2) The total accumulated actual deficiencies below four 4 million 

23 (4,000,000) acre-feet in the immediately prior Water Year or series of successive prior 
5

1 Water Years each of which had inflows of less than four 4 million (4,000,000) acre-feet, 

2 together with the forecasted deficiency for the current Water Year, exceed eight hundred 

3 thousand (800,000) acre-feet. For the purpose of determining a Critical Year the 

4 computed inflow to Shasta Lake under present upstream development above Shasta Lake 

5 shall be used as the full natural inflow to Shasta Lake. In the event that major 

6 construction occurs above Shasta Lake after April 1, 2004 September 1, 1963, which 

7 materially alters the present regimen of the stream systems contributing to Shasta Lake, 

8 the computed inflow to Shasta Lake used to define a Critical Year will, be adjusted to 

9 eliminate the effect of such material alterations. After consultation with the State of 

10 California, the National Weather Service, and other recognized forecasting agencies, the 

11 Contracting Officer will select the forecast to be used and will make the details of it 

12 available to the Contractor. The same forecasts used by the United States for the 

13 operation of the Project shall be used to make the forecasts hereunder;

14 (e) “CVPIA” shall mean the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Title 

15 XXXIV of the Act of October 30, 1992 (106 Stat. 4706);

16 (f) “Eligible Lands” shall mean all lands to which Project Water may be 

17 delivered in accordance with Section 204 of the Reclamation Reform Act of October 12, 

18 1982 (96 Stat. 1263), as amended, hereinafter referred to as RRA;

19 (g) “Excess Lands” shall mean all lands in excess of the limitations contained 

20 in Section 204 of the RRA, other than those lands exempt from acreage limitation under 

21 Federal Reclamation law;

22 (h) “Full Cost Rate” shall mean that water rate described in Sections 

23 205(a)(3) or 202(3) of the RRA, whichever is applicable;
6

1 (i) “Ineligible Lands” shall mean all lands to which Project Water may not be 

2 delivered in accordance with Section 204 of the RRA;

3 (j) “Landholder” shall mean a party that directly or indirectly owns or leases 

4 nonexempt land, as provided in 43 CFR 426.2;

5 (k) “Project” shall mean the Central Valley Project owned by the United 

6 States and managed by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation;

7 (l) “Project Water” shall mean all water diverted or scheduled to be diverted 

8 each month during the period April through October of each Year by the Contractor from 

9 the Sacramento River which is in excess of the Base Supply. The United States 

10 recognizes the right of the Contractor to make arrangements for acquisition of water from 

11 projects of others than the United States for delivery through the Sacramento River and 

12 tributaries subject to written agreement between Contractor and the United States as to 

13 identification of such water which water when so identified shall not be deemed Project 

14 Water under this cContract;

15 (m) “Rates” shall mean the payments for Project Water determined annually 

16 by the Contracting Officer in accordance with the then current applicable water 

17 ratesetting policies for the Project, as described in subdivision (a) of Article 8 of this 

18 Contract;

19 (n) “Secretary” or “Contracting Officer” shall mean the Secretary of the 

20 Interior, a duly appointed successor, or an authorized representative acting pursuant to 

21 any authority of the Secretary and through any agency of the Department of the Interior;

22 (o) “Water Year” shall mean the period commencing with October 1 of one 

23 year and extending through September 30 of the next; and
7

1 (p) “Year” shall mean a calendar year.

2 TERM OF CONTRACT

3 2. (a) This contract shall become effective April 1, 2004, and shall remain in 

4 effect until and including March 31, 2044: Provided, Tthat under terms and conditions 

5 mutually agreeable to the parties hereto, renewals may be made for successive periods 

6 not to exceed forty (40) years each. The terms and conditions of each renewal shall be 

7 agreed upon not later than one (1) year prior to the expiration of the then existing 

8 contract:. 

9 (b) Provided further, That uUpon written request by the Contractor of the 

10 Secretary made not later than one (1) year prior to the expiration of this contract, 

11 whenever, account being taken of the amount then credited to the costs of construction of 

12 water supply works, the remaining amount of construction costs of water supply work 

13 which is properly assignable for ultimate return by the Contractor as established by the 

14 Secretary of the Interior pursuant to (3) of Section 1 of Public Law 643 (70 Stat. 483), 

15 probably can be repaid to the United States within the term of a contract under subsection 

16 (d), Section 9 of the 1939 Reclamation Project Act (53 Stat. 1187), then this contract may 

17 be converted to a contract under said subsection (d) upon terms and conditions mutually 

18 agreeable to the United States and the Contractor. The Secretary shall make a 

19 determination 10 years after the date of execution of this Contract, and every five years 

20 thereafter, of whether a conversion to a contract under said subsection (d) can be 

21 accomplished pursuant to Public Law 643.

22 Notwithstanding any provision of this contract, the Contractor reserves and 

23 shall have all rights and benefits under Public Law 643.
8

1 WATER TO BE FURNISHED TO CONTRACTOR

2 3. (a) Subject to the conditions, limitations, and provisions hereinafter expressed, 

3 the Contractor is hereby entitled and authorized to divert from the Sacramento River at 

4 the locations shown in Exhibit A, for beneficial use within the area delineated on Exhibit 

5 B, (both Exhibits are attached hereto and made a part hereof), the Contract Total 

6 designated in Exhibit A, or any revision thereof, in accordance with the monthly 

7 operating schedule required by Article 3(b) of this cContract. The quantity of any water 

8 diverted from the Sacramento River for use on any lands delineated on Exhibit B, by the 

9 owner of such lands or otherwise shall constitute a part of the Contract Total as shown on 

10 Exhibit A and shall be subject to all the provisions of this cContract relating to such 

11 Contract Total as if such diversion were made by the Contractor.

12 (b) The Contractor may have acquired rights to divert water from the 

13 Sacramento River during the period April to October, which were obtained after the date 

14 of execution of the Existing Contract. However, all diversions made from the 

15 Sacramento River during the period April to October are subject to the terms and 

16 conditions of this Contract, and the quantity of Base Supply and Project Water in the 

17 Existing Contract shall not be increased in this Contract.

18 (b c) The United States recognizes the need of the Contractor to vary from 

19 time to time its monthly diversions of water from the quantities shown in Exhibit A, or 

20 any revision thereof. Before April 1 of each Year the Contractor shall submit a written 

21 schedule to the Contracting Officer indicating the Contract Total to be diverted by the 

22 Contractor during each month. The United States shall furnish water to the Contractor in 

23 accordance with the monthly operating schedule or any revisions thereof: Provided, 
9

1 Tthat in no event shall the total quantity scheduled for diversion or diverted by the 

2 Contractor from the Sacramento River:

3 (1) During the period April through October exceed the aggregate of the 

4 Contract Total for those months shown in Exhibit A or any revision thereof;

5 (2) During the period July through September exceed the aggregate of the 

6 Contract Total for those months shown in Exhibit A or any revision thereof; and 

7 Provided, further, Tthat with the prior written approval of the Contracting Officer, water 

8 to be diverted in April, May, or June may be diverted in September or October, or vice 

9 versa. The Contractor shall be charged a fee, based upon the appropriate components of 

10 the water ratesetting policy for the Project, for the Base Supply scheduled for diversion in 

11 April, May, or June that is diverted in September or October, or vice versa. 

12 (c d) In the event conditions warrant, the Contracting Officer reserves the 

13 right to require the Contractor to submit, at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the 

14 beginning of each weekly period, its estimate of daily diversion requirements for each 

15 such period from the Sacramento River: Provided, however, Tthat changes during any 

16 such period may be made upon the giving of seventy-two (72) hours’ notice thereof to the 

17 Contracting Officer.

18 (d e) No sale, transfer, exchange, or other disposal of any water (such as 

19 forbearance of diversions) or the right to the use thereof for use on land other than that 

20 shown on Exhibit B shall be made by the Contractor without: 

21 (1) First obtaining the written consent of the Contracting Officer; and
10

1 (2) Compliance with all applicable State and Federal laws, including but 

2 not limited to the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, 

3 and applicable guidelines or regulations then in effect. 

4 (e f) Nothing herein contained shall prevent the Contractor from diverting 

5 water during the months of November through March for beneficial use on the land 

6 shown on Exhibit B to the extent authorized under the laws of the State of California.

7 (f g) The United States assumes no responsibility for and neither it nor its 

8 officers, agents, or employees shall have any liability for or on account of:

9 (1) The quality of water to be diverted by the Contractor;

10 (2) The control, carriage, handling, use, disposal, or distribution of water 

11 diverted by the Contractor outside the facilities constructed and then being operated and 

12 maintained by or on behalf of the United States;

13 (3) Claims of damage of any nature whatsoever, including but not limited 

14 to, property loss or damage, personal injury, or death arising out of or connected with the 

15 control, carriage, handling, use, disposal, or distribution of said water outside of the 

16 hereinabove referred to facilities; and

17 (4) Any damage whether direct or indirect arising out of or in any manner 

18 caused by a shortage of water whether such shortage be on account of errors in operation, 

19 drought, or unavoidable causes.

20 RETURN FLOW

21 4. The United States reserves the right to the use of all waste, seepage, and return 

22 flow water derived from water diverted by the Contractor hereunder and which escapes 

23 or is discharged beyond the boundaries of the lands shown on Exhibit B. Nothing herein 
11

1 shall be construed as an abandonment or a relinquishment by the United States of the 

2 right to the use of any such water; Provided, Tthat this shall not be construed as claiming 

3 for the United States any right to such water which is recovered by the Contractor 

4 pursuant to California law from within the boundaries of the lands shown on Exhibit B, 

5 and which is being used pursuant to this cContract for surface irrigation or underground 

6 storage on the lands shown on Exhibit B by the Contractor. (Colusa Basin Drain 

7 language may be required)

8 CONSTRAINTS ON THE AVAILABILITY OF WATER

9 5. (a) In any Water Year that (1) the forecasted full natural inflow to Shasta Lake 

10 for the current Water Year, as such forecast is made by the United States on or before 

11 February 15 and reviewed as frequently thereafter as conditions and information warrant, 

12 is equal to or less than three 3.8 million eight hundred thousand (3,800,000) acre-feet; or

13 (2) If the total accumulated actual deficiencies in the full natural inflow to Shasta 

14 Lake in the immediately prior Water Year or series of successive prior Water Years, each 

15 of which had inflows of less than four 4 million (4,000,000) acre-feet, together with the 

16 forecasted deficiency for the current Water Year, are between 200,000 acre-feet and 

17 800,000 acre-feet, then the following reductions in the Contractor’s monthly Contract 

18 Total shall be imposed:

19 Deficiency (acre-feet) Reduction

20 200,000 – 400,000 10 percent

21 400,001 – 600,000 15 percent

22 600,001 – 800,000 20 percent

23

24 (b) In a Critical Year, the Contractor’s Base Supply and Project Water agreed 

25 to be diverted during the period April through October of the Year in which the principal 
12

1 portion of the Critical Year occurs and, each monthly quantity of said period shall be 

2 reduced by twenty-five percent (25%). 

3 (c) The amount of any overpayment by the Contractor shall, at its option, be 

4 refunded or credited upon amounts to become due to the United States from the 

5 Contractor under the provisions hereof in the ensuing Year. To the extent of such 

6 deficiency such adjustment of overpayment shall constitute the sole remedy of the 

7 Contractor.

8 INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT AND PARTNERSHIPS

9 6. The Contractor and United States desire to work together to maximize the 

10 reasonable beneficial use of water to their mutual benefit. As a consequence, the United 

11 States will work in partnership with the Contractor and others within the Sacramento 

12 Valley to facilitate the better integration within the Sacramento Valley of all water 

13 supplies including, but not limited to, the better management and integration of surface 

14 water and groundwater, the development and better utilization of surface water storage, 

15 the effective utilization of waste, seepage and return flow water, and other operational 

16 and management options that may be identified in the future. 

17 USE OF WATER FURNISHED TO CONTRACTOR

18 67. (a) Project Water furnished to the Contractor pursuant to this cContract shall 

19 not be delivered or furnished by the Contractor for any purposes other than agricultural 

20 purposes without the written consent of the Contracting Officer. , including, For 

21 purposes of this Contract, “agricultural purposes” includes, but is not restricted to, the

22 watering of livestock, incidental domestic use including related landscape irrigation, or 

23 underground water replenishment without written consent of the Contracting Officer.
13

1 (b) The Contractor shall comply with requirements applicable to the 

2 Contractor in biological opinion(s) prepared as a result of a consultation regarding the 

3 execution of this Contract undertaken pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

4 Act of 1973, as amended, that are within the Contractor’s legal authority to implement. 

5 The Contractor shall comply with the limitations or requirements imposed by 

6 environmental documentation applicable to the Contractor and within its legal authority 

7 to implement regarding specific activities, including conversion of Irrigation Water to 

8 M&I Water. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the Contractor from 

9 challenging or seeking judicial relief in a court of competent jurisdiction with respect to 

10 any biological opinion or other environmental documentation referred to in this Article.

