A Simulation-Optimization Model for 

Water-Resources Management, 

Santa Barbara, California

ByTRACY NISHIKAWA

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4246

Prepared in cooperation with the 

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

en

1 H

o

Sacramento, California 

1998
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Thomas J. Casadevall, Acting Director

The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes 

only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey.

For additional information write to:

District Chief

U.S. Geological Survey

Placer Hall, Suite 2012

6000 J Street

Sacramento, CA 95819-6129

Copies of this report can be purchased 

from:

U.S. Geological Survey 

Information Services 

Box 25286 

Federal Center 

Denver, CO 80225
CONTENTS

Abstract.................................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction .................................................................................._^ 2

Purpose and Scope....................................................................................................................................................... 2

Previous Studies........................................................................................................................................................... 2

Description of the Study Area............................................................................................................................................... 3

Location and General Features.................................................................................................................................... 3

Available Water Resources .......................................................................................................................................... 5

Background...................................................................................................._^ 5

Ground Water..................................................................................................................................................... 5

Santa Barbara Ground-Water Basin......................................................................................................... 5

Storage Unit I Subbasin................................................................................................................. 5

Storage Unit HI Subbasin.............................................................................................................. 5

Foothill Ground-Water Basin................................................................................................................... 7

Surface Water..................................................................................................................................................... 7

Imported Water.................................................................................................................................................. 7

Desalinated Water.............................................................................................................................................. 7

Reclaimed Water................................................................................................................................................ 7

Numerical Models ................................................................................................................................................................. 7

MODFLOW..................................................................................................................................... 7

Santa Ynez River Hydrologic Model........................................................................................................................... 9

Problem Formulation............................................................................................................................................................. 9

Model Objective Minimize Cost............................................................................................................................. 9

Water-Supply-Capacity Constraints............................................................................................................................ 11

Surface-Water-Supply Constraints .................................................................................................................... 11

Ground-Water-Supply Constraints .................................................................................................................... 11

Head Constraints...............................................................................^^ 11

Demand Constraints.......................................................................................................................................... 11

Temporal Balance Constraints........................................................................................................................... 12

Solution of the Simulation-Optimization Model......................................................................................................... 12

Results and Discussion.......................................................................................................................................................... 13

Basic Assumptions....................................................................................................._^ 13

Base Case Average Monthly Releases...................................................................................................................... 13

Nonlinear Effects............................................................................................................................................... 18

Formulation.............................................................................................................................................. 18

Nonlinear Results.................................................................................................................................... 20

Sensitivity Analysis........................................................................................................................................... 20

Reduce Allowable Carryover................................................................................................................... 20

Reduce Demand....................................................................................................................................... 21

Vary Head Constraints............................................................................................................................. 22

First Scenario................................................................................................................................. 23

Second Scenario............................................................................................................................ 24

Constrain Desalination-Plant Capacity to Zero....................................................................................... 24

Carryover State Water Project (SWP) Water........................................................................................... 25

Current Monthly Gibraltar Diversion Distribution...................................................................................................... 28

Sensitivity Analysis........................................................................................................................................... 30

State Water Project (SWP) Carryover...................................................................................................... 30

Zero Desalination Capacity with State Water Project Carryover............................................................ 30

Proposed Monthly Gibraltar Reservoir Diversion Distribution................................................................................... 30

Contents III
Cachuma Reservoir Variable Monthly Water Deliveries............................................................................................. 31

Actual Monthly Gibraltar Reservoir Diversion Distribution ............................................................................ 31

Proposed Monthly Gibraltar Reservoir Diversion Distribution........................................................................ 33

Summary............................................................................................................................................................................ 34

References Cited.............................................................................................................................................................^ 35

Appendix: Tables A1-A31.................................................................................................................................................... 37

FIGURES

1. Map showing location and general features of the Santa Barbara and the Foothill ground-water basins,

Santa Barbara, California........................................................................................................................................ 4

2. Hydrogeologic section of the Foothill and the Santa Barbara ground-water basins, Santa Barbara, California.... 6

3. Map showing MODFLOW model grid for the study area, Santa Barbara, California........................................... 8

4-51. Graphs showing:

4. Monthly varying demand and actual, proposed, and average Gibraltar Reservoir distributions,

Santa Barbara, California................................................................................................................................ 12

5. Optimal surface-water, ground-water, and total deliveries for the base-case simulation, months 1-60,

Santa Barbara, California................................................................................................................................ 14

6. Optimal surface-water deliveries from all sources for the base-case simulation, months 1-60,

Santa Barbara, California................................................................................................................................ 14

7. Optimal ground-water deliveries from coastal Storage Unit I wells for the base-case simulation,

months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California.......................................................................................................... 14

8. Optimal ground-water deliveries from inland Storage Unit I wells for the base-case simulation,

months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California.......................................................................................................... 14

9. Optimal ground-water deliveries from the Foothill basin wells for the base-case simulation,

months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California.......................................................................................................... 17

10. Simulated December 1990 water-level altitudes in model layers 1 and 2 for the base-case simulation,

Santa Barbara, California................................................................................................................................ 19

11. Change in surface-water, ground-water, and total deliveries after model nonlinear iteration no. 2,

months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California.......................................................................................................... 20

12. Optimal surface-water deliveries from all sources for the Cachuma Reservoir carryover sensitivity

simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California....................................................................................... 21

13. Optimal ground-water deliveries from coastal Storage Unit I wells for the Cachuma Reservoir

carryover sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California..................................................... 21

14. Optimal ground-water deliveries from inland Storage Unit I wells for the Cachuma Reservoir

carryover sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California..................................................... 21

15. Optimal ground-water deliveries from the Foothill basin wells for the Cachuma Reservoir carryover

sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California..................................................................... 21

16. Optimal surface-water deliveries from all sources for the reduced-demand sensitivity simulation,

months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California.......................................................................................................... 22

17. Optimal ground-water deliveries from coastal Storage Unit I wells for the reduced-demand sensitivity

simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California....................................................................................... 22

18. Optimal ground-water deliveries from inland Storage Unit I wells for the reduced-demand sensitivity

simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California....................................................................................... 23

19. Optimal ground-water deliveries from the Foothill basin wells for the reduced-demand sensitivity

simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California....................................................................................... 23

20. Optimal surface-water deliveries from all sources for the 30 feet below sea level head-constraint

sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California..................................................................... 23

21. Optimal ground-water deliveries from coastal Storage Unit I wells for the 30 feet below sea level

head-constraint sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California............................................ 23

22. Optimal ground-water deliveries from inland Storage Unit I wells for the 30 feet below sea level

head-constraint sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California............................................ 24

23. Optimal ground-water deliveries from the Foothill basin wells for the 30 feet below sea level

head-constraint sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California............................................ 25

24. Optimal surface-water deliveries from all sources for the zero desalination capacity sensitivity simulation, 

months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California.......................................................................................................... 25

IV Contents
25. Optimal ground-water deliveries from coastal Storage Unit I wells for the zero desalination capacity

sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California..................................................................... 25

26. Optimal ground-water deliveries from inland Storage Unit I wells for the zero desalination capacity

sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California..................................................................... 25

27. Optimal ground-water deliveries from the Foothill basin wells for the zero desalination capacity

sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California..................................................................... 26

28. Optimal surface-water deliveries from all sources for the State Water Project carryover

sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California..................................................................... 26

29. Optimal ground-water deliveries from coastal Storage Unit I wells for the State Water Project carryover

sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California..................................................................... 26

30. Optimal ground-water deliveries from inland Storage Unit I wells for the State Water Project carryover

sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California..................................................................... 27

31. Optimal ground-water deliveries from the Foothill basin wells for the State Water Project carryover

sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California..................................................................... 27

32. Optimal surface-water deliveries from all sources for the current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion

percentages simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California................................................................... 27

33. Optimal ground-water deliveries from coastal Storage Unit I wells for the current monthly Gibraltar

Reservoir diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California................................... 27

34. Optimal ground-water deliveries from inland Storage Unit I wells for the current monthly Gibraltar

Reservoir diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara. California................................... 28

35. Optimal ground-water deliveries from the Foothill basin wells for the current monthly Gibraltar

Reservoir diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara. California................................... 28

36. Optimal surface-water deliveries from all sources for the State Water Project carryover sensitivity with 

current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60, 

Santa Barbara, California................................................................................................................................ 28

37. Optimal ground-water deliveries from coastal Storage Unit I wells for the State Water Project carryover 

sensitivity with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60, 

Santa Barbara, California................................................................................................................................ 28

38. Optimal ground-water deliveries from inland Storage Unit I wells for the State Water Project carryover 

sensitivity with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60, 

Santa Barbara, California................................................................................................................................ 29

39. Optimal ground-water deliveries from the Foothill basin wells for the State Water Project carryover 

sensitivity with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60, 

Santa Barbara, California................................................................................................................................ 29

40. Optimal surface-water deliveries from all sources for the proposed monthly Gibraltar Reservoir

diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California................................................... 29

41. Optimal ground-water deliveries from coastal Storage Unit I wells for the proposed monthly Gibraltar

Reservoir diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California................................... 29

42. Optimal ground-water deliveries from inland Storage Unit I wells for the proposed monthly Gibraltar

Reservoir diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California................................... 30

43. Optimal ground-water deliveries from the Foothill basin wells for the proposed monthly Gibraltar

Reservoir diversion percentages simulation, months, 1-60, Santa Barbara, California.................................. 30

44. Optimal surface-water deliveries from all sources for the variable Cachuma Reservoir deliveries with 

current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60, 

Santa Barbara, California................................................................................................................................ 32

45. Optimal ground-water deliveries from coastal Storage Unit I wells for the variable Cachuma Reservoir 

deliveries with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60, 

Santa Barbara, California................................................................................................................................ 32

46. Optimal ground-water deliveries from inland Storage Unit I wells for the variable Cachuma Reservoir 

deliveries with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60, 

Santa Barbara, California................................................................................................................................ 32

47. Optimal ground-water deliveries from the Foothill basin wells for the variable Cachuma Reservoir 

deliveries with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60, 

Santa Barbara, California................................................................................................................................ 32

Contents
48. Optimal surf ace-water deliveries from all sources for the variable Cachuma Reservoir deliveries with 

proposed monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60, 

Santa Barbara, California................................................................................................................................ 33

49. Optimal ground-water deliveries from coastal Storage Unit I for the variable Cachuma Reservoir

deliveries with proposed monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60,

Santa Barbara, California................................................................................................................................ 33

50. Optimal ground-water deliveries from inland Storage Unit I for the variable Cachuma Reservoir

deliveries with proposed monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60,

Santa Barbara, California................................................................................................................................ 33

51. Optimal ground-water deliveries from the Foothill basin wells for the variable Cachuma Reservoir 

deliveries with proposed monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60, 

Santa Barbara, California................................................................................................................................ 33

TABLES

1. Sources, quantities, and unit costs of available surface water for the base-case simulation, years 1-5,

Santa Barbara, California........................................................................................................................................ 10

2. Total capacities, distribution of pumping between the upper and the lower systems, and unit costs for the

base-case simulation, Santa Barbara, California.................................................................................................... 10

3. Maximum allowable cumulative Cachuma Reservoir carryover, years 1-5, Santa Barbara, California................ 14

4. Optimal surface-water and ground-water deliveries for the base-case simulation, months 1-60,

Santa Barbara, California........................................................................................................................................ 15

5. Summary of water-delivery costs for all simulations, Santa Barbara, California................................................... 17

6. Optimal cumulative annual Cachuma Reservoir carryover and delivered carryover for the base-case

simulation, years 1-5, Santa Barbara, California................................................................................................... 18

7. Average monthly pumping, pumping capacity, and percentage of pumping capacity utilized for Storage

Unit I and for the Foothill basin for the base-case simulation, years 1-5, Santa Barbara, California.................... 18

8. Optimal cumulative annual Cachuma Reservoir carryover and delivered carryover for the sensitivity of the

base case to Cachuma Reservoir carryover simulation, Santa Barbara, California................................................ 22

9. Hydraulic-head values at constraint locations, Santa Barbara, California ............................................................. 24

10. Maximum allowable cumulative State Water Project (SWP) carryover, years 1-5, Santa Barbara, California..... 26

11. Optimal cumulative annual State Water Project (SWP) carryover and delivered SWP carryover, years 1-5,

Santa Barbara, California........................................................................................................................................ 27

CONVERSION FACTORS, VERTICAL DATUM, ABBREVIATIONS, AND ACRONYMS

_________ Multiply____ By To obtain__________

acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter 

acre-foot (acre-ft) 0.001233 cubic hectometer 

acre-foot per day (acre-ft/d) 0.01427 cubic meter second 

acre-foot per year (acre-ft/yr) 1,23 3 cubic meter per year 

acre-foot per year (acre-ft/yr) 0.001233 cubic hectometer per year

cubic foot per second (ft^/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second 

cubic foot per second per month [(f^/symo]

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter 

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter 

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer 

______________square mile (mi2)____259.0________hectare_______________

Sea level: In this report, "sea level" refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 

of 1929) a geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of both 

the United States and Canada, formerly called Sea Level Datum of 1929.

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above or below sea level.

VI Contents
Abbreviations and acronyms

LINDO A proprietary linear programming problem solver (Schrage, 1991)

MODFLOW A finite-difference ground-water flow model (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988)

MODMAN A proprietary optimization problem assembler (Greenwald, 1993)

SBHS Santa Barbara High School (well)

SUTRA A density-dependent ground-water flow and transport model (Voss, 1984)

SWP (California) State Water Project

SYRHM Santa Ynez River Hydrologic Model. Developed by the Santa Barbara County

	Water Agency 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

Contents VII
A Simulation-Optimization Model for 

Water-Resources Management, 

Santa Barbara, California

ByTracy Nishikawa 

ABSTRACT

In times of drought, the local water supplies 

of the city of Santa Barbara, California, are insufficient to satisfy water demand. In response, the 

city has built a seawater desalination plant and 

gained access to imported water in 1997. Of primary concern to the city is delivering water from 

the various sources at a minimum cost while satisfying water demand and controlling seawater 

intrusion that might result from the overpumping 

of ground water.

A simulation-optimization model has been 

developed for the optimal management of Santa 

Barbara's water resources. The objective is to 

minimize the cost of water supply while satisfying 

various physical and institutional constraints such 

as meeting water demand, maintaining minimum 

hydraulic heads at selected sites, and not exceeding water-delivery or pumping capacities. The 

model is formulated as a linear programming 

problem with monthly management periods and a 

total planning horizon of 5 years. The decision 

variables are water deliveries from surface water 

(Gibraltar Reservoir, Cachuma Reservoir, 

Cachuma Reservoir cumulative annual carryover, 

Mission Tunnel, State Water Project, and desalinated seawater) and ground water (13 production 

wells). The state variables are hydraulic heads. 

Basic assumptions for all simulations are that (1) 

the cost of water varies with source but is fixed 

over time, and (2) only existing or planned city 

wells are considered; that is, the construction of 

new wells is not allowed.

The drought of 1947-51 is Santa Barbara's 

worst drought on record, and simulated surfacewater supplies for this period were used as a basis 

for testing optimal management of current water 

resources under drought conditions. Assumptions 

that were made for this base case include a head 

constraint equal to sea level at the coastal nodes; 

Cachuma Reservoir carryover of 3,000 acre-feet 

per year, with a maximum carryover of 8,277 acrefeet; a maximum annual demand of 15,000 acrefeet; and average monthly capacities for the 

Cachuma and the Gibraltar Reservoirs. The basecase results indicate that water demands can be 

met, with little water required from the most 

expensive water source (desalinated seawater), at a 

total cost of $5.56 million over the 5-year planning 

horizon. The simulation model has drains, which 

operate as nonlinear functions of heads and could 

affect the model solutions. However, numerical 

tests show that the drains have little effect on the 

optimal solution.

Sensitivity analyses on the base case yield 

the following results: If allowable Cachuma Reservoir carryover is decreased by about 50 percent, 

then costs increase by about 14 percent; if the peak 

demand is decreased by 7 percent, then costs will 

decrease by about 14 percent; if the head constraints are loosened to -30 feet, then the costs 

decrease by about 18 percent; if the heads are constrained such that a zero hydraulic gradient condition occurs at the ocean boundary, then the 

optimization problem does not have a solution; if 

the capacity of the desalination plant is constrained to zero acre-feet, then the cost increases 

by about 2 percent; and if the carryover of State 

Water Project water is implemented, then the cost 

decreases by about 0.5 percent.

Abstract 1
Four additional monthly diversion distribution scenarios for the reservoirs were tested: average monthly Cachuma Reservoir deliveries with 

the actual (scenario 1) and proposed (scenario 2) 

monthly distributions of Gibraltar Reservoir water, 

and variable monthly Cachuma Reservoir deliveries with the actual (scenario 3) and proposed (scenario 4) monthly distributions of Gibraltar 

Reservoir water. Scenario 1 resulted in a total cost 

of about $7.55 million, scenario 2 resulted in a 

total cost of about $5.07 million, and scenarios 3 

and 4 resulted in a total cost of about $4.53 million.

Sensitivities of the scenarios 1 and 2 to 

desalination-plant capacity and State Water 

Project water carryover were tested. The scenario 

1 sensitivity analysis indicated that incorporating 

State Water Project water carryover decreased the 

cost by about 0.1 percent and that constraining the 

desalination plant capacity to zero in combination 

with State Water Project water carryover was 

infeasible. The scenario 2 sensitivity analysis 

indicated that the optimal solution was insensitive 

to State Water Project water carryover or desalination plant capacity. Scenarios 3 and 4 did not 

require desalinated or State Water Project water 

and, therefore, sensitivity analyses were not performed.

INTRODUCTION

During non-drought years, the city of Santa Barbara obtains an adequate water supply from local surface-water reservoirs supplemented by local ground 

water. However, during times of drought these local 

surface-water supplies are insufficient to meet demand. 

In addition, Santa Barbara is aware that the overpumping of ground water to compensate for any surfacewater shortfalls may induce seawater intrusion, other 

water-quality problems, and excessive drawdown in 

sensitive areas. In response, Santa Barbara has built a 

seawater desalination plant and gained access to 

imported water in 1997. This report documents the 

development of a simulation-optimization model for 

the management of the water resources available to 

Santa Barbara. The model identifies a least-cost watersupply alternative that satisfies specific physical and 

institutional constraints.

Purpose and Scope

In 1993, Santa Barbara entered into a cooperative study with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to 

develop a simulation-optimization model for the management of its water resources during Santa Barbara's 

design drought. The purpose of this report is to 

describe the development and application of this 

model. Key issues are (1) to provide the least-cost 

water supply, (2) control seawater intrusion, and (3) 

meet water demands. The scope of this study includes 

developing a simulation-optimization model and using 

the model to optimally manage available water 

resources under a variety of management scenarios.

Previous Studies

Many researchers have addressed the application 

of simulation-optimization models to the management 

of ground-water systems [Reichard (1995) gives a thorough review]. This review will focus on the application 

of simulation-optimization models that also address, in 

some manner, the control of seawater intrusion.

Shamir and others (1984) considered the optimal 

annual operation of a coastal aquifer in Israel using a 

multiple-objective linear programming model. 

Ground-water hydraulics were addressed using a 

multi-cell model in which seawater intrusion was simulated using "coastal cells" that contained all the seawater intrusion. The decision variables were annual 

pumpage and (or) recharge quantities. Four competing 

objective functions were identified and a trade-off procedure was used to identify the most desirable solution. 

For their example problem, the authors found that the 

problem was tightly constrained for the existing wells 

and hydraulic system. As a result, tradeoffs were few 

and a final solution was selected after one round of 

optimizations.

