U.S. Department of the Interior January 2020

Central Valley Project

Final Cost Allocation Study

Hydrological Modeling Appendix
Mission Statements

The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our 

Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes 

and our commitments to island communities.

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and 

related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of 

the American public.
Hydrological Modeling Appendix | iii

Table of Contents

Page

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

Water Supply Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 2

Water Quality Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 7

Hydropower Purpose ......................................................................................................................................11

Flood Control Purpose ...................................................................................................................................12

Sizing Storage Facilities to Meet the Central Valley Improvement Act...................................................16

Omitted-Purpose Analysis ..............................................................................................................................19

Single Purpose Facility Sizing Model ............................................................................................................24

Flow Tracker.....................................................................................................................................................27

List of Tables

Table 1. Estimated Annual Water Supply Deliveries by Water Year Types (TAF)................................. 3

Table 2. Water Supply SPA Storage Facility Sizes ........................................................................................4

Table 3. D-1641 Estimated Annual Water Requirements by Source and Water Year Type (TAF)......8

Table 4. SPA Storage Size Results for the Water Quality Purpose (TAF) ................................................9

Table 5. Estimated Annual Power Generation and Consumption by Water Year Type (GWh) ........11

Table 6. SPA Storage Size Results for the Flood Control Purpose (TAF) .............................................13

Table 7. Estimated Average Annual Storage Requirements Used to Meet B2 Water Supply 

Objectives (TAF) ......................................................................................................................................18

Table 8. CVP NOD Max and Min Storage for the Period in Figure 17 ..................................................21

Table 9. Full Data for the Figure 17 Plot.....................................................................................................22

List of Figures

Figure 1. Hydrology Modeling and Analysis for the CVP Water Supply Purpose .................................. 2

Figure 2. Sequence of Single Purpose Storage Operations for Water Supply .......................................... 5

Figure 3. Multiple Years Have Drawdown Needs Similar to the Year Which Defines NOD SPA 

Sizes............................................................................................................................................................... 6
iv | Central Valley Project Final Cost Allocation Study

Figure 4. Hydrology Modeling and Analysis for the CVP Water Quality Purpose..................................8

Figure 5. Sequence of Single Purpose Storage Operations for Water Quality .......................................10

Figure 6. Expanded View of the Time Period Which Defines the SPA for Water Quality .................10

Figure 7. Flood Control Rule Concept.........................................................................................................12

Figure 8. Flood Control Rule Curve Example ............................................................................................12

Figure 9. Flood Control Rule Curves Used for CalSim 2 Planning Studies............................................13

Figure 10. Trinity Storage vs. Discharge Capacity ......................................................................................14

Figure 11. Time Series of Trinity Lake Operation for Flood Control .....................................................15

Figure 12. Exceedance of Trinity Lake Operation for Flood Control.....................................................15

Figure 13. Diagram Describing the Classification of B2 Actions for CVPIA Cost Allocation ...........17

Figure 14. Components of the Storage Costs for Meeting CVPIA Responsibilities, 2008-2014 ........18

Figure 15. Two Examples of Multi-Purpose Without Power Use of Full Conservation Storage in 

Millerton .....................................................................................................................................................20

Figure 16. Example of Multi-Purpose Without Power Use of Full Conservation Storage in New 

Melones.......................................................................................................................................................20

Figure 17. Example of Multi-Purpose Without Power Use of Full Conservation Storage by CVP 

NOD Facilities ..........................................................................................................................................21

Figure 18. Normal Operation of the Simple Example System, Equivalent to a Normal CalSim 2 

Run..............................................................................................................................................................25

Figure 19. Removal of Operations Unrelated to Single Purpose in Question in Simple Example 

System.........................................................................................................................................................26

Figure 20. Sizing Model Applied to Simple Example System, Identifying Minimum Required 

Storage ........................................................................................................................................................26

List of Attachments

Attachment 1 – CalSim 2 Model Description

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Results

Attachment 3 – Hydrology Sensitivity Analysis
Hydrological Modeling Appendix | 1

Introduction

This appendix documents the hydrological modeling tools used and analysis performed to support 

the Central Valley Project (CVP) Cost Allocation Study (CAS). The CAS uses the Separable Cost 

Remaining Benefits (SCRB) method for determining the appropriate distribution of CVP facilities’ 

costs among the purposes for which the CVP was authorized. The parameters used by the SCRB 

methodology include single purpose alternative (SPA) costs, separable costs, and economic benefits.

Hydrological modeling and analyses were used to determine SPA and omitted-purposes sizes for

multi-purpose facilities, which are key components of the SPA and separable cost estimates (see Cost 

Estimate Summary Tables Appendix), and to develop inputs for economic benefit analyses (see Economic 

Benefit Analysis Appendix).

Hydrological model applications used in the CAS analysis include CalSim 2, Flow Tracker, and the 

Single Purpose Facility Sizing Model (Sizing Model). CalSim 2 is a reservoir-river simulation model

developed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation (Reclamation) that is commonly used for long-term water supply reliability planning. 

See Attachment 1 (CalSim 2 Model Description) and Attachment 2 (CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and 

Results) to this Hydrological Modeling Appendix for general information about CalSim 2 and specific 

assumptions and data used for the CVP CAS. Sensitivity analysis related to hydrological conditions 

under climate change was also conducted (see Attachment 3 Hydrology Sensitivity Analysis).

The Flow Tracker model was developed to identify State Water Project (SWP) storage releases made 

specifically for Delta outflow as input to the Sizing Model. The Flow Tracker and Sizing Model are 

described below. Additional analysis included post-processing of CalSim 2 results and evaluation of 

Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) records. A spreadsheet post-processor for CalSim 

2 results refined the model’s representation of drought year allocation decisions to ensure that 

delivery results reflect recent operations. An evaluation was made of CVPIA 3406(b)(2) accounting 

records to determine the use of storage to accomplish the goals of this program.

The CAS analysis used CalSim 2 to estimate project deliveries and flows under a range of regulatory 

environments, and these results were used as the basis for water supply, water quality, flood control, 

and hydropower economic benefit and multi-purpose facility SPA sizing analyses. Flood control 

benefit and hydropower SPA facility sizing analyses did not directly use CalSim 2 output. Details on 

model assumptions, algorithms, and other analyses are provided for the water supply, water quality, 

hydropower, and flood control purposes below. In addition, sizing facilities to meet CVPIA and 

omitted-purpose analysis are described, as well as additional details on the hydrological model tools 

used, including the Sizing Model and Flow Tracker.
2 | Central Valley Project Final Cost Allocation Study

Water Supply Purpose

The Central Valley Project has agreements and contractual obligations to deliver water to 

agricultural, municipal and industrial, and refuge water users throughout the Sacramento River and 

San Joaquin River watersheds. Water deliveries constitute the water supply purpose of the CVP. The 

capacity of the system to deliver water is affected by regulations that govern operations to meet 

water quality and flow standards at multiple locations. Deliveries are affected by water supply 

allocation, which is determined by contract terms, delivery category, and operator decisions on 

managing water supply to meet competing priorities.

For the water supply purpose, analysis served two needs. One was to quantify the deliveries that 

define the water supply purpose, and the other was to determine the water supply single purpose 

alternative storage sizes of the major CVP reservoirs. Figure 1 shows the flow of data, analysis, and 

modeling tools used to address the water supply purpose for the CVP CAS.

Figure 1. Hydrology Modeling and Analysis for the CVP Water Supply Purpose

Quantifying the water supply purpose. The historical record of CVP water deliveries cannot be 

used to characterize the water supply purpose of the project because demand has increased over 

time due to the progressive buildout of project facilities and because basin-wide regulations have 

evolved over time, mostly decreasing delivery capacity. The CalSim 2 planning model was used to 
Hydrological Modeling Appendix | 3

simulate delivery that is possible 1) over a range of hydrologic conditions, 2) given a consistent level 

of demand (land use and population), and 3) under the current regulatory environment. The delivery 

results of this “current operations” scenario characterize the water supply reliability of the CVP.

CalSim 2 is a planning model typically used to compare an operational alternative to a base study to 

discern the impact of a particular facility or regulation. Its general operations logic does not include 

the ability to make unique decisions under extreme drought conditions. Results were therefore postprocessed to better reflect allocation decisions such as those made in 2014 and 2015, when 

allocations were reduced to preserve north-of-Delta storage. If modeled end-of-September storage 

in Lake Shasta was below 1.1 MAF, the post-processing analysis calculated the storage shortfall and 

made commensurate reductions to delivery results. First, Central Valley Project Agricultural 

deliveries were cut, then San Joaquin Exchange Contractor deliveries were cut below the Shasta 

Critical allocation of 77 percent. Friant Kern Project deliveries were appropriated to make up for 

San Joaquin Exchange Contractor deliveries lower than the CVP contract obligation, taking into 

consideration San Joaquin River losses incurred to facilitate conveyance to Mendota Pool. After

additional delivery cuts were established, lower Jones exports, Sacramento River flows, and Shasta 

releases were re-calculated accordingly. No modifications were made based on assumptions for 

meeting Delta water quality standards or other flow standards. These assumptions result in 

conservative estimates of water supply delivery capability.

In Figure 1, the modeling analysis that captures the water supply purpose is represented by the 

CalSim 2 and Post Processing boxes. CalSim 2 results for deliveries are inputs to the Post-Processor.

Results from the Post-Processor are the best possible estimate of CVP capacity to deliver water 

under the current regulatory environment over a range of hydrologic conditions. These deliveries are 

used to calculate inputs to the economics models which calculate water supply benefits for irrigation 

and municipal and industrial (M&I) contractor types. Table 1 displays estimated irrigation, M&I, and 

Level 2 refuge deliveries by water year type. Note these deliveries are summarized from the postprocessed CalSim 2 delivery results and not the economic models inputs (see Economic Benefit Analysis 

Appendix for more details).

Table 1. Estimated Annual Water Supply Deliveries by Water Year Types (TAF)

Type Wet

Above 

Normal

Below 

Normal Dry Critical

Irrigation 6118 5603 4946 4353 3121

M&I 606 606 506 447 357

Level 2 Refuge 369 369 369 362 291
4 | Central Valley Project Final Cost Allocation Study

Calculating water supply purpose SPAs. Five multi-purpose CVP reservoirs serve the water 

supply purpose – Friant, New Melones, Trinity, Shasta, and Folsom. Friant serves direct diversions 

into the Madera Canal and Friant Kern Canal. New Melones must satisfy CVP contracts with 

Stockton East Water District and Central San Joaquin Water District along with settlement 

obligations to Oakdale Irrigation District and South San Joaquin Irrigation District. Trinity, Shasta, 

and Folsom collectively meet the needs of CVP water users in the Sacramento and American river 

basins and exports at Jones Pumping Plant. The Sizing Model was used to determine the size that 

each multi-purpose facility must be in order to satisfy the modeled deliveries determined by the 

CalSim 2 run and post-processing logic.

Figure 1 shows the pathway of model applications and data that calculates the SPA sizes for water 

supply. CalSim 2 determines deliveries and flows under current operating conditions. CalSim 2

output for delivery and flow are inputs to the Flow Tracker (see the separate section on the Flow 

Tracker for detailed information) which determines SWP storage releases made to meet Delta 

obligations. Inputs to the Sizing Model are: 1) post-processed CalSim 2 delivery results, 2) Flow 

Tracker results for SWP storage release to Delta outflow, and 3) input hydrology.

The Sizing Model is described in further detail in a separate section. All SWP operations, CVP 

deliveries, and non-project deliveries were fixed. Stream-groundwater interaction, weir flows, and 

Delta Cross Channel gate operations were dynamic. The only flow requirement in place was to 

convey the SWP storage release for Delta outflow to its intended destination. With no other flow 

requirements and no operational constraints, the sizing model does not release water from CVP 

storage except when this is necessary in order to meet the fixed deliveries. Iterations of the sizing 

model tested successively smaller CVP reservoir storage capacities until the reduced conservation 

storage was fully utilized to supply all deliveries in at least one year in the period of record. Table 2 

displays the water supply SPA storage facility sizes. Note that water supply SPA sizes calculated by 

the Sizing Model do not include volumes associated with CVPIA B2 management actions. Volumes 

associated with CVPIA B2 management actions were estimated separately, as discussed below, and 

included in the CVP reservoir sizes used in cost estimates.

Table 2. Water Supply SPA Storage Facility Sizes

CVP 

Reservoirs

Full 

Size

Water Supply SPA

(without CVPIA B2)1 CVPIA B2

Water Supply 

SPA Size

Trinity 2447 709 24 733

Shasta 4552 1391 44 1435

Folsom 967 181 10 191

New Melones 2420 640 2 642

Friant 524 476 0 476
Hydrological Modeling Appendix | 5

For a system which operates in a highly integrated manner, it was not realistic to determine SPA 

sizes based on a “Shasta only” scenario or other similar perspective. SPA sizes were determined 

assuming the integrated use of Trinity, Shasta, and Folsom. The ratios of active storage capacities 

between north-of-Delta reservoir facilities were kept proportionally the same in developing the 

sizing results. Dead pool is included in the SPA sizes.

Figure 2 shows the time series of total north-of-Delta storage for the final Sizing Model iteration. In 

almost every year of the simulation, the system draws on stored water to satisfy delivery and then 

storage refills to capacity. The red circle indicates the one point in the period of record when the 

storage condition reached collective dead pool. This is the year with the largest drawdown, so it 

defines the single purpose alternative storage. The grey circles identify multiple other years with 

similar storage needs.

Figure 2. Sequence of Single Purpose Storage Operations for Water Supply
6 | Central Valley Project Final Cost Allocation Study

Figure 3. Multiple Years Have Drawdown Needs Similar to the Year Which Defines NOD SPA Sizes

Figure 3 shows the relationship between drawdown, delivery, and inflow for these high-drawdown 

years. Note that these years are neither extremely dry nor extremely wet. CVP agricultural allocations 

in these years vary around the 50 percent mark. It is in these somewhat drier years where the system 

needs to fully utilize its storage resources to satisfy project water supply needs.

This analysis is purely theoretical, performed for the unique purpose of providing specialized 

information for economics analysis for the CAS. The Sizing Model does not depict actual 

operations. It simply allows the calculation of the storage volume needed to ensure that the delivery 

time series is able to happen.
Hydrological Modeling Appendix | 7

Water Quality Purpose

CVP operations to meet water quality standards under State Water Resources Control Board 

(SWRCB) D-1485 are joint costs in the SCRB analysis, while incremental operations to meet the 

stricter standards of D-1641 are non-reimbursable. Quantifying the differences between CVP 

operations to meet D-1485 and D-1641, and determining the storage necessary to accomplish this, 

were the goals of the hydrology analysis for the Central Valley Project’s Water Quality Purpose.

Water quality responsibilities of the CVP are expressed both by salinity standards, which are met by 

flow, and by flow requirements that can be surrogates for temperature or dissolved oxygen. Under 

the complex combined operations of the CVP and SWP, water that is provided to meet a water 

quality standard at one location can also be used to satisfy a delivery or water quality standard at 

another location. It can thus be difficult to discern a specific operation for incremental water quality.

Separate CalSim 2 studies were developed to represent system operations under both D-1485 and

D-1641. A comparison of results between these scenarios shows differences in river flows, Delta 

outflow, deliveries, exports, and storage conditions, particularly in the Sacramento River basin.

The Delta outflow that is required to meet water quality standards in the Delta depends on export 

level. In order to correctly identify the increment of SPA storage required to satisfy the D-1641 water 

quality standards as compared to those in D-1485, the increment had to be defined given the same 

level of export and delivery. Two new CalSim 2 studies were constructed that fixed CVP and SWP 

project allocations to the time series of results from the Current Operations scenario but which used 

D-1485 and D-1641 regulatory environments respectively to guide other system operations. This 

provided a consistent delivery basis upon which to discern the difference in storage resources 

required to meet the different water quality standards. These studies were designated as “Hybrid” 

CalSim 2 runs (H-1485 and H-1641), since they combined current operation delivery levels with 

prior regulatory criteria.

Quantifying the Water Quality Purpose. In Figure 4, the modeling analysis that captures the 

differences between the D-1485 and D-1641environments is represented by the box labeled “CalSim 

D1485 D1641.” The differences in deliveries between these studies reflect the water deliveries that 

are foregone in order to meet the higher water quality standards of D-1641. These foregone 

deliveries were used as inputs to economic benefits models to calculate the representation of 

economic benefit for the water quality purpose. Table 3 displays estimated annual Delta outflows 

and foregone irrigation and M&I water deliveries by water year type.
8 | Central Valley Project Final Cost Allocation Study

Figure 4. Hydrology Modeling and Analysis for the CVP Water Quality Purpose

Table 3. D-1641 Estimated Annual Water Requirements by Source and Water Year Type (TAF)

D-1641 Water Requirements Wet

Above 

Normal

Below 

Normal Dry Critical

Delta Outflows1,2 0 0 206 338 449

Foregone Irrigation Deliveries 34 114 167 118 171

Foregone M&I Deliveries 2 5 7 4 10

Total 36 119 380 460 630

1. Represents CVP portion of Delta outflow requirement

2. CalSim 2 modeling shows that estimated Delta outflow requirements in wet and above normal years are 

negative; these values have been adjusted to zero.
Hydrological Modeling Appendix | 9

Calculating the Water Quality SPA Sizes. Figure 4 shows that the analysis pathway for 

determining the SPA sizes for water quality starts with the Hybrid CalSim 2 studies. This is 

represented by the box labeled “CalSim H1485 H1641.” The H1485 and H1641 scenarios resulted 

in identical delivery and export levels but different flows and Delta outflow. The SPA sizes for 

satisfying flows and delivery were used as inputs to the sizing model. Separate runs of the Sizing 

Model were done for each hybrid scenario, and the differences between the SPA sizes were 

calculated.

The Sizing Model runs for the water quality purpose did not size for flow only – deliveries were 

input as well. Because the input hydrology in CalSim is intrinsically tied to land use, and thus 

demand, it would be problematic to develop a scenario that met only flow and not any delivery. The 

sizing model runs for water quality are still devoid of any operations logic, just as in the sizing model 

for water supply. The difference is that in addition to meeting delivery, storage reserves are also 

needed to meet minimum flows at key locations and Delta outflow requirements. Note that the role 

of the Flow Tracker in this figure is grayed out. Feather River operations, which are still fixed, 

include releases for SWP responsibilities in the Delta, but Delta outflow is now a requirement in 

these Sizing Model runs and the SWP release helps to serve that outflow requirement. Table 2 shows 

the Sizing Model results for the Hybrid studies and the differences which describe the SPAs for 

water quality.

New Melones does not appear in Table 4 because the difference in SPA is negligible. New Melones 

does meet water quality standards at Vernalis and dissolved oxygen standards at Ripon, but overall 

differences in the combinations of criteria between D-1485 and D-1641 resulted in the reservoir 

needing to be the same size under both regulatory environments. Friant does not serve a water 

quality purpose.

Table 4. SPA Storage Size Results for the Water Quality Purpose (TAF)

Full 

Size

H-1485 

(D-1485 

with Current 

Deliveries)

H-1641 

(D-1641 with 

Current 

Deliveries)

Difference = 

SPA storage 

size for water 

quality

Minimum 

Storage

(Deadpool)

Water 

Quality 

SPA 

Size

Trinity 2447 1793 1905 112 240 353

Shasta 4552 3361 3567 206 550 756

Folsom 967 718 757 39 90 129

1. Includes storage requirements for CVPIA B2 water quality objectives

Figure 5 shows the time series of total north-of- Delta storage operations performed to meet 

delivery and flow requirements in the sizing model. Similar to the water supply analysis, the SPA is 

defined by the largest drawdowns necessary to meet the combined flows and deliveries. The red 

circle indicates the point at which both the H1485 and H1641 sizing model storage results reached 
10 | Central Valley Project Final Cost Allocation Study

dead pool. This drawdown happened over the time span of three years leading into one of the driest 

years on record.

Figure 5. Sequence of Single Purpose Storage Operations for Water Quality

Figure 6 focuses on the difference between the two sizing runs, since for the water quality purpose it is 

not the size of the largest drawdown in either H1485 or H1641 that matters, but rather the 

difference in the size of the largest drawdown in each run. Note the SPAs are much larger than for 

the water supply purpose, due to the fact that the water quality sizing runs have to meet both 

delivery and flow. For both the H1485 and H1641 runs, the SPA is determined by the three-year 

period from 1975 to 1977. Figure 6 highlights the increment of storage capacity that is necessary to 

meet D-1641 criteria over D-1485 criteria over the period of the drawdown. Both scenarios start 

with full SPA reservoirs in 1975, and both end at dead pool by the end of water year 1977. The 

difference in the required storage capacities is the SPA for water quality.

Figure 6. Expanded View of the Time Period Which Defines the SPA for Water Quality
Hydrological Modeling Appendix | 11

Hydropower Purpose

The hydropower purpose in the CVP reflects hydropower generation at project facilities that are 

used for both commercial and project use purposes. Project use energy (PUE) is the power required 

to operate CVP facilities, such as pumping plants. Any power generated that is not used by the 

project is considered commercial power, which is marketed by the Western Area Power 

Administration (WAPA).

CalSim 2 output was used as input to the long-term generation (LTGEN) model (developed by 

Reclamation and WAPA) to estimate power generation and consumption in the CVP system. 

CalSim 2 outputs include reservoir releases, conveyance flow rates, and end-of-month reservoir 

storages. The LTGEN is a monthly model that simulates both power generation and consumption 

in the CVP system resulting from a CalSim 2 simulation. Powerplants included in the LTGEN

model are Trinity, Lewiston, Carr, Spring Creek, Shasta, Keswick, Folsom, Nimbus, and New 

Melones powerplants; and O'Neill and the CVP portion of Gianelli pumping-generating plants. 

Included pumping plants are C. W. “Bill” Jones, the CVP portion of Harvey O. Banks, Contra 

Costa, Pacheco, Dos Amigos, Folsom, Corning, and Red Bluff pumping plants; San Luis, DeltaMendota Canal, and Tehama-Colusa relift pumping plants; and O'Neill and the CVP portion of 

Gianelli pumping-generating plants.

The Microsoft Excel-based LTGEN model reads reservoir storage and releases, as well as 

powerhouse and pump station monthly flows from CalSim 2 outputs. The total monthly energy 

generation, or usage, is computed for each powerhouse and pump station in the system. The total 

energy is then divided into on- and off-peak periods, with the goal to maximize on-peak generation 

and off-peak pumping. The functions and parameters assumed in LTGEN were developed by 

WAPA and Reclamation. Table 5 displays the CVP system estimated annual energy generation and 

consumption by water year type. Estimated energy generation is the basis of the hydropower 

economic benefit analysis and Thermal Plant SPA sizing for the hydropower purpose.

Table 5. Estimated Annual Power Generation and Consumption by Water Year Type (GWh)

Power 

Component Wet

Above 

Normal

Below 

Normal Dry Critical

Energy Generation 6463 5211 4226 3909 3024

Energy Use 1417 1216 1126 1017 694

Net Generation 5046 3995 3100 2891 2330
12 | Central Valley Project Final Cost Allocation Study

Flood Control Purpose

The CVP storage facilities which operate for flood control are Trinity, Shasta, Folsom, New 

Melones, and Friant (Millerton). All of these facilities except for Trinity include flood control in their 

authorizing legislation. Trinity provides protection to downstream assets under guidelines set by the 

Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration Record of Decision (ROD).

Flood control rules limit the volume of water that may occupy space in a reservoir, mandating that a 

certain amount of empty space be maintained in order to accommodate anticipated seasonal runoff.

Figure 7 provides a conceptual diagram. Flood control rule curves are the time-varying values for 

flood control rules through the water year. Space requirements are typically highest in the late fall 

and may be determined annually depending on runoff forecasts for the reservoir catchment area. A 

high space requirement translates to a lower rule curve. Rule curve values over the course of any 

water year also depend on operating strategies and safety considerations for individual storage 

facilities. Limits are set by the Army Corps of Engineers or local flood protection authorities. Figure

8 shows a portion of the historical flood control rule curve for Folsom Lake, as used by the CalSim

2 planning model.