11 RATE AND METHOD OF PAYMENT FOR WATER

12 78. (a) The Contractor shall make payments to the United States as provided in 

13 this Article for all Project Water shown in Exhibit A of this cContract at Rates and 

14 Charges established in accordance with: (i) the Secretary’s then-current ratesetting 

15 policies for the Project; and (ii) applicable Reclamation law and associated rules and 

16 regulations, or policies: Provided, Tthat if the Contractor desires to use Project Water for 

17 other than agricultural use the Rates and Charges set forth above will be adjusted by the 

18 Contracting Officer to the applicable Rates and Charges for such use. The Rates and 

19 Charges applicable to the Contractor upon execution of this Contract are set forth in 

20 Exhibit “D”, as may be revised annually. The Secretary’s ratesetting policies for the 

21 Project shall be amended, modified, or superseded only through a public notice and 

22 comment procedure. 
14

1 (b) The Contracting Officer shall notify the Contractor of the Rates and 

2 Charges as follows:

3 (1) Prior to July 1 of each Year, the Contracting Officer shall provide the 

4 Contractor an estimate of the Charges for Project Water that will be applied to the period 

5 October 1, of the current Year, through September 30, of the following Year, and the 

6 basis for such estimate. The Contractor shall be allowed not less than two (2) months to 

7 review and comment on such estimates. On or before September 15 of each Year, the 

8 Contracting Officer shall notify the Contractor in writing of the Charges to be in effect 

9 during the period October 1 of the current Year, through September 30, of the following 

10 Year, and such notification shall revise Exhibit “D.”

11 (2) Prior to October 1 of each Year, the Contracting Officer shall make 

12 available to the Contractor an estimate of the Rates for Project Water for the following 

13 Year and the computations and cost allocations upon which those Rates are based. The 

14 Contractor shall be allowed not less than two (2) months to review and comment on such 

15 computations and cost allocations. By December 31 of each Year, the Contracting 

16 Officer shall provide the Contractor with the final Rates to be in effect for the upcoming 

17 Year, and such notification shall revise Exhibit “D”.

18 (c) The Contractor shall pay the United States for Project Water in the 

19 following manner:

20 (1) With respect to Rates, prior to May 1 of each Year, the Contractor 

21 shall pay the United States one-half (1/2) the total amount payable pursuant to 

22 subdivision (a) of this Article and the remainder shall be paid prior to July 1 or such later 

23 date or dates as may be specified by the United States in a written notice to the 
15

1 Contractor: Provided, however, Tthat if at any time during the Year the amount of Project 

2 Water diverted by the Contractor shall equal the amount for which payment has been 

3 made, the Contractor shall pay for the remaining amount of such water as shown in 

4 Exhibit A in advance of any further diversion of Project Water.

5 (2) With respect to Charges, the Contractor shall also make a payment to 

6 the United States, in addition to the Rate(s) in subdivision (c)(1) of this Article, at the 

7 Charges then in effect, before the end of the month following the month of delivery or 

8 transfer. The payments shall be consistent with the quantities of Project Water delivered 

9 or transferred. Adjustment for overpayment or underpayment of Charges shall be made 

10 through the adjustment of payments due to the United States for Charges for the next 

11 month. Any amount to be paid for past due payment of Charges shall be computed 

12 pursuant to Article 12 13 of this Contract.

13 (d) Payments to be made by the Contractor to the United States under this 

14 Contract may be paid from any revenues available to the Contractor.

15 (d1) (Contractor Specific)All revenues received by the United States from 

16 the Contractor relating to the delivery of Project Water or the delivery of non-Project 

17 water through Project facilities shall be allocated and applied in accordance with Federal 

18 Reclamation law and the associated rules or regulations, and the then current Project 

19 ratesetting policies for Irrigation Water.

20 (e) The Contracting Officer shall keep its accounts pertaining to the 

21 administration of the financial terms and conditions of its long-term water service and 

22 settlement contracts, in accordance with applicable Federal standards, so as to reflect the 

23 application of Project costs and revenues. The Contracting Officer shall, each Year upon 
16

1 request of the Contractor, provide to the Contractor a detailed accounting of all Project 

2 and Contractor expense allocations, the disposition of all Project and Contractor 

3 revenues, and a summary of all water delivery information. The Contracting Officer and 

4 the Contractor shall enter into good faith negotiations to resolve any discrepancies or 

5 disputes relating to accountings, reports, or information.

6 (f) The parties acknowledge and agree that the efficient administration of this 

7 Contract is their mutual goal. Recognizing that experience has demonstrated that 

8 mechanisms, policies, and procedures used for establishing Rates and Charges and/or for 

9 making and allocating payments, other than those set forth in this Article may be in the 

10 mutual best interest of the parties, it is expressly agreed that the parties may enter into 

11 agreements to modify the mechanisms, policies, and procedures for any of those purposes 

12 while this Contract is in effect without amendment of this Contract. 

13 (g) For the term of this cContract, Rates under the respective ratesetting 

14 policies for the Project will be established to recover only reimbursable operation and

15 maintenance (including any deficits) and capital costs of the Project, as those terms are 

16 used in the then-current Project ratesetting policies, and interest, where appropriate, 

17 except in instances where a minimum Rate is applicable in accordance with the relevant 

18 Project ratesetting policy. Proposed changes of significance in practices which 

19 implement the ratesetting policies for the Project will not be implemented until the 

20 Contracting Officer has provided the Contractor an opportunity to discuss the nature, 

21 need, and impact of the proposed change.

22 (h) Except as provided in subsections 3405(a)(1)(B) and 3405(f)

23 3407(d)(2)(a) of the CVPIA, the Rates for Project Water transferred, exchanged, or 
17

1 otherwise disposed of, by the Contractor shall be the Contractor’s Rates adjusted upward 

2 or downward to reflect the changed costs of delivery (if any) of the transferred, 

3 exchanged, or otherwise disposed of Project Water to the transferee’s point of delivery in 

4 accordance with the then-current ratesetting policies for the Project. If the Contractor is 

5 receiving lower Rates and Charges because of inability to pay and is transferring, 

6 exchanging, or otherwise disposing of Project Water to another entity whose Rates and 

7 Charges are not adjusted due to inability to pay, the Rates and Charges for transferred, 

8 exchanged, or otherwise disposed of Project Water shall be the Contractor’s Rates and 

9 Charges unadjusted for ability to pay.

10 (i) Pursuant to the Act of October 27, 1986 (100 Stat. 3050), the Contracting 

11 Officer is authorized to adjust determinations of ability to pay every five (5) years.

12 (j) Each payment to be made pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (b) of this 

13 Article shall be made at the office of the Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, 

14 File No. 11546, P.O Box 6000, San Francisco, California, 94160-1546, or at such other 

15 place as the United States may designate in a written notice to the said Contractor. 

16 Payments shall be made by cash transaction, wire, or any other mechanism as may be 

17 agreed to in writing by the Contractor and the Contracting Officer. In event there should 

18 be a default in the payment of the amount due, the delinquent payment provisions of 

19 Article 12 13 shall apply. The Contractor shall not be relieved of the whole or any part of 

20 its said obligation by, on account of, or notwithstanding, as the case may be:

21 (1) Its failure, refusal, or neglect to divert the quantity of Project Water as 

22 hereinabove provided;
18

1 (2) The default in payment to it by any water user of assessments, tolls, or 

2 other charges levied by or owing to said Contractor;

3 (3) Any judicial determination that any assessment, toll, or other charge 

4 referred to in subsection 8(c)(2) of this Contract is irregular, void, or ineffectual; or

5 (4) Any injunctive process enjoining or restraining the Contractor from 

6 making or collecting any such assessment, toll, or other charge referred to in subsection 

7 8(c)(2) of this Contract.

8 AGREEMENT ON WATER QUANTITIES

9 89. (a) During the term of this cContract and any renewals thereof:

10 (1) It shall constitute full agreement as between the United States and the 

11 Contractor as to the quantities of water and the allocation thereof between Base Supply 

12 and Project Water which may be diverted by the Contractor from the Sacramento River 

13 for beneficial use on the land shown on Exhibit B which said diversion, use, and 

14 allocation shall not be disturbed so long as the Contractor shall fulfill all of its obligations 

15 hereunder;

16 (2) Neither party shall not claim any right against the United States other 

17 party in conflict with the provisions hereof of this Article 9(a).

18 (b) Nothing herein contained is intended to or does limit rights of the 

19 Contractor against others than the United States or of the United States against any 

20 person other than the Contractor: Provided, however, Tthat in the event the Contractor, 

21 the United States, or any other person shall become a party to a general adjudication of 

22 rights to the use of water of the Sacramento River system, this cContract shall not 

23 jeopardize the rights or position of either party hereto or of any other person and the 
19

1 rights of all such persons in respect to the use of such water shall be determined in such 

2 proceedings the same as if this cContract had not been entered into, and if final judgment 

3 in any such general adjudication shall determine that the rights of the parties hereto are 

4 different from the rights as assumed herein, the United States shall submit it to the 

5 Contractor an amendment to give effect to such judgment and the cContract shall be 

6 deemed to have been amended accordingly unless within sixty (60) days after submission 

7 of such amendment to the Contractor, the Contractor elects to terminate the cContract or 

8 within the same period of time the parties agree upon mutually satisfactory amendments 

9 to give effect to such judgment: Provided, further, Tthat if, during the term of this 

10 Contract, the Contractor’s or the United States’ water rights are adjusted or affected, or 

11 the responsibility to meet flow, water quality and/or environmental requirements under

12 those water rights is modified (e.g., changes to the Delta Water Quality Control Plan and 

13 associated water right actions), by or through any final administrative or judicial 

14 proceeding, the Contractor and the United States shall negotiate appropriate adjustments 

15 to this cContract. 

16 (c) In the event this cContract terminates, the rights of the parties to thereafter 

17 divert and use water shall exist as if this cContract had not been entered into; and the fact 

18 that as a compromise settlement of a controversy as to the respective rights of the parties 

19 to divert and use water and the yield of such rights during the term hereof, this cContract 

20 places a limit on the Contract Total to be diverted annually by the Contractor during the 

21 cContract term and segregates it into Base Supply and Project Water shall not jeopardize 

22 the rights or position of either party with respect to its water rights or the yield thereof at 

23 all times after the cContract terminates. It is further agreed that the Contractor at all 
20

1 times will first use water to the use of which it is entitled by virtue of its own water 

2 rights, and neither the provisions of this cContract, action taken thereunder, nor payments 

3 made thereunder to the United States by the Contractor shall be construed as an 

4 admission that any part of the water used by the Contractor during the term of this 

5 cContract was in fact water to which it would not have been entitled under water rights 

6 owned by it nor shall receipt of payments thereunder by the United States from the 

7 Contractor be construed as an admission that any part of the water used by the Contractor 

8 during the term of this cContract was in fact water to which it would have been entitled 

9 under water rights owned by it.

10 MEASUREMENT OF WATER

11 910. (a) All water diverted by the Contractor from Sacramento River will be 

12 diverted at the existing point or points of diversion shown on Exhibit A or at such other 

13 points as may be mutually agreed upon in writing by the Contracting Officer and the 

14 Contractor. 

15 (b) All water diverted from the Sacramento River pursuant to this cContract 

16 will be measured or caused to be measured by the United States at each point of diversion 

17 with existing equipment or equipment to be installed, operated, and maintained by the 

18 United States, and/or others, under contract with and at the option of the United States. 

19 The equipment and methods used to make such measurement shall be in accordance with 

20 sound engineering practices. Upon request of the Contractor, the accuracy of such 

21 measurements will be investigated by the Contracting Officer and any errors appearing 

22 therein will be corrected.
21

1 (c) The right of ingress to and egress from all points of diversion is hereby 

2 granted to all authorized employees of the United States. The Contractor also hereby

3 grants to the United States the right to install, operate, maintain and replace such 

4 equipment on diversion or carriage facilities at each point of diversion as the Contracting 

5 Officer deems necessary.

6 (d) The Contractor shall not modify, alter, remove, or replace diversion 

7 facilities or do any other act which would alter the effectiveness or accuracy of the 

8 measuring equipment installed by the United States or its representatives unless and until 

9 the Contracting Officer has been notified with due diligence and has been given an 

10 opportunity to modify such measuring equipment in such manner as may be necessary or 

11 appropriate. In the event of an emergency the Contractor shall notify the United States 

12 within a reasonable time thereafter as to the existence of the emergency and the nature 

13 and extent of such modification, alteration, removal, or replacement of diversion 

14 facilities.

15 (e) The Contractor shall pay the United States for the costs to repair, relocate, 

16 or replace measurement equipment when the Contractor modifies, alters, removes, or 

17 replaces diversion or carriage facilities. 

18 (f) (Contractor Specific) By __________________[DATE] ________, the 

19 Contractor shall ensure that, unless the Contractor establishes an alternative measurement 

20 program satisfactory to the Contracting Officer, all surface water delivered for irrigation 

21 purposes on the lands delineated on Exhibit B is measured at each agricultural turnout. 

22 The water measuring devices or water measuring methods of comparable effectiveness 

23 must be acceptable to the Contracting Officer. The Contractor shall be responsible for 
22

1 installing, operating, and maintaining and repairing all such measuring devices and 

2 implementing all such water measuring methods at no cost to the United States. The 

3 Contractor shall inform the Contracting Officer in writing by April 30 of each Year of the 

4 monthly volume of surface water delivered to the lands delineated on Exhibit B during 

5 the previous Year. This information will be used by Reclamation to satisfy the water 

6 measurement requirements of the Contractor’s water conservation plan, as set forth in 

7 Article 28 29 of this Contract.

8 (g) All new surface water delivery systems installed within the lands 

9 delineated on Exhibit B after the effective date of this Contract shall also comply with the 

10 measurement provisions described in this Article.

11 RULES AND REGULATIONS

12 1011. The parties agree that the delivery of Project Water for irrigation use or use 

13 of Federal facilities pursuant to this Contract is subject to Federal Reclamation law, 

14 including but not limited to, the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C.390aa et 

15 seq.), as amended and supplemented, and the rules and regulations promulgated by the 

16 Secretary of the Interior under Federal Reclamation law. 

17 GENERAL OBLIGATION--BENEFITS CONDITIONED UPON PAYMENT

18

19 1112. (a) The obligation of the Contractor to pay the United States as provided 

20 in this Contract is a general obligation of the Contractor notwithstanding the manner in 

21 which the obligation may be distributed among the Contractor's water users and 

22 notwithstanding the default of individual water users in their obligations to the 

23 Contractor. 

24

25 (b) The payment of charges becoming due hereunder is a condition precedent 

26 to receiving benefits under this Contract. The United States shall not make water 

27 available to the Contractor through Project facilities during any period in which the 

28 Contractor may be in arrears in the advance payment of water rates due the United States. 

29 The Contractor shall not furnish water made available pursuant to this Contract for lands 
23

1 or parties which are in arrears in the advance payment of water rates levied or established 

2 by the Contractor. 

