Final

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

FOR THE 

LONG-TERM CONTRACT RENEWAL 

SHASTA AND TRINITY RIVER DIVISIONS 

Contract No. 01CS20210D 

Order No. 01A920210D 

Lead Agency: 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Mid-Pacific Region-Shasta Division 

Northern California Area Office 

16349 Shasta Dam Boulevard 

Shasta Lake, California 

February 2005 
February 2005 i Final EA for the

 LTRC Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE

LONG-TERM CONTRACT RENEWAL, 

SHASTA AND TRINITY RIVER DIVISIONS

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................................................................... 1-1

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

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Federal Action..................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Authorities for Central Valley Project Water Service Contract Renewals................................... 1-4 

1.3.1 Number and Breadth of Contracts................................................................................... 1-5 

1.3.2 Discretion Under Contract Authorities/Reclamation Law to Control 

Use of Contract Water..................................................................................................... 1-5 

1.4 Basis of Shasta and Trinity RiverDivisions Water Service Contract Renewals........................... 1-5

1.5 Relation to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act Programmatic 

 Environmental Impact Statement (CVPIA PEIS) ..................................................................... 1-8

1.6 Study Area.................................................................................................................................... 1-8

1.7 Study Period ................................................................................................................................. 1-8

1.8 Assumptions for 40-Year Impact Analysis .................................................................................. 1-8

1.9 Public Involvement Process ......................................................................................................... 1-9 

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

2.0 DESCRIPTIONS OF ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................................... 2-1

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

2.2 Long-Term Water Service Contract Negotiations Process........................................................... 2-1 

2.3 Issues Considered as Part of Long-Term Contract Renewals ...................................................... 2-2 

2.3.1 Needs Analysis................................................................................................................ 2-2

2.3.2 Changes in Water Service Areas ..................................................................................... 2-9

2.3.3 Water Transfers ............................................................................................................... 2-9

2.4 Development of Alternatives........................................................................................................ 2-9 

2.4.1 No Action Alternative ..................................................................................................... 2-9

2.4.2 Alternative 1.................................................................................................................. 2-11

2.4.3 Alternative 2.................................................................................................................. 2-12

2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated..................................................................................... 2-14 

2.5.1 Nonrenewal of Long-Term Contracts ........................................................................... 2-14

2.5.2 Reduction in Contract Amounts.................................................................................... 2-14

2.6 Selection of the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative ............................................................ 2-14 

2.7 Summary of the Impact Assessment .......................................................................................... 2-14 

3.0 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION............................................................. 3-1

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

3.2 CVPIA Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement............................................................. 3-1

3.3 Localized Impacts of PEIS on Preferred Alternative ................................................................... 3-2

3.4 Shasta County Water Resources Master Plan Phase I Report–Current and 

Future Water Needs...................................................................................................................... 3-2
Table of Contents 

Final EA for the ii February 2005

LTRC Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

3.5 Other Planning Documents........................................................................................................... 3-3

3.6 Focus of the Environmental Assessment...................................................................................... 3-3 

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES,

AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS ................................................................................................. 4-1

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

4.2 Water Supplies and Facilities Operations.................................................................................. 4.2-1 

4.2.1 Description of Existing Shasta and Trinity River Divisions and Facilities................. 4.2-1

4.2.2 Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................... 4.2-7

4.2.3 Cumulative Effects....................................................................................................... 4.2-8

4.3 Socioeconomics......................................................................................................................... 4.3-1 

4.3.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 4.3-1

4.3.2 Methodology of Socioeconomic and Land Use Impact Analysis ................................ 4.3-7

4.3.3 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................... 4.3-10

4.3.4 Cumulative Effects on the Regional Economy .......................................................... 4.3-17

4.4 Land Use.................................................................................................................................... 4.4-1 

4.4.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 4.4-1

4.4.2 Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................... 4.4-5

4.4.3 Cumulative Effects....................................................................................................... 4.4-6

4.5 Biological Resources................................................................................................................. 4.5-1 

4.5.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 4.5-1

4.5.2 Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................... 4.5-6

4.5.3 Cumulative Effects....................................................................................................... 4.5-9 

4.6 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.7 Indian Trust Assets.................................................................................................................... 4.7-1 

4.7.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 4.7-1

4.7.2 Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................... 4.7-1

4.7.3 Cumulative Effects....................................................................................................... 4.7-1 

4.8 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 4.8-1 

4.8.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 4.8-1 

4.8.2 Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................... 4.8-5 

4.8.3 Cumulative Effects....................................................................................................... 4.8-5 

5.0 OTHER ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................. 5-1 

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

5.2 Implementation of Bay-Delta Plan............................................................................................... 5-2

5.3 SWRCB Water Rights.................................................................................................................. 5-2

5.4 CALFED-Bay Delta program....................................................................................................... 5-3

5.5 Water Transfers............................................................................................................................ 5-5

5.6 Trinity River Studies.................................................................................................................... 5-7

5.7 Transfer of Operations and Maintenance Responsibilities........................................................... 5-7

5.8 Changes in Federal Programs....................................................................................................... 5-8

5.9 Changing Demand For Agricultural Products.............................................................................. 5-8

5.10 Yield Increase Plan....................................................................................................................... 5-8

5.11 Additional Listings of Special-Status Species.............................................................................. 5-9
Table of Contents 

February 2005 iii Final EA for the

 LTRC Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

6.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION.................................................................................................... 6-1 

6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 6-1 

6.2 Public Involvement....................................................................................................................... 6-1 

6.3 With Other Agencies.................................................................................................................... 6-2 

6.3.1 National Environmental Policy Act ................................................................................ 6-3

6.3.2 California Environmental Quality Act ............................................................................ 6-3

6.3.3 Endangered Species Act.................................................................................................. 6-3

6.3.4 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act ................................................................................ 6-3 

6.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act.................................................................................. 6-4

6.3.6 Indian Trust Assets.......................................................................................................... 6-4

6.3.7 Indian Sacred Sites on Federal Land............................................................................... 6-4

6.3.8 Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 6-4

6.3.9 State, Area-wide, and Local Plan and Program Consistency .......................................... 6-4

6.3.10 Floodplain Management.................................................................................................. 6-5

6.3.11 Wetlands Protection ........................................................................................................ 6-5

6.3.12 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act ............................................................................................ 6-5 

6.3.13 Farmland Protection Policy Act and Farmland Preservation .......................................... 6-5

6.3.14 Clean Air Act .................................................................................................................. 6-6

6.3.15 Safe Drinking Water Act................................................................................................. 6-6

6.3.16 Clean Water Act .............................................................................................................. 6-7

7.0 REFERENCES, PERSONS CONSULTED, AND ACRONYMS......................................................................... 7-1

7.1 References.................................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Persons Consulted ........................................................................................................................ 7-5

7.3 Acronyms..................................................................................................................................... 7-6

Tables 

Table 1-1 Summary of Existing Long-Term Water Service Contractors in the Shasta 

and Trinity River Divisions............................................................................................. 1-2

Table 1-2 Related Activities ............................................................................................................. 1-15

Table 2-1 Comparison of Contract Provisions Considered in Alternatives........................................ 2-3

Table 2-2 Summary of Impacts of Alternative ................................................................................. 2-15

Table 4.1-1 Features of Shasta and Trinity Divisions Long-Term Service Contractors..................... 4.1-3

Table 4.3-1 Shasta County Population................................................................................................ 4.3-1

Table 4.3-2 Shasta County Housing (2003)........................................................................................ 4.3-1

Table 4.3-3 Population Served within Selected Water Districts (1994) ............................................. 4.3-2

Table 4.3-4 M&I Service Connections Within Selected Water Districts by 

M&I Category (1994)................................................................................................... 4.3-2

Table 4.3-5 1994 Deliveries of Treated Water to M&I Customers by 

 M&I Category (Acre-Feet per Year)........................................................................... 4.3-3

Table 4.3-6 CVP Contract Maximum, M&I Deliveries and Estimated Cost (1994) .......................... 4.3-3 

Table 4.3-7 Cropping Pattern (1996) .................................................................................................. 4.3-4

Table 4.3-8 Agricultural Connections and Water Deliveries (1994) .................................................. 4.3-5

Table 4.3-9 Contract Maximum, Agricultural Deliveries, and Estimated Cost 

Based on Cost of Service Rates (1994) ........................................................................... 4.3-6
Table of Contents 

Final EA for the iv February 2005

LTRC Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

Table 4.3-10 Estimated Output, Employment, and Income by Place-of-Work, 

Shasta County (1991) ................................................................................................... 4.3-6

Table 4.3-11 Affected Region............................................................................................................. 4.3-10

Table 4.3-12 Estimated 1994 M&I Water Rates under 80-10-10 Tiered Pricing, Shasta and 

 Trinity Contractors ..................................................................................................... 4.3-11

Table 4.3-13 Year 2029 Projected CVP M&I Deliveries and Water Cost– 

No Action Alternative (1994 Dollar Terms) .............................................................. 4.3-12

Table 4.3-14 1999 Published Cost-of-Service M&I Rates and Revised 1999 M&I 

 Water Rates Assuming 80-10-10 Tiered Pricing........................................................ 4.3-13

Table 4.3-15 Year 2029 Impacts on CVP Untreated M&I Water Cost, Average 

 and Dry Hydrologic Conditions ................................................................................. 4.3-13

Table 4.3-16 Estimated 1999 Agricultural Water Rates under 80-10-10 Tiered Pricing, 

 Shasta and Trinity Contractors ................................................................................... 4.3-14

Table 4.3-17 Year 2029 Gross Value of Production, CVP Agricultural Water Use and 

 Irrigated Lands, No Action Alternative, Bella Vista Water District and 

 Clear Creek Community Services District ................................................................. 4.3-14

Table 4.3-18 1999 Published and “Theoretical” Cost-of-Service Agricultural Rates and 

Revised 1999 Agricultural Water Rates Assuming 80-10-10 Tiered Pricing .......... 4.3-15 

Table 4.3-19 Projected Year 2029 Agricultural Economic and Land Use Impacts, 

Bella Vista Water District .......................................................................................... 4.3-16

Table 4.3-20 Projected Year 2029 Agricultural Economic and Land Use Impacts, 

 Clear Creek Community Services District ................................................................. 4.3-16

Table 4.3-21 Estimated Year 2029 Output, Employment, and Income by Place-of-Work, 

 Shasta County (1991 Dollar Terms)........................................................................... 4.3-17

Table 4.3-22 Year 2029 Shasta County Output Impacts, Alternative 2 

 (1991 Comparative Basis) .......................................................................................... 4.3-18

Table 4.3-23 Year 2029 Shasta County Employment Impacts, Alternative 2 

 (1991 Comparative Basis) .......................................................................................... 4.3-18

Table 4.3-24 Year 2029 Shasta County Income by Place-of-Work Impacts for 

Alternative 2 (1991 Comparative Basis) .................................................................... 4.3-19 

Table 4.3-25 Land Use, Water Cost, and Agricultural Economic Impacts, Summary 

Average Hydrologic Condition .................................................................................. 4.3-19 

Table 4.4-1 Shasta County and Redding Basin Land Uses (Acres).................................................... 4.4-2

Table 4.4-2 Existing Land Use Designations, City of Redding and 

City of Shasta Lake (Acres) ......................................................................................... 4.4-3

Table 4.5-1 Habitat Types and Communities Occurring within the Shasta and 

 Trinity River Divisions................................................................................................. 4.5-3 

Table 4.8-1 Cultural Resources in the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions Area................................ 4.8-4

Table 5-1 Summary of Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................ 5-1
Table of Contents 

February 2005 v Final EA for the

 LTRC Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

Figures 

 

Figure 1-1 Regional Location and Project Vicinity ......................................................follows page 1-10

Figure 1-2 Generalized Service Areas within the Shasta and 

 Trinity River Divisions.............................................................................follows page 1-12

Appendices 

Appendix A – Summary of May 2003 Proposed Contract Provisions (new)

Appendix B – List of Preparers 

Appendix C – Distribution List

Appendix D – Updated Special Status Species List (June 2003)

Appendix E – Technical Memorandum–Economic Analysis (October 2000)

Appendix F – Comment Letters on EA and Responses to Comments 

Appendix G – Contractor Service Area Maps
February 2005 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

PREFACE

This document is the Final Environmental Assessment (Final EA) for the Long-Term Contract Renewal, 

Shasta and Trinity Rivers Divisions which must be considered prior to approving a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI). Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation (Reclamation) must consider this EA before approving or rejecting the contract renewals 

(project). 

The Final EA includes all corrections and additions to the EA text made as a result of comments made on 

the Draft EA and the Updated Draft EA. Any changes to the text are indicated by revision marks 

(underline for new text, strike-out for deleted text). The Draft EA was published in October 2000, and the 

Updated Draft EA was published in July 2004. Appendix F to this document provides a list of 

commenters, copies of written comments (numerically coded for reference), and Reclamation’s responses 

to those comments. 

No significant environmental issues beyond those already covered in the EA were raised during either the 

30-day comment period for the Draft EA or the 30-day comment period for the Updated Draft EA. 

Comments received on the EA did not indicate new significant impacts or significant new information 

that would require recirculation of the EA pursuant to NEPA, but it was updated and recirculated because 

of the time lapse between the completion of the EA and the completion of negotiations and Endangered 

Species Act consultations. 
February 2005 1-1 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

CHAPTER 1 

PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

This environmental assessment (EA) evaluates the potential effects and benefits of long-term renewal of 

water contracts for 10 water service Contractors (Contractors) that receive water from the Shasta and 

Trinity River Divisions of the Central Valley Project (CVP). Contract renewals would allow continued 

CVP water delivery to the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions’ service areas. 

The CVP is the largest water storage and delivery system in California, covering 35 of the state’s 58 

counties. Authorized by Congress in 1935, the CVP is divided into nine divisions, including the Shasta 

and Trinity River Divisions. These divisions catch and channel southward the headwaters of the network 

of CVP waterways. Shasta Dam, the main feature of the Shasta Division, was authorized in the same 

legislation that authorized the CVP and was completed in 1945. The Trinity River Division, which was 

authorized in 1955 and completed in 1964, stores, regulates, and diverts water from the Trinity River 

basin through a system of dams, reservoirs, tunnels, and power plants into the Sacramento River for use 

in other areas of the state. 

The 10 water service Contractors that receive water from the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions are Bella 

Vista Water District (BVWD), Clear Creek Community Services District (CCCSD), City of Redding, 

City of Shasta Lake, Shasta Community Services District (SCSD), Shasta County Water Agency 

(SCWA), Centerville Community Services District (CCSD), Keswick County Services Area (KCSA), 

Mountain Gate Community Services District (MGCSD), and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 

Assignments are expected to change this list before the contracts are renewed, but no physical changes 

will result. SCWA plans to assign water now subcontracted to MGCSD and BVWD to those districts. 

SCWA also plans to assign the KCSA (also known as County Service Area #25) water to itself. All three 

assignments will simply be administrative actions. 

Depending on the Contractor, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) proposes to renew the water 

service contracts for agricultural and/or municipal and industrial (M&I) uses. Table 1-1 lists the existing 

Contractors and summarizes general information concerning the existing contracts. The renewal of these 

contracts would allow CVP water deliveries to the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions’ service areas to 

continue. 

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE FEDERAL ACTION

The Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575) included 

Title XXXIV, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). The CVPIA amended the previous 

authorizations of the CVP to include fish and wildlife protection, restoration, and mitigation as project 

purposes having equal priority with irrigation and domestic uses, and fish and wildlife enhancement as a 
February 2005 1-2 

LTCR 

TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF EXISTING LONG-TERM WATER SERVICE CONTRACTORS 

 IN THE SHASTA AND TRINITY RIVER DIVISIONS 

Contractor Name

Shasta or 

Trinity River 

Division

Contract 

Number 

Maximum Water 

Quantity of CVP LongTerm Contract Water 

(Acre-Feet)

CVP 

M&I 

Rate 

Assigned?

CVP Ag

 Rate A

Bella Vista Water District Trinity 851AIR3 24,000 

(Includes 7,000 at Ag rate) 

YES Y

Centerville Community Services District1

Trinity 14062003367AX 2,900 YES N

City of Redding (Buckeye Contract) Spring Creek Conduit  Sacramento River  Toyon Pipeline 

Shasta Shasta Shasta Shasta 

5272A 5272A 5272A 5272A 

6,140

Included Included Included 

YES 

BBB

N

-

City of Shasta Lake Shasta Dam Area P.U.D.

 Summit City P.U.D.

Shasta W11341R45 2,750 4,400

Included

Included

YES 

BB

N

Clear Creek Community Services District

Trinity 489A1R35 15,300 

(Includes 5,000 at Ag Rate)

YES Y

Shasta Community Services District Trinity 862A 1,000 YES NShasta County Water Agency Shasta 3367A4 2,1004 YES NOthers 

Keswick County Service Area 

Mountain Gate Community Services District 

USFS (Centimudi Boat Ramp

Marina) 

Trinity 

Shasta Shasta

Shasta

1507A 

6998 

3464A

3464A

500 350 

10

10

YES YES YES

YES

NNN

N

Total 55,05056,700

NOTES 

1 Contract water for Centerville Community Services District was split from Shasta County Water Agency contract 3367A in 2001. 2 YES= Agricultural Rate has been assigned. NO= Agricultural Rate has not been assigned. 3 Only Bella Vista, Clear Creek CSD, and City of Shasta Lake have interim agreements. Other contractors signed binding agreements for early renewal. 4 Shasta County WA principally subcontracts water to others; agricultural water not used since 1983. Refer to Note 1. Figure 1-2 shows the general locations and the approximate service area boundaries of the contractors. 
1. Purpose and Need 

February 2005 1-3 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

project purpose equal to power generation. Section 3404(c) of the CVPIA directs the Secretary of the 

Interior (Secretary) to renew existing CVP water service and repayment contracts following completion 

of a PEIS and other needed environmental documents by stating that: 

“...the Secretary shall, upon request, renew any existing long-term repayment or water service 

contract for the delivery of water for a period of 25 years and may renew such contracts for 

successive periods of up to 25 years each ... (after) appropriate environmental review, including 

preparation of the environmental impact statement [the PEIS]....” 

Section 3409 of the CVPIA required the Secretary to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to 

evaluate the direct and indirect impacts and benefits of implementing the CVPIA. The resulting 

programmatic EIS (PEIS) was prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by 

Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). USFWS became the co-lead agency in 

August 1999. Reclamation released the Draft PEIS on November 7, 1997. An extended comment period 

closed on April 17, 1998. The PEIS provided a programmatic evaluation of the impacts of implementing 

the CVPIA. Four alternatives, 17 supplemental analyses, a Preferred Alternative, and a No Action 

Alternative were evaluated in the PEIS. The impact analysis in the PEIS was conducted at a subregional 

level but presented within the PEIS on a regional basis for the Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley, 

and Tulare Lake regions. The PEIS No Action Alternative assumed that water service contracts would be 

renewed under the same terms as expiring contracts. 

Reclamation and USFWS released the Final PEIS in October 1999. The Final PEIS included a Preferred 

Alternative that addressed the regional impacts and benefits of the general method that Reclamation 

anticipated for implementing the CVPIA, including long-term contract renewals. The Record of Decision 

(ROD) for the PEIS includes the renewal of long-term CVP water contracts at the programmatic level. 

However, renewal of the individual contracts requires that Reclamation prepare site-specific 

environmental documents that “tier” off the CVPIA; this EA constitutes the site-specific document for the 

Shasta and Trinity River Divisions. The purpose of this document is to evaluate the potential localized 

environmental impacts that may result from the proposed contract renewals, and, accordingly, provide the 

basis for a decision on how best to implement the CVPIA-specific objectives of renewed contracts at the 

individual or multi-district level. 

Following completion of the Final PEIS, Reclamation prepared additional environmental documentation 

for renewal of long-term water service and repayment contracts, including this EA, to address the 

District-specific impacts and a Draft Biological Assessment/Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 

(BA/EFHA) (August 2003) to address species impacts (under the Federal Endangered Species Act), both 

of which relate to contract renewals within the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions. 

The purpose of this project is to renew Shasta and Trinity River Divisions’ water service contracts, 

consistent with section 3404(c) of the CVPIA. The EA considers the potential environmental impacts of 

implementing long-term contract renewals between Reclamation and the 10 water service districts of the 

Shasta and Trinity River Divisions. This EA considers the incremental impacts, whether direct or 

indirect, of changes from the existing/interim contracts. The alternatives differ by terms and conditions of 
1. Purpose and Need 

Final EA for the 1-4 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

the contracts, including tiered water pricing. A table that summarizes the major provisions of the existing 

contracts and the May 2003 proposed long-term contracts, including elements unique to irrigation water, 

is included as Appendix A. 

Long-term contract renewals are needed to: 

 Allow continued beneficial use of the water developed and managed as part of the CVP, with a 

reasonable balance among competing demands, including the needs of agricultural and municipal 

and industrial (M&I) users and the needs of fish, wildlife, recreation, and other water uses 

consistent with the requirements imposed by the California State Water Resources Control Board 

(SWRCB) and CVPIA. 

 Incorporate certain administrative conditions into the renewed contracts to ensure continued 

compliance with current Federal Reclamation law and other applicable statutes. 

 Allow the continued reimbursement to the Federal government for costs related to the 

construction and operation of the CVP. 

1.3 AUTHORITIES FOR CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER SERVICE 

CONTRACT RENEWALS

Reclamation is responsible for operational control of the CVP, including securing payment for capital and 

for operations and maintenance (O&M). These costs are established in the individual water service 

contracts with the Federal government. In addition, as a duly authorized representative, Reclamation 

administers all actions pertaining to the establishment of water service contracts on behalf of the 

Secretary of the Interior, as set forth under the following laws: 

 Public Law 88-44, Reclamation Project Act of 1939, provided for repayment of construction 

charges and authorized sale of CVP water to municipalities and other public corporations and 

agencies. This act required the Secretary to comply with laws of the State relating to the control, 

appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in irrigation or vested rights acquired thereunder. 

Under PL 88-44 the Secretary was required to provide renewal, upon request of the other party, of 

any long-term contract for municipal, domestic, or industrial water supply. The contract renewal 

would be subject to renegotiation of: (1) the charges set forth in the contract in the light of 

circumstances prevailing at the time of renewal; and (2) any other matters with respect to which 

the right to renegotiate is reserved in the contract. PL 88-44 also stated that the Secretary shall, 

upon request, provide in any such long-term contract that the other party to the contract shall, 

during the term of the contract and of any renewal (subject to fulfillment of other obligations), 

have a first right to a stated share or quantity of the CVP water supply available for municipal, 

domestic, industrial, or irrigation use. 
1. Purpose and Need 

February 2005 1-5 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 The Water Service Contracts Act of 1944 provided for delivery of specific quantities of irrigation 

and M&I water to Contractors. The Reclamation Project Act of 1956 provided the right of 

renewal of long-term repayment or water service contracts for agricultural Contractors for a term 

not to exceed 40 years. The Reclamation Project Act of 1963 provided the right of renewal of 

long-term repayment or water service contracts for municipal and industrial Contractors. 

The CVPIA included a right of renewal of long-term repayment or water service contracts for a term not 

to exceed 25 years, but the Secretary may or may not renew such contracts for successive periods for 

terms not exceed 25 years. 

1.3.1 NUMBER AND BREADTH OF CONTRACTS

Reclamation proposes to renew 114 CVP water service contracts. These contracts include an annual 

maximum quantity of approximately 5.6 million acre-feet of CVP water and provide water service to 

approximately 3.2 million irrigable acres of land and an urban population in excess of 4.3 million. 

1.3.2 DISCRETION UNDER CONTRACT AUTHORITIES/ RECLAMATION LAW TO CONTROL USE 

OF CONTRACT WATER

The statutes cited previously authorize Reclamation to determine the amount of CVP water to be made 

available to CVP water service Contractors subject to certain conditions, including but not limited to, the 

terms and conditions included within the applicable state water right permits/licenses; the amounts of 

water each Contractor can put to reasonable and beneficial use; for irrigation water, the number of acres 

of irrigable and eligible lands within the Contractor’s boundaries that are also within the authorized CVP 

service area; and the places of use designated in the applicable CVP water right permits/licenses. 

1.4 BASIS OF SHASTA AND TRINITY RIVER DIVISIONS WATER SERVICE 

CONTRACT RENEWALS 

The Central Valley Project Authorization Act of 1937 authorized construction of the initial CVP project

features for navigation, flood-control, water storage, construction of distribution systems, and hydropower 

generation. The River and Harbors Act of 1940 further authorized construction of CVP facilities and 

mandated that dams and reservoirs be used first for river regulation, improvement of navigation, and 

flood control; second for irrigation and domestic users; and third for power. This authorization was 

amended by the American River Division Authorization Act of 1949, Trinity River Act of 1955, San Luis 

Authorization Act of 1960, River and Harbors Act of 1962, and Auburn-Folsom South Unit Authorization 

Act of 1967. The Shasta Division was authorized under the original CVP contract dated Authorization 

Act of August 26, 1937, and the Trinity River Division was authorized separately under the Trinity 

Division, CVP Act of August 12, 1955. 

Key provisions of the existing water contracts are summarized in Table 1-1, Summary of Existing Water 

Contracts, Shasta and Trinity River Divisions. Presently the Bella Vista Water District, Clear Creek 

Community Services District, and the City of Shasta Lake are receiving water under interim contracts that 
1. Purpose and Need 

Final EA for the 1-6 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

expired expire on February 28, 2001 2006. The remainder of the Contractors signed binding agreements 

for early renewal. 

The Bella Vista Water District (BVWD) is a publicly owned water agency formed in 1957 under 

California Water Code Division 13, Sections 34000 through 38501. BVWD entered into a contract with 

the Federal government on April 4, 1964, for the delivery of up to 24,000 acre-feet (total) of CVP water 

annually for agricultural and M&I uses. 

The Centerville Community Services District (CCSD) is a community services district formed in 1959 

under California Government Code, Division 3, Section 61000, et seq. CCSD entered into a contract with 

the Federal government in December 2001 for the delivery of up to 2,900 acre-feet (total) of CVP water 

annually for M&I uses. The water contract was a reassignment previously held by the Shasta County 

Water Agency. 

The City of Redding is the largest city in Shasta County with a population of 78,490 (1995). Prior to 

1941, water service within the City of Redding was provided by the California Water Service Company, 

whose water rights dated from 1886. The City of Redding acquired the local facilities and water rights of 

the company in 1941, and filed for additional appropriative water rights of 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) in 

1944. Subsequent annexations to the City’s service area included the Buckeye County Water District 

(1967), the Cascade Community Services District (1976), and the Enterprise Public Utility District 

(1977). 

The City entered into a contract with the Federal government on February 22, 1994, for the delivery of up 

to 6,140 acre-feet of CVP water annually for M&I uses in the Buckeye zone. This agreement is separate 

and distinct from a 1966 Settlement Contract with Reclamation, under which the City obtains additional 

CVP water. 

The City of Shasta Lake was incorporated in July of 1993, and receives 2,750 4,400 acre-feet of water 

under interim contract number 1134, formalized on March 3, 1994 February 27, 2004. Prior to 

incorporation, water was supplied to the area by the Shasta Dam Area Public Utilities District (SDAPUD) 

and the Summit City Public Utilities District (SCPUD). 

The SDAPUD was formed in 1945 to supply water to workers constructing Shasta Dam. The original 

276 acre-feet contract with the Federal government was entered into August 12, 1948. On September 15, 

1955, the contract was amended to 375 acre-feet. In July of 1957, the contract was further amended to 

3,225 acre-feet. 

The original SCPUD contract with the Federal government was initiated on October 22, 1948, for 60 

acre-feet. The contract was amended in July of 1966 (amount unknown) and again on December 9, 1975 

to 1,170 acre-feet. 

In 1978, the SDAPUD and SCPUD contracts were merged into one long-term contract. In 1988, when 

the earlier contracts expired, it was assumed that the long-term contract amount would be 4,400 acre-feet 

(the total of the two individual contracts). At the time, however, there was no right to renewal available, 

and the contract amount was set at 2,750 acre-feet. for the term of the interim contract.
1. Purpose and Need 

February 2005 1-7 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

On September 15, 1993, the City of Shasta Lake assumed the merged contract. The contract subsequently 

expired and the city entered into the March 1994 interim contracts beginning in March, 1994 for 2750 

acre-feet. The proposed existing interim renewal contract would restored the original 4,400 acre-feet and 

the proposed renewal contract provides for the delivery of up to 4,400 acre-feet. 

The Clear Creek Community Services District (CCCSD) is a publicly owned water agency formed in 

1961 under Trinity River Division Act of 1955. CCCSD entered into a contract with the Federal 

government on May 14, 1963, for the delivery of up to 15,300 acre-feet (total) of CVP water annually for 

agricultural and M&I uses. 

The Shasta Community Services District (SCSD) was formed in June 1959, under the Community 

Services District Laws, Sections 61000 through 61934 of the Governmental Code of the State of 

California. The SCSD entered into a contract with the Federal government on March 25, 1964, for the 

delivery of up to 1,000 acre-feet of CVP water annually for M&I use. 

The Shasta County Water Agency (SCWA) was formed in 1957 through Legislative Act 7580, Shasta 

County Water Agency Act. On June 30, 1967, the SCWA entered into a contract with the Federal 

government for the delivery of up to 5,000 acre-feet of CVP water annually (total) for agricultural and 

M&I uses. SCWA assigned 2,900 acre-feet to the Centerville Community Services District in 2001, and 

1,000 acre-feet to Mountain Gate Community Services District on February 22, 2005. An assignment of 

578.5 acre-feet to the BVWD is pending. The SCWA now supplies water to Mountain Gate Community 

Services District (1,000 acre-feet), BVWD (578.7 acre-feet), Jones Valley County Service Area (CSA) #6 

(190 acre-feet), Crag View CSA #23 (119 acre-feet), Castella CSA #3 (77 acre-feet), and numerous 

smaller areas such as the Silverthorn development, French Gulch School, and Shasta Holiday MWC. The 

500 acre-feet under the Keswick County Service Area (KCSA) would be merged with the SCWA during 

contract renewal.

The Keswick County Service Area (KCSA, also known as County Service Area #25) was preceded by 

the Keswick Community Services District, which was formed in the early 1960s under the Community 

Services District Laws, Sections 61000 through 61934 of the Governmental Code of the State of 

California. In October 1990 the Keswick Community Services District was dissolved and reorganized as 

the KCSA under Sections 25210.1 through 25250 of the Governmental Code of the State of California. 

The KCSA, through its predecessor agency, entered into a contract with the Federal government on 

September 16, 1964 for delivery of up to 500 acre-feet of CVP water annually for M&I use. 

The Mountain Gate Community Services District (MGCSD) was formed in 1956 pursuant to 

Government Code, Title 6, Division 3, Sections 61000 through 61800. The MGCSD entered into a 

contract with the Federal government on March 12, 1958, for the delivery of up to 350 acre-feet of CVP 

water annually for M&I use. 

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) (also known as the Centimudi Marina) entered into a contract with 

Reclamation on November 2, 1967, for delivery of up to 10 acre-feet of CVP water for M&I uses at the 

Centimudi boat ramp on Shasta Lake. 
1. Purpose and Need 

Final EA for the 1-8 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

1.5 RELATION TO THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT ACT 

PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (CVPIA PEIS)

The PEIS provided a programmatic evaluation of the impacts of implementing the CVPIA. Four 

alternatives, 17 supplemental analyses, a Preferred Alternative, and a No Action Alternative were 

evaluated in the PEIS. The impact analysis in the PEIS was completed at a subregional level but 

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

Lake regions. The PEIS No Action Alternative assumed that existing water service contracts would be 

renewed under the same terms as expiring contracts. The Final PEIS included a Preferred Alternative that 

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

implementation of CVPIA, including long-term contract renewal, as described in Chapter 3 of this 

document. 

Following completion of the PEIS, Reclamation prepared additional environmental documentation for 

renewal of long-term water service and repayment contracts, including this EA to address the site-specific 

impacts relating to contract renewals within the Shasta and Trinity Divisions. 

1.6 STUDY AREA

The general location of the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions is shown in Figure 1-1, Regional Location 

and Project Vicinity. The study area for this EA is defined by the service area boundaries of the 10 

service Contractors. The general service area boundaries of the 10 Contractors within the Shasta and 

Trinity River Divisions are shown in Figure 1-2. Appendix G provides the service area boundaries for 

each of the 10 Contractors. The names A Summary of the 10 Contractors are is provided in Table 1-1. 

1.7 STUDY PERIOD

The analysis period for this EA is the term of each long-term contract included in this EA. Section 

3404(c) of the CVPIA clearly indicates that 25 years will be the upper limit for long-term irrigation 

repayment and water service contracts within the CVP. However, Section 3404(c) did not amend the 

provisions of Section (9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 and the Act of June 21, 1963 which 

authorized renewal of M&I water contract terms for up to 40 years. These 1939 and 1963 authorizations 

remain in place as guidance for establishing the terms of M&I contracts. 

1.8 ASSUMPTIONS FOR 40-YEAR IMPACT ANALYSIS

As discussed in Chapter 2, water-needs assessments (Needs Analyses) were performed for each long-term 

CVP contractor. Each needs analysis was predicated on the amount of water that would be beneficially 

utilized by year 2025, and was used to determine the long-term contract amount. The Needs Analysis 

showed that each contractor’s future water demand equaled or exceeded their full contract amount at year 

2025. (No interim time period conditions were considered or evaluated with respect to build-out 
1. Purpose and Need 

February 2005 1-9 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

conditions or changes in the CVP contract). Thus, all environmental impacts associated with use of the 

full contract amount would be manifested at the end of the 25-year water-needs analysis period. 

Therefore, the initial analysis of impacts, prepared in 2000, covered a 25-year period. 

Potential impacts that would occur from 2025 to contract year 40 (2044) were also considered. Because 

full use of contract supply would occur by 2025, all environmental effects within a contract area service 

related to contract renewals will have occurred by year 2025. Because the full contract amount would 

already be in use, any contract-renewal environmental effects occurring at year 2025 would not increase 

in magnitude or change in scope after that date. 

If the amount of CVP water delivered changes after full build-out in year 2025, those changes in delivery 

would not be related to the contract renewal, but would be a result of changes in water allocations due to 

CVP-wide demands, hydrology, or reductions in the reliability of CVP water supply because existing 

water rights holders are more fully using their water rights. Any such changes in delivery would be 

decreases, not increases. Any decrease in the amount of CVP water delivered would not increase 

development of M&I service areas between 2025 and contract year 40. Any analysis of changes in actual 

water delivery after 2025 would be highly speculative, difficult to quantify, and minor in scope. Thus, 

Reclamation believes that an analysis of impacts in year 2025 covers the full range of impacts associated 

with a 40-year contract term to the M&I-only contractors. 

1.9 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS

Reclamation started the preparation of this EA during the scoping phase for the CVPIA PEIS. Scoping 

served as a fact-finding process that helped identify public concerns about, and recommendations for, the 

NEPA process; issues that would be addressed in this EA; and the scope and level of detail for analyses. 

Specific scoping activities began in October 1998 after Reclamation published a Notice of Intent to 

prepare environmental documents on long-term contract renewal of CVP repayment and water service 

contracts. 

The long-term contract renewal process was conducted as a public process. Throughout the contract 

renewal process, meetings were held with Contractors, other agencies, interest groups, and the public (see 

Chapter 6). Issues raised during the public involvement process were addressed in the negotiations 

process and were used in the preparation of this EA. 

1.10 RELATED ACTIVITIES

There are several activities being implemented by Reclamation as part of the obligation to manage and 

operate the CVP. The following table identifies these activities and describes their relation to the renewal 

of the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions’ water service contracts. Related studies and projects that have 

been conducted recently or are currently being completed are summarized in Table 1-2. 
1. Purpose and Need 

Final EA for the 1-10 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

Page left intentionally blank

1. Purpose and Need 

Final EA for the 1-12 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

Back of Figure 1-1

1. Purpose and Need 

Final EA for the 1-14 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

Back of Figure 1-2
1. Purpose and Need 

February 2005 1-15 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

TABLE 1-2 

RELATED ACTIVITIES

Project or Study and Lead Agency Summary

Long-Term Renewal of Other Existing 

CVP Water Service Contracts – 

Reclamation

Reclamation is in negotiation with other CVP water Contractors 

outside the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions for renewal of longterm contracts. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program 

(CALFED)

Established in May 1995, this consortium of Federal and state 

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

Delta water concerns. CALFED completed an EIR/EIS (July 2000) 

as part of this process. Renewal of Long-Term CVP Contracts is 

assumed in the CALFED EIR/EIS. 

Implementation of the CVPIA The CVPIA mandates changes in management of the CVP, 

particularly for the protection, restoration, and enhancement of fish 

and wildlife. Ten major areas of change include: 800,000 acre-feet 

of water dedicated to fish and wildlife annually; tiered water pricing 

applicable to new and renewed contracts; water transfers provision, 

including sale of water to users outside the CVP service area; 

special efforts to restore anadromous fish population by 2002; 

restoration fund financed by water and power users for habitat 

restoration and enhancement and water and land acquisitions; no 

new water contracts until fish and wildlife goals achieved; no 

contract renewals until completion of a PEIS; terms of contracts 

reduced from 40 to 25 years with renewal at the discretion of the 

Secretary of the Interior; installation of a temperature control device 

at Shasta Dam; implementation of fish passage measures at Red 

Bluff Diversion Dam; firm water supplies for Central Valley wildlife 

refuges; and development of a plan to increase CVP yield. 

Trinity River Restoration Program 

(TRRP) 

Fish restoration in the Trinity River sub-basin is funded through a 

restoration program administered by Reclamation. The TRRP has 

two distinct program elements; 1) the Rehabilitation and 

Implementation Group, responsible for project development, 

engineering, and regulatory compliance; and 2) the Technical 

Modeling and Analysis Group, responsible for project development, 

monitoring, and integrating activities in an adaptive management 

framework. A number of Federal, state, and local participants are 

involved at both the policy and project level. Active participants 

include Reclamation, USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, U.S. Forest 

Service, Bureau of Land Management, California Resources 

Agency, Trinity County, and the Hoopa Valley and Yurok tribes. 

Coordinated Operating Agreement 

(COA) and Operations Criteria and Plan 

(OCAP) Update – Reclamation and 

California Department of Water 

Resources

Provisions and requirements of the CVPIA, SWRCB Order 1641, 

the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, and other agency mandates 

require that the existing operational roles and responsibilities of the 

State Water Project and CVP be reviewed and updated to provide 

appropriate long-term operating criteria and procedures for the two 

primary water storage and delivery projects affecting waterways of 

the Central Valley.
February 2005 2-1 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

CHAPTER 2 

DESCRIPTIONS OF ALTERNATIVES

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter summarizes the long-term water service contract negotiations process and descriptions of the 

alternatives considered in this EA. 

2.2 LONG-TERM WATER SERVICE CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS PROCESS 

The CVPIA states that the Secretary shall, upon request, renew any existing long-term irrigation 

repayment or water service contract for the delivery of CVP water for a period of 25 years and may renew 

such contracts for successive periods of up to 25 years each. Consistent with the 1963 Act, M&I 

contracts shall be renewed for successive periods of up to 40 years each under terms and conditions that 

are mutually agreeable. The CVPIA also states that no renewals shall be authorized until appropriate 

environmental review, including the PEIS, has been completed. The PEIS provided a programmatic 

environmental analysis of the effects of the CVPIA and identified the need for site-specific environmental 

documents for the long-term contract renewal process. 

The CVPIA also stated that contracts that expire prior to the completion of the PEIS may be renewed for 

interim periods. The interim renewal contracts reflect existing Reclamation law, including modifications 

due to the Reclamation Reform Act and applicable CVPIA requirements. The initial interim contract 

renewals were negotiated in 1994, with subsequent renewals for periods of two years or less to provide 

for continued water service. Many of the provisions included in the interim contracts are based on the 

provisions described under the Preferred Alternative in the PEIS. The CVPIA PEIS assumes that these 

provisions would be part of the long-term renewal contracts. 

In 1998, the long-term contract renewal process was initiated. After Reclamation reviewed the interim 

contract provisions that were consistent with Reclamation law and other requirements, comments on the 

Draft PEIS, and comments obtained during the interim contract renewal process, Reclamation proposed a 

three-stage negotiating process for the long-term contracts. The first stage would consist of negotiating 

the provisions that would be included in all the long-term contracts. Those overall provisions of the longterm contract would be negotiated with representatives of all CVP water service Contractors. Following 

the acceptance of the CVP-wide provisions, Reclamation proposed that division-specific provisions and, 

finally, Contractor-specific provisions would be negotiated. Reclamation also proposed that water service

with representatives of all CVP water service contractors contracts for all districts except for the Central 

San Joaquin Irrigation District, Stockton East Water District, and Colusa Drain Mutual Water Company

would be renewed using this process. Contract renewals for these three districts would be delayed until 

the completion of water management studies for their primary sources of CVP water, the Stanislaus River 

and the Sacramento River. 
2. Descriptions of Alternatives 

Final EA for the 2-2 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

Reclamation published the initial proposed contract in November 1999. There were numerous 

negotiations sessions throughout the next four years. The November 1999 contract would become the set 

of conditions for “one bookend” representing Alternative 2 of this environmental assessment. The CVP 

water service Contractors published a counter-proposal in April 2000 that would become the basis of 

negotiations (the other “bookend”) and, eventually, Alternative 1 of this environmental assessment. The 

primary differences between the two “bookends” are summarized in Table 2-1. [In May 2003, 

Reclamation prepared draft revised conditions as a counter offer to the April 2000 proposal. Appendix A 

summarizes the conditions of the May 2003 proposal.] 

2.3 ISSUES CONSIDERED AS PART OF LONG-TERM CONTRACT RENEWALS

The long-term contract renewal process addressed several other issues in addition to the contract 

provisions. These issues include the needs analyses, changes in service areas, and water transfers. 

2.3.1 NEEDS ANALYSIS

The water rights granted to the CVP by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) require the 

Federal government to determine that the water is being used in a beneficial manner. The Contractors 

have asserted that compliance with state laws and permits is the basis of the right to the continued 

beneficial use of water provided under the contracts. The needs analysis methodology was developed to 

confirm whether the CVP water is being used beneficially. The needs analysis was computed for each 

District within the various divisions or units of the CVP using a multiple-step approach. First, the 

existing water demand was calculated for each district. For agricultural Contractors, crop acreage, 

cropping patterns, crop water needs, effective precipitation, and conveyance losses were reviewed. For 

M&I Contractors, residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational, and environmental uses; 

landscape coefficients; system losses; and landscape acreage were reviewed. Second, future changes in 

water demands based upon crops, municipal and industrial expansion, and changes in efficiencies were 

reviewed. Third, existing and future non-CVP water supplies were identified for each district, including 

groundwater and other surface water supplies. The initial calculation of CVP water needs was limited by 

the assumption that groundwater pumping would not exceed the safe yield of an aquifer. In addition, the 

actual water needs were calculated at each division or unit level to allow for intra-regional transfers on an 

annual basis. 

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

compared to available non-CVP water supplies to determine the need for CVP water. If the need was less 

than contract amounts, the CVP water service contract amount could be reduced. Because the CVP was 

initially established as a supplemental water supply for areas without adequate supplies, the needs for 

most districts are at least equal to the CVP water service contract and frequently exceeded the previous 

contract amount. However, this environmental analysis does not include increased total contract amounts. 

Therefore, the CVP contract amount will be limited by the existing CVP contract quantity. 
February 2005 2-3 

TABLE 2-1 

COMPARISON OF CONTRACT PROVISIONS CONSIDERED IN ALTERNATIVES 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 

Provision Based on PEIS and Interim Contracts Based on April 2000 Proposal

B

Explanatory Recitals Assumes water rights held by CVP from 

SWRCB for use by water service contractors under CVP policies 

Assumes CVP Water Rights as being held in trust for project beneficiaries that may become the owners of the perpetual rights. 

Sam

 Assumes that CVP is a significant part of 

the urban and agricultural water supply

Assumes CVP is a significant, essential, and irreplaceable part of the urban and agricultural water supply of users 

Sam

 Assumes increased use of water rights, 

need to meet water quality standards and fish protection measures, and other measures constrained use of CVP 

Assuabilit

 Assumes the need for the 3408(j) study Assumes implementation of yield increase 

projects per 3408(j) study 

Sam

 Assumes that loss of water supply 

reliability would have impact on socioeconomic conditions and change land use 

Assumes that loss of water supply reliability would have significant adverse socioeconomic and environmental impacts in CVP service area 

Sam

Definitions"Charges" Charges defined as payments required in 

addition to Rates 

Assumes rewording of definition of Charges to exclude both Rates and Tiered Pricing Increments 

Sam

"Category 1 and Category 2" Tiered Pricing as in PEIS Not Included (Assumed to be the same as 

No Action Alternative) 

Tiereand 2 

"Contract Total" Contract Total described as Total 

Contract 

Same as No Action Alternative Desc

to ca
Final EA for the 2-4 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions

TABLE 2-1 

COMPARISON OF CONTRACT PROVISIONS CONSIDERED IN ALTERNATIVES 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 

Provision Based on PEIS and Interim Contracts Based on April 2000 Proposal

B

"Landholder" Landholder described in existing 

Reclamation Law 

Assumes rewording to specifically define Landholder with respect to ownership, leases, and operations 

Assudefinowne

"M&I Water" Assumes rewording to provide water for 

irrigation of land in units less than or equal to 5 acres as M&I water unless Contracting Officer is satisfied use is for irrigation 

M&I water described for irrigation of land in units less than or equal to 2 acres 

Sam

Terms of Contract – Right to Use Contract

Assumes that contracts may be renewed States that contract shall be renewed Sam

 Assumes convertibility of contract to a 

9(d) contract as in existing contracts 

Includes conditions that are related to negotiations of the terms and costs associated with conversion to a 9(d) contract 

Sam

Water to Be Made Available and Delivered to the Contractor 

Assumes water availability in any existing condition 

Similar to No-Action Alternative Actu

unaff

 Assumes compliance with Biological 

Opinions and other environmental documents for contracting 

Not included Sam

 Assumes that current operating policies 

strive to minimize impacts to CVP water users 

Assumes that CVP operations will be conducted in a manner to minimize shortages and studies to increase yield shall be completed with necessary authorizations 

Sam

Time for Delivery of Water Assumes methods for determining timing 

of deliveries as in existing contracts 

Assumes minor changes related to timing of submittal of schedule 

Sam
February 2005 2-5 

TABLE 2-1 

COMPARISON OF CONTRACT PROVISIONS CONSIDERED IN ALTERNATIVES 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 

Provision Based on PEIS and Interim Contracts Based on April 2000 Proposal

B

Point of Diversion and Responsibility for Distribution of Water

Assumes methods for determining point of diversion as in existing contracts 

Assumes minor changes related to reporting 

Sam

Measurement of Water Within District Assumes measurement for each turnout 

or connection for facilities that are used to deliver CVP water as well as other water supplies 

Assumes measurement at delivery points Assu

No Ato all 

Rates and Method of Payment for Water

Assumes Tiered Pricing is for total water quantity. Assumes advanced payment of

for rates for 2 months in advance. 

Assumes Tiered Pricing is for total water quantity. Assumes advanced payment for rates for 1 month. 

Assuwatepaym

Non-interest Bearing Operation and Maintenance Deficits

Assumes language from existing contracts 

Same as No Action Alternative Sam

Sales, Transfers, or Exchanges of Water

Assumes continuation of transfers, with the rate for transferred water being the higher of the sellers’ or purchasers’ CVP cost of service rate 

Assumes continuation of transfers, with the rate for transferred water being the purchasers’ CVP cost of service rate 

Sam

Application of Payments and Adjustments

Assumes payments will be applied as in existing contracts 

Assumes minor changes associated with methods described for overpayment 

Sam

Temporary Reduction – Return Flows Assumes that current operating policies 

strive to minimize impacts to CVP water users 

Assumes minor changes associated with methods described for discontinuance or reduction of payment obligations 

Sam

Constraints on Availability of Project Water

Assumes that current operating policies strive to minimize impacts to CVP water users 

Assumes Contractors do not consent to future Congressional enactments which may impact water supply reliability 

Sam

Unavoidable Groundwater Percolation Assumes that some of applied CVP 

water will percolate to groundwater 

Same as No Action Alternative Sam
Final EA for the 2-6 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions

TABLE 2-1 

COMPARISON OF CONTRACT PROVISIONS CONSIDERED IN ALTERNATIVES 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 

Provision Based on PEIS and Interim Contracts Based on April 2000 Proposal

B

Rules and Regulations Assumes that CVP will operate in 

accordance with then existing rules 

Assumes minor changes with right to nonconcur with future enactments retained by Contractors 

Sam

Water and Air Pollution Control Assumes that CVP will operate in 

accordance with then existing rules 

Same as No Action Alternative Sam

Quality of Water Assumes that CVP will operate in 

accordance with existing rules without obligation to operate towards water quality goals 

Same as No Action Alternative Sam

Water Acquired by the Contractor Other than from the United States

Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with existing rules 

Assumes changes associated with payment following repayment of funds 

Sam

Opinions and Determinations Recognizes that CVP will operate in 

accordance with existing rules 

Assumes minor changes with respect to references to the right to seek relief 

Sam

Coordination and Cooperation Not included Assumes that coordination and cooperation 

between CVP operations and users should be implemented and CVP users should participate in CVP operational decisions 

Not i

Charges for Delinquent Payments Assumes that CVP will operate in 

accordance with existing rules 

Same as No Action Alternative Sam

Equal Opportunity Assumes that CVP will operate in 

accordance with existing rules 

Same as No Action Alternative Sam

General Obligation Assumes that CVP will operate in 

accordance with existing rules 

Similar to No Action Alternative Sam

Compliance with Civil Rights Laws and Regulations

Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with existing rules 

Same as No Action Alternative Sam
February 2005 2-7 

TABLE 2-1 

COMPARISON OF CONTRACT PROVISIONS CONSIDERED IN ALTERNATIVES 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 

Provision Based on PEIS and Interim Contracts Based on April 2000 Proposal

B

Privacy Act Compliance Assumes that CVP will operate in 

accordance with existing rules 

Same as No Action Alternative Sam

Contractor to Pay Certain Miscellaneous Costs

Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with existing rules 

Similar to No Action Alternative Sam

Water Conservation Assumes compliance with conservation 

programs established by Reclamation and the State 

Assumes conditions similar to No Action Alternative with the ability to use State standards which may or may not be identical to Reclamation's requirements 

Sam

Existing or Acquired Water or Water Rights

Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with existing rules 

Same as No Action Alternative Sam

Operation and Maintenance by Nonfederal Entity Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with existing rules and no 

additional changes to operation responsibilities under this alternative 

Assumes minor changes to language that would allow subsequent modification of operational responsibilities 

Assulangusubsoper

Contingent on Appropriation or Allotment of Funds

Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with existing rules 

Assumes minor changes to language Sam

Books, Records, and Reports Assumes that CVP will operate in 

accordance with existing rules 

Assumes changes for record keeping for both CVP operations and CVP users 

Sam

Assignment Limited Assumes that CVP will operate in 

accordance with existing rules 

Assumes changes to facilitate assignments Sam

Severability Assumes that CVP will operate in 

accordance with existing rules 

Same as No Action Alternative Sam

Resolution of Disputes Not included Assumes a Dispute Resolution Process Not iOfficials Not to Benefit Assumes that CVP will operate in 

accordance with existing rules 

Same as No Action Alternative Sam
Final EA for the 2-8 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions

TABLE 2-1 

COMPARISON OF CONTRACT PROVISIONS CONSIDERED IN ALTERNATIVES 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 

Provision Based on PEIS and Interim Contracts Based on April 2000 Proposal

B

Changes in Contractor's Service Area Assumes no change in CVP water 

service areas absent Contracting Officer consent 

Assumes changes to limit rationale used for non-consent and sets time limit for assumed consent 

Sam

Notices Assumes that CVP will operate in 

accordance with existing rules 

Same as No Action Alternative Sam

Confirmation of Contract Assumes Court confirmation of contract Not included. Assumption is Court 

confirmation not required 

Sam
2. Descriptions of Alternatives 

February 2005 2-9 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

2.3.2 CHANGES IN WATER SERVICE AREAS 

This environmental analysis does not consider future changes in water service area boundaries for use of 

CVP water. Any future changes to water service area boundaries for use of CVP water will be evaluated 

in separate technical and environmental analyses. 

