ijiiii r

:'::.:::::::I,

. .:::i:'::::r'::::j 

:j j j::r':;:i"t I
Least-Cost CVP Yield Increase Plan

IJ.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region

Fish and Wildlife Senrice

October 1995
Abstraet

heLmst-Cost CVP Yield Incrmse

PIan Uieldlncrease Plan) is a

report to Congress describing

possible actions to increase the yield

of the Central Valley Project (CVP).

The CVP is the largest water storage

and delivery system in Califomia.

Title 34 of Public Law L02-575-

"The Central Valley Project

Improvement Act" (CVPIA)-

dedicates 800,000 acre-feet (af)

annually of CVP yield for

restoration of fish and wildlife

habitats lost as a result of

conshuctiorL operation, or

maintenance of the CVP. This yield

was previously available to CVP

contractors, and these contractors

may be adversely affected by its

reailocation. The CVPIA also

required preparation of. a Least-Cost

CVP Yield Increase PIan with the

purpose of increasing the yield of

the CVP by the amor:nt dedicated to

fish and wildlife purposes. The

Least-Cost CVP Yield lncrmse PIan

serves to address and help minimize

adverse effects, if. arry, upon CVP

contractors, and to assist the State of

California in meeting its future

water needs.

A Programmatic Environmental

Impact Statement (PEIS) is being

prepared to analyze possible

adverse effects and other impacts

and benefits of the CVPIA. If the

PEIS identifies adverse impacts on

CVP contractors, and if Congress

determines that these impacts

require mitigation, the yield increase

options incorporated in the LeastCost CVP Yield lncrease Plan can be

considered for implementation.

Implementation of the Yield Increase

Plan would also narrow the gap

between statewide future water

demands and fufure water supplies

as projectedby the State Department

of Water Resources.

The Least-Cost CVP Yield lncrease

Planwas developed with

consideration of all reasonable

options, including supply increase

and demand reduction. Lr addition,

the perspectives and viewpoints of

various individuals and agencies

affected by CVPIA were

incorporated into the planning

Process.

Over one hundred yield increase

options were identified within the

general categories of land fallowing,

conservation, modified operations,

conjunctive use, water reuse, surface

storage and conveyance, and other

supply options. These options were

characterized with regard to their

arurual cost, yield, environmental

effects, social effects, time required

for implementatiory and associated

institutional issues.

Options that did nothave known

unacceptable environmental or

social impacts, and could be

implemented in the required time

frame (CVPIA requires thatthe plan

be implementable by 2007) have

been incorporated into the kast-Cost

CVP Yieldlncrease PIan. They

include purchase of water supplies

from locally owned projects,

purchase of water available from

land fallowing, conjunctive use of

surface water and groundwater,

agriculfural and urban conservatiory

A-1
urban wastewater reuse/ and one

surface storage facility.

Figure A-l summarizes the range of

present costs and yield of these

option categories.

As shown in Figure A-1, purchase of

supplies from locally owned projects

can provide up to 180,000 af of yield

at relatively low present cost.

Conjunctive use of surface water

and groundwater, particularly

options involving active recharge of

groundwater, can provide over

900,000 af of potential yield, also at

relatively low present cost.

Conjunctive use options would only

be implemented after Groundwater

Management Plans addressing

interaction of surface water and

gtoundwater and water rights issues

are in place and environmental

effects of stream diversions can be

evaluated.

Land fallowing can provide as much

as 1.2 million af of yield in the same

cost range as conjunctive use

options. Land fallowing was

analyzed in four increments of about

300,000 af each. Water from land

fallowing would be purchased from

users of non-CVP surface water

supplies. Land fallowing has the

potential, however, to cause

divisiveness, and adverse economic

impacts and concems in local

communities. These impacts can be

mitigated through temporary,

rotational, and dispersed land

fallowing practices, or by implementing only a portion of the total land

fallowing yield identified. It should

be implemented through local

partrerships including government,

agencies, interest gtoups, and the

general public.

Urban wastewater reuse and

agricultural and urban conservation

options can provide over 600,000 af

of yield but at higher cost. These

options increase the efficiency of use

of existing water supplies.

Surface storage and conveYance

facilities, other than enlargement of

Farmington Dam, are not included

in the Yield brcrease Plan primarily

because of the time required for

implementation and cost consideratiors. In addition, substantial

concem regarding the environmental effects of these options exist.

If others could accelerate

implementation of surface storage

facilities, they may be able to meet

the timeframe criterion.

Recent developments indicate

increased near-term competition for

water in California, both for

currently developed suPPlies and

for future supply increases. Options

available for inclusion in the plan

have a cumulative yield of

approximately 3 million af in order

to iccount for the possible effects of

this increased competition. These

effects include increased costs for

water purchases and loss of options

to other developers or purchasers.

The summary array (Figure A-1)

shows the present cost for available

options.'The marginal cost for

implementing the first 800,000 af of

yield increase is about $170 Per af

under present market conditions.

The summary arraq also shows that,

as competition increases and options

are developed by others, the

marginal cost for implementing the

Yield Increase Plan with options that

involve purchase of water could

A-2 Abstract
;iu

,dE

! F----?

.g _*

> at t

I r a-.

.: I 9*€1-4F<---- +If [?- \=

; 

r*k \a c,. d\i:

/ :g.E q

i at,/ ; x ; xD) sotr ' .:C .oh'i EEE{ E€s

I -o' E'F

:iaF

C

sq.

og,

G

E(t

s

g

s

()s

tt

I

r!.g)

G

a!

(|l

€

5q

o

I

s

G

F

ca,

c

.8

oq

o

q, .s

o

I

I

0

\

s

.l>|

qts

EE- F

8.;

R **

Eg

F Ect

s

<\I

j

s

c5q

c:

s

r+

s

$s$ gt$*eg$EEs =t

$|*ss$r**$fiEi *lH $ 'e'e H,r €: SIFFEE$EE€Sg$ Xle sr c, <t 1.'.t F !t('9:

E 

"*

eEg$s
reach $550 to $700 per af. As

competition increases, options not

requiring purchase of water, such as

conjunctive use, become relatively

more attractive.

At some future date, Congtess may

authorize implementation of the

Yield Incfease Plan. At that time, it

will be necessary to determine the

cunent condition of the Califomia

water market and its impact on costs

for purchasing water. It will also be

necessary to determine which

options have been acquired or

developed by other water suppliers

since this report was prepared. A

refined set of options that serve to

mitigate any adverse impacts as

identified in the PEIS, and that are

available at the time of authorizatiory would be determined.

Options involving water pwchase

should be coordinated with

acquisition of CVPIA supplemental

water and other federal programs

that could result in the fallowing or

retirement of farmland. Options

that canbe implemented with

multiple purposes are more costeffective than those implemented for

environmental or yield increase

purposes alone.

The CVPIA requires that

recommendations on appropriate

cost-sharing arrangements be

included in the Least-Cost CVP Yield

Increase Plan. Cost-sharing can

include both the financing of the

implementation of an option and

annual cost. Possible participants in

cost-sharing arrangements include

federal, state, and local governments, and interest groups that

realize a benefit from implementation of a particular option. Yield

increase options implemented with

multiple pulposes can encourage

cooperation and ParticiPation in

innovative cost sharing

arrangements.

Implementation of the Yield Increase

Plan (the refined set of options) will

require additional analyses, feasibility investigations, environmental

documentation and Permittin$,

possibly design and construction,

and development of sPecific costsharing arrangements.

A-4
Contents

Abshact A-1

Section I Introduction and Perspective

Section II Development of the Least{ost CVP Yield Increase Plan ........[-1

CVPIA Overwiew ..................:.. ....................II-L

Plan Development Process ........................II-3

Identification of Yield Increase Options ..........II-4

Screening of Options.. ....................II4

Detailed Characterization of Options............. .......................II-4

Final Screenin9................... ............. II-5

Least-Cost CVP Yield Increase Plan ........... .....II-6

Section III Detailed Characterization of Yield Increase Options ............III-1

Land Fa11owing............... ........III4

Environmental Considerations.............. ...........[I-8

Social Considerations............... ...III-10

Institutional Issues........ ..."............ru-13

Conservation .................. .......m-14

Agricultural Conserwation ............... ..............[I-14

Urban Conserwation.............. ......III-18

Modifications to CVP/SWP Operations........:............. .....................[I-21

Supplies from Local Water Projects .......III-24

Wet Weather Spill Management ....................[I-24

Operational Spill Management.......... .............[I-24

Coniunctive Use.............. ......[I-27

Water Reuse.......... .................III-32

Agricultural Drainage Reclamation ...............[I-32

Urban Wastewater Reuse ..........[I-34

Surface Storage and Conveyance............ .....................[I-38

Other Supply Options .........[I-48

Weather Modification.................. ....................[I-48

Snowpack Management .................. ...............m-50

Desalination ...........m-50

Water Importation ..III-52

Section IV The Least-Cost CVP Yield Increase P1an............ ..IV-1

Summary of Characterized Options ................:.'i.......... IV-1

Final Screening .. IV-1

What's Included in the Yield Increase Plan............ ............ IV-2

What's Not Included in the Yield Increase Plan............ .... IV-5

Transport Costs and Constraints. ............. [V-5

Transport Costs........... .................. IV-5

Potential Transport Constraints ...................... IV-7

The Least-Cost CVP Yield Increase Plan........ .............. IV-8

Implementation Considerations ......

Cost Sharin9.................. ....... ry-13

I-1
Section I

T hir report is intended as a guide

I for use by members of Congress

and their constituents in considering

possible actioru to increase the yield

of the Central Valley Project (CVP).

The CVP is the largest water storage

and delivery system in Califomia.

The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) have prepared this

report at the direction of the Secretary of the Interior under authority

of Title 34 of Public Law 102-575.

Among its other provisions, Title

34-"The Cenhal Valley Project

Improvement Act" (CVPIA)-

dedicates 800,000 acre-feet (a0 of

CVP yield annually for restoration

of fish and wildlife habitats lost as a

result of corstruction, operation, or

maintenance of the CVP.

This yield was previously available,

depending on water conditions in

particular ye.us, to CVP conhactors,

and these contractors maY be

adversely affected by its reallocation. A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) is being

prepared to analyze these effects

and other impacts and benefits of

the CVPIA.

The CVPIA also required

preparation of aLeast-Cost CVP Yield

Increase PIan (Yield hcrease PIan)

with the purpose of increasing the

yield of the CVP bY the amount

dedicated to fish and wildlife

purposes. This Plan serves to: 1)

minimize adverse effects, if anY, to

existing CVP

water contractors

resulting from

dedication of

water to fish and

wildlife, and 2) to

assist the State of

California in meeting its future

water needs.

If the PEIS identifies adverse

impacts on existing CVP water

contractors, and if Congtess determines that these impacts require

mitigatiory the yield increase

options incorporated in the kastCost CVP Yield Increase Plan may be

considered for implementation.

Implementation of the Yield Increase

Plan would also serve to narrow the

projected gap between statewide

future water demands and future

water needs. The State DePartment

of Water Resources (DWR), in its

California Water Plan

Update (Bulletin 160-

93), has identified a

potential additional

water supply need in

2020 of.7 to9 million af

Introduction and Pe

The Central Valley Proiect Improve'

ment Act &dicates 800,000 acrefeet of

CVP yield annually tor fish, wildlife,

and habitat restoration Puryoses

under drought conditions and 3.7 to

5.7 million af under average

conditions. DWR believes '.-

additional surface storage and conveyance facilities may be needed in

the future to offset these shortages.

Some other agencies and organizations believe that future water needs

could be met with existing supplies.

As envisioned by Pacific Institute in

lntroduction and PersPective I-1
San Joaquin Delta, a1e fie two TS| irq-runent,basins,, , ,' f,,,ttg 1

lhe,Tulare Lake,basin$es-,,a|$e mtffim,end dtre:,,,,,1 :,,,iwe!

ttyiu,*lj#.,Wiiii..a,.,.:.,, ....,',.

.':..''T'}reUcFy|s.rich..so0ts.and;Mediterr.4n.ctimate...''....''...'..lot'.cihl

,, 

,;';,:PfOrid 

-

:,, ::, qgthjf ural cornqqf itie-s,,Ba

rp*.9311,of .trs,ffF b,ufl .pl

$

fr

i$

s

ff

$

tr

$

r-2 lntroduction and PersPective
Figure l-I

Calitornia Surface Water Features

lntroduction and Perspective I-3
"Califomia Water 2020: A

Sustainable Vision," this balance

would require implementation of

increased urban conservatiorL modified cropping pattems, and additional water reclamation activities.

Under drought conditions, however,

water supply shortages could still

occur.

A key factor in addressing

California's future water needs is

successful resolution of water

reliability and environmental

concerns in the Sacramento-San

Joaquin River Delta. The on-going

CAL-FED activities are addressing

these issues.

Both the PEIS and the Yield Increase

Planwere tobe submitted to

Congress in October L995; preparaUon-of the PEIS is currently ongoing'

The Yield Increase Plan Presents

findings, not recommendations' Its

implementation bY the federal

Glossary of Key Terms and Abbreviations

Gsnerql Tenns U$ed in This RePa*

+ Acre-toot of *"to, i ,n *tiv o, uorur. of *o*.*ering I acre * Supplenrentat : 

iwater:needed r supplement *re amount

'']hadeottoftfobtequilo+s.560.cubicteetoratouts26,c]@.dedhatedfi0VPF|d

.i. Cost .totat caoitat:'cost arprtized orer tre anftbated life o{ tre .i. Suppty lncteass Activity frat incleqqF CW yieH trrargh

, 6p11sn iassumes g ftcent hbr.s rate) Sus annual expemes actions srrn as coniuncttr use tllotf-{jty 0pera@9' or '

. divided bv rre esimail ji6*,--"-" t'"'-- -"'-- ' ' new or rlodmed iuriace stoage and cont/eyarree hciHties:'

" il;;;'''iTJ;I,i;*"0*;Va*w,sa a *J;*;;;. i;*;i*L;'n*iou'ing

,,,' !ff0[1;**,xillffi#iffi:,1fiHffi"*-fri3V' " m,:fmr*N*mm:l H""filffiHu***

tr Dedicated *"t"* CVp vUA fiat has been allocated for fish and . ,,Congness to:minimize imp@ to CVP waterqtaclfsr. ,-,- ,i

: -;hll'fe ourocesas stated

t.o"no'o,.o'o*''mu'*'.*no.cvpyierurr'rougn.'''Ht#ras$sttrb''.StareotCalifo1niainm*fN.ri|Wr;..;:;.

:.inon€VPconracteo*ater.watci:sa1edtrroiarr$eseaaion..€.].vietoingere.opiilAw# ' 

, , ,.uould

''' 

',' l, .-t...

14 lntroduction and PersPective
government would require authorization of and appropriations for subsequent analysis and feasibility studies,

environmental documentation,

permitting, design, and construction.

Options in the Yield Increase Plan are

implementable by October 2007, as

required in the CVPIA.

The options included in the Yield

Increase Plan are potentially available

as of the date of this report. However, as time passes they m4y be lost

to other regional water managers and

developers or otherwise become

unavailable.

As a result, the specific components

of the Yield Increase Plan likely will

change over time and depend on the

timing of any decision by Congress to

replace the dedicated water, and the

amount of yield Congress determines

should be replaced, if any. Costs for

implementing the Yield Increase Plan

will also increase as competition for

water supply in the California water

market increases.

Other initiatives to increase water

supplies in the Central Valley are

being sponsored by the State of

Califomia, water districts, municipalities, private water developers, and

through federal government pro'

grams. Activities authorized as part

of the CVPIA to acquire water for fish

and wildlife to supplement the

amount dedicated are also underway. Partnerships with these

activities could result in reduced

implementation cost and could

provide increased environmental and

social benefits.

This Yield Increase Plan and the

investigations and supporting documentation that led to its

development were prepared as Part

of the Department of the Interior's

program to implement CVPIA.

Introduction and Perspective I-5
Fr hir

triii: ffit

:r"1.

i

Section II

Development of the Least-Cost

CVP Yield Increase Plan

CVPIA Oaentiew

tf" h" CVPIA represents the first

I major legislation affecting the

CVP since the ReclamationReform

Act of l9U. Tt makes significant

changes to the marulgement of the

CVP, and it creates a complex set of

new programs and requirements.

Section Vl!02of the CVPIA identifies

six purposes of the act 1) to protect,

restore, and enhance fish, wildlife,

and associated habitats in the Central

Valley and Trinity River basins of

California;2) to address impacts of

the CVP on fish, wildlife, and associated habitats;3) to improve the operational flexibility of the CVP;4) to

increase water-related benefits pro.

vided by the CVP to the State of

Califomia through expanded use of

voluntary water transfers and

improved water conservation;5) to

contribute to the State of California's

interim and long-term efforts to

protect the San Francisco

BaylSacramento-San |oaquin Delta

Estuary; and 6) to achieve a

reasonable balance among competing

demands for use of CVP water,

including the requirements of fish

and wildlife, agricultural, municipal,

and industrial and power contractors.

