Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 3. Agricultur al Water Use Efficiency

3-4 with the same amount of applied water. Conversi on of traditional irrigation systems to pressurized systems and installation of advanced technologies on di strict delivery systems require more investment in facilities as well as use of additional energy that in creases farm production costs and district operational

costs.
Water Management
Both on-farm and district systems must be managed to take advantage of new technologies, science, and hardware. Personal computers connected to real-tim e communication networks and local area networks
allow transmission of flow data to a centralized location. These features enable district staff to monitor flow, manage each flow site, and continually log data. With such systems, district staff spends less time manually monitoring and controlling individual sites, allowing them to plan, coordinate system operation, and reduce costs. Such systems improve reliability of the communications and provides for flexible water delivery, distribution, measurement, and accounting.

Some of today’s growers use
satellite weather information and forecasting systems to schedule irrigation. Many growers employ evapotranspiration and soil moisture data for irrigation scheduling. Users generate more than 70,000 inquiries per year to the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS), the Department of Water Res ources’ weather station program that provides evapotranspiration data. Universities, districts, and c onsultants also make this information available to a much wider audience via newspapers, websites, and other media.

Growers use many other water management practices. Furrows, basins and borders are designed to ensure that watering meets crop requirements while limiting runoff and deep percolation. Other growers use plastic mulch to reduce non-essential evaporation of applied water.

Reducing Evapotranspiration
Evapotranspiration is amount of water that evaporates from the soil and transpires from the plant. Growers can reduce evapotranspiration by reducing unproductive evaporation from the soil surface, eliminating weed evapotranspirati on, shifting crops to plants that need less water, or reducing Regulated Deficit Irrigation
Some growers use regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) to stress trees or vines at specific developmental stages to improve crop quality, decrease disease or pest infestation, reduce production costs, while maintaining or increasing profits. Conventional irrigation management strategy has been to avoid crop water stress. Research on RDI began in California in the 1990s on tree and vine crops. Initial results show potential for reducing evapotranspiration while increasing or maintaining crop profitability and allowing optimum production.
Wine grapes are a clear example: Mild stress imposed through the growing season decreases canopy growth, but produces grapes with higher sugar content, better color and smaller berries with a higher skin to fruit-volume ratio.
RDI has been primarily used as a production management practice and the extent of its application in California has not been quantified. Before RDI can be applied to other crops, information on its costs, ris ks, long-term impacts, and potential benefits including water savings must be determined. Once that is done, practical guidelines for growers on how to initiate, operate, and maintain RDI should be developed and disseminated. (See Volume 4 Reference Guide for details on RDI.)California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Agricultural Water Use Efficiency

3-5 transpiration. In addition, growers deficit irrigate their crops during water short periods and at times on trees and vines for agronomic purposes (see regulated deficit irrigation sidebar).



## Potential Costs and Benefits of Agri cultural Water Use Efficiency

CALFED Water Use Efficiency Technical Appendix of the CALFED Record of Decision (ROD) estimated the costs and benefits of water savings . Recently, California Bay Delta Authority (CBDA) sponsored a study that estimated the costs and bene fits of water use as a part of the CBDA Year-4 Comprehensive Report (Year-4 Report). These two est imates were based on different approaches and assumptions. ROD’s potential costs and benefits ar e based on assumed on-farm efficiency improvements up to 85 percent within hydrological regions and utili zing total irrigated acreages, crop water use, applied water, and depletions. The Year-4 Report estimates are based on crop water use, acreages, irrigation systems, and applied water within each Water Plan U pdate Planning Areas. Both methods estimate costs and benefits for on-farm and district improvements an d take into account the reusable/reroutable water. But the Year-4 Report estimates are also based on varying level of funding investments, different projection levels, and the use of the Targeted Be nefits developed for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Water Use Efficiency Element. Also, Year-4 Report estimates include implementation of some moderate level of regulated deficit irrigation.

Potential Benefits
ROD estimated that efficiency improvement will re sult in a water savings ra nging between 120,000 to 563,000 acre-feet of water by 2030. Estimates also included 1.6 million acre-feet reduction in applied water (recoverable losses) being reused that provi des environmental and cr op production benefits. Additionally, water use efficiency savings in the Colorado River Region (CRR) includes 47,000 acre-feet of water savings through the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), 68,000 acre-feet (at a cost of $135.65 million) and 26,000 acre-feet (at a cost of $83.65 million) by lining the All American Canal and Coachella Branch Canal respectively, for a total of 141,000 acre-feet (for details, see http://www.usbr.gov/lc/regi on/g4000/crwda/index.htm ).

Benefits resulting from implementati on of other advanced technologies in hardware, water management, and crop evapotranspiration, crop shif ts and reducing crop transpiration ha ve not been quantified for this
narrative.

The Year-4 Report study used Water Plan Update land and water use data for the year 2000 and the 2002 statewide survey of irrigation methods, a summary of th is information is provided under the chapters that present data for the hydrologic regions. The analys is was conducted based on a 27-year implementation (2003 - 2030) horizon at the on-farm and district le vel. Year-4 Report estimates do not include the 141,000 acre feet in the CRR. On-farm improvements were based on natural replacement of lower to higher performing systems over time as well as various st ate funding levels. District improvements were based on the implementation of EWMP and various stat e funding levels. Table 2 presents the recoverable and irrecoverable flows at both the on-farm and district levels. Cost information given in Table 2 represents the state’s investment in water use effi ciency actions that generate statewide benefits.

Water use efficiency estimates at the district le vel are based on cost and performance of district management changes and infrastructure improvements. A regional baseline of district improvements was developed based on water availability and knowledge of local deliver y capabilities and practices. InPublic Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 3. Agricultur al Water Use Efficiency

3-6 addition it is assumed that all locally cost effectiv e EWMPs are implemented. The initial allocation for improvements is for management changes that provide an improved level of delivery service – mainly through additional labor and some system automation. Higher levels of district performance are achieved through infrastructure improvements such as regulating reservoirs, canal lining, additional system automation, and spill prevention. At the district level th e majority of the benefit of water use efficiency is in recoverable flows. Since recoverable flows, esp ecially surface return flows are typically needed by downstream users the location of the flow is critical for appropriateness of implementation.

On-farm water use efficiency estimates are based on cost and performance information for feasible irrigation systems. Depending on crop type, irriga tion systems can include various forms of surface irrigation (furrow and border strip), sprinkle irrigation or drip irrigation. The performance of any irrigation system also depends on how well it is managed. For a given crop, the irrigation system and management will determine the water use characteris tics: how much of the applied water is used beneficially and how much is “lost” to irrecoverabl e flows. Irrecoverable losses include flows to saline sinks and non-beneficial evapotranspiration includin g an estimate for savings due to implementation of regulated deficit irrigation on select tree and vine cr ops. Recoverable flows encompass surface runoff and deep percolation. Recoverable flow results in Ta ble 2 are provided based on the Quantifiable Objectives that express in-stream flow needs for Bay-Delta tri butaries. Although the recoverable and irrecoverable savings calculations are reported for on-farm and district separately, due to the strong connection between on-farm recoverable flows and district efficiency improvements it is not appropriate to assign benefits solely to on-farm or district. The volume of savings in irrecoverable flows at projection level 1 is due to natural replacement of irrigation syst ems over the horizon of the projections.

Environmental benefits of water use efficiency actio ns are the improvement in aquatic habitat through changes in in-stream flow and timing. Additional benefits may include water quality improvements by reducing thermal loading, subsurface drainage water, and contaminant loads. Water quality benefits may be beneficial to growers that must comply with pollutant reduction under the State’s total maximum daily load requirements. However, depending on the timing of flow changes, improvements in water use efficiency can cause negative environmental effects, such as reduced runoff to downstream water bodies and increased concentration of pollutants in drain water unless the drainage water contaminants areisolated and properly disposed. The Quantifiable Objectives flows in Table 2 represent the aggregate instream Bay-Delta watershed flow needs that can poten tially be met through water use efficiency actions. When comparing the recoverable flows in Table 2 to the Quantifiable Objectives flows it is important to
remember that the in-stream flow needs are location and time specific - thus an acre-foot to acre-foot comparison is not appropriate.

The Year-4 Report estimates show (Figure 2) increasing statewide average seasonal application efficiency
as a function of annual investment.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Agricultural Water Use Efficiency

3-7 Figure 1 Marginal Cost of Recoverable and Irrecoverable Water Savings

Table 2. District and on-farm and recoverable and irrecoverable flows. Savings estimated to be fully realized by 2030.
Annual State Spending 1 Irrecoverable Flows 2 Recoverable Flows 2 Quantifiable Objective 3 Investment Level 

### Investment

area M$/year 

### thousand acre-feet

On-farm 4, 5 0.0 26 165 1
District 2.9 1.0 3 On-farm 4, 5 7.5 94 570 2
District 7.5 13 22 On-farm 4, 5 15.0 145 892 3
District 15.0 51 63 On-farm 4, 5 25.0 200 1220 4
District 25.0 99 110 0n-farm 50.0 293 1747 5
District 50.0 199 165 On-farm 75 354 2041 6 District 75 240 180 507 (total flow for eleven major rivers in the Bay-Delta watershed, does not include the San Joaquin River)

1. Is used for improvements that are not locally cost-effective. 2. Flows do not cover the Colorado River Region (HR 10) 3. Complete description of Quantifiable Ob jectives is found at www.calwater.ca.gov 4. On-farm irrecoverable flows include an annual savings of 143,000 acre-feet due to regulated deficit irrigation. 5. Much of the on-farm savings would not be achieved without t he corresponding district-level spendi ng. District improvements conserve water themselves and are required to enable much of the on-farm conservation.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 3. Agricultur al Water Use Efficiency

3-8 Potential CostsThe ROD estimated costs of the 563,000 acre-feet net water savings ranged from $35 to $900 per acrefoot. The total cost of agricultural water use efficien cy to year 2030 were estimated to be $0.3 billion to $2.7 billion, including about $219 million for the All American Canal and Coachella Branch canal lining. 1

Year-4 Report estimate of the cost of WUE improve ments are summarized in Table 2. The district improvements are required to achieve on-farm improv ements. The irrecoverable loss savings estimates are 27,000 acre-feet to 594,000 acre-feet performed for an annual cost of $0 to $150 million, respectively, for on-farm and district level improvements. Year 4 Report estimates don’t include water savings (141,000 acre-feet) and associated costs of the QSA and All American Canal and Coachella Branch canal lining. Efficiencies calculated for Year-4 Report are lower than ROD estimates because rice irrigation systems can only achieve 60% efficiency on an indivi dual field basis and rice acreage is significant. Marginal costs of recoverable and irrecovera ble water savings are shown in Figure 1.

The total cost of achieving the 594,000 acre-feet of irrecoverable loss savings plus the 141,000 acre-feet of savings from the QSA (735,000 acre-feet total) would be about $4 billion. It should be noted that costs and saving for each level of projection identified in Table 2 includes costs and water savings of all previous projection levels.

Figure 2 Statewide Average On-Farm Seasonal Application Efficiency



## Major Issues Facing Additional Agricultural Water Use Efficiency

Funding
Funds dedicated to water use efficiency have fa llen below estimates of the 2000 CALFED Record of Decision that called for an investment of $1. 5 billion to $2 billion from 2000-2007. The CALFED Framework For Agreement committed State and federal governments would fund about 50 percent (25

1 The cost estimates are derived from potential on-farm and district wide efficiency im provements associated with “real water savings”. Details of estimates and assump tions are in the CALFED WUE Program Plan (Final Programmatic EIS/EIR Technical Appendix- July 2000).California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Agricultural Water Use Efficiency

3-9 percent each), with local agencies paying the remaining 50 percent of CALFED water use efficiency
activities.

Although the need is great, small and disadvantaged communities may not be able to apply for State and federal grants, because of the difficulty of the app lication and grant management for what are often limited funds. In addition, such districts rarely have the technical and financial abilities to develop plans or implement expensive wate r management practices.

For some districts, funding for water use efficienci es comes from the ability to transfer water. While transfers to urban areas may reduce the amount of wate r available to grow crops, they are expected to play a significant role in financing fu ture water use efficiency efforts.

Implementation
Implementation of agricultural water use efficiency depends on many complicated, interrelated factors. The farmer strives to optimize agricultural profits per unit of land and water without compromising the economic viability of agriculture, water quality, or the environment. The success depends not only on availability of funds but also on technical feasibility and cost effectiveness, availability of technical assistance, and ability and willingness of growers, i rrigation industry, and water district staff. Opportunities exist through CALFED to implement efficiency measures beyond EWMPs to provide water quality and flow timing benefits for the local agen cy and to provide regional or statewide benefits.

Designing and installing efficient irrigation and wate r distribution systems will not necessarily result in improved efficiency if the systems are not well managed.

Reducing evaporation requires precise application of water. Stressing crops through regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) is one approach which requires careful scheduling and application of water and may have additional costs and adverse impact on crop quality or soil salin ity. In the case of RDI, research is needed to evaluate the level of current practices, extent of implementation of these practices, and quantification of RDI benefits and impacts.

Many growers and irrigation districts believe that implementing efficiency measures could affect their water rights. They believe that conserved water may be used by others, causing a loss of rights to the
conserved water. This belief is a factor that impedes water conservation.

Measurement, Planning and Evaluation
Lack of data is an obstacle for assessing irrigation efficiencies and planning further improvement. The State lacks comprehensive data on the acreage under va rious methods of irrigation, applied water, crop water use, irrigation efficiency, net water savings, and the cost of irrigation improvements per unit of saved water. Collection and management and disseminati on of these data to growers, districts, and state planners are necessary for promoting increased wate r use efficiency. A concern identified by some members of the Advisory Committee w as a lack of statewide guidance to assist regions and districts to
collect the data needed for future Wate r Plan Updates in a usable format.

Independent Panel on the Appropriate M easurement of Agricultural Water Use ( www.Calwater.ca.gov ) that was convened by the CBDA made specific measure ment recommendations for district diversions, net groundwater use, crop water cons umption and aggregate farm gate deliveries. In addition aPublic Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 3. Agricultur al Water Use Efficiency

3-10 recommendation was made to increase research on measure ment for water quality, return flow and stream gauging.

Resource Requirements
The shift to pressurized irrigation systems requires additional energy resources such as electricity, gas, and diesel. They also require pipelines, pumps, filters and filtration systems, and chemicals for cleaning drip systems.

Education and Motivation
Improving agricultural water use efficiency depends on disseminating information on the use, costs, benefits, and impacts of technologies and on providing incentives for implementation. Existing evidence, although limited, indicates a strong response to financial incentives.

Dry-Year Considerations
In dry years, California’s water supply is inadequate to meet its current level of use, and agriculture is often called upon to implement extraordinary water use efficiency or even land fallowing. Standard water use efficiency approaches to meet water needs during dry years need to be reviewed and adopted. New approaches need to be explored such as alfalfa summer dry-down or RDI to save water.



## Recommendations to Achieve More Ag ricultural Water Use Efficiency

The following recommendations can help facilita te more agricultural water use efficiency:
1. The State should identify and establish priorities for grant programs and other incentives. Develop a process for quantifying and verifyin g intended benefits of projects receiving State loans and grants.
2. The State should fund technical and planning assist ance to improve water use efficiency including local efforts to implement EWMPs and meet CA LFED WUE goals. Provide technical and financial assistance to the Agricultural Water Management C ouncil oversight for implementation, monitoring, and reporting of all cost-effective EWMPs. In cooperation with the agricultural community, fund research, development, demonstration, monitoring and evaluation projects that improve agricultural water use efficiency. Support programs that encour age the development of new cost-effective water savings technologies and practices and evaluate co st-effectiveness of practices. Develop methodology for quantifying water savings and costs associated with hardware upgrades, water management, and evapotranspiration reduction projects proposed in this strategy.
3. The Agricultural Water Management Council shou ld incorporate CALFED Quantifiable Objectives within the Agricultural Water Management Planning and implementation process.
4. State’s loans & grants should provide ample oppor tunities for small districts and economically disadvantaged communities, tribes and community-based organizations to benefit from technical assistance, planning activities, and incentive progr ams, based on environmental justice policies.
5. Agricultural Water Management Council should en courage more water suppliers to join the Memorandum of Understanding and br oaden its signatory base. AWMC should get the support of the State and local agencies for full implementation of Efficient Water Management Practices by signatories and encourage the addition of new EWMPs as benefits are identified.
6. Expand CIMIS, mobile laboratory services, and ot her training and educati on programs to improve distribution uniformity, irrigation scheduling and on-farm irrigation efficiency.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Agricultural Water Use Efficiency

3-11 7. The State should fund long-term ET reduction (RDI, mu lch, alfalfa dry down, etc.) demonstration and research plots and other promising programs to re duce evapotranspiration. Based on the long-term ET reduction studies and research, DWR should develop informational guidelines that define the crop water consumption reduction practices identify how they can be implemented for each crop; their potential crop benefits and impacts, water savings , and estimate costs for growers and districts to implement.
8. Encourage billing by volume of water-delivered ra te structures that improve water use efficiency.
9. Collect, manage and disseminate statewide data on acreage under various irrigation methods, the amount of water applied, crop water use, and the bene fits and costs of water use efficiency measures. Develop statewide guidance to assist regions and districts to collect the type of data needed, in a form usable for future Water Plan Updates. DWR should work with the AWMC to develop a database of information from the Water Management Plans on wa ter use-related data fo r dissemination and for Water Plan Update. DWR should work with CB DA in implementing recommendations of the Independent Panel on the Appropriate M easurement of Agricultural Water Use.
10. Develop community educational and motivational stra tegies for conservation activities to foster water use efficiency, with the participation of the ag ricultural and water industries and environmental interests. Develop partnerships with State, federa l, UC Cooperative Extension Service, farm advisors, irrigation specialists, State educational and research in stitutions to provide educational, informational, and training opportunities to growers, district st aff and others on variety of water and irrigation management practices, operation, and maintenance.
11. The State should explore and identify innovative technologies and techniques to improve water use efficiency by developing new water efficiency measures to correspond with new information. Consider fast-track pilot projects, demonstrati ons, and model programs exploring state-of-the-art water saving technologies and procedures and publicize results widely. Foster closer partnership among growers, water districts and irrigation industry and manufacturers who play an important role in research, development, manufacturing, distri bution, and dissemination of new and innovative irrigation technologies and management practices.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 3. Agricultur al Water Use Efficiency

3-12 Information Sources

• California Water Plans 93 and 98. De partment of Water Resources

• Water Use Efficiency Program Plan. Programmatic EIS/EIR Technical Appendix. July 2000. CALFED Bay-Delta Program.

• Agricultural Water Use Efficiency Pr ogram. DWR. Office of WUE. http://wwwdwr.water.ca.gov/

• California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS). www.cimis.water.ca.gov

• California Department of Water Resources: Loans & Grants. http://wwdpla.water.ca.gov/supply/loans/loans.html

• Agricultural Water Management Council. www.agwatercouncil.org

• California energy Commission. www.consumerenergycenter.com/

• California Farm Water Coalition. www.farmwater.org

• California Polytechnic State University, Irrigation Training and Research Center (ITRC). www.itrc.org/index.html

• California Urban Water Conservation Council. www.cuwcc.org

• Center for Irrigation Technology (CIT), California State University, Fresno. www.atinet.org/newcati/cit

• County Agricultural Commissioners.

• Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA). www.acwanet.com

• United States Bureau of Reclamation, Wate rshare Program. www.wa tershare.mp.usbr.gov

• United States Department of Agriculture/Agricultural Research Station. www.fsa.usda.gov.ca/ca.htm and www.pwa. ars.usda.gov/locations.shtml

• University of California Cooperative Extension. www.dnar.ucop.edu

• United States Geological Survey. www.usgs.gov

• USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services. www.nrcs.usda.gov

• Water Reuse Association. www.webcom.com/h2o

• Independent Panel on Appropriate Measurement of Agricultural Water Use. Convened by the California Bay-Delta Authority. Final Report, September 2003.

• CBDA Draft Year-4 Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive ReportCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Conjunctive Management and Groundwater Storage

4-1 

# Chapter 4. Conjunctive Management and Groundwater Storage

Conjunctive management is the coordinated operation of surface wate r storage and use, groundwater storage and use, and conveyance facilities to meet water management objectiv es. Although surface water and groundwater are sometimes considered to be separ ate resources, they are connected by the hydrologic cycle. Conjunctive management allows surface water and groundwater to be managed in an efficient manner by taking advantage of the ability of surface st orage to capture and temporarily store storm water and the ability of aquifers to serve as long-term storage.

There are three primary components to a conjunctive management project. The first is to recharge groundwater when
surface water is available to increase groundwater storage. In some areas this is accomplished by reducing groundwater use and substituting it with surface water, allowing natural recharge to increase groundwater storage (also called in-lieu recharge). The second component is to switch to groundwater use in dry years when
surface water is scarce. The third component is to have an ongoing monitoring program to evaluate and allow water managers to respond to changes in groundwater, surface water,
or environmental conditions that could violate management objectives or impact other water users. Together these components make up a conjunctive management project.

Other topics in the Water Plan that are related to conjunctive management include the strategies on Groundwater Remediation / Aquifer Remediation, Recharge Areas Protection, Water Transfers, and System Reoperation. 

## Conjunctive Management in California

Conjunctive management has been practiced in Calif ornia to varying degrees since the Spanish mission era. The first known artificial recharge of groundwat er in California occurred in Southern California during the late 1800s and is now used as a management tool in many areas. Two examples illustrate the types of conjunctive management under way on a regional and local scale. In Southern California, including Kern County, conjunctive management ha s increased average-year water deliveries by more than 2 million acre-feet (AGWA, 2000). Over a period of years, artificial recharge in these areas has increased the water now in groundwater storage by about 7 million acre-feet. Groundwater Recharge
Groundwater recharge is the movement of surface water from the land surface, through the topsoil and subsurface, and into de-watered aquifer space. Recharge occurs naturally from precipitation falling on the land surface, from water stored in lakes, and from creeks and rivers carrying storm runoff. Recharge also occurs when water is placed into constructed recharge ponds (also called spreading basins), when water is injected into the subsurface by wells, and when water is released into creeks and rive rs beyond what occurs from the natural hydrology (for example, by releases of imported water). These later examples of recharge are often called artificial, intentional, managed or induced recharge. Significant amounts of recharge can also occur either intentionally or incidentally from applied irrigation water and from water placed into unlined conveyance facilities. Gr oundwater banking is the recharge (often of imported surface water or local flood water) into de-watered aquifer space for later recovery and use or exchange with others.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 4. Conjunctive Management and Groundwater Storage

4-2 Figure 2 Santa Clara Valley Water District releases local supplies and imported water into more
than 20 local creeks for artificial instream recharge and into more than 70 recharge ponds to recharge a total of about 157,000 acre-feet annually. Conjunctive management has virtually stopped land subsidence caused by heavy groundwater use and has allowed groundwater levels to recover to those of the early 1900s (see Figure 1).

There is no comprehensive statewide data on the planning and implementation of conjunctive management at the local agency level,
but

, DWR’s Conjunctive Water Management Program provi des an indication of the types and magnitude of projects that water agencies are pursuing. In fiscal years 2001 and 2002 the program awarded more than $130 million in grants and loans to leverage local and regional investment in projects throughout California with total costs of about $550 million (see Figure 2).


## Potential Benefits from Conjunctive Management

Conjunctive management is used to improve water supply reliability, to reduce groundwater overdraft and land subsidence, to protect water quality, and to improve environmental conditions. Conservative estimates of additional implementation of conjunctive management indicate the potential to increase average annual water deliveries throughout the state by 500,000 acre-feet with 9 million acre-feet of “new” groundwater storage 1 . New storage includes both reoperation of existing groundwater storage and recharging water into de-watered aquifer space. More aggressive estimates from screening level studies

1 Information in this section was derived from five sour ces: 1) Proposition 13 Groundwater Storage Applications to DWR for fiscal year 2001-2002, 2) A 2000 report by the Association of Groundwater Agencies entitled, “Groundwater and Surface Wate r in Southern California”, 3) A 1998 re port by the Natural Heritage Institute entitled, “Feasibility Study of a Maximal Program of Ground water Banking”, 4) A 2002 report by the Natural Heritage Institute entitled, “Estimating the Potential for In -Lieu Conjunctive Management in the Central Valley”, 5) A 2002 report by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report entitled, “Conjunctive Use for Flood Protection”. Methodology for obtaining these estimates is presented in Volume 4. -150 -100

-50

0 50 100 150

1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995

Year 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100

Groundwater

Land Surface Figure 1. Relationship between Groundwater Elevations and Land Subsidence in Santa Clara CountyGroundwater Elevation(feet)Land Surface Elevation(feet)

Deliveries from State Project Begin Deliveries from Local Projects Begin Deliveries from Federal Project BeginCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Conjunctive Management and Groundwater Storage

4-3 indicate the potential to increase average annual water deliveries by 2 million acre-feet with about 20 million acre-feet of new storage. The more aggressive estimates are based on assumptions that require major reoperation of existing surface water reservoirs a nd groundwater storage to achieve the benefits and do not fully consider the conveyance capacity co nstraints for exports from the Delta and other conveyance facilities.

The potential benefits from additional conjunctive ma nagement are highly dependent on adequate water quality and the ability to capture, convey, and rechar ge surface water. The above estimates are based on increases in local water deliveries from individual pr ojects with project specific sources of recharge supply and do not necessarily reflect a statewide in crease in supply reliability. An increase in statewide supply reliability only occurs when the individual projects use water that would otherwise not be used by other water users or that is not needed for regulator y requirements such as water quality, fish and wildlife, and navigation. Expanding existing or developing new storage or conveyance infrastructure can increase the flexibility and ability to conduct conjunctive management projects. It is also possible to reoperate the existing system and to improve the underlying ope rational conditions to overcome these constraints.

In addition to water supply benef its, conjunctive management can provi de environmental benefits when recharge basins are designed to be compatible with wildlife habitat, su ch as using natural floodplains and wetlands as recharge areas. Re-operation of surface wa ter storage and using the water conjunctively with groundwater can avoid impacts to aquatic species by allowing better management of instream flow and water quality conditions.

Conjunctive Management Case Example Orange County Groundwater Replenishment System

The Groundwater Replenishment (G WR) System is a groundwater management and water supply project jointly sponsored by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The project will take highly treated urba n wastewater and treat it to beyond drinking water standards using advanced membrane purification technology. The water will be used to expand an existing underground seawater intrus ion barrier by injecting the water into the groundwater basin along the coast. Extraction wells throughout the basin will draw potable water for municipal and industrial uses.

The GWR System will provide many benefits to Orange County and California, including:.

• Supplements existing water supplies by providing a new, reliable, high-quality source of water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and protect the basin from further degradation
because of seawater intrusion.

• Reduces the amount of treated wastewater rele ased into the ocean and delays the need for another
ocean outfall.

• Decreases Orange County’s reliance on imported water from Northern California and the Colorado
River.

• Helps drought-proof Orange County using a locally-controlled project.

• Reduces mineral build up in Orange County's groundw ater by providing a new source of ultra-pure water to blend with other sources, including imported water.

• Uses about half the energy of imported water supplies.

Implementation of the GWR System will be phased. The schedule calls for Phase 1 of the proposed project to produce up to 72,000 acre-feet per year of recycled water for groundwater recharge to begin operation in 2007. The total cost of the project is es timated to be $453 million. The unit cost of the supply is $516 per acre-foot.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 4. Conjunctive Management and Groundwater Storage

4-4 

## Potential Costs of Conj unctive Management

Grant applications from DWR’s fiscal year 2001-2002 Conjunctive Water Management Program show project costs ranging from $10 to $600 per acre-foot of increase in average annual delivery. The wide range of costs is due to many factors including pr oject complexity, regional differences in construction and land costs, availability and quality of recharge supply, availability of infrastructure to capture, convey, recharge, and extract water, intended use of wa ter, and treatment requireme nts. In general, urban uses can support higher project costs than agricultural uses. The average project cost of all applications received by DWR is $110 per acre-foot of increase in average annual delivery. This average unit cost translates to statewide implementation costs of appr oximately $1.5 billion for the conservative level of implementation and $5 billion fo r the aggressive implementation. 2


## Major Issues Facing Additional Conjunctive Management

Lack of Data
There is rarely a complete regional network to monitor groundwater levels, water quality, land subsidence, or the interaction of groundwater with su rface water and the environment. Data is needed to
evaluate conditions and trends latera lly over an area, vertically at different depths, and over time. Also,
there is often a reluctance of individuals who own groundwater monitoring or supply wells to provide
information or allow access to collect additional information. The result is that decisions are often made with only approximate knowledge of the system. This uncertainty can make any change in groundwater
use controversial. Additional investment in a monito ring network and data collection can help reduce this uncertainty, but must be done in accordance with a gr oundwater management plan that is acceptable to
stakeholders in the basin.

Infrastructure and Operational Constraints
Physical capacities of existing storage and conveyanc e facilities are often not large enough to capture surface water when it is available in wet years. Operational constraints may also limit the ability to use the full physical capacity of facilities. For exampl e, permitted export capacity and efforts to protect fisheries and water quality in the Delta often limit th e ability to move water to groundwater banks south
of the Delta.

Surface Water and Groundwater Management
In California, water management practices and the water rights system treat surface water and groundwater as two unconnected resources. In reality , there is often a high degree of hydrologic connection between the two. Under predevelopment conditions many streams received dry weather base flow from groundwater storage, and streams provided wet weather recharge to groundwater storage. Water quality and the environment can also be infl uenced by the interaction between surface water and groundwater. Failure to understand these connections can lead to un intended impacts. For example, studies by the University of California, Davis, indicate that long term groundwater pumping in Sacramento County has reduced or eliminated dry season base flow in sections of the Cosumnes River with potential impacts to riparian habitat and anadromous fish.

2 Cost estimates are extrapolated from Proposition 13 Gr oundwater Storage Applications to DWR for fiscal year 2001-2002. Cost estimates assume that the supply benefit is not restricted by Delta export constraints or conveyance capacity.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Conjunctive Management and Groundwater Storage

4-5 In California, authority is separated among local , State and federal agencies for managing different aspects of groundwater and surface water resources. Several examples highlight this issue: 1) SWRCB regulates surface water rights dating from 1914, but not rights dating before 1914; 2) SWRCB also regulates groundwater quality, but not the rights to use groundwater; 3) County groundwater ordinances and local agency groundwater management plans often only apply to a portion of the groundwater basin, and those with overlapping boundari es of responsibility do not necessarily have consistent management objectives;4) Except in adjudicated basins, individuals have few restrictions on how much groundwater they can use, provided the water is put to benefici al use on the overlying property. Failure to integrate water management across jurisdictions makes it diffi cult to manage water for multiple benefits and provide for sustainable use including the ability to identify and protect or mitigate potential impacts to third parties, ensure protection of legal rights of wa ter users, establish rights to use vacant aquifer space and banked water, protect the environment, recogni ze and protect groundwater recharge and discharge areas, and protect public trust resources. The Prot ecting Recharge Areas and Urban Runoff Management strategies describe how land use planning can affect groundwater recharge and groundwater quality.

Water Quality
Groundwater quality can be degraded by naturally oc curring or human introduced chemical constituents, low quality recharge water, or chemical reacti ons caused by mixing water of differing qualities. Protection of human health, the environment, and gr oundwater quality are all concerns for programs that recharge urban runoff or reclaimed/ recycled water. The intended end use of the water can also influence the implementation of conjunctive management projects. For example, agriculture can generally use water of lower quality than needed for urban use, but cer tain crops can be sensitive to some constituents like boron. New and changing water quality standards a nd emerging contaminants add uncertainty to implementing conjunctive management projects. In some cases, conjunctive management activities may need to be coordinated with groundwater clean up ac tivities to achieve multiple benefits to both water supply and groundwater quality.

Environmental Concerns
Environmental concerns related to conjunctive mana gement projects include potential impacts on habitat, water quality, and wildlife caused by shifting or increasi ng patterns of groundwater and surface water use. For example, floodwaters are typically considered “available” for recharge. However, flood flows serve an important function in the ecosystem. Removing or reducing these peak flows can negatively impact the ecosystem. A key challenge is to balance the instream flow and other environmental needs with the water supply aspects of conjunctive management projects. There may also be impacts from construction and operation of groundwater recharge b asins and new conveyance facilities.

Funding
There is generally limited funding to develop the in frastructure and monitoring capability for conjunctive management projects. This includes funding to develop and implement groundwater management plans, to study and construct conjunctive management proj ects, and to track, both statewide and regionally, changes in groundwater levels, groundwater flows, groundwater quality (including the location/spreading of contaminant plumes), land subsidence, changes in surface water flow, surface water quality, and the
interaction and interrelated nature of surface water and groundwater.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 4. Conjunctive Management and Groundwater Storage

4-6 

## Recommendations to Help Promote Additional Conjunctive Management

1. Local water management agencies should coordina te with other agencies that are involved in activities that might affect long term sustainability of water supply and water quality within the basin or adjacent to the basin. Such regional coordination will take different forms in each area because of dissimilar political, legal, institutional, technical, and economic constraints and opportunities, but will likely include agencies with authority over ma naging groundwater and su rface water quantity and quality, land use planning, human health, and environmental protection. Regional groundwater management plans should be developed with assistan ce from an advisory committee of stakeholders to help guide the development, educational outreach, and implementation of the plans.
2. Continue funding for local groundwater monitoring and management activities and feasibility studies that enhance the coordinated use of groundwater and surface water. Additional monitoring and analysis is needed to track, both statewide a nd regionally, changes in groundwater levels, groundwater flows, groundwater quality (including the location/spreading of contaminant plumes), land subsidence, changes in surface water flow , surface water quality, and the interaction and
interrelated nature of surface wate r and groundwater. There is a need to develop comprehensive data on existing, proposed, and potential conjunctive management projects throughout the state and identify and evaluate regional and statewide impl ementation constraints including availability of water to recharge, ability to convey water from source to destination, water quality issues, environmental issues, and costs and benefits.
3. Give priority for funding and technical assistance to conjunctive management projects that are conducted in accordance with a groundwater manage ment plan, increase water supplies, and have other benefits including the sustainable use of gr oundwater, maintaining or improving water quality, and enhancing the environment. Additional preference should be given for projects conducted in accordance with a regional groundwater management plan . In addition, allow funding for projects that make use of wet season / dry season supply variability, not just wet-year/dry-year variability.
4. Assess groundwater management throughout the stat e to provide an understanding of how local agencies are implementing actions to use and protect groundwater, an understanding of which actions are working at the local level and which are not wo rking, and how State programs can be improved to help agencies prepare effective groundwater management plans.
5. Improve coordination and cooperation among local, State, and federal agencies with differing responsibilities for groundwater and surface water management and monitoring to facilitate conjunctive management, to ensure efficient use of resources, to provide tim ely regulatory approvals, to prevent conflicting rules or guidelines, and to promote easy access to information by the public.
6. Encourage local groundwater management authorities to manage the use of vacant aquifer space for artificial recharge and to develop multi-benefit pr ojects that generate source water for groundwater storage by capturing water that would otherwise not be used by other water users or the environment. For example, through reservoir reoperation, water recycling and reuse, and water conservation.
7. Work with wildlife agencies to streamline the environmental permitting process for the development of conjunctive management facilities, like recharge basins, when they are designed with pre-defined benefits or mitigation to w ildlife and wildlife habitat.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Conjunctive Management and Groundwater Storage

4-7 Information Sources

• Association of Groundwater Agenci es (AGWA). “Groun dwater and Surface Water in Southern California.”