3

4 (c) With respect to subdivision (b) of this Article, the Contractor shall have 

5 no obligation to require advance payment for water rates which it levies.

6

7 CHARGES FOR DELINQUENT PAYMENTS

8

9 1213. (a) The Contractor shall be subject to interest, administrative and penalty 

10 charges on delinquent installments or payments. When a payment is not received by the 

11 due date, the Contractor shall pay an interest charge for each day the payment is 

12 delinquent beyond the due date. When a payment becomes sixty (60) days delinquent, 

13 the Contractor shall pay an administrative charge to cover additional costs of billing and 

14 processing the delinquent payment. When a payment is delinquent ninety (90) days or 

15 more, the Contractor shall pay an additional penalty charge of six (6%) percent per year 

16 for each day the payment is delinquent beyond the due date. Further, the Contractor shall 

17 pay any fees incurred for debt collection services associated with a delinquent payment. 

18

19 (b) The interest charge rate shall be the greater of the rate prescribed quarterly 

20 in the Federal Register by the Department of the Treasury for application to overdue 

21 payments, or the interest rate of one-half of one (0.5%) percent per month prescribed by 

22 Section 6 of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (Public Law 76-260). The interest 

23 charge rate shall be determined as of the due date and remain fixed for the duration of the 

24 delinquent period. 

25

26 (c) When a partial payment on a delinquent account is received, the amount 

27 received shall be applied, first to the penalty, second to the administrative charges, third 

28 to the accrued interest, and finally to the overdue payment.

29

30 QUALITY OF WATER

31 1314. The operation and maintenance of Project facilities shall be performed in 

32 such manner as is practicable to maintain the quality of raw water made available through 

33 such facilities at the highest level reasonably attainable as determined by the Contracting 

34 Officer. The United States does not warrant the quality of water and is under no 

35 obligation to construct or furnish water treatment facilities to maintain or better the 

36 quality of water.
24

1 WATER AND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

2 1415. The Contractor, in carrying out this Contract, shall comply with all 

3 applicable water and air pollution laws and regulations of the United States and the State 

4 of California, and shall obtain all required permits or licenses from the appropriate 

5 Federal, State, or local authorities.

6 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

7

8 1516. During the performance of this Contract, the Contractor agrees as follows:

9

10 (a) The Contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant 

11 for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Contractor 

12 will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees 

13 are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or 

14 national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

15 Employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; 

16 layoff or termination, rates of payment or other forms of compensation; and selection for 

17 training, including apprenticeship. The Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, 

18 available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the 

19 Contracting Officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.

20

21 (b) The Contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees 

22 placed by or on behalf of the Contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive 

23 consideration for employment without discrimination because of race, color, religion, 

24 sex, or national origin.

25

26 (c) The Contractor will send to each labor union or representative of workers 

27 with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a 

28 notice, to be provided by the Contracting Officer, advising the said labor union or 

29 workers' representative of the Contractor's commitments under Section 202 of Executive 

30 Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous 

31 places available to employees and applicants for employment.

32

33 (d) The Contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order No. 

34 11246 of September 24, 1965, as amended, and of the rules, regulations, and relevant 

35 orders of the Secretary of Labor. 

36

37 (e) The Contractor will furnish all information and reports required by said 

38 amended Executive Order and by the rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of 

39 Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to its books, records, and accounts by 

40 the Contracting Officer and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to 

41 ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations, and orders.
25

1

2 (f) In the event of the Contractor's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination 

3 clauses of this Contract or with any of the said rules, regulations, or orders, this Contract 

4 may be canceled, terminated, or suspended, in whole or in part, and the Contractor may 

5 be declared ineligible for further Government contracts in accordance with procedures 

6 authorized in said amended Executive Order, and such other sanctions may be imposed 

7 and remedies invoked as provided in said Executive Order, or by rule, regulation, or 

8 order of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by law.

9

10 (g) The Contractor will include the provisions of paragraphs (a) through (g) 

11 in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by the rules, regulations, or 

12 orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Section 204 of said amended 

13 Executive Order, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or 

14 vendor. The Contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase 

15 order as may be directed by the Secretary of Labor as a means of enforcing such 

16 provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance: Provided, however, Tthat in the 

17 event the Contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a 

18 subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction, the Contractor may request the 

19 United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.

20

21 COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS AND REGULATIONS

22 (For Districts Only)

23

24 1617. (a) The Contractor shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 

25 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1975 (P.L. 93-112, as 

26 amended), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101, et seq.) and any other 

27 applicable civil rights laws, as well as with their respective implementing regulations and 

28 guidelines imposed by the U.S. Department of the Interior and/or Bureau of Reclamation.

29

30 (b) These statutes require that no person in the United States shall, on the 

31 grounds of race, color, national origin, handicap, or age, be excluded from participation 

32 in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any 

33 program or activity receiving financial assistance from the Bureau of Reclamation. By 

34 executing this Contract, the Contractor agrees to immediately take any measures 

35 necessary to implement this obligation, including permitting officials of the United States 

36 to inspect premises, programs, and documents.

37

38 (c) The Contractor makes this agreement in consideration of and for the 

39 purpose of obtaining any and all Federal grants, loans, contracts, property discounts, or 

40 other Federal financial assistance extended after the date hereof to the Contractor by the

41 Bureau of Reclamation, including installment payments after such date on account of 

42 arrangements for Federal financial assistance which were approved before such date. 

43 The Contractor recognizes and agrees that such Federal assistance will be extended in 

44 reliance on the representations and agreements made in this Article, and that the United 

45 States reserves the right to seek judicial enforcement thereof.
26

1

2 MINGLING OF CONTRACTOR’S PROJECT AND NON-PROJECT WATER

3 1718. (a) Project Water must of necessity be transported by the Contractor to its 

4 water users by means of the same works and channels used for the transport of its non5 Project Water including Base Supply. Notwithstanding such mingling of water, the 

6 provisions of Article 11 hereof shall be applicable only to Project Water, and such 

7 mingling of water shall not in any manner subject to the provisions of Article 11 hereof 

8 the Contractor’s non-Project wWater including Base Supply.

9 (b) If required in accordance with subdivision (c) of this Article, the 

10 Contractor shall install and maintain such measuring equipment and distribution facilities 

11 and maintain such records as may be necessary to determine the amounts of water 

12 delivered to Excess Lands served by the Contractor. The Contractor shall not within any 

13 month deliver to Ineligible Lands water in excess of the non-Project Water, including 

14 Base Supply, for that month. The Contracting Officer or authorized representative shall 

15 have the right at all reasonable times to inspect such records and measuring equipment.

16 (c) The Contractor will not be considered in violation of the requirement that 

17 Project Water be delivered only to Eligible Lands during any month of the irrigation 

18 season that the water requirement for beneficial use on Eligible Lands for that month is 

19 equal to or in excess of the Project Water for that month as shown on Exhibit A or any 

20 revision thereof pursuant to subdivision (b) of Article 3. The water requirement for 

21 beneficial use on Eligible Lands will be determined by multiplying:

22 (1) the number of irrigable acres of the particular types of crops grown in 

23 that year on the acreage designated as eligible by
27

1 (2) the Unit Duties as set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and made a 

2 part hereof, or by such other Unit Duties mutually agreed upon by the Contractor and the 

3 Contracting Officer. In order to make the computation of the water requirement for 

4 Eligible Lands, on April 1 of each Year and concurrently with its order for water for the 

5 irrigation season, the Contractor shall designate the acreage of and type of crops to be 

6 grown on its Eligible Lands that irrigation season. During any month the water 

7 requirement as above determined for crops growing on Eligible Lands during such month 

8 is equal to or in excess of the Project Water for that month as provided herein the 

9 Contractor shall not be required to measure the water delivered to Excess Lands. Any 

10 month the said water requirement is less than the amount of Project Water as provided 

11 herein, the Contractor will be required to measure water delivered to excess land in 

12 accordance with subdivision (b) hereof.

13 BOOKS, RECORDS, AND REPORTS

14 1819. The Contractor shall establish and maintain accounts and other books and 

15 records pertaining to administration of the terms and conditions of this Contract, 

16 including: the Contractor's financial transactions, water supply data, and Project land and 

17 right-of-way agreements; the water users' land-use (crop census), land ownership, land18 leasing and water use data; and other matters that the Contracting Officer may require. 

19 Reports thereon shall be furnished to the Contracting Officer in such form and on such 

20 date or dates as the Contracting Officer may require. Subject to applicable Federal laws 

21 and regulations, each party to this Contract shall have the right during office hours to 

22 examine and make copies of each other’s books and official records relating to matters 

23 covered by this Contract. 

24

25 CHANGE OF PLACE OF USE OR ORGANIZATION

26 1920. (a) Unless the written consent of the United States is first obtained no 

27 change shall be made in the place of water use shown on Exhibit B. 

28 (b) While this cContract is in effect, no change shall be made in the area of 

29 the Contractor as shown on its Exhibit B, by inclusion or exclusion of lands, by 
28

1 dissolution, consolidation, or merger or otherwise, except upon the Contracting Officer’s 

2 written assent thereto. 

3 (c) In the event lands are excluded from the area of the Contractor, as 

4 provided herein, the quantity of Project Water to be diverted may be decreased pursuant

5 to a supplemental agreement to be executed in respect thereto.

6 CONSOLIDATION OF CONTRACTING ENTITIES

7 2021. Consolidation of Contractors may be approved by the Contracting Officer 

8 provided: (i) the Contracting Officer approves the form and organization of the resulting 

9 entity and the utilization by it of the Contract Total; and (ii) the obligations of the 

10 Contractor are assumed by such entity. 

11 No such consolidation shall be valid unless and until approved by the Contracting 

12 Officer.

13 NOTICES

14 2122. Any notice, demand, or request authorized or required by this Contract 

15 shall be deemed to have been given, on behalf of the Contractor, when mailed, postage 

16 prepaid, or delivered to the Area Manager, Northern California Area Office, Bureau of 

17 Reclamation, 16349 Shasta Dam Blvd., Shasta Lake, California, 96019, and on behalf of 

18 the United States, when mailed, postage prepaid, or delivered to the Board of Directors 

19 /City Council of the ________________________. The designation of the addressee or 

20 the address may be changed by notice given in the same manner as provided in this 

21 Article for other notices.

22

23 ASSIGNMENT LIMITED--SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS OBLIGATED

24

25 2223. (a) The provisions of this Contract shall apply to and bind the 

26 successors and assigns of the parties hereto, but no assignment or transfer of this Contract 

27 or any right or interest therein shall be valid until approved in writing by the Contracting 

28 Officer.

29

30 (b) The assignment of any right or interest in this Contract by either party 

31 shall not interfere with the rights or obligations of the other party to this Contract absent 

32 the written concurrence of said other party.

33
29

1 (c) The Contracting Officer shall not unreasonably condition or withhold his 

2 approval of any proposed assignment.

3

4 OFFICIALS NOT TO BENEFIT

5

6 2324. (a) No Member of or Delegate to Congress, Resident Commissioner, or 

7 official of the Contractor shall benefit from this Contract other than as a water user or 

8 landowner in the same manner as other water users or landowners.

9

10 (b) No officer or member of the governing board of the Contractor shall 

11 receive any benefit that may arise by reason of this cContract other than as a landowner 

12 within the Contractor’s service area and in the same manner as other landowners within 

13 the said service area.

14

15 CONTINGENT UPON APPROPRIATION OR ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS

16

17 2425. The expenditure or advance of any money or the performance of any 

18 obligation of the United States under this Contract shall be contingent upon appropriation 

19 or allotment of funds. Absence of appropriation or allotment of funds shall not relieve 

20 the Contractor from any obligations under this Contract. No liability shall accrue to the 

21 United States in case funds are not appropriated or allotted.

22

23 CONFIRMATION OF CONTRACT

24 2526. The Contractor, after the execution of this Contract, shall promptly seek to 

25 secure a decree of a court of competent jurisdiction of the State of California, if 

26 appropriate, confirming the execution of this cContract. The Contractor shall furnish the 

27 United States a certified copy of the final decree, the validation proceedings, and all 

28 pertinent supporting records of the court approving and confirming this Contract, and 

29 decreeing and adjudging it to be lawful, valid, and binding on the Contractor. This 

30 Contract shall not be binding on the United States until such final decree has been 

31 secured.

32 UNAVOIDABLE GROUNDWATER PERCOLATION

33 2627. To the extent applicable, the Contractor shall not be deemed to have 

34 delivered Project Water to Excess Lands or Ineligible Lands if such lands are irrigated 

35 with groundwater that reaches the underground strata as an unavoidable result of the 

36 delivery of Project Water by the Contractor to Eligible Lands.

37 PRIVACY ACT COMPLIANCE

38

39 2728. (a) The Contractor shall comply with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 

40 552a) (the Act) and the Department of the Interior rules and regulations under the Act (43 
30

1 CFR 2.45 et seq.) in maintaining Landholder acreage certification and reporting records, 

2 required to be submitted to the Contractor for compliance with Sections 206 and 228 of 

3 the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 1266), and pursuant to 43 CFR 426.18.

4

5 (b) With respect to the application and administration of the criminal penalty 

6 provisions of the Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(i)), the Contractor and the Contractor's employees 

7 responsible for maintaining the certification and reporting records referenced in (a) above 

8 are considered to be employees of the Department of the Interior. See 5 U.S.C. 552a(m). 