2.3.3 WATER TRANSFERS 

Several different types of transfers are considered for long-term contract renewals. Intra-CVP contract 

transfers have occurred regularly throughout the CVP and are frequently limited to scheduling changes 

between adjoining districts. Reclamation has historically issued and will continue to address these types 

of transfers under separate environmental analyses. 

It is recognized that water transfers will continue to occur and that the CVP long-term contracts will 

provide the mechanism. Because CVPIA has allowed these transfers, as evaluated in the PEIS for the 

Preferred Alternative, the No Action Alternative includes water transfer provisions. These provisions for 

transfers are also included in both Alternatives 1 and 2. However, it is difficult to identify all of the water 

transfer programs that could occur with CVP water in the next 25 years. Reclamation would continue 

with separate environmental documents for proposed transfers in establishing criteria and protocols to 

allow rapid technical and environmental review of future proposed transfers. 

2.4 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

Three alternatives were identified for analysis of the renewal of long-term contracts between Reclamation 

and Contractors in the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions. Another alternative, the final contractual 

language, was not specifically analyzed but any impacts attributable to it were within the analysis 

performed.

The alternatives present a range of water service agreement provisions that could be implemented for 

long-term contract renewals. The No Action Alternative consists of renewing existing water service 

contracts as described by the Preferred Alternative of the PEIS. In November 1999, Reclamation 

published a proposed long-term water service contract. In April 2000, the CVP Contractors presented an 

alternative long-term water service contract. Reclamation and the CVP Contractors continued to 

negotiate the CVP-wide terms and conditions with these proposals serving as “bookends,” the final 

negotiated contract thus being between the “book ends”. This EA also considers these proposals with the 

No Action Alternative as bookends to be considered for the environmental documentation to evaluate the 

impacts and benefits of the renewing long-term water service contracts. Chapter 4 describes 

environmental consequences in terms of incremental effects that would accrue due to implementing 

Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 as compared to the No- Action Alternative. 

2.4.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The No Action Alternative assumes renewal of long-term CVP water service contracts for a period of 25 

years in accordance with implementation of CVPIA as described in the PEIS Preferred Alternative. The 

PEIS Preferred Action assumed that most contract provisions would be similar to many of the provisions 

in the 1997 CVP Interim Renewal Contracts, which included contract terms and conditions consistent 
2. Descriptions of Alternatives 

Final EA for the 2-10 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

with applicable CVPIA requirements. In addition, the No Action Alternative assumes tiered pricing 

provisions and environmental commitments as described in the PEIS Preferred Alternative. The 

provisions of the No Action Alternative are summarized in Table 2-1. These provisions were described in 

the Final PEIS. 

Several CVPIA provisions are summarized in the following descriptions for the No Action Alternative 

because these provisions differ from Alternatives 1 and/or 2. The provisions particularly relevant to the 

No Action Alternative include tiered water pricing, definition of M&I water, water measurement, and 

water conservation. 

Tiered Water Pricing 

Tiered water pricing in the No Action Alterative is based upon use of an “80/10/10 Tiered Water Pricing 

from Contract Rate to Full Cost” including appropriate Ability-to-Pay limitations. Under this approach, 

the first 80 percent of the maximum contract total would be priced at the applicable Contract Rate. The 

next 10 percent of the contract total would be priced at a rate equal to the average of the Contract Rate 

and Full Cost Rate. The final 10 percent of the contract total would be priced at Full Cost Rate. The 

terms “Contract Rate” and “Full Cost Rate” are defined by the CVP rate setting policies, and P.L. 99-546 

and the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA), respectively. The Contract Rate for M&I water includes the 

Contractor’s allocated share of CVP main project operations and maintenance (O&M), O&M deficit, if 

any, and capital cost. The Contract Rate for irrigation water does not include interest on capital. The 

Contract Rate for M&I water includes interest on capital computed at the CVP M&I interest rate. The 

Full Cost rate for irrigation and M&I water includes interest at the RRA interest rate. 

In addition to the CVP water rate, Contractors are required to pay a Restoration payment charge on all 

deliveries of CVP water. Reclamation law and policy provide full or partial relief to irrigation 

Contractors on Restoration Payments charges and the capital rate component of the water rate. The relief 

could be up to 100 percent of the capital cost repayment and Restoration charge and is based upon local 

farm budgets. Ability-to-pay relief, relative to the irrigation water rate, is fully applicable only to the first 

80 percent of the contract total. Ability-to-pay relief is not applicable to the third tier water rate. The 

second tier may reflect partial ability-to-pay relief, as it is equal to the average of the first and third tiers. 

The relief could be up to 100 percent of the capital cost repayment and is based upon local farm budgets. 

The Ability-to-Pay law and policy do not apply to CVP operation and maintenance costs, M&I water 

rates, CVP distribution facilities, or non-CVP water costs. 

The prices rates for of CVP water used in the No Action Alternative are based upon 1994 irrigation and 

M&I CVP water rates. 

Definition of Municipal and Industrial Users 

The definition of municipal and industrial (M&I) users was established in portions of a 1982 Reclamation 

policy memorandum. In many instances, municipal users are easily definable. However, with respect to 

small tracts of land, the 1982 memorandum identified agricultural water as agricultural water service to 

tracts that can support $5,000 gross income for a commercial farm operation. The memorandum (United 

States Department of the Interior, 2000) indicates that this criterion can generally be met by parcels larger 
2. Descriptions of Alternatives 

February 2005 2-11 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

than 2 acres. Based on this analysis, the CVP has generally applied a definition of 5 acres or less for M&I 

uses in the CVP for many years. The CVP Contractors can request a modification for a demonstrated 

need for agricultural use on parcels between 2 and less than 5 acres from the Contracting Officer. 

Water Measurement 

The No Action Alternative includes water measurement at every turnout or connection to measure CVP 

water deliveries. It is assumed that if other sources are commingled with the CVP water, including 

groundwater or other surface waters, the measurement devices would report gross water deliveries. 

Additional calculations would be required to determine the exact quantity of CVP water. However, if 

groundwater or other surface waters are delivered by other means to the users, the No Action Alternative 

does not include additional measurement devices, except as required by individual users' water 

conservation plans. 

Water Conservation 

The water conservation assumptions in the No Action Alternative include water conservation actions for 

municipal and on-farm uses assumed in the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 160-93, and 

conservation plans completed under the 1982 RRA consistent with the criteria and requirements of the 

CVPIA. Such criteria address cost-effective Best Management Practices that are economical and 

appropriate, including measurement devices, pricing structures, demand management, public information, 

and financial incentives. 

2.4.2 ALTERNATIVE 1 

Alternative 1 is based upon the proposal presented by CVP water service Contractors to Reclamation in 

April 2000. However, there were several issues included in the April 2000 proposal that could not be 

included in Alternative 1 because they are not consistent with existing Federal or state requirements or 

would require a separate Federal action, as described below. 

 The proposed alternative 1 includes Terms and Conditions to provide a highly reliable water 

supply, and provisions to improve the water supply capabilities of the CVP facilities and 

operations to meet this goal. These issues were not included in Alternative 1 because these 

issues would require additional Federal actions with separate environmental documentation 

and also limit the Secretary’s obligation to achieve a reasonable balance among competing 

demands as required by the CVPIA. Currently, Reclamation is completing the least cost plan 

to restore project yield in accordance with Section 3408(j) of CVPIA and under the CALFED 

program. 

 The proposed alternative 1 includes language to require renewal of contracts after 25 years 

upon request of the Contractor. The study period for this EA is 25 years, which coincides with 

the contract period applicable to irrigation contracts and required by CVPIA. Renewal after 

25 years would be a new Federal action and would require new environmental documentation. 
2. Descriptions of Alternatives 

Final EA for the 2-12 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 The proposed alternative 1 does not include provisions for compliance with biological opinions. 

Biological consultations are required by the Consultation and Coordination requirements 

established by Executive Order for all Reclamation activities. These are binding on 

Reclamation and provisions are needed to address this requirement. 

 The proposed alternative 1 included provisions for water transfers. It is recognized that water 

transfers will continue and that the CVP long-term contracts will provide the mechanisms for 

the transfers. However, it would be difficult to identify all of the water transfer programs that 

could occur with CVP water in the next 25 years. Reclamation would continue with require 

separate environmental documents for transfers, and will establish criteria for rapid technical 

and environmental review of proposed transfers. 

 The proposed alternative 1 includes provisions for transfer of operations and maintenance 

requirements. It is recognized that transfers of operation and maintenance to the group of 

Contractors will continue and that the CVP long-term contracts will provide the mechanisms 

for such transfers. However, it would be difficult to identify all of the operation and 

maintenance transfer programs that could occur with CVP water in the next 25 years. 

Reclamation would require separate environmental documents for such transfers. 

 The proposed alternative 1 includes provisions for resolution of disputes. Assumptions for 

resolution of disputes were not included in Alternative 1 and at this time would not appear to 

affect environmental conditions. 

 The proposed alternative 1 includes provisions for expansion of the CVP service areas by the 

existing CVP water Contractors. The study area for the long-term contract renewal process is 

defined by the existing service area boundaries. Expansion of the service area boundaries 

would be a new Federal action and would require separate environmental documentation.

Alternative 1 includes several provisions that were different than the assumptions for No Action 

Alternative and those provisions are included in Alternative 1, as summarized in Table 2-1. The 

April 2000 proposal also included several provisions that involve specific language changes that 

would not significantly modify CVP operations in a manner that would affect the environment as 

compared to the No Action Alternative but could affect specific operations of a Contractor, as 

described in Table 2-1. 

It should be noted that the tiered pricing requirements (including unit prices for CVP water) and definition 

of M&I users in Alternative 1 would be the same as in the No Action Alternative. 

2.4.3 ALTERNATIVE 2 

Alternative 2 is based upon the proposal presented by Reclamation to CVP water service Contractors in 

November 1999. However, there were several provisions included in the November 1999 proposal that 

are not included in Alternative 2. These provisions would constitute a separate Federal action, as 

described below. 
2. Descriptions of Alternatives 

February 2005 2-13 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 The November 1999 proposal included provisions for the Contractor to request approval from 

Reclamation for proposed water transfers. Water transfers were not included in Alternative 2 

because such actions cannot now be definitely described; they essentially constitute a separate 

Federal action and require separate environmental documentation.

 The November 1999 proposal included provisions for transfer of operations and maintenance to 

third parties. Operations and maintenance transfers were not included in Alternative 2 because 

these actions would be a separate Federal action and require separate environmental 

documentation.

The November 1999 proposal included several provisions that were different than the assumptions for No 

Action Alternative and that are included in Alternative 2, as summarized below and in Table 2-1. The 

primary differences are related to tiered pricing and the definition of M&I users. 

Tiered Water Pricing 

Tiered water pricing under Alternative 2 is based upon a definition of “Category 1” and “Category 2” 

water supplies. “Category 1” is defined as the quantity of CVP water that is reasonably likely to be 

available for delivery to a Contractor and is calculated on an annual basis as the average quantity of 

delivered water during the most recent 5-year period. For the purposes of this Alternative, the “Category 

1” water supply is defined as the “contract total” of CVP water. Category 2 is defined as that additional 

quantity of CVP water in excess of Category 1 water that may be delivered to a Contractor in some years. 

Under Alternative 2, the first 80 percent of the Category 1 volume would be priced at the applicable 

Contract Rate for the CVP. The next 10 percent of the Category 1 volume would be priced at a rate equal 

to the average between the Contract Rate and Full Cost Rate, as defined by Reclamation law and policy. 

The final 10 percent of the Category 1 volume would be priced at the Full Cost Rate as required by the 

CVPIA. All Category 2 water, when available, would be priced at Full Cost Rate. It should be noted that 

Category 1 and Category 2 volumes will change every year based upon the average deliveries for the 

“most recent 5 years,” with limited exceptions based upon the findings of the water needs assessment. 

Alternative 2 assumes the sum of Category 1 and Category 2 water is equal to the maximum quantity 

included in the Contractors’ existing water service contract. The quantity is the same as the No Action 

Alternative and Alternative 1. The terms “Contract Rate” and “Full Cost Rate” are discussed under 

Tiered Pricing for the No Action Alternative. The same Ability-to-Pay adjustments would be applicable 

to Restoration Payments and tiered water rates, as described in the No Action Alternative. 

The prices of CVP water used in Alternative 2 are based upon irrigation and municipal/industrial CVP 

water rates presented in the November 17, 1999, Financial Workshop Handouts 1 and 2. 

Definition of Municipal and Industrial Users 

The definition of M&I water includes water for all tracts less than or equal to 5 acres, unless the 

Contracting Officer is satisfied that the use of such water meets the definition of “Irrigation Water.” 
2. Descriptions of Alternatives 

Final EA for the 2-14 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

2.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED

2.5.1 NONRENEWAL OF LONG-TERM CONTRACTS

Nonrenewal of existing contracts is considered infeasible based on Section 3404(c) of the CVPIA. This 

alternative was considered but eliminated from analysis in this EA because Reclamation has no discretion 

to not renew the contracts. 

2.5.2 REDUCTION IN CONTRACT AMOUNTS

A reduction in contract amounts was considered in certain cases but rejected from analysis. The reason 

for this is two-fold. Water needs analyses have been completed for all contracts, and, in almost all cases 

the needs exceed or equal the current total contract amount. Secondly, in order to implement good water 

management, the Contractors need to be able to store or immediately use water available in wetter years 

when more water is available. By quantifying contract amounts in terms of the needs analyses and the 

CVP delivery capability, the Contractors can make their own economic decisions. Allowing the 

Contractors to retain the full water quantity gives the Contractors assurance that the water will be 

available to them for storage investments. In addition, the CVPIA, in and of itself, achieves a balance in 

part through its dedication of significant amounts of CVP water to environmental purposes, and actions to 

acquire water for these purposes. 

2.6 SELECTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION/PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

It is anticipated that the The final contract language represents a negotiated position between Alternatives 

1 and 2. Therefore, it is anticipated that the any impacts will be are either equal to or less than those 

identified for Alternative 1, Alternative 2, or the No Action Alternative. Reclamation’s proposed action is 

to renew to the long-term contracts representing the final negotiated position. This form of contract is 

provided as Appendix A.

2.7 SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 2-2 is a Summary of Impacts by Alternatives. The alternatives considered in this EA were analyzed 

to determine the potential for beneficial and adverse impacts associated with their implementation when 

compared to the continuation of the No Action Alternative conditions. (Recall that the No Action 

Alternative—which is the same as the CVPIA PEIS Preferred Action—assumes that most contract 

provisions would be similar to the provisions in the 1997 CVP Interim Renewal Contracts, which 

included contract terms and conditions consistent with applicable CVPIA requirements.) 
February 2005 2-15 

 LTC 

TABLE 2-2 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource Description of Impact

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

SOCIOECONOMICS (SECTION 4.3) Demographics By 2030, Shasta County population would increase by more than 50 percent from 1999 leve

population is expected to change from 163,256 (2000) to 267,749 (2030), an increase of 64%

M & I Water Costs, Land Use and Economics 

Based on 1994 dollars, Contractors would pay approximately $1.1 million in contract year 25 

CVP M&I water during average year hydrologic conditions following five dry years. 

Agricultural Water Costs, Land Use and Economics 

Unlike the assessment of M&I water cost impacts, the agricultural water cost assessment is since the PEIS agricultural economic analysis was updated to 1999. Agricultural water for th

by BVWD and CCCWSD. BVWD irrigators are projected to use over two times more CVP w

land as CCCWSD irrigators. This disparity is explained by the fact that a greater portion of B

pattern is projected to be in pasture, a water intensive crop. For BVWD, during average conditions, the gross value of production in contract year 25 (202

million. Crop water use would be 13,500 acre-feet per year, and 5,960 acres would be irrigatdollars. For CCCWSD, during average conditions, the gross value of production in contract year 25 

million. Crop water use would be 5,800 acre-feet per year, and 4,690 acres would be irrigate

dollars. 

Regional Economy For the contract year 25 (2029) in Shasta County, the estimated output for standard industria

$4,742 million. Full-time equivalent employment would be 71,579 jobs, and total income wou

LAND USE (SECTION 4.4) Indirect effects could occur to agricultural uses due to rewording that would provide M&I wat

land less than or equal to 5 acres unless the Contracting Officer is satisfied the use is for irri

irrigated acreage would increase to 5,960 acres during average hydrologic year conditions adry hydrologic conditions. For CCCWSD, the irrigated acreage would increase to 4,690 acre

the average and dry hydrologic conditions, respectively. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (SECTION 4.5) Indirect effects to biological resources could occur as a result of changes to land use under 

Alternative. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (SECTION 4.6) No disproportionate effect on minority populations or low-income populations is anticipated. INDIAN TRUST ASSETS (SECTION 4.7) No Indian Trust Assets are known to occur within water service areas. Therefore, no Indian 

be adversely affected by the No Action Alternative 

CULTURAL RESOURCES (SECTION 4.8) Indirect effects to cultural resources could occur due to planned growth and development, or 

from agricultural uses to suburban/urban uses, or suburban uses to agricultural uses. Chan

affect known and undiscovered cultural resources. However, both federal and state jurisdictprograms to protect cultural resources and are responsible for implementing these programs
Final EA for the 2-16 

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions Administrative Draft

TABLE 2-2 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource Description of Impact

ALTERNATIVE 1

SOCIOECONOMICS (SECTION 4.3) Demographics Same as the No Action Alternative M & I Water Costs, Land Use and Economics 

Same as the No Action Alternative 

Agricultural Water Costs, Land Use and Economics 

Alternative 1 is expected to have effects on agricultural water costs and associated land and 

value of production, and farm net revenues for the affected water districts similar to the No A

Therefore, there are no environmental impacts from this alternative. 

Regional Economy Same as the No Action Alternative LAND USE (SECTION 4.4) Same as the No Action Alternative BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (SECTION 4.5) Similar direct and indirect effects as the No Action Alternative. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (SECTION 4.6) No incremental adverse effects INDIAN TRUST ASSETS (SECTION 4.7) No adverse impacts. Same as the No Action Alternative. CULTURAL RESOURCES (SECTION 4.8) No incremental environmental effects 

ALTERNATIVE 2

SOCIOECONOMICS (SECTION 4.3) Demographics Same as the No Action Alternative. M & I Water Costs, Land Use and Economics 

The incremental effect would be that the Contractors would pay approximately $1.8 million m

No Action Alternative in contract year 25 (2029) for untreated CVP M&I water during the ave

conditions. 

Agricultural Water Costs, Land Use and Economics 

Alternative 2 would cause BVWD agricultural water cost-of-service rate to increase by about Action level. Implementation of Alternative 2 could cause as many as 800 acres of irrigated 

fallowed in the BWVD during projected year 2029 during average hydrologic conditions (and 
February 2005 2-17 

 LTC 

TABLE 2-2 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource Description of Impact

acres, under dry hydrologic conditions). The analyses indicate that in contract year 25 (2029

hydrologic conditions, BVWD farmers may reduce their use of CVP agricultural water by as feet, or more than half their 13,500 acre-feet of projected use under the No-Action Alternativ

land and reduction of applied water on lands that remain under irrigation due to Alternative 2 

annual gross value of agricultural production within the BVWD by approximately 6% (or $120and the net income realized by farmers by as much as $130,000 in 1999 dollars under averaconditions. In a dry year, the decline in gross production value and net revenue impacts cou$260,000, respectively (in 1999 dollars). Under Alternative 2, CCCSD agricultural cost-of-service water rates would increase by aboumuch lower than the impact on its CVP M&I cost-of-service water rates previously discussed2, as many as 510 acres of CCCSD projected contract year 25 (2029) irrigated pastureland 

during a year of average hydrologic conditions (and 740 acres even under dry hydrologic co

2029, assuming average hydrologic conditions, CCCSD farmers may reduce their use of CVby as much as 3,250 acre-feet. The fallowing of land and reduction of applied water on landirrigation due to Alternative 2 could reduce the annual gross value of agricultural production 

approximately 2% (or $80,000 in 1999 dollars). In a dry year, the decline in gross production revenue impacts could be $120,000 and $140,000, respectively (in 1999 dollars). 

Regional Economics The County=s industrial output could decrease by as much as $3.3 million (0.07%) when com

Action Alternative. The County economy could decline from the No Action Alternative by as than 1%), and the regional income by place of work could decrease by almost $1.9 million d

the No Action Alternative. 

LAND USE (SECTION 4.4) Indirect effects would occur. The incremental effect for BVWD would be the increased fallow

acres in contract year 25 (2029) under average conditions and 1,160 acres under dry condit

effect for CCCWSD would be the increased fallowing of about 510 acres in contract year 25 

conditions and 740 acres under dry conditions. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (SECTION 4.5) Variable indirect effects would occur that could be beneficial or adverse, depending on the s

habitats, and species affected. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (SECTION 4.6) No incremental adverse effects. INDIAN TRUST ASSETS (SECTION 4.7) No incremental adverse effects. Same as the No Action Alternative. CULTURAL RESOURCES (SECTION 4.8) No incremental environmental effects. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES (SECTION 4.9)

There is no commitment of nonrenewable resources, and the proposed action does not comto permanent use of natural resources. 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE AND LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY (SECTION 4.10)

Long-term productivity would be enhanced through the water supply that sustains agriculturabenefits, and the long-term productivity of urban and rural populations by providing CVP wat
February 2005 3-1 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

CHAPTER 3

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION 

3.1 INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the findings of documents completed pursuant to NEPA and 

the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that address environmental issues related to providing 

CVP water to the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions and using the CVP water within the Shasta and 

Trinity River Divisions. These documents include the CVPIA PEIS, the associated Draft Biological 

Opinion, and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Shasta County General Plan. 

Following completion of the PEIS, Reclamation prepared additional environmental documentation for 

renewal of long-term water service and repayment contracts, including this EA to address the site-specific 

impacts relating to contract renewals within the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions. 

It should be recognized that under each of the descriptions presented in this chapter, references to “No 

Action Alternative” and other alternatives are specific to the referenced documents, not to the alternatives 

described in this EA. 

3.2 CVPIA PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

On October 30, 1992, the President signed into law the Reclamation Projects Authorization and 

Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575) that included Title XXXIV, the CVPIA. The CVPIA 

amended the previous authorizations of the CVP to include fish and wildlife protection, restoration, and 

mitigation as project purposes having equal priority with irrigation and domestic uses, and fish and 

wildlife enhancement as a project purpose equal to power generation. Through the CVPIA, The U.S. 

Department of the Interior is developing policies and programs to improve environmental conditions that 

were affected by the operations, management, and physical facilities of the CVP. The CVPIA also 

includes tools to facilitate larger efforts in California to improve environmental conditions in the Central 

Valley and the San Francisco Bay-Delta system. The PEIS addressed the potential impacts and benefits 

of implementing provisions of the CVPIA. The PEIS was prepared by Reclamation and the USFWS. 

The analysis in the PEIS was intended to disclose the probable region-wide and cumulative effects of 

implementing the CVPIA and to provide a basis for selecting a decision among the alternatives. The 

PEIS was developed to allow subsequent environmental documents to incorporate by reference the 

analysis in the PEIS and limit the need to re-evaluate the region-wide and cumulative impacts of CVPIA. 

In some cases, worst-case assumptions were used to maximize the utility of the analysis for tiering within 

the scope of the impacts analyzed in the PEIS. 

As the project-specific actions are considered, the lead agencies must determine if the specific impacts 

were adequately analyzed in the PEIS. If the actions under consideration were previously evaluated and 

the impacts of such actions would not be greater than those analyzed in the PEIS or would not require 

additional mitigation measures, the actions could be considered part of the overall program approved in 
3. Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation 

Final EA for the 3-2 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

the ROD for the CVPIA PEIS. In such a case, an administrative decision could be made that no further 

environmental documentation would be required. If a tiered document is appropriate, the tiered document 

may be an EIS or an EA. The tiered documents can use the PEIS by reference to avoid duplication and 

focus on new alternatives or more detailed site-specific effects. Therefore, only changes from the 

alternatives considered in the PEIS, and impacts not previously addressed, would be addressed in detail in 

the tiered documents. 

3.3 LOCALIZED IMPACTS OF PEIS ON PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The primary impact to CVP water service contractors, as described in the PEIS, is not due to the contract 

provisions, but rather to the implementation of the CVPIA. The re-allocation of CVP water to fish and 

wildlife purposes under CVPIA reduced average annual CVP water deliveries to water service contractors 

from 2,270,000 acre-feet/year under the PEIS No Action Alternative to 1,933,000 acre-feet/year under all 

of the PEIS alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative. The reduction occurred differently for 

various classifications of users, as summarized below. 

 Average annual CVP water deliveries for agricultural water service contractors located in the 

Shasta and Trinity River Divisions decreased 12 percent from pre-CVPIA Affected Environment 

conditions. 

 Average annual CVP water deliveries for municipal and industrial water service contractors 

located in the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions decreased 4 percent from pre-CVPIA Affected 

Environment conditions. 

3.4 SHASTA COUNTY WATER RESOURCES MASTER PLAN PHASE I REPORT –

CURRENT AND FUTURE WATER NEEDS

The Shasta County Water Resources Master Plan (October 1997) was prepared for the Redding Area 

Water Council and other Shasta County water users. As an initial step in regional water supply planning 

to meet future needs in the Redding Basin, a diverse assemblage of entities, including water purveyors, 

industries, and private interests, formed a group to identify current and long-term water supply needs 

throughout Shasta County. Through this effort, the study sponsors developed a program for regional 

planning to meet the current and future needs of water users within and outside the Redding Basin. The 

Phase 1 study provides the basic factual information upon which subsequent work can be premised. 

Phase 2 will include preparing a Groundwater Management Plan (Assembly Bill [AB] 3030 Plan), a 

groundwater model, and an Integrated Resource Plan. Phase 3 will involve developing implementation 

and financial plans for the recommended alternative. The implementation plan will also include 

compliance under CEQA. 

The document provides a description of the hydrographic basin, specific background information for each 

of the water purveyors and service areas, land use, water supplies and needs, and an annual water budget. 

This information was used extensively to describe and quantify conditions within the Affected 

Environment section of this EA. 
3. Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation 

February 2005 3-3 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

3.5 OTHER PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Under state planning law, each city or county must adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for 

future planning and development. A General Plan is not a detailed, parcel-specific, policy statement. 

Instead, it establishes a generalized pattern of future land use which provides the basis for more detailed, 

site-specific plans. 

Existing general plans and their supporting documents were used in the preparation of this EA, providing 

background information for resource-specific discussions of the Affected Environment. The City of 

Redding (Draft March 2000) and the City of Shasta Lake (March 1999) have each adopted a General 

Plan. The two cities represent the minority of the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions’ service area. The 

majority of the service area falls within unincorporated portions of Shasta County. In these areas, land 

use planning is subject to guidelines identified in the Shasta County General Plan (October 1998). Other 

documents used in the preparation of this EA include Water Conservation Plans for BVWD (January 

1995), CCCSD (November 1994), City of Redding (undated, assume 1994), and City of Shasta Lake 

(March 1994). 

3.6 FOCUS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The scope of the analysis in this EA is limited to existing available sources, including the Final CVPIA 

Programmatic EIS (1999). This EA specifically evaluates the incremental effects of Alternative 1 and 

Alternative 2 on socioeconomic resources. Socioeconomic resources are evaluated to describe potential 

incremental impacts resulting from the proposed revised pricing structure that is part of the proposed 

action. Potential secondary effects to other resources due to direct effects on socioeconomic resources are 

described in the EA sections on land use, biological resources, trust assets, environmental justice, and 

cultural resources. 
February 2005 4.1-1 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

CHAPTER 4

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION 

This section describes the affected environment and the environmental consequences, including 

cumulative effects, associated with renewing the long-term water service contracts for the Shasta and 

Trinity River Divisions under Alternatives 1 and 2 compared to the No Action Alternative. 

This document organizes required information by environmental resources. Each resource section 

describes the affected environment and the environmental consequences associated with renewing the 

long-term water service contracts under Alternatives 1 and 2 as compared to renewing the long-term 

water service contracts under the No Action Alternative. 

CONTRACT SERVICE AREA DESCRIPTION 

The Shasta and Trinity River Divisions consist of the BVWD, CCCSD, City of Redding (Buckeye 

Area), City of Shasta Lake, SCSD, SCWA, CCSD, and three other smaller contractor service areas, 

KCSA, MGCSD, and USFS Centimudi Boat Ramp. Table 4.1-1 describes features of each long-term 

water service contractor within the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions, and Figure 1-2 shows the 

approximate service boundaries of the long term water service contractors. 

The Shasta and Trinity River Divisions are located entirely within Shasta County and fall primarily 

within the Redding Basin, Drainage Area Units (DAUs) 141 and 143, with minor areas in outlying 

DAUs 136 and 145. Water is supplied for irrigation, domestic, industrial, commercial, or recreational 

uses, or a combination of these uses. The location, history, service area, and water supply sources of 

each major long-term water service contractor are described in this section. As shown on Table 4.1-1, 

the major long-term water service contractors are BVWD and CCCSD. BVWD and CCCSD account 

for 72 percent of all CVP water delivered to long-term water service contractors in the Shasta and 

Trinity River Divisions. The discussions in the following sections address the major water service 

contractors in the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions. 

RESOURCES CONSIDERED

The resources and issues analyzed in this EIS were identified through a review of NEPA guidance 

documents, and through the scoping process. The resources and issues described in this chapter are as 

follows. 

 Water Supplies and Facilities Operations 

 Socioeconomics 

 Land Use 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Environmental Commitments 

Final EA for the 4.1-2 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 Biological Resources 

 Environmental Justice 

 Indian Trust Assets 

 Cultural Resources 

This EA does not analyze resources for which it would be reasonable to assume that substantial or 

significant impacts could not occur. Specifically, potential effects to water quality, recreation, air 

quality, soils, visual resources, transportation, noise, hazards and hazardous material, public services, 

non-water utilities, and service systems and secondary growth impacts are not analyzed because they 

were not identified as significant issues during scoping and it would not be reasonable to assume that 

renewing the long-term water service contracts could result in substantial impact to these resources or 

services. 
Contractor Name

Shasta or 

Trinity 

River 

Division

Contract 

Number

Maximum Water 

Quantity of CVP 

Long Term 

Contract Water 

(Acre-Feet) Note

% of the 

Division's 

Maximum 

Water Quantity

Reclamation 

M&I Rate 

Assigned

Reclamation 

Ag Rate 

Assigned

Service 

Boundary 

Area (Acres)

 Bella Vista Water District T 851AI1R39 24,000 42.33% x x 3,39533,932 

 Centerville Community Services District T 14062003367AX 2,900 (1) 5.11% x o nav 

City of Redding S 5272A 6,140 (2) 10.83% x o

Spring Creek Conduit (Buckeye) S 5272A Included - - 17,220 Sacramento River (Buckeye) S 5272A Included - - Included Toyon Pipeline (Buckeye) S 5272A Included - - 640 

City of Shasta Lake S W1134I1R410 2750 4,400 7.76% x o 7,785 

Shasta Dam Area PUD nav Included - - 

Summit City PUD nav Included - - 

Clear Creek Community Services District T 489AI1R39 15,300 26.98% x x 14,314 

Shasta Community Services District T 862A 1,000 1.76% x o 6,400 

Shasta County Water Agency S 3367A 2,100 (3) 3.70% x o nav 

Others 860

Keswick County Service Area T 1307A 500 0.88% x o 5,500 

Mountain Gate Community Services District S 6998 350 0.62% x o 4,160 

USFS (Centimudi Boat Ramp) S 3464A 10 (4) 0.02% x o nav 

Total 55,050 99.99% 56,019

NOTES(1) New interim contract in 2001 for 2,900 acre-feet.(4) Information provided by contractor on September 20, 2000nav = information not available(3) SCWA principally subcontracts CVP water to others; agricultural water not used since 1983.(2) City has 6,140 acre-feet under CVP Buckeye Contract.

TABLE 4.1-1

FEATURES OF SHASTA AND TRINITY RIVER DIVISIONS LONG-TERM SERVICE CONTRACTORS (1999)

February 2005 4.1-3
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Environmental Commitments 

4.2 Water Supplies and Facilities Operations

February 2005 4.2-1 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

4.2 WATER SUPPLIES AND FACILITIES OPERATIONS 

4.2.1 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING SHASTA AND TRINITY RIVER DIVISIONS AND FACILITIES

Bella Vista Water District 

The BVWD is located generally east of the City of Redding and south of Shasta Lake. BVWD is 

bounded on the south generally by State Highway 44 and extends east to slightly beyond Little Cow 

Creek. This area also includes an overlapping eastern part of the City of Redding and the rural 

communities of Bella Vista and Palo Cedro. The district currently has 4,538 residential connections and 

615 agricultural connections. 

BVWD is a publicly owned water agency formed in 19641957 under California Water Code Division 13, 

Sections 34000 through 38501. The district was formed to serve agricultural irrigation demands, which 

still represent 70 to 80 percent of the district’s water demand. However, most of the service connections 

are now either domestic or rural residential. 

Urban uses predominate within the southeast corner of the district where sewage disposal facilities are 

available. Residential uses, with lot sizes between 1 and 5 acres, are dispersed across the rest of the 

district. Agricultural uses are almost exclusively confined to the fertile soil along Stillwater Creek and 

Cow Creek. Pasture represents the bulk of the agricultural uses, but there is a broad array of other crops 

as well. The most significant industrial use is a large catfish farm. 

BVWD’s primary water source is the Sacramento River. Diversion of the appropriated water is 

authorized from the Cow Creek Unit of the Trinity River Project Division, which is part of the CVP. This 

source allows for up to 24,000 acre-feet per year from BVWD’s original contract and 578.7 acre-feet per 

year of CVP water purchased through the Shasta County Water Agency. (That 578.7 acre-feet is being 

assigned to BVWD by the SCWA). Both of these allotments are subject to reduction during dry years. In 

the very severe drought years of 1991 and 1992, the reduction was 25 percent of the water used for M&I 

uses and 75 percent of the water for agricultural uses. Available surface water was supplemented with 

groundwater from wells located near the southern boundary of the district. These reductions in supply 

caused severe drought restrictions to be imposed, which have had a continuing impact on district water 

sales. The supplementary water provided by the wells constitutes about 10 percent of the supply normally 

available from the river and about 15 to 20 percent of the reduced supply during a severe drought year. 

The aquifers within the district have limited yield, so it is not practical to greatly increase production of 

wells within the district. 

The BVWD supply system consists of the Wintu Pump Station on the Sacramento River and five wells. 

Water pumped from the river is treated at the district’s treatment plant, which provides in-line filtration. 

Distribution facilities include a network of transmission and distribution pipelines, three storage tanks, 

nine booster pump stations, and pressure-reducing facilities. The major distribution piping was installed 

by Reclamation, but has been extended considerably to serve many subareas. Funding for initial system 

construction was through an extension of the CVP for the main supply facilities and through a loan from 

Reclamation for the distribution system. The main supply system is still owned by the U.S. Government, 

but was constructed solely for use by BVWD. Both domestic and agricultural users are served through 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Environmental Commitments 

4.2 Water Supplies and Facilities Operations

Final EA for the 4.2-2 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

the same distribution system, so all water is treated to meet the higher water quality standards for 

domestic use. The CVP water that BVWD formerly purchased from Shasta County Water Agency 

(proposed for assignment to Bella Vista in the contract renewal) is described below under “Shasta County 

Water Agency.” 

Centerville Community Services District 

The CCSD was originally formed in September 1959 under California Government Code, Division 3, 

Community Services Districts, Section 61000, et seq. The purpose for creating the district was to (a) 

supply the inhabitants of the district with water for domestic use, irrigation, sanitation, industrial use, fire 

protection, and recreation and (b) to provide fire protection services. The service boundary currently 

encompasses 11,278 acres in the unincorporated area of the Shasta County immediately west of the City 

of Redding. CCSD provides municipal and industrial water to 1,125 metered connections that serve a 

population of approximately 2,850 according to the latest census survey. CCSD's water supply comes 

from surface water from the Whiskeytown Reservoir and is treated at a plant located at the base of 

Whiskeytown Dam. The treatment plant has an approximate capacity of 30 million gallons per day (mgd). 

The treated water is transmitted via the 45-inch Muletown Conduit to the headworks of the distribution 

facility located in the vicinity of Muletown Road and Clear Creek Knolls Road. The district shares the 

inline treatment facility with the CCCSD. 

CCSD has a contract with CCCSD that allocates CCSD a 25 percent share of the capacity. CCSD 

currently holds two contracts with Reclamation for a total allocation of 3,800 acre-feet per year. The first 

contract (No. 14-06-200-3367X) is an Assignment Contract which was entered into on April 11, 2001. 

This contract permanently assigned 2,900 acre-feet per year of CVP water from Shasta County's 5,000-

acre-foot per year contract with Reclamation. This contract carries with it those terms and conditions 

defined in the County's contract (No.14-06-200-3367A), which also includes a Binding Agreement for 

Early Renewal. The second contract (No. 00-WC-20-1708) is an Exchange Contract and was entered into 

on August 11, 2000. This contract for 900 acre-feet per year with Reclamation was to provide CCSD with 

substitute project water for its pre-1914 water rights on Clear Creek. The CCWD does not have access to 

a ground water supply source (10/03 personal communication).

City of Redding (Sacramento River, Spring Creek, Toyon) (Buckeye Zone) 

The City of Redding is the largest city in Shasta County, with a population of approximately 84,600 

(2002). Prior to 1941, water service within the City of Redding was provided by non-CVP contracts with 

Reclamation via the California Water Service Company, whose water rights dated from 1886. The city 

acquired the local facilities and water rights of the company in 1941 and filed for additional appropriative 

water rights of 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) in 1944. Subsequent annexations to the city’s service area 

include the Buckeye County Water District, the Cascade Community Services District, and the Enterprise 

Public Utility District in 1967, 1976, and 1977, respectively. The city provides CVP and non-CVP water 

service to about 24,709 (09/00 personal communication) service connections. All connections are for 

municipal and industrial uses with only incidental agricultural uses. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Environmental Commitments 

4.2 Water Supplies and Facilities Operations

February 2005 4.2-3 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

The city currently administers the Buckeye zone under a long-term CVP contract. The Buckeye zone service area 

includes two City of Redding pressure zones: Buckeye and Summit City. Approximately half of the Buckeye 

zone is located within the Redding city limits, and the other half is in an unincorporated area of Shasta County. 

The Approximately one-quarter of the Summit City zone falls entirely within an unincorporated area of Shasta 

County, and three-quarters fall within the city limits of the City of Shasta Lake. There are 4,179 connections in 

the Buckeye zone. The Buckeye zone receives water from Whiskeytown Lake via the Spring Creek conduit. 

During peak demand periods, supplemental water is pumped from the Sacramento River, then treated, and 

delivered into the Buckeye zone service area at the CVP price. The 58 M&I connections in the Summit City zone 

are supplied exclusively by water diverted from Shasta Lake via the Toyon pipeline. The water is treated by the 

City of Shasta Lake and delivered to the Summit City zone at the CVP price. There are no known groundwater 

resources within the Buckeye zone service area. 

The city has two one additional water contracts with Reclamation. One additional contract which is Redding’s 

1996 1966 Settlement Contract with Reclamation, which specifies a “Base Supply” and a “Project Water Supply.” 

The Base Supply was 15,385 acre-feet in 1995 and increased by 255 acre-feet per year to a maximum of 17,850 

acre-feet per year in 2003. The Project Water Supply was 2,715 acre-feet in 1995 and increased by 45 acre-feet 

per year to 3,150 acre-feet per year in 2003. The total 1996 entitlement was 18,400 acre-feet per year, and the 

total 2003 entitlement was 21,000 acre-feet per year. The city’s other contract with Reclamation is a CVP longterm water service contract that provides 9,290-acre feet (according to PEIS data sources).

The city’s surface-water supply comes from the Sacramento River and Whiskeytown Lake. Sacramento River 

water is treated at the 24 mgd Foothill Water Treatment Plant, and the Whiskeytown Lake water is treated at the 7 

mgd Buckeye Water Treatment Plant. 

Redding supplements its surface-water supply with well production capacity from the Redding Groundwater 

Basin. Currently, 14 wells are operational, providing a total capacity of up to 12 mgd. The well systems are used 

to supplement the city’s surface-water supplies, primarily during peak demand periods. The return flow of 

groundwater to the river from the City’s wastewater treatment facilities contributes to water supplies for 

downstream users. 

City of Shasta Lake 

The City of Shasta Lake was incorporated in 1993, and has a population of nearly 10,000 (2003). Prior to 

incorporation, utility services, including water supply, were provided by the Shasta Dam Area Public Utilities 

District (PUD). The PUD was formed in 1945 to provide a reliable water supply for an area of 3.5 square miles. 

Prior to formation of the PUD, water was supplied by a series of wells with low and unreliable yields. Originally, 

the PUD’s service area was a residential area established to house workers constructing Shasta Dam. 

Reclamation constructed a water transmission pipeline from Shasta Lake to the PUD in 1948 and concurrently the 

PUD constructed water storage and distribution systems. The Summit City PUD was annexed in 1978. 

Today, the City of Shasta Lake provides water service to 3,800 (2003) service connections. Urban and residential 

land uses predominate. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Environmental Commitments 

4.2 Water Supplies and Facilities Operations

Final EA for the 4.2-4 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

Water is obtained exclusively from Shasta Lake via a pump station at Shasta Dam, with a maximum 

diversion of 5.0 mgd. An interim contract with Reclamation (Contract No. 4-7-20-wW1134-IR210) 

provides an allocation of 2,750 4,400 acre-feet per year from this source. Reclaimed water is also 

available for industrial and landscaping use. Groundwater use is limited because of low aquifer yields. 

Clear Creek Community Services District 

In 1891, the Happy Valley Irrigation District was formed. The source of water was Rainbow Lake. 

Through the district, the water users attempted to buy Dry Creek Flume and Tunnel Company’s canal 

system, but negotiations were unsuccessful. In 1902, the Happy Valley Land and Water Company was 

formed and sold stock to the farmers and non-resident land owners with the understanding that each share 

of stock carried water for one acre of land, causing the land value to increase dramatically. However, 

Happy Valley Land and Water Company’s revenues were not sufficient to do necessary maintenance, and 

the Happy Valley Irrigation District was eventually formed (using the same name as the District formed 

in 1891). The Legislature passed an Act in 1917 validating the organization of the District. This Act 

assured the stability of Irrigation District Bonds. The Happy Valley Irrigation District eventually went 

bankrupt, and residents were left only with private wells. CCCSD was formed in 1961. The facilities 

were designed and constructed by Reclamation, and the District began operating in 1967. 

CCCSD presently encompasses about 14,314 acres, including several large annexations. At the present 

time, of the 14,314 acres within the district’s service area, there are approximately 5,817 acres of irrigated 

agricultural land, approximately 4,000 acres of rural residences receiving M&I water, and approximately 

4,497 acres that are undeveloped. 

The district developed the first of three proposed wells and installed 13,800 feet of 18-inch pipeline to 

connect the groundwater supply to the distribution system. The system and single well went online in 

October 1992. Well #1 and two proposed wells are intended for use only when surface supplies are 

inadequate to meet demand or for emergencies. 

The majority of the developed agricultural property in the district is ditch- or flood-irrigated. The balance 

of irrigation is done by overhead and drip systems. 

The population served by the CCCSD is scattered throughout a rural environment, and no urban centers 

exist. The district’s population has, in recent years, been increasing at about a 2 to 3 percent annual rate 

due to its attractive small farm atmosphere where residents can have a few head of cattle on several acres 

of irrigated pasture. 

CCCSD is located approximately 10 ten air miles southwest of Redding and six air miles west of 

Anderson in southern Shasta County. The area served by the district is situated on a plateau, which rises 

from the floor of the Sacramento Valley. The plateau ranges in elevation from 450 to 900 feet and is 

dissected by deep washes that provide seasonal drainage. The district’s service area includes the rural 

areas known as Olinda and Cloverdale. The overall general area served by the District is commonly 

referred to as Happy Valley. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Environmental Commitments 

4.2 Water Supplies and Facilities Operations

February 2005 4.2-5 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

The source of the district’s water supply is Whiskeytown Lake, a reservoir formed by Clear Creek waters 

impounded by Whiskeytown Dam. The reservoir covers about 3,250 acres at maximum capacity, providing water 

storage of about 241,000 acre feet. The reservoir provides the capacity to regulate the flows of the Clear Creek 

watershed and the imported flows from the Trinity River, which discharge through the Carr Powerhouse into the 

reservoir. Releases are made from the reservoir to the Sacramento River through the Spring Creek Tunnel and 

downstream through Clear Creek. Water is diverted to the district through two intakes in the earthen-fill dam 

structure, one at an elevation of 1,110 feet and the other at an elevation of 965 feet. The ability to select the depth 

of the diverted water gives the District the capacity to draw less turbid water. 

The district is served by an aqueduct that begins at outlets in Whiskeytown Dam and terminates at a 250,000-

gallon control tank about eight and one half miles south of the Dam. This aqueduct, commonly called the 

Muletown Aqueduct (also Muletown Conduit), consists of about 27,500 feet of 45-inch pipe and 17,400 feet of 

42-inch pipe buried along a rather tortuous route along Muletown Road, paralleling Clear Creek. The coal tar 

enamel-lined and coated steel pipe was installed in 1965. The district’s water system, designed and constructed 

by Reclamation, was completed and the District began operation in 1967. The distribution system within the 

district’s boundaries consists of approximately 75 miles of pipe ranging in size from 2 inches to 45 inches. Title 

to the distribution system was transferred to the District on May 29, 2001.

The district has one storage tank along the conduit with a 1 million gallon capacity. There is also one control tank 

for pressure regulation at the upper elevation of the district with a 250,000 gallon capacity. The storage tank at 

the booster station facility, outside district boundaries, is 32,000 gallons. 

Shasta Community Services District 

SCSD is located west of the City of Redding. SCSD was formed in June 1959 under the Community Services 

District Laws, Sections 61000 through 61934 of the Governmental Code of the State of California. The district 

was formed for the primary purpose of supplying water for domestic use and fire protection to the town of Shasta 

and adjacent developed areas of the district. The district currently serves 630 connections. Virtually all of the 

active land use is municipal, consisting primarily of ranchettes. 

Congress authorized a water system for the area as part of the Trinity River Project. Bonds were issued by SCSD 

to finance construction of the transmission and distribution systems. These bonds have since been repaid. 

CVP long-term service contract water is provideds for up to 1,000 acre-feet annually. Water is supplied by 

gravity from Whiskeytown Lake via a turnout on the Spring Creek Conduit. The Spring Creek Conduit is the 

only source of supply, and there is only 0.30 million gallons of storage located near the source. Downstream of 

the turnout, a single transmission main serves as the backbone of the distribution system and most mains are not 

looped. 

SCSD has historically been vulnerable to disruptions in supply from its Reclamation contract. During the 1991 

drought, Reclamation reduced SCSD’s allotment by 75 25 percent to 250 750 acre-feet per year. Groundwater 

wells are not feasible because the district does not overlay an aquifer. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Environmental Commitments 

4.2 Water Supplies and Facilities Operations

Final EA for the 4.2-6 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

Shasta County Water Agency 

The Shasta County Department of Water Resources was created in 1954 to organize Shasta County’s 

efforts in conjunction with the Trinity River Project. This led to the formation of the SCWA in 1957 

through the Shasta County Water Agency Act, Legislative Act 7580. The SCWA was created to control 

and conserve surface water for the beneficial use and protection of life and property of the people of 

Shasta County. Funding for the SCWA comes from Shasta County property taxes. 

The SCWA actively promotes the creation of public water and sewer systems. The agency was 

instrumental in the creation of BVWD, Centerville Community Services District, CCCSD, and SCSD, as 

well as six county service areas for water and two for sewer service. 

In 1967, the SCWA negotiated a 37-year contract with Reclamation for 5,000 acre-feet of “Project 

Water” or replacement water. This water was is wholesaled to 14 subcontractors throughout the county, 

but portions have been or are being assigned to Centerville (2900 acre-feet), Mountain Gate (1,000 acrefeet), and Bella Vista (578.7 acre-feet). The 500 acre-feet the County has under the KCSA contract would 

be combined with the SCWA contract during a contract renewal for administrative simplicity. “Project 

Water” may be used for municipal, industrial, and domestic use, and replacement water may be used for 

agricultural purposes and/or municipal, industrial, and domestic uses. 

Other Shasta and Trinity River Divisions CVP Contractors 

Three smaller water districts are included in the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions. The three districts 

constitute about 1 percent of the CVP long-term contract water supply to the divisions. 