Willis and Finney (1988) formulated a seawaterintrusion management model for a coastal aquifer in 

Taiwan using a sharp-interface model. The decision 

variables were pumpage and (or) recharge. The objective was expressed as a weighted sum of seawater intrusion, water supply, and recharge objectives. They 

solved the optimization problem using quadratic programming in combination with the influencecoefficient method and the reduced-gradient method in 

conjunction with a quasi-Newton algorithm. Thenwork showed that: (1) both solution algorithms resulted 

in stable and reliable solutions; (2) for their application,

2 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
the response surface was relatively flat, yielding nonunique solutions; and (3) the solutions were sensitive to 

choice of starting solution because only local optima, 

caused by nonlinear hydraulics, could be assured.

Finney and others (1992) developed a 

simulation-optimization model for the control of seawater intrusion in a multiple aquifer system in 

Indonesia. The simulation model was a quasi-threedimensional sharp-interface seawater-intrusion model. 

The decision variables were the location and magnitude of ground-water pumping and recharge. The 

objective was to minimize the squared volume of seawater intrusion. Their results indicated that a redistribution of pumping and recharge from historical 

policies could result in a decrease in the total squared 

saltwater volume.

Reichard (1995), unlike the previous researchers, included the delivery of surface water as a decision 

variable. He considered a simulation-optimization 

model for the management of surface- and groundwater resources in a coastal aquifer in southern California. The ground-water flow system was modeled as 

two layers (upper and lower aquifer systems), and the 

available surface water was treated as a stochastic process. The simulation model was MODFLOW 

(McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988), and therefore seawater intrusion was not addressed explicitly. Seawater 

intrusion was addressed by using equivalent freshwater 

heads as a boundary condition. Three different objectives were tested and the optimization problem was 

solved using a linear programming package. Reichard's results indicate that the control of seawater 

intrusion would require significant reductions in water 

use or the importation of significant volumes of water. 

The model results also indicate the importance of 

ground-water recharge and the redistribution of water 

for the control of seawater intrusion.

Nishikawa and Reichard (1996) evaluated the 

efficacy of the decision rules derived from Reichard's 

(1995) simulation-optimization model to control seawater intrusion using Monte Carlo analysis and the 

density-dependent flow and solute transport model, 

SUTRA (Voss, 1984). Nishikawa and Reichard (1996) 

found that the simulation-optimization model generally yields strategies that control seawater intrusion; 

however, seawater intrusion can be controlled more 

effectively in the upper system than in the lower.

This study is similar to those of Reichard (1995) 

and Nishikawa and Reichard (1996) in that MODFLOW was used as the simulation model and equivalent freshwater hydraulic heads were used at the coastal 

boundary. In this study, however, the objective is to 

minimize the cost of water delivery during Santa Barbara's design drought, and operation of the city's reservoirs is addressed.

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA

Location and General Features

The city of Santa Barbara obtains its groundwater supplies from the Santa Barbara and the Foothill 

ground-water basins, which are on the south coast of 

Santa Barbara County about 120 mi northwest of Los 

Angeles (fig. 1). The basins are bounded on the north 

by foothills of the Santa Ynez Mountains, on the west 

by the Goleta and the Hope Ranch ground-water 

basins, on the south by the Pacific Ocean, and on the 

east by the Montecito ground-water basin. Hydrologically, the Santa Barbara ground-water basin is divided 

into two subbasins Storage Unit I and Storage Unit 

HI by the Mesa Fault (Freckleton, 1989). The area of 

principal concern for this study consists of the Santa 

Barbara and the Foothill ground-water basins and 

encompasses about 14 mi2.

The Santa Barbara area has a Mediterraneantype climate of warm, dry summers and mild winters. 

The area has distinct wet and dry seasons, with 95 percent of the precipitation falling between November and 

March. The mean annual precipitation at the lower altitudes of the Santa Barbara area for the period 1868- 

1990 is 17.81 in. (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration). Nearly all ground-water recharge and 

nearly all surface-water flow in the Santa Barbara area 

are derived directly from precipitation that falls on the 

area.

The Santa Barbara ground-water basin is drained 

by Sycamore, Mission, and San Roque Creeks and 

Arroyo Burro. The Foothill ground-water basin is 

drained by Cieneguitas, Atascadero, and Hospital 

Creeks. All these streams are intermittent in their lower 

reaches, where they lose water by seepage as they flow 

over the unconsolidated deposits of the basins.

Description of the Study Area 3
119°45' 119°40'

L f~U i JL_ 

R28W ^27W 1TA

// ^ ^

y -^HF sr "\?\ <»{(

::;^, Foothill Ground-Water Basi Pi-: " x^ <^/: ^i*^ ^

f%:.«^ .// P^^:

I / ; --T^

Santa Barbara

Qround-Water

Basin

EXPLANATION

Santa Barbara Ground-Water Basin

Storage Unit I 

Storage Unit in

Foothill Ground-Water Basin

Fault-Dashed where approximately 

located; queried where doubtful; 

dotted where concealed

Ground-water divide

SANTA YNEZ MTS _SMILES j

3 KILOMETERS!

Carplnteria

Figure 1 . Location and general features of the Santa Barbara and the Foothill ground-water basins, Santa Barbara, 

California.

4 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Available Water Resources

Background

In the 1800's, ground water supplied all the 

water to the city of Santa Barbara and outlying homes 

and estates; however, the supply became inadequate for 

the expanding population and other sources of water 

had to be identified. Following extreme water shortages in 1889, a local water company purchased several 

reservoir sites in the Santa Ynez River basin. Santa 

Barbara constructed the Mission Tunnel to convey 

water from the Santa Ynez River through the Santa 

Ynez Mountains. Later, in 1913-22, Santa Barbara 

constructed the Gibraltar Dam and Reservoir, which 

also is connected to the Mission Tunnel. In 1948, Congress authorized the construction of the 210,000 acre-ft 

Cachuma Reservoir and the Tecolote Tunnel (completed in the early 1950's) through the Santa Ynez 

Mountains to Santa Barbara area communities.

In recent years, the Santa Ynez River has been 

the predominant source of water supply, and ground 

water has supplied less than 20 percent of the total 

demand. An additional source of water supply is a seawater desalination plant that was completed in 1991 in 

response to an extended drought in southern California. 

The plant is capable of producing 7,500 acre-ft/yr, of 

which about 3,000 acre-ft is allocated to Santa Barbara. 

This water is very expensive to produce and is therefore 

considered a reserve water supply for use only during 

water-deficient years. Santa Barbara was connected to 

a pipeline that delivers water supplied from the California State Water Project (SWP) in 1997.

Ground Water

Santa Barbara Ground-Water Basin

On the basis of data from geophysical and geologic logs of selected wells, Martin (1984) subdivided 

the unconsolidated deposits underlying the Santa Barbara ground-water basin into five main zones: (1) the 

shallow zone, (2) the upper producing zone, (3) the 

middle zone, (4) the lower producing zone, and (5) the 

deep zone (fig. 2). The upper and lower producing 

zones are the two main water-bearing zones tapped by

wells in the Santa Barbara area (fig. 2). The shallow 

and the upper producing zones are contained within the 

alluvium and terrace deposits of Holocene age, and the 

middle, the lower producing, and the deep zones are 

part of the Santa Barbara Formation of Pleistocene and 

Pliocene age (Martin and Berenbrock, 1986).

A brief description of the hydrology and hydrogeology of the Santa Barbara ground-water basin follows. A detailed description is given by Martin and 

Berenbrock (1986) and Freckleton and others (1998).

Storage Unit I Subbasin

In Storage Unit I, the shallow and the middle 

zones confine the upper and the lower producing zones, 

respectively. The deep zone separates the lower producing zone from the consolidated rocks in most of 

Storage Unit I.

The upper producing zone near the base of the 

alluvium consists of medium to coarse sand and some 

fine gravel (Martin, 1984). This zone is distinct and 

continuous throughout most of Storage Unit I and 

ranges in thickness from less than 10 ft south of the 

Mission Ridge Fault to about 50 ft beneath the city of 

Santa Barbara.

The lower producing zone, near the base of the 

Santa Barbara Formation, consists of medium to coarse 

sand, and fine gravel and shell fragments. In Storage 

Unit I, the lower producing zone ranges in thickness 

from less than 10 ft near the contact with the consolidated rocks on the northeastern side to more than 200 

ft beneath the city of Santa Barbara. The lower producing zone is the main source of water to wells in the 

Santa Barbara ground-water basin (Martin, 1984). A 

detailed description of the hydrology and hydrogeology of the Storage Unit I subbasin is given by Martin 

and Berenbrock (1986).

Storage Unit III Subbasin

In Storage Unit HI, the shallow zone confines the 

upper producing zone; the middle zone is not present in 

this subbasin. The deep zone separates the lower producing zone from the consolidated rocks in most of 

Storage Unit ffl.

Description of the Study Area 5
The upper producing zone near the base of the 

alluvium consists of medium to coarse sand and some 

fine gravel (Martin, 1984, p. 5). This zone is distinct 

and continuous throughout the inland part of Storage 

Unit III and ranges in thickness from 40 ft to 60 ft.

The lower producing zone, near the base of the 

Santa Barbara Formation, is present only in the inland

part of the subbasin and consists of medium to coarse 

sand and fine gravel and shell fragments (Freckleton, 

1989). In Storage Unit IE, the lower producing zone 

ranges in thickness from about 20 ft to 100 ft. 

The lower producing zone is the main source of water 

to wells in Storage Unit in (Freckleton and others, 

1998).

SEALEVEL2 KILOMETERS

' '$.' 

Unconsolidated deposits

Shallow zone

Upper producing zone

Middle zone

Lower producing zone

Deep zone

EXPLANATION

Alluvium and 

terrace deposits 

(Holocene)

Santa Barbara

Formation

(Pleistocene

and

Pliocene)

Consolidated rocks

Tertiary

Fault-Approximately located, queried 

where doubtful. Arrows indicate relative 

| direction of movement

Figure 2. Hydrogeologic section of the Foothill and the Santa Barbara ground-water basins, Santa Barbara, California.

A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Foothill Ground-Water Basin

The Foothill ground-water basin is distinct 

hydrogeologically from the Santa Barbara groundwater basin. In the Foothill basin, there are two permeable zones: the first consists of alluvium and terrace 

deposits (undifferentiated), and the second is the Santa 

Barbara Formation (Freckleton, 1989). The alluvium 

and the Santa Barbara Formation are separated by a 

confining layer throughout most of the basin (fig. 2).

The alluvium consists of gravel, sand, silt, and 

clay (Freckleton, 1989). This zone is as much as 400 ft 

thick in the eastern part of the basin.

The Santa Barbara Formation, which consists of 

marine sand, silt, and clay, has a maximum thickness of 

about 400 ft. This formation is the main source of 

water to wells in the Foothill basin (Freckleton, 1989). 

A detailed description of the hydrology and hydrogeology of the Foothill ground-water basin is given by 

Freckleton (1989).

Surface Water

As noted earlier, the primary source of surface 

water to Santa Barbara comes from the nearby Santa 

Ynez River and the two reservoirs, the Gibraltar and the 

Cachuma. The Gibraltar Reservoir, which is owned 

and operated by Santa Barbara, was constructed 

between 1913 and 1922 and the height of the dam was 

increased in 1949. Santa Barbara is entitled to a maximum water delivery from the Gibraltar Reservoir of 

8,000 acre-ft/yr. The Gibraltar Reservoir water is 

transported to Santa Barbara by means of the Mission 

Tunnel, a hard-rock tunnel through the Santa Ynez 

Mountains. Infiltration of ground water into the tunnel 

is an additional source of water to the city.

The Cachuma Reservoir is owned and operated 

by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and construction 

was completed in 1956. Santa Barbara is entitled to a 

maximum water delivery from the Cachuma Reservoir 

of 8,277 acre-ft/yr. The Cachuma Reservoir water is 

transported through the Santa Ynez Mountains to Santa 

Barbara by means of the concrete-lined Tecolote Tunnel. It is assumed that there is no infiltration into this 

tunnel.

Imported Water

Santa Barbara is a participant in the California 

State Water Project (SWP) and receives SWP water by 

means of the 102-mi Coastal Branch of the State Aqueduct and the 42-mi Santa Ynez Extension, which ends

at Lake Cachuma. Construction of the extension was 

completed in 1997. Santa Barbara is entitled to 3,000 

acre-ft/yr, subject to availability. The SWP water is 

delivered from the Cachuma Reservoir through the 

Tecolote Tunnel along with non-SWP Cachuma Reservoir water.

Desalinated Water

Santa Barbara contracted for the construction of 

a reverse-osmosis seawater desalination facility as an 

emergency water supply during the drought year of 

1990. Santa Barbara is entitled to about 3,000 acreft/yr. Water from this facility has since been incorporated into Santa Barbara's long-term supply plan to 

reduce demand shortages owing to depleted surface 

supplies during drought.

Reclaimed Water

Reclaimed water is tertiary-treated wastewater 

that is used only to irrigate parks, schools, golf courses, 

and other landscaped areas. The reclaimed water is distributed using a separate pipeline system; the maximum capacity of the system is 1,200 acre-ft/yr and 

current demand is about 800 acre-ft/yr. The delivery of 

reclaimed water is fixed and is not addressed explicitly 

hi the simulation-optimization model.

NUMERICAL MODELS

MODFLOW

The numerical simulation model used in this 

study is MODFLOW, a finite-difference ground-water 

flow model (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988). A 

detailed explanation regarding the theoretical development and numerical implementation of MODFLOW is 

presented by McDonald and Harbaugh (1988).

The ground-water flow model simulates the 

ground-water hydraulics in Storage Unit I and Storage 

Unit HI of the Santa Barbara ground-water basin and in 

the Foothill ground-water basin (fig. 1). The model has 

two layers, which generally simulate the upper and 

lower producing zones, that are separated by an intermediate confining layer. The layers are assumed to be 

continuous within then- active areas (that is, there is no 

"pinching out" of layers). The horizontal dimensions 

of the model cells are 1,000 ft by 1,000 ft (fig. 3). A

Numerical Models
yV^........:......i.....^......:...... .|

Saoja Barbara 

i Ground-Water 

Basin

EXPLANATION

Basins and storage units \ 

Santa Barbara Ground-Water 

Basin

I Storage Unit I 

ni Storage Unit III

Layer 2 

Foothill Ground-Water Basin

Model boundaries

 Model boundary-Layer 1 

Model boundary-Layer 2

Internal boundarySimulated by horizontalflow barriers

...,....^............;......,..... Ji V = riV..^--^ / : A^Jf* =: \ ^ 

 ?- Fault-Dashed where 

approximately located; 

queried where doubtful; 

dotted where concealed

B Model cellLayer 1 

[T] Internal drain

Layers 1 and 2 

PS] Stream drain 

[hi Head constraint location

^o ^

f*>

^o

&.

C Model cell- !

Layers 1 and 2 i 

[p] Pumping well location

3 KILOMETERS

Figure 3. MODFLOW model grid for the study area, Santa Barbara, Califomia. A, MODFLOW model grid. B, Drain and head 

constraint locations, C, Pumping weii locations.

8 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
detailed description of the numerical model of Storage 

Unit I, Storage Unit El, and the Foothill basin is presented by Freckleton and others (1998). Note that 

MODFLOW simulates only ground-water flow and 

cannot simulate density-dependent solute transport, 

such as seawater intrusion.

Santa Ynez River Hydrologic Model

The Santa Ynez River Hydrologic Model 

(SYRHM), which was developed by the Santa Barbara 

County Water Agency, is a proprietary model that simulates the hydrologic system (including streamflow, 

reservoirs, tunnels, and ground-water aquifers) in the 

Santa Ynez River basin (John Ahlroth, Santa Barbara 

County Water Agency, written cornmun., 1996). The 

model incorporates operational guidelines and waterrights agreements that govern the distribution and use 

of the basin's water resources. The model typically 

simulates historical data from 1929 to current conditions. Input data include precipitation, evapotranspiration, streamflow into each reservoir, and tunnel flow. 

Output includes water deliveries from the Gibraltar and 

the Cachuma Reservoirs, the Mission Tunnel infiltration, and the State Water Project. Santa Barbara provided the USGS with the simulated results for the 

drought of 1947-51 for use in the simulationoptimization modeling.

PROBLEM FORMULATION

In the Santa Barbara area, the primary management issues during a drought are minimizing the cost of 

water supply over a 5-year management horizon while 

satisfying water demand and controlling seawater 

intrusion. The optimization model was formulated as a 

linear programming problem with the objective of minimizing the cost of water supply subject to: (1) watersupply capacity constraints; (2) maximum and minimum heads along the coast; (3) constraints maintaining 

pumping distributions between the upper and the lower 

producing zones as defined in the original simulation 

model of Freckleton and others (1998) and recharge 

distributions for Mission Creek; and (4) satisfying 

water-supply demands. The decision variables are the 

monthly amounts of water (in cubic feet per second) 

supplied from surface water (including desalinated 

water and SWP water), ground water from 13 production wells (see fig. 3 for locations), and the Cachuma 

Reservoir carryover [the volume of water stored in one 

year for use in the following year(s)]. Carryover is 

addressed in the temporal mass-balance constraints 

that are discussed below. No carryover is allowed in 

the Gibraltar Reservoir. Note that all deliveries are 

treated in the model as nonpositive values.

In this model, the decision variables (<2// = flow 

rate from source j in time step i) are the monthly 

amounts of water (in cubic feet per second) supplied 

from surface water (including desalinated water and 

SWP water), ground water from 13 production wells 

(see fig. 3 for locations), and the Cachuma Reservoir 

carryover.

Model Objective Minimize Cost

The objective of the optimization model is to 

minimize total monthly costs of water deliveries (units 

of dollars per month) for a 5-year management period. 

The objective function has the form:

min cost = minS\ V C X Q 

. . J

i J

where:

= unit cost for source j [$/(fi?/s)/mo] [that 

is, (cost/cubic foot per second)/month] and 

QIJ = flow rate from source; in time step i.

The unit costs of water (cost per acre-foot) for 

the various sources were supplied by Santa Barbara 

(Steven Mack, Public Works Department, city of Santa 

Barbara, written commun., 1995). Note that the costs 

provided by Santa Barbara assume no relation between 

the cost of pumping and the pumping lift. The costs 

were converted and are shown as [$/(f^/s)/mo] in 

tables 1 and 2. Because drought conditions were 

assumed, the unit cost for SWP water was assumed to 

equal $460/acre-ft, which is the maximum cost for this 

water source under drought conditions as provided by 

Mack (written commun., 1995). The cost coefficients 

for the Lincolnwood #1 and #2 wells were set at $4617 

acre-ft ($l/acre-ft greater than the cost of SWP water) 

to reflect that using these wells for water supply is less 

desirable because of local community concerns than 

using SWP water (Mack, written commun., 1996). The 

cost coefficients for the Onega and the Vera Cruz wells 

reflect greater treatment costs than for other wells. It

Problem Formulation
should be noted that Santa Barbara does not incur a cost 

when carryover is stored; any cost to Santa Barbara is 

reflected in the volume of delivered Cachuma Reservoir water at $60/acre-ft.

Note that neither the well-construction costs of 

the proposed wells (SBHS [Santa Barbara High 

School], Church, and Franciscan) nor any startup costs 

for the desalination plant were included in the cost 

coefficients; only the variable portion of the operational

costs are addressed. A typical production well costs 

about $150,000 (Steven Mack, written commun., 

1996); if one assumes that this cost will be amortorized 

over 30 years at a discount rate of 5 percent, the annual 

cost is about $9,660. As will be demonstrated later in 

this report, this cost is small in comparison with the 

operating expenses estimated by the optimization 

model.

Table 1 . Sources, quantities, and unit costs of available surface water for the base-case simulation, years 1 -5, Santa Barbara, 

California

[unit cost: S/^/sVmo, cost per cubic foot per second per month; $/acre-ft, cost per acre-foot]

Source

Cachuma Reservoir ........

Gibraltar Reservoir.........

Mission Tunnel. ..............

State Water Project .........

Desalination plant. ..........