9

10 (c) The Contracting Officer or a designated representative shall provide the 

11 Contractor with current copies of the Interior Department Privacy Act regulations and the 

12 Bureau of Reclamation Federal Register Privacy Act System of Records Notice (Acreage 

13 Limitation--Interior, Reclamation-31) which govern the maintenance, safeguarding, and 

14 disclosure of information contained in the Landholder's certification and reporting 

15 records. 

16

17 (d) The Contracting Officer shall designate a full-time employee of the 

18 Bureau of Reclamation to be the System Manager who shall be responsible for making 

19 decisions on denials pursuant to 43 CFR 2.61 and 2.64 amendment requests pursuant to 

20 43 CFR 2.72. The Contractor is authorized to grant requests by individuals for access to 

21 their own records. 

22

23 (e) The Contractor shall forward promptly to the System Manager each 

24 proposed denial of access under 43 CFR 2.64; and each request for amendment of records 

25 filed under 43 CFR 2.71; notify the requester accordingly of such referral; and provide 

26 the System Manager with information and records necessary to prepare an appropriate 

27 response to the requester. These requirements do not apply to individuals seeking access 

28 to their own certification and reporting forms filed with the Contractor pursuant to 43 

29 CFR 426.18, unless the requester elects to cite the Privacy Act as a basis for the request.

30

31 WATER CONSERVATION

32 2829. (a) Prior to the diversion of Project Water, the Contractor shall be 

33 implementing an effective water conservation and efficiency program based on the 

34 Contractor's water conservation plan that has been determined by the Contracting Officer 

35 to meet the conservation and efficiency criteria for evaluating water conservation plans 

36 established under Federal law. The water conservation and efficiency program shall 

37 contain definite water conservation objectives, appropriate economically feasible water 

38 conservation measures, and time schedules for meeting those objectives. Continued 
31

1 diversion of Project Water pursuant to this Contract shall be contingent upon the 

2 Contractor’s continued implementation of such water conservation program. In the event 

3 the Contractor's water conservation plan or any revised water conservation plan 

4 completed pursuant to subdivision (c) of Article 28 29 of this Contract have not yet been 

5 determined by the Contracting Officer to meet such criteria, due to circumstances which 

6 the Contracting Officer determines are beyond the control of the Contractor, Project 

7 Water deliveries shall be made under this Contract so long as the Contractor diligently 

8 works with the Contracting Officer to obtain such determination at the earliest practicable 

9 date, and thereafter the Contractor immediately begins implementing its water 

10 conservation and efficiency program in accordance with the time schedules therein.

11 (b) The Contractor shall submit to the Contracting Officer a report on the 

12 status of its implementation of the water conservation plan on the reporting dates 

13 specified in the then existing conservation and efficiency criteria established under 

14 Federal law.

15 (c) At five (5)-year intervals, the Contractor shall revise its water 

16 conservation plan to reflect the then current conservation and efficiency criteria for 

17 evaluating water conservation plans established under Federal law and submit such 

18 revised water management plan to the Contracting Officer for review and evaluation. 

19 The Contracting Officer will then determine if the water conservation plan meets 

20 Reclamation’s then current conservation and efficiency criteria for evaluating water 

21 conservation plans established under Federal law. 

22 (d) If the Contractor is engaged in direct ground-water recharge, such activity 

23 shall be described in the Contractor’s water conservation plan.
32

1 OPINIONS AND DETERMINATIONS

2

3 2930. (a) Where the terms of this Contract provide for actions to be based upon 

4 the opinion or determination of either party to this Contract, said terms shall not be 

5 construed as permitting such action to be predicated upon arbitrary, capricious, or 

6 unreasonable opinions or determinations. Both parties, notwithstanding any other 

7 provisions of this Contract, expressly reserve the right to seek relief from and appropriate 

8 adjustment for any such arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable opinion or determination. 

9 Each opinion or determination by either party shall be provided in a timely manner. 

10 Nothing in subdivision (a) of Article 29 30 of this Contract is intended to or shall affect 

11 or alter the standard of judicial review applicable under federal law to any opinion or 

12 determination implementing a specific provision of federal law embodied in statute or 

13 regulation. 

14 (b) The Contracting Officer shall have the right to make determinations 

15 necessary to administer this Contract that are consistent with the provisions of this 

16 Contract, the laws of the United States and of the State of California, and the rules and 

17 regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior. Such determinations shall be 

18 made in consultation with the Contractor to the extent reasonably practicable.

19 CONTRACTOR TO PAY CERTAIN MISCELLANEOUS COSTS

20 3031. (a) In addition to all other payments to be made by the Contractor pursuant 

21 to this Contract, the Contractor shall pay to the United States, within sixty (60) days after 

22 receipt of a bill and detailed statement submitted by the Contracting Officer to the 

23 Contractor for such specific items of direct cost incurred by the United States for work 

24 requested by the Contractor associated with this Contract plus indirect costs in 
33

1 accordance with applicable Bureau of Reclamation policies and procedures. All such

2 amounts referred to in this Article shall not exceed the amount agreed to in writing in 

3 advance by the Contractor. This Article shall not apply to costs for routine contract 

4 administration.

5 (b) All advances for miscellaneous costs incurred for work requested by the 

6 Contractor pursuant to Article 30 31 of this Contract shall be adjusted to reflect the actual 

7 costs when the work has been completed. If the advances exceed the actual costs 

8 incurred, the difference will be refunded to the Contractor. If the actual costs exceed the 

9 Contractor's advances, the Contractor will be billed for the additional costs pursuant to 

10 Article 30 of this Contract.

11 WAIVER OF DEFAULT

12 3132. The waiver by either party to this cContract as to any default shall not be 

13 construed as a waiver of any other default or as authority of the other party to continue 

14 such default or to make, do, or perform, or not to make, do, or perform, as the case may 

15 be, any act or thing which would constitute a default.

16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this cContract as 

17 of the day and year first hereinabove written.

18

19 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

20

21

22

23 By: __________________________

24 Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region 

25 Bureau of Reclamation

26

27

28 (SEAL)

29

30

31
34

1 (Contractor)

2

3

4 By:______________________________

5 President

6

7

8 ATTEST:

9

10

11 ________________________________

12 Secretary

13

14

15 (I:\Sac River Renewal\Contract Draft and Support Docs\Sac R Std Form Draft 6-21.doc)

16
35

1 EXHIBIT D

2

3 2002 Water Rates and Charges for Contract No. ##-##-###-#####

4 Contractor Name - Sacramento River

5

6 

7

8 Per Acre-Foot 

9 

10 COST OF SERVICE RATES:

11

12 Capital Rates $ 4.24 

13

14 O&M Rates:

15

16 Water Marketing 5.66

17 Storage 4.87

18

19 Deficit Rates:

20

21 Interest Bearing 3.34

22

23 TOTAL $18.11

24

25 FULL-COST RATES:

26

27 Section 202(3) Rate is applicable to a

28 Qualified Recipient or to a Limited

29 Recipient receiving irrigation water

30 on or before October 1, 1981. $22.12

31

32 Section 205(a)(3) Rate is applicable to a Limited 

33 Recipient that did not receive irrigation water on or 

34 before October 1, 1981. $24.47

35

36

37 CHARGES UNDER P.L. 102-575 TO THE

38 RESTORATION FUND 1/

39

40 Restoration Payments (3407(d)(2)(A)) $ 7.54 

41

42

43 1/ Restoration fund charges are payments in addition to the water rates and were 

44 determined pursuant to Title XXXIV of Public Law 102-575. Restoration fund charges 

45 are on a fiscal year basis (10/1 - 9/30).
Appendix D

Needs Analyses
RDD/041600030 (CAH2717.doc) Administrative DRAFT—SUBJECT TO REVISION 

ANDERSON-COTTONWOOD ID Water Needs AssessmentContractor ID: 202870Settlement Contractor's Water Supply Sources and Quantities 

 Surface Water Supply Groundwater Su

Reference USBR Trsfr / T

Safe Total

Timefra Delivery Total SWP Loca Local Rtrn / District Private Yi

me 2 Deliv/Max 4 l Source Recycle In Out 9 1

1 3 5 6 8 10 

1995 BWMP 103,270 139,801 0 0 5,000 10,000 3,400 0 32020 BWMP 175,000 * 175,000 0 0 5,000 10,000 3,400 0 32021 175,000 * 175,000 0 0 5,000 10,000 3,400 0 32022 175,000 * 175,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Contractor's Agricultural Water Demands Maximum P

District Reference Calculated USBR Net Average Reference

Crop Irrig. Effectiv Crop Calculate USBR 

Water Efficiency e Effective Net Crop Water Req Irrigated Irrigated d FDR 

Timefra Requireme Precip Precip Water Req (acre-feet) Acres FDR (AF/acr 

me nt (%) (acre-fe (acre-ft) Acres (acres) (AF/acre e) 

1 (acre-feet) 16 et) 18 (acre-feet 20 (acres) 22 ) 24 

1995 56,100 66 13,900 7,750 64,200 34,100 13,900 7,750 4.62 4.40 2020 51,876 85 11,790 11,790 47,160 47,160 13,100 13,100 3.60 3.60 2021 51,876 85 11,790 11,790 47,160 47,160 13,100 13,100 3.60 3.60 2022 51,876 85 11,790 11,790 47,160 47,160 13,100 13,100 3.60 3.60 

Contractor's M&&I Water

Residential Water Demand Nonresidential Water Demand Loss

Per Total Comm / Total Unacc. / Ref Urban 

Total Ag + Unmet

Capita Demand Industrial Instit. Demand Distr. Per 

M&&I Dmd Demand

Populatio Demand (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet Capita Capita Demand 

Timefram n (gpcd) ) ) ) ) ) Dmd Dmd (acre-feet 

e 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 (gpcd) (gpcd) ) 

1995 0 0 0 2020 0 0 0 2021 0 0 0 2022 0 0 0 

* Represents Maximum ContractNotes: Conveyance loss = 20% operational spills [col. 25] and 27% seepage loss [col. 12] (TM 2) of the crop water requirement [col. 19]. 10,000 ac-ft tr

critical months/normal year from (TM 6, pg 3-1). 3,400 ac-ft groundwater (from Groundwater Hydrology Tech. Memo, pg. 4). Column 3, 1995 deNormalized delivery data to correspond with 1995 Normalized crop data. 139,801ac-ft = ave. deliveries through 1997 excluding 1975-1980, 1983 Trsfr/Rtrn/Recycle In and GW Recharge quantities are from TM-3. 2021 Conveyance and Seepage losses are limited to no more than 10% of c[col. 19].2022 represents 2021 conditions excepting that all supplies are limited to contract quantities. Seepage and spills identified in BWMP are considelosses but are limited to no more than 10% of crop water requirement [col. 19]. Future efficiencies are set to 85% because there are no drainwatquality concerns.
RDD/041600030 (CAH2717.doc) Administrative DRAFT—SUBJECT TO REVISION 

DAVIS, OLIVE P ET AL Water Needs AssessmentContractor ID: 206019Settlement Contractor's Water Supply Sources and Quantities 

 Surface Water Supply Groundwater Su

Reference USBR Trsfr / T

Safe Total

Timefra Delivery Total SWP Loca Local Rtrn / District Private Yi

me 2 Deliv/Max 4 l Source Recycle In Out 9 1

1 3 5 6 8 10 

1995 0 21,748 0 0 0 0 8 0 2020 0 24,939 0 0 0 0 179 0 2021 0 31,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Contractor's Agricultural Water Demands Maximum P

District Reference Calculated USBR Net Average Reference

Crop Irrig. Effectiv Crop Calculate USBR 

Water Efficiency e Effective Net Crop Water Req Irrigated Irrigated d FDR 

Timefra Requireme Precip Precip Water Req (acre-feet) Acres FDR (AF/acr 

me nt (%) (acre-fe (acre-ft) Acres (acres) (AF/acre e) 

1 (acre-feet) 16 et) 18 (acre-feet 20 (acres) 22 ) 24 

1995 23,876 75 1,910 1,910 29,288 29,288 6,367 6,367 4.60 4.60 2020 29,040 85 1,357 1,357 32,568 32,568 6,785 6,785 4.80 4.80 2021 29,040 85 1,357 1,357 32,568 32,568 6,785 6,785 4.80 4.80 

Contractor's M&&I Water

Residential Water Demand Nonresidential Water Demand Loss

Per Total Comm / Total Unacc. / Ref Urban 

Total Ag + Unmet

Capita Demand Industrial Instit. Demand Distr. Per 

M&&I Dmd Demand

Populatio Demand (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet Capita Capita Demand 

Timefram n (gpcd) ) ) ) ) ) Dmd Dmd (acre-feet 

e 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 (gpcd) (gpcd) ) 

1995 0 0 0 2020 0 0 0 2021 0 0 0 

* Represents Maximum ContractNotes:
RDD/041600030 (CAH2717.doc) Administrative DRAFT—SUBJECT TO REVISION 

GLENN-COLUSA ID Water Needs AssessmentContractor ID: 202900Settlement Contractor's Water Supply Sources and Quantities 

 Surface Water Supply Groundwater Su

Reference USBR Trsfr / T

Safe Total

Timefra Delivery Total SWP Loca Local Rtrn / District Private Yi

me 2 Deliv/Max 4 l Source Recycle In Out 9 1

1 3 5 6 8 10 

1995 BWMP 514,390 732,708 0 44,990 Water Rights 155,000 20,000 17,000 0 1002020 BWMP 825,000 * 825,000 0 44,990 Water Rights 155,000 20,000 17,000 0 1002021 825,000 * 825,000 0 44,990 Water Rights 155,000 20,000 17,000 0 1002022 825,000 * 825,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

