FEB 2 2 1999 MP-410

WTR-4.OO

To: All Central Valley Project (CVP) Interim Renewal Irrigation Contractors

All CVP Irrigation Contractors Subject to Binding Agreement

Subject: Update on Informational Needs, Water Needs Analysis, Long-term CVP Contract

Renewal

Dear Agricultural Water Contractor:

This letter updates Reclamation’s December 30, 1998, request for information from the

irrigation contractors. Reclamation has decided to modify both the request for information and

the deadline as a result offurther development ofthe water needs assessment approach done in

response to issues raised by a number of agricultural stakeholders. The new overall deadline is

March 19, 1999.

BACKGROUND

The request for information is made to satisfy the following three needs:

1. Current water demand and supply information (base year is 1995) is needed to provide a

description ofthe existing conditions for the environmental document.

2. A determination that historical water deliveries constitute past beneficial use ofwater is a

contractual prerequisite before negotiations for long-term contract renewals can begin.

3. Estimates offuture beneficial use ofwater and non-CVP supplies are needed for both the

environmental document and as a starting point for negotiations.

Following is a briefdescription ofthe comparative analyses done in an effort to address issues

raised by agricultural stakeholders:

Two approaches for calculating past beneficial use ofagricultural water were compared for a

number ofrepresentative districts. First, the water demand methodology described on

Reclamation’s website was used to calculate the average past beneficial use ofagricultural water

based on 19 years ofhistorical crop information. Then, the average of 19 years ofhistorical
2

water deliveries was compared to this calculated average past beneficial use. Forthe

representative districts, the calculated beneficial use exceeded deliveries confirming the past

beneficial use ofCVP supplies as well as non-CVP supplies. Although the results ofthis

analysis meet Need 2 described above, the results are not necessarily descriptive ofcurrent

conditions (Need 1 above). The second approach tested involved using information frQm the

contractors’ Water Management Plans to determine past beneficial use forthe snapshot year used

in the respective Water Management Plan and water supplies and demands reflective ofcurrent

conditions. The conclusion ofthe comparative analyses is that the information in the Water

Management Plans is sufficient to meet Needs 1 and 2 described above, although the information

may need to be updated to be reflective of 1995 conditions. A concern was expressed that all

districts within a particular region need to use the same snapshot year for the evaluation ofpast

beneficial use. Otherwise, in aggregating water demand information on a regional basis, we

might be adding “apples and oranges.” The suggested regions for the water needs assessment are

described in the next paragraph.

In addition, agricultural stakeholders suggested an alternative approach to a district-by-district

evaluation offuture water demands and future non-CVP supplies in an effort to determine the

need for CVP water. Because ofthe complexities involved in trying to depict intraregional

transfers and use/generation ofreturn flows on a district-by-district basis, a regional approach has

been adopted for ascertaining the need for CVP agricultural water in the year 2025. The

identified regional need for CVP water will still need to be disaggregated to the district level to

provide a starting point for negotiating long-term CVP water contracts with each individual

irrigation contractor. The regions identified for these analyses include:

American: American River Division

Delta: Delta Division combined with West San Joaquin Division, but no

Contra CostaUnit

Contra Costa: Contra Costa Unit

Stanislaus: East Side Division

Friant: Friant Division combined with Hidden Unit, Buchanan Unit, and

Cross Valley Canal

Sacramento: Sacramento River Division combined with Trinity River and Shasta

Divisions

San Felipe: San Felipe Division

Aftachment 1 contains a list ofall CVP contractors, organized by division/unit, eligible to

participate in the long-term CVP contract renewal process. It should be emphasized that the

Municipal and Industrial (M&I) only contractors are not part ofthese regional analyses. M&I

contractors will receive a separate letter.
3

REVISED REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

Water Demand and Supply Information Requested from Individual Irrigation Contractors

to be Used in the Environmental Document

Ifthe information contained in your district’s Water Management Plan is reasonably

representative ofcurrent(year 1995) conditions, please verify that we can use yourWater

Management Plan forthis purpose, in writing, by March 5, 1999. Otherwise, please update the

information using the format indicated in the examples provided in Attachment 2. Attachment 2

depicts specific information from the contractors’ Water Management Plans for a number of

representative districts that is needed for the water needs assessment.

For those contractors who are exempt from preparing Water Management Plans, or whose plans

do not reflect year 1995 conditions; there is an alternative to providing the water demand

information in the format of Attachment 2. Ifyou would like usto calculate your year 1995

agricultural water demand using the agricultural water demand methodology shown on

Reclamation’s website, please provide us with a tabulation ofcrops and associated acres for this

year. However, you also will need to provide us an itemization of your non-CVP supplies for

year 1995. These may include ground-water pumping, conjunctive use with ground water and/or

other surface water supplies.