Key provisions of the CVPIA related

to achieving these purposes include:

* Development and

implementation of

a program to

double anadromous fish populations in Central

Valley rivers and

streams by the year 2002, on a

sustainable basis, from their L967-

1991 levels [Section 3406 (bxl)]

Dedication artd management of

800,000 af of CVP watef annually

(600,000 af in dry years) for fistu

wildlife, and habitat restoration

[Sections 3406 (b)(2) and

3406 (dx2)l

Development and implementation

of a program to acquire a water

supply to supplement the quantity of water dedicated tofish and

wildlife purposes lSection 3406

(bx3)I

Preparation of a PEIS analyzing

the direct and indirect impacts

and benefib of implementing the

act [Section 3409]

Development of a least-cost plan

for increasing the yield of the CVP

by the amount dedicated.to fish

and wildlife purposes to

minimize adverse impacts, if any,

upon existing CVP contractors

and to assist the State of

Califoriria in meeting its future

water needs [Section 3408(j)]

Developmentof the kast4ost CVPYield tncrease Plan II-t
, I n brder to minimize adverse effects, if ,,, rmD*men*Uon oT r'e r reu rrcrsa'e ",, .,,,H1;j;:l"j**;.''(&'i"a.U 

'

...''|..*fill]o['c1x?f|iF-lij,,,......'...eri','ouro'r*#i'tt.'StW::::

..'......;f'fi*i:frFib,,iF:f;l#if':::''.......'i;..:.'..ipr,'.i.ii'f,*];:':l::.

.........*'ii...ffi4$:'....l..'..ffiH$#*l#

-l:nxxfiJ'#$'.ff..'..'.'''.i[HT;*iflif..i.-.:'....:.''

, irU suUmit Otre Congress

,, 

',,g#oa

,,:inianorw

O. purctrase inO Uthg oi igricuttuiat tarU 

, 

f"q Oem"nO nauctiA act

meetinq its future w*r needs: ; use;consewation iS frb ieduction in

lmplemlnation ol the Yieb Increase ' 

: the amount water fhd i9 lost b 

.,

.i'.bii*i;u"tiiii''di]-._.'-;ffivi1li;is.i.",iiilswere''..:'€.'pu'"rrase'inoiotingorag1idil

'..i.rl''piiiiinifmenoarions'r..''..'.''.;']or**fft;Jf;.'''''

' consisent witr

:''::'beingdetermineo,as'[xolh.'PE|S..''.':eh|a'ge

:: :lmplem

'''.:'.'Ptanmutdseretom'inlmizeany.'':''....'

, 

: ' I '' oPtitfu'rttultttno*natmns

$ectinn S4S$ {i}oJttre.Ceniiat Vaiiey Project lmprovementnCf,{titte g4'-F[102-575]

TT-2 Development of the Least{ost CVP Yield Increase Plan
This report specifically addresses

Section 3408(j). A least-cost plan is

broadly defined as a plan inwhich all

reasonable optioru, including supply

increase and demand reduction, are

assessed against an :uray of cost and

social and environmental impact considerations. Key differences between

this method of least-cost planning

and earlier supply-focused methods

of water resource planning are that

demand-side management is grven

equal weight to the generation of new

supplies and social and envirorunental impacts are given full consideration. In addition, the perspectives

and viewpoints of various individuals and agencies affected by

CVPIA are incorporated into the

plarrning process. The language of

the CVPIA makes clear that Congress

intended this integration to be

included in development of the l*nstCost CVP Yield Increase PIan.

Plan Deaeloptnent

Process

The process followed in development

of the Yield Increase Plan is shown in

Figure II-1.

Figure ll-l

Development of Least-Cost CVP Yield lncrease PIan

Preparation of the Yield Increase Plan

was designed and conducted with

broad public involvement and has

included a series of public meetings,

presentations, newsletters, and other

armouncements, as well as public participation in the review and

refinement of information in this

report.

The plan was prepared using five

steps. They are:

* Identifying all water supply

increase and demartd reduction

options potentially

capable of increasing

CVP yield

* ftreening options to

identify those to carry

forward

Aleastoost plan is broadly defined as

a plan in which all rssonable options,

including supply increa* and &mand

reduction, are assessed against an

arny of costandimpct

considenlions

Developing detailed characterization of potential yield increase

options

Final screening of options to

identify those to include in the

Yield Increase Plan

Presenting tlrc Least-Cast CVP

Yield lncrease PIan

Least-cctCVP

Yield lncrea*

PIan

Detailed

Characbdation

ol Optlons

ldentilication

otYield

lncrease Optlons

. Cost estimate less than $2,500/af

. Yield estimate greater than 5,000 atlyl

. Did NOT involve wateruays

desunated as wild and scenic

. NOT dismissed in rccent

conparable studies

. Varitiable yield

. No laown unacceptable impact to

wildlite habltat ot endangercd species

. No substantbl negdive inp&t to local

6conomies

. hwlenent&te beforc 2007

. Cumulative yield approximately

3,000,000 aflyr

Development of the Least4ost CVP Yield lncrease PLan II-3
Iie costs shown in tfiis report

reprexnt the current annual cost tor

increasing CVP yield regardless of

whether the fedenl government

implenrentsthe physical option itselt u

purchases the water or water rightfrom

another entity

Separate technical appendices have

beenwritten to provide a more

detailed description of the methods

than were used to estimate costs,

yields, and impacts of the options that

were considered for inclusion in the

Yield Increase Plan. The technical

appendices are:

* Economic Models

* Modified Operations

* Demand Management

* Conjunctive Use

* Urban Wastewater Reuse

* Surface Storage and Conveyance

* Weather Modificatiory Snowpack

Management, Desalination and

Water Importation

* Basin Models for Yield Increase

Analysis

A Environmental Effects of Yield

Increase Options

* Socioeconomic Effects

Identifrcation of

Yield Increase Options

Potential yield increase options were

identified by reviewing available

published reports;

surveyingwater

resource agencies;

soliciting input from

water districts, private

developers, and the

public; and conducting

technical evaluation

and limited field

Screening of Options

Options were screened to identifY

those to carry forward for detailed

characterization based on whether

they meet the following criteria:

* Their yield was greater than

5,000 af /yr. Options that Produce

a smaller yield were considered

impractical for inclusion in the

Yield Increase Plan.

* Their annual cost was less than

$2,500/af. A large number of

options couldbe imPlemented for

less than $2,50A/ af. It was not

necessary to pursue more

expensive options that would

have a low probabilitY of being

implemented.

* They did not involve waterwaYs

designated as wild and scenic.

Existing law prohibits

development of these waterwaYs.

* They had not been dismissed

from further study in other recent

and comparable studies. OPtions

dismissed in other studies would

have environmental, economic, or

technical problems that make

them impractical or infeasible.

Detailed Characte fiz,ation

of Options

The remaining options then were

grouped into one of eight categories:

* Land fallowing

* Conservation

Modifications of CVP/SWP

operations

Supplies from local water projects

Conjunctive use

surveys. Initial estimates of yield,

cost, and environmental impacts were

made based on this available information.

*

*

n-4 Development of the Least{ost CVP Yield lncrease PLan
ti.

i

:i'

l

.|o

*

*

Water reuse

Surface storage and conveyance

Other supply options

Transfers, purchase of water, and

direct purchase of water rights are not

considered yield increase oPtions, but

rather methods that can be used to

convert an option that is implemented by others to increase CVP

yield. For example, a water tightt

holder could fallow land and make

the water that would have been used

for irrigation available for transfer.

This water could be purchased to

increase the yield of the CVP. As

another example, a private entreprenetr or agency could develoP a

new storage or conjunctive use facility and sell water for CVP yield

increase.

The costs shown in this report

represent the current annual cost for

increasing CVP yield regardless of

whether the federal government

implements the physical option itself

or purchases the water or water right

from another entity.

The options were also located based

on the agricultural region or

hydrologic basin of their source.

Yield increase optiors are not the

same from region to region and basin

to basin; an option that might be

promising in one region/basin might

not be technically feasible in another

based on site-specific considerations

such as geography, watershed

characteristics, and soil conditions.

Athibutes assessed as part of this

detailed characterization included the

following:

* Cosh Total capital cost amortized

over the anticipated life of the

project (assumed 8 percent interest rate) plus annual exPenses,

divided by the estimated Yield.

* Yield: The amount of water made

available annually during

drought conditions.

* EnvironmentalConsiderations:

The adverse or beneficial impact

on the natural environment.

* Social Considerations: The

adverse or beneficial impact on

the local and regional economY.

* Timing: Time required for

implementation of an option.

* Institutional Issues: Potential

issues that could delay or prohibit

implementation of an option.

The detailed characterization of these

options is presented in Sectioa trI.

Final Screening

An appraisallevel final screening was

applied to the options using the

results of the detailed

characterization. Options that pass

this final screening will also be

subject to additional screening in

Development of the l.east4ost CVP Yield lncrease Plan II-5
subsequmt analyses and feasibility

studies. Options were included in the

-Yield Increase Plan based on the

following criteria:

* Verifiable yield: They provided

aarifable supply of water.

Options that have speculative or

unquantifiable yields and that

include unproven technologies

were not included.

Environmental Considerations:

They did not cause unacceptable

adverse impacts on critical habitat

or endangered species, or impacts

are uncertain and require further

study. Unacceptable adverse

impacts are those considered

unmitigable and contrary to the

pwposes of the CVPIA.

Social Considerations: They did

not produce substantial negative

impacts on local or regional economies.

Timing: They could be implemented before October 2007. This

is a stipulation of the CVPIA.

Cumulative Yield: They have a

cumulative yield of approximately 3 million af. This cumulative yield is necessary to

account for the possible effects of

competition for water supply.

Least-Cost CVP Yield

Increase Plan

Following this screening process the

remaining options were array.ed on

the basis of their cost and cumulative

yield. The Yield Increase Plan is the

lowest cost (including transportation

cost) set of options that meets the

yield increase needs and is available

at the time of implementation. Other

considerations addressed include

physical means of conveyance that

link options with potential need locations, issues related to water transfers, integtation with CVP operations,

and possible cost-sharing arrangements. The kast-Cost CVP Yield

Increase PIanis presented in

Section W.

II-6 Development of the Least€ost CVP Yield Increase Plan
Yield Increase tions

Section III

Detailed Characterization of

! ollowing the initial screening,

I' over one hundred options

remained that are available-to

increase CVP yield. These options

were grouped into eight categories

for analysis and presentation. Where

appropriate, the categories were

further divided into subcategories.

* Land fallowing

* Conservation

- Agricultural conservation

- Urban conservation

Modifications to CVP/SWP

operations

Supplies from local water projects

Conjunctive use

- Active recharge

- Developable perennial yield

Water reuse

- Agricultural drainage

reclamation

- Urban wastewater reuse

Surface storage and conveyance

- Enlargement of existing storage

- New onstream or offstream

surface storage

- New or extended conveyance

Other supply options

- Weather modification

- Snowpack management

- Desalination

- Water importation

*

*

The options are located

geographically, based on

either an agricultural

region or a hydrologic

basin. Agricultural

regions are based upon

groupings of the State

Department of Water

Resources' (D!VR)

Detailed Analysis Units.

Figure III-1is a map

showing these agricultural regions and hydro'

logic basins.

Information presented

within this section includes cost,

yield, socioeconomic, environmental,

institutional, and timing considerations. Technical appendices have

been prepared that include these

analyses. The costs shown are capital

costs, amortized over the life of the

option assuming an 8 percent interest

rate plus annual expenses, divided by

the estimated yield. To the extent

that potential environmental impacts

could be identified, costs for mitigation were included in the cost estimate. Other factors affecting cost,

such as mitigation for changes in

power generation, will most likely

have relative$ small effects. These

costs will be determined through

subsequent analysis and feasibility

studies. For those options that

involve purchase of water, the cost

information reflects current water

*

*

{.

Detailed Characterization of Yield Increase Options m-1
Figurclll-l

Central Valley Agricultural Regions and Hydrologic Basins llsed in the

Derrelopment ofhe Least0ost CVP Yield lncrease PIan

Detailed Characterization of Yield lncrease Options
supply and demand conditions and

may be affected if higher levels of

competition develop in the future.

In addition, yield-increase options

involving purchase of water

activities assume willingness to sell

under present market conditions at

the costs indicated. Effects of

competition on costs of water are

discussed in Section [V.

Waterbanking concepts and the

possible relationships between the

categories presented and effects

upon each other have not been

analyzed. Such concepts and effects

depend on site-specific

characteristics that would be

determined during further, more

detailed investigations if Congress

decides to authorize implementation

of the Yield Increase Plan.

Detailed Characterization of Yield Increase Options trI-3
MWw{,{,wuw,frsg

T and fallowing is the complete or

I-r partial reduction in irrigation of

cropland that would make

consumptively used portions of

applied.water available for CVP

yield-increase purposes. At present,

approximately 20 million af of water

is available for crop production in the

Central Valley. Sources of this water

include both groundwater and

surface water supplied from the CVR

other federal facilities, the SWP,local

water agencies, and private developments. Surface water supplies

account for approximately L2 million

af of the total available. The remainder is pumped from groundwater

sources. Only the consumptively

used portion of non{VP contracted

surface water supplies is considered

potentially available for CVP yieldincrease purposes.

This amount is approximately 6 million af

under drought

conditions.

Fallowing options

The federal government would

implement the land fallowing option by

contracting with growers or water

punrcyorc to purchase a quantity of

water currently used for irrigation

implemented on lands not irrigated

with CVP-contracted water (lands

supplied by local or SIAIP water) and

subsequent trarsfer of the water to

the CVP would not increase overall

water supply in the state, but would

decrease overall demand. Fallowing

in this manner would increase vield

of the CVP.

Also, under drought conditions there

is approximately L.5 million af of

consumptively used CVP contracted

surface water supply. Demand

reduction could include fallowing of

land irrigated with this water supply.

lAlhile this does not increase CVP

water supply, it would reduce CVP

demand. CVP water contractors

believe that this demand reduction

from within the CVP is an inaPpropriate way to minimize adverse

effects of dedicating water under the

CVPIA. They perceive the imPacts

associated with fallowing land from

within the CVP would be cumulative

to those adverse impacts currently

resulting from dedication of CVP

yield to other purposes. At some

future date, however, an individual

CVP farm operator maY choose to

fallow land and sell water. This

water may be available for purchase

along with the non{VP suPPlies.

The federal govemment would

implement the land fallowing option

by contracting with Srowers or water

plrrveyors to purchase a quantity of

water currently used for irrigation. In

exchange the seller would agree to

reduce crop consumPtive use bY *

equal amount.

There are several important factors

that should be considered.

* How frequentlY the water is

needed

* Environmentalconsiderations

* Socialconsiderations

* Institutional issues

The implementation of fallowing

options would depend on the

frequency of need. Needs may occur

,rnder specific circumstances, such as

a drought, or they maY be constant

from year-to-year. Therefore, to

satisfy potential varYing needs,

Itr-4 Detailed Characterization-Land Fallowing
fallowing could either be temporary

or permanent. Temporary fallowing

would idle land only when needed

and would most likely use short-term

lease or dry-year optiors contracts.

Permanent land fallowing would be

necessary to provide a more

consistent supply of water regardless

of the water year type.

Either way, the seller could generate

that water through increased

rotational fallowing, long-term

fallowing of certain parcels, or

changing the mix of crops grown.

Rotational land fallowing spreads the

occurrence of fallowing around a

landowner's property or around an

entire district or region. For example,

a landowner may choose to increase

fallowed acreage slightly above the

level fallowed under current

operations (acreage set-aside

Detailed Characterization-l.and Fallowing u-5
Modified cropping is a third way of

generating water to sell under the land

tallowing option

prograrns/ crop rotations, or land/soil

management). Annual or biennial

rotation of fallowed acreage

throughout a particular set of fields

allows a landowner's entire operation

to remain in production but at

slightly decreased rates. A further

expansio.n of this example would be

the rotation of fallowed lands among

several landowners within a given

area, not allowing the same

landowners to participate every year

(such an activity may need to be

administered by a water district or

other local agency). Rotational

fallowing tends to maintain the

current number of producing

landowners within a partictrlat areal

while slightly reducing production.

Willing sellers can also choose to

fallow certain parcels on a long-term

basis. Long-term fallowing does not

necessarily prohibit dry land farming

or the establishment of permanent

wildlife habitat. Rather, irrigation

water is withheld from these lands.

Long-term fallowing may result in an

actual reduction in the number of

actively producing landowners, as

well as a reduction in levels of

re gional agricultural activity.

Modified cropping is a third way of

generating water to sell r:nder the

land fallowing option. A crop with

high consumptive use (such as

irrigated pasture) is replaced with a

crop using less water

(such as grain or

safflower). The

reduced consumptive

use is available for sale

fallowing of irrigated agriculture in

the Central Valley. As indicated in

the table, four levels of land fallowing

were analyzed. Each level represents

an increment of 5 percent of a region's

non-CVP surface water supply (nonCVP includes water associated with

SWP,local, and CVP settlement/

exchange supplies) used in croP

production. The incremental values

shown reflect onlY the consumPtive

use portion of these available surface

supplies.