October 2000.

• CALFED. Common Assumptions, Conjunctive Use Inventory. In progress.

• CALFED. “Conjunctive Use Site Assessmen t – Draft Report”. December 23, 1999

• Fleckenstein, J.H., Anderson, M, Fogg, G.E. & Mount, J. (2003), Managing Surf ace water-groundwater to restore fall flows in the Cosumnes River, Journal of Water Resources Management and Planning, in press.

• Natural Heritage Institute. “Designing Successful Gr oundwater Banking Programs in the Central Valley”.

2000.

• Natural Heritage Institute. “Estimating the Potential for In-Lieu Conjunctive Water Management in the Central Valley”. February 2002.

• Natural Heritage Institute. “The Hydrogeological Suitability of Potential Groundwater Banking Sites in the Central Valley”. September 2001.

• Natural Heritage Institute. “Feasib ility Study of Maximal Program of Groundwater Banking.” December

1998.

• SWRCB. “Water Transfer Issues in California: Final Report to the California State Water Resources Control Board by the Water Transfer Workgroup”. June 2002.

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Conjunctive Use for Flood Protection. January 2002.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Conveyance

5-1 

# Chapter 5. Conveyance

Conveyance provides for the movement of water. Specific objectives of natural and managed water conveyance activities include flood management, cons umptive and non-consumptive environmental uses, water quality improvement, recreation, operational flexib ility, and urban and agricultural water deliveries. Conveyance infrastructure includes natural watercourses as well as constructed facilities like canals, pipelines and related structures, including pumping pl ants, diversions, distribution systems and fish screens. Groundwater aquifers are also used to c onvey water. Conveyance facilities range in size from small local end-user distribution systems to the large sy stems that deliver water to, or drain, areas as large as multiple hydrologic regions.

It is important to note that common water mana gement objectives and option evaluation criteria do not consistently show favor toward eith er regional or inter-regional options. Determinations must be made at the project-level. 

## Conveyance in California

In general, conveyance facilities are used to move wate r from a source to where it is needed. An extensive system of conveyance facilities moves water with the u se of its natural and constructed waterways. At the local level, water is distributed from locally deve loped sources to the end users. Since the state’s ecosystem depends on water flow and quality in creek s, streams and rivers, an overall objective is to balance the operation and maintenance of these c onveyances to meet the needs of all sectors.

The two largest conveyance projects in California are the State Water Project (SWP) and the Central Valley Project (CVP). Both the SWP and the CVP u se natural rivers and c onstructed conveyances to deliver water from storage reservoirs in northern Califo rnia to a broad array of agricultural water agencies in northern California and the San Joaquin Valley, as well as urban water agencies in the Sacramento Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, central coast, and ur ban Southern California. Levees along major rivers and levees in the Delta serve to convey flood water, but also convey water for water supply. The network
of Delta levees and the hundreds of miles of interc onnected channels provide convey water for in-Delta use and to the south of Delta pumping facilities. W ithout the Delta levees, the Delta would be much saltier and unusable for water supply as we use it today.

A number of other inter-regional conveyances have been developed by local agencies. For example, East Bay Municipal Utility District and the San Franci sco Public Utilities Commission have developed major conveyance systems that transport water from Sierra Ne vada rivers directly to their service areas. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power developed the Los Angeles Aqueduct to convey water from the Owens Valley to Los Angeles. A major source of water in Southern California continues to be diversion
and distribution of Colorado River water via the All American Canal serving the Imperial Irrigation District, the Coachella Canal serving the Coachella Valley and the Colorado River Aqueduct delivering
water to urban Southern California. Each of these conveyance systems is a major contributor to each region’s water supplies and ove rall water supply reliability.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 5. Conveyance

5-2 The existing network of inter-regional conveyance systems would not be capable of producing benefits if not for the ability of local water agencies to use conveyance to distribute imported, or locally produced, water to the end users, such as treated drinking water to residential or industrial users or irrigation water to agricultural users. In fact, conveyance is necessary in order for benefits to occur with virtually every other facet of local water management, such as desalination, recycling, use efficiency, storage projects.

Other conveyance activities include
environmental and recreation-related conveyance activities that can either
be intentional or incidental to agricultural and urban water management activities. This could
involve beneficiaries such as fish habitat (temperature, flow or quality improvements), riparian vegetation, rafting or recreational turf.

One current planning process that seeks to enhance conveyance connectivity at the regional level is the CALFED Bay Area Water Quality and Supply Reliability Program. This program is examining conveyance projects as well as other water management tools such as storage, recycling, and desalination in the Bay Area region to improve the area's drinking water quality and supply reliability. Existing regional, multi-agency conveyan ce projects in the Bay Ar ea already include the, Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, South Bay Aqueduct and emergency interconnects between various agencies. The program examines the effectiveness of add itional regional conveyance projects that maximize operational efficiency and flexibility 1

.

1 System flexibility is defined as the ability to adaptively operate, or optimize, multiple water management options by controlling the timing, flow rate, location or quality of available supplies. CALFED Conveyance
Under the CALFED Convey ance Program, the CALFED Record of Decision calls out specific through-Delta conveyance actions that are to be either directly implemented or otherwise pursued including:

• Increase SWP permitted pumping to 8,500 cubic feet per second and install permanent, operable barriers in the south Delta

• Increase SWP permitted pumping to 10,300 cfs and construct Clifton Court Forebay fish screens

• Construct Tracy Fi sh Test Facility

• Implement Lower San Joaquin River Floodways Improvements and Ecosystem Restoration Project

• Old River and Rock Slough Water Quality Improvement Projects

• Evaluate improved operational procedures for the Delta Cross Channel and simultaneously evaluate a screened through-Delta facility on the Sacramento River up to 4,000 cfs

• Implement North Delta Flood Control and Ecosystem Restoration Improvements Program

• Consider the need for conveyance interties between the SWP and CVP in the vicinity of Delta Mendota Canal Mile Post 7 and between Clifton Court Forebay and the Tracy Pumping Plant

• Continue the Temporary Barriers Project until permanent flow control structures are built

• Evaluate a bypass to the San Felipe Unit at the San Luis Reservoir to reduce risk from the low point water levels in the San Luis Reservoir

• Facilitate water quality exchanges and similar programs to make high quality Sierra Nevada water available to urban Southern California interests

• Assist in implementation of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Comprehensive Study to improve flood control and ecosystem restorationCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Conveyance

5-3 A major conveyance planning effort is the CALFED C onveyance Program which is expected to result in additional water supplies for the state beginning in 2006 (see the CALFED sidebar). A summary of the water supply improvements of these project actions is provided in California Bay-Delta Authority Conveyance Program Plan for Years 5-8, as well as other documents.

Modeling studies indicate that the Delta Mendota Ca nal / California Aqueduct Intertie project which involves the construction of a 400 cfs interconnection between the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project south of Tracy will enable the CVP to deliver a long-term average of 35 TAF of additional water to its service area beginning in 2006. Currently, the amount, timing, and location of water deliveries from the DMC is limited by apparent canal subsidence, siltation, the facility design, and other factors. This Intertie will enable the CVP to use availa ble capacity in the SWP’s California Aqueduct. These results are expected to be reported in U S Bureau of Reclamations administrative Draft Environmental Assessment / Initial Study report on their water supply studies.

The SWP is expecting to increase its permitted expor ts from the south Delta from 6,680 to 8,500 cfs in 2008 after the installation of four permanent operable barriers in the south Delta. Three of the barriers will be installed to isolate agricultural intakes from SW P and CVP export operations and one barrier is being installed to protect the fisheries in the San Jo aquin River. Water supply studies conducted by DWR indicate that average long-term water supplies will in crease SWP deliveries by 90,000 acre-feet and CVP deliveries by 100,000 acre-feet. The details of the stud ies are expected to be reported in administrative Draft EIR/EIS Report for the 8,500 cfs operations project.

Contra Costa Water District expects water quality improvement projects on Veale and Byron Tracts to reduce the impact of local agricultural drainage waters which are high in salinity, and can include elevated levels of organic carbon and bromide. These projects and resulting water quality improvements are expected to result in increased exports of 10,0 00 acre-feet beginning in 2008 and an additional 10,000 acre-feet beginning in 2009. These results are reported in CCWD’s report on its projects.

Studies conducted by the Santa Clara Valley Water Dist rict in the development of the San Luis Reservoir Low Point Improvement Project indicate that add itional storage alternatives have the potential of developing long-term average of 70,000 acre-feet of additional water supply for the CVP or SWP by 2010. These results are reported in the administrative Draft EIR/EIS of the project.

Another example of the use of conveyance to pr ovide system flexibility within a region is the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s network of local conveyance facilities. In addition to numerous locally developed water management options, this region receives water from multiple importation projects – namely the SWP and Colorado River. Both the importation and local options operate with different and often dynamic complexities involving wate r quality, hydrologic variability, costs, timing, risk levels, geographical distri bution and capacities. Therefore, significant water management benefits occur by integrating water ope rations (using conveyance facilities) to help optimize operations based on the complexities described above. 

## Benefits of Improving Conveyance

The main benefits of conveyance to the urban, agri cultural and environmental water use sectors are in maintaining or increasing water supply reliability, pr otecting water quality, augmenting current water supplies, and providing water system operational flexibility. For the environmental sector, benefits include in-stream flows, appropriate temperatures and wa ter quality for aquatic and riparian habitat. It is important to recognize that, in some cases, improving water supply reliability through system flexibility is just as valuable as increasing overall supply. I ndeed, conveyance capacity improvements can enhancePublic Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 5. Conveyance

5-4 reliability without augmenting supplies or reducing demand by increasing system operational flexibility. Other specific benefits are:

• Conveyance is necessary for many of the other resource management strategies. Conveyance is needed to move water in water transfers between sellers and buyers. In order for water to be developed by new groundwater or off-stream surface storage, diversion facilities must be capable of filling the storage. Also, facilities must then be in place to convey the storage releases to the users at the right times and flow rates.

• Conveyance improvements can provide the flexibility to divert and move water at times that are less
harmful to fisheries.

• Conveyance can improve water quality by moving more water when water quality conditions are better or less impacted by the movement of wate r, or by moving more water to improve water quality (i.e. decrease salinity in the Delta).

• Given the high-intensity, short duration characteristics of California’s hydrology, improved conveyance capacities can divert more water during high flow/less competitive periods, and consequently reduce the pressure to divert wa ter during low flow/hi ghly competitive periods.

• Other benefits of conveyance improvements generally include:

• Enhancement of flood control capability

• Increases in water use efficiency

• Protection of water quality

• Increases in resiliency to catastrophic events

• Reductions in operating costs

• Improvements t o instream and riparian habitat 

## Potential Costs of Water Conveyance

Conveyance costs can be a significant portion of the costs in a water management system. The cost of water conveyance heavily depends on the local circumst ances, how far and when the water needs to be conveyed and topography (e.g. pumping vs. gravity flow). For example, it costs less to convey water from Oroville Dam to the Delta, all gravity flow, than to convey water from the Delta to the South Coast Hydrologic Region. Conveying water through the Delta and over the Tehachapi Mountains increases water costs due to the canals, pipelines and pumping plan ts that need to be provided and the operating and maintenance costs of these facilities. However, by providing additional conveyance capacity to move water during off-peak energy demand periods, when power costs are lower, operating costs can be reduced. CALFED estimates of Delta conveyance improvements which are most likely to be implemented in the next ten years are expected to cost about $ 230 million to $260 million to construct. Other potential conveyance improvements which are currently being studi ed could cost an additional $1.6 billion to $2.1 billion over the next 10 years. However, until all a lternatives for these facilities are fully evaluated, these
cost are tentative. 

## Major Issues Facing Conveyance

Maintenance
It is essential, at a minimum, to maintain the curre nt level of conveyance capacity for both natural and constructed facilities. This is likely to take on very significant importance over time due to aging water infrastructure, the increasingly higher costs of main tenance, and the increasing demands with increasing population. Substantial reinvestment will be required just to maintain the current level of benefits. While concerns are likely to focus on adequate financial resources to maintain conveyance infrastructure, thereCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Conveyance

5-5 is the special case of diminishing conveyance capacity in natural watercourses. This is most critical from both a water conveyance and flood passage standpoint in the channels of the Delta. Diminishing conveyance capacity is also a problem for flood ma nagement facilities such as bypasses that over time fill with silt, debris and plant growth that reduce the effectiveness for passing flood waters. In addition, rivers and streams depend upon a watershe d which is in good condition. Watersheds provide the critical functions of snowpack storage, runoff, water quality , and water filtration in groundwater. Therefore, watershed management activities (see watershed manageme nt strategy in this Volume) will also require investment as part of the natural infrastructure of the state’s water system.

Science
Water managers, planners a nd biologists continue to work to iden tify and understand the relationships between hydrodynamics, flow timing, fish timi ng and movement, water temperature, geomorphology, water quality, environmental responses, global c limate change and other conveyance related considerations so they can optimally plan, develo p, operate and maintain natural and constructed conveyance infrastructure. Various CALFED programs ha ve been studying these factors and expect to develop plans to improve the operation of the state’ s conveyances with a balanced approach to meeting the needs of its people and the environment. These studies are most evident in the Delta where export demands must be met, flood control improvements are needed, water quality improvements are being sought, and Delta fisheries and their habitat must be protected.

Regulatory Compliance
New conveyance projects may need to address impacts under the application of various laws, regulatory processes and statutes such as Public Trust Doctrine , Area of Origin statutes, CEQA, NEPA, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Acts.

Local and Regional Water Supply Reliability
Greater interconnections are needed to help im prove water supply reliability, as evidenced by how California has responded during drought conditions. Each water system has its own level of water supply reliability, based largely on storage and conveyan ce systems, hydrology, and level of demand. Operational flexibility, particularly during emerge ncy conditions is a primary benefit of greater interconnection of independent water systems.

CALFED Through-Delta Strategy
The CALFED objective for the Conveyance Program empl oys a through-Delta approach to conveyance. Delta conveyance capacity and opera tional restrictions have been identified as key bottlenecks to improving the water supply reliability fo r in-Delta and water export users. The current lack of flexibility also limits the ability to take advantage of other water management strategies such as water transfers, including transfer of previously stored water, conj unctive management, groundwater storage, and north of Delta water use efficiency. A key challenge for the California Bay-Delta Authority is to implement a strategy that will provide the necessary flexibility to the system and be protective of water quality, BayDelta hydrodynamics, fisheries, and habitat.

Area of Origin Interest
Inter-regional movement of water is sometimes opposed by the source water counties. In addition to struggling to augment local water supplies to meet gr owing demands, area of origin interests often feel
that the downstream water users could or should be more committed to assisting in managing the natural infrastructure, such as watersheds, from which their imported water originates.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 5. Conveyance

5-6 

## Recommendations

The following recommendations apply to St ate, federal and local water agencies:
1. Assure adequate resources to maintain existi ng man-made and natural conveyance facilities and capacity and condition. This may in clude development of a strategy to maintain channel capacity in areas of the Delta and in flood management facilities.
2. Promote development of more extensive interconn ections among water resources systems such as, and in addition to, the SWP-CVP intertie or impr oved connectivity within the Bay Area Region. It is likely that leadership and funding on this will be at the local level.
3. Financially support the CALFED through-Delta conveyance improvements per CALFED ROD.
4. Provide finances for lining of AAC & Coachella Canals – to make available 102 taf annually to South Coast Region MDWSC agency.

Information Source

• CALFED Record of Decision and Conveyance Program http://calfed.ca.gov.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Desalination

6-1 

# Chapter 6. Desalination

Desalination is a water treatment process for the removal of salt from water for beneficial use. Desalination is used on brackish (low-salinity) wate r as well as seawater. In California, the principal method for desalination is reverse osmosis. This pr ocess can be used to remove salt as well as specific
contaminants in water such as Trihalomethane precursors, volatile organic carbons, nitrates and pathogens.

Only desalination for municipal purposes, that is, desa lination used by public and private water agencies is considered in the following discussion. Desalination by industrial and commercial entities is not considered since those applications of desalting genera lly involve treating fresh water to a higher standard to meet a specific need. Desalination plant capacity for this paper is expressed in terms of the fresh or potable water capacity of the plant. Total water costs ar e given in $ per acre-foot of fresh of potable water produced.



## Current Desalination in California

Desalination began in California in 1965. The last d ecade has seen a rapid rise in installed capacity. This has occurred due mostly to dramatic improvements in membrane technology and the increasing cost of conventional water supply development. In 1999 there were 30 desalting plants operating in California for municipal purposes. The total capacity of these plants was about 80,000 acre-feet per year. Assembly Bill 2717 (Hertzberg, Chapter 957, Statutes of 2002) called for DWR to establish a
Desalination Task Force to look into:

• Potential opportunities for desalination of seawater and brackish water in California

• Impediments to using desalination technology

• What role, if any, the State should play in furthering the use of desalination The Task Force completed its mission in October 200 3 after six month of deliberations. DWR prepared recommendations (see text box on the following pages) with significant input from Task Force members comprised of representatives from twenty-seven organizations.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 6. Desalination

6-2 Desalination Recommendations Summary (2003)

General Recommendations:

• 1. Since each desalination project is unique and depends on project-specific conditions and considerations, each project should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

• 2. Include desalination, where economically and e nvironmentally appropriate, as an element of a balanced water supply portfolio, which also includes conservation and water recycling to the maximum extent practicable.

• 3. Ensure equitable access to benefits from desalinati on projects and ensure desalination projects will not have disproportionate impacts particularly to low-income and/or ethnic communities.

• 4. The State should create mechanisms that al low the environmental benefits associated with transitioning dependence on existing water sources to desalinated water to be realized.

• 5. In conjunction with local governments, assess the availability of land and facilities for environmentally and economically acceptable seawater desalination.

• 6. Results from monitoring at desalination projects should be reported widely for the broadest public benefits. Encourage opportunities to share informa tion on operational data. Create a database and repository for storing and disseminating information.

• 7. Create an Office of Desalination within the Department of Water Resources to advance the State’s
role in desalination. Energy and Environment Related Recommendations:

• 8. Ensure seawater desalination projects are designed and operated to avoid, reduce or minimize impingement, entrainment, brine discharge and other environmental impacts. Regulators, in consultation with the public, should seek coordinated mechanisms to mitigate unavoidable environmental impacts.

• 9. Identify ways to improve water quality by mixing desalinated water with other water supplies.

• 10. Where feasible and appropriate, utilize wastewat er outfalls for blending/discharging desalination
brine/concentrate.

• 11. Compare reasonable estimates of benefits, costs and environmental impacts for desalination with those for other water supply alternatives realistically available to that area.

• 12. Recognizing the importance of power costs to the co sts of desalination, consider strategies that will allow project sponsors to access non-retail power rates.

• 13. Clarify the applicability of non-retail energy pricing for desalination facilities.

• 14. Study the energy intensity and rates currently paid for energy used to provide water from various sources including desalination.

• 15. Study the potential for developing renewable energy systems in California, in conjunction with desalination implementation strategies.

• 16. Identify ways that desalination can be used in a manner that enhances, or protects the environment, public access, public health, view sheds, fi sh and wildlife habitat and recreation/tourism. Planning and Permitting Related Recommendations:

• 17. To improve communication, cooperation, and consistency in permitting processes, encourage review processes for each desalination project to be coordinated among regulators and the public.

• 18. Evaluate all new water supply strategies including desalination based upon adopted community General Plans, Urban Water Management Plans, Local Coastal Plans, and other approved plans that integrate regional planning, growth and water supply/demand projections. Environmental reviews should ensure that growth related impacts of desalination projects are properly evaluated.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Desalination

6-3 From San Francisco Bay to San Diego, there are nu merous studies underway investigating the feasibility of desalting seawater. In November, 2001, the Metr opolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) under it s new Seawater Desalination Program targeting 50,000 acre-feet –per-year (AF/Y) of sustained pr oduction. Through a competitive process, selected projects would be eligible for financial assistance up to $250/AF. The San Diego County Water Authority is also investigating seawater desalting facilities in addition to the 50 mgd Carlsbad plant proposed under the MWD program described above. A number of Sa n Francisco Bay area agen cies are jointly funding planning studies for desalination and Marin Municipal Water District is conducting pilot plant testing on San Francisco Bay water. Along the Central Coast, water agencies in the Monterey, Santa Cruz and Cambria areas are also investigating seawater desalination.


## Potential Benefits of Municipal Desalination in California

The benefits that desalination can provide are:

• Increase in water supply

• Reclamation and beneficial use of waters of impaired quality

• Increased water supply reliability during drought periods

• Diversification of water supply sources

• Improved water quality

• Protection of public health The primary benefit of desalting is to increase California’s water supply. Seawater desalting creates a new water supply by tapping the significant supply of feedwater from the Pacific Ocean.

The following table shows the number and capacity of seawater desalting plants in operation and in design and construction as of 2002 and plants that ar e currently planned or projected for construction. These include the plants proposed in response to th e MWD solicitation and plants in Huntington Beach, the Monterey Bay area and Marin County. While not all of these are likely to be constructed this decade, it is assumed that they, or an equivale nt number, will be operational by 2030.

Desalting in California for New Water Supply Plants in Operation Plants in Design & Construction Plants Planned or Projected
Feedwater Source No. Of Plants Annual Capacity No. Of Plants Annual Capacity No. Of Plants Annual Capacity Groundwater 14 68,500 3 31,700 3 55,800 Seawater 6 1,440 1 50 6 187,100 Total 20 69,940 4 31,750 9 242,900 Cumulative 24 91,690 33 298,700
1. Capacity in Acre-feet per year. No. of Plants is number of new plants 2. Design & Construction – Construction underway or preparation of plans and specifications has begun 3. Planned – Planning studies underway for new or expanded capacity 4. Projected – Assumed new or expanded capacity of plants in operation or des ign and construction. 5. Sources: “Water Desalination Report’, and Worldwide Desalti ng Plants Inventory series by International Desalination Associa tion.

In addition to the above, there is additional new water supply possibl e from desalting oil field production water in the San Joaquin and Salinas Valleys and brack ish agricultural drainage water in the San Joaquin and Imperial Valleys. These are not quantifiable at present.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 6. Desalination

6-4 Desalting wastewater increases the range of beneficial uses for which recycled municipal wastewater can be used. Of the 1,200,000 AF/Y (see the recycled m unicipal water strategy) in reclaimed water projected for 2030, approximately 150,000 AF/Y will include desalting in the treatment process.

Desalting groundwater allows groundwater of impaired quality to be adequately treated for potable use. Approximately 150,000 AF/Y in capacity is current ly planned or projected to be constructed. Groundwater desalting may or may not be a “new” wate r supply depending upon the water portfolio or balance in the area or region where it occurs. It is , however, providing water from a source that is not currently being used for beneficial purposes.



## Potential Costs of Desalination

Recent technological advances in various desalination processes have significantly reduced the cost of desalinated water to levels that are comparable, and in some instances competitiv e, with other alternatives for acquiring new water supplies. Desalination tech nologies are becoming more efficient, less energy demanding and less expensive. Significant progress and innovation in membrane technologies such as reverse osmosis (RO) has helped reduce costs. The RO process has been proven to produce high quality drinking water throughout the world for decades.

The estimated capital cost of 187,100 (see table on prev ious page) acre-feet per year in increased seawater desalting capacity is about $1 billion. The table below show s the range in total unit water cost that can be expected from plants desalting groundwater (or brackish ), wastewater and seawater. These costs are based on the expected lifetime of the plant (20-30 years).

Desalting Total Water Costs Type of Desalting Plant Total Water Cost - $ per Acre-Foot Groundwater $250-500 Wastewater $500-2000 Seawater $800-2000



## Major Issues in Desalination

Historically, the cost of desalting has been the majo r issue regarding desalting, with energy use a close second. As desalting costs have declined and the cost of traditional water supplies has increased, desalting is increasingly being considered. As a result, two additional issues have increased importance, environmental impacts and permitting (particularly for coastal plants).

Cost and Affordability – Desalination has historically been pr ohibitively expensive. The improvements in technology and the rising cost of conventional wate r supplies has made desalination competitive with importing water and recycled municipal wastewater in a number of cases. Cost is still an issue to consumers. The cost will be influenced by the type of feedwater, the available concentrate disposal options, the proximity to distribution systems, and the availability and cost of power. The higher costs of desalting may, in some cases, be offset by the bene fits of increased water supply reliability and/or the
environmental benefits from substitu ting desalination for a water supply with higher environmental costs (e.g. Carmel River, Monterey Bay area).California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Desalination

6-5 Environmental Impact and Permitting – Brackish water desalination plants have fairly routine environmental and permitting requirements. Coastal desa lination plants face much closer scrutiny. With a location within the coastal zone, and with the n eed for water intakes and outfalls, there are many reviewing agencies, organizati ons, and permitting requirements.

Seawater Intakes –Existing seawater intakes for power plant cooling are proposed as the source of supply for almost all of the currently proposed plants. In general, these existing intake systems have been shown to have fairly significant impacts on the coastal z one. A number of coastal power plants may that use once-through cooling from the ocean, may cease operati on or convert to a “dry” cooling system. In addition, some plants are not in continuous operati on. These may limit the potential capacity of seawater desalting on the coast.

Concentrate Discharge - Desalination plants of any type produce a salt concentrate that must be discharged. The quantity and salinity of that dischar ge varies with the type of desalting plant and its operation. Brackish water plants in California, disch arge their concentrate to municipal wastewater treatment systems where they are treated and blended with effluent prior to discharge. For brackish water plants, this type of discharge is likely to continue. Inland desalting plan ts without a discharge to the ocean may be limited by the type of discharge options av ailable. Seawater desalination produces a concentrate approximately twice as salty as seawater. In addition, residuals of other treatment chemicals may also be in the concentrate. The plants currently being planned are to utilize existing power plant outfall systems to take advantage of dilution and mixing prior to dischar ge. The availability of power plant cooling systems to dilute the concentrate prior to discharge to the ocean will also be affected by the future of coastal power plants as discussed in the prior section.

Energy Use – Desalination’s primary operation cost is for power. A 50 mgd seawater plant (approximately 50,000 acre-feet per year assuming ope rating 90% of the time) would require about 33 MW of power. Forecasted seawater desalination of a bout 187,000 acre-feet per year would require about 123 MW of power. The reduction in unit energy use has been among the most dramatic improvements in recent years due to improvement in energy recovery systems.

Growth-inducing Impacts – The availability of water has been a substantial limitation on development in a number of locations, primarily coastal communities. Since desalination on the coast is now a much more affordable option in comparison to the past, the lack of water may no longer be as strong a constraint on coastal development.



## Recommendation to Promote Desalination in California

DWR should lead the development of a consensus process, involving appropriate stakeholders, to identify criteria and prioritize the implementation of T ask Force recommendations, given the expected expenditures, using existing and new funding sources (see above sidebar on Task Force recommendations).Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 6. Desalination

6-6 Information Sources

• Water Desalination Task Force (AB 2717 [Hertzberg, Chapter 957, Statues of 2002])

• "Water Desalination - Findings and Recommendations", Department of Water Resources, October
2003

• Draft Desalination Issues Assessment Report, Ce nter for Collaborative Policy, California State University, May 2003

• “Desalting in California”, Division of Planning & Local Assistance, San Joaquin District (in preparation)

• “Seawater Desalination in California”, Californi a Coastal Commission (Draft Report for public review)

• “Seawater Desalination: Opportunities and Cha llenges”, National Water Research Institute, March
2003.

• “Tapping the World’s Largest Reservoir: Desalination”, Western Water , January/February 2003California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution

7-1



# Chapter 7. Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution

Drinking-water treatment includes physical, biological, and chemical processes to make water suitable for potable use. Distribution includes the storage, pumping, and pipe systems to protect and deliver the water to customers. Even after preventing pollution an d matching water quality to water use (see preventing pollution and matching water quality to water use stra tegies), drinking water supplies will generally still require some of level of treatment to achieve a potab le level of quality, which will then need to be maintained in a distribution system . Widespread treatment of drinking water, especially disinfection and fluoridation, was one of the great pub lic health advancements of the 20 th century.


## Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution in California

The State of California has a role in ensuring the safety of the public water supply and the health of Californians who use it. State Department of Health Services regulations require all surface waters in California be filtered and disinfected, except for a small number that meet DHS’s “filtration avoidance” criteria, like San Francisco’s Hetch Hetchy water supply. 1 Basic surface water treatment consists of pretreatment (primarily sedimentation), filtration th rough sand and gravel follo wed by disinfection with chlorine. Many water suppliers use more advanced tr eatment such as granular activated carbon (GAC) for filtration and ozone and chloramination, a combinati on of chlorine and ammonia, for disinfection. Together, filtration and disinfection are the key part s of the traditional “multiple-barrier” approach to treating drinking water. This is cons istent with an integrated, “source-to-tap” approach to water quality, which can be expanded upstream to in clude watersheds, and downstream, to include distribution systems.

In Southern California, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has disinfected Owens Valley water with ozone for the past 20 years. The Me tropolitan Water District is upgrading to ozone disinfection at its five treatment plants, which use e ither Delta water exclusively, or a blend of Colorado River and Delta water. UV radiation is a promising advanced disinfection technology, but has yet to be implemented in a large-scale domestic water treatment plant in California. The integration of multiple disinfectants also shows promise in optimizing prot ection from microbiological contaminants in drinking water. Some smaller water treatment plants use membrane filtration, which produces relatively highquality water. The waterworks industry is exploring the feasibility of point-of-entry (POE) and point-ofuse (POU) devices, which would treat only that water used for domestic purposes, and which could provide quicker and more cost-effective water qua lity improvements. Water systems that rely on groundwater disinfect well water only with chlo rine, unless a specific contaminant is found.

Distribution system water quality is emerging as an important issue in the waterworks community, especially given recent heightened awareness of water supply security. Historically, treated water storage and associated distribution systems were designed to meet fire suppression flow requirements rather than water quality. Water in distribution systems can be c ontaminated by cross-connections with non-potable water, such as recycled water, open treated wate r distribution reservoirs, and water main repair and replacement. Lead, the by-products of corrosion, and regrowth of microorganisms can also contaminate water. Ironically, the implementation of ozone for disinfection, while effective in killing microbes, reducing objectionable tastes and odors, and generally forming fewer disinfection byproducts, can create

1 Please refer to Volume 1, Chapter 2, for the legal and regulatory framework for drinking water treatment and distribution.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 7. Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution

7-2 conditions that can encourage the growth of microorganisms in water distribution systems. Aging water systems -- some well over 100 years old -- in general ar e not being replaced or rehabilitated within their useful lives. Small, rural water systems, that is those serving fewer than 3,300 connections, face unique treatment and distribution challenges, because they lack the technical and financial ability to address water contamination. Such systems are often the most frequent violators of drinking water standards. And they often must cope with some of the most diffi cult water quality problems, such as arsenic and more
traditional contaminants such as nitrate and coliform bacteria.



## Potential Benefits

Improved water quality can directly improve the hea lth of Californians, thereby improving the state’s standard of living and reducing the burden and co sts on the state’s healthcare system. Many water contaminants potentially cause cancer, nervous system and organ damage, deve lopmental impairments, and dysfunction of the reproductive a nd endocrine systems; others can cause short-term gastrointestinal illnesses, resulting in lost work and school days. If poor water quality causes a need for medical treatment by many uninsured Californians, the costs will be borne by state health programs, such as MediCal, which directly impacts the State budget. In addition, many consumers who choose to purchase relatively expensive bottled water or home treatm ent units, could save more of their personal budgets if they instead used safe tap water.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed new regulations to reduce both the gastrointestinal and carcinogenic disease risks of drinking water. The agency estimates that the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule will prevent more than 1 million cases of cryptosporidiosis, a gastrointestinal ailment, and up to 140 premature deaths annually, providing $1.4 billion in benefits. EPA also estimates that the Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule will prevent up to 182 cases of bladder cancer per year, providing nearly $1 billion in benefits. USEPA also estimates that the combined costs of these two proposed regulations are less than $24 per year for most households.



## Potential Costs

Advanced water treatment itself is about 1 percent of a customer’s overall water bill. For example, the 40 million gallon-per-day North Bay Re gional Water Treatment Plant, wh ich serves Fairfield and Vacaville, treats a blend of Lake Berryessa and Delta water w ith GAC filtration and ozone. The operations and maintenance expenses of this plant costs $0.04 pe r 1,000 gallons, on a total metered charge of $3 per 1,000 gallons. Also, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California estimates that its capital upgrade to ozonation will cost about $83,000 per acre-foot per day of capacity, with operations and maintenance costs of $9-$12 per acre-foot (equal to $0.03 to $0.04 per 1,000 gallons). Nonetheless, despite the relatively low costs, economies of scale ne gatively affect small water systems that have a smaller rate base to spread both capital and O&M expenses.

As for infrastructure, the American Society of Civ il Engineers (ASCE) recently gave a grade of “D” to drinking water infrastructure, in its 2003 Progress Repo rt for America’s Infrastructure. EPA estimated in October 2002 that over the next 20 years, the nation would be short $535 billion for water and wastewater infrastructure. The drinking water estimate alone was $265 billion. EPA estimates California’s drinking water infrastructure needs about $1 billion annually over the next 20 years. 2 EPA also predicted that per

2 Adjusted to January 2004 dollars, EPA’s estimate for California is $17 billion to $21 billion.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution

7-3 household costs to small water systems will be four times that of customers of large water systems -- those serving more than 50,000 persons.


## Major Issues

Access to Safe Drinking Water
Safe drinking water is fundamental to public health. DWR’s recent report Californians Without Safe Water, found that more than 81,000 California households may rely upon an unsafe source of water. In lieu of a connection to a public wa ter system, many of these households may be obtaining their drinking water from shallow wells, springs, or hauled-water supplies that are vulnerable to contamination. Moreover, many other households and schools, often in rural or low-inco me areas, are connected to small water systems that are less scrutinized by regulatory agencies. These small systems usually have limited funds and staffing to pursue improvements in drinking water quality, including the preparation of grant applications for funding assistance. Even for those households that are connected to a public water system, DHS reports that in 2001, more than 40,000 people got their water from public water systems that had repeated violations of the coliform bacteria dr inking water standard, and that more than 700,000 people were served water in violatio n of surface water filtration and disi nfection regulations. In addition, nearly 1 million Californians got water in 2001 from public water systems that had a “significant sanitary defect involving sewage.”

Emerging Contaminants

New contaminants are often discovered and then regulated because of increased pollution, improved analytical abilities, and better understanding of health effects. In addition, the health effects of many known contaminants are re-evaluated--and re-regulated --in light of new information. For many emerging contaminants (for example, from personal care produc ts and pharmaceuticals), there may not yet be treatment technologies available to remove them from drinking water. For such contaminants, only pollution prevention, or matching wa ter quality to water use, will ad equately address water quality. In fact, emerging contaminants may be created by tr eatment itself, for instance, when water utilities implement new methods or processes for disinfecting water. For some contaminants, treatment options, such as membranes, may be available, but they are relatively expensive.

Risk, Demographic Changes
There are increasing numbers and proportions of i mmunocompromised individuals, as well as children and elderly, who are more susceptible than the gene ral population, to the risks of waterborne disease and exposure to contaminants. At the same time, water agencies are responding to regulatory signals that require control of disinfection byproducts in treat ed surface water. Depending upon the treatment scheme employed, measures to reduce the probable long-term risk s of cancer can be at odds with efforts to protect the public from known short-term risks from microorganisms.