Quantity available, in cubic feet per second

Yearl

11.425

6.902

1.169

2.071

4.141

Year 2

11.425 

6.902 

.905 

2.236 

4.141

Years

11.076 

1.928 

.759 

2.071 

4.141

Year 4

10.250 

3.864 

.727 

2.071 

4.141

Years

9.305 

0 

.690

1.242 

4.141

Unit cost

$/(ft3/s)/mo

$3,622 

$3,622 

$3,622 

$27,770 

$66,047

$/acre-ft

$60 

$60 

$60 

$460 

$1,100

Table 2. Total capacities, distribution of pumping between the upper and the lower systems, and unit costs for the base-case 

simulation, Santa Barbara, California

[fp/s. cubic foot per second, unit cost: S/CfP/sVmo, cost per cubic foot per second per month; $/acre-ft, cost per acre-foot]

City production well 

(local name)

Lincolnwood #1 ... 

Lincolnwood #2 ... 

Los Robles ...........

Hope Avenue ........

Onega1 .................

Corporation2 .........

Vera Cruz .............

City Hall...............

Alameda.... ...........

Chupparosa ..........

Santa Barbara 

High School........

Church..................

Franciscan ............

Modeled 

well location 

(row, column)

(12,10) 

(12,10) 

(9,9) 

(13,7) 

(30,9) (30,10) 

(30,8) (30,9) 

(30,7) 

(29,7) 

(25,9) 

(15,10)

(29,11) 

(24,9) 

(12,9)

Total capacity 

(ftS/s)

0.2761 

.2761 

.6902 

.5521 

1.5184 

1.2424 

1.7944 

1.3803 

.8972 

.3451

.8282 

.8282 

.3451

Distribution of

pumping between 

systems, in percent 

(upper-lower)

50-50 

50-50 

0-100 

10-90 

10-90 

30-70 

5-95 

10-90 

20-80 

50-50

30-70 

20-80 

50-50

Unit cost

$/(ft3/s)/mo

$27,831 

27,831 

5,433 

6,037 

7,135 

4,025 

6,965 

3,924 

4,876 

7,848

4,528 

4,528 

7,848

$/acre-fl

$461 

461 

90 

100 

118 

67 

115 

65 

81 

130

75 

75 

130

lFor modeling purposes, the pumping of the Onega well was divided evenly between two model nodes: (30,9) and (30,10). 

2For modeling purposes, the pumping of the Corporation well was divided evenly between two model nodes: (30,8) and (30,9).

10 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Water-Supply-Capacity Constraints

Typical water-supply-capacity constraints are 

that surface-water deliveries must be less than the 

available water as simulated by the SYRHM or that 

pumpage from a given well must be less than the capacity of the pump. The capacity constraints have the general form:

(1)

where <2// is me water delivered in time step i from 

source j and <2mo* *s t*ie capacity of source/ The constraint is formulated as a greater than or equal equation 

because, as stated earlier, deliveries (0 are treated as 

nonpositive values in the model.

Surf ace-Water-Supply Constraints

Santa Barbara supplied SYRHM estimates 

(given in table 1) of the available surface-water supplies during the design drought of 1947-51 on an 

annual basis (Mack, written cornmun., 1996). In the 

optimization model, Santa Barbara's maximum available Cachuma Reservoir water was arbitrarily set at 

20,000 acre-ft/yr (27.607 ft3/s) to allow for water deliveries greater than the maximum values simulated by the 

SYRHM; the amount of carryover will define the actual 

volume of water delivered to the city. The time-varying 

nature of the available surface water was incorporated 

into the optimization model as capacity constraints; 

however, it was assumed that Cachuma Reservoir water 

available in any one year was divided equally among 

the 12 months of that year. This assumption is made 

initially for the Gibraltar Reservoir; however, monthly 

varying distributions are tested later.

Ground-Water-Supply Constraints

The locations of the 10 existing and 3 proposed 

ground-water production wells to be operated by Santa 

Barbara are shown in figure 3 and the modeled well 

locations are given in table 2. Note that the 13 wells are 

modeled as 15 wells as in the simulation model of Martin (1984). Specifically, the Ortega and the Corporation 

wells are located on the boundary between two model 

cells; therefore, Martin (1984) divided the pumping 

rate of each well between the two adjacent model cells.

Well capacities were provided by Santa Barbara 

(Steven Mack, written cornmun., 1996). The proposed

SBHS, Church, and Franciscan wells were added to the 

model of Freckleton and others (1998) at model nodes 

(29,11), (24,9), and (12,9), respectively (fig. 3). The 

distribution of pumping from the upper and the lower 

producing zones by the existing wells given by Freckleton and others (1998) was used, and the distributions 

for the proposed wells were assumed to be the same as 

those at existing nearby wells (table 2). In addition, it 

was assumed that well pumping capacities do not 

change over time.

Head Constraints

Hydraulic heads are constrained at the coastal 

boundary nodes and at a well operated by the La Cumbre Mutual Water Company (fig. 3). (The La Cumbre 

well is a production well and it is not addressed in the 

optimization problem.) The hydraulic-head constraints 

have the general form:

min~ ~ max' (2)

where hmin and are the minimum and maximum 

allowable heads, respectively, at control node j, and hj 

is the head at control nodey.

Hydraulic-head constraints were placed along 

the coastal boundary of the flow model to simulate the 

control of seawater intrusion in Storage Units I and III. 

The minimum heads are set initially to zero feet (sea 

level) and the maximum heads are approximately the 

local land-surface altitude. Although the minimum 

heads are set initially to sea level, this constraint still 

allows a landward gradient to occur because of the 

greater density of seawater and, therefore, allows some 

unknown amount of seawater intrusion to occur. The 

sensitivity of the optimal solution to this constraint is 

tested in the Sensitivity Analysis section of this report.

Demand Constraints

The demand constraints have the following general form:

(3)

where D, is the demand in month i.

Problem Formulation 11
15.0

10.0-

67 

MONTH

10 11 12

Figure 4. Monthly varying demand and actual, proposed, 

and average Gibraltar Reservoir diversion distributions, 

Santa Barbara, California.

Within a given year, water demand varies seasonally; for example, lower demand during the winter 

and higher demand during the summer. Also, seasonal 

demand varies with total demand. However, in this 

study, a typical monthly demand distribution is used 

(fig. 4) (Steven Mack, written commun., 1996).

Temporal Balance Constraints

Recall that carryover is defined as the volume of 

water stored in a year for use in the following year(s). 

The temporal balance constraints address the Cachuma 

Reservoir carryover in the simulation-optimization 

model. In the first year, the constraint has the following form:

Q1 -

^cr (4)

where Q'crl is the water delivered to Santa Barbara from

the Cachuma Reservoir in month i (i = 1 to 12), Q\ is CO

the monthly average cumulative carryover in year 1,

and 0 1 is the maximum water available from the

max

Cachuma Reservoir in year 1 on an average monthly 

basis as predicted by the SYRHM. Equation 4 above 

states that for year 1 only, the delivered Cachuma Reservoir water minus water carried over that year must be 

greater than or equal to the maximum water available 

to Santa Barbara from the Cachuma Reservoir. Note 

that the constraints are "greater than or equal to" 

because, as defined within the model, water delivery

(either from surface water or ground water) is nonpositive.

The constraint has the following general form for 

years 2 through 5 (months 13-60):

Ql -Q* ^ ^

Qt ~ l >Qi ^ ^ (5)

where Qcr ' is the water delivered to Santa Barbara from 

the Cachuma Reservoir in month / (i = 13 to 60), Qco l

is the monthly average Cachuma Reservoir carryover in 

year t (t = 2 to 5), Q 1 ~ 1 is the average monthly carryover in the previous year, and Qmax l is the maximum 

available water from the Cachuma Reservoir in month 

i as predicted by the SYRHM. Equation 5 above states 

that delivered Cachuma Reservoir water minus water 

carried over in the current year plus the water carried 

over from the previous year must be greater than or 

equal to the maximum water available to Santa Barbara 

from the Cachuma Reservoir.

Solution of the Simulation-Optimization 

Model

MODMAN (Greenwald, 1993) generates the 

input file in the Mathematical Programming System 

format required by many optimization software packages. MODMAN uses MODFLOW to generate 

response coefficients that are used to estimate the heads 

that would result from a particular pumping pattern. By 

use of response coefficients, it is implicitly assumed 

that the ground-water system responds linearly to 

pumping and recharge stresses. Gorelick and others 

(1993) present a thorough discussion of response coefficients. The resulting decision variables within the 

flow model are pumping and (or) recharge, and the state 

variables are the heads and (or) drawdowns.

UNDO (Schrage, 1991), a proprietary linear 

programming problem solver, can solve linear programming problems, linear mixed-integer programming problems, and quadratic programming problems. 

LINDO was used in this study because MODMAN can 

read LINDO output for the post-processing of the optimal solutions.

12 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Five operating scenarios for the release schedules of water from the Cachuma and the Gibraltar Reservoirs were tested: (1) average monthly releases from 

both reservoirs (the base case), (2) current monthly 

diversion distribution from the Gibraltar Reservoir and 

average monthly releases from the Cachuma Reservoir, 

(3) proposed monthly diversion distribution from the 

Gibraltar Reservoir and average monthly releases from 

the Cachuma Reservoir, (4) current monthly diversion 

distribution from the Gibraltar Reservoir and variable 

monthly releases from the Cachuma Reservoir, and (5) 

proposed monthly diversion distribution from the 

Gibraltar Reservoir (fig. 4) and variable monthly 

releases from the Cachuma Reservoir. The use of variable releases from the Cachuma Reservoir allows the 

monthly water deliveries to vary within a year such that 

the total water delivered within that year is less than or 

equal to the maximum annual volume of water available. In addition, the sensitivity of the base case to 

Cachuma Reservoir carryover, demand, coastal head 

constraints, and SWP carryover were tested.

For compactness, the optimal pumping results 

are presented for Storage Unit I and the Foothill 

ground-water basin. The Foothill basin wells include 

the Lincolnwood #1, the Lincolnwood #2, the Los Robles, the Hope Avenue, the Chupparosa, and the Franciscan wells. In addition, the Storage Unit I wells have 

been arbitrarily divided into two groups: coastal (the 

Ortega, the Corporation, the Vera Cruz, and the City 

Hall wells) and inland (the Alameda, the SBHS, and the 

Church wells). The average pumpage for all Storage 

Unit I wells is presented with the coastal and inland 

results.

Basic Assumptions

The initial conditions for all simulations, including the sensitivity analyses, are the simulated 1986 

heads. The 1986 heads are representative of the longterm, average conditions in Storage Units I and IE 

(Freckleton and others, 1998). However, the 1986 

heads may be higher than the long-term average in the 

Foothill basin, where it is difficult to determine an average because of the short data record in the basin (Freckleton and others, 1998). For the purposes of this report, 

it is assumed that the 1986 heads reflect the long-term 

average and can be used as the initial conditions for the 

Foothill basin.

The surface-water supply conditions for the 

drought of 1947-51, Santa Barbara's design drought, 

were used for all simulations. Santa Barbara used the 

SYRHM to estimate the water deliveries from the 

Gibraltar Reservoir, the Cachuma Reservoir, the Mission Tunnel, and the SWP.

Additional assumptions are that the cost of water 

varies with source but is fixed over time, and only existing or planned city wells are considered; that is, the 

construction of new wells is not allowed.

In this study, a 5-year design drought was 

assumed; however, the duration and return period of 

droughts are uncertain. These uncertainties can affect 

the optimal water-delivery policies and the extent of 

seawater intrusion. To address drought uncertainty, 

within the context of the simulation-optimization 

model, stochastic hydrology methods are needed.

Base Case Average Monthly Releases

In the base case, the minimum allowable freshwater head constraints at the seawater boundary were 

set at zero feet (sea level) in both the upper and the 

lower producing zones for the entire simulation period 

(see fig. 3 for constraint locations).

The annual demand was set to 13,500 acre-ft in 

year 1 and increased 500 acre-ft for each of the subsequent 3 years to a maximum annual demand of 15,000 

acre-ft in year 4 (Steven Mack, written commun., 

1996). The annual demand was decreased to 14,000 

acre-ft in year 5 to reflect the implementation of waterconservation measures (Mack, written commun., 

1996). Recall that the total annual demand includes 

800 acre-ft/yr supplied by reclaimed water; therefore, 

the demand constraint is the total annual demand minus 

water supplied by reclaimed water.

The maximum annual carryover is 3,000 acre-ft 

and the total maximum carryover is 8,277 acre-ft 

(Santa Barbara's maximum annual allocation of 

Cachuma Reservoir water); that is, the maximum carryover is 3,000 acre-ft in year 1; 6,000 acre-ft in year 

2; and 8,277 acre-ft in years 3 to 5 (see table 3).

The optimal water deliveries for the base case are 

summarized in figure 5 and table 4. The water sources 

are shown graphically in figures 6 to 9 and are tabulated 

in tables Al to A3. The cost of delivering water over 

the 5-year design period is $5.56 million. The costs of 

this and all additional simulations presented in this 

report are summarized in table 5.

Results and Discussion 13
Table 3. Maximum allowable cumulative Cachuma Reservoir 

carryover, years 1-5, Santa Barbara, California

Maximum allowable Cachuma Reservoir 

carryover

rear

1

2

3

4

5

(acre-feet per year)

3,000

6,000

8,277

8,277

8,277

(cubic feet 

per second)

4.141

8.282

11.425

11.425

11.425

z

 z. 

o

s

cc

£

LU

LU

u_

LU 

CC

^

 ^

LU

CC

LU

Zj

LU

0

cc

i

1 ,UUU

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0-

_ i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i _

:- ^ f\ /X ^\ r\^-

: ' \ / \ / \ / \ / \:

~ \ / \ r\ V / t

: j_s\^ / f\\- f f\ V^ M/ f\^^ -^ -

~ Citrfn^a \A/qtav ~

 - Ground Water

1 Total Water :

-

I . _ -

 f*" 1 * * 9* ^ t \li^ j ^^

-\ |^ /I f ' \~

:/ \ / \ / \ / \ / t

~ / 1 1 1 l J -/ 1 1 l l 1 /llll?_/lllllvlllll^

0 12 24 36 48 6

MONTH

Figure 5. Optimal surface-water, ground-water, and total 

deliveries for the base-case simulation, months 1-60, Santa 

Barbara, California.

cc

LU

I

II

CC

^>

C/3

I.UVU

800 

600 

400

200 

n

- Cachuma Reservoir ^- ....... Cachuma Carryover

- - Gibraltar Reservoir 

- - Mission Tunnel 

- - State Water Project 

:

i i

: t

: i

1 i i i i i ^

-

_

'- 

i __--_--__.

 ' i \ \ , 

12 24 36 

MONTH

48 60

Figure 6. Optimal surface-water deliveries from all sources 

for the base-case simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, 

California.

Ortega VeraCruz 

Corporation City Hall

24 36 

MONTH

Figure 7. Optimal ground-water deliveries from coastal 

Storage Unit I wells for the base-case simulation, months 

1-60, Santa Barbara, California (Note: No pumping from 

the Vera Cruz well.)

ftai 80 

cc t;

i il ^^ 

^> Cj

S£ 60 

trQLU ) 

t LU 

< LU

^LiJ 40

Q OC

"Z. 0

O -z_

g~ 20

0

(

 Alameda 

 Santa Barbara High School 

 Church 

*mmsK storage Unit I average

-

-

.

LI

fS

1

i i

|v^ i i

; :t

ii **

____.-

f^%

j i

y

7 

JV^

\ ;

1 

1

1 i

-

1 :

Ju^-

1 ; "

.

1

) 12 24 36 48 6

MONTH

Figure 8. Optimal ground-water deliveries from inland 

Storage Unit I wells for the base-case simulation, months 

1-60, Santa Barbara, California.

The total volume of water available to Santa Barbara from the Gibraltar Reservoir and the Mission Tunnel is used in this simulation (fig. 6) because of the low 

cost of this water. Deliveries from Cachuma Reservoir 

vary with the amount of carryover and total water available as specified by the SYRHM (fig. 6). SWP water is 

required during the summer months to meet the higher 

demands and is at its maximum allocation during those 

months (fig. 6). Desalinated water is required only in 

the final 3 years to help meet the peak summer demand 

(fig. 6); however, the quantities are very small and 

because of the desalination plant startup expenses the 

cost to deliver these small quantities may be prohibitive.

14 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table 4. Optimal surface-water and ground-water deliveries for the base-case simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, 

California

Surface-water 

Month total

Ground-water 

total

(acre-feet per month)

1 891.029

2 891.029

3 927.01 1

4 927.011

5 927.011

6 949.162

7 985.988

8 996.384

9 927.011

10 927.011

11 927.011

12 918.015

13 911.072

14 911.072

15 911.072

16 911.072

17 915.027

18 1,015.192

19 1,038.252

20 1,042.739

21 965.824

22 911.072

23 911.072

24 911.072

25 924.786

26 924.786

27 924.786

28 924.786

29 982.938

30 1,049.816

0.000

.000

58.500

193.492

342.007

373.828

350.525

353.592

342.007

234.002

58.500

.000

12.920

12.920

110.903

250.906

400.960

356.820

347.767

357.285

350.163

292.924

110.903

40.932

32.229

32.229

133.715

278.728

380.079

371.157

Surface water and ground water, 

combined total

(acre-feet per month)

891.029

891.029

985.511

1,120.502

1,269.017

1,322.990

1,336.513

1 ,,349.976

1,269.017

1,161.012

985.511

918.015

923.992

923.992

1,021.976

1,161.978

1,315.987

1,372.012

1,386.018

1,400.024

1,315.987

1,203.997

1,021.976

952.005

957.015

957.015

1,058.500

1,203.514

1,363.016

1,420.973

(cubic feet per second)

14.759

14.759

16.324

18.560

21.020

21.914

22.138

22.361

21.020

19.231

16.324

15.206

15.305

15.305

16.928

19.247

21.798

22.726

22.958

23.190

21.798

19.943

16.928

15.769

15.852

15.852

17.533

19.935

22.577

23.537

Results and Discussion 15
Table 4. Optimal surface-water and ground-water deliveries for the base-case simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, 

California (Continued)

Month

Surface-water 

total

Ground-water 

total

(acre-feet per month)

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

1,049.816

1,061.709

1,015.294

924.786

924.786

924.786

979.073

979.073

979.073

979.073

1,016.673

1,104.103

1,104.103

1,115.280

1,062.746

979.073

979.073

979.073

923.992

923.992

926.436

926.436

926.436

1,001.418

1,001.418

1,017.502

970.302

926.436

926.436

926.436

385.707

388.303

347.722

322.196

133.715

61.208

10.906

10.906

115.953

265.917

393.313

365.893

380.925

384.721

347.240

310.954

115.953

40.911

.000

.000

95.539

235.541

389.550

370.593

384.600

382.522

345.685

277.560

95.539

25.568

Surface water and ground water, 

combined total

(acre-feet per month)

1,435.523

1,450.012

1,363.016

1,246.982

1,058.500

985.994

989.979

989.979

1,095.026

1,244.990

1,409.986

1,469.996

1,485.028

1,500.000

1,409.986

1,290.027

1,095.026

1,019.984

923.992

923.992

1,021.975

1,161.978

1,315.987

1,372.012

1,386.018

1,400.024

1,315.987

1,203.997

1,021.975

952.004

(cubic feet per second)

23.778

24.018

22.577

20.655

17.533

16.332

16.398

16.398

18.138

20.622

23.355

24.349

24.598

24.846

23.355

21.368

18.138

16.895

15.305

15.305

16.928

19.247

21.798

22.726

22.958

23.190

21.798

19.943

16.928

15.769

16 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
CO

LU

cc

o cc 

z o

=} < 

o z cc S 

o

100

80

60

40

20

 Ljncolnwood #1

 Lincolnwood #2

 -LosRobles

 -Hope Avenue

 --Chupparosa

 Franciscan

 »**« Foothill basin average

/ 1 1 

1 \

< \ > 1 '

f .1 i 1 "1 , ..*'"'£ -',! , f M &**:. , I 1 J, I .:;y ': i

12 24 36 

MONTH

48 60

Figure 9. Optimal ground-water deliveries from the Foothill 

basin wells for the base-case simulation, months 1-60, 

Santa Barbara, California.