Keswick County Service Area 

The KCSA is located west of the City of Redding. KCSA was preceded by the Keswick Community 

Services District, which was formed in the early 1960s under the Community Services District Laws, 

Sections 61000 through 61934 of the Governmental Code of the State of California. The district was 

formed for the primary purpose of supplying water for domestic use and fire protection to the town of 

Keswick and adjacent developed areas. Congress authorized a water system for the area as part of the 

Trinity Project Act (69 Stat. 719) and the facilities were constructed in 1965. A repayment schedule was 

established whereby the Federal government is reimbursed by KCSA for transmission and distribution 

system construction costs. However, upon completion of repayment, ownership of all project facilities 

will still remain with the Federal government. On October 23, 1990, the Keswick Community Services 

District was dissolved and reorganized as the Keswick County Service Area under Sections 25210.1 

through 25250 of the Governmental Code of the State of California. KCSA serves about 195 connections 

(2000), which are concentrated in the town of Keswick. The district boundaries encompass facilities not 

served by the district, including Keswick Dam and the Spring Creek Diversion Dam. The land uses 

served by KCSA are exclusively ranchettes. 

Federal CVP water is provided under the terms of a contract with Reclamation. The contract (to be 

combined with the SCWA contract) provides for deliveries of up to 500 acre-feet annually. Water is 

supplied by gravity flow from Whiskeytown Lake via a turnout on the Spring Creek Conduit, which feeds 

the Spring Creek powerhouse. Two storage tanks provide total storage of 0.2 million gallons. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Environmental Commitments 

4.2 Water Supplies and Facilities Operations

February 2005 4.2-7 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

Mountain Gate Community Services District 

MGCSD is located north of the City of Shasta Lake. MGCSD was formed pursuant to Government Code, 

Title 6, Division 3, Sections 61000 through 61800. MGCSD was initially formed in 1956 to provide 

water service within a 2two-square-mile area. MGCSD provides water service to 593 connections (2000). 

In addition, the district provides fire protection services in its service area. The primary land use is 

ranchettes. Other significant uses are urban and industrial. 

MGCSD obtains CVP water from Shasta Lake under the terms of a contract with Reclamation for 350 

acre-feet per year. This contract allotment was is supplemented by an additional 1,000 acre-feet via a 

contract with the SCWA., that was assigned to MGCSD February 22, 2005. The district also operates 

three wells within a small usable aquifer. These wells supply nearly half of MGCSD’s total needs 

annually. The distribution system consists of 29 miles of pipelines serving 3,750 acres within the 

MGCSD, in addition to Bridge Bay Resort, which is located on the USFS land adjacent to Shasta Lake. 

There is no storage within the district. 

USFS Centimudi Boat Ramp 

The Centimudi boat ramp is part of the original Centimudi Marina Project located east/southeast of Shasta 

Dam. The Memorandum of Agreement signed November 8, 1967, between the USFS and Reclamation 

(Contract No. 14-06-200-3464A) stipulated that the USFS could divert up to 10 ten acre-feet of 

municipal, industrial, and domestic water from the Toyon Pipeline to supply the Centimudi Marina 

Project. The Toyon Pipeline, a Reclamation facility, originated from the left abutment of Shasta Dam and 

diverted water to a point near the Government Camp at Toyon (west of the City of Shasta Lake). The 

USFS agreed to construct, operate, and maintain the pipelines, pumps, and meters to facilitate the water 

diversion. Further, the USFS agreed to assume responsibility for controlling and distributing the water. 

Currently the Marina is serviced by the Shasta Community Services District.

4.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

The effects of Alternatives 1 and 2 on surface water supplies and operations are compared to conditions 

under the No Action Alternative. 

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, it is assumed that historic annual surface water supplies under CVP 

operations plans would be similar to existing conditions to Contractors in the Shasta and Trinity River 

Divisions. Under the No Action Alternative, the water supply would be affected by climate conditions. 

During the driest years, tiered water pricing would become a requirement of each Contractor’s long-term 

contract renewal. Under tiered water pricing under for the No Action Alternative, 80 percent of the 

Contractor’s M&I water supply would be supplied prior to meeting the agricultural water demand. (Also, 

water conservation planning is a requirement of interim contracts and future long-term contract renewals.) 

Alternative 1 

Under Alternative 1, the water supply available for delivery to the Contractors is assumed to be similar to 

the No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 assumes that future long-term renewal contracts would be equal 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Environmental Commitments 

4.2 Water Supplies and Facilities Operations

Final EA for the 4.2-8 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

to the base maximum quantity in existing long-term contracts or interim contracts. Therefore, the water 

supply would be the same as it would be under the No Action Alternative. Consequently, there would be 

no direct environmental consequences associated with water supply when compared to the No Action 

Alternative. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, the water supply delivered is assumed to be the same as for the No Action 

Alternative. Alternative 2 assumes that the sum of Category 1 and 2 water is equal to the maximum 

quantity provided in the Contractors’ existing water service contracts. Future long-term contracts are 

expected to be renewed for the same quantity of water as under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, 

there would be no direct adverse environmental consequences associated with water supply compared to 

the No Action Alternative. 

4.2.3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

No environmental consequences to water supply are expected under Alternative 1 or 2 when compared to 

the No Action Alternative. Therefore, no cumulative effects are anticipated when compared to the No 

Action Alternative. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.3 Socioeconomics 

February 2005 4.3-1 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

4.3 SOCIOECONOMICS 

4.3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

All of the water Contractors and service areas within the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions of the CVP 

potentially affected by CVP long-term water contract renewals are located in Shasta County. 

Accordingly, Shasta County was selected as the regional area of influence for the demographic, land use, 

and economic impact evaluation for Alternatives 1 and 2 and the No Action Alternative. To be consistent 

with the time frame of the affected environment and environmental consequences components of the 

CVPIA PEIS, 1994/95 data are included in the affected environment characterization for the evaluation of 

the CVP contract renewal alternatives under consideration (to the extent such data are available). 

Demographics 

Table 4.3-1 presents recent population estimates for Shasta County broken down by major ethnic group. 

The table indicates that the County’s estimated population in the year 2000 was 172,000 (California 

Department of Finance [CDOF], 2003b). 

TABLE 4.3-1

SHASTA COUNTY POPULATION

Year Total White Hispanic Asian and Pacific Black American Indian 

1995 159,700 141,767 7,592 3,465 1,447 6,773 

1998 161,900 141,672 8,468 3,844 1,631 6,285 

2000 163,256 141,721 8,975 4,058 1,729 5,429 

Sources: State of California, Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population Estimates: Components of Change for California 

Counties, April 1990 to April 2000. Sacramento, California, March 2003; State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 

City/County Population Estimates, with Annual Percent Change, January 1, 2002 and 2003. Sacramento, California, May 2003. 

In 2003, approximately half of Shasta County’s 172,000 residents lived in the County’s largest city, 

Redding. In January 2003, Redding’s population was approximately 85,700, 8 percent more than in 1998 

(CDOF, 2002). The County’s second most populated city, Shasta Lake, had a reported 2003 population 

of about 9,725 people. Approximately 40 percent, or 67,100, of Shasta County’s residents live in the 

County’s unincorporated areas (CDOF, 2003b). 

Table 4.3-2 characterizes the overall housing situation within Shasta County. The table indicates that the 

County’s housing vacancy rate was approximately 7.8 percent of existing housing units in 2003 (CDOF, 

2003c). 

TABLE 4.3-2 

SHASTA COUNTY HOUSING (2003) 

Housing Stock 71,683 

 Single Units 50,064 

Multiple Units 10,806 

Mobile Homes, Trailers, etc. 10,813 

Vacancy Rate 7.8% 

Occupants per household ~2.5 

Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 City/County 

Population and Housing Estimates, 2003, Revised 2002 and Revised 2001, 

with 2000 DRU Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2003.
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.3 Socioeconomics

Updated Draft EA for the 4.3-2 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

There are a total of 10 ten separate water districts/agencies (districts) within the Shasta and Trinity River 

Divisions of the CVP that currently receive CVP water designated for M&I uses through contracts 

undergoing the contract renewal process (referred to as contract water). 

Table 4.3-3 presents 1994 estimates of the population served by the four largest of these districts, BVWD, 

CCCSD, City of Shasta Lake, and City of Redding (California Department of Water Resources 1994). In 

1994, these districts together received almost 85 percent of the total CVP M&I contract water that was 

delivered to the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions.

TABLE 4.3-3 

POPULATION SERVED WITHIN SELECTED WATER DISTRICTS (1994) 

BVWD CCCSD City of Shasta Lake City of Redding 

Population Served 15,700 8,000 9,820 78,266 

Source: California Department of Water Resources 1994 

Municipal and Industrial Water Costs, Land Use, and Economics 

The water Contractors, identified in Table 4.3-3, treat and deliver CVP and other water to residential, 

commercial, and industrial customers within their service areas. Table 4.3-4 itemizes the number of M&I 

service connections reported by each district in 1994, by service connection category. 

TABLE 4.3-4 

M&I SERVICE CONNECTIONS WITHIN LARGEST WATER DISTRICTS* BY M&I CATEGORY (1994) 

Service Connection Category BVWD CCCSD City of Shasta Lake City of Redding Total Connections *

Single-Family Residential 233 1,441 2,997 18,643 23,314 

Multi-family Residential 289 456 745 

Commercial/Institutional 158 189 3,837 4,026 

Industrial 1 5 464 470 

Other (government) 195 195 

Landscape Irrigation 3 3 

Other (rural) 864 864 

Total Connections * 3,855 1,442 3,480 23,598 ** 32,375 ** 

Source: California Department of Water Resources 1994 

*Some of the districts do not report separately for single- and multi-family residential connections. These connections represent 

approximately 85% of the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions. 

 **Includes ~4,179 connections for CVP water under Buckeye Contract. 

Table 4.3-5 presents estimated water deliveries by service connection category for each of the water 

districts presented in Table 4.3-4. All of these water deliveries were metered, except the City of 

Redding’s deliveries to its landscape irrigation users. The table indicates that about half of the City of 

Redding’s 1994 M&I water deliveries were for landscape irrigation purposes. (A review of reported 

customer water deliveries in 1999 indicates that deliveries categorized under landscape irrigation were 

greatly reduced in that year from the 1994 levels. At the same time, the City’s reported single-family 

residential deliveries increased substantially, despite little change in the Redding service area population.) 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.3 Socioeconomics

February 2005 4.3-3 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

TABLE 4.3-5 

1994 DELIVERIES OF TREATED WATER TO M&I CUSTOMERS BY M&I CATEGORY 

(ACRE-FEET PER YEAR) 

Service Connection Category BVWD CCCSD City of Shasta 

Lake 

City of Redding 

Single-Family Residential 2,030 471 1,573 12,520 

Multi-family Residential 110 258 

Commercial/Institutional 1,401 2 333 7,524 

Industrial 74 476 

Other (government) 566 

Landscape Irrigation 21,354 

Other (rural) 1,891 

Total Per District in Acre-Feet Per Year 5,321 474 2,090 42,699 * 

1994 Average (acre-feet per year per 

connection) (Connection data from Table 

4.3-4) 

1.38 0.33 0.6 1.81 

Source: California Department of Water Resources, 1994 

Includes the Buckeye Contract for CVP water as well as other agreements and contracts. 

Table 4.3-6 presents the estimated M&I deliveries of CVP water in 1994 to each of the CVP Shasta and 

Trinity River Contractors that receive CVP water designated for M&I uses (Reclamation 2000). (In 2001, 

2,900 acre-feet of water previously assigned to under contract with the Shasta County Water Agency was 

reassigned to Centerville Community Services District. The tables in this section currently include the 

CCSD assignment from the Shasta County Water Agency. See footnote in tables.) 

TABLE 4.3-6 

CVP CONTRACT MAXIMUM, M&I DELIVERIES AND ESTIMATED COST (1994) 

Factor MGCSD 

City of 

Shasta 

Lake USFS KCSA SCSD 

SCWA 

(Including 

CCSD)* BVWD CCCSD 

City of 

Redding (1) 

CVP Contract 

Maximum (acre-feet) 

350 2,750 10 500 1,000 5,000* 22,000

24,000

15,300 9,250(1) 

6,140(1)

Estimated M&I 

Deliveries (acre-feet) 

350 2,410 10 158 593 1,267* 5,567 1,928 2,822 

1994 Cost-of-Service 

Rate (per acre-foot) 

$9.00 $13.82 $20.00 $13.17 $10.77 $19.44* $39.00 $26.09 $11.40 

Total Estimated Cost $3,150 $33,306 $200 $2,081 $6,387 $24,630* $217,113 $50,302 $32,171 

Source: Bureau of Reclamation 2000a, Bureau of Reclamation 1994a, Dornbusch & Company 

(1) Also receives Includes 3,150 acre-feet of settlement water, and 6,100 6,140 acre-feet of CVP under Buckeye Contract water

* Includes 2,900 acre-feet per year which was assigned by contract to CCSD by Reclamation in April 2001 

A comparison of Tables 4.3-5 and 4.3-6 indicates that BVWD, CCCSD, and the City of Shasta Lake 

receive the majority of their M&I water through CVP long-term renewal contracts. The disparity between 

CCCSD’s 1994 CVP deliveries (1,928 acre-feet) and the district’s treated deliveries to its M&I customers 

(474 acre-feet) may be explained by the fact that CCCSD sells some of its M&I water to other districts, 

including BVWD. A comparison of the two tables also reveals that only a relatively small portion of the 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.3 Socioeconomics

Updated Draft EA for the 4.3-4 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

City of Redding’s M&I water comes from its contract water. However, the entire Buckeye contract (City 

of Redding) receives 100% of its M&I water from the CVP.

Table 4.3-6 also presents the 1994 M&I contract cost-of-service rates published by Reclamation 

applicable to each district’s contract water. The table shows the estimated total cost-of-service incurred 

by each district in that year based on their recorded CVP M&I contract water deliveries. In 1999, the City 

of Shasta Lake’s average household water bill per 1,000 cubic feet of water was approximately $15.40 

per month (City of Shasta Lake 2000). This translates to about $670 per acre-foot. (One acre-foot of 

water equals 43,560 cubic feet of water or the amount of water a family of five uses a year.) In 1999, the 

City of Shasta Lake paid a cost-of-service rate for untreated CVP water of $15 per acre-foot (compared to 

$13.82 in 1994, as shown in Table 4.3-6). Accordingly, the actual average cost of CVP water treated and 

delivered to residential customers within the City of Shasta Lake in 1999 was almost 45 times the cost-ofservice rate that they paid for that water. This is to be expected since an M&I district’s cost of untreated 

water is usually a relatively small component of its cost to treat, store, and deliver water to its customers 

(and thus the rates charged to its customers). Similar findings would be expected for the other Shasta and 

Trinity River Divisions water districts contractors. 

Agriculture Water Costs, Land Use, and Economics 

Both BVWD and CCCSD supply treated contract water designated for agricultural purposes to irrigators 

within their service areas. In 1996, a total of 7,319 acres of land within the two districts that were 

designated for CVP agricultural water use were irrigated with CVP water: 3,388 acres in BVWD and 

3,931 acres in CCCSD (Reclamation 1996). The districts together received approximately 10,000 acrefeet of CVP agricultural contract water in 1994 (purchases from other CVP Contractors aside). 

While field, vegetable, and fruit crops are grown in the County and the districts, pasture is by far the 

predominant crop, representing about 50 percent of irrigated agriculture in the county. Table 4.3-7 

summarizes the cropping pattern for each district, as reported to Reclamation for 1996. The table 

indicates that like Shasta County as a whole, a large portion of the both districts’ irrigated lands is in 

pasture, particularly BVWD. 

TABLE 4.3-7 

CROPPING PATTERNS (1996) 

Crop / Crop Group 

BVWD 

(acres) 

Percentage of 

BVWD Total 

CCCSD 

(acres) 

Percentage of 

CCCSD Total 

Pasture 2,813 84.7% 1,785 48.5% 

Alfalfa 217 6.5% 25 0.7% 

Sugar Beets 0.0% 0.0% 

Other Field Crops 176 5.3% 738 20.0% 

Rice 0.0% 0.0% 

Truck Crops 1 0.0% 86 2.3% 

Tomatoes 1 0.0% 30 0.8% 

Deciduous Orchards 52 1.6% 993 27.0% 

Small Grain 63 1.9% 0.0% 

Subtropical Orchard 0.0% 24 0.7% 

Total 3,323 3,681 

Source: Bureau of Reclamation 1996 and Dornbusch & Company 2000 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.3 Socioeconomics

February 2005 4.3-5 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

The Census of Agriculture reports that in 1997, there were 850 farms in Shasta County, of which 605 had 

some or all of their land under irrigation. Total irrigated acreage within the County reported in 1997 was 

approximately 38,863 acres (NASS 1999). Accordingly, lands receiving CVP water designated for 

irrigation with CVP agricultural water within the BVWD and CCCSD represent about 20 percent of the 

county’s total irrigated land base. 

Much of the irrigated lands in Shasta County and, in particular, in the BVWD and CCCSD, consists of 

relatively small parcels. The 1997 Census of Agricultural indicates that over half of the irrigated farms 

within Shasta County are less than 9 nine acres in size. Table 4.3-8 shows the agricultural service 

connections and customer water deliveries reported by BVWD and CCCSD in 1994. The table also 

shows the estimated average amount of land per agricultural service connection in each district, 6.5 acres 

in BVWD and 5.5 acres in CCCSD. (These amounts are calculated by dividing the estimated amount of 

irrigated acres in each district in 1996 by the number of agricultural connections in 1994. Acreage in 

1996 was used because Reclamation was unable to provide accurate irrigated acreage information from 

1994. Discussions with local extension agents and others familiar with irrigated farming in Shasta 

County suggested that the irrigated land base in the BVWD and CCCSD service areas changed little 

between 1994 and 1996. Therefore, the calculation of irrigated land per connection is deemed 

reasonable.) 

CCCSD reports that in 1999, there were 350 and 338 parcels between 2 and 5 acres in size within the 

CCCSD and BVWD service areas, respectively, receiving CVP agricultural water (McNeill 2000). Based 

on the values presented in Table 4.3-8, 2- to 5-acre parcels account for about 50 percent of the CCCSD 

and 65 percent of the BVWD agricultural service connections. 

TABLE 4.3-8 

AGRICULTURAL CONNECTIONS AND WATER DELIVERIES (1994) 

Factor BVWD CCCSD 

Irrigated Land (acres) – 1996 3,388 3,931 

Agricultural Connections – 1994 524 715 

Irrigated Land/Connection (acres) 6.5 5.5 

Agricultural Deliveries (acre-feet) 7,247 1,129 

Source: California Department of Water Resources 1994, Dornbusch & Company 2000 

Table 4.3-9 presents the 1994 cost-of-service rates published by Reclamation for Shasta and Trinity River 

Divisions agricultural contract water. Cost-of-service (COS) is a term used by Reclamation that refers to 

the annual rate to be paid by water Contractors to recover federal costs for agricultural and M&I water 

supply functions for an established repayment period, and according to specific provisions in their 

respective contracts. This rate includes the recovery cost from each Contractor for capital (construction) 

investment of CVP; accumulated annual O&M, O&M deficit, and interest (M&I only). The table also 

shows the total cost-of-service incurred by each district in that year based on their recorded CVP 

agricultural contract water deliveries. Both BVWD and CCCSD receive ability-to-pay relief on their 

CVP agricultural water. However, no downward adjustment was made to reflect the associated cost 

savings because no actual records of either district’s payments to Reclamation were available. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.3 Socioeconomics

Updated Draft EA for the 4.3-6 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

TABLE 4.3-9 

 CONTRACT MAXIMUM, AGRICULTURAL DELIVERIES AND ESTIMATED COST BASED ON 

COST-OF-SERVICE RATES (1994) 

Factor BVWD CCCSD 

CVP Contract Maximum (acre-feet) 24,000 15,300 

1994 CVP Agricultural Deliveries (acre-feet) 6,826 3,289 

1994 Cost-of-Service Rate ($ per acre-feet)) $11.78 $15,79 

Total Estimated Cost ($) $80,410 $51,933 

Source: Bureau of Reclamation 2000a, Bureau of Reclamation 1994b, Dornbusch & Company 2000 

Regional Economy 

Shasta County’s largest industrial sector is services. In 1991, the services sector accounted for about 25 

percent of the county’s employment base, climbing to almost 32 percent by 1995. Services continue to 

represent the fastest growing segment of the economy, followed by trade. Agriculture accounts for less 

than 2 two percent of the county’s employment (EDD 2001). 

The estimated average annual unemployment rate for Shasta County in 2002 was 7.4 percent (EDD 

2002). The unemployment rate has declined from double-digit levels in the early part of the 1990s, and it 

exceeds the California state-wide average by less than 1 percentage point (the average annual 

unemployment rate for California in 2002 was 6.7 percent, [EDD 2002]). However, Shasta County ranked 

32nd out of California’s 58 counties with respect to per-capita income in 2001 (BEA 2003). 

Table 4.3-10 summarizes 1991 industrial output, employment, and income by place-of-work for the 

county. Data from 1991 were used rather than more current information to be consistent with the 

temporal setting of the regional economic analysis presented in the PEIS for the CVPIA. California’s 

Employment Development Department (EDD) reported that the county’s unemployment rate in 1991 was 

almost 11 percent (EDD 1999). 

TABLE 4.3-10 

ESTIMATED OUTPUT, EMPLOYMENT, AND INCOME BY PLACE-OF-WORK SHASTA 

COUNTY (1991) 

Industrial Output Employment Income POW 

Industrial Sector (Million$) (Full-Time Jobs) (Million$) 

Agriculture $130.53 2,332 $60.98 

Mining $497.41 272 $419.96 

Construction $604.27 6,746 $200.61 

Manufacturing $684.34 5,270 $258.52 

Transportation $478.03 4,115 $246.68 

Trade $583.20 16,581 $334.48 

Fire $594.88 6,100 $373.84 

Services $808.69 18,751 $469.00 

Government $360.44 11,404 $331.23 

$4,741.79 71,571 $2,695.30 

Source: Minnesota Implan Group 1994, Dornbusch & Company 2000 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.3 Socioeconomics

February 2005 4.3-7 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

4.3.2 METHODOLOGY OF SOCIOECONOMIC AND LAND USE IMPACT ANALYSIS

The estimated socioeconomic and land use impacts of the contract renewal alternatives are presented in 

ranges. These ranges extend from the baseline socioeconomic and land use conditions under the No 

Action Alternative to the potential maximum socioeconomic and land use impacts anticipated under 

Alternative 2 when compared to the No Action Alternative. In this manner, the evaluation provides 

“bookends” with which to consider the potential implications of alternative contract renewal options. 

Alternative 1 is ostensibly identical to the No Action Alternative framework with respect to those 

elements, particularly water rate setting, that may affect socioeconomics and land use within Shasta 

County. All of the impacts of Alternative 2 are presented in terms of the incremental change relative to 

projected No Action conditions. The analysis is conducted for the 25 year contract year 25 (2029); 

however, dollars are reported in 1999, 1994, and 1991 terms, depending on the availability of information 

and the time frame of the analysis, as well as to maintain consistency with the CVPIA PEIS. It also 

should be noted that to maintain consistency with the CVPIA PEIS, BVWD and CCCSD projected future 

CVP M&I and agricultural water use is based on agricultural and M&I land use and development 

projections reported in the Shasta County General Plan. As such, the M&I and agricultural water and 

land use projections presented in this EA may differ from projections indicated by other planning 

documents, including the future water needs assessments submitted to Reclamation by the districts as part 

of the contract renewal process. However, the projections all call for full use of the contract amounts by 

contract year 25 (2029). 

Methodology 

The analysis of potential impacts on M&I and agricultural land use, M&I and agricultural water cost, and 

agricultural economics of Shasta and Trinity River Divisions long-term contract renewals is conducted at 

the level of the specific CVP Contractors that would be affected. However, the analysis of potential 

regional economic and demographic impacts of contract renewal is conducted at a broader regional level. 

 For the analysis, the affected region is defined as Shasta County. While the secondary economic and 

demographic effects of the alternatives may extend outside of Shasta County, it is reasonable to anticipate 

that the majority of those impacts will occur within the county. Ultimately, it is the localized effects of 

contract renewal that are most relevant to the evaluation of the effects of the alternatives on local 

communities. 

Demographic Impacts 

The evaluation of the potential demographic impacts of long-term CVP contract renewal for CVP 

Contractors in the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions focuses on population. The analysis starts with an 

assessment of contract renewal-associated regional effects on employment (discussed below), since 

employment is a primary determinant of population dynamics. However, anticipated regional change in 

job availability is not the only factor that must be examined in assessing population effects of an action 

such as CVP contract renewal. The projected population impact of employment changes must be 

evaluated in the context of general labor market conditions and family size within the relevant area of 

study. Accordingly, both of these variables are considered in the evaluation of the potential population 

impacts of contract renewal. California Department of Finance population projections for Shasta County 

were used as the basis for estimating population conditions under the No Action Alternative. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.3 Socioeconomics

Updated Draft EA for the 4.3-8 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

Municipal and Industrial Water 

The assessment of the potential incremental impacts on the cost of M&I water under Alternatives 1 and 2 

relative to the No Action Alternative is based on M&I water demand models developed for the CVPIA 

PEIS. A detailed description of those models is presented in the Municipal Water Costs Technical 

Appendix for the PEIS (PEIS 1997). In summary, the PEIS M&I models are designed to estimate the 

potential impact on the cost of CVP M&I water due to anticipated CVPIA-associated changes in CVP 

water rates and water deliveries. Thus, the M&I water cost impacts presented in the PEIS derive from the 

proposed introduction of 80-10-10 tiered pricing, a flat restoration charge applied to each acre-foot of 

delivered water, and the anticipated cost incurred by individual CVP Contractors to acquire alternative 

water supplies and implement conservation measures to mitigate water delivery reductions due to CVPIAmandated in-stream and refuge flow set-asides. 

The primary source of data used to model water demands, local supplies, and costs in evaluating contract 

renewal socioeconomic and land use impacts was the California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 

160-93. While the information in Bulletin 160-93 was updated in Bulletin 160-98, Bulletin 160-93 was 

used to be consistent with the CVPIA PEIS analysis assumptions (CDWR 1993). Estimates of future 

CVP deliveries with and without CVPIA were derived using the PROSIM and SANJASM models (see 

PEIS, technical appendices for a description of these hydrologic modeling tools). 

The results of the analysis of impacts on water cost in the CVPIA PEIS were aggregated into four regions. 

The Shasta and Trinity River Divisions were included in the Sacramento Valley region. 

An implicit assumption of the PEIS M&I cost impact analysis was that both residential and 

commercial/industrial water users are extremely price inelastic within a fairly large range of prices for 

water (i.e., they will effectively not change their use of water in response to even fairly substantial 

changes in the price of water). Certainly, price does influence the choice of water supply. However, in 

the case of Shasta and Trinity River Divisions long-term contract renewals, the PEIS analysis concluded 

that reliable non-CVP water supplies would cost well in excess of the effective CVP M&I water rates for 

any of the contract renewal proposals under consideration. Accordingly, no incremental change in future 

M&I demand for CVP water is anticipated under either Alternatives 1 or 2 when compared to the No 

Action Alternative. 

Consistent with the CVPIA PEIS, the analysis of the socioeconomic impacts of contract renewals focuses 

on both the long-run average and short-run dry hydrologic conditions, and associated CVP deliveries. 

Projected post-CVPIA CVP M&I deliveries were obtained from the PEIS M&I models prepared by 

Reclamation. 

The M&I cost analysis of the Preferred Alternative in the CVPIA PEIS (No Action Alternative in this 

EA) was conducted assuming 80-10-10 tiered pricing and 1994 CVP M&I rates. Alternative 1 does not 

alter the rate-setting scheme stipulated in the No Action Alternative and, therefore, would not have an 

incremental impact on Shasta and Trinity River Divisions CVP M&I water costs relative to the No Action 

Alternative. Alternative 2, however, would have an impact on Shasta and Trinity River Division 

Contractors’ costs for CVP M&I water. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.3 Socioeconomics

February 2005 4.3-9 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

The M&I cost impact analysis for Alternative 2 assumed the adoption of 80-10-10 tiered pricing, 

Category 1/ Category 2 water designation, and the 1999 Shasta and Trinity Contractors’ CVP M&I rates 

adjusted to reflect the Alternative 2 proposed revision to the CVP rate-setting methodology. More current 

estimates of CVP M&I rates consistent with the revision methodology (PEIS 1997) are not available 

because the methodology has since been dropped from consideration. 

The projected impacts of Alternative 2 in contract year 25 (2029) M&I water costs are presented in 1999 

dollar terms as the increment above each potentially affected long-term renewal Contractor’s estimated 

cost of CVP M&I water under the No Action Alternative for both the long-run average and short-run dry 

hydrologic condition. 

CVP M&I water rates under Alternatives 1 and 2 are not expected to have any impact on Shasta and 

Trinity River Divisions’ CVP M&I water demand. In addition, the two alternatives do not differ from the 

No Action Alternative with respect to projected CVP water supply/reliability. Therefore, it is not 

anticipated there will be any M&I water-related demographic or land use impacts of the contract renewal 

alternatives. Accordingly, demographic and land use impacts are not addressed in the contract renewal 

M&I impact analysis. The analysis examines only Shasta and Trinity River Divisions’ water-cost-related 

impacts. As in the CVPIA PEIS, it is assumed that any projected change in the cost of CVP water would 

be passed directly on to each district’s customers, dollar for dollar. 

Agricultural Water Cost, Land Use, and Economic Impacts 

The assessment of the demographic and agricultural water cost, land use, and economic impacts under 

Alternatives 1 and 2 were based on the agricultural economic impact assessment models developed for the 

CVPIA PEIS (PEIS 1997). A detailed description of those models is presented in the Agricultural 

Economics and Land Use Technical Appendix to the PEIS. In summary, the PEIS agricultural economic 

and land use models were designed to estimate the potential direct impact of CVPIA-associated changes 

on agricultural water rates and supply/reliability on agricultural users, including land use, water use, gross 

value of crop production, and farmer net revenue from irrigation. 

Agricultural economic and land use impacts identified in the PEIS resulted from the introduction of 80-

10-10 tiered pricing, the addition of a restoration charge on each acre-foot of delivered water, and the 

projected cost to individual CVP Contractors of acquiring alternative water supplies to mitigate water 

delivery reductions due to CVPIA-mandated in-stream and refuge flows not offset through conservation. 

The PEIS agricultural economic impacts were derived by applying the Central Valley Production Model 

(CVPM). The CVPM is a highly sophisticated tool that predicts farmer response to changes in the price 

and availability of resource inputs, particularly water. The types of response mechanisms built into the 

model include land fallowing, crop switching, changes in ground water pumping, etc. These responses 

ultimately have implications for the total value of crop production, land and water use, and the net 

revenues to farmers subsequent to an event such as CVPIA implementation or contract renewal. 

The CVPM model, as formatted for the PEIS, produces output for each of 22 separate sub regions within 

California’s Central Valley (for reporting purposes in the PEIS, these sub regions were aggregated into 

four larger regions). The two CVP water Contractors in the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions that 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.3 Socioeconomics

Updated Draft EA for the 4.3-10 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

receive CVP agricultural water and would potentially be affected by long-term contract renewals, BVWD 

and CCCSD, are located in CVPM Region 1. Accordingly, the output of the CVPM model runs for 

Region 1 were used to estimate the implications of the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2 for 

the agricultural lands and economy within BVWD and CCCSD. Estimates of gross value of farm 

production derived from CVPM were combined with recent cropping-pattern information for BVWD and 

CCCSD to calculate district-specific estimates of the gross value of production and farmer net revenue 

under the contract renewal alternatives. 

The No Action Alternative and Alternative 2 would increase the CVP agricultural acreage limitation from 

2 to 5 acres. If implemented, this contract stipulation would not necessarily affect the delivery and cost of 

CVP water for agricultural irrigators on parcels smaller than 5 acres. According to Reclamation, it would 

simply place a greater burden of proof on those irrigators and their districts to demonstrate that the 

agricultural water they are receiving (at agricultural water rates) is being put to legitimate agricultural 

uses. Reclamation representatives believe that the change in acreage limitation would ultimately have 

little or no effect on the cost of water for farmers with parcels between 2 and 5 acres within the Shasta 

and Trinity River Divisions. It could, however, place an additional administrative burden on farmers and 

their districts in managing CVP deliveries (Holt 2000), although the burden would not be great since the 

applicable guidelines for determining agricultural use will remain unchanged. 

4.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Demographics 

No Action Alternative 

Table 4.3-11 presents the projected year 2030 population for Shasta County. Under the No Action 

Alternative, population is forecast to increase by more than 50 percent from estimated levels in 2000. 

TABLE 4.3-11 

YEAR 2030 PROJECTED SHASTA COUNTY POPULATION 

Year Total White Hispanic Asian and Pacific Black American Indian 

2030 267,749 225,353 20,500 12,111 2,457 7,330 

Source: CDOF 1998, Dornbusch & Company 2003 

Alternative 1 

The effects of Alternative 1 on demographics within the affected region are assumed to be similar to those 

of the No Action Alternative. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have no impact on demographics. 

Alternative 2 

Implementation of Alternative 2 could result in a loss of, or failure to create, as many as 46 jobs within 

Shasta County in contract year 25 (2029). Given historically high unemployment within the County and 

adjacent region, it is not anticipated that the workers who would be displaced could readily find 

alternative employment. Accordingly, the loss of employment under Alternative 2 could result in a longrun decrease in the Shasta County population of at most about 100 people, or approximately 0.04 percent, 

when compared to projected population levels under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 2 would 

therefore have a minor effect on demographics in Shasta County. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.3 Socioeconomics

February 2005 4.3-11 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

Municipal and Industrial Water Costs, Land Use, and Economics 

No Action Alternative 

Table 4.3-12 presents the 1994 actual cost of service and estimated mid-tier and full-cost CVP M&I water 

rates for the Shasta and Trinity CVP Contractors that would be affected by contract renewal. The 1994 

rates are presented because these are the rates applied in the most current evaluation of M&I water cost 

impacts available.

ESTIMATED 1994 M&I WATER RATES UNDER 80-10-10 TIERED PRICING, SHASTA AND TRINITY RIVER 

CONTRACTORS 

Cost-of-Service Rate 1 Midpoint1,2 Full-Cost Rate1

CVP Contractor 1st Tier (80%) 2nd Tier (10%) 3rd Tier (10%) 

BVWD $39.00 $44.99 $50.00 

CCCSD $26.09 $32.81 $39.53 

City of Redding3 $9.00-$11.40 $9.00-$13.24 $9.00-$15.08 

SCWA4 $19.44 $23.02 $26.60 

MGCSD $9.00 $9.45 $9.90 

KCSA $13.17 $15.73 $18.28 

SCSD $10.77 $12.62 $14.47 

City of Shasta Lake $13.82 $13.82 $13.82 

USFS $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 

Source: Bureau of Reclamation 1994a, Dornbusch & Company 2000 

1 In 1994 the Bureau did not publish the full-cost rate for M&I water. Accordingly, these rates were estimated based on the ratio 

of the cost-of-service and full-cost rates for each CVP long-term renewal Contractor in 1997, the first year full-cost M&I rates 

were published. 

2 Midpoint estimated as the simple average of the cost-of-service and full-cost rates. 

3 City of Redding pays a range of prices for its CVP M&I water, since the water is delivered through different facilities. 

4 Includes Centerville Community Services District. 

Table 4.3-13 presents the projected contract year 25 (2029) No Action Alternative deliveries and cost of 

Division CVP M&I water under both average and dry hydrologic conditions for each Shasta and Trinity 

CVP Contractor that would be affected by contract renewal. The table indicates that the Contractors 

would pay a total of approximately $1.1 million in contract year 25 (2029) for the untreated CVP M&I 

water they are projected to take delivery of in a year of average hydrologic conditions per under the CVP 

contracts undergoing in the renewal process (1999 dollar terms). 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 is assumed to have effects on M&I water costs for the affected water districts similar to the 

No Action Alternative. Therefore, there would be no environmental effects as a result of implementing 

this alternative. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.3 Socioeconomics

Updated Draft EA for the 4.3-12 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

TABLE 4.3-13 

YEAR 2029 PROJECTED CVP M&I DELIVERIES AND WATER COST, NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

(1994 DOLLAR TERMS)

CVP Contractor 

CVP Contract 

Maximum 

(acre-feet) 

Projected CVP 

M&I Deliveries, 

Average 

Condition 

(acre-feet) 

Projected Cost 

of CVP M&I 

Water, Average 

Condition 

($000s)1

Projected CVP 

M&I Deliveries, 

Dry Condition 

(acre-feet) 

Projected Cost 

of CVP M&I 

Water, Dry 

Condition 

($000s)1

BVWD 24,000 6,400 $337.94 4,450 $234.82 

CCCSD 15,300 9,420 $377.72 6,540 $262.46 

City of Redding 6,140 5,610 $130.84 3,900 $90.91 

SCWA2 5,000 4,570 $148.65 3,180 $103.29 

MGCSD 350 320 $6.76 220 $4.70 

KCSA 500 460 $11.86 320 $8.24 

SCSD 1,000 910 $21.33 640 $14.82 

City of Shasta Lake 2,750 4,400 2,510 $64.92 1,750 $45.11 

USFS 10 10 $0.29 10 $0.20 

Total 55,05056,700 30,210 $1,100.30 21,000 $764.56 

Source: CH2M Hill 1999, Dornbusch & Company 2000 

1 Consistent with CVPIA PEIS analysis, figures are based on 1994 M&I rates and include restoration charge of $12.00 per acre-

 foot. 

2 Includes CCSD. 

Alternative 2 

Table 4.3-14 presents the 1999 “theoretical” tiered rates for CVP M&I water that Shasta and Trinity River 

Division Contractors would have paid had the 1999 published rates been revised based on the rate-setting 

methodology proposed under Alternative 2. For comparison, the table also shows the actual published 

1999 M&I cost-of-service rate for each district. The table reveals a potentially large escalation of CVP 

M&I rates under Alternative 2. For example, the table shows that CCCSD cost-of-service rate in 1999 

would have been over three times higher than under the No Action Alternative ($137.59 per acre-foot 

compared to $42.01 per acre foot). The differences are not as large for the other districts, ranging from no 

difference in the case of some of the City of Redding’s CVP supply to almost 50 percent for KCSA. It 

should be noted that these rate comparisons account for the potential additional impacts on rates of the 

Category 1/Category 2 rate-setting measure also stipulated under Alternative 2, which would not be 

implemented under the No Action Alternative. 

Table 4.3-15 presents the maximum incremental impact of Alternative 2 (at contract year 25) on the cost 

of M&I contract water for each of the potentially affected M&I Contractors under average and dry 

hydrologic conditions. The table indicates that the total annual cost of untreated CVP M&I water for the 

Shasta and Trinity River Divisions under average hydrologic conditions could increase by as much as 

$1.8 million dollars over the baseline cost of that water under the No Action Alternative (in 1999 dollars). 

 The table also reveals that CCCSD would experience the greatest M&I water cost impact, a three-fold 

increase in its cost of CVP M&I contract water under average conditions when compared to the No 

Action Alternative. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.3 Socioeconomics

February 2005 4.3-13 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

TABLE 4.3-14 

1999 PUBLISHED AND “THEORETICAL” COST-OF-SERVICE M&I RATES 

ASSUMING 80-10-10 TIERED PRICING 

No Action Alterative 

1999 CVP M&I Rates 

Alternative 2 

“Theoretical” 1999 CVP M&I Rates 

Cost-of-Service Rate 

($/acre-foot) 

Cost-of-Service 

Rate ($/acre-foot) 

Midpoint1 

($/acre-foot) 

Full-Cost Rate 

($/acre-foot) 

CVP Contractor 1st Tier (80%) 1st Tier (80%) 2nd Tier (10%) 3rd Tier (10%) 

BVWD $57.62 $74.37 $85.13 $95.89 

CCCSD $42.01 $137.59 $165.41 $193.22 

City of Redding2 $15.00-$21.77 $15.00-$23.41 $15.00-$27.25 $15.00-$31.08 

SCWA3 $29.77 $37.78 $43.22 $48.66 

MGCSD $17.38 $17.72 $19.88 $22.03 

KCSA $23.60 $35.09 $41.90 $48.71 

SCSD $20.37 $24.57 $28.90 $33.23 

City of Shasta Lake $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 

USFS $15.00 $16.30 $17.84 $19.37 

Source: Bureau of Reclamation 1999a, Dornbusch & Company 2000 

1 Midpoint estimated as the simple average of the cost-of-service and full-cost rates. 

2 City of Redding pays a range of prices on its CVP M&I water since the water is delivered through different facilities. 

3 Includes CCSD 

TABLE 4.3-15 

YEAR 2029 IMPACTS ON CVP UNTREATED M&I WATER COST UNDER 

AVERAGE AND DRY HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS 

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 2 

Incremental Change 

from No Action 

Alternative 

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 2 

Incremental 

Change from No 

Action Alternative 

Contractor 

Average 

Condition 

($000s)1

Maximum Impact - 

Average Condition 

($000s)2

Dry Condition 

($000s)1

Maximum Impact - 

Dry Condition 

($000s)2

BVWD $337.94 $280.87 $234.82 $170.34 

CCCSD $377.72 $1,259.72 $262.46 $780.91 

City of Redding $130.84 $88.14 $90.91 $53.85 

SCWA3 $148.65 $106.16 $103.29 $64.80 

MGCSD $6.76 $3.79 $4.70 $2.39 

KCSA $11.86 $12.91 $8.24 $7.85 

SCSD $21.33 $16.72 $14.82 $10.19 

City of Shasta Lake $64.92 $6.74 $45.11 $4.68 

USFS $0.29 $(0.01) $0.20 $(0.01) 

Total $1,100.30 $1,769.17 $764.56 $1,095.00 

Source: CH2M Hill 1999, Bureau of Reclamation 1999a, and Dornbusch & Company 2000 

1 Based on 1994 published rates and $12 dollar restoration charge, since the most currently available analysis of M&I water 

 cost impacts is based on 1994 rates. 

2 Based on 1999 revised rates and a $13.50 dollar restoration charge. 

3 Includes CCSD. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.3 Socioeconomics

Updated Draft EA for the 4.3-14 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

The anticipated water cost increases presented in the table would be passed directly onto individual 

customers of the affected districts. However, the percentage increases in residential water bills would be 

much smaller than the percentage increase in the Contractors’ cost of untreated CVP water, since the cost 

of the untreated water is only a small part of an individual’s total residential M&I water bill. 

Nonetheless, any increase in residential water rates could have a noticeable impact on individuals and 

families with limited income and ability to pay more for their water, given the small changes over the 

preceding 40 years. 

Agricultural Water Costs, Land Use, and Economics 

No Action Alternative 

Table 4.3-16 presents the 1999 published cost of service and full-cost agricultural water rates for BVWD 

and CCCSD. The table reveals a greater disparity in the BVWD cost-of-service rate and full-cost rate 

than for CCCSD. Unlike the assessment of the impacts of contract renewal on CVP M&I water cost, the 

assessment of the impacts on the cost of CVP agricultural water under the No Action Alternative is based 

on 1999 rates because the PEIS agricultural economic analysis was updated to 1999. 

TABLE 4.3-16 

ESTIMATED 1999 AGRICULTURAL WATER RATES UNDER 80-10-10 TIERED PRICING, 

TWO SHASTA AND TRINITY TRIVER CONTRACTORS 

Cost-of-Service Rate Midpoint Full-Cost Rate 

CVP Contractor 1st Tier (80%) 2nd Tier (10%) 3rd Tier (10%) 

BVWD $22.89 $38.105 $53.32 

CCCSD $18.21 $25.21 $32.20 

Source: Bureau of Reclamation 1999b, Dornbusch & Company 2000 

Table 4.3-17 presents the anticipated contract year 25 (2029) Gross Value of Production, CVP 

agricultural water use, and amount of irrigated land in the BVWD and CCCSD service areas under the No 

Action Alternative. The table reveals that BVWD irrigators are projected to use two times more CVP 

water than CCCSD irrigators on only about 25 percent more land. This disparity in water use can be 

explained by the fact that a greater proportion of the BVWD cropping pattern is projected to be pasture, a 

water intensive crop. 

TABLE 4.3-17 

YEAR 2029-GROSS VALUE OF PRODUCTION-CVP AGRICULTURAL WATER USE AND IRRIGATED LANDS 

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE-BVWD AND CCCSD 

BVWD CCCSD 

Factor 

(Based on 1999 Dollars) 

No Action 

Alternative

(Average 

Condition) 

No Action 

Alternative (Dry 

Condition) 

No Action 

Alternative 

(Average 

Condition) 

No Action 

Alternative 

(Dry 

Condition) 

Gross Value of Production (Million$) $1.95 $1.95 $4.58 $4.58 

CVP Water Use (in acre-feet) 13,500 14,6901 5,800 6,3101

Irrigated Lands (in acres) 5,960 5,890 4,690 4,640 

Source: CH2M Hill 2000, Dornbusch & Company 2000 

1 CVP water use increases in a dry year relative to an average year to offset anticipated reduction in ground-water pumping in 

dry years. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.3 Socioeconomics

February 2005 4.3-15 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 is assumed to have effects on agricultural water costs and associated land and water use, 

gross value of production, and farm net revenues for the affected water districts similar to the No Action 

Alternative. Therefore, there would be no incremental effects on these elements compared to the NoAction Alternative as a result of this alternative. 

Alternative 2 

Table 4.3-18 presents the “theoretical” 1999 tiered rates for CVP agricultural water for BVWD and 

CCCSD had the 1999 published rates been revised based on the rate-setting methodology proposed under 

Alternative 2. For comparison, the table also shows the actual published 1999 agricultural cost-of-service 

rate for each district (No Action). The table shows that the impact of Alternative 2 on CCCSD CVP 

agricultural cost-of-service water rates (about 20 percent) would be much lower than the impact on its 

CVP M&I cost-of-service water rates. At the same time, Alternative 2 would cause BVWD CVP 

agricultural water cost-of-service rate to increase by about 45 percent from the cost under the No Action 

Alternative. It should be noted that these rate comparisons account for the potential additional impacts on 

rates of the Category 1/Category 2 rate-setting measure also stipulated under Alternative 2, and that 

would not be implemented under the No Action Alternative. 

TABLE 4.3-18 

1999 PUBLISHED AND “THEORETICAL” COST-OF-SERVICE AGRICULTURAL RATES 

ASSUMING 80-10-10 TIERED PRICING 

No Action Alternative 

1999 CVP Agricultural 

Water Rates 

Alternative 2 

“Theoretical”1999 CVP Agricultural Water Rates 

Water District 

Cost-of-Service ($/acrefoot) Cost-of-Service Rate 

($/acre-foot) 

Midpoint1

($/acre-foot) 

Full-Cost Rate 

($/acre-foot) 

CVP Contractor 1st Tier (80 percent) 1st Tier (80 percent) 2nd Tier (10 

percent) 

3rd Tier (10 

percent) 

BVWD $22.89 $32.02 $53.85 $75.67 

CCCSD $18.21 $21.68 $30.17 $38.66 

Source: Bureau of Reclamation 1999b, Dornbusch & Company 2000 

1 Midpoint estimated as the simple average of the cost-of-service and full-cost rates. 

Tables 4.3-19 and 4.3-20 present the estimated potential maximum incremental water cost and land use 

impacts under Alternative 2 for BVWD and CCCSD, respectively. Table 4.3-19 indicates that 

implementation of Alternative 2 could cause as much as 800 acres of BVWD irrigated pastureland in the 

projected contract year 25 to be fallowed during a year of average hydrologic conditions (and even more 

under dry hydrologic conditions). The table also shows that in contract year 25 (2029), assuming average 

hydrologic conditions, BVWD farmers may reduce their use of CVP agricultural water by as much as 

7,550 acre-feet, or more than half their 13,500 acre-feet of projected use under the No Action Alternative. 

 The fallowing of land and the reduction in the amount of water applied to lands that would remain under 

irrigation under Alternative 2 could reduce the annual gross value of agricultural production within the 

BVWD by approximately 6 percent (or $120,000 in 1999 dollars) and the net income realized by farmers 

by as much as $130,000 in 1999 dollars under average hydrologic conditions. In a dry year, the decline in 

gross production value and net revenue impacts could climb to $180,000 and $260,000 (in 1999 dollars) 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.3 Socioeconomics

Updated Draft EA for the 4.3-16 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

respectively. The projected maximum agricultural land and water use, gross value of production, and net 

revenue impacts for CCCSD under Alternative 2 are presented in Table 4.3-20. 

TABLE 4.3-19 

PROJECTED YEAR 2029 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC AND LAND USE IMPACTS, 

BELLA VISTA WATER DISTRICT 

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 2 

Maximum 

Incremental 

Change from No 

Action Alternative

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 2 

Maximum 

Incremental 

Change from No 

Action Alternative

Factor 

(Based on 1999 Dollars) 

Average 

Hydrologic 

Condition 

Average 

Hydrologic 

Condition 

Dry Hydrologic 

Condition 

Dry Hydrologic 

Condition 

Gross Value of Production (Million$) $1.95 ($0.12) $1.95 ($0.18) 

Fallowed Land ($0.06) ($0.06) 

Groundwater Pumping 0.00 (0.06) 

Irrigation Cost 0.14 0.14 

CVP Untreated Water Cost (0.21) (0.28) 

Crop Prices 0.00 0.00 

Net Revenue Impact ($0.13) ($0.26) 

Projected Year 2020 

CVP Water Use (acre-feet) 13.50 (7.55) 14.69 (9.44) 

Irrigated Land (acres) 5,960 (800)1 5,890 (1,160)1

Source: CH2M Hill 2000, Bureau of Reclamation 1996, Dornbusch & Company 2000 

1 Projected to be almost entirely pasture. 

TABLE 4.3-20 

PROJECTED YEAR 2029 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC AND LAND USE IMPACTS, 

CLEAR CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 2 

Maximum 

Incremental 

Change from No 

Action Alternative

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 2 

Maximum 

Incremental Change 

from No Action 

Alternative 

Factor 

(Based on 1999 Dollars) 

Average 

Hydrologic 

Condition 

Average 

Hydrologic 

Condition 

Dry Hydrologic 

Condition 

Dry Hydrologic 

Condition 

Gross Value of Production (Million$) $4.58 ($0.08) $4.58 ($0.12) 

Fallowed Land ($0.04) ($0.04) 

Groundwater Pumping 0.00 (0.04) 

Irrigation Cost 0.06 0.06 

CVP Untreated Water Cost (0.09) (0.19) 

Crop Prices 0.00 0.00 

Net Revenue Impact ($0.07) ($0.14) 

Projected Year 2020 

CVP Water Use (Acre-feet) 5.80 (3.25) 6.31 (4.06) 

Irrigated Land (acres) 4,690 (510)1 4,640 (740)1

Source: CH2M Hill 2000, Bureau of Reclamation 1996, Dornbusch & Company 2000 

1 Projected to be almost entirely pasture. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.3 Socioeconomics

February 2005 4.3-17 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

4.3.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON THE REGIONAL ECONOMY

No Action Alternative 

Table 4.3-21 summarizes projected year 2029 industrial output, employment in terms of full-time 

equivalent jobs (FTE), and income by place of work (POW) for Shasta County under the No Action 

Alternative. Consistent with the PEIS, the figures are presented in 1991 dollar terms. 