Contaminant Interactions and Cumulative Effects
There is growing concern about the interactions and cumulative effects on human health of multiple contaminants in drinking water. Such effects are not addressed by current drinking water standards, which only regulate contaminants on an individual basis. Moreover, some contaminants, such as disinfection byproducts, present risks simultaneously through multiple exposure routes (e.g. ingestion, inhalation, or the skin). The CALFED Drinking Water Quality Program is attempting to address this concern via its “Equivalent Level of Public Health Protection” st rategy, which looks comprehensively at the totalPublic Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 7. Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution

7-4 concentration of contaminants in drinking water, and integrates pollution prevention, alternative water sources, facility re-operation, and adva nced treatment to reduce contaminants.

Recreation
The State Department of Parks and Recreation forecasts an increasing demand for recreation on reservoirs, including drinking water reservoirs, such as Lake Perris in Southern California. An increase in reservoir contamination, especially microbiological from swimmers, water skiers or others whose bodies come in contact with the water, can correspondingl y increase the need for treatment and degrade the quality of tap water produced from these lakes.

Public Distrust
Public opinion surveys consistently suggest that Californians, across all socio-economic groups distrust their tap water, often because of tap water taste, odor , or appearance. They choose instead to rely on home treatment devices and bottled water. Quite simply, improvements in water quality may not lead to improvements in public health if the public is not drinking the water. While some amount of bottled water use is related to convenience or lifestyle choices, th e poor perception of tap water is a factor as well. However, the public may not have access to complete information about the relative safety of bottled and tap waters, and may be misplacing their trust in sales pitches for bottled water and home treatment
devices.

Affordability
Even though water treatment is a relatively small porti on of a customer’s water bill, increased costs are a concern for many people. As costs increase, the rela tive burden on the househol d budgets of poor families will increase at rates greater than that of the ge neral population. Moreover, the waterworks industry generally lacks lifeline rates for poor customers relative to other utilities, such as gas, electricity, and telephone. For those economically disadvantaged co nsumers who choose to purchase bottled water, money spent on that commodity may be better spent on other life necessities.


## Recommendations to Improve Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution

1. All Californians should have access to safe drinking water. Thus, the State should assist in funding drinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs in areas--including on tribal lands--without piped domestic water and therefore not covered by the Stat e and federal Safe Drinki ng Water Acts. Further, the State should implement the recommendations of DWR’s 2003 report, Californians Without Safe
Water

. 2. The State, local water agencies, and non-profit or ganizations should better educate the public about the actual and perceived risks of tap water, bo ttled water, and water produced by home treatment units. State and local water agencies should specifically improve outreach to and communication with vulnerable populations that may indeed be at a higher actual level of risk of waterborne disease or other health effects from drinking water contaminants. Doctors and other healthcare professionals, in whom the public may place their trust, should be involved in this effort.
3. Communities should have useful access to, knowledg e of, and engagement in, drinking-water quality monitoring and assessment. In addition, decision- making at all government levels should be transparent and involve affected communities, tribes, and general purpose local governments. Examples of vehicles for such access, knowledge, and engagement include citizen water qualityCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution

7-5 monitoring programs, and water quality community advisory committees, at the local water system
level.
4. The State should consider increasing the set-aside funding for capacity building within the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to the maximum allowed by EPA for these purposes. Systems that serve large proportions or numbers of vulnerable populations, such as schools, should receive funding priority. The State should increase its formal partne rships with non-governmental organizations that are experienced in assisting small water systems in grant and loan applications, in order to improve community access to information and funding, a ddress the most pressing public health risks, and ensure an equitable distribution of grant and loan funds.
5. The State should implement guidelines for the design and operation of distribution systems to maintain system water quality. As a part of these guidelines, the State should ensure that public water systems are prepared for natural and man-made disaster s, and are able to relia bly maintain or quickly restore water quality in the aftermath of such disasters.
6. Water utilities must prevent possible cross-contamination of potable water from dual-plumbing of potable and recycled water distribution systems and other non-potable sources.
7. In response to continuing, legitimate concern from citizens, the State should monitor and resolve the potential health impacts of indirect potable reuse of recycled water.
8. The State Water Project and local agencies should only permit recreation on reservoirs that do not endanger the public health of those who drink the water from those reservoirs.
9. The State should coordinate its funding sources (e.g., the Drinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving Funds) in order to better address projects with multiple bene fits – such as drinking water supplies threatened by contamination from septic systems. State water quality funding sources for small water systems should be closely coordinated with federal water quality monies, including funds available from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Information Sources

• Bay-Delta Water Quality Evaluation , California Urban Water Agencies, June 1998

• Drinking Water into the 21 st Century; Safe Drinking Water Pl an for California, A Report to the Legislature , California Department of Health Services, January 1993

• Californians Without Safe Water, California 2002, Department of Water Resources, 2002

• 2000 US Census

• USEPA Drinking Water Program, www.epa.gov/safewater/

• USEPA Needs Survey, www.epa.gov/OGWDW/needs.html

• Congressional Budget Office, www.cbo.gov/execsum.cfm?index=3983&from=1&file=ExecSum.htm

• Water Infrastructure Network, www.win-water.org/

• City of Fairfield

• Metropolitan Water District

• California Department of Parks and Recreation

• ASCE 2003 Progress Report for America’s InfrastructureCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Economic Incentives

8-1 

# Chapter 8. Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants, and Water Pricing)

Economic incentives are financial assistance and pricing policies intended to influence water management. For example, economic incentives can infl uence amount of use, time of use, wastewater volume, and source of supply. Economic incentives include low-interest loans, grants, and water pricing rates. Free services, rebates, and the use of tax revenu es to partially fund water services also have a direct effect on the prices paid by the water users. In gene ral, higher costs to water users tend to reduce water use. Governmental financial assistance can provide incentives for resource plans by regional and local agencies. Also, government financial assistance can he lp water agencies make subsidies available to their water users for a specific purpose.



## Economic Incentives in California

The most prevalent water rate policy is for water ag encies to recover costs for such things as planning, operation, maintenance, capital, administrative, a nd some environmental costs. Water rates are also commonly used to contribute to water agency cap ital investment accounts for funding anticipated projects. Water rates could be used to recover exte rnal costs such as third- party costs. Other means
available to recover costs include ad velorum tax es and revenues from bonds not repaid from water rates.

Because of existing policy, some agencies are not re quired to recover the full cost of development and maintenance. For example, Congress has not required th e U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to recover all the costs of supplying water to agriculture. This is an example of a subsidy that was designed to achieve a social goal that affects water use and agricultural development in the West. Urban wastewater treatment also traditionally has not been required to recover the full cost of projects because of substantial federal grant funding through the Clean Water Act.

Other examples of economic incentives include:

• The California Bay-Delta Authority, the Department of Water Resources, and the State Water Resources Control Board administer low-cost loans and grants programs to encourage agricultural and urban water conservation, urban water recycling, agricultural and urban groundwater storage, and conjunctive use projects.

• At the wholesale agency level, the Metropolitan District of Southern California has recently developed plans to expand its Local Resources Program, which provides a subsidy of up to $250 per acre-f oot to its member agencies for water recycling, groundwater recovery, and seawater desalination. MWDSC’s water rates structure includes a “water stewardship charge” to collect revenue to subsidi ze individual retail agency programs that benefit the region.

• Incentives can include rebate programs for low-fl ush toilet installation, free water audits for residential landscapes, free mobile lab services for increasing on-farm water use efficiency, or other innovative programs. State-Managed Grants and Loans
Since 1984, Californians have approved six bonds propositions

that provided $1 billion to fund local water supply and conservation programs (Propositions 25, 44, 82, 204, 13, and 50).Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 8. Economic Incentives

8-2 Water rates can take several forms. Water rate structures designed to recover costs can be fixed, uniform, or tiered. Both uniform and tiered rates can have a fixed component. Where water use is unmetered, fixed assessments might be necessary. For example, water rates can be based on connection size for urban users or acreage irrigated for agricultural users.

Most urban agencies in California are moving away from
uniform rates and toward rate structures based on the amount of water used. Many urban agencies have already adopted tiered rate structures where the unit water charge increases as water use increases; the more units of water used, the higher the charge for each subsequent unit. Some tiered water rate structures may have higher seasonal rates. In 1999, of 326 California urban water purveyors surveyed, about 45 percent had tiered rates, 42 percent had uniform rates, 11 percent had flat or other type rates, and 2 percent had declining block rates. 1 Some agricultural agencies, particularly concerned with drainage water management, have adopted tiered rate structures. Most apartment building owners don’t individually meter their tenants, removing the effect of volumetric pricing on the tenants’

water use.

While most residential wastewater treatment is currently charged at a flat rate, commercial and industrial users are more likely to be charged by wastewater vol ume (and, in some cases, the types of constituents in their wastewater).



## Potential Benefits from Economic Incentives

A major purpose of economic incentives is to reduce water demands. This may produce environmental or social benefits, or avoid or dela y construction of new water supply projects. When water costs increase, customers have a choice to either pay the higher water bill or find ways to use less water, such as using a broom or blower to clean sidewalks instead of a hose. Residential and agricultural customers might purchase more efficient conservation technologies, such as installing a drip irrigation system, or they may forego some water use, including removing some of their residential landscaping or agricultural acreage from irrigation.

Economic incentives that produce more efficient wate r management practices can result in benefits or costs to the environment by changing water quality or the timing of diversions. Conversely, water rate policies that lower the cost of surface water during wet cycles can encourage storage in groundwater basins. Water quality improvements re sulting from economic incentives can help farmers meet drainage water goals as well as lower treatment costs or provide health benefits to urban users in addition to benefiting the environment.

1 1999 California Water Charge Survey , Black & Veatch Corporation. Rate Structure Examples

Fixed rate – The water user pays the same amount for water each month regardless of the amount of water use. This is common where water is unmeasured. Some call it a flat rate. Example: $20 water bill each month.
Uniform (or constant) rate – The water user pays the same for each unit of water. This requires measurement of water. Example: $100 for each acre-foot of water.

Tiered water rate – The water user pays a higher rate for each unit of water. Some call this increasing block rates. This requires measurement of water. Example: $1 for the first 100 cubic feet, $1.50 for the second 100 cubic feet, $2 for the third 100 cubic feet, etc. In some cases, agencies use declining block rates, where the water user pays a lower rate for each unit of water.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Economic Incentives

8-3 Marginal-cost pricing is one strategy to promote more efficient water use. With marginal-cost pricing,
customer rates would reflect the full cost of the last , and probably the most expensive, source of supply. In a less severe form, marginal-cost pricing for “new ” customers — residents of new subdivisions, for example — might reflect the average cost of the additional supply needed for those customers. This price would be higher than that for existing customers.

It is difficult to quantify benefits provided by eco nomic incentives since the in centives influence decisions on other management strategies that produce their own benefits. Economic incentives can be used to influence development of water s upply augmentation or demand reducti on programs. For example, grant funds from a State agency can reduce the effect on wate r rates of water recycling projects. Similarly, a wholesale water agency might make financial assistance available to retail water purveyors to encourage implementation of projects or programs that would benefit the region. Financial assistance can also be used to achieve beneficial changes in water system storage, conveyance, and treatment operations. The willingness of a water agency to participate in wate r marketing can also be influenced by economic
incentives.



## Potential Costs of Economic Incentives Policies

The only financial cost of an incentives program to a water agency is the cost of its creation and
administration. Other costs would be associated with the adoption of water management strategies or
water use behaviors

− including foregoing some water use

− that may result. The costs of the economic incentives will depend on how the incen tives are integrated with other ma nagement strategies. As with other management strategies, economic incentives mu st be specific to the circumstances and water management goals of each individual water agency.


## Major Issues Facing Additional Economic Incentives

Selecting Appropriate Water Rates
A major consideration is determining what rates to charge customers while ensuring that costs of delivering the water and treating the wastewater are recovered. Also, managing water rate changes during water shortages can be challenging since incrementa l costs of supply can both increase dramatically and change rapidly, making it more difficult to recover costs. If regulations against collecting revenues in excess of costs remain in effect, some agencies would have to reduce their lower tier prices in order to charge higher costs at the higher tiers. This would tend to increase use by the lower-tier customers, an undesirable result from a water use management standpoint.

Currently, if a landlord wants to charge tenants b ased on how much water they use, the landlord would have to comply with many of the same water quality regulations faced by utilities, including testing by experts. The EPA is now seeking a rule change to remove this barrier to individual metering.

Funding for Loans and Grants
The availability of State funding can be intermittent . Funding methods that require direct legislative appropriation or approval of new water bonds could require several years lead time before funds are
available.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 8. Economic Incentives

8-4 Criteria for Loans and Grants Funding Approval
Historically, requests for loans and grants have exceeded available funding. Deciding which strategies and which agencies receive loans and grants requires setting of priorities for funding.

Social Considerations
Economic incentives can affect social equity when those customers incurring the costs of subsidization through higher taxes or fees do not receive a fair share of the benefits that the subsidies are expected to generate. As another example, increasing the cost s for agricultural water supplies may increase the efficiency of on-farm water use, but can also induce changes in crop patterns that result in lower farm employment. Communities dependent on farm produc tion may be disproportionately affected. In the urban sector, if water rate changes reduce the use of ornamental landscaping, jobs that depend on establishing and maintaining that landscaping could be lost.

Regulations
Some water agencies are not permitted to collect reve nues in excess of costs. Changes in regulations may be needed to implement a water pricing policy that works best for an agency. Some water agencies have regulations that prevent the use of water metering necessary for measuring and pricing volumes of water. Typically, loans and grants are constrained by bon d language to strategies that lead to capital expenditures. Most loans and grants may not be used for developing non-capital strategies such as water rate changes.


## Recommendations to Help Pr omote Economic Incentives

The State and water agencies should consider and evalua te economic incentives as an integral part of their package of management strategies. The following recommendations recognize that economic incentives will vary widely throughout California due to differences in local conditions:
1. Institute water rates that support better water ma nagement based on the unique conditions in each
water district.

• Implement appropriate measurement of all water uses in California.

• Use tiered pricing to the extent that it improves water management, including consideration of higher prices for water in excess of agricultural and urban vegetation management requirements.

• Recover more costs from variable charges and fewer costs from taxes and fixed water charges as is financially prudent.

• Institute pricing incentives that encourag e the sustainable use of groundwater.

• Institute pricing incentives that reduce ex cessive deep percolation of water in agricultural drainage problem areas.

• Agencies adopting new water rates should clear ly identify what they mean to water users and provide education, training, an d technical assistance to water users to maximize the desired outcome of those policies.
2. Institute loans and grants that support better regi onal and statewide water management based on the
conditions in each water district.

• Develop ranking criteria for grant and loan aw ards to water agencies that consider economic, environmental, a nd equity issues, economic hardship, Public Trust, Environmental Justice, and the regional a nd statewide distribution of benefits in allocation of subsidy funds.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Economic Incentives

8-5 • The grant and loan award process should account for the fact that some water agencies have limited funds and staffing to prepare applications.

• Agencies receiving grants and loans should make information on the success of the programs/projects that they implement availabl e so that the experience can be used to design better subsidy plans.
3. The State should provide technical assistance to local agencies in developing equitable and effective
economic incentives to achieve local and statew ide water management goals and objectives.
4. The State should develop guidelines and ranking criteri a for grant and loan awards to water agencies that consider cost-effective water management, environmental and equity objectives. These guidelines and ranking criteria should account for the fact that some water agencies have limited funds and staffing to prepare applications.
5. The State should assist local agencies in using planning methods that maximize economic efficiency on a regional and statewide basis.

Information Sources

• CUWCC. "Setting Urban Water Rates for Efficiency and Conservation, a Discussion of Issues".
October 1994.

• City of Los Angeles. "A Consensus Approach to Water Rates". June 1992. USSR. "Incentive Pricing Handbook for Agricultural Water Districts". April 1997.

• Reason Foundation. "Water-Utility Regulation: Rates and Cost Recovery". March 1993.

• Federal water recycling grant program.

• State conjunctive use, water use efficiency, and water recycling grants and loans programs.

• MWDSC Local Resources Program.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Ecosystem Restoration

9-1 

# Chapter 9. Ecosystem Restoration

Ecosystem restoration can include changing the flows in streams and rivers, restoring fish and wildlife habitat, controlling waste discharge into streams, rivers, lakes or reservoirs, or removing barriers in streams and rivers so salmon and steelhead can spaw n. Ecosystem restoration improves the condition of our modified natural landscapes and biotic communities to provide for the sustainability and for the use and enjoyment of those ecosystems by current and future generations. Healthy aquatic and wetland ecosystems benefit California’s native plants and wildlife and its society and economy.

California’s ecosystems cannot be restored to their natura l state, nor is that restoration desirable. Instead, ecosystem restoration focuses on rehabilitating ecosystems so that they supply important elements of their original structure and function in a sustainable ma nner. Ecosystem restorati on and protection should be viewed as the proper maintenance of California’s natural infrastructure.

Over the past couple of decades, the public has rec ognized the need to restore California’s ecosystems. The desire to improve the conditions of those eco systems was supported by the passage of bond issues, such as Propositions 204, 13 and 50. Local and region al restoration projects have multiplied. There are watershed alliances and regional ecosystem projects th roughout the state, including the Los Angeles, San Joaquin, Truckee, Carmel, Sacramento, and Trinity rivers. Some of these projects are described in the regional reports of Volume 3. The majority of privat e lands provide wildlife habitat. See the agricultural land stewardship strategy for information of agricu ltural practices that preserve and enhance habitat
conditions.

The decade prior to publication of this update saw a remarkable transformation in water management in California. In 1993, water management was character ized by lawsuits, policy gridlock, and conflicts between those who sought to improve water supply reliability and those who sought to protect threatened and endangered species. Since 1995, the California Bay-Delta Program has been working towards improving water supply reliability while restoring ecosystems.

Land development projects and water development projects have often had significant, if unanticipated, environmental impacts. Today, planning must include investment to prevent ecosystem damage and long term maintenance costs. Future water projects coul d face conflict and opposition if they do not protect and restore the ecosystem. And water projects can help restore ecosystems because they can help ensure
flows in streams and rivers at flow rates a nd patterns to facilitate restoration actions.

This strategy focuses on restoration of aquatic ecosy stems because these are the ecosystems most likely to be affected by water management.



## California’s Ecosystems and Restoration

California Rivers , A Public Trust Report (State Lands Commiss ion, 1993) concluded that the health of California’s rivers is stressed and their viability as su stainable ecosystems is in peril. The report urged State agencies to undertake a comprehensive progr am of river basin and watershed protection and restoration. The same conclusions apply to many of California’s other aquatic ecosystems, including bays, estuaries, and lakes. More recently, the California Ba y-Delta Program plan for ecosystem restoration has presented broad goals, many specific objectives, and a pr ioritized list of actions to restore biologicalPublic Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 9. Ecosystem Restoration

9-2 diversity within its geographic scope. Over the l ast decade, Californians have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in ecosystem restoration.

The condition of California’s fisheries reveals the ne ed for additional improvement. Thirty-three fish populations are listed as threatened or endangered in California, with some in each of the hydrologic regions described in Volume 3. These populations in clude coastal and Central Valley runs of steelhead; spring-run and winter-run Central Valley Chinook sal mon; Delta smelt; three species from the Colorado River; and several minnows, pupfish and suckers from the Klamath basin and southern deserts.

Hydraulic mining and gold extraction in the 1800s, dam construction and operation, pollution, flood control, urbanization, increases in Delta exports and upstream diversions, and introduction of exotic species have all contributed to the decline in ecosy stem health. Ecosystem changes have caused a sharp decline in the abundance of things that society va lues, such as native and some non-native fish species. Ability to sustain all life stages of native fish is an example of a function that California rivers no longer provide as well as they once did. People have also affe cted the structure of ecosystems. For example, rivers downstream of dams are deprived of the gravel supply from upstream that provides spawning habitat for species such as Chinook salmon.

The California Environmental Quality Act recognizes that human activity may have unintended environmental impacts, and outlines procedures for project proponents to avoid, minimize, and mitigate these impacts. Mitigation of environmental impacts has become common in California. Mitigation is similar to ecosystem restoration, but mitigation is inte nded to bring the level of ecosystem health back to what it was before impacts of a project occurred. By contrast, ecosystem restoration is intended to raise the level of ecosystem health.

Construction of major dams, increased exports throug h the Delta, or small local projects have been opposed for their potential impacts to the environment. It may not be possible to fully mitigate some of the impacts of new projects. When negative impacts o ccur in aquatic ecosystems that are already severely degraded, it may be difficult to avoid endangered species conflicts.

Ecosystem Data
Information on restoration proj ects, biological resources, and organizations involved in restoration can be found for many parts of the state. The Information Center for the Environment (ICE) is a cooperative effort of environmental scientists at the University of California, Davis, and collaborators at more than 30 private, State, federal, and international organizations interested in environmental protection. ICE has developed the Natural Resources Projects Inventory, a database of information on thousands of conservation, mitigation and restoration projects being developed and implemented throughout California.

Also, the California Environmental Resources Evaluation System is an information system developed by the Resources Agency to facilit ate access to a variet y of electronic data describing California's rich and diverse envir onments. The California Legacy Project, a part of CERES, has supported conservation investment decisions in numerous ways, including:

(1) identified a long-range strategy to conserve the most important natural resources in California; (2) assembled a digital atlas of ke y resources and stressors; and (3) reported on the status and trends of those resources.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Ecosystem Restoration

9-3 More recently, resource managers have concluded that the most successful way to pursue either aquatic ecosystem restoration or water management is to inte grate the two. This integration of project goals has the potential to reduce the conflict over water mana gement actions, increase the support for ecosystem restoration and provide a more cost effective solution.

Within State government, several departments a nd boards share public trust responsibilities. The Department of Fish and Game coordinates, oversees, funds, and carries out restoration activities and plays a central role in carrying out public trust responsibilities. The State Water Resources Control Board is responsible for regulating water rights and establis hing standards for minimum stream flows. The Department of Water Resources, as the operator of the State Water Project, can propose, design, build, and operate water management fac ilities in ways that improve water supply reliability while restoring ecosystem health and protecting public trust valu es. No one of these agencies can be completely successful unless there is collaboration among all. See Vo lume 1, Chapter 2, for details on the public trust
doctrine and values.


## Benefits of Ecosystem Restoration

Restoration can improve plant and animal life, incr ease diversity and connectivity of habitat, help endangered species, and improve wate rsheds. Restoration can rehabilita te natural processes to support native communities with minimal ongoing help. Restored habitats are likely to help sustain reproduction, foraging, shelter, and other needs of fish and wildlif e species. By broadening restoration to the ecosystem level, rather than focusing on restoration for only a handful of species, we improve our chances for longterm success by incorporating species relationships, such as between predators and prey, physical processes, genetic variability, and other f actors that we don’t fully understand.

The state’s ecosystems, from mountain watersheds to coastal beaches, ar e California’s natural infrastructure, and support our population and economi c growth. Ecosystem restoration is an investment in improving the condition of California’s natural infr astructure. As understanding of the linkage between water management and the health of the natural infrast ructure grows, the benefits of restoration to water supply reliability and water quality improvements are increasingly evident. As ecosystem restoration actions help increase the health and abundance of species protected under the State and federal Endangered Species Acts, there might be fewer ESA conflicts. As ecosystems such as wetlands and sloughs are restored, their natural pollutant filteri ng capabilities can improve water quality. As floodplains and seasonal lakes and ponds are rest ored, groundwater recharge can increase. The result will be a more reliable, higher quality water supply su pported by a sustainable ecosystem.

The economic benefits that improve d rivers, estuaries, wetlands, wildlif e, beaches, and their surrounding habitats can have in the state may far exceed the investments for restoring ecosystems. Considering California lifestyle trends and travel and tourism as the major growth industry for the state, investments in ecosystem restoration actions may provide a high return on investment. Second only to the state’s beaches, rivers are the biggest attraction for California’s recreation industry. Similarly, managed wetlands and wildlife refuges provide bird watching and huntin g opportunities that contribute hundreds of millions of dollars annually to California’s economy.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 9. Ecosystem Restoration

9-4 

## Costs of Ecosystem Restoration

Detailed statewide ecosystem needs and their costs does not exist. However, it is likely that the costs of restoration are higher than the costs of protecting existing healthy ecosystems. Preliminary estimates indicate that ecosystem costs to year 2030 could total $7.5 billion to $11.3 billion 1 . Costs of restoration can include research and monitoring, acquisition of land and water, cultivation and planting of native vegetation, and physical alteration of the landscape. The costs of river restoration can increase dramatically when channel alteration is required, such as filling in gravel pits or re-grading incised banks.

Since 1996, California voters have approved four bond issues that include funds to restore animal and plant life. As of the end of 2003, the California Bay-Delta Program has funded 400 projects at a cost of $490 million, and has committed $150 million per year toward ecosystem restoration.

Supplying water for ecosystem needs is often view ed as competing with supplying water for human needs, or responsible for increasing the cost of s upplying human needs. While there are limits to the amount of water that can be withdrawn from a river ecosystem before its health and productivity are compromised, experience with integrating ecosystem restoration and water supply management is demonstrating their compatibility in many cases. As an example, in years 2001 through 2003 the Environmental Water Account of the California Bay-Delta Authority acquired about 900,000 acre-feet of water, at a cost of about $140 million, to protect at-risk fish species.


## Major Issues Facing Implementati on of Ecosystem Restoration

The major threats to aquatic and riparian habitat and freshwater biodiversity in California stem from physical changes associated with dams, diversions , and erosion protection for levees and banks; poor water quality, including temperature, dissolved oxygen levels and pollutants; and non-native invasive species. These issues are outlined further in the strategies for floodplain management, pollution prevention and watershed management in this volume. Beyond those direct physical changes, this section describes other issues and challenges facing restoration efforts.

Integrated Resources Planning
Unlike planning that is conducted for only a single-purpose, multipurpose planning that incorporates diverse interests can take longer, cost more and re quire better knowledge of key ecological elements and

processes.

Assessment of Environmental Water Flows
Knowledge of effects of different flows on the health of aquatic and riparian ecosystems is incomplete. Data and analytical tools to measure th e adequacy of flows are insufficient.

Scientific Uncertainty
Restoration science is a work in progress. Rarely do we have all the scientific information on a species, much less an ecosystem, to identify an exact course of action that will restore natural communities and processes. When precious resources and endangered species are involved, we often do not have the time

1 Cost estimate = $7.5 billion – $11.25 billion, as follows : ($150 million/year for CALFED activities) X (25 years until 2030) = $3.75 billion for CALFED area. ($3.75 billion) X (an expansion factor of 2 or 3 to cover areas outside CALFED) = $7.5 billion – $11.3 billionCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Ecosystem Restoration

9-5 or money to fully develop our scientific understanding before action is needed. Yet, the uncertainty can lead to hesitation and delay.

Sound, Accessible Data
We need more data about ecosystem health so we know where to invest public funds. There is no complete inventory of ecosystems and their health. Key criteria to prioritize conservation actions are lacking, scattered or incompatible for comparison. There is also no reporting system and incomplete metrics for evaluation of the outcome of various restoration and management strategies.

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Restoration Actions
The effectiveness and efficiency of actions taken to restore and protect aquatic ecosystems is often complex and difficult. Effectiveness is the amount of be nefit gained such as an increase in abundance of a species. Efficiency can be thought of as the effectiv eness per unit of expenditure (e.g., money or water). Effectiveness and expenditure may not correspond one-to-one, often because factors other than the amount of funding or amount of water influence th e degree of restoration achieved. The perception of wide variations in efficiency motivates a search for the more efficient alternatives. Without agreement on which alternatives those might be, opposition to further commitments, especially of water, will continue.

Funding Uncertainty
Ecosystem restoration efforts are often long-term an d need long-term financing. Although public funds are available, they may be sporadic and thus unr eliable, and are subject to intense competition.

Gravel and Sediment
Dams retain sediment, including gravel, which is a critical element in river ecosystems. Furthermore, conventional bank protection prevents the erosion that could provide a local supply. Without a natural mechanism for replenishment of sediment, gravel must come from elsewhere. Locating sediment sources, mining gravel without causing more environmenta l damage and paying for long-term sediment management are significant challenges to restoring the natural functions and values of rivers below large
dams.



## Recommendations for Ec osystem Restoration

1. DWR, DFG and SWRCB should work together to publish comprehensive
assessments of in-stream flow needs on California rivers, similar in scope to
studies on the Feather and American rivers. The assessments should identify bodies of water that need improved flows, in terms of volume, timing, duration, etc.
2. The Resources Agency and Cal-EPA should work with their respective departments, boards and commissions to ensure and promote use of independent science to inform their decision-making.
3. The Resources Agency should continue to support development and use of statewide Integrated Resources Planning
DWR will incorporate ecosystem restoration as an objective in water management projects, or will partner with restoration projects, to achieve net environmental benefit from water management actions. This is consistent with the commitments that DWR has made in the

California Bay-Delta Program. DWR will develop guidelines for helping local water managers and planners pursue the same

multiple-objective approach, including incorporation of fish an d wildlife benefits into

projects. See Volume 1, Chapter 2, for more

recommendations to promote integrated resource planning.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 9. Ecosystem Restoration

9-6 databases, analytical tools and evaluation criteria, such as the Natural Resource Project Inventory and a follow-up to the Legacy project, that can provide information to planners and decision-makers and identify priorities for restoration. This investme nt should provide a coordi nated and comprehensive statewide implementation plan for restoration actions in each region.
4. The Resources Agency should sup port further scientific research on the relationship between flow dedication and water-independent actions to achieve desired restoration. A step in this direction was the publication of a report by Deason et al. (2004) of the Graduate School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley, “Considering water use efficiency by th e environmental sector.” The report (see Volume 4) identifies ways to measure and compare—albeit in general terms—the efficiency of different uses of managed environmental water.
5. The Department of Fish and Game, with the Department of Conservation and DWR, should investigate and resolve key issues regarding long-te rm coarse sediment supplies for ecosystem needs. This investigation should identify sources of sed iment, replenishment processes that will sustain themselves and potential mercury contamination.

Information Sources

• California State Lands Commission. 1993. Califor nia Rivers, A Public Trust Report. 334 p.

• California Department of Fish and Game. 2003. California’s Plants and Animals. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/t_e_spp/tespp. shtml

• CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. Strategic Plan for Ecosystem Restoration. x, 73 p.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 10. Floodplain Management

10-1 

# Chapter 10. Floodplain Management

Floodplain management reduces risks to life and pr operty and benefits natural resources. Floodplain management accepts periodic flooding and generally is a preferred alternative to keeping rivers in their channels and off floodplains. Seasonal inundation of floodplains provides essential habitat for hundreds of species of plants and animals, many of them depe ndent on periodic floods. There are also benefits to the economy, agriculture and society to keeping rivers and their floodplains connected, including water quality improvements and groundwater recharge. Ex amples of floodplain management objectives include:

• Minimize impacts of floods on buildings and farmland.

• Maintain or restore natural floodplain processes.

• Remove obstacles in the floodplain, voluntarily or with compensation.

• Educate the public about avoiding flood risks and about planning for emergencies.

• Prevent interference with the safe operation of the flood management systems.

• Reduce flooding risks to humans. 

## Floodplain Management in California

In the past, many flood management projects within floodplains were mostly developed to reduce property damage. They did not consider the importanc e of floods in maintaining a healthy environment. Likewise, some ecosystem restoration was done wit hout considering long-term floodway maintenance. Multi-objective projects are a more effective than si ngle-purpose projects. Government and the private sector are likely to gain public support for projects w ith many benefits. Planners now recognize the value of floodplains by directing development away fro m them, avoiding or minimizing the need for major
flood control structures.

An example of successful multi-objective floodplain mana gement is in the Yolo Bypass. The bypass was established as a floodwater corridor in the floodplain of the lower Sacramento River basin. It is also intensively cultivated, and its rice fields double as hab itat for waterfowl and wading birds. Parts of the bypass are managed for outdoor recreation, including hun ting and fishing. Portions have been planted to riparian forest, with no significant loss of flood-carrying capacity. Management of the floodplain also provides spawning and rearing areas for native fishes. In addition, several modifications to water control structures are planned to improve or restore fish passage through the Bypass.

The priorities of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Ecosystem Restoration Program (ERP) include restoration of floodplain habitat, riparian corridors and dynamic river processes such as river meandering. The ERP identifies ways to copy natural flows us ing reservoir releases; copy natural flows of sediment and woody debris; and provide e nough high flows to cover floodplains. The program recognizes that
reconnection of rivers with thei r floodplains may be essential for recovering many at-risk species.

A voter-approved bond issue, Proposition 13, authoriz ed funds for a flood protection corridor program. The program supports projects that provide non-struct ural flood management and either preservation of agricultural land or preservation or enhancement of wildlife habitat. A second bond issue, Proposition 50,
contains additional incentives for wate rshed-based management approaches.

In California, The Reclamation Board runs the Designated Floodway Program to reduce the impact of floods by preserving the reasonable flood-passage capacities of natural watercourses and floodways in the Central Valley. The program restricts the use of lands in Designated Floodways to agriculture, recreationPublic Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 10. Floodplain Management

10-2 and habitat, and thus retains the historical patterns of flooding. There are more than 1,300 miles of designated floodways in the Central Valley.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and The Recl amation Board are examining the feasibility of a multipurpose project on the Sacramento River to include ecosystem restoration, flood damage reduction and recreation around Hamilton City. The project could restore natural floodplain processes by
construction of a setback levee and restoration of about 1,200 acres of riverine habitat. A similar proposal for the San Joaquin watershed would restore natural fl ooding to wildlife refuges and other wetlands to cut peak flood flows and improve water quality and habi tat values. This concept is under discussion among the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Depa rtment of Parks and Recreation, Grasslands Resource Conservation Districts, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, State Reclamation Board, San Joaquin River Flood Control Association, and Stat e and federal water contractors.

In 2000, the governor signed AB 1147, which recommended the creation of the California Floodplain Management Task Force. In February 2002, the gover nor delegated authority to DWR to convene the task force. With broad membership from government and stakeholders, the task force looked for ways to reduce flood damage and maximize th e benefits of floodplains. The t ask force submitted its report in December 2002 with many recommendations (see the sidebar on following pages) to promote multiobjective management of floodplains.



## Benefits of Floodplain Management

Floodplain management provides many safety, ecosy stem and economic benefits. By encouraging wise land use decisions along river corridors, floodplain ma nagement can save lives, improve ecosystems and reduce property and livestock losses. By making bette r land use decisions, more open space, such as agriculture and native habitats, could be maintained. Controlling development w ithin the floodplain, and even removing some property from the floodplain, can significantly reduce potential future flood risk to people and property. Periodic flooding of the floodplain can provide rearing habitat that favors native fish over exotics. Reconnecting rivers to floodplains helps ecosystems and increases groundwater recharge, benefiting groundwater supplies. 

## Costs of Floodplain Management

Proposition 13 set aside $57 million for a Flood Protection Corridor Program. The program has funded or allotted funds to 19 projects on about 20,000 acres of ha bitat and agricultural lands. Many of the costs of floodplain management are associated with pla nning, mapping, maintenance, and emergency preparations. Construction costs depend on local conditions but can include improvements such as setback levees and elevating, or removing, buildings . Total estimated floodplain costs to year 2030 are about $475 million. 1

1 Cost estimate = $475 million, as follows: ($57 million for Flood Protection Corridor Program, disbursed over 3 years) = ($19 million/yr) X (25 years until 2030) = $475 millionCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 10. Floodplain Management

10-3

California Floodplain Management Task Force Recommendations Summary (Dec 2002)
The Task Force recommendations are organized into three categories: Better Understanding of and Reducing Risks from Reasonably Foreseeable Flooding; Multi-Objective Management Approach for Floodplains; and Local Assistance, Funding, and Legislation.