Level4land fallowing was used as a

maximum for purPoses of analYsis,

and is consistent with the general

guidelines set bY Congress in

Section 3a05(e) of the CVPIA, Yet it

still allows for substantial water

purchases. Values shown represent

yield and cost estimates at the

location of the fallowing (source)-

Conveyance losses and various costs

of transporting water are not shown

in thesevalues but are included in the

overall comparison of oPtions.

Transport costs are discussed in

Section IV. Quantities of water that

would be available through fallowing

were estimated incrementally in four

levels. Use of the four increments

shows how the value of the water

remaining in a region increases as

available supplies diminish- The

increments are treated as individual

optioru and comPared with other

yield-increase options in the development of the Yield Increase Plan.

Actual fallowing could occur in

various quantities and not necessarily

in these increments'

Costs shown in the table are estimates

of the value of water where land

fallowing would occur and reflect

anticipated, near-term market

conditions. The estimates consider

commodity demands, irrigation

to the CVP. Modified

cropping is limited by agronomic and

market conditions.

Table III-1lists the cost and yield

estimates associated with land

Itr-6 Detailed Characterization-Land Fallowing
Annual " Cost b

Yield at Source

47 55-85

47 6s-95

47 7s-'l10

47 85-12s

45 55-80

45 70-105

45 85-130

45 't00-150

27 135'205

27 145-215

27 155-235

27 170-255

Detailed Characterization-Land Fallowing frr-7
Ihe cost of water increases as surtace

water supplies decrease within a

region-a higher value reflecting

di mi ni shed av ailabi lty

improvements, and constraints

involving land and water availability,

crop rotations, and other legal,

physical, and economic limitations.

The range of values reflects the

variation in the value of irrigation

water to different crops in different

areas, as'well as the difference in

sellers' willingness to sell. Individual

situations may fall outside the range

of costs shown. [r addition, future

levels of competition for water may

further affect cost. Effects of competition are discussed in Section [V.

Values were developed using the

Central Valley Production Model

(CVPM), which estimates the

marginal value of water used in

agricultural crop production. The

costs depict the annual value of water

associated with agricultural

production and are not specific to

how land fallowing is implemented

(rotational, long-term, or crop

changes). Actual prices would be

negotiated on an individual basis and

mightvary from those shown due to

variations in willingness to sell water

and in specific terms of fallowing

contracts.

As a test of whether CVPM estimates

are reasonably consistent with recent

water market experience, the state's

L991 drought water bank was

simulated with the

model. At the state's

offer price of $125 per

af, the model estimated

that land fallowing

would generate about

320,000 af in sales to the

and somewhat conservative estimate

of water sales at a given PriceAs Table III-1shows, annual Yield

estimates associated with land

fallowing depend on the location

within the Central ValleY and the

non{VP surface water supPlies

available to that regron. [r addition,

the cost of water increases as surface

water supplies decrease within a

region-a higher value reflecting

diminished availability and the fact

that remaining surface water is used

for the remaining higher value croPs

and purposes. No values are shown

for Region 9 because its surface water

supply is entirely CVP.

Results of the CVPM indicate the

lowest cost water was from land

growing lower-value croPs. Lowervalue crops, however, are essential in

the management practices of many

agricultural producers and should

not be the entire focus of land

fallowing. For example, lower-value

crops tend to be used as rotational

crops to help revitalize soils or are

planted as part of minimum

production requirements specifi ed

trnder commodity contracts. In

addition, some crops with low

revenue per acre are also low-wateruse crops, and a relative increase in

these crops may occur as surface

water supplies decline in a regionValue refers to the value per unit of

water and not necessarily per unit of

land.

In some instances, there maY be

additional reasons for fallowing

particular lands, as is the case of

lands affected by drainage problems.

Drainage-affected land is characterized by shallow groundwater (less

than 10 feet below surface), Poor

vertical movement of water through

Bank. Actual sales from land

fallowing were about 420,0A0 afUnder these simulated conditions

CVPM appears to give a consistent

Itr-8 Detailed Characterization-land Fallowing
the soil, and salt accumulation in the

soil. In many instances, poor-quality

drainage water contributes to the

water quality problems of existing

sloughs and surface discharge areas

(evaporation ponds) and is the foctrs

of other agency programs. For

example, the federal govemment

currently has a program in place and

funded under the CVPIA to assess the

purchase and retirement of drainageaffected lands within the CVP service

area for water conservation and water

quality purposes (Section 3408(h)).

Land fallowing for yield-increase

purposes could focus on similar lands

outside the CVP service area.

Environmental

Considerations

Both negative and positive

environmental impacts could result

from land fallowing activities.

Potential positive impacts resulting

from land fallowing could include

increased wildlife habitat, if

permanently fallowed lands were

appropriately restored or managed as

habitat (this may also require small

amounts of water allocation), and

increased irutream flows favorable to

fish habitat. The latter may occur as

the result of upstream diverters

allowing their water to remain in

streams and rivers for downstream

diversion. Long-term management of

fallowed lands may require

additional federal action and funding.

Other potential positive impacts

include water quality improvements,

establishment of wildlife corridors

corurecting disjointed existing habitat

areas, establishment of rare or

declining types of habitat on fallowed

lands, and the ability to establish

setback levees to allow meanders on

rivers for enhanced riparian and

riverine habitat. A kev item to note is

that, under current

Endangered Species

Act interpretation, land

that is fallowed (no

croPs are growrt,

including dry land

Potential positive impacts resulting

from land fallowing could include

increased wildlite habikt

crops) for a period longer than 3 years

may be considered as habitat.

Permitting may be required to return

such land to production.

Potential negative impacts resulting

from land fallowing could include the

loss of valuable habitat associated

with irrigated agriculture. For

example, in the Sacramento Valley,

conveyance facilities used to deliver

water to rice fields and associated

wetlands provide habitat to several

special-status species. In addition,

during fall and winter months, rice

fields are often managed to provide

habitat for migratory and resident

waterfowl, shorebirds, and other

wildlife. Management of fallowed

lands, especially when fallowing is

temporary, may include leaving soils

relatively barren or only with the

residue from the last crop. Such

management methods may have a

less positive impact on habitat than

would permanently fallowed lands.

Detailed Characterization-Land Fallowing trI-9
The potential social impacts of land

tallowing exced those of any other

option because of the possibilig of

negativetfects on local economies.

Many businesses and governments in

rural areas depend an the expenditures

of local growers and farrwrelated

Dusinesses

If vegetative cover is not adequately

maintained soil erosion and potential

overpopulation by undesirable plant

species such as non-native plant

species or species that host insects

and/or disease or that may invade

neighboring fields can occur. In

addition, concern has been expressed

that fallowed land could be sold for

urban development or for industrial

purposes, further reducing local

wildlife habitat.

Environmental effects relating to

retirement of drainage-affected lands

may include the reduction in the

quantity of drain water produced,

thereby reducing contaminant

loading to receiving

waters. However,

contaminants could

migrate upward,

affecting the quality of

the soil and limiting its

use as habitat, or

concentrations of

contaminants may

increase in remaining

the overall negative impact of fallowing land but does not necessarilY

rei,rlt in the same distribution of

regional income.

Agricultural labor losses are not

recovered if the grower sPends the

receipts from water sales out of the

local region or on non-farm related

purchases. This potential patGrn of

spending has resulted in conflicts

among local interest as reported by

RAND's study of California's 199'l'

drought water bank. This studY

found no economic impact in counties

selling water, but concluded that

water sales caused "divisiveness in

the local communitY."

Economic impacts of land fallowing

have been estimated using IMPLAN,

a regional economic imPact model.

These impacts are sununarized on

Table III-2. The net local imPact

(income lost at the source location

due to land fallowing offset bY

income gained from the sale of water

at the source location) resulting from

the Level2 transfer of non{VP

surface water supply is estimated to

cause a statewide total loss of $57

million in personal income and2'664

jobs at locations from which the water

is being transferred. Level2 non{VP

surfacewater supply in the Central

Valley under drought conditions

would be associated with fallowing of

approximately 1.95,000 acres, with a

reduction of $57 million in personal

income.

Level 4 transfer of non-CVP surface

water supply will fallow

approximately 395,000 acres and

cause a $93 million reduction in

personal income and a loss of 3,445

fobs. The job loss estimate includes a

24,6821oss because of reduced

agricultural production and a 21,237

drain water because of lesser amounts

of water available to dilute the

loading. As with other potential

impacts, determination would need

to be on a site-specific basis.

Social Considerations

The potential social impacts of land

fallowing excebd those of any other

option because of the possibility of

negative effects on local economies.

Manybusinesses and governments in

rural areas depend on the

expenditures of local growers and

farm-related businesses. Land

fallowing eliminates this local

expenditure. On the other hand, part

of the revenue from the sale of water

may be re-spent in the local

community. This spending reduces

n-10 Detailed Characterization-Land Fallowing
Table lll-2,

Sumrnary,of tand Fallorrrring and lts lmpacts

Land Fallowed Water Purchased Local Personal Local Number of

Jobs Lost

. 

("":.") 

,,.. 't95,000

395,000 i

(a0 Income Lost

Le,v-el..Z

Level 4

$57 million

s6ii. ii* t,::l

r2,664

3,445

gain from the portion of water

revenue spent within the region.

These impacts could be mitigated by

emphasizing diffuse versus

concentrated fallowing, by targeting

farmland that has minimal impact on

small communities, and by targeting

crops that are not labor intensive. It

should be noted that these are

estimates of changes in economic

activity caused by the sale of the

water only. The economic activity

resulting from use of the purchased

water (i.e., in areas that lose water to

dedication) has not been estimated.

Social Impact P erspectiae

To put these figures in perspective,

three comparisons are presented.

Calculations of the total personai

income reduction (estimated from

IMPLAN) as a percentage of the

total personal income in Central

Valley counties.

Comparison to results of a similar

analysis of land fallowing in the

state's L991 drought water bank.

Comparison to the amount of

fallowing, associated with Level4

reduction in non-CVP surface

water supply to the fallowing that

has occurred recently due to

acreage reduction provisions of

commodity programs.

Comparison with Total Personal

Income

A common method for judging the

possible significance of a change in

economic performance is to measure

the change as a percent of the total.

The net change in farm revenue was

used in IMPLAN to estimate total

(direct plus secondary) changes in

personal income caused by land

fallowing. The analysis (summarized

above) estimated a net loss of $93

million in annual personal ihcome

valley-wide from Level 4 fallowing.

The 1.991 personal income of the L8

most important counties in the

Central Valley (predominantly

foothill and mountain counties such

as Placer and Amador were excluded)

was $81.85 billion. Therefore, a $93

million loss in personal income

represents a change of about

0.L1 percent. Even excluding largely

urban Sacramento County from the

total, the change amounts to less than

0.2 percent.

Assessing impacts to individual

regions is more difficult. The Central

Valley is a regional economy with

economic linkages extending far

beyond individual regions or

counties. Also, the agricultural

regions used for analysis correspond

to groupings of DWR's hydrologic

analysis units (which do not follow

county lines), whereas personal

income data are available at the

county level. Nevertheless, a rough

approximation can be made by

Detailed Characterization-Land Fallowing m-11
Localized impacts on certain

commu n ities depen de nt u pon

agricultural production and processing

could potentially be significant

comparing the personal income loss

in agricultural regions 6,7, and 8 (see

Figure III-1) with data for Madera,

Merced, and Stanislaus counties.

Personal income for these counties in

1991 totaled about $9.64 billion. Net

loss in personal income from Level4

fallowing is estimated from IMPLAN

tobe $18 million ($83 million loss

offset by a $65 million gain), or

0.2 percent.

The apparently minor net impact

obscures a substantial redistribution

of spending and income among

sectors. Localized impacts on certain

communities dependent

upon agricultural

production and

processing could

potentially be

significant. A more sitenevertheless created divisiveness in

local communities.

C omp ar i s on w ith C ommo ditY

Prograrns

Farm programs have also required

large amounts of fallowing in the

past. Participation in United States

Department of Agriculture (USDA)

farm commodity Programs requires

that a farmer comPlY with acreage

reduction provisions- In return for

receiving deficiencY PaYments and

other subsidies, farmers must also

hold a percent of their participating

acreug" fallow. This percent, called

the Acreage Reduction Percent (ARP)

(also known as "set-aside") is set

annually by USDA for each of the

program commodities. Over the last

L0 years it has ranged from 35 percent

for rice acreage inL987 to 0 percent

for many commodities more recently'

Major Califomia croPs subject to the

ARPs are rice, cottory com, wheat

sorghum andbarleY.

Based on estimates of eligible acreage,

participation rates, and ARPs

provided by the Agricultural

Stabilization and Conservation

Service,land fallowed in the Central

Valley due to ARPs averaged about

550,000 acres Per year from L985-1989'

Changes in the 1990 Farm Bill and

recent rriarket conditions have

reduced the need for such large ARPs

in recent years. Land set aside in the

Central Valley due to ARPs averaged

only around L20,000 acres Per Year

from 1991 to7993. Therefore, the

395,000 acres idled under Level4

fallowing is within the variation

caused by ARP provisions of the farm

programs. Agu^, fallowing in particular counties may exceed amounts

that have been observed historically'

Note also that fallowing for CVP

yield increase would be in addition to

specific analysis would be

appropriate to assess extremely

localized impacts.

Comparison with 7991" Drought

Water Bank

Ir.199'I.., the state's drought water

bank fallowed land to obtain about

420,000 af of transferable water.

Howitt, Moore and Smith in "A

Rekospective in California's

Emergency Drought Water Bank'

estimated personal income losses by

county. For five counties

(Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta,

Solano and Stanislaus) which used

only or practically only land fallow to

transfer water, average reported

personal income loss ranged from$77

to $388 and averaged $301 per acre.

Our estimated loss per acre is 5292

and $235 at Level 2 and Level 4

fallowing, respectively. This study

indicates that even though impacts

measured by personal income

changes were modest, transfers

Int-12 Detailed Characterization-I-and Fallowing
the normal reduction in acreage due

to drought and farm programs.

Social Impact Summany

In summary, implementing land

fallowing in the range of Level 2 to

Level4 would cause a relatively small

percentage reduction in local personal

income, and is within the range of

fallowing that results from the USDA

Farm Commodity Program. Potential

impacts canbe mitigated through

temporary, rotational, and diffuse

land fallowing orby implementing

only Levels 1 and 2. Because of the

concem over potential social and

economic impacts and local

community divisiveness, however,

land fallowing should only be implemented with full local partrerships.

Institutional Issues

Land fallowing represents a nearterm CVP yield-increase option

because it does not involve the construction of major facilities. Land

fallowing, however, may encounter

institutional diffi culties.

Potentially significant issues could

develop with state and local

governments and water agencies

regarding coordination of facility

operations and water release schedules. Some local governments are

also attempting to place restuictions

and taxes on water transferred. For

example, Yolo Cor:nty is attempting

to pass ordinances restricting the sale

of any surface water outside of

county boundaries.

Another institutional issue related to

land fallowing is the potential for

groundwater substitution. CVPIA

and Reclamation Water Transfer

Guidelines specify that, in the context

of land fallowing, only water

associated with consumptive use may

be made available for trarsfer (water

associated with other irretrievable

losses is covered under

Conseroation). The longterm substitution of

groundwater to replace

surface water may not

be allowed because of

potential adverse

Because of the concern over potential

social and economic impacts and local

community divisiveness, however, land

tallowing should only be implemented

with f ull local partnerships

impacts to the groundwater basin and

associated water balance conditions

with local rivers and streams.

Butte, Sutter, Tehama and possibly

other counties have passed ordinances requiring county approval of

transfers of groundwater. San

Joaquin County is considering such

an ordinance. The California Water

Code (Section 1220) similarly limits

transfers of groundwater and may

apply to surface water transfers when

the transferred water is replaced with

groundwater. Section 1011.5 of the

Water Code places additional limits

on these gror:ndwater/surface water

exchanges.

If, however, a demonstration of no

significant impacts to the underlying

groundwater basin is made, then

groundwater substitution could be

allowed. Substitution of groundwater from an overdrafted groundwater

basin would be prohibited unless,

perhaps, the water was previously

recharged as part of an active

groundwater recharge program (see

Conjunctiae Use).

It is anticipated that purchase of

water from land fallowing will

require additional feasibility

invebtigatioru, environmental

documentation, permitting, and

ftnding authorization. Total time

required for implementation is

estimated to be 5 years.

Detailed Characterization-Land Fallowing III-13
ffeppesewwf;&ww

\r/ i"ta-it crease potential may be

r realized through implementation of conservation activities.

Two categories are presented here:

* Agriculturalconservation

* Urban conservation

Estimates of yield-increase potential

for these categories are based on

exkapolations of data used in the

development of the California Water

Plan Update. Estimates for

agricultural conservation are based

on projected savings in conveyance

loss (water lost in delivery by

natural processes) and irretrievable

losses (water that flows to degraded

bodies of water). Estimates of urban

conservation potential are based on

projected decreases in the

discretionary uses of water such as

irrigation of turf to maintain green

landscapes.