The flood control rule method for determining the single purpose size of a reservoir is simply to 

select the largest value for required flood space in a reservoir from the historical flood control 

diagrams and add this to the dead pool space. The largest flood space is found by taking the lowest 

value for the cumulative storage at which the bottom of the flood space begins from the time series 

of flood control rules used in the CalSim 2 planning model. This value is subtracted from the 

storage capacity of the reservoir to define the maximum required flood space. This is then added to 

the minimum operating storage level in the reservoir, representing the dead pool, to calculate the 

single purpose alternative size for the reservoir. Table 3 provides a summary of sizing results 

produced by this method, and Figure 11 shows the rule curves used by CalSim 2.

Figure 7. Flood Control Rule Concept Figure 8. Flood Control Rule Curve Example

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

10/01/197804/01/197910/01/197904/01/198010/01/198004/01/198110/01/198104/01/198210/01/198204/01/198310/01/198304/01/198410/01/198404/01/198510/01/198504/01/1986

Storage Level in TAF

Folsom Lake Rule Curve
Hydrological Modeling Appendix | 13

Table 6. SPA Storage Size Results for the Flood Control Purpose (TAF)

Minimum 

Flood 

Control 

Rule

Storage 

Capacity

Flood 

Space 

Required

Minimum 

Storage 

(Dead 

Pool)

Flood 

Control 

SPA Size

Shasta 3250 4552 1302 550 1852

Folsom 367 967 670 90 690

New Melones 1970 2420 450 80 530

Millerton 351 524 174 135 309

All values in TAF

Figure 9. Flood Control Rule Curves Used for CalSim 2 Planning Studies

The flood control rule analysis approach does not necessarily provide a pure single-purpose or 

single-facility perspective, as the historical trace of required space in a reservoir may consider normal 

operations such as releases for water supply deliveries, flow standards, and other criteria, as well as 

the integration of that facility’s operation with other facilities in the system. However, this approach 

is also not affected by outlier hydrology events that might exceed the scope of the project intent.

The rule curve method was used for the four CVP facilities that have an authorized flood control 

purpose.

Trinity has a unique flood control mandate relative to the other four facilities; flood control is not an 

explicitly authorized purpose but the dam operates to protect downstream assets under the Trinity 

River Mainstem Fishery Restoration ROD. Due to the unique nature of the flood control mandate 
14 | Central Valley Project Final Cost Allocation Study

for Trinity, a daily hydrology model analysis was used to determine the flood control SPA for Trinity 

of 578 TAF.

Trinity Lake Model

Historical daily data for computed inflows to Trinity Lake were available from November 1962 

through the present day. Monthly input data from the CalSim 2 planning model was disaggregated to 

a daily average and used to represent the small local accretion between Trinity Dam and Lewiston 

Dam. No export of water through Clear Creek Tunnel was assumed. Trinity Dam is operated to 

avoid damages that would occur to downstream assets at flows above 11,000 cfs, so this was used as 

the flow threshold for initiating the flood control operation.

The daily model run for Trinity Dam starts on November 1, 1962, assuming a minimum regulated 

storage rule of 240 TAF. Release capacity as a function of reservoir storage is shown in Figure 10.

Reservoir releases are limited to prevent flows above 11,000 downstream of Lewiston Dam. Daily 

storage is determined as:

Previous Day Storage + Inflow – Evaporation

– min(Discharge Capacity, 11000-Trinity_Lewiston_Accretion, (Inflow-Evap+CarryoverStorage)).

Figure 10. Trinity Storage vs. Discharge Capacity

The maximum storage attained in Trinity Lake in the daily hydrology model investigation is 577.9 

TAF, occurring in January of 1997. Other extreme inflow events in 1964, 1974, 1983, and 2006 

result in needs for storage capacities of 564 TAF, 533 TAF, 539 TAF, and 524 TAF respectively. A 

time series plot of Trinity inflow, release, and storage is shown in Figure 11, and an exceedance plot 

of the same data is shown in Figure 12. Instances of higher reservoir storage requirements to contain 

extreme inflow events are evident in the sharp spikes in the green lines in the time series plot. The 

overall frequency of storage requirement for flood control is about 11 percent. The 11,000 CFS flow 

threshold for preventing damages in the Trinity River never actually controls, as discharge capacity is 

always below that level for the storage levels attained in the operation.
Hydrological Modeling Appendix | 15

Figure 11. Time Series of Trinity Lake Operation for Flood Control

Figure 12. Exceedance of Trinity Lake Operation for Flood Control
16 | Central Valley Project Final Cost Allocation Study

Sizing Storage Facilities to Meet the Central 

Valley Improvement Act

The CAS considers the storage cost of producing CVPIA instream flow actions and of exports that 

are foregone due to CVPIA Delta actions. The continuous and evolving nature of CVPIA 

accounting methodologies makes it impossible to include a consistent long-term plan for CVPIA 

3406(b)(2) – abbreviated as B2 – actions in the CalSim 2 model. Consequently, daily accounting 

records detailing historical storage releases and export reductions used for actions from 2008 to 

2014 were analyzed.

The designated reservoir releases to meet instream flow actions were classified as:

• releases under balanced conditions able to be recaptured for other water supply purposes 

and not considered B2 use of storage

• releases under excess conditions that could not be recaptured were designated as

o action to meet D-1641 standard that was counted as a B2 action

o action to meet a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) standard that was 

counted as a B2 action

o action that was performed solely to meet the CVPIA purpose

The designated export reductions were classified as:

• reductions under excess conditions, indicating that storage was not affected by the reduction 

and therefore would not have been considered B2 use of storage

• reductions under balanced conditions, indicating that additional use of stored water would 

have been necessary to meet the foregone export, were designated as

o export reduction to meet a D-1641 standard that was counted as a B2 action

o export reduction to meet an RPA standard that was counted as a B2 action

o export reduction performed solely to meet the CVPIA purpose

These elements for historical B2 actions are shown in Figure 13:
Hydrological Modeling Appendix | 17

Figure 13. Diagram Describing the Classification of B2 Actions for CVPIA Cost Allocation

Reclamation records of annual B2 accounting specify how much B2 water is ultimately used by 

purpose, although water that is ultimately exported is not included in the accounting. Existing 

analysis identified the water storage requirements specifically for B2 to be 208 TAF, excluding B2 

water that is ultimately exported as irrigation or M&I water. This figure can be broken into three 

pieces: B2 actions attributed to the water supply purpose (79 TAF), B2 for RPA mitigation (69 

TAF), and B2 for water quality (60 TAF).

The required storage for B2 water supply actions was calculated as the 2008-2014 average annual 

total of the volume of releases designated to have been made for B2 actions during excess 

conditions and the average annual volume of exports reduced for B2 actions during balanced 

conditions. This average annual volume can be distributed among the storage facilities based on 

proportional B2 releases from each reservoir (instream release element) and distribution of north-ofDelta CVP reservoir sizes (export reduction element). Figure 14 depicts the impact on CVP storage 

of meeting CVPIA actions. It is recognized that the suite of actions over the years 2008-2014 reflect 
18 | Central Valley Project Final Cost Allocation Study

different water year hydrology conditions, different environmental needs, and evolving perspectives 

on B2 action management by Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Table 7 displays the 

estimated storage reserves used to meet B2 action management for Trinity, Shasta, Folsom, and 

New Melones storage facilities.

Figure 14. Components of the Storage Costs for Meeting CVPIA Responsibilities, 2008-2014

Table 7. Estimated Average Annual Storage Requirements Used to Meet B2 Water Supply 

Objectives (TAF)

B2 Objective Trinity Shasta Folsom New 

Melones Total

B2 – Water Supply 24.1 43.7 9.6 1.6 79.0
Hydrological Modeling Appendix | 19

Omitted-Purpose Analysis

The omitted-purpose analysis considered the size of the multi-purpose project with a single purpose 

hypothetically removed. The multi-purpose project without a given purpose (omitted-purpose 

project) would exclude the size (storage capacity) required to meet omitted-purpose benefit levels,

while maintaining the storage capacity to provide the benefits for all other purposes. For all 

purposes, it was concluded that the multi-purpose without sizes were all full capacity. The 

quantitative background to support that conclusion is summarized below.

• Multi-purpose without water supply, multi-purpose without water quality, and multi-purpose 

without flood control can be identified as full capacity since these sizes are driven by the need 

for the reservoirs to operate through their full range of elevations in order to generate an 

equivalent amount of power as provided by the full multi-purpose project. In other words, the 

power purpose is what drives the multi-purpose-without sizes for water supply, water quality, 

and flood control.

• Multi-purpose without power is also full capacity, since CalSim 2 model results demonstrate at 

least one period where the reservoirs operate from full capacity to dead pool without re-filling in 

order to satisfy the water supply, flood control, and water quality purposes. Power is an ancillary 

benefit of reservoir releases in CalSim 2 – i.e., there is no logic to produce releases that target 

power production – it is a byproduct of releases to satisfy other operational criteria.

o Figure 15 shows two multi-purpose without power sequences for Friant. The June 1922–

August 1924 period shows the without-power use of full capacity driven by water supply.

The June 1982–October 1983 period shows an extreme case of the without power use of 

full capacity driven by flood control.

o Figure 16 shows the period of June 1983 through October 1991 for New Melones 

Reservoir, where the full capacity of the conservation pool is used to meet multiple 

purposes other than power.

o Figure 17 and Tables 8 and 9 show the period from May 1975 through October 1977 for 

the north-of-Delta facilities Trinity, Shasta, and Folsom. Note that Trinity does not 

exactly meet the criteria, as its storage in this period has a max of 2431 (full capacity is 

2447) and a min of 372 (dead pool is 240). However, considering the integrated nature of 

CVP reservoir operations, the divergence from absolute max and absolute min for total 

NOD storage is well within the sensitivity of the costing analysis which would inform 

this aspect of the SCRB analysis.
20 | Central Valley Project Final Cost Allocation Study

Figure 15. Two Examples of Multi-Purpose Without Power Use of Full Conservation Storage in Millerton

Figure 16. Example of Multi-Purpose Without Power Use of Full Conservation Storage in New Melones
Hydrological Modeling Appendix | 21

Table 8. CVP NOD Max and Min Storage for the Period in Figure 17

Storage Facility

Max. 

Physical 

Capacity

Min. Physical 

Capacity

Max. Model 

Results

Min. Model 

Results

Trinity 2447 240 2431 372

Shasta 4552 550 4552 550

Folsom 967 90 967 90

Totals 7966 880 7950 1012

Difference (actualideal) -16 132

Figure 17. Example of Multi-Purpose Without Power Use of Full Conservation Storage by CVP NOD 

Facilities
22 | Central Valley Project Final Cost Allocation Study

Table 9. Full Data for the Figure 17 Plot

Date Trinity Shasta Folsom

5/31/1975 2,321 4,552 967

6/30/1975 2,431 4,349 967

7/31/1975 2,270 4,042 919

8/31/1975 2,150 3,700 792

9/30/1975 1,969 3,189 733

10/31/1975 1,850 3,243 695

11/30/1975 1,841 3,039 529

12/31/1975 1,850 3,134 526

1/31/1976 1,663 3,369 461

2/29/1976 1,694 3,480 415

3/31/1976 1,742 3,668 428

4/30/1976 1,819 3,740 434

5/31/1976 1,793 3,601 456

6/30/1976 1,714 3,222 434

7/31/1976 1,495 2,757 408

8/31/1976 1,314 2,737 385

9/30/1976 1,178 2,811 357

10/31/1976 1,154 2,711 334

11/30/1976 1,132 2,608 308

12/31/1976 1,044 2,545 267

1/31/1977 1,000 2,254 230

2/28/1977 991 2,293 215

3/31/1977 977 2,286 197

4/30/1977 947 1,877 174
Hydrological Modeling Appendix | 23

Date Trinity Shasta Folsom

5/31/1977 894 1,770 167

6/30/1977 861 1,251 134

7/31/1977 790 702 95

8/31/1977 545 550 90

9/30/1977 491 570 90

10/31/1977 372 550 90
24 | Central Valley Project Final Cost Allocation Study

Single Purpose Facility Sizing Model

The single purpose facility Sizing Model is essentially CalSim 2 with no operations logic. It uses 

nearly the same schematic network as CalSim 2, removing only the details of canal operations below 

the south Delta pumping plants (Delta-Mendota Canal below Jones Pumping Plant and California 

Aqueduct below Banks Pumping Plant). Inputs to the Sizing Model include all of the hydrology –

rim inflows, local inflows, and Depletion Service Area (DSA) accretion/depletion terms. Streamgroundwater interactions are dynamic, as are weir spills. Delta Cross Channel gates are closed if the 

flow at Hood exceeds 25,000 cfs, but otherwise there are no rules about closures.

All Sizing Model runs fix all SWP operations using pre-set time series. This includes Feather River 

operations such as Oroville and Thermolito release and evaporation, all deliveries, channel flows, 

and stream groundwater interaction. Inflows from the Yuba River and Bear River systems, SWP 

deliveries to the North Bay Aqueduct, and exports at Banks Pumping Plant are fixed. The outcome 

of this locked operation is a pre-determined set of flows entering the Sacramento River from the 

Feather River – flows which, depending on the time step, reflect some combination of controlled 

release for delivery or Delta outflow and uncontrolled flow which may be available for CVP 

purposes. Flows that were the result of a specific action to enable delivery are delivered at the North 

Bay Aqueduct or Banks. Flows that were the result of a specific action to meet a Delta standard 

under a Coordinated Operations Agreement (COA) sharing relationship are identified by the Flow 

Tracker and set as a requirement for Delta outflow so that CVP deliveries do not have access to this 

flow resource.

All Sizing Model runs fix all CVP deliveries and associated groundwater pumping and return flow.

Non-project deliveries are also fixed.

The list below summarizes the preceding discussion of Sizing Model inputs and assumptions:

• CalSim 2 schematic network (minus Delta-Mendota Canal below Jones and California 

Aqueduct below Banks)

• CalSim 2 hydrology

o rim inflows,

o local inflows,

o local accretions,

o DSA accretions/depletions,

o local loss assumptions

• Dynamic stream-groundwater interactions

• Weir spills determined by flow/spill relationships

• Delta Cross Channel Gates closed if flow at Hood exceeds 25,000 CFS

• Fixed SWP operations (Feather River, North Bay Aqueduct, Banks Pumping Plant)
Hydrological Modeling Appendix | 25

• Fixed non-project deliveries (Delta consumptive use, all other non-project deliveries)

• Fixed CVP delivery operations

o surface diversion

o groundwater pumping

o return flow

Sizing Model functionality is illustrated by the example in Figures 18, 19, and 20. A simple example 

system has one inflow, one reservoir, one delivery, and one flow requirement. For this simple 

example, the reservoir has no dead pool.

Figure 18 represents a normal operation, equivalent to a general CalSim 2 scenario run. Delivery is 

affected by an allocation strategy, outflow is a combination of a requirement and spill, and 

conservation storage is tapped to satisfy system requirements when inflow is not sufficient. The full 

range of storage capacity is exercised during the range of water supply conditions portrayed.

Figure 18. Normal Operation of the Simple Example System, Equivalent to a Normal CalSim 2 Run

Figure 19 represents the first step in the Sizing Model analysis. To find the single purpose facility 

size for the deliveries determined in Figure 18, all other project purposes are removed from required 

operations; in this case the required outflow is no longer imposed. As long as inflows can meet 

delivery, storage stays full, and inflow that is not needed for delivery and cannot be stored goes to 

outflow as spill. Once the inflow is not sufficient to meet delivery needs, releases are made from 

storage to satisfy the delivery. Under these conditions, outflow is zero because there is no 

requirement to meet a flow standard – it is a single purpose water supply operation. Figure 19 shows a 

modest need for reservoir storage to meet the deliveries; much of the storage capacity is not used, so 

clearly a smaller size reservoir would do.
26 | Central Valley Project Final Cost Allocation Study

Figure 19. Removal of Operations Unrelated to Single Purpose in Question in Simple Example System

Figure 20 shows the final step of the Sizing Model analysis. The reservoir size has been dropped 

from 4000 to 697, which is just large enough to always be able to satisfy the delivery capabilities 

determined under the normal operation in Figure 18. During the period of record of this example 

study, there is one point, indicated by the black circle, when the reservoir storage is completely used 

up. This is what defines the single purpose alternative storage for this simple example system. In a 

real reservoir with non-zero dead pool, storage would be reduced so that the largest depletion 

reached the top of dead pool.

Figure 20. Sizing Model Applied to Simple Example System, Identifying Minimum Required Storage
Hydrological Modeling Appendix | 27

Flow Tracker

The Flow Tracker was created to identify SWP releases of stored water from Oroville that were 

specifically to meet Delta requirements for water quality or outflow. As discussed previously, the 

Sizing Model was developed to fix SWP operations on the Feather River, deliveries to the North Bay 

Aqueduct, and Banks Pumping Plant exports. Any SWP release for its own water supply would be 

taken as SWP delivery, and other water from the Feather River would be available to the fixed CVP 

deliveries in the lower Sacramento River or at Jones Pumping Plant. But if an SWP storage release 

was made specifically to meet a Delta standard, the Sizing Model would need to know this so it 

could avoid making this water available to meet the CVP water supply purpose. Without considering 

this, the CVP water supply SPA would be underestimated.

Seven types of flows were identified and tracked:

• CVP release of water that passes through a reservoir without being stored

• CVP release of previously stored water

• SWP release of water that passes through a reservoir without being stored

• SWP release of previously stored water

• Non-Project flow – accretions or other local inflow that has not passed through a reservoir

• Groundwater – seepage to stream channels from groundwater

• Return flow – flow in any channel that is the result of return flow from delivery operations

The Flow Tracker, like the Sizing Model, uses the same network schematic as CalSim 2. It takes as 

input the merged inputs and outputs of a CalSim 2 run. The Flow Tracker determines what flow 

types are for each channel and delivery arc in the system by following just two principles: One, that 

every channel or diversion arc is the sum of its flow types, and two, that mass balance of each flow 

type at each node must be maintained. Storage nodes need specific logic, depending on their 

characteristics, to assign flow types to evaporation, delivery, and release.

The user determines the disposition of flow types throughout the system through weights assigned 

to each flow type for each diversion. This enables the tool to be used for a wide variety of purposes 

in CVP/SWP system analysis. For this application, the ultimate goal of the analysis was to determine 

the SWP release for Delta standards, but there were additional sensible considerations as well. Nonproject deliveries and weir flows would be expected to be satisfied without stored water releases, for 

example. A matrix of flow types and delivery types was constructed, with each flow type having a 

progression of weights for the delivery types that it could serve.

Non-project inflow, groundwater, and return flow were given the highest weights so these types of 

flow would be used first. The idea was to use it as high up in the system as possible – even by 

project delivery – while at the same time reserving what was necessary to meet non-project demands 

system-wide. Pass-through inflow was encouraged to be used first by non-project uses and then by 

project deliveries, considering the source of the release. For example, CVP release of pass-through 
28 | Central Valley Project Final Cost Allocation Study

inflow (CVPI) would have a higher weight for a CVP delivery than for SWP export. Diversions of 

stored water releases were weighted lower than all other flow types. Penalties were imposed for use 

of another project’s stored water release. No weights were imposed on flow types for Delta outflow.

The outcome of this weighting scheme was that the only time that stored water release would go to 

Delta outflow was if all other water types had been used already by deliveries and exports, and the 

release was actually necessary to meet a Delta requirement. This was the information needed for the 

Sizing Model.
RECLAMATION 

Managing Water in the West 

Attachment 1 - CalSim 2 Model Description

CVP Cost Allocation Study 

November 19, 2013 

Description of Analytical Tools 

Name 

CalSim2 

Author/Developer 

California Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Category 

Reservoir-river simulation model, long term water supply reliability planning 

model 

Main Features and Capabilities 

• Monthly time step; 82-year period of record 

• Spatial scale – CVP/SWP project extent. Extended Sacramento/San 

Joaquin river basins and associated imported water sources and export 

delivery areas. 

• Simulation of CVP/SWP operations 

o using historical rainfall and runoff hydrology that has been adjusted to

represent water supply and demands at a consistent level of

development, and

o depicting a consistent regulatory environment.

• Developed in WRIMS – a general-purpose river system modeling 

environment with a LP/MILP solution algorithm 

Applications 

CalSim2 is widely accepted as the planning model for depicting CVP/SWP 

system operations and has been used in numerous system-wide studies since it 

was first released in 2002, including multiple CALFED storage investigations, 

Operations Criteria and Plan (OCAP) 2004, OCAP 2008, DWR Delivery 

Reliability Reports, San Joaquin River Restoration, and the Bay Delta 

Conservation Plan (BDCP). 

Calibration/Validation/Sensitivity Analysis 

Because of the evolving nature of CVP/SWP facilities, demands, and governing 

regulations, true calibration/validation practices are not feasible with a model like 

CalSim2. DWR performed an historical simulation study (DWR, 2003) which 

demonstrated the model’s ability to match historical operations when driven by 

time-evolving inputs reflecting historical demand levels and operating criteria. 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Reclamation 
Attachment 1 - CalSim 2 Model Description

Sensitivity/uncertainty analysis has been performed to determine sensitivity to a 

broad range of input data (DWR 2005). 

Peer Review 

Peer reviews of CalSim2 were conducted under the CALFED study program for 

the system-wide model (Close et al, 2003), and following an update to San 

Joaquin basin representation (Ford et al, 2006). 

Anatomy of CalSim2 

Conceptual Basis 

CalSim2 depicts the water supply reliability of the CVP/SWP system, operating 

within the extended Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins at a specific level 

of development and given fixed assumptions about project facilities and 

operations criteria. 

Hydrology 

The historical hydrology record has been affected by a particular sequence of 

natural characteristics (rainfall, temperature, runoff) and human impact (facility 

development, land use, population, regulations). Historical data is “unimpaired” 

by backing out the impacts of human activity to return to a data set that reflects a 

native condition, and then it is “re-impaired” by imposing a particular 

assumption about land use and urban demand. The resulting data set thus reflects 

the historical trace of precipitation and temperature, but local accretions/ 

depletions, consumptive use demand, and urban demand reflect a consistent 

current or future level of irrigation and urban land use. The period of record used 

by the CalSim2 model is 1922-2003. The spatial resolution at which the 

hydrology balances and land-use analysis is performed is shown in Figure 1. 
West of Madera ID 

and Chowchllla WO 

Attachment 1 - CalSim 2 Model Description

Figure 1 – Depletion Analysis Regions used by CalSim2 (Depletion Study Areas, Water 

Budget Areas) 

Surface Water/Groundwater Interaction 

Groundwater has a limited representation in CalSim2. Within the Sacramento 

Valley floor, groundwater is explicitly modeled using a multiple-cell approach 

based on depletion study area boundaries. There are a total of 12 groundwater 

cells. Stream-aquifer interaction, groundwater pumping, recharge from irrigation, 

and sub-surface flow between groundwater cells are calculated dynamically. All 

other groundwater flow components are preprocessed as part of the hydrology 

development and represented in CalSim2 as fixed time series’. In areas of high 

groundwater, CalSim2 calculates groundwater inflow to the stream as a function 

of the groundwater head and stream stage. In areas of low groundwater elevation 
Attachment 1 - CalSim 2 Model Description

where the groundwater table lies below the streambed, CalSim2 assumes a 

hydraulic disconnect between the stream and aquifer. In this case seepage is only 

a function of stream stage. 

Agriculture Demands 

CalSim2 demands north of the Delta (NOD) are determined in the hydrology 

development process and depicted as lumped time series (monthly) values for the 

areas shown above. Land use-based demands are calculated using the 

Consumptive Use (CU) model, which simulates soil moisture conditions for 13 

different crop types over the historical period. Irrigation demand is triggered 

when soil moisture falls below a specified minimum. The CU model calculates 

the crop consumptive use of applied water. The consumptive use is subsequently 

multiplied by water use efficiency factors to obtain the regional water requirement 

to be met from stream diversions or groundwater pumping. Agricultural demands 

in the Delta are represented more simply as an overall mass balance between 

precipitation and crop evapotranspiration. 