Better Understanding of and Reducing Risks from Reasonably Foreseeable Flooding 1. Awareness Floodplain Mapping - The State should expand its Awareness Floodplain Mapping Program for use by local governments and the public. 2. Future Build-Out Mapping - Local and State agencies preparing floodplain maps should consider current and future planned development. 3. Watershed-Based Mapping - Wherever practical, floodplain maps should be prepared on a watershed
basis. 4. Geographic Information System (GIS)-Based Flood Maps - Local, State, and federal agencies should create, develop, produce, and disseminat e compatible GIS-based flood maps. 5. Alluvial Fan Floodplains - Priority for alluvial f an floodplain mapping should be given to those alluvial fan floodplains being considered for development. The State should convene an alluvial fan task force to review information, determine future research needs, and develop recommendations specific to alluvial fan floodplain management. 6. Stream Gaging and Monitoring - DWR and other agenc ies should sponsor projects in cooperation with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to install real-time gages in priority locations throughout California. 7. Repetitive Losses - Local agencies should work wi th the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) and DWR to identify repeatedly flooded structures and inform qualifying residents of voluntary programs to prevent future flood losses. 8. Flood Warning and Response Programs - The State sh ould increase assistance to local agencies to improve flood-warning programs specific to each watershed. 9. Flood Insurance Rate Map Issues – Decision-m akers should gather information and data beyond Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) to better assess reasonably foreseeable floods. 10. Exceeding NFIP Floodplain Management Requirements - Local communities should be encouraged to require new and substantially improved buildings to have their lowest floor elevations to be at least
one foot above the NFIP’s base flood elevation, factoring in the effect of full build out of the
watershed.
11. Executive Order - The Governor’s 1 977 Executive Order should be updated. 12. State Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan - DWR, OES, and other agencies should incorporate into the State Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan floodplain management measures that will meet Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements.13. Multi-Hazard Mapping - OES should coordinate with other hazard mapping efforts to develop GISbased multi-hazard advisory maps and distribute them to local governments and the public. 14. State Building Codes – Ensure that the Californi a Building Standards Code meets, at minimum, NFIP requirements. Ensure that other State codes applicab le to public buildings meet, at a minimum, NFIP requirements. Ensure that any local code adoptio ns or amendments and any development approvals meet, at a minimum, NFIP requirements. Multi-Objective-Management Approach for Floodplains 15. Multi-Objective-Management - A “M-O-M” approach to flood management projects should be promoted.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 10. Floodplain Management

10-4 16. Flood Management Approaches to Ecosystem Rest oration and Agricultural Conservation - Flood management programs and projects, while providing for public safety, should maximize opportunities for agricultural conservation and ecosystem protection and restoration, where feasible. 17. Nonstructural Approaches, Restoration, and Conservation of Agriculture and Natural Lands- In planning new or upgraded floodwater management programs and projects, including structural projects, local and state agencies should encourage, where appropriate, nonstructural approaches and the conservation of beneficial uses and functions of the floodplain. 18. Tools for Protection of Flood Compatible Land Uses - The State should identify, develop, and support tools to protect flood-compatible land uses. 19. Protection of Floodplain Groundwater Recharge Areas - Permitting agencies should consider the impacts of land-use decisions on the capacity of the floodplain to recharge groundwater. 20. Vector Control – During the planning and developmen t of ecosystem restoration projects, the costs and impacts involved with vector control and with mo nitoring related to mosquito-transmitted diseases
should be considered. 21. Multi-Jurisdictional Partnerships - The State s hould encourage multi-jurisdictional partnerships when floodplain management projects are planned and implemented. 22. Watershed Monitoring - The State and others shou ld financially support the monitoring of flood management projects on a watershed level. 23. Proactive and Adaptive Management of Floodpl ains - State and local agencies should manage floodplains proactively and adaptively by periodically adjusting to current physical and biological conditions, new scientific information, and knowledge. 24. Best Management Practices - DWR should work with stakeholders to ident ify, monitor, and update voluntary BMPs for multi-objective floodplain management. 25. Training, Education, and Professional Certificat ion - The State should encourage the inclusion of multi-objective floodplain management curricula in college and university degree programs. 26. Coordination among Agencies and Groups - The State should encourage and create incentives for additional coordination among stakeholders.
27. State General Plan Guidelines - The State General Plan Guidelines should be updated to reflect the California Floodplain Management Task Force recommendations, as applicable, and to reflect other programs, policies, and standards, including the NFIP, for floodplain management. Local Assistance, Funding, and Legislation 28. New and Existing Funding Source s - The State and local governments should encourage federal, State, local, nongovernmental, and other private cost sharing to achieve equitable and fair financing of multi-objective floodplain management actions and planning.
29. Task Force Recommendation Priorities - DWR and The Reclamation Board should lead the development of a consensus proces s, involving appropriate stake holders, to identify criteria and prioritize the implementation of Task Force recommendations, given the expected expenditures, using existing and new funding sources.
30. Department of Water Resources Outreach Programs – DWR should expand outreach programs to include public service announcements to increase public awareness of floodplain values, flooding hazards, public safety, and hazard mitigation measures. 31. Designated Floodways - DWR and The Reclamat ion Board should include, in the Community Assistance Workshops, information on the Recl amation Board’s current authority to adopt and update designated floodways in the Central Valley. The Reclamation Board should work with stakeholders to identify, if any, a list of Reclamation Board regulatio ns that are impediments to flood-compatible uses within the floodway and recommend specific revisions.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 10. Floodplain Management

10-5 32. State Floodplain Management Assistance to Local Governments - The State should provide additional resources to continue and expand implem entation of the State’s floodplain management programs, including full support of the Co mmunity Assistance Contact program. 33. National Flood Insurance Program Compliance Encouragement – Public agencies not subject to local government floodplain management requirements or the Governor’s Executive Order on Floodplain Management should comply with NFIP requirements. 34. Community Rating System – DWR should educate local officials and the public about the elements and benefits of the Community Rating System (CRS) insurance-rate adjusting program. 35. State CRS Program Coordinator - DWR should designate a State level CRS Program Coordinator familiar with State agencies and local governments that use the CRS program. 36. Interagency Barriers - The Reclamation Board sh ould work with the Corps of Engineers, State agencies, local sponsors and interested parties to identify interagency barriers to efficient implementation of multi-objective flood management projects and to develop options to overcome
those barriers. 37. California Environmental Quality Act Local Anal ysis Improvement – DWR should provide technical assistance to local agencies and practitioners with a practical, step-by-step CEQA flood hazard and impacts assessment guide. 38. Establishment of a California Floodplain Manag ement Advisory Committee - DWR should sponsor a floodplain management advisory committee comp osed of local and State government representatives, floodplain managers, and other stakeholders, to develop additional recommendations to improve floodplain management practices.



## Issues in Floodplain Management

Single-Purpose Approach to Floodplain Management
Due to the uncertainty of predicting floods, it is difficult to plan a flood damage reduction project that could assure long-term protection. In addition, it is difficult to obtain permits for single-purpose projects. Although integration of public safety, flood damage reduction, agricultural conservation and ecosystem protection and restoration require more time and co llaboration among diverse interests, it is easier to obtain permits, funding, and more likely to achieve goals than with single-purpose projects.

Floodplain Connectivity and Inundation
Common flood management and erosion control measur es, such as levees and bank armoring, separate river channels and flows from historic floodplains. A challenge for floodplain and riparian ecosystem restoration is to reconnect the floodplain with th e stream and still prevent damage from floods and soil erosion. This is especially difficult and costly wh ere houses, highways, and other encroachments could potentially sustain damage and reduce flood-carrying capacity. Restoration of large river flows is constrained below dams where regulated maximum rel ease levels are too low to produce desired results.

Coordination
Administration, financial, and data coordination among State, federal, and local agencies is often difficult for floodplain management projects and programs. Local involvement in development of a multiobjective project is essential to satisfy the diverse interests of the stakeholders.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 10. Floodplain Management

10-6 

## Recommendations for Floodplain Management

After fully considering and prioritizing all of th e Governor’s Floodplain Management Task Force recommendations, the following recommendations are pa rticularly relevant to statewide and regional water management.

1. The State should expand its Awareness Floodplain Mapping Program for use by local governments and the public.
2. Wherever practical, floodplain maps should be prepared on a watershed basis.
3. DWR and other agencies should sponsor projects in cooperation with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to install real-time ga ges in priority locations throughout California.
4. Decision-makers should gather information and data beyond Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) to better assess reasonably foreseeable floods. Lo cal communities should be encouraged to require new and substantially improved buildings to have their lowest floor elevations to be at least one foot above the NFIP’s base flood elevation, factoring in the effect of full build out of the
watershed.
5. A Multi-Objective-Management approach to fl ood management projects should be promoted. Flood management programs and projects, while providing for public safety, should maximize opportunities for agricultural conservation and ecosystem protection and restoration, where
feasible.

Information Sources

• CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. Strategic Plan for Ecosystem Restoration.

• California Floodplain Management Task Force, 2002. California Floodplain Management Report.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 11. Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation

11-1 

# Chapter 11. Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation

Groundwater remediation involves extracting contaminated groundwater from the aquifer, treating it, and discharging it to a water course or using it for some purpose. It is also possible to re-inject the treated water back into the aquifer.

In the process of groundwater remediation, the groundwater flows through the aquifer toward the extraction wells where it is removed for treatment. If recharge of the aquifer continues, this flow provides a flushing action that may eventually remove most of the contaminants from the aquifer. This is also called the "pump and treat" method of remediation. Pump and treat methods transfer the contaminant to either the atmosphere or a filter material. If a volatile material is transferred from the groundwater to the atmosphere, permits must be obtained from the appropriate air pollution control district or agency for the amount to be transferred. If a filtration medium is used, such as granular activated carbon (GAC), the GAC must be disposed of as a hazardous waste. If the GAC is regenerated, the waste from that process must be disposed of as a hazardous waste. If the contaminant is radioactive, such as uranium, then residuals may need to be disposed of as radioactive waste.

Aquifer remediation is usually accomplished by treating the groundwater while it is still in the aquifer, using in situ methods involving physical or chemical treatment, biological treatment, or electrokinetics.

Another term used for either groundwater or aquifer remediation processes is groundwater restoration. Whatever the treatment method (see Table 1), it must be suited to the chemical (see Table 2) that has contaminated the aquifer. Light, non-aqueous phase liquids (LNAPLs), such as hydrocarbons, float on the surface of the groundwater. Dense, non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs), such as trichloroethylene (TCE) have a specific gravity greater than water and sink to the bottom of the aquifer. Other contaminants, such as methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), may be miscible in water and are in solution in the groundwater. Even with LNAPLs and DNAPLs, some of the contaminant dissolves within the groundwater in the aquifer.

Information for this write-up was provided by California Department of Health Services, Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management; and by California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Clean Water Programs.



## Groundwater Remediation in California

Most remediation in California involves groundwater remediation; very little aquifer remdediation takes place. There are about 18,500 sites in the state where active cleanup of contaminants is ongoing. Regulatory oversight of these cleanups is by Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Boards), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or local agencies. About 15,000 of these sites have had a petroleum release from a leaking underground storage tank (UST) system. A petroleum release is usually detected by analyzing for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and the more soluble constituents in fuel (benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene, commonly called BTEX). In addition to these, MTBE can be found at former leaking UST sites. Groundwater cleanup at petroleum sites almost always focuses on reduction of BTEX and MTBE because most other components of petroleum are only very slightly soluble in water and do not migrate far from the original source of the leak.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 11. Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation

11-2 In general, cleanup for the vast majority ofcontaminant sites involves excavation, freeproduct removal if applicable, soil vapor extraction, in situ remediation, or a
combination of these remediation methods. Pump and treat methodology tends to be expensive and is not employed when other effective remediation options are available. The discharge from a pump and treat system may also require a discharge permit issued by a Regional Board.

About 800 sites in California use pump and treat systems. And about one third of these are at UST sites, where shallow groundwater is typically affected. The treated flow volumes are on the order of 10-20 gallons per minute.
At a small number of sites the volume treated can be millions of gallons per day.

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as TCE and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) (see Table 1) are being removed from groundwater in Los Angeles, from the San Gabriel basin. VOCs are also being removed in Santa Clara County. Often these cleanups are associated with federal Superfund projects, for example, the Glendale Operable Unit (OU), or the
Burbank OU.

Perchlorate is being removed by ion exchange and biological treatment in Sacramento and
San Gabriel basins. In Sacramento and Santa Clara, the treated water is released into a surface water channel, whereas in San Gabriel, the treated water is pumped into the public water supply distribution system.

Besides the groundwater remediation projects mentioned above, there are drinking water treatment projects for VOCs, including TCE, PCE, that are operating in various water systems (see Table 3). The gasoline additive MTBE is being treated in the City of Santa Monica, and in several smaller systems. Arsenic treatment is occurring in a few water systems to meet the current MCL of 50 micrograms per liter. In 2006, the new federal MCL of 10 micrograms per liter becomes effective, and it is predicted that additional water systems will be required to treat to remove arsenic systems. Pesticides, especially 1,2- Table 1—Types of treatment Pump and treat – groundwater remediation

Activated alumina Biological Blending Coagulation/filtration Granular activated carbon, GAC Ion exchange, IX Lime softening Packed tower aeration (air stripping) Reverse osmosis, RO Ultra-violet photoionization

In-situ – aquifer remediation Air sparging Bio-sparging Bio-venting Cosolvents Electrokinetics Electron acceptors (nitrate, sulfate, ferric ions) Electron donors (to degrade chlorinated hydrocarbons) Fluid cycling Hydrofracturing/Pneumatic fracturing Soil vapor extraction Surfactant enhancements Thermal enhancements Treatment walls Vitrification

Table 2—List of contaminants* 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane, DBCP 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2,3-Trichloropropane, 1,2,3-TCP Arsenic, As Carbon tetrachloride, CTC Ethylene dibromide, EDB Methyl tertiary butyl ether, MTBE N-Nitrosodimethylamine, NDMA Nitrate as NO 3 Nitrate + Nitrite as N Perchlorate, ClO 4 Tetrachloroethylene, PCE Total petroleum hydrocarbons, TPH e.g, hexane, jet fuels, mineral oils, benzene toluene, xylenes, naphthalene, fluorene Trichloroethylene, TCE Uranium, U * Some may also be called by other namesCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 11. Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation

11-3 dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) and ethylene dibromide (EDB), are being removed in the San Joaquin Valley and southern California.

Nitrates in groundwater are being blended or treated in most areas of the state where agriculture has been active, either in the past or today, and wherever there are high concentrations of septic tank treatment and disposal systems.



## Potential Benefits from Remediation of Groundwater

The potential benefits of remediating contaminated groundwater so the water can be used as a part of the available water supply are:

• An additional water supply is available that would not be available without remediation

• The cost of buying an alternative water supply is avoided

• Eventually, through the flushing action, the aquifer may be cleaned up to the point that treatment is no longer requiredPublic Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 11. Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation

11-4 Table 3--Locations of groundwater sources of drinking water with selected detected contaminants Information provided by California Department of Health Services, Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management

Contaminant Counties Affected (# of sources with detections)* Types of Treatment Used Examples: Water Systems to Contact for Additional Information Regulated Contaminants Inorganic Chemicals Arsenic (current MCL – 50 ppb, ** Kern (10), Kings (13), San Bernardino (7), Sonoma (6), Nevada (5), Sutter (5), Los Angeles (4), Mono (4) Arsenic (federal MCL, effective 2006 = 10 ppb)** Kern (115), San Bernardino (70), Los Angeles (58), San Joaquin (56), Kings (37), Sacramento (37), Sutter (29), Sonoma (24), Riverside (20), Madera (15), Monterey (14), Fresno (13), Nevada (12), Tulare (12), Merced (10), Mono (9), Stanislaus (9), Napa (8) activated alumina; ion exchange (IX), reverse osmosis (RO), (others with limitations—see 22 CCR § 64447.2), blending Edgemont Acres MWD; Boron CSD; Mt. Weske Estates MWC; City of Signal Hill

Nitrate as NO3 Los Angeles (171), San Bernardino (108), Riverside (79), Kern (64) Monterey (48), Fresno, Orange Nitrate + Nitrite as N Los Angeles (80), San Bernardino (58), Riverside (31), Tulare (17), Ventura (13) IX, RO, blending McFarland MWC, City of Pomona; Southern California Water Company; San Gabriel County Water District; CWS-Salinas; City of Fresno; Bakman Water Company; City of Garden Grove; City of Tustin R adioactivity Uranium San Bernardino (46), Kern (38), Stanislaus (28), Riverside (28), Madera (20), Los Angeles (19); Monterey IX, RO, lime softening, coagulation/ filtration Cal Water, Lakeland; CWS-Salinas

Volatile Organic Chemicals Carbon tetrachloride Los Angeles (95) San Gabriel Valley Water Company; City of Monterey Park; La Puente Valley CWD 1,2-Dichloroethane Los Angeles (90), El Dorado (10) Southern California Water Company; La Puente Valley CWD Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) Los Angeles (6), Kern (5), Monterey, San Mateo, Madera City of Santa Monica; Cal-Am WC – Montara;Riverview WD; CWSSalinas; Yosemite Spring Park Utility Company Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) Los Angeles (152), San Bernardino (27), Sacramento (8), Kern (6), Fresno (5), Monterey granular activated carbon (GAC), packed tower aeration, blending***

City of Burbank; San Gabriel Valley Water Company; City ofMonterey Part; EPAWhittier Narrows OU; City of Whittier; Southern California Water Company CWD-Salinas; La Puente Valley CWDCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 11. Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation

11-5 Trichloroethylene (TCE) Los Angeles (196), Fresno (17), Riverside (14), San Bernardino (10), Butte City of Burbank; City of Glendale; Cal Water Service Co, Chico; La Puente Valley CWD Pesticides 1,2-Dibromo-3- chloropropane (DBCP) Fresno (121), San Joaquin (35), Tulare (35), San Bernardino (34), Madera blending, GAC City of Fresno; City of Clovis; City of Sanger; CalWater, Visalia; City of Lodi; City of Madera Ethylene dibromide (EDB) Fresno (15), Kern (11), San Joaquin (5), Madera blending, GAC, packed tower aeration City of Fresno; City of Madera Unregulated Contaminants (No MCL) Inorganic chemical Perchlorate (MCL to be established—see DHS website for status) Los Angeles (134), San Bernardino (80), Riverside (61), Orange (31), Sacramento (13), Tulare (8), Santa Clara (7) IX, biological, blending California Domestic WC; La Puente Valley CWD; City of Redlands; SanGabriel Valley WCFontana; City of Riverside; City of Colton; City of Rialto; So Cal Water Co., So San Gabriel; City of Morgan Hill Semivolatile Organic Chemical
NNitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) Los Angeles (~5) UV photoionization San Gabriel Valley Water Company; City of Industry; La Puente Valley CWD Volatile Organic Chemical/Pesticide 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP) Kern (75), Los Angeles (29), Fresno (23), Tulare (18), San Bernardino (16), Merced (13); Riverside (7), San Joaquin (7), San Diego (6), San Mateo (5), Stanislaus (5) see VOCs above City of Burbank

_______ * The numbers of sources are from the DHS database, including analyses reported 1994-2002 (see www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/chemicals/monitoring/results94-02.htm except for MTBE, perchlorate, and 1,2,3-TCP, which are through 2003 www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/chemicals/chemindex.htm. Arsenic data are from 2000-2002 /www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/chemicals/arsenic/newmcl.htm, and the NDMA estimate is from the narrative at www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/chemicals/NDMA/history.htm. For “Regulated Contaminants” the number in parenthesis represents detections greater than MCLs. For “Unregulated Contaminants of Interest” the number represents overall detections. In general, counties with only a few detections are not included, unless an example of a water system providing treatment is provided in a particular county. For more information on drinking water treatment technologies, contact the local DHS drinking water office (see the DHS website for office locations), or contact specific water systems that are addressing a contaminant problem. **Arsenic currently has an MCL of 50 ppb. In 2006, compliance with a new federal MCL of 10 ppb is required. This will increase the number of sources will detections greater than the MCL from a total of about 70 80 to over 600. ***some systems are or may be considering use of advance oxidation processes, such as ultraviolet, or ozone for VOC treatment.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 11. Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation

11-6 

## Potential Costs

The cost of remediating groundwater includes:

• Cost of characterizing the groundwater or aquifer, in terms of all the contaminants present

• Capital cost of the system, whether groundwater or aquifer remediation

• Operation and maintenance costs during the life of the project; remediation may be required for a long time

Except for responsible parties reimbursed by the Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund (Fund), it is difficult to estimate the cost of cleaning up contaminated sites. However, the Fund reimburses about $180 million annually to eligible claimants. It is estimated that major oil companies that have not been reimbursed are expending about $50 million - $100 million annually on their sites. Therefore, costs associated with the cleanup of all UST sites in California appear to easily exceed $300 million annually. The cost to clean up an individual UST site typically ranges from $100,000 to $200,000. The cleanup of UST sites with MTBE is costing significantly more than the average, with reimbursements as high as the Fund limit of $1.5 million per site.

The cost of cleaning up non-UST sites is also highly variable. A site where solvent contamination has reached groundwater may require continuous pump and treat operation for decades and cost millions of
dollars.

Based on cost data from the State Water Resources Control Board and the California Department of Health Services, Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management, total groundwater remediation costs in California could approach $20 billion over the next 25 years. The estimate is based on current costs for remediation, estimated future costs for similar remediation, newly discovered contamination, and emerging contaminants.

Groundwater remediation also avoids the costs of losing the aquifer as a water supply. These avoided
costs include:

• Cost of an alternative water supply

• Long-term foregone profits and taxes from businesses and activities that decide not locate in the basin because of water shortages

• No opportunity for development of residential areas because there is no water supply available

• Contaminant may spread further, requiring greater and more costly remediation in the future


## Major Issues Relating to Groundwater Remediation

Water Quality
Several groundwater quality issues complicate remediation efforts. The types and the concentration of the constituents vary from aquifer to aquifer. Contaminated water associated with a hazardous waste facility, Superfund site, and other sites may contain a variety of regulated and unregulated contaminants. Contaminated water may be poorly characterized, in terms of the contaminants that are present and locating the dimension of the plume is costly. The sources of the contamination need to be found and eliminated (or the amount of contaminated discharge reduced), so that the groundwater basin can be cleaned up. There is always potential for other contaminants being detected subsequently that could cause
the need for additional treatment facilities.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 11. Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation

11-7 Water Quantity
Lack of knowledge about the geometry and characteristics of the aquifer complicates groundwater remediation. Without this information it is not possible to develop a water budget for the remediation.

Costs of Treatment
Cost questions can impede groundwater remediation. Who will pay, who are the responsible parties, and what is the appropriate share for each responsible party?


## Recommendations to Help Groundwater Remediation

The following recommendations for State action can help protect groundwater quality and remediate when necessary to maintain California’s water resources:
1. Provide additional funding where appropriate to help local agencies and governments develop remediation projects.
2. Identify the agencies or entities that caused the contamination, so that they can provide funding to build treatment facilities and operate and maintain them.
3. Provide technical assistance for development of remediation projects.
4. The State (SWRCB, RWQCBs, DTSC, DWR) should compile information on currently operating remediation projects, including:

• Contaminant(s) involved

• Amount of contaminant(s) in the aquifer that must be removed, which will require many more monitoring wells

• Type of treatment

• Expected length of operation of the treatment project, which is directly dependent on
the data collected

• Capital cost of the project

• Annual operating and maintenance cost, including costs of waste disposal

• Amount of groundwater treated per unit time

• Seasonality of volume treated (the amount may vary seasonally depending on usage)

• Number of wells extracting groundwater

• Number of connections served

• Measures that could have prevented the contamination
5. Provide local governments and local agencies with State assistance to implement source water protection measures based on the source water assessments that were completed as of 2003 to protect recharge areas from contamination, so that groundwater remediation will not be necessary in the
future.
6. Provide State assistance to local agencies to prevent contamination of recharge areas.
7. The State should develop techniques to inventory, model and evaluate feasible actions to improve the long-term availability of groundwater and the long-term quality of groundwater as a vital component
of California’s water resources for beneficial uses.
8. Local government and local agencies should limit potentially contaminating activities in areas where recharge takes place and work together to develop a sustainable good quality long-term water supply
for beneficial uses.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 11. Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation

11-8 Information Sources

• Belitz, Kenneth; Dubrovsky, Neil M.; Burow, Karen; Jurgens, Bryant; and Johnson, Tyler, 2003, Framework for a Ground-Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Program for California, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4166 at the following URL: http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/wri/wri034166/

• California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water: Chemical Contaminants in Drinking Water, available at the following URL: http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/chemicals/chemindex.htm California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water: Overview of Monitoring Results 1994- 2002, and an Indication of Dominant Contaminants, available at the following URL: www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/chemicals/monitoring/results94-02.htm California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection Program (DWSAP), available at www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/dwsap/DWSAPindex.htm

• California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Clean Water Programs at www.swrcb.ca.gov/gama/

• Focazio, Michael J.; Reilly, Thomas E.; Rupert, Michael G.; Helsel, Dennis R., 2002, Assessing Ground-Water Vulnerability to Contamination: Providing Scientifically Defensible Information for
Decision Makers , U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1224.

• Freeze, R. Allan; Cherry, John A., 1979, Groundwater , Prentice Hall, 604 p.

• Information about chemicals: www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npg.htmlCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 12. Matching Water Quality to Use

12-1 

# Chapter 12. Matching Water Quality to Water Use

Matching water quality to water use is a management strategy that recognizes that not all water uses require the same quality water. One common measure of water quality is its suitability for an intended use, and a water quality constituent is often only co nsidered a contaminant when that constituent adversely affects the intended use of the water. High quality water sources can be used for drinking and industrial purposes that benefit from higher quality wate r, and lesser quality water can be desirable for some uses, such as riparian streams with plant ma terials benefiting fish. Further, some new water supplies, such as recycled water, can be treated to a wi de range of purities that can be matched to different uses. The use of other water sources, again, like recy cled water, can serve as a new source of water that substitutes for uses not requiring potable water quality. 

## Status of Water Quality Matching in California

SWRCB has identified 23 beneficial use categories of water, for mostly human and in-stream uses. Human uses can be categorized as consumptive, such as municipal, agricultural, and industrial supplies, and non-consumptive, such as naviga tion, hydropower generation, and recreation. Matching water quality to most of these uses is important because, except for municipal and indu strial uses, water is generally used as-is, without treatment.

Farmers currently match crops to the available water quality. In general, irrigation water should contain levels of constituents such as salinity and boron that will not inhibit the yields of some crops. Conversely, agricultural water supplies that have low levels of salts may require adding gypsum to improve percolation. Agricultural water supplies may require filtr ation to remove particulate matter that could clog low pressure irrigation systems and reduce soil infiltrati on rates. As an extreme case, Imperial Irrigation
District runs all water that it diverts from the Colora do River at Imperial Dam through siltation basins to remove suspended particulate before the water is released into the All American Canal.

Alternatively, ambient, in-stream water must be suita ble to support a wide range of aquatic habitats and conditions. Thus, water quality for in-stream uses generally must be free of a variety of contaminants, not just a few. One particular pollutant that greatly affects fisheries is temperature. An example of an effort made to match water quality to an environmental use for that particular pollutant is the Temperature Control Device at Shasta Dam, which was built to better match water temperature to the reproductive
needs of salmonid fish downstream.

For drinking water supplies, it is important to st art with the highest quality source water possible. Historically, California’s urban coastal communities, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley, constructed major aqueducts to such sources as Hetch Hetchy, Owens Valley, and the Mokelumne River. Later, water supplies of lesser quality, such as the S acramento-San Joaquin Delta and the Colorado River, were also tapped for domestic water supplies. In r esponse, many utilities already manage water quality by blending higher quality water supplies with those of lower quality, as well as matching treatment process to source water quality, as required by regulation. Fo r example, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California dilutes high salinity Colorado River water with lower salinity water from the Bay-Delta, which improves public acceptance of tap water, as well as facilitates groundwater recharge and wastewater recycling projects. In turn, MWD dilutes the highe r bromide and organic carbon levels in Delta water with Colorado River water, to help reduce disinfecti on by-products in treated water. In Solano County, higher quality, less variable Lake Berryessa water is blended with lower quality, highly variable NorthPublic Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 12. Matching Water Quality to Use

12-2 Bay Aqueduct water from the Delta. Likewise, many water suppliers have the capability to blend groundwater, local surface water, and imported supplies to achieve a desired water quality, although some utilities may instead choose to use water supplies based upon cost minimization or water rights considerations. Some water agencies even blend wate r (and water quality) from di fferent levels of the same reservoir, by using differe nt intake levels. Many water mana gement actions, such as conjunctive use, water banking, water use efficiency, and water tran sfers, intentionally or unintentionally, result in one type of water quality traded fo r, or blended with, another.

Business also matches water quality to use. Water used in high-technology applicati ons is often purer than that used for drinking. For instance, Silicon Va lley manufacturers and other businesses in the San Francisco Bay Area prefer higher quality Hetch Hetchy water to Delta or groundwater supplies that are also available in the region. For other uses, lower quality waters can be used. Cooling water used in production is often of a lower quality than that used for drinking. The Central and West Basin Municipal Water Districts offer different qualities of recycled wate r -- at different costs--tailored to different uses, including process water for petroleum refining. At least one concrete plant in San Francisco captures and reuses its low quality stormwater runoff for concrete production.

CALFED identified two potential water quality exchange projects, th e San Joaquin Valley-Southern California Water Quality Exchange Program, and the Bay Area Water Quality and Supply Reliability Program, to improve water quality and water suppl y reliability--as well as disaster preparedness--on a regional basis. These programs coul d promote matching water quality to water use, with potentially no degradation to the ultimate use of the water. For in stance, in the Bay Area, a local water agency with access to a water supply of relatively lower wate r quality could fund water recycling or water conservation projects in another agency’s service area that has a higher quality water supply, in exchange for the higher quality water saved by those projects. Under the San Joaquin Valley-Southern California Water Quality Exchange Program, Metropolitan is work ing with both the Friant Water Users Authority and the Kings River Water Association to investig ate the feasibility of exchanging water supplies. Metropolitan is interested in these exchanges to secure higher quality Sierra water supplies that could result in treatment cost savings and an increased ab ility to meet more stringent drinking water quality regulations. In return for participating in the water quality exchange, Friant and Kings are interested in securing infrastructure improvements, financed by Metropolitan, which will increase water supply reliability for their members.



## Potential Benefits

For agricultural and in-stream uses, water quality matching is an integral part of water quality management, because there is generally no treatment of these water supplies prior to their use. For drinking water, appropriately matching high quality so urce waters can reduce the levels of pollutants and pollutant precursors that cause health concerns in drin king water. In addition, less costly treatment options can be used when water utilities start with higher quality source waters, and water supply reliability can simultaneously be enhanced.

For municipal and industrial customers, using water high in salinity can cause economic costs through damages to plumbing and fixtures and water-using de vices and equipment. One study, conducted in 1998 by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Metr opolitan Water District of Southern California, found that for every 100 mg/L decrease in salinity, there is an economic benefit of $95 million annually to Metropolitan’s customers.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 12. Matching Water Quality to Use

12-3 Improved treated water quality and wa ter supply reliability are also potential benefits of water quality matching for those agencies that have access to a dive rse water supply portfolio. One example is the Santa Clara Valley Water District, its retail agencies, and other water suppliers along the South Bay Aqueduct, which have access to Delta water, Hetch Hetchy, local surface water, and groundwater. During droughts, seawater intrusion increases the level of salinity in De lta water supplies, including bromide. In such an event, agencies and regions with water source flexibility could use more groundwater or local surface water, if available, both of which are relatively bromide-free and thus do not create bromate, a potential carcinogen, upon disinfection with ozone.



## Potential Costs

Water that contains lower levels of salinity is a better match for domestic water quality uses and for irrigating salt-intolerant crops such as strawberries and avocados. As noted, some agencies blend water supplies to achieve a desired water quality, including salinity. If low salinity water supplies are unavailable, water utilities may instead have to treat high salinity water supplies to achieve a desired water quality. In the Chino Basin, utilities already demi neralize (desalt) water for domestic use, and Zone 7 Water Agency and Alameda County Water District have similar plans. At ACWD, for example, the capital costs alone of its new groundwater desalting project in Newark were $1.3 million per acre-foot per day of capacity, with operations and maintenance co sts of $500 per acre-foot. In some cases, costs for matching water quality to use will also include ne w conveyance systems to connect different source

waters.

CALFED estimates that it will spend just under $100 million (in 2004 do llars) on water quality exchanges during Stage 1 implementation. The primary costs of water quality exchanges are: infrastructure, conveyance (such as energy, capacity, and hydraulic lo sses), and incentive payments for participants (i.e., the incentive driving the Friant/Kings-Metropolitan programs is Metropolitan’s willingness to invest in local infrastructure that will benefit the exchange partner). In 2003, however , a “no-cost” water quality exchange was implemented between the Envir onmental Water Account, Kern Water Bank, and Metropolitan. Under the exchange, EWA had purch ased groundwater in Kern Water Bank and was seeking to avoid a storage fee for leaving the purchased water in the bank. Metropolitan offered to receive EWA’s purchased water in exchange for providing the EWA with a surface water supply later in the year when EWA could use the water. Metropolitan benefited from the exchange because it received groundwater supplies with low total organic carbon and bromide levels during a period when Metropolitan was unable to blend total organic carbon levels down with Colorado River supplies. Other “no cost” exchanges are being explored that are simila r to this arrangement. One example is for an urban water user to provide agricultural water users with surface supplies during the peak agricultural water demand period, when agricultural users are for ced to use groundwater and may be facing pumping constraints. In return, the agricultural user would return a like amount of pumped groundwater during the fall-winter period when there is excess groundwater pumping capacity and bromide and total dissolved solids in Bay-Delta supplies are higher. In addition to water supply benefits, use of Delta water in groundwater recharge and banking operations may also provide water quality benefits as well by substantially reducing levels of turbidity, pathogens, and organic carbon upon withdrawal.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 12. Matching Water Quality to Use

12-4 

## Major Issues

Many of the issues of matching water quality to u se are integrally connected to pollution prevention.

Water Transfers
Water quality exchanges face similar regulatory, instit utional, and third-party impact issues that water supply transfers face (please see the Water Transfers narrative for a discussion of those issues). In particular, water supplies are generally governed by place-of-use restrictions that must be addressed when exchanging water supplies. Moreover, water quality exchanges could have adverse third-party impacts, such as increasing the salinity of local groundwater, re ducing the availiability of higher quality in-stream water needed for fisheries, and limiting agriculture to salt-tolerant crops. For drinking water, an exchange could also trade bromide and organic carbon, precursors to contaminants with probable risks, for arsenic, one of the few known carcinogens regulated in drinking water.