Information Requested from Individual Irrigation Contractors to be Used to Confirm Past

Beneficial Use

The snapshot year used in the preparation of a significant number ofthe contractors’ Water

Management Plans was 1989. This year was chosen because most contractors received full

delivery oftheirrequested water supplies and the total annual precipitation formost CVP regions

was in the normal range. For this reason, Reclamation intends to use the information from those

Water Management Plans with a snapshot year of 1989 to calculate past beneficial use of

agricultural water forthe American, Delta, Contra Costa, Sacramento, and San Felipe regions, as

defined above. Since 1989 was a drought year in the Friant region and no project water

deliveries were made in that year to East Side Division contractors, 1996 is the snapshot year

selected to calculate past beneficial use for the Friant and Stanislaus regions. Ifyour Water

Management Plan provides information for the appropriate snapshot year for yourregion, you do

not have to provide us with any additional information. Ifnot, you have the following options:

1. Provide us crop acreage, crop water needs, effective precipitation and conveyance loss

information forthe appropriate snapshot year using the format in Attachment 2; or

2. Provide us a tabulation of crops and associated acres for the appropriate snapshot year to

allow Reclamation to calculate net crop water needs.
4

Future Water Demand Information Requested from Individual Irrigation Contractors

For our analyses offuture beneficial use ofwater, please provide us with your best estimate of

the crops and associated acreages that you believe will be grown in your district in the year 2025

timeframe. Please use the format indicated in Attachment B to the December 30, 1998, letter.

Again, as stated in that letter, if some ofthe assumptions in the agricultural waterdemand

methodology, such as those for the average on-farm irrigation efficiency, are not achievable in

your district, please provide us with your best assumption and any associated documentation.

Future Water Supply Information Requested by Region

In order forthe regional approach for determining future CVP needs to be successful, a contact

person for each ofthe regions needs to be identified. The information needed for each region

includes best estimates for the year 2025 timeframe ofthe following types ofnon-C VP supplies

both for normal and dry year conditions (Ifit is necessary to provide wet year information to

provide a complete picture ofthe regional water balance, please do so):

1. Amount ofground-water pumping to meet agricultural water needs; this amount should

not exceed safe yield, except possibly in cases where the ground-water basin is being operated in

a conjunctive use mode. For a basin not in overdraft, a safe yield number may not be available.

Ifthis is the case, a reasonable estimate offuture ground-water pumping may be the sum of

historical ground-water pumping plus ground-water pumping associated with any planned wells.

2. Details ofconjunctive use operations, if any, identifying surface water supplies used for

recharge in a normal year and replaced with ground water during dry year conditions;

3. Surface water supplies available through contracts, water rights, into-basin transfers,

and/or any other mechanisms;

4. Any out-of-basin transfers that reduce supplies available to meet the region’s water

supplies.

Crop Verification Still Requested, but With a Longer Deadline

We are still requesting that the districts verify the crop information sent out as Attachment A to

the December 30, 1998, letter. Although, this information is now not critical to the water needs

assessments, it is still very important that we have accurate crop records for our periodic reports

to Congress. Our 1994 through 1997 crop records will be sent out for yourreview after

March 19, 1999. Please provide us with all revisions to our crop records by June 30, 1999.
5

RECLAMATION ASSISTANCE FOR THIS EFFORT

The following area office staff are available to assist contractors with the “Request for

Information” contained in this letter and to work with the contractors in each region to identify

their overall contact for each region. Mr. Don Bultema ofthe Northern California Area Office in

Willows has responsibility for the Sacramento River, Shasta, and Trinity River Divisions and

can be reached at (530) 934-7069, or (530) 934-1361 (TDD 934-7089). Mr. Cecil Lesley ofthe

Central California Area Office in Folsom has responsibility for the American River and East Side

Divisions and can be reached at (916) 989-7221 (TDD 989-7285). Mr. Buddy Smith ofthe

South-Central Area Office in Tracy has responsibility for the Delta, San Felipe, and West San

Joaquin Divisions including the Contra Costa Unit and can be reached at (209) 836-6279 (TDD

836-6280). Mr. Jon Anderson ofthe South-Central California Area Office in Fresno has

responsibility for the Friant Division, Cross Valley Canal, Buchanan Unit, and Hidden Unit and

can be reached at (559) 487-5041 (TDD 487-5933).