Contractor's Agricultural Water Demands Maximum P

District Reference Calculated USBR Net Average Reference

Crop Irrig. Effectiv Crop Calculate USBR 

Water Efficiency e Effective Net Crop Water Req Irrigated Irrigated d FDR 

Timefra Requireme Precip Precip Water Req (acre-feet) Acres FDR (AF/acr 

me nt (%) (acre-fe (acre-ft) Acres (acres) (AF/acre e) 

1 (acre-feet) 16 et) 18 (acre-feet 20 (acres) 22 ) 24 

1995 433,660 64 39,060 34,284 613,695 639,968 130,200 114,280 4.71 5.60 2020 588,240 80 41,040 41,040 684,000 684,000 136,800 136,800 5.00 5.00 2021 588,240 80 41,040 41,040 684,000 684,000 136,800 136,800 5.00 5.00 2022 588,240 80 41,040 41,040 684,000 684,000 136,800 136,800 5.00 5.00 

Contractor's M&&I Water

Residential Water Demand Nonresidential Water Demand Loss

Per Total Comm / Total Unacc. / Ref Urban 

Total Ag + Unmet

Capita Demand Industrial Instit. Demand Distr. Per 

M&&I Dmd Demand

Populatio Demand (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet Capita Capita Demand 

Timefram n (gpcd) ) ) ) ) ) Dmd Dmd (acre-feet 

e 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 (gpcd) (gpcd) ) 

1995 0 0 0 2020 0 0 0 2021 0 0 0 2022 0 0 0 

* Represents Maximum ContractNotes: Conveyance loss = 5% operational spills [col. 25] and 13% seepage loss [col. 12] (TM 2) of the crop water requirement (col. 19). 17,000 ac-ft gr

Groundwater Hydrology Tech. Memo, pg. 13. GW Safe Yield from (TM 3). Column 3, 1995 deliveries represent Normalized delivery data to corrNormalized crop data. 732,708 ac-ft = ave. deliveries through 1997 excluding 1977, 1983, 1991, 1992, 1994. Trsfr/Rtrn/Recycle In quantities arConveyance and Seepage losses are limited to no more than 10% of crop water requirement [col. 19].2022 represents 2021 conditions excepting that all supplies are limited to contract quantities. Seepage and spills identified in BWMP are considelosses but are limited to no more than 10% of crop water requirement [col. 19].
RDD/041600030 (CAH2717.doc) Administrative DRAFT—SUBJECT TO REVISION 

M. AND T. CHICO RANCH INC. Water Needs AssessmentContractor ID: 206071Settlement Contractor's Water Supply Sources and Quantities 

 Surface Water Supply Groundwater Su

Reference USBR Trsfr / T

Safe Total

Timefra Delivery Total SWP Loca Local Rtrn / District Private Yi

me 2 Deliv/Max 4 l Source Recycle In Out 9 1

1 3 5 6 8 10 

1997 0 16,496 0 3,865 Butte Creek 0 0 1,540 0 2020 0 16,500 0 4,000 Butte Creek 0 0 2,000 0 2021 0 17,956 0 4,000 Butte Creek 0 0 0 0 

Contractor's Agricultural Water Demands Maximum P

District Reference Calculated USBR Net Average Reference

Crop Irrig. Effectiv Crop Calculate USBR 

Water Efficiency e Effective Net Crop Water Req Irrigated Irrigated d FDR 

Timefra Requireme Precip Precip Water Req (acre-feet) Acres FDR (AF/acr 

me nt (%) (acre-fe (acre-ft) Acres (acres) (AF/acre e) 

1 (acre-feet) 16 et) 18 (acre-feet 20 (acres) 22 ) 24 

1997 20,365 75 3,182 3,182 22,910 22,910 6,364 6,364 3.60 3.60 2020 21,574 85 3,182 3,182 21,638 21,638 6,364 6,364 3.40 3.40 2021 21,574 85 3,182 3,182 21,638 21,638 6,364 6,364 3.40 3.40 

Contractor's M&&I Water

Residential Water Demand Nonresidential Water Demand Loss

Per Total Comm / Total Unacc. / Ref Urban 

Total Ag + Unmet

Capita Demand Industrial Instit. Demand Distr. Per 

M&&I Dmd Demand

Populatio Demand (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet Capita Capita Demand 

Timefram n (gpcd) ) ) ) ) ) Dmd Dmd (acre-feet 

e 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 (gpcd) (gpcd) ) 

1997 0 0 0 2020 0 0 0 2021 0 0 0 

* Represents Maximum ContractNotes:
RDD/041600030 (CAH2717.doc) Administrative DRAFT—SUBJECT TO REVISION 

MAXWELL ID Water Needs AssessmentContractor ID: 202910Settlement Contractor's Water Supply Sources and Quantities 

 Surface Water Supply Groundwater Su

Reference USBR Trsfr / T

Safe Total

Timefra Delivery Total SWP Loca Local Rtrn / District Private Yi

me 2 Deliv/Max 4 l Source Recycle In Out 9 1

1 3 5 6 8 10 

1995 BWMP 11,480 4,028 0 41,670 Water Rights 0 5,500 0 0 2020 BWMP 17,980 * 17,980 0 41,670 Water Rights 0 5,500 0 0 2021 17,980 * 17,980 0 41,670 Water Rights 0 5,500 0 0 2022 17,980 * 17,980 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Contractor's Agricultural Water Demands Maximum P

District Reference Calculated USBR Net Average Reference

Crop Irrig. Effectiv Crop Calculate USBR 

Water Efficiency e Effective Net Crop Water Req Irrigated Irrigated d FDR 

Timefra Requireme Precip Precip Water Req (acre-feet) Acres FDR (AF/acr 

me nt (%) (acre-fe (acre-ft) Acres (acres) (AF/acre e) 

1 (acre-feet) 16 et) 18 (acre-feet 20 (acres) 22 ) 24 

1995 17,300 64 1,000 676 25,500 20,618 5,000 3,380 5.10 6.10 2020 23,400 80 1,000 1,000 28,000 28,000 5,000 5,000 5.60 5.60 2021 23,400 80 1,000 1,000 28,000 28,000 5,000 5,000 5.60 5.60 2022 23,400 80 1,000 1,000 28,000 28,000 5,000 5,000 5.60 5.60 

Contractor's M&&I Water

Residential Water Demand Nonresidential Water Demand Loss

Per Total Comm / Total Unacc. / Ref Urban 

Total Ag + Unmet

Capita Demand Industrial Instit. Demand Distr. Per 

M&&I Dmd Demand

Populatio Demand (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet Capita Capita Demand 

Timefram n (gpcd) ) ) ) ) ) Dmd Dmd (acre-feet 

e 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 (gpcd) (gpcd) ) 

1995 0 0 0 2020 0 0 0 2021 0 0 0 2022 0 0 0 

* Represents Maximum ContractNotes: Conveyance loss = 5% operational spills [col. 25] and 15% seepage loss [col. 12] (TM 2) of the crop water requirement [col. 19]. 5,500 ac-ft tran

 MWC in 1995 (USBR records). Column 3, 1995 deliveries represent Normalized delivery data to correspond with 1995 Normalized crop data. 4deliveries through 1997 excluding 1977, 1983, 1991, 1992, 1994. Trsfr/Rtrn/Recycle In quantities are from TM-3. 2021 Conveyance and Seepa no more than 10% of crop water requirement [col. 19].2022 represents 2021 conditions excepting that all supplies are limited to contract quantities. Seepage and spills identified in BWMP are considelosses but are limited to no more than 10% of crop water requirement [col. 19].
RDD/041600030 (CAH2717.doc) Administrative DRAFT—SUBJECT TO REVISION 

MERIDIAN FARMS WATER CO. Water Needs AssessmentContractor ID: 202920Settlement Contractor's Water Supply Sources and Quantities 

 Surface Water Supply Groundwater Su

Reference USBR Trsfr / T

Safe Total

Timefra Delivery Total SWP Loca Local Rtrn / District Private Yi

me 2 Deliv/Max 4 l Source Recycle In Out 9 1

1 3 5 6 8 10 

1995 BWMP 19,235 24,741 0 12,688 28,720 26 1,000 0 2020 BWMP 35,000 * 35,000 0 12,688 26,950 26 1,000 0 2021 35,000 * 35,000 0 12,688 26,950 26 1,000 0 2022 35,000 * 35,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Contractor's Agricultural Water Demands Maximum P

District Reference Calculated USBR Net Average Reference

Crop Irrig. Effectiv Crop Calculate USBR 

Water Efficiency e Effective Net Crop Water Req Irrigated Irrigated d FDR 

Timefra Requireme Precip Precip Water Req (acre-feet) Acres FDR (AF/acr 

me nt (%) (acre-fe (acre-ft) Acres (acres) (AF/acre e) 

1 (acre-feet) 16 et) 18 (acre-feet 20 (acres) 22 ) 24 

1995 22,660 58 2,760 2,293 34,300 25,222 9,200 7,643 3.73 3.30 2020 29,876 80 1,940 1,940 34,920 34,920 9,700 9,700 3.60 3.60 2021 29,568 80 1,920 1,920 34,560 34,560 9,600 9,600 3.60 3.60 2022 6,984 80 1,920 1,920 34,560 34,560 9,600 9,600 3.60 3.60 

Contractor's M&&I Water

Residential Water Demand Nonresidential Water Demand Loss

Per Total Comm / Total Unacc. / Ref Urban 

Total Ag + Unmet

Capita Demand Industrial Instit. Demand Distr. Per 

M&&I Dmd Demand

Populatio Demand (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet Capita Capita Demand 

Timefram n (gpcd) ) ) ) ) ) Dmd Dmd (acre-feet 

e 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 (gpcd) (gpcd) ) 

1995 0 0 0 2020 0 0 0 2021 0 0 0 2022 0 0 0 

* Represents Maximum ContractNotes: Conveyance loss = 10% operational spills [col. 25] and 15% seepage loss [col. 12] (TM 2) of the crop water requirement [col. 19]. 26 ac-ft transf

in 1995 (USBR records). 1,000 ac-ft groundwater pumping during critical months/normal year (TM 6, pg. 10-1). Column 3, 1995 deliveries repre data to correspond with 1995 Normalized crop data. 24,741 ac-ft = ave. deliveries through 1997 excluding 1977, 1991, 1992, 1994. Trsfr/Rtrn/R from TM-3 and represents 40% of crop water requirement plus 15,000 ac-ft from outside sources. 2021 Conveyance and Seepage Losses are l10% of crop water requirement [col. 19].2022 represents 2021 conditions excepting that all supplies are limited to contract quantities. Seepage and spills identified in BWMP are considelosses but are limited to no more than 10% of crop water requirement [col. 19].
RDD/041600030 (CAH2717.doc) Administrative DRAFT—SUBJECT TO REVISION 

NATOMAS CENTRAL MWC Water Needs AssessmentContractor ID: 202940Settlement Contractor's Water Supply Sources and Quantities 

 Surface Water Supply Groundwater Su

Reference USBR Trsfr / T

Safe Total

Timefra Delivery Total SWP Loca Local Rtrn / District Private Yi

me 2 Deliv/Max 4 l Source Recycle In Out 9 1

1 3 5 6 8 10 

1995 BWMP 70,911 96,539 0 2,500 Water Rights 36,000 0 15,000 0 2020 BWMP 120,200 * 120,200 0 2,500 Water Rights 36,000 0 15,000 0 2021 120,200 * 120,200 0 2,500 Water Rights 36,000 0 15,000 0 2022 120,200 * 120,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Contractor's Agricultural Water Demands Maximum P

District Reference Calculated USBR Net Average Reference

Crop Irrig. Effectiv Crop Calculate USBR 

Water Efficiency e Effective Net Crop Water Req Irrigated Irrigated d FDR 

Timefra Requireme Precip Precip Water Req (acre-feet) Acres FDR (AF/acr 

me nt (%) (acre-fe (acre-ft) Acres (acres) (AF/acre e) 

1 (acre-feet) 16 et) 18 (acre-feet 20 (acres) 22 ) 24 

1995 95,210 55 3,410 2,406 166,100 132,341 34,100 24,062 4.87 5.50 2020 82,112 85 4,260 4,260 91,590 91,590 21,300 21,300 4.30 4.30 2021 82,112 85 4,260 4,260 91,590 91,590 21,300 21,300 4.30 4.30 2022 82,112 85 4,260 4,260 91,590 91,590 21,300 21,300 4.30 4.30 

Contractor's M&&I Water

Residential Water Demand Nonresidential Water Demand Loss

Per Total Comm / Total Unacc. / Ref Urban 

Total Ag + Unmet

Capita Demand Industrial Instit. Demand Distr. Per 

M&&I Dmd Demand

Populatio Demand (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet Capita Capita Demand 

Timefram n (gpcd) ) ) ) ) ) Dmd Dmd (acre-feet 

e 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 (gpcd) (gpcd) ) 

1995 0 0 0 2020 0 0 0 2021 0 0 0 2022 0 0 0 

* Represents Maximum ContractNotes: Conveyance loss = 10% operational spills [col. 25] and 10% seepage loss [col. 12] (TM 2) of the crop water requirement [col. 19]. 15,000 ac-ft 

Groundwater Hydrology Tech. Memo, pg. 70. Column 3, 1995 deliveries represent Normalized delivery data to correspond with 1995 Normalized = ave. deliveries through 1997 excluding 1977, 1983, 1991, 1992, 1994. Trsfr/Rtrn/Recycle In quantities are from TM-3. 2021 Conveyance and limited to no more than 10% of crop water requirement [col. 19].2022 represents 2021 conditions excepting that all supplies are limited to contract quantities. Seepage and spills identified in BWMP are considelosses but are limited to no more than 10% of crop water requirement [col. 19]. Future efficiencies are set to 85% because there are no drainwatquality concerns.
RDD/041600030 (CAH2717.doc) Administrative DRAFT—SUBJECT TO REVISION 