Unusable Water
There is often a high cost incurred by water supplies that become either unsuitable for certain uses, or very expensive to use, because of contamination. One specific example, cited in a recent study by the Environment California Research and Policy Center, is the contamination by methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE, a gasoline additive that may cause cancer) wh ich initially closed 80 percent of Santa Monica’s drinking water wells, in turn forcing that city to increase its dependence on imported water sources, and
later to install treatment to reduce MTBE levels. Mo re generally, nitrate has closed more public water supply wells in California than any other contaminan t, often permanently redirecting the use of such contaminated water to irrigation. 1

Salinity
Agricultural drainage, imported Colorado River wate r, and seawater intrusion in the Delta and coastal aquifers all contribute to increasing salinity in all ty pes of water supplies, which can adversely affect many beneficial uses, including irrigation, fish a nd wildlife, and domestic use. The primary tool to reducing salinity impacts is matching water quality to use, because many sources of salinity, such as seawater intrusion, are natural, and treatment to remo ve salinity is relatively expensive. Further, water supplies that are high in salinity increase the cost of recycling or recharging these supplies in aquifers for subsequent re-use.

Operations Criteria for Storage and Conveyance
Water quality currently plays a relatively minor role in the operation of most local, State, and federal water projects. Most reservoirs and other projects, such as water transfers and the Environmental Water Account, are operated to achieve goa ls and objectives related to wate r supply, power production, flood control, fish and wildlife protection, and even recreation—but not water quality. In the Delta, the only water quality standards for project operations are for salinity, to protect agricultural, in-stream, and municipal and industrial uses. However, these ambien t water quality standards do not reflect water user demand for lower salinity water supplies. Moreover, othe r parameters of concern for domestic uses, such as pathogens and organic carbon, do not have operating criteria and, further, do not have objectives in basin plans or discharge requirements in NPDES permits.

1 For a fuller discussion, please see the Aquifer Remediation narrative.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 12. Matching Water Quality to Use

12-5 Upstream and Downstream Partnerships
Presently, few partnerships exist between upstream s ource water areas, downstream water users, and the water users in between that affect water quality, resulting in a critical disconnect in the overall system. Such partnerships could lead to pollution preventi on or trading opportunities that could result in more efficient water quality protection.

Ecosystem Restoration and Drinking Water Supplies
Some ecosystem restoration projects, such as wetland s restoration, may improve habitat and even some aspects of water quality, but at the same time, may degrade other aspects of water quality, such as mercury or organic carbon (from a drinking water pe rspective). The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is actively investigating this potentia l conflict in matching water quality to use (see ecosystem restoration strategy).


## Recommendations to Impro ve Water Quality Matching

1. The State, local water agencies, and regional pl anning efforts should manage water supplies to optimize and match water quality to intended uses and availabl e and appropriate treatment technology.
2. Consistent with the watershed-based source-to-tap strategy recommended in the pollution prevention narrative, the State should help facilitate system -wide partnerships betw een upstream watershed communities and downstream users along the flow path , in order to seek ways to better match water quality to use. 2

3. The State should facilitate and streamline water qua lity exchanges that are tailored to better match water quality to use, while mitigating any adverse third-party impacts of such transfers, as well as ensure that place-of-use issues are addressed in a ma nner that protects an exchange participant’s water rights.
4. The State and local agencies should better incorpor ate water quality into reservoir, Delta, and local water supply operations, as well as facility re-operati on and construction. For example, the timing of diversions from the Delta, and thereby the concen trations of salinity and organic carbon in those waters, could be better matched to domestic, agricultural, and envir onmental uses. Alternatively, the timing and location of urban and agricultural disch arges to water sources, including the Delta, could
also be coordinated with the eventual use of wa ter conveyed by potentially impacted diversions. Facilities conveying municipal and industrial wate r could also be separated from those conveying water for irrigation.
5. To facilitate water re-use downstream, the Stat e should encourage upstream users to minimize the impacts of non-point urban and agricultural runoff and treated wastewater discharges

.

2 More information on this watershed-based approach can be found in the Pollution Prevention and Watershed Management narratives.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 12. Matching Water Quality to Use

12-6 Information Sources

• Down the Drain , Environment California Research and Policy Center

• Water Quality Program Plan, CALFED Bay Delta Program, July 2000

• Addressing the Need to Protect California’s Watersheds: Working with Local Partnerships , The Resources Agency and State Water Resources Control Board, April 2002

• Salinity Management Study, US Department of the Interior and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, June 1998

• Sacramento River Watershed Program

• Alameda County Water DistrictCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 13. Pollution Prevention

13-1 

# Chapter 13. Pollution Prevention

Pollution prevention can improve water quality for all be neficial uses by protecting water at its source, reducing the need and cost for other water manage ment and treatment options. By preventing pollution throughout a watershed, water supplies can be used , and re-used, for a broader number and types of downstream water uses. Improving water quality by protecting source water is consistent with a watershed management approach to water resources pr oblems. In addition, the legal doctrine of “public trust” demands that the State protect certain natura l resources for the benefit of the public, including uses such as fishing, protection of fish and wildlife, a nd commerce, all of which are affected by pollution.



## Status of Pollution Prevention in California

There are many tools — regulatory, voluntary, or incentive-based — currently available for preventing pollution. The U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency, State Water Resources Control Board, and Regional Water Quality Control Boar ds have permitting, enforcement, remediation, monitoring, and watershed-based programs to prev ent pollution. Pollution can enter a water body from point sources like pipes and from nonpoint sources over a broad area like sedimentation along a long river reach. Preventing pollution from most point sources relies on a combin ation of source control and treatment, while preventing nonpoint source pollution generally involves the use of best management practices (BMPs) and efficient water management practices (E WMPs). The SWRCB and RWQCBs are adopting total maximum daily loads (or TMDLs), to control both poi nt and nonpoint source pollution, in those water bodies that are not attaining their water quality standa rds. Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution is responsible for 76 percent of the impairments in California’s waters. The SWRCB and RWQCBs are also focusing on water quality issues related to abandoned mines, the U.S.-Mexico border, and beach closures. USEPA and the Department of Heath Services (DHS) have sanitary survey and source water assessment programs specifically for drinking water sources. Beyond these State and federal efforts, many local agencies, businesses, farmers, non-governmental organizations , and watershed-based groups are preventing pollution directly, on their own or through partnerships. 1

Surface Water Quality
As approved by USEPA, the State’s official evaluation of its surface water quality is the SWRCB’s biennial water quality assessment and the Clean Wa ter Act 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments. In 2002, California liste d 685 water bodies on the 303(d) lis t, which exceed established water quality objectives. In some cases, a water body is listed for more than one pollutant, and in total, there are currently 1,883 pollutant water-body listings. About 13 percent of the total miles of California’s rivers and streams, and about 15 percent of its lake acreage, are now liste d as limited under the 303(d). Water bodies are most often listed as impaired for pathog ens, nutrients, pesticides, metals, and organic chemicals. The potential sources most often noted as the cause of impairments are unspecified nonpoint sources, source unknown, agriculture, urban runoff, and natural sources. As of 2002, advisories warning against fish consumption, an indirect indicator of surface water quality, were posted for 18 percent of California’s lakes, while less than 1 percent of the state’s rivers were similarly posted.

1 Please refer to Volume 1, Chapter 2, for a more detailed discussion of the legal and regulatory framework for protecting ambient water quality.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 13. Pollution Prevention

13-2 Groundwater Quality
Although standards or objectives do not cover all wate r quality contaminants, for example, perchlorate, 62 percent of wells reviewed by DWR’s Bulletin 118 ( California’s Groundwater ), using data provided by DHS, met Title 22 of the California Code of Regula tions maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for the period 1994-2000. However, in each of the state’s h ydrological regions, a 24 percent to 49 percent of public water supply wells exceeded one or more MCLs, usually for inorganic chemicals or radioactivity. 2 As a result of man-made contamination from agricultural practices and septic tanks, nitrate, which presents a known, acute (i.e. short-term) health risk, has closed more public water wells statewide than any other contaminant. Other groundwater contaminants of concern, including arsenic and hexavalent chromium (or chromium-6), are chronic (i.e. long-term health risks, such as cancer or reproductive and endocrine system dysfunction. Anot her common groundwater contaminant, salinity--while not a health risk--is a concern for water palatability as well as fa cility life. A different indicator of groundwater quality, leaking underground fuel tanks, has steadily declined after peaking in 1995, due primarily to the success of regulatory action. In add ition to underground storage tanks, older landfills and hazardous waste disposal sites are also common sources of groundwat er contamination, and abandoned wells can provide a ready conduit for aquifer contamination.

Environmental Water Quality
Throughout California, water quality impairments threat en riparian and aquatic habitats, and in some cases are major impediments to ecosystem restoration. Urban, military, industrial, hydropower, mining, logging, agricultural, grazing, and recreational activ ities can degrade water quality. Depleted freshwater flows as a result of upstream dams, diversions, and in terbasin transfers, also affect the quality of water downstream, and have public trust doctrine implications. Other water management actions and projects, such as conjunctive use, conveyance, transfers, a nd conservation, can also affect water quality, both positively and negatively. Many significant pollution pr oblems today are the result of persistent “legacy” pollutants, such as mercury, extracted from the Coast Range and used to process gold in the Sierra mines
in the 19 th century, and industrial chemical s such as polychlorinated biphen yls (PCBs), used in electrical transformers. These pollutants also contaminate sediments, making ecosystem restoration efforts more difficult. Hydraulic mining during the 1900s still h as an adverse impact on numerous Central Valley rivers as well as San Francisco Bay. Some environmental contaminants of concern, such as mercury and selenium, are persistent or bioaccumulative — that is, their concentration and toxicity magnifies in the food chain — and can be toxic to key food chain li nks, such as aquatic invertebrates, and negatively impact communities and tribes dependent upon subsistence fisheries.

Drinking Water Sources
Public water systems in California have about 15 ,000 groundwater and 1,000 surface water sources of drinking water. About 4,000, or a quarter, of th ese sources have at least one detection of a regulated contaminant, usually from man-made sources, at a leve l greater than its MCL. The data specifically show a steady increase in the number of wells that exceed MCLs for nitrate and arsenic; moreover, the MCL for arsenic, a naturally-occurring contaminant, will drop further in 2006, affecting a nother 900 drinking water sources. Uranium, a naturally occurring radionuclide, and the organic chemicals trichloroethylene (TCE, an industrial solvent), 1,2-dibromo-3-chloroprop ane (DBCP, a now-banned nematocide) and methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE, a gasoline additive), al so frequently pollute drinking water sources. In

2 The DHS database, though, only covered wells in about half of the groundwater basins in the state. And even for those basins that have wells in the database, the water qua lity in those wells is not necessarily representative of the water quality throughout the basin.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 13. Pollution Prevention

13-3 addition to the one for arsenic, California will soon adopt new MCLs for perchlorate and hexavalent
chromium.

DHS, with the assistance of 34 counties and 500 water systems, recently completed source water assessments for 15,000 public drinking water sources in California. Initial evaluation of the assessment results indicates that gr oundwater sources (about 14,000 wells) are most vulnerable to septic tanks and sewage collection systems. Surface wate r sources are most vulnerable to surface water recreation and septic tanks. These assessments, combined with water quality monitoring, suggest that California is not doing enough to prevent nitrate pollution, an acute health hazard to infants and developing fetuses, the MCL for which has the lowest margin of safety of all regulated drinking water
contaminants.

One particular water source, the Hetch Hetchy water supply (Tuolumne River) which serves more than 2 million people in the San Francisco Bay Area, does not require filtration because of pollution prevention measures in its protected, Sierra watershed. Generally, forested watersheds play an important role in protecting water quality.

Another drinking water source, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, provides some portion of the water supply for more than 22 million Californians. A uniqu e aspect of this water source is that seawater introduces relatively high levels of bromide that, upon disinfection in a domestic water treatment plant, can contribute to the formation of disinfection by-p roducts, such as trihalomethanes and bromate, which are potential carcinogens. Those water systems near the Delta that use it as a source of drinking water are also challenged by algal blooms as well as fluctua ting levels of pH, turbidity, and alkalinity.



## Potential Benefits

For the vast majority of contaminants, it is generally accepted that a polluti on prevention approach to water quality is more cost-effective than end-of-the-pip e treatment of wastes, or advanced domestic water treatment for drinking water. Pollution prevention me asures are usually more cost-effective because they have lower initial capital costs, as well as less ongoing operations and maintenance costs, than traditional engineered treatment systems. However, because of the nature and sources of some contaminants, like bromide (introduced by seawater) and organic carbon (natural runoff from the watershed), a pollution prevention approach may not be possible, cost-effective, or even desirable in some instances. Small water systems, which generally lack technical and financ ial capacities, may be more reliant upon pollution prevention measures than other options available to larger systems, such as advanced treatment. Highquality near-shore coastal waters provide multiple benefits or uses by providing recreational opportunities, as well as serving as a water source for desalination plants, and habitat for wildlife.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 13. Pollution Prevention

13-4 

## Potential Costs

According to the 2000 USEPA Clean Water Needs Survey , California has more than $14 billion of needs to prevent both point source and nonpoint source pollution 3 . This survey, though, emphasized point source discharges, which represented more than $13 billion of the needs, and likely underestimated the cost of measures to adequately prevent nonpoint sour ce pollution. In terms of drinking water quality, investments in pollution prevention measures may enta il more risk and uncertainty in improving water quality relative to advanced dom estic water treatment options.


## Major Issues

Urban Impacts
USEPA’s most recent National Water Quality Invent ory in 2000 found that pollution from urban and agricultural runoff are the primary sources of water pollution in the U.S. Urban runoff and stormwater wash pollutants, such as nutrients (lawn fertilizers and pet wastes), pesticides, oil and grease, metals, organic chemicals, microorganisms, and debris, from c ity streets and other hard surfaces, that impair surface waters (including beaches) and negatively impact existing and future groundwater replenishment projects that use stormwater for recharge (see urban runoff management, and recharge area protection strategies).

Agricultural Impacts
Agricultural drainage can impair water supplies with relatively high levels of salinity, nutrients, pesticides, sediment, and other contaminants, as can wastes from dairies and feedlots, which are high in nitrates and microbes. In the Central Valley, the Re gional Water Quality Control Board has endorsed the use of farm-based watershed groups to monitor wa ter quality and implement best management practices (BMPs) and efficient water management practices (E WMPs) to control nonpoint source pollution from 7 million acres of irrigated lands (i.e., cr ops, nurseries, and managed wetlands).

Natural Impacts
Relative to contamination introduced primarily by humans, organic carbon, derived from runoff from a watershed, and especially bromide, a component of o cean salinity, are largely a result of natural processes for which a pollution prevention approach may not be po ssible, effective, or appropriate. Further, organic carbon is beneficial to the ecosystem in general, and when combined with some advanced treatment options, both organic carbon and bromide can be less onerous in treated drinking water. While not ignoring pollution prevention opportunities, the use and integration of other water quality management tools, such as matching water quality to water use a nd drinking water treatment and distribution, may be more effective and appropriate for these two contaminants. Arsenic, asbestos, radon, microbes from wildlife, dissolved minerals, and sometimes even sed iment are other examples of naturally occurring contaminants for which a pollution prevention approach is infeasible.

Emerging Contaminants
Traditionally, water agencies focus on pathogens (d isease –causing microorganisms) and disinfectant byproducts (potential cancer-causing contam inants), that are regulated or will be regulated in near future. Recently, though, unregulated chemicals found in pharmaceuticals and personal care products are emerging as water contaminants. For instance, as th e state’s population ages, there may be increasing levels of pharmaceutical discharges in domestic wastew ater and to the environment. Such contaminants

3 Cost estimate adjusted to $15 billion in 20004 dollars.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 13. Pollution Prevention

13-5 might not be removed by traditional treatment process es, and can negatively impact water recycling and groundwater recharge projects.

Population Growth Demands and Impacts
Future population growth and land-use changes may u npredictably affect water quality. As population and water demand increase, the volume of wastewater will also increase, which may then be discharged in proportions to the receiving water flow that could prevent some current domestic water sources to continue serving that beneficial use. Moreover, as demand for water grows, there may be demand as well to use some supplies--such as those originati ng from groundwater remediation sites--that would previously not have been approved for domestic use. For such supplies, drinking water standards alone may not be enough to determine quality, because such standards assume a basic purity of the water supply (see groundwater remediation/aquifer remediation). In addition, population growth may lead to increased demand for water-based recreation, which can degrad e fisheries and wildlife habitat as well as drinking water supplies.

Monitoring and Assessment
Only a small percentage of California water bodies are regularly monitored and assessed for water quality or for the appropriate contaminants of concern. On ce data is collected, it is too often not assessed or evaluated, and therefore not readily available for analysis. Much water quality data is collected on a project, rather than comprehensive, basis, and sam pling program objectives, designs, methods, and quality assurance can vary greatly between projects. Even the SWRCB’s biennial water quality assessment is limited by data availability, and notes as well another data problem: “healthy environments are less likely than troubled ones to be targeted for monitoring.”

Fragmented Delivery and Regulation of Water Quality
Management and regulation of wate r quality in California is fragmented among at least eight State and federal agencies, with no one agency looking after water quality from source to tap. For example, the State and regional boards regulate ambient water qua lity, while DHS primarily regulates treatment and distribution of potable water. Further, surface wate r in California is mostly managed by DWR and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, while groundwater is us ually not managed at all. Moreover, actually serving drinking water to Californians is an obligation of citie s, water districts, and private water companies that were generally not formed in any comprehensive pattern.

Legacy Pollutants
Although abandoned mines, clear-cut forests, and ma ny former industrial and commercial sites leave behind pollution problems (e.g. leaking underground storag e tanks), what is often not left behind is a legally responsible or financially viable party to pay for cleanup. The State and federal governments and potentially responsible parties often wind up in exte nsive regulatory and legal proceedings determining legal and financial responsibility wh ile hazardous waste sites remain.

Pollutant-by-Pollutant Water Quality Management
Federal law requires that the State regulate water qua lity on a programmatic, pollutant-by-pollutant basis, even though our rivers, lakes, and bays — and the aqua tic organisms in them — are actually exposed to a mix of pollutants. Much has yet to be understood about the combined effects of chemicals, temperature, pH, transport, sunlight, and other factors. From the standpoint of ecosystem integrity, it is important to recognize that major threats may not be observed in obvious fish kills, but instead may arise subtlyPublic Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 13. Pollution Prevention

13-6 through sub-lethal changes in reproductive rates, ge ne structure, nervous system functions, or immune response. Such changes can over tim e affect species survival, and popul ation and ecosystem structure.


## Recommendations to Impr ove Pollution Prevention

1. In addition to regulating water quality on a polluta nt-by-pollutant basis, water quality problems should be best managed using a watershed-based “source-to-tap” approach. The State should adopt a strategy that integrates improvements in polluti on prevention, water quality matching, and, for drinking water, treatment and distribution. For po llution prevention, such a strategy would build on urban and agricultural pollution prevention prog rams of SWRCB and RWQCBs, as well as DHS’s Source Water Assessment Program. 4 The strategy would focus in particular on the prevention of nitrate pollution statewide.
2. In order to help implement the previous recommenda tion, the State should adequately fund basin plan triennial review and updates, for incorporation into the California Water Plan Update (pursuant to Section 13141 of the California Water Code). Per the CALFED Record of Decision, the State should complete the drinking water policy for the Delta a nd its tributaries, which as an amendment to the basin plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Basins, will be an additional tool for drinking water source protection.
3. State agencies with a regulatory, management, or scientific role in the California’s water quality should take the lead in establishing an Interagency Water Quality Program to coordinate and integrate all federal, State, and local water quality mon itoring and assessment programs, for surface water and groundwater. This program would include a focus on emerging, unregulated contaminants in order to provide an early warning system of future water qua lity problems, as well as identify trends in water quality. Such a program would also seek to sta ndardize methods, especially for monitoring of emerging, unregulated contaminants, regularly mon itor the quality of all waters of the state, and provide compatible data management that is accessi ble to a wide range of users. For drinking water supplies, this monitoring program should include a focus on outcomes-based monitoring, such as biomonitoring and waterborne disease outbreak surveillance. 5

4. Regional, tribal, and local governments and agencies should establish drinking water source and wellhead protection programs to shield drinking water sources and groundwater recharge areas from contamination. These source protection programs shoul d then be incorporated into local land use plans and policies. Such programs would encourage or regulate land-use activities that are protective of water quality, or, alternatively, discourage or r estrict land uses or activities that threaten surface and groundwater quality. (See recharge area protection strategy.)
5. The State should prioritize grant funding for sour ce water protection activities, including building institutional capacity for watershed planning.

4 Such a strategy would be much like the “Equivalent Leve l of Public Health Protec tion (ELPH)” process of the CALFED Drinking Water Quality Program, and similar ef forts recently established by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (for Boston), New York City, and the national governments of Canada and Australia. This strategy would also conform to the recommendations of the 2000 International Conference on Freshwater, held in Bonn, Germany.

5 The proposed Interagency Water Quality Program would be modeled after the existing Interagency Ecological Program. The groundwater portion of this effort should be consistent with the recommendations of AB 599 (the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001) and DWR’s Bulletin 118 ( California’s Groundwater ), while the surface water aspects should be coordinated with SWRCB’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP, AB 982).California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 13. Pollution Prevention

13-7 Information Sources

• 2002 California 305(b) Report on Water Quality , State Water Resources Control Board, March
2003

• Bulletin 118, California’s Groundwater, Update 2003 , Department of Water Resources

• A Comprehensive Groundwater Quality Monitoring Program for California (AB 599 Report to the Governor and Legislature), State Water Resources Control Board, March 1, 2003

• National Water Quality Assessment Program, US Geological Survey

• State Water Resources Control Board/Regional Water Quality Control Boards, Strategic Plan, November 15, 2001

• State Water Resources Control Board/Regional Water Quality Control Boards, Nonpoint Source Program and Implementation Plan, 1998-2013 (PROSIP) , January 2000

• Water Quality Program Plan , CALFED Bay Delta Program, July 2000

• California Coastal Commission, www.coastal.ca.gov

• USEPA National Water Quality Inventory

• DHS data Web site : www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/chemicals/chemindex.htm

• Interagency Coordinating Committe e (for NPS Pollution Control)

• Environmental Protection Indicators for California (EPIC)California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 14 Precipitation Enhancement

14-1 

# Chapter 14. Precipitation Enhancement

Precipitation enhancement, commonly called “cloud seeding,” artificially stimulates clouds to produce more rainfall or snowfall than they would naturally. Cloud seeding injects special substances into the clouds that enable snowflakes and raindrops to form more easily. Precipitation enhancement is the one form of weather modification done in California; hail suppression (reducing the formation of large, damaging hailstones) and fog dispersal (when fog is below freezing temperature) projects are conducted
in other states.


## Precipitation Enhancement in California

The first serious cloud seeding program in California began in 1948 on Bishop Creek in the Owens River basin for California Electric Power Co.. Precipitation enhancement in the form of cloud seeding has been practiced continuously in several California river basins since the early 1950s. Most projects are along the central and southern Sierra Nevada with some in the coast ranges. The projects use silver iodide as the active cloud seeding agent, supplemented by dry ice if aerial seeding is done. The silver iodide can be applied from ground generators or from airplanes. Occasionally other agents, such as liquid propane, have been used. In recent years, some projects have also been applying hygroscopic materials (substances which take up water from the air) as supplemental seeding agents. The following figure shows rain and snow enhancement programs for the 2002 - 2003 season.

Operators engaged in cloud seeding have found it beneficial to seed rain bands along the coast and orographic clouds over the mountains. The number of operating projects has tended to increase during droughts, up to 20 in 1991, but have leveled off to about 12 or 13 in recent years. The total area covered by these projects is about 13,000 square miles.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 14. Precipitation Enhancement

14-2 Policy statements by both the American Meteorological Society and the World Meteorological Organization support the effectiveness of winter orographic cloud seeding projects. The American Society of Civil Engineers has also shown interest with its Policy Statement No. 275 on Atmospheric Water Management in 2003 and a new report, ASCE/EWRI 42-04, “Standard Practice for the Design and Operation of Precipitation Enhancement Projects” in May 2004. This standards document will be a sequel to ASCE Manual No. 81, “Guidelines for Cloud Seeding to Augment Precipitation,” published in
1995.


## Benefits from Precipitation Enhancement

In California, all precipitation enhancement projects are intended to increase water supply or hydroelectric power. The amounts of water produced are difficult to determine, but estimates range from a 2 to 15 percent increase in annual precipitation or runoff. A NRC report on weather modification (see sidebar) has limited material on winter orographic cloud seeding, such as practiced in
California and other western states. However, the report does seem to concur
that there is considerable evidence that weather modification does work, possibly up to a 10 percent increase. A detailed study by the Utah Department of
Natural Resources in 2000 showed an average increase in April 1 snowpack water content ranging from 7 to 20 percent from a group of projects which had been operating from 9 to 22 years. The overall estimated annual runoff increase was about 250,000 acre-feet, or 13 percent for the study area. Actual increases in annual runoff are probably significantly less in California than in Utah. One conservative estimate is that the combined California precipitation enhancement projects generate 300,000 to 400,000 acre-feet annually, which would be an average of about a 4 percent increase in
runoff 1

.

Another 300,000 to 400,000 acre-feet per year may be available. Many of the best prospects are in the Sacramento River basin, in watersheds that are not seeded now. The Lahontan regions are already well covered by cloud seeding projects, except for the Susan River. With the exception of the upper Trinity River watershed, and perhaps the Russian River, there is little new potential in the North Coast region because not much extra rainfall could be captured due to limited storage capacity. There is also potential to increase water production by more effective seeding operations in existing projects. Precipitation enhancement should not be viewed as a remedy for drought. Cloud seeding opportunities are generally less in dry years. It works better in combination with surface or ground water storage to increase average supplies. In the very wet years, when sponsors already have enough water, cloud seeding operations are usually suspended.

1 DWR staff analysis (2004). NRC Report on Weather Modification

In the fall of 2003, the National Research Council released a report entitled “Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research”, which examined the status of the science underlying weather modification in the U. S. One conclusion widely reported by the press was that convincing scientific proof of the efficacy of weather modification was lacking and the authors proposed that a large sustained research program be developed to reduce the uncertainties of this technology. Progress in seeding agent formulation and targeting was noted, although there is need for more research on these aspects.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 14 Precipitation Enhancement

14-3 

## Potential Costs

Costs for cloud seeding generally would be less than $20 per acre-foot per year. State law says that water gained from cloud seeding is treated the same as natural supply in regard to water rights. It is estimated that about $3 million is being spent on operations. Realizing the additional 300,000 to 400,000 acre-feet of potential new supply could require about $7 million, which would be about $19 per acre-foot. An initial investment of an estimated $1.5 million to $2 million in planning and environmental studies would also be required. Over the next 25 years, precipitation enhancement costs are expected to total about $177 million. 2


## Major Issues for Precipitation Enhancement

Reliable Data
No complete and rigorous comprehensive study has been made of all California precipitation enhancement projects. Part of the reason is the difficulty in locating unaffected control basins for the standard target and nearby control area comparisons since wind variations would cause spillover into adjoining basins. Some studies of individual projects have been made in the past years on certain projects, such as the Kings River, which have shown increases in water.

Operational Precision
It is difficult to target seeding materials to the right place in the clouds at the right time. There is an incomplete understanding of how effective operators are in their targeting practices. Chemical tracer experiments have provided support for targeting practices.

Concern Over Potential Impacts
Questions about potential unintended impacts from precipitation enhancement have been raised and addressed over the years. Common concerns relate to downwind effects (enhancing precipitation in one area at the expense of those downwind), long term toxic effects of silver, and added snow removal costs in mountain counties. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation did extensive studies on these issues. The findings are reported in its Project Skywater programmatic environmental statement in 1977 and in its Sierra Cooperative Pilot Project EIS in 1981. The available evidence does not show that seeding clouds with silver iodide causes a decrease in downwind precipitation; in fact, at times some of the increase of the target area may extend up to 100 miles downwind (Ref. 1981 SCPP EIS). The potential for eventual toxic effects of silver has not been shown to be a problem. Silver and silver compounds have a rather low order of toxicity. According to the Bureau of Reclamation, the small amounts used in cloud seeding do not compare to industry emissions of 100 times as much into the atmosphere in many parts of the country or individual exposure from tooth fillings. Watershed concentrations would be extremely low because only small amounts of seeding agent are used. Accumulations in the soil, vegetation and surface runoff have not been large enough to measure above natural background. A 2004 study done for Snowy Hydro Limited in Australia has confirmed the earlier findings cited above. In regard to snow removal, little direct relationship to increased costs was found for small incremental changes in storm size because the amount of equipment and manpower to maintain the roadway is essentially unchanged. That is, the effort is practically the same to clear a road of 5.5 inches compared to 5 inches.

2 Cost estimated = $.2 billion, as follows: ($7 million/year for cloud seeding activities) x (25 years until 2030) + ($2 million for initial environmental studies) = $177 million.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 14. Precipitation Enhancement

14-4 All operating projects have suspension criteria designed to stop cloud seeding any time there is flood threat. Moreover, the type of storms which produce large floods are naturally quite efficient in processing moisture into rain anyway. In such conditions, seeding is unlikely to make a difference.

Concern About Continuance of Hydroelectric Utility Seeding Operations
Four of the existing cloud seeding projects in California are sponsored by hydroelectric utilities. These four projects probably account for about a third of the estimated statewide water production by cloud seeding. There is some concern that if these power plants are sold, either as part of deregulation or for other reasons, new owners may not be interested in continuing cloud seeding. This would result in some loss in water supply for downstream users who have been indirectly benefiting from the added water. The State Public Utilities Commission is aware of this possibility and has tried to ensure, as a condition of transfer, that weather modification would continue.

Funding
Little federal research funding for weather modification has been available in the past 15 years. The Bureau of Reclamation had some funding in 2002 and 2003 in the Weather Damage Mitigation program. Desert Research Institute of Nevada did obtain a grant of $318,000 from this source early in 2003 to evaluate its seeding in the eastern Sierra.

Inadvertent Weather Modification
There is evidence that human activities such as biomass burning, transportation, and agricultural and industrial activities modify local and sometimes regional weather. The effects of aerosols on clouds and precipitation are complex. Recent studies by Ramanathan and Rosenfeld suggest suppressed precipitation formation in affected clouds due to pollution and dust. Some aerosols can enhance precipitation and some, especially the very fine aerosols in diesel smoke, can reduce precipitation. Much more research is needed to evaluate the air pollution effects on precipitation processes and the amount of impact as well as possible effects on cloud seeding programs. It is possible that some of the California cloud seeding projects have offset a potential loss in precipitation from air pollution, which may have obscured a more positive signal from the weather modification projects.



## Recommendations to Increase Precipitation Enhancement

1. The State should support the continuation of current projects as well as the development of new projects and help in seeking research funds for both old and new projects.
2. DWR should collect base data and project sponsor evaluations of existing California and other western state precipitation enhancement projects, independently analyze them, and perform research on the effectiveness of this technology to supplement water supplies while minimizing negative impacts.
3. DWR should investigate the potential to augment Colorado River supply by cloud seeding, in cooperation with the Colorado River Board, the states of Arizona and Nevada, and the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation.
4. DWR should support research on cloud physics and cloud modeling being done by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association labs and academic institutions. With improvement, these models may become tools to further verify and test the effectiveness of cloud seeding activities.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 14 Precipitation Enhancement

14-5 5. DWR should support efforts by California weather modification project sponsors, such as that proposed in 2002-03 by Santa Barbara County Water Agency, to obtain federal research funds for local research experiments built upon their operating cloud seeding projects.

Information Sources

• ASCE Manual No. 81 “Guidelines for Cloud Seeding to Augment Precipitation” (1995)

• ASCE Policy Statement No. 275, “Atmospheric Water Resources Management, 2003

• ASCE/EWRI 42-04 “Standard Practice for the Design and Operation of Precipitation Enhancement Projects”, 2004.

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

• Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada

• American Meteorologic Society

• World Meteorological Organization

• USBR Project Skywater publications, various, 1975-1987, including those of the Sierra Cooperative Pilot Project in California.

• A. Givati and D. Rosenfeld, “Quantifying Precipitation Suppression Due to Air Pollution”. 2004, Journal of Applied Meteorology Vol 43, pp 1038-1056.

• Sierra Cooperative Pilot Project, Environmental Assessment and Finding of no Significant Impact, USBR, Denver, 1981.

• NRC report “Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research”, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2003.

• V. Ramanathan, P.J. Crutzen, J. T. Kiehl and D. Rosenfeld, “Aerosols, Climate, and theHydrologic Cycle”, 2001, Science magazine, Dec. 7, 2001. http://wwwramanathan.ucsd.edu/abc.html

• V. Ramanathan and M. V. Ramana, “Atmospheric Brown Clouds, Long Range Transport and Climate Impacts”, EM, Dec. 2003, pp 28-33. www-c4.ucsd.edu

• UNEP and Center for Clouds, Chemistry and Climate, 2002, “The Asian Brown Cloud: Climate and Other Environmental Impacts, UNEP, Nairobi.

• The Weather Modification Association’s Response to the NRC Report “Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research”, report of a review panel, pp 53-82, Journal of Weather Modification, April, 2004.

• North American Interstate Weather Modification Council Response to the NRC Report, April 2004, 2 pp, on www.naiwmc.org

• Snowy Hydro Limited, Cooma, NSW, Australia, “Assessment of the Environmental Toxicity of Silver Iodide and Indium Iodide, by Dr. Brian Williams, Adelaide University, 2004.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 15. Recharge Areas Protection

15-1 

# Chapter 15. Recharge Areas Protection

Recharge areas protection includes keeping groundwater recharge areas from being paved over or otherwise developed and guarding the recharge areas so they do not become contaminated. Protection of recharge areas, whether natural or man-made, is ne cessary if the quantity and qu ality of groundwater in the aquifer are to be maintained. Existing and potent ial recharge areas must be protected so that they remain functional and they are not contaminated with chemical or microbial constituents. Zoning can play a major role in recharge areas protection by amending land-use practices so that existing recharge sites are retained as recharge areas. See the box on the following page for more discussion on recharge areas.

Protection of recharge areas is important, but protecting recharge areas by itself does not provide a supply of water. Recharge areas only function when aquifer storage capacity is available, and when regional and local governments and agencies work together to secu re an adequate supply of good quality water to recharge the aquifer. Protecting existing and potential recharge areas allows them to serve as valuable components of a conjunctive management and groundwater storage strategy.



## Recharge Areas in California

The first documented managed recharge program in California began in Los Angeles basin in 1889. Beginning in the early 1900s, water agencies opera ted recharge areas in San Joaquin Valley. Water agencies established recharge areas along the east side of San Joaquin in the 1940s. Additional recharge
areas were established later in Southern California and San Francisco Bay Area. While a certain amount of recharge takes place in many areas, the areas that were chosen by water management agencies were those areas that met three conditions. First, the sed iment is coarse enough to allow surface water to infiltrate at a higher rate than through finer sedimen ts. Second, there is hydraulic continuity between the recharge area, the aquifer in which the groundwater is stored and transported, and the discharge area where wells are built to extract the groundwater. Thir d, a local agency had access to the land on which
these first two conditions existed.

Recharge Sites in California
Agency Type of Recharge Site
Arvin-Edison WSD Off-stream Berrenda Mesa WD Off-stream Calleguas MWD Injection wells City of Bakersfield In-stream, off-stream Coachella Valley WD In-stream, off-stream Flintridge-Cañada WD Injection well Fresno County FC&WCD Off-stream, injection wells Friant-Kern Water Users Authority In-stream Kern Water Bank Off-stream Los Angeles County DPW In-stream, off-stream, injection wells North Kern WSD Off-stream Orange County WD In-stream, off-stream, injection wells Pioneer (KCWA) In-stream, off-stream San Bernardino County WC&FCD Off-stream Santa Ana Watershed Project Au th. Off-stream, injection wells Santa Clara Valley WD In-stream, off-stream Semitropic WSD Off-stream United Water Conservation Dis trict In-stream, off-streamPublic Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 15. Recharge Areas Protection

15-2 The size of existing recharge areas and the amount of groundwater that is recharged annually is substantial. The total amount of land devoted to sp reading basins and off-stream and in-stream recharge probably exceeds 50 square miles. The actual area is difficult to determine, partially because many diversion ditches and creeks are active recharge sit es during periods of the year. These active recharge areas and other areas should be protected for recharge purposes.

