FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

LONG-TERM RENEWAL CONTRACT 

CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 

February 2005 

Prepared by: 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Reclamation 

South-Central California Area Office 

1243 N Street 

Fresno, California 93721 
February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

Page intentionally left blank
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

LONG-TERM RENEWAL CONTRACT 

CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................ES-1 

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

Purpose and Need.................................................................................................................................. ES-1 

Related Activities .................................................................................................................................. ES-2 

Development of Alternatives................................................................................................................. ES-2 

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

 Alternative 1 ................................................................................................................................ ES-3 

 Alternative 2 ................................................................................................................................ ES-4 

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated ............................................................................................... ES-5 

 Nonrenewal of Long-Term Contracts.......................................................................................... ES-6 

 Renewal of the Existing Amendatory Contract ........................................................................... ES-6 

Selection of the Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................... ES-6 

Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation.......................................................................... ES-6 

Focus of the Environmental Assessment............................................................................................... ES-7 

Summary of Environmental Impacts..................................................................................................... ES-7 

CHAPTER 1 Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................1-1 

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

Basis to Renew Central Valley Project Water Service Contracts.............................................................1-2 

Basis to Renew Contra Costa Water District Water Service Contract .....................................................1-5 

Relationship of This Document to the 1999 CVPIA Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement ........................................................................................................................................1-6 

Other Related Documents or Activities....................................................................................................1-6 

Los Vaqueros Project......................................................................................................................1-8 

Future Water Supply Implementation Program..............................................................................1-8 

The Seismic Reliability and Improvements Project Study .............................................................1-8 

Multi-Purpose Pipeline Project.......................................................................................................1-8 

Mallard Slough Pump Station Project ..........................................................................................1-11 

Contra Loma Reservoir Project ....................................................................................................1-11 

Public Involvement Process ...................................................................................................................1-12 

CHAPTER 2 Description of Alternatives ...................................................................................................2-1 

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

Long-Term Water Service Contract Negotations Process........................................................................2-1 

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

Needs Analyses...............................................................................................................................2-2 

Changes in Water Service Areas ....................................................................................................2-3 

Water Transfers ..............................................................................................................................2-3 

Alternatives ..............................................................................................................................................2-3 

No Action Alternative ....................................................................................................................2-4 

Alternative 1 ...................................................................................................................................2-5 

Alternative 2 ...................................................................................................................................2-7 

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated ..................................................................................................2-8 
February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

ii 

Nonrenewal of Long-term Contracts ..............................................................................................2-8 

Continuing with Existing Amendatory Contract ............................................................................2-8 

Reduction in Contract Amounts......................................................................................................2-8 

Selection of the Preferred Alternative ......................................................................................................2-8 

Summary of Environmental Impacts ........................................................................................................2-8

CHAPTER 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation ......................................................3-1 

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

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

Localized Impacts of the PEIS Preferred Alternative.....................................................................3-2 

Future Water Supply Implementation EIR ...............................................................................................3-2 

Multi-Purpose Pipeline Project EIR/EIS ..................................................................................................3-3 

Focus of the Environmental Assessment..................................................................................................3-4 

CHAPTER 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ................................................4-1 

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

Contract Service Area Description ...........................................................................................................4-1 

Contra Costa Water District......................................................................................................................4-2 

Contra Costa Water District Supplies and Facilities.......................................................................4-2 

CCWD Federal Contract (CVP) Service Area................................................................................4-3 

Land Use and Planning.............................................................................................................................4-4 

Affected Environment.....................................................................................................................4-4 

Plans and Agreements.....................................................................................................................4-4 

Environmental Consequences.........................................................................................................4-7 

Socioeconomics ........................................................................................................................................4-9 

Affected Environment...................................................................................................................4-10 

Assessment Methodologies...........................................................................................................4-12 

Environmental Consequences.......................................................................................................4-16 

Biological Resources ..............................................................................................................................4-22 

Affected Environment...................................................................................................................4-23 

Land Use/Land Cover Conditions ................................................................................................4-23 

Land Cover/Community Types.....................................................................................................4-24 

Plans and Policies .........................................................................................................................4-29 

Environmental Consequences.......................................................................................................4-30 

Cultural Resources..................................................................................................................................4-32 

Study Methods ..............................................................................................................................4-32 

Affected Environment...................................................................................................................4-33 

Identified Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................4-34 

Plans and Policies .........................................................................................................................4-36 

Environmental Consequences.......................................................................................................4-36 

CHAPTER 5 Other Activities and Related Impacts..................................................................................5-1

Growth Inducement................................................................................................................................5-1 

Growth Inducement Analysis Completed for Related Projects ......................................................5-1 

Water System Capacity...................................................................................................................5-2 

Growth Inducement Analysis of the Proposed Action....................................................................5-2 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts................................................................................................................5-3 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA

iii 

CHAPTER 6 Consultation and Coordination............................................................................................6-1 

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

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

Consultation with Other Agencies............................................................................................................6-2 

National Environmental Policy Act..........................................................................................................6-2 

California Environmental Quality Act .....................................................................................................6-2 

Endangered Species Act...........................................................................................................................6-2 

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

National Historic Preservation Act...........................................................................................................6-3 

Indian Trust Assets...................................................................................................................................6-3 

Indian Sacred Sites on Federal Land ........................................................................................................6-3 

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

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

Floodplain Management...........................................................................................................................6-4 

Wetlands Protection .................................................................................................................................6-4 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act .....................................................................................................................6-4 

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

Clean Air Act............................................................................................................................................6-5 

Safe Drinking Water Act..........................................................................................................................6-5 

Clean Water Act .......................................................................................................................................6-6 

CHAPTER 7 References ..............................................................................................................................7-1 

Acronyms and Abbreviations .........................................................................................................................7-7 

Figures 

Figure 1-1 CCWD Service Area ..................................................................................................................1-3 

Figure 1-2 CCWD CVP Facilities ...............................................................................................................1-9 

Figure 4-1 Project Area Generalized Land Use ...........................................................................................4-5 

Figure 4-2 Land Cover Types in the Project Area and Vicinity ................................................................4-27 

Tables 

Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................... ES-9 

Table 1-1 Related Activities .......................................................................................................................1-7 

Table 2-1 Comparison of Contract Provisions Considered in Alternatives..............................................2-10 

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

Table 4-1 CCWD 1994 and 2003 Published CVP Cost-of-Service Water Rates .....................................4-11 

Table 4-2 Industrial Output, Employment, and Income by Place of Work (1991)...................................4-12 

Table 4-3 M&I Water Rate Setting Comparison of the Alternatives........................................................4-14

Table 4-4 CCWD Projected M&I Water cost (2044) No Action Alternative...........................................4-17 

Table 4-5 CCWD Projected M&I Water Cost (2044) Alternative 2.........................................................4-18 

Table 4-6 2044 Output, Employment and Income POW No Action Alternative (1991)..........................4-19 

Table 4-7 2044 Industrial Output Impacts Alternative 2 (1991 Dollars)..................................................4-20

Table 4-8 2004 Employment Impacts Alternative 2 (1991 Dollars).........................................................4-21

Table 4-9 2044 Place-of-Work Income Impacts Alternative 2 (1991) .....................................................4-22 

Table 4-10 Land Cover/Community Types and Acreages in the CCWD Service Area .............................4-25 
February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

iv 

Appendix A 

 Table A-1 Summary of Contract Provisions for the CCWD 

 11/2004 Draft Long Term Renewal Contract Between United States and CCWD 

Appendix B 

 Table B-1 Special Status Species 

Appendix C 

 Economic Analysis (November 1999) 

Appendix D 

 7 Comment Letters (December 2000) 

 Distribution List 

 SCH Letter 
Executive Summary 

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

ES-1

RELATED ACTIVITIES 

CCWD is planning or has implemented several activities related to the delivery of water to its 

customers to the year 2044 and beyond. These activities include implementation of the Future 

Water Supply Implementation (FWSI) program and construction/operation of the Multi-Purpose 

Pipeline (MPP) project. The FWSI program provides a plan for meeting the expected water supply 

needs for CCWD’s customers through 2044, including the replacement of the existing CVP water 

service contract with Reclamation through the CVP. The MPP project, which was completed in 

2003, provides the physical means to convey and deliver existing and future water supplies, as well 

as substantially increases the reliability of the existing conveyance system. Water service contract 

replacement is expected to occur for a renewal period of 40 years. 

DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES 

Three alternatives were developed for the replacement of long-term contracts between Reclamation 

and the CCWD. The alternatives present a range of water service agreement provisions that could 

be implemented for long-term contract renewals. 

The No Action Alternative consists of replacing the existing water service contract with provisions 

described in the Preferred Alternative of the CVPIA PEIS. In November 1999, Reclamation 

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

presented an alternative long-term water service contract. Reclamation and the CVP contractors 

continued to negotiate the CVP-wide terms and conditions with these proposals serving as 

“bookends.” This EA also considers these proposals with the No Action Alternative as bookends to 

be considered for the environmental documentation to evaluate the impacts and benefits of 

renewing the long-term water service contracts. 

No Action Alternative 

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

of 25 years in accordance with implementation of the CVPIA, as described in the PEIS Preferred 

Alternative. The PEIS Preferred Alternative assumed that most contract provisions would be 

similar to the provisions in the 1997 CVP Interim Renewal Contracts, which included contract 

terms and conditions consistent with the requirements of the CVPIA. In addition, the No Action 

Alternative assumes tiered pricing provisions and environmental commitments as described in the 

PEIS Preferred Alternative. 

These provisions were described in the Final CVPIA PEIS. Several of these issues are summarized 

in the description of the No Action Alternative because they are included in a different manner in 

Alternatives 1 and/or 2, and therefore could result in changes in environmental impacts or benefits. 

These issues include tiered water pricing, definition of M&I water users, water measurement, and 

water conservation. 
Executive Summary 

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA

ES-2

Tiered Water Pricing 

Tiered water pricing in the No Action Alternative is based on use of a “80/10/10 Tiered Water 

Pricing from Contract Rate to Full Cost” approach with Ability-to-Pay policies. The terms 

“Contract Rate” and “Full Cost Rate” are defined by the 1982 Reclamation Reform Act (RRA). The 

Contract Rate is equal to operation and maintenance expenses plus capital cost recovery for CVP 

facilities without interest charges. The Full Cost Rate includes the interest charges. The prices of 

CVP water used in the No Action Alternative are based on 1994 irrigation and M&I CVP water 

rates. 

Definition of Municipal and Industrial Users 

The definition of M&I water users was established in portions of a 1982 guidance memorandum by 

Reclamation. In most instances, the term “municipal users” is easily definable. However, with 

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

water service to tracts that can support $5,000 gross income from a commercial farm operation. 

The memorandum indicates that this criterion can be generally met by parcels greater than 2 acres. 

However, under the No Action Alternative, M&I water is defined as water for parcels of 5 acres or 

less. The No Action Alternative provides CVP contractors with the ability to request from the 

Contracting Officer a contract modification to pay agricultural rates for parcels between 2 and 5 

acres if they are able to demonstrate agricultural use. 

Water Measurement 

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

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

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

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

Water Conservation 

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

actions for municipal and on-farm uses assumed in California Department of Water Resources 

Bulletin 160-93, and conservation plans completed under the RRA, with implementation of all costeffective Best Management Practices that are economical and appropriate, including measurement 

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

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 is based on the proposal presented by CVP Contractors to Reclamation in April 2000. 

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

in Alternative 1 because they are not consistent with existing federal or state requirements or would 

require a separate federal action, as described below. 

• The April 2000 proposal includes Explanatory Recitals and Provisions to provide a highly

reliable water supply of a high water quality, and provisions to implement measures that

would improve the capabilities of the CVP facilities and operations to meet this goal. These

issues were not included in Alternative 1 because these issues would require additional

federal actions with separate environmental documentation. Currently, Reclamation is
Executive Summary 

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

ES-3

completing the least cost plan to restore project yield in accordance with Section 3408(j) of 

CVPIA and under the CALFED program. 

• The April 2000 proposal includes language to require renewal of contracts after 25 years

upon request of the contractor. The study period for this EA is 40 year. Renewal after 40

years would be a new federal action and would require new environmental documentation.

• The April 2000 proposal did not include provisions for compliance with biological opinions.

Biological consultations are required by the Consultation and Coordination requirements

established by Executive Order for all Reclamation activities.

• The April 2000 proposal included provisions for water transfers. It is recognized that water

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

for the transfers. Reclamation would continue with separate environmental documents for

transfers, establishing criteria to allow rapid technical and environmental review of future

transfers.

• The April 2000 proposal included provisions for transfer of operations and maintenance

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

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

such transfers. Reclamation would continue with separate environmental documents for

such transfers.

• The April 2000 proposal included provisions for resolution of disputes. Assumptions for

resolution of disputes were not included in Alternative 1 but, at this time, they would not

appear to affect environmental conditions.

• The April 2000 proposal included provisions for expansion of the CVP service areas by the

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

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

would be a new federal action and would require new environmental documentation.

The April 2000 proposal did include several provisions that were different than the assumptions for 

the No Action Alternative and the provisions included in Alternative 1, as summarized in Table 2-1. 

It should be noted that the tiered pricing assumptions and definition of M&I users in Alternative 1 

would be the same as in the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative 2 

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

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

that are not included in Alternative 2 because they would require a separate federal action, as 

described below. 

• The November 1999 proposal included provisions for water transfers. Water transfers were

not included in Alternative 2 because these actions would be separate federal actions and

would require separate environmental documentation.
Executive Summary 

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA

ES-4

• The November 1999 proposal included provisions for transfer of operations and

maintenance requirements. Operations and maintenance transfers were not included in

Alternative 2 because these actions would be separate federal actions and would require

separate environmental documentation.

The November 1999 proposal did include several provisions that were different than the 

assumptions for the No Action Alternative and the provisions included in Alternative 2, as 

summarized below and in Table 2-1. The primary differences are related to tiered pricing and the 

definition of M&I users. 

Tiered Water Pricing 

Tiered water pricing in Alternative 2 is based on a definition of “Category 1” and “Category 2” 

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

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

delivered water during the most recent 5-year period. “Category 2” is defined as that additional 

quantity of CVP water in excess of Category 1 water that may be delivered to a contractor in some 

years. Under this approach, the first 80 percent of Category 1 volume would be priced at the 

applicable Contract Rate for the CVP. The next 10 percent of the Category 1 volume would be 

priced at a value equal to the average between the Contract Rate and Full Cost Rate. The final 10 

percent of the Category 1 volume would be priced at the Full Cost Rate. The Category 2 volume 

would be priced at the Full Cost Rate. 

The prices of CVP water, including Restoration Fund payments, would be determined using the 

current Ability-to-Pay policies, if applicable. The Ability-to-Pay policies do not apply to CVP 

operation and maintenance costs, M&I water costs, or any non-CVP costs, including federal 

government loans for construction of irrigation facilities. 

The prices of CVP water used in Alternative 2 are based on irrigation and M&I CVP water rates 

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

Definition of Municipal and Industrial Users 

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

Contracting Officer is satisfied that the use in such parcels meets the definition of “Irrigation 

Water.” 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED 

Nonrenewal of Long-Term Contracts 

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

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

discretion not to renew the contracts. 
Executive Summary 

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

ES-5

Reduction in Contract Amounts 

Reduction of contract amounts was considered in certain cases but rejected from analysis because 

the completed water needs analyses completed for all contracts found in almost all cases that the 

needs would exceed or equal the current total contract amount, and in order to implement good 

water management, the contractors would need to be able to store or immediately use water 

available in wetter years when more water is available. By quantifying contract amounts in terms of 

the needs analyses and the CVP delivery capability, the contractors can make their own economic 

decisions. Allowing the contractors to retain the full water quantity gives the contractors assurance 

that the water will be available to them for storage investments. Additionally, the CVPIA, in and of 

itself, achieves a balance in part through its dedication of significant amounts of CVP water and 

actions to acquire water for environmental purposes. 

Renewal of the Existing Amendatory Contract 

In 1994, Reclamation and CCWD executed Amendatory Contract Between the United States and 

Contra Costa Water District Providing for Water Service and for Facilities Repayment

(Amendatory Contract) (No. I75r-3401). This Amendatory Contract provides up to 195,000 acrefeet per year to the CCWD federal service area through the year 2010. The Amendatory Contract 

does not specify provisions for tiered pricing. Continuing to supply CVP water to the CCWD 

service area under the existing Amendatory Contract was considered but eliminated from analysis in 

this EA because the Amendatory Contract expires in 2010 and would therefore not meet the purpose 

and need for a long-term contract. 

SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

It is anticipated that the final contract language and the Preferred Alternative for the long-term 

renewal contract will represent a negotiated position between the No Action Alternative and 

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

those identified for Alternative 1, Alternative 2, or the No Action Alternative. 

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION 

Reclamation and CCWD have undertaken a number of environmental studies evaluating the 

environmental impacts associated with continued provision of CVP water to CCWD, and 

specifically to the Contra Costa Canal federal service area. The CVPIA PEIS prepared by 

Reclamation and the Service programmatically evaluated the regional environmental effects of 

implementing the CVPIA provisions. The FWSI EIR, prepared by CCWD, programmatically 

evaluated the environmental effects of implementing water system improvements to facilitate 

projected increased water demand in Contra Costa County. The MPP EIR/EIS, prepared by 

CCWD, evaluated the project-specific impacts of constructing a water supply pipeline adjacent to 

the Contra Costa Canal. The CCWD environmental documents were developed consistent with the 

Contra Costa County General Plan EIR (County General Plan EIR). However, because the CCWD 

environmental documents were published relatively recently, their analyses included impacts related 

to growth planned and approved since publication of the County General Plan EIR. The CCWD 

environmental documents are incorporated by reference into this EA. 
Executive Summary 

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA

ES-6

The CVPIA PEIS and FWSI EIR are particularly relevant to this EA because they evaluate 

programmatic and project-level impacts associated with the continued provision of water by 

CCWD, and therefore provide the programmatic context for consideration of the more specific 

impacts associated with the proposed CVP long-term water service contract. The project-specific 

analysis of impacts potentially occurring within the Contra Costa Canal right-of-way are provided 

in the MPP EIR/EIS, which adequately evaluates localized indirect impacts that could occur under 

the long-term contract renewal action. 

FOCUS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

The scope of analysis in this EA is based on previously performed analyses of potential impacts 

from continued CVP water delivery supply to the CCWD federal service area. The proposed action 

was first evaluated in the CVPIA PEIS, which assumed that all existing CVP water service 

contracts, including the CCWD water service contract, would be renewed. The document provided 

a programmatic review upon which future site-specific actions could be tiered. The FWSI EIR 

evaluated impacts from projected CCWD water supply demands of 219,400 acre-feet per year by 

2040. The MPP EIR/EIS evaluated impacts from developing the physical means to convey and 

deliver existing and future water supplies, as well as substantially increase the reliability of the 

existing CCWD conveyance system. The proposed long-term water service contract is a component 

of these projects because it secures delivery of up to 195,000 acre-feet of water per year to the 

Contra Costa Canal, part of the CCWD water supply system, with a modified pricing structure. 

Therefore, the evaluation of impacts under these previous documents provides adequate analysis for 

most environmental resources, and these documents are incorporated by reference in this EA. 

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

The potential impacts of the alternatives are summarized in Table ES-1. The impact analysis 

focuses on land use, socioeconomics, biological resources, cultural resources, and Indian trust 

assets. The land use discussion is included to provide a context in which the proposed action can be 

understood. It summarizes the prevalent land uses and describes County-wide growth management 

programs. Socioeconomic resources are evaluated because of the potential impacts resulting from 

the proposed revised pricing structure included as part of the proposed action. Due to the projectspecific nature of the socioeconomic resource area, it was identified in the CVPIA PEIS as the 

single resource area that would require future evaluation. Biological resources are evaluated to 

summarize project-specific impacts of the proposed action and to describe the on-going 

consultations among Reclamation, CCWD, and the Service. These consultations included the 

recent Biological Assessment (Reclamation 2004) prepared for the proposed action and the 

Biological Opinion issued in April 2000, which establishes the responsibilities of CCWD to protect 

sensitive biological resources. Cultural resources are included in this EA to disclose the federal 

requirements specific to the proposed action and the role of Reclamation in complying with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Indian trust assets are evaluated to determine if the 

alternatives would affect the use and enjoyment of such assets. 
TABLE ES-1 

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract Final EA

ES-7

Resource Description of Impact 

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Land Use The proposed long-term water service contract renewal (proposed action) does not include the dev

physical facilities and structures and therefore would not have a direct effect on land use. Indirect could occur due to growth accommodated by the continued provision of water. The No Action Al

with Contra Costa County General Plan Policy 7-17, which directs the County to encourage water 

develop supplies and facilities to meet future water needs based on the growth policies contained icities’ general plans. 

For M&I water costs in the average hydrologic condition, CCWD would pay an estimated $8.2 mithe 155,700 acre-feet of CVP M&I water that would be made available to its customers and (b) an acre-feet of supplies from alternative water sources it would need to address demand not met by C

Socioeconomics 

The projected cost of CCWD M&I water in a dry year would be about $20 million. 

Biological Resources No new structures or physical changes to the environment would result from long-term contract re

direct effects on biological resources are expected. Indirect impacts to biological resources would result from the planned growth analyzed in the Cou

general plans. Indirect effects related to the secondary effects of growth within CCWD’s service athe FWSI EIR. The FWSI EIR found that the continued provision of water would result in indirecland and agricultural habitats, special-status communities, and special-status plant and animal specwere mitigated through the biological opinion developed in consultation with the Service. 

Cultural Resources Although the proposed contract renewal would not directly result in any construction activities, im

the secondary or indirect impacts of growth resulting from construction and development are expeimpacts are analyzed in the County General Plan EIR. No indirect impacts beyond those anticipat

General Plan EIR would occur from issuing the long-term contract. The secondary impacts resulti

in currently non-urban areas could affect both known and undiscovered archaeological resources, e

high sensitivity. Areas specifically identified in the County General Plan EIR that are in the CCW

include the Bethel Island region and Alhambra Road west of Martinez. 

ALTERNATIVE 1 

Land Use There would be no impacts in addition to those identified for the No Action Alternative. 

CCWD’s cost of M&I water would be similar to the No Action Alternative. No incremental impaNo change in land use or associated value of crop production is anticipated. 

Socioeconomics 

There would be no impacts on the regional economy. 

Biological Resources There would be no impacts in addition to those identified for the No Action Alternative. 
February 2005 CCWD Lo

ES-8

Resource Description of Impact 

Cultural Resources There would be no impacts in addition to those identified for the No Action Alternative. 

ALTERNATIVE 2 

Land Use There would be no impacts in addition to those identified for the No Action Alternative. 

A minimum 30 percent increase in CCWD costs relative to the No Action Alternative would resulwater would increase by about: 

• $1.3 million in an average hydrologic year following 5 years of average hydrologic conditions• $1.5 million in an average hydrologic year following 5 years of dry hydrologic conditions, and

• $1.2 million in an average hydrologic year following 5 years of wet hydrologic conditions.

CCWD’s recent average residential water bill would increase by less than 1 percent.

In a dry year, CCWD’s cost of M&I water would increase by about 5 percent over the cost under tAlternative in a dry year. There would be an incremental decrease in total industrial output in the County estimated between million, depending on hydrologic conditions. This is a decrease of less than approximately 0.01 poutput. There would be an incremental decrease in total employment in the County estimated between 22 equivalent jobs, depending on hydrologic conditions. This is a decrease of less than approximately 

County’s employment base under the No Action Alternative. 

Socioeconomics 

The projected incremental decrease in Total Income Place of Work (POW) in the County is estima$0.94 million and $1.16 million, depending on hydrologic conditions. This is a decrease of less th

0.01 percent in the County’s Total Income POW compared to estimated No Action conditions. 

Biological Resources There would be no impacts in addition to those identified for the No Action Alternative. Cultural Resources There would be no impacts in addition to those identified for the No Action Alternative. 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA

1-1

Chapter 1 

Purpose and Need 

INTRODUCTION

The Central Valley Project (CVP) is the largest water storage and delivery system in California, 

with a geographic scope covering 35 of the state’s 58 counties. The CVP is divided into nine 

divisions; one of these divisions is the Delta Division, which includes the Contra Costa Canal 

system. This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the proposed renewal of the long-term 

water service contract for the Contra Costa Canal system, which is operated by the Contra Costa 

Water District (CCWD). The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the CCWD propose 

to execute a new long-term water service contract to replace the existing Amendatory Contract 

Between the United States and Contra Costa Water District Providing for Water Service and for 

Facilities Repayment (Amendatory Contract) (No. I75r-3401) that is set to expire December 31, 

2010. The new long-term water service contract will provide for delivery of water from the CVP to 

the CCWD (Figure 1-1). The execution of this contract would bring the CCWD contract in line 

with all other long-term water service contracts being proposed and/or executed within the CVP and 

would allow CVP water deliveries to the CCWD service area to continue.

The long-term water service contract proposed in this EA would continue to deliver the same 

amount of CVP water as the existing contract for a period of up to 40 years. The location of the 

proposed action is the land in the CCWD service area that would receive CVP water under the 

proposed long-term water service contract. 

This EA has been prepared pursuant to and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 USC § 4321-4370d) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations on implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION 

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

cost of water facilities and operations and maintenance established in the water service contract 

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

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

Secretary. of the Interior. 

The purpose of this action is to execute a new long-term water service contract for the CCWD 

service area, consistent with Reclamation authority and all applicable state and federal laws, 

including the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) (H.R. 429, Public Law 102-575). 

The project alternatives include the terms and conditions of the long-term water service contract 

and tiered water pricing. Execution of a new long-term water service contract is needed to: 
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

1-2 

• Continue the beneficial use of water, developed and managed as part of the CVP, with a 

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

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

enhancement; power generation; recreation; and other uses consistent with requirements 

imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) and the CVPIA; 

• Incorporate certain administrative conditions into the renewed contract to ensure CVP’s 

continued compliance with current federal reclamation law and other applicable statues; and 

• Allow the continued reimbursement to the federal government for costs related to CVP 

construction and operation. 

BASIS TO RENEW CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER SERVICE CONTRACTS 

The River and Harbors Act of 1935 included the initial authorization for the CVP. The Central 

Valley Project Authorization Act of 1937 re-authorized the CVP and allowed the Secretary to enter 

into repayment contracts and other necessary contracts with “all agencies with which contracts are 

authorized under reclamation law.” 

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

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

agencies, plant investment, and certain irrigation water deliveries to leased lands. This act required 

the Secretary to comply with laws of the State relating to the control, appropriation, use, or 

distribution of water used in irrigation or vested rights acquired hereunder. This act also provided 

that the Secretary include provision for contract renewal, upon request of the other party to any 

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

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

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

renegotiate is reserved in the contract. The act also states that the Secretary shall, upon request, 

provide in any such long-term contract that the other party to the contract shall, during the term of 

the contract and of any renewal (subject to fulfillment of other obligations), have a first right to a 

stated share or quantity of the CVP water supply available for municipal, domestic, industrial, or 

irrigation use. 

Section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 authorized the Secretary to enter into contracts 

to furnish water for municipal water supply or miscellaneous purposes, provided that such contracts 

require repayment to the United States over a period not to exceed 40 years. Section 9(e) of the 

Reclamation Project Act of 1939 allowed the Secretary to enter into either short- or long-term 

contracts to furnish water for irrigation purposes, with each such contract to be for a period not to 

exceed 40 years. 

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

and municipal and industrial (M&I) water to contractors. 

The Reclamation Project Act of 1956 provided the right of renewal of long-term repayment or 

water service contracts for agricultural contractors for a term not to exceed 40 years. The 

Reclamation 
24

24

4

4

780

680

80

680

580

580

A L A M E D A C O

C O N T R A

C OST A C O

SOL A N O C O

Vallejo

Oakland

Hayward

Concord

Antioch

Alameda

Livermore

San Leandro

Walnut Creek

10029 - Contra Costa LTCR BA\GIS\10029_CCWD__Fig-1_Vicinity.mxd

Project Vicinity

Source: NSR, Inc.; CCWD; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; Teale GIS Solutions Group;GAP Analysis of Mainland California, 1998 03-24-04 rescolar

0 5 10

Miles

CCWD Federal Contract

Service Area

Additional CCWD Service Area

 Figure 1-1

Contra Costa Water District Service Area
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

1-4 

Page left intentionally blank. 
Purpose and Need Chapter 1

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

1-5 

Project Act of June 21, 1963, Renewal of Water Supply Contracts, extended the right of renewal of 

long-term repayment or water service contracts for M&I contractors. 

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

Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575) that included Title XXXIV, the Central Valley 

Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). The CVPIA amended the previous authorizations of the CVP 

to include fish and wildlife protection, restoration, and mitigation as project purposes having equal 

priority with irrigation and domestic uses and fish and wildlife enhancement as a project purpose 

equal to power generation. Section 3409 of the CVPIA required the Secretary to prepare a 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to evaluate the direct and indirect impacts 

and benefits of implementing the CVPIA. That PEIS was prepared under the NEPA by Reclamation 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). Reclamation released a Draft PEIS on November 7, 

1997. An extended comment period closed on April 17, 1998. Reclamation and the Service 

released the final CVPIA PEIS in October 1999 and the joint Record of Decision (ROD) in January 

2001. 

Section 3404(c) of the CVPIA directs the Secretary to renew existing CVP water service and 

repayment contracts following completion of the PEIS and other needed environmental 

documentation by stating that: 

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

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

contracts for successive periods of up to 25 years each....(after) appropriate environmental 

review, including preparation of the environmental impact statement required in section 

3409 (i.e., the PEIS)...." 

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

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

amend the provisions of Section (9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 and the Act of June 

21, 1963, which authorized renewal of M&I water contract terms for up to 40 years. These 1939 

and 1963 authorizations remain in place as guidance for establishing the terms of M&I contracts. 

BASIS TO RENEW CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT WATER SERVICE 

CONTRACT 

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

project features for navigation, flood control, waste storage, construction of distribution systems, 

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

CVP facilities and mandated that dams and reservoirs be used first for river regulation, 

improvement of navigation, and flood control; second for irrigation and domestic uses; and third for 

power. In 1994, CCWD entered into an Amendatory Contract with Reclamation for the delivery of 

up to 195,000 acre-feet of water per year for M&I and agricultural uses in the CCWD service area. 

The Amendatory Contract expires in 2010. 

Contra Costa Canal, one of the first CVP facilities, was completed in 1948. Figure 1-2 shows the 

CVP facilities within the CCWD service area. Facilities within the CCWD federal service area 
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

1-6 

include the Contra Costa Canal system; the intake channel from Rock Slough; the Clayton and 

Ygnacio Relift Canals and pumping plants 1, 2, 3, and 4; the Contra Loma Dam and Reservoir; the 

Short Cut Pipeline; and the lateral distribution system. 

RELATIONSHIP OF THIS DOCUMENT TO THE 1999 CVPIA PROGRAMMATIC 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

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

(Reclamation and Service 1999). The impact analysis considered a No Action Alternative; five 

main alternatives, including a Preferred Alternative; and 15 supplemental analyses. 

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

on a regional basis. In the PEIS, the Contra Costa Canal was considered a “north of the Delta” 

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

renewed under the same terms as expiring contracts. The CVPIA PEIS included a Preferred 

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

anticipated for implementation of CVPIA, including long-term contract renewals. 

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

Following completion of the PEIS, Reclamation began preparing more specific information related 

to the renewal of long-term water service contracts, including this document, which addresses 

specific impacts related to executing a long-term renewal contract for the Contra Costa Canal 

service area. This document is tiered from the PEIS and includes the Preferred Alternative of the 

PEIS as the No Action Alternative. 

The PEIS and the Biological Opinion prepared for the operation and maintenance of the CVP and 

implementation of CVPIA considered and addressed impacts caused by CVP actions. Therefore, 

this document does not need to address operations of the CVP. 

OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS OR ACTIVITIES 

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

and operate the CVP. The following discussion identifies these activities and describes their 

relationship to the execution of a new long-term water service contract with the CCWD. Related 

studies and projects that have been conducted recently or are currently being completed are 

summarized in Table 1-1. 

In 2003, the CCWD completed a 21-mile Multi-Purpose Pipeline (MMP) that connects a water 

treatment plant in East Contra Costa County to the distribution system in Central Contra Costa 

County. The MPP provides the physical means to convey and deliver existing and future water 

supplies, as well as to substantially increase the reliability of the existing conveyance system. 

CCWD is also implementing its Future Water Supply Implementation (FWSI) program. The FWSI 

program provides a plan for meeting the expected water supply needs of CCWD’s customers 

through 2040, including the renewal of the water service contract with Reclamation through the 

CVP. The city 
Purpose and Need Chapter 1

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

1-7 

TABLE 1-1 

 RELATED ACTIVITIES

Project or Study and Lead Agency Summary

Long-Term Contract Renewal of Other 

Existing CVP Water Service Contracts –

Reclamation 

Reclamation is in negotiation with other CVP water contractors for 

renewal of long-term contracts, including contractors for the 

American River Division, Feather Water District, Shasta and Trinity 

River Divisions, Sacramento Canals Unit, San Luis Unit, San Felipe 

Unit, Delta-Mendota Canal Unit, San Joaquin National Veterans 

Cemetery, City of Lindsay, City of Fresno, Cross Valley, and Mercy 

Springs Water District. 

Implementation of CVPIA Reclamation and the Service are proceeding with implementation of 

other provisions of CVPIA, including stream restoration, refuge 

water supplies, and further analysis of yield replacement. 

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

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

Delta water concerns. CALFED completed an Environmental 

Impact Report (EIR)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as part 

of this process. Renewal of long-term CVP contracts is assumed 

within the CALFED EIR/EIS and ROD. 

Coordinated Operating Agreement (COA) 

and Operations Criteria and Plan (OCAP) 

Update – U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and 

California Department of Water Resources 

Provisions and requirements of the CVPIA, State Water Resources 

Control Board Order 1641, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, and 

other agency mandates require that the existing operational roles 

and responsibilities of the State Water Project and CVP be reviewed 

and updated to provide appropriate long-term operating criteria and 

procedures for the two primary water storage and delivery projects 

affecting waterways of the Central Valley. 

Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration 

Environmental Impact 

Statement/Environmental Impact Report 

The Service completed a Final EIS/EIR and ROD. Based on 

subsequent litigation, the Service is preparing a Supplemental EIS 

and an EIR. The Service and Reclamation also are implementing a 

portion of the recommendations for restoration activities along the 

Trinity River. 

Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan The Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan (VAMP) provides 

protective measures for fall-run chinook salmon and gathers 

scientific information on survival of salmon smolts through the Delta. 

The VAMP will be implemented through experimental flows on the 

San Joaquin River and export pumping rates with a temporary fish 

barrier on Old River during the 1-month period each year from 

approximately April 15 to May 15. Additional attraction flows are 

targeted for October. The VAMP includes water acquisition for a 

pulse flow at Vernalis during the April and May period, and other 

flows identified to meet anadromous fish flow objectives. The San 

Joaquin River Group Authority, Reclamation, and the Service 

prepared a Final EIS/EIR for the water acquisition component of 

VAMP in January 1999.
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

1-8 

and County governments also are implementing projects within their respective spheres of 

jurisdiction that relate to the CCWD service area. The following summarizes the Reclamation, 

CCWD, and local jurisdiction projects related to the continued provision of adequate amounts of 

raw and treated water in the CCWD service area. 

Los Vaqueros Project 

In 1994, Reclamation executed an Amendatory Contract with CCWD (No. I75r-3401) that provided 

for operation of the Los Vaqueros Project (LVP). Completed in 1998, the LVP includes a 100,000 

acre-foot reservoir located 8 miles south of Brentwood, and related intake, pumping, conveyance, 

and blending facilities. Water to fill the reservoir comes from the south Delta by means of a new 

pump station on Old River near Highway 4. The purpose of the reservoir is to improve CCWD’s 

water quality by storing higher quality Delta water during wet periods to blend with CCWD’s ongoing Delta supply during dry periods. The reservoir also provides CCWD with an assured 30- to 

90-day emergency water supply. The Los Vaqueros pumping plants, pipelines, and reservoir are 

owned and operated by CCWD. On March 2, 2004, voters approved a measure to allow CCWD 

and CALFED to move forward on CALFED-funded expansion studies related to the Los Vaqueros 

Reservoir. 

Future Water Supply Implementation Program 

CCWD completed the Future Water Supply Study in 1996 to identify the preferred approach to 

offering customers a high-quality, reliable water supply for the next 50 years. The study 

recommendations included developing future water supplies to meet projected demands of 219,400 

acre-feet per year by the year 2040, through a combination of phased components. Components of 

the FWSI program include renegotiation and renewal of the CVP Amendatory Contract; increased 

conservation by wholesale and retail customers; and purchase of water transfers of up to 24,400 

acre-feet per year to accommodate near-term drought needs while allowing the flexibility to meet 

future demands. 

The Seismic Reliability and Improvements Project Study 

A study addressing the seismic reliability of the District-wide water delivery system was completed 

by CCWD in January 1997. To respond to the reliability and capacity needs of CCWD customers, 

five improvements to the raw water delivery system, in addition to the Multipurpose Pipeline 

(MPP) project described below, were identified to meet the criteria for reliable service following an 

earthquake. The improvements include: (1) a pipeline intertie between the existing Shortcut 

Pipeline and the Mallard Reservoir; (2) modifications to the Shortcut Pipeline at the Concord Fault 

crossing; (3) landslide mitigation at the canal tunnel; (4) landslide mitigation at Canal Milepost 25; 

and (5) modification of petroleum pipelines where they cross over the canal. 

Multi-Purpose Pipeline Project 

The Seismic Reliability and Improvements Project identified the MPP as one of the primary projects 

to increase the reliability and capacity of the raw water delivery system, and to deliver additional 

treated water to supplement the Bollman Water Treatment Plant supply. Under the project, which 

was completed in 2003, CCWD obtained approval from Reclamation to construct and operate two
Sa

OUNT Y

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

ting CC WD S ervice Area

very S ystem

mping P lants

ke S tructures

er S torage Facilities

er Treatment P lants (WTP )

680

4

680

24

Clayton

Concord

Mt. Diablo

Walnut

Creek

rtinez

Antioch

P itts burg

Los V os

Dis covery

B ay

Clifton

Court

Forebay

4

R ock

S lough

Intake

Old

R iver

Intake

R andall

Bold

WTP

Antioch

WTP

Antioch

Municipal

Reservoir

Contra

Loma

Reservoir

P ittsburg

WTP

Bollman WTP

nez Reservoir

Mallard Reservoir

Oakley 4 Contra C o s ta Canal

R aw Water

P ipeline

Los Vaqueros P ipeline

Old R iver P ipeline

P leas ant

Hill B rentwood

C ontra C osta C anal

S hortcut P ipeline

0 1 2 3

miles

Bay Point

WTP

B ay Point

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

ALAMEDA COUNTY

 Figure 1-2

CCWD Federal Contract Service Area and Facilities

 & Stokes Associates, Inc.

Reservoir

aquer

 
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

1-10 

Page left intentionally blank. 
Purpose and Need Chapter 1

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

1-11 

water pipelines within the Contra Costa Canal right-of-way (ROW) and to make minor 

improvements to the canal. The 20-mile pipeline carries treated water from the Randall-Bold Water 

Treatment Plant in Oakley to CCWD’s treated water service area. 

The MPP project includes a multi-purpose pipeline, raw water pipeline, and modifications to the 

canal. The modifications to the canal occurred at the canal gates, the Neroly Blending Facility, and 

the segment of the canal between Pumping Plant 4 and the tunnel. The gate modifications were 

designed to improve water flow. The Neroly Blending Facility is a segment of the canal where 

water from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta mixes with water from the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. 

To improve mixing and to meet year 2020 capacity requirements, this segment of the canal was 

enlarged. 

Mallard Slough Pump Station Project 

The Mallard Slough Pump Station is at the southern end of a dredged intake channel in northern 

Contra Costa County. The pump station pumps up to 25 million gallons per day of raw water to 

Mallard Reservoir via the Mallard Pipeline. The primary objectives of the project were to replace 

the approximately 65-year-old pump station to minimize impacts on fisheries and to increase 

emergency capacity by improving the reliability of the emergency raw water supply following 

seismic events. This project also included the installation of a new pipeline to convey the flows to 

the canal. The connection to the existing Mallard Pipeline was maintained for redundancy. Project 

construction was completed in 2000. 

Contra Loma Reservoir Swim Lagoon Project 

The Contra Loma Dam and Reservoir were constructed to respond to peaking requirements and 

system reliability for the CCWD. On June 28, 1997, CCWD was issued a compliance order from 

the California Department of Health Services (DOHS) regarding Contra Loma Reservoir. The 

compliance order required that CCWD either prohibit body contact recreation in Contra Loma 

Reservoir or eliminate use of the reservoir as a source of domestic water supply. In response to the 

compliance order, CCWD constructed a separate swimming lagoon within the existing reservoir. A 

concrete-covered earthen berm was constructed that physically separated the swim lagoon from the 

main portion of the 80-acre reservoir. The purpose of the project was to comply with the DOHS 

order while maintaining the operational benefits currently derived from the Contra Loma Reservoir. 

The project is a component of the Contra Costa Canal system. 

TERM OF THE CONTRACT

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

repayment or water service contracts for the delivery of CVP water for a 25-year period. Section 

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

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

the provisions of Section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 and the Reclamation Project 

Act of June 21, 1963, which authorized renewal of M&I water contracts for up to 40 years. These 

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

under the federal action, the term for agricultural (irrigation) water service contracts is 25 years, the 

term for mixed agricultural/M&I water service contracts is 25 years, and the term for M&I-only 
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

1-12 

long-term water service contracts is 40 years. Because the proposed long-term water service 

contract with the CCWD will provide for delivery of CVP water for M&I uses only, the term of the 

proposed contract is 40 years. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS 

On October 15, 1998, Reclamation published a notice of intent (NOI) in the Federal Register to 

announce the preparation of environmental documents for long-term renewal of CVP water service 

contracts. Scoping meetings were held at eight locations throughout the CVP service area. 

Reclamation completed a scoping report in April 1999. Scoping served as a fact-finding process 

that helped identify public concerns and recommendations about the NEPA process, issues that 

would be addressed in this document, and the scope and level of detail for analyses. 

The long-term water service contract renewal process was conducted as a public process. 

Throughout the contract renewal process, meetings were held with the contractors, other agencies, 

interest groups, and the public. Issues raised during the public involvement process were addressed 

in the negotiations process and were used to prepare this EA. 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

2-1 

CHAPTER 2 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter summarizes the negotiations process for the long-term water service contracts and 

describes the alternatives considered in this EA. Because many districts that contract for CVP 

water have been operating under interim contracts, the discussion includes references to interim 

contracts and long-term contract renewals. As explained in Chapter 1, the CCWD has been 

operating under an Amendatory Contract that is scheduled to expire in 2010. For the purposes of 

this analysis, the term “long-term contract renewals” includes the replacement of CCWD’s existing 

Amendatory Contract. 

LONG-TERM WATER SERVICE CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS PROCESS 

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

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

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

municipal and industrial (M&I) contracts shall be renewed for successive periods of up to 40 years 

each under terms and conditions that are mutually agreeable. The CVPIA also states that no 

renewals shall be authorized until appropriate environmental review has been completed. The PEIS 

provided a programmatic environmental analysis of long-term water service contract renewals and 

identified the need for site-specific environmental documents for each long-term contract renewal. 

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

renewed for interim periods. The interim renewal contracts reflect existing Reclamation law, 

including modifications by the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) and applicable CVPIA 

requirements. The initial interim contract renewals were negotiated in 1994 with subsequent 

renewals for periods of 2 years or less to provide for continued water service. Many of the 

provisions from the interim contracts were assumed to be part of the contract renewal provisions in 

the description of the PEIS Preferred Alternative. 

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

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

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

proposed that the overall provisions of the long-term contracts would be negotiated with 

representatives of all CVP water service contractors. Following the acceptance of the CVP-wide 

provisions, Reclamation proposed that division-specific provisions and, finally, contractor-specific 

provisions would be negotiated. Reclamation also proposed that all water service contracts, except 

for those with the Central San Joaquin Irrigation District, Stockton East Water District, and Colusa 

Drain Mutual Water Company, would be renewed pursuant to this action. Contract renewals for 

these three districts are being delayed until the completion of water management studies for their 

primary sources of CVP water, the Stanislaus River and the Sacramento River. 
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives 

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

2-2

Reclamation published the initial proposed contract in November 1999, and several negotiation 

sessions were held throughout the following 6 months. The CVP water service contractors 

published a counter-proposal in April 2000. The November 1999 proposal represents one 

“bookend” for the negotiations and the April 2000 proposal represents the other “bookend.” The 

results of the negotiations are reflected in the subsequent proposals. 

The primary differences between the proposals are summarized in Table 2-1 at the end of this 

chapter. 

ISSUES CONSIDERED AS PART OF LONG-TERM CONTRACT RENEWALS 

The long-term contract renewal process addressed several issues besides the contract provisions. 

These issues included needs analyses, changes in service areas, and water transfers. 

Needs Analyses 

The water rights granted to the CVP by the State Water Resources Control Board require the federal 

government to determine that CVP water is being used in a beneficial manner. To this end, a needs 

analysis methodology was developed, specifically for long-term contract renewals, to determine if 

the contractors could use their full contract amount. This assessment was computed for each 

contractor of the CVP using a multi-step approach. First, the existing water demand was calculated 

for each contractor based on historic water uses. For agricultural water users, crop acreage, 

cropping patterns, crop water needs, effective precipitation, and conveyance loss information 

provided by each contractor were reviewed. For M&I water uses, residential, commercial, 

industrial, institutional, recreational, and environmental uses along with landscape coefficients, 

system losses, and landscape acreage information provided by each contractor were reviewed. 

Second, future changes in water demands were reviewed based on crops, M&I expansion, and 

changes in efficiencies. Third, existing and future non-CVP water supplies were identified for each 

contractor, including groundwater and other surface water supplies. The initial calculation of CVP 

water needs was limited by the assumption that other (non-federal) water supplies would be used 

first, and groundwater pumping would not exceed the safe yield of aquifers. In addition, the actual 

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

annual basis.

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

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

negative amount (unmet demand) fell within 10% of the contractor’s total water supply for 

contracts greater than 15,000 AF/yr, or within 25% for contracts less than 15,000 AF/yr, the test of 

full future need of the water supplies under the contract was deemed to be met. 

Because the CVP was initially established as a supplemental water supply for areas with inadequate 

supplies, the needs for most contractors were at least equal to the CVP water service contract and 

frequently exceeded the previous contract amount. Increased total contract amounts were not 

included in the needs assessment because the CVPIA stated that Reclamation cannot increase 

contract supply quantities. Water Needs Assessment (WNA) was completed by Reclamation in 

March 2004 for the Contra Costa Water District. (The result of the Water Needs Assessment is 

provided in Appendix A). The WNA presented the contractor’s total water supplies including 
Description of Alternatives Chapter 2

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

2-3

transfers or exchanges into or out of the contractor’s service areas, the total water demands, and the 

amount of the surplus or unmet demand. 

The analysis for the Water Needs Assessment did not consider that ability of the CVP to deliver 

CVP water. CVP water has been constrained in recent years and may be constrained in the future 

due to many factors including hydrologic conditions and implementation of federal and state laws. 

The likelihood contractors will actually receive the full contract amount in any given year is 

uncertain. The water service contract amount proposed in this EA is the same as in the existing 

Amendatory Contract. 

Changes in Water Service Areas 

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

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

be evaluated in separate technical and environmental analyses. 

Water Transfers 

Intra-CVP contract transfers have occurred regularly throughout the CVP; such transfers are 

frequently limited to scheduling changes between adjoining districts. It is recognized that water 

transfers will continue to occur and that the CVP long-term water service contracts will provide the 

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

Alternative, the No Action Alternative in this EA includes water transfer provisions. These 

provisions for transfers are also included in Alternatives 1 and 2 of this EA. However, it would be 

difficult to identify all of the water transfer programs that could occur with CVP water in the next 

40 years. Reclamation would continue to issue separate environmental documents for proposed 

transfers and would establish criteria and protocols to allow rapid technical and environmental 

review of future proposed transfers. 

ALTERNATIVES 

Three alternatives were identified for the renewal of the long-term water service contracts between 

Reclamation and CCWD for the Contra Costa Canal system. These alternatives were also analyzed 

in an initial Draft EA dated October 2000. 

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

for long-term contract renewals. The No Action Alternative in this EA consists of renewing the 

existing water service contract with the provisions described in the Preferred Alternative of the 

CVPIA PEIS. In November 1999, Reclamation published a proposed long-term water service 

contract with specific provisions for CVP contractors to consider. (This form-contract eventually 

became Alternative 2 in the October 2000 Draft EA.) In April 2000, the CVP contractors 

responded to Reclamation’s November 1999 form-contract with an alternative form-contract. (That 

April 2000 form-contract was analyzed in the October 2000 Draft EA as Alternative 1.) 

Subsequently, Reclamation and the CVP Contractors have continued to negotiate the CVP-wide 

terms and conditions, with Alternatives 1 and 2 serving as “bookends.” 
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives 

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

2-4

No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative for this EA assumes renewal of long-term CVP water service contracts 

for a period of 25 years in accordance with the CVPIA, as described in the PEIS Preferred 

Alternative. The No Action Alternative assumes that most contract provisions would be similar to 

the provisions in the 1997 CVP Interim Renewal Contracts, which included provisions consistent 

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

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

The provisions of the No Action Alternative are summarized in Table 2-1 at the end of this chapter. 

These provisions were also described in the Final CVPIA PEIS. 

Several applicable CVPIA provisions summarized in the description of the No Action Alternative 

are addressed in a different manner in Alternatives 1 and/or 2, and therefore could result in changes 

in environmental impacts or benefits. These issues include tiered water pricing, the definition of 

M&I water users, water measurement, and water conservation. Each of these issues is described in 

the following paragraphs. 

Tiered Water Pricing 

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

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

this approach, the first 80 percent of the maximum contract total would be priced at the applicable 

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

average of the Contract Rate and Full Cost Rate. The final 10 percent of the contract total would be 

priced at the Full Cost Rate. The terms “Contract Rate” and “Full Cost Rate” are defined by the 

CVP rate-setting policies and by P.L. 99-546 and the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA), respectively. 

The Contract Rate for irrigation and M&I water includes the contractor’s allocated share of CVP 

main project operation and maintenance, operation and maintenance deficit, if any, and capital cost. 

The Contract Rate for irrigation water does not include interest on capital. The Contract Rate for 

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

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

In addition to the CVP water rate, contractors are required to pay a Restoration Payment on all 

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

contractors on Restoration Payments and the capital rate component of the water rate. Ability-toPay relief, relative to the irrigation water rate, is fully applicable only to the first 80 percent of the 

contract total. Ability-to-Pay relief is not applicable to the third tier water rate. The second tier 

may reflect partial Ability-to-Pay relief, since it is equal to the average of the first and third tiers. 

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

budgets. The Ability-to-Pay law and policy do not apply to CVP operation and maintenance costs, 

M&I water rates, CVP distribution facilities, or non-CVP water costs. 

The prices of CVP water in the No Action Alternative are based on 1994 CVP irrigation and M&I 

water rates. 
Description of Alternatives Chapter 2

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

2-5

Definition of Municipal and Industrial Users 

The definition of M&I water users was established in portions of a 1982 Reclamation policy 

memorandum. In many instances, “municipal users” is easily definable. However, with respect to 

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

service to tracts that can support $5,000 gross income from a commercial farm operation. The 

memorandum indicates that this criterion can be generally met by parcels greater than 2 acres. 

However, under the No Action Alternative, M&I water is defined as water for parcels of 5 acres or 

less. The No Action Alternative provides CVP contractors with the ability to request from the 

Contracting Officer a contract modification to pay agricultural rates for parcels between 2 and 5 

acres if they are able to demonstrate agricultural use. 

Water Measurement 

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

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

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

deliveries and additional calculations would then be required to determine the exact quantity of 

CVP water. However, if groundwater or other surface waters are delivered to the users by other 

means, the No Action Alternative does not include additional measurement devices, except as 

required by individual users’ water conservation plans. 

Water Conservation 

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

actions for municipal and on-farm uses assumed in California Department of Water Resources 

Bulletin 160-93 and conservation plans completed under the 1982 RRA, consistent with the criteria 

and requirements of the CVPIA. Such criteria address Best Management Practices that are cost 

effective, economical, and appropriate, including measurement devices, pricing structures, demand 

management, public information measures, and financial incentives. 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 is based on the proposal presented by CVP Contractors to Reclamation in April 2000. 

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

in Alternative 1 because they are not consistent with existing federal or state requirements or would 

require a separate federal action, as described below. 

• The April 2000 proposal included Terms and Conditions to provide a highly reliable water 

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

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

issues would require additional federal actions with separate environmental documentation 

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

competing demands, as required by the CVPIA. Currently, Reclamation is completing the 

least-cost plan to restore project yield in accordance with Section 3408(j) of CVPIA and 

under the CALFED program. 
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives 

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

2-6

• The April 2000 proposal included language to require renewal of contracts after 25 years 

upon request of the contractor. The study period for this revised EA is 40 years, which was 

authorized under the Reclamation Project Act of 1963 and was not clearly disallowed under 

CVPIA. 

• The April 2000 proposal did not include provisions for compliance with biological opinions 

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service. Biological consultations with the Service and National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NOAA-Fisheries) are required by the Consultation and Coordination requirements 

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

Reclamation and provisions are being developed to address this requirement.

• The April 2000 proposal included provisions for water transfers. It is recognized that water 

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

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

programs that could occur with CVP water in the next 40 years. Reclamation will continue 

to complete separate environmental documents for transfers and will establish criteria for 

rapid technical and environmental review of proposed transfers. 

• The April 2000 proposal included provisions for transfer of operations and maintenance 

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

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

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

maintenance transfer programs that could occur with CVP water in the next 40 years. 

Reclamation will require separate environmental documentation for such transfers. 

• The April 2000 proposal included provisions for resolution of disputes. Assumptions for 

resolution of disputes were not included in Alternative 1, but at this time, any such 

assumptions would not appear to affect environmental conditions.

• The April 2000 proposal included provisions for expansion of the CVP service areas by the 

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

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

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

The April 2000 proposal included several provisions that were different than the assumptions for 

the No Action Alternative, and those provisions are included in Alternative 1, as summarized in 

Table 2-1. The April 2000 proposal also included several provisions that involve specific language 

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

environment as compared to the No-Action Alternative but could affect the specific operations of a 

contractor. 

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

definition of M&I water users in Alternative 1 would be the same as in the No Action Alternative. 
Description of Alternatives Chapter 2

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

2-7

Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 is based on the proposal presented by Reclamation to CVP water service contractors 

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

proposal that are not included in Alternative 2. These provisions would constitute a separate federal 

action, as described below. 

• The November 1999 proposal included provisions for the contractor to request approval 

from Reclamation for proposed water transfers. Water transfers were not included in 

Alternative 2 because such actions cannot now be definitely described, and they essentially 

constitute a separate federal action that would require separate environmental 

documentation.

• The November 1999 proposal included provisions for transfer of operations and 

maintenance to third parties. Operations and maintenance transfers were not included in 

Alternative 2 because these actions would be a separate federal action and would require 

separate environmental documentation.

The November 1999 proposal included several provisions that were different than the assumptions 

for the No Action Alternative and these provisions are included in Alternative 2, as summarized 

below and in Table 2-1. The primary differences are related to tiered pricing and the definition of 

M&I water users. 

Tiered Water Pricing 

Tiered water pricing under Alternative 2 is based on the definitions of “Category 1” and “Category 

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

be available for delivery to a contractor, and is calculated on an annual basis as the average quantity 

of delivered water during the most recent 5-year period. For the purposes of Alternative 2, the 

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

additional quantity of CVP water in excess of Category 1 water that may be delivered to a 

contractor in some years. Under Alternative 2, the first 80 percent of Category 1 volume would be 

priced at the applicable Contract Rate for the CVP. The next 10 percent of the Category 1 volume 

would be priced at a rate equal to the average between the Contract Rate and Full Cost Rate as 

defined by Reclamation law and policy. The final 10 percent of the Category 1 volume would be 

priced at the Full Cost Rate as required by the CVPIA. All Category 2 water, when available, 

would be priced at the Full Cost Rate. It should be noted that Category 1 and Category 2 volumes 

would change each year based on the average deliveries for the “most recent 5 years,” with limited 

exceptions based on the findings of the water needs assessment. Alternative 2 assumes the sum of 

Category 1 and Category 2 water is equal to the maximum quantity included in the contractors’ 

existing water service contract. The quantity is the same as under the No Action Alternative and 

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

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

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

The prices of CVP water used in Alternative 2 are based on CVP agricultural and M&I water rates 

presented in the November 17, 1999, Financial Workshop Handouts 1 and 2. 
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives 

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

2-8

Definition of Municipal and Industrial Users 

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

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER 

CONSIDERATION 

Nonrenewal of Long-term Contracts 

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

This alternative was considered but eliminated from analysis in this EA because Reclamation does 

not have the discretion to not renew the contracts. 

Continuing with Existing Amendatory Contract 

Continuing to supply CVP water to the CCWD service area under the existing Amendatory 

Contract was considered but eliminated from analysis in this EA because the Amendatory Contract 

expires in 2010 and would therefore not meet the purpose and need for a long-term contract. 

Reduction in Contract Amounts 

Reduction of contract amounts was considered in certain cases but eliminated from analysis because 

the completed water needs analyses found that, in almost all cases, the needs would exceed or equal 

the current total contract amount. In addition, in order to implement good water management, the 

contractors would need to be able to store or immediately use water available in wetter years when 

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

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

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

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

balance in part through its dedication of significant amounts of CVP water to environmental 

purposes and actions to acquire water for environmental purposes. 

SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

It is anticipated that the final contract language and the Preferred Alternative will represent a 

negotiated position between Alternatives 1 and 2. Therefore, it is anticipated that the impacts will 

be either equal to or less than those identified for Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and the No Action 

Alternative. 

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

The potential impacts of the alternatives are summarized in Table 2-2. The impact analysis focused 

on land use, socioeconomics, biological resources, and cultural resources. The land use discussion 

is included to provide a context in which the proposed action can be understood. It summarizes the 

prevalent land uses in the CCWD service area and describes County-wide growth management 

programs. Socioeconomic resources are evaluated because of the potential impacts resulting from 

the proposed revised pricing structure included as part of the proposed action. Due to their project-
Description of Alternatives Chapter 2

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

2-9

specific nature, socioeconomic resources were identified in the CVPIA PEIS as the single resource 

area that would require future evaluation. Biological resources are evaluated because of the 

extensive negotiations and consultations among Reclamation, CCWD, and the Service. These 

consultations included the recent biological opinion, issued in April 2000, which establishes the 

responsibilities of CCWD to protect sensitive biological resources. Reclamation has initiated 

consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. Cultural resources and Indian trust assets are included in this EA to disclose the 

federal requirements specific to the proposed action and the role of Reclamation in complying with 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and with American Indian Tribal Trust 

Rights. 
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives 

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

2-10

TABLE 2-1 

COMPARISON OF CONTRACT PROVISIONS 

CONSIDERED IN ALTERNATIVES 

Provision 

No Action Alternative 

Based on PEIS and Interim 

Contracts 

Alternative 1 

Based on April 2000 

Proposal 

Alternative 2 

Based on November 1999 

Proposal 

Explanatory Recitals Assumes water rights held 

by CVP from State Board 

for use by water service 

contractors under CVP 

policies. 

Assumes CVP Water Right as 

being held in trust for project 

beneficiaries that may 

become the owners of the 

perpetual right. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Assumes that CVP is a 

significant part of the urban 

and agricultural water 

supply of users. 

Assumes CVP is a 

significant, essential, and 

irreplaceable part of the urban 

and agricultural water supply 

of users. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Assumes increased use of 

water rights, need to meet 

water quality standards and 

fish protection measures, 

and other measures 

constrained use of CVP. 

Assumes that CVPIA 

impaired ability of CVP to 

deliver water. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Assumes the need for the 

3408(j) study. 

Assumes implementation of 

yield increase projects per 

3408(j) study. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Assumes that loss of water 

supply reliability would 

have impact on 

socioeconomic conditions 

and change land use. 

Assumes that loss of water 

supply reliability would have 

significant adverse 

socioeconomic and 

environmental impacts in 

CVP service area. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Definitions 

“Charges” Charges defined as 

payments required in 

addition to Rates. 

Assumes rewording of 

definition of Charges to 

exclude both Rates and 

Tiered Pricing Increments. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

“Category 1 and 

Category 2” 

Tiered Pricing as in PEIS. Not included. Tiered Pricing for 

Categories 1 and 2. 

“Contract Total” Contract Total described as 

Total Contract. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Described as basis for 

Category 1 to calculate 

Tiered Pricing. 

“Landholder” Landholder described in 

existing Reclamation Law. 

Assumes rewording to 

specifically define 

Landholder with respect to 

ownership, leases, and 

operations. 

Assumes rewording to 

specifically define 

Landholder with respect 

to ownership and leases. 
Description of Alternatives Chapter 2

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

2-11

TABLE 2-1 (continued) 

COMPARISON OF CONTRACT PROVISIONS 

CONSIDERED IN ALTERNATIVES 

Provision 

No Action Alternative 

Based on PEIS and Interim 

Contracts 

Alternative 1 

Based on April 2000 

Proposal 

Alternative 2 

Based on November 1999 

Proposal 

“M&I Water” Assumes rewording to 

provide water for irrigation 

of land in units less than or 

equal to 5 acres as M&I 

water unless Contracting 

Officer satisfied use is 

irrigation. 

M&I water described for 

irrigation of land in units less 

than or equal to 2 acres. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Terms of Contract – 

Right to Use Contract 

Assumes that contracts may 

be renewed. 

States that contract shall be 

renewed. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Assumes convertibility of 

contract to a 9(d) contract 

same as existing contracts. 

Includes conditions that are 

related to negotiations of the 

terms and costs associated 

with conversion to a 9(d) 

contract. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Water to be Made 

Available and 

Delivered to the 

Contractor 

Assumes water availability 

in any with existing 

conditions. 

Similar to No Action 

Alternative. 

Actual water availability 

in a year is unaffected by 

Categories 1 and 2. 

Assumes compliance with 

Biological Opinions and 

other environmental 

documents for contracting. 

Not included. Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Water to be Made 

Available and 

Delivered to the 

Contractor 

(continued) Assumes that current 

operating policies strive to 

minimize impacts to CVP 

water users. 

Assumes that CVP operations 

will be conducted in a manner 

to minimize shortages and 

studies to increase yield shall 

be completed with necessary 

authorizations. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Time for Delivery of 

Water 

Assumes methods for 

determining timing of 

deliveries as in existing 

contracts. 

Assumes minor changes 

related to timing of submittal 

of schedule. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Point of Diversion 

and Responsibility for 

Distribution of Water 

Assumes methods for 

determining point of 

diversion as in existing 

contracts. 

Assumes minor changes 

related to reporting. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Measurement of 

Water Within District 

Assumes measurement for 

each turnout or connection 

for facilities that are used to 

deliver CVP water as well 

as other water supplies. 

Assumes measurement at 

delivery points. 

Assumes similar actions 

in No Action Alternative 

but applies to all water 

supplies. 
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives 

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

2-12

TABLE 2-1 (continued) 

COMPARISON OF CONTRACT PROVISIONS 

CONSIDERED IN ALTERNATIVES 

Provision 

No Action Alternative 

Based on PEIS and Interim 

Contracts 

Alternative 1 

Based on April 2000 

Proposal 

Alternative 2 

Based on November 1999 

Proposal 

Rates and Method of 

Payment for Water 

Assumes Tiered Pricing is 

total water quantity. 

Assumes advanced 

payment for rates for 2 

months. 

Assumes Tiered Pricing is 

total water quantity. 

Assumes advanced payment 

for rates for 1 month. 

Assumes Tiered Pricing 

is total water quantity. 

Assumes advanced 

payment for rates for 6 

months. 

Non-interest Bearing 

Operation and 

Maintenance Deficits 

Assumes language from 

existing contracts. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Sales, Transfers, or 

Exchanges of Water 

Assumes continuation of 

transfers with the rate for 

transferred water being the 

higher of the sellers or 

purchasers CVP cost of 

service rate. 

Assumes continuation of 

transfers with the rate for 

transferred water being the 

purchasers CVP cost of 

service rate. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Application of 

Payments and 

Adjustments 

Assumes payments will be 

applied as in existing 

contracts. 

Assumes minor changes 

associated with methods 

described for overpayment. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Temporary 

Reduction Return 

Flows 

Assumes that current 

operating policies strive to 

minimize impacts to CVP 

water users. 

Assumes minor changes 

associated with methods 

described for discontinuance 

or reduction of payment 

obligations. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Constraints on 

Availability of 

Project Water 

Assumes that current 

operating policies strive to 

minimize impacts to CVP 

water users. 

Assumes Contractors do not 

consent to future 

Congressional enactments 

which may impact. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Unavoidable 

Groundwater 

Percolation 

Assumes that some of 

applied CVP water will 

percolate to groundwater. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Rules and 

Regulations 

Assumes that CVP will 

operate in accordance with 

then existing rules. 

Assumes minor changes with 

right to non-concur with 

future enactments retained by 

Contractors. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Water and Air 

Pollution Control 

Assumes that CVP will 

operate in accordance with 

then existing rules. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Quality of Water Assumes that CVP will 

operate in accordance with 

existing rules without 

obligation to operate 

towards water quality 

goals. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 
Description of Alternatives Chapter 2

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

2-13

TABLE 2-1 (continued) 

COMPARISON OF CONTRACT PROVISIONS 

CONSIDERED IN ALTERNATIVES 

Provision 

No Action Alternative 

Based on PEIS and Interim 

Contracts 

Alternative 1 

Based on April 2000 

Proposal 

Alternative 2 

Based on November 1999 

Proposal 

Water Acquired by 

the Contractor Other 

than from the United 

States 

Assumes that CVP will 

operate in accordance with 

existing rules. 

Assumes changes associated 

with payment following 

repayment of funds. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Opinions and 

Determinations 

PEIS recognizes that CVP 

will be operated in 

accordance with existing 

rules. 

Assumes minor changes with 

respect to references to the 

right to seek relief. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Coordination and 

Cooperation 

Not included. Assumes that coordination 

and cooperation between 

CVP operations and users 

should be implemented and 

CVP users should participate 

in CVP operational decisions. 

Not included. 

Charges for 

Delinquent Payments 

Assumes that CVP will 

operate in accordance with 

existing rules. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Equal Opportunity Assumes that CVP will 

operate in accordance with 

existing rules. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

General Obligation Assumes that CVP will 

operate in accordance with 

existing rules. 

Similar to No Action 

Alternative. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Compliance with 

Civil Rights Laws 

and Regulations 

Assumes that CVP will 

operate in accordance with 

existing rules. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Privacy Act 

Compliance 

Assumes that CVP will 

operate in accordance with 

existing rules. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Contractor to Pay 

Certain 

Miscellaneous Costs 

Assumes that CVP will 

operate in accordance with 

existing rules. 

Similar to No Action 

Alternative. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Water Conservation Assumes compliance with 

conservation programs 

established by Reclamation 

and the state. 

Assumes conditions similar to 

No Action Alternative with 

the ability to use state 

standards which may or may 

not be identical to 

Reclamation's requirements. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Existing or Acquired 

Water or Water 

Rights 

Assumes that CVP will 

operate in accordance with 

existing rules. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 
Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives 

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

2-14

TABLE 2-1 (continued) 

COMPARISON OF CONTRACT PROVISIONS 

CONSIDERED IN ALTERNATIVES 

Provision 

No Action Alternative 

Based on PEIS and Interim 

Contracts 

Alternative 1 

Based on April 2000 

Proposal 

Alternative 2 

Based on November 1999 

Proposal 

Operation and 

Maintenance by Nonfederal Entity 

Assumes that CVP will 

operate in accordance with 

existing rules with no 

additional changes to 

operation responsibilities. 

Assumes minor changes to 

language that would allow 

subsequent modification of 

operational responsibilities. 

Assumes minor changes 

to language that would 

allow subsequent 

modification of 

operational 

responsibilities. 

Contingent on 

Appropriation or 

Allotment of Funds 

Assumes that CVP will 

operate in accordance with 

existing rules. 

Assumes minor changes to 

language. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Books, Records, and 

Reports 

Assumes that CVP will 

operate in accordance with 

existing rules. 

Assumes changes for record 

keeping for both CVP 

operations and CVP users. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Assignment Limited Assumes that CVP will 

operate in accordance with 

existing rules. 

Assumes changes to facilitate 

assignments. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Severability Assumes that CVP will 

operate in accordance with 

existing rules. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Resolution of 

Disputes 

Not included. Assumes a Dispute 

Resolution Process. 

Not included. 

Officials Not to 

Benefit 

Assumes that CVP will 

operate in accordance with 

existing rules. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Changes in 

Contractor's Service 

Area 

Assumes no change in CVP 

water service areas absent 

Contracting Officer 

consent. 

Assumes changes to limit 

rationale used for nonconsent and sets time limit for 

assumed consent. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Notices Assumes that CVP will 

operate in accordance with 

existing rules. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Confirmation of 

Contract 

Assumes Court 

confirmation of contract. 

Not included. Assumption is 

that Court confirmation not 

required. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative. 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

2-15

TABLE 2-2 

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Resource Description of Impact 

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Land Use The proposed long-term water service contract renewal (proposed action) does not include the dev

physical facilities and structures and therefore would not have a direct effect on land use. Indirect could occur due to growth accommodated by the continued provision of water. The No Action Alwith Contra Costa County General Plan Policy 7-17, which directs the County to encourage water develop supplies and facilities to meet future water needs based on the growth policies contained icities’ general plans. For M&I water costs in the average hydrologic condition, CCWD would pay an estimated $8.2 mithe 155,700 acre-feet of CVP M&I water that would be made available to its customers and (b) an 

acre-feet of supplies from alternative water sources it would need to address demand not met by C

Socioeconomics 

The projected cost of CCWD M&I water in a dry year would be about $20 million. 

Biological Resources No new structures or physical changes to the environment would result from long-term contract re

direct effects on biological resources are expected. Indirect impacts to biological resources would result from the planned growth analyzed in the Cou

general plans. Indirect effects related to the secondary effects of growth within CCWD’s service a

the FWSI EIR. The FWSI EIR found that the continued provision of water would result in indirecland and agricultural habitats, special-status communities, and special-status plant and animal spec

were mitigated through the biological opinion developed in consultation with the Service. 

Cultural Resources Although the proposed contract renewal would not directly result in any construction activities, im

the secondary or indirect impacts of growth resulting from construction and development are expeimpacts are analyzed in the County General Plan EIR. No indirect impacts beyond those anticipatGeneral Plan EIR would occur from issuing the long-term contract. The secondary impacts resultiin currently non-urban areas could affect both known and undiscovered archaeological resources, e

high sensitivity. Areas specifically identified in the County General Plan EIR that are in the CCW

include the Bethel Island region and Alhambra Road west of Martinez. 

ALTERNATIVE 1 

Land Use There would be no impacts in addition to those identified for the No Action Alternative. Socioeconomics CCWD’s cost of M&I water would be similar to the No Action Alternative. No incremental impa

No change in land use or associated value of crop production is anticipated. 
February 2005 CCWD 

2-16

TABLE 2-2 

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Resource Description of Impact 

There would be no impacts on the regional economy. 

Biological Resources There would be no impacts in addition to those identified for the No Action Alternative. Cultural Resources There would be no impacts in addition to those identified for the No Action Alternative. 

ALTERNATIVE 2 

Land Use There would be no impacts in addition to those identified for the No Action Alternative. 

A minimum 30 percent increase in CCWD costs relative to the No Action Alternative would resulwater would increase by about: 

• $1.3 million in an average hydrologic year following 5 years of average hydrologic conditions• $1.5 million in an average hydrologic year following 5 years of dry hydrologic conditions, and • $1.2 million in an average hydrologic year following 5 years of wet hydrologic conditions. 

CCWD’s recent average residential water bill would increase by less than 1 percent. 

In a dry year, CCWD’s cost of M&I water would increase by about 5 percent over the cost under tAlternative in a dry year. There would be an incremental decrease in total industrial output in the County estimated between million, depending on hydrologic conditions. This is a decrease of less than approximately 0.01 poutput. There would be an incremental decrease in total employment in the County estimated between 22 equivalent jobs, depending on hydrologic conditions. This is a decrease of less than approximately 

County’s employment base under the No Action Alternative. 

Socioeconomics 

The projected incremental decrease in Total Income Place of Work (POW) in the County is estima$0.94 million and $1.16 million, depending on hydrologic conditions. This is a decrease of less th0.01 percent in the County’s Total Income POW compared to estimated No Action conditions. 

Biological Resources There would be no impacts in addition to those identified for the No Action Alternative. Cultural Resources There would be no impacts in addition to those identified for the No Action Alternative. 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

3-1 

CHAPTER 3 

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL 

DOCUMENTATION 

INTRODUCTION 

Reclamation and CCWD have undertaken a number of environmental studies to evaluate the 

environmental impacts associated with continued provision of CVP water to CCWD. The CVPIA 

PEIS, prepared by Reclamation and the Service, evaluated the regional environmental effects of 

implementing the CVPIA provisions at a programmatic level. The Future Water Supply 

Implementation Environmental Impact Report (FWSI EIR), prepared by CCWD, evaluated at a 

programmatic level the environmental effects of implementing water system improvements to 

facilitate projected increased water demand in Contra Costa County. The Multi-Purpose Pipeline 

Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (MPP EIR/EIS), prepared 

by CCWD, evaluated the project-specific impacts of constructing a water supply pipeline adjacent 

to the Contra Costa Canal. The CCWD environmental documents were developed to be consistent 

with the Contra Costa County General Plan Environmental Impact Report (County General Plan 

EIR), but because they were published more recently, their analyses also included impacts related to 

growth planned and approved since publication of the County General Plan EIR. These documents 

are incorporated by reference into this EA. 

The PEIS and FWSI EIR are particularly relevant to this EA because they evaluate programmatic 

and project-level impacts associated with the continued provision of CVP water to CCWD, and 

therefore provide the programmatic context for consideration of the more specific impacts 

associated with the proposed CVP long-term water service contract renewals. The project-specific 

analysis of impacts potentially occurring adjacent to the Contra Costa Canal provided in the MPP 

EIR/EIS sufficiently evaluates localized indirect impacts that could occur with the continued 

provision of CVP water to CCWD. The following discussion summarizes these environmental 

studies and identifies their relevance to this EA. 

CVPIA PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

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

Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575), which included Title XXXIV, the Central Valley 

Project Improvement Act. The CVPIA amended the previous authorizations of the CVP to include 

fish and wildlife protection, restoration, and mitigation as project purposes having equal priority to 

irrigation and domestic uses and fish and wildlife enhancement as a project purpose equal to power 

generation. Through the CVPIA, Reclamation is developing policies and programs to improve 

environmental conditions that were affected by the operations, management, and physical facilities 

of the CVP. The CVPIA also includes tools to facilitate larger efforts in California to improve 

environmental conditions in the Central Valley and the San Francisco Bay–Sacramento-San Joaquin 

Delta system. The PEIS addressed the potential impacts and benefits of implementing provisions of 

the CVPIA. 
February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

3-2 

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

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

developed to allow subsequent environmental documents to incorporate the PEIS analysis by 

reference, thereby limiting the need to re-evaluate the region-wide and cumulative impacts of 

CVPIA. In some cases, worst-case assumptions were used to maximize the utility of the analysis 

for tiering from the PEIS. 

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

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

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

not require additional mitigation measures, the actions could be considered a part of the overall 

program approved in the PEIS ROD. In this case, an administrative decision could be made that no 

further environmental documentation would be necessary. If it is determined that a document can 

be tiered to the PEIS, that document may be an EIS or an EA. In this instance, “tiering” means that 

the EIS or the EA can use the PEIS by reference to avoid duplication, thereby focusing more 

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

from the alternatives and their effects considered in the PEIS would be addressed in detail in the 

tiered documents. 

Localized Impacts of the PEIS Preferred Alternative 

The primary impact to CVP water service contractors of the PEIS Preferred Alternative was not 

from contract provisions, but rather from the implementation of CVPIA. The re-allocation of CVP 

water for fish and wildlife purposes under CVPIA reduced average annual CVP water deliveries to 

water service contractors from 2,270,000 acre-feet per year under the PEIS No Action Alternative 

to 1,933,000 acre-feet per year under all the PEIS alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative. 

The reduction occurred differently for various classifications of users, as summarized below. 

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

the Contra Costa Canal service area decreased by 12 percent from pre-CVPIA affected 

environment conditions. 

• Average annual CVP water deliveries for municipal water service contractors located in the 

Contra Costa Canal service area decreased by 4 percent from pre-CVPIA affected 

environment conditions. 

FUTURE WATER SUPPLY IMPLEMENTATION EIR 

The FWSI EIR adequately evaluated on a programmatic level the direct impacts to the SacramentoSan Joaquin Delta and the secondary or indirect impacts associated with growth in Contra Costa 

County as a result of the availability of additional water supplies by the District. CCWD’s water 

demand estimates were based on the demands previously planned for by local and regional planning 

agencies. The FWSI EIR proposed three actions to provide reliability and operational flexibility 

during droughts: renegotiating the CVP Amendatory Contract (175r-3401); implementing an 

expanded District-wide conservation program; and completion of two or more water transfers. The 

FWSI EIR responded to mitigation measures outlined in the County General Plan EIR, including 

the directive to develop supplies and facilities to meet future water needs based on the growth 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

3-3 

policies contained in the County and cities’ general plans (Policy 7-17 of the County General Plan). 

 The FWSI EIR found that the implementation of the FWSI would not directly cause growth to 

occur, but would instead accommodate the growth already planned for in local jurisdictions’ 

general plans and the County General Plan. The FWSI EIR incorporated the County General Plan 

EIR impact analysis and mitigation measures where appropriate. It expanded the evaluation of 

terrestrial resources and found that County mitigation and policies governing the permitting of 

property, in addition to state and federal protections, would be sufficient to reduce the impacts to 

terrestrial resources to a less-than-significant level. 

The environmental resources addressed in the FWSI EIR included population and housing, land use 

and planning, agriculture, Delta hydrodynamics, Delta water quality, aquatic resources, terrestrial 

biological resources, public services and utilities, traffic, air quality, noise, cultural resources, 

aesthetics, and recreation. Potential impacts were related to the ability of the project to 

accommodate growth or remove an impediment to growth. Potential significant impacts resulting 

from projected buildout in Contra Costa County were identified for population and housing, land 

use and planning, agriculture, terrestrial biological resources, public services and utilities, traffic, 

air quality, noise, and cultural resources. In contrast to the County General Plan EIR, which 

identified impacts to natural open spaces as significant and unavoidable, the FWSI EIR noted that 

approximately 40,000 acres of open space have been added to the County inventory since 

certification of that document. Acquisition of additional acreage was the result of a voter-approved 

bond measure and CCWD’s construction of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir and purchase of its 

watershed lands. 

Indirect effects to the majority of these resources were related to the secondary effects of growth 

within CCWD’s service area accommodated by the availability of additional water supplies. 

Further analyses of these effects is not required in this EA because they were adequately addressed 

in the FWSI EIR. The FWSI EIR and CCWD’s adopted findings found that impacts to population, 

jobs, housing, terrestrial biological resources, noise, public services, and utilities as a result of 

growth could be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. It was concluded in the FWSI EIR and 

CCWD’s adopted findings that all growth-related impacts to cultural resources would be prevented 

or mitigated to less-than significant-levels through the proper implementation of existing national, 

state, County, and local policies, including County policies 9-11 through 9-26. CCWD adopted a 

statement of overriding considerations for potential agricultural, air quality, and traffic impacts 

related to growth (February 3, 1999). The FWSI EIR did not evaluate the socioeconomic impacts 

related to the continued water allocation and modified pricing strategy proposed as part of the CVP 

long-term water service contract renewals. 

MULTI-PURPOSE PIPELINE PROJECT EIR/EIS 

The MPP EIR/EIS evaluated the direct and indirect impacts of constructing a water transport 

pipeline to increase the reliability of the Contra Costa County water supply system and allow for 

increased demand. The MPP project included construction and operation of two new subsurface 

pipelines and pump stations, along with other improvements to the existing Contra Costa Canal. A 

pipeline alignment that would parallel the Contra Costa Canal was identified as the preferred 

alternative in the EIR/EIS. The EIR/EIS found that most project impacts would be temporary 

impacts resulting from construction activities and that the impacts would be less than significant 
February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

3-4 

with mitigation. The EIR/EIS further concluded that implementation of the MPP Project would 

support additional growth within the communities served by CCWD, in accordance with the 

approved local land use plans of the cities and the County. The MPP project would not support 

growth beyond planned levels or in areas not planned for development by the appropriate land use 

agencies. Because implementation of the MPP project would support planned growth, it was found 

to have indirect, secondary effects that were potentially significant, consistent with the FSWI EIR 

and County General Plan EIR. 

The key issues evaluated in the MPP EIR/EIS included water demand/capacity, secondary effects of 

growth, cumulative effects, hazardous contamination, traffic, encroachment, air quality, noise, parks 

and recreation, environmental justice, biology, hydrology, and water quality. Potentially significant 

construction-related impacts from the canal alignment were identified for land use, recreation, 

transportation, air quality, surface water resources, groundwater resources, geology, seismicity and 

soils, vegetation and wildlife, cultural resources, hazardous materials, and public services and 

utilities. Identified mitigation measures reduced all these impacts to less-than-significant levels. 

Impacts from construction activities to these resources along the Contra Costa Canal were 

adequately addressed in the MPP EIR/EIS, and no further analysis in this EA is required. 

FOCUS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

The analysis in this EA has been focused on land use, socioeconomics, biological resources, and 

cultural resources, based on the extensive and adequate analysis of other environmental resources 

performed in previous documents. The contract renewal action was first evaluated in the CVPIA 

PEIS, which assumed that all existing water contracts would be renewed. The FWSI EIR evaluated 

impacts from projected water demands to the year 2040. The MPP EIR/EIS evaluated impacts of a 

proposed pipeline adjacent to the Contra Costa Canal to convey and deliver water supplies. The 

proposed long-term water service contract renewal is related to these projects because it would 

continue delivery of up to 195,000 acre-feet per year of CVP water to CCWD. The direct and 

indirect impacts of providing water to CCWD have been adequately evaluated in the previous 

environmental documents, which are incorporated by reference into this EA. 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

4-1 

CHAPTER 4 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter includes a description of the environment encompassed by the CCWD service area that 

could be affected by the proposed long-term water service contract renewal. It describes the 

existing regional and sub-regional conditions; environmental goals and policies to be considered in 

relation to the proposed contract renewal action; the direct and indirect environmental consequences 

of each of the alternatives; and cumulative effects. The description of the environment includes an 

overview of the CCWD service area, facilities, and operations. 

Resources evaluated in detail in this EA include land use, socioeconomics, biological resources, and 

cultural resources, and Indian trust assets. The land use discussion provides a context in which the 

proposed action can be understood. It summarizes the prevalent land uses and describes Countywide growth management programs. (Growth-inducing impacts as an indirect effect of the 

proposed action are discussed in Chapter 5, “Other Impacts.”) Socioeconomic resources are 

evaluated because of the potential impacts resulting from the revised pricing structure included as 

part of the proposed action. Because of the project-specific nature of socioeconomic resources, 

they were identified in the CVPIA PEIS as the single resource area that would require future 

evaluation. Biological resources are evaluated to integrate on-going consultations among 

Reclamation, CCWD, and the Service. These consultations included the Biological Assessment for 

the proposed long-term water service contract for the Contra Costa Water District (Reclamation 

2004), and the Biological Opinion, issued by the Service in April 2000, which establishes the 

responsibilities of CCWD regarding sensitive biological resources for future CCWD water supply 

projects. Cultural resources are included in this EA to disclose the federal requirements specific to 

the proposed action, and the role of Reclamation in complying with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. 

CONTRACT SERVICE AREA DESCRIPTION 

The CCWD contract service area (112,922 acres) is composed of Central and East Contra Costa 

County. Contra Costa County has been one of the fastest growing counties in the San Francisco 

Bay Area, due in large part to the availability of housing that is generally more affordable than in 

the majority of the surrounding region. Contra Costa County encompasses over 470,000 acres, 

much of which will approach buildout within the next 15 to 20 years. As the County has undergone 

a transition from rural to increased urban land uses, urbanized development has moved from the 

central part of the county to the east and into the CCWD service area. 

Early growth in the Central County occurred in Martinez along the San Joaquin River, with 

subsequent suburban growth reflecting the outfall from San Francisco. Over the last two decades, 

employment centers have developed within the Central County. The majority of the Central County 

has been urbanized, and future development will generally be limited to in-fill of the few vacant 

parcels remaining and redevelopment along major transportation corridors. Many of the cities in 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

4-2

this region are now reaching planned buildout. Interstate 680 provides a major north-south 

transportation and commercial corridor through the region. 

The East County includes Antioch, Bay Point, Pittsburg, and Oakley. Antioch is projected to add 

the highest number of households of any area within the County by the year 2010; Bay Point and 

Pittsburg are projected to add the second highest (Association of Bay Area Governments 1997). The 

majority of recent growth has occurred in open space and ranch land previously used for grazing. 

State Highway 4 provides a major east-west transportation corridor through the region. East 

County also includes much of the hilly terrain of the Diablo Range. 

CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 

CCWD was formed in 1936 under the authority of the State Water Code and is the primary supplier 

of water to users in central and eastern Contra Costa County. Originally formed to provide water 

for irrigation and industry, CCWD now serves primarily M&I users. The service area is 

approximately 137,127 acres. The CCWD receives up to 195,000 acre-feet of CVP water and also 

receives water from other sources; in dry years, however, virtually 100 percent of its water comes 

from the CVP. CCWD obtains raw (untreated) water primarily from Reclamation’s Contra Costa 

Canal, a CVP facility. The canal was built by Reclamation in 1948 and is operated by CCWD. 

In 2003, CCWD served approximately 450,000 people (both untreated and treated water supplies) 

(CCWD, Annual Report, 2003a). The untreated water is supplied to about 220,000 people through 

other water retailers, including the cities of Antioch, Martinez, and Pittsburg; the Southern 

California Water Company (for Bay Point); and Diablo Water District (Oakley). In addition, raw 

water is served to more than 50 industries and major businesses, agricultural users, and landscape 

irrigators. The treated water is supplied to about 230,000 people in the communities of Clayton, 

Clyde, Concord, Pacheco, Port Costa, portions of Pleasant Hill, Martinez, Walnut Creek, and other 

unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. Figure 1-1 shows the CCWD federal contract service 

areas and other non-federal services areas within the CCWD. 

Contra Costa Water District Supplies and Facilities 

The CCWD operates raw water distribution and pumping facilities, reservoirs, water treatment 

plants, and treated water distribution facilities (Figure 1-2). CCWD’s raw water comes from the 

San Francisco Bay–Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta). The backbone of CCWD’s raw water 

conveyance system is the 48-mile long Contra Costa Canal. Four pumping plants, within the first 7 

miles of the canal lift water 124 feet to flow the remaining length of the canal by gravity. 

Additional raw water facilities operated by the CCWD include the Los Vaqueros facilities (100,000 

acre-foot reservoir and associated conveyance and pumping facilities) and the Mallard Slough 

Pump Station and pipeline. CCWD operates four reservoirs, Martinez, Contra Loma, Mallard and 

Los Vaqueros, and two water treatment plants, the Bollman water treatment plant and the RandallBold water treatment plant. The Randall-Bold plant is jointly owned by CCWD and Diablo Water 

District. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

4-3

In 1998, CCWD completed construction of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir, which allows for 

additional water quality control for water supplied by the Contra Costa Canal. In 2003, CCWD 

completed the 21-mile Multi-Purpose Pipeline project, a non-CVP project. 

CCWD is almost entirely dependent on the Delta for its water supply. The Contra Costa Canal and 

the Los Vaqueros project make up CCWD’s principal water supply and delivery system. CCWD 

diverts unregulated flows and regulated flows from storage releases from Shasta, Folsom, and Clair 

Engle reservoirs into the Sacramento River as a contractor to Reclamation’s CVP. Under the 1994 

Amendatory Contract (Water Service Contract 175r-3401 [amended]) with Reclamation, CCWD 

can divert and re-divert up to 195,000 acre-feet per year of water from Rock Slough and the new 

Old River intake for M&I and agricultural uses. CCWD also can divert up to 26,780 acre-feet per 

year of water from Mallard Slough under its own water rights (Water Rights License No. 317 and 

Permit No. 19856). The city of Antioch and several industrial customers of CCWD have water 

rights permits to divert water from the Delta. 

The Los Vaqueros Reservoir and related facilities provide the CCWD with the ability to store up to 

100,000 acre-feet of water. The primary purposes of the Los Vaqueros project are to improve the 

quality of water supplied to CCWD customers, to minimize seasonal quality changes, and to 

improve the reliability of the emergency water supply available to CCWD. The Los Vaqueros 

Reservoir site is located approximately 8 miles south of Brentwood in southeastern Contra Costa 

County. Water to fill the reservoir comes from the southern Delta by means of a new pump station 

on Old River near Highway 4. The Old River pump station can be used for direct diversions and to 

fill the reservoir. The filling of the reservoir began in February 1998. 

On June 2, 1994, the State Board issued Decision 1629, giving CCWD additional rights to divert 

and store water for beneficial uses. The State Board subsequently issued Water Rights Permits No. 

20749 and 20750 for filling Los Vaqueros Reservoir from the new intake at Old River and diversion 

and storage of the water of Kellogg Creek (up to 9,640 acre-feet per year). These rights are in 

addition to the contractual rights to divert and store water furnished through the CVP. Up to 95,850 

acre-feet per year may be diverted for storage between November 1 of each year and June 30 of the 

succeeding year under Water Rights Permit No. 20749. 

CCWD Federal Contract (CVP) Service Area 

Under the CVP, CCWD federal contract water is provided to approximately 112,922 acres (CCWD 

2004). CCWD’s total service area is approximately 137,127 acres (CCWD 2003a). Water is 

pumped into the canal from Rock Slough east of Oakley and from Old River east of Discovery Bay. 

Water from Old River may be pumped to either the Los Vaqueros Reservoir or the Contra Costa 

Canal near Pumping Plant 4. Water can also be released by gravity to the Contra Costa Canal from 

the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. Water from Rock Slough is pumped for the first 7 miles of the canal 

and then flows by gravity approximately 40 miles to Martinez Reservoir. Martinez Reservoir, 

owned by Reclamation, is the terminal reservoir for the Canal. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

4-4

LAND USE AND PLANNING 

Affected Environment 

Existing Land Uses 

The County General Plan identifies three distinct geographic areas in the County: West County, 

Central County, and East County. The East County region, encompassing the largest land area, is 

further divided into the subareas of Pittsburg-Antioch and Other East County. The Contra Costa 

Canal is located in the Central and East County regions defined in the County General Plan. 

Central County and East County are composed of both urban and suburban land uses. The urban 

areas consist of single-family and multiple-family residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The 

suburban areas consist of scattered developed and undeveloped properties and open space and 

recreational uses. Figure 4-1 illustrates general land uses in Contra Costa County. 

Plans and Agreements 

Contra Costa County and the cities served by the CCWD have general plans and other planning 

vehicles with planning horizons through the year 2000 and beyond. These plans contain goals, 

policies, and implementation measures that, together with land use designations and zoning codes, 

are designed to guide land use and resource planning and development to the planning horizon. The 

County General Plan provides tools to control the pace of growth within the County and policies 

protecting agricultural land and mineral resources, vegetation and wildlife habitats, natural 

pathways, and visual, cultural, and wind resources. More specific discussions of these goals and 

policies can be found in the County General Plan EIR, FWSI EIR, and MPP EIR/EIS, which are 

incorporated by reference into this EA. Sections 53091 and 53096 of the California Government 

Code exempt public water supply facilities from regulation under local zoning ordinances. Contra 

Costa County also provides specific growth-management programs in its General Plan Growth 

Management Element. 

Contra Costa County General Plan Growth Management Element 

The Growth Management Element of the County General Plan provides three major tools to control 

the current pace of growth within the County: the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard; the Urban 

Limit Line; and the Growth Management Program. 

The 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. In 1990, the County Board of Supervisors developed 

legislation, passed into law through a voter initiative, that established the 65/35 Contra Costa 

County Land Preservation Standard. This standard limits urban development in the County to not 

more than 35 percent of the County’s total land area and preserves the remaining 65 percent for 

non-urban uses. These non-urban uses include agriculture, wetlands, open space, and parks. The 

legislation also developed the Urban Limit Line, described below, as a method for implementing the 

standard. 
Honker Bay Suisun Bay

Sacramento River

Bethel Island 

Clifton

Court

Forebay

San Joaquin

River

Franks Track

King Edward Island

Rock Slough Intake

780

680

680

680

4

4

4

4

242

160

3 0 3 Miles

Source: FWSI EIR, 1998; EDAW, 1997

Residential, Commercial, Industrial and 

Other Developed Lands

Agriculture

Open Space

Contra Costa Canal

Urban Limit Line

CCWD Federal Contract Service Area Boundary

CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT

Project Area Land Use

 Figure 4-1 

 Project Area Generalized Land Use 

Additional CCWD Service Area Boundary

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LINE

ALAMEDA COUNTY LINE

BENICIA

MARTINEZ

PACHECO

PLEASANT HILL

CLYDE BAY POINT

PORT

COSTA

ANTIOCH

PITTSBURG

OAKLEY

BRENTWOOD

DISCOVERY BAY

CONCORD

CLAYTON

WALNUT CREEK LAFAYETTE
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

4-6

Page left intentionally blank. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

4-7

The Urban Limit Line. The County’s Urban Limit Line generally defines the boundaries where new 

development can occur through the life of the County General Plan (see Figure 4-1). The Urban 

Limit Line is the demarcation of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard and limits growth beyond 

those boundaries. 

Growth Management Program. The Growth Management Program uses performance standards to 

verify that services and infrastructure can be provided by developers or are already in place to gain 

project approvals. Growth management standards include performance standards for traffic levels 

of service, park land acreage, and drainage and flood management. 

Reclamation, CCWD, and East Bay Regional Park District Management Agreement 

Reclamation, CCWD, and the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) entered into a management 

agreement in 1975 concerning the development, administration, operation, and maintenance of 

recreation uses of the Contra Costa Canal. This agreement (Contract No. 14-06-200-7803A, as 

amended) states that the primary use of the Contra Costa Canal right-of-way (ROW) is for 

transporting and distributing the public water supply, transmitting electric power, and 

accomplishing other purposes of the CVP. All other uses, including recreational uses, are 

secondary, and the CCWD can temporarily suspend EBRPD’s license to use the ROW whenever 

necessary for public safety, national security, or the operation and maintenance of the Contra Costa 

Canal system. 

The agreement designates responsibility for facility maintenance and operation. Recreational 

facilities on the Contra Costa Canal are operated and maintained by EBRPD with no cost to 

CCWD. CCWD maintains the Canal service roads but splits the cost with EBRPD, depending on its 

share of the wear-and-tear on the service roads. If CCWD finds it necessary to modify EBRPD 

facilities, the contract requires that CCWD consult with EBRPD and consider means to minimize 

adverse effects on EBRPD-maintained trails. If, after such consideration, the CCWD still finds it 

necessary to remove or damage EBRPD facilities, then CCWD will repair, replace, or relocate such 

facilities to their former condition, function, and use, or will pay EBRPD the depreciated value of 

the affected facilities. 

Contra Costa Water District Code of Regulations Enforcement 

Under CCWD’s Code of Regulations, Section 5.04.120, proponents of an annexation or applicants 

for water service to newly annexed lands are required to provide all necessary environmental 

documentation and approvals by the appropriate regulatory agencies, including the Service, before 

CVP water can be provided. CCWD will continue to enforce Section 5.04.120 and will keep the 

Service informed of enforcement actions related to endangered species. 

Environmental Consequences 

No Action Alternative 

Because the proposed long-term water service contract renewal does not include the development of 

any physical facilities and structures, it would not have a direct effect on land use. Additionally, the 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

4-8

proposed contract renewal would not conflict with any adopted land use or conservation plan. 

Indirect effects to land use that could occur with growth accommodated by the continued provision 

of water have been adequately addressed in the FWSI EIR and MPP EIR/EIS, which incorporate the 

County General Plan EIR by reference. Renewal of the long-term water service contract under the 

No Action Alternative would aid in the implementation of the FWSI, which was specifically 

developed to respond to growth projected in the County General Plan and other local planning 

documents. The FWSI, and thus the long-term water service contract and the No Action 

Alternative, directly implement Contra Costa County General Plan Policy 7-17, which directs the 

County to encourage water service agencies to develop supplies and facilities to meet future water 

needs based on the growth policies contained in the County and cities’ general plans. 

The majority of future population and housing growth in Contra Costa County is planned for East 

County, especially within currently existing rural and agricultural land use areas, although some 

redevelopment is planned for pockets of currently developed cities. Land use development within 

Contra Costa County is largely governed by the County’s Growth Management Element and the 

Urban Limit Line. Together these programs are responsible for directing, controlling, and 

monitoring the location and extent of urban development within the County. The FWSI EIR and its 

adopted findings acknowledged that the intensification of land use and development in the vacant 

areas of Contra Costa County would reduce open space and alter existing land use patterns. It 

further noted, however, that development decisions are a function of local and regional planning 

agencies in the County. CCWD has no land use management authority. 

The County General Plan EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts to natural open spaces 

as a result of achieving buildout. Since the certification of the County General Plan EIR, however, 

approximately 40,000 acres of open space have been added to the County inventory. 

Approximately half of the acres were added as a result of implementing the 1988 voter-approved 

Bond Measure AA, and the other half were added as a result of CCWD’s construction of the Los 

Vaqueros Reservoir and purchase of the watershed. The County General Plan Growth Management 

Element also includes performance standards for park land acreage, which would discourage new 

development from being approved unless provisions for park land are accommodated. 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 is assumed to have effects to land use within Contra Costa County similar to those of 

the No Action Alternative. These effects to land use are largely governed by the County’s Growth 

Management Element and the Urban Limit Line. CCWD has no land use management authority. 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 is assumed to have effects to land use within Contra Costa County similar to those of 

the No Action Alternative. These effects to land use are largely governed by the County’s Growth 

Management Element and the Urban Limit Line. CCWD has no land use management authority. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Implementing the long-term water service contract under each of the alternatives would continue 

the delivery of CVP water to the CCWD service area at historic levels of up to 195,000 acre-feet, 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

4-9

resulting in no change to existing conditions for water users in the CCWD federal service area. The 

proposed action would not result in the construction of new facilities or the introduction of 

additional structures into the CCWD and Reclamation water supply system. Therefore, no physical 

change to the environment would result from renewal of the long-term water supply contract under 

any of the alternatives. The differences among the alternatives are contractual features, including 

water cost, definition of M&I users, and water measurement. None of the alternatives would 

change the water service amount, increase water system capacity, or introduce new facilities. 

Therefore, there would be no direct cumulative impacts to land use from the contract renewal 

action. 

Cumulative impacts associated with implementation of the CVPIA, which included long-term CVP 

water supply contract renewals, were adequately evaluated in the CVPIA PEIS, from which this EA 

is tiered. Because the differences between the alternatives are essentially contractual features, 

cumulative impacts associated with implementation of the CVPIA would be the same under the 

three alternatives evaluated in this EA. 

The cumulative impacts related to the planned growth envisioned by the cities’ and County land use 

planning documents in areas that would be served by CVP water through the Contra Costa Canal 

have been adequately analyzed in the County General Plan EIR, FWSI EIR, and MPP EIR/EIS. 

These documents found that the cumulative impacts associated with projected countywide growth 

would be offset by policies and mitigation measures in the general plans and project-level 

environmental documents. The County’s Growth Management Element discourages new 

development from being approved in unincorporated areas unless there is verification that 

performance standards can be met, or a funding mechanism has been established to meet the 

standards at the time of development. The enforcement and implementation of the growth 

management process is the responsibility of Contra Costa County and is supported through 

interjurisdictional coordination with the cities, Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the 

County Transportation Authority, and various service districts, including CCWD. 

SOCIOECONOMICS 

This socioeconomic analysis is composed of two technical components. The first component 

examines the M&I water that the CCWD would receive under proposed the long-term water service 

contract, focusing specifically on the potential impacts on water-related costs and demographics 

under Alternatives 1 and 2 compared to the No Action Alternative.1

 The second component 

evaluates the potential regional economic impacts of the changes to water cost and land use 

assessed in the first component of the analysis. To the extent possible, the technical areas 

addressed, methodological approaches employed, and temporal setting of the analysis tier directly 

from the CVPIA PEIS. 

 

1

 The CVPIA PEIS refers to M&I water as “urban” water. However, for the present analysis, since some of the water 

designated by Reclamation as M&I is used for agriculture but priced at M&I rates, CVP water is identified based on its 

designation for rate-setting purposes and end use. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

4-10

The potential socioeconomic impacts of the long-term water service contract renewal on 

commercial fishing and recreation were excluded from the analysis because CCWD’s CVP water 

supply and management would not be affected by Alternatives 1 and 2 compared to the No Action 

Alternative. 

The potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed contract renewal on agriculture were 

excluded from the analysis because of the proposed conversion of CCWD’s CVP agricultural water 

allocation (1,000 acre-feet) to M&I water and the rapid decline in agricultural activity in Contra 

Costa County. CCWD agricultural deliveries account for less than 1 percent of all annual deliveries, 

and these deliveries will be accommodated through non-CVP sources. Apples, wine grapes, 

peaches, strawberries, pecans, pistachios, and kiwi are the crops grown on the approximately 450 

acres served by CCWD. The quantity of water supplied by CCWD for agricultural purposes was 

approximately 200 acre-feet in 2003, down from over 2,000 acre-feet toward the end of the last 

decade (CCWD 2004). It is expected that the CCWD will no longer deliver water to agricultural 

users in the very near term as urbanization displaces the County’s agricultural lands. 

Affected Environment 

This section briefly characterizes the existing socioeconomic and water use conditions in the 

CCWD service area and Contra Costa County. Additional detail on existing conditions may be 

found in the County General Plan as well as the FWSI EIR. 

Municipal & Industrial Water Use and Cost 

In 2003, CCWD served an estimated population of 450,000 (CCWD 2004) and covered an area of 

137,127 acres (CCWD 2004). The CCWD depends almost entirely on CVP water, with less than 11 

percent of its water coming from other sources (CCWD 1999b). CCWD provides treated water to 

Clayton, Clyde, Concord, Pacheco, Port Costa, Pleasant Hill, parts of Martinez, Walnut Creek, and 

unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. Raw water is provided to Antioch, parts of Martinez, 

Pittsburg, Southern California Water Company (Bay Point), and Diablo Water District (Oakley) as 

well as more than 50 industries, agricultural customers, and various landscape irrigators (CCWD 

1999b). 

According to the County General Plan, the District's service area may be expanded to include 

Hotchkiss Tract, Veale Tract, Knightsen, Bethel Island, southern Oakley, and other unincorporated 

areas of East County. This expansion would increase the CCWD service area by 12,280 acres 

(CCWD 1999b). 

In 2003, CCWD recorded 60,036 connections in the treated water service area that used 36,822 

acre-feet per year of water. CCWD's M&I raw water sales included approximately 75 metered 

connections recording 74,900 acre-feet of deliveries. The total water delivered by CCWD, not 

including a 7 percent estimated raw water loss, was 112,400 acre-feet (CCWD 2004). 

Several of CCWD’s industrial customers and the City of Antioch hold water rights for water from 

the San Joaquin River. These supplies are not reliable because of the poor water quality that often 

exists in the San Joaquin River. In dry years, little or no water is available from this source, and 

these customers rely on CCWD and the CVP to meet their demands. In 2003, these customers 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

4-11

diverted approximately 9,000 acre-feet of water under their San Joaquin River water rights. 

CCWD’s main industrial water users, Tesoro Golden Eagle (formerly Tosco Oil), USS-Posco, Shell 

Oil, Gaylord Container, and DuPont, account for one-third of CCWD water use. CCWD deliveries 

to these customers averaged 38,790 acre-feet per year for the years 1984-1993 (CCWD 1999). 

Groundwater resources in the CCWD service area do not supply significant amounts of water. 

There are an undetermined number of wells throughout the CCWD service area owned by 

industries, private individuals, and public municipal water utilities. CCWD does not manage 

groundwater and does not have precise figures concerning how much water is pumped from these 

wells, but it estimates that the annual groundwater use within the CCWD service area is 3,000 acrefeet. 

Table 4-1 summarizes CCWD's 1994 and 2003 cost-of-service and full-cost rates for CVP M&I 

water. In 2003, the average annual residential water bill for CCWD’s service area totaled $590, and 

household use averaged 370 gallons per day (CCWD 2004). 

TABLE 4-1 

CCWD 1994 and 2003 PUBLISHED CVP COST-OF-SERVICE WATER RATES 

 Cost-of-Service Rate 

($ per acre-foot) 

Mid-Point Rate 

($ per acre-foot)a

Full-Cost Rate 

($ per acre-foot) 

1994 

M&I Rates $26.65b $29.92 $33.19c

2003 

M&I Rates $37.14 $39.49 $41.83 

Source: Bureau of Reclamation, CH2M Hill, and Dornbusch & Company

a. Calculated as the average of the cost-of-service and full-cost rate. 

b. As reported by CH2M Hill in the M&I economic analysis model in the CVPIA PEIS. 

c. In 1994, the Bureau did not estimate the full cost rate for CVP M&I water because full cost was not a factor in 

M&I rate setting at that time. 1997 was the first year that full-cost rates were published for CVP M&I water. 

Accordingly, the ratio of CCWD’s full-cost to cost-of-service rates for CVP M&I water in 1997 was used to 

estimate the 1994 full-cost rate. 

Regional Economy 

Contra Costa County is one of the fastest growing counties in the San Francisco Bay Area. The 

California Department of Finance projects the County’s population will increase to more than 1.26 

million by the year 2040, compared to 972,100 at the start of 2001. The estimated average annual 

unemployment rate for Contra Costa County in 2000 was 2.7 percent (EDD 2004). In 1999, the 

County ranked eighth out of the state’s 58 counties with respect to per-capita income (EDD 2004). 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

4-12

Table 4-2 summarizes 1991 industrial output, employment, and income by place-of-work (Income 

POW) for the County. California’s Employment Development Department (EDD) reported that the 

County’s unemployment rate in that year was 5 percent (EDD 2000). The table indicates that the 

largest sector of the County economy in terms of industrial output is manufacturing. However, the 

table also shows that the services sector is the County’s largest employer. (Data from 1991 rather 

than more current data are presented for the purposes of establishing an economic baseline that is 

temporally consistent with the economic baseline conditions presented in the CVPIA PEIS.) 

TABLE 4-2 

INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT, EMPLOYMENT, AND INCOME BY PLACE OF WORK 

(1991) 

Type of Work Output ($M) Employment (Jobs) Income POW ($M) 

Agriculture $278 5,245 $118 

Mining $3,204 3,100 $1,617 

Construction $3,238 31,958 $1,278 

Manufacturing $15,180 31,629 $4,188 

Transportation $3,398 25,150 $2,057 

Trade $3,327 81,585 $2,064 

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate $6,498 50,636 $4,328 

Services $5,578 113,006 $3,444 

Government $1,742 51,940 $1,626 

Total $42,443 394,249 $20,719 

Source: Minnesota IMPLAN Group 1991 

Assessment Methodologies 

Municipal and Industrial Water Costs 

The assessment of the potential incremental impacts of Alternatives 1 and 2 on the cost of M&I 

water compared to the No Action Alternative is based on M&I water demand models developed for 

the CVPIA PEIS. A detailed description of these models is presented in the Municipal Water Costs 

technical appendix of the PEIS (Reclamation and Service 1997). In summary, the PEIS M&I 

models are designed to estimate the potential impact on the cost of CVP M&I water resulting from 

anticipated CVPIA-associated changes in CVP water rates and water deliveries. Thus, the M&I 

water cost impacts presented in the PEIS derive from (1) the proposed introduction of 80/10/10 

tiered pricing, (2) a flat restoration charge applied to each acre-foot of delivered water, and (3) the 

anticipated cost incurred by individual CVP contractors to acquire alternative water supplies and 

implement conservation measures to mitigate for water delivery reductions resulting from CVPIAmandated in-stream and refuge flow set-asides. 

Consistent with the PEIS, the primary source of data used to model water demands, local supplies, 

and costs in evaluating socioeconomic and associated land use impacts from the long-term water 

service contract renewal were obtained from California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 

160-93. Estimates of future CVP deliveries with and without CVPIA were derived using the 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

4-13

PROSIM and SANJASM models. (See the PEIS technical appendices for a description of these 

hydrologic modeling tools.) 

The results of the analysis of the impacts on water cost in the CVPIA PEIS were aggregated into 

four regions, with the CCWD included in the San Francisco Bay Area Region. An implicit 

assumption of the PEIS M&I cost impact analysis was that both residential and 

commercial/industrial water users are extremely price inelastic within a fairly large range of prices 

for water (i.e., they will effectively not change their use of water in response to even fairly 

substantial changes in the price of water). Certainly, price does influence the choice of water 

supply. However, in the case of CCWD, the PEIS analysis concluded that reliable alternative (nonCVP) water supplies would cost an average of $340 per acre-foot, well above the effective CVP 

M&I water rates for any of the CCWD long-term water service contract renewal proposals under 

consideration. Accordingly, no incremental change in CCWD’s future demand for M&I water from 

the CVP is anticipated under either Alternatives 1 or 2 when compared to the No Action 

Alternative. 

Consistent with the CVPIA PEIS, the socioeconomic impact analysis for the CCWD long-term 

water service contract renewal focuses on both the long-run average and short-run drought 

hydrologic conditions, and associated CVP deliveries. Projected post-CVPIA delivery of CVP 

water to the CCWD for M&I uses was obtained from the PEIS M&I models prepared by CH2M 

Hill. 

The analysis of M&I cost under the Preferred Alternative in the CVPIA PEIS (the No Action 

Alternative in this EA) was conducted assuming 80/10/10 tiered pricing and 1994 CVP M&I rates 

for the CCWD (see Table 4-3). Alternative 1 would not alter the rate-setting scheme stipulated in 

the No Action Alternative and, therefore, would not have an actual incremental effect on CCWD’s 

CVP M&I water costs relative to the No Action Alternative. Alternative 2, however, would affect 

CCWD’s actual CVP M&I water costs. As Table 4-3 indicates, the M&I cost impact analysis for 

Alternative 2 was conducted assuming the adoption of 80/10/10 tiered pricing, Category 1/ 

Category 2 water designation, and the 2003 CCWD CVP M&I rates. 

The projected year 2044 M&I water cost impacts under Alternative 2 are presented as the increment 

above CCWD’s estimated cost of CVP M&I water under the No Action Alternative for both the 

long-run average and short-run dry hydrologic condition. These cost impacts are translated into 

percentage terms with respect to CCWD’s cost of CVP water and the associated approximate effect 

on average residential water bills within the CCWD. 

CVP M&I water rates under Alternatives 1 and 2 are not expected to have any impact on CCWD’s 

demand for CVP M&I water. In addition, the two alternatives do not differ from the No Action 

Alternative with respect to projected CVP water supply or reliability, although reliability may differ 

under the alternatives as compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the M&I water provisions in 

the alternatives are not anticipated to have an impact on demographics or land use. Accordingly, 

demographic and land use impacts are not addressed in the impact analysis for M&I water. The 

analysis examines only CCWD CVP water cost-related impacts. As in the CVPIA PEIS, it is 

assumed that any projected change in CCWD’s cost of CVP water would be passed directly on to 

CCWD’s customers. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

4-14

TABLE 4-3 

M&I WATER RATE SETTING 

COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES

 Rate Tiering Method Rate Calculation Method 

No Action Alternative 80/10/10 Current 

Alternative 1 80/10/10 

(same as No Action 

Alternative) 

Current 

(same as No Action Alternative) 

Alternative 2 Category 1/Category 2 

80/10/10 on 

Category 1 

Full Cost Rate on 

Category 2 

Revised to adjust capital and deficit 

repayment period to reflect 5-year rolling 

average deliveries 

Source: Personal communication, Buford Holt, Reclamation 

Regional Economics 

The assessment of regional economic impacts under Alternatives 1 and 2 uses the same data 

sources, models, and model assumptions used for the regional economic impact analysis in the 

CVPIA PEIS. A detailed description of these data sources, models, and model assumptions was 

presented in the Regional Economics technical appendix to the PEIS (Reclamation 1997). 

In summary, the PEIS regional economic impact model was designed to estimate the impacts on 

regional employment, output, and income that would result from anticipated changes in M&I, 

agricultural, and recreational water use and cost resulting from CVPIA implementation. For the 

assessment in the PEIS, the CVP project area was aggregated into seven sub-regions. CCWD is 

included in the San Francisco Bay Area Region. 

The input-output model Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) was the primary tool used to 

quantify the potential regional economic impacts of CVPIA implementation in the PEIS and, 

accordingly, to assess the regional economic impacts of CCWD’s long-term water service contract 

renewal. A detailed description of the IMPLAN model is provided in the IMPLAN Model technical 

appendix to the PEIS (Reclamation 1997). Briefly, IMPLAN is used to quantify impacts from 

changes in policy and resource allocation. The model provides estimates of the total (or multiplied) 

economic effects that would result from an initial stimulus to an industrial sector (e.g., construction, 

transportation, utilities). As in the current case, the stimulus might be a reduction in consumer 

spending in the retail sector resulting from escalation of household water bills. 

IMPLAN is extremely useful for characterizing the economic interdependence of different sectors 

of an economy. Changes in the purchases and sales in one sector of an economy can affect 

numerous other sectors. Economists call the sum of these changes “multiplier effects.” There are 

many different kinds of economic multipliers. Sales or output multipliers are estimates of the effect 

on total private sector sales resulting from an initial change in sales. Employment and income 

multipliers are estimates of a change’s effect on jobs and income in an area. Each of these 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

4-15

multipliers provides estimates of the impacts on an economy from a change in output (or jobs or 

income) in one or more of its sectors. 

IMPLAN’s multipliers are typically expressed for every $1 million of spending. For example, if the 

total employment multiplier in the construction sector for an area’s economy is estimated at 22, a $1 

million drop in spending in that sector would be expected to result in the loss of 22 jobs (both 

directly in construction and secondarily in other sectors as a result of changes in constructionrelated spending). IMPLAN multipliers are derived from long-run average relationships between 

industrial sectors. Accordingly, the regional economic impacts of the anticipated CVP M&I cost 

effects of Alternative 2 were evaluated only for the long-run average hydrologic condition. Under 

the short-run drought condition scenario, it is likely that the economic impacts indicated by the 

IMPLAN model would be overstated since short-run effects tend to be smaller than long-run effects 

(i.e., there is a delayed response). 