Non-recoverable losses are assumed to be 10 to 15 percent of the crop 

consumptive use of applied water. Non-recoverable loss factors are used to 

determine the portion of the supply that will return to the system as surface return 

flow or as deep percolation to groundwater. Efficiency factors may vary by 

month and by year. 

Agricultural demands south of the Delta (SOD) are depicted as project contract 

obligations. SOD CVP demands are assumed to be fixed at maximum contract 

amount and do not vary year to year. SWP agricultural demands on the west side 

of the San Joaquin Valley are capped to the full assigned amount, but are reduced 

in wetter years using an index developed from annual Kern River inflows to Lake 

Isabella. 

M&I Demands 

Indoor urban water use is considered non-consumptive and is not dynamically 

represented by the model. Outdoor urban water use is treated as an irrigation 

demand and is combined with the agricultural demands. M&I diversions, although 

not entirely consumptive, can have a large influence on reservoir operations. 

Surface water diversions serving both indoor and outdoor M&I uses for the 

American and Lower Sacramento River areas have therefore been included in 

CalSim2 because they partially determine the operation of Folsom Lake. Outdoor 

urban demand is calculated by the CU model, with the irrigated area computed as 

a fixed fraction of the total urban area as measured by DWR in land use surveys. 

CVP and SWP SOD M&I demands are based on contract amounts. CVP demands 

are assumed to equal contract amounts and do not vary. SWP M&I demands south 

of the Delta are split into Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

(MWDSC) and others. MWDSC demands are either set at full contract amounts 

or are determined through a process of iteration between CalSim2 and MWDSC’s 
Attachment 1 - CalSim 2 Model Description

integrated resource planning simulation (IRPSIM) model, and vary from year to 

year. Other SWP M&I contractors’ demands are fixed at their full designated 

amount. 

Project/Non-Project Split 

Demands are disaggregated in CalSim2 into project demands and non-project 

demands. Project demands are subject to reduced water allocations based on CVP 

and SWP contract provisions, while non-project demands are satisfied from 

sources other than project storage and project conveyance facilities and are 

reduced as a function of water availability in the absence of project operations. 

For each Depletion Study Area (DSA), project demands are calculated as a fixed 

percentage of the total land use-based demand. The split between project and nonproject demands is determined by comparing project acreage within each DSA to 

the total crop acreage within the DSA. 

Total Demands/Contracts 

Model diversions represent CVP project, SWP project, local project, or nonproject operations which collectively meet the depletion area demands. Annual 

total CVP and SWP demands are summarized in Table 1 by category. 

Table 1 – CVP and SWP Demands at a 2020 Level of Development 

CVP 

• Settlement/Exchange 

• Agriculture 

• M&I 

• Refuges 

North of 

Delta 

2020 LOD 

South of Delta 

2194 

378 

557 

189 

840 

1937 

164 

281 

SWP 

• Feather River Service 

Area 

• Agriculture 

• M&I 

796 

0 

114 

0 

1032 

3024 

CVP/SWP Project Allocation 

 CalSim2 assesses project water supplies based on storage conditions and 

forecasted inflow and determines project allocations based on rule curves that 

depict tradeoffs between current year delivery and carryover water supply. 

Estimates of export capacity through south delta pumps also affect allocation 

determination. SWP allocation is first determined in January, and updated every 

month based on evolving forecast data until May. CVP allocation is first 

determined in March and updated in April and May. 
Attachment 1 - CalSim 2 Model Description

Storage Operations 

• Flood Control: Flood control rules are imposed on all system reservoirs, 

maintaining required flood space in anticipation of spring runoff. 

• CVP reservoir balancing: CalSim2 seeks to maintain a balance amongst 

storage levels in Trinity, Shasta, and Folsom, based on rules that consider 

the time of year, water supply conditions, and refill potential of each 

facility. 

• San Luis Rule Curve: Target storage levels are set through the filling 

period (~ Oct-Mar) to guide the projects’ releases from north of delta 

reservoirs for storage in San Luis Reservoir. The same philosophy is also 

used to dole out the use of storage reserves to each project through the 

water operations year, considering both seasonal demands and projected 

export capacities. 

Delta Water Quality 

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) specifies water quality 

standards for the Delta. Currently the CVP and SWP share the obligation to meet 

these standards as defined by the Coordinated Operation Agreement. Salinity 

standards must be translated into flow equivalents to be modeled in CalSim-II. 

However flow-salinity relationships in the Delta are non-linear. CalSim2 uses 

DWR’s Artificial Neural Network (ANN) model to simulate the flow-salinity 

relationships for the Delta by estimating the salinity at water quality stations in 

the Delta. The ANN model correlates DWR’s Delta Simulation Model (DSM2) 

model-generated salinity at key locations in the Delta with Delta inflows, Delta 

exports, and Delta Cross Channel operations by estimating electrical conductivity 

at the following four locations for the purpose of modeling Delta water quality 

standards: Old River at Rock Slough, San Joaquin River at Jersey Point, 

Sacramento River at Emmaton, and Sacramento River at Collinsville. In its 

estimates, the ANN model considers antecedent conditions up to 148 days, and 

considers a “carriage-water” type of effect associated with Delta exports. 

CalSim2 passes antecedent (previous month) flow conditions and known (or 

estimated) current month flows to an ANN dynamic link library (DLL). The DLL 

returns coefficients for a linear constraint that binds Sacramento River Delta 

inflows to Delta exports based on a piecewise linear approximation of the flowsalinity relationship 

Coordinated Operations Agreement (COA) 

The COA is both an operations agreement and a water rights settlement defined 

by the SWRCB Decision 1485. Decision 1485 ordered the CVP and SWP to 

guarantee certain conditions for water quality protection for agricultural, M&I, 

and fish and wildlife use. The purpose of the COA is to ensure that the CVP and 

the SWP each obtains its share of water from the Delta and bears its share of 

obligations to protect the other beneficial uses of water in the Delta and 

Sacramento Valley. The COA balance equations and COA sharing formulas are 

coded in the model as goals, used as constraints in the LP problem formulation. 

CalSim2 uses mixed integer programming to determine in which of the two 
Attachment 1 - CalSim 2 Model Description

possible conditions the model is operating under for the given month – Balanced 

Water Conditions or Excess Water Conditions. 

Other Operations Criteria 

Multiple state water resources control board plans and decisions, environmental 

regulations, water rights, and legislative mandates collectively guide and 

constrain the operations of both the CVP/SWP. 

• Joint Point of Diversion – SWP wheeling of 128 taf/yr for CVP CrossValley Canal users through Banks Pumping Plant is represented in all 

simulations as the first priority after SWP discretionary operations are 

satisfied. Further wheeling by SWP of CVP water when unused Banks 

capacity exists is possible under (1) surplus conditions when SWP has 

filled San Luis and satisfied its Article 21 demand, and (2) balanced 

conditions when SWP no longer wishes to move Oroville water to San 

Luis. 

• D-1641 – significant elements include the 1995 WQCP standards, net 

Delta outflow requirements, the Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan, X2 

standard, export/inflow (E/I) ratio, pulse period export limits, Delta crosschannel gate closure requirements, and Rio Vista and Vernalis flow 

standards. 

• CVPIA 3406(b)(2) – the 800,000 acre-feet of Central Valley Project yield 

dedicated through the Central Valley Project Improvement Act for fish, 

wildlife, and habitat restoration purposes is managed to augment river 

flows and curtail Delta exports. Flows reflecting the dynamic (b)(2) 

operation depicted in the 2008 OCAP studies are incorporated into current 

versions of CalSim2 as flow requirements. Export curtailments are not 

represented specifically, as it is commonly understood that these criteria 

are covered by the more recent constraints of the Biological Opinions. 

• Reasonable and prudent actions (RPA’s) in the 2008 Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) and 2009 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

Biological Opinions – certain RPA’s are implemented in CalSim2, as 

developed through a coordinated process between Federal and State 

agencies. 

A comprehensive list of all criteria for the CalSim2 study used to define CVP 

deliveries for Cost Allocation Study reservoir sizing analysis is provided at the 

end of this Tech Memo. 

Theoretical Basis 

Flows, deliveries, and storage conditions in the reservoir river system are defined 

as decision variables and weighted to designate system priorities. Constraints on 

the values of these decision variables can be expressed as hard constraints that 

cannot be violated (such as canal capacity, maximum reservoir storage), or as soft 

constraints with penalties for deviating from user-specified target values. Soft 

constraints are converted to auxiliary slack and surplus variables with weights set 

by the associated penalties. Weighted decision variables and the slack and 
Attachment 1 - CalSim 2 Model Description

surplus variables all become elements of the objective function. The dynamic 

evaluation of constraint coefficients at run time allows both hard and soft 

constraints to be conditionally determined based on the state of the system – they 

can vary with water supply, water year type, timestep, or any other user-defined 

category. 

Multiple simulations can be layered within a single timestep to accommodate 

constraints that tier off of interim conditions. Previously determined values for 

decision variables, from previous cycles or timesteps, can be accessed for use in 

constructing current cycle or timestep constraints. 

The use of a mixed-integer programming solver enables the use of binary integers 

to construct “either-or” type constraints, which are useful for such applications as 

weir operations or dynamic switch settings. 

Numerical Basis 

Solutions in CalSim2 are resolved by the XA solver, which is tasked with 

maximizing the value of the objective function constructed as the sum of each 

decision variable multiplied by its weight and each slack or surplus variable 

multiplied by its associated penalty. Solutions are also conditioned by the values 

of several integer variables depicting the status of weir flows and the COA 

balance. An Artificial Neural Network (ANN) depicts the relationships between 

flow and salinity at several locations in the interior Delta, based on and serving as 

a surrogate for the DSM2 model. 

Input and Output

Inputs include rim inflows, local accretions/depletions, delivery requirements, 

consumptive use requirements, irrigation efficiencies, return flow functions, 

stream/groundwater interaction parameters, contract amounts, reservoir 

bathymetry, flood control rules, physical capacities, and environmental and legal 

criteria which control operations. Outputs include average monthly river channel 

flows and deliveries, including Delta outflows and exports, end-of-month storage 

conditions, and information on governing regulations. 

Data Management 

ASCII text “.wresl” files contain scripting language variable definitions and goals 

statements. ASCII text “.table” files contain relational (lookup) input data. HECDSS (USACE 1995) files hold input time series data and store time series results. 

Software 

CalSim2 is developed in WRIMS (Water Resources Integrated Modeling 

System) – a generalized reservoir-river basin simulation modeling environment 

that allows for specification of user-defined system variables and associated 

constraints or goals. Solutions are determined by the XA Linear Programming/ 

Mixed Integer Linear Programming (LP/MILP) solver (Byer 2001) which is 

integrated with WRIMS as a dynamic linked library. WRIMS is produced and 
Attachment 1 - CalSim 2 Model Description

maintained by the California Department of Water Resources. The software 

platform is free, and links to the latest available versions can be acquired by 

contacting wrims2.group.developers@gmail.com. A hardware license (~ $1200) 

is required to use XA, and this solver is necessary to run CalSim2 models. 

Smaller models may be run using free public-domain LP solvers that are available 

with the WRIMS package. WRIMS runs under Microsoft Windows. 

References 

Byer, J. R. (2001). Manual for XA software, XA optimization library, Sunset 

Software Technology, San Marino, Calif. 

Close A., Haneman W.M., Labadie J.W., Loucks D.P. (chair), Lund J.R., 

McKinney D.C., Stedinger J.R. 2003. A Strategic Review of CalSim-II and its 

Use for Water Planning, Management, and Operations in Central California. 

Oakland, CA: Submitted to the California Bay Delta Authority Science Program, 

Association of Bay Governments. 4 

Dec. Availability: http://science.calwater.ca.gov/pdf/CalSim_Review.pdf. 

Draper, et al. 2004. CalSim: Generalized Model for Reservoir System Analysis. 

ASCE Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 

November/December 2004. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Bay-Delta Office. 2003b. 

CalSim-II Simulation of Historical SWP-CVP Operations. Technical 

Memorandum Report. Nov. Availability: 

http://science.calwater.ca.gov/pdf/CalSimII_Simulation.pdf. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2005. CalSim-II Model 

Sensitivity Analysis Study October 2005. Technical Memorandum Report. 

Availability: 

http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/announcement/SensitivityStudyReport_012406 

_Web.pdf 

Ford D., Grober L., Harmon T., Lund J., McKinney D., Review Panel Report San 

Joaquin River Valley CalSim-II Model Review, 2006. January. 
This page intentionally left blank.
 

 

CVP CAS CalSim2 Input and Assumptions Table

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Current Operations H-1641 H-1485 

Planning horizona 2030 Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Period of simulation 82 years (1922-2003) Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Hydrology 

Inflows/Supplies Historical with modifications for operations upstream of rim 

reservoirs 

Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Level of development Projected 2020/2030 levelb Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Demands, Water Rights, CVP/SWP Contracts 

Sacramento River Region (excluding American River) 

CVPc Land-use based, 

full build-out of contract amounts 

Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

SWP (FRSA)d Land-use based, 

limited by contract amounts 

Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Non-CVP/SWP Land use based, limited by water rights and SWRCB Decisions Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Antioch Water Works Pre-1914 water right Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Federal refugese Firm Level 2 water needs Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Sacramento River Region - American Riverf 

Water rights Year 2025, full water rights Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

CVP Year 2025, full contracts, including Freeport Regional Water 

Project 

Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

San Joaquin River Regiong 

Friant Unit Limited by contract amounts, 

based on Friant-specific allocation policy 

Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

1
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Current Operations H-1641 H-1485 

Lower Basin Land-use based, based on district level operations and 

constraints 

Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Stanislaus River Land-use based for water rights, full contracts for CVP 

contractorsh 

Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

San Francisco Bay, Central Coast, Tulare Lake and South 

Coast Regions (CVP/SWP project facilities) 

CVPc Demand based on contract amounts Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

CCWDi 195 TAF/yr CVP contract supply and water rights Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

SWPe,j Demand based on Table A amounts Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Article 56 Based on 2001-08 contractor requests Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Article 21 MWD demand up to 200 TAF/month from December to 

March subject to conveyance capacity, KCWA demand up to 

180 TAF/month and other contractor demands up to 

34 TAF/month in all months, subject to conveyance capacity 

Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

North Bay Aqueduct (NBA) 77 TAF/yr demand under SWP contracts, up to 43.7 cfs of 

excess flow under Fairfield, Vacaville and Benicia Settlement 

Agreement 

Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Federal refugese Firm Level 2 water needs Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Facilities 

North Coast Region 

Trinity Lake 2,447 TAF capacity Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Sacramento River Region 

Shasta Lake 4,552 TAF capacity Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Red Bluff Diversion Dam Diversion dam operated with gates out all year, NMFS BiOp 

(Jun 2009) Action I.3.1k

; assume permanent facilities in place 

Diversion dam operated with gates out all 

year, per 2013 condition 

Diversion dam operated with gates out all 

year, per 2013 condition 

2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Current Operations H-1641 H-1485 

Upper American Riverf PCWA American River Pump Stationl Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Lower Sacramento River Freeport Regional Water Project Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

San Joaquin River Region 

Millerton Lake (Friant Dam) 524 TAF capacity Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

New Melones Reservoir 2,420 TAF capacity Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Lower San Joaquin River City of Stockton Delta Water Supply Project, 30-mgd capacity Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Delta Region 

SWP Banks Pumping Plant (South Delta) Physical capacity is 10,300 cfs but 6,680 cfs permitted capacity 

in all months up to 8,500 cfs during Dec 15 – Mar 15 

depending on Vernalis flow conditionsm; additional capacity of 

500 cfs (up to 7,180 cfs) allowed for Jul – Sep for reducing 

impact of NMFS BiOp (Jun 2009) Action IV.2.1 Phase IIk on 

SWPn 

Physical capacity is 10,300 cfs but 

permitted capacity 6,680 cfs in all months 

plus an additional 1/3 of Vernalis flow (up 

to 8,500 cfs) from Dec 15 through Mar 15 

per SWRCB D-1641m 

Physical capacity is 10,300 cfs but 

permitted capacity 6,680 cfs in all months; 

limited to 3,000 cfs in May-June and 4,000 

cfs in July per SWRCB D-1485. 

CVP C.W. Bill Jones Pumping Plant (Tracy PP) Permit capacity is 4,600 cfs in all months (allowed for by the 

Delta-Mendota Canal–California Aqueduct Intertie) 

Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Upper Delta-Mendota Canal Capacity Full capacity 4,600 cfs including 400 cfs Delta-Mendota 

Canal–California Aqueduct Intertie 

Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

CCWD Intakes Los Vaqueros storage capacity, 160 TAF; Rock Slough, Old 

River and Middle River intakes (Alternative Intake Project or 

AIP) 

Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Head of Old River Gate Temporary Head of Old River Barrier installed in the fall 

months 

Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Fremont Weir Spills above 54,274 cfs Sacramento River flow at Verona; 

Assumes an operable notcho in the Fremont Weir, which 

allows spills above 15,530 cfs Sacramento River flow at 

Verona of up to 6,000 cfs during Dec 1 – Apr 30. 100 cfs spills 

during Sep 1 – Jun 30 to support fish passage. 

No Weir Notch No Weir Notch 

3
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Current Operations H-1641 H-1485 

San Francisco Bay Region 

South Bay Aqueduct (SBA) SBA rehabilitation, 430 cfs capacity from junction with 

California Aqueduct to Alameda County FC&WSD Zone 7 

diversion point 

Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Regulatory Standards 

North Coast Region 

Trinity River 

Minimum flow below Lewiston Dam Dec 2000 Trinity River Record of Decision (369-815 TAF/yr); 

August-September release of 50 TAF for Lower Klamath River 

Flows assumed in every year 

Pre-ROD condition; Annual release volume 

of 340 TAF/yr. 

Pre-ROD condition; Annual release volume 

of 340 TAF/yr. 

Trinity Reservoir end-of-September minimum storage Trinity EIS Preferred Alternative (600 TAF as able) Same as Current Operationst Same as Current Operationst 

Sacramento River Region 

Clear Creek 

Minimum flow below Whiskeytown Dam Downstream water rights, 1963 Reclamation Proposal to 

USFWS and NPS, predetermined CVPIA 3406(b)(2) flowsp

, and 

NMFS BiOp (Jun 2009) Action I.1.1k 

Downstream water rights, 1963 

Reclamation Proposal to USFWS and NPS 

Downstream water rights, 1963 

Reclamation Proposal to USFWS and NPS 

Upper Sacramento River 

Shasta Lake end-of-September minimum storage NMFS 2004 Winter-run Biological Opinion, (1900 TAF in noncritically dry years), and NMFS BiOp (Jun 2009) Action I.2.1k 

None None 

Minimum flow below Keswick Dam SWRCB WR 90-5, predetermined CVPIA 3406(b)(2) flowsp

, and 

NMFS BiOp (Jun 2009) Action I.2.2k 

3250 cfs SWRCB WR 90-5 

Feather River 

Minimum flow below Thermalito Diversion Dam 2006 Settlement Agreement (700 / 800 cfs) 1983 DWR, DFG Agreement (600 cfs) 1983 DWR, DFG Agreement (600 cfs) 

Minimum flow below Thermalito Afterbay outlet 1983 DWR, DFG Agreement (750-1,700 cfs) Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

4
 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Current Operations H-1641 H-1485 

Yuba River 

Minimum flow below Daguerre Point Dam D-1644 Operations (Lower Yuba River Accord)n Same as Current Operationst Same as Current Operationst 

American River 

Minimum flow below Nimbus Dam American River Flow Management Standard as required by 

NMFS BiOp (Jun 2009) Action II.1k 

SWRCB D-893 SWRCB D-893 

Minimum Flow at H Street Bridge SWRCB D-893 Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Lower Sacramento River 

Minimum flow near Rio Vista SWRCB D-1641 SWRCB D-1641 SWRCB D-1485 

San Joaquin River Region 

Mokelumne River 

Minimum flow below Camanche Dam FERC 2916-029, 1996 (Joint Settlement Agreement) (100-325 

cfs) 

Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Minimum flow below Woodbridge Diversion Dam FERC 2916-029, 1996 (Joint Settlement Agreement) (25-300 

cfs) 

Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Stanislaus River 

Minimum flow below Goodwin Dam Flows required for NMFS BiOp (Jun 2009) Action III.1.3k 1987 USBR, DFG Agreement 1987 USBR, DFG Agreement 

Minimum dissolved oxygen SWRCB D-1422 Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Merced River 

Minimum flow below Crocker-Huffman Diversion Dam Davis-Grunsky (180-220 cfs, Nov-Mar), and Cowell Agreement Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Minimum flow at Shaffer Bridge FERC 2179 (25-100 cfs) Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Tuolumne River 

Minimum flow at Lagrange Bridge FERC 2299-024, 1995 (Settlement Agreement) (94-301 TAF/yr) Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

5
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Current Operations H-1641 H-1485 

San Joaquin River 

San Joaquin River below Friant Dam/ Mendota Pool San Joaquin River Restoration Program releases from Friant 

are represented, as they affect delivery capability. Noted that 

the program recapture/recirculation component is yet to be 

defined, so releases proceed down the San Joaquin River. 

Release of 117 TAF/yr for losses and water 

rights 

Release of 117 TAF/yr for losses and water 

rights 

Maximum salinity near Vernalis SWRCB D-1641 Same as Current Operations SWRCB D-1422 

Minimum flow near Vernalis SWRCB D-1641q SWRCB D-1641 None 

Sacramento River – San Joaquin Delta Region 

Delta Outflow Index (Flow and Salinity) SWRCB D-1641 and USFWS BiOp (Dec 2008) Action 4 (Fall X2 

Requirement) 

SWRCB D-1641 SWRCB D-1485 

Delta Cross Channel gate operation SWRCB D-1641 with additional days closed from Oct 1 – Jan 

31 based on NMFS BiOp (Jun 2009) Action IV.1.2k (closed 

during flushing flows from Oct 1 – Dec 14 unless adverse 

water quality conditions) 

SWRCB D-1641 SWRCB D-1485 

South Delta exports (Jones PP and Banks PP) SWRCB D-1641. Vernalis flow-based export limits Apr 1 – May 

31 as required by NMFS BiOp (Jun, 2009) Action IV.2.1k 

(additional 500 cfs allowed for Jul – Sep for reducing impact 

on SWP)n 

SWRCB D-1641 SWRCB D-1485 

Combined Flow in Old and Middle River (OMR) FWS BiOp (Dec 2008) Actions 1 through 3 and NMFS BiOp (Jun 

2009) Action IV.2.3k 

None None 

Operations Criteria: River-Specific 

Sacramento River Region 

Upper Sacramento River 

Flow objective for navigation (Wilkins Slough) NMFS BiOp (Jun 2009) Action I.4k

; 3,500 – 5,000 cfs based on 

CVP water supply condition 

3,500 – 5,000 cfs based on CVP water 

supply condition 

3,500 – 5,000 cfs based on CVP water 

supply condition 

American River 

6
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Current Operations H-1641 H-1485 

Folsom Dam flood control Variable 400/600 flood control diagram (without outlet 

modifications) as a surrogate for upcoming water control 

manual update 

Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Feather River 

Flow at Mouth of Feather River (above Verona) Maintain CDFW/DWR flow target of 2,800 cfs for Apr – Sep 

dependent on Oroville inflow and FRSA allocation 

Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Operations Criteria: Systemwide 

CVP water allocation 

Settlement / Exchange 100% (75% in Shasta critical years); Exchange Contractors CVP 

allocation reduced in a post-processed analysis to maintain 

Shasta storage above 1.1 MAF, with water supply replaced up 

to CVP allocation by Friant resources, as available. 