The Drinking Water Source Assessment Program (DWS AP) defines areas of protection for individual wells. The program can easily be expanded to include larger areas within the watershed. While the DWSAP requires assessment of these issues, the amendm ents to the Clean Water Act that require the assessment do not require implementation.

Recharge Areas
Recharge areas are those areas that provide the primary means of repl enishing the groundwater that is stored in an aquifer. In simple terms, a groundwat er system consists of three component parts—recharge areas, storage capacity called an aquifer, and discharge areas or points. If recharge areas cease functioning properly, there is no water to store in, or remove from, the aquifer. Under natural conditions sandy areas that lie over alluvial aquifers pr ovide good recharge areas for that aquifer.
Natural recharge takes place without interference or assistance from people. Artificial, intentional, or managed recharge is additional recharge that takes place with the assistance of people. Artificial, intentional, or managed recharge can take place in areas where natural recharge occurs (stream channels or alluvial fans) by increasing flow volu me and decreasing flow velocity. In addition, this recharge can take place in structures built specifically for increasing recharge. These structures are called recharge basins, spreading basins or replenishment basins or areas. The goal of all managed recharge is to increase the rate of infiltration or percolation of surface water into the subsurface, and ultimately, into the saturated zone in the aquifer. Some areas that would provide good rates of recharge have been paved over or built upon and are no longer available to recharge the aquifer.
The three types of recharge that are possible are in-stream, off-stream, and injection wells. In-stream recharge allows water to percolate through the stream bed itself. Off-stream recharge uses suitable sites outside the stream bed. In some operations, the water must be pumped some distance from its source to the off-stream recharge area. Injection wells are used at locations where the cost of large tracts of land would be prohibitive.
Each method has pros and cons. In-stream and off- stream spreading basins are eventually clogged with the suspended material carried in the surface water to the point that the rate of recharge declines considerably, making the basin much less effectiv e. Those fines must somehow be removed. In urban areas the cost of land necessary for spreading basins may be prohibitive. Injection wells are expensive to build and are also subject to clogging unless the water is treated and turbidity is nil.
Protection of recharge areas consists of two compon ents: (1) preventing the areas from being covered by urban infrastructure, which renders the land unusab le for recharge; and, (2) preventing chemical or microbial contamination that would require expensive treatment before the water could be used for potable, agricultural, or industrial purposes.

TreePeople, a citizens’ organization, has been work ing with local government to retrofit playgrounds, school grounds, parking lots, and other parcels of land, to collect, treat, and funnel storm water to “dry”
wells or other small scale infiltration facilities. Su ch wells are called Class V injection wells. To avoid contamination of the aquifer, certain best management practices are recommended. Those best management practices include low-flow basins for ru noff from industrial areas and other areas that could provide a high level of chemical contamination, pre-treatment for runoff, monitoring of water quality, evaluation of the data, and corrective action as necessary. All counties are required to regulate any type ofCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 15. Recharge Areas Protection

15-3 water-related well, including injection wells, but the effectiveness of that program are uncertain at best. Class V injection wells are further regulated for groundwater quality purposes by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with the Underground Injection Control program authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act.


## Benefits from Protection of Recharge Areas

The primary benefit of protecting recharge areas is to make storage available as part of a sustainable and reliable water supply of good quality. The availab ility of a sustainable and reliable water supply may lessen the need to purchase alterna tive water supplies at greater expense. Protection of recharge areas does not make a water supply available; a supply of water to recharge the aquifer depends on coordination of regional and local governments and agencies.

Additional benefits of recharging groundwater incl ude some removal of microbes and chemicals while the water moves through the unsaturated zone to the saturated zone, an increase in the amount of groundwater in storage that can later be extracted for local use or for export, and in some cases, use of the aquifer itself as the conveyance system from the recharge area to the point of extraction and use. In some cities, recharge basins are combined with flood c ontrol basins to reduce the amount of urban runoff.



## Potential Costs

Some of the costs that may be associated with protecting recharge areas are:

• Purchase or lease price of the land that is to be used for a recharge area.

• Design and construction of facilities

• Land that is reserved for recharge areas can not be used for other purposes that might provide a significant income for the landowner and tax revenues for the government

• If a local government agency owns the land, there is no tax income for the county

By not protecting recharge areas, water supply can be lost. The growth of urban areas, with roads, freeways, parking lots, and large warehouse type bui ldings, means that many areas no longer allow runoff to infiltrate into the ground. Instead, the runoff flows rapidly into streams which peak more quickly and at higher flow rates than before the urban facilities were built. This runoff is lost to groundwater recharge and may require the expense of other facilities to provide a substitute for that lost recharge. In some urban areas, injection wells have been built to take the place of recharge that was lost to urban development. Injection wells are expensive and are not always successf ul, but they may be cost effective in the face of the high cost of urban land in many cities.

Many potentially contaminating activ ities have routinely been allowed in recharge areas and contaminants have been carried into the aquifers. Remediation of these areas can take decades, costs millions or billions of dollars, and will never remove the contaminant completely from the aquifer. In such cases, the extracted groundwater must be treated at the wellhead at significant expense before it is suitable for potable and other uses.

A lack of protection of recharge areas could d ecrease the availability of usable groundwater. Recent studies by the U.S. Geological Survey show contaminants present in recharge areas for aquifers in the Los Angeles area. In 10, 20, or 40 years, those contaminants will have been trans ported into the aquifer and the groundwater may require treatment before it can be used, thereby increasing the cost of water to thePublic Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 15. Recharge Areas Protection

15-4 users. Protection of recharge areas now will help to prevent costs from escalating astronomically in the future. Because of the low velocity of groundwater movement through the aquifer, contamination that occurs today may not arrive at down-gradient wells fo r 10 years or longer. If we protect recharge areas by retaining those areas for recharge and by preventing c ontamination today, we are reducing future costs.


## Major Issues Relating to Protection of Recharge Areas

Data and Standards
There is a lack of standardized guidelines for pre-tr eatment of the recharge water, including recycled water. There is also a lack of monitoring wells to provide data on changes in groundwater quality that may be caused by recharge. Inspection programs are generally not adequately funded and staffed to locate, inspect, design protection measures, and destroy abandoned wells that provide vertical conduits for contamination of aquifers.

Zoning
Local governments often lack a clear understanding of recharge areas and how to protect those areas from development or contamination. Land use zoning do es not always recognize the need for recharge area protection for water quantity and water quality.

Vector and Odor Issues
Standing water in recharge ponds or spreading basins is an attraction for mosquitoes, dragonflies, and other insects whose egg, larval, and pupal stages matu re underwater. Dragonflies eat insects they catch on the fly, but mosquitoes can be vectors for a number of serious or deadly diseases. Existing recharge programs use large numbers of “mosquito” fish which feed on the mosquito larvae in the water. Odors can be generated by growth and decay of algae and other water-borne vegetation. Both vectors and odors must be addressed in any recharge program that involves standing water.

Potential Impacts
Protection of recharge areas can remove land from availability for other uses.


## Recommendations to Help Prom ote Protection of Recharge Areas

The State can help promote additional protection of recharge areas by acting on the following
recommendations:
1. Increase State funding for proposals to identify and pr otect recharge areas including incentives for the location and proper destruction of abandoned water wells, monitoring wells, cathodic protection wells
and other wells that could become vertical conduits for contamination of the aquifer. Provide funding and staff for Department of Health Services to initiate a program that w ould provide guidance and funding for local governments and agencies to impl ement source water protection measures that are logical outgrowths of the Drinking Water Source Assessment Program.
2. Expand research into surface spreading as a means of groundwater recharge and the fate of chemicals and microbes contained in the recharge water.
3. Develop a statewide program to identify potential recharge areas throughout the state and provide that information to city and county governments.
4. Amend State law to prohibit local decision-makers from developing land for other purposes until it is known if that land is needed for recharge as a part of the local agency’s groundwater management

program.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 15. Recharge Areas Protection

15-5 5. Engage the public in an active dialogue using a value-based decision-making model in planning land use decisions that involve recharge areas. Adopt a State-sponsored media campaign to increase public awareness and knowledge of groundwater and the importance of recharge areas.
6. Establish a “Water” element in the General Plan process that specifically requires a discussion by local government of the cost and values of protectin g recharge areas versus the cost of non-protection.
Eminent domain should not be allowed to conve rt potential recharge areas to other uses 1

. 7. Ensure that federal and State programs regulating subsurface disposal in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection Contro l program and the California Clean Water Act’s waste discharge requirements are fully funded and staffed.
8. Require local governments to provide protection of recharge areas for aquifers that have been identified as “sole source aquifers” pursuant to th e Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-523)
and Amendments.
9. Develop educational programs for public works offi cials and other officials of local agencies and governments that will allow them to develop programs that realistically deal with the interaction of groundwater, surface water, storm water, other surface flows, and the affect of contaminants in surface flows on contaminant levels in the aquifers.
10. Require that source water protection plans include an element that addresses recharge areas if groundwater is a part of the supply.
11. Convene a statewide panel to recommend changes to public schools and higher education curricula relating to groundwater. Encourage an integrated academic program on one or more campuses for protection of groundwater quantity and quality a nd why recharge areas are critical components.
12. Develop a uniform method for analyzing the econom ic benefits and cost of recharge areas and provide guidance and assistance for economic feasibility analyses that could be used by project planners and funding agencies to assess recharge ar eas vis-a-vis long-term loss of water supplies, wellhead treatment, or injection wells.
13. Develop a signage program, modeled on such programs in other states, to notify people that they are entering an area of critical recharge for the groundwat er they use daily, and that improper disposal of wastes can contaminate their drinking water.

1 For a fuller discussion of the proposed water element in a General Plan, please refer to “Planning for a Demanding Water Future: The Legal Requirements for Long-Term Land Use and Water Planning in California, and an Analysis of a Water Element in the General Plan as a Mean s to Improve the Connection,” found in Volume 4.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 15. Recharge Areas Protection

15-6 Information Sources

• Biennial Groundwater Conference and Annual Meeting of the Groundwater Resources Association of California Abstracts, 2001, Water Resources Center, University of California.

• Blomquist, William; Schlager, Edella; Heikkila, Tanya. 2004. Common Waters, Diverging Streams; Linking Institutions and Water Management in Arizona, California, and Colorado. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. 205 p.

• California Department of Health Services, California’s Drinking Wa ter Source Assessment and Protection (DWSAP) Program: Guidance and Other Information , updated 27 May 2003. Available at: www.dhs.cahwnet.gov/ps/ddwem/dwsap/DWSAPindex.htm

• California Department of Water Resources, 2003, California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118-2003.

• Driscoll, Fletcher G., Ph.D., 1986, Groundwater and Wells, Johnson Division, St. Paul,
Minnesota.

• Dunne, Thomas, and Leopold, Luna B., 1978, Water in Environmental Planning , W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.

• Fetter, C.W., 1994, Applied Hydrogeology , Prentice-Hall.

• Freeze, R.A., and Cherry, J.A., 1979, Groundwater , Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey.

• Madrid, Carlos, 1988, Artificial Ground Water Recharge in Southern California, in Artificial Recharge of Ground Water , edited by A.I. Johnson and Donald J. Finlayson, American Society of Civil Engineers.

• Sherman, Leroy K., and Musgrave, George W., 1942, Infiltration , in Hydrology, edited by Oscar E. Meinzer, Dover Publications, Inc., New York.

• U.S. Geological Survey, 2002, Artificial Recharge Workshop Proceed ings, Sacramento, California, April 2-4, 2002 , Open-File Report 02-89.

• U.S. Geological Survey, 2002, Ground Water and Surface Water, A Single Resource , U.S.G.S. Circular 1139,

• U.S. Geological Survey, 2002, Assessing Ground-Water Vulnerability to Contamination: Providing Scientifically Defensible Information for Decision Makers, U.S.G.S. Circular 1224.

• U.S. Geological Survey, 1983, Basic Ground-Water Hydrology , Ralph Heath, Water-Supply Paper
2220.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 16. Recycled Municipal Water

16-1 

# Chapter 16. Recycled Municipal Water

Water recycling, also known as reclamation or reuse, is an umbrella term encompassing the process of treating wastewater, storing, distributing, and using the recycled water. Recycled water is defined in the California Water Code to mean “water which, as a result of treatment of waste, is suitable for a direct
beneficial use or a controlled use that would not otherwise occur.”

The treatment and use of municipal wastewater for golf course irrigation is an example of water recycling. Higher levels of treatment can make municipal wastewater reusable for school yards, residential landscape and park irrigation, industrial uses or even uses within office and institutional buildings for toilet flushing.

The following discussion of recycled water focuses on treated municipal wastewater. This is wastewater of domestic origin, but includes wastewater of commercial, industrial and governmental origins if such wastewater is mixed with domestic wastewater before treatment. Many industries recycle and reuse their own wastewater. However, because of a lack of data, recycling of non-domestic wastewater is not included in the recycling-quantity estimates below.


## Recycled Water Use in California

Californians have used recycled water since the late 1800s and public health protections have been in effect since the early part of the 1900s. Recycled water use has dramatically increased in the past several decades as water agencies needed to supplement their water supplies. Today, California’s water agencies recycle about 500,000 acre-feet of wastewater annually, almost three times more than in 1970.

Noting the importance of water recycling to our state, a 40-member Recycled Water Task Force was established pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 331(Goldberg, Chapter 590, Statutes of 2001). The Task Force identified opportunities for, and constraints and impediments to, increasing the use of recycled water in California. Over the course of nearly 14 months, the Task Force conducted intensive study in collaboration with many other experts, the public, and State staff to develop recommendations (see side bar on following pages) for actions at many levels. The recommendations are not restricted to legislative actions or statutory changes. Many can be implemented by State or local agencies without further legislative authorization or mandate.

How Recycled Water is Used in CaliforniaPublic Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 16. Recycled Municipal Water

16-2 California Recycled Water Task Force Recommendations Summary (2003)

Funding for Water Recycling Projects. State funding for water reuse/recycling facilities and infrastructure should be increased beyond Proposition 50 and other current sources. The California Water Commission in collaboration with DWR and SWRCB should seek federal cost sharing legislation for water recycling. Funding Coordination A revised funding procedure should be developed to provide local agencies with assistance in potential State and federal funding opportunities and a Water Recycling Coordination Committee should be established to work with funding agencies. Department of Water Resources Technical Assistance. Funding sources should be expanded to include sustainable State funding for DWR’s technical assistance and research, including flexibility to work on local and regional planning, emerging issues, and new technology. Research Funding. The State should expand funding sources to include sustainable State funding for research on recycled water issues. Regional Planning Criterion. State funding agencies should make better use of existing regional planning studies to determine the funding priority of projects. This process would not exclude projects from funding where regional plans do not exist. Funding Information Outreach. Funding agencies should publicize funding availability through workshops, conferences, and the Internet. Community Value-Based Decision-Making Model for Project Planning. Local agencies should engage the public in an active dialogue and participation using a community value-based decision-making model in planning water recycling projects. State-Sponsored Media Campaign. The State should develop a water issues information program, including water recycling, for radio, television, print, and other media.
Educational Curriculum. The State should develop comprehensive education curricula for public schools; and institutions of higher education should incorporate recycled water education into their
curricula. University Academic Program for Water Recycling. The State should encourage an integrated academic program on one or more campuses for water reuse research and education, such as through State research funding.
Statewide Science-Based Panel on Indirect Potable Reuse. As required by AB 331, the Task Force reviewed the 1996 report of the California Indirect Potable Reuse Committee and other related advisory panel reports and concluded that reconvening this committee would not be worthwhile at this time. However, it is recommended to convene a new statewide independent review panel on indirect potable reuse to summarize existing and on-going scientific research and address public health and safety as well as other concerns such as environmental justice, economic issues and public awareness. Leadership Support for Water Recycling. State government should take a leadership role in encouraging recycled water use and improve consistency of policy within branches of State government and local agencies should create well-defined recycled water ordinances and enforce them.
DHS Guidance on Cross-connection Control. DHS should prepare guidance that would clarify the intent and applicability of Title 22, Article 5 of the California Code of Regulations pertaining to dual plumbed systems and amend this article to be consistent with requirements included in a California version of Appendix J that the Task Force is recommending to be adopted. Health and Safety Regulation. DHS should involve stakeholders in a review of various factors to identify any needs for enhancing existing local and State health regulation associated with the use of recycled

water.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 16. Recycled Municipal Water

16-3 Stakeholder Review of Proposed Cross-Connection Control Regulations. Stakeholders are encouraged to review Department of Health Services draft changes to Title 17 of the Code of Regulations pertaining to cross-connections between potable and nonpotable water systems.
Cross-Connection Risk Assessment. DHS should support a thorough assessment of the risk associated with cross-connections between disinfected tertiary recycled water and potable water. Uniform Plumbing Code Appendix J . The State should revise Appendix J of the Uniform Plumbing Code, which addresses plumbing within buildings with both potable and recycled water systems, and adopt a California version that will be enforceable in the state. Recycled Water Symbol Code Change. The Department of Housing and Community Development should submit a code change to remove the requirement for the skull and crossbones symbol in Sections 601.2.2 and 601.2.3 of the California Plumbing Code.
Incidental Runoff. The State should investigate, within the current legal framework, alternative approaches to achieve more consistent and less burdensome regulatory mechanisms affecting incidental runoff of recycled water from use sites.
Source Control. Local agencies should maintain strong source control programs and increase public awareness of their importance in reducing pollution and ensuring a safe recycled water supply.
Water Softeners. The Legislature should amend the Health and Safety Code Sections 116775 through 116795 to reduce the restrictions on local ability to impose bans on or more stringent standards for residential water softeners. Within the current legal provisions on water softeners, local agencies should consider publicity campaigns to educate consumers regarding the impact of self-regenerative water
softeners. Uniform Interpretation of State Standards. The State should create uniform interpretation of State standards in State and local regulatory programs by taking specific steps recommended by the Task
Force. Permitting Procedures. Various measures should be conducted to improve the administration and compliance with local and State permits. State and local tax incentives should be provided to recycled water users to help offset the permitting and reporting costs associated with the use of recycled water. Uniform Analytical Method for Economic Analyses. A uniform and economically valid procedural framework should be developed to determine the economic benefits and costs of water recycling projects for use by local, State, and federal agencies. Project Performance Analysis. Resources should be provided to funding agencies to perform comprehensive analysis of the performance of existing recycled water projects in terms of costs and benefits and recycled water deliveries. Economic Analyses. Local agencies are encouraged to perform economic analyses in addition to financial analyses for water recycling projects and State and federal agencies should require economic and financial feasibility as two criteria in their funding programs.

The Task Force recommendations, if implemented, would significantly:

• Improve the way projects are planned

• Increase State and federal financial support for research and project construction

• Improve the regulatory framework

• Advance the use of recycled water as a valuable resource that would significantly mitigate growing water demands as called for by the California Water Code, Sections 13500 et seq.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 16. Recycled Municipal Water

16-4 Progress has begun on several of the Task Force recommendations. For example, the SWRCB issued an Executive Memorandum to Regional Board Executive Officers on February 24, 2004, setting a new framework for regulating of incidental runoff associated with recycled water use. AB 334 (Goldberg, Chapter 172, Statutes of 2003) gives communities additional flexibility to regulate water softeners as a
source-control measure.


## Potential Benefits from Water Recycling

The primary benefit of water recycling is augmenting water supply. Rather than discharging and losing the water, recycled water can be reused as a new water supply. Using recycled water for irrigation can spare high quality potable water used for irrigation, making more potable water supply available. There is a potential of about 0.9 million to 1.4 million acre-feet annually of additional water supply from recycled water by the year 2030.

When looking at California’s overall water supply, recycling provides new water for the state only in areas where wastewater is discharged to the ocean or to salt sink. Recycling in other areas may provide new water for the water agency, but does not necessarily add to the state’s water supplies. In these locations, discharged wastewater in interior California mixes with other water and
becomes source water for downstream water users.

For many communities, an investment in recycled water could also provide other benefits:
1. Provide more reliable local sources of water, nutrients, and organic matter for agricultural soil conditioning and reduction in fertilizer use
2. Reduce the discharge of pollutants to water bodies, beyond levels prescribed by regulations, and allow more natural treatment by land application
3. Provide a more secure water supply during drought periods
4. Provide economic benefits resulting from a more reliable water supply
5. Improve groundwater and surface water quality and contribute to wetland and marsh enhancement
6. Provide energy savings; the use of recycled water as a local source offsets the need for energyintensive imported water


## Potential Costs of Recycled Water

The estimated capital cost for the range of potential recycling (from previous section) by 2030 is about $6 billion to $9 billion. 1 The actual cost will depend on the quality of the wastewater, the treatment level to meet recycled water intended use, and the availability of a distribution network. Uses, such as irrigation

1 Water Recycling 2030; Recycled Water Task Force (2003). Range of Potential Water Recycling

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

YearCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 16. Recycled Municipal Water

16-5 near the treatment plant, will benefit from lower treatment and distribution costs. Irrigation of a wide array of agriculture and landscape crops can even benefit from the nutrients present in the recycled water by lowering the need for applied fertilizer. However, the use of recycled water for irrigation without adequate soil and water management may cause accumulation of salts or specific ions in soil and groundwater. Some uses, such as an industrial process farther away from the treatment plant, may need to pay higher costs for treatment and distribution. Given the wide range of local conditions that can affect costs, the majority of applications would cost between $300 and $1,300 per acre-foot of recycled water. Costs outside this range are plausible depending on local conditions. Uses that require higher water quality and have higher public health concerns will have higher costs.


## Major Issues Facing More Recycled Water Use

Affordability
The cost of recycled water, relative to other water sources, will influence how much recycled water is produced for each region. The costs are dependent on the availability of treatable water, demand for treated water, the quality of the source as well as the product water, the type of the intended beneficial use, and the proximity of recycled water facilities to the end users. In addition, the need for disposal brine lines is considered a major issue for some inland agencies. The lack of adequate local funding to plan feasible recycled water projects can slow the construction of new projects. Public funding as well as incentive measures can help advance water recycling projects that provide local, regional and statewide benefits. The cost of recycled water can influence water markets, especially if recycled water is available
for transfer.

Water Quality
The quality of the recycled water will affect its usage. Public acceptance of recycled water use depends on confidence in the safety of its use. Four water quality factors are of particular concern: (1) microbiological quality, (2) salinity, (3) presence of toxicants of the heavy metal type, and (4) the concentration of stable organic and inorganic substances or emerging contaminants originating from various pharmaceuticals and personal care products, household chemicals and detergents, agricultural fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, animal growth hormones, and many other sources. The salinity of recycled water can limit its usefulness for some applications such as salt sensitive landscaping, golf courses, and agriculture. Each use of water generally adds salt to the water. In particular, the use of water softeners adds salt to the water. Also, water conservation can further concentrate salts. Hence, the resulting wastewater, that is high in salts, would be more difficult and expensive to recycle. There is generally a limit to how many times water can be recycled unless a more expensive treatment technology, such as reverse osmosis, is used to remove the salts (see the Desalination strategy).

Public Acceptance
Public perception and acceptance of some recycled water uses currently limits its application. In some areas, public concerns about potential health issues have limited the use of recycled water for indirect potable purposes such as groundwater recharge and replenishment of surface reservoir, and even for irrigation of parks and school yards.

Potential Impacts
Areas in interior California that discharge their wastewater to streams, rivers, or the groundwater contribute to downstream flows. Recycling water would remove this source of water and potentiallyPublic Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 16. Recycled Municipal Water

16-6 affect downstream water users including the environment. In some instances, recycling is discouraged when dischargers are required to maintain a certain flow in the stream for downstream users.


## Recommendations to Increase Recycled Water Usage

1. State and local agencies and various stakeholders should actively follow up with the implementation of the Recycled Water Task Force recommendations (see above sidebar on Task Force recommendations) as they constitute a culmination of intensive study and consultation by a statewide panel of experts drawing upon the experience of many agencies. Such recommendations provide advice that can be used as a toolbox for communities to improve their planning of recycled water projects. (Implementing parties: State and local agencies and various stakeholders)
2. Funding should be increased beyond Proposition 50 and other sources toward sustainable technical assistance and outreach, advanced research on recycled water issues, and adequate water reuse/recycling infrastructure and facilities. (Implementing parties: federal, State, and local agencies)
3. The State should encourage an academic program on one or more campuses for water reuse research and education; develop education curricula for public schools; and encourage institutions of higher education to incorporate recycled water education into their curricula. (Implementing parties: State and academic institutions)
4. Agencies should engage the public in an active dialogue and participation using a community value-based decision-making model (determining what a community values, then making decisions based on that information) in planning water recycling projects. (Implementing parties: State and local agencies)
5. State should create uniform interpretation of State standards in State and local regulatory programs and clarify regulations pertaining to water recycling including: health regulations, permitting procedures, cross-connection control and dual plumbed systems. (Implementing parties: State agencies)

Information Sources

• Water Recycling 2030, California Recycled Water Task Force Report, 2003.

• SWRCB, California Municipal Wastewater Reclamation Survey, 2003.

• Water Recycling 2000, California’s plan for the future. State Water Conservation Coalition, Reclamation/Reuse Task Force and the Bay Delta Reclamation Sub-Work Group, 1991.

• Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study, Phase II. Final Report (Draft), 2000.

• Other Reports such as DWR Water Recycling Survey, 1993, California Water Plan Update 1998.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 17. Surface Storage – CALFED

17-1 

# Chapter 17. Surface Storage – CALFED 1

The CALFED Record of Decision (2000) identified five potential surface storage reservoirs that are being investigated by the California Department of Water Resources, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and local water interests. Building one or more of the reservoirs would be part of CALFED’s long-term comprehensive plan to restore ecological health a nd improve water management of the Bay-Delta. The five surface storage investigations are:

• Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation

• North-of-the-Delta Offstream Storage

• In-Delta Storage Project

• Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion

• Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation

In one of the most ambitious integrated water ma nagement plans in the nation, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program set forth objectives and actions to protect wa ter quality and at-risk species, restore habitat in the San Francisco Bay-Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and continue to meet the water needs of farms and cities. The Program recognized early on that its plan must include the means for more fully integrating California’s water supply system to pr ovide more reliable water supplies and to meet competing needs. More storage is crucial to successfully meeting those needs.

The five investigations are being completed under the direction provided by the CALFED ROD and the California Bay-Delta Authority. The ROD includes a number of implementation commitments and solution principles to guide potential project implementation. For example, a fundamental philosophy of the CALFED Program is that costs should, to the exte nt possible, be paid by the beneficiaries of the program actions. The CALFED Program has also provide d a forum for independent scientific review of important project-related issues through development of a Science Program with expert panels. In addition, the CBD agencies have committed to science- based adaptive management that would allow their facilities operations to be modified as understanding of issues improve or new issues are identified.

Originally, a CALFED interagency team began with an inventory of 52 potential reservoir locations and screened those to 12 locations that appeared to contribute to CALFED goals and satisfy CALFED solution principles, objectives, and policies. For ex ample, potential reservoirs smaller than 200,000 acrefeet of storage were considered too small to materi ally contribute to the program. In addition, CALFED policy focused on offstream reservoirs, but also considered expansion of existing on-stream reservoirs. The five storage investigations identified in the CALFED Record of Decision appeared to be more promising in their ability to contribute to CALFED ’s ecosystem, water quality, flood control and water supply objectives.

The surface storage regional/local strategy gives a broader background of surface storage in California that may also be helpful to the reader. Details and project-specific descriptions of the investigations can be found in the April 2005 CALFED Bay-Delta Surface Storage Investigations Progress Report that is included in Volume 4, Reference Guide.

1 The primary source of information for this strategy narrative is the DWR and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation report entitled, “CALFED Bay-Delta Surface Storage Inve stigations Progress Report,” April, 2005Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 17. Surface Storage – CALFED

17-2 

## Current Status of CALFED Surface Storage

Planning for the five CALFED-directed investigations has made varying levels of progress. Current timelines have targeted 2006 – 2009 for completing the planning documents. Essentially, the planning consists of project formulation, environmental documentation and engineering design. As relevant and useful information becomes available, both stakeholders and the public are notified to ensure that a broad array of input and response are incorporated into the planning activities and documentation. More specifically, as project costs, environmental effects, and benefits are compiled, regulators, the public, and ultimately decision-makers will be asked to respond to the
evaluations and conclusions.

The CALFED surface storage investigations have r eached a critical milestone. With input from stakeholders and assistance from local agencies, Reclamation and DWR have completed preliminary environmental impact studies and conceptual modeli ng scenarios based on general operational objectives. Now each investigation must move toward a specific set of operational objectives to formulate detailed alternatives that can be used in decision-making pr ocesses. Future efforts now hinge on the willingness of interested parties and stakeholders to participate and shape the alternative formulations that will be used to make decisions on these projects. Evaluations to da te demonstrate that the surface storage projects have the potential to provide both broad public benefits and local/regional benefits.


## Potential Benefits from CALFED Surface Storage

CALFED noted that perhaps the greatest benefit of new surface storage would be the operational flexibility that storage adds to today's constrained system. The Bay-Delta system provides water for a wide range of needs, including in-stream flows for aquatic species, riparian habitat, wetlands, as well as benefits to municipal, industrial , and agricultural users. These often competing demands have restricted the operational flexibility of the SWP and CVP syst ems and consequently negatively impacted the quantity, quality, and timing of de liveries. The inflexibility and resu lting consequences are then passed along to water users that are partially or wholly depe ndent on the operations or deliveries of the CVP and SWP systems. By storing additional water, new su rface storage can contribute to improved operational flexibility in the SWP and CVP systems and associated users for the enhanced statewide water resources
benefits described below.

Each of the five surface storage reservoirs could be used to improve water supply reliability. The surface storage projects could also improve source water quality directly or facilitate blending of water from different sources. New surface storage can help pr ovide water for the CALFED Environmental Water Account and other environmental needs including ecosystem restoration actions also identified by the Ongoing Surface Storage Investigations
The planning process for surface storage is both comprehensive and demanding. The CALFED surface storage investigations have been developed to comply with both the state and federal environmental laws, which require extensive documentation and public involvement. In addition, implementation of any one surface storage project would likely require more than 30 regulatory permits and compliances. Both the environmental laws and the permits and compliances will allow the public to participate in a more comprehensive and informed manner and on specific issues at the appropriate time. For more information related to public involvement in the investigations, visit www.storage.water.ca.gov/index.cfmCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 17. Surface Storage – CALFED

17-3 CALFED Program. New surface storage can also help reduce the risk associated with potential future climate change by mitigating the effects of a rela tively smaller seasonal snowpack storage capacity. Implementation of individual surface storage reservoi rs could augment average annual water deliveries by anywhere from a negligible amount to over 400,000 acre-feet (according to initial operations simulations), depending on the mix of benefits selected by participating agencies and operational
considerations. 2

The total amount of potential water supply improvements from implementation of all five surface storage projects is unknown since operations with multiple new reservoirs have not yet been modeled. However, initial model simulations show that the potential reservoirs could provide a wide range of type and geographic scope of benefits including agricultural uses, CALFED Environmental Water
Account and Environmen tal Water Program and water supply for refuges. Additional potential benefits include urban uses, improvement of Delta water quality for the ecosystem as well as Delta users and exporters, improvement of streamflows during times critical for fisheries and other ecosystem processes, flexibility for changing the timing of existing diversions to protect fisheries, and other water management

purposes.

Other strategies can be more effective with additional storage. For example, water transfers can be more easily accommodated if water can be stored temporarily and then released from an upstream location at appropriate times and the receiving areas have capacity to store the transferred water. In addition, surface storage can improve the effectiveness of conjunctive water management strategies by more effectively capturing runoff that can ultimately be stored in groundwater
basins.



## Potential Costs of CALFED Surface Storage

New feasibility engineering cost estimates are in va rious stages of development for each of the five surface storage investigations. Costs will depend on project selected objectives and configurations. The estimated capital cost for developing the individua l surface storage projects identified in the CALFED

2 . Increase in deliveries from DWR an d U.S. Bureau of Reclamation report entitled, “CALFED Bay-Delta Surface Storage Investigations Progress Report,” April, 2005 Los Vaqueros and Diamond Valley Reservoirs
Two locally developed reservoirs that have been completed in the past seven years, Los Vaqueros in Northern California and Diamond Valley in Southern California, are examples of offstream surface storage. The use or objectives of Los Vaqueros (100,000 acre-feet capacity) and Diamond Valley, (800,000 acre-feet capaci ty) focused on benefits other than the traditional energy generation, flood control, and water supply. The primary benefits of these new reservoirs are related to water quality, system flexibility, and system reliability against catastrophic events and dr oughts. More specifically, water supply augmentation is not a primary objective of either reservoir. Los Vaqueros and Diamond Valley also help illustrate a potential misunderstanding of benefits in applying traditional economic evaluation methods to surface storage planning efforts. Traditional economics would evaluate storage projects based on cost per acre-foot of water supply improvement. Since these projects were constructed for other benefits, the “yields” of these reservoirs are incidental. Traditional cost per acre-foot evaluation would generate almost infinite unit cost. Similarly, application of traditional water supply economics for surface storage is likely not appropriate in many cases, including the CALFED surface storage investigations that focus on operational flexibility, water quality, ecosystem restoration or other nontraditional benefits.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 17. Surface Storage – CALFED

17-4 ROD could range from $180 million for the smallest Sh asta Lake Expansion, to $2.4 billion for Sites Reservoir with the most extensive conveyance faciliti es; the least expensive configuration of Sites Reservoir could be about half as much as the most expensive. 3 These costs do not include anticipated annual costs such as operations and maintenance, power , or costs associated with the use of existing facilities. As the investigations continue to move forward, more comp lete descriptions of costs and more specific allocation of benefits will allow an economic evaluation where costs can be assigned to specific beneficiaries and benefits. Implementation of any of the five potential surface storage projects would likely include some State and federal public funding to pay for broad public benefits. 

## Major Issues Facing CALFED Surface Storage

Funding
Sufficient and stable State and Federal funding are cr itical to successful completion of the feasibility and environmental studies for the five projects. Califor nia’s Proposition 50 provided State funding for surface storage investigations. In October 2004, the President reauthorized the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. PL108-361 reaffirms Federal feasibility study authoriza tion for four of the five storage investigations (SLWRI, NODOS, LVE, and USJRBSI). DWR, Reclam ation and CALFED recently estimated funding necessary to complete the five investigations at $64.3 million. An estimated $29.2 million remains available from Proposition 50 bond proceeds to suppor t surface storage investigations. The Federal budget for this fiscal year and the President’s propo sed budget for next year amount to approximately $13.5 million, leaving an unmet need of $21.6 million. Any future Federal appropr iations will reduce this need further. Other efforts are underway that are also likely to help facilitate decisions regarding future funding for the surface storage investigations.