TABLE 4.3-21 

ESTIMATED YEAR 2029 OUTPUT, EMPLOYMENT, AND INCOME BY PLACE-OF-WORK, SHASTA COUNTY 

(1991 DOLLARS) 

Industrial Sector Output (Million$) Employment (FTE Jobs) Income POW (Million$) 

Agriculture $131.01 2,341 $61.21 

Mining $497.41 272 $419.96 

Construction $604.27 6,746 $200.61 

Manufacturing $684.30 5,270 $258.51 

Transportation $478.04 4,115 $246.69 

Trade $583.29 16,584 $334.53 

Fire $594.89 6,100 $373.84 

Services $808.69 18,751 $469.00 

Government $360.44 11,404 $331.23 

Total $4,742.35 71,579 $2,695.62 

Source: Minnesota Implan Group 1994; Dornbusch & Company 2000. 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 is assumed to have effects on output, employment, and income in Shasta County similar to 

the No Action Alternative. Therefore, there would be no incremental effects on these elements under 

Alternative 1. 

Alternative 2 

Table 4.3-22 summarizes the contract year 25 (2029) sector-specific and total anticipated maximum 

incremental impacts on industrial output within Shasta County under Alternative 2. These impacts would 

result from the escalation of CVP M&I water rates as well as increased CVP agricultural water rates and 

acreage limitations and the associated changes in land use, farmer net income, and gross value of 

agricultural production. The table indicates that if Alternative 2 were implemented, the county’s total 

industrial output could decrease by as much as $3.3 million in 1991 dollars when compared to baseline 

No Action levels (less than 0.1 percent). The table also shows that the impacts on the county’s 

agricultural sector would be larger, at approximately negative 0.2 percent. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.3 Socioeconomics

Updated Draft EA for the 4.3-18 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

TABLE 4.3-22 

YEAR 2029 SHASTA COUNTY OUTPUT IMPACTS UNDER ALTERNATIVE 2 

(1991 COMPARATIVE BASIS) 

No Action Alternative Alternative 2 

Industrial Sector

Average Condition 

(Millions$) 

Incremental Change 

from No Action 

Maximum (Millions$) 

Incremental Change 

from No Action 

Maximum (%) 

Agriculture $131.01 -0.28 -0.21% 

Mining 497.41 -0.04 -0.01% 

Construction 604.27 -0.04 -0.01% 

Manufacturing 684.30 -0.59 -0.09% 

Transportation 478.04 -0.30 -0.06% 

Trade 583.29 -0.53 -0.09% 

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 594.89 -0.62 -0.10% 

Services 808.69 -0.81 -0.10% 

Government 360.44 -0.10 -0.03% 

Total $4,742.35 -3.31 -0.07% 

Sources: Minnesota Implan Group 1994, Dornbusch & Company 2000. 

Table 4.3-23 summarizes the contract year 25 (2029) sector-specific and total anticipated maximum 

incremental impacts on employment Shasta County under Alternative 2. The table indicates that the 

county’s agricultural employment could decrease by about 5 jobs, or 0.2 percent from baseline No Action 

levels under Alternative 2. Overall, the county economy could see a decrease of as many as 46 jobs if 

Alternative 2 is implemented. 

TABLE 4.3-23 

YEAR 2029 SHASTA COUNTY EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS UNDER ALTERNATIVE 2 

(1991 COMPARATIVE BASIS) 

No Action 

Alternative

Alternative 2 

Industrial Sector

Average Condition (FTE 

Jobs) 

Incremental Change 

from No Action 

Maximum (FTE 

Jobs) 

Incremental Change 

from No Action 

Maximum (%) 

Agriculture 2,341 -5.3 -0.23% 

Mining 272 0.0 0.00% 

Construction 6,746 -0.6 -0.01% 

Manufacturing 5,270 -2.4 -0.05% 

Transportation 4,115 -2.1 -0.05% 

Trade 16,584 -11.9 -0.07% 

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 6,100 -5.4 -0.09% 

Services 18,751 -17.9 -0.10% 

Government 11,404 -0.7 -0.01% 

Total 71,579 -46.3 -0.06% 

Source: Minnesota Implan Group 1994, Dornbusch & Company 2000. 

Table 4.3-24 summarizes the contract year 25 (2029) sector-specific and total anticipated maximum 

incremental impacts on income by POW within Shasta County under Alternative 2. The table indicates 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.3 Socioeconomics

February 2005 4.3-19 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

that the region’s income by POW could decrease by almost $1.9 million or 0.7 percent from baseline No 

Action levels under Alternative 2 (in 1991 dollar terms). 

TABLE 4.3-24 

YEAR 2029 IMPACTS ON SHASTA COUNTY INCOME BY PLACE OF WORK UNDER ALTERNATIVE 2 

(1991 COMPARATIVE BASIS) 

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 2

Industrial Sector 

Average Condition 

(Million$) 

Incremental Change 

from No Action 

Maximum 

(Million$) 

Incremental Change from 

No Action 

Maximum 

(%) 

Agriculture $61.21 -$0.19 -0.31% 

Mining 419.96 -0.03 -0.01% 

Construction 200.61 -0.01 0.00% 

Manufacturing 258.51 -0.22 -0.09% 

Transportation 246.69 -0.15 -0.06% 

Trade 334.53 -0.30 -0.09% 

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 373.84 -0.39 -0.10% 

Services 469.00 -0.47 -0.10% 

Government 331.23 -0.09 -0.03% 

Total $2,695.62 -$1.87 -0.07% 

Sources: Minnesota Implan Group 1994; Dornbusch & Company 2000. 

Table 4.3-25 summarizes the anticipated land use, water cost, and economic impacts of Alternative 1 for 

the Shasta and Trinity River Division Contractors. These impacts would have subsequent regional 

economic impacts within Shasta County, as presented in Tables 4.3-21 through 4.3-24 above. 

TABLE 4.3-25 

LAND USE, WATER COST, AND 

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS SUMMARY 

AVERAGE HYDROLOGIC CONDITION 

Incremental Change From No-Action 

Conditions 

Factor

No Action 

Alternative

Alternative 1 

Alternative 2 

Maximum Impact 

CVP M&I Water Cost ($000s) $1,100 No Change $1,769 

Irrigated Land Use (000s acres) 10.65 No Change (1.3) 

Gross Value of Production (Millions $) $6.53 No Change ($0.2) 

Net Value of Production (Millions $) N/A No Change ($0.2) 

Annual CVP M&I Water Use Affected by Contract 

Renewal (acre-feet) 30.22 No Change No Change 

Annual CVP M&I Water Use Affected by Contract 

Renewal (acre-feet) 19.1 No Change (10.8) 

Source: Dornbusch & Company 2000 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.4 Land Use

February 2005 4.4-1 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

4.4 LAND USE

4.4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

This characterization of the affected environment for land use is based on information provided in Shasta 

County Water Resources Master Plan Phase 1 Report – Current and Future Water Needs (October 1997). 

This analysis was prepared by SCWA in partnership with CH2M Hill. The California Department of 

Water Resources (DWR) provided land use information (collected in 1995) that is the basis for the 

acreages presented in this report. More than 90 percent of the Contractor service areas (i.e., boundaries of 

the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions) are included within the 260,000-acre Redding Groundwater 

Basin. Land use data are presented for the Redding Groundwater Basin as a whole (these data are not 

segregated by individual Contractors). Acreages reported for the Redding Groundwater Basin include 

areas that are outside the Contractor service areas and that have a higher percentage of farmland than the 

Contractor service areas, but are otherwise similar. 

 City of Redding Draft Background Report (July 1998). This analysis was prepared by the City of 

Redding and various consultants, and contains land use information for the sphere of influence 

considered by the City of Redding in updating its General Plan. 

 City of Redding Public Hearing Draft General Plan (March 2000), prepared by the City of 

Redding. 

 Shasta County General Plan, as amended through October 1998, prepared by the Shasta County 

Department of Resource Management. 

 City of Shasta Lake Existing Conditions Report (February 1999), prepared by the City of Shasta 

Lake. 

 Bella Vista Water District Water Conservation Plan (January 1995), prepared by the BVWD. 

Supplemental information provided by the district in informal correspondence (November 1999 

“Draft”) also was incorporated. 

 Clear Creek Community Services District Water Conservation Plan (November 1994), prepared 

by the CCCSD. Supplemental information provided by the district in informal correspondence 

(Water Conservation Plan Demand Analysis, Attachments 2 and B, dated March 19, 1999) also 

was incorporated. 

 City of Shasta Lake Water Conservation Plan (March 1994), prepared by the City of Shasta Lake. 

 City of Redding Water Conservation Plan (undated, assume 1994), prepared by the City of 

Redding. 

Existing Land Uses 

Existing land uses in Shasta County and the Redding Groundwater Basin are shown in Table 4.4-1. As 

shown, Shasta County encompasses approximately 2.5 million acres. Approximately 6 percent of the 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.4 Land Use

Final EA for the 4.4-2 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

county land base consists of water-using land. Approximately 2 two percent of the total land base is 

urban/rural urban (water-and non-water using combined). In the Redding Groundwater Basin, where 

development is more concentrated, approximately 21 percent is water-using land, and 18 percent is 

urban/rural urban (water- and non-water using combined). The remaining lands are non-water use lands 

that are in native vegetation or “idle” status. The predominant agricultural water use in both Shasta 

County and in the Redding Groundwater Basin is pasture irrigation. Non-water use areas are divided into 

three subcategories: native, idle, and rural urban non-irrigated (1 to 5 acres). 

TABLE 4.4-1 

SHASTA COUNTY AND REDDING GROUNDWATER BASIN LAND USES (ACRES) 

Category Shasta County Redding Basin

Water-Using Lands – Irrigated Agriculture 

Permanent Crops 

Grain Field Crops 

Pasture 

Truck 

Rice 

Rural Urban (1 to 5 acres) 

Total

2,960 

5,308 

48,998 

989 

2,941 

2,672 

63,868

2,487 

1,572 

16,187 

337 

0 

2,672 

23,255

Urban 

Urban 

Rural Urban Domestic (1 to 5 acres) 

Total

26,945 

5,375 

32,320

18,224 

4,632 

22,856

Commercial and Industrial 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Total

2,066 

3,556 

5,622

1,326 

2,844 

4,170

Recreation and Environmental 

Water Bodies 

Parks and Golf Courses 

Riparian Vegetation 

Total

43,051 

714 

5,467 

49,232

1,696 

490 

2,799 

4,985

Total Water Use Areas 151,042 55,266

Non-Water Use Lands 

Native 

Idle 

Rural Urban Non-Irrigated (1 to 5 acres)

2,277,486 

11,031 

27,777

178,836 

1,886 

23,571

Total Non-Water Use Areas 2,316,294 204,293

Gross Land Use Area 2,467,336 259,559

Countywide, approximately 0.2 percent of the land base is used for commercial and industrial purposes, 

0.2 percent is used for recreation and environmental purposes, and 3 percent is irrigated agriculture. The 

predominant water-using land use in Shasta County is agriculture. Ninety-three percent of the land base 

in Shasta County is classified as non-water use land. 

The Redding Groundwater Basin accounts for approximately 11 percent of the total Shasta County land 

base. About 2 percent of the Redding Groundwater Basin is commercial and industrial, approximately 

0.2 percent is used for recreation and environmental purposes, and nearly 3 percent is irrigated 

agriculture. Urban/rural urban development is proportionately the most significant land use in the 

Redding Groundwater Basin. Nearly 70 percent of the land base in the Redding Groundwater Basin is 

non-water using land.
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.4 Land Use

February 2005 4.4-3 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

Urban development is concentrated in the south central portion of the county in the cities of Redding, 

Anderson, and Shasta Lake. Approximately 84 percent of the populous of Shasta County resides in these 

communities (Shasta County General Plan 1998). All of these areas receive Shasta and Trinity River 

Project water supplies except Anderson. The City of Anderson is not affected by the scope of this 

document and is therefore not specifically addressed.

TABLE 4.4-2 

EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS 

CITY OF REDDING AND CITY OF SHASTA LAKE (Acres) 

Land Use Designation City of Redding* City of Shasta Lake

Residential 35,559 5,151

Retail 1,414 71

Service Commercial 1,143 NA

Highway Commercial 239 NA

Office 607 NA

Office Residential 168 NA

Commercial** NA 340

Industrial 4,484 848

Airport Service 1,215 NA

Mineral Resources NA 26

Park 1,342 128

Public Facility/Institution 1,895 178

Greenway 15,156 NA

Agriculture 631 NA

Federal Government NA 201

TOTAL 63,490 6,943

 Source: City of Redding Draft Background Report (1998); City of Shasta Lake 

 General Plan Existing Conditions Report (1999) 

 * Redding General Plan Area (not city limits) 

** City of Shasta Lake does not differentiate commercial acreage use. 

The BVWD encompasses 34,016 acres (53.2 square miles), with service provided to 4,776 connections. 

Of these connections, 534 receive water for agricultural use. Also of these 4,776 total connections, 4,608 

are serviced by meters that are suited to typical residential lots (i.e., 3/4-inch) or mid-sized acreage (i.e., 

1-5 acres). There were 30-full time farms operating in 1997. Water for agricultural use is delivered to 

6,151 acres of land. Of this total, 3,550 acres are irrigated (includes aquaculture). Most of the irrigated 

land is cropped to pasture (2,813 acres, 79 percent of total irrigated land). Grains, alfalfa and fruits 

account for 880 irrigated acres (25 percent of total irrigated land) (data inconsistency noted). 

During the last 10 to 12 years, there has been a general trend toward lower crop production and an 

increase in the acreage of irrigated pasture in the BVWD. The acreage planted in fruits and nuts has 

steadily declined, while oat, alfalfa, and nut production has been variable. The cumulative total water 

consumption by residential, commercial, and rural users (defined by the BVWD to be users that irrigate in 

larger than residential quantities of water, with the irrigated area typically being less than 2 acres, that 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.4 Land Use

Final EA for the 4.4-4 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

do not meet Federal requirements for agricultural water use) has increased from 16 percent of the total 

1988 consumption to 40 percent of the total 1997 consumption. 

During the period from 1988 to 1993, M&I water consumption in the BVWD increased by 

approximately 130 percent, from 2,261 acre-feet per year to 5,219 acre-feet per year. Agricultural 

water consumption during the same time period decreased by almost 60 percent, from 11,628 acrefeet per year to 6,652 acre-feet per year. In 1989, the number of M&I connections was 2,493, and in 

1993 there were 3,684 connections. This represents a 43 percent increase between 1989 and 1993. 

This shift in cropping pattern and water consumption away from agricultural uses and toward 

residential, commercial, and rural uses is attributable to urbanization of the westerly portion of the 

BVWD, which is within the sphere of influence of the city of Redding. 

The CCCSD encompasses 14,314 acres (22.4 square miles) with service provided to 2,498 

connections. Of these connections, 788 receive water for agricultural use, and 1,551 are connections 

that provide water for M&I use. Water for agricultural irrigation (including aquaculture) is delivered 

to approximately 4,470 acres (data for 1989, provided March 19, 1999). Most of the irrigated land is 

cropped to pasture (2,161 acres, 48 percent of total agricultural irrigated land). Other irrigated crops 

(e.g., deciduous orchards, alfalfa, firewood/Christmas trees, miscellaneous field crops, etc.) account 

for 2,309 irrigated acres (52 percent of total agricultural irrigated land). About 2,640 acres of land that 

is capable of receiving water for agricultural use was not under a crop rotation (i.e., was fallow) in 

1989. 

The City of Shasta Lake encompasses 7,024 acres (11 square miles) with service provided to 3,773 

connections. All of the service connections are for M&I uses, and there are no agricultural land uses 

within the Contractor service area. 

The City of Redding encompasses 59,044 acres, with service provided to 24,889 connections. The 

City delivers water obtained under the CVP contract throughout the “Buckeye zone” service area, 

which includes about 4,237 connections. Most of these connections are within the city limits 

(included within the above-referenced 22,704 connections city-wide), but a few of the connections 

that receive water under the CVP contract are outside the city limits. All of the City of Redding 

deliveries of CVP water are for M&I uses, although the City’s General Plan designates 631 acres as 

agriculture. 

Additional historical land and water usage data specific to other Contractors were not available, 

except as previously described. 

Projected Future Land Use 

The cities of Redding and Shasta Lake, and Shasta County have each adopted General Plans to guide 

future development and land uses within their respective spheres of influence. As indicated in each of 

the plans, projected population growth trends are expected to continue at approximately 1.5 percent to 

2.2 percent per year, based on historic and predicted conditions. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.4 Land Use

February 2005 4.4-5 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

The City of Redding projects a 21 percent increase in single- and multiple-family dwellings between 

the years 2000 and 2010, or 2.1 percent per year. The number of acres required to support housing 

development during these years is projected to increase by 21 percent, from 902 acres per year at 

present to 1,092 acres per year in 2010. 

The acreage of agricultural land use the CCCSD is projected to increase by 45 percent (from 7,110 

acres to 10,325 acres) during the period 1989 through 2026 (Water Conservation Plan Demand 

Analysis, Attachments 2 and B, dated March 19, 1999). Acreages for all crops except miscellaneous 

field crops and nursery/lettuce are anticipated to increase. Anticipated increases range from 10 

percent (alfalfa) to 300 percent (subtropical orchards). The acreage of irrigated pasture is anticipated 

to increase by 120 percent, from 2,161 acres (1989) to 4,500 acres (2025). During this period, the 

acreage of fallow land is projected to increase by 12 percent, from 2,640 acres to 2,950 acres. 

Additional projections of future land and water usage specific to other Contractors were not available, 

except as previously described. 

4.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

No Action Alternative

Because renewal of the long-term contracts would not involve the construction of any physical 

facilities and structures, the No Action Alternative would not have a direct effect on land use. 

Additionally, implementation of the No Action Alternative would not conflict with any adopted land 

use plan. The No Action Alternative would also not cause indirect effects on M&I land use. 

Indirect economic effects on agricultural land use could occur under the No Action Alternative due to 

rewording to provide water service to parcels that are less than or equal to 5 acres as M&I water instead 

of agricultural water. Under the rewording, Reclamation’s Contracting Officer would seek verification 

that the use is agricultural. Two Contractors in the Division are designated to receive CVP agricultural 

water (i.e., BVWD and CCCSD). If the use is determined to be agricultural on parcels less than or 

equal to 5 acres, there would be no indirect effect of the No Action Alternative. Indirect effects, such 

as reduced agricultural production, could occur if the 2- to 5-acre tracts are currently inappropriately 

designated as agricultural. 

In 1996, a total of 7,319 acres of land within the two districts that are designated for CVP agricultural 

water use were irrigated with CVP water: 3,388 acres in the BVWD and 3,931 acres in the CCCSD. 

Under the No Action Alternative for the BVWD, the irrigated acreage is assumed to increase to 5,960 

acres and 5,890 acres for the average and dry conditions, respectively. Under the No Action Alternative 

for the CCCSD, the irrigated acreage is assumed to increase to 4,690 acres and 4,640 acres for the 

average and dry conditions, respectively. (See also Table 4.3-17.) 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 is assumed to have direct and indirect effects on land use similar to those of the No 

Action Alternative. There would be no incremental environmental effects on land use under this 

alternative. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.4 Land Use

Final EA for the 4.4-6 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 is assumed to have direct effects on land use similar to those of the No Action Alternative. 

There would be no incremental direct environmental effects on land use under this alternative. 

Regarding indirect effects, implementation of Alternative 2 could cause a slight retraction of the regional 

economy and a consequent effect on M&I land use. A retraction of the regional economy would be 

expected to delay implementation or reduce the scale of land uses that rely on M&I water deliveries. 

Regional economic impacts would be small compared to the normal inter-year variation, so impacts on 

non-agricultural land uses are expected to be small. Otherwise, Alternative 2 is assumed to have indirect 

effects on M&I land use similar to those of the No Action Alternative. There are no other incremental 

indirect effects on M&I land use under this alternative. 

Under Alternative 2, indirect effects on agricultural land use due to rewording to provide water service to 

parcels that are less than or equal to 5 acres as M&I water instead of as irrigation water are assumed to be 

similar to those anticipated under the No Action Alternative. There would be no incremental indirect 

effects due to rewording under this alternative if 2 to 5 acre tracts now receiving agricultural rates are 

truly used for agriculture, as those tracts would continue to qualify for agricultural rates. 

Nonetheless, for Contractors that deliver agricultural water (i.e., BVWD and CCCSD), the increase in 

agricultural rates could cause fallowing of lands with implementation of Alternative 2 relative to the 

No Action Alternative. Almost all of the additional fallowed lands are projected to be taken out of 

pasture. The incremental acreages that may be fallowed in 2029 under Alternative 2 versus the No 

Action Alternative are presented for the BVWD (average and dry conditions) in Table 4.3-19. These 

projections are presented for the CCCSD in Table 4.3-20. 

As shown in Table 4.3-19, for the BVWD, implementation of Alternative 2, with its increases in 

agricultural rates, could result in increased fallowing (relative to the No Action Alternative) of about 

800 acres in 2029 under average conditions and could result in increased fallowing of about 1,160 acres 

under dry conditions. These values represent 13 percent and 20 percent reductions, respectively, in the 

irrigated acreages that are assumed to occur relative to the No Action Alternative under average and 

dry conditions. 

As shown in Table 4.3-20, for the CCCSD, implementation of Alternative 2, with its increases in 

agricultural rates, could result in increased fallowing (relative to the No Action Alternative) of about 

510 acres in 2029 under average conditions and could result in increased fallowing of about 740 acres 

under dry conditions. These values represent 11 percent and 16 percent reductions, respectively, in the 

irrigated acreages that are assumed to occur relative to the No Action Alternative under average and 

dry conditions. In other words, a shift from agricultural to M&I rates will have no effect if 2- to 5-acre 

parcels are really agricultural, but the increase in agricultural rates will have an effect. 

4.4.3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects to land use would occur in the form of increased fallowing. Almost all of the 

additional fallowed lands would be taken out of pasture. For the BVWD, about 1,160 additional acres 

could be fallowed in 2029 under dry conditions under Alternative 2 versus the No Action Alternative, as 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.4 Land Use

February 2005 4.4-7 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

shown in Table 4.3-19. For CCCSD, fallowing could occur on about 740 acres under dry conditions as 

shown in Table 4.3-20. Of the 38,998 acres of pasture in Shasta County, these fallowed areas represent 

less than 5 percent of pasture in Shasta County. Therefore, implementation of either Alternative 1 or 2 

would result in only minor changes to land use. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.5 Biological Resources

February 2005 4.5-1 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

4.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.5.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This characterization of the affected environment for biological resources is based on information 

provided in the Biological Assessment/Essential Fish Habitat Assessment for the Shasta and Trinity River 

Divisions Long-Term Contract Renewal (August 2003), including:

 California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of 

California. This comprehensive database maintained by the California Native Plant Society 

contains statewide sighting records of special-status plant species. 

 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database (Rarefind) Version 2.1.2c. 

(2003). This state-maintained database provides statewide sighting information for special-status 

wildlife species. 

 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of Endangered and Threatened Species That 

May Occur in or Be Affected by Projects in Shasta County (USFWS 2000a; Reference File No. 

00-SP-2414). This list was updated on June 27, 2003 (http://sacramento.fws.gov). 

 California Department of Fish and Game’s Endangered and Threatened Animals of California 

(CDFG 2002b) and State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of 

California (CDFG 2002a). These comprehensive statewide lists of special-status species were 

consulted to determine which species would potentially occur in Shasta County. 

 City of Redding Draft Background Report (July 1998). This analysis was prepared by the City of 

Redding and various consultants, and contains information regarding existing habitat 

classifications and special-status plant and wildlife species. 

 City of Shasta Lake General Plan Existing Conditions Report (February 1999). This analysis, 

prepared by Diaz Associates, provided information regarding existing habitat classifications and 

special-status plant and wildlife species. 

 Bella Vista Water District Water Conservation Plan (January 1995), prepared by the BVWD. 

The plan was reviewed for special-status plant and wildlife information. 

 City of Redding Water Conservation Plan (undated, assumed 1994), prepared by the City of 

Redding. The plan was reviewed for special-status plant and wildlife information. 

 City of Shasta Lake Water Conservation Plan (March 1994), prepared by the City of Shasta Lake. 

The plan was reviewed for special-status plant and wildlife information. 

 Clear Creek Community Services District Water Conservation Plan (November 1994), prepared 

by the CCCSD. The plan was reviewed for special-status plant and wildlife information. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.5 Biological Resources

Final EA for the 4.5-2 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

Habitat Types and Communities Within the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

The Redding Basin is a hydrologic subbasin of the Sacramento River Basin, as defined by the California 

Department of Water Resources (Shasta County Water Agency et al. 1997). More than 90 percent of the 

Study Area (i.e., within the boundaries of the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions) is included within the 

260,000-acre Redding Basin. The Redding Basin supports a diverse range of vegetation types and 

numerous wildlife species, and there are vegetation and wildlife resources that could be affected by the 

proposed contract renewals.

Eleven habitat types occur within the Study Area: 

 Annual grassland 

 Blue oak/grey pine 

 Blue oak woodland 

 Cropland 

 Lacustrine and other aquatic communities 

 Riparian 

 Ponderosa pine 

 Klamath mixed conifer 

 Sierran mixed conifer 

 Vernal pool 

 Urban 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.5 Biological Resources

February 2005 4.5-3 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

A description of each habitat type and associated wildlife species is provided in Table 4.5-1. 

Table 4.5-1 

Habitat Types and Communities Occurring within the 

Shasta and Trinity River Divisions

Habitat Type Characteristics

Annual Grassland 

(AGS) 

Annual grassland habitat consists of open grasslands composed primarily of introduced 

annual grasses. Vernal pools often occur as inclusions within this habitat type. 

Cropland is commonly cultivated within this habitat type. Annual grasslands are 

distributed throughout the study area, often interspersed among oak woodlands. The 

seed crops produced in this habitat type are crucial for insects, birds, and grain-eating 

mammals, as well as species that prey upon them. Predators include coyote (Canis 

latrans), grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), hawks, white-tailed kite (Elanus 

caeruleus), and owls. This habitat is capable of supporting burrowing owls (Athene 

cunicularia) and other denning mammals. This is a favored habitat for mule deer. 

Special-status species associated with annual grasslands include American peregrine 

falcon and Swainson’s hawk. 

Blue Oak/Grey Pine 

(BOP) 

This habitat is usually diverse in structure, with a mix of hardwoods, conifers, and 

shrubs. Within the project study area, the understory is primarily AGS. Blue oaks and 

grey pines dominate the overstory; blue oak is usually most abundant. Vernal pools 

often occur as inclusions in this habitat type. Cropland may be included within the AGS 

habitat component of this habitat type. The project area supports a combination of 

woodlands, including valley oak (Quercus lobata), blue oak (Q. douglasii), and blue 

oak/grey pine (Pinus sabiniana). Woodland types transition, as listed above, from 

valley floor to low foothills. Tree densities vary across the landscape. Woodland 

habitat is structurally complex and diverse, and important to a variety of wildlife 

species, particularly grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), mule deer (Odocoileus 

hemionus), bats, California quail (Callipepla californica), and woodpeckers. Specialstatus species associated with woodland habitat include American peregrine falcon, 

northern spotted owl, and Shasta salamander (Hydromantes shastae). 

Blue Oak Woodland 

(BOW)

Blue oak dominates this habitat type. Generally, these woodlands have an overstory of 

scattered trees, often forming open, savannah-like stands on dry ridges or gentle 

slopes. On certain sites, the canopy can be nearly closed. Vernal pools and annual 

grasslands commonly occur as inclusions within this habitat type. Cropland may be 

included within the AGS habitat component of this habitat type. Similar to BOP habitat, 

species common to blue oak woodlands include grey squirrel, mule deer, bats, 

California quail, and woodpeckers. Special-status species include American peregrine 

falcon and Shasta salamander. 

Cropland (CRP) Vegetation in this habitat type includes a variety of cultivated plants varying in size, 

shape, and growing patterns. Cropland habitats do not conform to normal habitat 

stages. Instead, cropland is regulated by the crop cycle in California. Cropland 

commonly occurs as an inclusion in AGS habitat, which in turn is commonly an 

inclusion in BOP and BOW habitats. These habitats may occur in association with 

irrigated pasture. Wildlife species that frequent agricultural areas vary with crop type 

and season, but may include red-winged blackbird ((Agelaius phoeniceus), American 

crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), black-tailed jack rabbit, California ground squirrel 

(Spermophilus beecheyi), burrowing owl, and various predators. 

Pasturelands are usually a mix of perennial grasses and legumes that normally provide 

100 percent cover. Pheasant, quail, and red-winged blackbirds commonly nest in 

pasture habitat, or in brushy or lightly wooded pasture margins. Listed species 

associated with these habitat types include bald eagle, Swainson’s hawk, and greater 

sandhill crane. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.5 Biological Resources

Final EA for the 4.5-4 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

Table 4.5-1 

Habitat Types and Communities Occurring within the 

Shasta and Trinity River Divisions

Habitat Type Characteristics

Lacustrine (LAC) and 

other aquatic 

communities 

Aquatic communities include rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds. These communities 

provide important wildlife habitat for waterfowl, osprey (Pandion haliaetus), bald eagle, 

belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), grebes, frogs, and northwestern pond turtles 

(Clemmys marmorata marmorata). Numerous species of insects reproduce and live in 

these communities, providing a significant prey base. Many predaceous birds and 

mammals forage in these communities and use river and stream corridors as 

travelways or for migration and dispersal. Special-status species associated with 

lacustrine and other aquatic habitats include bald eagle, American peregrine falcon, 

bank swallow, and California red-legged frog. 

Riparian (RIP) Riparian communities are found along watercourses in the area and are one of the 

most valuable habitats in California, providing food, cover, and nesting habitat, thermal 

refuge, and migration and dispersal corridors. Common associates include valley oak, 

California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii), 

willow (Salix sp.), and elderberry (Sambucus sp.). The study area has significant 

stands of Sacramento River riparian vegetation providing habitat for approximately 250 

species of wildlife. Statewide, only 5 percent of the historical acreage of river riparian 

vegetation remains. Mammals commonly found in riparian areas include ringtail 

(Basariscus astutus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and 

grey fox. Birds species found in riparian areas commonly include red-shouldered hawk 

(Buteo lineatus), wood duck (Aix sponsa), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), yellow 

warbler (Dendroica petechia), and black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax). 

Amphibians such as Pacific tree frogs (Pseudacris regilla) and bullfrogs (Rana 

catesbiana) are commonly abundant. Reptiles include Pacific gopher snake (Pituophis 

melanoleucus catenifer) and garter snakes (Thamnophis sp.) Listed species 

associated with valley foothill riparian habitat include bald eagle, American peregrine 

falcon, western yellow-billed cuckoo, California red-legged frog, and valley elderberry 

longhorn beetle.

Ponderosa Pine (PPN) At least 50% of a stand must be ponderosa pine to be classified ponderosa pine 

habitat. Within the project study area, the most common associated tree species 

include other conifers and various oak species. Shrubs such as manzanita and 

ceanothus, and various grasses and forbs are also common associates. Species 

commonly found in ponderosa pine habitat include mountain quail (Oreortyx pictus), 

sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), longeared owl (Asio otus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), western spotted skunk 

(Spilogale gracilis), and black bear (Ursus americanus). Listed species associated with 

ponderosa pine habitat include bald eagle and American peregrine falcon. 

Klamath mixed conifer 

(KMC) 

Stands of Klamath mixed conifer habitat are typically tall, dense to moderately open 

and consist of a mixture of conifers. Dominant conifers typically include white fir (Abies 

concolor), Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), and 

sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana). Dense forests have a very rich shrub layer, which can 

include Sierra laurel (Leucothoe davisiae), Sadler oak (Quercus sadleriana), dwarf rose 

(Rosa gymnocarpa), and western thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus). Species commonly 

found in Klamath mixed conifer habitat include mountain quail, sharp-shinned hawk, 

long-eared owl, western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), western gray squirrel, gray fox, 

and black bear. Listed species associated with Klamath mixed conifer habitat include 

northern spotted owl, American peregrine falcon, and California wolverine (Gulo gulo). 

Sierran mixed conifer 

(SMC) 

The Sierran mixed conifer habitat is an assemblage of conifer and hardwood species 

that form closed, multilayered canopies with nearly 100 percent overlapping cover. 

Dominant species include white fir, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, sugar pine, incensecedar, and California black oak. Deerbrush (Ceanothus integerrimus), manzanita, 

chinquapin (Chrysolepis chrysophylla), bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata), gooseberry 

(Ribes amarum), and mountain misery (Chamaebatia foliosa) are common shrub 

species. Listed species that inhabit Sierran mixed conifer habitat include northern 

spotted owl and bald eagle. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.5 Biological Resources

February 2005 4.5-5 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

Table 4.5-1 

Habitat Types and Communities Occurring within the 

Shasta and Trinity River Divisions

Habitat Type Characteristics

Vernal pool (VP) Vernal pools are seasonally wet areas where water temporarily ponds due to an 

underlying impervious rock or clay layer. This habitat type typically occurs as an 

inclusion in other habitats, most commonly within AGS or CRP habitat. These two 

habitat types commonly occur within BOP or BOW habitat in the project study area. 

Vernal pools support species such as the western spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus 

hammondii), and various frog species. Special-status species associated with vernal 

pool habitat include greater sandhill crane, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, vernal pool fairy 

shrimp, Greene’s tuctoria, Slender Orcutt grass, and Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop.

Urban (URB) Urban habitat includes five types of vegetative structure: tree grove, street strip, shade 

tree/lawn, lawn, and shrub cover. A distinguishing feature of urban habitat is the 

mixture of native and exotic species. Both native and exotic species are valuable, with 

exotic species providing a good source for additional food in the form of fruits and 

berries. In the project area, urban habitat may have supplanted any of the habitats 

listed above. Urban vegetation is frequented by more disturbance-tolerant species 

such as northern mockingbird (Minus polyglottos) American robin (Turdus migratorius), 

European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), California ground squirrel, Pacific tree frog, 

opossum ((Didelphis virginiana), and western toad (Bufo boreas). 

Source: North State Resources 2003 

Special-Status Species 

Special-status species are defined in this EA to include Federally and state-listed threatened or 

endangered species, species proposed for Federal listing as threatened or endangered, and Federal 

candidate species. 

On June 27, 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provided an updated list of Endangered 

and Threatened Species That May Occur in or Be Affected by Projects in Shasta County (USFWS 2000a; 

Reference file No. 00-SP-2414) (Appendix D). A total of 13 Federal special-status wildlife and plant 

species and critical habitats for 17 species were identified. 

Search results from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) California Natural Diversity 

Database (CDFG 2003), and the CDFG list of Endangered and Threatened Animals of California (CDFG 

2002) resulted in the inclusion of seven California special-status plant and wildlife species that could 

potentially occur in the portions of Shasta County covered by this EA. Query results from the California 

Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants (Skinner and 

Pavlick 1994) resulted in the inclusion of two California special-status plant species that could potentially 

occur in the Shasta County study area. 

Appendix D lists the state and Federally listed species and critical habitats that could occur in Shasta 

County and that are considered in the analysis in this EA. The general habitat association for each species 

is also included in the appendix. 

District water conservation plans have been prepared by the BVWD (January 1995), CCCSD (November 

1994), City of Redding (undated, assume 1994), and City of Shasta Lake (March 1994). The district water 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.5 Biological Resources

Final EA for the 4.5-6 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

conservation plans were reviewed to ensure that listed plant and wildlife species identified by the districts 

were included in this analysis. The following species do not require further consideration in this EA for 

the reasons specified below: 

Western yellow-billed cuckoo – The western yellow-billed cuckoo was historically common throughout 

the Central Valley and other lowland areas. It is now uncommon to rare in scattered locations throughout 

California (Zeiner and Laudenslayer et al. 1990). There are no recently reported observations of the 

western yellow-billed cuckoo in the project study area.

California red-legged frog – The historic range of the California red-legged frog extended into the 

Redding Basin, but the frog is believed to be locally extirpated. There have been no reported 

observations in the project area since 1925 (Jennings and Hayes 1994). 

Shasta crayfish – the Shasta crayfish occurs only in streams in the Pit River, Fall River, and Hat Creek 

drainages. There are no known sightings of the Shasta crayfish in the project study area. 

According to CFDG literature, there are no identified deer migration corridors, fall holding areas, fawning 

grounds, or critical winter range within the study area (Shasta County DRM 1998). However, deer are 

known to use all of the habitats described above. 

4.5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The incremental and cumulative effects of Alternatives 1 and 2 on biological resources are compared to 

the No Action Alternative. 

No Action Alternative 

Because renewal of the long-term contracts would not involve the construction of any physical facilities 

and structures, implementation of the No Action Alternative would not have direct effects on biological 

resources. 

In Shasta County, long-term contract renewal would not be the sole or primary factor influencing changes 

to biological resources. Counties and cities can encourage or discourage changes to biological 

resources/habitats by approving or conditioning subdivisions and industrial developments within their 

jurisdictions. When a city or the County approves land use changes in a General Plan or specific plan, 

effects on biological resources and other resources must be addressed under the California Environmental 

Quality Act. These decisions occur independently of Reclamation’s authorities and responsibilities. 

Similarly, a farmer who elects to cultivate one crop over another, or to fallow a parcel of land, may do so 

without Reclamation approval. However, Reclamation is required to analyze biological effects under the 

National Environmental Policy Act when Reclamation approves an expansion or a reduction of the 

service area boundary, or directs a change in water use or development. 

Renewal of the long term contracts under the No Action Alternative is unlikely to result in incremental 

indirect effects to biological resources and habitats on parcels receiving M&I water. However, indirect 

effects on biological resources could occur in the two districts that are designated for CVP agricultural 

water use: BVWD and CCCSD. Under the No Action Alternative, contracts would increase the 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.5 Biological Resources

February 2005 4.5-7 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

minimum parcel size eligible to receive water at the lower irrigation rates; parcels less than or equal to 5 

acres would receive water at M&I rates (not agricultural rates) unless Reclamation is satisfied that the 

water use is for commercial agricultural purposes. All water currently deemed commercial agricultural 

irrigation is expected to qualify as agricultural water under the No Action Alternative. 

In 1996, a total of 7,319 acres within the BVWD and the CCCSD were designated for CVP agricultural 

water use and were irrigated with CVP water: 3,388 acres in the BVWD and 3,931 acres in the CCCSD. 

Under the No Action Alternative (2029 projection) for the BVWD, the irrigated acreage is assumed to 

increase to 5,960 acres and 5,890 acres for the average and dry conditions, respectively, per the 

predictions of the districts. Under the No Action Alternative (2029 projection) for the CCCSD, the 

irrigated acreage is assumed to increase to 4,690 acres and 4,640 acres for the average and dry conditions, 

respectively. (See also Table 4.3-17.) This indirect effect may have a beneficial or adverse effect on 

biological resources, depending on the specific parcels, habitats, and species under consideration. 

Reclamation is consulting with fish and wildlife agencies (Federal and state) regarding this indirect effect. 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 is assumed to have direct and indirect effects on biological resources similar to those of the 

No Action Alternative. Land use changes are anticipated over the next 25 years. However, the effects of 

Alternative 1 on agricultural water costs and associated land and water use are expected to be the same as 

the No Action Alternative. There would be no incremental direct or indirect environmental effects on 

biological resources under this alternative.

Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 is assumed to have direct effects on biological resources similar to those of the No Action 

Alternative. There would be no incremental direct environmental effects on land use under this 

alternative. 

Regarding indirect effects, Alternative 2 could cause a slight retraction of the regional economy and a 

consequent effect on M&I land use. A retraction of the regional economy would be expected to delay 

implementation of or reduce the scale of land uses that rely on M&I water deliveries, which is assumed to 

be a beneficial effect on biological resources. Regional economic impacts are expected to be small 

compared to the normal inter-year variation, so the beneficial effects on biological resources are expected 

to be small. Otherwise, Alternative 2 is assumed to have indirect effects on biological resources occurring 

on lands receiving M&I water similar the No Action Alternative. There are no other incremental indirect 

effects on biological resources occurring on lands receiving M&I water under this alternative. 

Under Alternative 2, indirect effects to biological resources may occur on agricultural parcels due to 

redefining the parcel size eligible to receive water at the lower irrigation rate. Indirect effects are 

expected to be similar to those anticipated under the No Action Alternative. There are no incremental 

indirect effects due to rewording under this alternative. 

For Contractors that deliver agricultural water (i.e., BVWD and CCCSD), substantial fallowing of lands 

may occur with implementation of Alternative 2 relative to the No Action Alternative. Almost all of the 

additional fallowed lands are projected to be taken out of pasture. The incremental acreage that may be 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.5 Biological Resources

Final EA for the 4.5-8 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

fallowed in 2029 under Alternative 2 versus the No Action Alternative are presented for the BVWD 

(average and dry conditions) in Table 4.3-19. These projections are presented for the CCCSD in Table 

4.3-20. 

As shown in Table 4.3-19, for the BVWD, implementation of Alternative 2 could result in increased 

fallowing (relative to the No Action Alternative) of about 800 acres in 2029 under average conditions and 

could result in increased fallowing of about 1,160 acres under dry conditions. These values represent 13 

percent and 20 percent reductions, respectively, in the irrigated acreages that are assumed to occur under 

the No Action Alternative in average and dry conditions. 

As shown in Table 4.3-20, for the CCCSD, implementation of Alternative 2 could result in increased 

fallowing (relative to the No Action Alternative) of about 510 acres in 2029 under average conditions and 

could result in increased fallowing of about 740 acres under dry conditions. These values represent 11 

percent and 16 percent reductions, respectively, in the irrigated acreages that are assumed to occur under 

the No Action Alternative in average and dry conditions. Relative to the entire Trinity River Division, 

this reduction in irrigated acreage is considered a minor effect. 

Increased fallowing may have variable indirect effects on biological resources. These indirect effects may 

be beneficial or adverse, depending on the specific parcels, habitats, and species under consideration. 

Because of the inability to predict where the impacts of the proposed action will occur and the complexity 

of habitat use patterns by various wildlife species, only a limited number of general predictions can be 

made regarding the indirect effects of the increased acreage threshold (from 2 to 5 acres): 

 In general, decreased irrigation of personal orchards/agricultural plots between 2 and 5 acres in 

size could indirectly benefit special status-species if the changes to land use result in improved 

water quality of run-off entering vernal features, drainages, streams, and rivers. Beneficial 

impacts to Federally listed, proposed, and candidate species could also occur if newly nonirrigated lands were allowed to remain in their natural condition or allowed to lie fallow. 

 Decreased irrigation of certain parcels could result in slightly less water entering drainages and 

intermittent/perennial streams in summer months, which could adversely affect species such as 

Central Valley steelhead or spring-run chinook salmon that rely on Central Valley rivers and 

tributaries for a portion of their life cycle, but the effect is expected to be small since this run-off 

increment may be too warm to be very useful to salmon species. 

 Increased subdivision of parcels resulting from the potential increased cost of CVP water could 

result in increased development and loss of habitat and subsequent impacts to Federally listed, 

proposed, or candidate species occupying those habitats. In addition, urban and other developed 

habitats generally receive high levels of human use, which disturb native species and restrict their 

use of the area (Reclamation 1997). However, if the change is from commercial pasture to 

recreational pasture for pet horses, the effects would be negligible. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.5 Biological Resources

February 2005 4.5-9 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

Such potential land use actions will require separate determinations regarding potential effects on 

threatened and endangered species and critical habitat pursuant to Section 7 and/or Section 10 of the 

ESA. 

Conversions from agricultural to M&I land use would not be caused by the terms of the renewal contract, 

nor by actions of the Contractors that have no land use planning jurisdiction. Instead, such changes will 

be the result of land use planning decisions of local regulating authorities. Any impacts or “take” 

associated with such changes would typically be the responsibility of the local CEQA lead agency.

4.5.3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Alternatives 1 and 2 would not result in any cumulative direct effects to biological resources because 

there would be no infrastructure changes or physical disturbances due to changes in water purchasing by a 

water Contractor. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.6 Environmental Justice

February 2005 4.6-1 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

4.6 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

As mandated by Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” published February 11, 1994, this document 

addresses potential environmental justice concerns related to the long-term renewal of water contracts 

between Reclamation and the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions’ Contractors. The Executive Order 

requires federal agencies to identify and address any disproportionately high and adverse human health 

or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income 

populations. 

In August 1994, the Secretary of the Interior issued an environmental justice policy statement directing 

departmental action, resulting in Interior’s Strategic Plan for Environmental Justice. Reclamation’s 

decision-making process includes public involvement, Indian trust assets consultation, and coordination 

with potentially affected members of the public. 

Renewal of the long-term water service contracts is not expected to disproportionately affect minority 

populations or low-income populations. Minority populations constitute about 10 percent of the 

population of Shasta County (California Department of Finance 2000), and are mainly in urban centers, 

which are less sensitive to price changes than agricultural users. Additionally, the proposed contract 

terms and provisions would not involve the construction of new facilities, cause the relocation of any 

populations, result in any known health hazards, cause the generation of any hazardous wastes, result in 

any property takings, or generate any substantial economic impacts. 

The proposed long-term water service contract renewals would not have an adverse effect on human 

health or the environment, as defined by environmental justice policies and directives. Rather, renewal 

of the contracts would provide a long-term water supply that would meet the projected water demand 

and need, which have been previously been documented in the Shasta County General Plan and the 

general plans of affected cities. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.7 Indian Trust Assets

February 2005 4.7-1 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

4.7 INDIAN TRUST ASSETS 

4.7.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Indian trust assets are legal interests in property that are held in trust by the U.S. Government for Indian 

tribes or individuals. The Secretary of the Interior is the trustee for the United States on behalf of 

recognized Indian tribes. Examples of Trust assets are lands, minerals, hunting and fishing rights, and 

water rights. 

Reclamation shares the responsibility to protect and maintain Indian Trust assets reserved by or granted 

to Indian Tribes or Indian individuals by treaty, statute, or Executive Order. Reclamation carries out its 

activities in a manner that protects trust assets and avoids impacts, where possible. Where not possible, 

compensation or mitigation is provided in consultation with affected Tribes. 

There are no known federally recognized Indian trust assets within the contract service areas of the 

Shasta and Trinity River Divisions that would be affected, other than the Redding Rancheria, which 

receives M&I water from the City of Redding. The Redding Rancheria is located outside of the 

Buckeye Contract service area. 

4.7.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

No Action Alternative 

There would be no environmental effects to Indian trust assets under the No Action Alternative.

Alternative 1 

There would be no environmental effects to Indian trust assets under Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 

There would be no environmental effects to Indian trust assets under Alternative 2. Effects to the 

Redding Rancheria would be the same as those experienced by residents of the City of Redding. 

4.7.3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Implementation of Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would not affect Indian Trust assets and would 

therefore not contribute to cumulative effects to those assets 

.
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.8 Cultural Resources

February 2005 4.8-1 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

4.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

This section describes the cultural resources in the area of the 10 water service Contractors in the Shasta 

and Trinity River Divisions. The service area boundaries of these Contractors fall within one of the 

following: an unincorporated area of Shasta County, the limits of the City of Redding, or the limits of the 

City of Shasta Lake. 

4.8.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Prehistory 

A paper presented by Elaine Sundahl (1992) provides the best existing overview of the prehistoric period 

within the study area. Although the field work completed and reported by Sundahl in this paper is more 

wide ranging, the paper accurately describes the prehistoric record within the study area. 

The earliest defensibly dated cultural evidence from the region adjoining the study area comes from 

archaeological site CA-SHA-475 on the Squaw Creek drainage of Shasta Lake. Radiocarbon dates from 

the lowest stratum indicate human use dating between 6,530 and 7,580 years ago (Sundahl, 1992:99). 

Material in this layer represent the Borax Lake Pattern as described by Fredrickson (1973). This cultural 

tradition is also described in general texts (Chartkoff & Chartkoff, 1984:109; Moratto, 1984:82) as 

containing relatively large widestem points typically fashioned from Grasshopper Flat/Lost Iron Wells 

obsidian or local silicate materials and unshaped milling tools. This period, lasting until about 5,000 

years ago, was likely typified by a foraging economy based on extensive hunting and the collection of 

native plants, especially hard seeds. This pattern is thought to be linked to Hokan-speaking people, quite 

possibly the ancestors of the Yana. 

During the period between approximately 5,000 and 3,000 years ago, the tool kit of aboriginal inhabitants 

changed. This later pattern is termed the Squaw Creek Pattern, again based on Sundahl’s work north of 

Shasta Lake. Contracting stem points, uniface points, and leaf-shaped points appear. These projectile 

points increasingly are made from Tuscan Source obsidian. Milling tools are evidenced by the addition of 

mortars and pestles. Hand stones (manos) used on mill stones (metates) are often extensively shaped in 

contrast to the earlier pattern. The use of mortars suggests an increased reliance on acorns and, perhaps, 

other softer foods. Evidence of this pattern is more widespread, which could be a factor of preservation 

or increasing human use. 

The period between approximately 3,000 and 1,700 years ago is termed the Whiskeytown Pattern by 

Sundahl. It is typified by “...large and medium-sized corner-notched and side-notched points, manos, 

millingstones, and notched-pebble net weights” (Sundahl, 1992:103). Many sites in the Redding vicinity 

include clear evidence of this pattern. Although the foraging tradition of earlier patterns continued, an 

increased reliance on riverine resources is suggested by the location of the sites and the inclusion of the 

net weights. 

The last period has long been described as the Shasta Complex (Meighan, 1955). However, Sundahl 

(1992:104) follows Fredrickson by terming this well-known period as the Augustine Pattern. During the 

last 1,500 years or so, the aboriginal inhabitants diversified and specialized in the exploitation of natural 

resources. Smaller barbed projectile points and shaft smoothers mark the appearance and increased use of 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.8 Cultural Resources

Final EA for the 4.8-2 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

the bow and arrow. Specialization led to increased sedentism with relatively large seasonal encampments 

along the major streams and, especially, at their confluences within the study area. Bone fishing 

implements and the appearance of substantial quantities of shell and fish bone suggest a riverine-based 

economy. This cultural pattern is related to the appearance of Penutian speaking people from the 

Columbia Plateau. These people are assumed to be the ancestors of the modern Wintu. 

Ethnography 

Prior to appearance of Euro-American explorers and settlers, the study area was populated by the Wintu 

and Yana. The Wintu occupied all of the study area except the Cow Creek drainage, which fell on the 

northwestern edge of the Yana (Johnson, 1978:361). The Yana spoke a Hokan dialect (Shipley, 1978:86) 

whereas the Wintu spoke a Penutian language (Shipley, 1978:82,83). These languages were from 

different linguistic families. 