Fixed Allocations to Current Operations for 

unique purposes of this study 

Fixed Allocations to Current Operations for 

unique purposes of this study 

Refuges 100% (75% in Shasta critical years) Fixed Allocations to Current Operations for 

unique purposes of this study 

Fixed Allocations to Current Operations for 

unique purposes of this study 

Agriculture Service 100%-0% based on supply; South-of-Delta allocations are 

additionally limited due to D-1641,USFWS BiOp (Dec 2008) 

and NMFS BiOp (Jun 2009) export restrictionsk 

Fixed Allocations to Current Operations for 

unique purposes of this study 

Fixed Allocations to Current Operations for 

unique purposes of this study 

Municipal & Industrial Service 100%-50% based on supply; South-of-Delta allocations are 

additionally limited due to D-1641,USFWS BiOp (Dec 2008) 

and NMFS BiOp (Jun 2009) export restrictionsk 

Fixed Allocations to Current Operations for 

unique purposes of this study 

Fixed Allocations to Current Operations for 

unique purposes of this study 

SWP water allocation 

North of Delta (FRSA) Contract specific Fixed Allocations to Current Operations for 

unique purposes of this study 

Fixed Allocations to Current Operations for 

unique purposes of this study 

South of Delta (including North Bay Aqueduct) Based on supply; equal prioritization between Ag and M&I 

based on Monterey Agreement; allocations are additionally 

limited due to D-1641 and USFWS BiOp (Dec 2008) and NMFS 

BiOp (Jun 2009) export restrictionsk 

Fixed Allocations to Current Operations for 

unique purposes of this study 

Fixed Allocations to Current Operations for 

unique purposes of this study 

7
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Current Operations H-1641 H-1485 

CVP/SWP coordinated operations 

Sharing of responsibility for in-basin-use 1986 Coordinated Operations Agreement (FRWP EBMUD and 

2/3 of the North Bay Aqueduct diversions considered as Delta 

Export; 1/3 of the North Bay Aqueduct diversion as in-basinuse) 

Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Sharing of surplus flows 1986 Coordinated Operations Agreement Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

Sharing of total allowable export capacity for projectspecific priority pumping Equal sharing of export capacity under SWRCB D-1641,USFWS 

BiOp (Dec 2008) and NMFS BiOp (Jun 2009) export 

restrictionsk 

Equal sharing of export capacity under 

SWRCB D-1641 export limits 

None Assumed 

Water transfers Acquisitions by SWP contractors are wheeled at priority in 

Banks Pumping Plant over non-SWP users; LYRA included for 

SWP contractorsn 

None Assumed None Assumed 

Sharing of total allowable export capacity for lesser priority 

and wheeling-related pumping 

Cross Valley Canal wheeling (max of 128 TAF/yr), CALFED ROD 

defined Joint Point of Diversion (JPOD) 

Same as Current Operations Banks “payback” wheeling for CVP capacity 

reduced by D-1485 striped bass export 

limits 

San Luis Reservoir San Luis Reservoir is allowed to operate to a minimum storage 

of 100 TAF 

Same as Current Operations Same as Current Operations 

CVPIA 3406(b)(2)p 

Policy Decision Per May 2003 Dept. of Interior Decision: No representation No representation 

Allocation 800 TAF, 700 TAF in 40-30-30 dry years, and 600 TAF in 40-30-

30 critical years as a function of Ag allocation 

No representation No representation 

Actions Pre-determined upstream fish flow objectives below 

Whiskeytown and Keswick Dams, non-discretionary NMFS 

BiOp (Jun 2009) actions for the American and Stanislaus 

Rivers, and NMFS BiOp (Jun 2009) and USFWS BiOp (Dec 

2008) actions leading to export restrictionsk 

No representation No representation 

Accounting Releases for non-discretionary USFWS BiOp (Dec 2008) and 

NMFS BiOp (Jun 2009)k actions may or may not always be 

No representation No representation 

8
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Current Operations H-1641 H-1485 

deemed (b)(2) actions; in general, it is anticipated, that 

accounting of these actions using (b)(2) metrics, the sum 

would exceed the (b)(2) allocation in many years; therefore 

no additional actions are considered and no accounting logic 

is included in the model p 

Water Management Actions 

Water Transfer Supplies (long term programs) 

Lower Yuba River Accordr Yuba River acquisitions for reducing impact of NMFS BiOp 

export restrictionsk on SWP 

No representation No representation 

Phase 8 None None None 

a These assumptions were developed by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation for the November 2015 Coordinated Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. Restoration of 

at least 8,000 acres of intertidal and associated subtidal habitat in the Delta and Suisun Marsh required by the 2008 USFWS BiOp and restoration of at least 17,000 to 20,000 acres of floodplain rearing habitat for juvenile winter-run and spring-run Chinook 

salmon and Central Valley steelhead in the Yolo Bypass and/or suitable areas of the lower Sacramento River required by the NMFS 2009 BiOp are not included in the assumptions because environmental documents of projects regarding these actions were not 

completed. Fremont Weir notch was assumed as a placeholder for Action I.6.1. b The San Joaquin Valley hydrology reflects draft 2030 land-use assumptions developed by Reclamation. The Sacramento Valley hydrology reflects 2020 land-use assumptions associated with Bulletin 160-98. c CVP contract amounts have been updated according to amended contracts as appropriate. Assumptions regarding CVP agricultural and M&I service contracts, exchange contract amounts, Refuge Level 2 contract amounts and Settlement Contract amounts are 

documented in the Delivery Specifications section, Appendix 5A of the November 2015 Coordinated Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project Final EIS (LTO-App5A). d SWP contract amounts have been updated as appropriate based on recent Table A transfers/agreements. Assumptions regarding SWP agricultural and M&I contract amounts are documented in the Delivery Specifications attachments of the LTO-App5A. e Water needs for federal refuges have been reviewed and updated as appropriate. Assumptions regarding firm Level 2 refuge water needs are documented in the Delivery Specifications attachments of the LTO-App5A. Refuge Level 4 (and incremental Level 4) 

water is not analyzed. f Assumptions regarding American River water rights and CVP contracts are documented in the Delivery Specifications attachments of the LTO-App5A. The Sacramento Area Water Forum agreement, and any diversion reductions, are not included except for 

federal actions. g The CalSim II representation of the San Joaquin River model reflects the difficulties of on-going groundwater overdraft problems. The 2030 level of development representation of the San Joaquin River Basin does not make any attempt to offer solutions to 

groundwater overdraft problems. In addition a dynamic groundwater simulation is not yet developed for the San Joaquin River Valley. Groundwater extraction/ recharge and stream-groundwater interaction are static assumptions and may not accurately reflect a 

response to simulated actions. These limitations should be considered in the analysis of results. h The model operates the Stanislaus River by allocating water for SEWD & CSJWCD, Vernalis water quality dilution and Vernalis D1641 base flow requirements based on the New Melones Index. OID & SSJID deliveries are based on their 1988 agreement and 

Ripon DO requirements are represented by a static set of minimum instream flow requirements during Jun thru Sep. Instream flow requirements for fish below Goodwin are based on NMFS BiOp Action III.1.3. i The actual amount diverted is operated in conjunction with supplies from the Los Vaqueros project. The Los Vaqueros storage capacity is 160 TAF and associated water rights for Delta excess flows are included. 

j It is assumed that SWP Contractors exercise full demand for Table A allocations of 4.1 MAF/year and that SWP Contractors can take delivery of all Table A allocations and Article 21 supplies. Article 56 provisions are assumed and allow for SWP Contractors to 

manage storage and delivery conditions such that full Table A allocations can be delivered. Article 21 deliveries are limited in wet years under the assumption that demand is decreased in these conditions. Article 21 deliveries for the NBA are dependent on 

excess conditions only, all other Article 21 deliveries also require that San Luis Reservoir be at capacity and that Banks PP and the California Aqueduct have available capacity to divert from the Delta for direct delivery. k Assumptions developed in cooperation among Reclamation, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and CA Department of Fish and Wildlife for implementation of the USFWS BiOp (Dec 15th 2008) and NMFS BiOp (June 4th 2009). l The American River pumping facility upstream of Folsom Lake is included. The diversion is assumed to be 35.5 TAF/yr. m USACE permit for Clifton Court Forebay Intakes (assumed for Banks PP in CalSim II) allows for an average diversion rate of 6,680 cfs in all months. Diversion rate can increase up to 1/3 of the rate of San Joaquin River flow at Vernalis during Dec 15th – Mar 

15th up to a maximum diversion of 8,500 cfs, if Vernalis flow exceeds 1,000 cfs. n Acquisitions of Component 1 water under the Lower Yuba River Accord, and use of 500 cfs dedicated capacity at Banks PP during Jul – Sep, are assumed to be used to reduce as much of the impact of the Apr – May Delta export actions on SWP contractors as 

possible. 

9
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

o Fremont Weir notch assumed to represent the NMFS BO (Jun, 2009) Action I.6.1: Restoration of Floodplain Rearing Habitat action, and is only for use in the modeling as a placeholder, while the proposed changes associated with this RPA are still in 

development under a separate multi-agency process. p CVPIA (b)(2) fish actions are not dynamically determined in the CalSim2 model, nor is (b)(2) accounting done in the model. Since the USFWS BiOp and NMFS BiOp were issued, the Department of the Interior (Interior) has exercised its discretion to use (b)(2) in 

the delta by accounting some or all of the export reductions required under those biological opinions as (b)(2) actions. It is therefore assumed for modeling purposes that (b)(2) availability for other delta actions will be limited to covering the CVP’s VAMP export 

reductions. Similarly, since the USFWS BiOp and NMFS BiOp were issued, Interior has exercised its discretion to use (b)(2) upstream by accounting some or all of the release augmentations (relative to the hypothetical (b)(2) base case) below Whiskeytown, 

Nimbus and Goodwin as (b)(2) actions. It is therefore assumed for modeling purposes that (b)(2) availability for other upstream actions will be limited to covering Sacramento releases, in the fall and winter. For modeling purposes, pre-determined timeseries of 

minimum instream flow requirements are specified below Whiskeytown and Keswick. The timeseries are based on the Aug 2008 BA Study 7.0 and Study 8.0 simulations which did include dynamically determined (b)(2) actions. q Vernalis base flows as required by D1641 Table 3 are included in the model. Vernalis pulse flow requirements are not included. However, pulse flows required by NMFS BO (Jun, 2009) Action III.1.3 are included in the model. r The Yuba River is not dynamically modeled in CalSim2. Yuba River hydrology and availability of water acquisitions under the Lower Yuba River Accord and D-1644 are based on modeling performed and provided by the Lower Yuba River Accord EIS/EIR study 

team. 

s Only acquisitions of Lower Yuba River Accord Component 1 water are included. t Where the purpose of identifying operational differences incurred by the Water Quality Control Plan were not influenced by CalSim2 assumptions, specific inputs for D-1641 or D-1485 era conditions were not developed. 

10
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 1. Trinity 

TAF 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1922 1781 1754 1755 1751 1766 1815 1918 1997 2043 1931 1782 1609 

1923 1554 1526 1529 1546 1569 1621 1740 1698 1630 1491 1299 1161 

1924 1144 1136 1127 1016 1076 1068 1012 931 878 800 698 630 

1925 623 699 746 649 920 1058 1358 1343 1262 1113 1034 974 

1926 956 954 975 979 1126 1229 1450 1344 1274 1139 1045 963 

1927 927 1085 1284 1393 1631 1809 2036 2025 2051 1929 1789 1622 

1928 1531 1560 1568 1617 1726 1933 2089 2027 1935 1830 1652 1481 

1929 1419 1347 1339 1147 1174 1225 1241 1284 1215 1041 940 858 

1930 833 819 950 969 1071 1200 1316 1219 1177 1116 960 873 

1931 848 837 827 839 861 922 945 905 886 815 624 557 

1932 508 468 471 418 440 593 682 706 708 632 535 470 

1933 451 449 446 444 446 563 712 700 818 773 677 614 

1934 596 587 597 658 748 893 977 948 917 845 600 534 

1935 451 516 553 529 613 674 888 922 933 871 773 694 

1936 680 674 677 790 928 1044 1217 1147 1108 1033 944 866 

1937 840 826 814 802 804 905 1128 1273 1340 1236 1079 1008 

1938 991 1139 1358 1450 1607 1868 2175 2349 2294 2265 2123 1905 

1939 1811 1796 1813 1824 1838 1946 2021 1911 1714 1483 1239 1081 

1940 1002 930 996 1174 1500 1802 2029 1966 1850 1670 1495 1360 

1941 1304 1284 1408 1629 1880 2100 2300 2420 2447 2270 2150 1975 

1942 1850 1837 1850 1900 2000 2079 2266 2325 2397 2270 2150 1975 

1943 1850 1845 1850 1900 2000 2100 2283 2173 2100 1956 1811 1640 

1944 1552 1522 1510 1464 1498 1557 1596 1652 1564 1349 1160 1080 

1945 1055 1085 1162 1220 1383 1431 1569 1534 1442 1299 1141 1069 

1946 1064 1119 1311 1441 1496 1618 1837 1832 1738 1607 1436 1298 

1947 1238 1231 1243 1235 1301 1420 1508 1416 1402 1277 1088 1009 

1948 1029 1043 1043 1238 1263 1288 1473 1467 1547 1512 1375 1329 

1949 1275 1282 1284 1277 1309 1526 1786 1787 1737 1592 1419 1280 

1950 1218 1185 1172 1203 1262 1383 1537 1541 1523 1401 1241 1103 

1951 1204 1320 1577 1667 1885 1986 2172 2104 2020 1890 1715 1545 

1952 1492 1497 1644 1704 1894 2060 2300 2411 2447 2270 2150 1975 

1953 1850 1845 1850 1900 2000 2100 2262 2222 2315 2270 2150 1960 

1954 1850 1850 1850 1900 2000 2100 2300 2272 2204 2067 1931 1769 

1955 1712 1733 1774 1792 1821 1851 1897 1896 1881 1661 1485 1346 

1956 1283 1267 1575 1900 2000 2100 2283 2386 2304 2187 2077 1924 

1957 1850 1826 1818 1808 1956 2100 2218 2234 2211 2067 1923 1759 

1958 1847 1850 1850 1900 2208 2100 2300 2420 2430 2270 2150 1975 

1959 1850 1850 1835 1900 2000 2100 2272 2171 2053 1825 1613 1418 

1960 1357 1318 1296 1295 1428 1616 1738 1683 1690 1517 1359 1220 

1961 1159 1170 1232 1276 1468 1565 1756 1784 1819 1673 1500 1363 

1962 1303 1278 1285 1302 1400 1459 1785 1751 1685 1537 1384 1247 

1963 1349 1397 1563 1604 1884 1959 2216 2240 2181 2036 1890 1721 

1964 1627 1697 1732 1800 1805 1835 1858 1750 1691 1558 1358 1226 

1965 1172 1205 1724 1900 1988 2054 2278 2185 2114 1977 1846 1713 

1966 1653 1707 1729 1800 1860 2058 2300 2301 2226 2090 1859 1697 

1967 1608 1685 1819 1900 2000 2100 2205 2310 2401 2270 2150 1975 

1968 1850 1850 1850 1900 2000 2100 2191 2077 1971 1791 1618 1452 

1969 1396 1389 1445 1582 1699 1854 2176 2414 2334 2210 2066 1927 

1970 1850 1850 1850 1900 2000 2100 2161 2061 1917 1742 1566 1398 

1971 1321 1415 1540 1763 1893 2081 2238 2272 2281 2257 2116 1975 

1972 1850 1850 1850 1900 2000 2100 2234 2163 2113 1964 1790 1622 

1973 1568 1604 1708 1861 2000 2100 2269 2318 2265 2125 1902 1734 

1974 1705 1850 1850 1900 2000 2100 2300 2384 2367 2270 2150 1975 

1975 1850 1843 1847 1859 1948 2100 2225 2321 2431 2270 2150 1969 

1976 1850 1841 1850 1663 1694 1742 1819 1793 1714 1495 1314 1178 

1977 1154 1132 1044 1000 991 977 947 894 861 790 545 491 

1978 372 400 590 976 1154 1427 1618 1622 1567 1480 1345 1235 

1979 1174 1168 1160 1185 1236 1382 1493 1560 1526 1402 1243 1105 

1980 1109 1171 1238 1457 1745 1877 2037 1942 1844 1721 1546 1408 

11
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 1. Trinity 

TAF 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1981 1346 1321 1350 1447 1585 1703 1811 1744 1688 1541 1346 1208 

1982 1146 1389 1713 1801 2000 2100 2300 2318 2187 2071 2012 1962 

1983 1850 1850 1850 1900 2000 2100 2300 2420 2447 2270 2150 1975 

1984 1850 1850 1850 1900 1991 2100 2218 2183 2124 1989 1797 1658 

1985 1569 1698 1755 1732 1770 1819 1965 1888 1813 1587 1348 1210 

1986 1148 1141 1157 1286 1760 2092 2101 1998 1887 1711 1536 1400 

1987 1346 1313 1303 1312 1388 1590 1737 1691 1546 1320 1109 1001 

1988 953 937 1090 1171 1256 1336 1367 1311 1299 1138 1041 963 

1989 940 963 981 919 947 1291 1495 1386 1271 1108 1010 933 

1990 955 958 953 1019 1044 1132 1172 1141 1159 1105 1007 930 

1991 907 894 879 863 868 944 993 1017 1017 954 858 781 

1992 758 746 741 746 884 1000 1233 1227 1192 1127 891 780 

1993 757 744 766 825 964 1339 1520 1689 1804 1787 1656 1520 

1994 1460 1450 1459 1385 1419 1487 1532 1507 1395 1216 1011 934 

1995 911 899 885 1285 1539 1972 2211 2286 2271 2270 2150 1975 

1996 1850 1840 1850 1900 2000 2100 2259 2215 2151 2014 1866 1727 

1997 1664 1670 1850 1900 1985 2076 2117 1930 1732 1551 1344 1206 

1998 1129 1145 1187 1497 1820 2100 2276 2410 2447 2270 2150 1975 

1999 1850 1850 1850 1900 2000 2100 2294 2334 2355 2221 2087 1950 

2000 1850 1850 1850 1900 2000 2100 2300 2292 2306 2176 2029 1819 

2001 1759 1727 1716 1716 1747 1917 2016 1978 1805 1593 1371 1237 

2002 1168 1216 1289 1519 1629 1731 1938 1848 1749 1600 1424 1286 

2003 1223 1186 1369 1682 1793 1948 2148 2214 2289 2173 1965 1800 

12
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 2. Shasta 

TAF 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1922 2759 2628 2769 2911 3287 3731 4332 4552 4182 3700 3302 3069 

1923 2965 2764 2899 3106 3249 3385 3846 3623 3286 2878 2584 2567 

1924 2476 2395 2375 2524 2732 2752 2537 2246 1886 1564 1255 1100 

1925 1080 1242 1351 1684 2866 3236 3916 4051 3793 3340 2929 2811 

1926 2696 2672 2703 2744 3489 3647 3926 3780 3344 2790 2284 2162 

1927 2112 2565 3003 3452 3571 4214 4552 4552 4224 3734 3340 2669 

1928 2581 2675 2785 3012 3506 3965 4541 4494 3965 3276 2869 2491 

1929 2319 2247 2318 2583 2768 2939 2983 2859 2583 2102 1765 1674 

1930 1551 1474 2014 2213 2611 3105 3246 3222 2862 2428 2170 2121 

1931 2007 1984 1973 2053 2138 2348 2109 1914 1651 1256 1075 1100 

1932 1064 1070 1248 1476 1592 2049 2176 2382 2218 2003 1759 1663 

1933 1561 1539 1533 1542 1578 2175 2344 2441 2256 1959 1427 1264 

1934 1168 1134 1257 1542 1857 2130 2141 2027 1725 1307 1130 1100 

1935 1073 1168 1202 1559 1870 2260 3299 3618 3297 2876 2515 2415 

1936 2322 2263 2255 2912 3796 4091 4309 4236 3982 3457 3042 2907 

1937 2734 2607 2571 2547 2626 3290 3987 4231 4060 3701 3401 3271 

1938 3215 3732 3790 4104 4039 3894 4058 4552 4422 3977 3625 3069 

1939 3091 2949 3108 3242 3367 3783 3647 3447 3116 2568 2205 2185 

1940 2102 2007 2142 3034 3252 3435 4131 4139 3750 3150 2769 2631 

1941 2540 2300 3263 3317 3423 3940 4456 4552 4442 4150 3700 3173 

1942 3068 2725 3316 3389 3516 3795 4451 4552 4467 4103 3700 3159 

1943 3030 2706 2958 3541 3848 4118 4552 4552 4275 3703 3350 2902 

1944 2817 2422 2410 2500 2814 3140 3175 3197 3010 2568 2321 2259 

1945 2190 2337 2609 2817 3514 3762 3929 4070 3863 3428 3116 2991 

1946 2959 3216 3265 3622 3805 4124 4297 4269 3900 3429 3099 3026 

1947 2838 2882 2999 3007 3268 3792 3917 3646 3426 2808 2513 2415 

1948 2488 2499 2502 3067 3149 3485 4380 4552 4500 3943 3564 3400 

1949 3234 3195 3212 3205 3351 4071 4398 4447 4047 3402 3027 2972 

1950 2853 2776 2715 2950 3290 3666 4050 4047 3745 3334 3039 3008 

1951 3176 3252 3322 3624 3794 4221 4279 4434 3999 3334 2973 2754 

1952 2657 2614 3306 3604 3739 4022 4290 4552 4466 4150 3700 3322 

1953 3198 2848 3292 3366 3654 4086 4440 4552 4500 4026 3700 3172 

1954 3116 2922 3033 3552 3661 4106 4546 4552 4253 3650 3305 3019 

1955 2916 2819 3069 3157 3310 3479 3710 3895 3624 3125 2858 2880 

1956 2850 2940 3252 3252 3288 3970 4503 4552 4334 3998 3700 3105 

1957 3079 2661 2601 2675 3334 4129 4406 4552 4240 3637 3293 3152 

1958 3250 3156 3338 3531 4433 3416 4173 4552 4500 4150 3700 3295 

1959 3181 2778 2765 3648 3777 4221 4263 4148 3635 3092 2702 2846 

1960 2678 2501 2439 2651 3363 4035 4124 4265 3798 3200 2932 2895 

1961 2758 2838 3287 3487 3914 4280 4408 4423 4061 3423 2985 2893 

1962 2692 2782 3078 3180 3675 4199 4420 4358 4013 3420 3067 2995 

1963 3250 3252 3349 3461 3944 4226 4137 4552 4289 3712 3382 2811 

1964 2882 3102 3159 3503 3723 3871 3738 3633 3440 2897 2681 2696 

1965 2658 2744 3252 3368 3713 3874 4500 4546 4207 3770 3502 3046 

1966 2887 2935 3055 3539 3934 4229 4552 4436 3889 3260 2927 2694 

1967 2600 2937 3335 3551 3920 4033 4479 4552 4500 4114 3700 3264 

1968 3200 2935 3014 3190 3654 4226 4290 4226 3775 3181 2968 2953 

1969 2909 2980 3318 3358 3480 4030 4434 4552 4331 3935 3578 3200 

1970 3200 3034 3317 3252 3431 4021 4065 4008 3756 3180 2920 2357 

1971 2233 2645 3319 3515 3848 3873 4369 4552 4469 3974 3685 3244 

1972 3200 2864 3008 3344 3726 4249 4505 4461 4006 3392 3087 3148 

1973 3146 3252 3346 3552 3636 4162 4461 4532 4088 3471 3223 3034 

1974 3107 3252 3267 3252 3694 3416 4289 4552 4351 4150 3700 3311 

1975 3218 2809 2984 3141 3790 3756 4341 4552 4349 4042 3700 3189 

1976 3243 3039 3134 3369 3480 3668 3740 3601 3222 2757 2737 2811 

1977 2711 2608 2545 2254 2293 2335 1976 1938 1509 1064 1015 1100 

1978 1078 1122 1557 3467 4093 4526 4552 4552 4167 3718 3382 3319 

1979 3164 2887 2792 2869 3193 3697 3965 4179 3796 3293 3121 3097 

1980 3135 3244 3367 3528 3292 3940 4231 4226 3847 3413 3124 3109 

13
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 2. Shasta 

TAF 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1981 3047 2736 2859 3138 3546 4148 4385 4217 3562 2934 2601 2584 