PELGER MWC Water Needs AssessmentContractor ID: 202950Settlement Contractor's Water Supply Sources and Quantities 

 Surface Water Supply Groundwater Su

Reference USBR Trsfr / T

Safe Total

Timefra Delivery Total SWP Loca Local Rtrn / District Private Yi

me 2 Deliv/Max 4 l Source Recycle In Out 9 1

1 3 5 6 8 10 

1995 BWMP 6,230 4,139 0 0 5,060 0 0 0 2020 BWMP 8,860 * 8,860 0 0 4,147 0 0 0 2021 8,860 * 8,860 0 0 4,147 0 0 0 2022 8,860 * 8,860 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Contractor's Agricultural Water Demands Maximum P

District Reference Calculated USBR Net Average Reference

Crop Irrig. Effectiv Crop Calculate USBR 

Water Efficiency e Effective Net Crop Water Req Irrigated Irrigated d FDR 

Timefra Requireme Precip Precip Water Req (acre-feet) Acres FDR (AF/acr 

me nt (%) (acre-fe (acre-ft) Acres (acres) (AF/acre e) 

1 (acre-feet) 16 et) 18 (acre-feet 20 (acres) 22 ) 24 

1995 6,280 62 580 517 9,200 12,915 2,900 2,583 3.17 5.00 2020 7,540 80 580 580 8,700 8,700 2,900 2,900 3.00 3.00 2021 7,540 80 580 580 8,700 8,700 2,900 2,900 3.00 3.00 2022 7,540 80 580 580 8,700 8,700 2,900 2,900 3.00 3.00 

Contractor's M&&I Water

Residential Water Demand Nonresidential Water Demand Loss

Per Total Comm / Total Unacc. / Ref Urban 

Total Ag + Unmet

Capita Demand Industrial Instit. Demand Distr. Per 

M&&I Dmd Demand

Populatio Demand (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet Capita Capita Demand 

Timefram n (gpcd) ) ) ) ) ) Dmd Dmd (acre-feet 

e 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 (gpcd) (gpcd) ) 

1995 0 0 0 2020 0 0 0 2021 0 0 0 2022 0 0 0 

* Represents Maximum ContractNotes: Conveyance loss = 5% operational spills [col.25] and 10% seepage loss [col. 12] (TM 2) of the crop water requirement [col. 19]. Column 3, 1995 

Normalized delivery data to correspond with 1995 Normalized crop data. 4,139 ac-ft = ave. deliveries through 1997 excluding 1977, 1983, 1991, Trsfr/Rtrn/Recycle In quantities are from TM-3 and represents 55% of Crop Water Requirement. 2021 Conveyance and Seepage Losses are lim10% of crop water requirement [col. 19].2022 represents 2021 conditions excepting that all supplies are limited to contract quantities. Seepage and spills identified in BWMP are considelosses but are limited to no more than 10% of crop water requirement [col. 19].
RDD/041600030 (CAH2717.doc) Administrative DRAFT—SUBJECT TO REVISION 

PLEASANT GROVE-VERONA Water Needs AssessmentContractor ID: 202960Settlement Contractor's Water Supply Sources and Quantities 

 Surface Water Supply Groundwater Su

Reference USBR Trsfr / T

Safe Total

Timefra Delivery Total SWP Loca Local Rtrn / District Private Yi

me 2 Deliv/Max 4 l Source Recycle In Out 9 1

1 3 5 6 8 10 

1997 26,290 * 18,105 0 0 13,000 0 0 0 1999 26,290 * 18,837 0 0 13,000 0 0 0 2000 26,290 * 19,370 0 0 13,000 0 0 0 2022 26,290 * 26,290 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Contractor's Agricultural Water Demands Maximum P

District Reference Calculated USBR Net Average Reference

Crop Irrig. Effectiv Crop Calculate USBR 

Water Efficiency e Effective Net Crop Water Req Irrigated Irrigated d FDR 

Timefra Requireme Precip Precip Water Req (acre-feet) Acres FDR (AF/acr 

me nt (%) (acre-fe (acre-ft) Acres (acres) (AF/acre e) 

1 (acre-feet) 16 et) 18 (acre-feet 20 (acres) 22 ) 24 

1997 23,803 75 1,205 1,205 30,130 30,130 6,026 6,026 5.00 5.00 1999 24,755 75 1,253 1,253 31,335 31,335 6,267 6,267 5.00 5.00 2000 25,434 75 1,264 1,264 32,227 32,227 6,319 6,319 5.10 5.10 2022 25,669 85 1,303 1,303 28,666 28,666 6,515 6,515 4.40 4.40 

Contractor's M&&I Water

Residential Water Demand Nonresidential Water Demand Loss

Per Total Comm / Total Unacc. / Ref Urban 

Total Ag + Unmet

Capita Demand Industrial Instit. Demand Distr. Per 

M&&I Dmd Demand

Populatio Demand (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet Capita Capita Demand 

Timefram n (gpcd) ) ) ) ) ) Dmd Dmd (acre-feet 

e 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 (gpcd) (gpcd) ) 

1997 0 0 0 1999 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 2022 0 0 0 

* Represents Maximum ContractNotes:
RDD/041600030 (CAH2717.doc) Administrative DRAFT—SUBJECT TO REVISION 

PRINCETON-CODORA-GLENN ID Water Needs AssessmentContractor ID: 202970Settlement Contractor's Water Supply Sources and Quantities 

 Surface Water Supply Groundwater Su

Reference USBR Trsfr / T

Safe Total

Timefra Delivery Total SWP Loca Local Rtrn / District Private Yi

me 2 Deliv/Max 4 l Source Recycle In Out 9 1

1 3 5 6 8 10 

1995 BWMP 43,377 56,240 0 8,930 Water Rights 20,000 26 3,800 0 2020 BWMP 67,810 * 67,810 0 8,930 Water Rights 25,000 26 3,800 0 2021 67,810 * 67,810 0 8,930 Water Rights 25,000 26 3,800 0 2022 67,810 * 67,810 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Contractor's Agricultural Water Demands Maximum P

District Reference Calculated USBR Net Average Reference

Crop Irrig. Effectiv Crop Calculate USBR 

Water Efficiency e Effective Net Crop Water Req Irrigated Irrigated d FDR 

Timefra Requireme Precip Precip Water Req (acre-feet) Acres FDR (AF/acr 

me nt (%) (acre-fe (acre-ft) Acres (acres) (AF/acre e) 

1 (acre-feet) 16 et) 18 (acre-feet 20 (acres) 22 ) 24 

1995 32,680 64 1,980 1,751 47,600 49,904 9,900 8,755 4.81 5.70 2020 45,114 80 3,090 3,090 52,530 52,530 10,300 10,300 5.10 5.10 2021 45,492 80 3,060 3,060 53,040 53,040 10,200 10,200 5.20 5.20 2022 45,492 80 3,060 3,060 53,040 53,040 10,200 10,200 5.20 5.20 

Contractor's M&&I Water

Residential Water Demand Nonresidential Water Demand Loss

Per Total Comm / Total Unacc. / Ref Urban 

Total Ag + Unmet

Capita Demand Industrial Instit. Demand Distr. Per 

M&&I Dmd Demand

Populatio Demand (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet Capita Capita Demand 

Timefram n (gpcd) ) ) ) ) ) Dmd Dmd (acre-feet 

e 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 (gpcd) (gpcd) ) 

1995 0 0 0 2020 0 0 0 2021 0 0 0 2022 0 0 0 

* Represents Maximum ContractNotes: Conveyance loss = 10% operational [col. 25] spills and 20% seepage loss [col. 12] (TM 2) of the crop water requirement [col. 19]. 26 ac-ft transf

in 1995 (USBR records). 3,800 ac-ft groundwater from Groundwater Hydrology Tech. Memo, pg. 30. Column 3, 1995 deliveries represent Normcorrespond with 1995 Normalized crop data. 56,240 ac-ft = ave. deliveries through 1997 excluding 1977, 1983, 1991, 1992, 1994. Trsfr/Rtrn/Refrom TM-3. 2021 Conveyance and Seepage Losses are limited to no more than 10% of crop water requirement [col. 19].2022 represents 2021 conditions excepting that all supplies are limited to contract quantities. Seepage and spills identified in BWMP are considelosses but are limited to no more than 10% of crop water requirement [col. 19].
RDD/041600030 (CAH2717.doc) Administrative DRAFT—SUBJECT TO REVISION 

PROVIDENT ID Water Needs AssessmentContractor ID: 202980Settlement Contractor's Water Supply Sources and Quantities 

 Surface Water Supply Groundwater Su

Reference USBR Trsfr / T

Safe Total

Timefra Delivery Total SWP Loca Local Rtrn / District Private Yi

me 2 Deliv/Max 4 l Source Recycle In Out 9 1

1 3 5 6 8 10 

1995 BWMP 41,028 43,159 0 7,880 Water Rights 90,000 0 3,000 0 2020 BWMP 54,730 * 54,730 0 7,880 Water Rights 110,000 0 4,000 0 2021 54,730 * 54,730 0 7,880 Water Rights 105,000 0 4,000 0 2022 54,730 * 54,730 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Contractor's Agricultural Water Demands Maximum P

District Reference Calculated USBR Net Average Reference

Crop Irrig. Effectiv Crop Calculate USBR 

Water Efficiency e Effective Net Crop Water Req Irrigated Irrigated d FDR 

Timefra Requireme Precip Precip Water Req (acre-feet) Acres FDR (AF/acr 

me nt (%) (acre-fe (acre-ft) Acres (acres) (AF/acre e) 

1 (acre-feet) 16 et) 18 (acre-feet 20 (acres) 22 ) 24 

1995 51,560 64 2,960 2,672 76,500 82,844 14,800 13,362 5.17 6.20 2020 72,600 80 3,000 3,000 87,000 87,000 15,000 15,000 5.80 5.80 2021 72,600 80 3,000 3,000 87,000 87,000 15,000 15,000 5.80 5.80 2022 72,600 80 3,000 3,000 87,000 87,000 15,000 15,000 5.80 5.80 

Contractor's M&&I Water

Residential Water Demand Nonresidential Water Demand Loss

Per Total Comm / Total Unacc. / Ref Urban 

Total Ag + Unmet

Capita Demand Industrial Instit. Demand Distr. Per 

M&&I Dmd Demand

Populatio Demand (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet Capita Capita Demand 

Timefram n (gpcd) ) ) ) ) ) Dmd Dmd (acre-feet 

e 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 (gpcd) (gpcd) ) 

1995 0 0 0 2020 0 0 0 2021 0 0 0 2022 0 0 0 

* Represents Maximum ContractNotes: Conveyance loss = 10% operational spills [col. 25] and 12% seepage loss [col. 12] (TM 2) of the crop water requirement [col. 19]. Column 3, 199

Normalized delivery data to correspond with 1995 Normalized crop data. 43,159 ac-ft = ave. deliveries through 1997 excluding 1977, 1983, 1991Trsfr/Rtrn/Recycle In quantities are from TM-3. GW is from TM-3. 2021 Conveyance Losses are limited to no more than 10% of crop water requ2022 represents 2021 conditions excepting that all supplies are limited to contract quantities. Seepage and spills identified in BWMP are considelosses but are limited to no more than 10% of crop water requirement [col. 19].
RDD/041600030 (CAH2717.doc) Administrative DRAFT—SUBJECT TO REVISION 

RECL. DISTRICT 1004 Water Needs AssessmentContractor ID: 203000Settlement Contractor's Water Supply Sources and Quantities 

 Surface Water Supply Groundwater Su

Reference USBR Trsfr / T

Safe Total

Timefra Delivery Total SWP Loca Local Rtrn / District Private Yi

me 2 Deliv/Max 4 l Source Recycle In Out 9 1

1 3 5 6 8 10 

1995 BWMP 48,641 56,126 0 20,830 Water Rights 20,000 0 500 0 2020 BWMP 71,400 * 71,400 0 20,830 Water Rights 20,000 0 500 0 2021 71,400 * 71,400 0 20,830 Water Rights 20,000 0 500 0 2022 71,400 * 71,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Contractor's Agricultural Water Demands Maximum P

District Reference Calculated USBR Net Average Reference

Crop Irrig. Effectiv Crop Calculate USBR 

Water Efficiency e Effective Net Crop Water Req Irrigated Irrigated d FDR 

Timefra Requireme Precip Precip Water Req (acre-feet) Acres FDR (AF/acr 

me nt (%) (acre-fe (acre-ft) Acres (acres) (AF/acre e) 

1 (acre-feet) 16 et) 18 (acre-feet 20 (acres) 22 ) 24 

1995 48,970 64 1,570 1,403 74,330 85,571 15,700 14,028 4.73 6.10 2020 67,650 80 1,650 1,650 82,500 82,500 16,500 16,500 5.00 5.00 2021 67,650 80 1,650 1,650 82,500 82,500 16,500 16,500 5.00 5.00 2022 67,650 80 1,650 1,650 82,500 82,500 16,500 16,500 5.00 5.00 

Contractor's M&&I Water

Residential Water Demand Nonresidential Water Demand Loss

Per Total Comm / Total Unacc. / Ref Urban 

Total Ag + Unmet

Capita Demand Industrial Instit. Demand Distr. Per 

M&&I Dmd Demand

Populatio Demand (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet Capita Capita Demand 

Timefram n (gpcd) ) ) ) ) ) Dmd Dmd (acre-feet 

e 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 (gpcd) (gpcd) ) 

1995 0 0 0 2020 0 0 0 2021 0 0 0 2022 0 0 0 

* Represents Maximum ContractNotes: Conveyance loss = 5% operational spills [col. 25] and 15% seepage loss [col. 12] (TM 2) of the crop water requirement [col. 19]. 500 ac-ft groun