The implementation of conservation

activities within CVP contractor

lands was only allowed where nonCVP contracted water suPPlies are

also used. Conservation of these

supplies would be used to increase

CVP yield. In addition, as with

other yield-increase options, willing

participants would be Paid to

implement certain activities.

Agricultural Conservation

Agricultural conservation focuses on

improving the delivery and

application of water in agricultural

uses. Activities include:

* Agriculfural water management

{. Canal lining

Table lll-2alists costs and Yield

increase estimates associated with

these activities.

Agricultural Water Management.

Water management Practices focus

on reducing losses of irrigation

water by improving the uniformitY

of its application and efficiency of its

use and/or the timing and method

of its delivery. Practices include

improvements in:

* Irrigationmanagement

(improved irrigation scheduling,

' improved sYstem maintenance,

and education of irrigators)

* Irrigation system selection

(switching to more efficient

methods or better-Performing

hardware for water aPPlication)

* On-farm ditch lining and PiPing

to minimize seePage and

evaporation losses on the field

'r;ii

ir

.rit

1.

,')

i";

itif:i

. ;

* l

l'lt-,4,!

,iffi

;liE!

il

;fi r#'-i:*

Itr.l4 Detailed Characterization-Conservation
ffi:;

F{'

h,,

tf'

i.r

fi, I

i,,

,ii

Irrigation delivery (increased

flexibility in the frequency, rate,

and duration of water delivery

by the district to allow improved

management and methods by

growers)

Farm delivery measurement and

reporting systems to provide

better management information

to growers to help them evaluate

their irrigation practices and

facilitate scheduling

Many of these practices are

interdependent. For example,

irrigation scheduling carurot be used

effectively with an inflexible

delivery system. Moreove.r, some

practices canbe implemehted at

both the on-farm and district levels.

On-farm improvements involve

changes in the way water is applied

on the field; district level

improvements principally involve

changes in the waywater is

delivered to the field.

Group (2)

Group (3)

CanalLining

25

55

5

Detailed Characterization-Conservation trI-1s
Obtaining the yields indiated will

requi re eff ici en cy i mp rove np nts

throughout each region

As shown in Table III-2a, agricultural water management encompasses ways in which current

practices can be improved and is

divided into three groups:

* Group 1 improvements are those

that can be accomplished for

approximately $100 per af

annually. Examples include

simple changes in on-farm water

management techniques, such as

more closely monitoring

applications, replacing wom

sprinkler nozzles, and

installing tailwater

recycling systems, and

district-level

education programs

reservoirs, and automated

control gates).

Costs shown include construction

and operation and maintenance

estimates as well as Potential

mitigation measures.

The possibility of yield increases

resulting from agricultural

conservation is not shown to exist in

Regions 1,2,3,4, and 5. Water lost

in these regions is considered

recoverable and typically goes back

into groundwater or streams for

subsequent potential use by others,

and does not result in yield increase.

Conserving recoverable losses may

provide other energy or water

quality-related benefits, but is not

considered for CVP vield-increase

PurPoses.

Arurual yield estimates listed in the

table were inferred from on-farm

water loss relationships developed

for the west side of the San joaquin

Valley. Obtaining those yields will

require ef ficiency improvements

throughout each region (that is, all

irrigation systems must have high

levels of uniformity and efficiency);

however, in some regions all

improvements may not be feasible.

As a consequence, quantities shown

represent a theoretical upper limit

that may not be fully achievable'

As the table reflects, the potential for

yield increases attributable to

improvements in agricultural water

management practices increases

with dollar outlay, with the greatest

potential at the Group 3level and

the least potential at the GrouP 1"

level. This is attributable in large

part to the fact that the more

feasible, less expensive imProvements have, for the most part,

alreadybeen implemented bY the

and incentives.

Group 2 improvements are those

that can be accomplished for

approximately $200 per af

annually. Examples include onfarm hardware improvements in

irrigation systems and more

intense application and

recovery/ recycling activities

achieved, for example, through

computerization and the hiring

of full-time irrigation managers

and district level irrigation

experts.

Group 3 improvements are those

that can be accomplished for

approximately $500+ per af

annually. This group also

assumes 90 percent efficiency

throughout an entire region with

high uniformity of application.

Examples include major

improvements in district

delivery systems such as the

installation of automated canals

that can rapidly respond to

changes in irrigation demand

(interceptor canals, regulating

III-16 Detailed Characterization-Conservation
ffii

l;;

iiii grower or district. Yield estimates

for each group are independent and

additive.

Environmental impacts associated

with agricultural water management

likely would be minimal, and felt

principally as a result of reductions

in surface runoffs and percolation to

groundwater. The significance of

any impact would vary from site to

site and would need to be evaluated

for each individual case. For

example, reduced runoff may reduce

groundwater recharge and wetland

and riparian areas created bP or

dependent on, runoff. This in tum

would reduce emergent vegetation

and aquatic and wetland habitat,

and vegetation in drainage ditches.

In addition, reduced percolation

could add to groundwater overdraft

in some arreas.

Impacts could be mitigated bY

restoring area wctlands and

managing them for wildlife.

Social benefits could result from the

purchase of the new supplies and

equipment required to improve

system efficiency and with the

attendant increase in jobs for

construction and implementation of

these improvements. In addition,

improvements in water conservation

and management in the agricultural

sector would benefit relatiorships

with other water users such as

environmental and urban interests'

Some options, such as farm deliverY

measurement and hiring of district

level irrigation experts, could be

implemented quickly. However, it

is anticipated that implementation of

agricultural water management

options will require additional

feasibility investigation, environmental documentation and Permitting, funding authorizations, and

advanced planning, design, and

construction (when applicable). The

total time required for implementation is estimated to be L0 years.

Canal Lining. This activity would

line presently unlined earthen canals

and regulating reservoirs with

concrete or another

impermeable material, or replace earthen

canal facilities with

pipes, to limit or

Less expensive improvements have,

tor the most paft, already Wen

implemented bythe grcwer or district

eliminate water seepage to unusable

groundwater sources dqring

delivery.

Costs are low relative to other

options, but the yield potential is

small, reflecting the fact that in

many cases steps have alreadY been

taken to minimize seepage loss

where this is cost-effective. Additionally, many regions currently use

unlined canals to recharge groundwater basins. This is especiallY

prevalent on the east side of the San

|oaquin River and in the Tulare

Basin.

Annual yield estimates reflect

recoverv of water associated with

irretrievable losses only. As a result,

no yield is available from Regions 1,

2,3,4,5,7, and 8 (primarily in the

Sacramento Valley and areas along

the eastern side of the San Joaquin

Valley where seepage was assumed

to add to groundwater recharge). It

was assurned that a maxi'riium of

90 percent of the estimated seepage

was available for recovery. This

estimate recognizes that, even with

lining, some fraction of the water

will seep.

The assumption also was made that

lining could be preferred over

piping because lining is less

Detailed Characterization-Conservation TII-17
The residential sector offers the

greatest potential tor long:term urban

water conservation

expensive. However, PiPing rs

economical in some smaller

applications. PiPing also would

eliminate loss to evaPoration, but

this is a smaller comPonent than

seepage and does not, in itself,

represent large, cost-effective

savings. '' '

The primary environmental imPact

of canal lining could be Permanent

loss of in-channel and bank vegetation. This loss would remove habitat

for dependent wildlife,

increase water

temperature and rates

of evaporation, increase

mortality (drowning

occurrences) of wildlife

"recoverable loss," meaning it

retums to the hYdrologic sYstem

after treatment, conservation ot

urban demand maY not alwaYs

result in actual Yield increases'

Conservation estimates were developed for the 11, agricultural reglons

used in this studY as well as for the

North and South BaY Aqueducts'

Contra Costa Water District, and San

Felipe Division. These latter areas

*ur" it 

"lrtded 

because, although

thev currently receive a portion of

their water from CVP contracts, they

receive water from other sources as

well. Conservation of these other

sources would be used to increase

CVP yield. PrinciPal urban locations within the Central ValleY

include Redding, Sacramento,

Stockton, Modesto, Fresno, and

Bakersfield.

Table III-2b lists costs and Yield

increase estimates associated with

urban conservation.

Because the residential sector offers

the gteatest potential for long-term

urban water conservation, estimates

for this sector onlY are shown' In

L990, residential water demand av'

erased 58 percent of total urban use

stai-ewide.-Residential water demand averaged about 134 gallons

per capita diy in Califomia with inhoo, *"t (showers, toilets, cleaning'

etc.) accounting for 80 gallons per

capita daY. Outdoor demands

(landscaping and washing cars) vary

significantly depending on climate

aria poPulation densitY and can 

. .

"..o'r'*i 

for up to 60 percent of total

residential water demand'

by creating an unnatural surface that

inhibits escape from canals, inhibit

wildlife migration, and reduce

seepage that recharges adjacent wetlands. In addition, during construction activities, native vegetation

might be removed, possiblY

allowing-non-native plant species to

dominate the reestablished community. However, the Potential

exists for reestablishing this habitat

using less water (by directly irrigating) than occurred through seePage.

Social benefits would include the

creation of new jobs for construction

and implementation of these

improvements.

It is anticipated that implementation

of canal lining options will require a

similar amount of time as shown

with agriculhrre water management'

Urban Conservation

Urban conservation focuses on

reducing short- and long-term Per

capita urban water demand.

Because a large percentage of total

urban demand is considered a

Ttr-18 Detailed Characterization-Conservation
Cost estimates in this table were

developed assuming adoption of

strict landscape management

practices such as xeriscaping and

installation of ultra-low flush toilets,

as well as other Best Management

Practices (BMPs) considered

implementable on a long-termbasis

by the State of Califomia.

Short-term drought management

relies more extensively on

temporary habit changes and

discretionary uses of water.

Theoretically, if. extensive long-term

conservation is implemented, the

potential for short-term drought

management is reduced because

some of the waste or "slack" has

been eliminated.

Urban conservation options are

often seen as potential ways of

increasing or stretching water

supplies within the area or. region in

which they are identified. However,

because most urban areas have an

increasing demand and water is

more valuable to them than the

income it might bring on the market

if sold, they are generally reluctant

to implement conservation measures

solely for the purpose of making

water available for sale outside their

Detailed Characterization-Conservation III-19
The financial gain trom the sale of

water may not offsetfie loss of that

source of water to a community

area. In other words, the financial

gain from the sale of water may not

offset the loss of that source of water

to their communities.

Environmental benefi ts of urban

conservation include reduced

pumping of source water and

possibly ieduced amounts of

wastewater outflow (this can affect

reuse opportunities), and generally

can be expected to outweigh any

adverse effects on urban wildlife.

However, reductions in green

landscape may have adverse effects

on urban wildlife.

Reduced green landscape areas may

be considered an aesthetic impact, at

least until people accept the visual

changes. An additional consideration is that conservation may limit an

area's ability to stretch

limited supply in

drought years because

of reduced "slack" in

to which implementation of these

practices will reduce the Yieldincrease potential of this option is

trnknown.

It is anticipated that implementation

of urban conservation options will

require additional feasibilitY

investigation, environmental

documentation and Permitting,

funding authorizations, and

advanced planning, design, and

corrstruction (when applicable). The

total time required for implementation is estimated to be L0 Years.

the systein, thereby increasing the

frequency of mandatory conservation measures during severe

drought periods.

Social benefits would include

creation of new jobs for construction

and implementation of conservation

measures.

Laws and agreements exist to

facilitate implementation of urban

conservation. For example, cities in

California are required to institute

BMPs to achieve greater water use

efficiency and decrease per capita

consumption. By 1994 more than

180 water agencies and other groups

had signed a Memorandum of

Understanding Regarding Urban

Water Conservation in California

committing them to implement

these practices by 2001. The extent

Itr.20 Detailed Characterization-Conservation
ffiil

ffii

fi

W&fi.{wwtfrwws fe CWP/SWP @prw#fi,mms

odifications in water

management operations of

CVP and SWP facilities can increase

CVP yield without structural

modifications or construction of new

facilities. Modified operations, for the

purpose of yield increase, involve

changes in operating criteria that

allow greater amounts of water to be

delivered to water users while at the

same time protecting other CVP

objectives such as fish and wildlife

enhancement and flood control.

The activities presented in this

category are all part of ongoing

efforts of Reclamation and the state,

as well as other organizations, to

continually increase the efficiency of

the CVP. Undoubtedly, these

activities, to the extent feasible under

ever-changing operating criteria,

worrld be implemented regardless of

this Yield Increase Plan.

Modifications to CVP and SWP water

management operations involve

changes in policies and agreements

that regulate water deliveries from

Shasta and Folsom lakes on the

Sacramento and American rivers

(CVP facilities), and Oroville Lake on

the Feather River (a SWP facility), to

control Delta water quality and

maintain minimum water storage

levels in reservoirs. Operational

modifications involving CVP/ SWP

facilities do not always create

additional water that can be carried

over from year to year; rather most

yield is made available during the

year that the option is implemented.

Yield increases using modification of

CVP/SWP operations could be

accomplished through a number of

activities:

{' Modifying the Coordinated

Operations Agreement (COA)

sharing formulae between the

CVP and S\AIP. These formulae

specify the proportion of water

that canbe pumped from the

Delta or retained in upstream

reservoirs by the CVP and S\MP

when the Delta has

"surplus" flows

(flows beyond those

required to maintain

water quality). At

present, the SWP has

greater latitude than

The activities presented inthis

category are all part of ongoing eftorts

to continually increase the efficiency ot

the CVP

the CVP in retaining and/or

pumping this surplus water. The

formulae currently in We

establish sharing percentages that

are based on studies performed in

the early 1980s. If the concept of a

"first in time" approach is

revisited and applied to current

levels of demand, sharing

percentages could shift in favor of

Reclamation. A shift could

increase CVP yield by reducing

the SWP's flexibility in meeting

requirements. Such actions,

Detailed Characterization-Modifications to CVP/SWP Operations trr-2'1.
although increasing CVP yield,

would have an adverse effect on

SWP yields.

Adjusting Delta "carriage water"

requirements. Carriage water is

water released from reservoirs to

repel salinity intrusions when

watei'is pumped out of the Delta.

According to the state, present

carriage water requirements

under balanced conditions (that

is, when water releases must be

made from reservoirs to maintain

Delta water quality) represent

approximately 35 percent of

additional water flow. Studies are

cunently underway (by others) to

revisit this percentage with the

possibility of its restructuring. If

restructuring results in reducing

this proportiory an increased

supply potential for both the CVP

and the SWP would exist. Such

increases would result only when

relatrvely large flows occur.

Durrng summer months of dry

and critically dry years, there is a

potential for total exports to be

limited by a percentage of total

Delta inflow. Such limitations

might negate the potential yield

increase associated with carriage

water reductions.

CVP and SIMP operators believe,

however, that additional yield

created from any reduction is

available only "on paper." They

reason that current facilities are

operated to meet Delta outflow

requirements, not fixed

percentages, so any change in

carriage water percentages would

only better reflect current

operations.

* Reducing resewoir minimum

storage levels (minimum pool).

Minimum storage levels,

otherwise known as minimum

pools, are mandated for most

reservoirs. These levels are

usually determined bY the need to

preserve fishery habitat in the

reservoir and/or the minimum

operating head needed for

effective power generation.

Table III-3lists yield increase

estimates associated with these

activities. As can be seen, the largest

potential yield might exist with

modifications to the COA Sharing

Formulae. Costs are not included in

the table for modifications of COA or

carriage water requirements because

there would be no cost in addition to

those incurred with ongoing

activities. These activities will

continue with or without

implementation of this Plan. Costs

fofreduction in minimum pool reflect

losses associated with Power

generation. Yield increases

potentially achievable with

reductions in minimum Pool levels

reflect data for Shasta Lake onlY.

Reducing minimum Pools at Folsom

was not considered possible because

of physical constraints. Reducing

minimum pools at Oroville was not

considered because of head

requirements for power generation.

Reducing minimum Pool levels

would raise a number of

environmental issues. ExamPles

include the negative impacts on fishspawning habitat and Production

within reseryoirs and on habitat and

organisms existing on and inbottom

sediment. Potential changes in water

temperafure within and downstream

of reservoirs also could affect species

and habitat. Preliminary analysis

indicates that existing minimum pool

levels at Shasta alreadY are

rI-22 Detailed Characterization-Modifications to CVP/SWP Operations
rli:r

$

Activity

Table lll-3

Modif ication of CVP/SWP Operations

Yield Increase Options

Annual Yield

(1,000 af) ActivitY

AnnualYield

(1,000 a0

it

'. American River (Folsom)

Modify COA Sharing

Formulae

Adjust Carriage Water

Required

, Modiff COA Shadng 160

:t:i:,'

20

Heduce Minimum

Pool'

''.11.''

Feather River (Oroville)

Adjust Carriage Water

Required

80

:.: tl ,

t. ::.

a) Option may have impact on temperature control without a temperature curtain.

constrained by the necessity to

maintain downstream temperature,

thus potentially making further

reduction infeasible.