In addition to the vast language differences, the two peoples occupied somewhat different environments. 

The Wintu appear to have spread rapidly and to have controlled the Sacramento River corridor and many 

of its most productive tributaries. The Yana were relegated to the eastern foothills and stream corridors of 

the southern Cascade. 

The material culture and lifestyles of the two groups were, however, quite similar (DuBois, 1935; 

Johnson, 1978; LaPena, 1978; Sundahl, 1992:90). They both constructed semipermanent or permanent 

villages on the terraces above main stream corridors and emphasized the use of fish (especially salmon), 

shellfish, acorns, and other native plant foods. These staples were processed to provide food during the 

winter and other lean periods. Reliance on a variety of foods lessened the possibility of famine resulting 

from the failure of one or more food sources. Hunting augmented the staples of the diet (Sundahl, 

1992:90). Skins acquired through the hunting or snaring of animals were processed and used for a 

variety of items, especially clothing. Housing consisted of conical, semi-subterranean family residences. 

These small structures (approximately 10 feet in diameter) often were located near a larger communal 

structure that was used variously as a residence and for ceremonies (LaPena, 1978:325,326; Johnson, 

1978:367). The size of these communal structures appears to have increased through time. 

History 

The history of the greater Redding area revolves around mining, ranching, farming, lumbering, 

transportation, and tourism. The relative importance of these economic pursuits varied by place and time. 

However, they continue to play some role within the economy of the study area even today. Therefore, 

the following discussion is organized chronologically, with a brief discussion of the relative importance 

of these or other significant activities as derived from Petersen (1965). 

Although the renowned trapper Jedediah Strong Smith is generally credited with the earliest (1828) EuroAmerican exploration through Shasta County, his party crossed only the far southwestern corner of Shasta 

County, well away from the study area. Other trappers crossed the area in hopes of claiming furs and 

land for Britain or the United States. These forays were upsetting to the Mexican government, which, 

although it had no presence within the study area during this early period, claimed sovereignty. 

Alexander McLeod (1929 1829), Peter Ogden (1830), and John Work (1832) all represented the interests 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.8 Cultural Resources

February 2005 4.8-3 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

of the Hudson Bay Company. Ewing Young was the first American (1832) known to actually cross the 

study area. 

In response to these activities, the Mexican government pressed their sovereignty within the Sacramento 

Valley by providing land grants to Mexican citizens. Many of these citizens were American or European 

settlers. The most significant of these new land claimants within the study area was Pierson B. Reading, 

who was granted the 26,633-acre Buena Ventura land grant in 1844. The grant stretched along the west 

side of the Sacramento River from Salt Creek in the north to Cottonwood Creek in the south. Although 

his permanent abode and successful farming operation were located between the lower reaches of 

Anderson and Cottonwood Creeks, his actions would have significant effects on developments within and 

adjoining the study area. 

Reading played a major role in the Bear Flag Revolt of 1846, which paved the way for American claims 

to California and the Mexican-American War of 1846-1847. Subsequent to the Mexican cession of 

California to the United States of America, gold was discovered in 1848 at Sutter’s Mill, leading to the 

California gold rush. Pierson B. Reading was soon involved in the frenzy. He led parties to the second 

gold strike in California at Reading Bar on Clear Creek, which adjoins the study area, as well as to other 

discoveries of gold at Reading Bar on the Trinity River and Reading Springs (Old Shasta). These 

discoveries were the major impetus for the claiming, settlement, and subsequent development of Shasta 

and Trinity Counties. Within the study area, placer mining and, eventually, hard rock mining fueled the 

economy. Although mining activities did not occur in the eastern portion of the study area, ranching and 

farming activities were undertaken to support and profit from the mining communities. Mining flourished 

throughout the 1850s and 1860s, with individual operations giving way to corporate undertakings. 

In 1872, the Central Pacific Railroad reached the new settlement of Redding, which was named after the 

railroad land agent B. B. Redding. Redding served as the railroad’s terminus until 1883, when the route 

was pushed northward along the Sacramento River canyon. The quick development of Redding led to the 

demise of Shasta, which served as the county seat from 1851 until 1888. With local mining revenues 

gone, Shasta soon became a town “gone bust.” Large hydraulic mining operations, including those within 

the study area, ceased in compliance with State law in 1884. Citizens residing in the study area 

increasingly depended on farming, ranching, and the railroad as the underpinnings of the economy. 

Happy Valley was the only irrigated area in the early 1880s. Produce grown as a result of this irrigation 

led to the Valley’s settlement and development. Although other areas did not yet benefit from sizeable 

irrigation projects, extensive agriculture, livestock grazing, dairying, and manufacturing continued to 

support a growing population. 

In the latter part of the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth centuries, large-scale mining returned with 

the extraction and smelting of copper from a belt running from Keswick upstream along the Sacramento 

and Pit Rivers to Bully Hill outside of the study area. By the conclusion of World War I, this industry had 

dwindled. The smelting activities laid ruin to a vast acreage of vegetation, including fruit trees as far away 

as Happy Valley and Anderson. Local manufacturing (e.g., Terry Lumber Company in Bella Vista and 

gold dredging along Clear Creek) profited during this copper heyday. All of these undertakings were made 

possible by the railroad. The study area headed into an economic decline during the 1920s and 1930s after 

the bust of the copper industry. Redding even lost population during this period. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.8 Cultural Resources

Final EA for the 4.8-4 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

With the construction of Shasta Dam in the late 1930s and early 1940s, the economy and population 

began an upward trend. Lumber mills were built within and, especially, south of the City of Redding 

following World War II to support development in California. Sand and gravel mining supplanted ore 

extraction within the study area. The completion of State Highway 99 in the 1920s augmented the 

shipping and transportation services of the railroad. With the proliferation of the automobile, the area 

became a destination for tourism and recreation. 

Identified Cultural Resources 

Table 4.8-1 lists the cultural resources identified within or adjacent to the service area boundaries of the 

Shasta and Trinity River Divisions. 

TABLE 4.8-1 

CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE SHASTA AND TRINITY RIVER DIVISIONS AREA1

Name of Cultural Resource General Location Theme2

Bass Hill North of Redding EX/SE 

Bells Bridge Highway 99, Clear Creek EX/SE 

Benton Tract Site* Redding CULT 

Briggsville Clear Creek Road EC/IN 

California-Oregon Road Anderson EX/SE 

Clear Creek Redding EC/IN 

Cow Creek Petroglyphs ** CULT 

Horse Town Clear Creek Road EC/IN 

Millville Old 44 Drive EC/IN 

Old City Hall* Redding SO/ED 

Olsen Petroglyphs ** CULT 

Pine Street School* Redding SO/ED 

Pioneer Baby’s Grave West of Shasta EX/SE 

Ried Mine in Old Diggins Summit City EC/IN 

Shasta State Historic Park Highway 299, west of Redding EC/IN 

Shasta 47 Sacramento River - Redding CULT 

Texas Springs Texas Springs Road EC/IN 

Source: State of California Department of Parks and Recreation

1

 The heritage resources listed here include resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Historical 

landmarks series, or the California Points of Interest program. In addition to the resources listed, there are approximately 500 

known sites or areas of archaeological significance. The names and locations of these areas are not revealed in order to protect 

these sensitive resources. This information is on file with the Cultural Resources Section of the California Department of Parks and 

Recreation.

2 Theme Code: 

 ARCH Architecture EX/SE Exploration/Settlement MIL Military 

 CULT Cultural (Aboriginal) EC/IN Economic/Industrial REL Religion 

 SO/ED Social/Education 

 * National Register of Historic Places site 

** Information regarding the location of these resources is on file with the Cultural Resources Section of the California of Parks and 

Recreation 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.8 Cultural Resources

February 2005 4.8-5 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

4.8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would introduce no new facilities, no new construction activities, or no direct 

effects to the physical environment, and would therefore not result in any direct effects to cultural 

resources. Indirect effects to cultural resources due to planned growth and development within the 

unincorporated portions of Shasta County or within the City of Redding (Buckeye area) or City of Shasta 

Lake would be expected to occur over the next 25 years. Generally, such changes in land use are 

predicted to occur throughout Shasta County, independent of the long-term contract renewals, as the area 

transitions from a rural economy to a more suburban economy. 

Under the No Action Alternative, indirect impacts could occur if property owners elect to change the use 

of their lands from agricultural uses to suburban or urban uses, or from suburban uses to agricultural uses. 

These changes in land use could affect both known and undiscovered cultural resources. Where sensitive 

cultural resources occur, both Federal and state jurisdictions provide programs to protect sensitive cultural 

resources. 

For non-Federal actions, such as changes to a county or city general plan or the approval of a use permit, 

a lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would be the responsible decision 

maker, and impacts on cultural resources would be evaluated pursuant to CEQA. If a Federal action is 

proposed, such as changes to the CVP service area boundary, a Federal lead agency would be responsible 

for compliance under NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Alternative 1 

Under Alternative 1, CVP operations and facilities would not be altered and impacts are expected to be 

identical to the No Action Alternative. Therefore, no incremental environmental effects from this 

alternative are expected. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, effects to cultural resources would be the same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Therefore, no incremental environmental effects from this alternative are expected. 

4.8.3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Demographic, economic, political, and other factors, independent of implementation of Alternatives 1 or 

2, are causing changes with direct and indirect effects to cultural resources that are beyond the range of 

Reclamation’s Section 106 responsibilities. The effects of Alternatives 1 and 2 on cultural resources are 

expected to be the same as the likely effects of the No Action Alternative. Therefore, the incremental 

effects to cultural resources due to the approval and conditions of the long-term contract renewal change 

between the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2 is expected to be minor. The proposed 

action (approval of long -term contract renewals) is not expected to contribute to cumulative impacts to 

cultural resources. 
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.9 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

February 2005 4.9-1 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

4.9 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

NEPA Section 102(C)(v) requires federal agencies to consider to the fullest extent possible any 

irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action 

should it be implemented. The proposed action is the renewal of existing contracts and does not 

involve construction or the use of resources except water. There is no other commitment of 

nonrenewable resources, and the proposed action does not commit future generations to permanent use 

of natural resources.
4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Environmental Commitments 

4.10 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity

February 2005 4.10-1 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

4.10 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND 

MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

NEPA Section 102(c)(iv) requires all federal agencies to disclose the relationship between local shortterm uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. 

These water delivery contracts are temporary (25 or 40 years), yet result in long-term benefits to the 

human environment in the Central Valley. Long-term productivity would be enhanced through the 

water supply that sustains agricultural economics, social benefits, and the long-term productivity of 

urban and rural populations by providing CVP water.
February 2005 5-1 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

CHAPTER 5 

OTHER ACTIVITIES 

5.1 INTRODUCTION 

Other activities that may have a relationship to the 10 water service Contractors in the Shasta and Trinity 

Divisions include the actions described below. 

 Implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan 

 Completion of water transfer actions 

 Completion of the Conformed Place of Use EIR for CVP Water Supplies 

 Recommendations for increased instream flows in the Trinity River 

 Implementation of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study 

 Changes in Federal farm programs 

 Changes in demand for agricultural products 

 Implementation of Yield Increase Plan 

 Additional listings of special-status species 

A summary of the potential effects of these actions and how they may influence the effects of 

implementing the alternatives considered in this EA is presented in Table 5-1. 

TABLE 5-1 

SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Action Potential Results

Implementation of the BayDelta Plan AccordChanges in Delta inflow and associated instream releases. 

Improved water supply reliability through the water quality 

improvement programs and potential development of groundwater 

and/or above ground storage and/or conveyance facilities

Water Transfer Actions Water transfers for both CVP and non-CVP water transfers

Place of Use EIR for CVP 

Water Supplies

Permitting of CVP water service areas currently served with CVP 

water but outside of authorized Place of Use

Trinity River Studies Changes in instream flow requirements for Trinity River
5. Other Activities 

Final EA for the 5-2 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

TABLE 5-1 

SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Action Potential Results

CVP Operations and 

Maintenance Agreements

Transfer of operations and maintenance responsibilities to local water 

user groups under the CVP

Sacramento Water Forum 

Proposal Changes in water demands and flow requirements on American River

Changes in Federal Farm 

Programs

If lands fallowed or retired due to CVP pricing actions continue to 

accumulate support payments, the net revenue to farmers may 

increase and the revenue to the Federal Treasury may not increase.

Changes in Demand for 

Agricultural Products

If changes in demand increase crop value, farmers would be less 

willing to sell water. If changes in demand decrease crop value, 

farmers would be more willing to sell water.

Yield Increase Plan Development of facilities and programs to increase CVP water 

supplies could reduce impact of shortages.

Future Listings under ESA of 

Special-Status Species

Initiation of consultation with the Service and National Marine 

Fisheries Service

5.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF BAY-DELTA PLAN 

As a follow-up to adoption of the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco/Sacramento-San 

Joaquin Delta Estuary, the SWRCB is evaluating alternatives for implementing that plan. The process 

includes the SWRCB water rights process and the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 

5.3 SWRCB WATER RIGHTS 

The purpose of the SWRCB water rights process for Delta water quality and quantity is to develop a 

methodology to provide adequate flows to meet the Bay-Delta Plan Accord. The SWRCB process is 

evaluating several alternatives that would require different agencies, including the CVP and SWP, to 

release water in a manner that protects Delta quality. 

This process may increase the amount of water provided by other water rights holders to meet Bay-Delta 

water quality standards, but it is anticipated that the impacts to the CVP water supply would not be more 

severe than the impacts presented in the PEIS and this EA. Consequently, operations of upstream projects 

may change. Because the outcome is not fully developed, a conservative assumption was used in 

modeling for the PEIS and this EA. It was assumed that the Bay-Delta Accord criteria would be the longterm plan for the Delta. If instream flows provided by the other water rights holders increase, some 

portion of the CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program environmental flows could be satisfied by this 

water rights process, which may reduce the amount of water that the program needs to acquire from 

willing sellers. It may also reduce the amount of water that the program needs to develop or may allow for 
5. Other Activities 

February 2005 5-3 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

the developed water to be used more effectively in meeting program objectives. Any additional demand 

on water right holders could decrease the amount of water available for transfer. 

5.4 CALFED-BAY DELTA PROGRAM 

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program (CALFED Program) is a cooperative effort of 15 State and Federal 

agencies with regulatory and management responsibilities in the Bay-Delta system. The mission of the 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program is to develop a long-term comprehensive plan that will restore ecological 

health and improve water management for beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta system. The CALFED 

Program began in May 1995 to address the complex issues that surround the Bay-Delta and the CALFED 

Agencies have completed the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Report (EIS/EIR) for 

the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, including the Preferred Program Alternative. The August 28, 2000, 

signing of the CALFED Programmatic Record of Decision (ROD) marked the beginning of 

implementation for the 30-year program and details on implementation during Stage 1 (the first 7 years of 

the implementation). 

The CALFED Preferred Program Alternative includes the following components: Ecosystem Restoration, 

Watershed Protection, Water Supply Reliability, Water Storage and Conveyance, Environmental Water 

Account and Commitments, Water Use Efficiency and Conservation, Water Quality Improvements, 

Water Transfers, Levee System Integrity, Science Program, Establishment of a Governance Structure for 

Implementation of CALFED, and a Regional Approach to Ecosystem/Water Management. 

Many of these programs could improve water supply reliability and water quality for CVP water service 

Contractors, especially those located south of the Delta. The CALFED Preferred Program Alternative 

includes the following components to improve water supply reliability and water quality. 

 Water Use Efficiency Program (agricultural, urban, and wetland water conservation and water 

recycling) 

 Water Transfer Program 

 Conveyance, including South Delta Improvements 

 Surface and groundwater storage 

 Operational strategies, such as real-time diversion management through use of the Environmental 

Water Account 

 Water quality improvements to enable users to divert more water to storage during periods of 

high Delta water quality, reduce contaminants and salinity that impair Delta water quality, 

evaluate alternative approaches to address disinfection byproducts and salinity issues, and enable 

voluntary exchanges or purchases of high-quality source waters for drinking water uses. 

In addition, other parts of the CALFED Program can provide water supply reliability and water quality 

benefits. These include the Watershed Program and real-time monitoring through the Science Program. 
5. Other Activities 

Final EA for the 5-4 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

CALFED’s goals for water supply reliability include: 

 Increase the utility of available water supplies (making water suitable for more uses and reuses) 

 Improve access to existing or new water supplies, in an economically efficient manner, for 

environmental, urban and agricultural beneficial uses 

 Improve flexibility of managing water supply and demand in order to reduce conflicts between 

beneficial uses, improve access to water supplies, and decrease system vulnerability. 

The CALFED Final Programmatic EIS/EIR shows that on an annual basis, without additional storage, the 

Preferred Program Alternative increases long-term Delta exports by an additional 250,000 to 380,000 

acre-feet over the CALFED No-Action Alternative, which is similar to the PEIS No-Action Alternative. 

With additional storage, the Preferred Program Alternative increases annual Delta exports by 490,000 to 

900,000 acre-feet over the CALFED No-Action Alternative. 

On an annual basis, without additional storage, the Preferred Program Alternative increases dry- and 

critical-year Delta exports by an additional 50,000 to 180,000 acre-feet over the CALFED No-Action 

Alternative. With additional storage, the Preferred Program Alternative increases annual Delta exports 

from 180,000 to 670,000 acre-feet over the CALFED No-Action Alternative. 

In addition, water conservation and recycling will save additional water for use. The potential for water 

use efficiency varies significantly in California, depending on the region of the State and the sector 

involved. Working with the stakeholder steering committees and other technical experts, CALFED 

agencies have developed ranges of estimated water savings during Stage 1 of implementation. These 

estimates include only water that is currently unavailable for other uses because it is lost to excessive 

evaporation or drains to the ocean or some other unusable destination. In addition, water can be made 

available through water reclamation projects. These water savings would include 520,000 to 688,000 

acre-feet from urban uses, 260,000 to 350,000 acre-feet from agricultural uses, and 225,000 to 310,000 

acre-feet in water reclamation projects for both urban and agricultural uses. 

Actions initiated in the first four years of Stage 1 to improve storage and conveyance capacity will 

substantially increase water supply reliability in the later years, but these benefits will not be realized until 

the new facilities come on line. Similarly, it will take years to implement and fully realize the water 

supply benefits of water use efficiency, recycling, and other conservation measures. Therefore, the 

greatest challenge to improving water supply reliability lies in the first four years of Stage 1. To address 

these water supply reliability challenges in this short period, the CALFED Record of Decision outlines 

the following actions. 

 Establishment of an Environmental Water Account (EWA) with an average of 380,000 acre-feet 

set aside annually in the first years to provide additional water for fishery purposes beyond the 

Regulatory Baseline. 

 Establishment of a Regulatory Baseline by delineating existing regulatory requirements and 

clarifying implementation of specific regulatory actions. 
5. Other Activities 

February 2005 5-5 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

 A commitment that there will be no reductions, beyond the baseline regulatory levels, resulting 

from measures to protect fish. 

 Seek SWRCB approval of Joint Point of Diversion and share water derived from Joint Point of 

Diversion between the CVP and the EWA. 

 Implement conjunctive management projects, water conservation measures, and water transfers. 

 Begin implementation of storage projects. 

 Allocate Proposition 13 funds dedicated to interim water supply reliability and water quality. 

The CALFED ROD also concludes that these actions in the first four years are likely to improve Delta 

exports for CVP south-of-Delta agricultural water service Contractors, as described in the following: 

“In the first four years of Stage 1, it is anticipated that water deliveries will remain at 

recent levels for most water users who depend upon water from the CVP, including 

Exchange Contractors, North of Delta CVP agricultural Contractors, refuges, and M&I 

Contractors, as well as for SWP Contractors and non-project water users. It is also 

anticipated that implementation of Joint Point of Diversion, operational flexibility, 

interagency cooperation, EWA implementation, and other cooperative water 

management actions (some of which may require further specific environmental 

review) will result in normal years in an increase to CVP south-of-Delta agricultural 

water service Contractors of 15 percent (or greater) of existing contract totals to 65 to 

70 percent. This normal year supply improvement may not be achieved in all years due 

to annual hydrologic variability and its impact on carryover storage conditions. 

Substantial progress toward implementation of other program elements, such as 

development of EWA assets, is also necessary. Water supplies in dry years are likely 

to be less than the anticipated amounts and more in above normal years. As discussed 

in the ROD, CALFED agencies are committed to working with local agencies to 

implement these regional supply actions and to support local water management 

actions including conservation and other local measures. Part of this effort will include 

development of a plan for alternative refuge supplies and conveyance.” 

5.5 WATER TRANSFERS 

The use of water transfers to allow water trades between willing sellers and buyers is expected by many 

experts to be used increasingly in the future. Transfers provide an opportunity to increase or replace 

water supplies to support future demands. Overall, implementation of water transfer programs will meet 

part of the water demand that has been identified by DWR as being unmet by current water supplies. The 

DWR identified 2.9 to 4.9 million acre-feet of projected water demand that would not be met by existing 

water facilities, water conservation, and wastewater reclamation if all entitlements and water rights 

continue to be delivered to existing users. Water transfers can be used in the future to reduce the 

currently unmet future demand. Therefore, water transfers may be beneficial from a cumulative statewide 

perspective. However, each transfer proposal must be evaluated individually to determine direct or 

indirect impacts at a project-specific level. 
5. Other Activities 

Final EA for the 5-6 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

Cumulative impacts associated with the transfer of water must consider the impacts of other water 

transfers that would occur throughout the Central Valley. Reclamation has purchased water in the 

Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys from water rights holders to improve instream fishery flows, Delta 

outflows, and refuge water supplies. Water also has been purchased on an annual basis by agricultural 

users on both the eastern and western sides of the San Joaquin Valley to improve water reliability. Water 

users located in the watersheds of the upper Sacramento, Feather, Yuba, and Bear rivers have participated 

or are considering participation in short-term water transfers of 1- to 5-year periods for water supplies 

and/or fish and wildlife uses. However, projects and locations have not been fully evaluated at this time. 

Specific water transfers may reduce the ability of other agencies to purchase and transfer water. If the 

amount of water available for transfers is reduced, the users who do not purchase the water will either 

increase groundwater withdrawals, which may lead to increased rates of overdraft and subsidence, or 

purchase more expensive water supplies, which could increase the cost of agricultural crops or reduce net 

revenues. 

Transfers of water held in post-1914 water rights must be evaluated in some type of environmental 

documentation. These environmental documents evaluate several issues, including the following items, 

which may have potential adverse impacts: 

 Transfers that could reduce Delta inflow during certain critical time periods 

 Entrainment losses of some fish due to diversions at new locations 

 Losses of fish due to changes in flow patterns that may raise temperatures or dewater or flood 

spawning areas 

 Reduced reservoir levels and associated recreation actions 

 Reduced irrigated acreage and wetlands due to changes in water use or return flows 

 Reduced employment opportunities due to land fallowing to make the water available 

 Reduced groundwater levels due to the replacement of transferred water with additional 

withdrawals or due to reduction in applied irrigation water that percolates into the aquifer.

It has been difficult in many cases to complete the environmental documentation and obtain approval 

from the SWRCB, SWP, or CVP during an irrigation season in a timely manner. If these approvals do 

not occur in a timely manner, unnecessary water may be purchased or users may decide to defer actions 

that would require full water supplies. 

To alleviate this issue, several programmatic environmental documents have been completed and the 

overall concepts are included in the long-term contracts considered under Alternatives 1 and 2. For 

example, Reclamation completed the Eastside/Westside Water Transfer/Exchange EA for approval of 

annual exchange/transfer(s) of up to 150,000 acre-feet of CVP water between CVP Contractors through 

an internal exchange of SWP water by the Kern County Water Agency. This approval process would be 
5. Other Activities 

February 2005 5-7 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

in effect for 5 years, between March 2001 and February 2006. Specific transfers under this type of 

program would be compared with the specific approved actions to determine that adverse environmental 

impacts would not occur. 

Similar programmatic approaches for approval of transfers within regional trading zones are being 

considered under the CALFED process and through the Governor's Drought Contingency Panel. 

5.6 TRINITY RIVER STUDIES

In October 1984, the Service began a 12-year study to describe the effectiveness of increased flows and 

other habitat restoration activities to restore fishery populations in the Trinity River. An EIS/EIR was 

completed in October 2000 under a concurrent program to evaluate alternatives to restore and maintain 

natural production of anadromous fish in the Trinity River mainstem downstream of Lewiston Dam. 

Historically, an average annual quantity of approximately 1.3 million acre-feet of water has been diverted 

from the Trinity River to the Sacramento River system (1964-1992). A change in the Trinity River flow 

requirements and a corresponding change in the amount of water diverted to the Sacramento River system 

could affect future flows to the Delta. Changes also could affect overall water supply reliability and 

carryover storage in Shasta Reservoir, and water quality and temperature in the Sacramento River. 

The alternatives in this EA were developed in 1999-2000, and assumed minimum instream flow 

requirements for the Trinity River of 390,000 acre-feet/year in critical dry years to 750,000 acre-feet/year 

in extremely wet years. These flows represent the initial flow recommendation in the Trinity River Flow 

Evaluation. That initial flow recommendation has since been refined in the Trinity River Flow Evaluation 

report as: 368,000 acre-feet/year in critical dry years to 815,000 acre-feet/year in extremely wet years. A 

Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in December 2000 authorizing the refined flow recommendation. 

In May 2001, a suit was filed against the decision by Central Valley water and power interests to prohibit 

implementation of flow–related aspects of the ROD. On July 14, 2004, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of 

Appeals reversed a lower court ruling (that had halted implementation of flow-related aspects) in favor of 

the refined flow recommendations for the Trinity River. The Central Valley water and power users are 

considering asking the 9th Circuit Court to reconsider its ruling. Therefore, the flow recommendations for 

the Trinity River are not final. 

This EA and the PEIS made assumptions about Trinity River flows for the purposes of analysis. To 

provide a broad range to the analysis in the PEIS, the Cumulative Effects Analysis assumed the flow of 

390,000 acre-feet (driest years) and 750,000 acre-feet (wettest years). These flows are the same as those 

used in the Preferred Alternative in the Trinity River Flow Draft EIR/EIS. 

5.7 TRANSFER OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES 

Several of the local water user groups provide a portion of the operation and maintenance requirements 

for CVP facilities that serve only that user group. For example, Clear Creek Community Services is 

responsible for operating and maintaining the Muletown Conduit serving CCCSD and CCSD 

(Centerville). Alternative 1 provides for this type of operations and maintenance. Any transfer of 
5. Other Activities 

Final EA for the 5-8 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

operations and maintenance for specific facilities to non-Federal entities could be completed under 

Alternative 1 following completion of appropriate environmental documentation and approvals. 

5.8 CHANGES IN FEDERAL PROGRAMS 

The 1996 Farm Bill revised the way commodity payments are determined, and decoupled the size of the 

payment from the actual production level. There remains, however, some uncertainty about how the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) will handle lands that are part of a grower's base acreage, yet are 

retired or fallowed as CVPIA is implemented. For purposes of this EA analysis, it was assumed that 

USDA would remove such lands from the grower's base acreage and reduce the deficiency payment 

accordingly. The estimates of changes in farm commodity payments are based on that assumption. 

If, instead, growers who retire or fallow their land as part of CVPIA implementation continue to receive 

program payments associated with that land, then no savings would accrue to the Federal treasury. 

However, net revenues to the farmers would increase. This may lead to greater participation in the water 

transfer market, which may lead to a lower cost for water. Either or both of these impacts could increase 

the amount of water purchased by the U.S. Department of the Interior for water acquisitions. Because 

the 1996 Farm Bill extends for only a limited number of years, great uncertainty remains about 

interactions between CVPIA and Federal commodity programs. 

5.9 CHANGING DEMAND FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS 

The analyses in the PEIS and this EA used real 1994 prices and costs and did not attempt to estimate 

differential increases in prices and costs in the future. However, some evidence exists that demands for 

farm produce, especially fruits and vegetables grown in California, will increase in the future and cause 

their prices to increase faster than the overall inflation rate. If this occurs, the costs associated with 

acreage reductions estimated in this study are understated. Higher value for crops would increase the cost 

of water or reduce the willingness of sellers to participate in the transfer market. This would decrease the 

opportunities for Interior to acquire water for fish and wildlife purposes. 

Another view is that increasing competition from expanding production regions, especially in Central and 

South America, will hold future price increases to below the level of inflation. Lower value for crops 

would decrease the cost of water or increase the willingness of sellers to participate in the transfer market. 

Changes in demand could change the ratio of permanent to annual crops. If more permanent crops were 

planted, the effects of changes in water availability on an annual basis could become more significant. 

5.10 YIELD INCREASE PLAN 

As part of the CVPIA, the Least-Cost Yield Increase Plan was completed to describe possible actions to 

increase CVP yield. The yield increase options considered in the plan ranged from purchase of water 

supplies, land fallowing, conjunctive use, water conservation and urban wastewater reuse, to off stream 

storage. New facilities, water reuse, and conjunctive use methods could reduce the shortages that are 

projected under the PEIS alternatives. The PEIS identified land fallowing and water conservation as 

measures to provide additional water supplies for fish and wildlife purposes. Implementation of water 

purchases for both purposes could cause conflicts, or could be implemented in a way that would benefit 

both programs. For example, if acquired water purchased to increase instream flows were diverted 
5. Other Activities 

February 2005 5-9 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

downstream of the critical reaches and stored in an off stream storage facility, both purposes would 

benefit. In addition, the cost to both users would be lower. 

5.11 ADDITIONAL LISTINGS OF SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES 

There is a high probability that new special-status species will be listed and others will possibly be delisted. As listings occur, Reclamation and the Service will follow the requirements under the Endangered 

Species Act and conduct consultation as required. Additional conservation actions are anticipated under 

the Conservation Program, Anadromous Fish Restoration Program, and CALFED that will aid in 

ecosystem restoration and improve the status of special-status species, so the need for future listings may 

be reduced.
February 2005 6-1 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

CHAPTER 6 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

6.1 INTRODUCTION

Prior to preparation of this EA, input was solicited and incorporated from a broad range of cooperating 

and consulting agencies and the public. This chapter summarizes the public involvement program and 

key issues raised by the public and interest groups. This chapter also addresses the manner in which 

Federal statutes, implementing regulations, and executive orders potentially applicable to implementation 

of the CVPIA have been addressed. The conclusions of compliance are based on the Environmental 

Consequences presented in Chapter 4. The compliance summaries apply only to the alternatives 

discussed in this EA and not the development of concurrent CVPIA implementation programs. 

6.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Reclamation started the preparation of this EA with Scoping Meetings. Scoping served as a fact-finding 

process to identify public concerns and recommendations about the long-term contract renewal issues that 

would be addressed in this EA and the scope and level of detail for analyses. Scoping activities began in 

October 1998 after a Notice of Intent to prepare environmental documentation for long-term contract 

renewals was filed in the Federal Register. The scoping period formally ended in January 1999. The 

Scoping Report was released in summer of 1999. 

Public input continued during long-term contract negotiations to define the contract language. 

Discussions were also held with the Shasta and Trinity long-term water service Contractors during the 

preparation of this document. 

At public scoping meetings, Reclamation provided information about the long-term contract renewal 

process, and solicited public comments, questions, and concerns. At these meetings, participants had 

numerous comments and questions about how important issues would be considered both in the PEIS and 

the long-term contract renewal process. The majority of the comments received during the Scoping 

process addressed the Needs Assessment methodology to be used as part of the long-term contract 

renewal process. Contract renewal negotiation issues were also addressed. The least number of 

comments addressed environmental review issues. 

Reclamation received numerous comments about issues to be considered in the PEIS and methodologies 

for analyzing impacts. Comments concerning the development of alternatives were considered in the 

formation of the alternatives. However, a decision was made to focus the description of alternatives on 

the contract proposals, and to address issues related to water supply improvements being addressed by 

CALFED and the Least Cost Yield study. Consideration of comments on methods to address impacts 
6. Consultation and Coordination 

Final EA for the 6-2 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

were considered in the development of the Environmental Consequences section of this EA. However, 

the impact analysis focused on the comparison of the alternatives with the projected No-Action 

Alternative, not the Existing Conditions scenario. 

Draft EAs for this action were provided for public review in 2000 and 2004.

6.3 WITH OTHER AGENCIES

This EA was prepared in accordance with the policies and regulations for the following issues. These 

issues and how compliance was addressed in this EA are discussed in the remaining sections of this 

chapter. Work is continuing on each of these requirements. As individual projects are implemented, 

compliance requirements will be considered. 

 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 

 Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) 

 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

 Indian Trust Assets (ITA) 

 Indian Sacred Sites on Federal Land 

 Environmental Justice 

 State, Area-wide, and Local Plan and Program Consistency 

 Floodplain Management 

 Wetlands Protection 

 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

 Farmland Protection Policy Act and Farmland Preservation 

 Clean Air Act 

 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 

 Clean Water Act (CWA) 
6. Consultation and Coordination 

February 2005 6-3 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

6.3.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT

This EA was prepared pursuant to regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) (42 USC 4321 et seq.). NEPA provides a commitment that Federal agencies will consider the 

environmental effects of their actions. This EA tiers off of the PEIS (40 CFR 1508.28) and evaluates the 

potential site-specific environmental and socioeconomic effects of renewing the long-term water service 

contracts for the Shasta and Trinity Divisions. This EA also provides information regarding the NoAction Alternative and alternatives, and environmental impacts of the alternatives.

6.3.2 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

Implementation, funding, and permitting actions carried out by State and local agencies must comply with 

the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA requirements are similar to NEPA 

requirements. This EA could be used as a basis for preparation of a CEQA document. 

6.3.3 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

Reclamation prepared a Biological Assessment/Essential Fish Habitat Assessment in August 2003 to 

determine if the proposed action will affect listed threatened and endangered species (North State 

Resources 2003). The biological assessment addressed all species affected by the action of contract 

renewals in the water divisions. Tables 8a and 8b of the Biological Assessment/Essential Fish Habitat 

Assessment summarize potential impacts to Federally listed, proposed, and candidate species, and 

designated or proposed critical habitat on a district-by-district basis for the Trinity River District and the 

Shasta District, respectively. Depending on the district, special-status species and critical habitats may be 

affected, but are unlikely to be adversely affected by long-term contract renewal. 

Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has been completed for seven of the ten 

long-term water service contract renewals in the Shasta and Trinity River Divisions. For all seven 

contracts, the USFWS has concurred with the determinations of the BA, which are that the long-term 

contract renewals are not likely to adversely affect special-status species and designated or proposed 

critical habitats of those species. A similar conclusion is expected for the remaining three contracts.

Consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and USFWS must be 

completed before Reclamation can approve Findings for a proposed action. Reclamation must sign the 

Findings (FONSI) before long term renewal contracts can be signed by Reclamation.

USFWS and NOAA letters of consultation are provided at the conclusion of Chapter 6.

6.3.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) requires that Reclamation consult with fish and wildlife 

agencies (Federal and state) on all water development projects that could affect biological resources. The 

implementation of the CVPIA, of which this action is a part, has been jointly analyzed by Reclamation 

and the USFWS and is being jointly implemented. This continuous consultation and consideration of the 

views of the USFWS in addition to its review of this document and consideration of its comments 

satisfies any applicable requirements of the FWCA. 
6. Consultation and Coordination 

Final EA for the 6-4 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

6.3.5 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that Federal agencies evaluate the 

effects of Federal undertakings on historical, archeological, and cultural resources and afford the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation opportunities to comment on the proposed undertaking. The 

first step in the process is to identify cultural resources included on (or eligible for inclusion on) the 

National Register of Historic Places that are located in or near the project area. The second step is to 

identify the possible effects of proposed actions. The lead agency must examine whether feasible 

alternatives exist that would avoid such effects. If an effect cannot reasonably be avoided, measures must 

be taken to minimize or mitigate potential adverse effects. Reclamation staff will complete the Section 

106 consultation process prior to implementing any actions. 

6.3.6 INDIAN TRUST ASSETS

The United States Government's trust responsibility for Indian resources requires Reclamation and other 

agencies to take measures to protect and maintain trust resources. These responsibilities include taking 

reasonable actions to preserve and restore tribal resources. Indian Trust Assets (ITAs) are legal interests 

in property and rights held in trust by the United States for Indian tribes or individuals. Indian 

reservations, rancherias, and allotments are common ITAs. Based upon information provided by 

Reclamation, no ITAs exist within the Shasta and Trinity Divisions. 

6.3.7 INDIAN SACRED SITES ON FEDERAL LAND

Executive Order 13007 provides that in managing Federal lands, each Federal agency with statutory or 

administrative responsibility for management of Federal lands shall, to the extent practicable and as 

permitted by law, accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious 

practitioners, and avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. No sacred sites 

were identified during the scoping or planning process, and, therefore, none were included in the impact 

assessment of this EA. 

6.3.8 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Executive Order 12898 requires each Federal agency to achieve environmental justice as part of its 

mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects, including social or economic effects, of programs, policies, and activities on 

minority populations and low-income populations of the United States. This EA has evaluated the 

environmental, social, and economic impacts on minority and low-income populations in the impact 

assessment of alternatives. No disproportionate impacts on minority or low-income populations were 

identified. 

6.3.9 STATE, AREA-WIDE, AND LOCAL PLAN AND PROGRAM CONSISTENCY

Executive Order 12372 requires that Federal agencies provide for opportunities for state and local 

officials to provide input on proposed Federal assistance or development actions. Consistency of the 

proposed action with the plans and policies of the City of Redding, City of Shasta Lake, and Shasta 

County have been considered, and input from Federal, state, and local officials has been sought in 
6. Consultation and Coordination 

February 2005 6-5 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

developing the analysis for this EA. The Draft EA will be circulated to the appropriate state and local 

agencies to satisfy review and consultation requirements. 

6.3.10 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

If a Federal agency program will affect a floodplain, the agency must consider alternatives to avoid 

adverse effects in the floodplain or to minimize potential harm. Executive Order 11988 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate the potential effects of any actions they might take in a floodplain and to ensure that 

planning, programs, and budget requests reflect consideration of flood hazards and floodplain 

management. The alternatives would not affect floodplain management as compared to the No-Action 

Alternative. 

6.3.11 WETLANDS PROTECTION

Executive Order 11990 authorizes Federal agencies to take actions to minimize the destruction, loss, or 

degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands when 

undertaking Federal activities and programs. Any agency considering a proposal that might affect 

wetlands must evaluate factors affecting wetland quality and survival. These factors should include the 

proposal’s effects on the public health, safety, and welfare due to modifications in water supply and water 

quality; maintenance of natural ecosystems and conservation of flora and fauna; and other recreational, 

scientific, and cultural uses. The alternatives would not affect wetlands as compared to the No-Action 

Alternative. 

6.3.12 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act designates qualifying free-flowing river segments as wild, scenic, or 

recreational. The Act establishes requirements applicable to water resource projects affecting wild, 

scenic, or recreational rivers within the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, as well as rivers 

designated on the National Rivers Inventory. Under the Act, a Federal agency may not assist in the 

construction of a water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the free-flowing, 

scenic, and natural values of a wild or scenic river. If the project would affect the free-flowing 

characteristics of a designated river or unreasonably diminish the scenic, recreational, and fish and 

wildlife values present in the area, such activities should be undertaken in a manner that would minimize 

adverse impacts and should be developed in consultation with the National Park Service. None of the EA 

alternatives would adversely effect flows in wild and scenic, or recreational rivers. 

6.3.13 FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY ACT AND FARMLAND PRESERVATION

Two policies require Federal agencies to include assessments of the potential effects of a proposed project 

on prime and unique farmland. These policies are the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 and the 

Memoranda on Farmland Preservation, dated August 30, 1976, and August 11, 1980, respectively, from 

the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality. Under requirements set forth in these policies, Federal 

agencies must determine these effects before taking any action that could result in converting designated 

prime or unique farmland for nonagricultural purposes. If implementing a project would adversely affect 

farmland preservation, the agencies must consider alternatives to lessen those effects. Federal agencies 

also must ensure that their programs, to the extent practicable, are compatible with state, local, and private 
6. Consultation and Coordination 

Final EA for the 6-6 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

programs to protect farmland. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) is the Federal agency 

responsible for ensuring that these laws and polices are followed. No specific consultation was conducted 

during preparation of this EA. The alternatives would not affect agricultural or urban lands as compared 

to the No-Action Alternative. 

6.3.14 CLEAN AIR ACT

The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted to protect and enhance the nation’s air quality in order to 

promote public health and welfare and the productive capacity of the nation’s population. The CAA 

requires an evaluation of any Federal action to determine its potential impact on air quality in the project 

region. Coordination is required with the appropriate local air quality management district as well as with 

the EPA. This coordination would determine whether the project conforms to the Federal Implementation 

Plan and the State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

Section 176 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. Section 7506(c)) prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in or 

supporting in any way an action or activity that does not conform to an applicable SIP. Actions and 

activities must conform to a SIP’s purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of 

violations of the national ambient air quality standards and in attaining those standards expeditiously. 

EPA promulgated conformity regulations (codified in 40 CFR Section 93.150 et seq.). 

The alternatives assume that current practices to control dust and soil erosion on lands that are seasonally 

fallowed would continue and that the land use agencies would continue to work with the air quality 

districts. Therefore, it assumed that no air quality impacts would occur due to the alternatives as 

compared to the No Action Alternative. 

6.3.15 SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (PL 99-339) became law in 1974 and was reauthorized in 1986 

and again in August 1996. Through the SDWA, Congress gave the EPA the authority to set standards for 

contaminants in drinking water supplies. Amendments to the SDWA provide more flexibility, more state 

responsibility, and more problem prevention approaches. The law changes the standard-setting procedure 

for drinking water and establishes a State Revolving Loan Fund to help public water systems improve 

their facilities and to ensure compliance with drinking water regulations and to support state drinking 

water program activities. 

Under the SDWA provisions, the California Department of Health Services has the primary enforcement 

responsibility. The California Health and Safety Code establishes this authority and stipulates drinking 

water quality and monitoring standards. To maintain primacy, a state’s drinking water regulations cannot 

be less stringent than the Federal standards. The analysis of the EA alternatives as compared to the 

SDWA requirements indicated that there were no changes in compliance as compared to the No-Action 

Alternative. 
6. Consultation and Coordination 

February 2005 6-7 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

6.3.16 CLEAN WATER ACT

The Clean Water Act (CWA) gave the EPA the authority to develop a program to make all waters of the 

United States “fishable and swimmable.” This program has included identifying existing and proposed 

beneficial uses and methods to protect and/or restore those beneficial uses. The CWA contains many 

provisions, including provisions that regulate the discharge of pollutants into water bodies. The 

discharges may be direct flows from point sources, such as an effluent from a wastewater treatment plant, 

or a non-point source, such as eroded soil particles from a construction site. The analysis of the EA 

alternatives as compared to the CWA requirements indicated that there were no changes in compliance as 

compared to the No-Action Alternative. 










February 2005 7-1 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

CHAPTER 7

REFERENCES, PERSONS CONSULTED, AND ACRONYMS 

7.1 REFERENCES 

This section lists the references used in the preparation of this EA. 

Bella Vista Water District. 1995. Bella Vista Water District Water Conservation Plan. Bella Vista, CA. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) 1998: United States, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bear Facts, 

1997. http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/bearfacts/bf1/06/b106089.htm

California Department of Water Resources 1993: California Department of Water Resources, Bulletin 

160-93: California Water Plan, 1993. 

California Department of Water Resources 1994. Public Water System Statistics, Calendar Year 1994 

California Department of Finance (CDOF) 1998: State of California Department of Finance, County 

Population Projections with Race/Ethnic Detail, Sacramento, California, December 1998. 

http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/Proj_race.htm, 

California Department of Finance (CDOF) 2000a: State of California, Department of Finance, 

City/County Population Estimates, with Annual Percent Change, January 1, 1999 and 2000. 

Sacramento, California, May 2000. http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/e-1text.htm

California Department of Finance (CDOF) 2000b: State of California Department of Finance, California 

County Profiles, 2000. http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/profiles/pf_home.htm

California Department of Fish and Game. 2000b. Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. 

State of California. The Resources Agency. Department of Fish and Game, Habitat 

Conservation Division. California Natural Diversity Database. July 2000. Sacramento, CA. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 2000a. California Natural Diversity Database (Rarefind). 

Version 2.1.2c. March 24, 2000. Sacramento, CA. 

Centerville Community Services District. November 2003. Personal communications. 

Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Draft Programmatic EIS and supporting technical appendices, 

1997 – Authors, CH2M Hill et. al. 

CH2M Hill 1999; spreadsheet model filename: M&i99alt 
7. References, Persons Consulted, and Acronyms 

Final EA for the 7-2 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

CH2M Hill 2000; Technical Memorandum – Analysis of November 1999 Tiered Pricing Proposal for 

PEIS Preferred Alternative, October 2, 2000 

Chartkoff, J.L., and K.K. Chartkoff. 1984. The Archeology of California. Stanford University Press, 

Stanford, CA. 

City of Shasta Lake. 1994. City of Shasta Lake Water Conservation Plan. Shasta Lake, CA. 

City of Redding. 1994 (assumed). City of Redding Water Conservation Plan. Redding, CA 

City of Redding Development Services Department, and J. Laurence Mintier and Associates, and 

Crawford Multari and Starr, Brown-Buntin Associates. July 1998. City of Redding Draft 

Background Report. Redding, CA. 

City of Redding Planning Commission. 2000. Public Hearing Draft General Plan. Redding, CA. 

Clear Creek Community Services District. 1994. Clear Creek Community Services District Water 

Conservation Plan. Anderson, CA. 

City of Shasta Lake. 2000: Memo from Dennis Daily with City of Shasta Lake to Melissa Moran with 

Dornbusch & Company, September 6, 2000 

Diaz Associates. 1999. City of Shasta Lake General Plan Existing Conditions Report. Redding, CA. 

Diaz Associates. 1999. City of Shasta Lake General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report. 

Redding, CA. 

DuBois, Cora. 1935 . Wintu Ethnography. University of California Publications in American 

Archaeology and Ethnology, 36:1-147. Berkeley, CA. 

EDD 1999: State of California, Employment Development Department, County Snapshots – Shasta 

County, 1999. http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/COsnaps/shastSNAP.pdf

Fredrickson, David A. 1973. Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Unpublished PhD 

dissertation, Department of Anthropology. University of California, Davis.\ 

Holt 2000: Conversation between Buford Holt with Bureau of Reclamation and Jason Bass with 

Dornbusch & Company, October 4, 2000 

Jennings, M., and M. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. 

California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 

Johnson, Jerald J. 1978. Yana. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 361-369. Handbook of 

North American Indians, Vol. 8, William Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution. 

Washington D.C. 
7. References, Persons Consulted, and Acronyms 

February 2005 7-3 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

LaPena, Frank R. 1978. Wintu. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 324-340. Handbook of 

North American Indians, Vol. 8, William Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution. 

Washington D.C. 

McNeill 2000: Letter from Mr. McNeill (attorney for Clear Creek CSD) to Laura Kuh with North State 

Resources, RE: Environmental Assessment for Shasta-Trinity Long Term Renewal Contracts, 

October 3, 2000 

Meighan, Clement C. 1955. Archaeology of the North Coast Ranges, California. University of 

California Archaeological Survey Reports, 30:1-39. Berkeley, CA. 

Minnesota Implan Group, IMPLAN Software and County Data Files, 1994 

Moratto, Michael J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, FL. 

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 1999. The Census of Agriculture, Shasta County 

California, 1999 http://govinfo.library.orst.edu/cgi-bin/ag-list?01-089.cac

North State Resources. 2003. Biological Assessment/Essential Fish Habitat Assessment for the Shasta 

and Trinity River Divisions Long-Term Contract Renewal. August. Redding, CA 

Petersen, Edward. 1965. In the Shadow of the Mountain. Privately published, Cottonwood, CA. 

Shasta County Department of Resource Management. 1998. Shasta County General Plan. Redding, 

CA. 

Shipley, William F. 1978. Native Languages of California. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 

80-90. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William Sturtevant, general editor. 

Smithsonian Institution. Washington D.C. 

Skinner, M.W., and, B.M. Pavlick (Ed.). 1994. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of 

California (5 ed.). Sacramento, CA. Griffin Printing Company. 

Sundahl, Elaine. 1992. Cultural Patterns and Chronology in the Northern Sacramento River Drainage. In 

Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, pp. 89-110, Vol 5. San Diego, CA. 

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 2003. Shasta and Trinity River 

Divisions Long term Contract Renewal, Biological Assessment/Essential Fish Habitat 

Assessment. 

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 2000a: Central Valley Project, MidPacific Region Spreadsheet of historical annual CVP water deliveries by contractor, filename - 

historic.123
7. References, Persons Consulted, and Acronyms 

Final EA for the 7-4 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1999a. Handout 1, Central Valley 

Project, Schedule of 1999 Published M&I Water Rates and Revised Category 1 & 2 Water Rates 

Based on Category 1 Deliveries Flat-Lined at the 1999 Level thru 2030, Nov 1999. 

http://www.mp.usbr.gov/cvpia/3404c/usbrwork.html

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1994b: Central Valley Project, 1994 

Irrigation Water Rates, 1994 

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1994a: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project, 1994 Municipal & Industrial Water Rates, 1994 

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1996. Central Valley Project, MidPacific Region, Crop Production and Water Utilization Reports, 1996 

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1999b: Handout 1, Central Valley 

Project, Schedule of 1999 Published Irrigation Water Rates and Revised Category 1 & 2 Water 

Rates Based on Category 1 Deliveries Flat-Lined at the 1999 Level thru 2030, Nov 1999. 

http://www.mp.usbr.gov/cvpia/3404c/usbrwork.html

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. 1974. Soil 

Survey of Shasta County Area, California. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC. 

August 1974. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. 1983 (assumed). 

Soil survey of Shasta-Trinity Forest Area, California. U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Washington, DC. 

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 1999. Central Valley 

project Long-Term Contract Renewal Scoping Report. Tetra Tech, Inc. April 1999. 

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 1992. Bureau of 

Reclamation Central Valley Project irrigation and M&I Contractor Water Rates. 

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 1994. Bureau of 

Reclamation Central Valley Project irrigation and M&I Contractor Water Rates. 

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 1997. Central Valley 

Project Improvement Act Programmatic Environmental Statement (PEIS) and Appendices. 

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 1999. Bureau of 

Reclamation Central Valley Project irrigation and M&I Contractor Water Rates. 

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 2000. Bureau of 

Reclamation Central Valley Project irrigation and M&I Contractor Water Rates. 
7. References, Persons Consulted, and Acronyms 

February 2005 7-5 Final EA for the

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

United States Department of the Interior; Bureau of Reclamation. 2000. Administrative Draft 

Environmental Assessment for Renewal of the Long-Term Contract for the Feather Water 

District; Central Valley Project, California. October 2000. Sacramento, CA. 