Groundwater Hydrology Tech. Memo, pg. 49. Column 3, 1995 deliveries represent Normalized delivery data to correspond with 1995 Normalized = ave. deliveries through 1997 excluding 1977, 1983, 1991, 1992, 1994. Trsfr/Rtrn/Recycle In quantities are from TM-3. 2021 Conveyance Lossmore than 10% of crop water requirement [col. 19].2022 represents 2021 conditions excepting that all supplies are limited to contract quantities. Seepage and spills identified in BWMP are considelosses but are limited to no more than 10% of crop water requirement [col. 19].
RDD/041600030 (CAH2717.doc) Administrative DRAFT—SUBJECT TO REVISION 

RECL. DISTRICT 108 Water Needs AssessmentContractor ID: 202990Settlement Contractor's Water Supply Sources and Quantities 

 Surface Water Supply Groundwater Su

Reference USBR Trsfr / T

Safe Total

Timefra Delivery Total SWP Loca Local Rtrn / District Private Yi

me 2 Deliv/Max 4 l Source Recycle In Out 9 1

1 3 5 6 8 10 

1995 BWMP 126,435 162,870 0 27,200 Water Rights 0 66 0 0 2020 BWMP 232,000 * 232,000 0 27,200 Water Rights 0 66 0 0 2021 232,000 * 232,000 0 27,200 Water Rights 0 66 0 0 2022 232,000 * 232,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Contractor's Agricultural Water Demands Maximum P

District Reference Calculated USBR Net Average Reference

Crop Irrig. Effectiv Crop Calculate USBR 

Water Efficiency e Effective Net Crop Water Req Irrigated Irrigated d FDR 

Timefra Requireme Precip Precip Water Req (acre-feet) Acres FDR (AF/acr 

me nt (%) (acre-fe (acre-ft) Acres (acres) (AF/acre e) 

1 (acre-feet) 16 et) 18 (acre-feet 20 (acres) 22 ) 24 

1995 122,820 62 9,920 8,170 181,400 191,995 49,600 40,850 3.66 4.70 2020 168,000 80 21,000 21,000 183,750 183,750 52,500 52,500 3.50 3.50 2021 168,000 80 21,000 21,000 183,750 183,750 52,500 52,500 3.50 3.50 2022 168,000 80 21,000 21,000 183,750 183,750 52,500 52,500 3.50 3.50 

Contractor's M&&I Water

Residential Water Demand Nonresidential Water Demand Loss

Per Total Comm / Total Unacc. / Ref Urban 

Total Ag + Unmet

Capita Demand Industrial Instit. Demand Distr. Per 

M&&I Dmd Demand

Populatio Demand (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet Capita Capita Demand 

Timefram n (gpcd) ) ) ) ) ) Dmd Dmd (acre-feet 

e 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 (gpcd) (gpcd) ) 

1995 0 0 0 2020 0 0 0 2021 0 0 0 2022 0 0 0 

* Represents Maximum ContractNotes: Conveyance loss = 5% operational spills [col. 25] and 10% seepage loss [col. 12] (TM 2) of the crop water requirement [col. 19]. 66 ac-ft transfe

 1995. Column 3, 1995 deliveries represent Normalized delivery data to correspond with 1995 Normalized crop data. 162,870 ac-ft = ave. deliveexcluding 1977, 1983, 1991, 1992, 1994. Trsfr/Rtrn/Recycle In quantities are from TM-3. GW is not quantified.2021 Conveyance Losses are limited to no more than 10% of crop water requirement [col.19].2022 represents 2021 conditions excepting that all supplies are limited to contract quantities. Seepage and spills identified in BWMP are considelosses but are limited to no more than 10% of crop water requirement [col. 19].
RDD/041600030 (CAH2717.doc) Administrative DRAFT—SUBJECT TO REVISION 

RIVER GARDEN FARMS CO. Water Needs AssessmentContractor ID: 206097Settlement Contractor's Water Supply Sources and Quantities 

 Surface Water Supply Groundwater Su

Reference USBR Trsfr / T

Safe Total

Timefra Delivery Total SWP Loca Local Rtrn / District Private Yi

me 2 Deliv/Max 4 l Source Recycle In Out 9 1

1 3 5 6 8 10 

2000 0 22,691 0 0 0 0 1,222 0 2001 0 22,691 0 0 0 0 1,122 0 2020 0 22,700 0 0 0 0 1,140 0 2025 0 29,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Contractor's Agricultural Water Demands Maximum P

District Reference Calculated USBR Net Average Reference

Crop Irrig. Effectiv Crop Calculate USBR 

Water Efficiency e Effective Net Crop Water Req Irrigated Irrigated d FDR 

Timefra Requireme Precip Precip Water Req (acre-feet) Acres FDR (AF/acr 

me nt (%) (acre-fe (acre-ft) Acres (acres) (AF/acre e) 

1 (acre-feet) 16 et) 18 (acre-feet 20 (acres) 22 ) 24 

2000 21,157 75 1,801 1,801 25,809 25,809 6,002 6,002 4.30 4.30 2001 30,700 75 1,616 1,616 38,779 38,779 8,079 8,079 4.80 4.80 2020 30,583 85 2,424 2,424 33,128 33,128 8,080 8,080 4.10 4.10 2025 23,688 85 1,348 1,348 26,282 26,282 6,739 6,739 3.90 3.90 

Contractor's M&&I Water

Residential Water Demand Nonresidential Water Demand Loss

Per Total Comm / Total Unacc. / Ref Urban 

Total Ag + Unmet

Capita Demand Industrial Instit. Demand Distr. Per 

M&&I Dmd Demand

Populatio Demand (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet (acre-feet Capita Capita Demand 

Timefram n (gpcd) ) ) ) ) ) Dmd Dmd (acre-feet 

e 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 (gpcd) (gpcd) ) 

2000 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 2020 0 0 0 2025 0 0 0 

* Represents Maximum ContractNotes:
RDD/041600031 (CAH2718.DOC) D-15

Technical Analysis of Sutter Mutual Water Company’s Water Needs

by

Chuck Jachens

Regional Agricultural Engineer

Mid-Pacific Office, MP-450

Summary

The total water demand for SMWC has been calculated several ways as follows:

Summary of Calculated Water Needs (in acre-feet)

BWMP 2020 Cropping Pattern 208,600

BWMP 2020 Drought Year Demand 210,600

BWMP 2020 Normal Year Demand 197,200

Peak Diversion in Recent years 224,784

SMWC High Water Use Cropping Pattern 220,600

WNA Based On Highest Historic Need 220,100

A contract quantity of 220,000 acre-feet will meet the needs of SMWC. SMWC

has not had any reported salinity problems at lower diversions therefore the risk

associated with salinity problems in the future is minimal.

WNA Methodology

For contractors who supply water to meet agricultural demands, Reclamation

estimated the district irrigation efficiency associated with the crop water

information provided for the snapshot year. Both the district irrigation efficiency

and the amount of intra-district conveyance losses are evaluated for

reasonableness. Past beneficial use of CVP supplies is confirmed if the district

irrigation efficiency is close to the current statewide average of 75 percent, or if a

trend towards increasing district irrigation efficiencies over time is apparent; and

if intra-district conveyance losses total 10 percent, or less, of the district’s total

water supply. In situations where some, or all, of these conveyance losses

contribute to groundwater recharge for later use by the contractor, these

“conveyance losses” are shown as groundwater recharge rather than

conveyance losses. (Central Valley Project (CVP) Water Needs Assessments:

Purpose and Methodology)

85% Documentation

The CALFED Agricultural Water Use Efficiency has a “Farm Quantifiable

Objective Component” which uses a states a high farm efficiency is equal to an

overall 75% efficiency. The resulting district efficiency was to achieve an overall

maximum of 85% from the high farm efficiency of 75%.
D-16 RDD/041600031 (CAH2718.DOC)

Agricultural water demand is defined as the sum of the district’s irrigation water

demand and the intra-district conveyance losses, where irrigation water demand

is the product of the irrigated acreage in a district and the average farm delivery

requirement. The farm delivery requirement is defined as the unit amount of

water necessary to supply crop water needs in excess of effective precipitation

and varies based on crop type, climate, irrigation water quality, soil salinity and

irrigation method. The district’s irrigation water demand is not necessarily the

sum of all the on-farm irrigation water demands because such measures as

recycling of intra-district return flows are effective in reducing the overall district

irrigation water demand. The assumption for this analysis is that the continued

implementation of water use efficiency measures between now and the year

2025 will further reduce the unit amount of water needed to grow crops in the

future. Often, it is also assumed that district conveyance losses will decrease in

the future. Specifically, district irrigation efficiencies are assumed to increase

from an average of 75 percent currently to 85 percent by the year 2025. (Central

Valley Project (CVP) Water Needs Assessments: Purpose and Methodology)

85% efficiency was used consistently for the previous contract renewals such as

the American River, Shasta and Friant Divisions, the Delta Mendota Canal and

Tehama-Colusa Canal Contractors, etc.

Reduction to 80%

Certain districts, such as those with large elevation differences within their

boundaries, have target district irrigation efficiencies of 80 percent based on the

unavailability of certain water management options to increase overall district

irrigation efficiency. (Central Valley Project (CVP) Water Needs Assessments:

Purpose and Methodology)

This was expanded to include areas in the Sacramento Valley with water quality

concerns. District efficiencies in areas of water quality concerns were reduced to

80%. This is to compensate for the added management issues associated with

additional drainage requirements and reduced ability to recycle drainage water.

The Sacramento River Basinwide Water Management Plan (BWMP), discusses

the efficiency at which overall water needs are met is typically quantified by a

seasonal application efficiency (SAE), defined as the sum of ETAW and cultural

water requirement divided by total applied water.

The BWMP further indicates that on a farm scale, SAE may be diminished by

evaporation during conveyance, irrigation system leaks, leaching losses from the

soil, etc. However, irrigation water that seeps to groundwater or becomes

tailwater from surface drainage can be recovered on other farms. Unless water

drains to an unusable pool (commonly termed an "unrecoverable loss"), such as

contaminated or saline groundwater or water that is hydrologically at the end of
RDD/041600031 (CAH2718.DOC) D-17

the irrigation network (e.g., drainage water flows to the ocean), it can be reused.

Improvements in irrigation practices, planning, technology, and policies are

expected to increase the average SAE from 73 percent to 80 percent for

California over the next 2 decades.

Crop Water Use and Effective Precipitation

Reclamation estimated crop water requirements for the year 2025 level of

development are based on the CVP water contractors’ estimates of future crops

and acreage planted multiplied by estimates of the farm delivery requirements for

each crop. Reclamation staff initially estimated crop water requirements for all

regions using evapotranspiration (ET) and effective precipitation (EP) data from

several sources: 1) California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin

160-98, 2) DWR Bulletin 113-3, and 3) Reclamation knowledge and experience.

The ET and EP information was tabulated on a Detailed Analysis Unit (DAU)

basis and then proportioned to each district based on the district’s area in a DAU.

The data was then used in combination with other traditional methodologies for

determining crop water requirements to estimate each district’s total irrigation

water demand in the year 2025. (Central Valley Project (CVP) Water Needs

Assessments: Purpose and Methodology)

Sacramento River Settlement Contractors WNA

The BWMP used a methodology where current crop acreage estimates and

associated applied on-field water requirements are presented for each district in

the context of a range around a projected normalized (condition developed by

DWR, which assumed a 1995 cropping pattern that would have occurred absent

the effects of 1987 to 1992 drought) year. These data were obtained from DWR

in a tabular form, and included the following: Future crop acreage predictions are

based on land survey trends, crop market outlook studies, land retirement

(elimination of agricultural land with drainage problems), urban expansion

projections, production models, and other variables.

Reclamation agreed to use the BWMP as the WNA basis for the participating

Sacramento River Settlement Contractors. The data found in the BWMP was

used to determine past reasonable and beneficial use with the 1995 Normal year

data.

Due to the nature of the settlement contracts, Reclamation used the full contract

quantities for the year 2020 analysis as the Settlement Contractors only water

supply. The settlement contracts were negotiated in lieu of the Settlement

Contractors exercising their water rights on the Sacramento River and its

tributaries. This is a notable difference because the CVP WNA included NonContract water supplies such as groundwater including the conjunctive use of

surface and groundwater, State Water Project (SWP) supplies, local surface

water supplies, recycled water, inter-district return flows and water transfers
D-18 RDD/041600031 (CAH2718.DOC)

Sutter Mutual Water Company WNA

The results from the WNA for SMWC has a maximum of 80,156 acre-feet of their

267,900 acre-feet contract quantity that is in excess of their full water need of

187,744 acre-feet in the year 2020. This was calculated using a 15% combined

seepage and spill loss based on the diversion requirement. SMWC has 30% of

total water under their Settlement Contract in excess of their water needs and

thus does not meet the Reclamation’s needs analysis criteria for the full contract

supply. SMWC appears to have implemented practices that increase the district

efficiency and reduce diversions to compensate for the mound of artesian

connate (saline) ground water found within boundaries of SMWC.

The normal year 1995 WNA resulted in showing SMWC has reasonably and

beneficially used the normalize diversions stated in the BWMP.