Contra Costa County as a whole is the area used for the regional economic impact assessment of 

Alternatives 1 and 2. While the potential economic effects of the contract renewal alternatives may 

extend outside of Contra Costa County, it is reasonable to anticipate that the majority of the impacts 

would be within the County. Furthermore, the localized effects of contract renewal are the most 

relevant in evaluating local community plans. 

Contra Costa County IMPLAN data from 1991 were used for the analysis to be consistent with the 

CVPIA PEIS. As with the PEIS, the analysis focuses on three economic variables: industrial 

output, employment, and Income POW. Income POW is defined as the sum of employee 

compensation, proprietor’s income, and other property income. The CCWD contract renewal 

IMPLAN analysis is also aggregated into the same industrial sector groupings as reported in the 

PEIS. 

The projected impacts of contract renewal on the Contra Costa County economy are presented in 

terms of the incremental change from the No Action Alternative. The 1991 baseline IMPLAN data 

are the primary data source used to characterize the affected economic environment (existing 

conditions) in Contra Costa County. These data are also adjusted to account for the anticipated 

incremental impact of the CVPIA PEIS preferred alternative on the Contra Costa County economy 

relative to the “without-CVPIA” condition. These adjusted IMPLAN data define the No Action 

Alternative for this EA. All of the IMPLAN data are presented in 1991 dollars.2 Accordingly, 

while the estimated incremental cost impacts of Alternative 2 are presented in 2003 dollars, those 

costs are converted to 1991 dollars for the County-level economic impact analysis. In this manner, 

the magnitude of the potential incremental economic impacts of Alternative 2 is consistently 

evaluated in 1991 dollars. 

If the cost of water for CCWD’s residential customers were to increase to pay the government for 

higher CVP water rates, the increase would have a direct effect on those individuals’ disposable 

income available for other purchases in the local region. Consistent with the PEIS urban water 

 

2.

The baseline data were used throughout the analysis because the structure of Contra Costa County in 2044 cannot be 

predicted without substantial speculation. This approach is consistent with the PEIS. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

4-16

analysis, it is assumed that escalation in residential water costs resulting from renewal of the longterm water service contract would cause disposable income to decrease dollar for dollar. The 

income change is allocated among all the consumer expenditure categories reported in the IMPLAN 

model for Contra Costa County to estimate the output, employment, and income effects of that 

reduction in disposable income. In theory, no such analysis should be conducted for the large-scale 

industrial customers of the CCWD, since increases to their water bill would simply increase their 

cost of doing business. Because those industrial water customers are large publicly held companies, 

it is unlikely that the escalation of their water bills would have any meaningful local impact on the 

economy. Nonetheless, consistent with the PEIS, all of the anticipated M&I water cost impacts of 

the contract renewal proposals are assumed to directly affect local consumer spending. 

Environmental Consequences 

Municipal And Industrial Water Costs 

No Action Alternative 

Table 4-4 presents the estimated total cost of delivered CVP M&I water in the year 2044 in 1994-

dollar terms for the No Action Alternative under both average and dry hydrologic conditions. The 

table shows that in the year 2044 under the No Action Alternative in a year of average hydrologic 

conditions, CCWD would have to pay an estimated $8.2 million to acquire (a) the 155.7 thousandacre-feet of CVP M&I water that would be made available to its customers and (b) an additional 

approximately 11,000 acre-feet of supplies from alternative water sources it would need to address 

demand not met by CVP supplies. The table also shows that the projected cost of CCWD M&I 

water under the No Action Alternative in a dry year increases to over $20 million (assuming the 

average cost of alternative water supplies for the CCWD is $340 per acre-foot, a 1994 estimate 

developed by CH2M Hill for the CVPIA PEIS). 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

4-17

TABLE 4-4 

CCWD PROJECTED M&I WATER COST (2044) 

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Hydrologic Condition Long-Run Average Hydrologic Condition 

2044 Average-Year CVP Delivery 

Only 155.7 taf1

2044 Average-Year Other Water 

Supplies 11.3 taf 

Total CCWD Cost (in 1994 dollars) $8.2 million 

 Short-Run Dry Hydrologic Condition 

2044 Dry-Year CVP Delivery Only 117.3 taf 

2044 Dry-Year Other Water Supplies 49.3 taf 

Total CCWD Cost (in 1994 dollars) $20.2 million 

Source: Dornbusch & Company and CH2M Hill 

1 thousand acre feet 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 is assumed to have effects on M&I water costs, water use, and land within the affected 

region similar to the No Action Alternative. Therefore, this alternative would result in no 

environmental effects. 

Alternative 2 

Table 4-5 shows the projected incremental change in CCWD’s cost for CVP M&I water in the year 

2044 under Alternative 2 compared to the No Action Alternative. The table indicates, for example, 

that in an average hydrologic year following five dry hydrologic years, CCWD’s cost of CVP water 

would be about $1.5 million more or about 30 percent higher than under the No Action Alternative. 

While this district-level increase in the cost of water is large, the expected increase in the District’s 

recent average residential water bill of $590 per year would be only about $5.00, or less than 1 

percent, because the cost of water is actually a relatively small component of CCWD’s cost to treat, 

store, and deliver water to its customers. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

4-18

TABLE 4-5 

CCWD PROJECTED M&I WATER COST (2044) 

ALTERNATIVE 2 

 Changes Compared to No-Action 

No Action 

Alternative Alternative 2 

Hydrologic Condition 

Long-Run 

Average 

Condition 

AverageAverage Dry-Average Wet-Average 

2044 Average-Year CVP 

Delivery Only 

155.7 taf1 0 0 0 

2044 CVP Cost (in 2003 

dollars) 

$4.3 million $1.3 

million 

$1.5 million $1.2 million 

Incremental Change in CCWD 

Cost (CVP water only) 

N/A 29% 35% 28% 

Change in total cost of water 

(including non-CVP supplies) 

N/A 15% 18% 15% 

Short–Run Dry 

Hydrologic 

Condition 

AverageDry Dry-Dry Wet-Dry 

2044 Dry-Year CVP Delivery 

Only 

117.3 0 0 0 

2044 CVP Cost (in 2003 

dollars) 

$3.2 $0.82 $0.95 $0.82 

Incremental Change in CCWD 

Cost (CVP water only) 

N/A 25% 29% 25%

Change in total cost of water 

(including non-CVP supplies) 

N/A 4% 5% 4% 

Source: Dornbusch & Company and CH2M Hill. 

1 thousand acre feet 

Table 4-5 also compares CCWD’s projected CVP M&I water costs under Alternative 2 in a year of 

dry hydrologic conditions compared to No Action Alternative levels in a dry year. The table 

indicates that in a dry year, the anticipated incremental increase in CCWD’s cost for CVP M&I 

water under Alternative 2 and in CCWD’s total cost for M&I water following 5 years of dry, 

average, or wet hydrologic conditions would be as much as 29 percent and 5 percent, respectively. 

Cumulative Impacts 

In addition to the potential escalation of CCWD M&I water rates, and thus residential water costs, 

under Alternative 2, additional escalations in future M&I water cost are anticipated as a result of the 

addition of new water facilities and the upgrading of existing facilities in the CCWD water system 

to accommodate planned expansion of the CCWD service area. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

4-19

Regional Economics 

No Action Alternative 

Table 4-6 presents in 1991 terms the estimated year 2044 total industrial output, employment, and 

Income POW in Contra Costa County under the No Action Alternative. 

TABLE 4-6 

2044 OUTPUT, EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME POW 

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (1991) 

Sector 

Output 

($Millions) 

Employment 

(FTE1 Jobs) Income POW ($Millions) 

Agriculture $278 5,244 $118. 

Mining $3,204 3,100 $1,617. 

Construction $3,238 31,958 $1,278. 

Manufacturing $15,180 31,621 $4,188. 

Transportation $3,398 25,146 $2,057. 

Trade $3,327 81,562 $2,063. 

Finance, Insurance, 

and Real Estate $6,498 50,625 $4,328. 

Services $5,578 112,977 $3,443. 

Government $1,742 51,936 $1,626. 

Total $42,437 394,169 $20,717. 

Source: Dornbusch & Company and Minnesota IMPLAN Group 

1 full-time equivalent 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 is assumed to have impacts on the regional economy similar to the No Action 

Alternative. Therefore, Alternative 1 would result in no environmental impacts. 

Alternative 2 

Table 4-7 shows the estimated impacts on total industrial output of the projected cost of M&I water 

under Alternative 2 by major industrial sector for Contra Costa County. The table indicates that 

under Alternative 2, the projected incremental decrease in total industrial output in the County in 

the year 2044 is projected to be from $1.8 million in a year of average hydrologic conditions 

following 5 years of wet hydrologic conditions to $2.1 million in a year of average hydrologic 

conditions following 5 years of dry hydrologic conditions (in 1991 dollars). This range represents a 

decrease of less than 0.01 percent in the County’s total projected industrial output. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

4-20

TABLE 4-7 

2044 INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT IMPACTS 

ALTERNATIVE 2 (1991 DOLLARS) 

 

Change Compared to No-Action Average 

Condition 

No-Action 

Average 

Condition 

Alternative 2 

Place of Work 

Output 

($Millions) 

DryAverage AverageAverage Wet-Average 

Agriculture $278 -$0.01 -$0.01 -$0.01 

Mining $3,204 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 

Construction $3,238 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 

Manufacturing $15,180 -$0.49 -$0.43 -$0.40 

Transportation $3,398 -$0.16 -$0.14 -$0.13 

Trade $3,327 -$0.40 -$0.34 -$0.32 

Finance, Insurance, and 

Real Estate $6,498 -$0.38 -$0.33 -$0.31 

Services $5,578 -$0.58 -$0.50 -$0.47 

Government $1,742 -$0.06 -$0.05 -$0.05 

Total $42,437 -$2.09 -$1.80 -$1.68 

Source: Dornbusch & Company and Minnesota IMPLAN Group 

Table 4-8 presents the total estimated impacts on Contra Costa County employment resulting from 

contract renewal-related changes in CCWD’s M&I and agricultural water costs. The table indicates 

that the projected year 2044 incremental decrease in total employment in the County under 

Alternative 2 would be from about 22 full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs in an average hydrologic year 

following five wet hydrologic years to 28 jobs in an average hydrologic year following 5 years of 

dry hydrologic conditions (in 1991 terms). This range of impacts represents a decrease of less than 

0.01 percent in the County’s employment base compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Table 4-9 presents the estimated total impacts on Income POW in Contra Costa County resulting 

from the CCWD M&I and agricultural water costs anticipated under Alternative 2. The table 

indicates that in the year 2044, the projected incremental decrease in total Income POW in the 

County under Alternative 2 ranges from about $940,000 during a year of average hydrologic 

conditions following 5 years of wet hydrologic conditions to almost $1.2 million in a year of dry 

hydrologic conditions following 5 years of dry hydrologic conditions (in 1991 dollars). This range 

of impacts represents a decrease of less than 0.01 percent in the County’s total Income POW 

compared to estimated conditions under the No Action Alternative. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

4-21

TABLE 4-8 

 2044 EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS 

ALTERNATIVE 2 (1991 DOLLARS) 

 Change Compared to No-Action Average 

Condition No-Action 

Average 

Condition Alternative 2 

Place of Work 

Employment 

(FTE1 Jobs) 

DryAverage 

(FTE 

Jobs) 

AverageAverage 

(FTE Jobs) 

Wet-Average 

(FTE Jobs) 

Agriculture 5,244 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 

Mining 3,100 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Construction 31,958 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Manufacturing 31,621 -2.8 -2.4 -2.3 

Transportation 25,146 -1.5 -1.3 -1.2 

Trade 81,562 -8.0 -6.9 -6.4 

Finance, 

Insurance, and 

Real Estate 

50,625 -3.7 -3.2 -3.0 

Services 112,977 -10.1 -8.6 -8.1 

Government 51,936 -1.4 -1.2 -1.1 

Total 394,169 -27.8 -23.9 -22.4 

Source: Dornbusch & Company and Minnesota IMPLAN Group 

1

 full-time equivalent 

Cumulative Impacts 

It is not anticipated that any currently planned future action, other than planned expansion of the 

CCWD service area, will have a cumulative impact on the Contra Costa County economy in 

addition to those impacts projected to result from CVP contract renewal under either Alternatives 1 

or 2. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

4-22

TABLE 4-9 

 2044 PLACE-OF-WORK INCOME IMPACTS 

ALTERNATIVE 2 (1991) 

Change Compared to No-Action Average 

No-Action Condition 

Average 

Condition Alternative 2 

Place of Work 

Income POW1

(1991 $ Millions) 

DryAverage 

(1991 $ 

Millions) 

AverageAverage 

(1991 $ 

Millions) 

Wet-Average 

(1991 $ 

Millions) 

Agriculture $118 -$0.01 -$0.01 -$0.01 

Mining $1,617 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 

Construction $1,278 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 

Manufacturing $4,188 -$0.18 -$0.16 -$0.15 

Transportation $2,057 -$0.10 -$0.08 -$0.08 

Trade $2,063 -$0.24 -$0.21 -$0.19 

Finance, 

Insurance, and 

Real Estate 

$4,328 -$0.24 -$0.21 -$0.20 

Services $3,443 -$0.35 -$0.30 -$0.28 

Government $1,626 -$0.05 -$0.04 -$0.04 

Total $20,717 -$1.16 -$1.00 -$0.94 

Source: Dornbusch & Company and Minnesota IMPLAN Group 1 full-time equivalent 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

This section describes the biological resources in the CCWD service areas and the potential indirect 

effects of the long-term water service contract renewal. This description is provided for 

informational purposes to summarize project-specific impacts of the contract renewal and to 

describe on-going consultations among Reclamation, CCWD, the Service, and NOAA-Fisheries 

regarding biological resources in the CCWD service area. 

The information in this section is summarized from the Biological Assessment on the Contra Costa 

Canal Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal (Reclamation 2004) that Reclamation prepared 

concurrently with this Revised Draft EA. The submittal of the biological assessment (BA) to the 

Service and NOAA-Fisheries will serve to initiate formal consultation under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). If the assessment indicates that the federal action will or may 

affect species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA (listed species), a draft biological 

opinion subsequently issued to Reclamation by the Service will determine whether implementing 

the proposed long-term water service contract with the CCWD is likely to jeopardize the existence 

of listed species occurring in the CCWD service area. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

4-23

The discussion of biological resources in the 2000 Draft EA was based on information in the FWSI 

EIR and MPP EIR/EIS and the biological opinions that resulted from those projects. These and 

other relevant biological opinions are listed in the BA, which is incorporated by reference. 

Affected Environment 

Land Use/Land Cover Conditions 

The CCWD service area has a diverse range of land cover/community types and unique species. 

The topographic variety of Contra Costa County, from the summit of Mount Diablo to the San 

Francisco Bay–Delta estuary complex, combines to form the setting for its range of land cover types 

and wildlife. Contra Costa County is bounded by San Francisco Bay and San Pablo Bay to the 

west, by Suisun Bay and the channels of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers to the north, and 

by Alameda County to the south. The San Francisco Bay–Delta system (including San Pablo Bay) 

is generally regarded as the most important water body in California. It is used extensively for both 

recreational and commercial purposes, and it supports diverse wildlife, fish, and plant species. 

Historically, the region surrounding the CCWD contained a diverse and productive patchwork of 

water, wetland, riparian forest, and surrounding terrestrial communities that supported abundant 

populations of resident and migratory species of wildlife. Huge herds of pronghorn antelope 

(Antilocapra americana), tule elk (Cervus elaphus nannodes), and mule deer (Odocoileus 

hemionus) grazed the prairies, and large flocks of waterfowl gathered in the extensive wetlands. 

Today, the dominant community types associated with the CCWD service area include water, 

wetlands, grassland/rangelands, scrub and shrublands, orchards and vineyards, cropland and 

pastures, forests, urban areas, and barrens. Land uses in the CCWD include agricultural, 

residential, and M&I uses. Over the years, land has been converted from native land cover types to 

cultivated fields, pastures, residences, water impoundments, flood control structures, and other 

developments. Natural communities are now restricted in their distribution and size and are largely 

fragmented. As a result, these natural communities are increasingly important to resident and 

migratory wildlife species. 

As a result of the conversion of native communities, many species, including listed species, have 

been displaced or extirpated from the region. Most of the species that occurred historically are now 

restricted to patches of natural community that are fragmented and isolated, making it difficult for 

viable populations to exist. Some species have adapted to portions of the new landscape and are 

able to maintain populations. However, as a result of the largely fragmented natural communities, 

the potential for expansion or growth of these populations is greatly reduced. Because of the 

reduction in habitat available to these species, remnants of natural communities such as wetlands 

and riparian forest/woodlands are increasingly valuable. Substantial natural areas that support 

federally or state-listed species are protected by public agencies (e.g., Mt. Diablo State Park and the 

Antioch Dunes National Wildlife Refuge). Wetlands, especially marshes scattered along the 

County’s shoreline, have also been afforded substantial legal and policy protection. 

Historical fishery resources within the CCWD service area were different from today’s fishery 

resources. Many native species have declined in abundance and distribution, and several introduced 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

4-24

species have become well established. All CCWD water drains either directly or indirectly into the 

San Francisco Bay–Delta system. A water quality plan (“basin plan”) has been prepared that serves 

as a blueprint for water pollution control activities for the Bay. The basin plan identifies a number 

of beneficial uses of the Bay that must be protected, including non-contact recreation, wildlife 

habitat, preservation of rare and endangered species, estuarine habitat, warm freshwater and cold 

freshwater fish habitat, fish spawning and migration, industrial service supply, navigation, and 

commercial and sport fishing. 

Land Cover/Community Types 

This section describes the land cover/community types in the CCWD service area, as depicted in 

Figure 4-2. The following electronic data sources were consulted to generate the land cover and 

community types shown on the figure: Reclamation Federal Water District, the California Natural 

Diversity Database (CNDDB), the Service’s Wetlands Inventory and Conservation Program, and 

the California-Gap Analysis Project (CA-GAP) (USGS et al. 1998). 

Fifteen land cover/community types were identified within the CCWD service area: annual 

grassland, barren, blue oak/foothill pine, blue oak woodland, coastal oak woodland, chamise 

redshank chaparral, cropland, estuarine, lacustrine, mixed chaparral, montane hardwood, orchard 

and vineyard, riverine, saline emergent wetland, and urban. 

Because the distribution of land cover/community types on Figure 4-2 is identified at the landscape 

level, community boundaries are approximate and small areas (areas of less than approximately 10 

acres) and linear habitat features (e.g., corridors of riparian vegetation) are not mapped but could be 

present as inclusions within larger mapped units of land cover. The minimum mapping unit was 

250 acres for upland cover and 100 acres for wetlands. 

Table 4-10 shows the acreages of land cover/community types in the CCWD service area. The 

predominant native land cover type is the annual grassland community, which constitutes 

approximately 23 percent of the CCWD service area. Approximately 41 percent of the CCWD 

service area remains in native land cover, approximately 2 percent is used for agriculture, and 57 

percent is developed or barren. The BA (Reclamation 2004) describes the land cover types in the 

CCWD service area in more detail. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

4-25

Table 4-10. Land Cover/Community Types and Acreages in 

the CCWD Service Area 

Land Cover/Community Type Acres 

Water

Estuarine 5,277 

Lacustrine 122 

Riverine 1 

Subtotal 5,400 

Wetlands

Coastal Brackish Marsh 3,145 

Northern Coastal Salt Marsh 102 

Saline Emergent Wetland 3,128 

Subtotal 6,375 

Grasslands 

Annual Grassland 25,479 

Scrub/Shrub Lands 

Chamise Redshank Chaparral 286 

Mixed Chaparral 1,488 

Subtotal 1,774 

Forests 

Blue Oak – Foothill Pine 436 

Blue Oak Woodland 6,102 

Coastal Oak Woodland 78 

Montane Hardwood 178 

Riparian Woodland 107 

Subtotal 6,901 

Agricultural Lands

Cropland 2,384 

Orchard and Vineyard 328 

Subtotal 2,712 

Other Land Cover Types

Urban 64,021 

Barren 180 

Stabilized Interior Dunes 80 

Subtotal 64,281 

TOTAL 112,922 

Protected Species and Critical Habitats 

Protected species are plants and animals that are legally protected under the federal Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) and species that are considered candidates by the scientific community to 

qualify for such protection. Critical habitats are habitats that are legally protected under the ESA. 

Protected plants and animals are defined as follows: 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

4-26

This page left intentionally blank. 
C O N T R A C O S T A C O .

A L A M E D A C O .

S OLAN O CO.

SAC RA M E N TO CO.

CONTRA COST A C O.

10029 - Contra Costa LTCR BA\GIS\10018_CCWD_EA_Fig-4-2_WHR.mxd Source: NSR, Inc.; CCWD; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; GAP Analysis of Mainland California, 1998; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; California Dept. of Fish and Game 04-13-04 rescolar

Contra Costa Water District Long-Term

Water Service Contract Replacement

Figure 4-2

Land Cover Types in the

Project Area and Vicinity

0 2.5 5

Miles

CCWD Reservoirs

County Boundaries

CCWD Federal Contract

Service Area

Additional CCWD Service Area

Other WHR Habitat Types

in the Project Vicinity

Deciduous Orchard

Pasture

Redwood

Valley Foothill Riparian

Coastal Scrub

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Eucalyptus

Source: GAP Analysis of Mainland California, 1998

WHR Habitat Types in

the CCWD Service Area

Source: National Wetlands Inventory, 1997

Riparian Woodland

Source: GAP Analysis of Mainland California, 1998

Barren

Chamise Redshank Chaparral

Cropland

Mixed Chaparral

Montane Hardwood

Orchard and Vineyard

Riverine

Urban

Annual Grassland

Blue Oak - Foothill Pine

Blue Oak Woodland

Coastal Oak Woodland

Estuarine

Saline Emergent Wetland

Lacustrine

Source: California Natural Diversity Database, 2003

Stabilized Interior Dunes

Northern Coastal Salt Marsh

Coastal Brackish Marsh
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

4-28

This page intentionally left blank. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

4-29

 Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA (50 

CFR 17.12 [listed plants], 50 CFR 17.11 [listed wildlife and fish], and various notices in the 

Federal Register [FR] [proposed species]); 

 Species that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the 

federal ESA (61 FR 7596-7613, February 28, 1996). 

Critical habitat is defined as “the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species on 

which are found those physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species, 

and that may require special management considerations or protection; and specific areas outside 

the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon determination that such areas 

are essential for the conservation of the species.” 

In 2001, in conjunction with the 2000 Draft EA and BA, Reclamation requested from the Service a 

list of species and critical habitats that could occur in the CCWD service area, in accordance with 

requirements of the ESA. The Service provided a species list in June 2001, and Reclamation met 

with the Service to discuss the scope of analysis and level of detail for a BA. A BA, dated 

November 2001, was drafted, but not submitted to the Service at the discretion of Reclamation. 

Reclamation began to revise and update the BA in 2003. A new species list was downloaded from 

the Service’s Sacramento Field Office website (http://sacramento.fws.gov/es/spp_list.htm) on 

January 29, 2004. A memorandum of Request for Concurrence with this species list was sent to the 

Service and NOAA-Fisheries on February 25, 2004. The species list, which also shows critical 

habitats in the CCWD service area, is included as Appendix B. 

Plans and Policies 

Numerous laws, planning regulations, and previous environmental commitments provide protection 

for specific biological resources in the CCWD service area. 

Some of the potential secondary effects of growth on terrestrial biological resources, including 

special-status species, will be avoided or minimized through general plan policies and 

implementation measures; through mitigation measures identified in EIRs on general plans adopted 

by the County and by city jurisdictions within the CCWD service area; and through compliance 

with CEQA; NEPA; the federal and state ESAs; and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In 

addition, these laws and regulations may require compensation or mitigation to offset some effects 

on species and their habitats. Biological opinions also establish protections for sensitive species. 

Biological Assessment on Long-Term Water Contract Renewals 

As described above, Reclamation has prepared a Biological Assessment on the Contra Costa Canal 

Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewal (Reclamation 2004). Reclamation’s determination in 

the BA is that the proposed long-term water service renewal contract with CCWD: 

 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect listed fish species or their critical habitat 

because the proposed contract renewal would not result in any changes in conditions in the 

Delta and, therefore, would not affect the habitat or populations of those fish species that 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

4-30

have a moderate potential of occurring in the CCWD service area. The operations of the 

CVP, including the export of water from the Delta, are governed by separate criteria in 

biological opinions on CVP operations, by the CVPIA, and by hydrologic conditions. 

 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect listed or proposed wildlife species or their 

critical habitat because the proposed contract renewal would not result in any direct changes 

to land use and, therefore, would not affect the habitat or populations of those wildlife 

species with a moderate potential of occurring in the CCWD service area. 

 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect listed or proposed plant species or their 

critical habitat because the proposed contract renewal would not result in any direct changes 

to land use and, therefore, would not affect the habitat or populations of those plant species 

with a moderate potential of occurring in the CCWD service area. 

This determination was based on the following: 

 The proposed long-term water service contract renewal would continue the deliveries of 

CVP water to the CCWD and would not result in changes to or alterations of habitat used by 

species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered that are known to occur or 

have the potential to occur in the CCWD service area 

 The contract renewal would not affect the habitat or populations of fish species listed or 

proposed for listing as threatened or endangered that have a moderate potential of occurring 

in the CCWD service area. The operations of the CVP, including the export of water from 

the Delta, are governed by separate criteria in biological opinions on CVP operations, by the 

CVPIA, and by hydrologic conditions. 

 Application of the Reasonable and Prudent Measures, Terms and Conditions, and 

Conservation Recommendations provided in the Final Biological Opinion on the 

Construction of the Multipurpose Pipeline and Future Water Supply Implementation 

Program, Contra Costa County, and provided in the CVPIA biological opinion would 

mitigate for potential site-specific effects to wildlife species listed or proposed for listing as 

threatened or endangered that have a moderate potential of occurring in the CCWD service 

area. 

Environmental Consequences 

No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative for the long-term service contract for continued provision of water to the 

CCWD service area would not introduce new structures or result in any physical changes to the 

environment. Therefore, no direct effects on biological resources are expected to occur as a result 

of renewing the long-term water service contract for the CCWD service area. 

Indirect effects to terrestrial resources related to the secondary effects of growth within CCWD’s 

service area were adequately evaluated in the FWSI EIR. The FWSI EIR found that the continued 

provision of water would result in indirect effects to native land and agricultural habitats, special-
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

4-31

status communities, and special-status species. These impacts were mitigated through the 

biological opinion on the MMP and the FWSI. 

The biological opinion sets forth the process for addressing the indirect effects on terrestrial species 

related to the renewal of CCWD’s CVP contract, as provided under the consultation on the 

Implementation of the CVP Improvement Act and Operation of the CVP (1-1-98-F-0124). The 

Service concluded that five species were not likely to be jeopardized by the effects of construction 

of the MPP and that 12 plant and wildlife species would not likely be jeopardized by the indirect 

effects of urban development associated with the FWSI program. The Service’s conclusion was 

predicated on the commitment of CCWD to the conservation measures contained in the biological 

opinion. 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 is assumed to have effects to biological resources similar to the No Action 

Alternative. Biological consultations are required by the Consultation and Coordination 

requirements established by Executive Order for all Reclamation activities. Impacts have been 

mitigated through the biological opinion for the MPP and FWSI. 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 is assumed to have effects to biological resources similar to the No Action 

Alternative. These impacts have been mitigated through the biological opinion for the MPP and 

FWSI. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Implementing the long-term water service contract under each of the alternatives would continue 

the provision of CVP water to the CCWD federal service area up to their existing contract amount, 

resulting in no change to existing conditions for water users in the CCWD service area. The 

contract renewal does not include construction of new facilities or the introduction of additional 

structures into the CCWD and Reclamation water supply system. Therefore, no physical change to 

the environment would result from renewal of the long-term water service contract under any of the 

alternatives. The differences among the alternatives are contractual features, including water cost, 

definition of M&I users, and water measurement. None of the alternatives would change the water 

service amount, increase water system capacity, or introduce new facilities. Therefore, there would 

be no direct cumulative impacts to biological resources from the replacement of the existing water 

contract with a long-term water service contract. 

Cumulative impacts associated with implementation of the CVPIA, which included a long-term 

CVP water supply contract with CCWD, were adequately evaluated in the CVPIA PEIS, from 

which this EA is tiered. Since the differences among the alternatives are essentially contractual 

features, cumulative impacts associated with implementation of the CVPIA to biological resources 

would be the same under all alternatives. The ROD developed by Reclamation and the Service for 

the CVPIA PEIS incorporated strategies for maintaining protected biological resources. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

4-32

Cumulative impacts to biological resources related to the planned growth envisioned by the cities’ 

and County land use planning documents, including continued water service by Reclamation, were 

adequately analyzed in the FWSI EIR and the MPP EIR/EIS, which incorporated the discussion 

from the County General Plan EIR. The biological opinion developed for the FWSI program and 

MPP project identified specific conservation measures to be undertaken by CCWD to ensure that 

protected species would not be jeopardized by these actions. Development, however, is planned 

and managed through the County and cities’ general plans and land management processes. 

Reclamation and CCWD have no jurisdiction over local land use policy or decision-making relative 

to specific land development proposals. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

This section describes cultural resources in the project area and programs in place to protect these 

resources. The discussion is summarized from the FWSI EIR and MPP EIR/EIS, which are 

incorporated by reference into this EA, because cultural resources potentially affected by these 

projects are the same as those within the CCWD service area. These documents considered cultural 

resources in the CCWD service area. Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic 

archaeological sites, districts, and objects; standing historic structures and buildings; and locations 

of important historic events, or sites of traditional/cultural importance. 

Study Methods 

To prepare the FWSI EIR and MPP EIR/EIS, prehistoric and historic site record and literature 

searches were conducted by the California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest 

Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park (CHRFS/NWIC File Nos. 98-150, 97-

348, 97-563, 98-25). In addition, focused prehistoric, ethnographic, and general historical research 

was conducted using reference material from the Bancroft Library, University of California, 

Berkeley, and Basin Research Associates, San Leandro. 

The cultural resources evaluation for the MPP project also involved the following: 

 Focused prehistoric, ethnographic, and general historical research, as well as a review of 

specialized findings; 

 Review of 30 cultural resource compliance reports on file with the CHRIS/NWIC which 

include or are adjacent to the area analyzed for the project alternatives. Twenty-four reports 

are relevant to the Contra Costa Canal; 

 A field survey of selected areas along the Contra Costa Canal was conducted. The Canal 

was previously surveyed during the archaeological inventory of the Contra Costa Canal for 

the Bureau of Reclamation in 1996 (West and Welch 1996). 

 An Environmental Documentation Study and Cultural Resources Review also was prepared 

by Basin Research Associates for the MPP project. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

4-33

Affected Environment 

The CCWD service area is within the San Francisco Bay and San Pablo Bay Region, which is part 

of the Coast Ranges geomorphic province, with San Francisco Bay marking the division between 

the North and South Coast ranges. This region of central California has a long history of human 

occupation beginning 12,000 to 10,000 years ago. 

Prehistoric Period 

Contra Costa County was an area especially favored by prehistoric Native Americans due to 

favorable environmental conditions and the variety of landforms (e.g., Self et al. 1993). The 

majority of the CCWD service area has no archaeological sensitivity rating assigned by the County 

General Plan, since it is located in or adjacent to developed urban areas and publicly owned lands. 

In general, Native American occupation sites appear to have been selected for accessibility, 

protection from seasonal flooding, and the availability of resources. Sea-level changes over the past 

6,000-8,000 years have also influenced site location and distribution, especially in the Delta 

portions of the service area (Bickel 1978a-b; Moratto 1984; West 1977). 

Prior to 5,000-4,500 years ago, Native American use of the San Francisco Bay region appears to 

have been intermittent and sparse. Evidence of early occupation along the bayshore may have been 

hidden by rising sea levels from about 15,000 to 7,000 years ago or buried under sediments caused 

by bay marshland infilling along estuary margins from 7,000 years onward (Moratto 1984). Early 

groups probably focused on hunting and the gathering of various plant foods along with shellfish 

collection. A three-part development sequence has been used by archaeologists to explain local and 

regional cultural change in prehistoric central California from 4,500 years ago to European contact 

(Lillard et al. 1939). This scheme of three major time periods called horizons—Early, Transitional, 

and Late—is known as the central California Taxonomic System (Beardsley 1948, 1954). Recent 

chronological placement of the divisions suggests that the Early Horizon dated to ca. 4,500-

3500/3000 years ago, the Middle Horizon to ca. 3,500-1,500 years ago, and the Late Horizon to ca. 

1500-250 years ago (Moratto 1984). Overviews of regional prehistoric information are presented in 

Elsasser (1978), C. King (1978a-b), Moratto (1984), Stewart (1981), and West and Welch (1996). 

Historic Period 

The CCWD service area was explored by the Spanish between 1772 and 1811. After this initial 

period of Spanish exploration, the Spanish concentrated on the founding of presidios, missions, and 

secular towns along the California coast (1769-1821). The closest Spanish settlements to the 

CCWD service area were Mission San Jose in present-day Fremont and San Francisco de Asis in 

San Francisco. 

Control of California passed from Spain to Mexico in 1822. Mexican policy stressed individual 

ownership of the land, with large ranchos being granted to individuals. Five former ranchos are 

located in the Central County Primary Region. One former rancho was located in the East County 

Primary Region, and no ranchos granted or patented were located in the Rural East County Primary 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

4-34

Region. For the most part, the CCWD service area was used for grazing during the Hispanic and 

early American Periods (Hendry and Bowman 1940; Beck and Haase 1974). 

Control of California passed to the United States in 1847. Throughout the late 19th century, 

ranchos and other lands were subdivided as the result of population growth. Reclamation of the 

Delta was undertaken to provide land for agriculture, with agricultural activities predominating 

during the American Period and into the Contemporary Period. Further development of the area 

was facilitated by the development of regional rail and road networks to service both industry and 

agriculture with market links, the introduction of the refrigerator railcar in the 1880s allowing the 

transport of agricultural produce to distant markets, and a coal mining boom from the 1850s-1880s. 

 Towns along Suisun Bay/San Joaquin River were important points for services and the transport of 

goods shipped to San Francisco and Sacramento by water and later by rail (Goddard 1857, Whitney 

1873, Elliot Publishing Company 1893, Smith and Elliot 1897, Slocum 1882, Weber & Co. ca. 

1914, Gudde 1974, Emanuels 1986, Fickewirth 1992, and McLeod 1994). The Southern Pacific 

Railroad constitutes both a major 19th as well as 20th century feature in the CCWD service area 

along with the San Pablo and Tulare Railroad (owned and controlled by the Central Pacific 

Railroad) and the San Francisco and San Joaquin Railroad Company (later purchased by the Santa 

Fe Railroad Company). The town of Clyde is notable, as it was designed by Bernard Maybeck as a 

residential community for the Pacific Coast Shipbuilding Company to house workers during World 

War I (Sloan & Robson 1918, Gudde 1974, Kyle 1990). 

Identified Cultural Resources 

Numerous cultural resources studies have been completed in the CCWD service area over the past 

30 years, usually in support of environmental compliance requirements. Approximately 300 reports 

are on file that include the CCWD service area, although systematic surveys are rare. Two 

“reported” cultural resources, C-810 and C-811 (near James Donlon Boulevard in Antioch), and an 

“earthmound” noted on the Stratton and Thompson 1865-1869 Rancho Los Medanos plat at Post 

Marker #9 (near Serrana Court in Pittsburg) have been identified as being located south of the 

Contra Costa Canal. These resources were not relocated during the archaeological inventory of the 

Contra Costa Canal conducted for Reclamation in 1996 (West and Welch 1996) or during the 

construction of the canal, according to Reclamation records. No indicators of these three potential 

resources were observed during a field review conducted by Basin Research Associates in 1997. 

Industrial and residential development in Contra Costa County has already affected archaeological 

resources. Development, particularly in the Ygnacio Valley and along the Bay margins, has 

destroyed an unknown number of both prehistoric sites and historic resources associated with the 

early development of the area. However, a number of archaeological sites are known to be present 

in the CCWD service area, both in currently developed areas and in the primarily agricultural areas 

east of Oakley. There is also the potential for the discovery of unknown sites in both urban and 

rural contexts, with some potential for deeply buried sites in both the inland and Delta areas of the 

CCWD service area. 

Areas specifically designated for development in the County General Plan within the CCWD 

service area that are sensitive for cultural resources include the Alhambra Valley Road west of 

Martinez (Central County Area). Other sensitive areas within the East County area include the 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

4-35

Lone Tree Valley area of Antioch and areas to the south; two areas along Marsh Creek Road, one 

east of Mt. Diablo State Park and the area east of Clayton; and the eastern areas of the City of 

Pittsburg south of State Highway 4. Portions of the Veale Tract in the Rural East County are also 

extremely sensitive for prehistoric archaeological resources. A total of 72 archaeological sites have 

been recorded in or adjacent to the primary regions within the CCWD service area. These include 

52 prehistoric sites, 19 historic sites, and one multi-component site with both a prehistoric and 

historic component. 

Prehistoric Resources 

The 52 prehistoric sites include village sites, temporary camps, lithic scatters, milling sites, 

petroglyph sites, quarry sites, middens, and burial sites. Prehistoric sites occur throughout the 

service area, although a locational analysis study was not undertaken. Research undertaken by 

West and Welch (1996) suggests a strong correlation between site location and soils/landform 

elevation. However, intact prehistoric cultural deposits are more likely to be present in areas 

relatively unaffected by urbanization and agriculture, although subsurface deposits could exist 

below the plow zone or underneath pavement or structures. 

Historic Resources 

The 19 historic sites located within the CCWD service area include railroad grades and associated 

railroad features, ranches and farmsteads, water conveyance systems and wells, mine sites, 

industrial sites, refuse deposits, and architectural features. Historic resources are likely to occur 

throughout the area, although many are likely to have been destroyed by subsequent development or 

redevelopment. The CCWD service area is situated within a number of former ranchos and 

includes the City of Martinez in the former Rancho El Pinole, which has a number of former adobe 

dwelling sites as well as several extant adobe structures. Potential historic properties associated 

with the built environment, rural farms and farm complexes, transportation-related features 

including roads, bridges, and landings, and historic archaeological sites may be present in both 

developed and undeveloped areas, although the resources may have been affected by urbanization, 

agriculture, and industrial development. 

Traditional Cultural Properties 

Mount Diablo, a dominant natural feature located just outside of the CCWD service area but visible 

throughout the service area, is a California State Landmark and designated Native American Ethnic 

Site. It has spiritual significance to the Costanoan as the focal point of their creation myth as well 

as for its role in several Miwok legends. No reservations or rancherias are present in the CCWD 

service area. A number of Native American burial sites are known as the result of archaeological 

discoveries, and there is a potential for others. The locations of these sites are considered sacred by 

Native American groups. Other traditional cultural properties (e.g., gathering areas, sacred use 

areas) may be present in rural areas. 

In compliance with 36 CFR 800.4(a) (4), Reclamation has sent letters to Indian tribes requesting 

their input regarding the identification of any properties to which they might attach religious and 

cultural significance within the area of potential effect. To date, Reclamation has not received any 

comments or formal responses from the tribes. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

4-36

National Register of Historic Places and Other Listed Cultural Resources 

At least 44 individual properties or districts (buildings, building sites, landings, etc.) listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places (NHRP) or eligible for listing are located in the three primary 

regions of the CCWD service area. These historic properties are also included in the California 

Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). 

The Contra Costa Canal facility was evaluated and was determined not to be eligible for the 

National Register by Reclamation and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in 1992 

(West and Welch 1996). No National Register and/or California Register historic properties, 

architecturally significant structures, landmarks, or points of interest are present either within or 

adjacent to the canal. 

Plans and Policies 

National Historic Preservation Act 

The primary law governing cultural resources is the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 

USC 470-470mm. This act established the NRHP and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP). 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires that federal agencies consult with the ACHP prior to any 

undertaking that would affect a property either on or eligible for the NRHP. Since compliance with 

Section 106 of the NHPA is usually in response to a proposed action that has the potential to affect 

historic properties, consultation with the California SHPO, interested parties, and, when 

appropriate, the ACHP is required. 

According to federal law, significant cultural resources are those that are either listed on the NHRP, 

nominated to the NHRP, eligible for listing on the NHRP, designated a National Historic 

Landmark, or valued by modern Native Americans for maintaining their traditional culture. 

Environmental Consequences 

No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would not introduce new structures, construction activities, or result in 

physical changes to the environment, and would therefore not directly affect cultural resources. 

Indirect effects to cultural resources would result from the planned growth and development 

projected in the County General Plan and evaluated in the County General Plan EIR. Any potential 

indirect impacts would be the responsibility of the decision-making land management agencies. 

Demographic, economic, political, and other factors, independent of the proposed contract renewal, 

that result in changes with direct and indirect effects to cultural resources are beyond the range of 

Reclamation’s NHPA Section 106 responsibilities. Reclamation would need to consider the effects 

to historic properties when Reclamation approves new lands being brought into an irrigation district 

(Inclusions) and when Reclamation approves a change in use that could lead to an effect on a 

historic property. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

4-37

The County General Plan EIR previously examined impacts to significant historical or 

archaeological resources associated with projected development from buildout under the General 

Plan. The EIR found that secondary impacts resulting from development in currently non-urban 

areas could affect both known and undiscovered archaeological resources, especially in areas of 

high sensitivity. Areas specifically identified in the County General Plan EIR, which are included 

in the CCWD service area, include the Alhambra Road west of Martinez. The County General Plan 

EIR identified potentially significant adverse impacts to significant historic or archaeological 

resources associated with growth (CCC CDD 1992). 

In addition to the Countywide growth impacts evaluated in the County General Plan EIR, the FWSI 

EIR evaluated impacts of the CCWD water supply plan developed in response to projected 

increased future demand at buildout under the General Plan. The FWSI EIR concluded that 

implementation of the water supply plan would not result in impacts to cultural resources in the 

service area beyond those identified in the County General Plan EIR. The MPP EIR/EIS also 

concluded that implementation of the MPP project would not result in impacts to cultural resources 

beyond those identified in the County General Plan EIR. 

The following Historic and Cultural Resource Implementation Measures were provided in the 

County General Plan EIR to reduce the potential impacts of Countywide development on cultural 

resources: 

 Develop an archaeological sensitivity map to be used in the environmental review process 

for discretionary permits; 

 Include a procedure to be followed in the event that archaeological resources are 

encountered during development or construction as a condition of approval of discretionary 

permits; 

 Develop design guidelines for areas adjacent to or within scenic corridors or historic sites; 

 Review existing County ordinances and guidelines and make amendments as necessary; 

 Promote the use of the State of California Historic Building Code to protect sites; 

 Encourage owners of eligible historic properties to apply for registration of these sites and 

participate in programs for historic restoration; 

 Seek coordination and cooperation with government agencies and organizations to fund 

preservation, restoration, and enhancement of unique historic sites; 

 Identify funding mechanisms to fund preservation, restoration, and enhancement of unique 

historic sites; and 

 For development in areas with medium to high sensitivity, perform, at a minimum, a Phase 

I, Level I survey. 
Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

4-38

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 is assumed to have effects to cultural resources similar to the No Action Alternative. 

Therefore, there are no environmental impacts anticipated for this alternative beyond those 

identified in the County General Plan EIR. These impacts would be minimized by implementation 

of Historic and Cultural Resource Implementation Measures. 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 is assumed to have effects to cultural resources similar to the No Action Alternative. 

Therefore, there are no environmental impacts anticipated for this alternative beyond those 

identified in the County General Plan EIR. These impacts would be minimized by implementation 

of Historic and Cultural Resource Implementation Measures. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Implementing the long-term water service contract under each of the alternatives would continue 

the provision of CVP water to the CCWD service area at historic levels, resulting in no change to 

existing conditions for water users in the CCWD service area. The contract renewal action would 

not result in the construction of new facilities or introduction of additional structures into the 

CCWD and Reclamation water supply system. Therefore, no physical change to the environment 

would result from renewal of the long-term water supply contract under any of the alternatives. The 

differences among the alternatives are contractual features, including water cost, definitions of M&I 

users, and water measurement. None of the alternatives would change the water service amount, 

increase water system capacity, or introduce new facilities. Therefore, there would be no direct 

cumulative impacts to cultural resources from the contract renewal action. 

Cumulative impacts associated with implementation of the CVPIA, which included long-term CVP 

water supply contract renewal, were adequately evaluated in the CVPIA PEIS from which this EA 

is tiered. The PEIS analysis provides the programmatic cumulative analysis for the No Action 

Alternative to which Alternatives 1 and 2 are compared. Since the differences among the 

alternatives are essentially contractual features, cumulative impacts associated with implementation 

of the CVPIA to cultural resources would be the same under all alternatives. 

Cumulative impacts to cultural resources related to planned growth have been adequately analyzed 

in the FWSI EIR, and MPP EIR/EIS, which incorporated the discussion from the County General 

Plan EIR. The effects to cultural resources resulting from planned development actions supported 

by the County and cities’ general plans and other land use planning programs are beyond the range 

of Reclamation’s Section 106 responsibilities. For example, Reclamation is not responsible for the 

development of housing tracts or industrial development in a community. Such actions are 

approved locally and at the state level. Further, if a farmer changes from one irrigated crop to 

another because of economic reasons, Reclamation does not control the farmer’s decision. For 

actions undertaken by CCWD or Reclamation within the federal service area that could affect 

historic resources, Reclamation and CCWD are required to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 

CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

4-39

INDIAN TRUST ASSETS 

Affected Environment 

Indian trust assets are legal interests in property that are held in trust by the U.S. Government for Indian 

tribes or individuals. The Secretary of the Interior is the trustee for the United States on behalf of 

recognized Indian tribes. Examples of trust assets are lands, minerals, hunting and fishing rights, and 

water rights.

Reclamation shares the responsibility to protect and maintain Indian trust assets reserved by or granted 

to Indian tribes or Indian individuals by treaty, statute, or Executive Order. Reclamation carries out its 

activities in a manner that protects trust assets and avoids impacts, where possible. Where not possible, 

compensation or mitigation is provided in consultation with affected tribes. 

There are no known federally recognized Indian trust assets within the contract service area of the 

CCWD. 

Environmental Consequences 

No Action Alternative 

There would be no environmental effects to Indian trust assets under the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative 1

There would be no environmental effects to Indian trust assets under Alternative 1. 

Alternative 2

There would be no environmental effects to Indian trust assets under Alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects

Implementation of Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would not affect Indian trust assets and would 

therefore not contribute to cumulative effects to those assets. 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA

5-1 

CHAPTER 5 

OTHER ACTIVITIES AND RELATED IMPACTS 

GROWTH INDUCEMENT 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires consideration of potential growthinducing impacts as indirect effects of proposed actions (40 CFR 1508.8(b)). To find that there 

would be a growth-inducing impact as a result of the proposed long-term water service contract 

renewal action, a determination would need to be made that the proposed action would result in 

increased growth and that the increased growth would be reasonably certain to occur. The proposed 

long-term water service contract renewal between Reclamation and CCWD would not result in 

growth-inducing impacts, for the reasons described below. 

Growth Inducement Analysis Completed for Related Projects 

Environmental documentation completed for two related projects undertaken by the CCWD, the 

MPP and the FWSI, analyzed potential growth inducement associated with implementation of these 

projects. The MPP EIR/EIS studied modifications to the Contra Costa Canal to provide structural 

upgrading and a water backup supply system, and the FWSI EIR evaluated future water demand 

and considered increasing the water supply over the current allotment of 195,000 acre-feet per year 

to 219,400 acre-feet per year. An increased water supply could be accommodated under both of 

these projects. The environmental documents concluded that while provision of additional water 

would remove an obstacle to growth, it would not alter the time, magnitude, or location of growth 

forecasted by the regional planning and land use agencies in Contra Costa County. 

The MPP EIR/EIS concluded that the MPP would indirectly support growth in the cities and the 

County but also concluded that this growth would not exceed planned levels or occur in areas not 

planned for development by the lead land use agencies. The impacts of this growth have also been 

evaluated in the environmental documentation of the cities and the County. 

The FWSI was developed to respond to growth projected by the County and cities’ general plans. 

The FWSI specifically responded to policies outlined in the County General Plan EIR, including the 

development of supplies and facilities to meet future water needs (Policy 7-17 of the County 

General Plan). The FWSI EIR also concluded that the projects included in the FWSI would not 

directly cause growth, but would accommodate growth already anticipated in the County and cities’ 

general plans. 

In contrast to the MPP and FWSI projects, the proposed action would not either directly or 

indirectly increase the amount of CVP water historically provided to the CCWD. The continued 

provision of water would, however, accommodate the need for water generated by current 

development and projected countywide growth forecasts. Development is planned and managed 

through the County and cities’ general plans and land management processes. Reclamation and 

CCWD have no jurisdiction over local land use policy or decision-making related to land 

development proposals. 
February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA

5-2 

Water System Capacity 

A project would be growth inducing if it resulted in increased water system capacity. Since the 

proposed contract renewal would not increase water system capacity, it would not be growth 

inducing. The capacity of CCWD’s water system was increased by the MPP, resulting in indirect 

impacts on growth in the County. 

Growth Inducement Analysis of the Proposed Action 

The purpose and need for a proposed action are key considerations in evaluating its potential to 

induce future growth. As identified previously in this EA, the purpose of the proposed action is to 

replace CCWD’s Amendatory Contract. Long-term contract renewal is needed to continue the 

provision of CVP water, incorporate administrative conditions into the renewed contract in 

compliance with federal reclamation law, and allow the continued reimbursement to the federal 

government for costs related to CVP operation. These actions would neither increase the amount of 

water provided to the CCWD nor introduce new structures or facilities that could accommodate 

increased water volumes. 

The proposed action would renew the long-term water service contract to deliver water from the 

CVP to the CCWD. All alternatives would secure continued CVP water delivery to the CCWD 

service area at the current level of up to 195,000 acre-feet per year. The differences among the 

alternatives are contractual features, including water cost, definition of M&I users, and water 

measurement. None of the alternatives would change the water service amount, increase water 

system capacity, or introduce new facilities. The provision of a reliable water supply to CCWD 

would not directly cause growth to occur, but would rather accommodate existing water demands 

and future growth envisioned in the cities’ and County general plans and amendments. Regional 

growth issues have been adequately addressed in the County General Plan, the general plan for each 

city within the project service area, and regional plans generated by the Association of Bay Area 

Governments, the California Department of Transportation, and others. These planning efforts used 

historical analysis, the formulation of public goals and policies, and various types of forecasting to 

generate growth management plans addressing the nature, pace, scale, and geographical distribution 

of future changes in population, economy, and land use with the service area. Each plan was 

developed with substantial community and public agency input, and each was subject to 

comprehensive environmental review prior to approval and adoption. 

Local and regional plans incorporate consideration of the regional water system as one basis of land 

use planning. The discretionary approval of land development projects within each local 

jurisdiction is predicated on conformance with these land use regulations. Thus, limitations to new 

land development that exist due to capacities in the regional water system are imposed through the 

land development approval process. Since the proposed action would not alter the regional water 

delivery and storage system, it would not affect any existing or anticipated limitations to population 

growth. 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA

5-3 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

No unavoidable direct adverse impacts resulting from long-term water service contract renewal 

have been identified. None of the alternatives would change the water service amount, increase 

water system capacity, or introduce new facilities. They would therefore not directly cause any 

physical changes to the environment. Implementation of the alternatives would accommodate 

planned development and growth in accordance with city and County land use plans. 

Contra Costa County has identified some significant unavoidable impacts of planned growth, 

including loss of farmland, air quality degradation, traffic congestion, and a change in aesthetic 

character. These issues were adequately evaluated in previous environmental documents, and the 

County adopted a statement of overriding considerations for these impacts. 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA

6-1 

CHAPTER 6 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

INTRODUCTION 

Prior to the preparation of this EA, input was solicited and incorporated from a broad range of 

cooperating and consulting agencies and the public. This chapter summarizes the public 

involvement program and key issues raised by the public and interest groups. This chapter also 

addresses the manner in which federal statutes, implementing regulations, and executive orders 

potentially applicable to implementation of the CVPIA have been addressed. The conclusions of 

compliance are based on the Environmental Consequences presented in Chapter 4. The compliance 

summaries apply only to the alternatives discussed in this EA and not the development of 

concurrent CVPIA implementation programs. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

Reclamation started the preparation of this EA with scoping meetings. Scoping served as a factfinding process to identify public concerns and recommendations about the long-term contract 

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

Scoping activities began in October 1998 after a Notice of Intent to prepare environmental 

documentation for long-term contract renewals was filed in the Federal Register. The scoping 

period formally ended in January 1999 and the Scoping Report was released in the summer of 1999. 

Public input continued during long-term contract negotiations to define the contract language. 

Discussions also were held with the CCWD during the preparation of this document. 

At public scoping meetings, Reclamation provided information about the long-term contract 

renewal process and solicited public comments, questions, and concerns. At these meetings, 

participants had numerous comments and questions about how important issues would be 

considered both in the CVPIA PEIS and during the long-term contract renewal process. The 

majority of the comments received during the scoping process addressed the needs assessment 

methodology to be used as part of the long-term contract renewal process. Contract renewal 

negotiation issues also were addressed. The fewest number of comments addressed environmental 

issues. 

Reclamation received numerous comments about issues to be considered in this EA and 

methodologies for analyzing impacts. Comments concerning the development of alternatives were 

considered in the formation of the alternatives analyzed in this EA. It was determined that the 

description of the alternatives in this EA largely would focus on the contract provisions. Comments 

on methods used to address impacts were considered in the development of the Environmental 

Consequences section of this EA. The impact analysis focused on comparing the alternatives with 

the CVPIA PEIS Preferred Alternative (which is the No Action Alternative in this EA) rather than 

with existing conditions. 
February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA

6-2 

CONSULTATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES 

This EA was prepared in accordance with the policies and regulations for the following issues. 

These issues and how compliance was addressed in this EA are briefly discussed in the remaining 

sections of this chapter. Work is continuing on each of these requirements. As individual projects 

are implemented, compliance requirements will be considered. 

• National Environmental Policy Act 

• California Environmental Quality Act 

• Endangered Species Act 

• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

• National Historic Preservation Act 

• Indian Trust Assets 

• Indian Sacred Sites on Federal Land 

• Environmental Justice 

• State, Area-wide, and Local Plan and Program Consistency 

• Floodplain Management 

• Wetlands Protection 

• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

• Farmland Protection Policy Act and Farmland Preservation 

• Safe Drinking Water Act 

• Clean Air Act 

• Clean Water Act 

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT 

This EA was prepared pursuant to regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) (42 USC 4321 et seq.). NEPA provides a commitment that federal agencies will consider 

the environmental effects of their actions. This EA provides information regarding the No Action 

Alternative, the alternatives, and the environmental impacts of the alternatives. 

The Revised Draft EA/Draft FONSI was made available to the public on December 14, 2004. The 

comment period closed on January 12, 2005. No comments were received.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 

Implementation, funding, and permitting actions carried out by state and local agencies must 

comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA requirements are 

similar to NEPA requirements. This EA could be used as a basis for preparation of a CEQA 

document. 

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

Reclamation has prepared a biological assessment to determine if the alternatives will affect listed 

threatened and endangered species. The biological assessment addresses all species affected by the 

CVP operation in the CCWD service area. The biological assessment does not indicate that the 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA

6-3 

proposed action is likely to adversely affect a listed species. However, if it is determined that the 

proposed action may affect a listed species, Reclamation will request formal consultation pursuant 

to the ESA. 

Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been initiated by Reclamation. USFWS and NOAA 

concurrences with the determinations of the BA would mean that the long-term contract renewal 

may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect special-status species and designated or proposed 

critical habitats of those species.

Consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and USFWS 

must be completed before Reclamation can approve Findings for a proposed action. Reclamation 

must sign the Finding (FONSI) before long term renewal contracts can be signed by Reclamation.

FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT 

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) requires that Reclamation consult with federal 

and state fish and wildlife agencies on all water development projects that could affect biological 

resources. The implementation of the CVPIA, of which this action is a part, has been jointly 

analyzed by Reclamation and the Service, and the CVPIA is being jointly implemented. This 

continuous consultation with, and consideration of the views of, the Service in addition to its review 

of this document and consideration of its comments satisfies any applicable requirements of the 

FWCA. 

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires that federal agencies evaluate the effects of federal undertakings 

on historical, archeological, and cultural resources and afford the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation opportunities to comment on the proposed undertaking. The first step in the process is 

to identify cultural resources included on (or eligible for inclusion on) the NRHP that are located in 

or near the project area. The second step is to identify the possible effects of proposed actions. The 

lead agency must examine whether feasible alternatives exist that would avoid such effects. If an 

effect cannot reasonably be avoided, measures must be taken to minimize or mitigate potential 

adverse effects. 

During preparation of this EA, information from the State Clearinghouse was collected. The 

County and city governments in Contra Costa County have initiated separate consultations with 

respect to their land use planning activities. It was determined by the SHPO that compliance with 

Section 106 should be coordinated on a project-specific basis. 

INDIAN TRUST ASSETS 

The United States Government's trust responsibility for Indian resources requires Reclamation and 

other agencies to take measures to protect and maintain trust resources. These responsibilities 

include taking reasonable actions to preserve and restore tribal resources. Indian trust assets are 

legal interests in property and rights held in trust by the United States for Indian tribes or 

individuals. Indian reservations, rancherias, and allotments are common Indian trust assets. During 
February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA

6-4 

preparation of this EA, it was determined, based upon information provided by Reclamation that no 

Indian trust assets exist within the CCWD service area. 