Table 5. Summary of water-delivery costs for all simulations, 

Santa Barbara, California

Total cost 

Simulation (millions of

__________________________dollars)

Base case..................................................................... 5.56

Sensitivity to maximum cumulative carryover........... 6.34

Sensitivity to peak annual demand.............................. 4.87

Sensitivity to 30 feet below sea level head constraint 

at coast.................................................................. 4.53

Sensitivity to zero desalination-plant capacity............ 5.66

Sensitivity to allowing SWP carryover....................... 5.53

Current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion 

distribution.............................................................. 7.55

Proposed monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion 

distribution.............................................................. 5.07

Cachuma Reservoir variable monthly water 

deliveries with current monthly Gibraltar 

Reservoir diversion distribution.............................. 4 53

Cachuma Reservoir variable monthly water 

deliveries with proposed monthly Gibraltar 

Reservoir diversion distribution.............................. 4 53

The optimal cumulative carryover is shown in 

figure 6 and summarized in table 6. In years 1 and 2, 

3,000 acre-ft/yr is stored. This stored water (6,000 

acre-ft) is then used (delivered) in years 3, 4, and 5 

(1,126; 997; and 3,876 acre-ft/yr, respectively) with no

carryover available for use in year 6. Note that no carryover for use in year 6 is a result of the model not a 

constraint, that is, all the cheapest water (surface water 

including carryover) was used in year 5 of a 5 year planning horizon.

In general, ground-water pumping is intermittent; most of the pumping occurs in the summer months 

(figs. 7 to 9). Of the coastal wells in Storage Unit I 

(Vera Cruz, Ortega, Corporation, and City Hall), there 

is no pumping from the Vera Cruz, pumping from the 

Ortega takes place over the summer months, and pumping from the Corporation and the City Hall wells brackets the summer months (fig. 7). This pumping pattern 

is a result of the wells' proximity to the coastal boundary nodes (seawater-intrusion constraint locations); 

increased pumping can cause the head constraints at 

these nodes to be violated. Of the inland wells in Storage Unit I (Alameda, SBHS, and Church), most of the 

pumping takes place in the summer months; little 

pumping occurs in the winter months (fig. 8). Of the 

Foothill basin wells, the Los Robles well is pumped 

almost continuously for the simulation period because 

pumping this well does not affect the coastal boundary 

hydraulic-head constraints (fig. 9). There is relatively 

little pumping at the Lincolnwood wells (fig. 9) because 

of the high cost of water ($4617 acre-ft).

The average monthly pumpage for each group of 

wells is given in table 7. In general, less water is 

pumped from the coastal Storage Unit I wells than from 

the other groups of wells. The coastal Storage Unit I 

wells pump at about 3 percent of their average pumping 

capacities, and the other groups of wells pump from 

about 10 to 15 percent of their average pumping capacities (table 7). This further illustrates that pumping in 

the coastal area is constrained by the minimum head 

requirements at the coast (zero feet).

Over the 5-year management period the total volume of water pumped from Storage Unit I was about 

8,000 acre-ft, and the total capacity of these wells was 

about 30,750 acre-ft. This indicates that adding additional wells to the system would not provide additional 

water with little or no impact on the coastal heads 

because the 8,000 acre-ft is the maximum volume of 

water that can be pumped from the system without violating these head constraints. In addition, if additional 

water could be extracted, the existing wells would provide this water because the wells are not pumping at 

capacity.

Results and Discussion 17
Table 6. Optimal cumulative annual Cachuma Reservoir carryover and delivered carryover for the base-case simulation, 

years 1-5, Santa Barbara, California

Cumulative annual carryover1 (rounded) Delivered carryover (rounded)

vear 

cubic feet per second

1 4.141

2 8.282

3 6.727

4 5.350

5 .00

acre-feet per year

3,000.0

6,000.0

4,873.461

3,875.876

.00

cubic feet per second

0.00

.00

1.555

1.377

5.35

acre-feet per year

0.00

.00

1,126.540

997.585

3,875.876

1 Assumes a maximum annual carryover of 3,000 acre-feet and a maximum accumulated volume of 8,277 acre-feet.

Table 7. Average monthly pumping, pumping capacity, and percentage of pumping capacity utilized for Storage Unit I and for 

the Foothill basin for the base-case simulation, years 1-5, Santa Barbara, California

Average 

Storage 

Unit 1 

Year coastal 

pumping

Storage 

Unrtl 

coastal 

pumping 

capacity

(acre-feet per month)

1 10.789

2 11.742

3 12.654

4 12.002

5 12.614

358.330

358.330

358.330

358.330

358.330

Storage 

Unrtl 

coastal 

pumping 

capacity 

utilized

(percent)

3.011

3.277

3.531

3.349

3.520

Average 

Storage 

Unit 1 

inland 

pumping

Storage 

Unit! 

inland 

pumping 

capacity

(acre-feet per month)

22.848

23.960

25.081

26.457

25.849

154.170

154.170

154.170

154.170

154.170

Storage 

Unrtl 

inland 

pumping 

capacity 

utilized

(percent)

14.820

15.542

16.269

17.161

16.766

Average 

Foothill 

basin 

pumping

Foothill 

basin 

pumping 

capacity

(acre-feet per month)

13.387

19.012

20.756

22.842

23.907

150.000

150.000

150.000

150.000

150.000

Foothill 

basin 

pumping 

capacity 

utilized

(percent)

8.925

12.675

13.838

15.228

15.938

The resulting simulated water levels for model 

layers 1 and 2 are shown in figure 10. Depressions in 

the water levels are evident in both model layers owing 

to pumping from the SBHS and the Alameda wells 

(nodes (29,11) and (25,9) in fig. 3, respectively). The 

drawdown located in the southern part of the Foothill 

basin is caused by a drain in the model (Freckleton and 

others, 1998). However, the water levels along the 

coastal boundary are at least equal to zero feet.

Nonlinear Effects

Formulation

The Santa Barbara area MODFLOW model contains drain nodes near the coast (fig. 3). The flow 

through these nodes is a nonlinear function of head (see

McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988; Greenwald, 1993), 

and these nonlinearities violate the basic assumption 

that allows the use of linear programming techniques 

to solve the optimization problem. In order to incorporate the effects of these nonlinearities, an iterative 

approach is used (see Greenwald, 1993; Danskin and 

Freckleton, 1992). Ideally, as the number of iterations 

increases, the change in water deliveries and objective 

function caused by the nonlinearities should diminish 

(converge).

To apply this iterative solution, the optimization 

problem first must be reformulated. The optimal water 

deliveries and carryover values are treated as fixed variables and the changes in delivery and carryover caused 

by the nonlinear nature of the problem are the decision 

variables; that is, instead of the following general 

water-capacity constraint:

18 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
EXPLANATION 

90 Water-level altitude contour-Shows water-level altitude in wells. Contour interval variable, in feet. Datum is sea level.

Figure 10. Simulated December 1990 water-level altitudes in model layers 1 and 2 for the base-case simulation, Santa 

Barbara, California.

Results and Discussion 19
(6)

where Q,, is the water delivered and Q is the del max

maximum capacity of the source the constraint is reformulated as:

where Qde * is the optimal delivery and &Qdel is the 

change in water delivery caused by the nonlinearity. 

Equation 7 is reformulated as:

>AOj /> ^-del (8)

The demand constraints are similarly reformulated as:

del

where D is demand. The temporal carryover constraints are reformulated as:

(9)

-Qdel -Q ^

t 1*

(10)

Again, the new decision variables are &Qdel and AQ~o , 

adding 2,165 new decision variables to the problem. 

This iterative approach is a numerical method 

that yields a solution that reflects more accurately the 

nonlinear ground-water hydraulic effects caused by the 

drains than does the original formulation. As will be 

shown below, the nonlinearities are not significant.

Nonlinear Results

The nonlinear optimization problem converged 

in two iterations. After the first iteration the objective 

value decreased $44,000 and after the second iteration 

the objective value increased $762 for a net change 

of about 0.8 percent from the original objective value 

of $5.56 million.

The combined effect of the changes in surfacewater and ground-water deliveries after iteration 2 (fig. 

11) is to offset each other; the total change is approximately zero. The final-iteration water levels for layers 

1 and 2 are very similar to the base-case water levels 

(fig. 10).

The nonlinear iterations are considered to have 

converged because the changes in objective function, 

water deliveries, and water levels are small. In addition, the effects of the nonlinearities seem to be small; 

therefore, the sensitivity analyses discussed below do 

not include the iterative solution described above.

Sensitivity Analysis

Six sensitivity analyses were performed to test 

the sensitivity of the simulation-optimization model 

results to choice of (1) maximum cumulative carryover, 

(2) peak annual demand, (3) ocean-boundary constraint 

head values, (4) desalination-plant capacity, (5) SWP 

water carryover, and (6) the assumption of average 

monthly deliveries from the Cachuma Reservoir. Only 

the fourth, fifth, and sixth analyses are discussed in 

detail.

Reduce Allowable Carryover

In this simulation, allowable annual carryover is 

reduced to 1,500 acre-ft, with a stored maximum carryover of 4,500 acre-ft/yr. The resulting water deliveries 

are shown in figures 12 to 15 and Appendix tables A4 

to A6. The optimal cumulative carryover is shown in

is

>0

rrlS

Df WATER 

PER -FEET 

il

o

40.0

20.0

0.0

-20.0

-40.0 

_cnn

 Surface Water 

 Ground Water 

 Total Water

_

-

.

-

-

12 24 36 

MONTH

48 60

Figure 11. Change in surface-water, ground-water, and 

total deliveries after model nonlinear iteration no. 2, months 

1-60, Santa Barbara, California.

20 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
CO

cc£ ULJ 2:

 ><=> Z]S

^ '.'.J

CC 0- 

<t LLJ 5*V

§1

CO

I.UUU

finn

600

400

200

0

- Cachiima Reservoir^ 

- Cachuma Carryover 

- Gibraltar Reservoir 

_ Mission Tunnel

. - - - State Water Project 

 Desalination Plant

/ ^ '

/

- / V-'1'

.-' ..................1

1 1 1II 

1 1

",,,,, i^r77777~T/^rrrr/TA~

-

-

-

-

-

-

>* -

rr^VRV

12 24 36 48 

MONTH

60

Figure 12. Optimal surface-water deliveries from all sources 

for the Cachuma Reservoir carryover sensitivity simulation, 

months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California.

Onega VeraCruz 

Corporation City Hall

24 36 

MONTH

Figure 13. Optimal ground-water deliveries from coastal 

Storage Unit I wells for the Cachuma Reservoir carryonver 

sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, 

California (Note: No pumping from the Vera Cruz well.)

 Alameda

 Santa Barbara High School

 Church

Storage Unit I average

24 36 

MONTH

Figure 14. Optimal ground-water deliveries from inland 

Storage Unit I wells for the Cachuma Reservoir carryover 

sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, 

California.

 Lincolnwood #1

 --Lincolnwood#2

 -LosRobles

 Hope Avenue

 --Chupparosa

 Franciscan

Foothill basin average

MONTH

Figure 15. Optimal ground-water deliveries from the 

Foothill basin wells for the Cachuma Reservoir carryover 

sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, 

California (Note: Delivery values from the Lincolnwood #1 

and #2 wells overlap.)

figure 12 and table 8. The minimum cost for water 

delivery is $6.34 million, indicating that if the amount 

of carryover is halved the increased cost of water delivery over the 5-year simulation period is approximately 

$800,000; that is, the benefit from the additional carryover is about $533/acre-ft. The total volume of surface 

water delivered is about 240 acre-ft less than in the base 

case; this difference is compensated by additional 

pumping of ground water.

Reduce Demand

In this simulation, the maximum annual demand 

is reduced to 14,000 acre-ft in year 4 with a minimum 

demand of 13,500 acre-ft in years 1 and 5. The demand 

increases at a rate of about 167 acre-ft/yr in years 2,3, 

and 4. Recall that in the base case the initial demand 

was 13,500 acre-ft/yr, with a maximum demand of 

15,000 acre-ft in year 4 and a final demand of 14,000 

acre-ft in year 5. The total volume difference between

Results and Discussion 21
this simulation and the base case is 3,000 acre-ft. The 

resulting water deliveries are shown in figures 16 to 19 

and Appendix tables A7 to A9. The minimum cost of 

water delivery is $4.87 million, indicating that a 

decrease in peak annual demand of 7 percent can result 

in a cost savings of about $800,000 (about 15 percent) 

over the 5-year simulation period. Surface-water deliveries for this simulation were about 1,135 acre-ft less 

than for the base case; therefore, the balance was saved 

by reductions in ground-water pumpage.

Vary Head Constraints

Recall that in the base case the minimum hydraulic head was set at an altitude of zero feet. In this sensitivity analysis, two scenarios are tested: (1) 

constraining the hydraulic heads at the coastal boundary to be greater than or equal to an altitude of 30 ft, 

and (2) constraining the hydraulic heads at the coastal 

boundary such that the hydraulic gradient at this 

boundary is zero. The first scenario probably will 

allow a greater amount of seawater intrusion than will

Table 8. Optimal cumulative annual Cachuma Reservoir carryover and delivered carryover for the sensitivity of the base case 

to Cachuma Reservoir carryover simulation, Santa Barbara, California

Cumulative annual carryover1 Delivered carryover

cubic feet per second acre-feet per year cubic feet per second acre-feet per year

1 2.071

2 4.142

3 3.841

4 5.353

5 .000

1,500.000

3,000.000

2,782.789

3,877.905

.000

0.000

.000

.301

.000

5.353

0.000

.000

218.063

.000

3,877.905

Assumes a maximum annual carryover of 1,500 acre-feet and a maximum accumulated volume of 4,500 acre-feet.

CO*

LU

> 

LU

CC 

LU

_»

0

^) 

CO

PER MONTH T 

§

OO C

S i

LU

d, 400

<

~ 200

0

I

- Cachuma Reservoir 

- - Cachuma Carryover 

- ----Gibraltar Reservoir ,-/ - 

- - Mission Tunnel / 

. ---State Water Project _/ 1 /

- .. . . . ,L/ ~~ 

: I ':

i _________; 

 \ , '. 

", , .A, ix r7/f^.T^~~7r")i:rrrr/"\T"iiT~/~!\",^

D 12 24 36 48 6 

MONTH

Si

LU CC 

O LU

<t LU i 1^-

i LU

O CC

ra <:

120

100

Onega VeraCruz 

. Corporation City Hall

20

Figure 16. Optimal surface-water deliveries from all 

sources for the reduced-demand sensitivity simulation, 

months 1- 0, Santa Barbara, California.

24 36 

MONTH

Figure 17. Optimal ground-water deliveries from coastal 

Storage Unit I wells for the reduced-demand sensitivity 

simulation, months 1- 0, Santa Barbara, California (Note: No 

pumping from the Vera Cruz well.)

22 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
the base case constraint of zero feet, and the second 

scenario will allow little or no seawater intrusion 

because of the zero gradient at the coast.

First Scenario

The optimal water deliveries for this scenario 

(hydraulic head at coastal boundary constrained to an 

altitude of greater than or equal to -30 ft) are shown in 

figures 20 to 23 and Appendix tables A10 to A12. The 

cost of water delivery over the 5-year design period is 

$4.53 million, indicating that if Santa Barbara is willing to accept a greater amount of seawater intrusion

than in the base case, it will realize a cost savings of 

about $1 million over the 5-year drought period.

The optimal pumping patterns for this sensitivity 

analysis are presented in figures 21 to 23. The greatest 

differences in pumping from the base case are: (1) in 

the coastal Storage Unit I wells, there is pumping from 

the Vera Cruz well because the lower head constraint 

allows pumping from this well without violating the 

constraint; (2) pumping from the City Hall well is 

increased and is almost continuous over the study 

period; and (3) pumping from the Ortega and the Corporation well has been decreased (fig. 21).

GROUND-WATER DELIVERIES, 

MONTH ACRE-FEET PERIN

1£ S§

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

\R

rl, ,< h i*

H

i 

i ,

_/ 

..... j

 i

yve* 1

! 1 : :

:

1 '

Uame 

>anta 

Jhurcf 

Jtorag

Ja 

Barbara High School ~ 

i 

e Unit I average

1?%^

i \ hi

) 12 24 36 48 6 

MONTH

Figure 18. Optimal ground-water deliveries from inland 

Storage Unit I wells for the reduced-demand sensitivity 

simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California.

ROUND-WATER DELIVERIES, 

MONTH IN ACRE-FEET PER 

S I §i

o £U 

n

-

 i i>

i i i i i i

r "»

H i f ,,i i

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

 Lincolnwood #1 

 Lincolnwood #2 

 -LosRobles 

 -Hope Avenue 

---Chupparosa 

 Franciscan 

-«**"" Foothill basin average -

\ \ 

|

' , ,li

 i 

i i

0, Ipsm

1

/ 

>

1 I - 

1 l _

I/35"! "

yt

12 24 36 

MONTH

48 60

Figure 19. Optimal ground-water deliveries from the Foothill 

basin wells for the reduced-demand sensitivity simulation, 

months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California (Note: No pumping 

from the Lincolnwood #1 well.)

CO

cc

tr

0

CO

I.UUU

z 800

^

cc 600

LU

LU

4- 400

«*

- 200

n

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i | i i i i i | i i i i i 

" Cachuma Reservoir 

- - Cachuma Carryover

- Gibraltar Reservoir

- Mission TnnnPl ,

-

: _,______^i________,-. _

: \

, ' ( 

1 c 

' c 

1 c

^ _J

i i i i i 1 i i i i i i i i i i 1 i i i i > l> i < i i i

12 24 36 

MONTH

48 60

Figure 20. Optimal surface-water deliveries from all sources 

for the 30 feet below sea level head-constraint sensitivity 

simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California.

120

100

LU rr 

Q LU cr°-

O CC

20

1 I ' ' ' ' ' I ' T T 1 r 7^^ i i i | r i i

 Ortega Vera Cruz **«**« Storage Unit I 

Corporation City Hall average

24 36 

MONTH

Figure 21. Optimal ground-water deliveries from coastal 

Storage Unit I wells for the 30 feet below sea level headconstraint sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa 

Barbara, California.

Results and Discussion 23
Second Scenario

In this scenario, the heads at the coastal boundary are constrained to be greater than or equal to the 

equivalent freshwater heads as specified in the generalhead boundary conditions of the MODFLOW model. 

The heads required for zero gradient and the constraint 

locations are presented in table 9. This scenario 

resulted in an infeasible solution of the optimization 

problem; even with no pumping, the head constraints 

could not be met. All the coastal boundary constraints 

were infeasible in the first few months, but by month 

58 only two constraints remained infeasible. The 

greatest difference in the first few months was about 11 

ft; that is, the minimum head was set at about 21 ft and 

the simulated head was about 10 ft. In month 58 the 

greatest difference was about 0.06 ft.

Constrain Desalination-Plant Capacity to Zero

As noted in the base-case results, the optimal 

water delivery from the desalination plant was small 

(about 39 acre-ft over 5 years). In this sensitivity analysis, the capacity of the desalination plant is constrained to zero to test whether an optimal solution 

exists and to estimate the change in cost caused by 

removing this water source.

The optimization problem is feasible at a cost of 

$5.66 million over the 5-year management period; this 

is an increase of about $0.1 million (2 percent) over the

 Alameda

 Santa Barbara High School -Church

 **** Storage Unit] average

24 36

MONTH

Figure 22. Optimal ground-water deliveries from inland 

Storage Unit I wells for the 30 feet below sea level headconstraint sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa 

Barbara, California (Note: Delivery values for the Santa 

Barbara High School and Church wells are very similar.)

base-case cost. The results are shown in figures 24 to 

27 and Appendix tables A13 to A15.