DWR has prioritized its work efforts to focus resources on identifying the most viable projects and project tasks. DWR and Reclamation will work cooperatively to evaluate projects using information associated with federal planning studies and reports. In a ddition, DWR and Reclamation are working with stakeholders to identify which projects have the great est local interest and possible willingness to pay for project costs. The CALFED Storage Program will th en use results of these evaluations to develop partnerships with stakeholders to advance alternatives development and plan formulation. If partnerships are not formed (demonstrating lack of interest in a dvancing a project) and/or the outcome of technical and economic studies indicate any of the five projects are not feasible, the State may decide to defer future studies of specific projects. Given the estimated funding shortfall, one or more of the studies, of lesser determined priority, may have to be delayed or even terminated unless they are provided specific financial support.

Common Assumptions Effort
DWR, Reclamation, and the Authority initiated the Common Assumptions process to develop consistency and improve efficiency among the surface storage i nvestigations. While each of the investigations addresses a unique purpose to meet different combinati ons of water supply and water quality needs, all of the surface storage investigations share some co mmon requirements including completing planning reports and feasibility studies and th e associated alternatives analyses to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), NEPA, and Clean Water Act Section 404 requirements.

3 Cost estimate based on DWR and U.S. Bureau of R eclamation report entitled, “CALFED Bay-Delta Surface Storage Investigations Progress Report,” April, 2005.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 17. Surface Storage – CALFED

17-5 The Common Assumptions teams have also been de veloping a set of common tools and consistency protocols among the surface storage investigations. The Common Assumptions effort has established a number of teams to address different areas required to develop consistency among the individual storage studies. Attaining consistency in modeling assumptions and analytical approach will allow the surface storage projects’ performance, costs, and benefits to be compared and will inform decisions about project prioritization. The Common Assumptions process also makes more efficient use of limited technical

resources.
Developing Project Alternatives
One of the next key steps in the surface storage pla nning process is developing project alternatives that meet the requirements of Federal, State, and lo cal participants. Alternatives development requires identifying and solving specific problems and needs. To date, Reclamation and DWR have developed general modeling scenarios for the five surface storage investigations. To develop project alternatives,
additional detail will be needed to describe the specific goals of potential Federal, State, and local participants. Project feasibility st udies and environmental documents can be completed when potential participants are able to provide more specifi city regarding their needs and interests.

The CALFED Storage Program is refining project a lternatives and evaluating the level of potential participants’ interests. The Federal planning process is be ing used to determine if a Federal interest exists for a specific project. In addition, Reclamation and DW R are working directly with potential participants by performing requested studies and are providing inform ation to these participants as they perform their own evaluations to determine if the surface storage pr ojects can contribute to meeting their specific water
resource needs.

Evaluate Potential Impacts Reclamation and DWR have begun environmental documentation on three of the projects (NODOS, IDSP, and USJRBSI). These reports are being prepared concurrently with the Federal planning process. However, until alternatives are deve loped, detailed impact analyses ca nnot be completed. Utilizing the planning process, identifying each surface storage proj ect’s broad public benefits and working directly with potential participants to assess their needs and interests in specific surface storage projects, the needs of all participants should be identified when the feasibility studies and the environmental documents are developed.



## Recommendations to Help Promote Implementation of CALFED Surface Storage

1. CALFED signatories and stakeholders should comple te the feasibility and environmental studies of the five potential surface storage projects identified in the CALFED ROD.

• The investigations should continue to test a ll five potential projects against CALFED Solution Principles and Implementation Commitments as well as other local, State, and federal planning criteria for deciding to move to construction of any projects.

• Engage more stakeholders and potential project participants in the process.

• Develop complete information on how the projects could be operated for a variety of purposes, costs, and impacts.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 17. Surface Storage – CALFED

17-6 • Continue evaluation and presen tation of operational scenarios that will allow potential participants to assess their in terest in specific projects.

• Develop mechanisms to provide assurances that pr ojects will be operated in a manner consistent with the objectives.
2. DWR, Reclamation, other CALFED agencies and local interests should cooperatively develop specific project alternatives for the CALFED surface storage projects for use in planning.
3. The CBDP, DWR, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation should continue their development of conceptual finance plans that will include descriptions of relevant St ate and federal financial policies and a determination of the potential for State and fede ral investment in benefits to the general public. The scenarios and finance plans will help facilitate potential investment decisions by local, regional,
State and federal decision-makers.

Information Sources

• CALFED Programmatic EIS/EIR and ROD

• North-of-the-Delta Offstream Storage Investigation Progress Report July 2000

• North-of-the-Delta Offstream St orage Scoping Report, October 2002

• Initial Surface Water Storage Scr eening Report, CALFED August 2000

• Contra Costa Water District’s Draft Project Concept Report, CALFED August 2002

• In-Delta Storage Program Draft Summary Repor t and supplemental reports on operations, water quality, engineering, environmental, and engineering evaluations May 2002

• In-Delta Storage State Feasibility Study Draft Reports, January 2004

• Flow Regime Requirements for Habitat Restora tion along the Sacramento River between Colusa and Red Bluff, Revised February 14, 2000

• Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investig ation, In-Progress Review, Initial Surface Storage Options Screening, November 2002

• Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation, Phase 1 Investigation Report, October 2003

• Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation Mi ssion Statement Milestone Report, March 2003

• California Bay-Delta Surface Storage Program Progress Report, April 2004 http://www.storage.water.ca.gov/docs/Briefing_Report.pdf

• Project websites: Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigations: http://www.usbr.gov/mp/slwri North-of-the-Delta Offstream Storage: http://www.storage.water.ca.gov/northdelta/index.cfm In-Delta Storage: http://www.storage.water.ca.gov/indelta/index.cfm Los Vaqueros Reservoir Enlargement: http://www.lvstudies.com Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation: http://www.usbr.gov/mp/sccao/storageCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 18. Surface Storage - Regional/Local

18-1 

# Chapter 18. Surface Storage - Regional/Local

Surface storage is the use of reservoirs to collect water for later release and use. Surface storage has played an important role in California where the pattern and timing of water use does not always match the natural runoff pattern. Most California water agencies rely on surface storage as a part of their water systems. Similarly, surface storage is often necessary for, or can increase, benefits from other water management activities such as water transfers, conjunctive management and conveyance improvements. Some reservoirs contribute to water deliveries across several regions and some only contribute to water deliveries within the same watershed. Surface reservoirs can be formed by building dams across active streams or by building off-stream reservoirs where the majority of the water is diverted into storage from a nearby water source. Surface storage capacity can also be developed by enlarging, reoperating (see the system reoperation strategy) or modifying outlets on existing reservoirs. Smaller reservoirs typically store water in one season for use in another season, while larger reservoirs can do the same or store water for use over several years.

This strategy covers regional and local surface storage alternatives not currently under State and federal investigations as described in the CALFED Record of Decision. However, regional/local storage alternatives might include projects that are being investigated by CALFED but not ultimately implemented. They might also include storage alternatives that were eliminated at any juncture of the CALFED process since regional/local priorities and principles may be different than those used by CALFED. The potential CALFED surface storage projects are described in a separate strategy narrative.


## Surface Storage in California

California has nearly 200 surface storage reservoirs greater than 10,000 acre-feet with a combined storage capacity of more than 41 million acre-feet. In addition, many smaller reservoirs are used to provide for a wide range of water uses, stabilize water delivery to customers and provide a backup for emergency supply. Similar to many other parts of the world, most California reservoirs were developed over 30 years ago. As of the mid-1990s, there were about 1,242 dams being built worldwide – 55 in the United States 1

. In California, nearly 40 dams have been built over the past decade 2 . Examples of recently completed surface storage reservoirs completed by local/regional entities include: Olivenhain, Los Vaqueros, Diamond Valley and Seven Oaks reservoirs. The primary benefits of these new reservoirs are related to flood control (Seven Oaks), water quality, system flexibility, and system reliability against catastrophic events and droughts rather than for traditional water supply.

Over the past several decades, fisheries have received improved benefits from surface storage reservoirs through regulation and legislation. Specifically, many existing reservoirs have been managed to achieve ecosystem and other benefits beyond water supply. As both environmental and urban uses have grown, the state’s surface water system has become increasingly inflexible. Water and ecosystem managers have less ability to adapt as use and regulatory requirements frequently control operations.

The relative need for local surface storage development may be greatest in the interior mountainous areas of the state such as the Cascades and the Sierra Nevada. Although much of the water used throughout the state originates in the mountains, these locations generally possess a much narrower array of available

1 United States Society on Dams, November 2000

2 Source: CA Division of Safety of Dams; includes DSOD jurisdictional dams only.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 18. Surface Storage - Regional/Local

18-2 water management strategies to meet local needs. This is largely due to geographic, hydrogeologic or hydrologic limitations. Of these few strategies, some form of surface storage may hold the greatest potential for achieving local supply reliability objectives. Local surface storage development options include the reoperation of existing reservoirs, increasing the yield of existing reservoirs through expansion of their capacity, or construction of new reservoirs.


## Potential Benefits of Surface Storage

Many of California’s reservoirs were originally built for the primary purposes of hydropower, flood control, and consumptive water use. Although the allocation of benefits for proposed surface storage can affect the occurrence and magnitude of different types of benefits, they generally can include the following:

• Water quality management

• System operational flexibility

• Power generation

• Flood management

• Ecosystem management

• Sediment transport management

• Recreation

• Water supply augmentation

• Emergency water supply

The presence of new surface storage could allow ecosystem and water managers the flexibility to take actions and make real-time decisions that would not be possible without the storage. More water transfers between regions could be easier if water can be released from upstream storage at appropriate times and the receiving regions have reservoirs to store the transferred water. Surface storage can improve the effectiveness of conjunctive water management strategies by more effectively capturing runoff that can ultimately be stored in groundwater basins.

Storage projects can improve the movement of water at times to improve source water quality directly or facilitate blending of water from different sources to optimize system water quality. New surface storage can help provide water resources assets for the CALFED Environmental Water Account and Environmental Water Program, and for refuges. New surface storage can also help reduce the risk associated with potential future climate change by mitigating the effects of a relatively smaller seasonal snowpack storage capacity as well as increased or more sustained peak flood flows. 

## Potential Costs of Surface Storage

Cost estimates for potential surface storage alternatives are not specified in this narrative since they are only useful if created for a specific project with defined operation rules and allocation of benefits and costs. The costs of multipurpose storage projects will be shared by many beneficiaries. The magnitude of the benefits and corresponding costs for such things as water supply, water quality and flood management can be expected to vary significantly from project to project.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 18. Surface Storage - Regional/Local

18-3 

## Major Issues Facing Surface Storage

Identifying Beneficiaries
There are concerns related to how the beneficiaries will be determined, who will actually pay, and who will control the storage operation. The challenge is to develop financial and operations agreements for the multiple beneficiaries and uses.

Funding Construction usually requires a lot of money in a short time -- perhaps $1 billion or more over five years for larger projects. Included in the long-term capital outlay are planning costs such as administrative, engineering, legal, financing, permitting and mitigation, which can also require significant investments. Some new storage options such as raising existing reservoirs, reoperating them or the construction of small local reservoirs may require significantly less capital, but may require local funding through revenue or general obligation bonds. Even these less costly projects could face financial challenges.

Impacts
New storage can affect environmental and human conditions, create economic impacts for the surrounding community, and flow impacts both up and downstream of diversions. New reservoirs may result in the loss of property tax revenue to local governments in the area they are located, or by increasing local property values by firming up a water supply. Regulatory and permitting requirements require surface storage investigations to consider potential impacts to stream flow regimes, potential adverse effects on designated wild and scenic rivers, potential water quality issues, potential changes in stream geomorphology, loss of fish and wildlife habitat, and risk of failure during seismic and operational events. Existing environmental laws require that these types of effects be mitigated. Mitigation of environmental effects is normally accomplished through implementation strategies that avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce over time, or compensate for negative impacts. New surface storage projects may need to address impacts under the application of various laws, regulatory processes and statutes such as Public Trust Doctrine, State dam safety standards, Area of Origin statutes, CEQA, NEPA, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Acts.

Suitable Sites
Most of the best reservoir sites have already been used and the new standards of environmental regulations are significant constraints to development of surface storage in the mountains. The range of surface storage development options for smaller local agencies is more limited than for the State and federal governments. Local agencies have limited ability to use State or federal funds, nor do they have the ability to work as closely with their corresponding resource regulatory agencies such as the State and federal agencies do as part of CALFED, for example. Additionally, there are physical limitations on storage options in some parts of the state. In some areas, offstream storage is not feasible. These circumstances severely constrain the ability of local governments and agencies to finance and implement the projects necessary to sustain the local economy and serve increasing populations.

Science
Biologists and water managers continue to struggle to identify and understand the relationships between hydrodynamics, flow timing, water temperature, geomorphology, water quality, environmental responses, and other conveyance related considerations. Increased understanding of these considerations will enable resource planners and managers to better determine the causes of observed impacts and hence, morePublic Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 18. Surface Storage - Regional/Local

18-4 effectively restore, preserve and manage at-risk resources, such as modified operations and environmental mitigation.


## Recommendations to Better Manage and Increase Surface Storage Benefits

1. Local agencies seeking to implement storage projects should develop a comprehensive methodology for analyzing all benefits and full costs of projects. DWR should provide technical expertise and assistance to the local agencies if asked.
2. Reservoir operators and stakeholders should continue to adaptively manage operations of existing facilities in response to increased understanding of system complexities and demands as well as changes in natural and human considerations such as social values, hydrology, and climate change.
3. DWR and other local, State and federal resource management agencies should continue studies, research and dialogue focused on a common set of tools that would help determine the full range of benefits and impacts as well as the costs and complexities of surface storage projects.
4. Water resources scientists, engineers and planners, including DWR should recognize the potential long development time for new surface storage in securing funding needed for continuity of planning, environmental studies, permitting, design, construction, and operation and maintenance.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 19. System Reoperation

19-1 

# Chapter 19. System Reoperation

System reoperation means changing existing opera tion and management procedures for such water facilities as dams and canals to meet multiple benefi cial uses. System reoperation could be used to rebalance existing and new water supp lies, improve the efficiency of existing uses, or improve some uses and decrease others. In some cases, physical modifica tions to the facilities may be needed to expand the reoperation capability.

Population growth, with its commensurate dema nd for more water, be tter understanding of the environmental impacts of water development, and ch anging laws and values, has created incentives to evaluate how existing facilities can be reoperated to provide the best use of the facilities.

Examples of System Reoperation

• Changes in timing or volume of reservoirs water storage and releases to accommodate changing priorities of the project, such as improving instream conditions, recreation opportunities, flood management, local water supplies, or managing water quality.

• Using temperature control devices in reservoirs to permit water to be rele ased from variable depths in order to manage the water temperature and water quality downstream for endangered species protection while maintaining hydroelectric power generation.

• Increasing the water storage and flood retention capa city of reservoirs by conveying reservoir water to groundwater banks bef ore the refill season.

• Coordinating water storage, water conveyance, an d water delivery systems within a watershed or geographic area to improve benefits to the local watershed area, the regional watershed area, and
the state.

• Balancing water supply and delivery forecasts with the economic and environmental risks that water users and regulatory agencies may be willing to acc ept if full deliveries are not met. The ability to customize risk tolerances to users may allo w overall improvements in system efficiency.



## Extent of System Reoperation

System reoperation is not a new tool for water ma nagers. The 1976-1977 drought prompted many water agencies to move away from the firm-yield approach to operating water projects to a risk-based approach when making system delivery decisions. The firm-yield approach seeks to deliver the same amount every year regardless of water supply conditions while the risk-based approach balances increasing deliveries in a given year with the risk of not meeting full de liveries in a dry year. The risk-based approach has increased average deliveries of the State Water Project. Several large-scale regulatory and water planning and management efforts started over the past decade ha ve prompted project operators to explore system reoperation. These efforts include implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), SWRCB Bay Delta Decision 1641, The CALFED Bay-Delta Program, and hydroelectric facility relicensing. Concerns about the potential effect of global climate change have also influenced reoperation planning.

The CVPIA, signed into law October 30, 1992, manda ted changes in management of the Central Valley Project, particularly for the protection, restoration, a nd enhancement of fish and wildlife. This has led to changes in water supply contracts, reallocation of water for environmental benefits, increased use ofPublic Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 19. System Reoperation

19-2 voluntary water transfers, and implementation of water use efficiency measures. One example of reoperation that was prompted by CVPIA was the in stallation of the Temperature Control Device (TCD) at Shasta Dam at a cost of $80 million. The TCD is a shutter type mechanism designed to draw water
from the different levels of Shasta Lake and rel ease it through powerhouse turbines, providing cold water for endangered Winter Run Chinook salmon spawni ng downstream in the Sacramento River, while maintaining hydroelectric power genera tion. Water is drawn from different levels of the lake at different times of the year to match the downstream requirement s and to manage the cold water reserves behind the
reservoir.

The State Water Resources Control Board adopted Decision 1641 (D-1641) on December 29, 1999. The decision implements flow and water quality objectives for the Bay-Delta Estuary set forth in the1995 Bay-Delta Plan, adopted May 22, 1995. D-1641 recogni zes that many of the objectives in the 1995 BayDelta Plan are best implemented by making changes in the flow of water or in the operation of export facilities. Accordingly, D-1641 includes aspects of syst em reoperation by approving changes to points of diversion of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project in the southern Delta, and approving changes in places of use and purposes of use of water developed and distributed by the Central Valley Project.

The purpose of CALFED Bay-Delta Program is to de velop and implement a long-term comprehensive plan that will restore ecological health and improve water management for beneficial uses of the BayDelta System. The Program was formalized with the approval of the Record of Decision on August 28, 2000 by the state and federal agencies with manageme nt and regulatory responsibility in the Bay-Delta Estuary. The Framework Agreement pledged that the state and federal agencies would work together in three areas of Bay-Delta management: 1) Water quality standards formulation; 2) Coordination of State Water Project and Central Valley Project operations with regulatory requirements; and 3) Long-term solutions to problems in the Bay-Delta Estuary. All three components include system reoperation combined with other water management strategies to make improvements. The Environmental Water Account (EWA) is an element of the CALFED Bay-De lta Program's overall management strategy for the Bay-Delta Ecosystem. EWA's purpose is to provide great er protection to the fish of the Bay-Delta Estuary than current regulatory requirements through environm entally beneficial changes in the operations of the CVP and SWP at no uncompensated water cost to the projects' users.

About a third of hydroelectric plants in Californi a licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) must undergo review and relicensing by 2 015. Because FERC issues licenses for a period of 30- 50 years, relicensing provides an opportunity to assess and change license conditions for many facilities over a relatively short period. Many of these facilities were designed, constructed, and licensed before environmental laws like CEQA and NEPA were in effect and before the California Supreme Court clarified, in National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County (1983), the State’s public trust responsibilities to protect the people’s common heritage of streams, lakes, mars hlands and tidelands. The result is that planning for many projects did not fully evaluate potential impacts to rivers in the timing and volume of instream flows, sediment transport, water temperature, and fish passage. Operational changes are being made during relicensing to ensure that the projects are in compliance with modern environmental laws, public trust, pub lic policy and the public interest.

Global climate change has also prompted discussion of system reoperation. The specific effects of global climate change on water resource management in Calif ornia are uncertain. Climate change could result inCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 19. System Reoperation

19-3 altered snowpack accumulation and melting, runoff patt erns, water supply, sea level, floods and droughts, water demands, water temperature, plant and animal life including livestock, hydroelectric power, wild fires, recreation, water quality, soil moisture, gr oundwater, and ecosystems. The California water managers continue to evaluate climate change and st udy ways of incorporating flexibility into the system to respond to climate change.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 19. System Reoperation

19-4 Case Example of System Reoperation El Dorado Irrigation District’s Project 184
El Dorado Irrigation District’s (E ID’s) Project 184 highlights the potential benefits, costs, and issues surrounding system reoperation as part of FERC relic ensing. Project 184 is a 21 megawatt hydroelectric and water supply project located on the South Fork of the American River and its tributaries, and on Echo Creek, a tributary to the Upper Truckee River, in the counties of El Dorado, Alpine, and Amador, California.
In February 2000, EID filed an application to renew its license with FERC. The relicensing of Project 184 involved a collaborative process to provide signific antly enhanced environmental protection, improving recreational opportunities and for assuring the long-term reliability and economic viability of local water supply. In April 2003, the effort produced a settlem ent agreement, which has been filed with FERC as recommendations for establishing conditions for the new license:

• Lake Level criteria for impr oved recreation opportunities

• Improved aquatic habitat via new stream flow criteria in more reaches of stream

• Pulse flows in regulated reaches to mi mic natural hydrologic condition peak flows

• Recreation facility improvement s including a new boat ramp, camp ground access improvements, whitewater boating access improvements

• Fish screens at diversions from Alder and Carpenter Creeks

• Public information system of real-time lake and flow data via internet & phone

• Stream restoration in previously scoured reaches

• Sensitive species, fish and water quality monitoring

• Various environmental protection plans for O&M and future capital projects

• Ecological resources adaptive management program

Although implementation of the new license conditions may result in a slight reduction in revenues depending on future power values, revenues from power generation can be augmented with revenues from consumptive water deliveries in order to fund project costs. EID benefits by maintaining the power generation features of the project because revenues from hydroelectric power generation offset the majority of project costs which are largely driven by the cost of water convey ance, an integral system component that would exist with or without power generation capability.
Even with the collaborative process and settlement agreement, the proposed reoperation is not entirely free of controversy. At least one interested party representing some of the recreation and business interests around Caples and Silver Lakes has not signed on to the settlement agreement because of concerns about potential economic and quality of life impacts from the revised operation. Although lake level and streamflow conditions under the system re operation would generally be enhanced for recreation interests compared to historic project operations, disa greement continues over what lake levels should be maintained during the summer and fall recreation season, if the lakes refill from year to year, and how low lake levels will be allowed to drop during dry years.



## Potential Benefits of System Reoperation

Statewide benefits of system reoperation are diffic ult to estimate since the potential benefits are generally project-specific. The State Water Project and Central Valley Project have integrated operations since the 1970s with a nnual agreements that were even tually finalized in 1986 with the signing of the Coordinated Operating Agreement. This agreement has led to significant improvement in how the two proj ects coordinate to provide water to meet consumptive and environmental uses. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is evaluating system reoperation,California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 19. System Reoperation

19-5 

### including recirculation of Delta exports, to manage salinity in the San Joaqui n River. Part of this reoperation would be to use excess capacity fr om the Tracy pumping plant, the Delta Mendota Canal, the SWP Banks pumping plant, or the California Aqueduct to convey water for subsequent release into the San Joaquin River to reduce salinity concentrations.

System reoperation integrates multiple resource ma nagement strategies such as surface storage, conveyance facilities, conjunctive management, water-d ependent recreation and ecosystem restoration,
which can:

• Reduce conflicts between competing beneficial uses and allow for improvements to the beneficial uses including environmental, recreational, water quality, and water supply objectives.

• Provide additional flexibility to respond to ex treme hydrologic events like flood and drought or catastrophic events like earthquakes. 

## Potential Costs of System Reoperation

The potential direct costs for implementing system reoperation are project-specific and are difficult to extrapolate to a statewide estimate. Up-front co sts may include performing the feasibility studies, completing CEQA/NEPA analysis, and undergoing wa ter rights permitting to implement a proposed change in operation. These studies alone can cost millions of dollars and take several years to complete. Long-term costs may include capital costs for the constr uction, modification, or removal of facilities, loss of revenue from reduction in sale of hydropower or water supplies, and increased operations and
maintenance costs.



## Major Issues Facing System Reoperation

Reduced Hydropower Generation
System reoperation has the potential of shifting some water use from power generation to other uses. Preliminary analyses by the California Energy Commi ssion indicate that project-specific and cumulative losses associated with FERC relicensing are not signifi cant on a system-wide basis in California. Many facilities must still undergo relicensing and the effects of these on energy generation must be evaluated. Improved generating equipment and technology can offset some of this energy reduction. There may be a need to provide for alternative sources of energy to make up any reduction in hydropower generation. If reoperation occurs on a large scale, switching to fossil fuels to offset this loss could increase air pollution, and reliance on imported energy sources.

Gaps in Scientific Knowledge and Data
There are several significant knowledge gaps that should be addressed to improve the likelihood of successful system reoperation. There is a need for greater understanding of the relationships between flow patterns, the response of aquatic ecosystems, and how these relate to protecting public trust resources. While this area of applied environmental science is de veloping quickly, there is a need to improve the understanding of the effects of pulsed and ramped flows upon endangered species , other aquatic species, habitats, and river morphology. Lack of baseline data and good bio-hydrologic models for some ecological components are limiting factors. Biological opinions issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have provided some guidance on specific changes in operation that would benefit specific endangered species. There is also a gap in the understanding of the specific effects associated with global climate change on local water systems. Changes in the timing andPublic Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 19. System Reoperation

19-6 distribution of precipitation and runoff within the state can create greater uncertainty, potentially requiring changes to the management of the water system. Ther e is a need for improved runoff prediction and other scientific information to support water management decisions.

Competing Beneficial Uses
In some cases, the analysis of reservoir reoperation can be as complex and controversial as that associated with new facility construction. Because many dams and conveyance have been operating the same way for decades, it is important to consider the interests of today's beneficiaries before introducing dramatic changes. For example, many reservoirs have exis ting uses including recreation, summer homes, wetland habitat and fisheries. In addition, reoperation c ould have unintended impacts to existing ecological processes; those impacts must be evaluated. There is concern about direct and indirect impacts on other users including downstream water rights, the environm ent, recreational uses, and energy production.

Conveyance Constraints
The capacity of reservoir outlets, storage, pumping, and conveyance might limit the ability to perform system reoperation through such things as water transfers, conjunctive management or revised flood operations.

Area of Origin Water Rights
Historically, area of origin water rights have not b een widely exercised, but they are increasingly of interest as rural counties develop. It may be possibl e for these areas to develop agreements with project operators to meet some of these projected demands through reoperation of existing facilities rather than through construction of new facilities. However, new facilities may provide more flexibility to the overall management of the system. Agreements with existing facility operators to change operations would need to consider existing uses.

Integrating Water Resource Management
There are many tiers of management of developed water resources. These include facilities that are operated for local, regional, or statewide beneficial uses. Implementing system reoperation to obtain wider system benefits can require regulatory actions by several local, State, and federal agencies. For example, hydropower relicensing may include actions by the California Department of Fish and Game, the State Water Resources Control Board, the U. S. Fo rest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Efforts to increase coordination among both the physical operation of the facilities and the regulatory agencies can result in greater opportunities to achieve broader benefits within each watershed.

Implementation Costs
Significant up-front and on-going costs can be involved with system reoperation. Costs might include developing monitoring systems, hydrologic models , decision support systems, and collecting data to evaluate benefits and impacts of proposed changes. Other costs are associated with conducting feasibility studies, completing CEQA/NEPA analysis, and cons tructing new or modifying or removing existing facilities. Agencies might have difficulty raising th e needed funds because of existing contracts or regulations that prohibit them from increasing water or energy rates.

Water Quality
Water quality can restrict the ability to modify existi ng operations for other benefits. For example, the need to maintain cold-water temperature reserves in reservoirs for downstream fisheries may prohibitCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 19. System Reoperation

19-7 reducing reservoir storage levels during the certain seasons for water supply. Reoperation using surface water to actively recharge groundwater banks may be limited by existing groundwater or recharge water quality. Water quality is often more critical for reope ration for local benefits than for regional and
statewide benefits. 

## Recommendations to Further System Reoperation

1. The following recommendations are derived from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research Program to gain a better understanding of the effects of flow release patterns on California stream habitats and biotic communities:

a. Review the quality and available scienti fic data on the ecological impacts.
b. Determine the adequacy of current and new sa mpling and analytical methods to detect and predict potential effects.

c. Develop a recommended protocol for assessing possible ecological impacts.
d. Develop and disseminate research to enha nce scientific understanding and assessment of
effects.
2. The State should provide financial and technical assi stance for feasibility studies and evaluations that could lead to enhanced management of water res ources through system reoperation. Give priority for funding and technical assistance to system reoperation projects with multiple benefits.
3. The State should continue to study the poten tial impacts of global climate change on water management in California and develop poten tial strategies to respond to these impacts.
4. Operators of all projects should improve runoff forecasting and decision support systems for reservoir reoperation to manage water r esources among competing demands.
5. The State should support research in improving our understanding of flow alteration effects on aquatic ecosystems as well as develop management tools to address these effects.

Information Sources

• California Energy Commission, Integrated Energy Policy Report Workshop, “Hydropower System – Energy and Environment”. June 5, 2003

• El Dorado Irrigation District (EID 2003a), The Water Front, May – June 2003

• EID 2003b, FERC Economic Analysis Critique – El Dorado Hydroelectric Project, Prepared for EID by Mead & Hunt, April 2003

• EID 2003c, Operational Modeling Prepared by Hydrologics for EID, April 2003

• Kessler, John S., personal communication. Kessler and Associates, LLC, August 2003

• California State Water Resources Control Board. Draft California Nonpoint Source Program FiveYear Implementation Plan July 2003 Through June 2008. July 2003The California Water Plan Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 20. Urban Land Use Management

20-1 

# Chapter 20. Urban Land Use Management

Urban Land Use Management

Effective urban land use management consists of planning for the housing and economic development needs of a growing population while providing for the efficient use of water and other resources. The way in which we use land — the types of use and the level of intensity — has a direct relationship to water supply and quality.



## Urban Land Use Patterns in California

Existing urban development patterns reflect a str ong consumer demand for single family homes in suburban locations. Local government and private sector decisions on the placement of offices, industrial sites and retail centers are driven by a combina tion of workforce availability and state tax policy. Although only five percent of California’s land area is in urban development, and fifty percent of the state is in public ownership, the result of current development practices is the consumption of farm land, open space, habitat, and other natural resources. Alt hough a relatively small amount of most watersheds, impervious surfaces such as roads and parking lots result in more rapid and larger amounts of surface runoff. This change in runoff can alter stream flow and watershed hydrology, reduce groundwater recharge, increase stream sedimentation, and increase th e need for infrastructure to control storm runoff.

Higher density development
and more efficient land use can be encouraged through changes in consumer preferences and public policies to promote more compact development (see box for recent State policies and guidelines). In some of the most densely populated regions of the state, including the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles, headway is being made to grow more compactly, provide jobs closer to housing, and provide transit to connect people with community resources.,.. Recent State Policy and Guidelines

Statute AB 857 (Stats. 2002; ch. 1016) establishes three planning priorities and requires that all State strategic plans and capital improvement plans—including t he next update of the Governor’s Environmental Goals and Policy Report and the California Water
Plan—be consistent with them. • Promote infill development and equity, • Protect environmental and agricultural resources, and • Encourage efficient development patterns.

The State of California General Plan Guidelines , updated in 2003 (OPR), recommends that local go vernments consider preparing an optional Water Element in their general plans.

Three bills, SB 221, SB 610 and AB 901, were enacted by the Legislature to improve the coordination between water supply and land use planning processes at the local level and became effective January 1, 2002. The new laws are intended to improve the assessment of water supplies during the local planning process before approval of land use projects that depend on water. They require verification of sufficient water supplies as a condition for approving developments, compel urban water suppliers to provide more information on groundwater reliability if used as a supply, and require average and drought year conditions be addressed.Public Review Draft The California Water Plan Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 20. Urban Land Use Management

20-2 Local agency formation commissions (LAFCOs) are re gional planning agencies that were established to encourage logical and efficient development patterns. With the recent changes to Government Code § 56000 et. seq., LAFCOs are now required to perform m unicipal service reviews on a regular basis. This will allow a comprehensive evaluation of how all ser vices, including water, are delivered to developing
areas of the state.



## Potential Benefits of More Compact Development

There are water-related benefits that accrue from mo re compact development. It can reduce landscaped areas and therefore reduce landscape water use. Although higher density development may actually increase impervious surfaces and increase traffic co ngestion in urban areas, it may reduce the total development footprint in the state and reduce urbani zation impacts to habitat, watershed functions, and groundwater recharge areas.

Compact, mixed-use development can reduce water demand, even with moderate increases in density. As a rule of thumb, landscaping irrigation accounts for almo st half of residential water use. An increase in residential density from four units per acre to fi ve reduces the landscaping area by 20 percent, which should cut water usage by roughly 10 percent compar ed to the lower density development. A smaller urban footprint reduces impervious surfaces. This generates less surface runoff, and minimizes intrusion into watersheds and groundwater recharge areas which receive the runoff.

The AB 2717 (Laird) Landscape Task Force is currently evaluating in great detail the potential for water savings for both new and existing development. Th e recommendations of the Task Force may lead to significant improvements in landscape irrigation through new Model Landscape Ordinance policies, new technologies, changes in rate structures, and new legislation.



## Potential Costs

No statewide cost estimates are available for implem enting this strategy. The potential state, local and private costs for promoting higher density and more compact development need to be balanced with the need for more housing, economic development and consumer preferences.

There could be significant new costs associated with changing the way local, regional, and State agencies plan urban areas. Among these are costs for increased communication, coordination and information sharing between land use agencies, water supplie rs, and agencies which regulate water quality.

However, by implementing this strategy, there w ill likely be lower long-term costs associated with reduced urban runoff, less infrastructure expansion for water supply, and lower mitigation costs for displaced farm land and/or wildlife habitat.The California Water Plan Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 20. Urban Land Use Management

20-3 

## Major Issues

Disincentives for Change
Local governments make most of the land use decisions in California. There are many reasons why local governments do not use more resource efficient deve lopment patterns including: consumer preferences and demands for single family homes with yards, community resistance to infill or higher density development, local zoning ordinances which have not been updated for many years, the added cost to conduct regional planning efforts, the cost and lia bility associated with pursuing infill projects, and environmental mitigation strategies that encourage lo wer density development. In addition, landscape, soils, environmental hazards and infrastructure limit ations are additional factors that guide local governments in the development of land use policy decisions. Changing land use planning practices and development standards statewide would be a signifi cant and expensive public policy undertaking with as yet unknown water use savings compared to mo re direct methods of water conservation.

Coordination
Recent changes to the Government Code and the Water Code requires local governments to determine whether there will be enough water to supply a proposed development project before it can be approved. This will require land use agencies and water agenci es to improve their communication and coordination on project-level development decisions that have been made independently in the past. Many of the water supply coordination issues for new development are now addressed in the state’s Water Code through existing requirements for the preparation and approval of Urban Water Management Plans every 5 years and the implementation of SB 610 (Costa) and SB 22 1 (Kuehl) enacted in 2001. Increased coordination will also be necessary among all levels of government to coordinate inter-agenc y planning, to develop databases, and to interpret and share data and information.



## Recommendations

State

1. Provide incentives to developers and local governme nts to plan and build using more resource efficient development patterns. This can be done through CEQA exemptions for infill development, reductions in brownfield liability for innocent land purchasers, prioritizing planning grants and other
incentives to increase consumer interest in urba n living and to encourage infill and compact development forms.
2. Encourage local governments to review the Urban Water Management Plans adopted by water agencies within their jurisdiction; and to work w ith these water agencies to show compliance with Water Code sections that require local governme nts to consider water supply availability when making land use decisions for significant (500 homes or more) new development projects, and to prepare the water resource section of their general plans as described in the State’s General Plan Guidelines Update (OPR, 2003).
3. Provide technical assistance to local governmen ts on how to incorporate resource efficient development into their local general plan, related zoning ordinances, and specific plans; and how to prepare required water supply assessments before approving major new development projects.
4. Develop and publicize accurate and relevant data on water supply a nd water quality to help local agencies in their planning efforts.Public Review Draft The California Water Plan Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 20. Urban Land Use Management

20-4 5. Encourage more research on the impacts of res ource efficient development patterns and best practices.