INDIAN SACRED SITES ON FEDERAL LAND 

Executive Order 13007 provides that, in managing federal lands, each federal agency with statutory 

or administrative responsibility for management of federal lands shall, to the extent practicable and 

as permitted by law, accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian 

religious practitioners, and avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. No 

sacred sites were identified during the scoping or planning process, and sacred sites were therefore 

not included in the impact assessment of this EA. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Executive Order 12898 requires each federal agency to achieve environmental justice as part of its 

mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects, including social or economic effects, of programs, policies, and activities on 

minority populations and low-income populations of the United States. This EA evaluated the 

environmental, social, and economic impacts on minority and low-income populations in the impact 

assessment of the alternatives. 

STATE, AREA-WIDE, AND LOCAL PLAN AND PROGRAM CONSISTENCY 

Agencies must consider the consistency of a proposed action with approved state and local plans 

and laws. This EA was prepared with extensive information from local planning agencies. 

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT 

If a federal agency program will affect a floodplain, the agency must consider alternatives to avoid 

adverse effects in the floodplain or to minimize potential harm. Executive Order 11988 requires 

federal agencies to evaluate the potential effects of any actions they might take in a floodplain and 

to ensure that planning, programs, and budget requests reflect consideration of flood hazards and 

floodplain management. The alternatives would not affect floodplain management as compared to 

the No Action Alternative. 

WETLANDS PROTECTION 

Executive Order 11990 authorizes federal agencies to take actions to minimize the destruction, loss, 

or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of 

wetlands when undertaking federal activities and programs. Any agency considering a proposal 

that might affect wetlands must evaluate factors affecting wetland quality and survival. These 

factors should include the proposal’s effects on public health, safety, and welfare due to 

modifications in water supply and water quality; maintenance of natural ecosystems and 

conservation of flora and fauna; and other recreational, scientific, and cultural uses. The 

alternatives would not affect wetlands as compared to the No Action Alternative. 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA

6-5 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act designates qualifying free-flowing river segments as wild, scenic, 

or recreational. The Act establishes requirements applicable to water resource projects affecting 

wild, scenic, or recreational rivers within the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, as well as 

rivers designated on the National Rivers Inventory. Under the Act, a federal agency may not assist 

in the construction of a water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the 

free-flowing, scenic, and natural values of a wild or scenic river. If the project would affect the 

free-flowing characteristics of a designated river or unreasonably diminish the scenic, recreational, 

and fish and wildlife values present in the area, such activities should be undertaken in a manner 

that would minimize adverse impacts and should be developed in consultation with the National 

Park Service. None of the EA alternatives would affect flows in wild and scenic portions of rivers. 

FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY ACT AND FARMLAND PRESERVATION 

Two policies require federal agencies to include assessments of the potential effects of a proposed 

project on prime and unique farmland. These policies are the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 

1981 and the Memoranda on Farmland Preservation, dated August 30, 1976, and August 11, 1980, 

respectively, from the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality. Under requirements set forth in 

these policies, federal agencies must determine the effects before taking any action that could result 

in converting designated prime or unique farmland for nonagricultural purposes. If implementing a 

project would adversely affect farmland preservation, the agencies must consider alternatives to 

lessen those effects. Federal agencies also must ensure that their programs, to the extent 

practicable, are compatible with state, local, and private programs to protect farmland. No specific 

consultation concerning farmlands was conducted during preparation of this EA because the 

alternatives would not affect agricultural lands as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

CLEAN AIR ACT 

The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted to protect and enhance the nation’s air quality in 

order to promote public health and welfare and the productive capacity of the nation’s population. 

The CAA requires an evaluation of any federal action to determine its potential impact on air 

quality in the project region. Coordination is required with the appropriate local air quality 

management district as well as with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This 

coordination would determine whether the project conforms to the Federal Implementation Plan and 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

Section 176 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. Section 7506(c)) prohibits federal agencies from engaging in or 

supporting in any way an action or activity that does not conform to an applicable SIP. Actions and 

activities must conform to a SIP’s purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of 

violations of the national ambient air quality standards and in attaining those standards 

expeditiously. EPA promulgated conformity regulations (codified in 40 CFR Section 93.150 et 

seq.). 

The alternatives assume that current practices to control dust and soil erosion on lands that are 

seasonally fallowed would continue and that the land use agencies would continue to work with the 
February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA

6-6 

air quality districts. Therefore, it assumed that no air quality impacts would occur due to the 

alternatives as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT 

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (PL 99-339) became law in 1974 and was reauthorized in 

1986 and again in August 1996. Through the SDWA, Congress gave the EPA the authority to set 

standards for contaminants in drinking water supplies. Amendments to the SDWA provided more 

flexibility, more state responsibility, and more problem prevention approaches. The law changed 

the standard-setting procedure for drinking water and established a State Revolving Loan Fund to 

help public water systems improve their facilities, to ensure compliance with drinking water 

regulations, and to support state drinking water program activities. 

Under the SDWA provisions, the California Department of Health Services has the primary 

enforcement responsibility. The California Health and Safety Code establishes this authority and 

stipulates drinking water quality and monitoring standards. To maintain primacy, a state’s drinking 

water regulations cannot be less stringent than the federal standards. The analysis of the EA 

alternatives as compared to the SDWA requirements indicated that there would be no changes in 

compliance as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

CLEAN WATER ACT 

The Clean Water Act (CWA) gave the EPA the authority to develop a program to make all waters 

of the United States “fishable and swimmable.” This program has included identifying existing and 

proposed beneficial uses and methods to protect and/or restore those beneficial uses. The CWA 

contains many provisions, including provisions that regulate the discharge of pollutants into water 

bodies. The discharges may be direct flows from point sources, such as an effluent from a 

wastewater treatment plant, or a non-point source, such as eroded soil particles from a construction 

site. The analysis of the EA alternatives as compared to the CWA requirements indicated that there 

would be no changes in compliance as compared to the No Action Alternative. 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA 

7-1 

CHAPTER 7 

REFERENCES 

Association of Bay Area Governments 

1997 Projections ’98: Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area to the Year 2020. 

Beardsley, Richard K. 

 1948 Cultural Sequences in Central California Archaeology. American Antiquity 14(1) 

1-29. 

1954. Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California. 2 Pts. University of 

California Archaeological Survey Reports 24-25. Berkeley. 

Beck, W.A., and Y.D. Haase 

1974 Historical Atlas of California (third printing). University of Oklahoma Press, 

Norman. 

Bickel, Polly McW. 

1978a Changing Sea Levels along the California Coast: Anthropological Implications. 

Journal of California Anthropology 5(1): 6-20. 

1978b Corrections to Sea Level Article. Journal of California Anthropology 5(): 296-

297. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis 

 http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/scb/svy_ca.htm accessed October 5, 2000 

Bureau of Reclamation 

1992 Bureau of Reclamation CVP Irrigation and M&I Contractor Water Rates 

1994 Bureau of Reclamation CVP Irrigation and M&I Contractor Water Rates 

1997 Bureau of Reclamation CVP Irrigation and M&I Contractor Water Rates 

1999 Bureau of Reclamation CVP Irrigation and M&I Contractor Water Rates 

2000 Bureau of Reclamation CVP Irrigation and M&I Contractor Water Rates 

2004 Biological Assessment on the Contra Costa Canal Long-Term Water Service 

Contract Renewal 

2004 Bureau of Reclamation Water Needs Assessment for Contra Costa Water District 
Chapter 7 References 

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA

7-2 

Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

1997 Central Valley Improvement Act Draft PEIS and Appendices. 

1999 Central Valley Project Improvement Act Final PEIS and Appendices. 

California Department of Finance 

http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/Proj_race.htm accessed October 5, 2000 

http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/repndat.htm accessed October 5, 2000 

http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/hist_e-4txt.htm accessed October 5, 2000 

California Department of Fish and Game 

2004 Natural Diversity Data Base records search. Sacramento, CA. 

California Department of Water Resources 

1993 GIS data in crops and cover types and land use. Land Cover Mapping Program. 

Sacramento, CA. 

California Employment Development Department 

http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/indcur/coluspr.txt accessed October 4, 2000 

http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/indcur/glennpr.txt accessed October 4, 2000 

http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/indcur/tehampr.txt accessed October 4, 2000 

http://www.calmis.ca.gov/htmlfile/subject/agric.htm accessed October 4, 2000 

http://www.calmis.ca.gov/htmlfile/subject/agric.htm accessed April 5, 2000 

CH2M Hill 

2000 CH2M Hill’s memorandum dated October 2, 2000 with draft PEIS model 

analyses 

(CCC CDD) Contra Costa County Community Development Department 

1991 Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005. 

1992 Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005 Draft Environmental Impact 

Report. 

1996 Contra Costa County General Plan 1995-2010. 

1999 Contra Costa County General Plan (updated). 
References Chapter 7

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

7-3 

(CCWD) Contra Costa Water District 

1996 Future Water Supply Study. 

1996 Future Water Supply Study Appendix A. 

1997 Binding Agreement for Early Renewal Between the United States and Contra 

Costa Water District. 

1997 Supplemental Agreement Between the United States and Contra Costa Water 

District regarding Scope and Timing of Renewal Negotiations for Contra Costa 

Water District’s Amendatory Water Service Contract. 

1996 Future Water Supply Study Final Report. 

1998 Future Water Supply Implementation Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH 

No. 97072064. 

1999a Update of CCWD’s Water Management Plan Draft 

1999b Future Water Supply Implementation Study EIR 

2003 Annual Report 

2004 Personal Communication, Jeff Quimby. 

Contra Costa Water District and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

1998 Multipurpose Pipeline Project Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental 

Impact Statement. SCH No. 97082090. 

Elsasser, Albert B. 

1978 Development of Regional Prehistoric Cultures in California, edited by R.F. 

Heizer, Volume 8. Handbook of North American Indians, W.G. Sturtevant, 

general editor, pp. 37-57. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 

Elliot Publishing Company 

1893 Contra Costa Co. Cal. (pamphlet including maps, illustrations, and text). 

Reprinted 1988 by the Contra Costa County Historical Society, n.p. 

Emanuels, G. 

1986 California’s Contra Costa County: An Illustrated History. Panorama West 

Books, Fresno. 

Fickewirth, Alvin A. 

1992 California Railroads: An Encyclopaedia of Cable Car, Common Carrier, 

Horsecar, Industrial Interurban, Loggin, Monorail, Motor Road, Short Lines, 

Streetcar, Switching and Terminal Railroads in California 1851-1992. Golden 

West Books, San Marino. 
Chapter 7 References 

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA

7-4 

Fugro West 

1997 Interim service area map: Contra Costa Water District interim service area listed 

species occurrences and potential habitat. April. Prepared for the Contra Costa 

Water District. Concord, CA. 

Goddard, George 

1857 Britton & Rey’s Map of the State of California. Britton and Rey, San Francisco. 

Reprinted by the Friends of the Bancroft, University of California, Berkeley. 

Gudde, Erwin G. 

1974 California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical 

Names (Third edition revised and enlarged, Second printing 1974). University of 

California Press, Berkeley. 

Hendry and Bowman 

1940 The Spanish and Mexican Adobe and Other Buildings in the Nine San Francisco 

Bay Counties, 1776 to about 1850. MS on file, Bancroft Library, University of 

California, Berkeley. 

King C.D. 

1978a Protohistoric and Historic Archaeology. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, 

Volume 8. Handbook of North American Indians, W.G. Sturtevant, general 

editor, pp.58-68. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 

1978b Historical Indian Settlements in the Vicinity of the Holiday Inn Site. In 

Archaeological Investigations at CA-SCI-128, the Holiday Inn Site, edited by J.C. 

Winter. MS on file, E-756/S-5281, California Archaeological Site Inventory, 

Rohnert Park. 

Kyle, Douglas E. 

1990 Historic Spots in California (Fourth edition of M.B. Hoover, H.E. Rensch and 

E.G. Rensch). Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1990. 

Lillard, J.B., R.F. Heizer and F. Fenenga 

1939 An Introduction to the Archeology of Central California. Sacramento Junior 

College, Department of Anthropology, Bulletin 2. 

McLeod, Dean L. 

1994 Historical Time Line Bay Point and Vicinity 1772-1996. Draft dated 4/10/94. 

MS on file, Contra Costa County Historical Society History Center, Concord and 

Basin Research Associates, San Leandro, 1991. 

Meyer, J. and J.S. Rosenthal 

1993. Los Vaqueros Project Final Report No. 7. 
References Chapter 7

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

7-5 

Minnesota Implan Group 

 1997 Model Software Version 1.1 

1991 County Data 

 1993 Contra Costa County 

Moratto, Michael J. with D.A. Fredrickson, C. Raven and Claude N. Warren 

 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. 

Self, William, Greg Matson, Carrie Wills, Norm Dyer and Ann Samuelson 

1993 Cultural Resources Overview Naval Weapons Station Concord Contra Costa 

County, California. MS on file S-15500, California Archaeology Site Inventory, 

Rohnert Park 1993. 

Sloan and Robson 

1918 Map of Properties of Pacific Coast Shipbuilding Company: Contra Costa Co., Cal. 

Sloan & Robson, Engineers. J.H. Marion, del. Scale (ca 1:12,500). 

Smith and Elliott 

1879 Illustrations of Contra Costa Co. California with Historical Sketch (Facsimile, 

1952 edition). Contra Costa Historical Society. The Sacramento Lithograph Co., 

Sacramento. 

Slocum, J.P. & Co. 

1882 History of Contra Costa County California. W.A. Slocum and Company, San 

Francisco (reprinted 1974 by Brooks-Sterling Company, Oakland). 

Stewart, S.B. 

1981 Archaeological Overview of Alameda, Contra Costa, and Marin counties. In 

Overview of Prehistoric Archaeology for the Northwest Region California 

Archaeological Sites Survey, Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Lake, Sonoma, 

Napa, Marin, Contra Costa, Alameda, edited by Northwest Regional Office, pp. 

4.0-4.75. Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert 

Park, 1981. 

U.S. Bureau of Census 

 1998 1997 Census of Agriculture 

(USGS) U.S. Geological Survey 

1998. Biological Resources Division. GAP Analysis of Biodiversity in Mainland 

California. Conducted by University of California, Santa Barbara, Biogeography 

Lab; coordinated through USGS. 
Chapter 7 References 

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA

7-6 

Weber & Co. 

1914 Webers map of Contra Costa County, California. Scale (ca 1: 130,000) (W 

122026—W 121032/N 38007—N 37043). C.F Weber & Co., San Francisco, ca. 

1914. 

West, G. James 

1977 Late Holocene Vegetation History of the Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta, 

California. Report on File, State of California, Department of Water Resources, 

Sacramento, 1977. 

West, G. James and Patrick Welch 

1996 Interim CALFED Cultural Resources of the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta 

(DRAFT). MS on file, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento Office. 

Whitney, A.D. 

1873 Map of the Region Adjacent to the Bay of San Francisco. State Geological 

Survey of California. On file San Mateo County Historical Museum and 

California State Library, Sacramento. Facsimile on file, Basin Research 

Associates, San Leandro. 

LIST OF CONTACTS AND CONTRIBUTORS 

David Young South Central California Area Office-U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Nina Bicknese Mid-Pacific Regional Office-U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Joseph Thompson South Central California Area Office-U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Paul Aguirre South Central California Area Office-U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Frances Garland Contra Costa Water District 

Jeff Quimby Contra Costa Water District 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

Laura Kuh Principal-In-Charge/Project Manager, North State Resources 

Jason Bass Senior Economist, Dornbusch and Company 

Kathryn McDonald Technical Writer and Editor, North State Resources 

Kerri Mikkelsen Rose Environmental Scientist, North State Resources 

Robin Jordan Document Preparation/Graphic Production, North State Resources 

Tara Anderson Graphic Production, North State Resources 

Phyllis Potter Project Manager for the October 2000 Draft EA, SAIC 

Marianne Tanzer Environmental Analyst for the October 2000 Draft EA, SAIC 

Agnes Vianzon Environmental Analyst for the October 2000 Draft EA, SAIC 
References Chapter 7

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA 

7-7 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

CALFED Consortium of state and federal agencies created through the Bay-Delta Accord 

CCCGP Contra Costa County General Plan 

CCWD Contra Costa Water District 

CRHR California Register of Historical Resources 

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database 

County Contra Costa County 

CVP Central Valley Project 

CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

Delta Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 

DOHS Department of Health Services 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EBRPD East Bay Regional Parks District 

EIR Environmental Impact Report 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FTE Full Time Equivalent 

FWSI Future Water Supply Implementation project 

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning 

LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission 

LVP Los Vaqueros Project 

M&I Municipal and Industrial 

MPP Multipurpose Pipeline 
Chapter 7 References 

February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA

7-8 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWIC Northwest Information Center 

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

POW Place of Work 

PROSIM A Hydrologic Model Developed by the USBR 

Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROW Right of Way 

RRA Reclamation Reform Act 

Secretary Secretary of the Interior 

State Board State Water Resources Control Board 

USBR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

VAMP Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan 
APPENDIX A 

Table A-1 Summary of Current and Draft Water Service 

Contract Provisions 

(9 pages)

11/2004 Draft Long Term Renewal Contract Between 

United States and CCWD

(60 pages)
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA Appendix A

 A-1 

Table A-1. Summary of Contract Provisions for the CCWD Proposed Long Term Water Service Contract, 

Contra Costa County, California (from North State Resources, Inc., May 2004)

Provision Existing Amendatory 

Contract (1994 – 2010) 

Federal Action 

Proposed Long-Term Water 

Service Contract Renewal 

Effects Analysis 

Explanatory Recitals

Assumes the U.S. is 

operating the CVP for 

beneficial uses. 

Same as Existing Contract. No effect; explanatory recitals 

are not operative provisions. 

Assumes the CCWD is 

developing a Los Vaqueros 

Project to assist the CCWD in 

providing high quality water to 

its customers and to increase 

water supply reliability. 

Same as Existing Contract. 

Language modified to indicate 

Los Vaqueros Project has been 

constructed.

No effect; explanatory recitals 

are not operative provisions. 

Explanatory Recitals

Assumes CCWD and the U.S. 

must agree on how the Los 

Vaqueros Project will be 

utilized with CVP water and 

facilities. 

Same as Existing Contract. No effect; explanatory recitals 

are not operative provisions. 

No similar recital. Assumes the rights to CVP water 

were acquired by the U.S. 

No effect; explanatory recitals 

are not operative provisions. 

No similar recital. Assumes the Amendatory 

Contract exists. 

No effect; explanatory recitals 

are not operative provisions. 

No similar recital. Assumes that the CCWD is 

required to operate and maintain 

the Contra Costa Canal System 

and Contra Loma Dam and 

reservoir. 

No effect; explanatory recitals 

are not operative provisions. 

No similar recital. Assumes the U.S. and CCWD 

have a binding agreement (No. 

I75r-3401-BA) and supplemental 

agreement (No. I75r-3401-SA) 

that set out terms for renewing 

the existing contract before it 

expires, and to complete 

necessary environmental 

documentation and negotiation of 

a renewal contract. 

No effect; explanatory recitals 

are not operative provisions. 

No similar recital. Provides for long-term renewal of 

the Existing Contract following 

completion of appropriate 

environmental documentation, 

including PEIS for CVPIA 

implementation and all CVP longterm contracts renewal. Also 

recognizes partial assignment of 

the contract to a 3rd party or 

acquisition of CVP water through 

assignments, if covered under 

this contract. 

No effect; explanatory recitals 

are not operative provisions. 

No similar recital. Assumes PEIS and other 

environmental review is complete. 

No effect; explanatory recitals 

are not operative provisions. 

No similar recital. Assumes CCWD requested the 

renewal of the Existing Contract, 

pursuant to existing laws and 

contract terms. 

No effect; explanatory recitals 

are not operative provisions. 
February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Appendix A Final EA 

 A-2 

Table A-1. Summary of Contract Provisions for the CCWD Proposed Long Term Water Service Contract, 

Contra Costa County, California (from North State Resources, Inc., May 2004)

Provision Existing Amendatory 

Contract (1994 – 2010) 

Federal Action 

Proposed Long-Term Water 

Service Contract Renewal 

Effects Analysis 

No similar recital. Assumes CCWD has fulfilled all 

of its obligations under the 

Existing Contract; and the CCWD 

has utilized CVP water for 

reasonable and beneficial use. 

No effect; explanatory recitals 

are not operative provisions. 

No similar recital. Assumes CVP water is an 

essential portion of the CCWD 

water supply; and that the CCWD 

service area depends on the 

continued availability of CVP 

water. 

No effect; explanatory recitals 

are not operative provisions. 

No similar recital. Assumes the Secretary intends to 

pursue ways to improve water 

supply, quality, and reliability. 

No effect; explanatory recitals 

are not operative provisions. 

Explanatory Recitals

No similar recital. Assumes mutual goals of U.S. 

and CCWD relating to water 

reliability, costs, repayment, 

shortage prevention, and balance 

among demands; and that a 

cooperative relationship among 

parties will be developed to 

achieve goals. 

No effect; explanatory recitals 

are not operative provisions. 

Assumes annual adjustment 

in Rates to be paid for CVP 

water by CCWD. 

No similar recital. No effect; explanatory recitals 

are not operative provisions. 

Definitions 

“Calendar Year” No similar definition. The period January 1 through 

December 31. 

No effect; see operative 

provisions. 

“Charges” Payments in addition to the 

Rates determined by the 

Contracting Officer each year. 

Rewording of definition of 

Charges to include both Rates 

and Tiered Pricing Increments. 

No effect; see operative 

provisions. 

“Condition of 

Shortage” 

No similar definition. Project condition such that in any 

Year, the Contracting Officer is 

unable to deliver sufficient water 

to meet the Contract Total. 

No effect; see operative 

provisions. 

“Contra Costa 

Canal System” 

Contra Costa Canal, including 

the intake channel from Rock 

Slough, Clayton and Ygnacio 

Relift Canals and pumping 

plants, the Martinez Reservoir 

and Pumping Plants 1, 2, 3, 

and 4. 

Same as Existing Contract but 

also adds “and such facilities as 

may be authorized by Congress 

from time to time for rehabilitation 

or replacement thereof.” 

No effect; see operative 

provisions. 

“Contra Loma 

Dam and 

Reservoir” 

The Dam, pumping plant, and 

reservoir constructed as an 

addition to the Contra Costa 

Canal System. 

Same as Existing Contract. No effect; see operative 

provisions. 

“Contract Total” No similar definition. Maximum amount of water to 

which the CCWD is entitled. 

No effect; see operative 

provisions. 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA Appendix A

 A-3 

Table A-1. Summary of Contract Provisions for the CCWD Proposed Long Term Water Service Contract, 

Contra Costa County, California (from North State Resources, Inc., May 2004)

Provision Existing Amendatory 

Contract (1994 – 2010) 

Federal Action 

Proposed Long-Term Water 

Service Contract Renewal 

Effects Analysis 

“CVP water” 

(Existing 

Contract) or 

“Project Water” 

(Proposed 

Contract) 

Water appropriated by the 

U.S. for the operation of the 

CVP, in addition to and not 

including the Los Vaqueros 

water rights water. 

All water developed, diverted, 

stored, or delivered by the 

Secretary in accordance with the 

statutes authorizing the Project 

and with the terms and conditions 

of water rights and California 

Law. 

No effect; see operative 

provisions. 

“CVP” (Existing 

Contract) or 

“Project”

(Proposed 

Contract) 

Central Valley Project, 

California, of the Bureau of 

Reclamation.

The Central Valley Project owned 

by the U.S. and managed by the 

Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Reclamation. 

No effect; see operative 

provisions. 

“CVPIA” No similar definition. Central Valley Project 

Improvement Act, Title XXXIV of 

the Act of October 30, 1992 (106 

Stat. 4706). 

No effect; see operative 

provisions. 

“District Service 

Area” 

The area to which CCWD 

provides continuing service. 

The area to which the Contractor 

is permitted to provide Project 

Water under the Contract. 

No effect; see operative 

provisions. 

Definitions 

“Full Cost Rate” No similar definition. Annual rate, as determined by the 

Contracting Officer, that shall 

include expenditures for 

construction allocable to Project 

irrigation or M&I functions, of 

facilities in service, less 

payments; defines how interest 

will be calculated on costs 

outstanding; Full Cost Rate 

includes actual operation, 

maintenance, and replacement 

costs.

  Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species 

Minor administrative change 

only. 

“Lateral 

Distribution 

System” 

The water conveyance 

system constructed by the 

U.S., consisting of pipelines 

extending service to CCWD 

water users from the Contra 

Costal Canal at Milepost 5.3, 

6.2, 7.1, 7.3, 9.1, 14.0, 25.6, 

36.6, and Y-2-6. 

Same as Existing Contract. No effect; see operative 

provisions. 

“Los Vaqueros 

water rights 

water” 

Water appropriated pursuant 

to State Water Rights 

Application #20245. 

Same as Existing Contract. No effect; see operative 

provisions. 

“Los Vaqueros” The Los Vaqueros Project, 

consisting of a storage 

reservoir and associated 

facilities to be constructed by 

CCWD on property owned by 

the CCWD, to store and 

convey Los Vaqueros water 

rights water and CVP water, 

as well as additional water 

that CCWD may acquire. 

Substantially the same as 

Existing Contract. Language has 

been added to indicate Los 

Vaqueros has been constructed. 

No effect; see operative 

provisions. 
February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Appendix A Final EA 

 A-4 

Table A-1. Summary of Contract Provisions for the CCWD Proposed Long Term Water Service Contract, 

Contra Costa County, California (from North State Resources, Inc., May 2004)

Provision Existing Amendatory 

Contract (1994 – 2010) 

Federal Action 

Proposed Long-Term Water 

Service Contract Renewal 

Effects Analysis 

“M&I Full Cost 

Water Rate” 

No Similar Definition. Full Cost Rate applicable to the 

delivery of M&I water. 

No effect; see operative 

provisions. 

“M&I

Supplemental 

Charge”

A charge in addition to the 

cost of service rate, to be 

applied to the repayment of 

the CCWD’s allocated share 

of CVP capital costs by the 

Contracting Officer. 

Same as Existing Contract. No effect; see operative 

provisions. 

Definitions 

“New Facilities” Short Cut Pipeline located 

between Contra Costa Canal 

Milepost 25.70 and Milepost 

47.77 and the Pump Units in 

Pumping Plant 1, 2, 3, and 4 

of the Contra Costa Canal 

System. 

“Short Cut Pipeline” is the 

Contra Costa Canal intake, 

pipeline, pipeline 

appurtenances, Martinez 

Reservoir inlet; and 

“Pump Units” are the pump, 

motor, motor controls, wiring, 

structural supports and 

discharge control apparatus 

for pumping 100 cubic feet 

per second (cfs) of water. 

Same as Existing Contract. No effect; see operative 

provisions. 

“O&M” Normal and reasonable care, 

control, operation, repair, 

replacement, and 

maintenance.

Same as Existing Contract. No effect; see operative 

provisions. 

“Project 

Contractors” 

No similar definition. All parties who have water 

service contracts for Project 

Water with the U.S., pursuant to 

Reclamation law. 

No effect; see operative 

provisions. 

“Project Works” The following facilities, as 

described above: Contra 

Costa Canal System, Contra 

Loma Dam and Reservoir, 

New Facilities, and Lateral 

Distribution System. 

Same as Existing Contract. No effect; see operative 

provisions. 

“Rates” Payments determined 

annually by the Contracting 

Officer in accordance with the 

then current ratesetting 

policies for the CVP. 

Same as Existing Contract. No effect; see operative 

provisions. 

“Recent Historic 

Average” 

No similar definition. Most recent 5-year average of the 

final forecast of Water Made 

Available to the CCWD pursuant 

to this or preceding contracts. 

No effect; see operative 

provisions. 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA Appendix A

 A-5 

Table A-1. Summary of Contract Provisions for the CCWD Proposed Long Term Water Service Contract, 

Contra Costa County, California (from North State Resources, Inc., May 2004)

Provision Existing Amendatory 

Contract (1994 – 2010) 

Federal Action 

Proposed Long-Term Water 

Service Contract Renewal 

Effects Analysis 

“Secretary” or 

“Contracting 

Officer”

The Secretary of the Interior 

or a duly authorized 

representative.

Same as Existing Contract, but 

also adds “or a duly appointed 

successor”. 

  Financial Effect 

  Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species 

No substantive change. 

Definitions 

“Tiered Pricing 

Component” 

No similar definition. Incremental amount to be paid for 

each AF of Water Delivered as 

described under “Full Cost Rate.” 

_ Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

  No Effect/ _ Effect on 

Listed Species 

Changes in pricing could result 

in indirect effects to listed 

species as a result of 

subsequent changes in land 

use.

“Water Delivered” 

or “Delivered 

Water” 

No similar definition. Project Water diverted for use by 

CCWD at points of delivery 

approved by the Contracting 

Officer.

No effect; see operative 

provisions. 

“water for 

irrigation use,” or 

“irrigation water” 

Water made available from 

the CVP that is used primarily 

in the production of 

agricultural crops or livestock, 

including domestic use 

incidental thereto, and the 

watering of livestock. 

No similar definition. No effect. Irrigation water use 

is not being eliminated, only the 

type of water is changing. 

“water for M&I 

use,” or “M&I 

Water” 

Water made available from 

the CVP other than irrigation 

water. Includes water used 

for domestic uses/purposes 

such as watering of 

landscaping or pasture for 

animals (e.g., horses) kept for 

personal use. 

Assumes use of water 

delivered to land in units less 

than or equal to 2 acres to be 

M&I use, unless CCWD 

convinces the Contracting 

Officer that use is for 

irrigation.

Substantially same as Existing 

Contract, with the following 

exception:

Assumes use of water delivered 

to land in units less than or equal 

to 5 acres to be M&I use. 

_ Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

  No Effect/ _ Effect on 

Listed Species 

Eliminating irrigation water to 

parcels from 2 to 5 acres in size 

could result in indirect effects 

to listed species as a result of 

subsequent changes in land 

use if irrigated lands are taken 

out of production and 

converted to urban use. 

“Water Made 

Available” 

No similar definition. Estimated amount of Project 

Water that can be delivered to 

CCWD for the upcoming Year. 

No effect; see operative 

provisions. 

“Water 

Scheduled” 

No similar definition. Project Water made available to 

CCWD for which times and 

quantities for delivery have been 

established by CCWD and the 

Contracting Officer. 

No effect; see operative 

provisions. 

“Year” Period of time from and 

including March 1 of each 

calendar year through the last 

day of February of the 

following calendar year. 

Same as Existing Contract. No effect; see operative 

provisions. 
February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Appendix A Final EA 

 A-6 

Table A-1. Summary of Contract Provisions for the CCWD Proposed Long Term Water Service Contract, 

Contra Costa County, California (from North State Resources, Inc., May 2004)

Provision Existing Amendatory 

Contract (1994 – 2010) 

Federal Action 

Proposed Long-Term Water 

Service Contract Renewal 

Effects Analysis 

Term of Contract – 

Right to Use of 

Water 

Contract expires on 

December 31, 2010. 

Provides for successive 

renewals, for periods not 

exceeding 25 years each, 

under specified conditions. 

Assumes that the dates of the 

Contract shall be determined.

Sets forth renewal standards and 

deadlines. 25-year renewal term 

for Irrigation Water; 40-year 

renewal term for M&I Water. 

Sets forth conditions for renewal, 

including establishing a water 

conservation plan and 

compliance with terms and 

conditions of the contract. 

Sets forth conditions for 

conversion of contract portions to 

a contract under the Reclamation 

Project Act of 1939. 

_ Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

  No Effect/ _ Effect on 

Listed Species 

Because the contract term 

would be increased from 25 to 

40 years, less frequent 

renewals will be required. Less 

frequent scrutiny for ESA 

compliance could indirectly 

affect listed species. 

Water to be Made 

Available and 

Delivered to the 

District

The CCWD is entitled to, and 

the Contracting Officer shall 

make available to the CCWD, 

up to 195,000 AF of CVP 

water during any Year. 

Assumes unused CVP water 

will be put to reasonable 

beneficial use for CVP 

purposes, in accordance with 

applicable state water rights 

permits and licenses, and the 

CCWD will operate Los 

Vaqueros in accordance with 

applicable state water rights 

permits and licenses. 

Substantially same as Existing 

Contract, with the following 

additions:

Specifies that 195,000 AF of CVP 

water will be for M&I purposes. 

Assumes the Contract Total will 

not be available to the CCWD in 

many years. 

Allows groundwater recharge and 

banking, surface water storage, 

and similar programs, subject to 

certain provisions and approval 

by the Contracting Officer. 

Assumes CCWD will comply with 

relevant Biological Opinions. 

Provides methods for Contracting 

Officer to allocate water among 

Contractors, to approve “pre-use,” 

to approve other purposes of use. 

Contracting Officer is to make 

efforts to protect Project water 

rights and to provide the water 

made available. 

_ Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

  No Effect/ _ Effect on 

Listed Species 

Eliminating irrigation water 

delivered to CCWD service area 

could indirectly affect listed 

species due to subsequent land 

use changes if irrigated lands 

are taken out of production and 

converted to urban use. 

Time for Delivery of 

Water 

Describes methods for 

delivering CVP water. The 

CCWD will submit annual 

written schedules to the 

Contracting Officer that show 

the times, quantities, and 

points of delivery of CVP 

water, forecasts of Los 

Vaqueros operations, and 

forecasts of the conveyance 

and use of non-CVP water. 

The U.S. will provide annual 

forecasts of CVP operations 

to the CCWD. 

Substantially same as Existing 

Contract.

  Financial Effect 

  Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species 

No substantive change. 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA Appendix A

 A-7 

Table A-1. Summary of Contract Provisions for the CCWD Proposed Long Term Water Service Contract, 

Contra Costa County, California (from North State Resources, Inc., May 2004)

Provision Existing Amendatory 

Contract (1994 – 2010) 

Federal Action 

Proposed Long-Term Water 

Service Contract Renewal 

Effects Analysis 

Points of Delivery 

and/or Diversion – 

Measurement – 

and Responsibility 

for Distribution of 

Water 

Describes points of delivery 

and/or diversion of CVP water 

and Los Vaqueros water 

rights water in the CCWD, 

given certain provisions. 

The U.S. shall not be held 

responsible for certain 

activities, as set forth. 

Describes methods of and 

locations for installing water 

measuring and recording 

devices in the CCWD, and 

provisions for adjustments 

and repairs for such devices. 

Substantially same as Existing 

Contract, and adds that CCWD 

shall not deliver Project Water to 

land outside the Service Area 

without written approval from the 

Contracting Officer. 

  Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species 

Minor administrative change 

only. 

Measurement for 

the Conservation of 

Water 

States that CCWD will 

measure water delivered for 

irrigation purposes at each 

agricultural turnout, and will 

measure water delivered for 

M&I purposes at each M&I 

service connection. 

Describes purposes of use of 

measurement data obtained, 

and provides for annual 

summary of deliveries to be 

provided to the Contracting 

Officer.

Substantially same as Existing 

Contract, but omits references to 

‘water for irrigation purposes at 

each agricultural turnout.’ 

_ Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species 

Measurement of the water will 

not have an impact on 

threatened and endangered 

species.

Rate and Method of 

Payment for Water 

Assumes payment of cost-ofservice rates pursuant to ratesetting policy; payment of 

rates for first two months of 

scheduled deliveries with 

submission of delivery 

schedule each year; payment 

before end of month for next 

succeeding month’s deliveries 

thereafter; assumes payment 

for charges before end of 

month following delivery. 

No provision for tiered pricing. 

Assumes payment of rates and 

charges substantially same as 

Existing Contract; assumes 

obligation to pay tiered pricing on 

same schedule as charges; tiered 

pricing applies to deliveries over 

80% of Contract Total; separate 

rates apply to deliveries over 80% 

and deliveries over 90% of the 

contract total. 

Specifies that Project Water and 

Los Vaqueros water rights water 

shall be considered M&I Water. 

Tiered pricing does not apply to 

Los Vaqueros water rights water. 

_ Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

  No Effect/ _ Effect on 

Listed Species 

Changes in the pricing of CVP 

water could indirectly affect 

listed species in the CCWD 

service area through 

subsequent changes in land 

use.

Repayment of 

Project Works 

Assumes costs and rates of 

interest for project works 

(Contra Costa Canal System; 

New Facilities; Contra Loma 

Dam and Reservoir; lateral 

distribution system); 

establishes annual payment 

schedule, under certain 

provisions.

Assumes same as Existing 

Contract.

  Financial Effect 

  Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species 

No substantive change. 

Non-Interest 

Bearing Operation 

and Maintenance 

Deficits

No similar provision. Assumes the CCWD has no noninterest bearing O&M deficits and 

therefore no liability. 

  Financial Effect 

  Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species

No substantive change. 
February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Appendix A Final EA 

 A-8 

Table A-1. Summary of Contract Provisions for the CCWD Proposed Long Term Water Service Contract, 

Contra Costa County, California (from North State Resources, Inc., May 2004)

Provision Existing Amendatory 

Contract (1994 – 2010) 

Federal Action 

Proposed Long-Term Water 

Service Contract Renewal 

Effects Analysis 

Sales, Transfers, or 

Exchanges of 

Water 

Assumes sales, transfers or 

exchanges with others in 

accordance with federal and 

state laws, guidelines and 

regulations, with prior written 

approval of Contracting 

Officer.

Substantially same as Existing 

Contract; makes express required 

environmental documentation; 

assumes Contracting Officer to 

facilitate historic transfers by 

providing environmental 

documentation; establishes rules 

for qualifying water transfers. 

  Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

  No Effect/ _ Effect on 

Listed Species

Potential beneficial effect to 

listed species because of the 

express requirement for 

environmental documentation. 

CVP Use Power 

(Existing Contract) 

or Project Use 

Power (Proposed 

Contract) 

Assumes the U.S. will furnish 

the CCWD with appropriate 

CVP use power to operate 

necessary facilities for 

conveying CVP or Los 

Vaqueros water rights water, 

and that the U.S. can request 

the CCWD utilize particular 

points of diversion, subject to 

agreement and certain 

provisions.

Same as Existing Contract.  Financial Effect 

  Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species 

No substantive change. 

Adjustments 

(Existing Contract) 

or Application of 

Payment and 

Adjustments 

(Proposed 

Contract) 

Assumes refund of 

overpayment after satisfaction 

of any accrued indebtedness 

upon contractor request. 

Same as Existing Contract, with 

minor changes associated with 

methods described for 

overpayment including 

requirement for $1,000 or greater 

overpayment for refund. 

_ Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species

Minor financial/administrative 

change only. 

Temporary 

Reduction – Return 

Flows 

Assumes the U.S. reserves 

right to return-flows, seepage, 

and waste that escapes or is 

discharged beyond contractor 

boundaries; assumes 

temporary reductions for 

operation, maintenance, and 

rehabilitation of facilities; 

makes express existing 

obligation of the U.S. to make 

CVP water available. 

Same as Existing Contract, 

except that references 

Contracting Officer as CVP 

operator, in lieu of United States; 

excludes non-Project water 

acquired by CCWD from carriage 

water costs. 

_ Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species

Minor financial/administrative 

change only. 

Water Shortage 

and Apportionment 

(Existing Contract) 

or Constraints on 

the Availability of 

Water (Proposed 

Contract) 

Assumes obligation of the 

U.S. to make full supplies of 

CVP water available; no 

liability of the U.S. for 

shortages from specified 

causes; provides mechanism 

for apportionment of 

shortages among existing 

contractors; no reduction to 

M&I water unless and until 

reductions also imposed on 

irrigation users to prevent 

undue hardship; defines 

quantities of CVP water that 

can legally be withheld from 

CCWD under regulatory 

restriction, under water 

shortage, and under water 

shortage emergency 

scenarios.

Assumes obligation of the 

Contracting Officer to utilize all 

reasonable means to guard 

against a condition of shortage; 

no liability of the U.S. for 

shortages from specified causes; 

if shortage occurs, Project Water 

will be allocated in accordance 

with the existing Project M&I 

Water Shortage Policy. CCWD 

has proposed to maintain the 

shortage provisions from the 

Existing Contract. 

  Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species 

Minor administrative change 

only.
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA Appendix A

 A-9 

Table A-1. Summary of Contract Provisions for the CCWD Proposed Long Term Water Service Contract, 

Contra Costa County, California (from North State Resources, Inc., May 2004)

Provision Existing Amendatory 

Contract (1994 – 2010) 

Federal Action 

Proposed Long-Term Water 

Service Contract Renewal 

Effects Analysis 

Existing or 

Acquired Water or 

Water Rights 

Assumes contract provisions 

not applicable to non-CVP 

water or water rights, except 

as specifically provided. 

Same as Existing Contract.  Financial Effect 

  Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species 

No substantive change. 

Quality of Water Assumes operation and 

maintenance of CVP facilities 

to enable the U.S. to deliver 

water in accordance with 

existing statutory quality 

standards; no warranty of 

quality; U.S. not under 

obligation to furnish water 

treatment facilities to better 

the quality of CVP water; no 

warranty of quality. 

Substantially same as Existing 

Contract, with the following 

additional provision: 

O&M of Project Facilities will be 

performed in such a manner as to 

maintain the quality of raw water. 

  Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

  No Effect/ _ Effect on 

Listed Species

Potential beneficial effect on 

listed species if water quality 

improves or is maintained. 

Water and Air 

Pollution Control 

Assumes that CVP will 

operate in accordance with all 

applicable water and air 

pollution laws and regulations 

and obtain all required 

permits or licenses. 

Same as Existing Contract.  Financial Effect 

  Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species 

No substantive change. 

Operation and 

Maintenance of 

Project Works 

(Existing Contract) 

or Operation and 

Maintenance of the 

Project Works by 

the Contractor 

(Proposed 

Contract) 

Assumes the CCWD will 

operate and maintain facilities 

at their cost, in compliance 

with Reclamation laws and 

contract terms; Contracting 

Officer may periodically 

review Project Works O&M to 

assess facilities; if O&M on all 

or any part of Project Works is 

insufficient, the U.S. may take 

back possession and the 

O&M of said Work(s) at the 

CCWD’s expense; changes to 

existing Project Works 

requires prior written consent 

of Contracting Officer. 

Substantially the same as the 

Existing Contract. 

  Financial Effect 

  Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species

No effect. 

Conveyance of 

Non-CVP Water 

(Existing Contract) 

or Water Acquired 

by the Contractor 

Other Than From 

the United States 

(Proposed 

Contract) 

Assumes the CCWD may use 

Project Works to convey nonCVP water, under certain 

conditions.

Similar to Existing Contract, but 

applicable conditions differ. 

Assumes that water or water 

rights now owned or later 

acquired by CCWD other than 

from the U.S. may be stored, 

conveyed, and/or diverted 

through Project facilities, subject 

to environmental documentation, 

with Contracting Officer’s 

approval, if certain conditions are 

met. This does not apply to Los 

Vaqueros water rights water. 

_ Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species

Minor financial/administrative 

change only. 
February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Appendix A Final EA 

 A-10 

Table A-1. Summary of Contract Provisions for the CCWD Proposed Long Term Water Service Contract, 

Contra Costa County, California (from North State Resources, Inc., May 2004)

Provision Existing Amendatory 

Contract (1994 – 2010) 

Federal Action 

Proposed Long-Term Water 

Service Contract Renewal 

Effects Analysis 

District to Pay 

Certain

Miscellaneous 

Costs Relating to 

Project Works 

(Existing Contract) 

or Contractor to 

Pay Certain 

Miscellaneous 

Costs (Proposed 

Contract) 

Assumes the CCWD will 

repay specific direct costs and 

a percentage of direct costs 

for administrative and general 

overhead to the U.S., in 

accordance with Reclamation 

policy and procedures. 

Substantially same as Existing 

Contract, with the following 

exceptions:

Assumes the CCWD will also 

repay specific indirect costs to the 

U.S., in accordance with 

Reclamation policy and 

procedures.

Deletes percentage payment for 

administrative and general 

overhead costs. 

_ Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species

Minor financial/administrative 

change only. 

Water 

Conservation 

Assumes compliance with 

conservation programs 

established by Reclamation 

and the state; establishes 

reporting and evaluation 

requirements.

Similar to Existing contract, but 

describes requirements for water 

conservation and efficiency 

program in more detail, assumes 

that if M&I amount delivered 

equals or exceeds 2,000 AF 

annually, CCWD will implement 

Best Management Practices; 

extends revision period for water 

conservation plans from 3 to 5 

year intervals. 

_ Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species

Minor financial/administrative 

change only. 

Emergency 

Reserve Fund 

Assumes the CCWD will 

accumulate and maintain a 

reserve fund for payment of 

O&M costs incurred during 

emergency circumstances; 

establishes rules for 

maintaining and using reserve 

fund.

No similar provision. _ Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species

Minor financial/administrative 

change only. 

Transfer of Title to 

Project Works 

Assumes all rights, title and 

interest in and to the relevant 

Project Work(s) will be 

transferred to CCWD upon 

repayment of all costs, 

pending authorization by 

Congress.

Same as Existing Contract.  Financial Effect 

  Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species

No substantive change. 

Performance of 

Work with 

Contributed Funds 

Assumes the Contracting 

Office may accept CCWD 

funds to finance authorized 

construction or O&M work on 

CVP facilities not specifically 

provided for and for which 

funds may not be available, 

subject to certain provisions 

and upon approval. 

Same as Existing Contract. Financial Effect 

  Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species

No substantive change. 

General

Obligation—

Benefits

Conditioned Upon 

Payment 

Assumes that CCWD has an 

obligation to pay the U.S. as 

provided in this contract; 

payment of Charges must 

occur before CCWD can 

receive benefits (i.e., CVP 

water) under the contract. 

Substantially same as Existing 

Contract, with the following 

addition:

Assumes no requirement for 

contractor to levy in advance. 

_ Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species

Minor financial/administrative 

change only. 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA Appendix A

 A-11 

Table A-1. Summary of Contract Provisions for the CCWD Proposed Long Term Water Service Contract, 

Contra Costa County, California (from North State Resources, Inc., May 2004)

Provision Existing Amendatory 

Contract (1994 – 2010) 

Federal Action 

Proposed Long-Term Water 

Service Contract Renewal 

Effects Analysis 

Compliance with 

Reclamation Laws 

Assumes contract 

implementation will comply 

with all provisions of 

Reclamation law. 

Omitted; replaced with “Federal 

Laws” provision, below. 

  Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species

Minor administrative change 

only. 

Federal Laws No similar provision. Assumes CCWD will comply with 

this Contract unless and until 

relief from Federal law or 

regulation is granted by a court; 

by entering into the Contract, 

CCWD does not waive its right to 

contest it. 

  Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species

Minor administrative change 

only. 

Books, Records, 

and Reports 

Assumes that CCWD will 

establish and maintain 

accounts and other books and 

records pertaining to contract 

administration, provide 

reports as needed to the 

Contracting Officer; each 

party will make their 

administrative record 

available for review by the 

other party. 

Assumes same record keeping 

requirements as Existing 

Contract; clarifies that only 

contract-related records will be 

requested and requires copies to 

go to Operating Non-Federal 

Entity. 

  Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species

Minor administrative change 

only. 

Contingent on 

Appropriation or 

Allotment of Funds 

Expenditure or advance of 

any money or the 

performance of any obligation 

of the U.S. is contingent upon 

appropriation or allotment of 

funds; U.S. is not liable if 

funds are not appropriated or 

allocated.

Same as Existing Contract.  Financial Effect 

  Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species 

No substantive change. 

Rules, Regulations, 

and Determinations 

Delivery of water or use of 

Federal facilities is subject to 

Reclamation law; Contracting 

Officer has the right to make 

necessary determinations to 

administer the contract within 

existing provisions, rules, and 

laws. 

See “Rules and Regulations” and 

“Opinions and Determinations” 

Provisions, below. 

  Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species

Minor administrative change 

only. 

Rules and 

Regulations 

See “Rules, Regulations, and 

Determinations,” above. 

Same as Existing Contract

(Delivery of M&I Water or use of 

Federal facilities is subject to 

Reclamation law.) 

  Financial Effect 

  Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species 

No substantive change. 
February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Appendix A Final EA 

 A-12 

Table A-1. Summary of Contract Provisions for the CCWD Proposed Long Term Water Service Contract, 

Contra Costa County, California (from North State Resources, Inc., May 2004)

Provision Existing Amendatory 

Contract (1994 – 2010) 

Federal Action 

Proposed Long-Term Water 

Service Contract Renewal 

Effects Analysis 

Opinions and 

Determinations 

See “Rules, Regulations, and 

Determinations,” above. 

Substantially same as Existing 

Contract

(Contracting Officer has the right 

to make necessary 

determinations to administer the 

contract within existing 

provisions, rules, and laws.) 

Assumes the parties to this 

Contract reserve the right to seek 

relief from and appropriate 

adjustment for arbitrary, 

capricious, or unreasonable 

opinion or determination in a 

timely manner. 

  Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species

Minor administrative change 

only. 

Coordination and 

Cooperation 

No similar provision. Assumes that coordination and 

cooperation between Contracting 

Officer and users should be 

implemented to improve the 

operation and management of the 

Project. Provides mechanism for 

developing coordination process. 

Parties retain exclusive decisionmaking authority for 

determinations by that party. 

  Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species

Minor administrative change 

only. 

Officials Not to 

Benefit

Officials are not to benefit 

from this contract other than 

as would a water user or 

landowner in the CCWD. 

Same as Existing Contract.  Financial Effect 

  Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species 

No substantive change. 

Notices Establishes methods to 

notice, demand, or request on 

behalf of the CCWD. 

Same as Existing Contract.  Financial Effect 

  Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species 

No substantive change. 

Assignment 

Limited 

Assumes that CVP will 

operate in accordance with 

existing rules. 

Assumes substantially same as 

Existing Contract. 

  Financial Effect 

  Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species 

No substantive change. 

Severability No similar provision. Assumes mechanism to address 

correction of provision found to be 

invalid upon legal challenge. 

  Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species

Minor administrative change 

only. 

Resolution of 

Disputes 

No similar provision. Assumes a dispute resolution 

process.

  Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species

Minor administrative change 

only. 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA Appendix A

 A-13 

Table A-1. Summary of Contract Provisions for the CCWD Proposed Long Term Water Service Contract, 

Contra Costa County, California (from North State Resources, Inc., May 2004)

Provision Existing Amendatory 

Contract (1994 – 2010) 

Federal Action 

Proposed Long-Term Water 

Service Contract Renewal 

Effects Analysis 

Equal Opportunity Assumes CCWD will operate 

in accordance with existing 

rules, regulations, or orders 

regarding equal opportunity; 

establishes sanctions or 

remedies to be invoked in the 

event of non-compliance. 

Same as Existing Contract.  Financial Effect 

  Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species 

No substantive change. 

Charges for 

Delinquent 

Payments 

Establishes procedures and 

penalties for account 

delinquency. 

Same as Existing Contract.  Financial Effect 

  Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species 

No substantive change. 

Compliance with 

Civil Rights Laws 

and Regulations 

Assumes CCWD will operate 

in accordance with existing 

civil rights laws and 

regulations, as set forth in the 

contract.

Same as Existing Contract.  Financial Effect 

  Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species 

No substantive change. 

Privacy Act 

Compliance

Assumes CCWD will comply 

with the Privacy Act of 1974, 

as set forth in the contract. 

Omitted.  Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species

Minor administrative change 

only. 

Confirmation of 

Contract 

Assumes required validation 

of contract under state law. 

Assumes required validation of 

contract under state law; CCWD 

will supply the U.S. with pertinent 

records. 

_ Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species

Minor financial/administrative 

change only. 

Changes in 

District’s

Organization 

(Existing Contract) 

or Changes in 

Contractor’s 

Service Area 

(Proposed 

Contract) 

Assumes that while this 

contract is in effect, no 

change may be made to the 

CCWD organization except 

upon written consent of the 

Contracting Officer to ensure 

that obligations are met and 

compliance with certain 

provisions of Reclamation 

law. 

Assumes that while this contract 

is in effect, no change may be 

made to the CCWD service area 

except upon written consent of 

the Contracting Officer; 

establishes methods for 

processing such a request. 

_ Financial Effect 

_ Administrative Effect 

_ No Effect/  Effect on 

Listed Species

Minor financial/administrative 

change only. 
M&I Only 

R. O. Draft 11/30-2004 

Contract No.

I75r-3401A-LTR1

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

Central Valley Project, California 

LONG-TERM RENEWAL CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES

AND

CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT

PROVIDING FOR PROJECT WATER SERVICE

AND FOR FACILITIES REPAYMENT

Table of Contents

Article No. Title Page No.

 Preamble ................................................................................................................. 1 

 Explanatory Recitals ............................................................................................ 2-5 

 1 Definitions.......................................................................................................... 5-10 

 2 Term of Contract.............................................................................................. 10-12

 3 Water to be Made Available and Delivered to the Contractor.........................12-15 

 4 Time for Delivery of Water .............................................................................16-17 

 5 Point of Diversion and Responsibility for Distribution of Water.................... 17-20 

 6 Measurement of Water Within the Contractor’s Service Area........................20-22 

 7 Rates and Method of Payment for Water......................................................... 22-28 

 7.1 Repayment of Project Works........................................................................... 28-29 

 8 Non-Interest Bearing Operation and Maintenance Deficits.................................. 29 

 9 Sales, Transfers, or Exchanges of Water ......................................................... 29-31 

 9.1 Project Use Power............................................................................................ 31-33 

 10 Application of Payments and Adjustments........................................................... 33 

 11 Temporary Reductions--Return Flows ................................................................. 34 

 12 Constraints on the Availability of Water .............................................................. 35 

 13 Omitted ................................................................................................................. 35 

 14 Rules and Regulations........................................................................................... 36 

 15 Water and Air Pollution Control........................................................................... 36 

 16 Quality of Water ................................................................................................... 36 

 17 Water Acquired by the Contractor Other Than From the United States..........37-39 

 18 Opinions and Determinations .......................................................................... 39-40 

 19 Coordination and Cooperation......................................................................... 40-41 

 20 Charges for Delinquent Payments ........................................................................ 42
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

Table of Contents - continued

Article No. Title Page No.

 21 Equal Opportunity............................................................................................ 42-43 

 22 General Obligation--Benefits Conditioned Upon Payment .............................43-44 

 23 Compliance With Civil Rights Laws and Regulations ......................................... 44 

 24 Omitted ................................................................................................................. 44 

 25 Contractor to Pay Certain Miscellaneous Costs Relating to Project Works....44-45 

 26 Water Conservation ......................................................................................... 45-46 

 27 Existing or Acquired Water or Water Rights........................................................ 46 

 28 Operation and Maintenance by Operating Non-Federal Entity ............................ 46 

 28.1 Operation and Maintenance of Project Works by the Contractor....................47-49 

 28.2 Emergency Reserve Fund ................................................................................ 49-50 

 28.3 Transfer of Title to Project Works........................................................................ 50 

 28.4 Performance of Project Works With Contributed Funds.................................50-51 

 29 Contingent on Appropriation or Allotment of Funds ........................................... 51 

 30 Books, Records, and Reports........................................................................... 51-52 

 31 Assignment Limited--Successors and Assigns Obligated .................................... 52 

 32 Severability ...................................................................................................... 52-53 

 33 Resolution of Disputes.......................................................................................... 53 

 34 Officials Not to Benefit......................................................................................... 53 

 35 Changes in Contractor’s Service Area.................................................................. 54 

 36 Federal Laws......................................................................................................... 54 

 37 Notices ............................................................................................................. 54-55 

 38 Confirmation of Contract...................................................................................... 55 

 Signature Page ...................................................................................................... 56 

 Exhibit A - Map of Contractor's Service Area 

 Exhibit B - Rates and Charges
R. O. Draft 11/30-2004 

Contract No. 

I75r-3401A-LTR1

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES 

5 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

6 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

7 Central Valley Project, California 

8 LONG-TERM RENEWAL CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES

9 AND

10 CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT

11 PROVIDING FOR PROJECT WATER SERVICE

12 AND FOR FACILITIES REPAYMENT

13 THIS CONTRACT, made this _____ day of ____________________, 2005, in 

14 pursuance generally of the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and acts amendatory or 

15 supplementary thereto, including, but not limited to, the Acts of August 26, 1937 (50 Stat. 844), 

16 as amended and supplemented, August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1187), as amended and supplemented, 

17 July 2, 1956 (70 Stat. 483), June 21, 1963 (77 Stat. 68), October 12, 1982 (96 Stat. 1263), 

18 October 27, 1986 (100 Stat. 3050), as amended, and Title XXXIV of the Act of October 30, 1992 

19 (106 Stat. 4706), all collectively hereinafter referred to as Federal Reclamation law, between 

20 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, hereinafter referred to as the United States, and 

21 CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT, hereinafter referred to as the Contractor, a public 

22 agency of the State of California, duly organized, existing, and acting pursuant to the laws 

23 thereof;

24 WITNESSETH, That:
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

2

25 EXPLANATORY RECITALS

[1st 26 ] WHEREAS, the United States has constructed and is operating the Central Valley 

27 Project, (Project) California, for diversion, storage, carriage, distribution and beneficial use, for 

28 flood control, irrigation, municipal, domestic, industrial, fish and wildlife mitigation, protection 

29 and restoration, generation and distribution of electric energy, salinity control, navigation and 

30 other beneficial uses, of waters of the Sacramento River, the American River, the Trinity River, 

31 and the San Joaquin River and their tributaries; and 

[2nd 32 ] WHEREAS, the Contractor has constructed the Los Vaqueros Project, that is 

33 intended to exclusively serve the Contractor to assist in attaining its goals of providing high 

34 quality water to the Contractor customers, while also providing reliability to the Contractor’s 

35 existing contract water supply during emergencies, droughts or other water shortages; and

36 [2.1] WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Contractor and the United States to agree on 

37 how the Los Vaqueros Project will be utilized in conjunction with Project Water and Project 

38 facilities; and 

[3rd 39 ] WHEREAS, the rights to Project Water were acquired by the United States 

40 pursuant to California law for operation of the Project; and 

[4th 41 ] WHEREAS, the Contractor and the United States entered into Contract

42 No. I75r-3401, on September 18, 1951, which established terms for the delivery to the 

43 Contractor of Project Water and for construction and repayment of certain facilities. This 

44 contract was amended on November 9, 1970, April 26 1973, May 26, 1994 (hereinafter referred 

45 to as Existing Contract), and February 7, 2000. 