If implemented properly,

modifications to COA and carriage

water requirements might have

minimal effects on environmental

habitatwithin the Delta. Timing of

releases along with "real-time"

monitoring of hydrologic conditioru

in the Delta would aid in the

implementation of these activities

while maintaining necessary

environmental safeguards.

Social considerations include the

potential for increases or reductioru

in recreation and power generation

attributable to modified reservoir

levels. For example, further

reductions in Lake Shasta water levels

would have a negative impact on

recreation in the lake and associated

local economies. Modifying the COA

would gain water for the CVP but

could have negative impacts on those

dependent on SWP water supplies.

All activities would involve a variety

of government agencies and resulting

instifutional issues, some of which

could delay or prevent implementation. For example, water quality

control plans for the Delta may force

increased-not

decreased-outflow

requirements as

compared to those

required to meet

current Delta outflow

Social considerations include the

potential tor increases or rcductions in

reaeation and power generution

attributable tomodified reservoir levels

criteria. The state may also be

unwilling to negotiate changes in the

COA.

Detailed Characterization-Modifications to CVP,/SI IP OPerations rn-23
SryoBfll&es frcane X"@eg Wwfer ffry1wtu

any local projects have the flexibility to operate their facilities

to store and release water in a way

that not only meets their own

purposes, but could also make water

available for CVP yield increase. For

the most part, these local purposes include water supply and power generation. Changes in the operation and

management of some local water

supply projects could make water

available for CVP yield-increase purposes. F{owever, such changes might

have impacts on the projects'primary

purposes. Water supplies from local

water projects that would be used for

CVP yield increase would be

purchased from willing sellers.

The following two types of

management activities demonstrate

the yield increase potential associated

with local project supplies:

t Wet weather spill management

* Operational spill management

Wet lVeather Spill

Management

Wet weather spill management

involves changing the timing of

releases from reservoirs as they relate

to flood control criteria (typically

December through MaY) such that

water released is timed to meet

downstream demands and /or

facilitate downstream storage in

offstream or conjunctive use sites.

This option is available onlY on a

year-to'year basis, and only during

years in which it is anticipated that

the reservoir will accumulate adequate additional inflow to fill and

meet annual yield and carrYover

requirements. A few local agencies

may be able to carry over otherwise

spilled water in their facilities for use

in the following year.

To achieve the maximum Yield

increase benefit from this oPtion

would probably require storage of

this released water in a downstream

surface or subsurface reservoir,

preferably south of the Delta (San

Luis Reservoir, for example). ftr some

months, agricultural demand might

allow for direct delivery of this water.

If storage does not exist or direct

delivery cannot occur, the potential of

this option for yield increase will be

reduced.

Operational Spill

Management

Changes in operational sPill

management would be designed to

realloiate end-of-season releases from

reservoirs on schedules that provide

maximum benefit to downstream

water users. End-of-season releases

Ifr-24 Detailed Characterization-SuPplies from Local Water Projects
g,::::;a

lfror.

:;g,,,

-*ii:.''

;:;i:riil.ir

,$;;.lji':.,i

tittll':.

*{$l'

ffi;

it,

are typically made to provide flood

control capacity for the ensuing

winter months. Ma y reservoirs in

California currently do not lower

storage levels r.rntil the late summer/

early fall in order to facilitate

recreation and power generation.

This option calls for the release of this

water earlier in the surnmer for direct

delivery to meet CVP demands.

Costs and yield increase estimates

associated with these options are

shown in Table III-4. These estimates

were developed and evaluated using

operation models, and in some cases

Supplie-s from Local Water Projects

: 

- ' 

Yield Increase Options ,,

amp Far West)

wet weaiher spitt 't2o go-70 wet weather Spitt 5 30-zo

: Manaoement Management

Op"r"tiJnalSpiff 5 ' *-tO Operational Spill none identified

Management Management

Mokelumne (Pardee/Camanche) Calaveras (New Hogan) ' :

Wet Weather Spitt 30 30-70 Wef Weather Spitt none iOentifieO i i

Management ' Management

Operational Spill none identified Op"-t,o"aiSpitt none iOentitieO:

Management Management

Stanislaus (New llelones) Tuolumne (Don Pedro)

Wet Wealher Spill none identilied ' Wet Weather Spill 5 30-70

Management

Operationat Spitt 40 1 ' SO-iO : Operaiional Spill none identified

Management , ' anagement

Merced (McOlure) San Joaquin (Milterton), ' 

'

Wet Weather Spiil 5 30-70 Wet Weattrei SpiU none identified

Management

Operationalspitt 10 30-70 Opgrationalspill : none ldenlified

Management:Managem6nt''''i

Kings/Kaweah/Iule (Pine Flt,Kaw.,Succ.) 

, , 

Kern (lsabella)

Wji Weatier Spil 

: 

none iOentifieO , Wet Weather Spill none identified -frrf"*S"r"at' ' ' Management

Operational Spill none identified Operational Spill none identified

Management 

: : Management

a) Value reflects potential yield increase avaitable lrom non-lederal water rights holders on stanisbus River with no impact lo currenl

levels ol delivery.

Detailed Characterization- Supplies from Local Water Projects Itr-25
For mostlocal agencies, only a

minimal potential exists for yield

increase from oprational spill

management

include projections based on historic

spillage records. Costs reflect the

price of water as purchased by the

state L99L drought water bank and by

other public and private

agencies. The cost of these

options will be affected by

future levels of competition

for water supply. Effects of

competition are discussed

from operational spill management

because these agencies alreadY

operate their systems efficiently and

regularly space their outflows

through the year. The biggest oPPortunity is on the Stanislaus River.

The potential environmental impacts

of these options may include effects

associated with changes in river stage

(either higher or lower water levels

depending on the time of Year).

Streambed, riparian, or terraced

wetland habitat could be affected.

Wet weather spills likely could have

the added benefit of being used to

increase instream flows during winter

and spring months above current

levels in addition to being diverted

downstream for use as a Yield

increase option.

Wet weather spill management could

increase the risk of reduced water

deliveries in dry years if spring rtrnoff

were insufficient to refill the reservoir

to normal levels. The cost associated

with increasing the risk to the local

users would play a role in the determination of the value of the water

and the price at which it might

become available for yield increase.

However, the option does offer the

potential for greater Power generation attributable to controlled water

releases. through the turbines versus

over the spillway.

Operational spill management could

affect recreation on reservoirs if levels

were lowered earlier than usualIt is anticipated that Purchase of

water supplies from local water

projects will require environmental

documentatiory permitting, and

funding. Total time required for

implementation is estimated to be

4 years.

in Section IV. No estimates are

shown for some basins because of low

inflows in comparison to storage

capacity (during periods of drought

these reservoirs may never reach full

capacity and thus never spill). Yield

estimates are shown for drought

conditions.

As can be seen in the table, wet

weather spill management has greater

yield increase potential than operational spill management. M*y

reservoirs have little or no wet

weather spill potential, however. The

water supply indicated for the Yuba

River is large because of the presence

of New Bullards Bar Reservoir, a

fairly large facility on a watershed

with high runoff in relation to

relatively small demand (effects of

near-term demand increases are

reflected in yield estimate).

For most local agencies, only a minimal potential exists for yield increase

ItI-26 Detailed Characterization-Supplies from Local Water Projecls
Ccaaqicavesffisse Use

onjunctive use means storing

surplus surface water in

gror:ndwater basins for future use

during periods when surface supplies

are inadequate. Coordinated use of

surface and groundwater resources

increases both the yield and reliability

of long-term water supplies when

compared to the separate operation of

either.

Conjunctive use operation can be

accomplished by recharge progtams

that can be characterized as either:

* Active recharge

* Developable pererrrial yield

Under an active recharge program,

surface water is diverted for storage

during wet or above normal years,

when streams typically carry higher

flows than may otherwise be

beneficially used. Diverted water is

recharged into groundwater basins

that have available storage "s;)ace"

and that meet hydrologic criteria for

economic water storage and

withdrawal. Stored water is then

withdrawn during drier years when

surface water supplies are not

sufficient to meet demands.

A slightly different type of active

recharge program would include

direct use of surface water instead of

gtoundwater in wet years (in-lieu);

leaving the otherwise pumped

groundwater in storage for use when

surface supplies are not available.

However, this practice requires a

storage facility to allow winter and

spring stormflornrs to be held and

reregulated through the remainder of

the year. This type of conjunctive

used is currently practiced in several

areas of the Central Valley.

Supplies for storage could be

obtained by diverting portions of

storm flows on local rivers, importing

water from out-of-basin sources (from

north of the Delta to the San ]oaquin

Valley), or by using reclaimed or

desalinated water. Supplies are

placed in groundwater storage by

percolaticn or direct recharge through

basins or injection wells.

Potential active recharge sites need to

meet a certain set of hydrologic

criteria (for example, soil type and

aquifer characteristics). Based on

these criteria, a number of potential

sites for active recharge storage have

been identified throughout the

Central Valley.

Developable perennial yield, as the

name implies, does not involve

diversion or importation of water, nor

does it require construction of

recharge facilities. This use of

Detailed Characterization- Coniunctive Use fir-27
In essence, this coordinated operation is a

mechanismto allow dry period beneficial

use of surplusurface water available

duringwet priods

groundwater depends on nature's

ability to recharge more water into

underlying aquifers when streamflows and rainfall are higher than

normal. During these wet years, the

aquifer receives more net inflow than

the "perennial yield." Perennial yield

refers tq lhe long-term average

annual groundwater pumping that

will not result i. *y net change in

aquifer storage (thai is, the quintify

that can be pumped each year

without causing overdraft

conditions). In groundwater basins

where existing groundwater use is

less than the perennial yield, there is

potential for further groundwater

development. In

such cases, a

developable yield

program would

use the unused

portion of the

perennial yield. However, the

existence of rrnder-utilized groundwater basiru is not widespread

because most groundwater basins in

the Central Valley are either in

hydraulic balance with local rivers

and streams or in overdraft

conditions.

During dry years, a conjunctive use

program uses surface water that has

been stored in the aquifer during wet

years. In these dry years,

groundwater pumping is in excess of

normal pumping, but only to the

extent that stored water is available.

Pumped water can then either be

transported to areas of need inside or

outside of the basin or exchanged

within the basin for use of surface

water rights and contracts (in-lieu).

In essence, this coordinated operation

is a mechanism to allow dry period

beneficial use of surplus surface

water available dunng wet periods.

A regional groundwater model

characterizing the Central Valley

(CVGSM), together with an

accompanying database and other

information regarding soil and

aquifer characteristics, was used to

identify potential sites for use in

active recharge programs. The sites

examined are considered "elements"

that average about L4 square miles in

size. Elements that might be feasible

conjr:nctive use sites were identified.

The regional model was then used to

determine the available coniunctive

use storage capacity for the model

elements. Storage was determined

under pre-established operational

guidelines that considered recharge

effects on basins and in recharge and

extraction cycles.

The conjunctive use capacity of the

sites (or elements) is defined in this

study as the amount of water that can

be recharged and extracted over the

site without causing a water level

fluctuation of more than 30 feet

compared to historic water levels.

The depth to groundwater from the

surface was also considered during

these evaluations.

It should be noted that the model is a

large-scale regional model with an

average element size of L4 square

miles, far bigger than the practical

size of an active recharge basin. As a

result, the evaluated capacities shown

in Table III-5 provide a general idea

about the conjunctive use potential of

an area and are not exact valuesAlso, the results serve as a guide for

relative effectiveness of conjunctive

use potential of one region over

another.

III-28 Detailed Characterization-Conjunctil-e Use
Detailed Characterization-Coniunctive Use
Beneticial impacts include the ability to

develop recharge basins and

percolation ponds i nto wetland habikt

that can also provide aesthetic value

Site-specific studies would be

required to determine the operational

capacity of a particular conjunctive

use Program.

Table III-S lists costs and yield

increase estimates associated with

conjunctive use. Yield estimates for

active relcharge programs are based

on the availability of a portion of

storm flows on adjacent rivers. As

can be seen, the greatest conjunctive

use potential exists in Regions 5,6,8,

and 10. Potential in Region 1l. could

be greater if importation of water was

included (via the California Aqueduct

of Friant-Kem Canal). It

should be noted that the

local water supply

availability almost always

limits the potential of a

particular site. As a

consequence, importation

and there, only in relativelY small

quantities.

A number of potential environmental

effects have been identified regarding

active recharge operations- Beneficial

impacts include the ability to develop

recharge basins and Percolation

ponds into wetland habitat that can

also provide aesthetic value.

However, diversion of Portions of

high storm flows into active recharge

basins could have adverse effects on

downstream habitat or on instream

water quality that dePends on

periodic high flows. Other potential

impacts include permanent or

temporary loss of habitat due to the

construction of extraction facilities,

new canals and pipelines to transport

diverted water to recharge basins or

to in-lieu users, and maintenance

corridors.

Depending on location, it is possible

for some agricultural chemicals

present in basin soils to percolate and

contaminate groundwater or have

adverse effects on wildlife using the

basin. Further investigation of

feasible conjunctive use sites would

need to be evaluated with sPecific

reference to localized soil and water

quality conditions.

Potential' environmental impacts

attributable to developable yield are

r:ncertain at this time. However,

areas where this has been identified

as an option are Part of the larger

hydrologic system, and their use may

reduce water in adjacent streams or

wetlands or may create overdraft

conditions in a Particular areaImplementation of active recharge

programs could helP stabilize

groundwater dePths and minimize

overdraft potentials, therebY

of water from out of basin sources

may be required to maximize the

local potential.

Costs arehigher for an active

recharge program because of the need

to construct recharge basins,

diversion facilities, and extraction

wells as well as monitoring. Costs for

a developable yield program include

extraction wells and groundwater

monitoring only.

Developable perennial yields were

estimated using data from the state,

and by comparing estimates of the

perennial yield of the subbasins

within the Central Valley with recent

estimates of groundwater production.

Extensive use of gtoundwater and the

declining groundwater levels

throughout most of the Central Valley

limit the potential of this resource.

Only Regions 2 and 3 were found to

have developable perennial yields,

III-30 Detailed Characterization-Conjunctive Use
benefiting local communities with

declining groundwater levels.

Additional social benefits could be

realized if a wetland habitat were

established in conjunction with the

prograrn and the public were given

access into these areas for wildlife

viewing.

Institutional issues are expected with

both conjunctive use programs. Prior

to implementation of a conjunctive

use program, a Groundwater

Management Plan addressing

interaction of surface water and

groundwater, and water rights issues

would also need to be in place.

Without such a plan, the federal

government will not participate in the

development of, or purchase from, a

conjunctive use site.

In addition, permits may be required

for both active and natural recharge

programs that would depend on sitespecific conditions and planned

operations. Examples of Permits

include a Department of the ArmY

permit under Section 404 of the

CleanWater Act and a Regional

Water Quality Control Board

permit under Section 402 of the

Clean Water Act, as well as water

rights and well construction

permits. Permits could require

creation or maintenance of

wetlands habitat prior to operation

of a site.

Concerns with a conjunctive use

operation using perennial Yield

include assurance that water

withdrawals will not exceed longterm net inflows or uPset

hydrologic balances. Such

assurance would require close

monitoring of extraction facilities

as well as that of local groundwater

users. Conjunctive use operations

using active recharge could raise

water rights issues associated with

water that "leaks" into surrotrnding

aquifers.

It is anticipated that implementation

of conjunctive use options will

require additional feasibilitY

investigations, environmental

documentation and Permitting,

funding authorization, and advanced

planning, design, and construction .

The total time required for imPlementation is estimated to be 1"0 years.

Detailed Characterization-Conjunctive Use III-31
Wwf;er W,ewss

! ield-increase potential may be

I realized through implementation

of water reuse activities. Two such

activities are presented here:

{. Agricultural drainage reclamation

* Urban wastewater reuse

Estimates of yield-increase potential

for these subcategories are based on

extrapolations of

data used in the

development of the

Califomia

Department of Water

Resources Draft

Califomia Water

Even in areas with existing agricultural

drainage sysfemg pumping and

treatment costs are high, naking

agri cultural drai nage reclamati on very

expensive comparedto other yield

increase options

Plan (Bulletin 160-

93), together with other available

statewide data. Estimates for

agricultural drainage reclamation are

based on capturing irrecoverable

losses (that is, water that flows to

degraded bodies of water) and

treating them to sufficient levelsreclaiming-to allow for reuse.

Estimates of urban wastewater reuse

potential are based on Projected

ihunges in the current destinations of

wastewater streams so that the water

typicatly discharged is used for yieldincrease purposes. Additional

treatment may be required to make

use of urban sources.

Agricultural Drainage

Reclamation

Agricultural drainage reclamation

involves the collection of water

associated with irretrievable losses

and treatment of this water to levels

sufficient for subsequent agricultural

use, refuge purPoses, or as a raw

water sonrce for urban users.

Substantial treatment levels could

potentially be required if the water

were sold as a raw water source for

urban use.

Table III-6a lists costs and yieldincrease estimates associated with

this activity. Estimates are not shown

for Regions 1,2,3,4, or 5 because

water lost in these areas goes back

into groundwater or streams for

subsequeht use by others (this water

is associated with recoverable losses).