Irrigated Acreage Comparisons

Comparison of Land Classification Acreage To BWMP Acreage

District Gross Arable Irrigable Class 6 BWMP

Acreage Acreage Acreage Lands Total

District

Net

Irrigated

ACID 33,240 22,179 21,070 10,001 32,000 13,900

GCID 173,394 140,871 133,827 15,578 170,000 130,200

MID 6,841 3,731 3,544 3,110 5,000 5,000

MFWC 10,793 10,116 9,610 677 15,600 9,700

NCMWC 39,982 36,428 34,607 2,927 36,000 34,100

PMWC 2,969 2,754 2,616 215 2,900 2,900

PCGID 12,113 11,287 10,723 826 11,700 10,000

PID 17,019 16,128 15,322 891 15,165 14,800

RD 1004 23,113 20,829 19,788 1,639 15,700 15,700

RD 108 58,863 53,969 51,271 4,637 47,600 51,000

SMWC 51,136 48,218 45,807 1,136 52,300 52,100

The “Comparison of Land Classification Acreage To BWMP Acreage” table
RDD/041600031 (CAH2718.DOC) D-19

compares Reclamation records to the acreages used in the BWMP. A closer

comparison of the Irrigable Acreage with the BWMP Net Irrigated Acreage shows

that Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID), Natomas Central Mutual Water

Company (NCMWC), Princeton Cordora-Glenn Irrigation District (PCGID),

Provident Irrigation District (PID), Reclamation District 104 (RD-1004), and

Reclamation District 108 (RD-108) have net irrigated land that is less than

irrigable acreage. Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District (ACID) also meets

these criteria, however over one-third of the irrigable acreage is idled. Maxwell

Irrigation District (MID), Meridian Farms Water Company (MFWC), Pelger Mutual

Water Company (PMWC), and Sutter Mutual Water Company (SMWC) have

higher net irrigated acreages than the irrigable acreage. Possible reasons for

this include double crop acreage, or irrigation of Class 6 lands. However,

PMWC, and SMWC also exceed the sum of the irrigable acreage and the Class

6 acreage. (Transmittal of the Final Water Needs Assessments for the

Sacramento River Settlement Contracts).

The cropping acreage for SMWC has been in the range of 34,000 acres to

46,000 acres since 1982 as shown below. The total acres include double

cropped acreage thus exceeding the sum of the irrigable acreage and the Class

6 acreage that is not supported by SMWC’s past cropping patterns.

28000

30000

32000

34000

36000

38000

40000

42000

44000

46000

48000

50000

52000

54000

56000

1976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000

Total Acres

Historic Water Needs and Use

The results of the “ADD NAME HERE” (1996 NRCS Report) indicates that, while

there is room for slight improvements, SMWC is efficiently utilizing the water

resources available. Any dramatic modifications to the way water is managed in

this basin requires further research and understanding of the ground water

fluctuations and the movement of the connate water. Drastic cutbacks in water

availability would most likely lead to an increase in soil salinity and impact crop

productivity and have an adverse impact on wildlife habitats and populations.
D-20 RDD/041600031 (CAH2718.DOC)

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

220000

240000

1976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000

Total Demand Diversion

SMWC has repeated that cutbacks in the contract supply may result in salinity

problems. Based on historic diversions or the exercised use of the contract

supplies, SMWC has diverted less than 220,000 acre-feet from 1983 through

2002 except for the year 2000 where diversions were measured at 224,784 acrefeet. Since 1983, water quality concerns over chemicals applied to rice have

increased the time water must be held on rice fields before being discharged.

This has greatly reduced the diversion requirements of SMWC as shown in the

above graph showing Total Demands and Diversions.

Salinity Concerns

The 1975 Tanji etal report, “Water and Salt Transfers in Sutter Basin, California”

(Tanji) reported that analysis of soil samples taken during 1971-73 indicate

Cloride (Cl) was not accumulating to any substantial degree in the soil profiles

above the water table.

The 1996 NRCS report said present irrigation and drainage practices have kept

salt levels in the soil down to a manageable level. Due to the low Electrical

Conductivity (EC) of the irrigation supply water, it was estimated that less than

one percent of the applied irrigation water is needed for leaching purposes. The

leaching requirement for connate water suppression was not estimated.

Continual productivity indicates the leaching requirement is being maintained.

In the 1996 NRCS report, there had not been a substantiated amount of salt

buildup in soils in this area of high TDS. To address the concern of salt buildup

in soils, the University of California, Davis tested for saturation extract

conductivities and chloride concentration at representative sites from 1971 to

1978. Eleven of the 32 regular sample sites were located in the delineated areas

of high TDS in drain waters. Based on these analyses, Henderson (1978)

recommended discontinuance of sampling. Henderson states that there was no
RDD/041600031 (CAH2718.DOC) D-21

increasing trend in the salinity or chloride of sampled soils over the period 1971

to 1978.

A number of factors stated by Tanji and the 1996 NRCS report contribute to the

lack of buildup of salts in the soils overlying the connate water. These factors

include but are not necessarily limited to: 1) a siltstone at a depth of

approximately 40 inches occurring in patches over the area, 2) leaching and

drainage, and 3) clay soils overlying a sandstone. (NRSC 1996)

The implied reduction of saline soils from 1965 to 1988 suggests that a salt

buildup can be managed by leaching and drainage. Evapotranspiration over

time, without downward leaching, causes salts to build up. The amount of

irrigation required to provide the desired leaching can be established. Land

owners and operators appear to be applying ample irrigation at present to

prevent salt buildup in the soils and apparently have leached (reclaimed) formerly

saline soils. (1996 NRCS Report)

Historic Drainage Fraction

Tanji said the major outputs from the basin were surface drainage outflow and

evapotranspiration loses to the atmosphere. There were no net deep percolation

water losses into the substrata.

Tanji described a drainage index calculated as the ratio of the surface drainage

output divided by the surface inputs. The surface drainage output is not readily

available and the basin is assumed to be in balanced water conditions, therefore,

surface drainage output was calculated as expected diversions minus

consumptive use. Rainfall and net influx of subsurface water were ignored since

both factors increase the required discharge requirements and raise the drainage

index.

0.410

0.420

0.430

0.440

0.450

0.460

0.470

0.480

0.490

0.500

0.510

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Drainage Index
D-22 RDD/041600031 (CAH2718.DOC)

Tanji reported the drainage index ranged from 0.34 to 0.50 with a 9-year average

of 0.42. Reclamation’s calculations based on the historic cropping patterns and

the expected diversion requirement using an 80% district wide efficiency yielded

a drainage index from 0.42 to 0.50 with an average of 0.47. Note that 1977 was

significantly below 0.45 because 1997 was a severe, wide-spread drought year in

California.

Reclamation’s use of the 80% efficiency in the water needs assessment should

not result in any significant risk of salinity problems for SMWC.

Revised WNA Based on Future Projections

Using SMWC’s own estimates for their future cropping patterns as shown in the

Sacramento River Basinwide Water Management Plan (BWMP), Reclamation

determined SMWC’s need in the year 2020 to be 187,744 acre-feet. The WNA

Methodology allows for a 10% error in the diversion quantities, which yields a

total demand at 208,600 acre-feet. The SMWC calculations within the BWMP for

the future year 2020 yields a total demand of 210,600 acre-feet under drought

conditions and only 197,200 acre-feet in normal conditions.

Since the last published draft of the BWMP in September, 2000, SMWC has

revised the future cropping patterns. Rice acreage was increased from 17,400

acres of rice to 26,000 acres, however, only in 1968 was this amount surpassed

at 26,078 acres of rice. Also, tomato acreages were estimated to remain the

same or decrease. Based on verbal information from SMWC, sugar beets

should disappear from the area due to the lack of processing facilities nearby.

Information on the other crops grown, within SMWC, were not given. A trend

analysis was done on the historical record to make that determination. Rice

acreage was set to 26,000 acres and tomatoes were estimated to be 5,000

acres. The rice plus tomato acreage was plotted and 31,000 acre total was

determined to be approximately 2,000 acres over the reasonable estimate for the

long term record.

Rice + Tomato Ac

18,000

20,000

22,000

24,000

26,000

28,000

30,000

32,000

34,000

1976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000

Rice + Tomato Ac
RDD/041600031 (CAH2718.DOC) D-23

The total irrigated acreage in the district including double cropping was set to

45,810 acres which is equal to the year of 2000 peak water demand acreage.

The total demand is 220,600 acre-feet using this theoretical cropping pattern.

Reclamation would be technical hard pressed to claim this was reasonable

estimate of the SMWC’s future water needs based on the historic records.

Revised WNA Based on Highest Past Need

Reclamation calculated the water needs (total demand) SMWC would have

required using an 80% district efficiency based on SMWC’s historic cropping

patterns from 1976 through the year 2000 as shown in the table below. The

second to highest demand occurred in 1982 at 205,964 acre-feet. The highest

year was 2000 at 212,872 acre-feet. Using the 2000 data, correcting for known

errors of -1.7%, and allowing a 5% for unknown errors, yields a total demand of

220,100 acre-feet. This amount allows for 10,000 acre-feet of cushion for low

rainfall years, operational problems, etc.

Year FDR

Total

Acres

Demand

Col.19 Losses

Total

Demand

1976 2.9 54419 157815 29644 187459

1977 2.9 52695 152816 29644 182460

1978 4.0 42456 169824 29644 199468

1979 3.5 42434 148519 29644 178163

1980 3.6 46818 168545 29644 198189

1981 3.6 46625 167850 29644 197494

1982 4.2 41981 176320 29644 205964

1983 3.8 29931 113738 29644 143382

1984 3.6 38523 138683 29644 168327

1985 3.3 36516 120503 29644 150147

1986 3.6 33828 121781 29644 151425

1987 3.3 36656 120965 29644 150609

1988 3.4 40864 138938 29644 168582

1989 3.6 37785 136026 29644 165670

1990 3.2 45731 146339 29644 175983

1991 3.7 38646 142990 29644 172634

1992 4.0 37960 151840 29644 181484

1993 4.1 35293 144701 29644 174345

1994 3.8 43709 166094 29644 195738

1995 3.7 42094 155748 29644 185392

1996 3.9 37677 146940 29644 176584

1997 3.5 44184 154644 29644 184288

1998 3.7 35330 130721 29644 160365

1999 3.9 36929 144023 29644 173667

2000 4.0 45807 183228 29644 212872
D-24 RDD/041600031 (CAH2718.DOC)

The total demand of 220,000 ac-ft will meet the needs of SMWC based on the

last 20 years of historic diversions and should not result in any significant risk of

salinity problems for SMWC. The Contract in Article 9, Part 2C states in

paraphrase that the contractors’ water use during the contract period in no way

reflects the water use of the contractors if they exercising their water rights.
City of Redding: Determination of Monthly Quantities of Base Supply and Project Water for renewal of Sac. River Settlement Contract

Month 2002 Diversions

Monthly % 

of Total 

Diversions 

2002

2001 

Diversions

Monthly % 

of Total 

Diversions 

2001

2000 

Diversions

Monthly % 

of Total 

Diversions 

2000

Average 

Monthly % 

Using 2000-

2002 

Diversions

Average.

Monthly % 

x Contract 

Total of 

21,000 AF

Average 

Monthly 

Yield of 

Water 

Right

Calculated 

Base 

Supply 

Using Avg. 

% x 

Contract 

Total x 

Avg. Yield 

of Water 

Right

Calculated 

Project 

Water 

Using Avg. 

% x 

Contract 

Total less 

Base 

Supply

Base 

Supply - 

Proposed 

Exhibit A

Project 

Water - 

Proposed 

Exhibit A

Potential 

Reschedule

Base Supp

Using Avg

Monthly 

Diversions 

and Propos

Ex. A Qtys

Jan 552 3.76% 651 4.53% 609 4.63% 4.30% 904 100% 904 0 900 0Feb 627 4.27% 508 3.54% 482 3.66% 3.82% 803 100% 803 0 800 0Mar 837 5.69% 684 4.76% 706 5.37% 5.27% 1,107 100% 1,107 0 1100 0Apr 1136 7.73% 841 5.85% 808 6.14% 6.57% 1,381 100% 1,381 0 1400 0May 1038 7.06% 1708 11.89% 1120 8.51% 9.15% 1,922 100% 1,922 0 1925 0Jun 1774 12.07% 1921 13.37% 1737 13.20% 12.88% 2,705 99% 2,678 27 2675 25 Jul 2114 14.38% 1894 13.18% 1959 14.89% 14.15% 2,972 72% 2,140 832 2150 850 Aug 2042 13.89% 1965 13.68% 2014 15.31% 14.29% 3,001 30% 900 2,101 750 2250 Sep 1758 11.96% 1498 10.43% 1157 8.79% 10.39% 2,183 99% 2,161 22 2150 25 Oct 1370 9.32% 1288 8.96% 978 7.43% 8.57% 1,800 100% 1,800 0 1800 0 Nov 727 4.95% 782 5.44% 808 6.14% 5.51% 1,157 100% 1,157 0 1150 0Dec 723 4.92% 627 4.36% 781 5.94% 5.07% 1,065 100% 1,065 0 1050 0Total 14698 100.00% 14367 100.00% 13159 100.00% 100.00% 21,000 18,018 2,982 17850 3,150 

Month

Minimum 

Monthly 

Diversions 

2000-2002

Maximum 

Monthly 

Diversions 

2000-2002

Average.

Monthly % 

x Contract 

Total of 

21,000 AF

Project 

Water 

Needed 

Using 

Minimum 

#s

Project 

Water 

Needed 

Using 

Maximum 

#s

Project 

Water 

Needed 

Using 

Average 

#s

Jan 552 651 904 0 0 0Feb 482 627 803 0 0 0Mar 684 837 1,107 0 0 0Apr 808 1136 1,381 0 0 0May 1038 1708 1,922 0 0 0Jun 1737 1921 2,705 0 0 30Jul 1894 2114 2,972 0 0 822Aug 1965 2042 3,001 1215 1292 2,251Sep 1157 1758 2,183 0 0 33Oct 978 1370 1,800 0 0 0Nov 727 808 1,157 0 0 0Dec 627 781 1,065 0 0 0Total 12,649 15,753 21,000 1,215 1,292 3,135

% of Total Project Water Used 38.57% 41.02% 99.54%

% of Contract Total Used 7.71% 10.21% 14.93%

RDD/041600032 (CAH2081.xls)