1982 2595 3252 3276 3616 3530 3953 4094 4488 4343 4029 3700 3400 

1983 3250 3252 3328 3371 3252 3667 4074 4552 4500 4150 3700 3400 

1984 3250 3252 3285 3650 3994 4246 4491 4503 4198 3595 3407 2827 

1985 2903 3252 3360 3459 3631 3843 3945 3671 3230 2790 2496 2477 

1986 2463 2437 2590 3135 3252 3534 3969 3962 3563 3206 2920 2948 

1987 2975 2686 2654 2792 3132 3867 3803 3510 2934 2409 2211 2206 

1988 2037 2016 2510 2883 2908 3045 3080 3058 2628 2006 1721 1654 

1989 1526 1725 1806 1992 2096 3470 3923 3656 3301 2687 2355 2389 

1990 2521 2506 2504 2747 2841 3106 2924 3092 2945 2254 1979 1929 

1991 1875 1857 1842 1722 1752 2175 2337 2319 2055 1742 1538 1480 

1992 1373 1236 1233 1268 1911 2392 2655 2364 1849 1473 1082 1100 

1993 1002 909 1136 1784 2510 3969 4450 4552 4500 3895 3623 3291 

1994 3154 2750 2823 3071 3296 3469 3308 3219 2774 2154 1791 1717 

1995 1551 1519 1564 3252 3743 3417 4217 4552 4500 4150 3700 3400 

1996 3250 2836 3201 3567 3503 4010 4432 4552 4340 3904 3640 3210 

1997 2972 2779 3252 3252 3737 3956 4015 3779 3431 2918 2746 2297 

1998 2087 2045 2287 3339 3252 3504 4329 4552 4500 4150 3700 3400 

1999 3250 3252 3349 3640 3570 3980 4518 4552 4322 3847 3573 3196 

2000 3024 2642 2638 3336 3282 3976 4552 4552 4191 3618 3304 3105 

2001 2976 2636 2612 2768 3205 3700 3810 3615 3166 2680 2510 2577 

2002 2324 2477 3142 3678 4022 4411 4475 4289 3812 3295 3002 2930 

2003 2735 2650 3291 3515 3772 4253 4552 4552 4245 3531 3281 3081 

14
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 3. Folsom 

TAF 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1922 489 430 457 460 567 662 792 967 967 942 792 556 

1923 512 463 567 567 511 599 792 967 967 773 734 707 

1924 533 485 434 367 431 432 465 484 448 324 317 306 

1925 317 352 413 467 567 656 792 967 904 681 535 502 

1926 452 418 408 367 505 609 792 779 602 442 355 355 

1927 318 465 559 565 553 647 792 967 967 789 739 607 

1928 554 442 458 455 478 635 792 915 813 508 449 399 

1929 343 325 314 272 280 377 418 479 462 381 329 297 

1930 269 269 425 529 567 659 792 816 675 480 418 382 

1931 319 311 274 246 233 282 307 327 334 315 300 228 

1932 154 169 268 363 567 664 792 967 967 900 792 659 

1933 503 439 400 344 302 321 378 457 463 286 307 319 

1934 300 302 380 474 562 655 620 492 299 255 218 143 

1935 90 146 190 290 381 469 792 967 967 832 792 752 

1936 676 567 539 567 562 651 792 967 967 771 734 706 

1937 521 473 443 399 567 664 792 967 967 845 770 710 

1938 592 567 567 567 567 662 792 967 967 942 792 707 

1939 592 507 484 436 414 536 621 615 539 367 316 314 

1940 298 289 286 567 557 626 792 967 957 710 627 436 

1941 381 388 567 567 566 658 792 967 967 942 792 563 

1942 515 454 567 564 556 650 792 967 967 942 792 581 

1943 527 449 567 556 529 625 792 967 967 777 734 510 

1944 454 389 349 305 337 447 498 629 576 452 395 356 

1945 316 403 496 509 558 656 792 967 967 742 681 591 

1946 558 567 567 564 558 649 792 967 939 692 610 577 

1947 493 519 540 487 547 661 755 776 657 448 401 384 

1948 367 361 344 444 445 463 783 956 967 866 781 743 

1949 673 567 558 503 498 664 792 967 892 667 552 514 

1950 455 422 382 567 565 658 792 967 949 736 695 663 

1951 584 449 367 384 407 599 792 967 918 639 577 470 

1952 438 427 567 567 566 661 792 967 967 942 792 627 

1953 591 483 526 566 558 622 792 967 967 896 792 676 

1954 569 501 495 512 564 656 792 866 789 481 432 395 

1955 339 326 388 451 468 503 587 741 714 577 512 477 

1956 425 404 524 460 458 616 792 967 967 942 792 714 

1957 559 438 419 382 546 652 732 967 967 718 629 579 

1958 542 529 567 567 557 656 792 967 967 942 792 619 

1959 566 466 436 477 567 650 735 752 709 382 338 350 

1960 298 261 228 222 441 654 710 745 701 573 508 482 

1961 420 408 396 337 346 403 471 530 502 292 238 233 

1962 213 226 260 262 567 664 792 907 903 673 602 536 

1963 712 567 567 544 499 629 792 967 967 781 730 652 

1964 592 544 567 567 564 556 623 707 686 525 464 427 

1965 366 387 428 425 443 612 792 967 945 837 792 583 

1966 506 504 525 546 549 644 792 827 765 500 462 451 

1967 404 448 567 563 552 636 792 967 967 942 792 610 

1968 592 504 500 520 547 640 715 735 680 394 368 352 

1969 316 374 499 543 527 637 792 967 967 942 792 592 

1970 569 515 567 453 446 611 691 785 760 502 458 362 

1971 320 445 567 567 558 648 792 952 961 877 792 605 

1972 560 487 551 561 567 646 745 845 793 529 482 455 

1973 415 470 567 559 555 652 792 967 876 664 615 547 

1974 515 567 567 505 499 622 792 967 967 942 792 624 

1975 578 474 468 462 567 662 792 967 967 919 792 733 

1976 695 529 526 461 415 428 434 456 434 408 385 357 

1977 334 308 267 230 215 197 174 167 134 95 90 90 

1978 90 90 197 567 567 657 792 967 960 783 732 627 

1979 562 492 456 535 567 657 792 967 773 626 580 547 

1980 519 544 567 481 457 621 792 967 967 942 792 592 

15
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 3. Folsom 

TAF 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1981 544 456 431 421 417 566 654 679 620 417 387 383 

1982 366 546 433 459 402 590 792 967 967 942 792 752 

1983 712 565 565 556 543 628 792 967 967 942 792 752 

1984 712 472 406 427 458 615 786 967 944 708 661 592 

1985 563 567 567 538 557 639 792 829 651 496 416 396 

1986 349 378 477 551 440 593 792 967 967 775 731 523 

1987 484 444 414 372 401 519 571 554 465 265 212 212 

1988 208 216 302 414 434 469 515 514 462 386 326 299 

1989 265 332 387 409 456 642 792 826 621 461 393 378 

1990 357 381 385 416 435 550 635 662 579 448 392 386 

1991 312 275 227 213 205 331 418 492 491 420 299 226 

1992 227 251 288 281 464 592 636 560 440 241 202 173 

1993 157 149 238 567 553 637 792 967 967 848 761 618 

1994 560 452 430 362 360 393 450 495 477 364 306 265 

1995 244 274 383 546 530 618 792 967 967 942 792 752 

1996 592 475 567 557 494 621 792 967 967 851 792 595 

1997 502 430 512 370 394 591 774 933 906 647 592 378 

1998 337 339 362 567 555 646 792 967 967 942 792 750 

1999 712 567 567 560 560 654 782 967 967 830 792 591 

2000 534 431 407 564 558 656 792 967 903 612 563 537 

2001 495 430 416 378 390 501 603 655 571 447 395 402 

2002 378 426 567 567 563 655 792 906 859 627 540 503 

2003 442 433 555 562 551 646 793 967 967 707 660 559 

16
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 4. Friant 

TAF 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1922 215 233 292 360 439 424 196 276 524 503 342 292 

1923 303 333 413 439 439 441 392 468 430 347 229 211 

1924 235 261 275 287 271 273 314 316 233 159 134 159 

1925 160 177 207 239 313 292 293 365 360 283 191 182 

1926 207 226 247 262 294 295 382 496 433 277 171 176 

1927 180 219 267 307 423 438 349 442 490 402 255 213 

1928 233 309 348 378 387 438 450 515 436 277 183 183 

1929 165 158 166 174 168 145 161 244 228 171 142 176 

1930 153 135 138 149 163 147 213 222 239 168 140 175 

1931 158 148 153 162 166 133 184 205 162 131 131 151 

1932 155 153 216 287 439 441 325 356 473 424 268 220 

1933 231 255 268 292 282 278 264 193 258 227 164 181 

1934 183 179 213 253 276 314 402 382 284 188 158 169 

1935 160 167 195 253 314 281 242 374 508 388 243 209 

1936 227 258 275 311 439 479 448 523 501 380 242 205 

1937 213 235 268 300 439 479 358 524 524 421 265 220 

1938 238 266 428 439 429 479 362 307 524 524 422 346 

1939 357 374 394 434 439 478 523 505 387 251 158 168 

1940 183 177 179 294 387 449 389 523 504 336 180 156 

1941 166 188 274 383 439 479 348 364 463 475 324 243 

1942 247 271 351 439 439 466 402 354 466 442 287 229 

1943 241 295 336 412 439 479 456 523 496 379 244 210 

1944 217 243 262 289 301 310 260 323 319 251 177 184 

1945 199 246 299 338 439 458 346 416 470 406 265 226 

1946 273 354 439 439 439 453 417 524 494 360 225 201 

1947 226 296 379 424 439 466 456 521 417 266 172 180 

1948 177 178 184 193 185 131 136 225 292 216 165 189 

1949 194 192 210 227 236 211 239 336 355 234 160 176 

1950 193 202 218 256 320 298 338 410 398 278 175 181 

1951 202 357 381 439 439 456 378 380 347 256 178 184 

1952 192 198 261 398 439 397 291 485 524 521 408 343 

1953 336 341 373 439 439 442 415 369 314 269 187 189 

1954 189 191 204 230 264 275 316 440 410 294 191 178 

1955 192 206 236 273 299 284 240 258 316 226 165 179 

1956 181 180 351 351 439 479 392 388 446 412 289 240 

1957 265 294 312 344 367 364 293 302 369 282 188 188 

1958 206 220 261 298 378 426 348 474 524 502 371 313 

1959 310 317 323 359 407 475 523 497 400 254 147 178 

1960 179 170 169 176 200 189 274 308 272 185 155 172 

1961 153 151 176 188 198 166 230 235 198 136 136 161 

1962 167 175 205 234 401 367 320 393 466 389 249 214 

1963 233 259 270 304 439 452 325 341 424 379 252 222 

1964 243 315 355 383 371 369 358 357 315 210 161 175 

1965 161 176 299 439 439 417 286 298 326 289 240 220 

1966 236 339 412 439 439 478 520 523 425 261 157 163 

1967 151 162 367 439 439 399 292 326 524 524 444 363 

1968 302 290 299 323 306 351 405 435 354 219 167 187 

1969 167 179 223 351 372 326 191 375 524 524 445 354 

1970 318 320 344 439 439 479 415 426 414 290 200 197 

1971 197 219 288 353 386 376 336 339 323 240 172 186 

1972 201 218 272 308 332 386 354 359 319 199 133 176 

1973 175 189 227 294 385 379 257 493 524 398 254 216 

1974 243 336 426 439 439 479 424 478 495 377 246 209 

1975 229 262 294 329 365 395 239 319 496 390 240 212 

1976 256 302 327 342 339 370 391 380 269 162 132 176 

1977 182 182 194 211 217 219 240 213 181 141 131 152 

1978 152 152 230 388 439 479 393 413 524 524 434 439 

1979 393 391 400 439 439 479 438 523 509 363 228 200 

1980 222 262 291 380 405 479 475 452 461 524 416 349 

17
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 4. Friant 

TAF 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1981 354 368 388 422 437 462 465 512 432 268 177 184 

1982 178 230 286 392 439 447 524 524 524 523 440 440 

1983 439 432 418 412 439 475 228 131 524 524 515 456 

1984 406 437 407 439 439 478 385 440 401 296 209 207 

1985 231 283 324 360 375 380 434 487 396 252 159 179 

1986 182 202 262 341 393 479 421 491 524 456 313 273 

1987 301 322 335 359 362 389 443 457 356 205 140 152 

1988 135 139 157 205 224 219 277 295 251 174 149 172 

1989 154 143 156 170 186 209 320 363 304 196 156 179 

1990 175 173 184 201 213 207 297 287 230 171 152 166 

1991 152 140 142 143 136 146 152 193 240 175 143 184 

1992 170 168 183 201 244 239 343 388 287 194 158 173 

1993 158 151 175 347 439 479 313 387 450 437 291 236 

1994 252 270 289 317 321 356 392 409 349 229 156 172 

1995 195 219 259 439 439 479 333 288 524 524 489 385 

1996 293 270 286 337 434 479 371 488 490 381 246 211 

1997 226 325 429 351 422 479 447 523 432 290 159 150 

1998 170 204 239 334 439 479 440 350 524 524 452 363 

1999 308 309 330 380 392 419 364 423 449 312 204 198 

2000 213 225 238 306 382 439 407 519 519 360 226 199 

2001 219 246 262 285 289 332 341 449 379 241 164 177 

2002 167 171 222 276 304 288 353 404 375 260 168 173 

2003 166 212 250 303 339 327 273 331 399 269 182 182 

18
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 5. New Melones 

TAF 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1922 1649 1654 1679 1700 1807 1800 1766 1935 2133 2074 1979 1918 

1923 1865 1877 1943 1970 1970 1895 1900 1977 1960 1897 1799 1756 

1924 1713 1703 1715 1726 1727 1669 1563 1445 1358 1281 1206 1178 

1925 1145 1146 1155 1161 1293 1367 1350 1459 1488 1427 1329 1281 

1926 1223 1211 1212 1210 1269 1281 1303 1238 1162 1072 989 946 

1927 913 927 979 1020 1157 1224 1253 1326 1353 1273 1180 1140 

1928 1119 1148 1169 1179 1220 1384 1383 1447 1383 1278 1179 1128 

1929 1082 1084 1088 1090 1100 1085 1027 966 927 850 776 737 

1930 697 687 688 705 735 787 772 728 739 677 611 573 

1931 550 565 566 574 581 564 481 382 331 280 224 199 

1932 154 160 210 238 343 376 386 558 642 625 567 529 

1933 495 486 495 503 509 503 451 425 450 388 319 280 

1934 255 255 272 291 322 345 260 157 109 80 80 80 

1935 80 80 80 100 80 129 265 472 544 501 437 400 

1936 386 394 407 478 655 733 830 995 1072 1011 932 897 

1937 868 864 879 899 996 1096 1118 1285 1315 1225 1132 1080 

1938 1039 1041 1122 1194 1377 1516 1647 1921 2140 2108 2023 1979 

1939 1941 1931 1940 1954 1967 1986 1876 1745 1659 1567 1478 1436 

1940 1381 1359 1360 1456 1588 1672 1740 1845 1820 1722 1630 1574 

1941 1523 1513 1548 1597 1678 1705 1716 1853 1906 1848 1757 1698 

1942 1652 1644 1688 1774 1849 1827 1900 2039 2181 2148 2052 2000 

1943 1950 1970 1970 1970 1970 2030 2125 2142 2144 2066 1971 1907 

1944 1849 1835 1833 1829 1835 1856 1754 1686 1656 1568 1470 1413 

1945 1386 1416 1437 1470 1595 1677 1633 1715 1801 1738 1645 1599 

1946 1576 1600 1682 1742 1794 1762 1780 1855 1816 1725 1635 1588 

1947 1543 1554 1571 1582 1597 1582 1458 1347 1280 1190 1105 1063 

1948 1043 1039 1039 1037 1007 1021 1022 1062 1169 1108 1034 998 

1949 975 972 983 990 996 1021 978 1001 991 917 845 805 

1950 758 739 745 790 853 906 908 1014 1086 1023 949 921 

1951 907 1182 1573 1678 1772 1861 1841 1836 1779 1688 1596 1542 

1952 1499 1510 1560 1697 1784 1814 1866 2140 2322 2300 2130 2000 

1953 1927 1927 1943 1970 1970 1903 1846 1766 1820 1770 1683 1628 

1954 1573 1571 1581 1593 1600 1644 1583 1629 1579 1487 1396 1342 

1955 1285 1290 1304 1331 1336 1337 1300 1238 1215 1123 1032 981 

1956 934 939 1189 1448 1564 1553 1565 1704 1808 1762 1673 1634 

1957 1579 1572 1584 1598 1635 1671 1559 1575 1616 1528 1442 1385 

1958 1330 1328 1330 1376 1452 1527 1673 1969 2115 2065 1973 1912 

1959 1849 1844 1854 1876 1927 1943 1824 1672 1596 1508 1420 1408 

1960 1348 1334 1334 1337 1374 1387 1341 1269 1222 1144 1071 1018 

1961 954 971 988 992 1000 996 950 892 838 778 718 684 

1962 641 646 653 657 736 769 772 797 853 800 723 674 

1963 646 652 672 722 835 873 902 1087 1137 1086 1011 980 

1964 968 998 1016 1049 1060 1046 977 913 885 810 737 688 

1965 667 688 903 1105 1208 1263 1315 1401 1490 1449 1381 1336 

1966 1275 1305 1336 1369 1399 1418 1371 1351 1267 1172 1083 1022 

1967 974 979 1055 1153 1177 1206 1279 1474 1761 1817 1734 1683 

1968 1623 1631 1642 1660 1717 1761 1653 1561 1492 1399 1308 1247 

1969 1212 1233 1239 1536 1737 1792 1934 2174 2320 2279 2130 2000 

1970 1958 1964 1970 1970 1970 1986 1928 1918 1912 1813 1714 1664 

1971 1616 1641 1704 1758 1799 1760 1706 1691 1722 1653 1561 1508 

1972 1452 1464 1507 1540 1558 1556 1428 1401 1340 1251 1162 1120 

1973 1085 1091 1117 1225 1365 1478 1439 1547 1538 1443 1347 1302 

1974 1284 1330 1404 1514 1589 1651 1740 1857 1889 1823 1725 1669 

1975 1637 1644 1665 1688 1749 1786 1756 1765 1894 1827 1746 1689 

1976 1661 1672 1689 1695 1703 1646 1556 1449 1358 1277 1209 1163 

1977 1129 1126 1121 1108 1078 1017 944 883 853 791 732 706 

1978 654 643 659 733 816 956 1059 1193 1295 1260 1171 1160 

1979 1108 1117 1133 1195 1308 1429 1392 1494 1397 1296 1200 1154 

1980 1128 1141 1150 1450 1698 1715 1746 1790 1862 1852 1761 1710 

19
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 5. New Melones 

TAF 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1981 1667 1657 1674 1717 1725 1764 1678 1556 1453 1353 1266 1226 

1982 1198 1253 1381 1583 1881 2030 2220 2326 2389 2300 2130 2000 

1983 1970 1970 1970 1970 1970 2030 2080 2204 2420 2300 2130 2000 

1984 1970 1970 1970 1970 1970 1977 1908 1902 1874 1800 1725 1686 

1985 1669 1705 1741 1753 1787 1819 1743 1648 1564 1469 1385 1349 

1986 1320 1327 1341 1416 1889 2030 2056 2056 2078 1983 1895 1861 

1987 1821 1814 1821 1809 1807 1828 1697 1529 1428 1347 1277 1241 

1988 1187 1168 1156 1155 1151 1127 1055 959 909 857 809 771 

1989 719 705 700 695 694 769 745 701 686 640 594 600 

1990 607 614 635 643 651 642 567 491 438 379 334 309 

1991 285 271 285 278 261 299 266 221 183 121 80 80 

1992 80 80 95 101 145 182 142 80 80 80 80 80 

1993 80 80 80 222 320 473 529 661 761 695 639 610 

1994 601 625 661 686 705 670 610 554 492 417 352 315 

1995 285 292 322 508 582 897 993 1230 1496 1612 1558 1538 

1996 1513 1510 1544 1619 1807 1919 1935 2046 2051 1968 1891 1849 

1997 1842 1875 1970 2116 1970 1977 1917 1900 1842 1757 1675 1647 

1998 1611 1623 1648 1759 1962 2030 2060 2120 2349 2300 2130 2000 

1999 1970 1970 1970 1970 1970 1993 1975 1976 1992 1916 1846 1812 

2000 1785 1780 1794 1849 1958 1972 1956 1936 1895 1806 1731 1701 

2001 1699 1711 1741 1750 1779 1811 1729 1625 1530 1426 1327 1271 

2002 1210 1209 1243 1283 1283 1330 1304 1241 1165 1086 1013 981 

2003 951 967 1018 1067 1075 1104 1094 1091 1060 991 926 894 

20
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 6. NOD CVP Ag Deliveries 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1922 80 0 0 0 0 8 745 941 1221 1340 1077 540 

1923 17 0 0 0 0 83 243 504 578 690 556 155 

1924 75 7 0 0 0 7 34 37 42 46 37 18 

1925 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 366 657 816 653 266 

1926 123 0 0 0 0 11 27 135 210 229 179 91 

1927 11 0 0 0 0 8 566 963 1173 1415 1144 569 

1928 28 0 0 0 0 0 195 498 640 706 570 280 

1929 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1930 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 120 185 201 163 67 

1931 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1932 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1933 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1934 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1935 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 240 383 416 336 161 

1936 25 2 0 0 0 3 172 378 450 599 486 228 

1937 89 14 0 0 0 0 125 325 367 450 365 182 

1938 15 0 0 0 0 0 281 914 1364 1485 1200 480 

1939 74 2 0 0 79 76 210 171 236 255 208 81 

1940 26 5 0 0 0 0 313 623 1067 1182 955 458 

1941 23 0 0 0 0 0 114 606 1331 1538 1244 617 

1942 44 0 0 0 0 0 123 737 1369 1520 1228 594 

1943 186 0 0 0 0 1 247 707 934 1043 847 422 

1944 133 3 0 0 0 6 95 147 208 242 196 97 

1945 22 0 0 0 0 0 248 377 557 690 557 277 

1946 1 0 0 0 0 16 592 724 899 959 791 382 

1947 136 0 0 0 0 0 229 344 386 504 405 204 

1948 2 0 0 0 9 18 47 460 940 1341 1078 463 

1949 99 7 0 0 0 0 294 488 739 806 649 318 

1950 130 1 0 0 0 2 186 254 303 338 272 124 

1951 3 0 0 0 0 22 587 632 1013 1110 894 441 

1952 7 0 0 0 0 0 458 970 1128 1398 1144 559 

1953 217 0 0 0 0 42 421 901 1206 1429 1050 578 

1954 169 0 0 0 0 0 305 850 1135 1302 917 513 

1955 171 0 0 0 0 38 173 284 344 377 305 127 

1956 45 0 0 0 0 86 647 774 1203 1412 1142 502 

1957 89 27 0 0 0 38 467 575 870 950 768 146 

1958 0 2 0 0 0 0 133 681 1231 1467 1228 601 

1959 210 27 0 0 0 25 525 646 753 820 646 137 

1960 133 20 0 0 0 0 149 221 324 353 285 141 

1961 48 0 0 0 0 0 201 367 466 546 433 189 

1962 78 0 0 0 0 0 434 679 828 962 769 368 

1963 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 756 1361 1526 1233 606 