46 [4.1] WHEREAS, the United States and the Contractor executed Memorandum of 

47 Agreement No. 14-06-200-6072A dated June 28, 1972, and subsequent Amendment 1 dated 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

3

48 May 15, 1995, that requires the Contractor to operate and maintain the Contra Costa Canal 

49 System and Contra Loma Dam and Reservoir; and 

[5th 50 ] WHEREAS, the United States and the Contractor have, pursuant to

51 Subsection 3404 (c) (3) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), subsequently 

52 entered into a binding agreement, identified as Binding Agreement No. I75r-3401-BA, and 

53 Supplemental Agreement No. I75r-3401-SA, which sets out the terms pursuant to which the 

54 Contractor agreed to renew the Existing Contract before its expiration date after completion of a 

55 programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) and other appropriate environmental 

56 documentation and negotiation of a renewal contract, and which also sets out the consequences 

57 of a subsequent decision not to renew; and 

 [6th 58 ] WHEREAS, Section 3404(c) of the CVPIA provides for long-term renewal of the 

59 Existing Contract following completion of appropriate environmental documentation, including a 

60 PEIS pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyzing the direct and 

61 indirect impacts and benefits of implementing the CVPIA and the potential renewal of all 

62 existing contracts for Project Water; and 

[7th 63 ] WHEREAS, the United States has completed the PEIS and all other appropriate 

64 environmental review necessary to provide for long-term renewal of the Existing Contract; and 

[8th 65 ] WHEREAS, the Contractor has requested the long-term renewal of the Existing 

66 Contract, pursuant to the terms of the Existing Contract, Federal Reclamation law, and the laws 

67 of the State of California, for water service from the Project; and 

[9th 68 ] WHEREAS, the United States has determined that the Contractor has fulfilled all 

69 of its obligations under the Existing Contract; and 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

4

[10th 70 ] WHEREAS, the Contractor has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the 

71 Contracting Officer that the Contractor has utilized the Project Water supplies available to it for 

72 reasonable and beneficial use and/or has demonstrated projected future demand for water use 

73 such that the Contractor has the capability and expects to utilize fully for reasonable and 

74 beneficial use the quantity of Project Water to be made available to it pursuant to this Contract; 

75 and

[11th 76 ] WHEREAS, water obtained from the Project has been relied upon by urban areas 

77 within California for more than 50 years, and is considered by the Contractor as an essential 

78 portion of its water supply; and 

[12th 79 ] WHEREAS, the economies of regions within the Project, including the 

80 Contractor’s, depend upon the continued availability of water, including water service from the 

81 Project; and 

 [13th 82 ] WHEREAS, in the CALFED Programmatic Record of Decision, dated August 28, 

83 2000, the United States and the State of California adopted a general target of continuously 

84 improving Delta water quality for all uses. The CALFED Agencies’ target for providing safe, 

85 reliable, and affordable drinking water in a cost-effective way, is to achieve either: (a) average 

86 concentrations at Clifton Forebay and other southern and central Delta drinking water intakes of 

87 50 ug/L bromide and 3.0 mg/L total organic carbon, or (b) an equivalent level of public health 

88 protection using a cost-effective combination of alternative source waters, source control and 

89 treatment technologies; and 

[14th 90 ] WHEREAS, the Secretary intends through coordination, cooperation, and 

91 partnerships to pursue measures to improve water supply, water quality, and reliability of the 

92 Project for all Project purposes; and 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

5

[15th 93 ] WHEREAS, the mutual goals of the United States and the Contractor include: to 

94 provide for reliable Project Water supplies; to control costs of those supplies; to achieve 

95 repayment of the Project as required by law; to guard reasonably against Project Water 

96 shortages; to achieve a reasonable balance among competing demands for use of Project Water; 

97 and to comply with all applicable environmental statutes, all consistent with the legal obligations 

98 of the United States relative to the Project; and 

[16th 99 ] WHEREAS, the parties intend by this Contract to develop a more cooperative 

100 relationship in order to achieve their mutual goals; and 

[17th 101 ] WHEREAS, the United States and the Contractor are willing to enter into this 

102 Contract pursuant to Federal Reclamation law on the terms and conditions set forth below; 

103 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual and dependent covenants herein 

104 contained, it is hereby mutually agreed by the parties hereto as follows: 

105 DEFINITIONS

106 1. When used herein unless otherwise distinctly expressed, or manifestly 

107 incompatible with the intent of the parties as expressed in this Contract, the term: 

108 (a) “Calendar Year” shall mean the period January 1 through December 31, 

109 both dates inclusive; 

110 (b) “Charges” shall mean the payments required by Federal Reclamation law 

111 in addition to the Rates and Tiered Pricing Component specified in this Contract as determined 

112 annually by the Contracting Officer pursuant to this Contract; 

113 (c) “Condition of Shortage” shall mean a condition respecting the Project 

114 during any Year such that the Contracting Officer is unable to deliver sufficient water to meet the 

115 Contract Total; 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

6

116 (c.1) “Contra Costa Canal System” shall mean the Contra Costa Canal, 

117 including the intake channel from Rock Slough, Clayton, and Ygnacio Relift Canals and 

118 pumping plants, the Martinez Reservoir and Pumping Plants 1, 2, 3, and 4, and such other 

119 facilities as may be authorized by Congress from time to time for rehabilitation or replacement 

120 thereof;

121 (c.2) “Contra Loma Dam and Reservoir” shall mean the dam, pumping plant, 

122 and reservoir constructed as an addition to the Contra Costa Canal System; 

123 (d) “Contracting Officer” shall mean the Secretary of the Interior’s duly 

124 authorized representative acting pursuant to this Contract or applicable Federal Reclamation law 

125 or regulation; 

126 (e) “Contract Total” shall mean the maximum amount of water to which the 

127 Contractor is entitled under subdivision (a) of Article 3 of this Contract; 

128 (f) “Contractor's Service Area” shall mean the area to which the Contractor is 

129 permitted to provide Project Water under this Contract as described in Exhibit “A” attached 

130 hereto, which may be modified from time to time in accordance with Article 35 of this Contract 

131 without amendment of this Contract; 

132 (g) “CVPIA” shall mean the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Title 

133 XXXIV of the Act of October 30, 1992 (106 Stat. 4706); 

134 (h-i) Omitted 

135 (j) “Full Cost Rate” shall mean an annual rate, as determined by the 

136 Contracting Officer that shall amortize the expenditures for construction properly allocable to the 

137 Project irrigation or M&I functions, as appropriate, of facilities in service including all O&M 

138 deficits funded, less payments, over such periods as may be required under Federal Reclamation 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

7

139 law, or applicable contract provisions. Interest will accrue on both the construction expenditures 

140 and funded O&M deficits from October 12, 1982, on costs outstanding at that date, or from the 

141 date incurred in the case of costs arising subsequent to October 12, 1982, and shall be calculated 

142 in accordance with subsections 202(3)(B) and (3)(C) of the RRA. The Full Cost Rate includes 

143 actual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs consistent with Section 426.2 of the Rules 

144 and Regulations for the RRA; 

145 (k - 1) Omitted; 

146 (m) “Irrigation Water” shall mean water made available from the Project that 

147 is used primarily in the production of agricultural crops or livestock, including domestic use 

148 incidental thereto, and watering of livestock; 

149 (n) Omitted; 

150 (n.1) “Lateral Distribution System” shall mean the water conveyance system 

151 constructed by the United States which consists of pipelines extending to Contractor’s water 

152 users from the Contra Costa Canal at milepost 5.3, 6.2, 7.1, 7.3, 9.1, 14.0, 25.6, 36.6, and Y-2-6; 

153 (n.2) “Los Vaqueros” shall mean the Los Vaqueros Project consisting of a 

154 storage reservoir and associated facilities constructed by the Contractor on property which is 

155 owned by the Contractor, and in which the United States has no legal interest, to store and 

156 convey Los Vaqueros Water Rights Water and Project Water as well as additional water that 

157 may be acquired by the Contractor; 

158 (n.3) “Los Vaqueros Water Rights Water” shall mean that water appropriated 

159 pursuant to State Water Rights Application 20245 (Permit 20749), which is in addition to Project 

160 Water; 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

8

161 (o) “Municipal and Industrial (M&I) Water” shall mean Project Water, other 

162 than Irrigation Water, made available to the Contractor. M&I Water shall include water used for 

163 human use and purposes such as the watering of landscaping or pasture for animals (e.g., horses) 

164 which are kept for personal enjoyment or water delivered to landholdings operated in units of 

165 less than five acres unless the Contractor establishes to the satisfaction of the Contracting Officer 

166 that the use of water delivered to any such landholding is a use described in subdivision (m) of 

167 this Article; 

168 (p) “M&I Full Cost Water Rate” shall mean the Full Cost Rate (applicable to 

169 the delivery of M&I Water; 

170 (p.1) “New Facilities” shall mean the Short Cut Pipeline located between 

171 Contra Costa Canal at milepost 25.70 and at milepost 47.77 and the Pump Units in Pumping 

172 Plant 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Contra Costa Canal System; 

173 (1) “Pump Units” shall mean the pump, motor, motor controls, wiring, 

174 structural supports and discharge control apparatus for pumping 100 cubic feet per second 

175 (“cfs”) of water; and 

176 (2) “Short Cut Pipeline” shall mean the Contra Costa Canal intake, 

177 pipeline, pipeline appurtenances, Martinez Reservoir inlet;

178 (q) “Operation and Maintenance” or “O&M” shall mean normal and 

179 reasonable care, control, operation, repair, replacement (other than capital replacement), and 

180 maintenance of Project facilities; 

181 (r) Omitted. 

182 (s) “Project” shall mean the Central Valley Project owned by the United 

183 States and managed by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

9

184 (t) “Project Contractors” shall mean all parties who have water service 

185 contracts for Project Water from the Project with the United States pursuant to Federal 

186 Reclamation law; 

187 (u) “Project Water” shall mean all water that is developed, diverted, stored, or 

188 delivered by the Secretary in accordance with the statutes authorizing the Project and in 

189 accordance with the terms and conditions of water rights acquired pursuant to California law; 

190 (u.1) “Project Works” shall mean all those facilities defined in subsections (c.1), 

191 (c.2), (n.1), and (p.1) of this Article;

192 (v) “Rates” shall mean the payments determined annually by the Contracting 

193 Officer in accordance with the then current applicable water ratesetting policies for the Project, 

194 as described in subdivision (a) of Article 7 of this Contract; 

195 (w) “Recent Historic Average” shall mean the most recent five-year average of 

196 the final forecast of Water Made Available to the Contractor pursuant to this Contract or its 

197 preceding contract(s); 

198 (x) “Secretary” shall mean the Secretary of the Interior, a duly appointed 

199 successor, or an authorized representative acting pursuant to any authority of the Secretary and 

200 through any agency of the Department of the Interior; 

201 (y) “Tiered Pricing Component” shall be the incremental amount to be paid 

202 for each acre-foot of Water Delivered as described in subdivision (j) of Article 7 of this Contract;

203 (z) “Water Delivered” or “Delivered Water” shall mean Project Water 

204 diverted for use by the Contractor at the point(s) of delivery approved by the Contracting 

205 Officer;
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

10

206 (aa) “Water Made Available” shall mean the estimated amount of Project 

207 Water that can be delivered to the Contractor for the upcoming Year as declared by the 

208 Contracting Officer, pursuant to subdivision (a) of Article 4 of this Contract; 

209 (bb) “Water Scheduled” shall mean Project Water made available to the 

210 Contractor for which times and quantities for delivery have been established by the Contractor 

211 and Contracting Officer, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Article 4 of this Contract; and 

212 (cc) “Year” shall mean the period from and including March 1 of each 

213 Calendar Year through the last day of February of the following Calendar Year. 

214 TERM OF CONTRACT

215 2. (a) This Contract shall be effective March 1, 2005, through February 28, 

216 2045. This Contract when effective supersedes the Existing Contract. In the event the 

217 Contractor wishes to renew this Contract beyond February 28, 2045, the Contractor shall submit 

218 a request for renewal in writing to the Contracting Officer no later than two years prior to the 

219 date this Contract expires.

220 (b) Omitted; 

221 (c) This Contract shall be renewed for successive periods of up to 40 years 

222 each, which periods shall be consistent with the then-existing Reclamation-wide policy, under 

223 terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the parties and consistent with Federal and State law.

224 The Contractor shall be afforded the opportunity to comment to the Contracting Officer on the 

225 proposed adoption and application of any revised policy applicable to the delivery of M&I Water 

226 that would limit the term of any subsequent renewal contract with the Contractor for the 

227 furnishing of M&I Water to less than 40 years. 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

11

228 (d) The Contracting Officer shall make a determination ten years after the 

229 date of execution of this Contract and every five years thereafter during the term of this Contract 

230 of whether a conversion of this Contract to a contract under subsection 9 (c)(1) of the 

231 Reclamation Project Act of 1939 can be accomplished. The Contracting Officer anticipates that 

232 during the term of this Contract, all authorized Project construction expected to occur will have 

233 occurred, and on that basis the Contracting Officer agrees upon such completion to allocate all 

234 costs that are properly assignable to the Contractor, and agrees further that, at any time after such 

235 allocation is made, and subject to satisfaction of the condition set out in this subdivision this 

236 Contract shall, at the request of the Contractor, be converted to a contract under said subsection 

237 (c)(1) of Section 9, is applicable of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, subject to applicable 

238 Federal law and under stated terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the Contractor and the 

239 Contracting Officer. A condition for such conversion to occur shall be a determination by the 

240 Contracting Officer that, account being taken of the amount credited to return by the Contractor 

241 as provided for under Federal Reclamation law, the remaining amount of construction costs 

242 assignable for ultimate return by the Contractor can probably be repaid to the United States 

243 within the term of a contract under said subsection (c) (1) of Section 9. If the remaining amount 

244 of costs that are properly assignable to the Contractor cannot be determined during the term of 

245 this Contract, the Contracting Officer shall notify the Contractor, and provide the reason(s) why 

246 such a determination could not be made. Further, the Contracting Officer shall make such a 

247 determination as soon thereafter as possible so as to permit, upon request of the Contractor and 

248 satisfaction of the conditions set out above, conversion to a contract under said subsection (c)(1) 

249 of Section 9. In the event such determination of costs has not been made at a time which allows 

250 conversion of this Contract during the term of this Contract or the Contractor has not requested 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

12

251 conversion of this Contract within such term, the parties shall incorporate in any subsequent 

252 renewal contract as described in subdivision (b) of this Article a provision that carries forth in 

253 substantially identical terms the provisions of this subdivision. 

254 WATER TO BE MADE AVAILABLE AND DELIVERED TO THE CONTRACTOR

255 3. (a) During each Year, consistent with all applicable State water rights, 

256 permits, and licenses; Federal law; and subject to the provisions set forth in Articles 11 and 12 of 

257 this Contract, the Contracting Officer shall make available for delivery to the Contractor 195,000 

258 acre-feet of Project Water for M&I purposes. Water Delivered to the Contractor in accordance 

259 with this subdivision shall be scheduled and paid for pursuant to the provisions of Articles 4 and 

260 7 of this Contract. 

261 (b) Because the capacity of the Project to deliver Project Water has been 

262 constrained in recent years and may be constrained in the future due to many factors including 

263 hydrologic conditions and implementation of Federal and State laws, the likelihood of the 

264 Contractor actually receiving the amount of Project Water set out in subdivision (a) of this 

265 Article in any given Year is uncertain. The Contracting Officer’s most recent modeling 

266 referenced in the PEIS projected that the Contract Total set forth in this Contract will not be 

267 available to the Contractor in many years. During the most recent five years, the Recent Historic 

268 Average of Water Made Available to the Contractor was 152,100 acre-feet. Nothing in 

269 subdivision (b) of this Article shall affect the rights and obligations of the parties under any 

270 provision of this Contract. 

271 (c) The Contractor shall utilize the Project Water in accordance with all 

272 applicable legal requirements. 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

13

273 (d) The Contractor shall make reasonable and beneficial use of all Project 

274 Water and other water furnished pursuant to subdivision (f) of this Article. Groundwater 

275 recharge programs (direct, indirect, or in lieu), groundwater banking programs, surface water 

276 storage programs, and other similar programs utilizing Project Water or other water furnished 

277 pursuant to this Contract conducted within the Contractor’s Service Area which are consistent 

278 with applicable State law and result in use consistent with Federal Reclamation law will be 

279 allowed; Provided, That any direct recharge program(s) is (are) described in the Contractor’s 

280 Water Conservation Plan submitted pursuant to Article 26 of this Contract; Provided, further,

281 That such Water Conservation Plan demonstrates sufficient lawful uses exist in the Contractor’s 

282 Service Area so that using a long-term average, the quantity of Delivered Water is demonstrated 

283 to be reasonable for such uses and in compliance with Federal Reclamation law. Groundwater 

284 recharge programs, groundwater banking programs, surface water storage programs, and other 

285 similar programs utilizing Project Water or other water furnished pursuant to this Contract 

286 conducted outside the Contractor’s Service Area may be permitted upon written approval of the 

287 Contracting Officer, which approval will be based upon environmental documentation, Project 

288 Water rights, and Project operational concerns. The Contracting Officer will address such 

289 concerns in regulations, policies, or guidelines. 

290 (e) The Contractor shall comply with requirements applicable to the 

291 Contractor in biological opinion(s) prepared as a result of a consultation regarding the execution 

292 of this Contract undertaken pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 

293 as amended, that are within the Contractor’s legal authority to implement. The Existing 

294 Contract, which evidences in excess of 50 years of diversions for irrigation and/or M&I purposes 

295 of the quantities of water provided in subdivision (a) of Article 3 of this Contract, will be 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

14

296 considered in developing an appropriate baseline for biological assessment(s) prepared pursuant 

297 to the ESA, and any other needed environmental review. Nothing herein shall be construed to 

298 prevent the Contractor from challenging or seeking judicial relief in a court of competent 

299 jurisdiction with respect to any biological opinion or other environmental documentation referred 

300 to in this Article.

301 (f) Following the declaration of Water Made Available under Article 4 of this 

302 Contract, the Contracting Officer will make a determination whether Project Water, or other 

303 water available to the Project, can be made available to the Contractor in addition to the Contract 

304 Total under this Article during the Year without adversely impacting other Project Contractors.

305 At the request of the Contractor, the Contracting Officer will consult with the Contractor prior to 

306 making such a determination. If the Contracting Officer determines that Project Water, or other 

307 water available to the Project, can be made available to the Contractor, the Contracting Officer 

308 will announce the availability of such water and shall so notify the Contractor as soon as 

309 practical. The Contracting Officer will thereafter meet with the Contractor and other Project 

310 Contractors capable of taking such water to determine the most equitable and efficient allocation 

311 of such water. If the Contractor requests the delivery of any quantity of such water, the 

312 Contracting Officer shall make such water available to the Contractor in accordance with 

313 applicable statutes, regulations, guidelines, and policies.

314 (g) The Contractor may request permission to reschedule for use during the 

315 subsequent Year some or all of the Water Made Available to the Contractor during the current 

316 Year, referred to as “rescheduled water.” The Contractor may request permission to use during 

317 the current Year, a quantity of Project Water which may be made available by the United States 

318 to the Contractor during the subsequent Year referred to as “preuse.” The Contracting Officer’s 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

15

319 written approval may permit such uses in accordance with applicable statutes, regulations, 

320 guidelines, and policies.

321 (h) The Contractor’s right pursuant to Federal Reclamation law and applicable 

322 State law to the reasonable and beneficial use of Water Delivered pursuant to this Contract 

323 during the term thereof and any subsequent renewal contracts, as described in Article 2 of this 

324 Contract, during the terms thereof shall not be disturbed so long as the Contractor shall fulfill all 

325 of its obligations under this Contract and any renewals thereof. Nothing in the preceding 

326 sentence shall affect the Contracting Officer’s ability to impose shortages under Article 11 or 

327 subdivision (b) of Article 12 of this Contract or applicable provisions of any subsequent renewal 

328 contracts.

329 (i) Project Water furnished to the Contractor pursuant to this Contract may be 

330 delivered for purposes other than those described in subdivision (o) of Article 1 of this Contract 

331 upon written approval by the Contracting Officer in accordance with the terms and conditions of 

332 such approval. 

333 (j) The Contracting Officer shall make reasonable efforts to protect the water 

334 rights necessary for the Project and to provide the water available under this Contract. The 

335 Contracting Officer shall not object to participation by the Contractor, in the capacity and to the 

336 extent permitted by law, in administrative proceedings related to the Project Water rights; 

337 Provided, That the Contracting Officer retains the right to object to the substance of the 

338 Contractor’s position in such a proceeding; Provided further, That in such proceedings the 

339 Contracting Officer shall recognize the Contractor has a legal right under the terms of this 

340 Contract to use Project Water. 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

16

341 TIME FOR DELIVERY OF WATER

342 4. (a) On or about February 20 of each Calendar Year, the Contracting Officer 

343 shall announce the Contracting Officer’s expected declaration of the Water Made Available. 

344 Such declaration will be expressed in terms of both Water Made Available and the Recent 

345 Historic Average and will be updated monthly, and more frequently if necessary, based on then346 current operational and hydrologic conditions and a new declaration with changes, if any, to the 

347 Water Made Available will be made. The Contracting Officer shall provide forecasts of Project 

348 operations and the basis of the estimate, with relevant supporting information, upon the written 

349 request of the Contractor. Concurrently with the declaration of the Water Made Available, the 

350 Contracting Officer shall provide the Contractor with the updated Recent Historic Average. 

351 (b) On or before each March 1 and at such other times as necessary, the 

352 Contractor shall submit to the Contracting Officer a written schedule, satisfactory to the 

353 Contracting Officer, showing the monthly quantities of Project Water to be delivered by the 

354 United States to the Contractor pursuant to this Contract for the Year commencing on such 

355 March 1. The Contracting Officer shall use all reasonable means to deliver Project Water 

356 according to the approved schedule for the Year commencing on such March 1. 

357 (c) The Contractor shall not schedule Project Water in excess of the quantity 

358 of Project Water the Contractor intends to put to reasonable and beneficial use within the 

359 Contractor's Service Area or to sell, transfer, or exchange pursuant to Article 9 of this Contract 

360 during any Year. 

361 (d) Subject to the conditions set forth in subdivision (a) of Article 3 of this 

362 Contract, the United States shall deliver Project Water to the Contractor in accordance with the 

363 initial schedule submitted by the Contractor pursuant to subdivision (b) of this Article, or any 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

17

364 written revision(s), satisfactory to the Contracting Officer, thereto submitted within a reasonable 

365 time prior to the date(s) on which the requested change(s) is/are to be implemented. 

366 POINT OF DIVERSION AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR DISTRIBUTION OF WATER

367 5. (a) Project Water scheduled pursuant to subdivision (b) of Article 4 of this 

368 Contract shall be delivered to the Contractor at Rock Slough at the intake of Pumping Plant 1 of 

369 the Contra Costa Canal System or in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta at the intake and any 

370 additional point or points of delivery either on Project facilities or another location or locations 

371 mutually agreed to in writing by the Contracting Officer and the Contractor. Such deliveries at 

372 the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta may be made at the intake to the Tracy Pumping Plant of the 

373 Project at Old River, the intake of the State Water Project to Clifton Court at Old River and/or 

374 the intake to Los Vaqueros at Old River. Los Vaqueros Water Rights Water shall be delivered 

375 and/or diverted in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Said point(s) of delivery and/or diversion 

376 of Project Water and Los Vaqueros Water Rights Water shall be subject to change by written 

377 agreements of the parties hereto: Provided, That such change(s) is/are consistent with the 

378 applicable state water right permit(s) or license(s) as they may be amended or modified. The 

379 United States shall not be obligated to construct additional facilities for the delivery and/or 

380 diversion of water under this Contract.

381 (b) Omitted. 

382 (c) The Contractor shall not deliver Project Water to land outside the 

383 Contractor's Service Area unless approved in advance by the Contracting Officer. 

384 (d) All Water Delivered to the Contractor pursuant to this Contract shall be 

385 measured and recorded with equipment furnished, installed, operated, and maintained by the 

386 United States, or the Contractor at the point or points of delivery established pursuant to 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

18

387 subdivision (a) of this Article. Upon the request of either party to this Contract, the Contracting 

388 Officer or the Contractor shall investigate the accuracy of such measurements and shall take any 

389 necessary steps to adjust any errors appearing therein. For any period of time when accurate 

390 measurements have not been made, the Contracting Officer shall consult with the Contractor 

391 prior to making a final determination of the quantity delivered for that period of time. 

392 (e) The Contracting Officer shall not be responsible for the control, carriage, 

393 handling, use, disposal, or distribution of Water Delivered to the Contractor pursuant to this 

394 Contract beyond the delivery points specified in subdivision (a) of this Article. The Contractor 

395 shall indemnify the United States, its officers, employees, agents, and assigns on account of 

396 damage or claim of damage of any nature whatsoever for which there is legal responsibility, 

397 including property damage, personal injury, or death arising out of or connected with the control, 

398 carriage, handling, use, disposal, or distribution of such Water Delivered beyond such delivery 

399 points, except for any damage or claim arising out of: (i) acts or omissions of the Contracting 

400 Officer or any of its officers, employees, agents, or assigns, with the intent of creating the 

401 situation resulting in any damage or claim; (ii) willful misconduct of the Contracting Officer or 

402 any of its officers, employees, agents, or assigns; (iii) negligence of the Contracting Officer or 

403 any of its officers, employees, agents, or assigns; or (iv) damage or claims resulting from a 

404 malfunction of facilities owned and/or operated by the United States; Provided, That the 

405 Contractor is not the entity that owned or operated the malfunctioning facility(ies) from which 

406 the damage claim arose. 

407 (f) Water diverted by the Contractor pursuant to this Contract shall be 

408 measured and recorded by the Contractor for each of the points set forth below through 

409 measuring and recording devices, acceptable to the Contracting Officer: Provided, The parties 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

19

410 thereto, may agree in writing that such points and/or method of water measurement may be 

411 changed or added to. Except for Rock Slough at the intake of Pumping Plant 1, the Contractor 

412 shall O&M each of the measuring and recording devices at no cost to the United States. The 

413 Contractor shall install all measuring and recording devices: 

414 (1) At the intake to Pumping Plant 1 of the Contra Costa Canal 

415 System; 

416 (2) At the Los Vaqueros intake in Old River; 

417 (3) At the intake to the Los Vaqueros storage reservoir; and 

418 (4) At the point at which the Los Vaqueros Water Rights Water and 

419 Project Water diverted from other than Rock Slough are introduced into the Contra Costa Canal 

420 System from Los Vaqueros; 

421 (g) The Contractor shall measure or compute and record daily, or at such 

422 other intervals as may be agreed upon in writing by the parties, and provide to the United States 

on or before the 20th 423 day of each month following the month in which the measurement or 

424 computation was made the rates and quantities associated with the following: 

425 (1) Diversion of Project Water at Rock Slough; 

426 (2) Diversion of Project Water from Old River for direct use; 

427 (3) Diversion of Los Vaqueros Water Rights Water to storage in Los 

428 Vaqueros storage reservoir; 

429 (4) Diversion of Project Water to storage in Los Vaqueros storage 

430 reservoir; 

431 (5) Diversion to storage in Contra Loma Dam and Reservoir; 

432 (6) Withdrawal of Project Water from Los Vaqueros storage reservoir; 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

20

433 (7) Withdrawal of Los Vaqueros Water Rights Water from Los 

434 Vaqueros storage reservoir; 

435 (8) Withdrawal of water from Contra Loma Dam and Reservoir for 

436 delivery to the East Bay Regional Park District pursuant to Contract No. 4-06-200-6023A, dated 

437 September 18, 1972, as amended on November 29, 1977; 

438 (9) Withdrawal of water from Contra Loma Dam and Reservoir for 

439 purposes other than that specified in subdivision (g)(8) above; and 

440 (10) Total M&I water distributed. 

441 MEASUREMENT OF WATER WITHIN THE CONTRACTOR’S SERVICE AREA

442 6. (a) The Contractor has established a measuring program satisfactory to the 

443 Contracting Officer. The Contractor shall ensure that all surface water delivered for M&I 

444 purposes within the Contractor’s Service Area is measured at each M&I service connection. The 

445 water measuring devices or water measuring methods of comparable effectiveness must be 

446 acceptable to the Contracting Officer. The Contractor shall be responsible for installing, 

447 operating, and maintaining and repairing all such measuring devices and implementing all such 

448 water measuring methods at no cost to the United States. The Contractor shall use the 

449 information obtained from such water measuring devices or water measuring methods to ensure 

450 its proper management of the water, to bill water users for water delivered by the Contractor; 

451 and, if applicable, to record water delivered for M&I purposes by customer class as defined in 

452 the Contractor’s water conservation plan provided for in Article 26 of this Contract. Nothing 

453 herein contained, however, shall preclude the Contractor from establishing and collecting any 

454 charges, assessments, or other revenues authorized by California law. The Contractor shall
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

21

455 include a summary of all its annual surface water deliveries in the annual report described in 

456 subdivision (c) of Article 26. 

457 (b) To the extent the information has not otherwise been provided, upon 

458 execution of this Contract, the Contractor shall provide to the Contracting Officer a written 

459 report describing the measurement devices or water measuring methods being used or to be used 

460 to implement subdivision (a) of this Article and identifying the M&I service connections or 

461 alternative measurement programs approved by the Contracting Officer, at which such 

462 measurement devices or water measuring methods are being used, and, if applicable, identifying 

463 the locations at which such devices and/or methods are not yet being used including a time 

464 schedule for implementation at such locations. The Contracting Officer shall advise the 

465 Contractor in writing within 60 days as to the adequacy and necessary modifications, if any, of 

466 the measuring devices or water measuring methods identified in the Contractor’s report and if the 

467 Contracting Officer does not respond in such time, they shall be deemed adequate. If the 

468 Contracting Officer notifies the Contractor that the measuring devices or methods are 

469 inadequate, the parties shall within 60 days following the Contracting Officer’s response, 

470 negotiate in good faith the earliest practicable date by which the Contractor shall modify said 

471 measuring devices and/or measuring methods as required by the Contracting Officer to ensure 

472 compliance with subdivision (a) of this Article. 

473 (c) All new surface water delivery systems installed within the Contractor's 

474 Service Area after the effective date of this Contract shall also comply with the measurement 

475 provisions described in subdivision (a) of this Article. 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

22

476 (d) The Contractor shall inform the Contracting Officer and the State of 

477 California in writing by April 30 of each Year of the monthly volume of surface water delivered 

478 within the Contractor’s Service Area during the previous Year. 

479 (e) Omitted. 

480 RATES AND METHOD OF PAYMENT FOR WATER

481 7. (a) The Contractor shall pay the United States as provided in this Article for 

482 all Delivered Water at Rates, Charges, and the Tiered Pricing Component established in 

483 accordance with: (i) the Secretary’s then-existing Project ratesetting policy for M&I Water.

484 Such ratesetting policies shall be amended, modified, or superseded only through a public notice 

485 and comment procedure; (ii) applicable Federal Reclamation law and associated rules and 

486 regulations, or policies; and (iii) other applicable provisions of this Contract. Payments shall be 

487 made by cash transaction, electronic funds transfer, or any other mechanism as may be agreed to 

488 in writing by the Contractor and the Contracting Officer. The Rates, Charges, and Tiered Pricing 

489 Component applicable to the Contractor upon execution of this Contract are set forth in Exhibit 

490 “B,” as may be revised annually. 

491 (a.1) The payment to be made by the Contractor for Los Vaqueros Water Rights 

492 Water and Project Water Made Available to it pursuant to this Contract shall be the applicable 

493 Rates and Charges determined annually in accordance with the applicable Federal law and 

494 associated regulations.

495 (b) The Contracting Officer shall notify the Contractor of the Rates, Charges, 

496 and Tiered Pricing Component as follows: 

497 (1) Prior to July 1 of each Calendar Year, the Contracting Officer shall 

498 provide the Contractor an estimate of the Charges for Project Water that will be applied to the 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

23

499 period October 1, of the current Calendar Year, through September 30, of the following Calendar 

500 Year, and the basis for such estimate. The Contractor shall be allowed not less than two months 

501 to review and comment on such estimates. On or before September 15 of each Calendar Year, 

502 the Contracting Officer shall notify the Contractor in writing of the Charges to be in effect during 

503 the period October 1 of the current Calendar Year, through September 30, of the following 

504 Calendar Year, and such notification shall revise Exhibit “B.” 

505 (2) Prior to October 1 of each Calendar Year, the Contracting Officer 

506 shall make available to the Contractor an estimate of the Rates and Tiered Pricing Components 

507 for Project Water for the following Year and the computations and cost allocations upon which 

508 those Rates are based. The Contractor shall be allowed not less than two months to review and 

509 comment on such computations and cost allocations. By December 31 of each Calendar Year, 

510 the Contracting Officer shall provide the Contractor with the final Rates and Tiered Pricing 

511 Components to be in effect for the upcoming Year, and such notification shall revise Exhibit 

512 “B.”

513 (c) At the time the Contractor submits the initial schedule for the delivery of 

514 Project Water for each Year pursuant to subdivision (b) of Article 4 of this Contract, the 

515 Contractor shall make an advance payment to the United States equal to the total amount payable 

516 pursuant to the applicable Rate(s) set under subdivision (a) of this Article, for the Project Water 

517 scheduled to be delivered pursuant to this Contract during the first two calendar months of the 

518 Year. Before the end of the first month and before the end of each calendar month thereafter, the 

519 Contractor shall make an advance payment to the United States, at the Rate(s) set under 

520 subdivision (a) of this Article, for the Water Scheduled to be delivered pursuant to this Contract 

521 during the second month immediately following. Adjustments between advance payments for 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

24

522 Water Scheduled and amounts due for Water Delivered shall be made before the end of the 

523 following month; Provided, That any revised schedule submitted by the Contractor pursuant to 

524 Article 4 of this Contract which increases the amount of Water Delivered pursuant to this 

525 Contract during any month shall be accompanied with appropriate advance payment, at the Rates 

526 then in effect, to assure that Project Water is not delivered to the Contractor in advance of such 

527 payment. In any month in which the quantity of Water Delivered to the Contractor pursuant to 

528 this Contract equals the quantity of Water Scheduled and paid for by the Contractor, no 

529 additional Project Water shall be delivered to the Contractor unless and until an advance 

530 payment at the Rates then in effect for such additional Project Water is made. Final adjustment 

531 between the advance payments for the Water Scheduled and payments for the quantities of Water 

532 Delivered during each Year pursuant to this Contract shall be made as soon as practicable but no 

533 later than April 30th of the following Year, or 60 days after the delivery of Project Water 

534 rescheduled under subdivision (g) of Article 3 of this Contract if such water is not delivered by 

535 the last day of February. 

536 (d) The Contractor shall also make a payment in addition to the Rate(s) in 

537 subdivision (c) of this Article to the United States for Water Delivered, at the Charges and the 

538 appropriate Tiered Pricing Component then in effect, before the end of the month following the 

539 month of delivery. The payments shall be consistent with the quantities of M&I Water Delivered 

540 as shown in the water delivery report for the subject month prepared by the Contractor. The 

541 water delivery report shall be deemed a bill for the payment of Charges and the applicable Tiered 

542 Pricing Component for Water Delivered. Adjustment for overpayment or underpayment of 

543 Charges shall be made through the adjustment of payments due to the United States for Charges 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

25

544 for the next month. Any amount to be paid for past due payment of Charges and the Tiered 

545 Pricing Component shall be computed pursuant to Article 20 of this Contract. 

546 (e) The Contractor shall pay for any Water Delivered under subdivision (a), 

547 (f), or (g) of Article 3 of this Contract as determined by the Contracting Officer pursuant to 

548 applicable statutes, associated regulations, any applicable provisions of guidelines or ratesetting 

549 policies; Provided, That the Rates for Water Delivered under subdivision (f) of Article 3 of this 

550 Contract shall be no more than the otherwise applicable Rates for M&I Water under subdivision 

551 (a) of this Article. 

552 (f) Payments to be made by the Contractor to the United States under this 

553 Contract may be paid from any revenues available to the Contractor. 

554 (g) All revenues received by the United States from the Contractor relating to 

555 the delivery of Project Water or the delivery of non-Project water through Project facilities shall 

556 be allocated and applied in accordance with Federal Reclamation law and the associated rules or 

557 regulations, and the then-current Project ratesetting policies for M&I Water. 

558 (h) The Contracting Officer shall keep its accounts pertaining to the 

559 administration of the financial terms and conditions of its long-term contracts, in accordance 

560 with applicable Federal standards, so as to reflect the application of Project costs and revenues.

561 The Contracting Officer shall, each Year upon request of the Contractor, provide to the 

562 Contractor a detailed accounting of all Project and Contractor expense allocations, the 

563 disposition of all Project and Contractor revenues, and a summary of all water delivery 

564 information. The Contracting Officer and the Contractor shall enter into good faith negotiations 

565 to resolve any discrepancies or disputes relating to accountings, reports, or information. 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

26

566 (i) The parties acknowledge and agree that the efficient administration of this 

567 Contract is their mutual goal. Recognizing that experience has demonstrated that mechanisms, 

568 policies, and procedures used for establishing Rates, Charges, and Tiered Pricing Components, 

569 and/or for making and allocating payments, other than those set forth in this Article may be in 

570 the mutual best interest of the parties, it is expressly agreed that the parties may enter into 

571 agreements to modify the mechanisms, policies, and procedures for any of those purposes while 

572 this Contract is in effect without amending this Contract. 

573 (j) (1) Beginning at such time as deliveries of Project Water in a Year 

574 exceed 80 percent of the Contract Total, then before the end of the month following the month of 

575 delivery the Contractor shall make an additional payment to the United States equal to the 

576 applicable Tiered Pricing Component. The Tiered Pricing Component for the amount of Water 

577 Delivered in excess of 80 percent of the Contract Total, but less than or equal to 90 percent of the 

578 Contract Total, shall equal one-half of the difference between the Rates established under 

579 subdivision (a) of this Article and the M&I Full Cost Water Rate. The Tiered Pricing 

580 Component for the amount of Water Delivered which exceeds 90 percent of the Contract Total 

581 shall equal the difference between (i) the Rates established under subdivision (a) of this Article 

582 and (ii) M&I Full Cost Water Rate. 

583 (2) Omitted. 

584 (3) For purposes of determining the applicability of the Tiered Pricing 

585 Components pursuant to this Article, Water Delivered shall include Project Water that the 

586 Contractor transfers to others but shall not include Project Water transferred to the Contractor, 

587 nor shall it include the additional water provided to the Contractor under the provisions of 

588 subdivision (f) of Article 3 of this Contract. 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

27

589 (4) The Tiered Pricing Component does not apply to Los Vaqueros 

590 Water Rights Water. 

591 (k) For the term of this Contract, Rates applied under the respective 

592 ratesetting policies will be established to recover only reimbursable O&M (including any 

593 deficits) and capital costs of the Project, as those terms are used in the then-current Project 

594 ratesetting policies, and interest, where appropriate, except in instances where minimum Rates 

595 are applicable in accordance with the relevant Project ratesetting policy. Changes of significance 

596 in practices which implement the Contracting Officer’s ratesetting policies will not be 

597 implemented until the Contracting Officer has provided the Contractor an opportunity to discuss 

598 the nature, need, and impact of the proposed change. 

599 (l) Except as provided in subsections 3405(a)(1)(B) and 3405(f) of the 

600 CVPIA, the Rates for Project Water transferred by the Contractor shall be the Contractor’s Rates 

601 adjusted upward or downward to reflect the changed costs, if any, incurred by the Contracting 

602 Officer in the delivery of the transferred Project Water to the transferee’s point of delivery in 

603 accordance with the then applicable Project ratesetting policy. 

604 (m) Omitted. 

605 (n) With respect to the Rates for M&I water, the Contractor asserts that it is 

606 not legally obligated to pay any Project deficits claimed by the United States to have accrued as 

607 of the date of this Contract or deficit-related interest charges thereon. By entering into this 

608 Contract, the Contractor does not waive any legal rights or remedies that it may have with 

609 respect to such disputed issues. Notwithstanding the execution of this Contract and payments 

610 made hereunder, the Contractor may challenge in the appropriate administrative or judicial 

611 forums; (1) the existence, the computation, or imposition of any deficit charges accruing during 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

28

612 the term of the Existing Contract; (2) interest accruing on any such deficits; (3) the inclusion of 

613 any such deficit charges or interest in the Rates; (4) the application by the United States of 

614 payments made by the Contractor under its Existing Contract; and (5) the application of such 

615 payments in the Rates. The Contracting Officer agrees that the Contractor shall be entitled to the 

616 benefit of any administrative or judicial ruling in favor of any Project M&I contractor on any of 

617 these issues, and credits for payments heretofore made, provided that the basis for such ruling is 

618 applicable to the Contractor. [Pending Litigation] 

619 REPAYMENT OF PROJECT WORKS

620 7.1. (a) Contra Costa Canal System. The remaining capitalized cost of the Contra 

621 Costa Canal System on December 31, 2004, will be $839,101. The Contractor shall fully repay 

622 $914,032.56, including interest at 2.5 percent per annum, by making six annual payments of 

623 $152,338.76, beginning January 1, 2005, and ending January 1, 2010. 

624 (b) New Facilities. The remaining capitalized cost of the New Facilities on 

625 December 31, 2004, will be $1,446,457.07. The Contractor shall fully repay $1,620,281.05, plus 

626 interest at 3.342 percent per annum, by making six annual payments of $270,046.84 beginning 

627 January 1, 2005, and ending January 1, 2010. 

628 (c) Contra Loma Dam and Reservoir. The remaining capitalized costs of the 

629 Contra Loma Dam and Reservoir on December 31, 2004, will be $1,689,039.16. The Contractor 

630 shall fully repay $1,879,257.85, including interest at 3.137 percent per annum, by making six 

631 annual payments of $313,209.63 beginning January 1, 2005, and ending January 1, 2010. 

632 (d) The Contractor may, instead of making the payments provided for in 

633 subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) above, at any time, make full payment of the sum then due and 

634 owing on any or all of the facilities described in those subdivisions: Provided, That the 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

29

635 Contractor agrees that such accelerated repayment shall not exempt the Contractor from 

636 compliance with the otherwise applicable ownership and full cost pricing provisions of Federal 

637 Reclamation laws. If payment is made at any time in the year other than that specified in 

638 subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) of this Article, the remaining payment balance as of such date will 

639 be determined by the Contracting Officer and provided to the Contractor. Upon full repayment, 

640 the Contractor shall have no further repayment obligations associated with the capitalized costs 

641 specified in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) of this Article. 

642 NON-INTEREST BEARING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DEFICITS

643 8. The Contractor and the Contracting Officer concur that, as of the effective date of 

644 this Contract, the Contractor has no non-interest bearing O&M deficits and shall have no further 

645 liability therefore. 

646 SALES, TRANSFERS, OR EXCHANGES OF WATER

647 9. (a) The right to receive Project Water provided for in this Contract may be 

648 sold, transferred, or exchanged to others for reasonable and beneficial uses within the State of 

649 California if such sale, transfer, or exchange is authorized by applicable Federal and State laws, 

650 and applicable guidelines or regulations then in effect. No sale, transfer, or exchange of Project 

651 Water under this Contract may take place without the prior written approval of the Contracting 

652 Officer, except as provided for in subdivision (b) of this Article, and no such sales, transfers, or 

653 exchanges shall be approved absent all appropriate environmental documentation, including but 

654 not limited to, documents prepared pursuant to the NEPA and ESA. Such environmental 

655 documentation should include, as appropriate, an analysis of groundwater impacts and economic 

656 and social effects, including environmental justice, of the proposed water transfers on both the 

657 transferor and transferee. 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

30

658 (b) In order to facilitate efficient water management by means of water 

659 transfers of the type historically carried out among Project Contractors located within the same 

660 geographical area and to allow the Contractor to participate in an accelerated water transfer 

661 program during the term of this Contract, the Contracting Officer shall prepare, as appropriate, 

662 all necessary environmental documentation including but not limited to documents prepared 

663 pursuant to NEPA and ESA analyzing annual transfers within such geographical areas and the 

664 Contracting Officer shall determine whether such transfers comply with applicable law. 

665 Following the completion of the environmental documentation, such transfers addressed in such 

666 documentation shall be conducted with advance notice to the Contracting Officer, but shall not 

667 require prior written approval by the Contracting Officer. Such environmental documentation 

668 and the Contracting Officer’s compliance determination shall be reviewed every five years and 

669 updated, as necessary, prior to the expiration of the then existing five-year period. All 

670 subsequent environmental documentation shall include an alternative to evaluate not less than the 

671 quantity of Project Water historically transferred within the same geographical area. 

672 (c) For a water transfer to qualify under subdivision (b) of this Article, such 

673 water transfer must: (i) be for irrigation purposes for lands irrigated within the previous three 

674 years, for M&I use, groundwater recharge, groundwater banking, or similar groundwater 

675 activities, surface water storage, or fish and wildlife resources; not lead to land conversion; and 

676 be delivered to established cropland, wildlife refuges, groundwater basins or M&I use; (ii) occur 

677 within a single Year; (iii) occur between a willing seller and a willing buyer; (iv) convey water 

678 through existing facilities with no new construction or modifications to facilities and be between 

679 existing Project Contractors and/or the Contractor and the United States, Department of the 

680 Interior; and (v) comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local or tribal laws and 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

31

681 requirements imposed for protection of the environment and Indian Trust Assets, as defined 

682 under Federal law. 

683 PROJECT USE POWER

684 9.1. (a) During each Year, the United States shall furnish to the Contractor the 

685 quantity of Project use power, not to exceed 164.8 kWh of energy for each acre-foot of Project 

686 Water or Los Vaqueros Water Rights Water, required to operate facilities needed to pump 

687 through the Contra Costa Canal System and Contra Loma Dam and Reservoir the full quantity of 

688 Project Water scheduled and the Los Vaqueros Water Rights Water forecasted for delivery and 

689 diversion to and by the Contractor for use within the Contractor’s Service Area during that Year.

690 Such quantity of Project use power may be utilized at one or more of the following locations: the 

691 Contra Costa Canal System; the intake of Los Vaqueros in Old River; Contra Loma Dam and 

692 Reservoir; and such other points of diversion set forth in Article 5(a) as may be mutually agreed 

693 upon. Project use power can only be used to convey Project Water or Los Vaqueros Water 

694 Rights Water and shall be available to pump no more than 195,000 acre-feet annually. 

695 (b) The United States may, at any time, request in writing that the Contractor 

696 take delivery of some or all of the Project Water Made Available to the Contractor pursuant to 

697 this Contract at the point of diversion for Los Vaqueros Water Rights Water in lieu of taking 

698 delivery of such water at the intake of Pumping Plant 1 of the Contra Costa Canal System at 

699 Rock Slough. If the Contractor agrees in writing to such a request, the United States shall 

700 furnish to the Contractor during the term of the agreement, the quantity of Project use power 

701 required to pump said Project Water and Los Vaqueros Water Rights Water from the point of 

702 diversion for Los Vaqueros Water Rights Water to the Los Vaqueros transfer reservoir, not to 

703 exceed 350 kWh of energy per acre-foot; Provided, That such a written agreement by the parties 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

32

704 for the delivery to and diversion at the point of diversion for Los Vaqueros Water Rights Water 

705 of the full supply of Project Water Made Available under this Contract during the term of such 

706 agreement shall not be implemented absent modification acceptable to the Contracting Officer of 

707 applicable Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta water quality standards during the entire term of such 

708 agreement. 

709 (c) If the Contracting Officer and the Contractor are required under any 

710 biological opinion issued by an agency of the United Sates to take delivery of some or all of the 

711 Project Water Made Available to the Contractor pursuant to this Contract at the point of 

712 diversion for Los Vaqueros Water Rights Water in lieu of taking delivery of such water at the 

713 intake to Pumping Plant 1 of the Contra Costa Canal System at Rock Slough, the United States 

714 shall furnish to the Contractor the quantity of Project use power required to pump said Project 

715 water from the point of diversion for Los Vaqueros Water Rights Water to the Los Vaqueros 

716 transfer reservoir, not to exceed 350 kWh of energy per acre-foot; Provided, That the quantity of 

717 Project use power furnished pursuant to this subdivision shall not exceed the quantity of Project 

718 use power needed to convey the quantity of Project Water diverted at the point of diversion of 

719 Los Vaqueros Water Rights Water for immediate delivery through the Contra Costa Canal; and 

720 Provided further, That the Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer by March 1 of each 

721 calendar year, in accordance with the written schedules submitted pursuant to Article 4(b), of the 

722 projected quantity of Project Water which will be pumped with Project use power described in 

723 this subdivision. 

724 (d) The Contractor shall pay the United States for the quantity of Project use 

725 power as set forth in subdivision (a), (b), and (c) above as a component of the water Rates 

726 described in Article 7(a) of this Contract.
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

33

727 (e) The Contracting Officer may adjust the quantity of Project use power 

728 required to pump each acre-foot of Project Water or Los Vaqueros Water Rights Water if the 

729 Contracting Officer determines based on substantial evidence that the actual energy required for 

730 such pumping is different from the quantity set forth in this Article. Such determinations and 

731 adjustments by the Contracting Officer shall not require further amendment to this Contract. 

732 APPLICATION OF PAYMENTS AND ADJUSTMENTS 

733 10. (a) The amount of any overpayment by the Contractor of the Contractor’s 

734 O&M, interest, capital, and deficit (if any) obligations for the Year shall be applied first to any 

735 current liabilities of the Contractor arising out of this Contract then due and payable.

736 Overpayments of more than $1,000 shall be refunded at the Contractor’s request. In lieu of a 

737 refund, any amount of such overpayment, at the option of the Contractor, may be credited against 

738 amounts to become due to the United States by the Contractor. With respect to overpayment, 

739 such refund or adjustment shall constitute the sole remedy of the Contractor or anyone having or 

740 claiming to have the right to the use of any of the Project Water supply provided for herein. All 

741 credits and refunds of overpayments shall be made within 30 days of the Contracting Officer 

742 obtaining direction as to how to credit or refund such overpayment in response to the notice to 

743 the Contractor that it has finalized the accounts for the Year in which the overpayment was 

744 made. 

745 (b) All advances for miscellaneous costs incurred for work requested by the 

746 Contractor pursuant to Article 25 of this Contract shall be adjusted to reflect the actual costs 

747 when the work has been completed. If the advances exceed the actual costs incurred, the 

748 difference will be refunded to the Contractor. If the actual costs exceed the Contractor's 

749 advances, the Contractor will be billed for the additional costs pursuant to Article 25. 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

34

TEMPORARY REDUCTIONS--RETURN FLOWS

750 11. (a) Subject to: (i) the authorized purposes and priorities of the Project and the 

751 requirements of Federal law and (ii) the obligations of the United States under existing contracts, 

752 or renewals thereof, providing for water deliveries from the Project, the Contracting Officer shall 

753 make all reasonable efforts to optimize Project Water deliveries to the Contractor as provided in 

754 this Contract. 

755 (b) The Contracting Officer may temporarily discontinue or reduce the 

756 quantity of Water Delivered to the Contractor as herein provided for the purposes of 

757 investigation, inspection, maintenance, repair, or replacement of any of the Project facilities or 

758 any part thereof necessary for the delivery of Project Water to the Contractor, but so far as 

759 feasible the Contracting Officer will give the Contractor due notice in advance of such temporary 

760 discontinuance or reduction, except in case of emergency, in which case no notice need be given; 

761 Provided, That the United States shall use its best efforts to avoid any discontinuance or 

762 reduction in such service. Upon resumption of service after such reduction or discontinuance, 

763 and if requested by the Contractor, the United States will, if possible, deliver the quantity of 

764 Project Water which would have been delivered hereunder in the absence of such discontinuance 

765 or reduction. 

766 (c) The United States reserves the right to all seepage and return flow water 

767 derived from Water Delivered to the Contractor hereunder which escapes or is discharged 

768 beyond the Contractor's Service Area; Provided, That this shall not be construed as claiming for 

769 the United States any right to seepage or return flow being put to reasonable and beneficial use 

770 pursuant to this Contract within the Contractor’s Service Area by the Contractor or those 

771 claiming by, through, or under the Contractor. 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

35

772 CONSTRAINTS ON THE AVAILABILITY OF WATER

773 12. (a) In its operation of the Project, the Contracting Officer will use all 

774 reasonable means to guard against a Condition of Shortage in the quantity of water to be made 

775 available to the Contractor pursuant to this Contract. In the event the Contracting Officer 

776 determines that a Condition of Shortage appears probable, the Contracting Officer will notify the 

777 Contractor of said determination as soon as practicable. 

778 (b) If there is a Condition of Shortage because of errors in physical operations 

779 of the Project, drought, other physical causes beyond the control of the Contracting Officer or 

780 actions taken by the Contracting Officer to meet legal obligations then, except as provided in 

781 subdivision (a) of Article 18 of this Contract, no liability shall accrue against the United States or 

782 any of its officers, agents, or employees for any damage, direct or indirect, arising therefrom. 

783 (c) Omitted. 

784 (d) Project Water furnished under this Contract will be allocated in 

785 accordance with the then existing Project M&I Water Shortage Policy. Such policy shall be 

786 amended, modified, or superseded only through a public notice and comment procedure. 

787 (e) By entering into this Contract, the Contractor does not waive any legal 

788 rights or remedies it may have to file or participate in any administrative or judicial proceeding 

789 contesting (i) the sufficiency of the manner in which any Project M&I Water Shortage Policy 

790 adopted after the effective date of this Contract was promulgated; (ii) the substance of such a 

791 policy; or (iii) the applicability of such a policy. By agreeing to the foregoing, the Contracting 

792 Officer does not waive any legal defenses or remedies that it may then have to assert in such a 

793 proceeding. 

794 13. Omitted. 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

36

795 RULES AND REGULATIONS

796 14. The parties agree that the delivery of M&I Water or use of Federal facilities 

797 pursuant to this Contract is subject to the applicable provisions of Federal Reclamation law, and 

798 any applicable rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior under such law.

799 WATER AND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

800 15. The Contractor, in carrying out this Contract, shall comply with all applicable 

801 water and air pollution laws and regulations of the United States and the State of California, and 

802 shall obtain all required permits or licenses from the appropriate Federal, State, or local 

803 authorities.

804 QUALITY OF WATER

805 16. (a) Project facilities used to deliver Project Water to the Contractor pursuant 

806 to this Contract shall be operated and maintained to enable the United States to deliver Project 

807 Water to the Contractor in accordance with the water quality standards specified in subsection 

808 2(b) of the Act of August 26, 1937 (50 Stat. 865), as added by Section 101 of the Act of

809 October 27, 1986 (100 Stat. 3050) or other existing Federal laws. The United States is under no 

810 obligation to construct or furnish water treatment facilities to maintain or to improve the quality 

811 of Water Delivered to the Contractor pursuant to this Contract. The United States does not 

812 warrant the quality of Water Delivered to the Contractor pursuant to this Contract. 

813 (b) O&M of Project facilities shall be performed in such manner as is 

814 practicable to maintain the quality of raw water made available through such facilities at the 

815 highest level reasonably attainable as determined by the Contracting Officer. The Contractor 

816 shall be responsible for compliance with all State and Federal water quality standards applicable 

817 to surface and subsurface agricultural drainage discharges generated through the use of Federal 

818 or Contractor facilities or Project Water provided by the Contractor within the Contractor's 

819 Service Area. 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

37

820 WATER ACQUIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR

821 OTHER THAN FROM THE UNITED STATES

822 17. (a) Omitted. 

823 (b) Water or water rights now owned or hereafter acquired by the Contractor, 

824 other than from the United States may be stored, conveyed, and/or diverted through Project 

825 facilities, other than Project Works, subject to the completion of appropriate environmental 

826 documentation, with the approval of the Contracting Officer and the execution of any contract 

827 determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary, consistent with the following provisions: 

828 (1) The Contractor may introduce non-Project water into Project 

829 facilities, other than Project Works, subject to payment to the United States of an appropriate rate 

830 as determined by the applicable Project ratesetting policy and the RRA, and the Project use 

831 power policy, if such Project use power policy is applicable, each as amended, modified, or 

832 superseded from time to time. In addition, if electrical power is required to pump non-Project 

833 water through the facilities, the Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary power 

834 and paying the necessary charges therefore. 

835 (2) Delivery of such non-Project water in and through Project 

836 facilities, other than Project Works, shall only be allowed to the extent such deliveries do not: 

837 (i) interfere with other Project purposes as determined by the Contracting Officer; (ii) reduce the 

838 quantity or quality of water available to other Project Contractors; (iii) interfere with the delivery 

839 of contractual water entitlements to any other Project Contractors; or (iv) interfere with the 

840 physical maintenance of the Project facilities. 

841 (c) The Contractor may use Project Works to convey non-Project water, 

842 subject to each of the following conditions: 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

38

843 (1) Such conveyance shall not interfere with deliveries of water 

844 hereunder;

845 (2) Non-Project water for irrigation use shall be utilized in accordance 

846 with the applicable acreage limitation provisions of the Federal Reclamation laws; 

847 (3) Project use power shall not be used to pump or convey non-Project 

848 water except as provided for in Article 9.1(a); 

849 (4) The United States shall not incur any liability or unreimbursed cost 

850 or expense thereby; 

851 (5) The quantities of non-Project water introduced into and conveyed 

852 through the Project Works shall be measured or otherwise determined by the Contractor in a 

853 manner consistent with Article 6 of this Contract, acceptable to the Contracting Officer and at no 

854 cost to the United States; 

855 (6) The amount the Contractor is to pay to the United States for 

856 conveying non-Project water through Project Works shall be determined annually by the United 

857 States in accordance with the applicable provisions of Federal law, including but not limited to 

858 the Warren Act of February 21, 1911 (36 Stat. 935), as amended and supplemented, associated 

859 regulations, and the then-current applicable federal ratesetting policies. 