United States Department of the Interior; Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

1999. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement - Implementation of the Central 

Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992. October 1999. Sacramento, CA. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000a. Endangered and Threatened Species That May Occur in 

or Be Affected by Projects in Shasta County. Reference File Number 00-SP-2414. July 18, 2000. 

Sacramento, CA. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000b. Draft Biological Opinion on the Operation and 

Maintenance of the Central Valley Project and Implementation of the Central Valley 

Improvement Act. February 1, 2000. Sacramento, CA. 

Zeiner, D.C., and W.F. Laundenslayer, Jr,. and K.E. Mayer, and M. White (Ed.). 1990. California’s 

Wildlife, Volume II, Birds. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 

7.2 PERSONS CONSULTED 

Cheryl Adcock United States Forest Service 

Nancy Anderson Bureau of Reclamation 

Phil Browning Centerville Community Services District 

Don Bultema Bureau of Reclamation 

Mike Connor City of Redding Water Division 

Valene Day Clear Creek Community Services District 

Dennis Daily City of Shasta Lake 

Robert Dietz Bella Vista Water District 

Don Groundwater Bella Vista Water District 

Janice Heck Mountain Gate Community Services District 

Buford Holt Bureau of Reclamation 

Char Workman-Flowers Clear Creek Community Services District 

Kent Manuel City of Redding, Planning Division 

Pat Minturn Shasta County Water Agency 

Darrell Rankin United States Forest Service 

Lisa Stephens Shasta Community Services District 

Carla Thompson City of Shasta Lake Planning Department 

Scott Wall Shasta County Public Works 

Bill Walker Shasta County Planning Division 
7. References, Persons Consulted, and Acronyms 

Final EA for the 7-6 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

7.3 ACRONYMS 

AB Assembly Bill 

BVWD Bella Vista Water District 

CCSD Centerville Community Services District 

CCCSD Clear Creek Community Services District 

CDOF California Department of Finance 

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

COS cost-of-service 

CVP Central Valley Project 

CVP-OCAP Central Valley Project-Operations Criteria and Plan 

CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DAU Drainage Area Units 

DWR California Department of Water Resources 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EFH essential fish habitat 

EIR Environmental Impact Report 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

FC full cost 

ITAs Indian Trust Assets 

KCSA Keswick County Service Area 

LTCR Long Term Contract Renewal 

mgd million gallons per day 

M&I municipal and industrial 

MGCSD Mountain Gate Community Services District 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

O&M operations and maintenance 

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

POW place of work 

PUD Public Utilities District 

ROD Record of Decision 

RRA Reclamation Reform Act 

SCPUD Summit City Public Utilities District 

SCSD Shasta Community Services District 

SCWA Shasta County Water Agency 

SDAPUD Shasta Dam Area Public Utilities District 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SWP State Water Project 

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
APPENDIX A 

2004 Draft Form Contract 

and 

Summaries of the 2003 Draft Contract Provisions 

(Table 1 General Summary and Comparison of Draft 2003 

Contract Provisions and Table 2 Elements Unique to 

Existing and Interim Contracts) 

The Final Draft Contracts (June 2004) are available upon request at the 

Shasta Area Office of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 530/275-1554, or 

you may view the draft contracts at: 

http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvpia/3404c/1004FOC
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

1

1 UNITED STATES 

2 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

3 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

4 Central Valley Project, California 

5 LONG-TERM RENEWAL CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES 

6 AND

7 _________________________________

8 PROVIDING FOR PROJECT WATER SERVICE

9 FROM DIVISION

10 THIS CONTRACT, made this _____ day of ____________________, 2004, in 

11 pursuance generally of the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and acts amendatory or 

12 supplementary thereto, including, but not limited to, the Acts of August 26, 1937 (50 Stat. 844), 

13 as amended and supplemented, August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1187), as amended and supplemented, 

14 July 2, 1956 (70 Stat. 483), June 21, 1963 (77 Stat. 68), October 12, 1982 (96 Stat. 1263), 

15 October 27, 1986 (100 Stat. 3050), as amended, and Title XXXIV of the Act of October 30, 1992 

16 (106 Stat. 4706), all collectively hereinafter referred to as Federal Reclamation law, between 

17 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, hereinafter referred to as the United States, and 

18 ___________________________, hereinafter referred to as the Contractor, a public agency of 

19 the State of California, duly organized, existing, and acting pursuant to the laws thereof; 

20 WITNESSETH, That: 

21 EXPLANATORY RECITALS
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

2

 [1st 22 ] WHEREAS, the United States has constructed and is operating the Central Valley 

23 Project (Project), California, for diversion, storage, carriage, distribution and beneficial use, for 

24 flood control, irrigation, municipal, domestic, industrial, fish and wildlife mitigation, protection 

25 and restoration, generation and distribution of electric energy, salinity control, navigation and 

26 other beneficial uses, of waters of the Sacramento River, the American River, the Trinity River, 

27 and the San Joaquin River and their tributaries; and 

 [2nd 28 ] WHEREAS, the United States constructed _________________________, 

29 hereinafter collectively referred to as the _____________ [Division/Unit] facilities, which will 

30 be used in part for the furnishing of water to the Contractor pursuant to the terms of this 

31 Contract; and 

 [3rd 32 ] WHEREAS, the rights to Project Water were acquired by the United States 

33 pursuant to California law for operation of the Project; and 

 [4th 34 ] WHEREAS, the Contractor and the United States entered into Contract 

35 No. ______________, as amended, which established terms for the delivery to the Contractor of 

36 Project Water from the __________ [Division/Unit] from ____________ through 

37 ______________________ [For binding agreement contractors only: (hereinafter referred to as 

38 the “Existing Contract,” ]; and [Contractor specific issue as to “as amended”] 

 [ 5th 39 ] [FOR IRC'S] WHEREAS, the Contractor and the United States have pursuant to 

40 subsection 3404(c)(1) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), subsequently 

41 entered into interim renewal contract(s) identified as Contract No(s).______________________, 

42 the current of which is hereinafter referred to as the Existing Contract, which provided for the 

43 continued water service to the Contractor from __________________________ through 

44 _________________________; and 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

3

 [5th 45 ] [For Binding Agreement Contractors] WHEREAS, the United States and the 

46 Contractor have, pursuant to Subsection 3404(c)(3) of the Central Valley Project Improvement 

Act (CVPIA)1 47 , subsequently entered into a binding agreement, identified as Binding Agreement 

48 No. _____________, which sets out the terms pursuant to which the Contractor agreed to renew 

49 the Existing Contract before its expiration date after completion of a programmatic 

50 environmental impact statement and other appropriate environmental documentation and 

51 negotiation of a renewal contract, and which also sets out the consequences of a subsequent 

52 decision not to renew; and

 [6th] WHEREAS, Section 3404(c) of the CVPIA2 53 provides for long-term renewal of 

54 the Existing Contract following completion of appropriate environmental documentation, 

55 including a programmatic environmental impact statement PEIS pursuant to the National 

56 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), analyzing the direct and indirect impacts and benefits of 

57 implementing the CVPIA and the potential renewal of all existing contracts for Project Water; 

58 and 

 [7th 59 ] WHEREAS, the United States has completed the PEIS and all other appropriate 

60 environmental review necessary to provide for long-term renewal of the Existing Contract; and 

 [8th 61 ] WHEREAS, the Contractor has requested the long-term renewal of the Existing 

62 Contract, pursuant to the terms of the Existing Contract, Federal Reclamation law, and the laws 

63 of the State of California, for water service from the Project; and 

 [9th 64 ] WHEREAS, the United States has determined that the Contractor has fulfilled all 

65 of its obligations under the Existing Contract; and 

 

1

 Contractor Specific Issue: citation of Sec. 3404(c)(3) in M&I only contracts. 2

 Contractor Specific Issue: citation of Sec. 3404(c) in M&I only contracts. 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

4

 [10th 66 ] [CONTRACTOR SPECIFIC] WHEREAS, the Contractor has demonstrated to 

67 the satisfaction of the Contracting Officer that the Contractor has utilized the Project Water 

68 supplies available to it for reasonable and beneficial use and/or has demonstrated projected 

future demand for water use such that the Contractor has the capability3 69 and expects to utilize 

70 fully for reasonable and beneficial use the quantity of Project Water to be made available to it 

71 pursuant to this Contract; and 

 [11th 72 ] WHEREAS, water obtained from the Project has been relied upon by urban and 

73 agricultural areas within California for more than 50 years, and is considered by the Contractor 

74 as an essential portion of its water supply; and 

 [12th 75 ] WHEREAS, the economies of regions within the Project, including the 

76 Contractor’s, depend upon the continued availability of water, including water service from the 

77 Project; and 

 [13th 78 ] WHEREAS, the Secretary intends through coordination, cooperation, and 

79 partnerships to pursue measures to improve water supply, water quality, and reliability of the 

80 Project for all Project purposes; and 

 [14th 81 ] WHEREAS, the mutual goals of the United States and the Contractor include: to 

82 provide for reliable Project Water supplies; to control costs of those supplies; to achieve 

83 repayment of the Project as required by law; to guard reasonably against Project Water 

84 shortages; to achieve a reasonable balance among competing demands for use of Project Water; 

85 and to comply with all applicable environmental statutes, all consistent with the legal obligations 

 

3

 Contractor Specific issue - This recital may need to be modified for individual contractors who do not have the 

capability today to take Project Water but can demonstrate that they will have the capability to take Project Water prior to 

the delivery of water. 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

5

86 of the United States relative to the Project; and 

 [15th 87 ] WHEREAS, the parties intend by this Contract to develop a more cooperative 

88 relationship in order to achieve their mutual goals; and 

 [16th 89 ] WHEREAS, the United States and the Contractor are willing to enter into this 

90 Contract pursuant to Federal Reclamation law on the terms and conditions set forth below; 

91 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual and dependent covenants herein 

92 contained, it is hereby mutually agreed by the parties hereto as follows: 

93 DEFINITIONS

94 1. When used herein unless otherwise distinctly expressed, or manifestly 

95 incompatible with the intent of the parties as expressed in this Contract, the term: 

96 (a) “Calendar Year” shall mean the period January 1 through December 31, 

97 both dates inclusive; 

98 (b) “Charges” shall mean the payments required by Federal Reclamation law 

99 in addition to the Rates and Tiered Pricing Component specified in this Contract as determined 

100 annually by the Contracting Officer pursuant to this Contract; 

101 (c) “Condition of Shortage” shall mean a condition respecting the Project 

102 during any Year such that the Contracting Officer is unable to deliver sufficient water to meet the 

Contract Total;4 103 

104 (d) “Contracting Officer” shall mean the Secretary of the Interior’s duly 

105 authorized representative acting pursuant to this Contract or applicable Federal Reclamation law 

106 or regulation; 

107 (e) “Contract Total” shall mean the maximum amount of water to which the 

 

4

 May need to be modified for some divisions, including a definition of interruption of supply.
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

6

108 Contractor is entitled under subdivision (a) of Article 3 of this Contract; 

109 (f) “Contractor's Service Area" shall mean the area to which the Contractor is 

110 permitted to provide Project Water under this Contract as described in Exhibit “A” attached 

111 hereto, which may be modified from time to time in accordance with Article 35 of this Contract 

without amendment of this Contract;5 112 

113 (g) “CVPIA” shall mean the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Title 

114 XXXIV of the Act of October 30, 1992 (106 Stat. 4706); 

115 (h) “Eligible Lands” shall mean all lands to which Irrigation Water may be 

116 delivered in accordance with Section 204 of the Reclamation Reform Act of October 12, 1982 

117 (96 Stat. 1263), as amended, hereinafter referred to as RRA; 

118 (i) “Excess Lands” shall mean all lands in excess of the limitations contained 

119 in Section 204 of the RRA, other than those lands exempt from acreage limitation under Federal 

120 Reclamation law; 

121 (j) “Full Cost Rate” shall mean an annual rate as determined by the 

122 Contracting Officer that shall amortize the expenditures for construction properly allocable to the 

123 Project irrigation or M&I functions, as appropriate, of facilities in service including all O&M 

124 deficits funded, less payments, over such periods as may be required under Federal Reclamation 

125 law, or applicable contract provisions. Interest will accrue on both the construction expenditures 

126 and funded O&M deficits from October 12, 1982, on costs outstanding at that date, or from the 

127 date incurred in the case of costs arising subsequent to October 12, 1982, and shall be calculated 

128 in accordance with subsections 202(3)(B) and (3)(C) of the RRA. The Full Cost Rate includes 

 

5 Some Contractors may propose alternate language. Some Contractors may use a legal description, others may use a 

map. 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

7

129 actual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs consistent with Section 426.2 of the Rules 

130 and Regulations for the RRA; 

131 (k) “Ineligible Lands” shall mean all lands to which Irrigation Water may not 

132 be delivered in accordance with Section 204 of the RRA; 

133 (l) “Irrigation Full Cost Water Rate” shall mean the Full Cost Rate applicable 

134 to the delivery of Irrigation Water; 

135 (m) “Irrigation Water” shall mean water made available from the Project that 

136 is used primarily in the production of agricultural crops or livestock, including domestic use 

137 incidental thereto, and watering of livestock; 

138 (n) “Landholder” shall mean a party that directly or indirectly owns or leases 

139 nonexempt land, as provided in 43 CFR 426.2; 

 (o) “Municipal and Industrial (M&I) Water”7 140 shall mean Project Water, other 

141 than Irrigation Water, made available to the Contractor. M&I Water shall include water used for 

142 human use and purposes such as the watering of landscaping or pasture for animals (e.g., horses) 

143 which are kept for personal enjoyment or water delivered to land holdings operated in units of 

144 less than five acres unless the Contractor establishes to the satisfaction of the Contracting Officer 

145 that the use of water delivered to any such landholding is a use described in subdivision (m) of 

146 this Article; 

147 (p) “M&I Full Cost Water Rate” shall mean the Full Cost Rate applicable to 

148 the delivery of M&I Water; 

 

7

 Some Contractors may want to include “other water” definition in lieu of this definition. Individual Contractors with 

unique circumstances may negotiate a lower threshold.
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

8

149 (q) “Operation and Maintenance” or “O&M” shall mean normal and 

150 reasonable care, control, operation, repair, replacement (other than capital replacement), and 

151 maintenance of Project facilities; 

152 (r) “Operating Non-Federal Entity" shall mean the ___________, its 

153 successors or assigns, a non-Federal entity which has the obligation to operate and maintain all 

154 or a portion of the ____________ [Division/Unit] facilities pursuant to an agreement with the 

155 United States, and which may have funding obligations with respect thereto; 

156 (s) “Project” shall mean the Central Valley Project owned by the United 

157 States and managed by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; 

158 (t) “Project Contractors” shall mean all parties who have water service 

159 contracts for Project Water from the Project with the United States pursuant to Federal 

160 Reclamation law; 

161 (u) “Project Water” shall mean all water that is developed, diverted, stored, or 

162 delivered by the Secretary in accordance with the statutes authorizing the Project and in 

163 accordance with the terms and conditions of water rights acquired pursuant to California law; 

164 (v) “Rates” shall mean the payments determined annually by the Contracting 

165 Officer in accordance with the then-current applicable water ratesetting policies for the Project, 

166 as described in subdivision (a) of Article 7 of this Contract; 

167 (w) “Recent Historic Average” shall mean the most recent five-year average of 

168 the final forecast of Water Made Available to the Contractor pursuant to this Contract or its 

169 preceding contract(s); 

170 (x) “Secretary” shall mean the Secretary of the Interior, a duly appointed 

171 successor, or an authorized representative acting pursuant to any authority of the Secretary and 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

9

172 through any agency of the Department of the Interior; 

173 (y) “Tiered Pricing Component” shall be the incremental amount to be paid 

174 for each acre-foot of Water Delivered as described in subdivision (j) of Article 7 of this Contract; 

175 (z) “Water Delivered” or “Delivered Water” shall mean Project Water 

176 diverted for use by the Contractor at the point(s) of delivery approved by the Contracting 

Officer8 177 ; 

178 (aa) “Water Made Available” shall mean the estimated amount of Project 

179 Water that can be delivered to the Contractor for the upcoming Year as declared by the 

180 Contracting Officer, pursuant to subdivision (a) of Article 4 of this Contract; 

181 (bb) “Water Scheduled” shall mean Project Water made available to the 

182 Contractor for which times and quantities for delivery have been established by the Contractor 

183 and Contracting Officer, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Article 4 of this Contract; and 

184 (cc) "Year" shall mean the period from and including March 1 of each 

185 Calendar Year through the last day of February of the following Calendar Year. 

186 TERM OF CONTRACT 

187 2. (a) This Contract shall be effective March 1, 200_, through February 28, 

20__, and supercedes the Existing Contract.9 188 In the event the Contractor wishes to renew this 

189 Contract beyond February 28, 20__, the Contractor shall submit a request for renewal in writing 

190 to the Contracting Officer no later than two years prior to the date this Contract expires. The 

191 renewal of this Contract insofar as it pertains to the furnishing of Irrigation Water to the 

 

8

 This language may be modified at the Contractor level.

9

 Contractor specific-may need to include language regarding this contract superceding Existing Contract, in whole 

or in part. 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

10

192 Contractor shall be governed by subdivision (b) of this Article, and the renewal of this Contract 

193 insofar as it pertains to the furnishing of M&I Water to the Contractor shall be governed by 

194 subdivision (c) of this Article. 

195 (b) (1) Under terms and conditions of a renewal contract that are mutually 

196 agreeable to the parties hereto, and upon a determination by the Contracting Officer that at the 

197 time of contract renewal the conditions set forth in subdivision (b)(2) of this Article are met, and 

198 subject to Federal and State law, this Contract, insofar as it pertains to the furnishing of Irrigation 

199 Water to the Contractor, shall be renewed for a period of 25 years. 

200 (2) The conditions which must be met for this Contract to be renewed 

201 are: (i) the Contractor has prepared a water conservation plan that has been determined by the 

202 Contracting Officer in accordance with Article 26 of this Contract to meet the conservation and 

203 efficiency criteria for evaluating such plans established under Federal law; (ii) the Contractor is 

204 implementing an effective water conservation and efficiency program based on the Contractor’s 

205 water conservation plan as required by Article 26 of this Contract; (iii) the Contractor is 

206 maintaining all water measuring devices and implementing all water measurement methods as 

207 approved by the Contracting Officer pursuant to Article 6 of this Contract; (iv) the Contractor 

208 has reasonably and beneficially used the Project Water supplies made available to it and, based 

209 on projected demands, is reasonably anticipated and expects to fully utilize for reasonable and 

210 beneficial use the quantity of Project Water to be made available to it pursuant to such renewal; 

211 (v) the Contractor is complying with all terms and conditions of this Contract; and (vi) the 

212 Contractor has the physical and legal ability to deliver Project Water. 

213 (3) The terms and conditions of the renewal contract described in 

214 subdivision (b)(1) of this Article and any subsequent renewal contracts shall be developed 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

11

215 consistent with the parties’ respective legal rights and obligations, and in consideration of all 

216 relevant facts and circumstances, as those circumstances exist at the time of renewal, including, 

217 without limitation, the Contractor’s need for continued delivery of Project Water; environmental 

218 conditions affected by implementation of the Contract to be renewed, and specifically changes in 

219 those conditions that occurred during the life of the Contract to be renewed; the Secretary’s 

220 progress toward achieving the purposes of the CVPIA as set out in Section 3402 and in 

221 implementing the specific provisions of the CVPIA; and current and anticipated economic 

222 circumstances of the region served by the Contractor. 

223 (c) This Contract, insofar as it pertains to the furnishing of M&I Water to the 

224 Contractor, shall be renewed for successive periods of up to 40 years each, which periods shall 

225 be consistent with then-existing Reclamation-wide policy, under terms and conditions mutually 

226 agreeable to the parties and consistent with Federal and State law. The Contractor shall be 

227 afforded the opportunity to comment to the Contracting Officer on the proposed adoption and 

228 application of any revised policy applicable to the delivery of M&I Water that would limit the 

229 term of any subsequent renewal contract with the Contractor for the furnishing of M&I Water to 

230 less than 40 years. 

231 (d) The Contracting Officer shall make a determination ten years after the 

232 date of execution of this Contract, and every five years thereafter during the term of this 

233 Contract, of whether a conversion of the relevant portion of this Contract to a contract under 

234 subsection 9(d) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 can be accomplished pursuant to the Act 

235 of July 2, 1956 (70 Stat 483). The Contracting Officer shall also make a determination ten years 

236 after the date of execution of this Contract and every five years thereafter during the term of this 

237 Contract of whether a conversion of the relevant portion of this Contract to a contract under 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

12

238 subsection 9(c)(1) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 can be accomplished. 

239 Notwithstanding any provision of this Contract, the Contractor reserves and shall have all rights 

240 and benefits under the Act of July 2, 1956 (70 Stat. 483). The Contracting Officer anticipates that 

241 during the term of this Contract, all authorized Project construction expected to occur will have 

242 occurred, and on that basis the Contracting Officer agrees upon such completion to allocate all 

243 costs that are properly assignable to the Contractor, and agrees further that, at any time after such 

244 allocation is made, and subject to satisfaction of the condition set out in this subdivision, this 

245 Contract shall, at the request of the Contractor, be converted to a contract under subsection 9(d) 

246 or 9(c)(1), whichever is applicable, of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, subject to applicable 

247 Federal law and under stated terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the Contractor and the 

248 Contracting Officer. A condition for such conversion to occur shall be a determination by the 

249 Contracting Officer that, account being taken of the amount credited to return by the Contractor 

250 as provided for under Federal Reclamation law, the remaining amount of construction costs 

251 assignable for ultimate return by the Contractor can probably be repaid to the United States 

252 within the term of a contract under subsection 9(d) or 9(c)(1), whichever is applicable. If the 

253 remaining amount of costs that are properly assignable to the Contractor cannot be determined 

254 during the term of this Contract, the Contracting Officer shall notify the Contractor, and provide 

255 the reason(s) why such a determination could not be made. Further, the Contracting Officer shall 

256 make such a determination as soon thereafter as possible so as to permit, upon request of the 

257 Contractor and satisfaction of the condition set out above, conversion to a contract under 

258 subsection 9(d) or 9(c)(1), whichever is applicable. In the event such determination of costs has 

259 not been made at a time which allows conversion of this Contract during the term of this 

260 Contract or the Contractor has not requested conversion of this Contract within such term, the 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

13

261 parties shall incorporate in any subsequent renewal contract as described in subdivision (b) of 

262 this Article a provision that carries forth in substantially identical terms the provisions of this 

263 subdivision. 

264 WATER TO BE MADE AVAILABLE AND DELIVERED TO THE CONTRACTOR

265 3. (Divisional) (a) During each Year, consistent with all applicable State water rights, 

266 permits, and licenses, Federal law, and subject to the provisions set forth in Articles 11 and 12 of 

267 this Contract, the Contracting Officer shall make available for delivery to the Contractor ______ 

268 acre-feet of Project Water for irrigation and M&I purposes. Water Delivered to the Contractor in 

269 accordance with this subdivision shall be scheduled and paid for pursuant to the provisions of 

270 Articles 4 and 7 of this Contract. 

271 (b) Because the capacity of the Project to deliver Project Water has been 

272 constrained in recent years and may be constrained in the future due to many factors including 

273 hydrologic conditions and implementation of Federal and State laws, the likelihood of the 

274 Contractor actually receiving the amount of Project Water set out in subdivision (a) of this 

275 Article in any given Year is uncertain. The Contracting Officer’s modeling referenced in the 

276 PEIS projected that the Contract Total set forth in this Contract will not be available to the 

277 Contractor in many years. During the most recent five years, the Recent Historic Average of 

278 water made available to the Contractor was ____ acre-feet. Nothing in subdivision (b) of this 

279 Article shall affect the rights and obligations of the parties under any provision of this Contract. 

280 (c) The Contractor shall utilize the Project Water in accordance with all 

281 applicable legal requirements. 

282 (d) The Contractor shall make reasonable and beneficial use of all water 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

14

283 furnished pursuant to this Contract. Groundwater recharge programs (direct, indirect, or in lieu), 

284 groundwater banking programs, surface water storage programs, and other similar programs 

285 utilizing Project Water or other water furnished pursuant to this Contract conducted within the 

286 Contractor’s Service Area which are consistent with applicable State law and result in use 

287 consistent with Federal Reclamation law will be allowed; Provided, That any direct recharge 

288 program(s) is (are) described in the Contractor’s water conservation plan submitted pursuant to 

289 Article 26 of this Contract; Provided, further, That such water conservation plan demonstrates 

290 sufficient lawful uses exist in the Contractor’s Service Area so that using a long-term average, 

291 the quantity of Delivered Water is demonstrated to be reasonable for such uses and in 

292 compliance with Federal Reclamation law. Groundwater recharge programs, groundwater 

293 banking programs, surface water storage programs, and other similar programs utilizing Project 

294 Water or other water furnished pursuant to this Contract conducted outside the Contractor’s 

295 Service Area may be permitted upon written approval of the Contracting Officer, which approval 

296 will be based upon environmental documentation, Project Water rights, and Project operational 

297 concerns. The Contracting Officer will address such concerns in regulations, policies, or 

298 guidelines. 

299 (e) The Contractor shall comply with requirements applicable to the 

300 Contractor in biological opinion(s) prepared as a result of a consultation regarding the execution 

301 of this Contract undertaken pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 

302 as amended, that are within the Contractor’s legal authority to implement. The Existing Contract, 

which evidences in excess of ___years of diversions for irrigation and/or M&I purposes11 303 of the 

304 quantities of water provided in subdivision (a) of Article 3 of this Contract, will be considered in 

 

11 Specific Contract Issue: The type of water diverted will be addressed on a contractor specific basis. 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

15

305 developing an appropriate baseline for biological assessment(s) prepared pursuant to the ESA, 

306 and any other needed environmental review. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the 

307 Contractor from challenging or seeking judicial relief in a court of competent jurisdiction with 

308 respect to any biological opinion or other environmental documentation referred to in this 

Article.12 309 

310 (f) Following the declaration of Water Made Available under Article 4 of this 

311 Contract, the Contracting Officer will make a determination whether Project Water, or other 

312 water available to the Project, can be made available to the Contractor in addition to the Contract 

313 Total under Article 3 of this Contract during the Year without adversely impacting other Project 

314 Contractors. At the request of the Contractor, the Contracting Officer will consult with the 

315 Contractor prior to making such a determination. If the Contracting Officer determines that 

316 Project Water, or other water available to the Project, can be made available to the Contractor, 

317 the Contracting Officer will announce the availability of such water and shall so notify the 

318 Contractor as soon as practical. The Contracting Officer will thereafter meet with the Contractor 

319 and other Project Contractors capable of taking such water to determine the most equitable and 

320 efficient allocation of such water. If the Contractor requests the delivery of any quantity of such 

321 water, the Contracting Officer shall make such water available to the Contractor in accordance 

322 with applicable statutes, regulations, guidelines, and policies. 

323 [DIVISIONAL ISSUE-SECTION 215 WATER] 

324 (g) The Contractor may request permission to reschedule for use during the 

325 subsequent Year some or all of the Water Made Available to the Contractor during the current 

 

12 Specific Contract Issue: As an example,the concern over land use authority may be the subject of discussion with 

individual contractors. 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

16

Year, referred to as “carryover.”13 326 The Contractor may request permission to use during the 

327 current Year a quantity of Project Water which may be made available by the United States to 

328 the Contractor during the subsequent Year, referred to as “preuse.” The Contracting Officer’s 

329 written approval may permit such uses in accordance with applicable statutes, regulations, 

330 guidelines, and policies. 

331 (h) The Contractor’s right pursuant to Federal Reclamation law and applicable 

332 State law to the reasonable and beneficial use of Water Delivered pursuant to this Contract 

333 during the term thereof and any subsequent renewal contracts, as described in Article 2 of this 

334 Contract, during the terms thereof shall not be disturbed so long as the Contractor shall fulfill all 

335 of its obligations under this Contract and any renewals thereof. Nothing in the preceding 

336 sentence shall affect the Contracting Officer’s ability to impose shortages under Article 11 or 

337 subdivision (b) of Article 12 of this Contract or applicable provisions of any subsequent renewal 

338 contracts. 

339 (i) Project Water furnished to the Contractor pursuant to this Contract may be 

340 delivered for purposes other than those described in subdivisions (m) and (o) of Article 1 of this 

341 Contract upon written approval by the Contracting Officer in accordance with the terms and 

342 conditions of such approval. 

343 (j) The Contracting Officer shall make reasonable efforts to protect the water 

344 rights necessary for the Project and to provide the water available under this Contract. The 

345 Contracting Officer shall not object to participation by the Contractor, in the capacity and to the 

346 extent permitted by law, in administrative proceedings related to the Project Water rights; 

347 Provided, That the Contracting Officer retains the right to object to the substance of the 

 

13 “Rescheduled” in some divisions. 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

17

348 Contractor’s position in such a proceeding; Provided further, That in such proceedings the 

349 Contracting Officer shall recognize the Contractor has a legal right under the terms of this 

350 Contract to use Project Water. 

351 TIME FOR DELIVERY OF WATER

352 4. (a) On or about February 20 of each Calendar Year, the Contracting Officer 

353 shall announce the Contracting Officer’s expected declaration of the Water Made Available. 

354 Such declaration will be expressed in terms of both Water Made Available and the Recent 

355 Historic Average and will be updated monthly, and more frequently if necessary, based on then356 current operational and hydrologic conditions and a new declaration with changes, if any, to the 

357 Water Made Available will be made. The Contracting Officer shall provide forecasts of Project 

358 operations and the basis of the estimate, with relevant supporting information, upon the written 

359 request of the Contractor. Concurrently with the declaration of the Water Made Available, the 

360 Contracting Officer shall provide the Contractor with the updated Recent Historic Average. 

361 (b) On or before each March 1 and at such other times as necessary, the 

362 Contractor shall submit to the Contracting Officer a written schedule, satisfactory to the 

363 Contracting Officer, showing the monthly quantities of Project Water to be delivered by the 

364 United States to the Contractor pursuant to this Contract for the Year commencing on such 

365 March 1. The Contracting Officer shall use all reasonable means to deliver Project Water 

366 according to the approved schedule for the Year commencing on such March 1. 

367 (c) The Contractor shall not schedule Project Water in excess of the quantity 

368 of Project Water the Contractor intends to put to reasonable and beneficial use within the 

369 Contractor's Service Area or to sell, transfer, or exchange pursuant to Article 9 of this Contract 

370 during any Year. 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

18

371 (d) Subject to the conditions set forth in subdivision (a) of Article 3 of this 

372 Contract, the United States shall deliver Project Water to the Contractor in accordance with the 

373 initial schedule submitted by the Contractor pursuant to subdivision (b) of this Article, or any 

374 written revision(s), satisfactory to the Contracting Officer, thereto submitted within a reasonable 

375 time prior to the date(s) on which the requested change(s) is/are to be implemented. 

376 POINT OF DIVERSION AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR DISTRIBUTION OF WATER

377 5. (a) Project Water scheduled pursuant to subdivision (b) of Article 4 of this 

378 Contract shall be delivered to the Contractor at __________________________and any 

379 additional point or points of delivery either on Project facilities or another location or locations 

380 mutually agreed to in writing by the Contracting Officer and the Contractor. 

381 (b) The Contracting Officer, either directly or through its written 

382 agreement(s) with the Operating Non-Federal Entity/Entities [Contractor specific issue-reference 

383 to Entities] shall make all reasonable efforts to maintain sufficient flows and levels of water in 

384 Project facilities to deliver Project Water to the Contractor at specific turnouts established 

385 pursuant to subdivision (a) of this Article. 

386 (c) The Contractor shall deliver Irrigation Water in accordance with any 

387 applicable land classification provisions of Federal Reclamation law and the associated 

388 regulations. The Contractor shall not deliver Project Water to land outside the Contractor's 

389 Service Area unless approved in advance by the Contracting Officer. 

390 (d) All Water Delivered to the Contractor pursuant to this Contract shall be 

391 measured and recorded with equipment furnished, installed, operated, and maintained by the 

United States, or the Operating Non-Federal Entity/Entities 14 392 at the point or points of delivery 

 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

19

393 established pursuant to subdivision (a) of this Article. Upon the request of either party to this 

394 Contract, the Contracting Officer shall investigate, or cause to be investigated by the appropriate 

395 Operating Non-Federal Entity/Entities, the accuracy of such measurements and shall take any 

396 necessary steps to adjust any errors appearing therein. For any period of time when accurate 

397 measurements have not been made, the Contracting Officer shall consult with the Contractor and 

398 the appropriate Operating Non-Federal Entity/Entities prior to making a final determination of 

399 the quantity delivered for that period of time. 

400 (e) Neither the Contracting Officer nor any Operating Non-Federal 

401 Entity/Entities shall be responsible for the control, carriage, handling, use, disposal, or 

402 distribution of Water Delivered to the Contractor pursuant to this Contract beyond the delivery 

403 points specified in subdivision (a) of this Article. The Contractor shall indemnify the United 

404 States, its officers, employees, agents, and assigns on account of damage or claim of damage of 

405 any nature whatsoever for which there is legal responsibility, including property damage, 

406 personal injury, or death arising out of or connected with the control, carriage, handling, use, 

407 disposal, or distribution of such Water Delivered beyond such delivery points, except for any 

408 damage or claim arising out of (i) acts or omissions of the Contracting Officer or any of its 

409 officers, employees, agents, or assigns, including the Operating Non-Federal Entity/Entities, with 

410 the intent of creating the situation resulting in any damage or claim, (ii) willful misconduct of the 

411 Contracting Officer or any of its officers, employees, agents, or assigns, including theOperating 

412 Non-Federal Entity/Entities, (iii) negligence of the Contracting Officer or any of its officers, 

413 employees, agents, or assigns including the Operating Non-Federal Entity/Entities, or (iv) 

414 damage or claims resulting from a malfunction of facilities owned and/or operated by the United 

415 States or the Operating Non-Federal Entity/Entities 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

20

MEASUREMENT OF WATER WITHIN THE CONTRACTOR’S SERVICE AREA15 416 

417 6. (Contractor Specific)(a) The Contractor has established a measuring program 

418 satisfactory to the Contracting Officer.The Contractor shall ensure that all surface water 

419 delivered for irrigation purposes within the Contractor’s Service Area is measured at each 

420 agricultural turnout and such water delivered for M&I purposes is measured at each M&I service 

421 connection. The water measuring devices or water measuring methods of comparable 

422 effectiveness must be acceptable to the Contracting Officer. The Contractor shall be responsible 

423 for installing, operating, and maintaining and repairing all such measuring devices and 

424 implementing all such water measuring methods at no cost to the United States. The Contractor 

425 shall use the information obtained from such water measuring devices or water measuring 

426 methods to ensure its proper management of the water, to bill water users for water delivered by 

427 the Contractor; and, if applicable, to record water delivered for M&I purposes by customer class 

428 as defined in the Contractor’s water conservation plan provided for in Article 26 of this Contract. 

429 Nothing herein contained, however, shall preclude the Contractor from establishing and 

430 collecting any charges, assessments, or other revenues authorized by California law. The 

431 Contractor shall include a summary of all its annual surface water deliveries in the annual report 

432 described in subdivision (c) of Article 26. 

433 (b) (Contractor Specific) To the extent the information has not otherwise 

434 been provided, upon execution of this Contract, the Contractor shall provide to the Contracting 

435 Officer a written report describing the measurement devices or water measuring methods being 

436 used or to be used to implement subdivision (a) of this Article and identifying the agricultural 

437 turnouts and the M&I service connections or alternative measurement programs approved by the 

 

15 Recognize unique circumstances at Contractor level may require negotiation of different language.
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

21

438 Contracting Officer, at which such measurement devices or water measuring methods are being 

439 used, and, if applicable, identifying the locations at which such devices and/or methods are not 

440 yet being used including a time schedule for implementation at such locations. The Contracting 

441 Officer shall advise the Contractor in writing within 60 days as to the adequacy and necessary 

442 modifications, if any, of the measuring devices or water measuring methods identified in the 

443 Contractor’s report and if the Contracting Officer does not respond in such time, they shall be 

444 deemed adequate. If the Contracting Officer notifies the Contractor that the measuring devices 

445 or methods are inadequate, the parties shall within 60 days following the Contracting Officer‘s 

446 response, negotiate in good faith the earliest practicable date by which the Contractor shall 

447 modify said measuring devices and/or measuring methods as required by the Contracting Officer 

448 to ensure compliance with subdivision (a) of this Article. 

449 (c) All new surface water delivery systems installed within the Contractor's 

Service Area after the effective date of this Contract shall also16 450 comply with the measurement 

451 provisions described in subdivision (a) of this Article. 

452 (d) (Contractor Specific) The Contractor shall inform the Contracting Officer 

453 and the State of California in writing by April 30 of each Year of the monthly volume of surface 

454 water delivered within the Contractor’s Service Area during the previous Year. 

455 (e) (Contractor Specific) The Contractor shall inform the Contracting Officer 

and the Operating Non-Federal Entity on or before the 20th 456 calendar day of each month of the 

457 quantity of Irrigation and M&I Water taken during the preceding month. 

458 RATES AND METHOD OF PAYMENT FOR WATER

459 7. (a) The Contractor shall pay the United States as provided in this Article for 

 

16 Some Contractors may propose alternate date.
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

22

460 all Delivered Water at Rates, Charges, and the Tiered Pricing Component established in 

461 accordance with (i) the Secretary’s ratesetting policy for Irrigation Water adopted in 1988 and 

462 the Secretary’s then-existing ratesetting policy for M&I Water. Such ratesetting policies shall be 

463 amended, modified, or superceded only through a public notice and comment procedure; (ii) 

464 applicable Federal Reclamation law and associated rules and regulations, or policies; and (iii) 

465 other applicable provisions of this Contract. Payments shall be made by cash transaction, 

466 electronic funds transfer, or any other mechanism as may be agreed to in writing by the 

467 Contractor and the Contracting Officer. The Rates, Charges, and Tiered Pricing Component 

468 applicable to the Contractor upon execution of this Contract are set forth in Exhibit “B,” as may 

469 be revised annually. 

470 (b) The Contracting Officer shall notify the Contractor of the Rates, Charges, 

471 and Tiered Pricing Component as follows: 

472 (1) Prior to July 1 of each Calendar Year, the Contracting Officer shall 

473 provide the Contractor an estimate of the Charges for Project Water that will be applied to the 

474 period October 1, of the current Calendar Year, through September 30, of the following Calendar 

475 Year, and the basis for such estimate. The Contractor shall be allowed not less than two months 

476 to review and comment on such estimates. On or before September 15 of each Calendar Year, 

477 the Contracting Officer shall notify the Contractor in writing of the Charges to be in effect during 

478 the period October 1 of the current Calendar Year, through September 30, of the following 

479 Calendar Year, and such notification shall revise Exhibit “B.” 

480 (2) Prior to October 1 of each Calendar Year, the Contracting Officer 

481 shall make available to the Contractor an estimate of the Rates and Tiered Pricing Component 

482 for Project Water for the following Year and the computations and cost allocations upon which 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

23

483 those Rates are based. The Contractor shall be allowed not less than two months to review and 

484 comment on such computations and cost allocations. By December 31 of each Calendar Year, 

485 the Contracting Officer shall provide the Contractor with the final Rates and Tiered Pricing 

486 Component to be in effect for the upcoming Year, and such notification shall revise Exhibit “B.” 

487 (c) At the time the Contractor submits the initial schedule for the delivery of 

488 Project Water for each Year pursuant to subdivision (b) of Article 4 of this Contract, the 

489 Contractor shall make an advance payment to the United States equal to the total amount payable 

490 pursuant to the applicable Rate(s) set under subdivision (a) of this Article, for the Project Water 

491 scheduled to be delivered pursuant to this Contract during the first two calendar months of the 

492 Year. Before the end of the first month and before the end of each calendar month thereafter, the 

493 Contractor shall make an advance payment to the United States, at the Rate(s) set under 

494 subdivision (a) of this Article, for the Water Scheduled to be delivered pursuant to this Contract 

495 during the second month immediately following. Adjustments between advance payments for 

496 Water Scheduled and payments at Rates due for Water Delivered shall be made before the end of 

497 the following month; Provided, That any revised schedule submitted by the Contractor pursuant 

498 to Article 4 of this Contract which increases the amount of Water Delivered pursuant to this 

499 Contract during any month shall be accompanied with appropriate advance payment, at the Rates 

500 then in effect, to assure that Project Water is not delivered to the Contractor in advance of such 

501 payment. In any month in which the quantity of Water Delivered to the Contractor pursuant to 

502 this Contract equals the quantity of Water Scheduled and paid for by the Contractor, no 

503 additional Project Water shall be delivered to the Contractor unless and until an advance 

504 payment at the Rates then in effect for such additional Project Water is made. Final adjustment 

505 between the advance payments for the Water Scheduled and payments for the quantities of Water 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

24

506 Delivered during each Year pursuant to this Contract shall be made as soon as practicable, but no 

507 later than April 30th of the following Year, or 60 days after the delivery of Project Water carried 

508 over under subdivision (g) of Article 3 of this Contract if such water is not delivered by the last 

509 day of February. 

510 (d) The Contractor shall also make a payment in addition to the Rate(s) in 

511 subdivision (c) of this Article to the United States for Water Delivered, at the Charges and the 

512 appropriate Tiered Pricing Component then in effect, before the end of the month following the 

513 month of delivery; Provided, That the Contractor may be granted an exception from the Tiered 

514 Pricing Component pursuant to subdivision (j)(2) of this Article. The payments shall be 

515 consistent with the quantities of Irrigation Water and M&I Water Delivered as shown in the 

516 water delivery report for the subject month prepared by the Operating Non-Federal 

517 Entity/Entities or, if there is no Operating Non-Federal Entity/Entities, by the Contracting 

518 Officer. The water delivery report shall be deemed a bill for the payment of Charges and the 

519 applicable Tiered Pricing Component for Water Delivered. Adjustment for overpayment or 

520 underpayment of Charges shall be made through the adjustment of payments due to the United 

521 States for Charges for the next month. Any amount to be paid for past due payment of Charges 

522 and the Tiered Pricing Component shall be computed pursuant to Article 20 of this Contract. 

523 (e) The Contractor shall pay for any Water Delivered under subdivision (a), 

524 (f), or (g) of Article 3 of this Contract as determined by the Contracting Officer pursuant to 

525 applicable statutes, associated regulations, any applicable provisions of guidelines or ratesetting 

526 policies; Provided, That the Rate for Water Delivered under subdivision (f) of Article 3 of this 

527 Contract shall be no more than the otherwise applicable Rate for Irrigation Water or M&I Water 

528 under subdivision (a) of this Article. 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

25

529 (f) Payments to be made by the Contractor to the United States under this 

530 Contract may be paid from any revenues available to the Contractor. 

531 (g) All revenues received by the United States from the Contractor relating to 

532 the delivery of Project Water or the delivery of non-Project water through Project facilities shall 

533 be allocated and applied in accordance with Federal Reclamation law and the associated rules or 

534 regulations, and the then-current Project ratesetting policies for M&I Water or Irrigation Water. 

535 (h) The Contracting Officer shall keep its accounts pertaining to the 

536 administration of the financial terms and conditions of its long-term contracts, in accordance 

537 with applicable Federal standards, so as to reflect the application of Project costs and revenues. 

538 The Contracting Officer shall, each Year upon request of the Contractor, provide to the 

539 Contractor a detailed accounting of all Project and Contractor expense allocations, the 

540 disposition of all Project and Contractor revenues, and a summary of all water delivery 

541 information. The Contracting Officer and the Contractor shall enter into good faith negotiations 

542 to resolve any discrepancies or disputes relating to accountings, reports, or information. 

543 (i) The parties acknowledge and agree that the efficient administration of this 

544 Contract is their mutual goal. Recognizing that experience has demonstrated that mechanisms, 

545 policies, and procedures used for establishing Rates, Charges, and Tiered Pricing Components, 

546 and/or for making and allocating payments, other than those set forth in this Article may be in 

547 the mutual best interest of the parties, it is expressly agreed that the parties may enter into 

548 agreements to modify the mechanisms, policies, and procedures for any of those purposes while 

549 this Contract is in effect without amending this Contract. 

550 (j) (1) Beginning at such time as deliveries of Project Water in a Year 

551 exceed 80 percent of the Contract Total, then before the end of the month following the month of 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

26

552 delivery the Contractor shall make an additional payment to the United States equal to the 

553 applicable Tiered Pricing Component. The Tiered Pricing Component for the amount of Water 

554 Delivered in excess of 80 percent of the Contract Total, but less than or equal to 90 percent of the 

555 Contract Total, shall equal one-half of the difference between the Rate established under 

556 subdivision (a) of this Article and the Irrigation Full Cost Water Rate or M&I Full Cost Water 

557 Rate, whichever is applicable. The Tiered Pricing Component for the amount of Water 

558 Delivered which exceeds 90 percent of the Contract Total shall equal the difference between (i) 

559 the Rate established under subdivision (a) of this Article and (ii) the Irrigation Full Cost Water 

560 Rate or M&I Full Cost Water Rate, whichever is applicable. For all Water Delivered pursuant to 

561 subdivision (a) of Article 3 of this Contract which is in excess of 80 percent of the Contract 

562 Total, this increment shall be deemed to be divided between Irrigation Water and M&I Water in 

the same proportion as actual deliveries of each bear to the cumulative total Water Delivered.17 563 

564 (2) Subject to the Contracting Officer’s written approval, the 

565 Contractor may request and receive an exemption from such Tiered Pricing Components for 

566 Project Water delivered to produce a crop which the Contracting Officer determines will provide 

567 significant and quantifiable habitat values for waterfowl in fields where the water is used and the 

568 crops are produced; Provided, That the exemption from the Tiered Pricing Component for 

569 Irrigation Water shall apply only if such habitat values can be assured consistent with the 

570 purposes of the CVPIA through binding agreements executed with or approved by the 

571 Contracting Officer prior to use of such water. 

572 (3) For purposes of determining the applicability of the Tiered Pricing 

573 Component pursuant to this Article, Water Delivered shall include Project Water that the 

 

17 Deletion of the last sentence or alternate language may be negotiated by individual districts. 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

27

574 Contractor transfers to others but shall not include Project Water transferred to the Contractor, 

575 nor shall it include the additional water provided to the Contractor under the provisions of 

subdivision (f) of Article 3 of this Contract.18 576 

577 (k) For the term of this Contract, Rates under the respective ratesetting 

578 policies will be established to recover only reimbursable O&M (including any deficits) and 

579 capital costs of the Project, as those terms are used in the then-current Project ratesetting 

580 policies, and interest, where appropriate, except in instances where a minimum Rate is applicable 

581 in accordance with the relevant Project ratesetting policy. Changes of significance in practices 

582 which implement the Contracting Officer’s ratesetting policies will not be implemented until the 

583 Contracting Officer has provided the Contractor an opportunity to discuss the nature, need, and 

584 impact of the proposed change. 

585 (l) Except as provided in subsections 3405(a)(1)(B) and 3405(f) of the 

586 CVPIA, the Rates for Project Water transferred by the Contractor shall be the Contractor’s Rates 

587 adjusted upward or downward to reflect the changed costs, if any, incurred by the Contracting 

588 Officer in the delivery of the transferred Project Water to the transferee’s point of delivery in 

589 accordance with the then applicable Project ratesetting policy. If the Contractor is receiving 

590 lower Rates and Charges because of inability to pay and is transferring Project Water to another 

591 entity whose Rates and Charges are not adjusted due to inability to pay, the Rates and Charges 

592 for transferred Project Water shall be the Contractor’s Rates and Charges and will not be 

593 adjusted to reflect the Contractor’s inability to pay. 

594 (m) Pursuant to the Act of October 27, 1986 (100 Stat. 3050), the Contracting 

595 Officer is authorized to adjust determinations of ability to pay every five years. 

 

18 Divisions/Districts may propose alternative language.
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

28

596 (n) [For contractors with M&I water]: With respect to the Rates for M&I 

597 Water the Contractor asserts that it is not legally obligated to pay any Project deficits claimed by 

598 the United States to have accrued as of the date of this Contract or deficit-related interest charges 

599 thereon. By entering into this Contract, the Contractor does not waive any legal rights or 

600 remedies that it may have with respect to such disputed issues. Notwithstanding the execution of 

601 this Contract and payments made hereunder, the Contractor may challenge in the appropriate 

602 administrative or judicial forums: (1) the existence, computation, or imposition of any deficit 

603 charges accruing during the term of the Existing Contract and any preceding interim renewal 

604 contracts, if applicable; (2) interest accruing on any such deficits; (3) the inclusion of any such 

605 deficit charges or interest in the Rates; (4) the application by the United States of payments made 

606 by the Contractor under its Existing Contract and any preceding interim renewal contracts, if 

607 applicable; and (5) the application of such payments in the Rates. The Contracting Officer 

608 agrees that the Contractor shall be entitled to the benefit of any administrative or judicial ruling 

609 in favor of any Project M&I contractor on any of these issues, and credits for payments 

heretofore made, Provided, That the basis for such ruling is applicable to the Contractor.19 610 

NON-INTEREST BEARING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DEFICITS20 611 

612 8. The Contractor and the Contracting Officer concur that, as of the effective date of 

613 this Contract, the Contractor has no non-interest-bearing O&M deficits and shall have no further 

614 liability therefor. 

615 [Or,] 

616 The Contractor and the Contracting Officer have entered into a written agreement 

 

19 Contractors may opt-out of including this subarticle in the contract. 

20 Contractor Specific 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

29

617 specifying a mutually acceptable mechanism through which the Contractor will retire its 

618 outstanding non-interest-bearing OO&M deficits. 

619 SALES, TRANSFERS, OR EXCHANGES OF WATER

620 9. (a) The right to receive Project Water provided for in this Contract may be 

621 sold, transferred, or exchanged to others for reasonable and beneficial uses within the State of 

622 California if such sale, transfer, or exchange is authorized by applicable Federal and State laws, 

623 and applicable guidelines or regulations then in effect. No sale, transfer, or exchange of Project 

624 Water under this Contract may take place without the prior written approval of the Contracting 

625 Officer, except as provided for in subdivision (b) of this Article, and no such sales, transfers, or 

626 exchanges shall be approved absent all appropriate environmental documentation, including but 

627 not limited to documents prepared pursuant to NEPA and ESA. Such environmental 

628 documentation should include, as appropriate, an analysis of groundwater impacts and economic 

629 and social effects, including environmental justice, of the proposed water transfers on both the 

630 transferor and transferee. 