As can be seen, yield is obtainable

primarily on the west side of the San

ioaquinValley and the Tulare Lake

basin area in Regions 6,7,8,9, 10, and

11". Some lands within these regions

traditionally have had drainage

problems attributable to high water

iables, confining layers of soil, and

their location downslope from other

irrigated agricultural areas' As a

result, drains are frequently in place

In-32 Detailed Characterization-Water Reuse
|aD|e|||-oa''':''

Water Reuse

Yield lncrease OPtions : ',, ' ' .

egri"iiir"l;;;;;;;'Rectamation ,:, ''

Cost Cost

Activrty jru;r"J'' "'ffi"" *"**1,**

none identifieO, none identified

Region 3 

none idr 

Region 4

;ntified 

,

Region5 , ,, Region6

, 

, AgriculturalDrainage 115 2,250

RegionT BegionS I

AgricufturalDrainage 5 2,250 AgriiutturalDraihage ' 15, ' 2,25Q

Reclamation Beclamation ', ' ,

Regiong : RegionlO

''.''''

Region 11 

,::.r:,rr,r,,,,ii:,, ::l

AgriculturalDrainage 160 2,250

Reclamation :

.':

in these locatioru to convey water to

sumps, where it canbe pumped out

and disposed of.

Even in areas with existing agricultural drainage systems, pumping and

treatment costs are high, making

drainage reclamation very expensive

compared to other yield increase

optiors.

Potential environmental impacts

include the loss of habitat due to

construction of conveyance and

storage facilities, and the concentration of pesticides, herbicides, and

other constituents (such as selenium)

in storage facilities that could attract

and adversely affect wildlife populations. F{owever, r:nder most

circumstances, these impacts are

mitigable and do not preclude this

option. In some cases, the related

yield increase may be used for

environmental benefits.

From a social perspective,

reclamation would allow for

continued agricultural activity on

drainage-affected land. Landowners

in some of these areas currentlY

pump drainage water away,but more

stringent water-quality requirements

mightbe adopted in the future, thus

limiting this potential. Drainage

reclamation also would create new

jobs related to construction and

Detailed Characterization-Water Reuse III-33
operation of collection systems and

treatment plants, and the treated

water might produce byproducts

(salts and other minerals) that could

be marketed.

Legal questions likely would arise

relating to the responsibility of

upslopb water users potentially

contributing to drainage problems for

costs incurred in installing these

downslope facilities.

It is anticipated that implementation

of agricultural reclamation options

will require additional feasibility

investigation, environmental

documentation and permitting,

funding authorizations, and

advanced planning, design, and

construction. The total time required

for implementation is estimated to be

10 years.

Urban Wastewater Reuse

Urban wastewater rense represents a

potential source of raw water for

agricultural and urban uses as well as

for environmental purposes. A large

and growing portion of urban

wastewater is currently being treated

and reused, especially in water-short

areas such as Southem California.

However, a significant portion is still

being released to surface outfalls

(rivers and streams) or to recharge

ponds and saline sinks (evaporation

ponds, oceans, bays, coastal lagoons).

In many cases/ wastewater currently

discharged to surface outfalls is

included as part of the baseline

downstream flow of the receiving

body of water, and its reuse might

require diversion and exchange of

compensatory water to account for

that loss. As a result, reclaiming this

water might not create new water

supplies but rather provide delivery

scheduling benefits. However,

increased quantities of urban

wastewater generated in the future

might provide yield-increase

potential. Current California water

iaw is vague as to how to account for

the actual effect on receiving waters

and the level of responsibility for any

compensatory releases- A number of

large urban centers in the northern

Central Valley currently discharge

their wastewater in this manner (for

example, Sacramento and Stockton)'

Wastewater discharged to Ponds

percolates into the ground usually at

a rate greater than the aquifer can

con tey it away from the ponds. This

sometimes results in temPorarY

"mounding" of the water. Flowever,

mounding does not always translate

into true water availability. In some

areas, groundwater is PumPed to

water users in exchange for use of

their surface rights. In others,

extraction wells and PumPing

facilities would need to be built'

Fresno and Bakersfield are two large

municipalities current$ discharging

into ponds.

Most wastewater discharged to saline

sinks goes to bays and the ocean. As

a result, its recapfure and reuse

would represent a whollY new

resource. Large municipalities on the

coast typically discharge into the

ocean or to a river or stream that

quickly discharges into the ocean, so

there is less opportunitY for

recapture/reuse of that water. San

Francisco and Los Angeles currently

follow this practice.

Table III-6b lists costs and Yield

increase estimates associated with

urban wastewater reuse. As the table

shows, substantial quantities exist but

ITT-34 Detailed Characterization-Water Reuse
:!,t.

at a comparatively high cost

attributable mainly to increased

treatment requirements and their

associated cost. Yield estimates for

the 11 Central Valley regions shown

in the table represent the cumulative

potential for the urban areas present

within each particular region. In

addition, estimates were developed

for the Bay Area Dischargers and the

Central Coast component of the San

Felipe Division of the CVP. These

latter areas were included because

they receive a portion of their water

from streams within the Central

Detailed Characterization-Water Reuse IU-35
The largest yield increase potential is

associated with discharges to sline

sinks, especiallytromthe Bay Area

Dischargers

Valley. Southern Califomia was not

included because of perceived desire

to retain reuse water to meet its own

expanding needs.

Costs represent an average for

improvements in treatment for use by

urban, environmental, and

agricultural users, and

can be expected to vary

depending on the

constituents in the

waste stream and the

The potential for recovering

wastewater currentlY going into

rivers and streams is especially large

in Region 5, associated with

discharges from the Sacramento

Regional Wastewater Treatment

Plan! the potential for recovery of

wastewater currentlY going into

percolation ponds is largest in Region

1.0, associated with discharges from

the City of Fresno.

Environmental considerations related

to wastewater reuse center on the

need to ensure that reclaimed water

meets water qualitY requirements

imposed mainlybY federal EPA and

by the state DePartment of Health

Services. For example, some sources

of treated water maY be good enough

for agricultural or environmental

purposes, but others maY contain

high salt contents and other

constituents that were not removed or

were entrained during the treatment

process. These constituents might

idversely affect the usefulness of the

water source for Yield-increase

PurPoses.

Undesirable plant growth maY also

occur as a result of the nutrient

content of the treated water. Such

plant growth where the water is

ieusua could affect the abilitY of

native vegetation to survive or cause

increased weed cultivation in

agricultural fields.

From a social perspective, recycling

wastewater might require construction of additional treatment Processes

at existing treatment Plants and

people to staff them' This would be a

L-itiot of the end-use of the treated

water. In some instances buildings

havebeen plumbed to Permit use of

both potable water for drinking,

cooking, etc., and wastewater for

specific intended use of

the water. This cost is the cost at the

treatment plant and does not include

additional conveyance facilities that

would be required by some users (in

effect, a "dual system"). The dual

system is required to separate the

potable water from the reclaimed and

would significantly add to the cost of

reused water. Variations from

conventional treatment Processes/

such as aquatic bioenhancement,

could produce lower prices if such

new technologies prove effective and

acceptable.

The largest yield increase potential is

associated with discharges to saline

sinks, especially from the Bay Area

Dischargers (an association of

wastewater treatment agencies and

municipalities in the San Francisco

Bay Area). One concept currently

being studied is to bring treated

wastewater from these sources into

the Delta for transportation to

agricultural users on the west side of

the San joaquin Valley. Estimated

costs for this project are very high

compared with other reuse options,

however. This is mainly the result of

added cost of collection and

conveyance to make the water

available for CVP yield increases.

Detailed Characterization-Water Reuse
toilets. This practice is being adopted

in parts of Southem Califomia with

an attendant beneficial impact on the

job market and local economy.

Reuse of wastewater raises

institutional issues, including the

need to meet provisions of the Clean

Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act

(if treated water uses the same

conveyance facilities as raw sources

of drinking water), and state health

standards.

It is anticipated that implementation

of urban wastewater reuse oPtions

will require additional feasibility

investigatiory environmental

documentation and permitting,

funding authorizations, and

advanced plaruring, design, and

construction. The total time required

for implementation is estimated to be

10 years.

Detailed Characterization-Water Reuse ru-37
&wr{wee ,$fsnegs wwd C*wveg&wv&

l[ nlargement of existing Central

I ', Valley reservoirs and large

interregional man-made canals, or

construction of new facilities of this

type, would substantially increase

CVP yibld and facilitate water

management activities in the valley.

Only those projects and facilities

identified in current or past studies

of interest were considered. These

cover all basins flowing into the

Delta and include:

* Enlargement of existing storage.

Options include onstream

storage at Shasta, Folsom,

Pardee, and Friant reservoirs,

and offstream storage at

Farmington Reservoir and

Berryessa Reservoir.

* New onstream surface storage.

Options include storage at

Cottonwood, Marysville, Garden

Bar, and Auburn.

* New offstream surface storage.

Options include storage at ClaY

Station, Deer Creek, Duck Creek,

South Gulch, Montgomery, Delta

Wetlands reservoir, and Los

Banos Grandes.

* New or extended conveyance'

Options include the extension of

ttre Folsom South Canal, a Delta

Isolated FacilitY, and the MidValley Canal. With the excePtion

of the Delta isolated f.acilitY,

these options do not necessarilY

result in increased annual yield,

but rather extend conveyance to

potential need locations.

As it currentlY exists, the Folsom

South Canal could be used to

reach most potential conjunctive

use sites identified in the

Cosumnes River area; exPansion

would extend this caPabilitY

farther down the east side of the

valley to the Mokelumne,

Calaveras, and Stanislaus river

areas.

The Delta isolated facilitY would

divert water from the

Sacramento River near the town

of Hood down to Clifton Court

Forebay, and would include

facilities designed to Protect

water qualitY and fish and wildlife habitat in the Delta that

could be negativelY imPacted bY

this diversion.

The Mid-ValleY Canal is a new

facility that delivers water

exported south out of the Delta

farther into the San joaquin

Valley. Its PurPose is to offset

groundwater overdrafts and

potentially facilitate conjunctive

use projects.

Figure III-2 is a maP highlighting

the approximate location of the

surfaie storage facilities discussed'

III-38 Detailed Characterization-Surface Storage and Conveyance
Figure lll-2

Approximate Locations ol New or Enlarged

Surtace Storage Facilities

Detailed Characterization-Surface Storage and Conveyance III-39
Figure III-3 is a map highlighting

the location of proposed conveyance

facilities in the Central Valley.

Cost and yieid estimates are derived

from numerous available reports

and studies. The information used

in these studies may not fully reflect

effects of'current or anticipated

instream flow requirements or full

mitigation requirements on Yield

potential.

Table lll-Talists costs and Yield

increase estimates associated with

enlargement of existing storage;

Table lll-7b libts cost and Yield

estimates for new onstream and

offstream surface storage; and

Figure lll-3

Approximate Locations ofNew or Ertended Conveyance Facilities

III-40 Detailed Characterization-Surface Storage and Conveyance
Table lll-7c lists cost and Yield

estimates for new or extended

conveyErnce.

Arurual yield increase estimates are

based on estimates in other sfudies,

modeling of historic flow data, or

preliminary yield calculations. Data

for capacity enlargements include

existing reservoir storage; yield and

cost estimates are for the enlarged

portion and its added arutual yield.

Quantities are assumed to be

available when construction is

completed as a result of reservoir

filling during the last years of

construction. Additional time

would be required to achieve the

estimates shown if corutruction

were to take place during a drought

period.

Yield and cost estimates shown for

an enlarged Farmington and for

South Gulch assurne oPeration in

conjunction with groundwater

sources. Yield estimates assume that

surface water supplies from local

streams are stored in the reservoir.

The potential for minor diversions

Detailed Characterization-Surface Storage and Conveyance III.41
Detailed Characterization-Surface Storage and Conveyance
Table llFTc

Surface Storage and ConveYance

Yield Increase OPtions

New or Extended ConveYance

Gost'

at Source ActivitY

Annual

Gapacity Yield

1

::i::: , . 

l:,:;r,::,:,. ,'

Gost "

at Source Activity

Annual

Capacity Yield

from the Stanislaus River in wetter

years to provide additional yield

require further study due to existing

demands on the river. Quantities

will depend on the findings of

Interior's New Melones Water

Management Study, scheduled for

completion in early 1996, which will

address Stanislaus River yield

allocation issues. Stored local inflow

is reregulated throughout the

remainder of the year to meet

agricultural demands in the local

area. In tum, local farmers will not

pump groundwater as would

otherwise be done. This will leave

groundwater stored in the aquifer

for use during years when surface

water is not available. Curtailment

of groundwater pumping over

several wetter years would.allow for

large quantities of water to remain

in local aquifers. Unique to this

area's hydrologic conditions, the

aquifer can easily store this water

without significant loss to other

areas.

Costs shown in the tables were taken

from previous studies and indexed

Detailed Characterization-Surface Storage and Conveyance Itr-43
A numbr of environmentalimpacts

could occur with new onstream or

offstream surface storage and with

enlargenrents

up to reflect current conditions.

Annualized costs include construction, operation, and maintenance.

Most of these studies did not

include mitigation costs and

discussed levels of impacts only.

Mitigation costs have been

developed separately based solely

on the discussion of impacts and

added to the other costs. Preliminary analysis of mitigation for

environmental effects, based on cost

associated with habitat restoration

and maintenance, indicates costs

may be substantial for the estimated

impacted acreage. For purposes of

this analysis, mitigation costs are

assumed to equal estimated annual

construction and operation and

maintenance costs and have been

included in the cost estimate shown.

Future site-specific analysis, if

warranted, may result in the

mitigation cost changing significantly.

Table III-7d lists the estimated vear

of completion for the

surface storage and

conveyance facilities

considered in this

study. The estimates

assume

those of smaller scale or where some

of these steps/challenges already

have been completed or resolved.

In some cases, implementation at the

size shown of one Project could

compromise another. For examPle,

enlargement of Shasta may preclude

enlargement of BerrYessa because

both are envisioned to capture water

from the Sacramento River (for

Berryessa, available water would be

pumped from the Sacramento River

into the enlarged facility). Smaller

sizes, however, might be feasible.

A number of environmental imPacts

could occur with new onstream or

offstream surface storage and with

enlargements. Impacts associated

with these facilities include

obstruction of fish migration (if no

downstream obstruction currently

exists), loss of terrestrial and stream

habitat due to the establishment of

facilities, fill excavation and removal

from within and outside reservoir

areas/ and temporary reservoir

drawdowns to facilitate expansions

of existing facilities. Impacts to

fisheries and Delta flows are

expected with the Delta Wetlands

Project. The cost shown for this

project does not include mitigation

cost for these possible imPacts.

Concem over Delta Wetlands has

been expressed by wildlife agencies

because of limited information on

how this project will affect fisheries.

Impacts associated with intrndation

of any of the reservoir sites include

loss of habitat, erosion and slumPing of slopes, and effects resulting

from changes in flood frequencY and

magnitude as a result of increased

storage capacity. Tables III-7e and

Ill-7f list habitat effects associated

with the specific facilities.

implementation by the federal

goverrunent. Preliminary steps

already have been accomplished for

some projects.

But for others, and especially larger

projects (e.9., expansion of Shasta

reservoir and construction of

Auburn Dam and the Delta isolated

facility), the remaining steps could

take 10 to 20 years (if past efforts are

any indication of the future). As a

result, the projects most likely to be

completed within the available time

frame (by October 2007) would be

III-M Detailed Characterization-Surface Storage and Conveyance
Tasks'12345678 Total Calendar b

Years

Enlargemen-t oIExisting Storage

:,, Shasta,. : l',.,;.;. :,,: ::"': 'r , l

Folsom

,".17

1 7

,., .. 89 ,t.,

10

: . . . !$:,1

20

a) The required tasks include: 1) obtain general investigation funds; 2) appraisal investigation; 3) obtain feasibility authorization and funds; 4)

feasibility investigation and EIS; 5) obtain construction, authorization and advanced planning funds; 6) advanced planning; 7) design'

supplemental ElS, and permits; 8) constuction. A "-' indicates that this portion ol the potential project has already been accomplished.

b) Calendar year estimates are based on a start year of 1 996.

c) The total years shown tor these projects was based on values indicated by the agencies or companies involved with the concept.

Detailed Characterization-Surface Storage and Conveyance
Ftrnt,'.....,..,...........'

Berryessa

nesting

toss of scarce dparian Ulitasi SNA fgivbmat poof naOitats and a special status phnt species '::

f-ois otscarce npiriin niOiats, oaf woodland, chaparnl, and grassland; water conveyance facility and

impacts from diverting water from the Sacramento River are not yet identified and may be significant'

Environmental impacts associated

with new or expanded conveyance

primarily include temporary and/or

permanent removal of existing

vegetation and its attendant habitat

value during construction and

maintenance. ln addition, canals

would contribute to increased

mortality (drowning occurrence) of

wildlife populations by creating an

unnatural surface that prohibits

escape (although, new canal designs

try to minimize this potential) and

inhibiting wildlife migration.