860 (d) The United States shall not be responsible for control, care, or distribution 

861 of the non-Project water before it is introduced into or after it is delivered from the Project 

862 facilities. The Contractor hereby releases and agrees to defend and indemnify the United States 

863 and their respective officers, agents, and employees, from any claim for damage to persons or 

864 property, direct or indirect, resulting from the Contractor’s or its officers’, employees’, agents’, 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

39

865 or assigns’, act(s) of (i) extracting or diverting non-Project water from any source, or (ii) 

866 diverting such non-Project water into Project facilities.

867 (e) Diversion of such non-Project water into Project facilities shall be 

868 consistent with all applicable laws, and if involving groundwater, consistent with any applicable 

869 groundwater management plan for the area from which it was extracted. 

870 (f) After Project purposes are met, as determined by the Contracting Officer, 

871 the United States and the Contractor shall share priority to utilize the remaining capacity of the 

872 facilities declared to be available by the Contracting Officer for storage, conveyance, and 

873 transportation of non-Project water prior to any such remaining capacity being made available to 

874 non-Project contractors. 

875 OPINIONS AND DETERMINATIONS

876 18. (a) Where the terms of this Contract provide for actions to be based upon the 

877 opinion or determination of either party to this Contract, said terms shall not be construed as 

878 permitting such action to be predicated upon arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable opinions or 

879 determinations. Both parties, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Contract, expressly 

880 reserve the right to seek relief from and appropriate adjustment for any such arbitrary, capricious, 

881 or unreasonable opinion or determination. Each opinion or determination by either party shall be 

882 provided in a timely manner. Nothing in subdivision (a) of Article 18 of this Contract is 

883 intended to or shall affect or alter the standard of judicial review applicable under Federal law to

884 any opinion or determination implementing a specific provision of Federal law embodied in 

885 statute or regulation. 

886 (b) The Contracting Officer shall have the right to make determinations 

887 necessary to administer this Contract that are consistent with the provisions of this Contract, the 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

40

888 laws of the United States and of the State of California, and the rules and regulations 

889 promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior. Such determinations shall be made in consultation 

890 with the Contractor to the extent reasonably practicable. 

891 COORDINATION AND COOPERATION

892 19. (a) In order to further their mutual goals and objectives, the Contracting 

893 Officer and the Contractor shall communicate, coordinate, and cooperate with each other, and 

894 with other affected Project Contractors, in order to improve the operation and management of the 

895 Project. The communication, coordination, and cooperation regarding operations and 

896 management shall include, but not be limited to, any action which will or may materially affect 

897 the quantity or quality of Project Water supply, the allocation of Project Water supply, and 

898 Project financial matters including, but not limited to, budget issues. The communication, 

899 coordination, and cooperation provided for hereunder shall extend to all provisions of this 

900 Contract. Each party shall retain exclusive decision making authority for all actions, opinions, 

901 and determinations to be made by the respective party. 

902 (b) Within 120 days following the effective date of this Contract, the 

903 Contractor, other affected Project Contractors, and the Contracting Officer shall arrange to meet 

904 with interested Project Contractors to develop a mutually agreeable, written Project-wide 

905 process, which may be amended as necessary separate and apart from this Contract. The goal of 

906 this process shall be to provide, to the extent practicable, the means of mutual communication 

907 and interaction regarding significant decisions concerning Project operation and management on 

908 a real-time basis. 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

41

909 (c) In light of the factors referred to in subdivision (b) of Article 3 of this 

910 Contract, it is the intent of the Secretary to improve water supply reliability. To carry out this 

911 intent: 

912 (1) The Contracting Officer will, at the request of the Contractor, 

913 assist in the development of integrated resource management plans for the Contractor. Further, 

914 the Contracting Officer will, as appropriate, seek authorizations for implementation of 

915 partnerships to improve water supply, water quality, and reliability. 

916 (2) The Secretary will, as appropriate, pursue program and project 

917 implementation and authorization in coordination with Project Contractors to improve the water 

918 supply, water quality, and reliability of the Project for all Project purposes. 

919 (3) The Secretary will coordinate with Project Contractors and the 

920 State of California to seek improved water resource management. 

921 (4) The Secretary will coordinate actions of agencies within the 

922 Department of the Interior that may impact the availability of water for Project purposes. 

923 (5) The Contracting Officer shall periodically, but not less than 

924 annually, hold division level meetings to discuss Project operations, division level water 

925 management activities, and other issues as appropriate. 

926 (d) Without limiting the contractual obligations of the Contracting Officer 

927 under the other Articles of this Contract, nothing in this Article shall be construed to limit or 

928 constrain the Contracting Officer’s ability to communicate, coordinate, and cooperate with the

929 Contractor or other interested stakeholders or to make decisions in a timely fashion as needed to 

930 protect health, safety, or the physical integrity of structures or facilities. 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

42

931 CHARGES FOR DELINQUENT PAYMENTS

932 20. (a) The Contractor shall be subject to interest, administrative and penalty 

933 charges on delinquent installments or payments. When a payment is not received by the due 

934 date, the Contractor shall pay an interest charge for each day the payment is delinquent beyond 

935 the due date. When a payment becomes sixty (60) days delinquent, the Contractor shall pay an 

936 administrative charge to cover additional costs of billing and processing the delinquent payment. 

937 When a payment is delinquent ninety (90) days or more, the Contractor shall pay an additional 

938 penalty charge of six (6%) percent per year for each day the payment is delinquent beyond the 

939 due date. Further, the Contractor shall pay any fees incurred for debt collection services 

940 associated with a delinquent payment. 

941 (b) The interest charge rate shall be the greater of the rate prescribed quarterly 

942 in the Federal Register by the Department of the Treasury for application to overdue payments, 

943 or the interest rate of one-half of one (0.5%) percent per month prescribed by Section 6 of the 

944 Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (Public Law 76-260). The interest charge rate shall be 

945 determined as of the due date and remain fixed for the duration of the delinquent period. 

946 (c) When a partial payment on a delinquent account is received, the amount 

947 received shall be applied, first to the penalty, second to the administrative charges, third to the 

948 accrued interest, and finally to the overdue payment. 

949 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

950 21. During the performance of this Contract, the Contractor agrees as follows: 

951 (a) The Contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for 

952 employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Contractor will take 

953 affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during 

954 employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Such action 

955 shall include, but not be limited to, the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; 

956 recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination, rates of payment or other forms of 

957 compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The Contractor agrees to 

958 post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be 

959 provided by the Contracting Officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. 

960 (b) The Contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees 

961 placed by or on behalf of the Contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive 

962 consideration for employment without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, or 

963 national origin. 

964 (c) The Contractor will send to each labor union or representative of workers 

965 with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice, 

966 to be provided by the Contracting Officer, advising the said labor union or workers' 

967 representative of the Contractor's commitments under Section 202 of Executive Order 11246 of
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

43

968 September 24, 1965, and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to 

969 employees and applicants for employment. 

970 (d) The Contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order

971 No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, as amended, and of the rules, regulations, and relevant orders 

972 of the Secretary of Labor.

973 (e) The Contractor will furnish all information and reports required by said 

974 amended Executive Order and by the rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or 

975 pursuant thereto, and will permit access to its books, records, and accounts by the Contracting 

976 Officer and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with 

977 such rules, regulations, and orders. 

978 (f) In the event of the Contractor's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination 

979 clauses of this Contract or with any of the said rules, regulations, or orders, this Contract may be 

980 canceled, terminated, or suspended, in whole or in part, and the Contractor may be declared 

981 ineligible for further Government contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in said 

982 amended Executive Order, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked as 

983 provided in said Executive Order, or by rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as 

984 otherwise provided by law. 

985 (g) The Contractor will include the provisions of paragraphs (a) through (g) in 

986 every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by the rules, regulations, or orders of the 

987 Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Section 204 of said amended Executive Order, so that such 

988 provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. The Contractor will take such 

989 action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as may be directed by the Secretary of 

990 Labor as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance: 

991 Provided, however, That in the event the Contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, 

992 litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction, the Contractor may request 

993 the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States. 

994 GENERAL OBLIGATION--BENEFITS CONDITIONED UPON PAYMENT

995 22. (a) The obligation of the Contractor to pay the United States as provided in 

996 this Contract is a general obligation of the Contractor notwithstanding the manner in which the 

997 obligation may be distributed among the Contractor's water users and notwithstanding the default 

998 of individual water users in their obligations to the Contractor. 

999 (b) The payment of charges becoming due hereunder is a condition precedent 

1000 to receiving benefits under this Contract. The United States shall not make water available to the 

1001 Contractor through Project facilities during any period in which the Contractor may be in arrears 

1002 in the advance payment of water rates due the United States. The Contractor shall not furnish 

1003 water made available pursuant to this Contract for lands or parties which are in arrears in the 

1004 advance payment of water rates levied or established by the Contractor. 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

44

1005 (c) With respect to subdivision (b) of this Article, the Contractor shall have no 

1006 obligation to require advance payment for water rates which it levies. 

1007 COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS AND REGULATIONS

1008 23. (a) The Contractor shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

1009 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1975 (P.L. 93-112, as amended), the 

1010 Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101, et seq.) and any other applicable civil rights 

1011 laws, as well as with their respective implementing regulations and guidelines imposed by the 

1012 U.S. Department of the Interior and/or Bureau of Reclamation. 

1013 (b) These statutes require that no person in the United States shall, on the 

1014 grounds of race, color, national origin, handicap, or age, be excluded from participation in, be 

1015 denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity 

1016 receiving financial assistance from the Bureau of Reclamation. By executing this Contract, the 

1017 Contractor agrees to immediately take any measures necessary to implement this obligation, 

1018 including permitting officials of the United States to inspect premises, programs, and documents. 

1019 (c) The Contractor makes this agreement in consideration of and for the 

1020 purpose of obtaining any and all Federal grants, loans, contracts, property discounts, or other 

1021 Federal financial assistance extended after the date hereof to the Contractor by the Bureau of 

1022 Reclamation, including installment payments after such date on account of arrangements for 

1023 Federal financial assistance which were approved before such date. The Contractor recognizes 

1024 and agrees that such Federal assistance will be extended in reliance on the representations and 

1025 agreements made in this Article, and that the United States reserves the right to seek judicial 

1026 enforcement thereof. 

 24. Omitted. 

1027 CONTRACTOR TO PAY CERTAIN MISCELLANEOUS COSTS

1028 RELATING TO PROJECT WORKS

1029 25. In addition to all other payments to be made by the Contractor pursuant to this 

1030 Contract, the Contractor shall pay to the United States, within 60 days after receipt of a bill and 

1031 detailed statement submitted by the Contracting Officer to the Contractor for such specific items 

1032 of direct cost incurred by the United States for work requested by the Contractor associated with 

1033 this Contract plus indirect costs in accordance with applicable Bureau of Reclamation policies 

1034 and procedures. All such amounts referred to in this Article shall not exceed the amount agreed 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

45

1035 to in writing in advance by the Contractor. This Article shall not apply to costs for routine 

1036 contract administration. 

1037 WATER CONSERVATION

1038 26. (a) Prior to the delivery of water provided from or conveyed through 

1039 Federally constructed or Federally financed facilities pursuant to this Contract, the Contractor 

1040 shall be implementing an effective water conservation and efficiency program based on the 

1041 Contractor's water conservation plan that has been determined by the Contracting Officer to meet 

1042 the conservation and efficiency criteria for evaluating water conservation plans established under 

1043 Federal law. The water conservation and efficiency program shall contain definite water 

1044 conservation objectives, appropriate economically feasible water conservation measures, and 

1045 time schedules for meeting those objectives. Continued Project Water delivery pursuant to this 

1046 Contract shall be contingent upon the Contractor’s continued implementation of such water 

1047 conservation program. In the event the Contractor's water conservation plan or any revised water 

1048 conservation plan completed pursuant to subdivision (d) of Article 26 of this Contract have not 

1049 yet been determined by the Contracting Officer to meet such criteria, due to circumstances which 

1050 the Contracting Officer determines are beyond the control of the Contractor, water deliveries 

1051 shall be made under this Contract so long as the Contractor diligently works with the Contracting 

1052 Officer to obtain such determination at the earliest practicable date, and thereafter the Contractor 

1053 immediately begins implementing its water conservation and efficiency program in accordance 

1054 with the time schedules therein. 

1055 (b) Should the amount of M&I Water delivered pursuant to subdivision (a) of 

1056 Article 3 of this Contract equal or exceed 2,000 acre-feet per Year, the Contractor shall 

1057 implement the Best Management Practices identified by the time frames issued by the California 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

46

1058 Urban Water Conservation Council for such M&I Water unless any such practice is determined 

1059 by the Contracting Officer to be inappropriate for the Contractor.

1060 (c) The Contractor shall submit to the Contracting Officer a report on the 

1061 status of its implementation of the water conservation plan on the reporting dates specified in the 

1062 then existing conservation and efficiency criteria established under Federal law.

1063 (d) At five-year intervals, the Contractor shall revise its water conservation 

1064 plan to reflect the then current conservation and efficiency criteria for evaluating water 

1065 conservation plans established under Federal law and submit such revised water management 

1066 plan to the Contracting Officer for review and evaluation. The Contracting Officer will then 

1067 determine if the water conservation plan meets Reclamation’s then-current conservation and 

1068 efficiency criteria for evaluating water conservation plans established under Federal law.

1069 (e) If the Contractor is engaged in direct groundwater recharge, such activity 

1070 shall be described in the Contractor’s water conservation plan. 

1071 EXISTING OR ACQUIRED WATER OR WATER RIGHTS

1072 27. Except as specifically provided in Article 17 of this Contract, the provisions of 

1073 this Contract shall not be applicable to or affect non-Project water or water rights now owned or 

1074 hereafter acquired by the Contractor or any user of such water within the Contractor's Service 

1075 Area. Any such water shall not be considered Project Water under this Contract. In addition, 

1076 this Contract shall not be construed as limiting or curtailing any rights which the Contractor or 

1077 any water user within the Contractor's Service Area acquires or has available under any other 

1078 contract pursuant to Federal Reclamation law. 

1079 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BY NON-FEDERAL OPERATING ENTITY

1080 28. (a) Omitted.
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

47

1081 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PROJECT WORKS

1082 BY THE CONTRACTOR

1083 28.1. (a) The Contractor, without expense to the United States, shall operate and 

1084 maintain the Project Works in full compliance with the Federal Reclamation laws and the terms 

1085 of this Contract. The provisions of this Article shall be implemented by the Memorandum of 

1086 Agreement relating to Details of Transfer Operations and Maintenance of Contra Costa Canal 

1087 System, dated June 28, 1972, and Amendment 1, dated May 15, 1995, and may be amended from 

1088 time to time in such manner that Project Works shall be maintained in good and efficient 

1089 condition. The Contractor shall use proper methods to assure the reasonable and beneficial use 

1090 of Water Delivered by means of Project Works. At any time the Contracting Officer determines 

1091 the O&M by the Contractor of one or more of the Project Works is insufficient, the United States 

1092 may take back the O&M of all or any part of such Project Works and the Contractor hereby 

1093 agrees to surrender possession of said Project Works. The O&M of such Project Works so taken 

1094 back for O&M may be retransferred to the Contractor upon the furnishing by the Contracting 

1095 Officer of a written notice of intention to retransfer O&M to the Contractor 90 days in advance 

1096 of the date of retransfer by the United States. Such transfer shall not be made until the Project 

1097 Works have been placed in efficient operating condition: Provided, That for Project Works 

1098 taken back by the United States for O&M, the Contractor shall pay the United States quarterly, in 

1099 advance, sufficient funds, on the basis of an estimate to be submitted by the Contracting Officer, 

1100 to finance the O&M of such Project Works. If the actual O&M costs should exceed the 

1101 estimated costs, the Contractor shall pay the United States the necessary additional sums of 

1102 money within 60 days after receipt of a bill submitted by the Contracting Officer to the 

1103 Contractor. Any surplus of advances by the Contractor shall be refunded or, at the option of the
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

48

1104 Contracting Officer, be applied against any obligation of the Contractor under this Contract due 

1105 at that time. 

1106 (b) No substantial change in any of the Project Works or the installation of 

1107 Contractor facilities on the lands and rights of way of Project Works shall be made by the 

1108 Contractor without first obtaining the written consent of the Contracting Officer. The Contractor 

1109 shall promptly make at its expense any and all repairs or replacements to one or more of the 

1110 Project Works which the Contracting Officers determines are necessary for the proper O&M of 

1111 such Project Works. If at any time, in the opinion of the Contracting Officer one or more of the 

1112 Project Works shall from any cause be in a condition unfit for service, the Contracting Officer 

1113 may order that the water be shut off from that Project Works until, in the Contracting Officer’s 

1114 opinion, said Project Works are put in proper condition for service. If the Contractor neglects or 

1115 fails to make necessary repairs or replacements, at the option of the Contracting Officer, such 

1116 repairs or replacements may be made by the United States and the cost therefore charged to the 

1117 Contractor. The Contractor shall repay such costs as a miscellaneous cost in accordance with 

1118 Article 25 of this Contract. The Contractor at its own expense shall repair any damage to the 

1119 Project Works resulting from negligence of its officers, employees, or agents. 

1120 (c) From time to time the Contracting Officer, without cost to the Contractor, 

1121 may make a review of the maintenance of the Project Works in order to assist the Contractor in 

1122 determining the condition of those facilities and the adequacy of the maintenance program. The 

1123 review may include any or all of the Project Works. A report of each such review, including 

1124 recommendations, if any, shall be prepared and a copy shall be furnished to the Contractor. If 

1125 deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer or when requested by the Contractor, an inspection 

1126 of any of the Project Works and of the Contractor’s books and records relating thereto may be 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

49

1127 made to ascertain whether the requirements of this Contract are being satisfactorily performed by 

1128 the Contractor or to assist the Contractor in solving specific problems. Any such inspection 

1129 shall, except in a case of emergency, be made after written notice to the Contractor and the actual 

1130 cost thereof shall be paid by the Contractor to the United States as a miscellaneous cost pursuant 

1131 to Article 25 of this Contract. The Contractor may participate in either the review or inspection. 

1132 (d) The Contractor shall have the right to abandon one or more of the Project 

1133 Works with the prior written approval of the Contracting Officer: Provided, That abandonment 

1134 of one or more of the Project Works shall not relieve the Contractor of its obligation to repay the 

1135 capital cost plus interest as appropriate of such Project Works less any disposal or salvage value 

1136 which may be realized. 

1137 (e) If and when the Contractor fully repays the United States the costs of one 

1138 or more of the Project Works and the ownership of such Project Works is transferred to the 

1139 Contractor pursuant to an Act of Congress, the provisions of subdivision (a), (b), (c), and (d) of 

1140 this Article and subdivision (c) of Article 17 shall no longer apply to such Project Works 

1141 EMERGENCY RESERVE FUND

1142 28.2. (a) The Contractor shall accumulate and maintain a reserve fund, as set forth 

1143 in subdivision (b) below, which the Contractor shall keep available to pay O&M costs incurred 

1144 during periods of special stress caused by damaging droughts, storms, earthquakes, floods, or 

1145 other emergencies threatening or causing interruption of water service. 

1146 (b) The Contractor shall establish a reserve fund of not less than $1,000,000 in 

1147 a Federally insured interest- or dividend-bearing account, or investments in securities guaranteed 

1148 by the Federal Government; Provided, That the money so deposited or invested shall be available 

1149 within a reasonable time to meet expenses for the purposes identified in subdivision (d) of this 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

50

1150 Article. Whenever said reserve fund is reduced below $1,000,000 by expenditures therefrom, it 

1151 shall be restored to that amount by accumulation of annual deposits at a minimum of $250,000. 

1152 The interest earnings shall continue to accumulate and be retained as part of the reserve fund 

1153 except when required to meet expenditures pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (d) of this Article. 

1154 (c) By written agreement between the Contractor and the Contracting Officer, 

1155 the basic amount of the reserve fund may be adjusted to account for risk and uncertainty 

1156 stemming from the size and complexity of the Project Works, the size of the Contractor’s annual 

1157 O&M budget and O&M costs not contemplated when this Contract was executed. 

1158 (d) The Contractor may withdraw money from the reserve fund only for 

1159 meeting unusual O&M costs incurred during periods of stress as described in subdivision (a) 

1160 above, and unforeseen extraordinary O&M costs, unusual or extraordinary repair or replacement 

1161 costs, and betterment costs (in situations where recurrence of severe problems can be eliminated) 

1162 during periods of special stress. The Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer of any 

1163 expenditure from the reserve fund pursuant to this subdivision. 

1164 TRANSFER OF TITLE TO PROJECT WORKS

1165 28.3. Upon repayment of all outstanding capitalized costs of one or more of the Project 

1166 Works, and upon appropriate authorization of Congress, all rights, title, and interests in and to 

1167 the relevant Project Work(s) shall be transferred to the Contractor.

1168 PERFORMANCE OF PROJECT WORKS WITH CONTRIBUTED FUNDS

1169 28.4. (a) Pursuant to the Act of March 4, 1921 (41 Stat. 1367, 1404), the 

1170 Contracting Officer may accept funds contributed by the Contractor to finance any authorized 

1171 construction work on the Project facilities not otherwise provided for by this Contract for which 

1172 funds may not be available. Pursuant to the Act of January 12, 1927 (44 Stat. 957, 43 U.S.C. § 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

51

1173 397a), the Contracting Officer may also accept funds contributed by the Contractor to finance 

1174 any authorized O&M work on the Project facilities not otherwise provided for by this Contract 

1175 for which funds may not be available. When the undertaking of such work is approved, funds 

1176 therefore shall be advanced by the Contractor as may be directed by the Contracting Officers and 

1177 there shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer a certified copy of the resolution of the Board 

1178 of Directors of the Contractor describing the work to be done and authorizing its performance 

1179 with contributed funds. 

1180 (b) After completion of any work on Project facilities financed in whole or in 

1181 part with funds contributed by the Contractor under subdivision (a) of this Article, the Contractor 

1182 shall be furnished with a statement of the final cost thereof. Any unexpended balance of funds 

1183 shall be refunded to the Contractor or applied as otherwise directed by the Contractor. The 

1184 amount by which the cost of such work exceeds the amount of funds advanced by the Contractor 

1185 therefore shall be paid by the Contractor to the United States as the Contracting Officer may 

1186 direct.

1187 CONTINGENT ON APPROPRIATION OR ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS

1188 29. The expenditure or advance of any money or the performance of any obligation of 

1189 the United States under this Contract shall be contingent upon appropriation or allotment of 

1190 funds. Absence of appropriation or allotment of funds shall not relieve the Contractor from any 

1191 obligations under this Contract. No liability shall accrue to the United States in case funds are 

1192 not appropriated or allotted. 

1193 BOOKS, RECORDS, AND REPORTS

1194 30. (a) The Contractor shall establish and maintain accounts and other books and 

1195 records pertaining to administration of the terms and conditions of this Contract, including: the 

1196 Contractor's financial transactions, water supply data, and Project land and right-of-way 

1197 agreements; the water users' land-use (crop census), land ownership, land-leasing and water use 

1198 data; and other matters that the Contracting Officer may require. Reports thereon shall be 

1199 furnished to the Contracting Officer in such form and on such date or dates as the Contracting 

1200 Officer may require. Subject to applicable Federal laws and regulations, each party to this
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

52

1201 Contract shall have the right during office hours to examine and make copies of the other party's 

1202 books and records relating to matters covered by this Contract. 

1203 (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (a) of this Article, no 

1204 books, records, or other information shall be requested from the Contractor by the Contracting 

1205 Officer unless such books, records, or information are reasonably related to the administration or 

1206 performance of this Contract. Any such request shall allow the Contractor a reasonable period of 

1207 time within which to provide the requested books, records, or information. 

1208 (c) Omitted. 

1209 ASSIGNMENT LIMITED--SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS OBLIGATED

1210 31. (a) The provisions of this Contract shall apply to and bind the successors and 

1211 assigns of the parties hereto, but no assignment or transfer of this Contract or any right or interest 

1212 therein shall be valid until approved in writing by the Contracting Officer. 

1213 (b) The assignment of any right or interest in this Contract by either party 

1214 shall not interfere with the rights or obligations of the other party to this Contract absent the 

1215 written concurrence of said other party. 

1216 (c) The Contracting Officer shall not unreasonably condition or withhold 

1217 approval of any proposed assignment. 

1218 SEVERABILITY

1219 32. In the event that a person or entity who is neither (i) a party to a Project contract, 

1220 nor (ii) a person or entity that receives Project Water from a party to a Project contract, nor (iii) 

1221 an association or other form of organization whose primary function is to represent parties to 

1222 Project contracts, brings an action in a court of competent jurisdiction challenging the legality or 

1223 enforceability of a provision included in this Contract and said person, entity, association, or 

1224 organization obtains a final court decision holding that such provision is legally invalid or 

1225 unenforceable and the Contractor has not intervened in that lawsuit in support of the plaintiff(s), 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

53

1226 the parties to this Contract shall use their best efforts to (i) within 30 days of the date of such 

1227 final court decision identify by mutual agreement the provisions in this Contract which must be 

1228 revised and (ii) within three months thereafter promptly agree on the appropriate revision(s).

1229 The time periods specified above may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties. Pending 

1230 the completion of the actions designated above, to the extent it can do so without violating any 

1231 applicable provisions of law, the United States shall continue to make the quantities of Project 

1232 Water specified in this Contract available to the Contractor pursuant to the provisions of this 

1233 Contract which were not found to be legally invalid or unenforceable in the final court decision. 

1234 RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES

1235 33. Should any dispute arise concerning any provisions of this Contract, or the 

1236 parties’ rights and obligations thereunder, the parties shall meet and confer in an attempt to 

1237 resolve the dispute. Prior to the Contractor commencing any legal action, or the Contracting 

1238 Officer referring any matter to the Department of Justice, the party shall provide to the other 

1239 party 30-days written notice of the intent to take such action; Provided, That such notice shall not 

1240 be required where a delay in commencing an action would prejudice the interests of the party 

1241 that intends to file suit. During the 30-day notice period, the Contractor and the Contracting 

1242 Officer shall meet and confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute. Except as specifically 

1243 provided, nothing herein is intended to waive or abridge any right or remedy that the Contractor 

1244 or the United States may have. 

OFFICIALS NOT TO BENEFIT

1245 34. No Member of or Delegate to Congress, Resident Commissioner, or official of the 

1246 Contractor shall benefit from this Contract other than as a water user or landowner in the same 

1247 manner as other water users or landowners. 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

54

1248 CHANGES IN CONTRACTOR’S SERVICE AREA

1249 35. (a) While this Contract is in effect, no change may be made in the 

1250 Contractor's Service Area, by inclusion or exclusion of lands, dissolution, consolidation, merger, 

1251 or otherwise, except upon the Contracting Officer's written consent. 

1252 (b) Within 30 days of receipt of a request for such a change, the Contracting 

1253 Officer will notify the Contractor of any additional information required by the Contracting 

1254 Officer for processing said request, and both parties will meet to establish a mutually agreeable 

1255 schedule for timely completion of the process. Such process will analyze whether the proposed 

1256 change is likely to: (i) result in the use of Project Water contrary to the terms of this Contract; 

1257 (ii) impair the ability of the Contractor to pay for Project Water furnished under this Contract or 

1258 to pay for any Federally-constructed facilities for which the Contractor is responsible; and (iii) 

1259 have an impact on any Project Water rights applications, permits, or licenses. In addition, the 

1260 Contracting Officer shall comply with the NEPA and the ESA. The Contractor will be 

1261 responsible for all costs incurred by the Contracting Officer in this process, and such costs will 

1262 be paid in accordance with Article 25 of this Contract. 

1263 FEDERAL LAWS

1264 36. By entering into this Contract, the Contractor does not waive its rights to contest 

1265 the validity or application in connection with the performance of the terms and conditions of this 

1266 Contract of any Federal law or regulation; Provided, That the Contractor agrees to comply with 

1267 the terms and conditions of this Contract unless and until relief from application of such Federal 

1268 law or regulation to the implementing provision of the Contract is granted by a court of 

1269 competent jurisdiction. 

1270 NOTICES

1271 37. Any notice, demand, or request authorized or required by this Contract shall be 

1272 deemed to have been given, on behalf of the Contractor, when mailed, postage prepaid, or 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

55

1273 delivered to the Area Manager, South-Central California Area Office, 1243 N Street, Fresno,

1274 California 93721, and on behalf of the United States, when mailed, postage prepaid, or delivered 

1275 to the Board of Directors, Contra Costa Water District, P. O. Box H20, Concord, California 

1276 94524. The designation of the addressee or the address may be changed by notice given in the 

1277 same manner as provided in this Article for other notices. 

1278 CONFIRMATION OF CONTRACT

1279 38. The Contractor, after the execution of this Contract, shall furnish to the 

1280 Contracting Officer evidence that pursuant to the laws of the State of California, the Contractor 

1281 is a legally constituted entity, and the Contract is lawful, valid, and binding on the Contractor. 
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

56

1282 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Contract as of the day

1283 and year first above written. 

1284 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

1285 By: ______________________________________ 

1286 Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region 

1287 Bureau of Reclamation 

1288 (SEAL)

1289 CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 

1290 By: ______________________________________ 

1291 President of the Board of Directors 

1292 Attest:

1293 By: ________________________________ 

1294 Secretary of the Board of Directors 

1295 (H:\pub 440\LTRC\Final Draft LTRC’s – Fresno, Tracy\11-30-04 Contra Costa WD Final Draft

1296 LTRC with exhibits.doc)
Aquedu ct

Contra Costa Ca nal

S u i s u n B a y

ShermanLake

BroadSlough

B

ht

u

o

S

ya Aqueduct

Cal fi or

CONTRA COSTA CO CONTRA COSTA CO

ALAMEDA CO ALAMEDA CO

SOLANO CO SOLANO CO

SACRAMENTO CO SACRAMENTO CO

0

8 7

5

7

9

8

6

3

2

9 7

5

3

3

8

4

8 9

7

3

1 6 2 5 3 5

4

1 4

3

9

4

9

4

9

11

30

6

28

22

11

31 33

30

29

10

26

29

17

31

15

25

19

17

22

34

16 14

29

18

32

21

32

27

13

35

35

10

29

27

26

12

20

36

10

10

22

1

30

34

27

20

2

34

25

32

23

24

14

16

35

16

33 32

23

15

20

15

34

15

28

21

28

28

25

34

21

36

19

33

17

2

24

12

28

31

4

33

21

5

33

19

33

36

28

18

3 6

17

1

22

10

15

16

27

15

13 14 15

4

28

16

21

33

27

24

34

23

16

10

22 21

17 18 14 13 15

19

12

1015

32

16

2

18

11

18

14

8

6

26

27

5

11

13

1

23

2

26

17

35

4

11

1423

12

26

20 23 24 22 21 21

11

20

22

31

14

13

T R

T R

T1N R1E

T1S R2W T1S R1W

T1N R2E T1N R3E

T2N R2E

T1S R3W T1S R3E

T2N R1W

T1N R1W

T1S R1E

T2S R2W

T2N R1E

T2S R3E

T2N R3E

T1S R2E

T2S R1W

T2N R3W

T3N R3W

T2S R1E T2S R1W

T2S R2E

T1N R2W

T2N R3W

T3N R2W

T2N R2W

T2S R3W

T2N R2W

680

580

4

24

13

160

185 17

24

Byron

Orinda

Clayton

Concord

Pacheco

Benicia

Martinez

San Ramon

Brentwood

Pittsburg

Contra Costa Water District

0 10 5

Miles

Date: December 2, 2004File Name: N:\districts\contracts\contra_costa\contra_costa.mxd

Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1

Exhibit A

District BoundaryContractor's Service Area

214-202-796
Contract No. I75r-3401A-LTR1 

EXHIBIT B

CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT

2004 Water Rates and Charges

Note: Rates and Charges are 2004 rates. This exhibit will be updated prior to execution of the contract to 

reflect the current Rates and Charges. 

 *Non-Project Water

 Central Valley Project Los Vaqueros Other

 M&I M&I M&I

COST-OF-SERVICE RATES: 

Capital Rates $10.75 $ 1.24 

O&M Rates: 

Water Marketing $ 5.01 $ 5.01 $ 5.01 

Storage $ 6.38 

San Luis Drain 

Direct Pumping $ 3.70 $ 3.70 

 Conveyance 

 Conveyance Pumping 

 Total O&M Rates $15.09 $ 9.95 $ 5.01 

Deficit Rates: 

 Non-Interest Bearing N/A N/A N/A 

 Interest Bearing $10.49 N/A N/A 

 Total Deficit Rate $10.49 N/A N/A 

 Cost-Service Rate $36.33 $ 9.95 $5.01

FULL COST RATES as defined in Reclamation Reform Act (96 Stat. 1263):

Section 202(3) Rate is applicable to a 

 Qualified Recipient or to a Limited 

 Recipient receiving irrigation water 

 on or before October 1, 1981. N/A N/A N/A 

Section 205(a)(3) Rate is

 applicable to a Limited Recipient that 

 did not receive irrigation water on or 

 before October 1, 1981. N/A N/A N/A 

CHARGES UNDER P.L. 102-575 TO RESTORATION FUND: ** 

 Restoration Payments 

 [Section 3407(d)(2)(A)] $15.64 N/A N/A 

* Non-Project Rates/Chares may be modified by various methods on a CVP-Wide Basis at some 

future point. 

 ** The surcharges are payments in addition to the water rates and were determined 

pursuant to Title XXXIV of Public Law 102-575. Restoration fund surcharges 

under P. L. 102-575 are on a fiscal year basis (10/1-9/30). 

HISTORIC USE as defined in CVP M&I Water Shortage Policy:

Recent Historic Average - 152,100 
APPENDIX B 

Table B-1 Special Status Species 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA Appendix B

 B-1 

Table B-1. Special-Status Species Considered in the Analysis for the Contra Costa Water District Proposed 

Long-Term Water Service Contract, Contra Costa County, California. (North State Resources, Inc., 

March 2004) 

Species 

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name 

Federal 

Status1 General Habitat and Distribution 

Is Species 

Analyzed 

Further in the 

BA2? 

Occurrence in the 

Service Area 

Mammals 

riparian (San 

Joaquin Valley) 

woodrat 

Neotoma 

fuscipes riparia 

E Inhabits riparian forest and 

scrub communities along low 

portions of the San Joaquin 

and Stanislaus rivers in the 

northern San Joaquin Valley. 

Historical localities are 

distributed in San Joaquin, 

Stanislaus, and Merced 

counties. Known occupied 

range is limited to the 

Stanislaus River riparian 

areas near Caswell Memorial 

State Park; a possible second 

population is near Vernalis, 

San Joaquin County. 

NO The CCWD service area 

is outside the species 

known occupied range. 

salt marsh 

harvest mouse 

Reithrodontomys 

raviventris 

E Inhabits tidal and nontidal salt 

marshes of Suisun, San 

Pablo, and central and south 

San Francisco bays. 

YES CNDDB results show 25 

known occurrences in the 

project vicinity, in the 

following USGS 

quadrangles: Vine Hill, 

Honker Bay, Antioch 

North, and Benicia. 

Suitable habitat is present 

in the CCWD service 

area, and the species is 

known to occur within the 

CCWD boundary. 

riparian brush 

rabbit 

Sylvilagus 

bachmani 

riparius 

E Found in San Joaquin Valley 

native riparian areas with 

large clumps of dense 

shrubs, low growing vines, 

and some tall shrubs and 

scrubby trees. Known 

populations exist: in Caswell 

Memorial State Park in 

southern San Joaquin 

County, in the Paradise Cut 

area south of Stockton, and 

near Lathrop, California. 

NO The CCWD service area 

is outside the species 

current known range. 

Mammals 

San Joaquin kit 

fox 

Vulpes macrotis 

mutica 

E Inhabits semiarid 

communities of the San 

Joaquin Valley and adjacent 

foothill grasslands and open 

canopied woodlands. Current 

range extends from Contra 

Costa and San Joaquin 

counties in the north, south to 

Kern and Santa Barbara 

counties.

YES Suitable habitat in the 

CCWD service area is 

highly fragmented, but the 

species has been 

observed in the CCWD 

service area. CNDDB 

results show 25 known 

occurrences in the project 

vicinity, in the following 

USGS quadrangles: 

Woodward Island, 

Clayton, Antioch South, 

Brentwood, Tassajara, 

Byron Hot Springs, 

Diablo, Altamont, and 

Livermore. 
February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Appendix B Final EA 

 B-2 

Table B-1. Special-Status Species Considered in the Analysis for the Contra Costa Water District Proposed 

Long-Term Water Service Contract, Contra Costa County, California. (North State Resources, Inc., 

March 2004) 

Species 

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name 

Federal 

Status1 General Habitat and Distribution 

Is Species 

Analyzed 

Further in the 

BA2? 

Occurrence in the 

Service Area 

Birds 

California 

brown pelican 

Pelecanus 

occidentalis 

californicus 

E Winter range is the Pacific 

Coast from the Gulf of 

California to southern British 

Columbia. Forages almost 

entirely on fish in open water 

or near shorelines. Rests on 

water or inaccessible rocks, 

mudflats, sandy beaches, 

wharfs, and jetties. Nesting 

and roosting take place 

outside the CCWD service 

area. Nesting is restricted to 

islands in the Gulf of 

California and along the outer 

coast from Baja California to 

West Anacapa and Santa 

Barbara Islands in Southern 

California. 

NO Extremely low probability 

of occurrence. Suitable 

foraging habitat may be 

present. However, the 

species would occur 

infrequently or irregularly 

in the CCWD service 

area. 

California 

clapper rail 

Rallus 

longirostris 

obsoletus

E Occurs within a range of salt 

and brackish marshes. 

Requires emergent wetlands 

and tidal sloughs. Forages in 

higher marsh vegetation, 

along vegetation and mudflat 

interface, and along tidal 

creeks. Restricted almost 

entirely to the marshes of 

San Francisco estuary, where 

the only known breeding 

populations occur. Present 

sporadically and in low 

numbers at various locations 

throughout the Suisun Marsh 

Area (Carquinez Strait to 

Browns Island, including tidal 

marshes adjacent to Suisun, 

Honker, and Grizzly Bays). 

YES Brackish tidal marshes in 

the area (approximately 

4,900 acres) are suitable 

habitat, and the adjacent 

grasslands and levees are 

suitable upland refugia 

(CCWD 1999). CNDDB 

results show four known 

occurrences in the project 

vicinity, in the following 

USGS quadrangles: Vine 

Hill, Honker Bay, and 

Benicia. 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA Appendix B

 B-3 

Table B-1. Special-Status Species Considered in the Analysis for the Contra Costa Water District Proposed 

Long-Term Water Service Contract, Contra Costa County, California. (North State Resources, Inc., 

March 2004) 

Species 

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name 

Federal 

Status1 General Habitat and Distribution 

Is Species 

Analyzed 

Further in the 

BA2? 

Occurrence in the 

Service Area 

Birds 

California least 

tern 

Sterna antillarum 

(=albifrons) 

browni

E Winters in Latin America, but 

winter range and habitats are 

unknown. Nesting range is 

along the Pacific coast from 

southern Baja California to 

San Francisco Bay. Nests in 

colonies on bare or sparsely 

vegetated flat substrates near 

the coast. Typical nesting 

sites are on isolated or 

specially protected sand 

beaches or on natural or 

artificial open areas in 

remnant coastal wetlands, 

typically near estuaries, bays, 

or harbors where small fish 

are abundant. 

YES Suitable habitat is present 

in the CCWD service 

area. Two nesting 

colonies are present in 

the CCWD service area, 

in the Honker Bay

quadrangle: one is 

located at the Pacific Gas 

and Electric (PG&E) plant 

in Pittsburg and the 

second is located at the 

Avon-Port Chicago Marsh 

(CNDDB 2003). 

western snowy 

plover 

Charadrius 

alexandrinus 

nivosus

T Breeds on coastal beaches 

from southern Washington to 

southern Baja California, 

Mexico. Northern California 

populations are concentrated 

in San Francisco Bay. Nests 

in flat, open areas with sandy 

or saline substrates. Uses 

sandy coastal beaches, salt 

pans, coastal dredged spoils 

sites, dry salt ponds, salt 

pond levees and gravel bars. 

May forage in the salt 

marshes near Suisun Bay. 

NO Extremely low probability 

of occurrence. Evidence 

indicates that western 

snowy plovers do not use 

marshes in the CCWD 

service area for nesting. 

The species would occur 

infrequently or irregularly 

in the CCWD service 

area. 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

T Winter visitor and migrant at 

reservoirs and Delta 

waterways in the CCWD 

service area. Requires large 

bodies of water, or free 

flowing rivers with abundant 

fish, and adjacent snags or 

other perches. Roosts 

communally in winter in 

dense, sheltered, remote 

conifer stands. Current 

nesting distribution is 

restricted to mostly 

mountainous habitats in the 

northern Sierra Nevada, 

Cascade Range, and 

northern Coast Ranges. 

NO Although potential nesting 

habitat is present in areas 

adjacent to but outside of 

the CCWD service area, 

bald eagles are not known 

to nest within the CCWD 

service area. Potential 

nesting habitat in the 

CCWD service area is of 

marginal quality because 

it lacks suitable nesting 

trees near reservoirs with 

minimal human activity. 

The species would occur 

infrequently or irregularly 

in the CCWD service 

area. 
February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Appendix B Final EA 

 B-4 

Table B-1. Special-Status Species Considered in the Analysis for the Contra Costa Water District Proposed 

Long-Term Water Service Contract, Contra Costa County, California. (North State Resources, Inc., 

March 2004) 

Species 

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name 

Federal 

Status1 General Habitat and Distribution 

Is Species 

Analyzed 

Further in the 

BA2? 

Occurrence in the 

Service Area 

Birds 

Aleutian 

Canada goose 

Branta 

canadensis 

leucopareia 

D Wintering geese forage in 

agricultural fields supporting 

pasture, corn, wheat, and rice 

crops and typically roost on 

land surrounded by water, on 

open water, and occasionally 

on open pastureland. In the 

San Joaquin Valley, they 

roost on artificially impounded 

waters, such as farm ponds, 

sewage ponds, and duck-club 

ponds. Winters in California's 

central valley, move south to 

the Delta as they migrate 

toward their nesting grounds 

in the Aleutian Islands. 

NO This species is not known 

to regularly occur in the 

CCWD service area and 

is considered an 

occasional winter visitor. 

Additionally, the Aleutian 

Canada goose was delisted by the Service on 

March 20, 2001. The 

species would occur 

infrequently or irregularly 

in the CCWD service 

area. 

American 

peregrine falcon 

Falco peregrinus 

anatum 

D Nests on ledges of large cliff 

faces and less often on city 

buildings and bridges. 

Nesting and wintering 

habitats include wetlands, 

woodlands, other forested 

habitats, cities, agricultural 

areas and coastal habitats. 

Current winter range includes 

most of California, except 

deserts. Breeding range 

includes the Channel Islands, 

coast of southern and central 

California, inland north 

coastal mountains, Klamath 

and Cascade ranges, and the 

Sierra Nevada. 

NO This species is not known 

to regularly occur in the 

CCWD service area and 

is considered an 

occasional winter visitor. 

Additionally, the American 

peregrine falcon was delisted by the Service on 

August 25, 1999. The 

species would occur 

infrequently or irregularly 

in the CCWD service 

area. 

Reptiles 

Alameda 

whipsnake 

Masticophis 

lateralis 

euryxanthus 

T Typically found in chaparral—

northern coastal sage scrub 

and coastal sage. Recent 

telemetry data indicate that, 

although home ranges are 

centered on shrub 

communities, the species 

ventures up to 500 feet into 

adjacent habitats, including 

grassland, oak savanna, and 

occasionally oak-bay 

woodland. Inhabits the inner 

coast range in western and 

central Contra Costa, 

Alameda, San Joaquin, and 

Santa Clara counties. 

YES Suitable habitat is present 

in the CCWD service 

area. CNDDB results 

show 42 known 

occurrences in the CCWD 

service area, in the 

following USGS 

quadrangles: Briones 

Valley, Walnut Creek, 

Clayton, Antioch South, 

Tassajara, Las Trampas 

Ridge, Byron Hot Springs, 

and Diablo. The CCWD 

service area is within 

designated critical habitat 

(Units 1 and 4) for this 

species. 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA Appendix B

 B-5 

Table B-1. Special-Status Species Considered in the Analysis for the Contra Costa Water District Proposed 

Long-Term Water Service Contract, Contra Costa County, California. (North State Resources, Inc., 

March 2004) 

Species 

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name 

Federal 

Status1 General Habitat and Distribution 

Is Species 

Analyzed 

Further in the 

BA2? 

Occurrence in the 

Service Area 

Reptiles 

Giant garter 

snake 

Thamnophis 

gigas 

T Inhabits agricultural wetlands 

and other waterways such as 

irrigation and drainage 

canals, sloughs, ponds, small 

lakes, low gradient streams, 

and adjacent uplands in the 

Central Valley. Requires 

adequate water during the 

active season (early-spring 

through mid-fall); emergent, 

herbaceous wetland 

vegetation for escape cover 

and foraging habitat during 

the active season; grassy 

banks and openings in 

waterside vegetation for 

basking; and higher elevation 

uplands for cover and refuge 

during the winter.

YES Suitable habitat is present 

within the CCWD service 

area, and includes 

freshwater marshes and 

agricultural ditches in the 

Delta, east of the Antioch 

Bridge (Service 2000). 

CNDDB results show 

three known occurrences 

in the project vicinity, in 

the following USGS 

quadrangles: Jersey 

Island, Antioch North, and 

Bouldin Island. The 

CCWD service area is 

within designated critical 

habitat (Units 1 and 4) for 

this species. 

Amphibians 

California redlegged frog 

Rana aurora 

draytonii 

T Occupies a fairly distinct 

habitat, combining both 

specific aquatic and riparian 

components. Adults require 

dense, shrubby or emergent 

riparian vegetation closely 

associated with deep still or 

slow moving water. Largest 

frog densities are associated 

with deep-water pools with 

dense stands of overhanging 

willows and an intermixed 

fringe of cattails. Locally 

abundant within portions of 

the San Francisco Bay area 

(including Marin County) and 

the central coast, but only 

isolated populations are 

documented in the Sierra 

Nevada, northern Coast, and 

northern Transverse ranges.

YES Suitable habitat is present 

and the species is known 

to occur in the CCWD 

service area. CNDDB 

results show 146 known 

occurrences in the project 

vicinity, in the following 

USGS quadrangles: 

Briones Valley, Honker 

Bay, Clayton, Walnut 

Creek, Antioch South, 

Tassajara, Las Trampas 

Ridge, Byron Hot Springs, 

Benicia, Altamont, 

Livermore, and Diablo. 
February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Appendix B Final EA 

 B-6 

Table B-1. Special-Status Species Considered in the Analysis for the Contra Costa Water District Proposed 

Long-Term Water Service Contract, Contra Costa County, California. (North State Resources, Inc., 

March 2004) 

Species 

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name 

Federal 

Status1 General Habitat and Distribution 

Is Species 

Analyzed 

Further in the 

BA2? 

Occurrence in the 

Service Area 

Amphibians 

California tiger 

salamander 

Ambystoma 

californiense 

PT Restricted to grasslands and 

low foothill regions where 

lowland aquatic sites are 

available for breeding. Prefer 

natural vernal pools, vernal 

playas, large sag ponds, and 

other ephemeral ponds. 

Current range includes 

Sonoma and Santa Barbara 

counties, the Central Valley 

from southern Colusa County 

south to northern Kern 

County, and the coast ranges 

from Suisun Bay south to the 

Temblor Range.

YES Suitable habitat is present 

in the CCWD service 

area. CNDDB results 

show 146 known 

occurrences in the CCWD 

service area, in the 

following USGS 

quadrangles: Antioch 

North, Honker Bay, 

Clayton, Walnut Creek, 

Antioch South, Tassajara, 

Brentwood, Byron Hot 

Springs, Altamont, 

Livermore, and Diablo. 

This species is discussed 

in further detail in Section 

5.5. 

Fish 

tidewater goby Eucyclogobius 

newberryi

E 

PD 

Inhabits brackish shallow 

lagoons of coastal wetlands 

and lower stream reaches, 

where the water is fairly still 

but not stagnant. Requires 

backwater, marshy habitats 

to avoid winter flood flows. 

Formerly distributed along the 

California coast. In San 

Francisco Bay and its 

associated streams, nine of 

ten previously identified 

populations have 

disappeared, and a survey of 

streams of the Bay drainage 

in 1984 failed to record any 

populations. 

NO Although suitable habitat 

is present, the species is 

not known to occur in the 

CCWD service area. In 

addition, populations 

north of Orange County, 

California were proposed 

for delisting on June 24, 

1999. 

Sacramento 

River winter-run 

ESU chinook 

salmon 

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha 

E Spawn and rear in mainstem 

Sacramento River. Juveniles 

spend five to nine months in 

the river and SacramentoSan Joaquin Estuary before 

entering the ocean. Require 

cool year-round water 

temperatures, since 

spawning occurs during the 

summer. Requires deep 

pools and riffles, and clean 

gravel and cobble substrate 

to spawn. Sacramento River 

and Delta are designated as 

critical habitat and essential 

fish habitat for this species. 

YES Although it does not 

reside in the CCWD 

service area, the species 

migrates through the 

CCWD service area 

between upstream 

spawning grounds as 

adults, and the ocean as 

juveniles. 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA Appendix B

 B-7 

Table B-1. Special-Status Species Considered in the Analysis for the Contra Costa Water District Proposed 

Long-Term Water Service Contract, Contra Costa County, California. (North State Resources, Inc., 

March 2004) 

Species 

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name 

Federal 

Status1 General Habitat and Distribution 

Is Species 

Analyzed 

Further in the 

BA2? 

Occurrence in the 

Service Area 

Fish 

Delta smelt Hypomesus 

transpacificus

T Lives along the freshwater 

edge of the mixing zone 

(saltwater-freshwater 

interface). Shortly before 

spawning, migrates upstream 

and disperses widely into 

river channels and tidally 

influenced backwater 

sloughs. Spawns in shallow, 

fresh or slightly brackish 

water upstream of the mixing 

zone. Currently found only 

from the Suisun Bay 

upstream through the Delta in 

Contra Costa, Sacramento, 

San Joaquin, Solano and 

Yolo counties. 

YES This species is known to 

inhabit the CCWD service 

area. In addition, the 

CCWD service area is 

within designated critical 

habitat for the species. 

Central 

California Coast 

ESU coho 

salmon 

Oncorhynchus 

kisutch

T The ESU includes all 

naturally spawned 

populations of coho salmon 

from Punta Gorda in northern 

California south to and 

including the San Lorenzo 

River in central California, as 

well as populations in 

tributaries to San Francisco 

Bay, excluding the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin 

River system. 

NO The CCWD service area 

is outside the species 

current known range. 

Central 

California Coast 

ESU steelhead 

Oncorhynchus 

mykiss

T Occupies river basins from 

the Russian River, Sonoma 

County to Aptos Creek, Santa 

Cruz County and the 

drainages of San Francisco 

and San Pablo Bays 

eastward to the Napa River, 

excluding the SacramentoSan Joaquin River Basin. 

NO Only a very small portion 

of the CCWD service area 

overlaps with the range of 

this steelhead ESU. 

Presence of this ESU in 

the CCWD service area 

would be unlikely. 

Implementation of the 

proposed project would 

not likely result in adverse 

effects. 

Central Valley 

ESU steelhead 

Oncorhynchus 

mykiss irideus

T Spawn and rear in 

Sacramento River and its 

tributaries and some San 

Joaquin tributaries. Require 

cool, swift shallow water; 

clean, loose gravel for 

spawning; and runs and 

suitable large pools in which 

to rear and over-summer. 

Sympatric and synonymous 

with resident, nonanadromous rainbow trout, 

which are abundant in 

Central Valley streams. 

YES This species may rear 

seasonally and migrates 

through the CCWD 

service area between 

upstream spawning 

grounds as adults, and 

the ocean as juveniles. 
February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Appendix B Final EA 

 B-8 

Table B-1. Special-Status Species Considered in the Analysis for the Contra Costa Water District Proposed 

Long-Term Water Service Contract, Contra Costa County, California. (North State Resources, Inc., 

March 2004) 

Species 

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name 

Federal 

Status1 General Habitat and Distribution 

Is Species 

Analyzed 

Further in the 

BA2? 

Occurrence in the 

Service Area 

Fish 

Central Valley 

spring-run ESU 

chinook salmon 

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha 

T Spawn and rear in the 

Feather and Sacramento 

rivers and suitable perennial 

tributaries. Require cool 

year-round water 

temperatures and deep pools 

for over-summering habitat. 

Spawn in riffles with gravel 

and cobble substrate. 

Sacramento River, suitable 

perennial tributaries, and 

Delta are considered 

essential fish habitat for this 

species. 

YES This species may rear 

seasonally and migrates 

through the CCWD 

service area between 

upstream spawning 

grounds as adults, and 

the ocean as juveniles. 

Invertebrates 

Lange’s 

metalmark 

butterfly

Apodemia 

mormo langei

E Associated with inland dune 

scrub habitats that support its 

host plant, the naked 

buckwheat (Eriogonum 

nudum). The species’ 

present range is limited to 

approximately 15 acres of 

suitable habitat within the 

Antioch Dunes National 

Wildlife Refuge, where it is 

fully protected.

NO Within the CCWD service 

area, this species is fully 

protected within the 

Antioch Dunes National 

Wildlife Refuge. No other 

populations are known or 

suspected to occur in the 

CCWD service area. 

Project implementation 

would not impact the 

Refuge system or this 

species. 

Conservancy 

fairy shrimp

Branchinecta 

conservatio

E Vernal pools / swales and 

ponded seasonal wetlands. 

Known to occur in Colusa, 

Napa, Tehama, Solano, 

Ventura, and Merced 

counties. 

NO The species is not known 

to occur in the CCWD 

service area, and the 

CCWD service area is 

outside the species’ 

current range. The CCWD 

service area is outside of 

designated critical habitat 

for this species. 

longhorn fairy 

shrimp 

Branchinecta 

longiantenna

E Inhabit small, clear-water 

depressions in sandstone 

and clear-to-turbid clay/grassbottomed pools in shallow 

swales. The species is 

extremely rare, and are only 

known from three widely 

separated locations: the 

Altamont Pass area in Contra 

Costa and Alameda counties, 

and one location in San Luis 

Obispo County and in Merced 

County.

YES CNDDB results show two 

occurrences in the project 

vicinity, in the following 

USGS quadrangles: 

Byron Hot Springs and 

Altamont. Although these 

occurrences are outside 

of the CCWD service 

area. The CCWD service 

area is outside of 

designated critical habitat 

for this species. 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA Appendix B

 B-9 

Table B-1. Special-Status Species Considered in the Analysis for the Contra Costa Water District Proposed 

Long-Term Water Service Contract, Contra Costa County, California. (North State Resources, Inc., 

March 2004) 

Species 

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name 

Federal 

Status1 General Habitat and Distribution 

Is Species 

Analyzed 

Further in the 

BA2? 

Occurrence in the 

Service Area 

Invertebrates 

Vernal pool 

tadpole shrimp

Lepidurus 

packardi

E Vernal pools, swales, and 

ephemeral freshwater 

habitats. Range includes 

disjunct occurrences in the 

Central Valley, from Shasta 

County to north Tulare 

County, and in the central 

coast range, from Solano 

County to Alameda County.

YES CNDDB results show one 

known occurrence in the 

project vicinity, in the 

following USGS 

quadrangles: Honker Bay 

and Antioch North. The 

CCWD service area is 

outside of the designated 

critical habitat for this 

species. 

callippe 

silverspot 

butterfly 

Speyeria callippe 

callippe

E Inhabits native grasslands 

and associated habitats. This 

species’ current known range 

is limited to San Mateo 

County and a city park in 

Alameda County. 

NO CCWD service area is 

outside the species’ 

current known range. A 

location in Solano County 

recorded in the CNDDB is 

outside of the CCWD 

service area (CNDDB 

2003). No other 

populations are known or 

suspected to occur in the 

CCWD service area. 

California 

freshwater 

shrimp 

Syncaris pacifica E Historically, the shrimp was 

probably common in low 

elevation, perennial 

freshwater streams in Marin, 

Sonoma, and Napa counties. 

Today, it is found in sixteen 

stream segments within these 

counties. Found only in lowelevation (less than 53-foot) 

and low-gradient (generally 

less than 1 percent) streams. 

NO The species is not known 

to occur in the CCWD 

service area, and the 

CCWD service area is 

outside the species’ 

current range. 

Vernal pool 

fairy shrimp 

Branchinecta 

lynchi

T Vernal pools, swales, and 

ephemeral freshwater 

habitats. Range includes 

disjunct occurrences in the 

Central Valley, from Shasta 

County to Tulare County, and 

in the central and southern 

coast ranges, from northern 

Solano County to Ventura 

County. Additional 

occurrences have been 

identified in southern 

California and in Oregon.