1964 41 0 0 0 0 34 235 242 262 311 247 107 

1965 12 0 0 0 0 34 164 722 923 1013 671 407 

1966 163 0 0 0 0 24 585 755 886 963 776 381 

1967 158 0 0 0 0 2 122 873 1041 1503 1214 595 

1968 206 0 0 0 0 1 393 631 735 900 621 361 

1969 60 0 0 0 0 2 528 1025 1209 1370 1110 543 

1970 89 4 0 0 0 1 397 620 669 809 653 325 

1971 59 0 0 0 0 38 695 633 916 1043 840 399 

1972 149 1 0 0 3 145 361 375 449 513 415 157 

1973 2 0 0 0 0 0 476 884 1146 1249 1009 473 

1974 19 0 0 0 0 0 331 1026 1351 1253 1212 606 

1975 62 2 0 0 0 0 387 1016 1312 1382 1126 575 

1976 9 4 0 0 74 37 54 71 79 87 60 30 

1977 13 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1978 0 0 0 0 0 0 175 932 1364 1490 1201 452 

1979 242 0 0 0 0 0 165 366 482 525 413 192 

1980 9 0 0 0 0 0 333 649 855 1016 830 403 

21
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 6. NOD CVP Ag Deliveries 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1981 132 11 0 0 0 0 234 557 868 946 766 325 

1982 6 0 0 0 0 0 202 943 1167 1520 1233 368 

1983 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 818 1298 1532 1179 481 

1984 167 0 0 0 0 30 654 867 981 1095 827 427 

1985 39 0 0 0 0 0 370 647 793 873 698 221 

1986 86 0 0 0 0 0 218 510 730 796 643 213 

1987 115 14 0 0 0 0 154 210 249 270 218 108 

1988 28 0 0 0 0 1 6 7 0 0 0 0 

1989 0 0 0 0 0 0 182 320 360 422 338 18 

1990 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1991 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1992 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1993 5 2 0 0 0 0 470 647 1148 1547 1229 631 

1994 116 0 0 0 0 26 443 443 749 821 663 325 

1995 92 0 0 0 0 0 361 703 1181 1490 1204 595 

1996 241 32 0 0 0 0 386 563 1339 1518 1230 570 

1997 58 0 0 0 0 52 648 710 810 961 715 346 

1998 84 0 0 0 0 0 270 240 1173 1484 1197 535 

1999 104 0 0 0 0 0 490 962 1164 1399 1116 559 

2000 187 0 0 0 0 0 357 750 1259 1518 1245 527 

2001 2 2 0 0 0 1 135 253 305 354 286 122 

2002 32 0 0 0 0 34 636 610 849 927 749 371 

2003 151 0 0 0 0 0 169 708 1370 1530 1076 615 

22
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 7. NOD CVP M&I Deliveries 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1922 309 245 211 186 220 234 416 444 529 528 485 416 

1923 282 245 211 186 146 225 282 387 394 405 372 275 

1924 167 144 106 155 179 203 337 301 366 351 256 167 

1925 91 94 175 150 180 202 325 364 430 435 380 234 

1926 164 109 96 157 188 207 250 343 403 372 308 201 

1927 98 220 167 142 172 241 384 461 518 533 490 419 

1928 288 181 211 186 212 201 329 387 407 411 381 332 

1929 235 117 99 156 186 155 271 284 286 294 208 139 

1930 95 79 148 124 151 180 295 343 376 379 324 228 

1931 128 87 79 141 170 191 321 311 322 335 238 158 

1932 100 85 166 141 75 215 330 353 407 376 313 207 

1933 139 103 88 149 180 171 288 295 330 318 228 153 

1934 87 87 155 130 159 209 327 341 378 361 286 196 

1935 117 220 87 149 96 169 219 399 446 446 405 325 

1936 147 107 94 155 179 208 333 373 414 421 372 289 

1937 156 123 93 155 186 184 323 390 414 428 394 319 

1938 183 237 180 155 186 234 383 462 535 531 488 342 

1939 207 249 141 186 220 195 335 317 401 399 365 285 

1940 136 126 94 153 177 214 405 452 521 525 483 413 

1941 286 203 211 186 220 235 305 428 560 563 515 372 

1942 291 244 211 186 220 234 300 429 556 555 508 366 

1943 238 181 211 186 220 233 347 466 516 524 481 413 

1944 310 206 139 184 211 201 316 347 376 378 337 210 

1945 123 226 170 145 175 202 355 364 392 407 373 355 

1946 137 228 180 155 186 222 435 445 513 512 475 377 

1947 228 180 211 186 220 199 343 373 404 426 374 237 

1948 121 106 94 155 100 190 266 424 541 566 516 402 

1949 254 181 211 186 220 199 375 362 437 438 404 336 

1950 210 128 116 165 197 192 335 385 432 423 373 225 

1951 117 236 180 155 186 248 433 431 521 524 482 411 

1952 238 181 211 186 212 234 396 465 501 531 491 345 

1953 241 243 211 186 220 231 379 449 508 529 476 355 

1954 290 181 141 186 220 220 366 470 513 531 473 417 

1955 317 207 211 186 220 176 329 378 421 421 371 275 

1956 151 106 179 155 179 275 410 422 521 523 482 337 

1957 199 264 202 186 220 202 369 391 499 501 459 350 

1958 177 238 199 174 207 235 302 456 526 544 512 361 

1959 240 263 203 186 220 241 394 400 453 453 419 290 

1960 210 178 124 173 198 183 341 370 430 400 325 222 

1961 146 233 180 155 186 202 300 345 402 406 375 307 

1962 185 118 182 110 188 202 413 423 499 493 446 362 

1963 273 262 203 178 211 234 319 456 547 553 506 426 

1964 275 181 202 186 141 222 374 362 402 414 362 295 

1965 129 236 179 154 185 223 291 462 517 511 447 394 

1966 267 175 207 182 216 258 426 437 501 503 466 377 

1967 237 270 210 186 220 234 302 481 518 556 502 363 

1968 237 243 141 186 212 202 386 422 452 462 412 369 

1969 234 254 196 171 203 235 403 471 517 521 480 411 

1970 214 243 211 186 220 205 400 415 423 441 406 354 

1971 216 154 192 167 199 234 439 429 510 515 475 341 

1972 315 242 211 186 212 224 351 379 399 410 379 293 

1973 157 237 180 155 186 234 422 469 520 523 482 399 

1974 239 270 211 186 220 234 377 485 531 491 497 362 

1975 211 243 141 186 220 234 391 478 533 527 481 356 

1976 182 248 203 186 214 217 303 315 346 343 290 190 

1977 119 91 81 81 91 201 304 280 337 323 118 57 

1978 43 87 168 143 172 218 329 478 536 535 491 400 

1979 322 207 141 186 220 202 325 386 407 404 369 323 

1980 177 237 180 155 179 230 382 445 495 497 468 399 

23
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 7. NOD CVP M&I Deliveries 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1981 270 189 136 182 216 203 376 417 473 473 435 361 

1982 212 256 198 173 205 234 308 506 551 569 520 315 

1983 284 271 211 186 220 234 306 473 548 560 507 414 

1984 333 271 211 186 212 264 433 465 495 516 469 404 

1985 247 270 211 186 220 189 389 428 453 462 422 319 

1986 187 158 195 171 203 202 343 395 430 432 398 300 

1987 201 135 111 161 192 178 324 356 404 404 357 278 

1988 147 104 180 156 100 192 273 275 308 307 229 154 

1989 107 78 159 72 80 169 345 385 431 443 376 222 

1990 128 106 94 155 186 178 278 261 331 301 248 136 

1991 94 72 64 64 153 183 311 346 382 383 328 265 

1992 105 94 80 80 164 201 321 386 415 436 381 293 

1993 139 122 187 163 194 220 403 424 507 541 493 426 

1994 302 253 205 186 220 241 390 381 442 439 393 319 

1995 194 154 192 168 200 232 364 417 509 550 506 403 

1996 253 177 211 186 212 241 385 388 559 568 508 380 

1997 193 145 217 192 227 290 448 459 499 506 389 276 

1998 169 143 219 194 229 235 371 354 558 580 532 441 

1999 205 271 211 186 220 236 415 476 530 500 424 270 

2000 185 137 126 188 214 239 414 458 541 552 479 357 

2001 136 144 125 186 220 207 331 391 426 433 379 284 

2002 161 237 187 163 103 214 432 426 465 506 467 403 

2003 317 249 209 184 218 217 324 456 553 546 471 391 

24
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 8. CVP Settlement Contract Deliveries 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1922 1113 411 0 20 0 12 5691 5002 7139 6737 4974 1408 

1923 884 133 0 0 0 515 4192 5347 6990 6866 5076 889 

1924 1190 527 218 0 0 353 5019 4556 5891 5608 4211 1107 

1925 694 359 0 53 0 0 3842 3935 6858 6913 5087 1234 

1926 1341 437 168 0 0 239 2902 4902 7410 6847 4965 1424 

1927 929 86 182 0 0 19 4910 5026 6764 6796 5033 1425 

1928 942 261 67 0 0 0 4258 5150 7067 6725 4969 1368 

1929 1276 223 79 101 0 132 5559 5543 6096 6713 4964 1381 

1930 1292 634 0 0 0 0 4026 4751 7238 6798 5020 1185 

1931 1243 428 263 0 0 480 5227 3991 5471 5736 4318 1131 

1932 975 352 0 13 0 123 4676 3942 5869 5785 4334 1138 

1933 1133 470 110 0 0 270 5196 4200 5901 5628 4223 1106 

1934 901 556 0 71 0 74 4660 4326 5826 5767 4346 1165 

1935 922 168 130 0 0 0 2608 5010 7440 6880 5098 1397 

1936 994 436 138 0 0 31 4390 4796 6379 6780 5034 1355 

1937 1306 634 140 0 0 0 4365 5295 6738 6815 5053 1437 

1938 1003 173 30 0 0 0 3773 4844 7294 6834 5063 1192 

1939 984 473 215 58 232 715 6645 4828 7121 6676 4975 1143 

1940 1132 593 190 0 0 0 4245 4355 7216 6830 5059 1384 

1941 948 353 0 0 0 0 2352 3974 7334 6972 5174 1463 

1942 974 356 0 0 0 0 2491 4424 7436 6921 5131 1426 

1943 1264 367 36 0 0 2 3997 5135 7101 6775 5034 1420 

1944 1262 482 142 0 0 102 4929 4589 6932 6782 5021 1411 

1945 1084 202 110 20 0 0 4903 4428 6728 6849 5067 1440 

1946 789 301 0 90 0 73 5923 5114 7079 6580 4938 1329 

1947 1231 353 24 118 0 27 5031 5122 6482 6883 5077 1469 

1948 808 412 191 109 108 189 2060 3513 6569 7083 5224 1285 

1949 1165 500 39 67 7 0 4832 4592 7133 6727 4956 1360 

1950 1329 452 196 0 0 70 5353 5340 7123 6753 4995 1297 

1951 810 244 0 0 0 56 5621 4364 7212 6785 5013 1399 

1952 853 240 0 0 0 0 4499 5116 6597 6728 5025 1370 

1953 1331 362 0 0 0 169 4384 4853 6897 6869 4685 1460 

1954 1243 290 252 0 0 0 3587 5104 7090 6846 4584 1401 

1955 1283 189 45 0 0 374 4857 5214 7104 6690 4946 1157 

1956 1205 337 0 0 0 268 5099 4405 6953 6800 5036 1273 

1957 945 595 272 0 0 179 4918 4574 7421 6936 5156 727 

1958 822 521 101 0 0 0 2587 4321 6949 6764 5128 1436 

1959 1323 597 197 0 0 124 6061 5444 7059 6710 4869 581 

1960 1315 632 174 0 0 5 4873 4705 7160 6741 5002 1392 

1961 1271 183 137 0 0 0 4800 4977 6869 6779 4951 1261 

1962 1290 284 93 83 0 0 5322 5161 6949 6780 4978 1356 

1963 719 477 89 0 0 0 2344 4598 7385 6948 5152 1438 

1964 931 145 241 0 0 422 6366 5347 6667 6661 4884 1246 

1965 949 165 45 0 0 253 4008 5254 7205 6808 4317 1427 

1966 1353 141 128 3 0 111 5884 5330 6995 6610 4887 1338 

1967 1314 92 63 0 0 0 2147 5081 6236 6943 5138 1421 

1968 1301 428 190 0 0 0 5124 5135 6694 6804 4515 1421 

1969 1040 261 3 0 0 5 4827 5322 6956 6714 4974 1369 

1970 1046 479 0 0 0 8 5543 5367 6674 6715 4967 1377 

1971 1027 66 38 45 0 175 6152 4451 6997 6739 4973 1319 

1972 1278 446 53 78 22 692 5999 5245 6938 6778 5024 1100 

1973 825 107 114 0 0 0 4849 5155 7170 6748 4993 1298 

1974 878 82 75 0 0 0 3974 5235 7195 5982 5123 1486 

1975 973 460 24 113 0 0 4272 5259 7247 6630 4921 1425 

1976 800 504 238 123 233 924 5687 5578 7055 6742 4430 1219 

1977 1310 492 216 0 134 581 5613 3444 5970 5729 4360 699 

1978 1087 270 40 0 0 0 3252 5034 7280 6839 5054 1115 

1979 1376 365 232 0 0 2 4492 5188 7265 6797 4975 1343 

1980 843 261 0 0 0 0 4481 4837 6878 6718 5044 1384 

25
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 8. CVP Settlement Contract Deliveries 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1981 1235 545 60 0 0 0 4225 4789 7317 6863 5099 1247 

1982 821 107 39 0 0 0 2879 5235 6754 6981 5186 944 

1983 768 138 112 0 0 0 2568 4782 7132 6972 4989 1172 

1984 1217 50 0 113 0 142 5928 5489 6973 6736 4732 1344 

1985 927 52 163 83 0 0 5052 5314 7104 6789 4975 944 

1986 1091 179 115 0 0 0 4301 4988 7221 6813 5048 977 

1987 1292 587 194 0 5 11 5167 5394 7088 6669 4932 1356 

1988 1165 289 0 0 0 476 5000 4562 6712 6755 4996 1395 

1989 1333 316 93 106 78 16 4792 5574 7012 6989 5137 368 

1990 882 452 275 0 0 189 6169 3454 7202 6778 4796 1352 

1991 1290 529 206 112 58 0 3594 4234 6062 5994 4499 1181 

1992 1004 445 88 0 0 0 3702 4553 5742 5995 4534 1201 

1993 777 446 0 0 0 0 4589 3841 6420 6882 5044 1454 

1994 1092 342 167 0 0 153 4775 3609 6115 5815 4375 1132 

1995 1046 155 68 0 0 0 4147 3990 6668 6846 5068 1419 

1996 1389 628 0 0 0 0 4088 3408 7320 6900 5130 1370 

1997 1028 353 0 0 0 284 6244 5207 6795 6750 4676 1279 

1998 1045 110 134 0 0 0 3725 2294 7047 7077 5264 1417 

1999 1178 304 216 9 0 0 4394 5139 6747 6759 4964 1385 

2000 1239 353 271 0 0 2 4186 4166 6890 6878 5132 1214 

2001 795 479 255 0 0 0 4407 5309 6912 6772 5012 1249 

2002 1170 134 0 0 0 155 6193 4671 7065 6665 4926 1358 

2003 1320 321 0 0 0 0 3114 4328 7439 6943 4559 1469 

26
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 9. NOD CVP Refuge Deliveries 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1922 209 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1923 195 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1924 218 234 137 65 57 11 10 19 37 46 51 184 

1925 35 177 104 49 45 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1926 234 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1927 207 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1928 195 234 137 65 57 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1929 190 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1930 188 184 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1931 189 187 137 65 59 9 10 19 37 46 51 184 

1932 15 87 104 49 43 13 10 19 37 46 51 184 

1933 12 68 104 49 45 10 10 19 37 46 51 184 

1934 14 101 104 49 45 13 10 19 37 46 51 184 

1935 17 177 104 49 45 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1936 219 234 137 65 57 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1937 218 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1938 206 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1939 210 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1940 188 234 137 65 57 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1941 193 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1942 194 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1943 195 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1944 191 234 137 65 57 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1945 193 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1946 192 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1947 187 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1948 194 234 137 65 57 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1949 199 186 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1950 232 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1951 191 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1952 193 234 137 65 57 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1953 221 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1954 222 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1955 227 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1956 191 234 137 65 57 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1957 190 184 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1958 191 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1959 212 186 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1960 226 183 137 65 57 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1961 227 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1962 191 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1963 196 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1964 192 234 137 65 57 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1965 191 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1966 215 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1967 188 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1968 197 187 137 65 57 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1969 210 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1970 207 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1971 191 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1972 226 234 137 65 57 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1973 192 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1974 191 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1975 192 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1976 192 234 137 65 57 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1977 188 234 137 65 59 9 10 19 37 46 51 181 

1978 12 177 104 49 45 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1979 193 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1980 199 234 137 65 57 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

27
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 9. NOD CVP Refuge Deliveries 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1981 190 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1982 192 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1983 193 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1984 194 234 137 65 57 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1985 202 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1986 187 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1987 192 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1988 192 234 137 65 57 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1989 192 196 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 225 

1990 191 205 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1991 191 185 137 65 59 13 10 19 37 46 51 184 

1992 17 71 104 49 43 13 10 19 37 46 51 184 

1993 28 70 104 49 45 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1994 188 194 137 65 59 13 10 19 37 46 51 184 

1995 14 177 104 49 45 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1996 204 184 137 65 57 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1997 191 193 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1998 187 234 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

1999 193 196 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

2000 193 193 137 65 57 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

2001 192 217 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

2002 191 210 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

2003 185 195 137 65 59 17 19 66 102 138 188 244 

28
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 10. SOD CVP Ag Deliveries 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1922 922 703 973 1708 2154 1165 1894 2598 4335 5214 3757 1232 

1923 780 595 823 1444 1821 717 1023 1515 2529 3041 2191 719 

1924 455 347 480 842 1026 56 80 115 192 231 166 55 

1925 94 72 100 175 221 487 798 1515 2529 3042 2192 719 

1926 455 347 480 843 1062 227 324 467 779 937 675 221 

1927 140 107 148 259 327 710 1133 1628 2716 3267 2354 772 

1928 488 373 516 905 1102 378 1050 1506 2514 3023 2178 715 

1929 452 345 477 837 1056 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1930 0 0 0 0 0 128 286 424 707 850 613 201 

1931 127 97 134 235 297 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1932 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1933 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1934 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1935 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 834 1392 1674 1206 396 

1936 250 191 264 464 564 614 876 1263 2108 2536 1827 599 

1937 379 289 400 702 886 176 645 956 1596 1919 1383 454 

1938 287 219 303 532 670 1493 2130 3073 5128 6167 4444 1458 

1939 922 703 973 1708 2154 263 465 671 1120 1346 970 318 

1940 201 154 212 373 454 430 829 1247 2081 2503 1803 592 

1941 374 285 395 693 874 1093 1809 2540 4239 5098 3673 1205 

1942 762 581 804 1412 1781 1223 1978 2755 4598 5530 3318 1307 

1943 827 631 873 1532 1932 1101 1571 2266 3781 4547 3277 1075 

1944 680 519 718 1260 1534 257 366 528 882 1061 764 251 

1945 159 121 167 294 371 531 979 1412 2357 2835 2043 670 

1946 424 323 447 785 990 942 1349 1921 3207 3856 2779 911 

1947 577 440 609 1068 1347 341 753 1087 1813 2181 1571 515 

1948 326 249 344 604 736 244 631 864 1443 1735 1250 410 

1949 259 198 274 481 606 342 1239 1787 2982 3587 2585 848 

1950 536 409 566 994 1253 267 536 773 1291 1552 1119 367 

1951 232 177 245 430 542 942 1349 1937 3232 3887 2801 919 

1952 581 443 613 1077 1311 1405 2130 3073 5128 6167 4444 1458 

1953 922 703 973 1708 2154 580 996 1422 2373 2853 2056 674 

1954 427 325 450 790 997 587 935 1352 2256 2714 1955 641 

1955 406 309 428 752 948 429 613 884 1475 1773 1278 419 

1956 265 202 280 491 598 1350 1864 2523 4210 5063 3280 1197 

1957 757 577 799 1403 1769 538 809 1149 1918 2307 1662 545 

1958 345 263 364 639 806 1195 1937 3034 5063 6088 4387 1439 

1959 910 694 961 1687 2127 471 774 1140 1902 2288 1648 541 

1960 342 261 361 634 772 164 550 793 1324 1592 1147 376 

1961 238 182 251 441 556 351 825 1190 1986 2388 1721 564 

1962 357 272 377 662 834 520 878 1270 2119 2548 1836 602 

1963 381 291 402 706 890 725 1142 1630 2721 3272 2358 773 

1964 489 373 516 906 1104 367 524 756 1261 1517 1093 359 

1965 227 173 239 420 530 620 885 2214 3694 4443 3202 1050 

1966 664 507 701 1231 1552 737 1132 1647 2748 3305 2381 781 

1967 494 377 522 916 1155 1343 2130 3073 5128 6167 4444 1458 

1968 922 703 973 1708 2080 525 875 1245 2078 2499 1801 591 

1969 374 285 394 692 873 1493 2130 3073 5128 6167 4444 1458 

1970 922 703 973 1708 2154 776 1278 1843 3075 3698 2665 874 

1971 553 422 584 1024 1292 420 776 1116 1862 2240 1614 529 

1972 335 255 353 620 755 613 874 1261 2104 2530 1823 598 

1973 378 289 399 701 884 757 1289 1865 3112 3743 2697 885 

1974 560 427 591 1037 1308 1164 1897 2608 4353 5235 2392 1237 

1975 783 597 826 1450 1829 910 1510 2026 3381 4067 2022 961 

1976 608 464 642 1126 1372 110 157 226 378 454 327 107 

1977 68 52 72 126 159 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1978 0 0 0 0 0 935 2130 3073 5128 6167 4444 1458 

1979 922 703 973 1708 2154 425 778 1123 1874 2253 1624 533 

1980 337 257 356 624 760 1073 1531 2207 3684 4430 3192 1047 

29
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 10. SOD CVP Ag Deliveries 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1981 662 505 699 1227 1548 507 1047 1528 2549 3066 1653 725 

1982 458 350 484 849 1071 1300 2130 3073 5128 6167 4444 1458 

1983 922 703 973 1708 2154 1493 2130 3073 5128 6167 4444 1458 

1984 922 703 973 1708 2080 943 1349 1947 3249 3908 2816 924 

1985 584 446 617 1083 1365 627 1054 1556 2598 3124 2251 738 

1986 467 356 493 865 1091 601 1173 1691 2822 3394 2446 802 

1987 508 387 536 940 1186 36 447 645 1077 1295 933 306 

1988 194 148 204 359 437 13 18 26 0 0 0 0 

1989 0 0 0 0 0 0 598 863 1440 1732 1248 409 

1990 259 198 273 480 605 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1991 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1992 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1993 0 0 0 0 0 951 1805 2399 4003 4814 1772 1138 

1994 720 549 760 1334 1682 840 1180 1692 2639 3019 1866 803 

1995 508 387 536 941 1186 1090 1999 2856 4766 5732 4130 1355 

1996 857 654 905 1588 1933 976 1712 2331 3889 4677 2008 1106 

1997 699 533 738 1296 1634 1096 1564 2256 3765 4528 1894 1070 

1998 677 516 715 1254 1582 1364 2130 3073 5128 6167 4444 1458 

1999 922 703 973 1708 2154 677 1179 1680 2804 3372 2430 797 

2000 504 385 532 934 1137 720 1237 1769 2953 3551 2151 839 

2001 531 405 560 984 1241 344 539 777 1297 1559 1124 369 

2002 233 178 246 432 545 782 1124 1580 2637 3172 2286 750 

2003 474 362 501 879 1108 597 936 1307 2182 2624 1890 620 

30
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 11. SOD CVP M&I Deliveries 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1922 178 239 237 156 80 245 206 184 190 216 239 268 

1923 178 239 237 156 80 183 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1924 133 180 178 117 58 147 124 111 115 130 144 161 