A Delta isolated facility may have

the ability to benefit Delta habitat

and ecosystem by potentially

reducing fish mortality and salt

intrusions, and improving water

circulation. However, operation of

the facility may have opposite

effects also. Adverse impacts could

include reversal of tide flows in the

Delta portion of the Sacramento

River. Altered flow directions may

disorient fish during migrationPositive social impacts could be felt

with recreational opportunities and

aesthetic benefits associated with the

creation of new lakes /reservoirs;

however, these could have negative

offsetting effects through the loss of

similar benefits associated with

compromised river areas.

Economicallp each of these options

would create construction, oPeration, and maintenance jobs.

However, the corstruction of some

facilities may also have Iarge

impacts on traffic flow (this is an

issue with Aubum Dam site)-

New conveyance facilities would

help ensure supPlies of water to

agricultural, environmental, and

urban users in Central Califomia.

ttr46 Detailed Characterization-surface Storage and Conveyance
Detailed Characterization-Surface Storage and Conveyance
#tker SwW{ry $Pfdoros

number of yield-increase

options exist that do not

readily fall into generic categories.

Key among these are:

* Weather modification

* Snowpack management

* Desalination

* Water importation

Tables III-8a and III-8b list cost and

yield increase estimates associated

with these options.

\[eather

Modifrcation

Weather modification

involves the seeding of

storm clouds to induce

Weather modification has a relatively

large potential and small cost;

howeve4 yreld assess ment is diftiwlt

because there is no way to verify

resulting water quantities

the release of small amounts of

propane, or from the air, with the

ielease of propane or droPlets of

silver iodide.

Weather modification has a

relatively large potential and small

cost, and it has beenwidelY

practiced in California and a number

of oth"t locations. However, yield

assessment is difficult. There is no

way to verify resulting water

quantities.

Yield estimates listed in Table III-8a

for the upPer Sacramento River

basin are based on studies conducted in the Clair Engle Lake watershed over a 1O-year Period;

estimates for other basins represent

5 percent of historical, trnimpaired

irrflo* (based on extraPolation of

Clair Engle data). Estimates during

drought conditions assume a

25 peicent reduction in potential'

A number of environmental

concelTts have been exPressed

re garding weather modification'

Primary attention has been given to

the potential for lower soil temperatures and shortened gtowing seasons, greater levels of soil moisture,

and erosion. Potential effects include

delayed plant growth, changes in

vegetation comPositiory delaYed

brJeding activityby small mammals

and other organisms, and effects on

animal migration and winter range

use.

Concem also has beenexPressed

regarding the cumulative effects of

cloud seeding, Possible decreased

air mass humiditY contributing to

decreased precipitation and/ or

rain or snow and

thereby increase the quantity of

subsequent precipitation. Seeding

maybe done from the ground, with

i

l

i

i

il

$

tr

$

:$

ifi

ffi

i.i$

.

,iiffi

'.:fi8 lf itr

l

l:i$

Detailed Characterization-Other Supply Options
'

Annual Cost'

Yield at Source

Activity _ .- * (L00o_{L:_($3[*_

ll lli."].

Activity

Annual

Yield

(1,000 a0

Feather River Basin

Weather Modification

Snowpack Management

Bear River Basin :,,: :

Weather Modilicalion:

'". 

. Snowpack ua,nagemen!:: ii::i:r:i: i :r, ::,, : : :::,:r,

Mokelumne River Basin

Weather Modification

Snowpack Management

Stanislaus River Basin

WeatherModification .i

Snowpack Management

Merced River Basln

Weather ModiJication

Snowpack Management

Upper Sacramento Basin

Weather Modification

' Snowpack Management

Yuba River Basin

Weather Modification

Snowpack Management

American River Basin

Weather Moditication

Snowpack Management

Calaveras River Basin

Weather Modification

Snowpack Management

Tuolumne River Basin

:""n"',y*l:'i -^ 

',

,,Qnownack..'$4na,gem6ll,'l;..,jr:,:,,ili;i .l

San Joaquin River Basin

Weather Modification

Snowpack Management

==;..i.1*rl-x;., u,,,t:. il

::...::....::,f i;'1'.i' I'1..,l.t.....t',.,:..,'......4m

:ii

6sl :

'" ,

.25 ,,,

i :i: :::: i:i:l ]l:::l'::: :i:i:.i:: ii,

85

35

: l

100 i

,.,

-,&.

:.:.t.:

5

0

..'i,,.b5 ':.,'.','.''i.l

l)'::':.1:::::'.::.:::t , 

'.. 

:

,tr:, :t.:25;,: | : t :t, :

]::::::::::.]:

65

25

.,: -1O ::::',:::::::',::ll:i.:.:

20o,

it'i,,i

1 0

200

',,:;1,:r;,1',:',

:, ::,: ,:

,10

:: i. :,1 ":: 200

.,,.':':,;i

't0

200

" :,.

.ro

200

1 0

200

:

160

65

25

1 0

1 0

200

1 0

200

:

.,.,'.''',,,,..',

tt.q ' 

,,,.'"' 1 0

''''I

15 200

35 '10

15 200

Kings, Kaweah, Tule River Basins

::::

Weather Modification 85 '

Snowpack Management i: , 

. 

'35

'

10

2ffi

':::::::::::'; .::a::::::.t::;::;,.):,.t4,,.,.,"j:.1,.t....t11:..:."...:.....:

a) Cost values for weather modification are bas€d on studies conducted in the Clair Engle Reservoir watershed orer a 10 year period (USBR Report No. R-93-

19). Values for snowpack management are based on U.S. Forest Service studies but will vary greally with implementation ol speci{ic sites.

b) yi€ld estimates are tor the Trinily Biver watershed abwe ctair Engl€ Lake. The increased yield is assumed to be exported to the sacramento River basin.

increased "downwind" evapotranspiratiory and the potential need for

increased downstream flood control

because of sustained high flows.

From a social perspective, weather

modification likely would increase

skiing, river sport, and other winter

recreational opportunities. At the

same time, however, longer-lasting

snowpacks could cut short other

activities (such as camping) and also

increase costs for highway snow

removal.

Detailed Characterization-Other Supply Options III-49
The yield increase potential with

desalination is high, but it's also

very expnslve

From a legal perspective, it could be

difficult to establish water rights to

additional precipitation that might

result, both in terms of amounts and

location. For example, cloud

seeding during a dry year might

increase flows in a particular basin

above what might otherwise have

occurred. The question is whether

the increased quantity should be

available to riparian users and other

diversions or only to the agency that

performed the seeding.

It is anticipated that implementation

of weather modification options will

require additional appraisal-level

investigations, feasibility

investigation, environmental

documentation and permitting,

funding authorizations, and

advanced planning, design, and

construction. The total time

required for implementation is

estimated to be L2 years.

Snowpack Management

Snowpack management involves

controlling vegetation so'as to

develop shadows over

snowfields and

subsequently delay

snow melts and water

runoff to streams. This

additional unimpaired runoff. Costs

are relatively high reflecting the

need for extensive forest

management practices.

Environmental considerations

re garding snowpack management

are comparable to those for weather

modification (that is, the potential

for lower soil temperatures and

shortened growing seasons/ greater

levels of soil moisture, and erosion).

In additioru concem has been

expressed about artificiallY

extending winter and delaYing

spring, in essence "changing the

seasons."

Social, environmental, and timing

considerations are comParable to

those for weather modification, 6Is

well.

Desalination

Desalination involves the treatment

of seawater or other brackish water

to remove the salts and make the

water usable for agricultural and

urban purposes. There is extensive

experience abroad with this

technology, but application in the

United states has been limited,

short-term, and mainly to Provide

emergency water supplies (the City

of Santa Barbara has a desalination

plant online for use as an emergency

supply). Desalination of brackish

water (not as salty as ocean water)

is, however, extensively practiced in

Florida.

As indicated in Table III-8b, the

yield-increase potentiat with

desalination is large. However, this

potential logically exists near oceans

and bays and, therefore, water

would have to be transPorted to

inland users. To obtain these

quantities for CVP yield would

wouldbe accomplished

by controlling timber harvests to

maintain consistent tree heights at

varying elevations of a mountain

slope. Timber harvests would occur

in stages that wor-rld maintain

maximum shadows on snowfields.

However, considering this activity

relates to an increasingly regulated

and declining timber industry,

locations for implementation are

probably limited. Yield estimates

shown in Table III-8a were

developed assuming 2 percent

m-50 Detailed Characterization-Other Supply Options
require coastal communities to sell

their rights or contracts to allow

water originating in the Central

Valtey to remain in the Central

Valley. For this reason, estimates

have been limited to the quantities

exported from the Central Valley to

these coastal commtrnities. As

indicated in the table, however,

desalination is very expensive and

the cost differential between

desalinated water and inland water

supplies undoubtedly would be

substantial and negate potential

exchanges.

Environmental considerations with

desalination relate to the disposal of

the concentrated waste products,

impacts at the source of the water,

and impacts athibutable to

construction and operation of

conveyance, storage, and pumping

facilities.

From a social perspective, establishment of desalination facilities would

create construction, operation, and

Detailed Characterization-Other Supply Options u-51
lmportation of fresh water trom Canada

and Alaslt.a via marine transport

represents another potential water

supply increase option

maintenance jobs. At the same time,

however, construction would raise

institutional issues comparable to

those for surface storage and conveyance facilities.

It is anticipated that implementation

of desalination will require additional appraisal-level investigations,

feasibilify investigatiory environmental documentation and permitting, funding authorizations, and

advanced planning, design, and

construction. The total time

required for implementation is

estimated to be 17 years.

Water Importation

Importation of fresh water from

Canada and Alaska via marine

transport represents another

potential water supply increase

option.

Transportation was considered

using single-hull tankers and nylon

meshbags towed by

tug boats (so-called

Medusa bags,

specially constructed

for water transport).

Single-hull vessels are

attractive because they

As indicated in Table III-8b, f"ldincrease potential with this option is

sizable. However, costs are high,

reflecting the need for docking

facilities at the intake and discharge

ends and transport facilities to

inland sites. As with the desalination option, the potential exists that

some coastal communities mightbe

willing to sell their rights or contracts for water originating in the

Central Valley to Central ValleY

users in exchange for imPorted

water. However, this likelihood is

small because imported water

would be substantially more exPensive. An altemative would be to

bring the water into the Delta to a

location such as the Port of Stockton

and conceivably discharge it into an

existing conveyance facility.

Potential environmental considerations with water importation

include impacts at the source of the

water; fisheries impacts;

construction issues surrounding

construction, maintenance, and

operation of storage and conveyance

facilities; and the potential that

importation of non-native species in

the water could cause an imbalance

in the destination ecosystem.

The total time required for

implementation of water imPortation options is estimated to be

greater than 17 years.

are less expensive than other larger

ships and a number currently exist

in retired "moth-ball" fleets. Nylon

mesh bags are attractive because

they can carry more water than a

typically sized, single-hulled ship

and operational costs are less than

with single-hull vessels because tug

boats are used. However, their use is

currently unproven for transport of

large quantities of water on the open

ocean, and more sfudy and testing is

required to determine their

applicability and actual cost.

Detailed Characterization-Other Supply Options
Section IV

The Least-Cost CVP Yield

Increase Plan

Options

The CVPIA required preparation of a

kast-Cost CVP Yield lncrease Planwith

the purpose of increasing the yield of

the CVP by the amount dedicated to

fish and wildlife Purposes. This plan

serves to: 1.) minimize adverse

effects, if. arry, to existing CVP water

contractors resulting from dedication

of water to fish and wildlife, and 2) to

assist the State of Califomia in

meeting its future water needs.

The PEIS is describing effects on CVP

contractors of dedicating CVP yield

for fish and wildlife Purposes' The

magnitude of this effect will be taken

into account by Congress in

determining whether to imPlement

all or any of the Yield brcrease Plan.

Implementation of the Yield lrcrease

Plan would also serve to narrow the

gap befween statewide future water

demands and future water suPPlies

as projected by D\aIR.

Over one hr:ndred Yield increase

options have been identified in

Section Itr. Figure IV-lis a summary

of all the options identified showing

the range of yield potential and the

range of costs, including transport

costs. Options have been presented

in two separate SrouPs, demand

reduction, and supPly increase. As

can be seen on the graph, the two

Sumrnary of groups combined could account for

Charaeterized

over l,L million af of

potential yield.

Effects of implementation of any uPon

the yield estimate of

another are not

taken into consideration. Rather, this

graph represents the

basic "order" of

options.

The CVP Yield Increase Pian includes

the lowest cost set of these options

that pass the final screening criteria.

As required by CVPIA, both suPPlY

increase and demand reduction

options have been considered. Implementation of demand reduction

options can increase the yield of the

CVP because water supplies from

those options would be acquired from

outside existing CVP contracted

water supply only.

Final Screening

An appraisal-level final screening was

applied to the options using the

results of the detailed characterization

to determine which could be'included

in the Least-Cost CVP Yield lncrease

Ptan. Opttons were screened based

on verifiable yield, environmental

considerations, social considerations,

timing criteria, and cumulative yield.

Options that pass this final screening

will also be subject to additional

screening in subsequent analyses and

feasibility studies.

The Least -Cost Plan IV-1
Annual Cost

($/ag

2,4001

2,200 |

I

2,000 

|

,,rool

,,rool

I

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

Cumulative

Yield

0,0(n a0

12,000

11,000

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,N0

2,000

1,000

0

Demand

Reduction

Supply

lncrease

Figure IV-l

Summary of Demand Reduction and Supply lncrease Options for CVP Yield Increase

What's Included in the Yield

Increase Plan

Options that have been retained for

consideration in the Yield Increase

Plan fall within the following

categories: Innd F allowing,

Conseraatiotr, Supplies from Local

Projects, Conjunctiae Use, Water Reuse,

and Surface Storage and Conaeyance.

Table IV-l shows total annual yield

estimates of these options and their

prominent characteristics. Yields

shown in this table differ slightly

from those shown in Section III

because they take into account

transport considerations.

A number of options with smaller

yields rather than a single,large yield

option are available for inclusion in

the Yield Increase Plan. Together,

they offer approximately 3 milliorr af

of yield. These options and yield are

designed to give the Yield hrcrease

Planflexibility to adapt and remain

viable over time and to account for

increasing competition for water in

California. Multiple options also

offer the flexibility to tailor yield

increase activities to best match

specific needs. If Congress decides to

authorize implementation of the Yield

Increase Plan, it will be necessary at

that time to determine which options

may have been implemented for other

purposes since this rePort

prepared, and thus which are still

available.

The largest potential annual yield is

associated witb. Coniunctioe Use

programs using active recharge' The

tv-2 The Least -Cost Plan
combined valley-wide potential is

over 800,000 af. The capability exists

to expand this yield potential in the

southern San Joaquin Valley, if water

supplies are imported into

groundwater basins that have ample

"space" but limited local supplies.

ImportatiorL however, will raise the

unit cost to account for additional

conveyance. Furthermore, the abitity

to import water to conjunctive use

sites south of the Delta is uncertain

until a Bay/Deltamanagement Plan

is developed. Implementation of

conjunctive use Programs will require

that Groundwater Management Plans

be in place.

Although when added together, Land

Eallowing optiors have the potential

for more yield than conjunctive use

progrruns, they are presented as four

levels of increasing water supply.

Because of their wide range in cost,

the probabilig of implementation of

alllartd fallowing potential options is

lowBased on the analyses presented in

Section III, it appears that it is

possible to implement up to Level4

land fallowing in some regions.

Impacts can be mitigated by requiring

that land fallowingbe temPorarY,

part of normal agronomic rotation,

and dispersed throughout the Central

Valley. In addition, impacts can be

minimized by limiting land fallowing

to Levels 1 and 2. Regardless of the

predicted impact, land fallowing has

the potential to cause substantial

concem and divisiveness within local

communities. ln order to respond to

these concems, land fallowing should

only occur with complete local

agency/ government, organization,

and public partnerships.

The DWR and other organizations

believe the land fallowing should not

be relied on too heavily for CVP yield

incease. Aithough fallowing of land

with non-CVP contracted water

supply can increase CVP yield, it does

not increase total water supplies in

the state. However, it would serve to

decrease future water demands.

Another category with a relativeiy

large potential for yield increase is

Supplies from Local Water Proiects.

Under this category are options to

develop yield through wet weather or

:titt

The Least -C-ost Plan tv-3
The kast €ost Plan
i:

;t: j:, operational spill management'

Almost 200,000 af is estimated to be

available from these types of options.

Obtaining yields associated with

these options will require purchases

of water from the local agencies that

own the projects. Such Purchases

could be annual or multi-year but

probably would not involve Permanent transfer of associated water

rights.

The cost for local project options was

estimated using recent payments for

similar purchases of water by federal,

state, and local agencies. In addition,

because these options can be implemented almost immediately, there is a

high chance that their availability for

CVP yield increase will significantly

diminish in the next several years.