YES CNDDB results show nine 

known occurrence in the 

project vicinity, in the 

following USGS 

quadrangles: Altamont, 

Livermore, Clifton Court 

Forebay, Woodward 

Island, Brentwood, 

Antioch South, and 

Antioch North. The 

CCWD service area is 

outside of designated 

critical habitat for this 

species. 
February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Appendix B Final EA 

 B-10 

Table B-1. Special-Status Species Considered in the Analysis for the Contra Costa Water District Proposed 

Long-Term Water Service Contract, Contra Costa County, California. (North State Resources, Inc., 

March 2004) 

Species 

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name 

Federal 

Status1 General Habitat and Distribution 

Is Species 

Analyzed 

Further in the 

BA2? 

Occurrence in the 

Service Area 

Invertebrates 

Valley 

elderberry 

longhorn beetle

Desmocerus 

californicus 

dimorphus

T Inhabits elderberry trees or 

shrubs associated with 

riparian forests along rivers 

and streams. Current 

distribution is patchy 

throughout the remaining 

riparian forests of the Central 

Valley, from Redding, Shasta 

County, to Bakersfield, Kern 

County.

YES The CCWD service area 

is outside the species’ 

known range and there 

are no records of this 

species from the CCWD 

service area. However, 

suitable habitat for the 

species (i.e., elderberry 

shrubs) has been 

recorded in the CCWD 

service area (i.e., north 

and east of Mount Diablo 

and east of Pittsburg) and 

could occur elsewhere 

along perennial and 

intermittent streams, 

levees, stockponds, and 

foothill seeps. 

Delta green 

ground beetle 

Elaphrus viridis T Species has been detected 

around the margins of vernal 

pools and in bare areas along 

trails and roadsides in central 

Solano County. The species’ 

cryptic coloration, small size, 

and habit of hiding under lowgrowing vegetation can 

hinder detection. Adults may 

also occur in the surrounding 

grasslands. It is presently 

known to occur only in 

Solano County, northeast of 

the San Francisco Bay Area. 

NO The species is not known 

to occur in the CCWD 

service area, and the 

CCWD service area is 

outside the species’ 

current range. 

Plants 

large-flowered 

fiddleneck 

Amsinckia 

grandiflora 

E Inhabits cismontane 

woodland and valley and 

foothill grassland on a variety 

of soils, from 902 to 1,805 

feet in elevation. At present, 

two natural populations exist. 

One consists of two colonies 

in the hills east of Livermore 

in Alameda and San Joaquin 

counties. The other is a 

recently discovered 

population in San Joaquin 

County. Besides these extant 

natural populations, there are 

also several experimentally 

reintroduced populations. 

NO CNDDB results show 

three known occurrences 

in the project vicinity, in 

the Clayton and Antioch 

South USGS 

quadrangles. These 

populations were 

experimentally 

reintroduced to the Black 

Diamond Mines Regional 

Preserve, but only one 

has been somewhat 

successful. No other 

populations are known or 

suspected to occur in the 

CCWD service area. This 

location is fully protected. 
CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract February 2005 

Final EA Appendix B

 B-11 

Table B-1. Special-Status Species Considered in the Analysis for the Contra Costa Water District Proposed 

Long-Term Water Service Contract, Contra Costa County, California. (North State Resources, Inc., 

March 2004) 

Species 

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name 

Federal 

Status1 General Habitat and Distribution 

Is Species 

Analyzed 

Further in the 

BA2? 

Occurrence in the 

Service Area 

Plants 

soft bird’s-beak Cordylanthus 

mollis ssp. mollis

E Inhabits coastal salt marshes 

and brackish marshes from 

northern San Francisco Bay 

to Suisun Bay in Napa, 

Solano, and Contra Costa 

counties. 

YES The species is known to 

occur in the CCWD 

service area. CNDDB 

reports eight occurrences 

in the project vicinity, but 

four of these have likely 

been extirpated. 

Remaining known 

populations exist in the 

Vine Hill, Honker Bay, and 

Benicia USGS 

quadrangles. 

Palmatebracted bird’sbeak 

Cordylanthus 

palmatus 

E Grows on seasonally-flooded, 

saline-alkali soils in lowland 

plains and basins at 

elevations of less than 500 

feet. Seven populations of 

palmate-bracted bird's-beak 

are currently known in 

Colusa, Yolo, Fresno, 

Madera, and Alameda 

counties. 

NO One known location in the 

project vicinity is present 

in the Springtown 

Wetlands Reserve 

(CNDDB 2003), located 

north of Livermore in 

Alameda County. This 

large and genetically 

diverse population occurs 

on lands owned by the 

Federal Communication 

Commission, the City of 

Livermore, and private 

landowners. No other 

populations are known or 

suspected to occur in the 

CCWD service area. 

Contra Costa 

wallflower 

Erysimum 

capitatum ssp. 

angustatum

E Grows naturally only in sand 

dune habitat along the San 

Joaquin River east of 

Antioch. Areas of suitable 

habitat (riverine or windblown sandy soils near 

Antioch) that do not contain 

visible vegetative, 

reproductive or 

senescent/dead plants may 

support viable seed banks. 

NO Within the CCWD service 

area, this species is fully 

protected within the 

Antioch Dunes National 

Wildlife Refuge. No other 

populations are known or 

suspected to occur in the 

CCWD service area. The 

Antioch Dunes National 

Wildlife Refuge protects 

critical habitat for this 

species. Project 

implementation would not 

impact the Refuge system 

or this species. 

Plants 

Contra Costa 

goldfields 

Lasthenia 

conjugens 

E Inhabits vernal pools within 

open grassy areas in 

woodlands and valley 

grasslands from sea level to 

1,500 feet. Currently, 13 

populations are known from 

Napa, Contra Costa, 

Alameda and Solano 

counties. 

YES Of the five reported 

occurrences in the project 

vicinity, only one has 

been observed in the last 

fifteen years (CNDDB 

2003). The CCWD service 

area is outside of 

designated critical habitat 

for this species. 
February 2005 CCWD Long-Term Renewal Contract 

Appendix B Final EA 

 B-12 

Table B-1. Special-Status Species Considered in the Analysis for the Contra Costa Water District Proposed 

Long-Term Water Service Contract, Contra Costa County, California. (North State Resources, Inc., 

March 2004) 

Species 

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name 

Federal 

Status1 General Habitat and Distribution 

Is Species 

Analyzed 

Further in the 

BA2? 

Occurrence in the 

Service Area 

Antioch Dunes 

eveningprimrose 

Oenothera 

deltoides ssp. 

howellii

E Endemic to loose sand and 

stabilized sand dunes near 

river margins in the vicinity of 

Antioch. The subspecies 

occurs in several locations 

near the confluence of the 

Sacramento and San Joaquin 

Rivers. The only natural 

stand exists within the sand 

dunes near Antioch in Contra 

Costa County. 

NO Known highly localized 

occurrences on protected 

land. Most of the natural 

dune habitat is in Antioch 

Dunes National Wildlife 

Refuge. PG&E owns the 

remaining habitat. The 

area is protected by San 

Francisco Bay National 

Wildlife Refuge and 

PG&E. The Antioch 

Dunes National Wildlife 

Refuge protects critical 

habitat for this species. 

Project implementation 

would not impact the 

Refuge system or this 

species. 

pallid 

manzanita 

Arctostaphylos 

pallida 

T Occurs in Alameda and 

Contra Costa counties, in 

manzanita chaparral habitat 

at elevations from 656 to 

1,460. 

YES The two known 

occurrences of this 

species in the CCWD 

service area were 

artificially reintroduced. 

However, suitable habitat 

for the species is present. 

Santa Cruz 

tarplant 

Holocarpha 

macradenia 

T Occurs in clay soils in 

grasslands. Range is now 

limited to 12 natural 

occurrences in Santa Cruz 

and Monterey counties. 

NO In 1982, seed was 

introduced to 22 sites in 

Wildcat Canyon Regional 

Park and onto East Bay 

Municipal Utilities District 

(EBMUD) lands. Only one 

of these sites consistently 

has over 100 plants, and 

13 of the sites have not 

supported any plants in 

the past four years. These 

populations are protected. 

Plants 

Colusa grass Neostapfia 

colusana 

T Occurs in large or deep 

vernal pools with substrates 

of high mud content. 

Sparingly restricted to the 

Sacramento and San Joaquin 

Valleys. Approximately 44 

populations remain along a 

100-mile stretch of the 

eastern San Joaquin Valley in 

Merced and Stanislaus 

counties; 4 populations exist 

in Yolo and Solano counties. 

NO The species is not known 

to occur in the CCWD 

service area, and the 

CCWD service area is 

outside the species’ 

current range. The CCWD 

service area is outside of 

designated critical habitat 

for this species. 

NOTES: 1 Federal Status Codes: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; P = Proposed; D = Delisted 

 2 Final Biological Assessment – Long Term Water Service Contract Renewal, Volume 1 (March 31, 2004)
APPENDIX C 

Economic Analysis (November 1999) 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 

Economic Analysis of November 1999 Tiered Pricing Proposal for PEIS Preferred Alternative 

Date: October 2, 2000 

This submittal presents the results of an Economic Analysis of the application to the PEIS 

Preferred Alternative of the November 1999 unit rates for CVP water and Tiered Pricing 

Proposal. 

The PEIS Preferred Alternative included assumptions for the tiered pricing of CVP water 

that were developed during the preparation of the Draft PEIS. Subsequent to completion of 

the Final PEIS, a different tiered pricing proposal was developed. In addition, the PEIS 

assumed 1992 CVP water rates. This analysis includes the 1999 water rates. This submittal 

applies the new water rates and the November 1999 proposal to the Preferred Alternative 

and compares the results to the impact analysis of the PEIS Preferred Alternative. The level 

of detail presented in this submittal is consistent with the level of detail presented in the 

main PEIS document and the technical appendices. Tables are presented in the same format 

as used in the PEIS. 

The economic analysis includes an evaluation of agricultural economics using Central 

Valley Production Model (CVPM), municipal and industrial water use economics for CVP 

water using the spreadsheet presented with the PEIS, and regional economics using 

IMPLAN. This memorandum discusses the new assumptions in the November 1999 

proposal. However, this memorandum does not discuss the basic assumptions used in the 

PEIS models and analytical tools. This memorandum must be used in conjunction with the 

Draft PEIS and Final PEIS, including the methodology and modeling technical appendices, 

to explain the overall assumptions for evaluating the Preferred Alternative in the PEIS. 

For the Agricultural Land Use and Economics analysis, the methodology used for applying 

CVP water rates was modified to allow for the new tiered pricing and the use of blended 

rates to determine a total water rate for all CVP water applied by an irrigation district or 

agency. These changes result in changes in water use due to the affordability of CVP water 

supplies, not a change in reliability. 

For the Municipal and Industrial Water Use Economics analysis, blended rates had been 

used in the PEIS analysis. In addition, this analysis assumes that the municipal and 

industrial users will be able to afford the calculated water costs, as described in the PEIS. 

Therefore, CVP water deliveries do not change for the municipal and industrial analysis. 

The Regional Economics analysis reflects only changes to agricultural and municipal and 

industrial sectors, but not recreation sectors. 
2 

Table of Contents for Technical Memorandum 

Section 1 Agricultural Land Use and Economics 

Agricultural Land Use and Economics Assumptions 

Table 1 CVPM Subregions and Descriptions 

 Table 2 CVP Water Rates Used for PEIS Preferred Alternative 

 Table 3 CVP Water Rates Used for Long Term Contract Renewal 

Analysis 

(November 1999) 

 Table 4 Project Water Applied by Pricing Tiers 

Average Year Following Average 5-Year Base Condition 

 Table 5 Project Water Applied by Pricing Tiers 

Average Year Following Wet Base Condition 

 Table 6 Project Water Applied by Pricing Tiers 

Average Year Following Dry Base Condition 

 Table 7 Project Water Applied by Pricing Tiers 

Wet Year Following Average 5-Year Base Condition 

 Table 8 Project Water Applied by Pricing Tiers 

Wet Year Following Wet Base Condition 

 Table 9 Project Water Applied by Pricing Tiers 

Wet Year Following Dry Base Condition 

 Table 10 Project Water Applied by Pricing Tiers 

Dry Year Following Average 5-Year Base Condition 

 Table 11 Project Water Applied by Pricing Tiers 

Dry Year Following Wet Base Condition 

 Table 12 Project Water Applied by Pricing Tiers 

Dry Year Following Dry Base Condition 

 Table 13 Irrigated Acres by Subregion 

 Table 14 Value of Production by Subregion 

 Table 15 Net Revenue Changes by Subregion 

 Table 16 Irrigation Water Applied by Region 

 Table 17 Irrigated Acreage by Subregion 

 Table 18 Value of Production by Subregion 

 Table 19 Changes in Net Revenue by Subregion 

 Table 20 Irrigation Water Applied by Subregion 

 Table 21 Subregion Analysis of Signficant Changes in Water Use 
3 

Section 2 Regional Economics 

 Regional Economics 

 Table 22 Regional Economic Impacts on All Sectors: Average Year 

following Average 5-Year Base Condition Compared to the 

Preferred Alternative Average Year Condition 

 Table 23 Regional Economic Impact: Average Year following Average 

5-Year Base Condition Compared to the Preferred Alternative 

Average Year Condition 

 Table 24 Regional Economic Impacts on All Sectors: Average Year 

following Wet 5-Year Base Condition Compared to the 

Preferred Alternative Average Year Condition 

 Table 25 Regional Economic Impact: Average Year following Wet 5-

Year Base Condition Compared to the Preferred Alternative 

Average Year Condition 

 Table 26 Regional Economic Impacts on All Sectors: Average Year 

following Dry 5-Year Base Condition Compared to the 

Preferred Alternative Average Year Condition 

 Table 27 Regional Economic Impact: Average Year following Dry 5-

Year Base Condition Compared to the Preferred Alternative 

Average Year Condition 

Section 3 Municipal and Industrial Water Use Economics 

 Table 28 Summary of M&I Economics Analysis for Average and 

 Dry Year Conditions 
SECTION 1 

AGRICULTURAL LAND USE AND ECONOMICS 
AGRICULTURAL LAND USE AND ECONOMICS 

CONTRACT RENEWAL PROPOSAL WITH BLENDED WATER RATES 

In the November 1999 proposal, Reclamation has proposed that water sold to CVP water service 

contractors be sold according to tiered water rates as required by CVPIA section 3404. 

Reclamation has also proposed that two categories of water be identified. Category 1 water 

would be calculated as the average delivery of the previous five years, and would be split into 

three tiers according to the 80-10-10 quantities defined in the CVPIA. Category 2 water would 

be any water available in excess of the 5-year rolling average, up to the total contract amount as 

defined by the Needs Analysis. 

Tier 1 water rates include the cost-of-service component and any applicable Restoration charges 

and surcharges. Both the Restoration Charge and the capital component of the cost-of-service 

rate are subject to ability-to-pay limits. These limits are in effect for Bella Vista WD and Clear 

Creek CSD, contractors on the Corning and Tehama-Colusa Canals, and contractors receiving 

water from New Melones. 

Tier 3 water rates include the full-cost rate (as defined in the Reclamation Reform Act) and any 

applicable Restoration Charges. No ability-to-pay relief is provided in this Tier. The Tier 2 water 

rate is the average of the applicable Tier 1 and Tier 3 rates. Category 2 water has the same rate as 

Tier 3. 

For this proposal, it is assumed that water conservation guidelines allow contractors to blend the 

rate of CVP water delivered in any tier or Category, and that they do blend the rates. This is 

different from the assumption used to assess alternatives in the PEIS, in which contractors were 

assumed to sell CVP water to growers at tiered rates. Differences between PEIS pricing 

assumptions and this analysis are: 

• This analysis assumes that contractors blend the price of all CVP water received 

at tiered rates into a single rate. Tiered rates to growers are assumed in the PEIS. 

• The project water portion of Sacramento River water rights settlement contracts 

are not subject to the new pricing policy in this analysis. In the PEIS it was 

assumed that it was subject to tiered rates. 

• Rates are based on the Irrigation Water Rates spreadsheets provided by 

Reclamation in November 1999. PEIS rates used the 1994 Irrigation Water Rates 

manual. 

• Ability-to-pay relief is incorporated using the current payment capacity studies 

for Shasta County irrigation contractors, Corning Canal contractors, Tehama 

Colusa Canal contractors, and New Melones contractors. In the PEIS, payment 

capacity was based on a 1992 regional study (PEIS, 1999). 
• In this analysis, ability to pay relief is provided in Tier 1, with none in Tier 3 - 

Tier 2 is the average of Tiers 1 and 3, and so provides 50% relief. In the PEIS, the 

same dollar amount of ability to pay relief is applied in all pricing tiers. 

• A $7.00 per acre-foot Restoration Charge is assumed in this analysis. A $6.50 per 

acre-foot charge was used in the PEIS. The Friant surcharge was $7.00 per acrefoot in both studies. 

• There is no lower bound on the usage of CVP water. In the PEIS each subregion 

was restricted to using at least the Tier 1 quantity of CVP supplies. 

METHODOLOGY

Other than the differences listed above, the modeling approach and underlying data were the 

same as used for the PEIS. The Central Valley Production Model (CVPM) was used in this 

analysis, with modifications needed to assess the specific water pricing conditions proposed. 

Table 1 shows the regions of the CVPM and the corresponding service areas. Groundwater 

hydrology was not assessed as it was in the PEIS alternatives. Therefore, for purposes of 

analysis, most regions were assumed to have access to replacement groundwater if needed. 

Based on groundwater hydrology as described in the PEIS, the following subregions are assumed 

to be unable to replace any CVP water with groundwater on a long term basis: Shasta County 

irrigation contractors (subregion 1), Corning Canal contractors (subregion 2), and the TehamaColusa service area (subregion 3B). 

Water deliveries from the CVPIA Preferred Alternative were used (Reclamation CVPIA PEIS, 

1999). These deliveries were allocated on a yearly basis into pricing tiers and categories 

according to the rules described above. Weighted average (i.e., blended) prices were calculated 

for each year, with quantities in each tier and category based on the previous five years of 

delivery. In any given year, the quantity and blended price of water depends on the 6-year 

sequence leading up to and including the current year. Throughout this report the following 

conventions are use: an Average rear represents the average 1922-1990 water delivery from the 

CVPIA Preferred Alternative (Reclamation CVPIA PEIS, 1999); a Wet year represents the 

average delivery for the period of 1967-1971 from the CVPIA Preferred Alternative; and a Dry 

year is the average 1928-1934 delivery from The CVPIA Preferred Alternative. 
A total of nine water supply sequences are assessed in this analysis and compared to the CVPIA 

Preferred Alternative: 

Average-Average: An average water year following a 5-year sequence of average years. 

Wet-Average: An average water year following a 5-year sequence of wet years. 

Dry-Average: An average water year following a 5-year sequence of dry years. 

Average-Wet: A wet water year following a 5-year sequence of average years. 

Wet-Wet: A wet water year following a 5-year sequence of wet years. 

Dry-Wet: A wet water year following a 5-year sequence of dry years. 

Average-Dry: A dry water year following a 5-year sequence of average years. 

Wet-Dry: A dry water year following a 5-year sequence of wet years. 

Dry-Dry: A dry water year following a 5-year sequence of dry years. 

The CVP water rates used for each of the nine sequences described above and the CVPIA 

Preferred Alternative tiered prices are shown in Table 3. Tables 4-12 show the available CVP 

water service contract supplies by tier and the blended price for each of the 22 subregions under 

the nine sequences proposed for the Long-Term Contract Renewal analysis. 

Results are shown for each of the nine sequences presented as differences compared to the 

CVPIA Preferred Alternative. When calculating differences from the CVPIA Preferred 

Alternative, sequences ending in an Average, Wet and Dry years are compared to the Average, 

Wet and Dry year CVPIA Preferred Alternative results respectively. 

 

IRRIGATED ACRES

Changes in irrigated acres from the Preferred Alternative are summarized by region in Table 13. 

A complete list of changes by crop and subregion is provided as Table 17. 

Both the Average-Average and Wet-Average scenarios show little difference from the Preferred 

Alternative under the Average hydrology conditions. The Dry-Average sequence shows a larger 

reduction in irrigated acres almost all of which comes from the Sacramento River region. 

Compared to the Wet year Preferred Alternative results, there is a similar pattern for the three 

Long-Term Contract Renewal sequences ending with Wet years. For all three of the Long Term 

Contract Renewal Sequences ending in a dry year there minimal increases in irrigated acreage 

compared to the Dry year CPVIA Preferred Alternative results. Irrigated acres remain unchanged 

under all nine sequences in the San Felipe Division. 
The reduction in acreage in Average and Wet years preceded by a series of Dry years is a result 

of higher CVP water costs. Since the quantity of Category 1 water is based on the average 

deliveries of the preceding five years, the quantity of water eligible for Category 1 classification 

shrinks when a sustained drought is experienced. In an average or wet year follows a drought 

period, water becomes available however a large portion is classified as Category 2 and is priced 

at the full cost rate. This can be seen in Tables 6 and 9. When this relatively large block of full 

cost water is incorporated into the blended water price, all CVP supplies become more 

expensive, and sometimes unaffordable. This result is not seen in the dry-dry sequence because 

there is not excess water that gets classified as Category 2. 

GROSS AND NET REVENUE

Gross revenue (value of production) impacts follow acreage impacts quite closely, and are 

shown by region in Table 14. Compared to the Average Preferred Alternative, a small reduction 

of less than $1 million is estimated for the Average-Average and Wet-Average scenarios, and a 

$39 million reduction is estimated in Dry-Average scenario. Gross revenue also declines 

compared to the Wet Preferred Alternative with approximately $5 million reductions in Average 

and Wet years and a larger reduction of $29 million in the Dry-Wet scenario. In dry years 

preceded by all three hydrologic conditions, gross revenue is slightly higher when compared to 

the Preferred Alternative Dry year results. There were no changes in gross revenue for the San 

Felipe Division since there were no changes in irrigated acres compared to the CVPIA preferred 

Alternative. A complete list of changes in gross revenue by crop and subregion is provided as 

Table 18. 

Net revenue impacts are separated into five components; Fallowed land, Groundwater pumping 

costs, Irrigation Costs, CVP water costs and higher crop prices. The CVP water cost component 

represents the impact to net revenue from changes in both the quantity of CVP water used and 

the price of CVP water. Therefore when the blended CVP water price increases, farmers 

frequently use less, and the net impact to the CVP water cost component can be positive even 

when the water price is higher. Table 15 summarizes the net income impacts by component. A 

negative entry in the table indicates a reduction in net revenue. A complete list of changes in net 

income by component for each subregion is provided as Table 19. 

Relatively small net income impacts are seen in all water supply sequences at the State level. 

The Average-Average sequence compared to the Average year Preferred Alternative shows a 

decline of $2 million in net revenue for all of California. The Wet-Average scenario is estimated 

to have a net increase of approximately $4 million and the Dry-Average sequence a decrease of 

$12 million. 

The net revenue impact in wet years relative to the Preferred Alternative wet results show a 

pattern similar to the Average year results. Dry years preceded by a series of Average and Wet 

years both show net decrease in revenue of about $12 million while the Dry-Dry sequence 

results in a $15 million decrease in State wide net revenue relative the Preferred Alternative Dry 

results. 
Notice that following a series of dry years, the net revenue component associated with crop 

prices often results in a positive impact to net revenue. This occurs because some subregions are 

forced to reduce acreage because of higher blended CVP water prices, resulting in higher crop 

prices received for acreage that remains in production. 

There is a negative impact to net revenue from irrigation costs in the Sacramento and San 

Joaquin River regions in each of the nine Long-Term Contract Renewal sequences. This impact 

is derived from the irrigation efficiency improvements induced by higher CVP water prices in 

the Average year sequences. The change in irrigation efficiency is carries through to the Wet and 

dry year sequences because they are short run analyses and irrigation technology is fixed in the 

short run. The increase in irrigation efficiency results in a reduction in the total water used in 

some subregions while irrigated acreage remains constant. 

WATER USE

Table 16 summarizes water use changes by region. A complete list of changes in CVP water use 

and groundwater use by subregion is provided as Table 20. Water supplies other than CVP 

project water and groundwater are unaffected and not shown. The San Joaquin River region and 

most of the sequences for the Sacramento River region show the typical response represented by 

a shift away from CVP supplies to groundwater as CVP water becomes more expensive under 

the new pricing schemes. The Tulare Lake region and the Sacramento River region during wet 

years proceeded by a series of Average and Wet years show what would be considered an 

atypical response. 

In the Sacramento River region when five years of Wet and Average conditions are followed by 

a wet year, the model predicts that both groundwater and CVP water use will decline relative to 

the Preferred Alternative Wet condition. The decrease in groundwater use is mostly attributed to 

subregion 3b. In this subregion in a wet year coming out of a series of Average or Wet years the 

blended price is cheaper than the Preferred Alternative Tier 2 water cost as well as the cost of 

pumping groundwater. Therefore there is a shift away from groundwater to CVP supplies. In 

Average years preceded by Average or Wet years, the subregion is prevented from shifting to 

CVP because they are already using their full CVP supply. 

In the Tulare Lake region there is a pattern of shifting from groundwater to CVP water that can 

be attributed to subregions 17. This subregion shifts because under the blended pricing scheme 

the CVP water becomes cheaper than pumping groundwater; therefore they maximize their CVP 

water use. 

In average and wet years preceded by a series of dry years, there is a large decrease in CVP 

water use in both the Sacramento and San Joaquin River regions. This is driven by the relatively 

high cost of CVP supplies under these conditions. Since many subregions receive less water in 

dry years, or the water falls into the higher tiers and it becomes unaffordable, and the base from 

which the blended price tier quantities is calculated shrinks. This sets up a condition where when 

an Average or Wet year comes along, the additional water is classified as Category 2 and 

assessed the full cost price. The CVP blended price is a weighted average of all CVP supplies 

therefore the cost for all CVP water increases and the supplies often become unaffordable. 
LOCALIZED IMPACTS

Certain subregions are substantially affected by the proposed water pricing. 

• The Tehama-Colusa service area is the most-affected region. Limited 

groundwater availability and very high full-cost price relative to the value of 

water in agricultural production result in almost 60,000 acres out of production in 

the Dry-Average sequence and substantially higher cost for lands remaining in 

production. This analysis shows a one-year snapshot. Because water pricing is 

based on historic delivery, a region (such as the Tehama-Colusa region) may 

never be able to “buy its way” back out from a drought. Looked at over a 

sequence of dry years such as 1928-34 or 1987-92, many or most of the districts 

in this area could not survive as CVP contractors. 

• The analysis predicts that the Delta subregion will make a complete switch to 

groundwater supplies in all nine hydrologic sequences, assuming groundwater is 

available in all parts of the service area. 

• The analysis estimates that the once an extended drought is experienced the 

Delta-Mendota service area would switch from its CVP water service supply to 

groundwater, assuming groundwater is available in all parts of the service area. 

• Westlands Water District and many of the Friant Unit contractors would likely 

continue purchasing CVP water. Since these areas continue to purchase CVP 

supplies in all years coming out of drought conditions, they would eventually 

build their base deliveries up or "buy their way" back to pre-drought tier 

quantities and prices. 
CVPM

Subregion Description of Major Water Users

1

CVP Users: Anderson Cottonwood, Clear Creek, Bella Vista, Sacramento River 

miscellaneous users.

2

CVP Users: Corning Canal, Kirkwood, Tehema, Sacramento River, miscellaneous 

users.

3

CVP Users: Glenn Colusa ID, Provident, Princeton-Codora, Maxwell, and Colusa Basin 

Drain MWC.

3B

Tehama Colusa Canal Service Area. CVP Users: Orland-Artois WD, most of County of 

Colusa, Davis, Dunnigan, Glide Kanawha, La Grande, Westside WD.

4

CVP Users: Princeton-Codora-Glenn, Colusa Irrigation Co., Meridian Farm WC, Pelger 

Mutual WC, Recl. Dist. 1004, Recl. Dist. 108, Robers Ditch, Sartain M.D., Sutter MWC, 

Swinford Tract IC, Tisdale Irrigation, Sacramento River miscellaneous users.

5 Most Feather River Region riparian and appropriative users.

6

Yolo, Solano Counties. CVP Users: Conaway Ranch, Sacramento River miscellaneous 

users.

7

Sacramento Co. north of American River. CVP Users: Natomas Central MWC, 

Sacramento River miscellaneous users, Pheasant Grove-Verona, San Juan Suburban.

8 Sacramento Co. south of American River, San Joaquin Co.

9 Delta Regions. CVP Users: Banta Carbona, West Side, Plainview.

10

Delta Mendota Canal. CVP Users: Pacheco, Del Puerto, Hospital, Sunflower, West 

Stanislaus, Mustang, Orestimba, Patterson, Foothill, San Luis WD, Broadview, Eagle 

Field, Mercy Springs, Pool Exchange Contractors, Schedule II water rights, more.

11 Stanislaus River water rights: Modesto ID, Oakdale ID, South San Joaquin ID.

12 Turlock ID.

13 Merced ID. CVP Users: Madera, Chowchilla, Gravely Ford.

14 CVP Users: Westlands WD.

15

Tulare Lake Bed. CVP Users: Fresno Slough, James, Tranquility, Traction Ranch, 

Laguna, Real. Dist. 1606.

16 Eastern Fresno Co. CVP Users: Friant-Kern Canal. Fresno ID, Garfield, International.

17 CVP Users: Friant-Kern Canal. Hills Valley, Tri-Valley Orange Cove.

18

CVP Users: Friant-Kern Canal, County of Fresno, Lower Tule River ID, Pixley ID, 

portion of Rag Gulch, Ducor, County of Tulare, most of Delano Earlimart, Exeter, 

Ivanhoe, Lewis Cr., Lindmore, Lindsay-Strathmore, Porterville, Sausalito, Stone Corral, 

Tea Pot Dome, Terra Bella, Tulare.

19 Kern Co. SWP Service Area.

20 CVP Users: Friant-Kern Canal. Shafter-Wasco, S. San Joaquin.

21 CVP Users: Cross Valley Canal, Friant-Kern Canal. Arvin Edison.

CVPM SUBREGIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS

TABLE 1
CVPM

Subregion Average Wet Dry Average Wet Dry Averag

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Followed by Average Followed by Wet F

1 12.01 37.56 63.12 19.67 14.98 14.14 23.91 19.67 18.20 25.12 10.71 36.40 62.09 18.42 10.71 49.66 29.55 18.42 52.83 10.73 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N

3B 10.25 40.73 71.21 19.39 10.25 58.15 32.35 19.39 61.42 10.2

4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N5 20.65 23.01 25.36 21.35 21.18 21.77 21.52 21.35 21.92 20.96 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N7 11.77 12.07 12.37 11.86 11.86 11.86 11.86 11.86 11.86 11.88 10.00 27.46 44.92 15.24 10.00 30.36 25.64 15.24 35.47 10.09 24.79 55.14 85.50 33.89 24.79 64.53 55.27 33.89 73.22 24.7

10 31.15 40.16 49.16 33.85 31.15 42.94 38.01 33.85 44.63 31.111 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA N12 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA N13 32.16 38.41 44.65 34.04 33.25 37.44 34.77 34.04 37.94 32.114 32.62 46.48 60.33 36.78 32.62 50.76 43.17 36.78 53.36 32.615 32.71 41.91 51.10 35.47 34.55 38.10 36.34 35.47 38.82 33.016 40.48 46.78 53.08 42.37 41.22 45.32 43.40 42.37 46.07 40.417 34.18 40.49 46.79 36.07 35.15 39.28 36.92 36.07 39.88 34.118 33.63 40.48 47.33 35.69 34.73 39.16 36.57 35.69 39.78 33.619 34.58 42.16 49.73 36.86 35.00 41.21 38.84 36.86 42.52 34.520 34.58 42.16 49.73 36.86 35.70 40.85 37.92 36.86 41.58 34.521 32.70 39.00 45.31 34.59 32.98 39.01 36.33 34.59 40.03 32.7

NOTES:1. Blended rates used pricing components from the November, 1999 Irrigation Water Rates spreadsheets, Restoration Char

2. PEIS rates used regional estimates of payment capacity and allowed the same ATP relief in all tiers.3. Blended rates use most recent available payment capacity studies from Reclamation, and allow ATP relief in Tier 1 but no4. Only Class 1 rates are shown for Friant Division. Friant surcharge is $7.00 in all rates.

Used for LTCR analysis

TABLE 2 

CVP WATER RATES USED FOR LONG TERM CONTRACT RENEWAL ANALYSIS ($) 

Tiered Water Rates Proposed Blended Water Rates for Water Service Con
CVPM

Subregion Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

1 5.91 14.63 2 11.83 24.7 3 2.83 5.27 

3B 17.16 36.225 

4 5.32 7.625 5 4.53 6.965 6 4.53 6.82 7 6.63 8.83 8 4.53 7.095 9 28.54 35.245 

10 33.46 40.015 11 0 0 12 0 0 13 33.65 39.395 14 39.31 54.385 15 28.16 34.875 16 38.25 44.255 17 35.58 41.905 18 35.01 41.255 19 36.68 42.885 20 36.68 42.885 21 35.4 42.01 

NOTES:1. PEIS rates used pricing components from the 1994 Irrigation Water Rates  Manual, Restoration Charge of $6.502. PEIS rates used regional estimates of payment capacity and allowed the  same ATP relief in all tiers.3. Only Class 1 rates are shown for Friant Division. Friant surcharge is $7.00 in all rates.

TABLE 3

CVP WATER RATES USED IN PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ($)

Tiered Water Rates Used in the PEIS Preferred Alternative ($)
CVPM Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Category 2 Blended

Subregion Price

($/AF)

1 9.4 1.2 1.2 - 19.67 $ 

2 21.9 2.7 2.7 - 18.42 $ 

3 - - - - NA

3B 159.7 20.0 20.0 - 19.39 $ 

4 - - - - NA

5 16.0 2.0 2.0 - 21.35 $ 

6 - - - - NA

7 12.0 1.5 1.5 - 11.86 $ 

8 41.3 5.2 5.2 - 15.24 $ 

9 22.5 2.8 2.8 - 33.89 $ 

10 231.4 28.9 28.9 - 33.85 $ 

11 - - - - 

12 - - - - 

13 153.6 19.2 19.2 - 34.04 $ 

14 539.1 67.4 67.4 - 36.78 $ 

15 32.3 4.0 4.0 - 35.47 $ 

16 18.9 2.4 2.4 - 42.37 $ 

17 34.9 4.4 4.4 - 36.07 $ 

18 484.2 60.5 60.5 - 35.69 $ 

19 13.1 1.6 1.6 - 36.86 $ 

20 194.2 24.3 24.3 - 36.86 $ 

21 129.7 16.2 16.2 - 34.59 $ 

TABLE 4

PROJECT WATER APPLIED BY PRICING TIERS

AVERAGE YEAR FOLLOWING AVERAGE 5-YEAR BASE CONDITION

(1000 AF)
CVPM Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Category 2 Blended

Subregion Price

($/AF)

1 10.4 1.3 0.0 - 14.98 $ 

2 27.3 - - - 10.71 $ 

3 - - - - NA

3B 199.6 - - - 10.25 $ 

4 - - - - NA

5 16.6 2.1 1.2 - 21.18 $ 

6 - - - - NA

7 12.0 1.5 1.5 - 11.86 $ 

8 51.6 - - - 10.00 $ 

9 28.2 - - - 24.79 $ 

10 289.2 - - - 31.15 $ 

11 - - - - NA

12 - - - - NA

13 165.0 20.6 6.3 - 33.25 $ 

14 673.8 - - - 32.62 $ 

15 34.2 4.3 1.9 - 34.55 $ 

16 21.0 2.6 0.1 - 41.22 $ 

17 37.9 4.7 1.0 - 35.15 $ 

18 523.8 65.5 15.9 - 34.73 $ 

19 15.5 0.9 - - 35.00 $ 

20 211.7 26.5 4.6 - 35.70 $ 

21 154.9 7.2 - - 32.98 $ 

Table 5

PROJECT WATER APPLIED BY PRICING TIERS

AVERAGE YEAR FOLLOWING WET 5-YEAR BASE CONDITION

(1000 AF)
CVPM Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Category 2 Blended

Subregion Price

($/AF)

1 10.8 1.0 - - 14.14 $ 

2 6.2 0.8 0.8 19.6 49.66 $ 

3 - - - - NA

3B 40.2 5.0 5.0 149.3 58.15 $ 

4 - - - - NA

5 14.3 1.8 1.8 2.1 21.77 $ 

6 - - - - NA

7 12.0 1.5 1.5 - 11.86 $ 

8 20.2 2.5 2.5 26.3 30.36 $ 

9 9.2 1.1 1.1 16.7 64.53 $ 

10 94.0 11.8 11.8 171.7 42.94 $ 

11 - - - - NA

12 - - - - NA

13 104.4 13.0 13.0 61.6 37.44 $ 

14 219.1 27.4 27.4 400.0 50.76 $ 

15 26.8 3.4 3.4 6.8 38.10 $ 

16 13.7 1.7 1.7 6.5 45.32 $ 

17 24.5 3.1 3.1 13.1 39.28 $ 

18 339.7 42.5 42.5 180.6 39.16 $ 

19 8.7 1.1 1.1 5.6 41.21 $ 

20 133.9 16.7 16.7 75.3 40.85 $ 

21 76.2 9.5 9.5 66.8 39.01 $ 

Table 6

PROJECT WATER APPLIED BY PRICING TIERS

AVERAGE YEAR FOLLOWING DRY 5-YEAR BASE CONDITION

(1000 AF)
CVPM Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Category 2 Blended

Subregion Price

($/AF)

1 9.4 1.2 1.2 1.3 23.91 $ 

2 21.9 2.7 2.7 9.4 29.55 $ 

3 - - - - NA

3B 159.7 20.0 20.0 66.6 32.35 $ 

4 - - - - NA

5 16.0 2.0 2.0 0.9 21.52 $ 

6 - - - - NA

7 12.0 1.5 1.5 - 11.86 $ 

8 41.3 5.2 5.2 27.8 25.64 $ 

9 22.5 2.8 2.8 19.9 55.27 $ 

10 231.4 28.9 28.9 107.8 38.01 $ 

11 - - - - NA

12 - - - - NA

13 153.6 19.2 19.2 14.3 34.77 $ 

14 539.1 67.4 67.4 251.2 43.17 $ 

15 32.3 4.0 4.0 2.4 36.34 $ 

16 18.9 2.4 2.4 2.5 43.40 $ 

17 34.9 4.4 4.4 3.8 36.92 $ 

18 484.2 60.5 60.5 49.6 36.57 $ 

19 13.1 1.6 1.6 3.0 38.84 $ 

20 194.2 24.3 24.3 21.9 37.92 $ 

21 129.7 16.2 16.2 31.5 36.33 $ 

Table 7

PROJECT WATER APPLIED BY PRICING TIERS

WET YEAR FOLLOWING AVERAGE 5-YEAR BASE CONDITION

(1000 AF)
CVPM Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Category 2 Blended

Subregion Price

($/AF)

1 10.4 1.3 1.3 - 19.67 $ 

2 29.4 3.7 3.7 - 18.42 $ 

3 - - - - NA

3B 212.9 26.6 26.6 - 19.39 $ 

4 - - - - NA

5 16.6 2.1 2.1 - 21.35 $ 

6 - - - - NA

7 12.0 1.5 1.5 - 11.86 $ 

8 63.5 7.9 7.9 - 15.24 $ 

9 38.5 4.8 4.8 - 33.89 $ 

10 317.6 39.7 39.7 - 33.85 $ 

11 - - - - NA

12 - - - - NA

13 165.0 20.6 20.6 - 34.04 $ 

14 740.0 92.5 92.5 - 36.78 $ 

15 34.2 4.3 4.3 - 35.47 $ 

16 21.0 2.6 2.6 - 42.37 $ 

17 37.9 4.7 4.7 - 36.07 $ 

18 523.8 65.5 65.5 - 35.69 $ 

19 15.5 1.9 1.9 - 36.86 $ 

20 211.7 26.5 26.5 - 36.86 $ 

21 154.9 19.4 19.4 - 34.59 $ 

Table 8

PROJECT WATER BY PRICING TIERS

WET YEAR FOLLOWING WET 5-YEAR BASE CONDITION

(1000 AF)
CVPM Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Category 2 Blended

Subregion Price

($/AF)

1 10.8 1.3 0.9 - 18.20 $ 

2 6.2 0.8 0.8 28.9 52.83 $ 

3 - - - - NA

3B 40.2 5.0 5.0 215.9 61.42 $ 

4 - - - - NA

5 14.3 1.8 1.8 2.9 21.92 $ 

6 - - - - NA

7 12.0 1.5 1.5 - 11.86 $ 

8 20.2 2.5 2.5 54.1 35.47 $ 

9 9.2 1.1 1.1 36.7 73.22 $ 

10 94.0 11.8 11.8 279.5 44.63 $ 

11 - - - - NA

12 - - - - NA

13 104.4 13.0 13.0 75.9 37.94 $ 

14 219.1 27.4 27.4 651.1 53.36 $ 

15 26.8 3.4 3.4 9.1 38.82 $ 

16 13.7 1.7 1.7 9.1 46.07 $ 

17 24.5 3.1 3.1 16.8 39.88 $ 

18 339.7 42.5 42.5 230.2 39.78 $ 

19 8.7 1.1 1.1 8.5 42.52 $ 

20 133.9 16.7 16.7 97.2 41.58 $ 

21 76.2 9.5 9.5 98.3 40.03 $ 

Table 9

PROJECT WATER APPLIED BY PRICING TIERS

WET YEAR FOLLOWING DRY 5-YEAR BASE CONDITION

(1000 AF)
CVPM Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Category 2 Blended

Subregion Price

($/AF)

1 9.4 1.2 1.2 1.7 25.19 $ 

2 7.8 - - - 10.71 $ 

3 - - - - NA

3B 50.3 - - - 10.25 $ 

4 - - - - NA

5 16.0 1.9 - - 20.90 $ 

6 - - - - NA

7 12.0 1.5 1.5 - 11.86 $ 

8 25.3 - - - 10.00 $ 

9 11.5 - - - 24.79 $ 

10 117.5 - - - 31.15 $ 

11 - - - - NA

12 - - - - NA

13 130.4 - - - 32.16 $ 

14 273.9 - - - 32.62 $ 

15 32.3 1.3 - - 33.07 $ 

16 17.1 - - - 40.48 $ 

17 30.6 - - - 34.18 $ 

18 424.6 - - - 33.63 $ 

19 10.9 - - - 34.58 $ 

20 167.4 - - - 34.58 $ 

21 95.3 - - - 32.70 $ 

Table 10

PROJECT WATER APPLIED BY PRICING TIERS

DRY YEAR FOLLOWING AVERAGE 5-YEAR BASE CONDITION

(1000 AF)
CVPM Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Category 2 Blended

Subregion Price

($/AF)

1 10.4 1.3 1.3 0.4 21.09 $ 

2 7.8 - - - 10.71 $ 

3 - - - - NA

3B 50.3 - - - 10.25 $ 

4 - - - - NA

5 16.6 1.2 - - 20.81 $ 

6 - - - - NA

7 12.0 1.5 1.5 - 11.86 $ 

8 25.3 - - - 10.00 $ 

9 11.5 - - - 24.79 $ 

10 117.5 - - - 31.15 $ 

11 - - - - NA

12 - - - - NA

13 130.4 - - - 32.16 $ 

14 273.9 - - - 32.62 $ 

15 33.6 - - - 32.71 $ 

16 17.1 - - - 40.48 $ 

17 30.6 - - - 34.18 $ 

18 424.6 - - - 33.63 $ 

19 10.9 - - - 34.58 $ 

20 167.4 - - - 34.58 $ 

21 95.3 - - - 32.70 $ 

Table 11

PROJECT WATER APPLIED BY PRICING TIERS

DRY YEAR FOLLOWING WET 5-YEAR BASE CONDITION

(1000 AF)
CVPM Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Category 2 Blended

Subregion Price

($/AF)

1 10.8 1.3 1.3 - 19.67 $ 

2 6.2 0.8 0.8 - 18.42 $ 

3 - - - - NA

3B 40.2 5.0 5.0 - 19.39 $ 

4 - - - - NA

5 14.3 1.8 1.8 - 21.35 $ 

6 - - - - NA

7 12.0 1.5 1.5 - 11.86 $ 

8 20.2 2.5 2.5 - 15.24 $ 

9 9.2 1.1 1.1 - 33.89 $ 

10 94.0 11.8 11.8 - 33.85 $ 

11 - - - - NA

12 - - - - NA

13 104.4 13.0 13.0 - 34.04 $ 

14 219.1 27.4 27.4 - 36.78 $ 

15 26.8 3.4 3.4 - 35.47 $ 

16 13.7 1.7 1.7 - 42.37 $ 

17 24.5 3.1 3.1 - 36.07 $ 

18 339.7 42.5 42.5 - 35.69 $ 

19 8.7 1.1 1.1 - 36.86 $ 

20 133.9 16.7 16.7 - 36.86 $ 

21 76.2 9.5 9.5 - 34.59 $ 

Table 12

PROJECT WATER BY PRICING TIERS

DRY YEAR FOLLOWING DRY 5-YEAR BASE CONDITION

(1000 AF)
Average Wet Dry

CVPM Preferred Average Wet Dry Preferred

Average Wet Dry Preferred

A

Subregion Alternative

Alternative

Alternative

Sacramento River 2015.5 -1.7 -0.8 -65.3 2020.0 -4.4 -4.4 -53.0 1984.8 San Joaquin River 2526.6 -0.2 -0.2 -1.2 2529.1 -1.7 -1.6 -1.9 2505.9 Tulare Lake 1992.4 0.0 0.0 -0.2 1996.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.3 1953.7 San Felipe 50.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 California Total 6585.2 -1.9 -1.0 -66.7 6614.8 -7.3 -7.3 -56.2 6466.6 

followed by Average followed by Wet 

TABLE 13

IRRIGATED ACRES BY SUBREGION (1000 ACRES)

Change Compared to Change Compared to 
Average Wet Dry

CVPM Preferred Average Wet Dry Preferred

Average Wet Dry Preferred

Ave

Subregion Alternative

Alternative

Alternative

Sacramento River 1,825.3 -0.4 -0.2 -37.6 1,828.0 -1.6 -1.6 -26.8 1,810.0 

San Joaquin River 4,402.3 -0.1 -0.1 -1.0 4,403.8 -0.9 -0.9 -1.1 4,384.2 

Tulare Lake 3,876.3 0.0 0.0 -0.3 3,879.4 -1.0 -1.0 -1.1 3,842.7 

San Felipe 68.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.0 

California Total 10,172.0 -0.5 -0.4 -38.8 10,181.2 -3.6 -3.6 -28.9 10,080.8 

followed by Average followed by Wet 

TABLE 14

VALUE OF PRODUCTION BY SUBREGION (Million $)

Change Compared to Change Compared to Wet Cha
Cause of

Net Revenue Average Wet Dry Average Wet Dry Average Wet Dry 

Change

Fallowed Land -0.1 0.0 -6.7 -0.3 -0.3 -4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Groundwater Pumping Cost -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 1.0 1.0 -4.5 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2

Irrigation Cost -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4

CVP Water Cost -0.3 1.7 3.6 -5.1 -1.0 4.6 -0.1 -0.1 -0.7

Higher Crop Prices 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Net Change -1.0 1.0 -1.9 -4.6 -0.5 -3.8 -0.6 -0.6 -1.2

Fallowed Land 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Groundwater Pumping Cost 0.0 0.0 -10.3 -7.4 0.2 -14.1 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0

Irrigation Cost -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2

CVP Water Cost 1.0 4.0 2.3 7.9 6.1 6.2 -5.9 -5.9 -7.5

Higher Crop Prices 0.1 0.0 2.5 0.2 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Net Change 0.9 3.9 -5.7 0.4 6.1 -7.3 -7.0 -7.0 -8.6

Fallowed Land 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Groundwater Pumping Cost 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 -3.2 -3.2 -3.2

Irrigation Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

CVP Water Cost -2.3 -1.2 -5.7 -3.1 -2.1 -6.4 -0.9 -0.9 -2.3

Higher Crop Prices 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Net Change -2.1 -1.1 -4.2 -2.1 -1.1 -5.1 -4.1 -4.1 -5.5

Fallowed Land 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Groundwater Pumping Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Irrigation Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

CVP Water Cost -0.2 0.0 -0.6 -0.5 -0.2 -0.9 0.0 0.0 -0.1

Higher Crop Prices 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Net Change -0.2 0.0 -0.6 -0.5 -0.2 -0.9 0.0 0.0 -0.1

Fallowed Land -0.1 -0.1 -6.9 -0.6 -0.6 -4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

Groundwater Pumping Cost -0.2 -0.2 -10.5 -5.3 2.2 -17.6 -4.4 -4.4 -4.4

Irrigation Cost -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5

CVP Water Cost -1.6 4.5 0.2 -0.3 3.1 4.5 -6.9 -6.8 -10.5

Higher Crop Prices 0.1 0.1 5.8 0.4 0.4 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Net Change -2.3 3.7 -11.9 -6.3 4.6 -16.1 -11.7 -11.7 -15.3

Note: A negative value in a cost category represents an increase in cost that produces a decrease in net revenue

TABLE 15

NET REVENUE CHANGES BY REGION (Million $)

Compared to Average Year Compared to Wet Year PA Compared to Dry Year PA

followed by Average followed by Wet followed by Dry

Sacramento River

San Joaquin River

Tulare Lake

San Felipe

Total
Average Wet Dry

Preferred Average Wet Dry Preferred

Average Wet Dry Preferred

Av

Region Alternative

Alternative

Alternative

CVP Water* 625.9 -27.6 -23.4 -243.5 694.3 -2.4 -2.6 -305.5 402.1 

Groundwater 10.5 10.7 11.2 2,456.9 2,621.3 -24.5 -24.3 114.7 3,261.6 

CVP Water* 960.2 -8.7 -9.0 -269.0 1,226.6 -226.3 -21.0 -378.7 506 

Groundwater 3.3 3.5 260.0 2,974.2 3,606.2 215.1 10.3 366.8 4723 

CVP Water* 919.5 1.9 2.0 2.0 967.3 3.7 3.8 3.6 685.3 

Groundwater -1.8 -2.0 -2.0 2,683.5 3,369.0 -7.7 -7.7 -7.5 4,542.9 

CVP Water* 71.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.0 Groundwater na na na na na na na na na 

CVP Water* 2,505.5 -34.4 -30.4 -510.5 2,888.2 -224.9 -19.9 -680.6 1,593.9 

Groundwater 11.9 12.3 269.2 8,114.6 9,596.5 182.8 -21.6 474.0 12,527.1 

*CVP water applied is project water only. It excludes exchange contract delivery and the base supply portion of settlement contracts.