631 (b) In order to facilitate efficient water management by means of water 

632 transfers of the type historically carried out among Project Contractors located within the same 

633 geographical area and to allow the Contractor to participate in an accelerated water transfer 

634 program during the term of this Contract, the Contracting Officer shall prepare, as appropriate, 

635 all necessary environmental documentation including, but not limited to, documents prepared 

636 pursuant to NEPA and ESA, analyzing annual transfers within such geographical areas, and the 

637 Contracting Officer shall determine whether such transfers comply with applicable law. 

638 Following the completion of the environmental documentation, such transfers addressed in such 

639 documentation shall be conducted with advance notice to the Contracting Officer, but shall not 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

30

640 require prior written approval by the Contracting Officer. Such environmental documentation 

641 and the Contracting Officer’s compliance determination shall be reviewed every five years and 

642 updated, as necessary, prior to the expiration of the then-existing five-year period. All 

643 subsequent environmental documentation shall include an alternative to evaluate not less than the 

644 quantity of Project Water historically transferred within the same geographical area. 

645 (c) For a water transfer to qualify under subdivision (b) of this Article, such 

646 water transfer must: (i) be for irrigation purposes for lands irrigated within the previous three 

647 years, for M&I use, groundwater recharge, water banking, or fish and wildlife resources; not lead 

648 to land conversion; and be delivered to established cropland, wildlife refuges, groundwater 

649 basins or M&I use; (ii) occur within a single Year; (iii) occur between a willing seller and a 

650 willing buyer; (iv) convey water through existing facilities with no new construction or 

651 modifications to facilities and be between existing Project Contractors and/or the Contractor and 

652 the United States, Department of the Interior; and (v) comply with all applicable Federal, State, 

653 and local or tribal laws and requirements imposed for protection of the environment and Indian 

654 Trust Assets, as defined under Federal law. 

655 APPLICATION OF PAYMENTS AND ADJUSTMENTS 

656 10. (a) The amount of any overpayment by the Contractor of the Contractor’s 

657 O&M, capital, and deficit (if any) obligations for the Year shall be applied first to any current 

658 liabilities of the Contractor arising out of this Contract then due and payable. Overpayments of 

659 more than $1,000 shall be refunded at the Contractor’s request. In lieu of a refund, any amount 

660 of such overpayment, at the option of the Contractor, may be credited against amounts to become 

661 due to the United States by the Contractor. With respect to overpayment, such refund or 

662 adjustment shall constitute the sole remedy of the Contractor or anyone having or claiming to 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

31

663 have the right to the use of any of the Project Water supply provided for herein. All credits and 

664 refunds of overpayments shall be made within 30 days of the Contracting Officer obtaining 

665 direction as to how to credit or refund such overpayment in response to the notice to the 

666 Contractor that it has finalized the accounts for the Year in which the overpayment was made. 

667 (b) All advances for miscellaneous costs incurred for work requested by the 

668 Contractor pursuant to Article 25 of this Contract shall be adjusted to reflect the actual costs 

669 when the work has been completed. If the advances exceed the actual costs incurred, the 

670 difference will be refunded to the Contractor. If the actual costs exceed the Contractor's 

671 advances, the Contractor will be billed for the additional costs pursuant to Article 25. 

672 TEMPORARY REDUCTIONS-RETURN FLOWS

673 11. (a) Subject to: (i) the authorized purposes and priorities of the Project and the 

674 requirements of Federal law; and (ii) the obligations of the United States under existing 

675 contracts, or renewals thereof, providing for water deliveries from the Project, the Contracting 

676 Officer shall make all reasonable efforts to optimize Project Water deliveries to the Contractor as 

677 provided in this Contract. 

678 (b) The Contracting Officer or Operating Non-Federal Entity/Entitiesmay 

679 temporarily discontinue or reduce the quantity of Water Delivered to the Contractor as herein 

680 provided for the purposes of investigation, inspection, maintenance, repair, or replacement of any 

681 of the Project facilities or any part thereof necessary for the delivery of Project Water to the 

682 Contractor, but so far as feasible the Contracting Officer or Operating Non-Federal Entity will 

683 give the Contractor due notice in advance of such temporary discontinuance or reduction, except 

684 in case of emergency, in which case no notice need be given; Provided, That the United States 

685 shall use its best efforts to avoid any discontinuance or reduction in such service. Upon 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

32

686 resumption of service after such reduction or discontinuance, and if requested by the Contractor, 

687 the United States will, if possible, deliver the quantity of Project Water which would have been 

688 delivered hereunder in the absence of such discontinuance or reduction. 

689 (c) The United States reserves the right to all seepage and return flow water 

690 derived from Water Delivered to the Contractor hereunder which escapes or is discharged 

691 beyond the Contractor's Service Area; Provided, That this shall not be construed as claiming for 

692 the United States any right to seepage or return flow being put to reasonable and beneficial use 

pursuant to this Contract within the Contractor’s Service Area21 693 by the Contractor or those 

694 claiming by, through, or under the Contractor. 

695 CONSTRAINTS ON THE AVAILABILITY OF WATER

696 12. (a) In its operation of the Project, the Contracting Officer will use all 

697 reasonable means to guard against a Condition of Shortage in the quantity of water to be made 

698 available to the Contractor pursuant to this Contract. In the event the Contracting Officer 

699 determines that a Condition of Shortage appears probable, the Contracting Officer will notify the 

700 Contractor of said determination as soon as practicable. 

701 (b) If there is a Condition of Shortage because of errors in physical operations 

702 of the Project, drought, other physical causes beyond the control of the Contracting Officer or 

703 actions taken by the Contracting Officer to meet legal obligations then, except as provided in 

704 subdivision (a) of Article 18 of this Contract, no liability shall accrue against the United States or 

705 any of its officers, agents, or employees for any damage, direct or indirect, arising therefrom. 

706 (c) DIVISIONAL ISSUE - APPORTIONMENT AMONG CONTRACTORS. 

707 (d) DIVISIONAL ISSUE - M&I Water Service Contracts 

 

21 Divisions may propose alternate language 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

33

708 (e) DIVISIONAL ISSUE – Reservation of Rights re M&I Shortage Policy 

709 UNAVOIDABLE GROUNDWATER PERCOLATION

710 13. To the extent applicable, the Contractor shall not be deemed to have delivered 

711 Irrigation Water to Excess Lands or Ineligible Lands within the meaning of this Contract if such 

712 lands are irrigated with groundwater that reaches the underground strata as an unavoidable result 

713 of the delivery of Irrigation Water by the Contractor to Eligible Lands. 

RULES AND REGULATIONS22 714 

715 

716 14. The parties agree that the delivery of Irrigation Water or use of Federal facilities 

717 pursuant to this Contract is subject to Federal Reclamation law, including but not limited to the 

718 Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C.390aa et seq.), as amended and supplemented, and 

719 the rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior under Federal Reclamation 

720 law. 

721 WATER AND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

722 

723 15. The Contractor, in carrying out this Contract, shall comply with all applicable 

724 water and air pollution laws and regulations of the United States and the State of California, and 

725 shall obtain all required permits or licenses from the appropriate Federal, State, or local 

726 authorities. 

QUALITY OF WATER23 727 

728 

729 16. (a) Project facilities used to deliver Project Water to the Contractor pursuant 

730 to this Contract shall be operated and maintained to enable the United States to deliver Project 

731 Water to the Contractor in accordance with the water quality standards specified in subsection 

732 2(b) of the Act of August 26, 1937 (50 Stat. 865), as added by Section 101 of the Act of October 

733 27, 1986 (100 Stat. 3050) or other existing Federal laws. The United States is under no 

 

22 Contractor Specific Issue - This may need to be modified on an individual contractor basis. Some contractors may be 

precluded by law to agreeing to all or part of this Article. 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

34

734 obligation to construct or furnish water treatment facilities to maintain or to improve the quality 

735 of Water Delivered to the Contractor pursuant to this Contract. The United States does not 

736 warrant the quality of Water Delivered to the Contractor pursuant to this Contract. 

737 

738 (b) The O&M of Project facilities shall be performed in such manner as is 

739 practicable to maintain the quality of raw water made available through such facilities at the 

740 highest level reasonably attainable as determined by the Contracting Officer. The Contractor 

741 shall be responsible for compliance with all State and Federal water quality standards applicable 

742 to surface and subsurface agricultural drainage discharges generated through the use of Federal 

743 or Contractor facilities or Project Water provided by the Contractor within the Contractor's 

744 Service Area. 

745 

746 (c) [DIVISIONAL ISSUE – DRAINAGE, WHERE APPLICABLE] 

747 WATER ACQUIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR

748 OTHER THAN FROM THE UNITED STATES

749 17. (a) Water or water rights now owned or hereafter acquired by the Contractor 

750 other than from the United States and Irrigation Water furnished pursuant to the terms of this 

751 Contract may be simultaneously transported through the same distribution facilities of the 

752 Contractor subject to the following: (i) if the facilities utilized for commingling Irrigation Water 

753 and non-Project water were constructed without funds made available pursuant to Federal 

754 Reclamation law, the provisions of Federal Reclamation law will be applicable only to the 

755 Landholders of lands which receive Irrigation Water; (ii) the eligibility of land to receive 

 23 Some Contractors may request tailored language regarding water quality.
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

35

756 Irrigation Water must be established through the certification requirements as specified in the 

757 Acreage Limitation Rules and Regulations (43 CFR Part 426); (iii) the water requirements of 

758 Eligible Lands within the Contractor's Service Area can be established and the quantity of 

759 Irrigation Water to be utilized is less than or equal to the quantity necessary to irrigate such 

760 Eligible Lands; and (iv) if the facilities utilized for commingling Irrigation Water and non761 Project water are/were constructed with funds made available pursuant to Federal Reclamation 

762 law, the non-Project water will be subject to the acreage limitation provisions of Federal 

763 Reclamation law, unless the Contractor pays to the United States the incremental fee described in 

764 43 CFR 426.15. In determining the incremental fee, the Contracting Officer will calculate 

765 annually the cost to the Federal Government, including interest, of storing or delivering non766 Project water, which for purposes of this Contract shall be determined as follows: The quotient 

767 shall be the unpaid distribution system costs divided by the total irrigable acreage within the 

768 Contractor's Service Area. The incremental fee per acre is the mathematical result of such 

769 quotient times the interest rate determined using Section 202 (3) of the Act of October 12, 1982 

770 (96 Stat. 1263). Such incremental fee will be charged to each acre of excess or full cost land 

771 within the Contractor’s Service Area that receives non-Project water through Federally financed 

772 or constructed facilities. The incremental fee calculation methodology will continue during the 

773 term of this Contract absent the promulgation of a contrary Reclamation-wide rule, regulation, or 

774 policy adopted after the Contractor has been afforded the opportunity to review and comment on 

775 the proposed rule, regulation, or policy. If such rule, regulation, or policy is adopted it shall 

776 supercede this provision. 

777 (b) Water or water rights now owned or hereafter acquired by the Contractor, 

778 other than from the United States, may be stored, conveyed, and/or diverted through Project 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

36

779 facilities, subject to the completion of appropriate environmental documentation, with the 

780 approval of the Contracting Officer and the execution of any contract determined by the 

781 Contracting Officer to be necessary, consistent with the following provisions: 

782 (1) The Contractor may introduce non-Project water into Project 

783 facilities and deliver said water to lands within the Contractor’s Service Area, including 

784 Ineligible Lands, subject to payment to the United States and/or to any applicable Operating 

785 Non-Federal Entity of an appropriate rate as determined by the applicable Project ratesetting 

786 policy, the R R A, and the Project use power policy, if such Project use power policy is 

787 applicable,each as amended, modified, or superceded from time to time. (2) Delivery of suc

788 or quality of water available to other Project Contractors; (iii) interfere with the delivery of 

789 contractual waterentitlements to any other Project Contractors; or (iv) interfere with the physical 

790 maintenance of the Project facilities. 

791 (3) Neither the United States nor the Operating Non-Federal Entity 

792 shall be responsible for control, care, or distribution of the non-Project water before it is 

793 introduced into or after it is delivered from the Project facilities. The Contractor hereby releases 

794 and agrees to defend and indemnify the United States and the Operating Non-Federal Entity, and 

795 their respective officers, agents, and employees, from any claim for damage to persons or 

796 property, direct or indirect, resulting from the acts of the Contractor, its officers’, employees’, 

797 agents’ or assigns’, act(s) in (i) extracting or diverting non-Project water from any source, or (ii) 

798 diverting such non-Project water into Project facilities. 

799 (4) Diversion of such non-Project water into Project facilities shall be 

800 consistent with all applicable laws, and if involving groundwater, consistent with any applicable 

801 groundwater management plan for the area from which it was extracted. 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

37

802 (5) After Project purposes are met, as determined by the Contracting 

803 Officer, the United States and the Contractor shall share priority to utilize the remaining capacity 

804 of the facilities declared to be available by the Contracting Officer for conveyance and 

805 transportation of non-Project water prior to any such remaining capacity being made available to 

806 non-Project contractors. [DIVISIONAL ISSUE – DIVISIONS MAY SEEK LANGUAGE 

807 PROVIDING FOR WHEELING AND NON-PROJECT WATER PURSUANT TO CVPIA 

808 SECTION 3408(c), ETC.]

809 OPINIONS AND DETERMINATIONS

810 18. (a) Where the terms of this Contract provide for actions to be based upon the 

811 opinion or determination of either party to this Contract, said terms shall not be construed as 

812 permitting such action to be predicated upon arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable opinions or 

813 determinations. Both parties, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Contract, expressly 

814 reserve the right to seek relief from and appropriate adjustment for any such arbitrary, capricious, 

815 or unreasonable opinion or determination. Each opinion or determination by either party shall be 

816 provided in a timely manner. Nothing in subdivision (a) of Article 18 of this Contract is 

817 intended to or shall affect or alter the standard of judicial review applicable under Federal law to 

818 any opinion or determination implementing a specific provision of Federal law embodied in 

819 statute or regulation. 

820 (b) The Contracting Officer shall have the right to make determinations 

821 necessary to administer this Contract that are consistent with the provisions of this Contract, the 

822 laws of the United States and of the State of California, and the rules and regulations 

823 promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior. Such determinations shall be made in consultation 

824 with the Contractor to the extent reasonably practicable. 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

38

825 COORDINATION AND COOPERATION

826 19. (a) In order to further their mutual goals and objectives, the Contracting 

827 Officer and the Contractor shall communicate, coordinate, and cooperate with each other, and 

828 with other affected Project Contractors, in order to improve the operation and management of the 

829 Project. The communication, coordination, and cooperation regarding operations and 

830 management shall include, but not be limited to, any action which will or may materially affect 

831 the quantity or quality of Project Water supply, the allocation of Project Water supply, and 

832 Project financial matters including, but not limited to, budget issues. The communication, 

833 coordination, and cooperation provided for hereunder shall extend to all provisions of this 

834 Contract. Each party shall retain exclusive decision making authority for all actions, opinions, 

835 and determinations to be made by the respective party. 

836 (b) Within 120 days following the effective date of this Contract, the 

837 Contractor, other affected Project Contractors, and the Contracting Officer shall arrange to meet 

838 with interested Project Contractors to develop a mutually agreeable, written Project-wide 

839 process, which may be amended as necessary separate and apart from this Contract. The goal of 

840 this process shall be to provide, to the extent practicable, the means of mutual communication 

841 and interaction regarding significant decisions concerning Project operation and management on 

842 a real-time basis. 

843 (c) In light of the factors referred to in subdivision (b) of Article 3 of this 

844 Contract, it is the intent of the Secretary to improve water supply reliability. To carry out this 

845 intent: 

846 (1) The Contracting Officer will, at the request of the Contractor, 

847 assist in the development of integrated resource management plans for the Contractor. Further, 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

39

848 the Contracting Officer will, as appropriate, seek authorizations for implementation of 

849 partnerships to improve water supply, water quality, and reliability. 

850 (2) The Secretary will, as appropriate, pursue program and project 

851 implementation and authorization in coordination with Project Contractors to improve the water 

852 supply, water quality, and reliability of the Project for all Project purposes. 

853 (3) The Secretary will coordinate with Project Contractors and the 

854 State of California to seek improved water resource management. 

855 (4) The Secretary will coordinate actions of agencies within the 

856 Department of the Interior that may impact the availability of water for Project purposes. 

857 (5) The Contracting Officer shall periodically, but not less than 

858 annually, hold division level meetings to discuss Project operations, division level water 

859 management activities, and other issues as appropriate. 

860 (d) Without limiting the contractual obligations of the Contracting Officer 

861 under the other Articles of this Contract, nothing in this Article shall be construed to limit or 

862 constrain the Contracting Officer’s ability to communicate, coordinate, and cooperate with the 

863 Contractor or other interested stakeholders or to make decisions in a timely fashion as needed to 

864 protect health, safety, or the physical integrity of structures or facilities. 

865 CHARGES FOR DELINQUENT PAYMENTS

866 20. (a) The Contractor shall be subject to interest, administrative and penalty 

867 charges on delinquent installments or payments. When a payment is not received by the due 

868 date, the Contractor shall pay an interest charge for each day the payment is delinquent beyond 

869 the due date. When a payment becomes sixty (60) days delinquent, the Contractor shall pay an 

870 administrative charge to cover additional costs of billing and processing the delinquent payment. 

871 When a payment is delinquent ninety (90) days or more, the Contractor shall pay an additional 

872 penalty charge of six (6%) percent per year for each day the payment is delinquent beyond the 

873 due date. Further, the Contractor shall pay any fees incurred for debt collection services 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

40

874 associated with a delinquent payment. 

875 (b) The interest charge rate shall be the greater of the rate prescribed quarterly 

876 in the Federal Register by the Department of the Treasury for application to overdue payments, 

877 or the interest rate of one-half of one (0.5%) percent per month prescribed by Section 6 of the 

878 Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (Public Law 76-260). The interest charge rate shall be 

879 determined as of the due date and remain fixed for the duration of the delinquent period. 

880 (c) When a partial payment on a delinquent account is received, the amount 

881 received shall be applied, first to the penalty, second to the administrative charges, third to the 

882 accrued interest, and finally to the overdue payment. 

883 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

884 21. During the performance of this Contract, the Contractor agrees as follows: 

885 (a) The Contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for 

886 employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Contractor will take 

887 affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during 

888 employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Such action 

889 shall include, but not be limited to, the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion, or 

890 transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination, rates of payment or other 

891 forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The Contractor 

892 agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, 

893 notices to be provided by the Contracting Officer setting forth the provisions of this 

894 nondiscrimination clause. 

895 (b) The Contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees 

896 placed by or on behalf of the Contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive 

897 consideration for employment without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, or 

898 national origin. 

899 (c) The Contractor will send to each labor union or representative of workers 

900 with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice, 

901 to be provided by the Contracting Officer, advising the said labor union or workers' 

902 representative of the Contractor's commitments under Section 202 of Executive Order 11246 of 

903 September 24, 1965, and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to 

904 employees and applicants for employment. 

905 (d) The Contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

41

906 No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, as amended, and of the rules, regulations, and relevant orders 

907 of the Secretary of Labor. 

908 (e) The Contractor will furnish all information and reports required by said 

909 amended Executive Order and by the rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or 

910 pursuant thereto, and will permit access to its books, records, and accounts by the Contracting 

911 Officer and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with 

912 such rules, regulations, and orders. 

913 (f) In the event of the Contractor's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination 

914 clauses of this Contract or with any of the said rules, regulations, or orders, this Contract may be 

915 canceled, terminated, or suspended, in whole or in part, and the Contractor may be declared 

916 ineligible for further Government contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in said 

917 amended Executive Order, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked as 

918 provided in said Executive Order, or by rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as 

919 otherwise provided by law. 

920 (g) The Contractor will include the provisions of paragraphs (a) through (g) in 

921 every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by the rules, regulations, or orders of the 

922 Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Section 204 of said amended Executive Order, so that such 

923 provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. The Contractor will take such 

924 action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as may be directed by the Secretary of 

925 Labor as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance: 

926 Provided, however, That in the event the Contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, 

927 litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction, the Contractor may request 

928 the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States. 

929 GENERAL OBLIGATION--BENEFITS CONDITIONED UPON PAYMENT

930 22. (a) The obligation of the Contractor to pay the United States as provided in 

931 this Contract is a general obligation of the Contractor notwithstanding the manner in which the 

932 obligation may be distributed among the Contractor's water users and notwithstanding the default 

933 of individual water users in their obligations to the Contractor. 

934 (b) The payment of charges becoming due hereunder is a condition precedent 

935 to receiving benefits under this Contract. The United States shall not make water available to the 

936 Contractor through Project facilities during any period in which the Contractor may be in arrears 

937 in the advance payment of water rates due the United States. The Contractor shall not furnish 

938 water made available pursuant to this Contract for lands or parties which are in arrears in the 

939 advance payment of water rates levied or established by the Contractor. 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

42

940 (c) With respect to subdivision (b) of this Article, the Contractor shall have no 

941 obligation to require advance payment for water rates which it levies. 

942 COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS AND REGULATIONS

943 23. (a) The Contractor shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

944 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1975 (P.L. 93-112, as amended), the 

945 Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101, et seq.) and any other applicable civil rights 

946 laws, as well as with their respective implementing regulations and guidelines imposed by the 

947 U.S. Department of the Interior and/or Bureau of Reclamation. 

948 (b) These statutes require that no person in the United States shall, on the 

949 grounds of race, color, national origin, handicap, or age, be excluded from participation in, be 

950 denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity 

951 receiving financial assistance from the Bureau of Reclamation. By executing this Contract, the 

952 Contractor agrees to immediately take any measures necessary to implement this obligation, 

953 including permitting officials of the United States to inspect premises, programs, and documents. 

954 (c) The Contractor makes this agreement in consideration of and for the 

955 purpose of obtaining any and all Federal grants, loans, contracts, property discounts, or other 

956 Federal financial assistance extended after the date hereof to the Contractor by the Bureau of 

957 Reclamation, including installment payments after such date on account of arrangements for 

958 Federal financial assistance which were approved before such date. The Contractor recognizes 

959 and agrees that such Federal assistance will be extended in reliance on the representations and 

960 agreements made in this Article, and that the United States reserves the right to seek judicial 

961 enforcement thereof. 

962 PRIVACY ACT COMPLIANCE

963 24. (a) The Contractor shall comply with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) 

964 (the Act) and the Department of the Interior rules and regulations under the Act (43 CFR 2.45 et 

965 seq.) in maintaining Landholder acreage certification and reporting records, required to be 

966 submitted to the Contractor for compliance with Sections 206 and 228 of the Reclamation 

967 Reform Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 1266), and pursuant to 43 CFR 426.18. 

968 (b) With respect to the application and administration of the criminal penalty 

969 provisions of the Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(i)), the Contractor and the Contractor's employees 

970 responsible for maintaining the certification and reporting records referenced in (a) above are 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

43

971 considered to be employees of the Department of the Interior. See 5 U.S.C. 552a(m). 

972 (c) The Contracting Officer or a designated representative shall provide the 

973 Contractor with current copies of the Interior Department Privacy Act regulations and the Bureau 

974 of Reclamation Federal Register Privacy Act System of Records Notice (Acreage Limitation--

975 Interior, Reclamation-31) which govern the maintenance, safeguarding, and disclosure of 

976 information contained in the Landholder's certification and reporting records. 

977 (d) The Contracting Officer shall designate a full-time employee of the 

978 Bureau of Reclamation to be the System Manager who shall be responsible for making decisions 

979 on denials pursuant to 43 CFR 2.61 and 2.64 amendment requests pursuant to 43 CFR 2.72. The 

980 Contractor is authorized to grant requests by individuals for access to their own records. 

981 (e) The Contractor shall forward promptly to the System Manager each 

982 proposed denial of access under 43 CFR 2.64; and each request for amendment of records filed 

983 under 43 CFR 2.71; notify the requester accordingly of such referral; and provide the System 

984 Manager with information and records necessary to prepare an appropriate response to the 

985 requester. These requirements do not apply to individuals seeking access to their own 

986 certification and reporting forms filed with the Contractor pursuant to 43 CFR 426.18, unless the 

987 requester elects to cite the Privacy Act as a basis for the request. 

988 

989 CONTRACTOR TO PAY CERTAIN MISCELLANEOUS COSTS

990 25. In addition to all other payments to be made by the Contractor pursuant to this 

991 Contract, the Contractor shall pay to the United States, within 60 days after receipt of a bill and 

992 detailed statement submitted by the Contracting Officer to the Contractor for such specific items 

993 of direct cost incurred by the United States for work requested by the Contractor associated with 

994 this Contract plus indirect costs in accordance with applicable Bureau of Reclamation policies 

995 and procedures. All such amounts referred to in this Article shall not exceed the amount agreed 

996 to in writing in advance by the Contractor. This Article shall not apply to costs for routine 

997 contract administration. 

998 WATER CONSERVATION

999 26. (a) Prior to the delivery of water provided from or conveyed through 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

44

1000 Federally constructed or Federally financed facilities pursuant to this Contract, the Contractor 

1001 shall be implementing an effective water conservation and efficiency program based on the 

1002 Contractor's water conservation plan that has been determined by the Contracting Officer to meet 

1003 the conservation and efficiency criteria for evaluating water conservation plans established under 

1004 Federal law. The water conservation and efficiency program shall contain definite water 

1005 conservation objectives, appropriate economically feasible water conservation measures, and 

1006 time schedules for meeting those objectives. Continued Project Water delivery pursuant to this 

1007 Contract shall be contingent upon the Contractor’s continued implementation of such water 

1008 conservation program. In the event the Contractor's water conservation plan or any revised water 

1009 conservation plan completed pursuant to subdivision (d) of Article 26 of this Contract have not 

1010 yet been determined by the Contracting Officer to meet such criteria, due to circumstances which 

1011 the Contracting Officer determines are beyond the control of the Contractor, water deliveries 

1012 shall be made under this Contract so long as the Contractor diligently works with the Contracting 

1013 Officer to obtain such determination at the earliest practicable date, and thereafter the Contractor 

1014 immediately begins implementing its water conservation and efficiency program in accordance 

1015 with the time schedules therein. 

1016 (b) Should the amount of M&I Water delivered pursuant to subdivision (a) of 

1017 Article 3 of this Contract equal or exceed 2,000 acre-feet per Year, the Contractor shall 

1018 implement the Best Management Practices identified by the time frames issued by the California 

1019 Urban Water Conservation Council for such M&I Water unless any such practice is determined 

1020 by the Contracting Officer to be inappropriate for the Contractor. 

1021 (c) The Contractor shall submit to the Contracting Officer a report on the 

1022 status of its implementation of the water conservation plan on the reporting dates specified in the 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

45

1023 then existing conservation and efficiency criteria established under Federal law. 

1024 (d) At five-year intervals, the Contractor shall revise its water conservation 

1025 plan to reflect the then-current conservation and efficiency criteria for evaluating water 

1026 conservation plans established under Federal law and submit such revised water management 

1027 plan to the Contracting Officer for review and evaluation. The Contracting Officer will then 

1028 determine if the water conservation plan meets Reclamation’s then-current conservation and 

1029 efficiency criteria for evaluating water conservation plans established under Federal law. 

1030 (e) If the Contractor is engaged in direct groundwater recharge, such activity 

1031 shall be described in the Contractor’s water conservation plan. 

1032 EXISTING OR ACQUIRED WATER OR WATER RIGHTS

1033 27. Except as specifically provided in Article 17 of this Contract, the provisions of 

1034 this Contract shall not be applicable to or affect non-Project water or water rights now owned or 

1035 hereafter acquired by the Contractor or any user of such water within the Contractor's Service 

1036 Area. Any such water shall not be considered Project Water under this Contract. In addition, 

1037 this Contract shall not be construed as limiting or curtailing any rights which the Contractor or 

1038 any water user within the Contractor's Service Area acquires or has available under any other 

1039 contract pursuant to Federal Reclamation law. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE BY OPERATING NON-FEDERAL ENTITY24 1040 

1041 28. (a) The O&M of a portion of the Project facilities which serve the Contractor, 

1042 and responsibility for funding a portion of the costs of such O&M, have been transferred to the 

1043 Operating Non-Federal Entity by separate agreement between the United States and the 

 

24 Include where applicable. 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

46

1044 Operating Non-Federal Entity. That separate agreement shall not interfere with or affect the 

1045 rights or obligations of the Contractor or the United States hereunder. 

1046 (b) The Contracting Officer has previously notified the Contractor in writing 

1047 that the O&M of a portion of the Project facilities which serve the Contractor has been 

1048 transferred to the Operating Non-Federal Entity, and therefore, the Contractor shall pay directly 

1049 to the Operating Non-Federal Entity, or to any successor approved by the Contracting Officer 

1050 under the terms and conditions of the separate agreement between the United States and the 

1051 Operating Non-Federal Entity described in subdivision (a) of this Article, all rates, charges, or 

1052 assessments of any kind, including any assessment for reserve funds, which the Operating Non1053 Federal Entity or such successor determines, sets, or establishes for the O&M of the portion of 

1054 the Project facilities operated and maintained by the Operating Non-Federal Entity or such 

1055 successor. Such direct payments to the Operating Non-Federal Entity or such successor shall not 

1056 relieve the Contractor of its obligation to pay directly to the United States the Contractor’s share 

1057 of the Project Rates, Charges, and Tiered Pricing Component(s) except to the extent the 

1058 Operating Non-Federal Entity collects payments on behalf of the United States in accordance 

1059 with the separate agreement identified in subdivision (a) of this Article. 

1060 (c) For so long as the O&M of any portion of the Project facilities serving the 

1061 Contractor is performed by the Operating Non-Federal Entity, or any successor thereto, the 

1062 Contracting Officer shall adjust those components of the Rates for Water 

1063 Delivered under this Contract representing the cost associated with the activity being performed 

1064 by the Operating Non-Federal Entity or its successor. 

1065 (d) In the event the O&M of the Project facilities operated and maintained by 

1066 the Operating Non-Federal Entity is re-assumed by the United States during the term of this 
R.O. FINAL 4/19-2004 

R.O. FINAL 1/20-2004 Redline 

R.O. FINAL 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

47

1067 Contract, the Contracting Officer shall so notify the Contractor, in writing, and present to the 

1068 Contractor a revised Exhibit “B” which shall include the portion of the Rates to be paid by the 

1069 Contractor for Project Water under this Contract representing the O&M costs of the portion of 

1070 such Project facilities which have been re-assumed. The Contractor shall, thereafter, in the 

1071 absence of written notification from the Contracting Officer to the contrary, pay the Rates, 

1072 Charges, and Tiered Pricing Component(s) specified in the revised Exhibit “B” directly to the 

1073 United States in compliance with Article 7 of this Contract. 

1074 [Divisional Issue – inclusion of new Article 28.1 for contracts involving additional 

1075 OperatingCONTINGENT ON APPROPRIATION OR ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS

 29. The expenditure or advance of any money or the performance of any obligation of 

the United States under this Contract shall be contingent upon appropriation or allotment of 

funds. Absence of appropriation or allotment of funds shall not relieve the Contractor from any 

obligations under this Contract. No liability shall accrue to the United States in case funds are 

not appropriated or allotted. 

1076 BOOKS, RECORDS, AND REPORTS

1077 30. (a) The Contractor shall establish and maintain accounts and other books and 

1078 records pertaining to administration of the terms and conditions of this Contract, including: the 

1079 Contractor's financial transactions, water supply data, and Project land and right-of-way 

1080 agreements; the water users' land-use (crop census), land ownership, land-leasing and water use 

1081 data; and other matters that the Contracting Officer may require. Reports thereon shall be 

1082 furnished to the Contracting Officer in such form and on such date or dates as the Contracting 

1083 Officer may require. Subject to applicable Federal laws and regulations, each party to this 

1084 Contract shall have the right during office hours to examine and make copies of the other party's 

1085 books and records relating to matters covered by this Contract.

1086 (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (a) of this Article, no 

1087 books, records, or other information shall be requested from the Contractor by the Contracting 

1088 Officer unless such books, records, or information are reasonably related to the administration or 

1089 performance of this Contract. Any such request shall allow the Contractor a reasonable period of 
 R.O. Draft 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

48

1090 time within which to provide the requested books, records, or information. 

1091 (c) At such time as the Contractor provides information to the Contracting 

1092 Officer pursuant to subdivision (a) of this Article, a copy of such information shall be provided 

1093 to the Operating Non-Federal Entity. 

1094 ASSIGNMENT LIMITED--SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS OBLIGATED

1095 31. (a) The provisions of this Contract shall apply to and bind the successors and 

1096 assigns of the parties hereto, but no assignment or transfer of this Contract or any right or interest 

1097 therein shall be valid until approved in writing by the Contracting Officer. 

1098 (b) The assignment of any right or interest in this Contract by either party 

1099 shall not interfere with the rights or obligations of the other party to this Contract absent the 

1100 written concurrence of said other party. 

1101 (c) The Contracting Officer shall not unreasonably condition or withhold his 

1102 approval of any proposed assignment. 

1103 SEVERABILITY

1104 32. In the event that a person or entity who is neither (i) a party to a Project contract, 

1105 nor (ii) a person or entity that receives Project Water from a party to a Project contract, nor (iii) 

1106 an association or other form of organization whose primary function is to represent parties to 

1107 Project contracts, brings an action in a court of competent jurisdiction challenging the legality or 

1108 enforceability of a provision included in this Contract and said person, entity, association, or 

1109 organization obtains a final court decision holding that such provision is legally invalid or 

1110 unenforceable and the Contractor has not intervened in that lawsuit in support of the plaintiff(s), 

1111 the parties to this Contract shall use their best efforts to (i) within 30 days of the date of such 

1112 final court decision identify by mutual agreement the provisions in this Contract which must be 
 R.O. Draft 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

49

1113 revised, and (ii) within three months thereafter promptly agree on the appropriate revision(s). 

1114 The time periods specified above may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties. Pending 

1115 the completion of the actions designated above, to the extent it can do so without violating any 

1116 applicable provisions of law, the United States shall continue to make the quantities of Project 

1117 Water specified in this Contract available to the Contractor pursuant to the provisions of this 

1118 Contract which were not found to be legally invalid or unenforceable in the final court decision. 

1119 RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES

1120 33. Should any dispute arise concerning any provisions of this Contract, or the 

1121 parties’ rights and obligations thereunder, the parties shall meet and confer in an attempt to 

1122 resolve the dispute. Prior to the Contractor commencing any legal action, or the Contracting 

1123 Officer referring any matter to Department of Justice, the party shall provide to the other party 

1124 30 days’ written notice of the intent to take such action; Provided, That such notice shall not be 

1125 required where a delay in commencing an action would prejudice the interests of the party that 

1126 intends to file suit. During the 30-day notice period, the Contractor and the Contracting Officer 

1127 shall meet and confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute. Except as specifically provided, 

1128 nothing herein is intended to waive or abridge any right or remedy that the Contractor or the 

1129 United States may have. 

1130 OFFICIALS NOT TO BENEFIT

1131 34. No Member of or Delegate to Congress, Resident Commissioner, or official of the 

1132 Contractor shall benefit from this Contract other than as a water user or landowner in the same 

1133 manner as other water users or landowners. 

1134 CHANGES IN CONTRACTOR’S SERVICE AREA

1135 35. (a) While this Contract is in effect, no change may be made in the 

1136 Contractor's Service Area, by inclusion or exclusion of lands, dissolution, consolidation, merger, 

1137 or otherwise, except upon the Contracting Officer's written consent. 
 R.O. Draft 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

50

1138 (b) Within 30 days of receipt of a request for such a change, the Contracting 

1139 Officer will notify the Contractor of any additional information required by the Contracting 

1140 Officer for processing said request, and both parties will meet to establish a mutually agreeable 

1141 schedule for timely completion of the process. Such process will analyze whether the proposed 

1142 change is likely to: (i) result in the use of Project Water contrary to the terms of this Contract; 

1143 (ii) impair the ability of the Contractor to pay for Project Water furnished under this Contract or 

1144 to pay for any Federally-constructed facilities for which the Contractor is responsible; and (iii) 

1145 have an impact on any Project Water rights applications, permits, or licenses. In addition, the 

1146 Contracting Officer shall comply with the NEPA and the ESA. The Contractor will be 

1147 responsible for all costs incurred by the Contracting Officer in this process, and such costs will 

1148 be paid in accordance with Article 25 of this Contract. 

1149 FEDERAL LAWS

1150 36. By entering into this Contract, the Contractor does not waive its rights to contest 

1151 the validity or application in connection with the performance of the terms and conditions of this 

1152 Contract of any Federal law or regulation; Provided, That the Contractor agrees to comply with 

1153 the terms and conditions of this Contract unless and until relief from application of such Federal 

1154 law or regulation to the implementing provision of the Contract is granted by a court of 

1155 competent jurisdiction. 

1156 NOTICES

1157 

1158 37. Any notice, demand, or request authorized or required by this Contract shall be 

1159 deemed to have been given, on behalf of the Contractor, when mailed, postage prepaid, or 

1160 delivered to the Area Manager __________________________________________ , and on 

1161 behalf of the United States, when mailed, postage prepaid, or delivered to the Board of 

1162 Directors/City Council of the ____________________________. The designation of the 

1163 addressee or the address may be changed by notice given in the same manner as provided in this 

1164 Article for other notices. 
 R.O. Draft 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

51

CONFIRMATION OF CONTRACT25 1165 

1166 

1167 38. The Contractor, after the execution of this Contract, shall promptly seek to secure 

1168 a decree of a court of competent jurisdiction of the State of California, confirming the execution 

1169 of this Contract. The Contractor shall furnish the United States a certified copy of the final 

1170 decree, the validation proceedings, and all pertinent supporting records of the court approving 

1171 and confirming this Contract, and decreeing and adjudging it to be lawful, valid, and binding on 

1172 the Contractor. 

 

25 Permission is pending to use alternate provision for M&I only contractors. 
 R.O. Draft 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

52

1173 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Contract as of 

1174 the day and year first above written. 

1175 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

1176 By: ________________________________ 

1177 Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region 

1178 Bureau of Reclamation 

1179 [NAME OF CONTRACTOR] 

1180 By: _______________________________ 

1181 President of the Board of Directors 

1182 Attest: 

1183 By: _____________________________ 

1184 Secretary of the Board of Directors 
 R.O. Draft 6/10-2003 

R.O. Draft 5/19-2003 

R. O. Draft 5/09-2003 

R.O. Draft 11/01-2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

53

EXHIBIT A

[Map or Description of Service Area]
R. O. Draft 5/09-2003

 R.O. Draft 11/01-

2000 

CVP-Wide Form 11-05 

Contract No.__________ - LTR1 

EXHIBIT B 

[Initial Rates and Charges] 

 
11 

Contract provisions were based on draft form contracts dated as follows: June 16, 2003 for BVWD, CCSD, City of Redding-Buckeye, City of Shasta Lake, CCCSD, and SCWA; June 26, 2003 for SCSD; and June 2

 The 10th contract, although informal, is a Memorandum of Agreement between two federal agencies and is not covered in this table. 2

Ten contractors comprise the Shasta and Trinity River Division. The tenth “contract” is actually a Memorandum of Understanding between two federal agencies: USFS (at Centimudi Boat Ramp) and Reclamation, a

3 BVWD and CCWD1 Excludes the USFS Centimudi Memorandum of Understanding.February 2005 Appendix A Table 1- Page 1 

APPENDIX A: TABLE A-1 

GENERAL SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF SELECTED DRAFT DRAFT 2003 CONTRACT PROVISION

Draft General Summary of 

Existing Contract Provisions

(Refer to Table A-2 for unique elements 

by Contractor)

General Summary of Proposed Preferred Action Cont

Contract Provisions Generally based on 2003 personal 

communications

(B. Holt, Reclamation, 

2003)information; 

(pers. comm., B. Holt 2003)

Common to All Ten1 2003 Draft RAFT Final Long 

Term Contracts2 Elements Uni

Explanatory Recitals No similar recital. Assumes water rights held by CVP. 

No similar recital. Assumes CVP water has been relied upon by urban and 

agricultural areas in California for more than 50 years and is considered an essential part of its water supply by the contractor. 

No similar recital. Assumes regional economies depend on CVP water. No similar recital. Assumes the Secretary of the Interior intends, through 

coordination, cooperation, and partnerships, to pursue measures to improve the water supply, water quality, and reliability of the CVP. 

Assumes the need for the 3408(j) study. 

Assumes CVP will facilitate cooperative efforts among local water service agencies to develop the Redding Groundwater Basin for conjunctive management and use with CVP water supplies. 

Definitions Assumes payments in addition to the 

Rates determined by the contracting officer each year. 

Defines “Charges” as “payments required by Federal contracting officer law in addition to the Rates and Tiered Pricing Components specified in the contract." 

No similar definition. Defines “Contract Total” as “the maximum amount of water to 

which the contractor is entitled” under the contract. 
Appendix A – Table 1 

1

Contract provisions were based on draft form contracts dated as follows: June 16, 2003 for BVWD, CCSD, City of Redding-Buckeye, City of Shasta Lake, CCCSD, and SCWA; June 26, 2003 for SCSD; and June 27, 

2

Ten contractors comprise the Shasta and Trinity River Division. The tenth “contract” is actually a Memorandum of Understanding between two federal agencies: USFS (at Centimudi Boat Ramp) and Reclamation, a

3 BVWD and CCWD1 The 10th contract, although informal, is a Memorandum of Agreement between two federal agencies and is not covered in this table.1 Excludes the USFS Centimudi Memorandum of Understanding.Final EA for the Appendix A Table 1- Page 2 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

APPENDIX A: TABLE A-1 

GENERAL SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF SELECTED DRAFT DRAFT 2003 CONTRACT PROVISION

Draft General Summary of 

Existing Contract Provisions

(Refer to Table A-2 for unique elements 

by Contractor)

General Summary of Proposed Preferred Action Cont

Contract Provisions Generally based on 2003 personal 

communications

(B. Holt, Reclamation, 

2003)information; 

(pers. comm., B. Holt 2003)

Common to All Ten1 2003 Draft RAFT Final Long 

Term Contracts2 Elements Uni

Existing long-term contract: No similar definition. Interim renewal contract: Assumes to be individual or entity owning or leasing lands served with irrigation water. 

 Defines "Landholde

owns or leases non

Existing long-term contract: Assumes use of water delivered to land in units less than or equal to 2 acres to be M&I use unless contracting officer is satisfied that use is irrigation. Interim renewal contract: Assumes same as existing long-term contracts except applied to units less than 5 acres. 

Defines “M&I Water” as CVP “water made available to the contractor for purposes other than the commercial production of agricultural crops or livestock ” 

Defines “M&I Watewater, made availainclude water used the watering of landhorses) which are kdelivered to land hoacres unless the coof the contracting oany such landholdifor “irrigation water

No similar definition. Defines “Recent Historic Average” as “the most recent 5-year 

average of the final forecast of water made available to the contractor” under the LTCR or its preceding contract(s). 

No similar definition. Defines “Tiered Pricing Component” as "the incremental 

amount to be paid for each acre-foot of water delivered.” 
11 

Contract provisions were based on draft form contracts dated as follows: June 16, 2003 for BVWD, CCSD, City of Redding-Buckeye, City of Shasta Lake, CCCSD, and SCWA; June 26, 2003 for SCSD; and June 2

 The 10th contract, although informal, is a Memorandum of Agreement between two federal agencies and is not covered in this table. 2

Ten contractors comprise the Shasta and Trinity River Division. The tenth “contract” is actually a Memorandum of Understanding between two federal agencies: USFS (at Centimudi Boat Ramp) and Reclamation, a

3 BVWD and CCWD1 Excludes the USFS Centimudi Memorandum of Understanding.February 2005 Appendix A Table 1- Page 3 

APPENDIX A: TABLE A-1 

GENERAL SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF SELECTED DRAFT DRAFT 2003 CONTRACT PROVISION

Draft General Summary of 

Existing Contract Provisions

(Refer to Table A-2 for unique elements 

by Contractor)

General Summary of Proposed Preferred Action Cont

Contract Provisions Generally based on 2003 personal 

communications

(B. Holt, Reclamation, 

2003)information; 

(pers. comm., B. Holt 2003)

Common to All Ten1 2003 Draft RAFT Final Long 

Term Contracts2 Elements Uni

No similar definition. Defines “Excess La

limitations containe

No similar definition. Defines "Landholde

owns or leases non

Term of Contract and Renewal Terms 

Existing long-term contract: Assumes shall remain in effect through December 31, 2004; right to renew for additional terms not to exceed 40 years on mutually agreeable terms. Also assumes conversion to repayment contract authorized upon mutually agreeable terms once project costs allocated. Interim renewal contract: Assumes shall remain in effect through February 28, 2002; assumes renewal will be 25-year long-term renewal or further interim renewal under specified conditions. 

States that contract will be effective from March 1, 2004, through February 28, 2029. States that contract “shall be renewed for a period of 25 years.” The term for subsequent renewal of M&I water “shall be . . . for a period of 25 years and thereafter shall be renewed for successive periods of up to 40 years each, . . . consistent with then-existing contracting officer-wide policy . . . and consistent with Federal and state law.” 

States that “contracof irrigation water tperiod of 25 years.provisions, includinprepared a water cconservation and eplans; (2) the contrconservation and econtractor is maintaimplementing wate

Water to Be Made Available and Delivered 

Existing long-term contract: Assumes water will be made available according 

Specifies the amount of water available for delivery to the contractor. 
Appendix A – Table 1 

1

Contract provisions were based on draft form contracts dated as follows: June 16, 2003 for BVWD, CCSD, City of Redding-Buckeye, City of Shasta Lake, CCCSD, and SCWA; June 26, 2003 for SCSD; and June 27, 

2

Ten contractors comprise the Shasta and Trinity River Division. The tenth “contract” is actually a Memorandum of Understanding between two federal agencies: USFS (at Centimudi Boat Ramp) and Reclamation, a

3 BVWD and CCWD1 The 10th contract, although informal, is a Memorandum of Agreement between two federal agencies and is not covered in this table.1 Excludes the USFS Centimudi Memorandum of Understanding.Final EA for the Appendix A Table 1- Page 4 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

APPENDIX A: TABLE A-1 

GENERAL SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF SELECTED DRAFT DRAFT 2003 CONTRACT PROVISION

Draft General Summary of 

Existing Contract Provisions

(Refer to Table A-2 for unique elements 

by Contractor)

General Summary of Proposed Preferred Action Cont

Contract Provisions Generally based on 2003 personal 

communications

(B. Holt, Reclamation, 

2003)information; 

(pers. comm., B. Holt 2003)

Common to All Ten1 2003 Draft RAFT Final Long 

Term Contracts2 Elements Uni

to the Contractor to schedule; application of laws and 

provision re facility outages and shortage provision implicit. Interim renewal contract: Assumes water will be made available according to schedule, existing rules; provision re facility outages and shortage provision explicit. 

States that because of constraints on CVP water, “the likelihood of [a] contractor actually receiving the amount of water” specified as available for delivery “in any given year is uncertain.” Further states that “modeling referenced in the PEIS projected that the contract total...will not be available...in many years.” Cites recent historic average of water made available to contractor. 

No similar explicit requirement. Assumes compliance with applicable laws Existing long-term contract: No similar explicit terms; reasonable and beneficial use required by Federal and state law. Interim renewal contract: Assumes contractor required to make reasonable and beneficial use of water; contractor permitted to use CVP water in groundwater recharge program in accordance with state law and water management plan. 

Allows CVP or other water furnished pursuant to the contract to be used for groundwater recharge, groundwater banking, surface water storage, and similar programs. Requires that any direct recharge program be described in the contractor’s Water Conservation Plan. Allows use of CVP water or other water furnished pursuant to the contract be used for such programs with approval of contracting officer, which would be based on environmental documentation and CVP water rights and operational concerns. 
11 

Contract provisions were based on draft form contracts dated as follows: June 16, 2003 for BVWD, CCSD, City of Redding-Buckeye, City of Shasta Lake, CCCSD, and SCWA; June 26, 2003 for SCSD; and June 2

 The 10th contract, although informal, is a Memorandum of Agreement between two federal agencies and is not covered in this table. 2

Ten contractors comprise the Shasta and Trinity River Division. The tenth “contract” is actually a Memorandum of Understanding between two federal agencies: USFS (at Centimudi Boat Ramp) and Reclamation, a

3 BVWD and CCWD1 Excludes the USFS Centimudi Memorandum of Understanding.February 2005 Appendix A Table 1- Page 5 

APPENDIX A: TABLE A-1 

GENERAL SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF SELECTED DRAFT DRAFT 2003 CONTRACT PROVISION

Draft General Summary of 

Existing Contract Provisions

(Refer to Table A-2 for unique elements 

by Contractor)

General Summary of Proposed Preferred Action Cont

Contract Provisions Generally based on 2003 personal 

communications

(B. Holt, Reclamation, 

2003)information; 

(pers. comm., B. Holt 2003)

Common to All Ten1 2003 Draft RAFT Final Long 

Term Contracts2 Elements Uni

Existing long-term contract: Assumes compliance with laws; implicit obligation to meet applicable requirements under environmental documents. Interim renewal contract: Assumes explicit obligation on compliance with applicable requirements of biological opinions and other environmental documents for contracting. 

Requires that contractor comply with applicable requirements in Biological Opinions prepared concerning the contract to comply with the Endangered Species Act that are within the contractor’s legal authority to implement. States that contractor can challenge or seek judicial relief with respect to Biological Opinions or other environmental documentation. 

Existing long-term contract: Assumes contracting officer will strive to develop additional firm supplies. Interim renewal contract: Assumes contracting officer will determine if additional water can be made available; if so, will be made available in accordance with statutes, regulations, policies, and guidelines. 

States that contracting officer will determine whether CVP water or other water available to the CVP can be made available to contractor in addition to the contract total, in accordance with applicable statutes, regulations, guidelines, and policies. 

Existing long-term contract: No similar provision. Interim renewal contract: Contract may request to carry over or preuse contract supplies. 

States that contractor can request to “reschedule” (i.e., to “preuse” or “carry over”) water made available under the contract. 
Appendix A – Table 1 

1

Contract provisions were based on draft form contracts dated as follows: June 16, 2003 for BVWD, CCSD, City of Redding-Buckeye, City of Shasta Lake, CCCSD, and SCWA; June 26, 2003 for SCSD; and June 27, 

2

Ten contractors comprise the Shasta and Trinity River Division. The tenth “contract” is actually a Memorandum of Understanding between two federal agencies: USFS (at Centimudi Boat Ramp) and Reclamation, a

3 BVWD and CCWD1 The 10th contract, although informal, is a Memorandum of Agreement between two federal agencies and is not covered in this table.1 Excludes the USFS Centimudi Memorandum of Understanding.Final EA for the Appendix A Table 1- Page 6 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

APPENDIX A: TABLE A-1 

GENERAL SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF SELECTED DRAFT DRAFT 2003 CONTRACT PROVISION

Draft General Summary of 

Existing Contract Provisions

(Refer to Table A-2 for unique elements 

by Contractor)

General Summary of Proposed Preferred Action Cont

Contract Provisions Generally based on 2003 personal 

communications

(B. Holt, Reclamation, 

2003)information; 

(pers. comm., B. Holt 2003)

Common to All Ten1 2003 Draft RAFT Final Long 

Term Contracts2 Elements Uni

Existing long-term contract: No similar provision. Interim renewal contract: Upon written approval by contracting officer specifying terms and conditions, water may be delivered for purposes other than irrigation or M&I. 