The inclusion of urban Water Reuse

adds an estimated 200,000 af of yield

increase potential. Optiorrs included

are only those that currentlY discharge to ponds or saline sinks.

Estimates are based on Planned

increases in wastewater outflow as

population grows. The Potential

exists for municipal wastewater

agencies to plan on these increases as

part of their own water supplies, thus

diminishing the potential for use as

CVP yield. For heatment Plants

located within agricultural regions

outside of the urban areas they serye/

reused water would be transPorted

directly to an area of need. However,

many of the large treatment plants in

the Central Valley that discharge to

ponds are not located within CVP

service area lands. Use of this

potential would require exchanges of

water supplies, which may further

reduce the potential for

implementation.

Consmsation potential in both the

agricultural and urban sectors adds

over 200,000 af of yield increase

potential. In addition, conservation

would need to be implemented over a

widespread area to obtain its full

yield potential. For example,

obtaining urban conservation savings

would require implementation of

BMPs throughout an urban area, not

just in isoiated neighborhoods. In

the same manner, development of

agricultural conservation potential

would require all growers to make

improvements to their water

application systems and methods.

Need for widespread adoption of

BMPs can make achievement of full

yield potential more difficult.

What's l.{ot Included in,the

Yield Increase Plan

Some of the options that were

eliminated as part of the final

screening conceivably could have

been eliminated in the initial phases

of the study. However, they were

carried forward through detailed

characterization to obtain sufficient

information to more fully and fairly

assess them, and in response to

requests from individuals and

agencies that may be impacted under

the CVPIA.

The largest category of options

eliminated from inclusion in the Yield

Increase Plan is Surface Storage and

Conaeyance, with the exception of an

enlarged Farmington Dam.

These options were eliminated primarily because of timing considerations

and because their cost does not place

them within the first 3 million af of

lowest-cost yield increase options. In

addition, substantial concern

regarding the environmental effects

of these options exist. Environmental

The Least -Cost PIan TV-5
effects have been summarized in

Tables III-7e and III-7f.

Options r:nder the Modifcations to

CVP/SWP Operations category were

eliminated because they are part of

ongoing efforts of Reclamation and

the State of Califomia, as well as

other organizations, to continually

increase the efficiency of the projects.

Implementation of some of the

options listed under this category

may occur regardless of this Plan.

These options are not considered to

be viable CVP yield increase options.

Urban Discharges to Riaers or Streams

has been eliminated as a yield

increase option. The potential lies

only with the increase between

current discharge levels and those

that may occur in the fufure. Because

these flows are not yet present, and

because they may be considered part

of required instream flows, their

yields are nor verifiable.

Agricultural Drainnge Reclannti on

options were eliminated because they

were not among the first 3 million af

of lowest-cost options.

Other options eliminated include

those under theOther category.

Desalination and water importation

projects are not cost-effective when

compared to the other options. In

addition, importation of water from

sources to the north of California

raises substantial environmental

conceffrs. As for weather modification and snowpack management

options, there simply is no method to

verify yields produced. Although

weather modification does appear to

produce yield at very low cost,

unquantifiable yields along with the

potential adverse effects on the local

and "downwind" environments make

this subcategory infeasible for CVP

yield increase.

Transport Costs

and Constraints

Transport Costs

Development of a Least-Cost Yield

Increase PIan fuom the options passing

the final screening requires

corsideration of transport costs and

potential physical transPort

constraints.

The additional cost resulting from

transport and delivery of water to

need locations is referred to as the

transport cost. This cost includes the

operational and maintenance costs

incurred in conveYing water to the

destination and the cost associated

with conveyance and carriage water

losses. Carriage water requirements

are asstrned to be included as a

35 percent surcharge for all deliveries

that require transportation through

the Delta (outcome of the recent

December 15, 1994, BaY / Delta agreement may change this requirement

under certain hydrologic conditions).

Table IV-3 presents the added

transport cost that is associated with

delivering water from a particular

option to a particular need location.

The values shown have been

calculated for an assumed annual cost

of water of $100 per af. Costs less

than or greater than this will affect

the added transport cost accordingly.

tv-6 The Least -Cost Plan
The federal government has not Yet

established written pol.icies on the

rates associated with transportation

that would be applicable for

implementation of yield increase

optioru. The costs shown were

developed pursuant to anticipated

rules based on provisions of CVPIA

along with existing transfer rates. In

general, transport of water would

incur an additional cost associated

with operations and maintenance, but

would not be subject to additional

capital costs for CVP facilities. (The

costs of these facilities are already

being paid under allocations to

existing project contractors. )

Negative values reflect imPlementation options. For example, south of

the Delta, which eliminated a portion

of the need to export water and thus

reducing operational cost and

conveyance losses through the Delta.

Potential Transport

Constraints

The remaining consideration to allow

"linking" options with potential yield

increase need locations is the

establishment of possible conveyance

limitations for water to be trarsported

through the Delta. Existing and

pending requirements for Delta water

quality and fish and wildlife habitat

do limit the ability to transPort water

south of the Delta. However, given

that this plan addresses replacing

yield that had been delivered in the

past, and capacity is already in place

to convey CVP yield, the total

quantity of CVP export will nbt

exceed recent levels.

In addition, yields for options are

based on estimates during periods of

drought. Typically, shortages for

both CVP and S\ IP contractors occur

during drought periods because of

reduced supplies. As a result, it is

expected that capacity for transport of

The Least -Cost Plan ^t-7
replacement supply across the Delta

and subsequent exportation exists.

The flexibility designed into the Yield

Increase Plan could accommodate

Delta constraints greater than

expected. Since the plan includes 3

million af of yield increase potential,

many Options for which occur south

of the Delta, sufficient sources of

supply would be available to meet the

replacement needs without Delta

transport.

The Least-Cost CVP

Yield Increase Plan

The results of the screening process

produced a number of options with

more than 3 million af CVP yield

increase potential. These options are

located in various regions and hydrologic basins within the Central Valley.

Because of the existence of major

conveyance facilities and established

exchange potentials, most of the

options can be used to meet yield

increase needs anywhere in the

Central Valley.

Figure IV-2 is a stmrmary array of the

optioru available for inclusion in the

Yield Lrcrease Plan. The array is

shown by category with the ranges

representing variations in cost

(including transport) and potential

yields achievable through

implementation of the options.

Categories are arrayed on the basis of

their financial cost and cumulative

water supply. Other attributes are less

quantifiable and are not shown

although they have been taken into

accor:nt during the screening. As

shown by Figure IV-2 the differences

in costs among the categories that

make up the first 2 million af of

cumulative yield (Categories 1

through 6) are not significant.

Therefore, the order of

implementation of options in these

categories most likely will be driven

by factors other than cost.

Costs in this figure differ from those

in Section trI and Table IV-3 in that

they include increases or savings

attributable to the traruport. This cost

increment can influence decisions to

implement one option versus another

in a specific need location. For

example, a seemingly more experuive

option in Region 9 maY actuallY be

less expensive in meeting a local need

than a seemingly lower cost option in

another region when transportation

costs are included (see earlier

transport discussion).

Recent developments indicate

increased future comPetition for

water, both for currently developed

supplies and for future suPPlY

increase options. Effects of

competition can be demonstrated

with the aide of Figure IV-3. This

Figure shows the CVP Yield Increase

curve that is the result of ordering

individual options form the least

costly to the most costly, rather than

the ordering of yield increase categories that is shown in Figure IV-2.

Competition will affect the cost of

CVP yield increase in two ways. First,

other water users maY develoP some

of the low-cost supply options before

the federal govemment can. Referring

to Figure IV-3, this may mean

eliminating some options at the lower

left section of the cost curve. Second,

the price of water purchased through

market mechanisms (e.9., from

reoperation of local reservoits,

supplies from local projects, or from

IV-8 The Least {ost Plan
ic.

Si1|w-?);bl:trfi'i:r.j:j]:]']:t']lr|r'rlrjll4iq4ffiffiiS?E#:1',:riv.ffiJ:11i!: 

e

t "irs!

!E!s,lq,

llit &ttlQitEM-ffi

*o

.{t

E

.s*

O $

ES

ft'

E v fo

ca

<r

$i I

(3

ri

'"r

i:A i:o ,.4 c)

ris

l: 

-

,:,1..

4

::^ :.10

i:s

l:_ i

i:

l;'.

|;

n.:: I

1i

a

p

*t 

P

ss 

E

3+ 

d

*6*oJ-cJr')yq) tl$ *l r!s:llTT* *tE+EEs =t gl$:5i$$i$$E$

;t;5sF;is* cltiF$€$$*t€€

ll- 

;15,$EE.rEEs$s$

"r € < k 6 F s * 3 

F

o, eo

ooo\s

q { sb

EE

S F .$s l{ ('t

I rt

el$us

E? 

'iaar#:l

"'{ it 'tt

?Y",."*'-,-* I

;-1
Marginal

Annual

Cost of

Water

(ilag

a

Figure N-3

Eftects of Competition on Cost

?.008,000 AF

land fallowing) will be bid upward

over time by other federal and nonfederal demands, including

increasing M&I demands and

supplemental water for fish and

wildlife restoration. In Figure IV-3,

this means shifting upward any

portion of the cost curve

corresponding to market-based

options. Potentially the shift could

mean that some new supply options

may have lower financial cost than

some market-based options.

Competitors for water in the near

term, in addition to the 800,000 af of

yield increase that this plan

addresses, may include over 1 million

Cumulative Development of CVPYield lncrea* Options

(|db af)

CVPYieIC

lrcreage Curve

af of municipal needs, 550,000 af for

CVPIA supplemental water (purchase

of yield increase water and purchase

of supplemental water would be

coordinated), and 800,000 af for the

state's 1991 drought water bank. A

total of over 3 million af of

competition could affect costs for

purchasing yield increase water.

An important implication of a purely

competitive market for water is that

all water would be sold at or near a

market-clearing price. This price is

determined by the marginal cost of

water, that is, the cost associated with

the next increment of suPPlY that

would enter the market. Using

Iv-10 The Least -Cost Plan
Figure IV-3 for illustration (and

ignoring locational differences in

price), if 800,000 af were being sold in

a purely competitive market r:nder

present market conditions, the price

for all water sold would be about

$170 per af, even though the first

increments of water may actually cost

less than $100 per af to produce. If

3 million af were being sold in a

purely competitive market, the

marginal cost for implementing the

Yield Lrcease Plan with options that

involve purchase of water could be as

high as $550 to $700 per af. The

difference between price and cost for

those increments is profit to the seller.

In reality, the market for water will

not be purely competitive with a

single market price, but will produce

a variety of selling prices. The variety

will reflect differences in contract

terms, location, bargaining power,

and information. Nevertheless, the

marginal cost of water will strongly

influence all water sale agreements.

As competition for water increases in

the future, the marginal cost and

market price will be driven upward.

Also, as competition increases,

options not requiring purchase of

water, such as conjunctive use,

become relatively more attractive.

At some future date, Congress may

authorize implementation of the Yield

Increase Plan. At that time, it will be

necessary to determine the current

condition of the Califomia water

market and its impact on costs for

purchasing water. It will also be

necessary to determine which options

have been acquired or developed by

other water suppliers since this report

was prepared. A refined set of

options that serve to mitigate any

adverse impacts as identified in the

PEIS, and are available at the time of

authorization, would be determined.

This plan presents an appraisal level

evaluation of options that will need to

be refined as specific needs for yield

increase become better known with

the completion of the PEIS. The

methodology that was used to

optimally link options with areas of

need can be applied to these specific

need areas. Lr this way, the most

cost-effective options can be

determined. It is likely thatno option

category will dominate a refined set

of options. The refined plan will

contain a combination of option

categories that would minimize

reliance on a single yield increase

type and would also minimize any

particular kind of adverse impact.

Irnplernentati,on

Consideratiot,s

M*y of the options identified as part

of the Yield Increase Plan represent

small increments of yield when

compared to the large quantities of

water managed by the CVP in

meeting the geographically dispersed

and diverse needs of its water

contractors. In additiory many

involve options that originate with or

would be controlled bypublic

agencies or private organizations

other than the federal govemment.

The Least -Cost Plan ry-11
WaterTransfer$

, | | | "rct 

t nslers may be'reqrir.U inorO"r tor f,r yierO '

Y Y associated 'rrm an option discussed inhe YieH lncrease ., ,

Pian to b€corne auaifaOfe to lncrease the yietO ot tre CVe",, i : 

, 

,

' 

, 

t ,', .:.' .' 

t 

. . 

' ,

, l /ater bansfers must be conducted under California la- - d be ::::1:::r

':Water associated with nqg iypes o{ waterighs can be i , 

, , ,

, tanslened. 

, @qluater nghts hbmselvbs Can al-so be transfened, 

, ,,

.. *#.ru;o';; ,i.t.,r *a*n ",, +p*ai;r. 

'**,i. t,", ' .'.r,

nghts estaOtistreO after 1914 are ryrlred with a permitfrom tre , 

,

State Water Resources Contol Bqard {SWRCB}. ' . :.:: :: : r,

:nip.rirn nn* ir* i; tar.r;*a,'uu,iibArian *.,.r;; o, 

' ' ' '

made available, $fough mnraCt or,purchas4:io a dovnstream r

, ,diverter, this,action does not reauile approyaf from tre ,wtcB. 

,,','.,,,

Tiansfer of pr*'!91a appropriative ri$rtS oi associated water hlso,,r,,,;.,:,

does not require lpproval ot Ue SWRCg as bng as herb is lf :' 

,

adverse

As a result, implementation of these

opportuhities will add to the overall

complexity of the CVP system,

requiring application of new, more

sophisticated management tools (e.9.,

real time monitoring, dlmamic

modeling) and closer cooperation

with other water resource agencies

and users.

M*y of the options presented in the

Yield Increase Plan have the potential

of being implemented by local or

private interests with the intention of

making the associated yield available

for purchase. In these cases, transfers

of the water from the implementor to

the federal government would be

required. For example, in order for a

farmer to fallow a portion of his land

and sell the associated water to the

federal govemment, he would be

required to transfer the water to the

federal government. In the same

way, alocal agency may develoP an

active recharge conjunctive use

program and wish to sell some of the

associated yield to the federal

govemment. This would also require

the water to be transferred to the

federal govemment.

Implementation of water Purchase

options by the federal government

should be coordinated with

acquisition of CVPIA supplemental

water and other federal Programs

that could result in the fallowing or

retirement of farmland. Options that

can be implemented with multiPle

purposes are more cost effective than

those implemented for environmental

or yield increase purPoses alone.

Coordination would assure that the

federal government would enter the

water market in a consistent and

rv-12 The Least -Cost Plan
li'

tlil

i '

,ll

aPProPriate manner, that water

acquisition would be conducted to

provide the greatest benefit to both

the environment and water

contractors, and that local economic

impacts and social concerns would be

minimized.

Implementation of the Yield Increase

Plan is not expected to be in conflict

with or contrarY to anY other ongoing federal activity. Flexibility was

specifically designed into the

development of the Plan. Since

additional analyses or feasibility

studies would be required Prior to

implementatiory the Yield Increase

Plan easily can be updated or revised

to reflect changes- These changes

could include: delta transPort

constraints, water quality standards,

endangered species, competition in

the California water market, and

permits and licenses.

Congress may also choose to reduce

the federal role to that of technical

and administrative assistance.

Assistance could include sPecial

studies, design, streamlining of rules

and procedures, and innovative costsharing arrangementsCost-Sharing

Cost-sharing can include both the

financing of the implementation of an

option and annual costs. Costsfiaring formulae can range from only

federal participation to no federal

participation. Willing cost-sharing

partners could include the State of

Ca[fornia, and local agencies or other

interest grouPs.

Some organizations believe that the

cost should not be borne by the state

or federal taxpayers, but bY those

entities who benefited from CVP

water supplies prior to enactment ot

the CVPIA and who would receive

water supplies resulting from

implementation of the Yield Increase

Plan. Others believe the federal

government should bear the full cost

in order to mitigate for adverse

impacts associated with dedication of

CVP yield. The PEIS is being

prepared to analyze adverse effects, if

any, of dedicating Yield under the

CVPIA. These results will serve as a

guide in determining aPProPriate

cost+haring arrangements.

Cost-sharing with the state maY be

appropriate if oPtions are

implemented that Provide Yield to

boih the CVP and the SWP. Local

agencies in areas imPacted bY the

dedication of CVP Yield maY be

capable of implementing oPtions

more efficientlv than the federal

The Least -Cost PIan IV-13
government. Therefore, cost-sharing

could take the form of federal grants

to local communities or agencies.

Other groups may be interested in

cost-sharing if implemented options

provide some ancillary environmental or other benefit (suctr as

recharge.basins for conjunctive use

managed as a wildlife habitat). In

these instances cost-sharing could be

in the form of federal grants or

federal /non-federal partnerships.

Cost-sharing could also be modeled

after current CVP cost allocation and

ratesetting policies.

Appropriate cost-sharing arrangements would be developed as part of

subsequent analysis, feasibility

studies, and environmental documentation that wouldbe required before

implementation of the Yield Increase

Plan.

tv-14 The Least {ost Plan