Ifyou have general questions related to the water needs assessment component ofthe long-term

CVP contract renewal process or would like to discuss other alternative approaches to

completing the water needs assessment, please call Ms. Mary Johannis at (916) 978-5202

(TDD 978-5608).

Sincerely,

Is/Robert F. Stackhouse

Robert F. Stackhouse

Regional Resources Manager

Attachments

cc: Mr. Greg Wang

Central Valley Project Water Association

1521 I Street

Sacramento CA 95814

(w/att)

bc: MP-120 (Davis, Candlish), 220 (Howard), 221 (Turner), 410 (Prillwitz, Slavin),

440 (Tegelman,..~mgli~olella), 450 (Zander), 700 (Johannis, Thomas)

CC-93 1 (Lesley), NC-441 (Bultema), SCC-440 (Anderson), TO-440 (Smith)

(ea w/att)
MP-410

WTR-4.00 FEB 2 2 1999

To: All Central Valley Project (CVP) Interim Renewal Municipal and Industrial (M&I)

Contractors

All CVP M&I Contractors Subject to Binding Agreement

Subject: Update on Informational Needs, Water Needs Analysis, Long-term CVP Contract

Renewal

Dear Urban Water Contractor:

This letter is intended to clarify Reclamation’s December 30, 1998, request for information

from M&I contractors. Reclamation has decided to modify both the request for information and

the deadline as a result offurther refinement ofthe agricultural water needs assessment

methodology. Although the methodology changes do not affect M&I contractors, decisions

made with respect to specific years for which information is requested do affect the request for

information from you. The new overall deadline is March 19, 1999.

BACKGROUND

The request for information is made to satisfy the following three needs:

1. Current water demand and supply information (base year is 1995) is needed to provide a

description ofthe existing conditions for the environmental document.

2. A determination that historical water deliveries constitute past beneficial use of water is a

contractual prerequisite before negotiationsfor long-term contract renewals can begin.

3. Estimates offuture beneficial use ofwater and non-CVP supplies are needed for both the

environmental document and as a starting point for negotiations.

Discussions with agricultural stakeholders surfaced the concern that water demand information

that is reasonably representative ofyear 1995 conditions for the environmental document may

not be reasonably representative of past beneficial use ofCVP supplies because ofdecreased

CVP deliveries to, and consequent modifications of district operations in, certain areas after

1992. Therefore, in a separate letterto the CVP agricultural contractors, these contractors are

being asked to provide information to demonstrate past beneficial use of water forthe snapshot

years of 1989 or 1996, depending on location ofthe district. In many cases, the contractors will

not need to physically provide additional information, butjust verify that the information
2

contained in their Water Management Plans is reflective ofpast beneficial use and/or current

(year 1995) conditions. In order to ensure consistency in the environmental documents and the

water needs analyses, a revised information request is also being sentto you, Reclamation’s M&J

contractors.

REVISED REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

Water Demand and Supply Information Requested from Individual M&I Contractors to

be Used in theEnvironmental Document

Ifthe information contained in your district’s Water Management Plan and/or your current

Integrated Resource Plan is reasonably representative ofcurrent (year 1995) conditions, please

verify that we can use yourWater Management Plan, or Integrated Resource Plan forthis

purpose, in writing, by March 5, 1999. Ifthe Integrated Resource Plan contains the requested

information, please send it to us with information corresponding to the requested information in

Attachments D, E, and F ofReclamation’s December 30, 1998, letter highlighted. Otherwise,

please send us year 1995 information in the format ofthese attachments.

Information Requested from Individual Irrigation Contractors to be Used to Confirm Past

Beneficial Use

The snapshot year used in the preparation of a significant number ofthe contractors’ Water

Management Plans was 1989. This year was chosen because most contractors received full

delivery oftheir requested water supplies and the total annual precipitation for most CVP regions

was in the normalrange. For this reason, 1989 is the year selected to calculate past beneficial

use ofM&I water forthe American, Delta, Contra Costa, Sacramento, and San Felipe regions, as

defined below. Since 1989 was a drought year in the Friant region and no project water

deliveries were made in that year to East Side Division contractors, 1996 is the snapshot year

selected to calculate past beneficial use for the Friant and Stanislaus regions. Following is a

description ofthe regions referenced above:

American: American River Division

Delta: Division combined with West San Joaquin Division, but no Contra

Costa Unit

Contra Costa: Contra Costa Unit

Stanislaus: East Side Division

Friant: Friant Division combined with HiddenUnit, Buchanan Unit, and

Cross Valley Canal

Sacramento: Sacramento River Division combined with Trinity River and Shasta

Divisions

San Felipe: San Felipe Division

Attachment 1 contains a list ofall CVP contractors, organized by division/unit, eligible to

participate in the long-term contract renewal process.
3

Ifthe information contained in your district’s Water Management Plan and/or your current