States that CVP water furnished to the contractor “may be delivered for other than irrigation or M&I purposes” upon written approval by contracting officer in accordance with terms and conditions specified in approval. 

Existing long-term contract: No similar provision. Interim renewal contract: No similar provision. 

States that contracting officer will “make reasonable efforts to protect water rights necessary for the [CVP] and to provide the water available” under the contract Further states that contracting officer shall not object to contractor’s participation in administrative proceedings related to water rights 

Time for Delivery of Water 

Assumes methods for determining timing of deliveries. 

Assumes methods for determining timing of water deliveries 

Point of Diversion and Responsibility for Distribution of Water 

Assumes methods for determining point of diversion. 

Assumes methods for determining point(s) of diversion; assumes measurement at points of delivery. 

States that “the conreasonable efforts water in [water bod
11 

Contract provisions were based on draft form contracts dated as follows: June 16, 2003 for BVWD, CCSD, City of Redding-Buckeye, City of Shasta Lake, CCCSD, and SCWA; June 26, 2003 for SCSD; and June 2

 The 10th contract, although informal, is a Memorandum of Agreement between two federal agencies and is not covered in this table. 2

Ten contractors comprise the Shasta and Trinity River Division. The tenth “contract” is actually a Memorandum of Understanding between two federal agencies: USFS (at Centimudi Boat Ramp) and Reclamation, a

3 BVWD and CCWD1 Excludes the USFS Centimudi Memorandum of Understanding.February 2005 Appendix A Table 1- Page 7 

APPENDIX A: TABLE A-1 

GENERAL SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF SELECTED DRAFT DRAFT 2003 CONTRACT PROVISION

Draft General Summary of 

Existing Contract Provisions

(Refer to Table A-2 for unique elements 

by Contractor)

General Summary of Proposed Preferred Action Cont

Contract Provisions Generally based on 2003 personal 

communications

(B. Holt, Reclamation, 

2003)information; 

(pers. comm., B. Holt 2003)

Common to All Ten1 2003 Draft RAFT Final Long 

Term Contracts2 Elements Uni

Measurement of Water within the District/Service Area 

Existing long-term contract: Contractor has no similar obligation. Interim renewal contract: Assumes measurement for each agricultural turnout and M&I connection for facilities that are used for all water supplies. 

Requires contractor to measure “all surface water delivered for M&I purposes [to be] measured at each municipal and industrial service connection.” 

Requires contractofor irrigation purpos

Rates and Method of Payment for Water 

Existing long-term contract: Assumes rates fixed or determined as specified in contract; assumes semiannual payment of rates in advance of delivery; no provision for charges or tiered pricing. Interim renewal contract: Assumes payment of cost-of-service rates pursuant to rate-setting policy; payment of rates for first two months of scheduled deliveries with submission of delivery schedule each year; payment before end of month for next succeeding month=s deliveries thereafter; assumes payment for charges before end of month following delivery; tiered pricing as required by water conservation plan. 

TO BE DETERMINED TO BE DETERMIN
Appendix A – Table 1 

1

Contract provisions were based on draft form contracts dated as follows: June 16, 2003 for BVWD, CCSD, City of Redding-Buckeye, City of Shasta Lake, CCCSD, and SCWA; June 26, 2003 for SCSD; and June 27, 

2

Ten contractors comprise the Shasta and Trinity River Division. The tenth “contract” is actually a Memorandum of Understanding between two federal agencies: USFS (at Centimudi Boat Ramp) and Reclamation, a

3 BVWD and CCWD1 The 10th contract, although informal, is a Memorandum of Agreement between two federal agencies and is not covered in this table.1 Excludes the USFS Centimudi Memorandum of Understanding.Final EA for the Appendix A Table 1- Page 8 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

APPENDIX A: TABLE A-1 

GENERAL SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF SELECTED DRAFT DRAFT 2003 CONTRACT PROVISION

Draft General Summary of 

Existing Contract Provisions

(Refer to Table A-2 for unique elements 

by Contractor)

General Summary of Proposed Preferred Action Cont

Contract Provisions Generally based on 2003 personal 

communications

(B. Holt, Reclamation, 

2003)information; 

(pers. comm., B. Holt 2003)

Common to All Ten1 2003 Draft RAFT Final Long 

Term Contracts2 Elements Uni

No similar provision. Allows the contract

pricing components crop that will providhabitat values are cCVPIA. 

No similar provision. Provides conditions 

commingling of CVfrom another sourc

Non-Interest Bearing Operation and Maintenance Deficits 

Existing long-term contract: No similar provision. Interim renewal contract: Assumes either there is no noninterest-bearing deficit or that agreement is in place to retire any noninterest-bearing deficit. 

Assumes the contractor has no non-interest bearing operation and maintenance deficits or, if there are deficits, that there is an agreement in place to retire the deficits. 
11 

Contract provisions were based on draft form contracts dated as follows: June 16, 2003 for BVWD, CCSD, City of Redding-Buckeye, City of Shasta Lake, CCCSD, and SCWA; June 26, 2003 for SCSD; and June 2

 The 10th contract, although informal, is a Memorandum of Agreement between two federal agencies and is not covered in this table. 2

Ten contractors comprise the Shasta and Trinity River Division. The tenth “contract” is actually a Memorandum of Understanding between two federal agencies: USFS (at Centimudi Boat Ramp) and Reclamation, a

3 BVWD and CCWD1 Excludes the USFS Centimudi Memorandum of Understanding.February 2005 Appendix A Table 1- Page 9 

APPENDIX A: TABLE A-1 

GENERAL SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF SELECTED DRAFT DRAFT 2003 CONTRACT PROVISION

Draft General Summary of 

Existing Contract Provisions

(Refer to Table A-2 for unique elements 

by Contractor)

General Summary of Proposed Preferred Action Cont

Contract Provisions Generally based on 2003 personal 

communications

(B. Holt, Reclamation, 

2003)information; 

(pers. comm., B. Holt 2003)

Common to All Ten1 2003 Draft RAFT Final Long 

Term Contracts2 Elements Uni

Sales, Transfers, or Exchanges of Water 

Existing long-term contract: Requires contracting officer consent for CVP water use outside contractor service area. Interim renewal contract: Assumes sales, transfers or exchanges with others in accordance with Federal and state laws, guidelines and regulations, with consent of Contracting Officer. No intent to impede transfers between districts historically approved. 

Assumes right to receive CVP water provided for in contract may be sold, transferred, or exchanged. Requires prior written consent of contracting officer except for transfers of a type historically carried out among contractors in the same geographical area. Requires environmental documentation. For historic transfers, requires advance notice but not prior written approval. Contracting officer will prepare environmental documentation for historic transfers, which shall be reviewed every 5 years and updated, as necessary. 

Application of Payments and Adjustments 

Assumes refund of overpayment after satisfaction of any accrued indebtedness upon contractor request 

Assumes any overpayments will be applied to current liabilities under the contract. Overpayments totaling more than $1,000 will be refunded at contractor’s request. 
Appendix A – Table 1 

1

Contract provisions were based on draft form contracts dated as follows: June 16, 2003 for BVWD, CCSD, City of Redding-Buckeye, City of Shasta Lake, CCCSD, and SCWA; June 26, 2003 for SCSD; and June 27, 

2

Ten contractors comprise the Shasta and Trinity River Division. The tenth “contract” is actually a Memorandum of Understanding between two federal agencies: USFS (at Centimudi Boat Ramp) and Reclamation, a

3 BVWD and CCWD1 The 10th contract, although informal, is a Memorandum of Agreement between two federal agencies and is not covered in this table.1 Excludes the USFS Centimudi Memorandum of Understanding.Final EA for the Appendix A Table 1- Page 10 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

APPENDIX A: TABLE A-1 

GENERAL SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF SELECTED DRAFT DRAFT 2003 CONTRACT PROVISION

Draft General Summary of 

Existing Contract Provisions

(Refer to Table A-2 for unique elements 

by Contractor)

General Summary of Proposed Preferred Action Cont

Contract Provisions Generally based on 2003 personal 

communications

(B. Holt, Reclamation, 

2003)information; 

(pers. comm., B. Holt 2003)

Common to All Ten1 2003 Draft RAFT Final Long 

Term Contracts2 Elements Uni

Temporary Reductions--Return Flows 

Existing long-term contract: Assumes United States reserves the right to return flows, seepage, and waste exiting contractor boundaries; assumes temporary reductions for operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of facilities. Interim renewal contract: Substantially similar to long-term contracts; makes express existing obligation of Contracting Officer to make CVP water available, subject to authorized purposes and priorities of CVP and to obligations under existing contracts. 

States that “contracting officer shall make all reasonable efforts to optimize water deliveries” from the CVP. Assumes contracting officer may temporarily discontinue or reduce water deliveries to investigate, inspect, maintain, repair, or replace CVP facilities. Reserves for the United States the right to all seepage and return flow water. 
11 

Contract provisions were based on draft form contracts dated as follows: June 16, 2003 for BVWD, CCSD, City of Redding-Buckeye, City of Shasta Lake, CCCSD, and SCWA; June 26, 2003 for SCSD; and June 2

 The 10th contract, although informal, is a Memorandum of Agreement between two federal agencies and is not covered in this table. 2

Ten contractors comprise the Shasta and Trinity River Division. The tenth “contract” is actually a Memorandum of Understanding between two federal agencies: USFS (at Centimudi Boat Ramp) and Reclamation, a

3 BVWD and CCWD1 Excludes the USFS Centimudi Memorandum of Understanding.February 2005 Appendix A Table 1- Page 11 

APPENDIX A: TABLE A-1 

GENERAL SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF SELECTED DRAFT DRAFT 2003 CONTRACT PROVISION

Draft General Summary of 

Existing Contract Provisions

(Refer to Table A-2 for unique elements 

by Contractor)

General Summary of Proposed Preferred Action Cont

Contract Provisions Generally based on 2003 personal 

communications

(B. Holt, Reclamation, 

2003)information; 

(pers. comm., B. Holt 2003)

Common to All Ten1 2003 Draft RAFT Final Long 

Term Contracts2 Elements Uni

Constraints on Availability of Project Water 

Existing long-term contract: Assumes obligation of United States to utilize all reasonable means to guard against a condition of shortage; no liability of United States for shortages from specified causes; provides mechanism for apportionment of shortages among existing contractors. Interim renewal contract: Assumes obligation of Contracting Officer to utilize all reasonable means to guard against a condition of shortage; no liability to United States for shortages from specified causes, including actions of Contracting Officer to meet legal obligations, so long as such actions are not based upon arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable opinions or determinations; provides mechanism for apportionment of shortages among existing and future contractors, as described. 

Absolves United States from liability for water shortage for causes beyond the control of the contracting officer or actions taken to meet legal obligations. Allocates CVP water “in accordance with the then-existing CVP M&I Water Shortage Policy.” States that "contracting officer shall make all reasonable efforts to optimize water deliveries"; absolves U S from liability for water shortages for causes beyond the control of the contracting officer or actions taken to meet legal obligations; and allocates water "in accordance with thenexisting CVP M&I Water Shortage Policy." 

States that “Contra

delivered irrigation lands...if such landpercolates from ap

Unavoidable Groundwater Percolation 

Assumes that some of applied CVP water will percolate to groundwater 

 States that “Contra

delivered irrigation lands...if such landpercolates from ap
Appendix A – Table 1 

1

Contract provisions were based on draft form contracts dated as follows: June 16, 2003 for BVWD, CCSD, City of Redding-Buckeye, City of Shasta Lake, CCCSD, and SCWA; June 26, 2003 for SCSD; and June 27, 

2

Ten contractors comprise the Shasta and Trinity River Division. The tenth “contract” is actually a Memorandum of Understanding between two federal agencies: USFS (at Centimudi Boat Ramp) and Reclamation, a

3 BVWD and CCWD1 The 10th contract, although informal, is a Memorandum of Agreement between two federal agencies and is not covered in this table.1 Excludes the USFS Centimudi Memorandum of Understanding.Final EA for the Appendix A Table 1- Page 12 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

APPENDIX A: TABLE A-1 

GENERAL SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF SELECTED DRAFT DRAFT 2003 CONTRACT PROVISION

Draft General Summary of 

Existing Contract Provisions

(Refer to Table A-2 for unique elements 

by Contractor)

General Summary of Proposed Preferred Action Cont

Contract Provisions Generally based on 2003 personal 

communications

(B. Holt, Reclamation, 

2003)information; 

(pers. comm., B. Holt 2003)

Common to All Ten1 2003 Draft RAFT Final Long 

Term Contracts2 Elements Uni

Rules and Regulations Assumes that CVP will operate in 

accordance with then-existing rules. 

Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with thenexisting rules and regulations. 

Water and Air Pollution Control 

Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with then-existing rules. 

Requires contractor to comply with state and Federal water and air pollution control laws and to obtain required permits. 

Quality of Water Existing long-term contract: Assumes 

that water quality will be based on subjective standard; no warranty of quality; payment relief if water quality unsuitable. Interim renewal contract: Assumes operation and maintenance of CVP facilities to enable United States to deliver water in accordance with existing statutory quality standards; no warranty of quality. 

States that CVP facilities shall be operated and maintained to enable the United States to deliver water in accordance with statutory water quality standards; does not provide warranty for water quality. 

Water Acquired by the Contractor Other Than from the United States 

Existing long-term contract: Assumes that water may be commingled in district system as specified in contract. Interim renewal contract: Assumes that CVP and non-CVP water may be commingled in district system in accordance with existing rules. 

Allows contractor to use CVP facilities for water not provided by the United States subject to environmental documentation and payment for such use. 
11 

Contract provisions were based on draft form contracts dated as follows: June 16, 2003 for BVWD, CCSD, City of Redding-Buckeye, City of Shasta Lake, CCCSD, and SCWA; June 26, 2003 for SCSD; and June 2

 The 10th contract, although informal, is a Memorandum of Agreement between two federal agencies and is not covered in this table. 2

Ten contractors comprise the Shasta and Trinity River Division. The tenth “contract” is actually a Memorandum of Understanding between two federal agencies: USFS (at Centimudi Boat Ramp) and Reclamation, a

3 BVWD and CCWD1 Excludes the USFS Centimudi Memorandum of Understanding.February 2005 Appendix A Table 1- Page 13 

APPENDIX A: TABLE A-1 

GENERAL SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF SELECTED DRAFT DRAFT 2003 CONTRACT PROVISION

Draft General Summary of 

Existing Contract Provisions

(Refer to Table A-2 for unique elements 

by Contractor)

General Summary of Proposed Preferred Action Cont

Contract Provisions Generally based on 2003 personal 

communications

(B. Holt, Reclamation, 

2003)information; 

(pers. comm., B. Holt 2003)

Common to All Ten1 2003 Draft RAFT Final Long 

Term Contracts2 Elements Uni

Opinions and Determinations 

Existing long-term contract: Opinions and determinations of parties to contract not to be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; adjustment of payment obligations. Interim renewal contract: Opinions and determinations not to be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; parties may seek relief, adjustment, monetary damages if they are. 

Expresses right to relief for actions based on “arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable opinions or determinations.” 

Coordination and Cooperation 

No similar provision. States that contracting officer and contractor “shall 

communicate, coordinate, and cooperate with each other, and with other affected [CVP] contractors, in order to improve the operation and management of the [CVP]." 

No similar provision. Provides mechanism to develop communication process. No similar provision. Allows contracting officer to assist the contractor in 

developing integrated resource management plans. 

No similar provision. Provides for the Secretary of the Interior to coordinate with 

contractors and the State of California to seek improved water resource management. 
Appendix A – Table 1 

1

Contract provisions were based on draft form contracts dated as follows: June 16, 2003 for BVWD, CCSD, City of Redding-Buckeye, City of Shasta Lake, CCCSD, and SCWA; June 26, 2003 for SCSD; and June 27, 

2

Ten contractors comprise the Shasta and Trinity River Division. The tenth “contract” is actually a Memorandum of Understanding between two federal agencies: USFS (at Centimudi Boat Ramp) and Reclamation, a

3 BVWD and CCWD1 The 10th contract, although informal, is a Memorandum of Agreement between two federal agencies and is not covered in this table.1 Excludes the USFS Centimudi Memorandum of Understanding.Final EA for the Appendix A Table 1- Page 14 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

APPENDIX A: TABLE A-1 

GENERAL SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF SELECTED DRAFT DRAFT 2003 CONTRACT PROVISION

Draft General Summary of 

Existing Contract Provisions

(Refer to Table A-2 for unique elements 

by Contractor)

General Summary of Proposed Preferred Action Cont

Contract Provisions Generally based on 2003 personal 

communications

(B. Holt, Reclamation, 

2003)information; 

(pers. comm., B. Holt 2003)

Common to All Ten1 2003 Draft RAFT Final Long 

Term Contracts2 Elements Uni

No similar provision. Provides for the Secretary of the Interior and contractor to 

work together and with others in the region of the Redding Groundwater Basin to “facilitate the better integration within the region ...of all water supplies.” 

Charges for Delinquent Payments 

Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with existing rules. 

Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with existing rules. 

Equal Opportunity Assumes that CVP will operate in 

accordance with existing rules. 

Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with existing rules. 

General Obligation--Benefits Conditioned upon Payment 

Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with existing rules. 

Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with existing rules. 

 Does not require contractor to obtain advance payment for 

water rates. 

Compliance with Civil Rights Laws and Regulations 

Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with existing rules. 

Requires contractor to comply with existing laws and regulations. 

Privacy Act Compliance Assumes that CVP will operate in 

accordance with existing rules. 

Requires contractor to comply with existing laws and regulations. 
11 

Contract provisions were based on draft form contracts dated as follows: June 16, 2003 for BVWD, CCSD, City of Redding-Buckeye, City of Shasta Lake, CCCSD, and SCWA; June 26, 2003 for SCSD; and June 2

 The 10th contract, although informal, is a Memorandum of Agreement between two federal agencies and is not covered in this table. 2

Ten contractors comprise the Shasta and Trinity River Division. The tenth “contract” is actually a Memorandum of Understanding between two federal agencies: USFS (at Centimudi Boat Ramp) and Reclamation, a

3 BVWD and CCWD1 Excludes the USFS Centimudi Memorandum of Understanding.February 2005 Appendix A Table 1- Page 15 

APPENDIX A: TABLE A-1 

GENERAL SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF SELECTED DRAFT DRAFT 2003 CONTRACT PROVISION

Draft General Summary of 

Existing Contract Provisions

(Refer to Table A-2 for unique elements 

by Contractor)

General Summary of Proposed Preferred Action Cont

Contract Provisions Generally based on 2003 personal 

communications

(B. Holt, Reclamation, 

2003)information; 

(pers. comm., B. Holt 2003)

Common to All Ten1 2003 Draft RAFT Final Long 

Term Contracts2 Elements Uni

Contractor to Pay Certain Miscellaneous Costs 

Existing long-term contract: No similar provision. Interim renewal contract: Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with existing rules. 

Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with existing rules. 

Water Conservation Existing long-term contract: No explicit 

similar requirement. Interim renewal contract: Assumes compliance with conservation programs established by Reclamation and the state. 

Requires contractor to comply with water conservation programs established by Reclamation and the State of California. 

No similar provision. For contracts providing more than 2,000 acre-feet per year of 

M&I water, requires contractor to implement best management practices issued by the California Urban Water Conservation Council. 

No similar provision. Requires contractor to revise its water conservation plan at 5-

year intervals to reflect then-current Federal criteria for evaluating water conservation plans. 

Existing or Acquired Water or Water Rights 

Assumes that contract provisions are not applicable to non-CVP water, subject to provision on commingling. 

Assumes that contract provisions are not applicable to nonCVP water. 
Appendix A – Table 1 

1

Contract provisions were based on draft form contracts dated as follows: June 16, 2003 for BVWD, CCSD, City of Redding-Buckeye, City of Shasta Lake, CCCSD, and SCWA; June 26, 2003 for SCSD; and June 27, 

2

Ten contractors comprise the Shasta and Trinity River Division. The tenth “contract” is actually a Memorandum of Understanding between two federal agencies: USFS (at Centimudi Boat Ramp) and Reclamation, a

3 BVWD and CCWD1 The 10th contract, although informal, is a Memorandum of Agreement between two federal agencies and is not covered in this table.1 Excludes the USFS Centimudi Memorandum of Understanding.Final EA for the Appendix A Table 1- Page 16 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

APPENDIX A: TABLE A-1 

GENERAL SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF SELECTED DRAFT DRAFT 2003 CONTRACT PROVISION

Draft General Summary of 

Existing Contract Provisions

(Refer to Table A-2 for unique elements 

by Contractor)

General Summary of Proposed Preferred Action Cont

Contract Provisions Generally based on 2003 personal 

communications

(B. Holt, Reclamation, 

2003)information; 

(pers. comm., B. Holt 2003)

Common to All Ten1 2003 Draft RAFT Final Long 

Term Contracts2 Elements Uni

Operation and Maintenance by NonFederal Entity 

Existing long-term contract: No similar provision. Interim renewal contract: Assumes that non-Federal entity will operate and maintain facilities and that certain payments to be made to that entity. 

Assumes that non-Federal entity (if any) will operate and maintain CVP facilities and that certain payments will be made to that entity. 

Contingent on Appropriation or Allotment of Funds 

Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with existing rules. 

Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with existing rules. 

Books, Records, and Reports 

Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with existing rules. 

Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with existing rules; clarifies that only contract-related records will be requested, and requires copies to be sent to non-Federal operating entity (if any). 

Assignment Limited Assumes that CVP will operate in 

accordance with existing rules. 

Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with existing rules. 

Severability Existing long-term contract: No similar 

provision. Interim renewal contract: Assumes mechanism to address correction of provision found to be invalid upon legal challenge. 

Assumes mechanism to address correction of provision found to be invalid upon legal challenge. 
11 

Contract provisions were based on draft form contracts dated as follows: June 16, 2003 for BVWD, CCSD, City of Redding-Buckeye, City of Shasta Lake, CCCSD, and SCWA; June 26, 2003 for SCSD; and June 2

 The 10th contract, although informal, is a Memorandum of Agreement between two federal agencies and is not covered in this table. 2

Ten contractors comprise the Shasta and Trinity River Division. The tenth “contract” is actually a Memorandum of Understanding between two federal agencies: USFS (at Centimudi Boat Ramp) and Reclamation, a

3 BVWD and CCWD1 Excludes the USFS Centimudi Memorandum of Understanding.February 2005 Appendix A Table 1- Page 17 

APPENDIX A: TABLE A-1 

GENERAL SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF SELECTED DRAFT DRAFT 2003 CONTRACT PROVISION

Draft General Summary of 

Existing Contract Provisions

(Refer to Table A-2 for unique elements 

by Contractor)

General Summary of Proposed Preferred Action Cont

Contract Provisions Generally based on 2003 personal 

communications

(B. Holt, Reclamation, 

2003)information; 

(pers. comm., B. Holt 2003)

Common to All Ten1 2003 Draft RAFT Final Long 

Term Contracts2 Elements Uni

Resolution of Disputes No similar provision. Assumes a dispute resolution process. Officials Not to Benefit Assumes that CVP will operate in 

accordance with existing rules. 

Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with existing rules. 

Changes in Contractor’s Service Area 

Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with existing rules. 

Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with existing rules and describes administrative process. 

Notices Assumes that CVP will operate in 

accordance with existing rules. 

Assumes that CVP will operate in accordance with existing rules. 

Confirmation of Contract Existing long-term contract: Assumes 

required validation of contract under state law. Interim renewal contract: No validation action required. 

Assumes required validation of contract under state law. 
1 Based on existing interim or unexpired contracts/data as of July 2003. The tenth “contract” is a Memorandum of Understanding between Reclamation and U.S. For

February 2005 Appendix A Table 2- Page 1 

APPENDIX A: TABLE 2 

ELEMENTS UNIQUE TO EXISTING AND INTERIM CONTRACTS: SHASTA AND TRINITY RIVER DIVISIO

M&I Water Only 

Unique 

Elements Centerville 

Community 

Services District 

City of Redding City of Shasta Lake Keswick County Services Area Mountain Gate Community Services District Shasta Community Services District Shasta County Water Agency 

Water available for delivery 

2,900 acre-feet 6,140 acre-feet 2,750 acre-feet 500 acre-feet 350 acre-feet 1,000 acre-feet 2,100 acre-feet 

Recent historic average made available 

2,668 acre-feet 5,649 acre-feet 2,530 acre-feet 460 acre-feet 322 acre-feet 920 acre-feet 1,932 acre-feet 

Point(s) of Diversion 

Station 376+50 of the Muletown Conduit 

Meter vault on 6-inch pipeline about 3/4 mile south of intersection of Lake Blvd. and Shasta Dam Blvd.; Spring Creek Power Conduit at Buckeye Water Treatment Plant, and existing point(s) of delivery from Sacramento River below Keswick Dam 

16-inch water meter at water treatment facilities adjacent to Shasta Dam visitor area 

Downstream end of metering equipment approximately at Station 176+62.0 of the Spring Creek Power Conduit 

Shasta Reservoir downstream end of 

metering equipment at Station 98+60 of Spring Creek Power Conduit 

either at CVP facilities or location(s) agreed to by contracting officer and contractor 

Operating nonfederal entity Clear Creek CSD Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Privacy Act compliance 

Not applicable Required Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Required [may 

change to Not applicable when contract is revised to remove ag water]
Appendix A – Table 2 

1 Based on existing interim or unexpired contracts/data as of July 2003. The tenth “contract” is a Memorandum of Understanding between Reclamation and U.S. ForFinal EA for the Appendix A Table 2- Page 2 

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions Administrative Draft 

APPENDIX A: TABLE 2 

ELEMENTS UNIQUE TO EXISTING AND INTERIM CONTRACTS: SHASTA AND TRINITY RIVER DIVISIO

M&I Water Only 

Unique 

Elements Centerville 

Community 

Services District 

City of Redding City of Shasta Lake Keswick County Services Area Mountain Gate Community Services District Shasta Community Services District Shasta County Water Agency 

Construction, installation, operations and maintenance (O&M), and ownership of facilities 

 Contractor shall 

operate and maintain 6-inch pipeline, which shall continued to be owned by U.S.; unless otherwise provided by Congress, U.S. will continue to own Toyon Pipeline. 

Contractor shall construct, install, operate and maintain at its own expense facilities required to take, convey, and distribute water to users served by contractor. 

 Contractor shall 

construct, install, operate and maintain at its own expense facilities required to take, convey, and distribute water to users served by contractor. 

Contractor shall construct, install, operate and maintain at its own expense facilities required to take, convey, and distribute water to users served by contractor. 

Contractor shall construct, operate, and maintain at its own expense facilities required to take, convey, and distribute water to users served by contractor 

Other special provisions 

 Contractor will 

compensate U.S. for electricity losses resulting from water diverted at Spring Creek Power Conduit. U.S. is not obligated to furnish more than 40 acrefeet per year from Shasta Reservoir at the meter vault on the 6-inch pipeline. Contractor shall not use water furnished under the contract for power production unless it is incidental to water delivery to 

 U.S. shall not be 

responsible to maintain water levels in Shasta Reservoir to permit contractor to withdraw water from reservoir. 

U.S. shall not be obligated to furnish water at point(s) of delivery in excess of 1,750 gallons per minute nor to furnish water at heads or pressures sufficient to deliver water into or through contractor's facilities. 

Also receives water from Reclamation's Sacramento River Division. Water made available for direct diversion by contractor from Shasta, Keswick, and Whiskeytown have a valid claim. All surface water delivered to contractor must be measured by the contractor. 
1 Based on existing interim or unexpired contracts/data as of July 2003. The tenth “contract” is a Memorandum of Understanding between Reclamation and U.S. For

February 2005 Appendix A Table 2- Page 3 

APPENDIX A: TABLE 2 

ELEMENTS UNIQUE TO EXISTING AND INTERIM CONTRACTS: SHASTA AND TRINITY RIVER DIVISIO

M&I Water Only 

Unique 

Elements Centerville 

Community 

Services District 

City of Redding City of Shasta Lake Keswick County Services Area Mountain Gate Community Services District Shasta Community Services District Shasta County Water Agency 

individual customers and Reclamation concurs with its use for power production. Contractor may use CVP water taken from 6-inch pipeline for approved water transfers and may pressurize deliveries through the pipeline. Requirement to measure water delivered includes backwash water used to clean filters at Buckeye Water Treatment Plant. Water furnished under this contract is considered separate from water furnished under Contract No. 14-06-200-2871A-R1. 
APPENDIX B 

List of Preparers 
 

February 2005 B-1 Final EA for the 

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Al Candlish, Program Manager 

Buford Holt, Environmental Specialist 

Donald Bultema, Water and Lands Division Chief 

NORTH STATE RESOURCES, INC. 

Laura Kuh, Project Manager 

Timothy Reilly, Environmental Scientist 

Wirt Lanning, Environmental Scientist 

Stephanie Paschal, Environmental Scientist 

Kerri Mikkelsen, Environmental Scientist 

Kathryn McDonald, Editor 

Tara Anderson, Graphics 

Robin Jordan, Word Processing 

Dornbusch and Company-Jason Bass, MA, Senior Economist 

Cultural Resources Specialist-Francis Berg, MA 
APPENDIX C 

Distribution List 
 

February 2005 C-1 Final EA for the 

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 

 

Aceituno, Mike NOAA 

650 Capitol Mal Blvd., Suite 8-300 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916) 498-6498 

Caputo, Drew 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

111 Sutter-20 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

 

Davis, Grant 

The Bay Institute of San Francisco 

500 Palm Drive, Suite 200 

Novato, CA 94949 

 

Dietz, Robert 

Bella Vista Water District 

11368 E. Stillwater Way 

Redding, CA 96003 

 

Feinstein, Arthur 

Golden Gate Audubon Society 

2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G 

Berkeley, CA 94702 

Fujii, Laura 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Gaubatz, Carol 

Native American Heritage Commission 

915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

 

Grader, W.F. "Zeke" 

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association 

P.O. Box 29370 

San Francisco, CA 94129-0370 

(no physical mailing address) 

 

Koehler, Cynthia 

Save San Francisco Bay Association 

1600 Broadway, Suite 300 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Leydecken, Byron 

Friends of the Trinity River 

5 Harbor Point Drive #206 

Mill Valley, CA 94941 
APPENDIX C - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Final EA for the C-2 February 2005

LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions

Gonzalez, Marcelino 

Department of Transportation 

1657 Riverside Drive 

Redding, CA 96001 

McNeill, Walter 

Law Offices of Walter P. McNeill 

280 Hemsted Drive, Suite E 

Redding, CA 96002 

 

Medline, Joel 

Field Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2800 Cottage Way, E-2605 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Minturn, Patrick 

Shasta County Water Agency 

County Office Building 

1855 Placer Street 

Redding, CA 96001 

Modine, Ralph 

Trinity County Board of Supervisors 

Office of the Clerk 

101 Court Street 

Weaverville, CA 96093 

Port, Patricia 

United States Department of the Interior 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

1111 Jackson ST., Suite 520 

Oakland, CA 94607 

Pundurs, Trina 

Water Resources Center Archives 

University of California 

410 O’Brien Hall 

Berkeley, CA 94720 

 

Riddle, Diane 

State Water Resources Control Board 

1001 I Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

 

Roberts, Terry 

Office of Planning and Research 

State Clearinghouse 

1400 Tenth Street 

P.O. Box 3044 

Sacramento, CA 95812 
 

February 2005 C-3 Final EA for the 

 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions 

 

Robertson, Mike 

City of Redding 

Public Works Department 

P.O. Box 496071 

Redding, CA 96049 

Russell, Lawrence 

Clear Creek Community Services District 

5880 Oak Street 

Anderson, CA 96007 

Schlosser, Thomas 

Morisset, Schlosser, Jozwiak & McGaw 

Law Offices 

1115 Norton Building 

801 Second Avenue 

Seattle, WA 98104 
APPENDIX D 

Updated Special-Status Species List (June 2003) 








APPENDIX E 

Technical Memorandum-Economic Analysis (October 

2000)




























































APPENDIX F 

Comment Letters on EA and Responses to Comments 
February 2005 Final EA for the

F-1 LTCR Shasta and Trinity River Divisions

 

Appendix F 

Comment Letters on EA and Responses to Comments 

Letters commenting on the Draft EA and the Updated Draft EA are reproduced on the following pages. Each 

comment letter has been assigned a number (e.g., Comment Letter 7) and each specific comment has also been 

assigned a number (e.g., Comment 7-4), as shown in the margins of the letters. Immediately following each comment 

letter are Reclamation’s responses to the comments in that letter. The responses are numbered to correspond to the 

numbers assigned to the comments. Where changes to the EA text result from the responses, those changes are 

indicated with revision marks in the text of the Final EA (underline for new text, strike-out for deleted text). 

Comments that present opinions about the project or that raise issues not directly related to the substance of the EA 

are noted without a detailed response. 

The Draft EA was distributed in 2000. The Updated Draft EA was distributed in 2004 to those who submitted 

comments on the Draft EA. Most (15 out of 18) of the comment letters commented on the Draft EA. In 2003, the 

Biological Assessment/Essential Fish Habitat Assessment (BA/EFHA) was prepared for the Endangered Species Act 

consultation for these contract renewals. 

No significant environmental issues beyond those already covered in the EA were raised during the 30-day comment 

period for the Draft EA and the 30-day comment period for the Updated Draft EA. Comments received on the EA did 

not indicate new significant impacts or significant new information that would require recirculation of the EA 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

 


























































































APPENDIX G

Contractor Service Area Maps 
!

! !

Sacramen ot River

Boulder Creek

Little

Cow

Creek

Oak Run Creek

Cow

Cre ek

Clove r

Creek

299 ·|}þ

·|}þ44

273 ·|}þ § ̈¦5

0

6

7

7

3 1

8

2 4 3 2

8

4

5

9

8 9

2

7

3

9

6 5

5 3

8

2

9

1 6 4

4

7

5 6

1

31

18

19

1

30

30

19

25

15

19 22 20 22 23

34

11

28

20

27

18

10 10

21

21

16

20

16

17

29

17

29

28

21

17

14 15

35

12

22

30

23

35

13

28

19

21

33

24

24

15

11

36

26

22

32

12

29

15

23

27

10

27

20

16

28 26

16

32

21

29

21

33 32

33

10

22

25

11

20 23

32 31

14

34

19

14

23

23

35

26

30

34

14

22

13

26

33

11

34 36

25

24

35

18

27

31

20

17

12

24

13

1

36

25

24

31

18

24

25

36

12

13

24

25

36

18

13

19

12

24

13 17 16 15 14 13 18 15 14 17 16

1

13

29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25

13

26

23

T32.0NR 4.0W T32.0NR 3.0W

T31.0NR 4.0W

T31.0NR 3.0W

T33.0NR 4.0W T33.0NR 3.0W

T32.0NR 5.0W

T33.0NR 5.0W

T31.0NR 5.0W

T31.0NR 5.0W

Enterprise Palo Cedro

Bella Vista

012345 0.5

Miles

Bella Vista Water District

Contract No. 14-06-200-851A-LTR1

Exhibit A

Contractor's Service Area

District Boundary

"

Date: October 12, 2004

File Name: N:\districts\contracts\bella_vista\bella_vista.mxd

Note: The Public Land Survey depicted here

was digitized from USGS topographic maps.

214-202-13
!

!

!

!

Whiskeytown

Lake

Clear Creek

Sacramento River

Boulder

Falks

Lake

Reese Reservoir

Townsend

Flat Water Ditch

T31.0NR 6.0W

T31.0NR 5.0W

T 0.0 R 0.0

T30.0NR 6.0W T30.0NR 5.0W

T32.0NR 6.0W

T32.0NR 5.0W

T31.0

T31.0NR 5.0W

299 ·|}þ

273 ·|}þ

299 ·|}þ

0

3 2 1 6 5 4

8

4

4

8 9

2 6

7 9

5

8 7

1

9

5 4 3

5

3 2

8 9

25

1

31

29

20

26

13

36

18

33

24

33

21

12

28

17 16

24

25

35 32

26

35

23

30 26

31

25

21

17

28

34 33

12

17

10 10

19

30

19

10

11

15

36

22

32

16

16

28

14

34

23

14

21

13

34

12

18

23

13

15

14 16

24

11

22

29

20

15

11

22

27

21

27

32

27

27

32

29

29

20

20

17

22

28

3

15

35

7

10

20 21 22 23 24 21 22 23 24

6

19

19

20

30

16 13

1

7

15 14 15 14

26

6

17 18 16

18

17 13

18

23

33

19

33 31

13

14

18

19

Shasta

Redding

Keswick

Centerville

Contractor's Service Area

District Boundary

Sphere of Influence

0123 0.5

Miles

" Contract No. 14-06-200-3367X-LTR1

Exhibit A

Centerville Community Services District

Date: October 12, 2004

File Name: N:\districts\contracts\centerville\centerville.mxd 214-202-2
!

!

!

!

!

Sacramento

Cot tonwood Cr

Motion

Cr

ek

Boulder Creek

River

T32N R5W

T32N R4W

T33N R5W T33N R4W

T31N R5W T31N R4W

§ ̈¦5

299 ·|}þ

151 ·|}þ

·|}þ44

273 ·|}þ

299 ·|}þ

0

6

7

3

6

7 8

2 5

9

6 4

5

4

5

8 9

1

6

5

4 4

1

11

31

25

18

31 31

19

1

31

30

30

26

20 19

28

15

23 20 21

20

18

26 30

17

30 28

29

32

32

29

19

35

29

16

33

19

14

22

27

22

10

21

32

23 24

16

12

34

21

29

36

28

20 21

27

13

32 33

33

17

25

24

28

15 18 17 16 13 14

18

36

13

24

12

24

16

36

25

25

17

13

3

1

36

33

33

1 3

22

27

34

15

10

Shasta

Redding

Keswick

Shasta Lake

Mountain Gate

"

0123 0.5

Miles

Contract No. 14-06-200-5272A-LTR1

Exhibit A

City of Redding (Buckeye)

Date: October 12, 2004

File Name: N:\districts\contracts\city_of_redding\city_of_redding.mxd

Contractor's Service Area

District Boundary

Note: The Public Land Survey depicted here

was digitized from USGS topographic maps.

214-202-6
Clear

Creek

No. Fork

Cottonwoo

k

Creek

Sacramento Riv e r

273 }þ|·

5§ ̈¦

0

0

0

3 5

4

4

6 4 2

5

9

0

8

1

2 6

6

2

7

3 1

9

4

5 4 3

1

3 2

4

7

1

11

29

23

33

26

26

34

28

32

11

31

35

34

25

20

28

28

27

19 22

29

35

12

33

10

10

31

30

33

17

24

28

33 34

15

26

33

24

32 35

25

27

23

36

28

21

30

22

31

21

34

32

36

16

14

29

18 13

18

12

25

36

14 13

33

19

16

30

29

27

15

28

27

21 20

8

7 9

8

5

5

32

17

35

9

30

8 9

0

17

202932

11 12 10

9

11

34

10 12

27

26

23

3

24 20

29

3

32

22 19

16

7 8

21 22

31

222734

21

1

1010

1

23

6

8

20

T30N R5W

T31N R11W

T30N R4W

T31N R5W

T R

T29N R5W

T31N R6W T31N R4W

T30N R6W

T29N R4W T29N R6W

T31N R5W

Clear Creek Community Service District

Exhibit A

Contract No. 14-06-200-489A-LTR1

Contractor's Service AreaDistrict BoundarySphere of Influence

012 0.5

Miles

Date: October 13, 2004File Name: N:\districts\contracts\clear_creek\clear_creek_ltr.mxd

"

Note: The Public Land Survey depicted herewas digitized from USGS topographic maps.

416-208-2959
!

!

!

!

T32.0N

Sacramento

Spring

ek

Whiskeytown

Lake

River

Bould er Creek

Creek

Spring

Creek

Slickrock Creek

Boulder Cre ek

So Fork

Spring Creek

T31.0N

T33.0N

T32.0N

R 6.0W R 5.0W

299 ·|}þ

151 ·|}þ

27·|}þ3

Shasta

Redding

Keswick

Iron Mountain

3

2 1 4 3 6 5

33

34 35 36

33

31

32

0

27 26

25 28

27 26 25 30 29

23 24 22

19 20 21 22 23 24

15 14 13 16 15 14 13 18 17

10 11 12 9 10

12 11

7 8

1 5 1 3 2 6 4 3 2 1

34 33 34 36 35 31 32 35 36

26 25 27 27

25

26 29 28 30

" Contractor's Service Area

District Boundary

Contract No. 14-06-200-1307A-LTR1

Exhibit A

012 0.5

Miles

Shasta County Service Area No. 25 - Keswick

Date: October 12, 2004

File Name: N:\districts\contracts\keswick\keswick.mxd

Note: The Public Land Survey depicted here

was digitized from USGS topographic maps.

214-202-9
!

!

!

R 5.0W R 4.0W

Shasta

Lake

R 4.0W R 3.0W

T33.0N

T33.0N

T32.0N

T34.0N

McColl

Shasta Lake

Mountain Gate

§ ̈¦5

151 ·|}þ

" District Boundary

Contractor's Service Area

0 1 0.5

Miles

Contract No. 14-06-200-6998-LTR1

Exhibit A

Mountain Gate Community Services District

Date: October 12, 2004

File Name: N:\districts\contracts\mt_gate\mt_gate.mxd

Note: The Public Land Survey depicted here

was digitized from USGS topographic maps.

214-202-5
" Shasta County Water Agency

Contract No. 14-06-200-3367A-LTR1

Exhibit A

!

!

!

!

!

!

Trinity

Reservoir

Shasta Lake

Whiskeytown

Lake

C el ar Creek

Lewiston

Lake

East Fork

Trinity

River

Cof fee Creek

Sacramento River

McClo ud

River

Pit River

Little

Cow Cre ek

Oak

Run

Creek

Clover

Cree k

Bear

Creek

C el ar Creek

No Fork

Cottonwood Creek

Cottonwood Creek

Middle Fk

Cot ton wood Cr

Battle Creek

Sacramento River

Grass

Valley

C reek

Paynes Creek

Iron Canyon R

Lake McCloud

No

Fk Cottonw ood Cr

Ono

Igo

Redding

Castella

Enterprise

Iron Mountain

·|}ÿ299

·|}ÿ44

·|}ÿ3

·|}ÿ36

·|}ÿ273

·|}ÿ151

·|}ÿ299

·|}ÿ36

§ ̈¦5

SHASTA CO SHASTA CO

TRINITY CO TRINITY CO

TEHAMA CO TEHAMA CO

T31N R11W

T37N R2W

T36N R2W

T R

T R

T35N R4W T35N R3W T35N R7W T35N R6W T35N R5W

T32N R8W

T37N R6W

T35N R8W

T30N R1W

T33N R8W

T34N R1W

T32N R4W

T34N R8W

T32N R1W

T30N R2W

T36N R6W

T29N R3W

T33N R3W

T32N R3W

T32N R6W

T31N R1W

T29N R4W

T36N R7W

T29N R2W

T33N R1W

T31N R2W

T33N R4W T33N R6W

T29N R5W

T34N R2W

T30N R4W

T31N R3W

T37N R7W

T32N R2W

T32N R7W

T30N R3W

T36N R5W

T33N R5W T33N R2W

T36N R4W

T37N R1W

T30N R5W

T37N R4W

T36N R8W

T34N R4W

T37N R5W

T34N R3W

T31N R4W

T33N R7W

T34N R7W

T37N R8W

T34N R6W T34N R5W

T31N R6W

T35N R1W

T31N R7W

T38N R6W

T32N R5W

T31N R8W

T36N R3W

T38N R7W T38N R1W

T38N R4W

T36N R1W

T38N R8W T38N R5W T38N R2W

T29N R6W

T38N R3W

T31N R5W

T35N R2W

T29N R1W

T31N R9W

T28N R6W T28N R5W T28N R4W T28N R3W T28N R2W

T35N R9W

T33N R9W

T34N R9W

T37N R9W

T38N R9W

T36N R9W

T29N R7W

T30N R6W

T37N R3W

T36N R1E

T38N R1E

T30N R1E

T28N R7W T28N R1W

T31N R5W

T39N R9W T39N R3W T39N R1E

District Boundary

Contractor's Service Area

!

Sacramento River

Castella

§ ̈¦5

1

Miles

Note: The Public Land Survey depicted here

was digitized from USGS topographic maps.

Date: October 12, 2004

File Name: N:\districts\contracts\shasta_co_wa\shasta_co_wa.mxd

0 12.5 25

Miles

214-202-8
" Shasta County Water Agency

Contract No. 14-06-200-3367A-LTR1

Exhibit A

!

!

!

!

!

!

Trinity

Reservoir

Shasta Lake

Whiskeytown

Lake

C el ar Creek

Lewiston

Lake

East Fork

Trinity

River

Cof fee Creek

Sacramento River

McClo ud

River

Pit River

Little

Cow Cre ek

Oak

Run

Creek

Clover

Cree k

Bear

Creek

C el ar Creek

No Fork

Cottonwood Creek

Cottonwood Creek

Middle Fk

Cot ton wood Cr

Battle Creek

Sacramento River

Grass

Valley

C reek

Paynes Creek

Iron Canyon R

Lake McCloud

No

Fk Cottonw ood Cr

Ono

Igo

Redding

Castella

Enterprise

Iron Mountain

·|}ÿ299

·|}ÿ44

·|}ÿ3

·|}ÿ36

·|}ÿ273

·|}ÿ151

·|}ÿ299

·|}ÿ36

§ ̈¦5

SHASTA CO SHASTA CO

TRINITY CO TRINITY CO

TEHAMA CO TEHAMA CO

T31N R11W

T37N R2W

T36N R2W

T R

T R

T35N R4W T35N R3W T35N R7W T35N R6W T35N R5W

T32N R8W

T37N R6W

T35N R8W

T30N R1W

T33N R8W

T34N R1W

T32N R4W

T34N R8W

T32N R1W

T30N R2W

T36N R6W

T29N R3W

T33N R3W

T32N R3W

T32N R6W

T31N R1W

T29N R4W

T36N R7W

T29N R2W

T33N R1W

T31N R2W

T33N R4W T33N R6W

T29N R5W

T34N R2W

T30N R4W

T31N R3W

T37N R7W

T32N R2W

T32N R7W

T30N R3W

T36N R5W

T33N R5W T33N R2W

T36N R4W

T37N R1W

T30N R5W

T37N R4W

T36N R8W

T34N R4W

T37N R5W

T34N R3W

T31N R4W

T33N R7W

T34N R7W

T37N R8W

T34N R6W T34N R5W

T31N R6W

T35N R1W

T31N R7W

T38N R6W

T32N R5W

T31N R8W

T36N R3W

T38N R7W T38N R1W

T38N R4W

T36N R1W

T38N R8W T38N R5W T38N R2W

T29N R6W

T38N R3W

T31N R5W

T35N R2W

T29N R1W

T31N R9W

T28N R6W T28N R5W T28N R4W T28N R3W T28N R2W

T35N R9W

T33N R9W

T34N R9W

T37N R9W

T38N R9W

T36N R9W

T29N R7W

T30N R6W

T37N R3W

T36N R1E

T38N R1E

T30N R1E

T28N R7W T28N R1W

T31N R5W

T39N R9W T39N R3W T39N R1E

District Boundary

Contractor's Service Area

!

Sacramento River

Castella

§ ̈¦5

1

Miles

Note: The Public Land Survey depicted here

was digitized from USGS topographic maps.

Date: October 12, 2004

File Name: N:\districts\contracts\shasta_co_wa\shasta_co_wa.mxd

0 12.5 25

Miles

214-202-8
!

!

T32.0N

Sacramento

Spring

Clear

Creek

Whiskeytown

Lake

·|}ÿ299

River

Bould er C

Creek

T31.0N

R 6.0W R 5.0W

Shasta

R

Keswick

0

1 5 3 6 2 4

8

7

7 9

8 9

31

11

13

13

36

18

10

24

12

15

17 16

18

23

12

26 25

30

35

3 3

19

14

11 10

15

2

22

10

34

14

32

15

16

22

4

29

1

20 21

27

27

6

17

9

5

28

3

15

9

11

4

2

26

23

14

10

4

21

16

28

16

19 20

33

22 23 24 21 22 21

1

33

33

23

14

" Contractor's Service Area

District Boundary

Contract No. 14-06-200-862A-LTR1

Exhibit A

012 0.5

Miles

Shasta Community Services District

Date: October 12, 2004

File Name: N:\districts\contracts\shasta_csd\shasta_csd.mxd

Note: The Public Land Survey depicted here

was digitized from USGS topographic maps.

214-202-7
Lake

Shasta

Sa

cr a m

e

n

ot

R vi

er

B oulder

Cr e ek

T33.0N

T32.0N

R 5.0W R 4.0W

§ ̈¦5

151 ·|}þ

299 ·|}þ

273 ·|}þ

6

7

9

3 3

8

2

9

7

5

2

9

8

4 4

9

1

1

4

4 3

3

6 5

8

15

5

11

31

8

18

19

16

30

18

26

19

16

28

15

34

23 20

10

15

21

20

17

27

22

17

21

16

28

5

10

22

35 32

29

33

14

22

27

22

10

23 24

13

10

16

15

12

34

21

14

36

21

13

12

33

11

25

24

2

2

20

29

17

20

32

17

11

14

23

26

35

11

14

23

1

29 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

Contractor's Service Area

Contractor's Service Area

012 0.5

Miles

" Contract No. 4-07-20-W1134-LTR1

Exhibit A

City of Shasta Lake

Date: October 12, 2004

File Name: N:\districts\contracts\shasta_lake\shasta_lake.mxd

Note: The Public Land Survey depicted here

was digitized from USGS topographic maps.

214-202-10
Lake

Shasta

T33.0NR 5.0W

·|}ÿ151

14

15

22 23

11

13

10

12

24

T33N R5W

Contractor's Service Area

District Boundary

0 0.25

Miles

" Contract No. 14-06-200-3464A-LTR1

Exhibit A

U.S. Forest Service - Centimudi Marina

Date: October 12, 2004

File Name: N:\districts\contracts\usfs_centimudi_marina\usfs_centimudi_marina.mxd

Note: The Public Land Survey depicted here

was digitized from USGS topographic maps.

214-202-12