1925 107 144 143 94 48 183 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1926 133 180 178 117 60 159 134 120 124 140 156 175 

1927 116 156 155 102 52 183 161 143 148 168 187 209 

1928 139 187 185 122 60 183 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1929 133 180 178 117 60 122 103 92 95 108 120 134 

1930 89 120 119 78 40 143 130 117 121 137 153 171 

1931 114 153 151 100 51 138 116 103 107 121 135 151 

1932 100 135 134 88 44 173 146 130 135 153 170 190 

1933 126 170 168 111 57 126 114 102 105 119 132 148 

1934 98 132 131 86 44 160 134 120 124 141 156 175 

1935 116 156 155 102 52 122 111 138 143 162 180 201 

1936 133 180 178 117 58 183 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1937 133 180 178 117 60 151 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1938 133 180 178 117 60 245 206 184 190 216 239 268 

1939 178 239 237 156 80 165 148 132 137 155 172 193 

1940 128 172 170 112 56 183 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1941 133 180 178 117 60 240 206 184 190 216 239 268 

1942 178 239 237 156 80 245 206 184 190 216 239 268 

1943 178 239 237 156 80 242 203 181 188 213 236 265 

1944 176 236 234 154 77 164 138 123 128 145 161 180 

1945 120 161 159 105 54 183 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1946 133 180 178 117 60 215 182 161 166 189 210 235 

1947 156 210 208 137 70 178 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1948 133 180 178 117 58 162 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1949 133 180 178 117 60 178 171 153 158 179 199 223 

1950 148 199 197 130 67 166 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1951 133 180 178 117 60 215 182 162 167 190 211 236 

1952 157 211 209 138 68 245 206 184 190 216 239 268 

1953 178 239 237 156 80 183 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1954 133 180 178 117 60 183 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1955 133 180 178 117 60 183 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1956 133 180 178 117 58 245 206 184 190 216 239 268 

1957 178 239 237 156 80 183 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1958 133 180 178 117 60 245 206 184 190 216 239 268 

1959 178 239 237 156 80 183 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1960 133 180 178 117 58 149 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1961 133 180 178 117 60 180 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1962 133 180 178 117 60 183 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1963 133 180 178 117 60 183 162 143 148 168 187 209 

1964 139 187 185 122 60 182 153 137 142 161 179 200 

1965 133 179 177 117 60 183 154 178 185 209 232 260 

1966 173 232 230 152 78 183 161 144 149 169 188 211 

1967 140 188 186 123 63 245 206 184 190 216 239 268 

1968 178 239 237 156 78 183 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1969 133 180 178 117 60 245 206 184 190 216 239 268 

1970 178 239 237 156 80 188 175 156 162 183 203 228 

1971 151 203 201 133 68 183 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1972 133 180 178 117 58 183 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1973 133 180 178 117 60 185 176 157 163 185 205 230 

1974 153 205 203 134 69 245 206 184 190 216 239 268 

1975 178 239 237 156 80 210 197 167 173 196 218 244 

1976 162 218 216 142 70 140 118 105 109 124 137 154 

1977 102 137 136 90 46 133 112 100 104 117 130 146 

1978 97 130 129 85 44 214 206 184 190 216 239 268 

1979 178 239 237 156 80 183 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1980 133 180 178 117 58 237 199 178 184 209 232 260 

31
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 11. SOD CVP M&I Deliveries 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1981 172 232 230 151 78 183 154 138 143 162 0 201 

1982 133 180 178 117 60 245 206 184 190 216 239 268 

1983 178 239 237 156 80 245 206 184 190 216 239 268 

1984 178 239 237 156 78 216 182 162 168 190 212 237 

1985 157 212 210 138 71 183 154 139 144 163 181 203 

1986 135 181 179 118 61 183 165 147 152 173 192 215 

1987 142 192 190 125 64 128 146 130 135 153 170 190 

1988 126 170 168 111 55 124 105 93 97 110 122 136 

1989 91 122 121 79 41 122 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1990 133 180 178 117 60 122 103 92 95 108 120 134 

1991 89 120 119 78 40 149 132 117 122 138 153 171 

1992 114 153 152 100 50 167 154 138 143 162 180 201 

1993 133 180 178 117 60 217 206 184 190 216 239 268 

1994 178 239 237 156 80 199 165 147 152 173 33 215 

1995 143 192 190 125 64 240 206 184 190 216 239 268 

1996 178 239 237 156 78 221 206 184 190 216 239 268 

1997 178 239 237 156 80 241 202 181 187 212 236 264 

1998 175 236 233 154 79 245 206 184 190 216 239 268 

1999 178 239 237 156 80 183 165 146 152 172 191 214 

2000 142 191 189 124 62 183 171 152 157 178 198 221 

2001 147 198 196 129 66 179 154 138 143 162 180 201 

2002 133 180 178 117 60 189 160 140 145 165 183 205 

2003 136 183 181 119 61 183 154 138 143 162 180 201 

32
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 12. CVP Exchange Contractor Deliveries 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1922 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1923 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1924 979 336 148 154 427 868 901 1204 1641 1865 1826 1227 

1925 754 259 114 118 341 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1926 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1927 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1928 979 336 148 154 427 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1929 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1930 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1931 979 336 148 154 443 435 452 604 823 935 916 616 

1932 754 259 114 118 329 868 901 1204 1641 1865 1826 1227 

1933 754 259 114 118 341 868 901 1204 1641 1865 1826 1227 

1934 754 259 114 118 341 867 901 1203 1641 1864 1826 1227 

1935 754 259 114 118 341 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1936 979 336 148 154 427 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1937 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1938 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1939 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1940 979 336 148 154 427 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1941 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1942 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1943 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1944 979 336 148 154 427 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1945 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1946 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1947 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1948 979 336 148 154 427 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1949 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1950 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1951 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1952 979 336 148 154 427 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1953 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1954 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1955 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1956 979 336 148 154 427 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1957 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1958 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1959 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1155 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1960 979 336 148 154 427 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1961 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1962 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1963 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1964 979 336 148 154 427 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1965 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1966 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1037 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1967 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1968 979 336 148 154 427 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1969 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1970 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1971 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1972 979 336 148 154 427 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1973 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1974 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1975 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1976 979 336 148 154 427 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1977 979 336 148 154 443 348 361 483 658 748 732 492 

1978 754 259 114 118 341 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1979 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1980 979 336 148 154 427 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

33
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 12. CVP Exchange Contractor Deliveries 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1981 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1982 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1983 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1984 979 336 148 154 427 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1985 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1986 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1987 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1988 979 336 148 154 427 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1989 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1990 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1991 979 336 148 154 443 868 901 1204 1641 1865 1826 1227 

1992 754 259 114 118 329 867 901 1203 1641 1864 1826 1227 

1993 754 259 114 118 341 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1994 979 336 148 154 443 868 901 1204 1641 1865 1826 1227 

1995 754 259 114 118 341 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1996 979 336 148 154 427 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1997 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1998 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

1999 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

2000 979 336 148 154 427 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

2001 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

2002 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

2003 979 336 148 154 443 1127 1170 1563 2132 2421 2372 1594 

34
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 13. SOD CVP Refuge Deliveries 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1922 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1923 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1924 1071 690 315 141 102 68 156 314 352 86 144 627 

1925 803 517 236 106 80 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1926 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1927 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1928 1071 690 315 141 102 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1929 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1930 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1931 1071 690 315 141 106 68 156 314 352 86 144 627 

1932 803 517 236 106 77 68 156 314 352 86 144 627 

1933 803 517 236 106 80 68 156 314 352 86 144 627 

1934 803 517 236 106 80 68 156 314 352 86 144 627 

1935 803 517 236 106 80 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1936 1071 690 315 141 102 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1937 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1938 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1939 1071 690 315 141 106 90 128 418 469 115 192 836 

1940 1071 690 315 141 102 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1941 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1942 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1943 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1944 1071 690 315 141 102 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1945 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1946 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1947 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1948 1071 690 315 141 102 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1949 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1950 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1951 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1952 1071 690 315 141 102 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1953 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1954 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1955 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1956 1071 690 315 141 102 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1957 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1958 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1959 1071 690 315 141 106 90 108 418 469 115 192 836 

1960 1071 690 315 141 102 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1961 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1962 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1963 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1964 1071 690 315 141 102 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1965 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1966 1071 690 315 141 106 90 108 418 469 115 192 836 

1967 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1968 1071 690 315 141 102 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1969 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1970 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1971 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1972 1071 690 315 141 102 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1973 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1974 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1975 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1976 1071 690 315 141 102 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1977 1071 690 315 141 106 68 156 314 352 86 144 627 

1978 803 517 236 106 80 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1979 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1980 1071 690 315 141 102 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

35
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 13. SOD CVP Refuge Deliveries 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1981 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 82 836 

1982 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1983 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1984 1071 690 315 141 102 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1985 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1986 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1987 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1988 1071 690 315 141 102 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1989 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1990 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1991 1071 690 315 141 106 68 156 314 352 86 144 627 

1992 803 517 236 106 77 68 156 314 352 86 144 627 

1993 803 517 236 106 80 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1994 1071 690 315 141 106 68 156 314 352 86 144 627 

1995 803 517 236 106 80 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1996 1071 690 315 141 102 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1997 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1998 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

1999 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

2000 1071 690 315 141 102 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

2001 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

2002 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

2003 1071 690 315 141 106 90 208 418 469 115 192 836 

36
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 14. SOD CVP Losses 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1922 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1923 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1924 114 83 85 110 174 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1925 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1926 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1927 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1928 114 83 85 110 174 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1929 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1930 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1931 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1932 114 83 85 110 174 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1933 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1934 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1935 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1936 114 83 85 110 174 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1937 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1938 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1939 114 83 85 110 181 167 104 329 512 568 472 185 

1940 114 83 85 110 174 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1941 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1942 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1943 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1944 114 83 85 110 174 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1945 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1946 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1947 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1948 114 83 85 110 174 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1949 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1950 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1951 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1952 114 83 85 110 174 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1953 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1954 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1955 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1956 114 83 85 110 174 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1957 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1958 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1959 114 83 85 110 181 167 104 329 512 568 472 185 

1960 114 83 85 110 174 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1961 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 461 568 472 185 

1962 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1963 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1964 114 83 85 110 174 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1965 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1966 114 83 85 110 181 167 104 329 512 568 472 185 

1967 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1968 114 83 85 110 174 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1969 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1970 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1971 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1972 114 83 85 110 174 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1973 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1974 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1975 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1976 114 83 85 110 174 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1977 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1978 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1979 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1980 114 83 85 110 174 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

37
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 14. SOD CVP Losses 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1981 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1982 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1983 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1984 114 83 85 110 174 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1985 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1986 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1987 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1988 114 83 85 110 174 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1989 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1990 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1991 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1992 114 83 85 110 174 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1993 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1994 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 461 568 472 185 

1995 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1996 114 83 85 110 174 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1997 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1998 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

1999 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

2000 114 83 85 110 174 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

2001 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

2002 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

2003 114 83 85 110 181 167 232 329 512 568 472 185 

38
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 15. Friant Kern Canal Deliveries 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1922 81 67 16 16 234 963 3099 3528 4436 3653 3199 1789 

1923 626 161 107 682 1305 816 1652 2074 2951 3102 2719 1526 

1924 541 146 93 93 690 247 312 437 918 1141 707 428 

1925 318 149 16 16 167 616 1122 1556 2269 2382 2155 1156 

1926 422 126 73 73 413 570 1037 1435 2090 2195 1987 1069 

1927 393 121 68 68 382 891 1744 2208 4017 3289 2882 1615 

1928 570 151 98 98 731 638 1163 1613 2351 2468 2232 1195 

1929 434 128 75 75 427 368 463 657 1425 1780 1075 630 

1930 466 200 16 16 249 359 452 640 1386 1730 1046 615 

1931 454 196 16 16 242 161 207 284 568 702 419 288 

1932 217 114 16 16 193 899 1811 2292 3263 3429 3004 1682 

1933 591 155 101 101 789 580 1055 1463 2134 2241 2028 1090 

1934 400 122 69 69 389 327 412 581 1248 1557 946 560 

1935 414 182 16 16 220 802 1624 2041 2905 3053 2676 1503 

1936 534 145 92 92 471 1169 1639 3262 3283 3130 2743 1539 

1937 545 147 94 94 390 508 1356 1911 4121 3070 2691 1511 

1938 536 146 430 1263 1907 326 782 1687 4462 4487 3580 2208 

1939 897 278 220 220 1024 785 1925 1376 2002 2103 1904 1026 

1940 380 119 66 66 353 795 1567 2217 3397 2873 2519 1417 

1941 506 140 87 87 573 1541 3075 2485 4362 3777 3391 2093 

1942 852 266 209 541 1926 957 1886 3466 4396 3621 3172 1774 

1943 625 160 106 102 2033 508 1464 3184 3250 3203 2807 1574 

1944 557 149 95 95 712 624 1137 1577 2301 2416 2186 1171 

1945 427 127 74 74 390 932 1855 2360 3433 3548 3107 1739 

1946 610 158 595 1218 986 778 1574 2201 2774 2916 2557 1437 

1947 512 141 88 88 826 602 1096 1519 2213 2323 2103 1128 

1948 413 124 72 72 389 389 588 838 1840 2302 1376 797 

1949 586 241 16 16 316 541 983 1362 1985 2085 1888 1017 

1950 377 118 66 66 363 601 1095 1518 2212 2323 2102 1128 

1951 413 122 1271 1271 1603 631 1150 1594 2325 2441 2208 1183 

1952 430 127 74 74 832 706 1735 1742 4450 3792 3405 2101 

1953 856 267 210 508 1100 680 1371 1722 2448 2638 2322 1274 

1954 460 132 79 79 455 576 1048 1452 2116 2222 2011 1081 

1955 397 122 69 69 386 566 1030 1428 2082 2186 1979 1065 

1956 392 121 68 68 1567 1725 1984 2538 4236 3851 3372 1883 

1957 656 166 112 112 885 677 1365 1714 2437 2626 2312 1269 

1958 458 132 79 79 453 921 1609 2435 4448 3774 3389 2091 

1959 852 266 209 209 889 583 1128 1461 2128 2235 2023 1087 

1960 399 122 69 69 375 345 435 616 1328 1658 1005 592 

1961 438 190 16 16 233 256 325 456 962 1197 739 445 

1962 331 153 16 16 174 848 1719 2158 3073 3229 2830 1587 

1963 561 150 96 96 1478 919 1865 2343 3337 3507 3072 1719 

1964 603 157 103 103 779 520 943 1305 1901 1997 1809 977 

1965 364 116 63 1207 1549 882 1789 2247 3200 3363 2946 1650 

1966 581 153 100 567 987 676 1348 2446 2340 2456 2222 1190 

1967 433 128 70 119 1614 2338 1115 1554 4204 4482 3626 2520 

1968 1720 551 484 484 1787 466 585 832 1824 2282 1365 790 

1969 582 240 16 16 313 636 541 1223 2993 4480 3423 2238 

1970 1529 495 430 1040 1758 1127 1428 1793 2549 2680 2351 1325 

1971 476 135 82 82 619 643 1172 1625 2372 2489 2252 1206 

1972 438 129 76 76 416 536 973 1348 1962 2061 1867 1006 

1973 373 118 65 65 359 841 1637 1955 4089 3037 2662 1495 

1974 531 145 91 1291 1202 1616 1710 3360 4251 3207 2811 1576 

1975 557 149 96 96 739 869 1721 2176 3551 3235 2835 1589 

1976 561 150 96 96 719 376 473 671 1453 1815 1095 642 

1977 474 202 16 16 253 169 216 298 601 742 447 301 

1978 226 117 16 16 116 846 1143 1880 4325 4486 3716 2427 

1979 1657 533 467 1039 2020 1489 1631 2933 3604 3024 2651 1489 

1980 529 144 91 80 377 895 1125 3308 4460 4146 3559 2195 

39
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 15. Friant Kern Canal Deliveries 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1981 892 277 219 219 934 653 1315 1650 2343 2525 2224 1222 

1982 443 130 77 77 1636 2307 541 2927 4461 3969 3563 2197 

1983 2093 1477 151 112 568 91 956 1480 2351 4467 3869 2873 

1984 1959 1391 521 1753 2042 1257 1597 2005 2852 2998 2628 1476 

1985 525 144 90 90 691 596 1084 1502 2187 2296 2078 1116 

1986 409 124 71 71 390 465 3033 3448 4429 3497 3063 1714 

1987 602 157 103 103 804 483 875 1209 1891 2366 1413 817 

1988 601 246 16 16 313 340 428 606 1306 1630 988 583 

1989 431 188 16 16 230 395 497 705 1533 1916 1153 674 

1990 497 210 16 16 266 301 380 535 1144 1426 871 518 

1991 384 172 16 16 204 422 530 754 1648 2060 1237 720 

1992 530 222 16 16 275 363 457 646 1397 1744 1055 619 

1993 458 197 16 16 336 1156 3131 3486 4349 3790 3319 1854 

1994 647 165 111 111 871 491 890 1230 1790 1881 1705 923 

1995 346 113 60 218 1530 1036 2631 2029 4076 4468 3874 2876 

1996 1961 622 553 553 2045 829 2772 3141 4180 3268 2863 1605 

1997 567 151 91 91 658 1969 1583 2591 2725 2865 2513 1413 

1998 505 140 87 87 390 902 565 1578 2572 4481 3577 2657 

1999 1813 578 511 511 1953 715 1445 1814 2579 2711 2378 1340 

2000 481 136 83 83 604 796 1598 2007 3265 2946 2583 1452 

2001 517 142 89 89 679 568 1033 1432 2085 2190 1983 1066 

2002 393 121 68 68 381 518 940 1301 1892 1988 1801 972 

2003 362 116 63 63 347 623 1136 1575 2297 2411 2182 1169 

40
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 16. Madera Canal Deliveries 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1922 0 0 0 0 2 0 476 957 1250 1225 1064 400 

1923 48 5 0 6 5 117 322 617 855 1000 867 322 

1924 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 301 369 257 36 

1925 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 263 793 963 665 106 

1926 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 238 711 865 597 94 

1927 0 0 0 0 0 116 348 671 1072 1080 937 350 

1928 38 2 1 1 3 0 0 277 834 1013 699 112 

1929 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 159 457 557 386 58 

1930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 155 445 543 376 56 

1931 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 194 140 49 246 

1932 0 0 0 0 4 117 366 703 974 1138 987 369 

1933 48 5 0 0 0 0 0 242 726 882 609 96 

1934 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 142 403 491 341 50 

1935 0 0 0 0 0 65 107 645 894 1045 906 337 

1936 49 0 0 0 32 59 329 824 916 1011 876 326 

1937 30 5 1 1 65 43 517 791 1101 987 855 317 

1938 38 0 3 12 0 9 219 1124 1250 1250 1221 462 

1939 35 15 0 0 14 32 143 229 683 830 573 90 

1940 0 0 0 0 0 78 302 622 1174 1250 930 145 

1941 0 0 0 0 107 15 14 1016 1250 1250 1250 568 

1942 75 20 10 13 11 68 391 932 1213 1231 1069 402 

1943 51 5 0 52 29 168 337 820 925 1041 903 336 

1944 41 1 0 0 0 0 0 268 809 983 678 108 

1945 0 0 0 0 155 107 379 732 1029 1190 1033 388 

1946 48 5 5 12 14 109 301 617 789 923 800 296 

1947 36 0 0 0 22 0 0 255 765 929 641 102 

1948 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 199 585 712 492 76 

1949 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 227 676 822 568 89 

1950 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 255 764 929 641 102 

1951 0 0 201 62 68 0 0 272 821 998 688 110 

1952 0 0 0 0 5 3 249 1076 1250 1250 1195 451 

1953 67 10 0 3 15 0 0 302 916 1112 767 124 

1954 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 241 720 875 604 96 

1955 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 237 709 861 595 94 

1956 0 0 130 274 28 221 411 795 1215 1250 1171 442 

1957 59 8 0 0 0 0 0 300 911 1105 762 123 

1958 0 0 0 0 0 31 3 1082 1250 1250 1183 447 

1959 66 10 0 0 0 0 11 242 724 880 608 96 

1960 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 428 521 362 54 

1961 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 315 385 268 38 

1962 0 0 0 0 0 87 343 655 908 1060 920 343 

1963 43 1 0 0 31 138 379 720 998 1166 1012 379 

1964 38 7 0 0 0 0 0 219 648 788 545 85 

1965 0 0 0 12 78 130 359 683 947 1106 960 359 

1966 43 1 0 5 9 1 0 421 829 1006 694 111 

1967 0 0 0 0 50 217 14 1250 1250 1250 1250 812 

1968 257 15 11 9 45 0 0 197 580 706 488 76 

1969 0 0 0 114 0 3 285 1166 1250 1250 1156 646 

1970 70 19 0 6 5 32 0 318 968 1175 810 131 

1971 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 279 845 1026 708 113 

1972 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 225 669 813 562 88 

1973 0 0 0 0 0 24 326 626 1080 973 843 313 

1974 29 2 1 54 21 192 338 850 1092 1043 904 337 

1975 41 1 0 0 0 47 347 668 998 1073 931 347 

1976 44 1 0 0 0 0 0 162 466 568 393 59 

1977 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 204 251 49 154 

1978 0 0 0 0 97 13 3 1250 1250 1250 1250 734 

1979 171 10 0 6 2 21 317 755 949 967 838 311 

1980 38 0 0 154 234 103 522 1064 1250 1250 1213 458 

41
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 16. Madera Canal Deliveries 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1981 59 10 0 0 0 0 0 285 862 1047 722 116 

1982 0 0 0 0 40 10 116 1169 1250 1250 1250 542 

1983 232 92 217 232 2 0 34 1250 1250 1250 1250 986 

1984 193 102 226 64 38 184 308 590 818 957 829 307 

1985 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 251 751 913 630 100 

1986 0 0 0 0 215 149 488 902 1225 1162 1008 378 

1987 47 8 0 0 0 0 0 204 601 731 505 79 

1988 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 421 513 356 53 

1989 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 169 491 597 414 63 

1990 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 371 453 315 46 

1991 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 180 526 640 443 68 

1992 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 449 547 379 57 

1993 0 0 0 0 4 45 517 945 1222 1250 1134 427 

1994 55 5 0 0 0 0 0 207 612 744 514 80 

1995 0 0 0 1 57 78 311 1250 1250 1250 1250 1113 

1996 418 21 13 10 24 227 484 821 1092 1067 926 345 

1997 35 3 98 698 136 246 304 684 1060 1250 923 144 

1998 0 0 0 0 94 47 83 1250 1250 1250 1250 928 

1999 198 56 43 34 57 0 0 323 984 1194 823 133 

2000 0 0 0 0 0 17 316 605 897 959 831 308 

2001 8 7 5 4 4 0 0 238 710 863 596 94 

2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 218 646 785 543 85 

2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 268 807 980 676 108 

42
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 17. Stockton East / Central San Joaquin Deliveries 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1922 145 103 90 76 76 85 118 299 458 501 385 227 

1923 138 103 90 76 76 111 97 284 471 515 394 195 

1924 142 103 90 76 76 135 283 340 387 417 327 209 

1925 117 103 90 76 76 85 97 207 470 542 414 241 

1926 156 103 90 76 76 5 0 110 211 237 164 69 

1927 11 0 0 0 0 85 97 300 450 521 398 239 

1928 121 103 90 76 74 85 105 299 457 498 382 232 

1929 155 103 90 76 76 0 81 150 147 206 142 59 

1930 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1931 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1932 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1933 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1934 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1935 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1936 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 121 200 237 164 58 