Desalinated water is not required in this simulation because the capacity of the desalinated-water plant 

is constrained to zero. However, SWP water deliveries 

are increased over the base case and, as in the base case, 

this water is required only during the peak-demand 

summer months (fig. 24). Deliveries from the other 

sources of surface water are unchanged. The total volume of delivered surface water in this simulation is 

58,019 acre-ft, which is slightly greater than in the base 

case (57,835 acre-ft).

The distribution of pumping (figs. 25 to 27) is 

virtually the same as in the base case; that is, intermittent pumping near the coast and more continuous 

pumping inland. However, pumping is greater than in 

the base case at the Lincolnwood wells but less than the 

base case at most of the other wells. Overall, the total 

volume of pumped water in this simulation is

Table 9. Hydraulic-head values at constraint locations, Santa 

Barbara, California

Constraint location 

(layer, column, row)

1,32,3

1,32,4

1,33,5

1,34,6

1,35,7

1,36,7

1,37,8

1,38,9

1,39,10

1,40,10

1,41,11

1,42,12

2,33,5

2,34,6

2,35,7

2,36,7

2,37,8

2,38,9

2,39,10

2,40,10

2,41,11

2,42,12

Hydraulic head 

(feet)

0.0

.0

10.8

9.6

8.4

8.4

7.8

7.2

5.6

5.6

5.4

4.8

21.6

19.2

16.8

16.8

15.6

14.4

13.8

13.8

13.2

9.6

24 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
12,981 acre-ft, which is less than in the base case 

(13,165 acre-ft).

Carryover State Water Project (SWP) Water

In this simulation, SWP water is allowed to be 

carried over with the Cachuma Reservoir carryover. 

Such a policy could be implemented by Santa Barbara 

because SWP water is delivered to the Cachuma Reservoir (allowing storage) and delivered to Santa Barbara

by means of the Tecolote Tunnel. The formulation of 

the optimization problem is the same as that for the 

Cachuma Reservoir carryover and adds five new decision variables to the formulation. The maximum 

allowable cumulative carryover for years 1 to 5 according to Mack (oral commun., 1996) is presented in table 

10. Note that the maximum value of 3,000 acre-ft/yr is 

the maximum allocation of SWP water anticipated by 

Santa Barbara.

 ( 

^ ;>

LU EC

O LU tr 0-

LU 1 

1 LU 

<t LU

i LU

Q CC 

13

0 z

CC 

CD

IUU

80

60

40

20

0 

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

 Lincolnwood #1

- -Lincolnwood #2

 LosRobles

 Hope Avenue - 

---Chupparosa 

 Franciscan -

«* « Foothill basin average _

_

"

-

;"" , r""1 ' ' ' 

,'r-i 1 } r-~ -i J i 

- J 1 } | J i

- ' ' ! ii ! i' ii } J | 11 | A

- jJTlj; jT"! fim Ol

i i It i i i' i , 1 i j r iMl i , i /',!

0 12 24 36

MONTH

_

-

-

r"", -

i j "

! ,|:

fi$~

. i , t J\\~

48 6

Figure 23. Optimal ground-water deliveries from the 

Foothill basin wells for the 30 feet below sea level headconstraint sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa 

Barbara, California (Note: No pumping from the 

Lincolnwood #1 and #2 wells.)

Q LU CC°-

Q CC

'ZL O 

ZD <

120

100

 Ortega VeraCruz

 Corporation City Hall

20

24 36 

MONTH

Figure 25. Optimal ground-water deliveries from coastal 

Storage Unit I wells for the zero desalination capacity 

sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, 

California.

DELIVERIES, SURFACE-WATER 

MONTH ACRE-FEET PERIN

4^ oocCDr co O C

- Cachuma Reservoir 

----- Cachuma Carryover

- - Gibraltar Reservoir 

- Mission Tunnel

- OLalt' Walt'1 r lUJcLl ^^

-

,_____-^.;---______'.

_ 1 \ i ............... .

i : 

_................. i

~~ ' / ' ~"

) 12 24 36 48 6 

MONTH

0

GROUND-WATER DELIVERIES, 

MONTH ACRE-FEET INPER

4^. CK3D CO OO 0

-

-

-

«; "l*

i i

)

1 i '

it

12

IM1 1

i '

 ; 

......

XAtf%'

1 1

1 '

Mame 

Santa 

^hurc 

3tora£

24 36 

MONTH

da 

Barbara 

h 

eUnitl

i '

High 

avera

-

School .

36 7

r

j iii 1

48 6

Figure 24. Optimal surface-water deliveries from all sources 

for the zero desalination capacity sensitivity simulation, 

months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California.

Figure 26. Optimal ground-water deliveries from inland 

Storage Unit I wells for the zero desalination capacity 

sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, 

California.

Results and Discussion 25
The optimal water deliveries are shown in figures 28 to 31 and Appendix tables A16 to A18. The 

optimal cumulative carryover values are presented in 

table 11. The cost of delivering water is about $5.53 

million, a cost savings of about $0.03 million in comparison with the base case.

In this simulation, desalinated water is not 

required and total SWP water deliveries are greater 

than in the base case. The total volume of surface 

water delivered in this simulation is 57,959 acre-ft,

which is greater than the volume in the base case 

(57,835 acre-ft).

The general pattern of ground-water deliveries is 

the same as in the base case; that is, intermittent pumping in Storage Unit I and more continuous pumping in 

the Foothill basin (figs. 29 to 31). However, the total 

volume of water delivered from Storage Unit I in this 

simulation (8,256 acre-ft) is greater than in the base 

case (7,983 acre-ft), and the volume delivered from the 

Foothill basin (4,787 acre-ft) is less than in the base 

case.

 Lincolnwood #1

 Lincolnwood #2

 LosRobles

 -Hope Avenue

 Chupparosa

 Franciscan

Foothill basin average

120

MONTH

Figure 27. Optimal ground-water deliveries from the Foothill 

basin wells for the zero desalination capacity sensitivity 

simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California (Note: 

Delivery values for the Chupparosa and Franciscan wells are 

very similar.)

DELIVERIES, SURFACE-WATER 

MONTH ACRE-FEET PERIN

oo cro-^ o>i*^ < CD^DC

1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 > 1 1 1 1 1 1 

" Cachuma Reservoir 

----- Cachuma Carryover 

- Gibraltar Reservoir , =

- ---State Water Project 

- State Water Project 

Carryover

.

_ :

\ /

-

\

i ,________. 

 ill 

i i '.

" , , />. , ?77r~'~~~~Tr, vrr:?T7^:^T~AT~;^'a

12 24 36 

MONTH

48 60

Figure 28. Optimal surface-water deliveries from all sources 

for the State Water Project carryover sensitivity simulation, 

months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California.

Ortega VeraCruz 

Corporation City Hall

Storage Unit I 

average

24 36 

MONTH

Figure 29. Optimal ground-water deliveries from coastal 

Storage Unit I wells for the State Water Project carryover 

sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, 

California (Note: No pumping from the Vera Cruz well.)

Table 10. Maximum allowable cumulative State Water 

Project (SWP) carryover, years 1-5, Santa Barbara, 

California__________________________

Maximum allowable Maximum allowable

Year SWP carry over, in SWP carry over, in

acre-feet per year cubic feet per second

1

2

3

4

5

1,500

3,000

3,000

3,000

3,000

2.071

4.141

4.141

4.141

4.141

26 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table 11. Optimal cumulative annual State Water Project (SWP) carryover and delivered SWP carryover, years 1-5, Santa 

Barbara, California

Year

Cumulative annual SWP carryover Delivered SWP carryover

cubic feet per second acre-feet per year cubic feet per second

1 1.097 794.737 0.000 

2 1.314 952.194 .000 

3 1.218 882.509 .096 

4 1.047 758.249 .172 

5 .000 .000 1.047

 inn

GROUND-WATER DELIVERIES, 

IN MONTH ACRE-FEET PER

4* O> COI\30 OC3

U

C

Figure 30

Storage U 

sensitivity 

California

100

co" Rn LU n: °u

11

S£ 60

LU | 

IS 40

0 CC 

Z O

r> <c

O 2;

o 20 

0

 Alameda

........ Santa Barbara High School -

«« w« Storage Unit I average

-

/ \ I

i? :- ; : i -

 |ifW |V>4 ; f\*^ fW^ IfW,, \

~ Ji , i \ ,{ i . . i |.{ , , , , \ .f i , . , \.f:, , , , '

12 24 36 48 6 

MONTH

. Optimal ground-water deliveries from inland 

nit I wells for the State Water Project carryover 

simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara,

11111 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

 Lincolnwood #1 

-- Lincolnwood #2 

---LosRobles 

 Hope Avenue 

-- Chupparosa 

 Franciscan 

-w» Foothill basin average

T ' ' ' \ I V ';"

- ' 'I i * "" ' T ' i \- 

- ' ' } ' i 1 1 : ' - '

S.flOlffiJfffl

1,000 

£= 800

o£ 600 

cc Q-

"J i-

!<tti

JS 400 

I" 200

0 

0 C

Figure 32.

for the curr 

percentage 

California.

120

GROUND-WATER DELIVERIES, 

PER MONTH ACRE-FEET IN

J* roooo 

0 12 24 36 48 60 

MONTH

acre-feet per year

0.000 

.000 

69.549 

124.608 

758.249

- Cachuma Reserv 

- Cachuma Carryo

- Gibraltar Reserve 

- Mission Tunnel 

- ---State Water Projf 

_ Desalination Plan

- ''' A 

* > /

_ :

yLi

-i_ | i i r

oir 

i/er 

ir

;ct 

t

V.

_/ "'

_

~\ :

-

 -. ,'\ i

'"' ll'

12 24 36 48 6C 

MONTH

Optimal surface-water deliveries from all sources 

ent monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion 

is simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara,

i i i i i | i i , i 

 Onega

........ corporation

; \ i

i

i

 s; |

: !H !* 

'- 1! |l

i i i i

 Ver 

 Cit]

;

r i

i 1 1 1 1 i

iIf

* /^,

 a Cruz *«* storage Unit I J 

i Hall average

A A A ~

\ v\ :

i \ '

!l i i /-

::| :' . 

Ill i3 1 i i

5 J 

1 i. "1 ^i/jr. Tti

HI 1 H i|

12 24 36 

MONTH

48 60

Figure 31. Optimal ground-water deliveries from the 

Foothill basin wells for the State Water Project carryover 

sensitivity simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, 

California.

Figure 33. Optimal ground-water deliveries from coastal 

Storage Unit I wells for the current monthly Gibraltar 

Reservoir diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60, 

Santa Barbara, California (Note: No pumping from the Vera 

Cruz well.)

Results and Discussion 27
Current Monthly Gibraltar Diversion 

Distribution

In the base case, equal average monthly Gibraltar 

Reservoir capacities were used. In this scenario, the 

actual monthly diversion percentages of Gibraltar Reservoir water are used (fig. 4). Note the very low percentage of water available in the late summer months.

The results for this scenario are shown in figures 

32 to 35 and Appendix tables A19 to A21. The cost of 

delivering water over the 5-year design period is $7.55 

million, which is 36 percent greater than the cost in the 

base case.

The total volume of delivered Gibraltar Reservoir water is greater in the base case than the volume in 

this scenario because of the inappropriate timing of

100

JSi 80

*z

u-> ^

> o

^^

SE5 60

0:°-

LU | 

1 LU <: LU

3» "- At\ ?iL 40

Q CC

zo

13 <

0 z

fy* ^~ _ _

o 20

0 . 

1 1 1 1 1 | . 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 . | 1 ! II 1

 Alameda

 Santa Barbara High School - 

 Church

mmu storage Unit I average

 

-

- -

_

-

-

-

~~

-

"i,,,

_

k

^%M

i ;

.

i 1

1-1 I..

i

J*% X

f ^

1

J __ _

T 

C ;

|

jl^ I* '^ °^1 .*&*-«

nj:

1 i

P :

r ':

L |l

\,,.<* I i i i

»

* 1

\\{

^^' ^ ^>\

',

, ,

\ i. > * i*. t

.'

''y, U

pte«^ '

* * r

i : T

a

;i ii

a

4-- 111"

0 12 24 36 48 6

MONTH

Figure 34. Optimal ground-water deliveries from inland 

Storage Unit I wells for the current monthly Gibraltar 

Reservoir diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60, 

Santa Barbara. California.

DELIVERIES, SURFACE-WATER 

ACRE-FEET MONTH IN PER

- Cachuma Reservoir S 

- - Cachuma Carryover 

- Gibraltar Reservoir 

_ __. Mission Tunnel

- - State Water Project 

_ Desalination Plant

* <\

- i ;\ / r,

llp--^ i:

:

yLJUi

late Water Project Carryover -

~\ /

-

\ ^/\

i i i \;

,/' U| :

) 12 24 36 48 6 

MONTH

Figure 36. Optimal surface-water deliveries from all sources 

for the State Water Project carryover sensitivity with current 

monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages 

simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California.

| 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Lincolnwood #1 

Lincolnwood #2 

LosRobles 

Hope Avenue 

Chupparosa 

Franciscan 

Foothill basin average

24 36 

MONTH

Figure 35. Optimal ground-water deliveries from the Foothill 

basin wells for the current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir 

diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60, Santa 

Barbara. California (Note: Delivery values for the 

Lincolnwood #1 and #2 wells and from the Chupparosa and 

Franciscan wells are very similar.)

O LU

<: LU 54-

i LU

o cc

 z. o

ID < 

O -^ CC 

o

120

100

80

60

40

20

". Ortega VeraCruz *<***« Storage Unit I 

........ Corporation City Hall average

-

'

_

-

-

?.

- 1

: I

\

L%«

. ;

,/\/

fl

Ak %rfSi

 yp

:

:

n

i

\

: 

£

|

j

If

J,

A

yj^^

|l 

 1

' 1 1 ' 

1 1 1 

1 '

i: 

F I ' * 1 I *

I 1 If

^1

I

v

1

fl

II

M j * I 1 w

h::

r

?"

:.

L^l

j jj

1 ^ 1

i ! j

1 : /

12 24 36 

MONTH

48 60

Figure 37. Optimal ground-water deliveries from coastal 

Storage Unit I wells for the State Water Project carryover 

sensitivity with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion 

percentages simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, 

California (Note: No pumping from the Vera Cruz well.)

28 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
diversions throughout a year. For example, 9.4 percent 

of the annual demand occurs in month 9, when only 1.4 

percent of the Gibraltar Reservoir capacity is available. 

To compensate for this mistiming, greater volumes of 

S WP and desalinated water are required in the summer 

months.

The optimal pumping patterns for this scenario 

are shown in figures 33 to 35. Considering the coastal

Storage Unit I wells, the City Hall well is pumped more 

continuously and at a greater total volume than in the 

base case. However, the total volumes pumped from 

these wells are approximately equal (2,870 acre-ft for 

the base case and 2,876 acre-ft for this scenario). Considering the inland Storage Unit I wells, the total volume pumped from all the wells (4,401 acre-ft) is less 

than in the base case (5,113 acre-ft). Considering the

 Alameda

 - Santa Barbara High School

 Church

Storage Unit I average

24 36 

MONTH

Figure 38. Optimal ground-water deliveries from inland 

Storage Unit I wells for the State Water Project carryover 

sensitivity with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion 

percentages simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, 

California.

100

80

60

40

- 20

Em

IILU CC

O iij

QOC 

O

 Lincolnwood #1 

........ Lincolnwood #2

 LosRobles

 Hope Avenue

 -- Chupparosa

 Franciscan

Foothill basin average

12 24 36 

MONTH

48 60

Figure 39. Optimal ground-water deliveries from the Foothill 

basin wells for the State Water Project carryover sensitivity 

with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion 

percentages simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, 

California (Note: Delivery values for the Lincolnwood #1 and 

#2 wells and from the Chupparosa and Franciscan wells are 

very similar.)

Q tu

CC CL.

1,000

800

600

~ 200

1 ' ' ' ' i ' ' ' ' ' i

 Cachuma Reservoir

 - Cachuma Carry Over

 - Gibraltar Reservoir 

"~ - Mission Tunnel

- - - State Water Project

\ _V /' \ £

". \ rr^rTTTr

12 24 36 

MONTH

48 60

Figure 40. Optimal surface-water deliveries from all sources 

for the proposed monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion 

percentages simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, 

California.

Ortega VeraCruz 

Corporation City Hall

24 36 

MONTH

Figure 41. Optimal ground-water deliveries from coastal 

Storage Unit I wells for the proposed monthly Gibraltar 

Reservoir diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60, 

Santa Barbara, California (Note: No pumping from the Vera 

Cruz well.)

Results and Discussion 29
Foothill basin wells, the pumping patterns are more 

intermittent than in the base case, and the total volume 

of water pumped is 4,230 acre-ft, which is less than in 

the base case (5,182 acre-ft).

Sensitivity Analysis

Two sensitivity analyses are performed using the 

current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages scenario: (1) implementing SWP carryover, and 

(2) combining zero desalination-plant capacity with 

SWP carryover. In this scenario, it is assumed that the 

sensitivity to choice of Cachuma Reservoir carryover, 

maximum annual demand, and coastal head constraint 

is similar to that of the base case.

State Water Project (SWP) Carryover

SWP carryover is implemented in the same manner as is the base case (table 10). The results are shown 

in figures 36 to 39 and Appendix tables A22 to A24. 

The cost of delivering water with SWP carryover is 

about $7.54 million, a cost savings of about $0.01 million (0.1 percent) in comparison with the currentGibraltar Reservoir-distributions scenario without 

SWP carryover.

SWP water is stored in years 1 and 3 and then 

used entirely in years 2 and 4; however, the total volume of water delivered (1,997 acre-ft) is less in this 

scenario than in the previous scenario (2,043 acre-ft) 

(fig. 36). All other surface-water deliveries are relatively unchanged from the previous scenario.

There is little difference in pumping pattern or 

volumes of water pumped between this scenario and 

the previous scenario.

Zero Desalination Capacity with 

State Water Project Carryover

In this analysis, the capacity of the desalination 

plant is constrained to zero, and SWP water is allowed 

to be carried over in order to reduce costs. This optimization problem is infeasible, indicating that desalinated 

water is required if the current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir percentages are used.

Proposed Monthly Gibraltar Reservoir 

Diversion Distribution

In this scenario, the proposed monthly diversion 

of Gibraltar Reservoir water is implemented (fig. 4). 

The water is more appropriately distributed in this scenario in comparison with the actual percentages; for 

example, in month 9,11 percent of the water is available, in comparison with an actual value of 1.4 percent

CEO- 

£fc 

Sffi

6S

z o

o z oc 

CD

100

80

60

40

20

12

 Alameda 

Santa Barbara High School

 Church

< Storage Unit I average

24 36 

MONTH

48 60

ssLU Qcct£

LU | 

£- LU 

<C LU

II

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

Cachuma Reservoir Mission Tunnel 

Cachuma Carryover 

 Gibraltar Reservoir

12 24 36 

MONTH

48 60

Figure 42. Optimal ground-water deliveries from inland 

Storage Unit I wells for the proposed monthly Gibraltar 

Reservoir diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60, 

Santa Barbara, California.

Figure 43. Optimal ground-water deliveries from the Foothill 

basin wells for the proposed monthly Gibraltar Reservoir 

diversion percentages simulation, months, 1-60, Santa 

Barbara, California.

30 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
(fig. 4). The results are shown in figures 40 to 43 and 

Appendix tables A25 to A27. The total cost of water 

delivery is $5.07 million, which is 9 percent less than 

in the base case.

This distribution allows more Gibraltar Reservoir water to be used (14,196 acre-ft) than does the base 

case (14,115 acre-ft) because more water is available in 

the high-demand summer months. As in the base case, 

SWP water is required in the last 3 years to help meet 

peak summer demand; however, the total volume of 

1,018 acre-ft is less in this scenario than in the base 

case (1,861 acre-ft). Desalinated water is not required 

in this scenario.