Integrated Resource Plan is reasonably representative ofthe selected snapshot year for which

past beneficial use is to be calculated, please verify that we can use yourWater Management

Plan, orIntegrated Resource Plan, for this purpose, in writing, by March 5, 1999. Ifthe

Integrated Resource Plan contains the requested information, please send itto us with

information corresponding to the requested information in Attachment D ofReclamation’s

December 30, 1998, letter highlighted. Otherwise, please send us year 1989, or year 1996,

information in the format ofAttachment D.

ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

After reviewing comments from a number of M&I contractors on the proposed methodology for

water needs analyses that was sent out on December 1, 1998, it is evident that there are questions

common to most M&I contractors. The next paragraphs provide Reclamation’s responses to

these questions. It is hoped that the combination ofthis letter and the availability ofstaff

assistance to individual contractors will facilitate your preparation ofthe requested information.

Can a contractorsubmit current Integrated Resource Plans in place oftheproposed

Reclamation reportformat?

Yes, submittal ofyourIntegrated Resource Plans is acceptable as long as the information is

reflective of 1995 or 1989/1996 conditions and the appropriate sections are highlighted,

emphasizing the data that is necessary for Reclamation to make a determination ofdemands and

supplies.

Can a contractor use d~ferentper capitafigures, landscape coefficients, estimatedsystem losses,

commercial, industrial and/or institutional data, or other variables that are c4fferent than those

Reclamation hasprovided?

The numbers proposed by Reclamation are based on CALFED documents, Department ofWater

Resources documents, or other recognized sources. Ifa contractorproposes other numbers or

variables, sufficient documentation must be provided to support the changes. In any event,

improvements in water use efficiency should be expected over the planning period approximately

in proportion to those specified in Reclamation’s methodology.

Can a contractorinclude “other beneficial uses” such as recreation and local environment?

Yes, beneficial uses other than those included in Reclamation’s methodology can be included in

the analysis, ifthese uses are adequately documented by the contractor.

What ~fa contractorsimply doesnot have the data requested by Reclamation (such as landscape

acreage, which requiressignficantfunding, time and effort to gather and analyze)?

At a minimum, all M&I contractors need to provide recent historical (year 1995 and 1989/1996)

and projected M&I water demands.
4

For historical demand, a breakdown into the residential, nonresidential and distribution system

demand componentsis needed. In addition, a breakdown ofresidential demand into combined

interior and exterior per capita usage and population served is needed. It would be helpful if

nonresidential demand could be separated into commercial, industrial and institutional

components with some description ofthose components; however, at a minimum, a qualitative

description of nonresidential demands is required. Some description ofthe distribution system

demand is also required with as much quantification as possible.

For M&I water demands projected for the year 2025 timeframe, each contractor should

incorporate into the analysis the effect ofBest Management Practices on increased efficiencies.

For example, these increased efficiencies could result in lower per capita usage figures and/or

lower distribution system demands. If you do not project increased efficiencies for your district,

you need to provide an explanation why increased efficiencies are not possible.

Can a district be exemptedfrom performing this water needs analysis?

No.

Will Reclamation consider the c4fference between dry year and average year demands?

As indicated in the December 30, 1998, letter, we are requesting both water demand and supply

projections for the year 2025 timeframe. Please provide this information both for normal year

and dry year conditions.

I hope this Question and Answer format is helpful. If you have any general questions regarding

the water needs assessment component ofthe long-term CVP contract renewal process, please

call Ms. Mary Johannis at (916) 978-5202 (TDD 978-5608). If you have specific questions,

would like to request assistance, or require additional information, please contact

Ms. Marsha Prillwitz at (916) 978-5213 (TDD 978-5608).

Sincerely,

/s/Robert F. StackhOUSB

Robert F. Stackhouse

Regional Resources Manager

Attachment

cc: Mr. Greg Wang

Central Valley Project Water Association

1521 I Street

Sacramento CA 95814

(w/o att)

bc: MP-120 (Davis, Candlish ,220 (Howard), 221 (Turner), 410 (Prillwitz, Slavin),

440 (Tegelman, Dra ha, Colella), 450 (Zander), 700 (Johannis, Thomas~

CC-93 1 (Lesley), NC-441 (Bultema), SCC-440 (Anderson), TO-440 (Smith)