1937 12 2 0 0 0 85 97 300 458 506 388 234 

1938 144 103 90 76 76 85 97 264 476 526 401 234 

1939 127 105 90 76 76 85 273 295 417 450 349 206 

1940 138 106 90 76 74 85 97 318 460 498 382 231 

1941 139 106 90 76 76 85 97 269 469 518 396 238 

1942 140 103 90 76 76 85 97 152 481 566 429 250 

1943 153 103 90 76 76 85 97 286 462 510 390 236 

1944 146 103 90 76 74 85 185 299 443 481 371 226 

1945 125 103 90 76 76 85 148 318 451 489 377 227 

1946 117 103 90 76 76 85 183 303 439 474 367 224 

1947 138 103 90 76 76 85 275 351 392 439 342 214 

1948 117 103 90 76 74 0 0 53 220 264 182 76 

1949 11 1 0 0 0 0 60 126 179 212 146 62 

1950 21 0 0 0 0 0 28 117 215 239 162 46 

1951 0 0 0 0 0 85 210 294 423 472 372 228 

1952 130 103 90 76 74 85 97 298 461 499 378 236 

1953 158 103 90 76 76 85 208 316 390 465 375 231 

1954 143 103 90 76 76 85 192 313 417 464 353 233 

1955 155 103 90 76 76 93 195 296 432 462 379 208 

1956 150 103 90 76 74 85 220 297 449 476 360 203 

1957 123 106 90 76 76 85 228 246 420 491 379 234 

1958 129 105 90 76 76 85 97 230 456 538 405 237 

1959 160 107 90 76 76 88 247 363 394 463 357 147 

1960 151 106 90 76 74 0 76 129 164 209 145 61 

1961 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1962 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 136 171 214 149 62 

1963 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 216 249 165 59 

1964 4 0 0 0 0 2 117 135 161 200 134 56 

1965 3 0 0 0 0 85 97 310 470 507 355 236 

1966 152 103 90 76 76 85 262 330 402 433 340 214 

1967 148 103 90 76 76 85 97 209 449 554 421 247 

1968 151 103 90 76 74 85 216 320 422 459 355 221 

1969 137 103 90 76 76 85 97 314 469 508 390 221 

1970 129 103 90 76 76 85 180 331 422 470 363 224 

1971 137 103 90 76 76 85 208 293 432 468 361 222 

1972 144 103 90 76 74 148 241 346 391 429 334 194 

1973 129 103 90 76 76 85 143 343 447 484 372 221 

1974 117 103 90 76 76 85 97 305 460 479 410 244 

1975 132 103 90 76 76 85 97 307 465 510 365 237 

1976 122 105 90 76 98 203 258 330 372 403 283 197 

1977 144 103 90 76 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1978 0 0 0 0 0 85 97 265 477 522 399 209 

1979 157 103 90 76 76 85 118 315 462 489 384 233 

1980 127 103 90 76 74 85 165 292 453 456 377 230 

43
 

Attachment 2 – CalSim 2 Inputs, Assumptions, and Hydrology Data

Table 17. Stockton East / Central San Joaquin Deliveries 

CFS 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

1981 151 106 90 76 76 85 144 295 456 499 383 231 

1982 119 103 90 76 76 85 97 285 482 552 419 173 

1983 117 103 90 76 76 85 97 157 501 587 431 208 

1984 146 103 90 76 74 85 201 347 422 463 358 221 

1985 117 103 90 76 76 85 179 339 425 481 366 206 

1986 131 103 90 76 76 85 103 297 472 516 396 181 

1987 157 106 90 76 76 85 188 332 429 463 358 222 

1988 136 103 90 76 74 26 62 121 178 204 140 59 

1989 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1990 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1991 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1992 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1995 0 0 0 0 0 85 97 231 446 540 410 245 

1996 158 103 90 76 74 85 97 182 479 567 429 252 

1997 122 103 90 76 76 85 152 346 428 475 360 226 

1998 141 103 90 76 76 85 97 115 494 594 448 255 

1999 126 103 90 76 76 85 141 332 440 480 370 218 

2000 146 103 90 76 74 85 117 281 447 528 401 236 

2001 117 103 90 76 76 85 148 297 443 493 381 220 

2002 145 103 90 76 76 0 78 127 181 202 140 59 

2003 20 0 0 0 0 0 6 101 207 240 156 71 

44
 

 

 

Attachment 3 - Hydrology Sensitivity Analysis

Introduction 

There is reasonable concern about how climate change might affect the economic and hydrologic 

parameters that determine the CVP Cost Allocation. Analysis depicting some project benefits 

and single-purpose facility sizing has been performed using historical hydrology. Reclamation 

maintains that 1) the direction and magnitude of climate change effects on cost allocation 

parameters are difficult to state due to multiple areas of uncertainty, and 2) it is not cost-effective 

or appropriate to generate multiple cost allocations based upon economic and hydrologic 

conditions which are not yet known with certainty. To address concerns, a statistical 

investigation was undertaken to determine whether historical hydrology falls within the range of 

potential climate futures and thus is a suitable basis from which to perform analysis that defines 

the Cost Allocation. It will be demonstrated that: 

1. Historic inflows to the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers (the selected measure of 

water supplies) are not statistically different from the Central Tendency of projected 

future inflows. 

2. The range of projected future inflows brackets the historic range of inflows. 

3. Historic total CVP deliveries are not statistically different than the Central Tendency of 

projected future deliveries. 

4. The range of projected future deliveries brackets the historic range of deliveries. 

Climate Scenarios 

The purpose of the statistical testing was to evaluate whether the historical water supplies and 

deliveries are significantly different than would occur under future climate conditions. To make 

this assessment, water supply and delivery results from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins 

Study (SSJBS) were used. Five future climate scenarios were developed for Reclamation’s 

recently published SSJBS (Reclamation 2016) using bias-corrected and spatially downscaled 

global climate model simulation results from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 

Phase 5 (CMIP5). The CMIP5 dataset consist of 175 individual climate projections which are 

the most recent projections made by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the 

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC 2013). The five climate scenarios were based on 

ensembles of individual CMIP5 temperature and precipitation projections. These future climate 

scenarios along with a historically based reference climate were used to simulate 21st century 

climate-informed inflows and demands in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins. For the 

SSJBS, the WEAP-CV model was used to simulate watershed water supply and demands. The 

CalLite-CV model was used to simulate water deliveries based on the WEAP-CV projected 

reservoir inflows and water demands. The CalLite-CV model is similar to the CalSim2 model 

used as the basis for water deliveries in the Cost Allocation Study. Both models simulate CVP 

demands, but the CalLite-CV has a more simplified representation of water management 

November 3, 2016 Page 1 of 11 
Attachment 3 - Hydrology Sensitivity Analysis

operations. Although simplified, the CalLite-CV model was calibrated to simulate CalSim2

results. 

The six climate scenarios used in the statistical analyses representing potential future climate 

conditions include: 

• No Climate Change (NoCC) – This reference climate was developed based on a historic 

period reconstruction developed by Liveneh (2013). The NoCC scenario has a starting date

of 10/1925 and covers an 85-year period of record.

• Central Tendency (CEN, or Q5) – This ensemble includes a large number of individual 

projections bounded by the 25th and 75th percentiles of temperature and precipitation 

changes. Relative to the other potential future climate scenarios, the Q5 scenario includes a 

substantially greater number of individual projections than any of the other scenarios. 

• Warm Dry (WD, or Q1) – This ensemble is formed from 10 individual projections that are 

closest to the intersection of 10th percentiles of temperature increases and precipitation 

decreases1

. 

• Hot Dry (HD, or Q2) – This ensemble is formed from 10 individual projections that are 

closest to the intersection of 90th and 10th percentiles of temperature increases and percent 

precipitation changes respectively. 

• Hot Wet (HW, or Q3) – This ensemble is formed from 10 individual projections that are 

closest to the intersection of 90th percentiles of temperature increases and percent 

precipitation changes. 

• Warm Wet (HW, or Q4) – This ensemble is formed from 10 individual projections that are 

closest to the intersection of 10th and 90th percentiles of temperature increase and percent 

precipitation changes respectively. 

This scenario-based approach allows the uncertainty contained in the 175 CMIP5 individual 

climate projections (small blue dots on Figure 1) to be represented by five future climate 

scenarios. Figure 1 shows the relationships between the individual climate projections and the 

five representative ensemble-informed climate scenarios. 

1 Note: The 10th percentile of the percent precipitation change means there are only 10% of projections that are 

drier. Similarly, the 90th percentile of the percent precipitation change means there are only 10% of projections that 

are wetter. 

November 3, 2016 Page 2 of 11 
GI 

t:n 

C 

<G 

.c 

0 

~ ::::J 

-

<G 

~ a. 

E 

~ 

Notes 

2.5 . 112GCMs 

0 01 (10NN) 

0 Q2 (10NN) 

2.0 0 Q3 (10NN) 

0 Q4 (10NN) 

TSO 

1.5 PSO 

--T10 

--P10 

1.0 --T90 

--P90 

--T25 

--P25 

0 .5 --T75 

--P75 

Q2 (drier, more warm ing) Q3 (w etter, more w arming) 

. 

-- ---- .. 

I 

• I 

I • 

, 

I 

' • • • • ',® • • •I • • • ' .... ..., 

- -.... -~ - - - - - - • • t ..... - ............. ', t ,, •• Qs 

• / t •• 

I t • 

, . . , ' 

\ 

' .,, 

Q l (drier, less warming) 

,----- --------

' ' , 

0 .0 

-30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 

Precipitation Change(%) 

30.0 

The 05 scenano 1s bounded by the 25th and 751h percent1leJ01nt temperabJre-prec1pita11on change Scenanos Ol~Q!i are selectetl to reflect lhe results d the 10 prOJectlons nearest each of 1 Olh and 90th 

Jotnt tempera1ure-preap1tat1on change bounds Representa!i\4:! gndcel1 atAA"lencan R11ier Bastn used as example. ID NN Method 

Attachment 3 - Hydrology Sensitivity Analysis

Figure 1. Relationship between changes in mean annual temperature and precipitation. 

The Y axis shows temperature change from 0 degrees to 2.5 degrees Celsius. The X axis 

shows precipitation change ranging from 30% less to 30% more. This figure is presented 

as an example of how the climate scenarios are formed from ensembles of projections and 

does not represent actual data used in the analyses. 

Additional information on the future climate conditions, development of climate scenarios, and 

simulation of hydroclimate and water delivery is available in the SSJBS Technical Report 

( http://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/bsp/ ). 

Statistical Tests 

Using these climate scenarios (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, and Q5) and the historic climate reconstruction 

(NoCC), the SSJBS simulated both CVP water supplies and deliveries. To evaluate the 

significance of differences between the historic and potential future water supplies and CVP 

deliveries, the medians of these results were statistically compared. The statistical analyses were 

performed using the nonparametric Mann-Whitney test because the distribution of these water 

supplies and deliveries are most likely not normally distributed. And even if they were normally 

distributed, a non-parametric test would still provide valid results, especially for the large water 

supply and delivery datasets employed in the statistical testing. The Mann-Whitney analysis 

tests the Null hypothesis that the medians of two datasets are not equal. For the tests performed 

here, the Null hypothesis is that the median of the NoCC scenario is not equal to medians of Q1, 

Q2, Q3, Q4, and Q5 inflow and delivery data sets. All tests were performed at a 0.05 level of 

significance (i.e., there is a less than 5% chance of rejecting the Null hypothesis when in fact it is 

true). Test results were considered significant when the P-value was less than 0.05. When the 

P-value is greater than or equal to 0.05, the Null hypothesis is rejected. Rejecting the Null 

hypothesis implies the data sets being compared are statistically different, while failing to reject 

(accepting) the Null hypothesis implies the data sets being compared are statistically the same. 

November 3, 2016 Page 3 of 11 
Attachment 3 - Hydrology Sensitivity Analysis

CalLite-CV Inflow Analyses 

The Mann-Whitney analyses compared monthly inflows to the Sacramento and San Joaquin 

rivers by evaluating whether the NoCC median results in the 85-year historic period from 1925 

to 2009 were statistically different than the medians of five climate scenarios results in the future 

period from 2014 to 2099. Boxplots of total monthly inflows for each of the climate scenarios 

are shown in Figures 2 and 3 below2. 

* 

.. * * * * ; * It 

l l ! l l 

C 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

C

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

o

-

s -

-

 -

 -

 N

s

s

s

s

-

w

w

w

w

w

ws

flo

o

flo

flo

flo

o

In

nfl

In

In

In

fl

I

n

y

y

y

y

y

lle

le

lle

 I

e

e

y

ll

ll

l

e

a

a

a

a

a

C V

C

ll

 V

 V

V

C

a

V

C

C

 V

A

A

A

A

A

C

S

S

S

S

S

AS

Sacramento Valley Inflows 

14000 

12000 

10000 

8000 

6000 

4000 

2000 

0 

Inflows (TAF/month) 

Figure 2. Simulated Sacramento Valley monthly inflows during the 2014 to 2099 

simulation period. 

2 Note: Asterisks in Figures 2 and 3 do NOT represent statistical outliers and were included in the analyses. 

November 3, 2016 Page 4 of 11 
l l l l i 

C 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

C

 Q

 Q

Q

Q

Q

No

 -

-

-

-

 -

s

s

s

s

s

-

w

w

w

w

w

ws

flo

flo

flo

flo

flo

lo

In

In

In

In

In

f n

y

y

y

y

y

I

le

lle

lle

lle

e

y

l

ll

a

a

a

a

a

lle

R V

R V

V

V

V

a

R

R

R

 V

J

J

J

J

J

R

S

S

S

S

S

J S

San Joaquin Valley Inflows 

9000 

8000 

7000 

6000 

5000 

4000 

3000 

2000 

1000 

0 

Inflow (TAF/month) 

Attachment 3 - Hydrology Sensitivity Analysis

Figure 3. Simulated San Joaquin Valley monthly inflows during the 2014 to 2099 

simulation period. 

The total period inflows for the NoCC and percent differences between the NoCC and each of 

the climate scenarios are presented in Table 1 below. 

Total Period Climate Scenarios 

2014-2099 NoCC Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 

Total Inflows TAF % Change wrt NoCC 

SAC 1,232,029 -14 -15 23 23 3 

SJR 557,065 -22 -24 29 33 0.3 

Table 1. 

Note: The Sacramento River (SAC) and San Joaquin River (SJR) inflows presented in the table are the sum of the 

basin inflows during the 85-year simulation period from 2014 to 2099. 

Mann-Whitney tests of inflows to both the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys reveal that the 

Null hypothesis that NoCC median is not equal to Q5 median is the only comparison among the 

five future climate scenarios that cannot be rejected (P value > 0.05). All of the other climate 

scenarios are significantly different from the NoCC (P value < 0.05). Furthermore, the Q1-Q4 

scenario inflows bracket NoCC scenario inflows, with the wetter scenarios Q3 and Q4 having 

more inflow and the drier scenarios having less inflow. The Q5 inflows are not statistically 

different from the NoCC inflows. 

November 3, 2016 Page 5 of 11 
Attachment 3 - Hydrology Sensitivity Analysis

The Mann-Whitney test results for each of the comparisons of NoCC with the future climate 

scenarios follow3

: 

Mann-Whitney Test: SAC & SJR Valley Inflows – NoCC - Q1 

N Median 

SAC Valley Inflows - NoCC 1020 756.7 

SAC Valley Inflows - Q1 1020 647.3 

Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at P-value = 0.0000 

N Median 

N Median 

SJR Valley Inflows - NoCC 1020 318.92 

SJR Valley Inflows - Q1 1020 242.24 

Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at P-value = 0.0000 

Mann-Whitney Test: SAC & SJR Valley Inflows - NoCC - Q2 

N Median 

SAC Valley Inflows - NoCC 1020 756.7 

SAC Valley Inflows - Q2 1020 625.1 

Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at P-value = 0.0000 

N Median 

SJR Valley Inflows - NoCC 1020 318.92 

SJR Valley Inflows - Q2 1020 223.68 

Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at P-value = 0.0000 

Mann-Whitney Test: SAC & SJR Valley Inflows - NoCC - Q3 

N Median 

SAC Valley Inflows - NoCC 1020 756.7 

SAC Valley Inflows - Q3 1020 840.8 

Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at P-value = 0.0001 

N Median 

SJR Valley Inflows - NoCC 1020 318.92 

SJR Valley Inflows - Q3 1020 356.25 

Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at P-value = 0.0053 

3 Note: P-values > 0.05 indicate that median values of the NoCC and a particular ensemble scenario (Q1 to Q5) are 

NOT statistically significantly different. These P-values are highlighted in bold text. 

November 3, 2016 Page 6 of 11 
Attachment 3 - Hydrology Sensitivity Analysis

Mann-Whitney Test: SAC & SJR Valley Inflows - NoCC- Q4 

N Median 

SAC Valley Inflows - NoCC 1020 756.7 

SAC Valley Inflows - Q4 1020 857.5 

Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at P-value = 0.0000 

N Median 

SJR Valley Inflows - NoCC 1020 318.92 

SJR Valley Inflows - Q4 1020 400.59 

Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at P-value = 0.0000 

Mann-Whitney Test: SAC & SJR Valley Inflows - NoCC - Q5 

N Median 

SAC Valley Inflows - NoCC 1020 756.7 

SAC Valley Inflows - Q5 1020 728.2 

Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at P-value = 0.7376 

N Median 

SJR Valley Inflows - NoCC 1020 318.92 

SJR Valley Inflows - Q5 1020 305.21 

Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at P-value = 0.1419 

CalLite-CV Delivery Analysis 

Statistical analyses of CVP deliveries were also performed by comparing the median of annual 

CalLite-CV simulated CVP deliveries in the NoCC scenario (1925-2009) with the medians of 

each of the five climate scenarios (Q1 to Q5) in the future period from 2014-2099. Boxplots of 

the total annual CVP Deliveries for the NoCC and each of the climate scenarios are shown in 

Figure 4. 

November 3, 2016 Page 7 of 11 
C 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

C

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

o

-

 -

-

 -

-

N

s

s

s

s

s

-

ie

rie

ie

ie

ie

s

r

e

r

r

r

ie

e

e

e

e

liv

liv

liv

liv

r

v

e

e

li

e

e

e

e

eliv

d

P D

D

D

 D

D

P

V

P

P

P

V

C

V

V

V

P

C

C

C

C

V

l

al

a

l

C

t

t

ta

al

o

To

o

t

T

T

oT

Total CVP Deliveries by Climate Projection 

1600 

1400 

1200 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

Deliveries in TAF/yr 

I I I I 

I I I I 

Attachment 3 - Hydrology Sensitivity Analysis

Figure 4. Total annual CVP deliveries by climate projection from 2014 to 2099. 

The total period deliveries for the NoCC and percent differences for each of the climate 

scenarios are presented in Table 2 below. 

Total Climate Scenarios 

Period 

2014-2099 NoCC Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 

Total 

Deliveries TAF % Change wrt NoCC 

CVP 458,371 -17 -19 -1 4 -4 

Table 2. 

Note: The total deliveries and percent differences presented in Table 2 are based on the sum of the annual CVP 

deliveries during the 85-year simulation period. 

The Mann-Whitney tests of total annual CVP deliveries indicate the Null hypothesis that the 

median NoCC deliveries are not equal to median Q3, Q4 and Q5 deliveries is rejected 

(P-values > 0.05). However, the Null hypothesis cannot be rejected for the Q1 and Q2 scenarios 

(P-values < 0.05). Therefore, the Q3, Q4, and Q5 median deliveries are not statistically different 

from the NoCC deliveries. The Q5 (Central Tendency) deliveries are very slightly less than 

under NoCC (see NoCC – Q5 test results below). The Q3 (Hot, Wet) total deliveries are nearly 

the same as NoCC; while the Q4 (Warm, Wet) are slightly larger than NoCC. Both the Q1 

(Warm, Dry) and Q2 (Hot, Dry) median deliveries are considerably less than the NoCC median 

deliveries. Thus, the Q1, Q2 and Q4 scenarios bracket the NoCC scenario deliveries while the 

Q3 and Q5 deliveries are nearly the same as the NoCC deliveries. 

November 3, 2016 Page 8 of 11 
Attachment 3 - Hydrology Sensitivity Analysis

The Mann-Whitney test results comparing the NoCC median deliveries to each of the climate 

scenario medians are presented below4

: 

Mann-Whitney Test: Total CVP Deliveries – NoCC - Q1 

N Median 

Total CVP Deliveries - NoCC 1020 270.30 

Total CVP deliveries - Q1 1020 223.14 

Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at P-value = 0.0237 

Mann-Whitney Test: Total CVP Deliveries – NoCC - Q2 

N Median 

Total CVP Deliveries - NoCC 1020 270.30 

Total CVP Deliveries -Q2 1020 200.23 

Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at P-value = 0.0001 

Mann-Whitney Test: Total CVP Deliveries – NoCC - Q3 

N Median 

Total CVP Deliveries - NoCC 1020 270.30 

Total CVP Deliveries - Q3 1020 270.07 

Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at P-value = 0.9334 

Mann-Whitney Test: Total CVP Deliveries - NoCC- Q4 

N Median 

Total CVP Deliveries - NoCC 1020 270.30 

CVP Deliveries - Q4 1020 279.56 

Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at P-value = 0.6000 

Mann-Whitney Test: Total CVP Deliveries - NoCC - Q5 

N Median 

Total CVP Deliveries - NoCC 1020 270.30 

CVP Deliveries - Q5 1020 258.34 

Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at P-value = 0.6183 

4 Note: P-values > 0.05 indicate that median values of the NoCC and a particular ensemble scenario (Q1 to Q5) are 

NOT statistically different. These P-values are highlighted in bold text. 

November 3, 2016 Page 9 of 11 
 

Attachment 3 - Hydrology Sensitivity Analysis

Seasonality Considerations 

Climate change can affect the seasonal pattern of inflow as well as the total volume. Previous 

climate studies have indicated that inflows under climate change will be higher earlier in the 

water year and lower later in the water year, due to a shift in precipitation patterns and more 

precipitation falling as rain rather than snow (Reclamation 2016). The SSJBS inflows 

demonstrate this shift in monthly inflow pattern, as shown in Figure 5. However, CVP deliveries 

maintain a similar pattern for all climate scenarios (Figure 6). 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

3000 

3500 

4000 

4500 

5000 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

All Years Average Monthly Inflow (TAF) 

NoCC 

Q1 

Q2 

Q3 

Q4 

Q5 

Figure 5. Inflow patterns under the SSJBS NoCC and Q1-Q5 climate scenarios. 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

1200 

1400 

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep 

Monthly Delivery (TAF) 

CT_NoCC 

CT_Q1 

CT_Q2 

CT_Q3 

CT_Q4 

CT_Q5 

Figure 6. Delivery patterns under the SSJBS NoCC and Q1-Q5 climate scenarios. 

November 3, 2016 Page 10 of 11 
Attachment 3 - Hydrology Sensitivity Analysis

Summary and Conclusions 

In the previous sections, statistical testing demonstrated that differences between the NoCC 

historic reference climate and Central Tendency (Q5) future inflows were not statistically 

significantly different. Furthermore, the NoCC inflows were bracketed by the range of inflows 

exhibited by the Q1 – Q4 climate scenarios. Similarly, the NoCC deliveries were demonstrated 

to not be statistically significantly different from the Q3, Q4, and Q5 future climate scenario 

water deliveries. The NoCC water deliveries were also bracketed by the range of the Q1, Q2, 

and Q4 future climate scenario deliveries. Finally, changes in the seasonality of inflows 

occurring in the future climate scenarios were shown to not have a large impact on the delivery 

of CVP water supplies. 

These conclusions support Reclamation’s position that analysis performed with historical 

hydrology is a sufficient basis for determining the CVP Cost Allocation. 

References 

Reclamation. 2016. The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Basin Study, Basin Study 

Technical Report. Prepared by U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, MidPacific Region, Sacramento, California. 

Livneh, B., E. A. Rosenberg, C. Lin, V. Mishra, K. Andreadis, E. P. Maurer, and D.P. 

Lettenmaier. 2013. A long-term hydrologically based data set of land surface fluxes and states 

for the conterminous U.S.: Update and extensions, Journal of Climate, DOI: 

10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00508.1. 

November 3, 2016 Page 11 of 11