Considering the coastal Storage Unit I wells, the 

Ortega well is not required in the first year and is 

required for fewer months thereafter than in the base 

case. The total volume of water pumped from these 

wells in this scenario is 3,545 acre-ft, which is greater 

than in the base case (2,870 acre-ft). Considering the 

inland Storage Unit I wells, the Church well is pumped 

more continuously in this scenario than in the base 

case, and the total volume of water pumped from this 

well (2,284 acre-ft) is greater than in the base case 

(1,840 acre-ft). Considering the Foothill wells, the Los 

Robles and the Hope Avenue wells are pumped almost 

continuously and the total volume of water pumped 

from both wells is greater in this scenario (2,333 acreft and 1,679 acre-ft, respectively) than in the base case 

(2,069 acre-ft and 1,407 acre-ft, respectively).

Cachuma Reservoir Variable Monthly 

Water Deliveries

In the base case, it was assumed that average 

monthly deliveries from the Cachuma and the Gibraltar 

Reservoirs were used. In the following simulations, the 

monthly deliveries from the Cachuma Reservoir are 

allowed to vary with demand and with water deliveries 

from the Gibraltar Reservoir. Two scenarios based on 

the Gibraltar Reservoir release schedules are tested: 

(1) using the current, actual, monthly diversion distribution and (2) the proposed monthly diversion distribution for Gibraltar Reservoir (fig. 4).

These simulations require that the capacity and 

temporal balance constraints be reformulated. The 

capacity constraints are reformulated as (recall that 

water deliveries are nonpositive values in the model):

cr> Q max (11)

where Qlcr is the water delivered in time step i from the 

Cachuma Reservoir, and Qlmax is the maximum capacity of the Cachuma Reservoir in year /.

The reformulated temporal balance constraint 

for the first year is:

(12)

Equation 12 states that the sum of delivered Cachuma 

Reservoir water minus the sum of water carried over in 

year 1 must be greater than or equal to the maximum 

water available in year 1.

The reformulated temporal balance constraint 

for years 2 through 5 is:

f-1 +122-*^

Equation 13 states that the sum of delivered Cachuma 

Reservoir water within a year minus the sum of water 

carried over in the current year (year /) plus the sum of 

water carried from the previous year (/-I) must be 

greater than the maximum water available in year /. 

Note that the above reformulations decrease the number of constraints from 3,300 to 3,245 because of the 

simplification of the capacity constraints and temporal 

balance constraints.

Actual Monthly Gibraltar Reservoir Diversion 

Distribution

In this scenario, the monthly deliveries from the 

Cachuma Reservoir are allowed to vary and the actual 

monthly diversion percentages of Gibraltar Reservoir 

water are used (fig. 4). The results for this scenario are 

shown in figures 44 to 47 and Appendix tables A28 to 

A30. The cost of delivering water over the 5-year 

design period is $4.53 million, which is more than 18 

percent less than the cost in the base case ($5.56 million).

The Cachuma Reservoir deliveries are much 

more variable than in the base case and are out of phase

Results and Discussion 31
with the Gibraltar Reservoir deliveries (fig. 44). The 

total volume of water delivered from the Cachuma and 

the Gibraltar Reservoirs is approximately equal to the 

base case; however, the timing of the deliveries is such 

that no S WP or desalinated water is required. Cachuma 

Reservoir carryover is stored in the first 2 years and 

used over the last 3 years.

The optimal pumping patterns for this scenario 

are shown in figures 45 to 47. Considering the coastal 

Storage Unit I wells, the Ortega and the Vera Cruz 

wells are not pumped and the other wells are pumped 

variably during the first 17 months; the Corporation 

well is pumped continuously after the first 12 months 

(fig. 45). The total volume of water pumped from these

CO 

UJ

DC

cc UJ \ 

<:

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

 Cachuma Reservoir 

Cachuma Carryover

 Gibraltar Reservoir

- Mission Tunnel

12 24 36 

MONTH

48 60

Figure 44. Optimal surface-water deliveries from all 

sources for the variable Cachuma Reservoir deliveries with 

current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages 

simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California.

LU rr 

O uj

o cc

Z. O

3 <

O 2

cc 

CD

100

80

60

40

20

 Alameda

 Santa Barbara High School

 Church

Storage Unit I average

12 24 36 

MONTH

48 60

Figure 46. Optimal ground-water deliveries from inland 

Storage Unit I wells for the variable Cachuma Reservoir 

deliveries with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion 

percentages simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, 

California.

£x 

li

UJ cC 

O uj

o cc

z. o ^ < 

o z cc 

CD

100

80

60

40

20

12

 Ortega

- Corporation

 Vera Cruz

--City Hall

«** Storage Unit I average

24 36 

MONTH

48 60

Figure 45. Optimal ground-water deliveries from coastal 

Storage Unit I for the variable Cachuma Reservoir deliveries 

with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion 

percentages simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, 

California (Note: No pumping from the Ortega and Vera Cruz 

wells.)

DELIVERIES, fATER 

MONTH FEET PER

ig §

=? tL 40

Q CC

Z 0

3 < 

o z

£~ 20

0

(

 Lincolnwood #1 

........ Lincolnwood #2 

 LosRobles 

 Hope Avenue 

 Chupparosa 

 Franciscan 

«*««*, Foothill basin average

i 

i 

i

j

I

1____»» ^^

" , , , . , i , , , . , i , , , .!, i , , , , , i i , , ,

3 12 24 36 48 

MONTH

-

~~

-

-

~

6

Figure 47. Optimal ground-water deliveries from the 

Foothill basin wells for the variable Cachuma Reservoir 

deliveries with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir 

diversion percentages simulation, months 1-60, Santa 

Barbara, California (Note: No pumping from the 

Lincolnwood #1, #2, Chupparosa, and Franciscan wells.)

32 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
wells is greater in this scenario than in the base case 

(2,870 acre-ft in the base case and 3,166 acre-ft in this 

scenario). Considering the inland Storage Unit I wells, 

pumping is variable in the first year and becomes continuous for years 2 to 5 (fig. 46). The total volume of 

water pumped from these wells (8,413 acre-ft) is 

greater than in the base case (5,113 acre-ft). Considering the Foothill basin wells, water is pumped from the 

Los Robles and the Hope Avenue wells only, and these

wells are pumped more nearly continuously than in the 

base case. The total volume of water pumped from 

these wells (3,400 acre-ft) is less than in the base case 

(5,182 acre-ft).

Proposed Monthly Gibraltar Reservoir Diversion 

Distribution

In this scenario, the monthly deliveries from the 

Cachuma Reservoir are allowed to vary, and the pro1,200

1,000

C/3

LU 1C

cc£ 

£o 800

OCO.

LU |_

^ LU

II

CC 2 

C/3

600

400

200

I I I I | I I ! I I |

Cachuma Reservoir

 Cachuma Carryover

 Gibraltar Reservoir 

- Mission Tunnel

12 24 36 

MONTH

48 60

Figure 48. Optimal surface-water deliveries from all sources 

for the variable Cachuma Reservoir deliveries with proposed 

monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages 

simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, California.

O LU orQLU | 

I LU

<; LU 

SIS

13

o z

CC 

o

100

80

60

40

20

 Alameda

 - Santa Barbara High School

 Church

Storage Unit I average

12 24 36 

MONTH

48 60

Figure 50. Optimal ground-water deliveries from inland 

Storage Unit I for the variable Cachuma Reservoir deliveries 

with proposed monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion 

percentages simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, 

California.

03 

LU

CC

dec 

z o

= <

o ^

CC 

CD

100

80

60

40

20

i i i i i i i i i i i i i 

~, 'jf\

- 5 A 'l / l! / "- -.....

J1/1 'VI

j ':! \l\! ^

-iUSL L

51 1 l

, i i | i i i i i | i r i i

 Ortega 

 Corporation 

 Vera Cruz 

 City Hall 

«m*"1 Storage Unit I average -

"-

-

12 24 36 

MONTH

48 60

Figure 49. Optimal ground-water deliveries from coastal 

Storage Unit I for the variable Cachuma Reservoir deliveries 

with proposed monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion 

percentages simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, 

California (Note: No pumping from the Ortega and Vera Cruz 

wells.)

C/3

LU I

£g

^j S

LU Q:

O in

0:°-

}~~ ' ' ' 

^t ' ' *

i LU Q CC

z o

=3 <C

0 z

CC 

0

IUU

80

60

40

20

0

(

i i , , > i i i i i i i i i i , i i i i i i i i i i i i

 LJncolnwood #1

 LJncolnwood #2

 Los Robles

 Hope Avenue

 Chupparosa 

 Franciscan

««*» Foothill basin average

-

-

r 

1

1

1 

1

-______^ ',,,,, i i i i ,. i ....!. i . . . . . i . i i .

} 12 24 36 48

MONTH

i ~

-

_

-

-

~

-

-

-

6

Figure 51 . Optimal ground-water deliveries from the Foothill 

basin wells for the variable Cachuma Reservoir deliveries 

with proposed monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion 

percentages simulation, months 1-60, Santa Barbara, 

California (Note: No pumping from the Ortega and Vera Cruz 

wells.)

Results and Discussion 33
posed monthly diversion percentages of Gibraltar Reservoir water are used (fig. 4). The results for this 

scenario are shown in figures 48 to 51, and (the optimal 

surface-water deliveries only) hi Appendix table A31. 

The cost of delivering water over the 5-year design 

period is $4.53 million, which is equal to the cost of the 

previous scenario and more than 18 percent less than 

the cost in the base case ($5.56 million).

The total volume of delivered Cachuma Reservoir water is equal to the volume in the previous scenario and approximately equal to that in the base case; 

however, there is less variability in the first 2 years 

because of the distribution of the Gibraltar Reservoir 

deliveries. In the last 3 years, the deliveries increase in 

variability but the variability is not as great as in the 

previous scenario (see fig. 44).

The optimal pumping patterns for this scenario 

are shown in figures 49 to 51. Note that the pumping 

patterns for the Storage Unit I and Foothill basin wells 

are the same hi this scenario as hi the previous scenario. 

This would indicate that if the Cachuma Reservoir 

deliveries are allowed to vary with demand and with the 

Gibraltar Reservoir deliveries, then this variability will 

compensate for the Gibraltar Reservoir delivery schedules and result hi an alternative delivery schedule for 

surface water and ground water that is lower hi cost 

than hi the base case. In fact, this cost ($4.53 million) 

is less than the cost from the reduced-demand sensitivity analysis of the base case ($4.87 million).

SUMMARY

A simulation-optimization model for the management of water resources by the city of Santa Barbara under drought conditions has been developed. 

Santa Barbara is concerned with the cost of water supply sufficient to meet its water demands during a 

drought and to control seawater intrusion. The objective of the model is to minimize the cost of water supply over a 5-year planning horizon subject to capacity 

constraints, head constraints for controlling seawater 

intrusion, and demand constraints. The problem is formulated as a linear programmmg problem with 

monthly management periods and a total planning horizon of 5 years. The decision variables are surfacewater deliveries from the Gibraltar Reservoir, the 

Cachuma Reservoir, the Cachuma Reservoir cumulative annual carryover, the Mission Tunnel, and the State 

Water Project; desalinated seawater; and ground-water

deliveries from 13 production wells. The state variables are the hydraulic heads.

The simulation model is based on MODFLOW, 

a finite-difference ground-water flow model. Using 

MODFLOW introduces two potential limitations: (1) 

seawater intrusion is not addressed explicitly and (2) 

drain nodes are nonlinear functions of head. The first 

limitation requires that a density-dependent flow and 

transport model be used to test whether the optimal 

solutions resulting from the simulation-optimization 

model control seawater intrusion; this limitation is not 

addressed hi this report. The second limitation requires 

an iterative solution scheme to ascertain the extent to 

which the optimal solution is affected by the nonlinearities in the hydraulic system.

The base-case results indicate that all constraints 

can be satisfied optimally at a minimum cost of about 

$5.56 million over 5 years. The most expensive water 

source (desalinated water) has a low utilization, and the 

high startup costs of the plant (which are not incorporated in the model) may prevent the desalination plant 

from being cost effective. Base-case results further 

indicate that Santa Barbara's water resources can be 

managed such that desalination-plant water may not be 

required to meet water demands. The maximum capacity of the cheapest water (reservoir water) is used in all 

optimal-simulation results. The inland wells are 

pumped almost continuously and the coastal wells are 

pumped intermittently.

The iterative solutions converged hi two iterations with little change in objective value (0.8 percent) 

and water deliveries. These results indicate that the 

nonlinearities are not significant to the problem solution.

Sensitivity analyses showed the effects of several 

system variables on the cost of delivering water over 

the 5-year management horizon. Specifically, the analyses showed that:

 If the allowable Cachuma Reservoir carryover is 

decreased by about 50 percent, then costs increase 

by about 14 percent.

 If the peak demand is decreased by 7 percent, then 

costs will decrease by about 14 percent.

 If the head constraints are loosened to -30 ft, then 

the costs decrease by about 18 percent.

 If the heads are constrained such that a zero hydraulic gradient condition occurs at the ocean bound34 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
ary, then the optimization problem does not have a 

solution.

 If the capacity of the desalination plant is set equal 

to zero, then the cost increases by about $0.1 million.

 If SWP carryover is incorporated into the optimization model, then desalinated water is not required 

and the total cost of water supply is $5.53 million.

It was assumed for the base case that the average 

monthly capacities of the Cachuma and the Gibraltar 

Reservoirs are used. In addition, four other scenarios 

were tested: average monthly Cachuma Reservoir 

deliveries with the actual (scenario 1) and proposed 

(scenario 2) monthly distributions of Gibraltar Reservoir water, and variable monthly Cachuma Reservoir 

deliveries with the actual (scenario 3) and proposed 

(scenario 4) monthly distributions of Gibraltar Reservoir water. The actual distribution of Gibraltar Reservoir water was characterized by low water availability 

in the summer and the proposed distribution was characterized by peak water availability in the summer. 

Using average monthly Cachuma Reservoir deliveries 

with the actual monthly distributions resulted in a 

higher objective value (36 percent greater than in the 

base case), which was caused primarily by the large 

volume of desalinated water. Implementing SWP carryover had little effect, and constraining the desalination-plant capacity to zero was infeasible. Using 

average monthly Cachuma Reservoir deliveries with 

the proposed monthly distributions resulted in an 

objective value that was 9 percent lower than in the 

base case. This scenario was not sensitive to choice of 

SWP carryover or desalinated-plant capacity.

When the delivery schedule for Cachuma Reservoir water was allowed to vary on a monthly basis, the 

total cost of water delivery over the 5-year management 

period was 18 percent less than in the base case regardless of the delivery schedule of Gibraltar Reservoir 

water. In both scenarios, SWP and desalinated water 

were not required and pumping was fairly continuous 

over time.

In this study, a 5-year design drought was 

assumed; however, the duration and the return period of 

droughts are uncertain. These uncertainties can affect 

the optimal water-delivery policies and the extent of 

seawater intrusion. To address drought uncertainty, 

within the context of the simulation-optimization 

model, stochastic hydrology methods are needed. In 

addition, the zero-hydraulic-gradient sensitivity analysis was infeasible suggesting that an optimal solution

at the end of the management period may be reached by 

"ramping" up the coastal head constraint over time to a 

zero-hydraulic-gradient condition.

REFERENCES CITED

Danskin, W.R., and Freckleton, J.R, 1992. Ground-waterflow modeling and optimization techniques applied to 

high-ground-water problems in San Bernadino, California, in Subitzky, Seymour, ed., Selected papers in the 

hydrologic sciences 1988-92: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 2340, p. 165-177.

Finney, B.A., Samsuhadi, and Willis, Robert, 1992, A quasi 

three-dimensional optimization model of the Jakarta 

basin: Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, v. 118, no. 1, p. 18-31.

Freckleton, J.R., 1989, Geohydrology of the Foothill 

ground-water basin near Santa Barbara, California: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 89-4017,46 p.

Freckleton, J.R., Danskin, W.R., and Martin, Peter, 1995, 

Optimal management of limited water resources in the 

Santa Barbara area, California [abs.], in Proceedings: 

Honolulu, Hawaii, American Water Resources Association.

Freckleton, J.R., and Martin, Peter, and Nishikawa, Tracy, 

1998, Geohydrology of Storage Unit III and a combined flow model of the Santa Barbara and Foothill 

ground-water basins, California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4121.

Gorelick, S.M., Freeze, R.A., Donohue, David, and Keely, 

J.F, 1993, Groundwater contamination: Optimal capture and containment: Lewis, Boca Raton, Florida, 385

PGreen wald, R.M., 1993, Documentation and user's guide: 

MODMAN an optimization module for MODFLOW, 

Version 3.0: GeoTrans, Sterling, Virginia,.

Martin, Peter, 1984, Ground-water monitoring at Santa Barbara, California, California: Phase 2~Effects of pumping on water levels and on water quality in the Santa 

Barbara ground-water basin: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 2197, 31 p.

Martin, Peter, and Berenbrock, Charles, 1986, Ground-water 

monitoring at Santa Barbara, California: Phase 3- 

Development of a three-dimensional digital groundwater flow model for storage unit I of the Santa Barbara 

ground-water basin: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 86-4103,58 p.

McDonald, M.G., and Harbaugh, A.W, 1988, A modular 

three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow 

model: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 6, chap. Al, 586 p.

References Cited 35
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, published monthly and annually (all data prior to 1940 by 

U.S. Weather Bureau), Climatological data: National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climatological data, monthly publications and annual summaries, 

various pagination.

Nishikawa, Tracy, and Reichard, E.G., 1996, Evaluating 

strategies to manage seawater intrusion, in Bathala, 

C.T., ed., North American Water and Environment Congress, Anaheim, California, June 23-28,1996, Proceedings: New York, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1 

CD-ROM.

Reichard, E.G., 1995, Groundwater-surface water management with stochastic surface water supplies: A simulation-optimization approach: Water Resources Research, 

v. 31, no. 11, p. 2845-2865.

Schrage, Linus, 1991, LINDO user's manual release 5.3: 

New York, Boyd and Fraser, 132 p.

Shamir, Uri, Bear, Jacob, and Gamliel, Amir, 1984, Optimal 

annual operation of a coastal aquifer: Water Resources 

Research, v. 20, no. 4, p. 435-444.

Voss, C.I., 1984, A finite-element simulation model for saltwater-unsaturated, fluid-density-dependent groundwater flow with energy transport on chemically-reactive 

single-species solute transport: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4369,409p.

Willis, Robert, and Finney, B.A., 1988, Planning model for 

optimal control of saltwater intrusion: J. Water 

Resources Planning and Management, v. 114, no. 2, p. 

163-178.