TABLE 16

IRRIGATION WATER APPLIED BY REGION (1000 AF)

Change Compared to Change Compared to Wet PA C

followed by Average followed by Wet 

Sacramento River

San Joaquin River

Tulare Lake

San Felipe

Total 
TABLE 17

IRRIGATED ACREAGE BY SUBREGION

Page 18 of 6

CVPM Preferred Preferred Preferred

Sub- Crop Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative 

region Category Average Wet Dry

Pasture 18.3 -1.2 -0.3 -0.1 18.3 -1.5 -1.5 -1.5 18.1 Alfalfa 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 Other Field Crops 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 Deciduous Orchard 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 Small Grain 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 Subtotal 26.6 -1.3 -0.3 -0.1 26.5 -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 26.3 Pasture 34.1 0.0 0.0 -3.6 33.9 0.0 0.0 -5.9 33.1 Alfalfa 9.5 0.0 0.0 -0.3 9.5 0.0 0.0 -0.6 9.4 Sugar Beets 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 4.0 Other Field Crops 17.3 0.0 0.0 -0.5 17.2 0.0 0.0 -0.7 17.1 Rice 4.5 0.0 0.0 -0.2 4.5 0.0 0.0 -0.3 4.5 Truck Crops 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 Deciduous Orchard 86.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 86.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.0 Small Grain 14.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 13.9 0.0 0.0 -0.6 13.7 Subtropical Orchard 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 Subtotal 195.0 0.0 0.0 -4.9 194.7 0.0 0.0 -8.2 193.5 Pasture 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 Alfalfa 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 Sugar Beets 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 Other Field Crops 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 Rice 138.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 139.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 136.7 Truck Crops 25.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.2 Tomatoes 25.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.8 Deciduous Orchard 17.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.8 Small Grain 30.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.8 

Subtotal 289.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 290.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 286.2 

Pasture 5.7 0.0 0.0 -5.7 5.8 0.1 0.1 -1.5 4.3 Alfalfa 10.1 0.0 0.0 -10.1 10.2 0.1 0.1 -2.6 7.6 Sugar Beets 5.6 0.0 0.0 -5.3 5.6 0.0 0.0 -2.8 5.1 Other Field Crops 13.4 0.0 0.0 -13.4 13.5 0.0 0.0 -13.5 10.4 Rice 9.6 0.0 0.0 -9.6 9.7 0.1 0.1 -9.7 6.2 Truck Crops 0.6 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 Tomatoes 6.1 0.0 0.0 -3.8 6.1 0.0 0.0 -1.8 5.7 Deciduous Orchard 26.9 0.0 0.0 -3.3 26.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.9 Small Grain 8.5 0.0 0.0 -8.5 8.6 0.0 0.0 -8.6 6.2 Subtropical Orchard 1.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 

Subtotal 87.6 0.0 0.0 -59.9 87.9 0.3 0.3 -40.4 74.0 

Changes Compared to Avg. PA Changes Compared to Wet PA 

Followed by Average Followed by Wet 

123

3B
TABLE 17

IRRIGATED ACREAGE BY SUBREGION

Page 19 of 6

CVPM Preferred Preferred Preferred

Sub- Crop Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative 

region Category Average Wet Dry

Changes Compared to Avg. PA Changes Compared to Wet PA 

Followed by Average Followed by Wet 

Pasture 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 Alfalfa 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 Sugar Beets 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 Other Field Crops 40.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.8 Rice 87.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.1 Truck Crops 17.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 Tomatoes 34.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.0 Deciduous Orchard 30.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.6 Small Grain 47.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.8 

Subtotal 275.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 275.7 0.0 0.0 -0.1 273.6 

Pasture 21.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 Alfalfa 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 Sugar Beets 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Other Field Crops 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 Rice 166.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 166.6 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 165.2 Truck Crops 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 Tomatoes 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 Deciduous Orchard 121.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 121.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 121.6 Small Grain 22.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.9 Subtropical Orchard 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 

Subtotal 364.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 364.9 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 362.4 

Pasture 12.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 11.8 Alfalfa 28.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 29.0 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 28.6 Sugar Beets 21.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 21.1 Other Field Crops 59.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.9 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 59.1 Rice 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 12.8 Truck Crops 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 Tomatoes 45.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.9 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 45.7 Deciduous Orchard 24.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.6 Small Grain 64.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.6 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 63.3 Grapes 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 

Subtotal 280.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 282.2 -1.9 -1.9 -1.8 278.4 

Pasture 14.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.2 Alfalfa 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 Sugar Beets 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 Other Field Crops 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 Rice 48.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.9 Truck Crops 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Tomatoes 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Deciduous Orchard 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 Small Grain 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 Grapes 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 

Subtotal 91.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 91.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 90.5 

4567
TABLE 17

IRRIGATED ACREAGE BY SUBREGION

Page 20 of 6

CVPM Preferred Preferred Preferred

Sub- Crop Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative 

region Category Average Wet Dry

Changes Compared to Avg. PA Changes Compared to Wet PA 

Followed by Average Followed by Wet 

Pasture 47.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.9 Alfalfa 12.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 Sugar Beets 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.8 Other Field Crops 42.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.5 Rice 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 Truck Crops 17.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 Tomatoes 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 Deciduous Orchard 46.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.9 Small Grain 29.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.2 Grapes 58.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.9 

Subtotal 284.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 284.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 282.8 

Pasture 24.6 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 24.6 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 23.4 Alfalfa 43.8 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 43.8 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 43.1 Sugar Beets 28.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 28.5 Other Field Crops 114.9 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 115.0 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 113.6 Rice 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 Truck Crops 46.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.0 Tomatoes 42.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.3 Deciduous Orchard 21.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.3 Small Grain 96.8 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 97.5 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 93.7 Grapes 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 

Subtotal 425.0 -0.6 -0.6 -0.4 425.9 -1.5 -1.5 -1.4 418.4 

Pasture 13.3 0.0 0.0 -0.2 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 Alfalfa 40.8 0.0 0.0 -0.3 40.9 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 40.8 Sugar Beets 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 Other Field Crops 48.2 0.0 0.0 -0.1 48.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 48.3 Rice 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 Truck Crops 112.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 112.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 113.0 Tomatoes 40.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.2 Deciduous Orchard 36.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.6 Small Grain 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 14.0 Grapes 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Cotton 103.1 0.0 0.0 -0.5 103.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 103.1 Subtropical Orchard 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 

Subtotal 427.1 0.0 0.0 -1.1 427.2 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 427.1 

Pasture 42.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.7 Alfalfa 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 Sugar Beets 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Other Field Crops 17.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.8 Rice 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 Truck Crops 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 Tomatoes 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 Deciduous Orchard 80.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.8 Small Grain 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 Grapes 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4 

Subtotal 174.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 174.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 173.7 

89

1011
TABLE 17

IRRIGATED ACREAGE BY SUBREGION

Page 21 of 6

CVPM Preferred Preferred Preferred

Sub- Crop Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative 

region Category Average Wet Dry

Changes Compared to Avg. PA Changes Compared to Wet PA 

Followed by Average Followed by Wet 

Pasture 18.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 Alfalfa 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.1 Sugar Beets 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Other Field Crops 41.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.0 Truck Crops 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 Deciduous Orchard 94.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.0 Small Grain 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 Grapes 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 Cotton 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Subtropical Orchard 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 

Subtotal 200.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 200.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 200.1 

Pasture 39.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.9 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 39.5 Alfalfa 41.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 42.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 41.8 Sugar Beets 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 Other Field Crops 54.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 54.6 Rice 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 Truck Crops 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 Tomatoes 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 Deciduous Orchard 135.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 135.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 135.0 Small Grain 46.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 46.4 Grapes 99.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.0 Cotton 71.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 72.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 71.6 Subtropical Orchard 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 

Subtotal 532.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 534.1 -0.9 -0.9 -1.1 531.6 

Pasture 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Alfalfa 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.4 Sugar Beets 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 Other Field Crops 18.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.9 Truck Crops 136.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 136.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 136.2 Tomatoes 77.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 77.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.2 Deciduous Orchard 24.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.9 Small Grain 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 Grapes 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 Cotton 206.5 0.0 0.0 -0.1 206.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 198.8 Subtropical Orchard 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 

Subtotal 500.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 500.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 489.9 

121314
TABLE 17

IRRIGATED ACREAGE BY SUBREGION

Page 22 of 6

CVPM Preferred Preferred Preferred

Sub- Crop Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative 

region Category Average Wet Dry

Changes Compared to Avg. PA Changes Compared to Wet PA 

Followed by Average Followed by Wet 

Pasture 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 Alfalfa 83.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 83.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 80.6 Sugar Beets 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 Other Field Crops 86.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.2 Rice 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Truck Crops 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 Tomatoes 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Deciduous Orchard 38.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.0 Small Grain 71.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.9 Grapes 56.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.0 Cotton 242.1 0.0 0.0 -0.2 242.7 0.0 0.0 -0.1 235.5 Subtropical Orchard 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 

Subtotal 600.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 601.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 585.9 

Pasture 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 6.1 Alfalfa 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 5.1 Other Field Crops 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 6.0 Truck Crops 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 Deciduous Orchard 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 Small Grain 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 Grapes 55.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.0 Cotton 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 Subtropical Orchard 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 

Subtotal 111.4 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 111.8 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 111.3 

Pasture 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 Alfalfa 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 Sugar Beets 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Other Field Crops 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 Truck Crops 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 Tomatoes 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Deciduous Orchard 73.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.0 Small Grain 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 Grapes 109.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 109.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 109.0 Cotton 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 Subtropical Orchard 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.0 

Subtotal 260.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 260.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 255.3 

Pasture 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 Alfalfa 62.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 62.8 -0.3 -0.3 -0.2 59.0 Sugar Beets 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 Other Field Crops 78.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 78.5 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 75.3 Truck Crops 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 Tomatoes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Deciduous Orchard 69.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.0 Small Grain 41.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.4 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 38.8 Grapes 56.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.0 Cotton 170.3 0.0 0.0 -0.1 171.2 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 163.7 Subtropical Orchard 97.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.0 

Subtotal 592.5 0.0 0.0 -0.1 594.9 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 577.2 

15161718
TABLE 17

IRRIGATED ACREAGE BY SUBREGION

Page 23 of 6

CVPM Preferred Preferred Preferred

Sub- Crop Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative 

region Category Average Wet Dry

Changes Compared to Avg. PA Changes Compared to Wet PA 

Followed by Average Followed by Wet 

Pasture 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alfalfa 25.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.2 Sugar Beets 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 Other Field Crops 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 Truck Crops 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 Tomatoes 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 Deciduous Orchard 50.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.9 Small Grain 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 Grapes 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 Cotton 117.9 0.0 0.0 -0.1 117.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 115.1 Subtropical Orchard 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 

Subtotal 253.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 253.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 249.7 

Pasture 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alfalfa 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 Sugar Beets 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Other Field Crops 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 Truck Crops 41.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.9 Tomatoes 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Deciduous Orchard 52.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.0 Small Grain 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 Grapes 33.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 Cotton 33.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.8 Subtropical Orchard 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 

Subtotal 202.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 203.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 199.3 

Pasture 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 Alfalfa 27.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.3 Sugar Beets 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 Other Field Crops 16.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 Rice 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Truck Crops 107.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 107.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 107.8 Tomatoes 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Deciduous Orchard 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 Small Grain 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 Grapes 36.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.9 Cotton 120.8 0.0 0.0 -0.1 120.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 119.3 Subtropical Orchard 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 

Subtotal 359.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 359.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 357.2 

NOTES: 1. All acreage values in thousands. 2. A negative value represents a lower acreage in an alternative than in the Preferred Alternative. 3. Not all 12 crops are grown in all subregions. 4. Subregions 3 and 3B should be added together to get the complete subregion 3. 3B represents the area within this subregion served by the Tehama Colu

211920
TABLE 18

VALUE OF PRODUCTION BY SUBREGION (Million $)

Page 24 of 5

Preferred Preferred Preferred

CVPM Crop Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative Average 

Subregion Category Average Wet Dry

Pasture 2.7 -0.2 0.0 0.0 2.6 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 2.6 -0.3 Alfalfa 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 Other Field Crops 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 Deciduous Orchard 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 Small Grain 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 Subtotal 8.4 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 8.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 8.3 -0.3 Pasture 4.9 0.0 0.0 -0.5 4.9 0.0 0.0 -0.8 4.8 0.0 Alfalfa 5.1 0.0 0.0 -0.2 5.1 0.0 0.0 -0.3 5.0 0.0 Sugar Beets 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 Other Field Crops 7.8 0.0 0.0 -0.2 7.8 0.0 0.0 -0.3 7.7 0.0 Rice 3.8 0.0 0.0 -0.1 3.8 0.0 0.0 -0.3 3.8 0.0 Truck Crops 55.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 55.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 55.1 0.0 Deciduous Orchard 91.3 0.0 0.0 -0.1 91.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 91.3 0.0 Small Grain 4.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 3.9 0.0 0.0 -0.2 3.9 0.0 Subtropical Orchard 14.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.6 0.0 Subtotal 189.5 0.0 0.0 -1.3 189.4 0.0 0.0 -2.1 189.1 0.0 Pasture 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 Alfalfa 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 Sugar Beets 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 Other Field Crops 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 Rice 118.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 118.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 116.2 0.0 Truck Crops 89.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 89.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 89.6 0.0 Tomatoes 37.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.9 0.0 Deciduous Orchard 18.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 Small Grain 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 

Subtotal 298.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 299.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 295.9 0.0 

Pasture 0.8 0.0 0.0 -0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 -0.2 0.6 0.0 Alfalfa 5.4 0.0 0.0 -5.4 5.4 0.0 0.0 -1.4 4.1 0.0 Sugar Beets 4.1 0.0 0.0 -3.9 4.1 0.0 0.0 -2.0 3.8 0.0 Other Field Crops 6.1 0.0 0.0 -6.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 -6.1 4.7 0.0 Rice 8.2 0.0 0.0 -8.2 8.2 0.0 0.0 -8.2 5.2 0.0 Truck Crops 2.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 2.0 0.0 Tomatoes 8.9 0.0 0.0 -5.6 8.9 0.0 0.0 -2.7 8.4 0.0 Deciduous Orchard 28.6 0.0 0.0 -3.5 28.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 0.0 Small Grain 2.4 0.0 0.0 -2.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 -2.4 1.8 0.0 Subtropical Orchard 1.4 0.0 0.0 -0.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 

Subtotal 67.9 0.0 0.0 -36.2 68.1 0.1 0.1 -23.1 60.5 0.0 

Pasture 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Alfalfa 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 Sugar Beets 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 Other Field Crops 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.9 0.0 Rice 74.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.1 0.0 Truck Crops 60.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.8 0.0 Tomatoes 49.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.9 0.0 Deciduous Orchard 32.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.5 0.0 Small Grain 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 

Subtotal 260.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 260.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 259.7 0.0 

Changes Compared to Avg. PA Changes Compared to Wet PA Change

Followed by Average Followed by Wet F

123

3B

4
TABLE 18

VALUE OF PRODUCTION BY SUBREGION (Million $)

Page 25 of 5

Preferred Preferred Preferred

CVPM Crop Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative Average 

Subregion Category Average Wet Dry

Changes Compared to Avg. PA Changes Compared to Wet PA Change

Followed by Average Followed by Wet F

Pasture 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Alfalfa 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 Sugar Beets 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 Other Field Crops 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 Rice 141.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 141.7 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 140.5 -0.1 Truck Crops 23.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.5 0.0 Tomatoes 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 Deciduous Orchard 129.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 129.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 129.1 0.0 Small Grain 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 Subtropical Orchard 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 

Subtotal 320.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 320.5 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 319.1 -0.1 

Pasture 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 1.7 0.0 Alfalfa 16.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 16.8 0.0 Sugar Beets 16.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.3 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 16.2 0.0 Other Field Crops 28.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 28.8 0.0 Rice 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 10.5 0.0 Truck Crops 14.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.1 0.0 Tomatoes 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 70.0 0.0 Deciduous Orchard 26.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.2 0.0 Small Grain 21.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 21.5 0.1 Grapes 13.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 

Subtotal 220.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 221.2 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 219.6 0.0 

Pasture 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 Alfalfa 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 Sugar Beets 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 Other Field Crops 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 Rice 39.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.3 0.0 Truck Crops 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 Tomatoes 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 Deciduous Orchard 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 Small Grain 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 Grapes 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 

Subtotal 62.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.9 0.0 

Pasture 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 Alfalfa 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 Sugar Beets 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 Other Field Crops 20.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.7 0.0 Rice 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 Truck Crops 70.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.9 0.0 Tomatoes 19.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.7 0.0 Deciduous Orchard 49.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.9 0.0 Small Grain 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 Grapes 101.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 101.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 101.7 0.0 

Subtotal 299.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 299.3 0.0 

Pasture 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 3.4 0.1 Alfalfa 25.6 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 25.7 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 25.2 0.2 Sugar Beets 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.9 0.1 Other Field Crops 55.9 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 56.0 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 55.3 0.3 Rice 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 Truck Crops 190.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 190.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 190.6 0.1 Tomatoes 64.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 64.8 0.1 Deciduous Orchard 22.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.7 0.0 Small Grain 30.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.9 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 29.7 0.3 Grapes 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 

Subtotal 426.8 -0.3 -0.3 -0.1 427.2 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 424.2 1.2 

56789
TABLE 18

VALUE OF PRODUCTION BY SUBREGION (Million $)

Page 26 of 5

Preferred Preferred Preferred

CVPM Crop Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative Average 

Subregion Category Average Wet Dry

Changes Compared to Avg. PA Changes Compared to Wet PA Change

Followed by Average Followed by Wet F

Pasture 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 Alfalfa 23.6 0.0 0.0 -0.2 23.6 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 23.6 0.0 Sugar Beets 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 0.0 Other Field Crops 31.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 31.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.0 0.0 Rice 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 Truck Crops 718.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 717.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 718.1 0.0 Tomatoes 60.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.1 0.0 Deciduous Orchard 52.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.4 0.0 Small Grain 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 7.6 0.0 Grapes 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 Cotton 102.6 0.0 0.0 -0.5 102.7 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 102.6 0.0 Subtropical Orchard 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 

Subtotal 1015.1 0.0 0.0 -0.8 1015.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1015.2 0.0 

Pasture 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 Alfalfa 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 Sugar Beets 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 Other Field Crops 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 Rice 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 Truck Crops 40.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 Tomatoes 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 Deciduous Orchard 115.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 115.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 115.8 0.0 Small Grain 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Grapes 19.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.4 0.0 

Subtotal 207.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 207.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 207.5 0.0 

Pasture 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 Alfalfa 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 Sugar Beets 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Other Field Crops 26.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 0.0 Truck Crops 19.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.1 0.0 Deciduous Orchard 134.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 134.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 134.7 0.0 Small Grain 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 Grapes 26.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.2 0.0 Cotton 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Subtropical Orchard 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 

Subtotal 231.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 230.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 230.8 0.0 

Pasture 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 9.2 -0.1 Alfalfa 24.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.3 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 24.2 -0.1 Sugar Beets 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 Other Field Crops 35.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.4 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 35.1 -0.1 Rice 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 Truck Crops 114.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 114.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 114.4 0.0 Tomatoes 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 Deciduous Orchard 193.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 193.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 193.4 0.0 Small Grain 25.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.4 0.0 0.0 -0.1 25.0 0.0 Grapes 184.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 184.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 184.9 0.0 Cotton 71.4 0.0 0.0 -0.1 71.8 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 71.2 -0.2 Subtropical Orchard 34.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.7 0.0 

Subtotal 710.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 711.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.7 709.9 -0.6 

10111213
TABLE 18

VALUE OF PRODUCTION BY SUBREGION (Million $)

Page 27 of 5

Preferred Preferred Preferred

CVPM Crop Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative Average 

Subregion Category Average Wet Dry

Changes Compared to Avg. PA Changes Compared to Wet PA Change

Followed by Average Followed by Wet F

Pasture 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alfalfa 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 Sugar Beets 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 Other Field Crops 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 Truck Crops 817.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 817.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 816.9 0.0 Tomatoes 114.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 114.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 113.3 0.0 Deciduous Orchard 38.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.5 0.0 Small Grain 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 Grapes 15.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.1 0.0 Cotton 234.6 0.0 0.0 -0.1 234.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 225.8 0.0 Subtropical Orchard 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 

Subtotal 1253.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1253.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1241.1 0.0 

Pasture 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 Alfalfa 51.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 51.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.7 0.0 Sugar Beets 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 Other Field Crops 51.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.2 0.0 Rice 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Truck Crops 72.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 72.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.9 0.0 Tomatoes 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Deciduous Orchard 58.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.7 0.0 Small Grain 41.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.7 0.0 Grapes 121.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 121.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 121.7 0.0 Cotton 275.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 275.7 0.0 0.0 -0.1 267.5 0.0 Subtropical Orchard 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 

Subtotal 683.2 0.0 0.0 -0.1 684.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 671.1 0.0 

Pasture 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 Alfalfa 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 Other Field Crops 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 Truck Crops 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 Deciduous Orchard 24.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.7 0.0 Small Grain 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 Grapes 119.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 119.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 119.6 0.0 Cotton 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 5.7 0.0 Subtropical Orchard 33.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.7 0.0 

Subtotal 224.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 224.5 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 224.2 0.0 

Pasture 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 Alfalfa 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 Sugar Beets 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Other Field Crops 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 Truck Crops 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.7 0.0 Tomatoes 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 Deciduous Orchard 112.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 112.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 112.8 0.0 Small Grain 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 Grapes 236.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 236.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 236.9 0.0 Cotton 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 Subtropical Orchard 131.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 131.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 131.0 0.0 

Subtotal 565.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 565.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 562.0 0.0 

Pasture 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 Alfalfa 38.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 38.7 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 36.4 0.0 Sugar Beets 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 Other Field Crops 46.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.7 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 44.8 0.0 Truck Crops 78.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.9 0.0 Tomatoes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Deciduous Orchard 106.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 106.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 106.6 0.0 Small Grain 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.3 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 22.7 0.1 Grapes 121.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 121.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 121.7 0.0 Cotton 193.5 0.0 0.0 -0.1 194.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 186.0 0.0 Subtropical Orchard 363.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 363.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 363.1 0.0 

Subtotal 974.2 0.0 0.0 -0.1 976.1 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 961.5 0.1 

1415161718
TABLE 18

VALUE OF PRODUCTION BY SUBREGION (Million $)

Page 28 of 5

Preferred Preferred Preferred

CVPM Crop Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative Average 

Subregion Category Average Wet Dry

Changes Compared to Avg. PA Changes Compared to Wet PA Change

Followed by Average Followed by Wet F

Pasture 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alfalfa 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.3 0.0 Sugar Beets 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 Other Field Crops 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 Truck Crops 147.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 147.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 147.0 0.0 Tomatoes 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 Deciduous Orchard 80.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.2 0.0 Small Grain 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 Grapes 33.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 0.0 Cotton 125.2 0.0 0.0 -0.1 125.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 122.2 0.0 Subtropical Orchard 17.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 0.0 

Subtotal 433.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 433.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 429.7 0.0 

Pasture 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alfalfa 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 Sugar Beets 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 Other Field Crops 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 Truck Crops 251.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 251.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 251.2 0.0 Tomatoes 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 Deciduous Orchard 81.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.8 0.0 Small Grain 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 Grapes 109.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 109.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 109.1 0.0 Cotton 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.7 0.0 Subtropical Orchard 115.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 115.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 115.6 0.0 

Subtotal 603.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 604.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 600.4 0.0 

Pasture 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Alfalfa 16.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 0.0 Sugar Beets 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 Other Field Crops 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 Rice 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Truck Crops 661.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 661.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 661.3 0.0 Tomatoes 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 Deciduous Orchard 39.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.3 0.0 Small Grain 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 Grapes 122.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 122.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 122.1 0.0 Cotton 128.3 0.0 0.0 -0.1 128.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 126.7 0.0 Subtropical Orchard 59.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.9 0.0 

Subtotal 1047.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1047.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1045.7 0.0 

NOTES: 1. All values in millions of 1992 dollars. 2. A negative value represents a lower gross revenue in an alternative than in the Preferred Alternative. 3. Not all 12 crops are grown in all subregions. 4. Subregions 3 and 3B should be added together to get the complete subregion 3. 3B represents the area within this subregion served by the Tehama Colusa Canal.

211920
TABLE 19

CHANGES IN NET REVENUE BY SUBREGION (Million $)

Page 29 of 3

CVPM Cause of Average Wet Dry Average Wet Dry Average Wet 

Subregion Net Revenue Change

Fallowed Land 1.8 -0.1 0.0 0.0 1.8 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 1.7 -0.1 -0.1 Groundwater Pumping Cost 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.1 0.1 Irrigation Cost 2.3 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -2.3 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -2.3 -0.2 -0.2 CVP Water Cost 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 -0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 -0.7 0.4 0.4 Higher Crop Prices 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Net Change 0.1 0.0 0.0 -1.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 -1.2 0.2 0.2 Fallowed Land 30.1 0.0 0.0 -0.3 30.1 0.0 0.0 -0.4 30.0 0.0 0.0 Groundwater Pumping Cost 20.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 -19.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 -24.6 0.0 0.0 Irrigation Cost 22.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -22.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -21.9 0.0 0.0 CVP Water Cost 0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.1 -0.6 -0.6 -0.2 0.5 -0.1 0.0 0.0 Higher Crop Prices 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Net Change -0.2 0.0 0.0 -12.4 -0.6 -0.2 0.1 -16.5 0.0 0.0 Fallowed Land 39.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.9 0.0 0.0 Groundwater Pumping Cost 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 -14.5 0.0 0.0 Irrigation Cost 21.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 -21.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 -21.0 0.0 0.0 CVP Water Cost 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.6 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -1.4 -0.3 -0.3 Higher Crop Prices 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 Net Change 0.0 0.0 0.3 8.7 -0.2 -0.2 0.0 2.4 -0.3 -0.3 Fallowed Land 11.9 0.0 0.0 -6.4 11.9 0.0 0.0 -3.8 10.6 0.0 0.0 Groundwater Pumping Cost 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.8 1.4 1.4 -4.1 -8.3 0.0 0.0 Irrigation Cost 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -7.7 0.0 0.0 CVP Water Cost 3.7 -0.4 1.4 3.7 -4.2 -4.7 -1.2 4.2 -0.9 0.2 0.2 Higher Crop Prices 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Net Change -0.4 1.4 -2.8 -3.1 -3.3 0.2 -3.7 -6.3 0.2 0.2 Fallowed Land 34.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.1 0.0 0.0 Groundwater Pumping Cost 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 -8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 -13.5 0.0 0.0 Irrigation Cost 20.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 -20.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 -20.1 0.0 0.0 CVP Water Cost 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.3 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -1.1 -0.2 -0.2 Higher Crop Prices 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 Net Change 0.0 0.0 0.3 4.4 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.3 -0.2 -0.2 Fallowed Land 53.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.2 0.0 0.0 Groundwater Pumping Cost 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 -13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -18.7 0.0 0.0 Irrigation Cost 22.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 -22.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 -22.4 0.0 0.0 CVP Water Cost 0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 Higher Crop Prices 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 Net Change -0.3 -0.3 0.0 17.7 -0.3 -0.3 -0.2 12.1 -0.3 -0.3 Fallowed Land 32.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.5 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 32.2 0.0 0.0 Groundwater Pumping Cost 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 -14.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 -17.6 -0.1 -0.1 Irrigation Cost 21.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 -21.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 -21.5 0.0 0.0 CVP Water Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Higher Crop Prices 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 Net Change 0.0 0.0 0.4 -3.6 0.1 0.1 0.3 -6.4 -0.1 -0.1 

Change Compared to Avg.PA Change Compared to Wet PA Change Compared to D

Followed By Average Followed By Wet Followed By Dry

123

3B

456
TABLE 19

CHANGES IN NET REVENUE BY SUBREGION (Million $)

Page 30 of 3

Fallowed Land 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 Groundwater Pumping Cost 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 -6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 -9.1 0.0 0.0 Irrigation Cost 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 -4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 -4.3 0.0 0.0 CVP Water Cost 0.3 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.3 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 Higher Crop Prices 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Net Change -0.1 -0.1 0.0 -1.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 -3.1 -0.1 -0.1 Fallowed Land 46.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.4 0.0 0.0 Groundwater Pumping Cost 30.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 -29.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -35.4 -0.1 -0.1 Irrigation Cost 21.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -21.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -21.0 0.0 0.0 CVP Water Cost 0.3 -0.8 -0.5 -1.6 -0.5 -2.0 -1.2 -2.8 -0.1 -0.3 -0.3 Higher Crop Prices 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 Net Change -0.8 -0.5 -1.3 -4.1 -1.9 -1.0 -2.5 -9.8 -0.3 -0.3 Fallowed Land 52.9 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 52.9 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 52.4 0.2 0.2 Groundwater Pumping Cost 2.5 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -2.1 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -3.2 -0.4 -0.4 Irrigation Cost 34.4 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -34.4 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -33.9 -0.3 -0.3 CVP Water Cost 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 -2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 -0.5 0.5 0.5 Higher Crop Prices 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 Net Change 0.3 0.3 0.7 14.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 15.5 0.0 0.0 Fallowed Land 97.8 0.0 0.0 -0.1 97.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.8 0.0 0.0 Groundwater Pumping Cost 15.4 0.0 0.0 -6.8 -12.5 -8.3 -0.8 -8.6 -20.6 0.0 0.0 Irrigation Cost 38.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 -38.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 -38.9 0.0 0.0 CVP Water Cost 6.3 -0.1 0.4 6.3 -8.1 7.9 0.7 8.1 -3.2 0.2 0.2 Higher Crop Prices 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 Net Change -0.1 0.4 -0.1 38.7 -0.5 0.0 -0.3 36.0 0.2 0.2 Fallowed Land 35.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.4 0.0 0.0 Groundwater Pumping Cost 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.1 0.0 0.0 Irrigation Cost 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -16.0 0.0 0.0 CVP Water Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Higher Crop Prices 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 Net Change 0.0 0.0 0.3 18.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 18.6 0.0 0.0 Fallowed Land 41.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.7 0.0 0.0 Groundwater Pumping Cost 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 -8.4 0.0 0.0 Irrigation Cost 19.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 -19.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 -19.8 0.0 0.0 CVP Water Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Higher Crop Prices 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 Net Change 0.0 0.0 0.3 17.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 13.7 0.0 0.0 Fallowed Land 112.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 112.3 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 112.1 -0.1 -0.1 Groundwater Pumping Cost 38.4 0.8 0.7 -2.7 -33.9 1.6 1.6 -4.9 -50.7 0.2 0.2 Irrigation Cost 53.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 -53.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 -53.6 0.0 0.0 CVP Water Cost 6.8 -0.8 -0.6 2.1 -6.4 -1.7 -1.5 4.3 -5.4 -0.2 -0.2 Higher Crop Prices 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 Net Change 0.0 0.1 -0.1 18.7 -0.1 0.0 -0.5 3.3 -0.1 -0.1 Fallowed Land 111.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 111.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 110.3 0.0 0.0 Groundwater Pumping Cost 81.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -58.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 -118.6 0.0 0.0 Irrigation Cost 62.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 -62.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 -61.1 0.0 0.0 CVP Water Cost 32.8 1.3 3.5 -6.0 -45.1 1.8 6.4 -5.5 -14.4 -6.3 -6.3 Higher Crop Prices 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 Net Change 1.3 3.5 -5.6 -53.9 1.8 6.4 -5.3 -82.6 -6.3 -6.3 

789

1011121314
TABLE 19

CHANGES IN NET REVENUE BY SUBREGION (Million $)

Page 31 of 3

Fallowed Land 94.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 92.6 0.0 0.0 Groundwater Pumping Cost 81.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -69.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 -102.9 -1.5 -1.5 Irrigation Cost 61.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 -61.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 -60.3 0.0 0.0 CVP Water Cost 1.8 -0.3 -0.2 -0.4 -1.9 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -1.5 -0.4 -0.4 Higher Crop Prices 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 Net Change -0.3 -0.2 0.1 -38.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 -70.7 -1.9 -1.9 Fallowed Land 37.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.3 0.0 0.0 Groundwater Pumping Cost 1.9 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 0.0 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -4.3 -0.5 -0.5 Irrigation Cost 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -11.0 0.0 0.0 CVP Water Cost 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 -0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 -0.5 0.5 0.5 Higher Crop Prices 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Net Change 0.0 0.0 0.1 25.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 21.6 0.0 0.0 Fallowed Land 95.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.2 0.0 0.0 Groundwater Pumping Cost 17.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 -12.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 -25.5 0.0 0.0 Irrigation Cost 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 -27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 -27.4 0.0 0.0 CVP Water Cost 1.4 -0.1 -0.1 -0.3 -1.2 -0.4 -0.3 -0.5 -1.1 0.0 0.0 Higher Crop Prices 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Net Change 0.0 0.1 0.1 54.2 0.0 0.0 -0.1 41.5 0.0 0.0 Fallowed Land 153.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 153.9 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 151.9 0.0 0.0 Groundwater Pumping Cost 57.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 -46.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 -78.0 0.0 0.0 Irrigation Cost 64.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 -65.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -63.2 0.0 0.0 CVP Water Cost 17.7 -1.5 -1.0 -3.3 -17.7 -2.2 -1.7 -3.9 -15.2 0.8 0.8 Higher Crop Prices 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 Net Change -1.5 -1.0 -2.9 25.3 -2.1 -1.6 -3.7 -3.4 0.8 0.8 Fallowed Land 54.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.9 0.0 0.0 Groundwater Pumping Cost 31.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 -21.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 -51.5 -1.2 -1.2 Irrigation Cost 28.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 -28.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 -28.3 0.0 0.0 CVP Water Cost 0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.6 -0.6 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 Higher Crop Prices 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 Net Change -0.5 -0.5 -0.3 3.9 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -25.7 -1.8 -1.8 Fallowed Land 81.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.0 0.0 0.0 Groundwater Pumping Cost 24.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 -19.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 -36.6 -0.2 -0.2 Irrigation Cost 20.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 -20.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 -20.5 0.0 0.0 CVP Water Cost 9.2 -0.1 0.2 -0.9 -9.5 -0.3 -0.1 -1.1 -7.0 -0.2 -0.2 Higher Crop Prices 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Net Change -0.1 0.2 -0.8 31.5 -0.3 0.0 -1.1 17.2 -0.3 -0.3 Fallowed Land 112.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 112.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 112.1 0.0 0.0 Groundwater Pumping Cost 49.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 -37.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 -68.4 -0.8 -0.8 Irrigation Cost 37.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -37.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -36.8 0.0 0.0 CVP Water Cost 8.4 0.1 0.3 -0.5 -9.6 0.2 0.5 -0.4 -5.5 -0.7 -0.7 Higher Crop Prices 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 Net Change 0.1 0.3 -0.3 28.5 0.4 0.7 -0.1 2.1 -1.5 -1.5 Fallowed Land -0.1 0.0 -6.8 1100.4 -0.4 -0.3 -4.6 1093.0 -0.2 -0.2 Groundwater Pumping 0.4 0.4 -9.9 -364.0 -4.4 3.1 -16.6 -616.9 -4.0 -4.0 Irrigation Cost -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -503.5 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -496.0 -0.3 -0.3 CVP Water Cost -1.3 4.3 2.3 -91.1 0.0 2.9 6.5 -42.5 -8.0 -7.9 Higher Crop Prices 0.1 0.0 4.7 4.1 0.4 0.4 1.9 8.6 0.0 0.0 Net Change -1.1 4.4 -10.0 146.0 -4.6 5.8 -13.2 -53.9 -12.4 -12.4 

Notes:1. All values in millions of 1992 dollars2. A negative value represents a reduction in net revenue compared to the Preferred Alternative3. Subregions 3 and 3B should be added together to get the complete subregion 3. 3B represents the area within this subregion 

served by the Tehama Colusa Canal

4. PA is the Preferred Alternative

151621

Total

17181920
TABLE 20

IRRIGATION WATER APPLIED BY SUBREGION

Preferred Preferred Preferred

CVPM Water Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative Average Wet Dry Alternative Avera

Subregion Source Average Wet Dry

CVP Water 19.3 -10.8 -6.4 -5.4 20.5 -13.0 -13.0 -13.0 21.0 Groundwater 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 CVP Water 27.7 0.0 0.0 -21.6 37.1 0.0 0.1 -36.7 8.2 Groundwater 512.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 506.4 0.0 -0.1 0.0 584.7 CVP Water 170.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 174.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 154.3 Groundwater 248.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 227.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 355.3 CVP Water 199.6 0.1 0.0 -199.6 227.0 39.3 39.1 -227.0 50.3 Groundwater 78.7 -0.1 0.0 0.0 50.4 -38.4 -38.2 99.6 191.9 CVP Water 129.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 133.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 113.9 Groundwater 326.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 305.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 442.8 CVP Water 19.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 20.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 17.9 Groundwater 492.6 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 449.3 -1.1 -1.0 -0.4 588.7 CVP Water 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 Groundwater 452.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 447.6 -6.4 -6.4 -6.0 521.0 CVP Water 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.1 Groundwater 193.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 177.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 217.5 CVP Water 51.6 0.1 0.0 -0.1 79.4 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 25.3 Groundwater 756.4 -0.1 0.0 0.1 717.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 851.3 CVP Water 28.2 -28.2 -28.2 -28.2 48.1 -48.1 -48.1 -48.1 11.5 Groundwater 80.3 17.9 17.9 18.7 70.2 35.6 35.6 36.0 100.1 CVP Water 183.4 0.0 0.0 -183.4 234.4 -228.4 -22.8 -234.4 92.1 Groundwater 496.2 0.0 0.0 179.4 414.4 227.7 22.7 233.7 632.4 CVP Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Groundwater 34.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.5 CVP Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Groundwater 173.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 141.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 228.2 CVP Water 163.6 16.7 16.6 -60.2 159.0 33.2 33.1 -113.1 128.2 Groundwater 912.5 -16.7 -16.6 60.2 812.0 -36.2 -36.2 109.1 1,181.4 CVP Water 524.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 719.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 230.2 Groundwater 826.3 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 603.6 -0.1 0.0 0.0 1,176.4 CVP Water 35.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 38.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 28.6 Groundwater 1,276.6 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 1,099.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,600.7 CVP Water 16.2 -16.2 -16.2 -16.2 15.7 -15.7 -15.7 -15.7 12.9 Groundwater 49.6 14.9 14.8 15.0 0.0 13.2 13.2 13.2 107.3 CVP Water 34.6 3.9 3.8 4.0 32.5 7.4 7.3 7.4 27.1 Groundwater 415.1 -3.8 -3.8 -3.9 303.2 -7.4 -7.2 -7.4 577.4 CVP Water 517.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 526.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 399.0 Groundwater 1,018.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 821.8 -4.0 -4.0 -3.8 1,334.9 CVP Water 13.3 -0.1 0.0 0.1 15.4 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 9.4 Groundwater 366.8 0.1 0.0 -0.1 250.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 578.4 CVP Water 208.7 0.1 0.1 -0.2 219.8 0.1 0.1 -0.1 154.1 Groundwater 303.6 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 244.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 437.3 CVP Water 138.3 0.0 0.0 -0.1 163.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 89.3 Groundwater 579.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 445.2 0.0 -0.1 0.0 783.1 CVP Water 2,505.5 -34.4 -30.4 -510.5 2,888.2 -224.9 -19.8 -680.6 1,593.9 Groundwater 9,596.5 11.9 12.3 269.2 8,114.6 182.8 -21.6 474.0 12,527.1 

Notes:1. All quantities in thousands of acre-feet2. A negative value represents a lower quantitity than in the Preferred Alternative3. Subregions 3 and 3B should be added together to get the complete subregion 3. 3B represents the area within this subregion served by the Tehama Colusa Canal

4. PA is the Preferred Alternative

Changes Compared to Average PA Changes Compared to Wet PA Cha

Followed by Average Followed by Wet 

123

3B

456789

1011121314151621

Total

17181920
TABLE 21

SUBREGION ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN WATER USE

Subregion Outcome Explanation

1 Decrease in CVP use and no GW substitution in all sequences Less CVP water is used than in the Preferred Alternative because the blended price is 140% to 330% 

Alternative Tier 1 ( the only tier of water that was used for this scenario). For hydrologic reasons, subswitching to groundwater.

2

Decrease in CVP use and no GW substitution in Dry to Average and Dry to Wet sequences

Less CVP water is used than in the Preferred Alternative because the blended prices for the Dry to Asequences are 320% and 345% higher than the Preferred Alternative Tier 1 price (the only water tier 

For hydrologic reasons, subregion 2 is restricted from switching to groundwater.

3B Decrease CVP and no GW substitution in Dry to Average sequence Less CVP water is used than in the Preferred Alternative because the blended price is 240% higher t

Preferred Alternative, which is the only tier of water that was used. For hydrologic reasons the region groundwater in this long-run scenario.

3B Decrease in CVP use and GW substitution in Dry to Wet sequence CVP water use decreases because the blended price is 260% higher than the Preferred Alternative T

shift to groundwater on a short run basis to provide water to permanent crops during the wet year whrecharged.

3B

Shift from Groundwater to CVP water in Average to Wet and Wet to Wet sequences

In the Preferred Alternative wet year analysis subregion 3B has 39 TAF of water that falls in Tiers 2 opricing mechanism all of the subregions CVP water is prices at a level that is lower than the Preferreadditional affordable CVP water is used resulting in a less groundwater being pumped.

9 Shift from CVP to Groundwater in all 

sequences

The blended price of CVP water in subregion 9 is greater than the groundwater pumping cost resultingroundwater.

10

Shift from CVP to Groundwater in Dry to Average and Average, Wet and Dry to Wet sequences

Due to an increase in the CVP price relative to the Preferred Alternative, the depth to which groundwincreases resulting in the shift from CVP supplies to groundwater.

13

Shift from groundwater to CVP in Average to Average, Wet to Average, Average to Wet and Wet to Wet sequences

In the Preferred Alternative Average and Wet conditions subregion 13 had water classified as Tier 2 affordable, and pumped groundwater to supplement it's Tier 1 supply down to a depth at which it waLTCR sequences, the blended price is less expensive than the Preferred Alternative upper Tier pricedeepest groundwater to the now affordable CVP supply. 

13 Shift from CVP to Groundwater in Dry to Average and Dry to Wet sequences

Under the LTCR blended price mechanism, when coming out of a drought into a Average or Wet yea

these situations, shallow groundwater is less expensive than the CVP blended price. As more grounincreases as the pump lift increases and the cost eventually becomes greater than the CVP blended 

remainder of the subregions water supply is taken from the CVP supplies.

16 Shift from CVP to Groundwater in all 

sequences

The blended price of CVP water in subregion 16 is greater than the groundwater pumping cost resultgroundwater.

17 Shift from groundwater to CVP

In the Preferred Alternative Average and Wet conditions this subregion had water classified as Tier 2 affordable. The subregion pumped groundwater down to a depth at which it was no longer affordable was able to afford. In the LTCR sequences, the blended price is less expensive than the least expentherefor a shift is made from the deepest groundwater to the now affordable CVP supply. 

19 Shift from CVP to Groundwater in Dry to Dry sequence The blended pricing causes the Dry to Dry CVP water cost to rise higher than the groundwater pump

CVP to groundwater.
SECTION 2 

REGIONAL ECONOMICS 
REGIONAL ECONOMICS 

This analysis identifies the regional economic impacts of two out of the nine total Long Term 

Contract Renewal sequences; an Average year following an Average 5-year base condition, 

and a Average year following a Dry 5-year base condition. The regional economic analysis is 

restricted to these sequences because they are the only sequences that represent long-run 

conditions. The Input-Output model used in the regional economic analysis assumes a long 

run equilibrium is reached, therefore it is inappropriate to model short run responses 

represented by the Wet and Dry year conditions. While the Average year following the Dry 

5-year base condition is not strictly a long-run scenario, as described in the Agricultural and 

Land Use and Economics section, there are some regions that will be permanently impacted 

by a five year series of drought years. Because of this, the results can be considered long run. 

The assumptions and baseline data used in this analysis are the same as what was used in the 

Preferred Alternative. Tables 23 and 24 show the results of the Average year following an 

Average 5-year base condition, Tables 25 and 26 the Average year following an Wet 5-year 

base condition, and Tables 27 and 28 the Average year following an Dry 5-year base 

condition. Tables 23, 25, and 27 present the impacts by economic sectors that are 

aggregations of SIC industries. Tables 24, 26, and 28 present the regional economic impacts 

broken out by the source of the impact including reduced agricultural output, changes in net 

farm income, and changes in M&I water costs. Note that regional economic impacts are not 

reported for the North Coast or the Central and South Coast regions because the rolling five 

year average tiered pricing mechanism has no impact on these regions. 

AVERAGE YEAR FOLLOWING AVERAGE 5-YEAR BASE CONDITION 

Table 23 shows the employment, output and income effects on all sectors in each 

regional economy of the long-term contract renewals. Most of the impacts are felt in the 

Manufacturing, Trade and Services sectors. These impacts are derived from the impact 

to net income. The economic impacts by region from each source can be seen in Table 24. 

Reduction in net income resulting from changes in CVP water cost, groundwater pumping, 

irrigation costs and changes in crop prices have the greatest impact at the statewide level. 

AVERAGE YEAR FOLLOWING DRY 5-YEAR BASE CONDITION 

Table 27 shows the employment, output and income effects for each regional economy 

and the State as a whole broken out by the impacted sectors. Table 28 shows how each of 

the impact sources contribute to the total impact. The reduction in agricultural output in the 

Sacramento River region relative to the Preferred Alternative dominates the Statewide 

impact. 
Region Directly Impacted Direct Total Direct Total Direct T

Sacramento RiverAgriculture Reduced Output -10 -20 -0.5 -1.2 -0.2  Reduced Net Income -20 -50 -0.9 -2.3 -0.5 Total Agriculture -30 -60 -1.4 -3.5 -0.7 M&I Water Costs -60 -130 -3.9 -8.5 -2.0 

TOTAL 1/ -90 -190 -5.3 -12.0 -2.8 

San Joaquin RiverAgriculture Reduced Output 0 0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.1  Reduced Net Income 20 40 0.8 1.8 0.5 Total Agriculture 20 30 0.7 1.5 0.4 M&I Water Costs -80 -150 -5.0 -9.4 -2.6 

TOTAL 1/ -60 -120 -4.3 -7.9 -2.2 

Tulare LakeAgriculture Reduced Output 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Reduced Net Income -50 -80 -2.1 -4.1 -1.1 Total Agriculture -50 -80 -2.1 -4.1 -1.1 M&I Water Costs 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TOTAL 1/ -50 -80 -2.1 -4.1 -1.1 

Bay AreaAgriculture Reduced Output 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Reduced Net Income 0 -10 -0.2 -0.4 -0.1 Total Agriculture 0 -10 -0.2 -0.4 -0.1 M&I Water Costs -60 -130 -4.4 -9.4 -2.4 

TOTAL 1/ -60 -130 -4.6 -9.8 -2.5 

California TotalAgriculture Reduced Output -10 -20 -0.7 -1.5 -0.3  Reduced Net Income -50 -100 -2.3 -5.0 -1.2 Total Agriculture -60 -120 -3.0 -6.5 -1.6 M&I Water Costs -200 -410 -13.3 -27.4 -7.0 

TOTAL 1/ -260 -530 -16.3 -33.9 -8.6 

Employment (# of jobs) Output ($MM) PoW Income ($MM

Note: (1) May differ from sum of elements due to rounding.

TABLE 22

REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON ALL SECTORS: AVERAGE YEAR FOLLOWING AVERAGE 5-YEAR

 BASE CONDITION COMPARED TO THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AVERAGE YEAR CONDITION

Impacts on all Sectors
TABLE 23

REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACT: AVERAGE YEAR FOLLOWING AVERAGE 5-YEAR BASE CONDITION C

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AVERAGE YEAR CONDITION

Page 35 of 2

Region and Affected Sector Direct Total Direct Total Direct Sacramento RiverAgric., Frst., Fish. -10 -10 -0.4 -0.5 -0.2 Mining 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Construction 0 0 0.0 -0.2 0.0 Manufacturing -10 -20 -1.6 -2.2 -0.6 TCU 0 -10 -0.2 -0.9 -0.1 Trade -40 -70 -1.1 -2.1 -0.7 FIRE -10 -20 -0.8 -2.6 -0.5 Services -20 -60 -0.9 -2.8 -0.6 Government 0 -10 -0.2 -0.7 -0.1 Misc 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TOTAL/1 -90 -190 -5.3 -12.0 -2.8 

San Joaquin RiverAgric., Frst., Fish. 0 -10 -0.2 -0.3 -0.1 Mining 0 0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 Construction 0 0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 Manufacturing -10 -10 -0.8 -1.1 -0.2 TCU 0 -10 -0.3 -0.6 -0.2 Trade -10 -30 -0.4 -1.1 -0.2 FIRE -10 -20 -1.1 -2.1 -0.7 Services -30 -50 -1.2 -2.2 -0.7 Government 0 0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.1 Misc 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TOTAL/1 -60 -120 -4.3 -7.9 -2.2 

Tulare LakeAgric., Frst., Fish. 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mining 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Construction 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Manufacturing -10 -10 -1.0 -1.3 -0.4 TCU 0 0 0.0 -0.2 0.0 Trade -40 -50 -1.0 -1.4 -0.7 FIRE 0 0 0.0 -0.4 0.0 Services 0 -10 0.0 -0.6 0.0 Government 0 0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 Misc 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TOTAL/1 -50 -80 -2.1 -4.1 -1.1 

Employment (# of jobs) Output ($MM) PoW Income ($
TABLE 23

REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACT: AVERAGE YEAR FOLLOWING AVERAGE 5-YEAR BASE CONDITION C

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AVERAGE YEAR CONDITION

Page 36 of 2

Region and Affected Sector Direct Total Direct Total Direct 

Employment (# of jobs) Output ($MM) PoW Income ($

Bay AreaAgric., Frst., Fish. 0 0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 Mining 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Construction 0 0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 Manufacturing -10 -10 -1.2 -1.9 -0.4 TCU 0 -10 -0.3 -0.8 -0.2 Trade -20 -40 -0.9 -1.7 -0.5 FIRE -10 -20 -1.0 -2.3 -0.6 Services -20 -50 -1.1 -2.6 -0.7 Government 0 0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.1 Misc 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TOTAL/1 -60 -130 -4.6 -9.8 -2.5 

California TotalAgric., Frst., Fish. -10 -20 -0.6 -0.9 -0.3 Mining 0 0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 Construction 0 -10 0.0 -0.5 0.0 Manufacturing -30 -50 -4.7 -6.5 -1.6 TCU -10 -20 -0.8 -2.5 -0.4 Trade -110 -190 -3.4 -6.3 -2.2 FIRE -20 -60 -2.9 -7.4 -1.8 Services -70 -180 -3.2 -8.1 -1.9 Government 0 -10 -0.6 -1.4 -0.3 Misc 0 0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 

TOTAL/1 -260 -530 -16.3 -33.9 -8.6 

Note:(1) May differ from sum of elements due to rounding.
Region Directly Impacted Direct Total Direct Total Direct Tot

Sacramento RiverAgriculture Reduced Output 0 -10 -0.4 -0.8 -0.2  Reduced Net Income 30 50 1.0 2.6 0.5 Total Agriculture 20 40 0.6 1.8 0.4 M&I Water Costs -60 -130 -3.9 -8.5 -2.0 

TOTAL 1/ -40 -90 -3.3 -6.7 -1.6 

San Joaquin RiverAgriculture Reduced Output 0 0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.1  Reduced Net Income 100 170 3.7 8.1 2.1 Total Agriculture 90 160 3.6 7.8 2.0 M&I Water Costs -80 -150 -5.0 -9.4 -2.6 

TOTAL 1/ 20 10 -1.4 -1.6 -0.6 

Tulare LakeAgriculture Reduced Output 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Reduced Net Income -30 -40 -1.1 -2.1 -0.6 Total Agriculture -30 -40 -1.1 -2.1 -0.6 M&I Water Costs 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TOTAL 1/ -30 -40 -1.1 -2.1 -0.6 

Bay AreaAgriculture Reduced Output 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Reduced Net Income 0 0 -0.1 -0.2 0.0 Total Agriculture 0 0 -0.1 -0.2 0.0 M&I Water Costs -60 -130 -4.4 -9.4 -2.4 

TOTAL 1/ -60 -130 -4.5 -9.6 -2.5 

California TotalAgriculture Reduced Output 0 -10 -0.5 -1.1 -0.2  Reduced Net Income 100 180 3.6 8.4 2.0 Total Agriculture 100 170 3.0 7.3 1.7 M&I Water Costs -200 -410 -13.3 -27.4 -7.0 

TOTAL 1/ -100 -240 -10.3 -20.1 -5.3 

Employment (# of jobs) Output ($MM) PoW Income ($MM

Note: (1) May differ from sum of elements due to rounding.

TABLE 24

REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON ALL SECTORS: AVERAGE YEAR FOLLOWING WET 5-YE

 BASE CONDITION COMPARED TO THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AVERAGE YEAR CONDIT

Impacts on all Sectors
Region and Affected Sector Direct Total Direct Total Direct Total

Sacramento River

Agric., Frst., Fish. 0 -10 -0.2 -0.3 -0.1 -0.2

Mining 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Construction 0 0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -0.1

Manufacturing 0 -10 -0.7 -0.9 -0.2 -0.3

TCU 0 0 -0.2 -0.6 -0.1 -0.3

Trade 0 -10 -0.2 -0.7 0.0 -0.3

FIRE -10 -20 -0.8 -1.8 -0.5 -1.1

Services -20 -40 -0.9 -1.9 -0.6 -1.1

Government 0 0 -0.2 -0.5 -0.1 -0.2

Misc 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL/1 -40 -90 -3.3 -6.7 -1.6 -3.6

San Joaquin River

Agric., Frst., Fish. 0 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1

Mining 0 0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0

Construction 0 0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0

Manufacturing 10 10 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.4

TCU 0 0 -0.3 -0.4 -0.2 -0.2

Trade 60 60 1.0 1.1 0.8 0.9

FIRE -10 -10 -1.1 -1.2 -0.7 -0.8

Services -30 -30 -1.2 -1.2 -0.7 -0.7

Government 0 0 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1

Misc 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL/1 20 10 -1.4 -1.6 -0.6 -0.7

Tulare Lake

Agric., Frst., Fish. 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mining 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Construction 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Manufacturing 0 -10 -0.5 -0.7 -0.2 -0.7

TCU 0 0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -0.1

Trade -20 -30 -0.5 -0.7 -0.4 -0.7

FIRE 0 0 0.0 -0.2 0.0 -0.2

Services 0 -10 0.0 -0.3 0.0 -0.3

Government 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Misc 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL/1 -30 -40 -1.1 -2.1 -0.6 -2.1

Bay Area

Agric., Frst., Fish. 0 0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0

Mining 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Construction 0 0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -0.1

Manufacturing -10 -10 -1.2 -1.9 -0.4 -0.7

TCU 0 -10 -0.3 -0.8 -0.2 -0.4

Trade -20 -40 -0.8 -1.6 -0.5 -1.0

FIRE -10 -10 -1.0 -2.2 -0.6 -1.5

Services -20 -50 -1.1 -2.6 -0.7 -1.6

Government 0 0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.1 -0.1

Misc 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL/1 -60 -130 -4.5 -9.6 -2.5 -5.5

California Total

Agric., Frst., Fish. -10 -10 -0.4 -0.7 -0.2 -0.3

Mining 0 0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0

Construction 0 0 0.0 -0.3 0.0 -0.2

Manufacturing -10 -10 -1.7 -2.7 -0.5 -1.2

TCU -10 -10 -0.8 -1.8 -0.4 -1.0

Trade 20 -20 -0.5 -1.9 -0.1 -1.2

FIRE -20 -40 -2.9 -5.5 -1.8 -3.6

Services -70 -130 -3.2 -5.9 -1.9 -3.8

Government 0 -10 -0.6 -1.0 -0.3 -0.5

Misc 0 0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1

TOTAL/1 -100 -250 -10.3 -20.1 -5.3 -12.0

Note:(1) May differ from sum of elements due to rounding.

TABLE 25

REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACT: AVERAGE YEAR FOLLOWING WET 5-YEAR BASE CONDITION

COMPARED TO THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AVERAGE YEAR CONDITION

Employment (# of jobs) Output ($MM) PoW Income ($MM)
Region Directly Impacted Direct Total Direct Total Direct Tot

Sacramento RiverAgriculture Reduced Output -700 -2240 -92.1 -194.5 -30.8  Reduced Net Income 130 240 4.7 12.4 2.6 Total Agriculture -570 -2000 -87.4 -182.1 -28.2 M&I Water Costs -60 -140 0.4 -0.9 -0.2 

TOTAL 1/ -630 -2140 -91.8 -191.6 -30.5 

San Joaquin RiverAgriculture Reduced Output -10 -20 -0.7 -1.5 -0.3  Reduced Net Income -140 -240 -5.4 -11.7 -3.0 Total Agriculture -150 -270 -6.1 -13.2 -3.3 M&I Water Costs -80 -150 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TOTAL 1/ -230 -420 -11.0 -22.7 -5.9 

Tulare LakeAgriculture Reduced Output 0 -10 -0.2 -0.5 -0.1  Reduced Net Income -100 -170 -3.6 -7.1 -1.9 Total Agriculture -100 -170 -3.8 -7.6 -2.0 M&I Water Costs 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TOTAL 1/ -100 -170 -4.4 -8.8 -2.3 

Bay AreaAgriculture Reduced Output 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Reduced Net Income -10 -20 -0.6 -1.4 -0.3 Total Agriculture -10 -20 -0.6 -1.4 -0.3 M&I Water Costs -60 -130 -0.5 -1.1 -0.3 

TOTAL 1/ -70 -150 -5.0 -10.8 -2.8 

California TotalAgriculture Reduced Output -710 -2270 -93.0 -196.5 -31.2  Reduced Net Income -120 -190 -4.8 -7.8 -2.6 Total Agriculture -830 -2460 -97.8 -204.3 -33.8 M&I Water Costs -200 -420 -0.1 -1.9 -0.5 

TOTAL 1/ -1030 -2880 -112.2 -233.8 -41.4 

Employment (# of jobs) Output ($MM) PoW Income ($MM

Note: (1) May differ from sum of elements due to rounding.

TABLE 26

REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON ALL SECTORS: AVERAGE YEAR FOLLOWING DRY 5-YE

 BASE CONDITION COMPARED TO THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AVERAGE YEAR CONDIT

Impacts on all Sectors
Region and Affected Sector Direct Total Direct Total Direct Total

Region and Affected Sector Direct Total Direct Total Direct Total

Sacramento River

Agric., Frst., Fish. -450 -630 -26.1 -33.0 -13.4 -16.6

Mining 0 0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0

Construction 0 -30 0.0 -2.1 0.0 -1.2

Manufacturing -230 -290 -64.9 -73.1 -16.9 -19.8

TCU 0 -120 -0.2 -16.8 -0.1 -7.5

Trade 90 -310 1.6 -13.8 1.2 -8.1

FIRE -10 -200 -0.9 -22.7 -0.5 -14.6

Services -20 -500 -1.0 -22.8 -0.6 -13.8

Government 0 -50 -0.2 -7.2 -0.1 -3.5

Misc 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL/1 -630 -2130 -91.8 -191.6 -30.5 -85.2

San Joaquin River

Agric., Frst., Fish. -10 -20 -0.8 -1.2 -0.4 -0.5

Mining 0 0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0

Construction 0 0 0.0 -0.3 0.0 -0.1

Manufacturing -30 -40 -3.8 -5.1 -1.4 -1.9

TCU 0 -10 -0.3 -1.2 -0.2 -0.6

Trade -140 -210 -3.6 -5.8 -2.4 -3.7

FIRE -10 -30 -1.1 -4.2 -0.7 -2.7

Services -30 -100 -1.2 -4.3 -0.7 -2.6

Government 0 -10 -0.2 -0.5 -0.1 -0.2

Misc 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL/1 -230 -420 -11.0 -22.7 -5.9 -12.4

Tulare Lake

Agric., Frst., Fish. 0 -10 -0.3 -0.4 -0.1 -0.4

Mining 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Construction 0 0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -0.1

Manufacturing -20 -20 -2.1 -2.7 -0.7 -2.7

TCU 0 0 0.0 -0.4 0.0 -0.4

Trade -80 -110 -2.1 -2.9 -1.5 -2.9

FIRE 0 -10 0.0 -0.9 0.0 -0.9

Services 0 -30 0.0 -1.2 0.0 -1.2

Government 0 0 0.0 -0.2 0.0 -0.2

Misc 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL/1 -100 -170 -4.4 -8.8 -2.3 -8.8

Bay Area

Agric., Frst., Fish. 0 0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0

Mining 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Construction 0 0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -0.1

Manufacturing -10 -10 -1.4 -2.2 -0.5 -0.8

TCU 0 -10 -0.3 -0.8 -0.2 -0.4

Trade -30 -50 -1.1 -2.0 -0.7 -1.3

FIRE -10 -20 -1.0 -2.4 -0.6 -1.6

Services -20 -60 -1.1 -2.8 -0.7 -1.8

Government 0 0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.1 -0.2

Misc 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL/1 -70 -150 -5.0 -10.8 -2.8 -6.2

California Total

Agric., Frst., Fish. -470 -660 -27.2 -34.6 -13.9 -17.5

Mining 0 0 -0.1 -0.2 0.0 -0.1

Construction 0 -40 0.0 -2.6 0.0 -1.5

Manufacturing -290 -370 -72.2 -83.1 -19.6 -25.2

TCU -10 -140 -0.8 -19.3 -0.4 -8.9

Trade -170 -680 -5.0 -24.5 -3.3 -16.0

FIRE -20 -260 -2.9 -30.2 -1.8 -19.8

Services -70 -680 -3.3 -31.1 -2.0 -19.3

Government 0 -60 -0.6 -8.2 -0.3 -4.1

Misc 0 0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1

TOTAL/1 -1030 -2880 -112.2 -233.8 -41.4 -112.5

Note:(1) May differ from sum of elements due to rounding.

TABLE 27

REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACT: AVERAGE YEAR FOLLOWING DRY 5-YEAR BASE CONDITION

COMPARED TO THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AVERAGE YEAR CONDITION

Employment (# of jobs) Output ($MM) PoW Income ($MM)
SECTION 3 

MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER USE ECONOMICS 
Municipal and Industrial Economics 59 

MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS 

The municipal and industrial economics analysis is based upon the Average-Average tiered 

pricing scenario. This analysis is based upon the impacts to CVP contractors. This is different 

than the municipal and industrial economic analysis that was included in the PEIS. 

The PEIS municipal and industrial water cost analysis primarily evaluated the impacts on the 

need and cost to transfer water to non-CVP municipalities. Therefore, the analysis included 

water costs for many non-CVP water users. For example, the municipality in the San Joaquin 

River Basin was based upon the Cities of Stockton and Fresno water costs which are not based 

on CVP water, as described in the Municipal Water Costs Methodology and Modeling Technical 

Appendix to the PEIS. 

The analysis included in the following table is based only on CVP contractors in order to define 

the cost of CVP water under the Tiered Water Pricing proposal. 
APPENDIX D 

7 Comment Letters (December 2000) 

Comment letters were considered in the preparation of the 

Revised Draft EA 

Distribution List for the Revised Draft EA (2004) 

SCH Letter 

















CCWD Long Term Renewal Contract 

Final EA-Appendix D 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Revised DEA/Draft FONSI - December 2004

Office of Planning and Research-State Clearinghouse (SCH) 

1400 Tenth Street 

 P.O. Box 3044 

Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 

(Refer to letter dated January 13, 2005 and list of 14 agencies provided the opportunity to review) 

Contra Costa Water District 

Attention: Mr. Jeff Quimby 

1331 Concord Avenue 

P.O. Box H20 

Concord, CA 94524 

 

U.S. EPA 

Environment Review Office 

Attention: Laura Fuji 

Compliance and Ecosystem Division 

75 Hawthorn Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

U. S. Department of Interior 

Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance 

1111 Jackson Street, Suite 520 

Oakland, CA 94607 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

111 Sutter Street, FL 20 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Golden Gate Audubon Society 

2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G 

Berkeley, CA 94702 

 

Trinity County Planning Department 

P.O. Box 156 

Hayfork, CA 96041 

Friends of Trinity River 

P.O. Box 2327 

Mill Valley, CA 94942-2327 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Water Rights and Contracts Branch 

ATTN: Dick Stevenson, MP-400 

2800 Cottage Way 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Tracy Field Office 

ATTN: Eileen Jones 

16650 Kelso Road 

Byron, CA 94514-1909