36 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
APPENDIX:

Tables A1-A31

Appendix 37
Table A1 . Optimal surface-water deliveries, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Base case

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Gibraltar Reservoir

380.705

380.705

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

407.691

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

Cachuma Reservoir

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

762.567

762.567

762.567

762.567

762.567

762.567

762.567

Mission Tunnel

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

State Water Project

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

22.152

58.977

69.374

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

3.954

104.120

127.179

131.667

54.752

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

58.152

125.030

125.030

Desalination plant

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

38 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A1 . Optimal surface-water deliveries, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Base case Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Gibraltar Reservoir

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

14,115.615

Cachuma Reservoir

762.567

762.567

762.567

762.567

762.567

701.905

701.905

701.905

701.905

701.905

701.905

701.905

701.905

701.905

701.905

701.905

701.905

882.335

882.335

884.780

884.780

884.780

884.780

884.780

884.780

884.780

884.780

884.780

884.780

38,740.107

Mission Tunnel

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

3,078.967

State Water Project

125.030

90.508

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

37.600

125.030

125.030

125.030

83.673

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

74.982

74.982

74.982

43.866

.000

.000

.000

1,861.100

Desalination plant

11.893

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

11.177

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.084

.000

.000

.000

.000

39.154

Table A1 39
Table A2. Optimal Storage Unit I subbasin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Base case

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Ortega well Corporation well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

91.645

79.710

82.777

42.706

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

91.645

86.005

76.952

86.316

71.897

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

34.261

79.096

81.542

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

11.368

.000

.000

28.486

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

38.501

.000

.000

.154

7.451

68.788

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

75.002

.000

.000

Vera Cruz well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

City Hall well

0.000

.000

.000

43.113

71.192

.000

.000

.000

.000

66.856

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

35.909

.000

.000

.000

.000

57.912

.000

.000

.000

Alameda well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.483

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

Santa Barbara 

High School well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

30.089

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

3.320

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

Church well

0.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

.000

17.040

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

40 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A2. Optimal Storage Unit I subbasin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Base case Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Ortega well

84.138

63.234

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

91.645

87.990

76.761

80.556

76.425

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

61.421

81.409

80.435

78.358

74.870

.000

.000

.000

. 1,841.793

Corporation well

0.000

13.673

59.816

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

30.853

.000

.000

.000

.000

59.776

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

57.315

.000

.000

.000

.000

60.530

75.002

0.000

586.716

Vera Cruz well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

City Hall well

0.000

.000

.000

58.721

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

72.096

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

10.586

25.568

441.952

Alameda well

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

1,787.551

Santa Barbara 

High School well

49.999

49.999

41.563

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

45.100

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

14.725

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

1,484.764

Church well

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

.000

40.959

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

2.188

.000

.000

.000

20.545

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

9.951

.000

1,840.261

Table A2 41
Table A3. Optimal Foothill basin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Base case

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Lincolnwood #1 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

Lincolnwood #2 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

4.571

16.675

Los Robles well

0.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

12.920

12.920

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

40.932

32.229

32.229

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

Hope Avenue 

well

0.000

.000

16.832

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

16.832

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

Chupparosa well

0.000

.000

.000

4.556

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

15.069

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

Franciscan well

0.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

42 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A3. Optimal Foothill basin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Base case Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Lincolnwood #1 

well

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

7.087

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

140.485

Lincolnwood #2 

well

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

1.695

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

106.315

Los Robles well

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

10.906

10.906

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

40.911

.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

.000

2,069.043

Hope Avenue 

well

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

19.539

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

21.221

.000

.000

1,407.435

Chupparosa well

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

1.203

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

708.561

Franciscan well

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

750.254

Table A3 43
Table A4. Optimal surface-water deliveries, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Cachuma Reservoir carryover 

sensitivity

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Gibraltar Reservoir

255.735

255.735

350.217

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

350.217

282.722

304.637

304.637

402.620

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

402.620

332.649

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

Cachuma Reservoir

564.719

564.719

564.719

564.719

564.719

564.719

564.719

564.719

564.719

564.719

564.719

564.719

564.719

564.719

564.719

564.719

564.719

564.719

564.719

564.719

564.719

564.719

564.719

564.719

684.495

684.495

684.495

684.495

684.495

684.495

684.495

Mission Tunnel

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

State Water Project

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

4.862

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

125.030

125.030

125.030

Desalination plant

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

57.739

75.447

44 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A4. Optimal surface-water deliveries, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Cachuma Reservoir carryover 

sensitivity Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Gibraltar Reservoir

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

13,271.494

Cachuma Reservoir

684.495

684.495

684.495

684.495

684.495

620.495

620.495

620.495

620.495

620.495

620.495

620.495

620.495

620.495

620.495

620.495

620.495

794.323

794.323

794.323

794.323

794.323

794.323

794.323

794.323

794.323

794.323

794.323

794.323

38,744.998

Mission Tunnel

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

3,078.967

State Water Project

125.030

125.030

45.968

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

125.030

125.030

125.030

125.030

125.030

50.655

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

74.982

74.982

74.982

74.982

74.982

25.782

.000

.000

1,752.479

Desalination plant

90.322

3.239

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

51.494

76.142

90.349

4.109

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

70.751

91.603

108.956

27.388

.000

.000

.000

747.540

Table A4 45
Table AS. Optimal Storage Unit I subbasin pumping, in acre-feet per month, 

carryover sensitivity

Santa Barbara, California: Cachuma Reservoir

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Ortegawell Corporation well Vera Cruz well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

41.102

88.305

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

87.108

87.326

84.167

0.000

.000

.000

.000

8.742

.000

.000

49.367

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

12.096

.000

38.059

.000

9.233

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

2.671

.000

.000

.000

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

City Hall well

0.000

.000

.000

26.853

83.313

81.035

66.213

27.812

71.097

67.363

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

50.942

83.313

65.155

.000

.000

49.895

78.947

.000

.000

35.307

35.307

45.124

83.313

.000

.000

.000

. Santa Barbara Alamedawell H|flh8choo|wrt|

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

20.958

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

17.873

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

Church well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

14.014

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

46 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table AS. Optimal Storage Unit I subbasin pumping, in acre-feet per month, 

carryover sensitivity Continued

Santa Barbara, California: Cachuma Reservoir

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total...........

Ortega well (

83.782

83.868

83.485

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

83.129

91.645

82.029

82.795

79.020

39.688

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

91.645

86.135

79.289

75.942

73.473

71.420

.000

.000

.. 1,575.353

Corporation well '

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

31.207

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

65.514

75.002

291.892

Vera Cruz well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

City Hall well

0.000

.000

.000

68.732

48.129

.000

.000

30.701

76.513

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

67.033

.000

.000

.000

.000

55.184

9.216

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

9.847

1,316.345

Alameda well

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

19.333

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

20.495

.000

1,594.960

Santa Barbara 

High School well

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

1,249.968

Church well

49.988

49.988

49.988

26.380

.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

47.327

13.019

13.019

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

31.175

1,944.499

Table A5 47
Table A6. Optimal Foothill basin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Cachuma Reservoir carryover 

sensitivity

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Lincolnwood #1 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

Lincolnwood #2 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.6751

Los Robles well

0.000

.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

Hope Avenue 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

Chupparosa well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

18.344

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

Franciscan well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

10.839

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

48 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A6. Optimal Foothill basin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Cachuma Reservoir carryover 

sensitivity Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Lincolnwood #1 

well

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

250.121

Lincolnwood #2 

well

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

250.121

Los Robles well

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

.000

2,000.097

Hope Avenue 

well

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

1,532.963

Chupparosa well

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

664.396

Franciscan well

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

16.157

17.323

17.323

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

5.348

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

733.882

Table A6 49
Table A7. Optimal surface-water deliveries, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Reduced-demand 

sensitivity

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Gibraltar Reservoir

380.705

380.705

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

407.691

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

Cachuma Reservoir

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

430.693

430.693

458.042

458.042

458.042

458.042

458.042

458.042

458.042

458.042

458.042

458.042

750.845

750.845

778.844

778.844

778.844

778.844

778.844

Mission Tunnel

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

State Water Project

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

23.922

58.518

69.458

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

39.365

73.888

82.717

3.516

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

45.979

78.511

Desalination plant

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

50 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A7. Optimal surface-water deliveries, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Reduced-demand 

sensitivity Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Gibraltar Reservoir

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

14,115.615

Cachuma Reservoir

778.844

778.844

778.844

778.844

778.496

646.824

646.824

680.894

680.894

680.894

680.894

680.894

680.894

680.894

680.894

680.894

674.837

849.372

849.372

871.221

871.221

871.221

871.221

871.221

871.221

871.221

871.221

871.221

871.221

38,516.060

Mission Tunnel

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

3,078.967

State Water Project

87.496

8.050

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

45.842

77.527

87.442

7.981

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

42.199

73.289

74.982

8.316

.000

.000

.000

988.997

Desalination plant

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Table A7 51
Table A8. Optimal Storage Unit I subbasin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Reduced-demand 

sensitivity

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Ortega well Corporation well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

91.645

80.170

82.693

43.037

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

91.645

78.987

83.802

81.018

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

91.645

79.148

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

9.598

.000

.000

28.155

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

1.221

8.161

.000

.000

.000

51.973

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

5.220

6.210

.000

Vera Cruz well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

City Hall well

0.000

.000

16.832

36.619

71.192

.000

.000

.000

.000

58.600

58.500

.000

.000

.000

26.672

.000

83.313

.000

.000

.000

.000

14.907

68.341

.000

.000

.000

27.169

.000

83.313

.000

.000

Alan»dawell

0.000

.000

.000

31.891

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

50.420

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

H^Soo^l.

0.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

Church well

0.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

52 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A8. Optimal Storage Unit I subbasin pumping, in acre-feet per month, 

sensitivity Continued

Santa Barbara, California: Reduced-demand

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Ortega well

84.048

80.482

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

91.645

79.614

83.705

79.129

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

91.645

79.532

81.348

77.009

.000

.000

.000

. 1,631.945

Corporation well

0.000

.000

66.375

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

3.797

5.648

.000

.000

.000

61.124

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

7.279

5.454

.000

.000

.000

59.387

.000

.000

319.601

Vera Cruz well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

City Hall well

0.000

.000

3.175

68.838

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

83.313

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

63.914

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

78.046

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

72.633

5.138

920.517

Alameda well

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

1,869.379

Santa Barbara 

High School well

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

19.597

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

39.001

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

28.489

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

1,387.054

Church well

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

.000

22.245

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

.000

30.965

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

1,802.787

Table A8 53
Table A9. Optimal Foothill basin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Reduced-demand 

sensitivity

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Lincolnwood #1 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Lincolnwood #2 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Los Robles well

0.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

.000

.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

.000

.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

Hope Avenue 

well

0.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

Chupparosa well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

5.047

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

7.174

20.840

20.840

20.840

Franciscan well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

54 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A9. Optimal Foothill basin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Reduced-demand 

sensitivity Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Lincolnwood #1 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Lincolnwood #2 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

9.954

.000

.000

.000

.000

9.954

Los Robtes well

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

.000

.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

.000

.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

34.607

.000

.000

1,659.686

Hope Avenue 

well

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

1,099.735

Chupparosa well

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

533.231

Franciscan well

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

5.183

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

567.874

Table A9 55
Table A10. Optimal surface-water deliveries, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: 30 feet below sea level 

coastal head-constraint sensitivity

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Gibraltar Reservoir

380.705

380.705

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

407.691

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

Cachuma Reservoir

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

430.693

430.693

458.042

458.042

458.042

458.042

458.042

458.042

458.042

458.042

458.042

458.042

750.845

750.845

778.844

778.844

778.844

778.844

778.844

Mission Tunnel

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

State Water Project

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Desalination plant

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

56 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A10. Optimal surface-water deliveries, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: 30 feet below sea level 

coastal head-constraint sensitivity Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Gibraltar Reservoir

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

14,115.615

Cachuma Reservoir

778.844

778.844

778.844

778.844

778.496

646.824

646.824

680.894

680.894

680.894

680.894

680.894

680.894

680.894

680.894

680.894

674.837

849.372

849.372

871.221

871.221

871.221

871.221

871.221

871.221

871.221

871.221

871.221

871.221

38,516.060

Mission Tunnel

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

3,078.967

State Water Project

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Desalination plant

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Table A10 57
Table A11. Optimal Storage Unit I subbasin pumping, in acre-feet per month, 

level coastal head-constraint sensitivity

Santa Barbara, California: 30 feet below sea

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Ortega well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

31.860

78.629

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

32.173

91.645

Corporation well

0.000

.000

.000

75.002

75.002

75.002

75.002

75.002

75.002

75.002

.000

.000

.000

.000

27.590

75.002

75.002

75.002

75.002

75.002

75.002

75.002

27.590

.000

.000

.000

32.327

75.002

75.002

75.002

75.002

Vera Cruz well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

8.529

22.053

35.516

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

17.465

73.490

55.636

22.874

17.465

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

32.706

58.490

13.568

City Hall well

0.000

.000

58.500

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

58.500

.000

12.920

12.920

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

40.932

14.155

14.155

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

Alameda well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

34.622

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

2.351

54.154

54.154

54.154

Santa Barbara 

High School well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

25.698

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

42.602

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

Church well

0.000

.000

.000

35.176

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

58 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A11 Optimal Storage Unit I subbasin pumping, in acre-feet per month, 

level coastal head-constraint sensitivity Continued

Santa Barbara, California: 30 feet below sea

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Ortega well

91.645

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

56.600

91.645

89.077

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

41.962

91.645

81.422

.000

.000

.000

.000

. 778.301

Corporation well

75.002

75.002

75.002

32.327

.000

.000

.000

25.025

75.002

75.002

75.002

75.002

75.002

75.002

75.002

25.025

.000

.000

.000

37.915

75.002

75.002

75.002

75.002

75.002

75.002

75.002

37.915

.000

2,870.797

Vera Cruz well

4.426

32.706

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

35.849

39.259

6.495

.000

35.849

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

27.790

41.853

2.918

.000

27.790

.000

.000

.000

612.724

City Hall well

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

43.133

3.291

3.291

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

33.296

23.245

23.245

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

83.313

51.257

3,975.309

Alameda well

54.154

54.154

45.819

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

45.037

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

2.928

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

44.947

.000

.000

1,529.545

Santa Barbara 

High School well

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

1,668.258

Church well

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

1,734.766

Table A8 59
Table A12. Optimal Foothill basin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara California: 30 feet below sea level coastal 

head-constraint sensitivity

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Lincolnwood #1 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Lincolnwood #2 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Los Robles well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

29.551

41.669

41.669

41.669

29.551

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

Hope Avenue 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

Chupparosa well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Franciscan well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

60 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A12. Optimal Foothill basin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara California: 30 feet below sea level coastal 

head-constraint sensitivity Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Lincolnwood #1 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Lincolnwood #2 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Los Robles well

41.669

41.669

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

.000

.000

1,017.482

Hope Avenue 

well

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

766.482

Chupparosa well

2.791

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

15.946

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

3.259

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

42.836

Franciscan well

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

12.751

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

9.565

.000

.000

.000

.000

63.997

Table A9 61
Table A13. Optimal surface-water deliveries, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Zero desalination capacity 

sensitivity

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Gibraltar Reservoir

380.705

380.705

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

407.691

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397.

116.397

Cachuma Reservoir

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

764.441

764.441

764.441

764.441

764.441

764.441

764.441

Mission Tunnel

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

State Water Project

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

21.414

59.640

69.062

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

14.139

108.629

124.692

131.702

52.954

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

125.030

125.030

125.030

Desalination plant

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

62 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A13. Optimal surface-water deliveries, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Zero desalination capacity 

sensitivity Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Gibraltar Reservoir

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

14,115.615

Cachuma Reservoir

764.441

764.441

764.441

764.441

764.441

699.197

699.197

699.197

699.197

699.197

699.197

699.197

699.197

699.197

699.197

699.197

699.197

882.335

882.335

885.614

885.614

885.614

885.614

885.614

885.614

885.614

885.614

885.614

885.614

38,738.439

Mission Tunnel

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

3,078.967

State Water Project

125.030

84.739

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

125.030

125.030

125.030

125.030

82.049

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

74.982

74.982

74.982

74.982

37.082

.000

.000

.000

2,086.270

Desalination plant

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Table A13 63
Table A14. Optimal Storage Unit I subbasin pumping, in acre-feet per month, 

capacity sensitivity

Santa Barbara, California: Zero desalination

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Ortega well Corporation well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

91.645

79.048

83.089

42.630

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

44.958

81.496

79.439

86.435

78.070

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

55.403

79.668

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

12.106

.000

.000

28.562

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

75.002

.000

.000

.000

3.075

68.662

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Vera Cruz well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

9.716

.000

City Hall well

0.000

.000

.000

26.829

78.228

.000

.000

.000

.000

66.850

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

30.089

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

56.037

7.162

.000

.000

Alameda well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.489

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

Santa Barbara 

High School well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

42.963

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

3.447

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

Church well

0.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

.000

15.166

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

64 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A14. Optimal Storage Unit I subbasin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Zero desalination 

capacity sensitivity Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Ortega well

91.645

80.802

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

44.828

79.469

91.645

80.757

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

53.940

79.602

91.645

80.819

.000

.000

.000

. 1,577.030

Corporation well

2.513

.000

15.027

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

2.797

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

1.963

.000

57.004

75.002

.000

341.713

Vera Cruz well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

19.609

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

11.655

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

40.979

City Hall well

0.000

.000

34.480

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

47.808

4.427

.000

.000

.000

.000

47.831

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

13.891

37.035

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

11.777

24.734

487.178

Alameda well

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

1,787.558

Santa Barbara 

High School well

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

45.015

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

1,391.391

Church well

49.988

49.988

49.988

15.166

.000

.000

.000

1.986

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

1.986

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

7.926

.000

1,791.807

Table A14 65
Table A15. Optimal Foothill-basin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Zero desalination capacity 

sensitivity

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Lfncolnwood #1 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

Lincolnwood #2 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

Los Robles well

0.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

12.920

12.920

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

40.932

30.355

30.355

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

Hope Avenue 

well

0.000

.000

16.832

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

16.832

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

Chupparosa well

0.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

15.069

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

15.069

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

Franciscan well

0.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

66 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A15. Optimal Foothill-basin pumping, in acre-feet per month, 

sensitivity Continued

Santa Barbara, California: Zero desalination capacity

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

LJncolnwood #1 

well

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

5.885

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

189.306

Lincolnwood #2 

well

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

183.422

Los Robles well

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

13.614

13.614

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

.000

2,071.469

Hope Avenue 

well

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

17.665

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

1.950

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

23.913

.000

.000

1,443.529

Chupparosa well

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

19.711

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

841.783

Franciscan well

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

833.615

A15 67
Table A16. Optimal surface-water deliveries, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: State Water Project carryover 

sensitivity

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Gibraltar Reservoir

380.705

380.705

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

416.687

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

Cachuma Reservoir

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

430.753

445.484

445.484

445.484

445.484

445.484

445.484

445.484

445.484

445.484

445.484

445.484

445.484

794.796

794.796

794.796

794.796

794.796

794.796

794.796

Mission Tunnel

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

State Water Project

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

22.968

58.779

58.779

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

97.063

121.894

121.894

48.786

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

8.609

104.941

130.837

Desalination plant

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

68 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A16. Optimal surface-water deliveries, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: State Water Project carryover 

sensitivity Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Gibraltar Reservoir

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

116.397

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

233.277

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

14,124.610

Cachuma Reservoir

794.796

794.796

794.796

794.796

794.796

708.054

708.054

708.054

708.054

708.054

708.054

708.054

708.054

708.054

708.054

708.054

708.054

840.667

840.667

840.667

840.667

840.667

840.667

840.667

840.667

840.667

840.667

840.667

840.667

38,736.003

Mission Tunnel

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

3,078.967

State Water Project

130.837

56.877

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

31.959

124.877

135.385

135.385

78.004

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

52.180

132.935

138.169

138.169

90.033

.000

.000

.000

2,019.359

Desalination plant

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

A16 69
Table A17. Optimal Storage Unit I subbasin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: State Water Project 

carryover sensitivity

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Ortega well Corporation well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

91.645

79.909

82.681

42.839

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

91.645

87.326

76.502

77.971

79.579

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

91.645

88.202

76.311

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

10.552

.000

.000

28.353

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

36.720

.000

.000

5.772

.000

47.440

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

34.932

.000

.000

Vera Cruz well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

City Hall well

0.000

.000

.000

33.165

71.192

.000

.000

.000

.000

58.611

16.832

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

18.934

63.500

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

. -, Santa Barbara Alamedawell Hlflh8cllooh-a|I

0.000

.000

.000

35.345

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

50.409

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

0.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

24.355

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

25.682

49.999

49.999

49.999

Church well

0.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

.000

30.174

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

.000

26.491

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

70 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A17. Optimal Storage Unit I subbasin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: State Water Project 

carryover sensitivity Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Ortega well

69.173

78.309

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

91.645

89.082

76.357

52.527

75.945

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

65.126

85.939

78.609

75.368

72.816

.000

.000

.000

. 1,877.148

Corporation well

11.654

.000

58.825

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

30.346

.000

.000

22.702

.000

59.955

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

45.543

.000

.000

.000

.000

59.852

75.002

.000

527.648

Vera Cruz well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

City Hall well

0.000

.000

.000

59.817

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

68.135

.000

.000

.000

.000

8.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

4.597

69.681

473.303

Alameda well

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

14.670

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

1,887.493

Santa Barbara 

High School well

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

38.951

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

10.065

.000

1,549.015

Church well

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

.000

34.810

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

1,941.029

Table A17 71
Table A18.

sensitivity

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Optimal Foothill basin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: State Water Project carryover

Lincoinwood #1 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

10.691

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.545

Lincoinwood #2 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

6.766

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Los Robles well

0.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

7.185

7.185

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

35.197

.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

Hope Avenue 

well

0.000

.000

16.832

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

Chupparosa well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

Franciscan weli

0.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

72 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A18. Optimal Foothill basin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: State Water Project carryover 

sensitivity Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Lincolnwood #1 

well

10.518

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

71.777

Lincolnwood #2 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.574

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.102

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

56.791

Los Robles well

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

28.979

4.757

4.757

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

34.762

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

.000

2,039.581

Hope Avenue 

well

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

1,316.518

Chupparosa well

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

646.052

Franciscan well

20.840

20.840

2.007

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

15.716

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

11.847

.000

.000

654.782

Table A18 73
Table A19. Optimal surface-water deliveries, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Current monthly Gibraltar 

Reservoir diversion percentages

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Gibraltar Reservoir

380.705

380.705

475.187

584.998

634.998

525.000

134.998

109.998

70.001

575.000

470.001

407.691

440.002

420.001

496.581

584.998

634.998

525.000

134.998

109.998

70.001

575.000

470.001

426.610

122.935

117.351

157.860

163.451

177.421

146.686

37.720

Cachuma Reservoir

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

429.353

449.354

470.758

470.758

470.758

470.758

470.758

470.758

470.758

470.758

470.758

470.758

785.187

785.187

785.187

785.187

785.187

785.187

785.187

Mission Tunnel

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

State Water Project

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

125.030

125.030

125.030

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

134.992

134.992

134.992

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

94.112

125.030

Desalination plant

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

139.100

217.282

180.492

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

163.938

250.000

198.627

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

45.954

74 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A19. Optimal surface-water deliveries, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Current monthly Gibraltar 

Reservoir diversion percentages Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Gibraltar Reservoir

30.735

19.561

160.656

131.321

131.321

246.311

235.118

316.288

327.481

355.476

293.897

75.574

61.579

39.187

321.885

263.107

263.107

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

13,833.499

Cachuma Reservoir

785.187

785.187

785.187

785.187

785.187

673.450

673.450

673.450

673.450

673.450

673.450

673.450

673.450

673.450

673.450

673.450

673.450

859.606

859.606

859.606

859.606

859.606

859.606

859.606

859.606

859.606

859.606

859.606

859.606

38,682.189

Mission Tunnel

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

3,078.967

State Water Project

125.030

125.030

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

103.216

125.030

125.030

125.030

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

26.830

74.982

74.982

74.982

64.023

.000

.000

.000

2,043.375

Desalination plant

75.527

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

171.275

210.036

140.940

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

28.045

34.340

.000

.000

.000

.000

1,855.555

Table A19 75
Table A20. Optimal Storage Unit I subbasin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Current monthly 

Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Ortega well Corporation well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

91.645

83.179

79.006

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

91.645

75.476

82.808

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

78.351

91.645

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

31.253

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

3.888

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.458

.000

.000

Vera Cruz well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

City Hall well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.851

.000

.000

.000

73.139

5.186

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

50.802

.000

.000

.000

73.365

26.580

.000

3.071

8.655

27.962

53.110

83.313

.000

.000

Aloi 1 1 GQ9 irVGII 1 0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

30.961

54.154

54.154

54.154

iSSSSSE*

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

Church well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

48.702

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

9.917

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

76 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A20. Optimal Storage Unit I subbasin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Current monthly 

Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Ortega well

83.546

83.252

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

84.728

91.645

81.850

83.323

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

87.531

91.603

77.564

85.275

79.886

.000

.000

.000

. 1,603.957

Corporation well

0.000

.000

68.192

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

58.032

75.002

.000

263.826

Vera Cruz well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

City Hall well

0.000

.000

.000

76.068

23.664

26.327

37.520

19.728

75.186

66.355

.000

.000

.000

.000

53.815

79.298

39.536

.000

.000

.000

.000

29.548

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

8.101

50.742

1,007.922

Alameda well

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

1,493.108

Santa Barbara 

High School well

49.999

49.999

7.989

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

17.851

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

39.899

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

1,265.707

Church well

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

.000

45.719

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

37.609

.000

1,641.586

Table A20 77
Table A21 . Optimal Foothill basin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Current monthly Gibraltar 

Reservoir diversion percentages

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Lincolnwood #1 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

Lincolnwood #2 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

Los Robles well

0.000

.000

.000

25.181

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

2.550

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

30.238

.000

.000

.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

Hope Avenue 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

Chupparosa well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

9.772

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

Franciscan well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

78 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A21. Optimal Foothill basin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Current monthly Gibraltar 

Reservoir diversion percentages Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Lincolnwood #1 

well

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.. 250.121

Lincolnwood #2 

well

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

250.121

Los Robles well

41.669

41.669

41.669

20.102

.000

.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

35.281

.000

22.729

22.729

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

.000

1,617.214

Hope Avenue 

well

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

1,066.409

Chupparosa well

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

15.568

.000

.000

525.509

Franciscan well

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

521.009

Table A21 79
Table A22. Optimal surface-water deliveries, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: State Water Project carryover 

sensitivity with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Gibraltar Reservoir

380.705

380.705

565.003

584.998

634.998

525.000

134.998

109.998

70.001

575.000

470.001

470.001

440.002

420.001

527.145

584.998

634.998

525.000

134.998

109.998

70.001

575.000

470.001

470.001

122.935

117.351

157.860

163.451

177.421

146.686

37.720

Cachuma Reservoir

439.749

439.749

349.934

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

377.439

429.353

440.194

440.194

440.194

440.194

440.194

440.194

440.194

440.194

440.194

440.194

427.367

791.276

791.276

791.276

791.276

791.276

791.276

791.276

Mission Tunnel

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

42.804

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

State Water Project

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

92.312

92.312

92.312

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

167.710

167.710

167.710

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

86.292

86.292

Desalination plant

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

171.818

250.000

213.211

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

168.432

250.000

194.986

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000,

.000

.000

.000

.000

78.604

80 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A22. Optimal surface-water deliveries, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: State Water Project carryover 

sensitivity with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Gibraltar Reservoir

30.735

19.561

160.656

131.321

131.321

246.311

235.118

316.288

327.481

355.476

293.897

75.574

61.579

39.187

321.885

263.107

263.107

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

14,059.579

Cachuma Reservoir

791.276

791.276

791.276

791.276

791.276

697.592

697.592

697.592

697.592

697.592

697.592

697.592

697.592

697.592

697.592

697.592

697.592

859.938

859.938

859.938

859.938

859.938

859.938

859.938

859.938

859.938

859.938

859.938

859.938

38,569.199

Mission Tunnel

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

3,075.949

State Water Project

86.292

86.292

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

66.939

163.769

163.769

163.769

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

25.014

74.982

74.982

74.982

63.637

.000

.000

.000

1,997.074

Desalination plant

108.704

32.632

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

108.394

148.715

77.278

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

27.821

33.909

.000

.000

.000

.000

1,864.504

Table A22 81
Table A23. Optimal Storage Unit I subbasin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: State Water Project 

carryover sensitivity with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Ortega well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

91.645

83.179

79.006

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

81.366

91.645

73.322

84.294

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

80.083

91.645

Corporation well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

31.253

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

24.238

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Vera Cruz well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

City Hall well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.851

.000

.000

.000

72.823

5.186

.000

.000

9.160

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

67.411

57.144

.000

.000

2.566

24.940

77.983

77.682

.000

.000

Alameda well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

19.496

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

Santa Barbara 

High School well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

Church well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

48.702

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

2.865

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

40.481

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

82 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A23. Optimal Storage Unit I subbasin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: State Water Project 

carryover sensitivity with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Onega well

83.018

83.269

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

91.645

91.645

80.290

84.105

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

91.645

91.271

77.456

85.374

79.941

.000

.000

.000

. 1,695.840

Corporation well

0.000

.000

70.025

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

58.007

75.002

.000

258.526

Vera Cruz well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

City Hall well

0.000

.000

.000

74.613

17.575

2.184

13.377

37.254

51.043

42.212

5.217

.000

.000

.000

59.278

79.736

15.394

22.397

.000

.000

.000

26.919

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

8.149

50.410

917.505

Alameda well

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

42.399

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

1,469.888

Santa Barbara 

High School well

49.999

49.999

0.067

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

39.567

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

1,239.603

Church well

49.988

49.988

49.988

15.468

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

10.700

.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

37.229

.000

1,755.059

Table A23 83
Table A24. Optimal Foothill basin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara. California: State Water Project carryover 

sensitivity with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Lincolnwood #1 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

Lincolnwood #2 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

Los Robles well

0.000

.000

.000

25.181

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

16.767

.000

.000

.000

.000

38.602

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

Hope Avenue 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

Chupparosa well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

Franciscan well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

84 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A24. Optimal Foothill basin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara. California: State Water Project carryover 

sensitivity with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Lincolnwood #1 

well

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

. 250.121

Lincolnwood #2 

well

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

250.121

Los Robles well

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

.000

.000

22.397

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

.000

1,478.014

Hope Avenue 

well

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

.000

.000

28.724

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

.000

1,061.808

Chupparosa well

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

15.261

.000

.000

536.270

Franciscan well

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

521.009

Table A24 85
Table A25. Optimal surface-water deliveries, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Proposed monthly Gibraltar 

Reservoir diversion percentages

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Gibraltar Reservoir

225.000

209.998

300.000

415.002

550.000

550.000

550.000

550.000

550.000

459.998

415.002

225.000

225.000

209.998

300.000

415.002

550.000

550.000

550.000

550.000

550.000

459.998

415.002

225.000

62.865

58.675

83.820

115.950

153.671

153.671

153.671

Cachuma Reservoir

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

439.749

771.476

771.476

771.476

771.476

771.476

771.476

771.476

Mission Tunnel

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

State Water Project

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

91.233

116.807

Desalination plant

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

86 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A25. Optimal surface-water deliveries, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Proposed monthly Gibraltar 

Reservoir diversion percentages Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Gibraltar Reservoir

153.671

153.671

128.526

115.950

62.865

125.954

117.556

167.943

232.317

307.891

307.891

307.891

307.891

307.891

257.510

232.317

125.954

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

14,196.012

Cachuma Reservoir

771.476

771.476

771.476

771.476

771.476

672.788

672.788

672.788

672.788

672.788

672.788

672.788

672.788

672.788

672.788

672.788

672.788

882.335

882.335

904.988

904.988

904.988

904.988

904.988

904.988

904.988

904.988

904.988

904.988

38,699.691

Mission Tunnel

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

3,078.967

State Water Project

125.030

49.252

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

19.292

91.480

114.409

125.030

41.900

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

66.087

74.982

74.982

27.091

.000

.000

.000

1,017.575

Desalination plant

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Table A25 87
Table A26. Optimal Storage Unit I subbasin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Proposed monthly 

Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Ortega well Corporation well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

10.306

78.961

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

91.645

87.956

76.932

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

69.325

.000

.000

.000

22.806

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

60.511

5.863

.000

.000

.000

3.420

.000

.000

.000

.000

29.588

.000

.000

Vera Cruz well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

City Hall well

62.218

78.557

83.313

82.667

80.436

68.085

60.120

.000

66.934

78.339

18.516

83.313

83.313

76.288

75.506

69.748

68.335

56.811

.000

.000

57.030

65.749

37.594

83.313

1.858

6.048

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

., . Santa Barbara Alamedawell Hign s^, wel,

0.000

.000

.000

.000

3.276

54.154

54.154

54.154

16.778

.000

.000

.000

.000

18.339

27.102

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

20.904

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

15.446

36.934

41.191

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.449

49.999

49.999

49.999

Church well

49.988

49.988

22.764

37.516

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

37.358

.000

1.578

46.299

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

49.988

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

88 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A26. Optimal Storage Unit I subbasin pumping, in acre-feet per month, 

Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages Continued

Santa Barbara, California: Proposed monthly

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Ortega well

58.923

45.349

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.308

79.254

64.325

28.680

72.702

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

0.557

88.465

68.367

74.234

71.437

.000

.000

.000

. 1,018.399

Corporation well

18.296

26.632

67.417

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

75.002

3.877

10.910

38.745

.000

59.377

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

75.002

.000

7.924

.000

.000

58.676

27.270

.000

660.644

Vera Cruz well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

City Hall well

0.000

.000

.000

50.258

30.836

72.353

30.762

.000

25.179

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

65.581

71.819

.000

.000

.000

.000

22.968

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

48.061

5.360

1,867.266

Alameda well

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

43.742

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

48.671

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

.000

.000

1,803.419

Santa Barbara 

High School well

49.999

49.999

12.924

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

.000

1,205.917

Church well

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

.000

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

38.781

49.988

.000

.000

.337

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

.000

.000

2,284.125

Table A26 89
Table A27. Optimal Foothill basin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Proposed monthly Gibraltar 

Reservoir diversion percentages

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Lincolnwood #1 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Lincolnwood #2 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Los Robtes well

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

Hope Avenue 

well

1.831

.494

27.441

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

Chupparosa well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

3.290

20.840

20.840

20.840

14.595

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

11.560

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

Franciscan well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

3.707

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

4.729

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

90 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A27. Optimal Foothill basin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Proposed monthly Gibraltar 

Reservoir diversion percentages Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Lincolnwood #1 

well

5.979

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

12.162

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.611

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

35.427

Lincolnwood #2 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

16.675

16.675

.000

.000

.000

.000

33.349

Los Robles well

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

.000

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

.000

.000

2,333.447

Hope Avenue 

well

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

.000

13.876

.000

.000

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

2.867

.000

.000

1,679.449

Chupparosa well

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

6.487

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

515.260

Franciscan well

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

20.840

.000

.000

.000

571.126

Table A27 91
Table A28. Optimal surface-water deliveries, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Variable monthly Cachuma 

Reservoir deliveries with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Gibraltar Reservoir

440.002

420.001

565.003

584.998

634.998

525.000

134.998

109.998

70.001

575.000

470.001

470.001

440.002

420.001

565.003

584.998

634.998

525.000

134.998

109.998

70.001

575.000

470.001

470.001

122.935

117.351

157.860

163.451

177.421

146.686

37.720

Cachuma Reservoir

186.474

179.406

140.858

258.383

349.287

517.308

920.138

956.513

960.548

327.976

271.068

209.030

159.129

191.648

147.732

272.653

370.279

534.920

941.295

981.666

938.710

322.700

246.591

177.478

539.187

545.553

607.251

747.364

893.551

982.870

1,106.988

Mission Tunnei

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

42.804

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

State Water Project

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Desalination plant

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

92 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A28. Optimal surface-water deliveries, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Variable monthly Cachuma 

Reservoir deliveries with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Gibraltar Reservoir

30.735

19.561

160.656

131.321

131.321

246.311

235.118

316.288

327.481

355.476

293.897

75.574

61.579

39.187

321.885

263.107

263.107

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

14,196.030

Cachuma Reservoir

1,129.040

1,053.696

763.860

605.234

533.230

424.640

436.300

460.630

599.838

737.264

859.264

1,093.016

1,122.369

1,055.120

652.829

516.957

442.258

611.939

612.264

710.562

850.871

1,005.178

1,061.493

1,075.781

1,090.064

1,006.296

894.567

712.802

643.081

38,744.996

Mission Tunnel

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

3,075.949

State Water Project

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Desalination plant

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Table A28 93
Table A29. Optimal Storage Unit I subbasin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Variable monthly 

Cachuma Reservoir deliveries with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Ortega well Corporation well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

0.962

63.912

23.493

8.586

36.563

25.103

28.125

38.352

14.781

34.713

27.650

.000

74.415

61.898

58.795

21.216

48.076

61.646

59.281

57.916

56.831

55.851

54.937

54.080

53.262

52.481

51.758

51.068

50.414

49.786

49.184

Vera Cruz well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

City Hall well

51.361

15.479

43.928

56.306

35.939

43.349

41.022

32.884

61.456

46.219

54.560

76.752

.000

.000

.000

32.666

12.188

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Alameda well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

Santa Barbara 

High School well

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

.000

14.873

.000

.000

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

Church well

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

94 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A29. Optimal Storage Unit I subbasin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Variable monthly 

Cachuma Reservoir deliveries with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Ortega well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Corporation well

48.605

48.048

47.509

46.989

46.487

46.003

45.535

45.083

44.645

44.221

43.811

43.413

43.027

42.654

42.289

41.937

41.594

41.262

40.937

40.623

40.317

40.018

39.728

39.446

39.169

38.900

38.639

38.383

38.133

2,562.536

Vera Cruz well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

City Hall well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

604.110

Alameda well

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

54.154

2,599.372

Santa Barbara 

High School well

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

49.999

2,814.800

Church well

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

49.988

2,999.276

Table A29 95
Table A30. Optimal Foothill basin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Variable monthly Cachuma 

Reservoir deliveries with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Lincolnwood #1 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Lincolnwood #2 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Los Robles well

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

Hope Avenue 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Chupparosa well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Franciscan well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

96 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A30. Optimal Foothill basin pumping, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Variable monthly Cachuma 

Reservoir deliveries with current monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Lincolnwood #1 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Lincolnwood #2 

well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Los Robles well

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

41.669

2,500.121

Hope Avenue 

well

0.000

.081

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

33.325

899.863

Chupparosa well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Franciscan well

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Table A30 97
Table A31. Optimal surface-water deliveries, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Variable monthly Cachuma 

Reservoir deliveries with proposed monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Gibraltar Reservoir

225.000

209.998

300.000

415.002

550.000

550.000

550.000

550.000

550.000

459.998

415.002

225.000

225.000

209.998

300.000

415.002

550.000

550.000

550.000

550.000

550.000

459.998

415.002

225.000

62.865

58.675

83.820

115.950

153.671

153.671

153.671

Cachuma Reservoir

401.476

389.409

405.860

428.378

434.284

492.308

505.135

516.511

480.550

442.978

326.067

454.031

374.132

401.651

412.735

442.648

455.277

509.920

526.292

541.663

458.711

437.703

301.590

422.479

599.257

604.229

681.292

794.864

917.301

975.885

991.037

Mission Tunnel

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

70.575

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

54.637

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

State Water Project

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Desalination plant

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

98 A Simulation-Optimization Model for Water-Resources Management, Santa Barbara, California
Table A31. Optimal surface-water deliveries, in acre-feet per month, Santa Barbara, California: Variable monthly Cachuma 

Reservoir deliveries with proposed monthly Gibraltar Reservoir diversion percentages Continued

Month

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Total............

Gibraltar Reservoir

153.671

153.671

128.526

115.950

62.865

125.954

117.556

167.943

232.317

307.891

307.891

307.891

307.891

307.891

257.510

232.317

125.954

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

14,196.012

Cachuma Reservoir

1,006.105

919.568

795.990

620.605

601.685

544.997

553.862

608.976

695.003

784.849

845.269

860.699

876.058

786.417

717.202

547.747

579.410

611.939

612.264

710.562

850.871

1,005.178

1,061.493

1,075.781

1,090.064

1,006.296

894.567

712.802

643.081

38,744.996

Mission Tunnel

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

45.822

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

43.890

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

41.657

3,078.967

State Water Project

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Desalination plant

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Table A31 99