Local Government

1. Recognize regional needs and resources when deve loping local general plans and designing and building neighborhoods and commun ities. Improve communication, coordination and informationsharing with other local agencies, regional planni ng agencies, and local water agencies and watershed

managers. 2. Promote the rehabilitation of aging or inadequate infrastructure to help infill development.
3. Evaluate the potential environmental impacts of new development on prime agricultural land, open space, flood plains, recharge areas and wetlands and consider the water supply impacts when developing appropriate mitigation measures.
4. Update landscape irrigation ordinances to promot e consumer choices for more water-efficient landscaping in existing and new developments.
5. Look for opportunities to reduce impervious surfaces, especially near waterways.

Regional Government

1. LAFCOs should consider water supply issues in the c ontext of their charge to encourage logical and efficient development patterns that minimize impacts on agricultural land and maximize meeting housing needs and affordability.

Water Suppliers

1. Develop and make available wate r resource information, such as water supply and water quality in Urban Water Management Plans, to local governments that can be used in local and regional land use decisions, including general plan formulation and municipal service reviews.
2. Collaborate with local land use ag encies to assess water supply ava ilability for new development.The California Water Plan Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 20. Urban Land Use Management

20-5 Information Sources

• Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Envi ronmental Goals and Policy Report, November
2003.

• Statutes of 2001 (California), ch 642. (Senate Bill 221), an act to amend § 11010 of the Business and Professions Code, and to am end § 65867.5 of, and to add §§ 66455.3 and 6 6473.7 to, the Government Code, relating to land use. http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAIS docID=78704329921+ 8+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

• Statutes of 2001 (California), ch. 643. (Senate B ill 610), an act to amend § 21151.9 of the Public Resources Code, and to amend §§ 10631, 10656, 10910, 10911, 10912, and 10915 of, to repeal § 10913 of, and to add and repeal Section 1065 7 of, the Water Code, relating to water. http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/sen/sb_0601-0650/sb_610_bill_20011009_chaptered.html

• Statutes of 2002 (California), ch. 1016. (Assembly Bill 857), an act to amend §§ 13102, 13103, 65041, 65042, 65048, 65049, and 66037 of, and to add §§ 65041.1 and 65404 to, the Government Code, relating to state planning. http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAIS docID=78698629691+ 3+0+0&WAISaction=retrieveCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 21. Urban Runoff Management

21-1 Objectives of Urban Runoff Management

• Protection and restoration of surface waters by the minimization of pollutant loadings and negative impacts resulting from urbanization

• Protection of environmental quality and social well-being

• Protection of natural resources, e.g., wetlands and other important aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems

• Minimization of soil erosion and sedimentation problems

• Maintenance of the predevelopment hydrologic conditions

• Protection of groundwater resources

• Control and management of runoff to reduce or prevent flooding

• Management of aquatic and riparian resources for active and passive pollution
control 

# Chapter 21. Urban Runoff Management

Urban runoff management is a broad series ofactivities to manage both stormwater and dryweather runoff. Dry weather runoff occurs when, for example, excess landscape irrigation
water flows to the storm drain. Urban runoff management is linked to several other resource strategies including pollution prevention, land use management, watershed management, water use efficiency, recycled water, protecting recharge areas, and conjunctive management. Traditionally, urban runoff management was viewed as a response to flood control concerns resulting from the effects of urbanization. Concerns about the water quality impacts of urban runoff have led water agencies to look at watershed approaches to control runoff and provide other benefits.


## Urban Runoff Management in California

With the traditional approach to runoff management, urban runoff is viewed as a flood management problem where water needs to be conveyed as quickly as possible from urban areas to waterways to get rid of it. Urbanization alters flow pathways, water storage, pollutant levels, rates of evaporation, groundwater recharge and surface runoff, the timing and extent of flooding, the sediment yield of rivers, and the suitability and viability of aquatic habitats. The traditional approach has been successful at preventing flood damage, but has several disadvantages. In order to convey water quickly, natural waterways are often straightened and lined with concrete, resulting in a loss of habitat, a reduction in groundwater recharge from streams, and impacts to natural stream physical and biological processes. This collects pollutants and increases runoff volume and speeds its flow, resulting in pollution, stream bank erosion, and potentially flooding problems downstream. Because of the emphasis on removing the water quickly, the opportunity to use water for multiple benefits
is reduced.

The watershed approach for urban runoff management tries to emulate and preserve the natural hydrologic cycle that is altered by urbanization. The watershed approach consists of a series of best management practices (BMPs) designed to reduce the pollutant load, volume of urban runoff reaching waterways, and slow its flow. These BMPs may include requiring new facilities to capture, treat, and recharge groundwater with urban runoff, conducting public education campaigns for the proper use and disposal of household chemicals, and providing technical assistance and storm water pollution prevention training. Some areas advocate collecting rainfall from roofs into cisterns for later use. Methods for recharging groundwater with urban runoff include draining runoff from parking lots, driveways, and walkways into landscape areas with permeable soils, using drywells, and using permeable surfaces. These BMPs may include source control and pretreatment before infiltration. Infiltration enables the soil to naturally filter many of the pollutants found in runoff and reduces the volume and pollutant load of thePublic Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 21. Urban Runoff Management

21-2 remaining water when it reaches the outfall. The watershed strategy will not prevent all urban runoff from entering waterways, so elements of the traditional conveyance and storage strategy
will still be needed.

Urban runoff management has become more important and controversial over the last decade as municipal governments have been held increasingly responsible for nonpoint source pollutants washed into waterways from developed areas within their jurisdictions. Nonpoint source pollution, unlike pollution from industrial and sewage treatment plants, comes from many diffuse sources. Nonpoint source pollution is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural and human-made pollutants, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and potentially into groundwater. Nonpoint source pollution also occurs from non-storm event activities, such as 

### movement by wind , flows from landscape irrigation, improper disposal of trash or yard waste, and leaky septic
systems.

The 1987 amendments to the federal Clean Water Act directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to establish a permitting system under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to regulate nonpoint source pollution from certain urban areas in order to protect water quality. In California, the authority to regulate urban and stormwater runoff under the NPDES system has been delegated by USEPA to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The state of California is required under Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) and federal regulations (40 CFR 130) to prepare a list of and set priorities for waterways requiring Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) because they do not meet water quality standards. The section 303(d) list was last revised in 2002. Federal regulations require the section 303(d) list to be updated every two years. TMDLs represent the total pollutant load a waterway can assimilate before the waterway's beneficial uses are impacted. Nonpoint source runoff is frequently a significant source of pollutants in a waterway's total pollutant loading.

Because municipal governments are responsible for controlling urban runoff from streets and other public facilities within their jurisdictions, they are required to obtain an NPDES permit and implement specific measures to reduce the amount of pollutants in urban runoff. Permits for discharge to listed waterways having a TMDL must be consistent with the load assignments in a TMDL. Under California law TMDLs include implementation plans for meeting water quality standards. The implementation plans allow for time to implement control strategies to meet water quality standards. Under the initial NPDES permits issued in the 1990s municipalities were required to establish land use and development guidelines for both new and existing development to reduce the discharge of pollutants into waterways. These guidelines are usually a series of BMPs as described above. It has become clear with continued beach closures and other pollution problems associated with urban runoff that more advanced measures will be required in some areas to comply with water quality regulations. Examples of Nonpoint Source Pollution

• Herbicides and insecticides from residential landscaped areas, golf courses, city parks, etc.

• Oil, grease, and heavy metals illegally/improperly disposed of or accumulated on parking lots, streets and highways from automobiles, trucks, and busses

• Sediment from improperly managed
construction activities

• Litter and green wastes

• Bacteria and nutrients from excess fertilizers, improperly maintained septic systems, and wastes from pets and wildlifeCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 21. Urban Runoff Management

21-3 

## Potential Benefits of Urban Runoff Management

The primary benefits from urban runoff management are to reduce nonpoint source water pollution and improve flood protection. Additional benefits may be to increase water supply through groundwater recharge in areas with suitable soil and geological conditions, and improve wildlife habitat, parks and open space. Groundwater recharge and stormwater retention sites can be designed to provide additional benefits to wildlife habitat, parks, and open space. Underground infiltration facilities can temporarily store runoff and release it gradually to the aquifer while allowing the unimpaired use of the surfaces above them. For instance, a school campus can solve its flooding problem and develop a new sports field at the same time. These may provide secondary benefits to the local economy by creating more desirable communities in which to live. By keeping runoff onsite, storm drain systems can be downsized, reducing
installation and maintenance costs of such systems. A watershed planning approach to manage urban runoff allows communities to pool economic resources and obtain broader benefits to water supply, flood control, water quality, open space, and the environment.

Statewide information on the benefits of increased management of urban runoff is not available, although examples from local efforts exist. The Fresno-Clovis metropolitan
area has built an extensive network of storm water retention basins that not only recharges more than 70 percent of the annual storm water runoff (17,000 acre feet) and removes most conventional storm water pollutants, but also recharges excess Sierra snow melt during the late spring and summer (27,000 acre feet). Los Angeles County recharges an average 210,000 acre-feet storm runoff a year, which reduces the need for expensive imported water. Agencies in the Santa Ana Watershed recharge about 78,000 acre-feet of local storm runoff a year. The Los Angeles and San Gabriel Watershed Council has estimated that if 80 percent of the rainfall that falls on just a quarter of the urban area within the watershed (15 percent of the total watershed) was captured and reused, total runoff would be reduced by about 30 percent. That translates into a new supply of 132,000 acre-feet of water per year or enough to supply 800,000 people for a year. Santa Monica is an example of a municipality that is taking a watershed approach to managing urban runoff. Santa Monica’s primary goal is to treat and reuse all urban runoff. This turns a perceived waste Five Year Implementation Plan for Nonpoint Source Pollution Program

The SWRCB and the California Coastal Commission in coordination with 26 other State agencies are finalizing the Five Year Implementation Plan for the Nonpoint Source Pollution Program, which includes management of urban runoff. The Implementation Plan recommends the following State actions:

• Promote coordination of interagency programs that protect water quality from urban runoff pollution.

• Reduce the potential for contamination of surface and groundwater that results from uncontrolled or poorly-controlled urban runoff practices.

• Develop tools to assess the effectiveness of urban water pollution programs.

• Increase the availability of regulatory and guidance documents and/or instructional workshops to demonstrate effective urban runoff pollution control programs and policies.

• Reduce the number of uncontrolled urban NPS pollution sources by increasing the number of municipalities, industries and construction sites that utilize NPS management measures and fit under the permitted State Storm Water Program.

• Develop and implement watershed-based plans, including TMDLs and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs), in order to identify and address impacts from urban land

use.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 21. Urban Runoff Management

21-4 product into a local water resource. Not only is water quality achieved, but a new water resource is harvested. This decreases the dependence on imported water, leaving this water supply in distant watersheds for uses there, especially in the case of Southern California where most of its water comes from Northern California rivers, Eastern Sierra snow melt and Colorado River. If necessary, because of high runoff, the city’s secondary goal is to release only treated runoff into waterways. Both goals improve water quality of the Santa Monica Bay. The city’s goals promote low-impact development and smart growth, two similar approaches to land use, in which urbanization works with nature and the hydrologic cycle.


## Potential Costs of Urban Runoff Management

Information is not available on statewide costs to implement urban runoff management activities; however, the State Water Resources Control Board has recently contracted with the Office of Water Programs, California State University, Sacramento, to survey six communities to estimate the costs of complying with their NPDES storm water permits. While this may address the cost for a municipality to comply with an NPDES permit, it may not be the most applicable for looking at watershed programs seeking multiple benefits.

An example from the city of Santa Monica illustrates the costs of managing urban runoff. The city has a stormwater utility fee that generates about $1.2 million annually, and has been in place since 1995. These funds are used for various programs to reduce or treat runoff. These funds go to the Urban Runoff Management Coordinator, the maintenance of the storm drain system, and help support other city staff that support runoff work. Additional funds are spent by other divisions to support runoff management, such as street sweeping, some trash collection, sidewalk cleaning, and purchase and maintenance of equipment. The city has also received five grants totaling more than $3.5 million for the installation of structural BMP systems, all of which will require long-term maintenance and monitoring by the city. The culmination of the city’s program is the $12 million Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF), a joint project of the cities of Santa Monica and Los Angeles. The SMURFF project is a state-of-the-art facility that treats dry weather runoff water before it reaches Santa Monica Bay. Up to 500,000 gallons per day of urban runoff generated in parts of the cities of Santa Monica and Los Angeles can be treated by conventional and advanced treatment systems at the SMURRF.


## Major Issues

Lack of Integration with Other Resource Management Strategies
A major problem is that land use planning is not conducted on a watershed wide basis. Many agencies spend millions of dollars annually on addressing urban runoff problems with very little interagency coordination even though downstream cities can be impacted by activities upstream. Solutions to managing urban runoff are closely tied to many interrelated resource management strategies including land use planning, watershed planning, water use efficiency, recycled water, protecting recharge areas, and conjunctive management.

Lack of Funding
The two main aspects of implementing urban runoff management measures are source control, including education, and structural controls. In highly urbanized areas, major costs include purchasing land for facilities and constructing treatment facilities. Local municipalities have limited ability to pay for retrofitting existing developed areas within existing budgets and there is a concern by some about theCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 21. Urban Runoff Management

21-5 economic impacts of raising taxes and requiring residents and businesses to pay for retrofitting existing development.

Effects of Urban Runoff on Groundwater Quality
The movement of pollutants in urban runoff is a concern. Urban runoff contains chemical constituents and pathogenic indicator organisms that could impair water quality. The actual threat to groundwater quality from recharging urban runoff is dependent on several factors, including soil type, source control, pre-treatment, solubility of pollutants, maintenance of recharge basins, and depth to groundwater. Studies by USEPA (USEPA, 1983) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS, 1995) indicate that all monitored pollutants stayed within the top 16 centimeters of the soil in the recharge basins.

Nuisance Problems
Presence of standing water in recharge basins can lead to vector problems, such as mosquitoes and increasing concern related to the transmission of West Nile Virus.

Protecting Recharge Areas
Local land use plans often do not recognize and protect groundwater recharge and discharge areas. Areas with soil and geologic conditions that allow groundwater recharge should be protected where appropriate.

Understanding
The general public and elected officials do not always understand the link between land use management and other resource management strategies and how home and business practices can affect nonpoint source pollution in water ways.



## Recommendations to Promote Additional Urban Runoff Management

State

1. State agencies should coordinate their efforts to decide how the Five Year Implementation Plan for Nonpoint Source Pollution Program should be integrated into their workplans.
2. Encourage public outreach and education about the benefits and concerns related to funding and implementation of urban runoff measures.
3. Provide leadership in the integration of water management activities by assisting, guiding, and modeling watershed and urban runoff projects.
4. Work with local government agencies to evaluate and develop ways to improve existing codes and ordinances that currently stand as a barrier to implementing and funding urban runoff management.
5. Provide funding and develop legislation to support development of urban runoff and watershed management plans and enable local agencies and organizations to pursue joint venture, multipurpose projects.

6. Assist agencies with developing recharge programs with appropriate measures to protect human health, the environment, and groundwater quality.
7. Work with federal policy makers and industry to create research and development incentives and to develop standards to reduce nonpoint source pollution from transportation related sources including lubricant systems, cooling systems, brake systems, tires, and coatings.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 21. Urban Runoff Management

21-6 Local Agencies and Governments

1. Local agencies and governments should design recharge basins to minimize physical, chemical, or biological clogging, periodically excavate recharge basins when needed to maintain infiltration capacity, develop a groundwater management plan with objectives for protecting both the available quantity and quality of groundwater, and cooperate with vector control agencies to ensure the proper mosquito control mechanisms and maintenance practices are being followed.
2. When developing Urban Runoff Management Plans, local agencies and governments should:

• Understand how land use affects urban runoff.

• Look for opportunities to require features that conserve, clean up, and reduce urban runoff in new development, or in more established areas, when redevelopment is proposed.

• Be aware of technological advances in products and programs.

• Learn about urban runoff / watershed ordinances already in place. For example, The City of Santa Monica and the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District already have extensive urban runoff management programs in place.

• Integrate urban runoff management with other resource strategies including land use planning, watershed planning, water use efficiency, recycled water, protecting recharge areas, and conjunctive management, and coordinate both within and across municipal boundaries.

Information Sources

• California State University at Sacramento, University of California, Davis, and California Department of Transportation. “Caltrans Stormwater Management Program”. Stormwater Journal. March/April 2001.

• California State Water Resources Control Board. Draft Statewide Urban Nonpoint Source Pollution Implementation Plan. 2003.

• City of Santa Monica, “Stormwater Best Management Practices for New Developments”. Brochure.

• City of Santa Monica, “Working for a Cleaner Bay”. Brochure.

• Dallman, Suzanne and Piechota, Thomas. “Stormwater: Asset not Liability”. Los Angeles and San
Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council. 2000.

• Hildebrand, Gary. Los Angeles County, Department of Public Works. Personal Communication. May 2003.

• Pitt, R. et al., “Potential Groundwater Contamination from Intentional and Nonintentional Stormwater Infiltration”. US EPA, Office Research and Development, EPA/600/R-94-051.

• Rourke, Daniel. Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District. Personal Communication. August
2003.

• Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, “Santa Ana Integrated Watershed Plan”. June 2002.

• Shapiro, Neal. City of Santa Monica. Personal Communication. August 2003.

• United States Environmental Protection Agency, ”Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program – Final Report”. US EPA Water Planning Division. 1983.

• United States Geological Survey, “Potential for Chemical Transport Beneath a Storm-Runoff Recharge (Retention) Basin for an Industrial Catchment in Fresno, California”. USGS. Water Resources Investigations Report 93-4140. 1995.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 22. Urban Water Use Efficiency

22-1 

# Chapter 22. Urban Water Use Efficiency

Urban water use efficiency involves technological or behavioral improvements in indoor and outdoor residential, commercial, industrial and institutional water use that lower demand, lower per capita water use, and result in benefits to water s upply, water quality, and the environment. 

## Urban Water Use Efficiency Efforts in California

In 2000, cities and suburbs used about 8.7 million acr e-feet of water. Californians have made great progress on urban water use efficiency over the past few decades. As has been demonstrated in various regions of the state, an increase in population does not necessarily result in a proportionate increase in urban water use. For example, the Los Angeles Depa rtment of Water and Power reports in their Urban Water Management Plan Update 2002-2003 that “water conservation continues to play an important part in keeping the city’s water use equivalent to levels seen 20 years ago.” While some other regions of the State cannot claim such progress, this report indicates that indeed something is working well in the field of water use efficiency.

Credit for these improvements can be given in part to the implementation of water use efficiency practices that have been institutionalized through the
California Urban Water Conservation Council’s (CUWCC) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This involves the active participation and united effort of urban water agencies, environmental interests, and the business community. They come together to plan, implement, and track a defined set of urban Best Management Practices (BMPs-see sidebar). As of, 2003, there were 309 signatories to the Urban MOU, representing 80 percent of all the urban water supplied in California.

One example of the results of the CUWCC’s member agency implementation efforts is that 2.3
million water-efficient toilets have been retrofitted statewide in the past 12 years. The total number of
toilets installed before 19 92 that still need to be replaced is about 10 million. Water conservation has become a way of life for Californians, most of whom have easy and affordable access to a wide array of off-the-shelf water efficient plumbing fixtures, washing machines, landscape irrigation systems, and water-thrifty plants at their local home improvement stores, hardware stores, and nurseries. While the council is considering more BMPs, there
are other activities that could contribute toward im proved water use efficiency, including new methods and technologies that can be expected to significan tly increase conservation potential. The Irvine Ranch Water District is experimenting with “ET Contro llers” -- weather-controlled irrigation systems and installed controllers at 40 homes. Consumption dr opped by 17 percent and runoff was cut in half



### . The Urban BMPs BMP 1: Residential Survey Programs
BMP 2: Residential Plumbing Retrofit
BMP 3: System Water Audits
BMP 4: Metering w/Commodity Rates
BMP 5 Large Landscape Conservation
BMP 6: High Efficiency Clothes Washers
BMP 7: Public Information Programs
BMP 8: School Education Programs

BMP 9: Commercial Industrial Institutional
BMP 10: Wholesaler Agency Assistance Programs
BMP 11: Conservation Pricing

BMP 12: Conservation Coordinator

BMP 13: Water Waste Prohibitions

BMP 14: Residential Ultra Low Flush Toilet Replacement ProgramsPublic Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 22. Urban Water Use Efficiency

22-2 1999 American Water Works Foundation Research F oundation “Residential End Uses of Water” study found that approximately 60 percent of residential water comes from outdoor uses.



## Potential Benefits of Urban Water Use Efficiency

The primary benefit of improving water use efficiency is the lowering of demand and the ability to costeffectively stretch existing water supplies. Once viewed and invoked primarily as a temporary source of water supply in response to drought or emergency wa ter shortage situations, water use efficiency and conservation approaches have become a viable long- term supply option, saving considerable capital and operating costs for utilities and consumers, avoiding environmental degradation, and creating multiple benefits. Reduced water demands will free up water in normal and wet years. Saved water can be carried over to another time if a supplier has surface or groun dwater storage, or stores water by agreement with an agency that maintains a groundwater bank and re turns it for use during drought years. Translating water use efficiency savings into specific water supply reliability be nefits will depend on the water system involved, the level of savings, and the variati ons in water savings from one year to the next as well as throughout the year.

The financial benefits of water use efficiency to agencies are the avoided costs of new supply construction, the cost of distribution systems, and the avoided costs of water-supply treatment and wastewater treatment plant permitting, construction a nd operation. Energy costs, which are often much greater than water costs, are avoided as we ll, both by the agency and the customer.

The benefits of urban water use efficiency include better water quality and more water in streams and rivers by allowing more flows to remain there. The timing of such additional flow is often critical to maintenance of endangered habitats . Water use efficiency can also reduce peak demand and runoff from landscape irrigation. Reduced energy use and gr een waste production also reduce air pollution.

The range of applied water savings of existing urban water use efficiency efforts by 2030 has been estimated to be 0.8 million to 1 million acre-feet per year (CALFED Record of Decision, 2000). A recent state-sponsored study (Pacific Institute’s “Waste Not, Want Not”) indicates currently achievable savings of 2 million to 2.3 million acre-feet per year. DWR and California Bay-Delta Authority are employing new methodologies to estimate the urban water savings potential for 2030. 

## Potential Costs of Urban Water Use Efficiency

Overall, urban water use efficiency can be a ve ry cost-effective strategy for new water supply. Information from multiple sources shows that the cost of most of water use efficiency measures range from about $58 to $710 per acre-foot, depending on the program. These costs include not only the full cost to manage water conservation programs, but al so any capital investments and staffing that may be required. Water conservation measures can also incl ude reductions in energy. Implementation of other measures beyond the BMPs may also be cost-effective.


## Major Issues Facing Additional Urban Water Use Efficiency

Funding
Funds dedicated to water use efficiency have fa llen below commitments made in 2000 through the
CALFED Record of Decision that called for a state a nd federal investment of $1.5 billion to $2 billionCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 22. Urban Water Use Efficiency

22-3 during Stage 1 from 2000-2007. For example, by 2002, investments lagged projected expenditures by $4 million. By 2003, investments lagged pr ojected expenditures by $235 million.

Through the CUWCC MOU, local agencies have committe d to funding locally cost effective BMPs. State and federal programs have also provided funding for the BMPs beyond the MOU level for actions that may not be locally cost effective. A consistentand broadly acceptable method to evaluate costeffectiveness and water savings is needed.

Additional research is needed into the problems of funding and implementi ng the water conservation programs. One approach to funding programs is a no-interest revolving loan program that could provide funds to urban water suppliers based on the avoided cost of new supply alternatives. Once the loan is repaid, all future savings will accrue to the supplier a nd its customers. One example of a no-interest loan program is the "Unconserved Water Using Air Conditi oner Replacement Program" established by the city of Fresno. The program made customers with water using air conditioners, who paid a surcharge based on the estimated water use of the devices, eligible to re place them with new non-water using energy efficient units. It applied the surcharge paid by participati ng customers to loan repayment for the program. The customer surcharge will be eliminated wh en the no-interest loan is repaid.

This research should include innovative mechanisms similar to those used by performance based contractors in the energy field. One example is th e Light Wash Program in which a company is working with California water agencies and utilities to offer co mbined energy and water conservation rebates of up to $450 per unit on a wide selection of high efficiency commercial clothes washers. The company offers rebates to multifamily and institutional common ar ea laundry facilities, businesses with on-premise laundry, and coin laundry stores in 2003. The progra m is operated on a turnkey basis for participating water utilities and requires virtually no staff time. Th e only required contribution by participating water utilities is the rebate co-payment. Program participati on is available to water utilities whose customers are also customers of three energy utilities. The program is being implemented with funding from California energy utility ratepayers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.

Grant programs often miss the opportunity to fund worthwhile projects in small and disadvantaged
communities. It is often difficult for them to co mpete for limited grant funds, although their needs are often great.

Program Implementation An expanding population, climatic uncertainties, contaminants, and legal and economic conditions likely will increase the pressure to improve the efficiency of water use in California. While the CUWCC Best Management Practices have provided an effective way for agencies to identify and implement locally cost effective urban water conservation pr ograms, not all water suppliers ha ve signed on to the agreement and not all of the signatories are fully implementing those practices.

Implementation of urban water conservation programs often face challenges. A recent study sponsored by California Urban Water Agencies identified a number of implementation challenges and opportunities for urban water conservation programs. (Table 1).Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 22. Urban Water Use Efficiency

22-4 Table 1

The CUWA sponsored study recommends collaborativ e action by agencies, further research, and continued state/federal support in addressing the im plementation challenges. CUWA study concludes that the program should be as easy as possible for customers, its design should be simple, it should provide customers with guidance on water efficient fixtures, it should be coordinated with other agencies regarding permitting or potential funding, and emphasize a high level of customer service.

Data Collection
Easily retrievable, standardized and comprehensive baseline data about California urban water use are not available. Present information sources include annual Public Water System Survey (PWSS) reports to DWR, annual CUWCC BMP Reports submitted by MOU signatories, and Urban Water Management Plans that are updated every five years. Documentati on and evaluation of the achievements attributable to water use efficiency projects and programs, vital elemen ts of successful water use efficiency efforts, need to be improved. The quantification of benefits for many projects lacks the necessary level of scientific rigor. The basis for making such determinations and managing water efficiently is accurate water measurement, coupled with volumetric billing, co mplemented by ongoing accounting, monitoring and

assessment.

The measurement of water use and associated informa tion provided to the water user are essential to efficient water management. Documenting water savi ngs related to the various programs rests on the ability to track water use. Most urban areas are mete red, but several metropolitan areas, mostly in the Central Valley and Foothill regions, remain unmeter ed. DWR staff estimates that about 700,000 water
users remain unmetered.

Both of these endeavors are necessary to gain an accurate understanding of the full cost, value, impact and direction of urban water use efficiency strategies. Urban water conservation implementation challenges Program Type Implementation Challenges Residential indoor Marketing; in centives; communication barriers Residential outdoor Persistence of water savings; follow-up visits; communication barriers Public information Difficult to quantify water savings; communication barriers; need to update information on a regular basis Commercial, industrial and inst itutional Lack of reliable savings estimates; lack of adequate inhouse technical skills; resistance to changes in a process that works; communication barriers; low water costs make water conservation a low prio rity for some businesses Large landscape Incentives (the hand on the spigot may not pay the bill); persistence of water savings; communication barriers Targeting public entities Incentives (some public entities do not directly pay for the water),school’s lack of funding inhibits participation Plumbing code Lack of coordinated effort to revise the standards Water rates/efficiency pricing High risk local political issue Leak detection High expense of leak detection; requirements for retrofit or rehabilitationCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 22. Urban Water Use Efficiency

22-5 Education and Motivation
Likewise, there is a need for information related to why Californians adopted water use efficiency practices and how those practices could be encouraged and continued. Also, there is need to determine how customers or water districts respond financial incentives. Which technological changes should be pursued for short-term situations (during water shortages) compared to long-term, and which behavioral changes are most effective short and long term?

Innovation
Emerging water conservation technologies and techniques offer new opportunities to save water, but often field-testing and evaluations ar e needed before being promoted and fully adopted. Presently it takes too long to run pilot projects, c onduct research, and provide the sound scientific data needed by agencies and consumers to adopt new behaviors or purchase new equipment.

Conservation Offset refers to the ac tions which urban water suppliers take where a developer, in order to obtain approval for a proposed project, must implement, or financially contribute to, actions that will save water at or above the demand level of the project. Developers have installed or paid for the retrofit installation of dual flush toilets, low flush toilets, high efficiency clothes washers, Xeriscape residential landscaping, water efficient landscaping on common area and street medians, ET irrigation controllers, artificial turf, use of recycled water for all large turf irrigation, hot water recirculation demand systems, pre-rinse spray valves, and even farm irrigation im provements. Offset programs in Cambria, on the California coast, have included farm irrigation improveme nts such as drip irrigation. Some water districts implementing an Offset program require the develope r to implement actions that save two or more times the projected water demand for their projects. As a result, some communities with limited water supplies have been able to permit some growth while reduci ng their net water needs. Water savings have been achieved using the Offset program in the City of Sa n Luis Obispo (2 acre feet of retrofit water savings required for each new acre foot of demand, a 2:1 Offset), Cambria (7-8% less water use per year), Ojai (3:1 Offset).

While an Offset program can be a useful part of a tool kit for water supplier’s conservation actions, the concept has not been widely used despite its successes. However, the requirements for documenting a reliable water supply over a twenty year period created by Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 may create an incentive for developers to implement voluntary O ffset programs in order to create new water supplies for their projects.



## Recommendations to Achieve Additional Urban Water Use Efficiency

In addition to the BMPs, the following actions reflect so me of the possible solutions to the issues raised in the previous section. A wide range of strategies will need to be employed to accomplish the actions including financial incentives; revisions in State and local codes and standards; and legislative initiatives. Demand hardening Most water use efficiency programs rely on plumbing and appliance retrofits and changes in the consumer’s water use that can take place on a consistent, predictable basis. Once most of these retrofits have been completed, some worry that their ability to further reduce water use during dry years will be limited. Th is phenomenon is known as ‘demand hardening’. District s and customers that have participated actively in water conservation programs fear that across-the-board cuts will affect them disproportionately. However, consumers will still respond

behaviorally in drought times, and this additional water savings from the drought response can be measured using daily production record s. Public education has

proven effective in rallying support for short-term additional water conservation measures.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 22. Urban Water Use Efficiency

22-6 Most of these will be cooperative efforts, involving State, federal, and local agencies and stakeholders and
California citizens.
1. The State should secure funding to support in centive programs, both implementation and data collection. Identify and establish priorities for fu ture grant programs and other incentives. Provide ample opportunities for small districts, economica lly disadvantaged communities to benefit from WUE incentive programs.
2. Work with CUWCC and others to encourage and help local agencies and governments in fully developing, implementing and sustaining water c onservation programs. Deve lop and implement rate structures that encourage water use efficiency. He lp water customers perform leak detection and repair on a regular basis. Employ recycled water whenever feasible for landscape, industrial, and other approved uses. Encourage the plumbing of new construction for the use of non-potable water.
3. Consider how to irrigate landscapes efficiently, reduce urban runoff, improve fire safety, and mitigate “heat island effects” through landscape design, installation, management and maintenance practices such as grouping plants with similar water use re quirements, irrigation scheduling, landscape audits, dedicated irrigation meters, weather driven timers, etc. The State should provide technical assistance to the California Urban Water Conservation Council and urban water suppliers to create “California Friendly Landscapes©,” those that attain maximum water use efficiency by applying the minimum amount of water necessary to sustain them through the design, installation, management, and maintenance of landscape material. The State should support the recommendations of the AB 2717 Landscape Task Force convened in 2005 by th e CUWCC. The Task Force will (1) make recommendations for improving the Model Landscap e Ordinance, and (2) comment on additional matters related to landscape water use efficien cy. Consider use of graywater systems where conditions permit and cistern systems to capture storm water where appropriate.
4. Develop collaborative efforts to:

• Work with builders, manufacturers and others to establish a “Water Star Homes” program for new and existing homes and performance sta ndards for fixtures and appliances, reducing
residential water use.

• Retrofit remaining standard toilets with more e fficient models, such as dual-flush toilets or 1.0 gallon-per-flush toilets.

• Use hot-water-on-demand systems in new residential construction

• Pursue best available technology and management practices in the commercial, industrial, and
institutional sectors.

• Retrofit standard urinals with more efficient models.

• Encourage the formation of employee/management “Green Teams” in commercial, industrial and institutional customers to promote sustainable resource use.

• Encourage dry cooling for power plants.

• Provide comprehensive public information, e ducation, training, and technical assistance programs to foster a strong environmental r esource ethic with an emphasis on water use efficiency.

• Coordinate with other resource management programs such as watershed management, urban runoff management, waste water trea tment, and green waste reduction.
5. Consider data, research and monitor needs to inform decisions on:

• Support metering of all urban customers and bill by volume of use, submeter new multifamily
residential construction.

• Encourage developm ent of incentives for use of submeters in large landscape irrigation.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 22. Urban Water Use Efficiency

22-7 • Employ scientific methods to research, monitor, and evaluate existing and new water use efficiency technologies and management pr actices, including the positive and potentially negative effects of these practices and real world challenges to implementation.

• Increase the emphasis on the science aspect of proj ects, especially monitoring and evaluation, in support of CALFED goals.

• Work with state and federal grant recipients and ot hers to obtain more useful and consistent data from funded projects and other activities, including the documentation of the sources of data
and the methods of data collection.

• Encourage comprehensive planning and implemen tation of water conservation activities at the local and regional level. Pursue and promote stat e or local policies, guidelines, ordinances, or regulations to affect positive change.

• Encourage more signatories to the CUWCC Memorandum of Understanding and full participation by present signatories.

• With the leadership of the CUWCC and particip ation of other stakeholders, standardize utility billing and reporting systems by customer type and units of measure and identify industrialwater use customers by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Collect enduse data periodically. C oordination of water use reports and the use of a web-based format for reporting could also improve data collection and exchange. Support uniform water use reporting.

• Gain more information through surveys and other methods to better understand how Californians use water and how to persuade them to adopt more efficient practices and behaviors. Establish a goal for pe r capita water use in California.
6. Develop community based social marketing surveys and strategies for conservation activities to foster water use efficiency, with the participation of th e water industry, environmental interests, and the business communities. Identify and overcome barriers, communicate the benefits, provide incentives, and gain commitment from all involved.
7. Explore and identify innovative technologies and t echniques to improve water use efficiency and develop new BMPs to correspond with new informati on. Fast track pilot projects, demonstrations, and model programs exploring state-of-the-art , water-saving technologies and procedures and publicize results widely.
8. State should prepare guidelines to assist water dist ricts who are interested in implementing the
Conservation Offset.
9. Some innovative Offset techniques need to be developed for urban landscaping savings.
10. State should encourage building trade associations promote the Offset concept.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 22. Urban Water Use Efficiency

22-8 Information Sources

• Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. “Urban Water Management Plan Update 2002-
2003”.

• California Urban Water Conservation Council. Executive Director. September, 2003.

• CALFED Bay-Delta Authority. “CALFED Record of Decision”. July, 2000.

• Pacific Institute. Peter H. Gleick, Dana Haasz, Christin e Henges-Jeck, Veena Srinivasan, Gary Wolff, Katherine Kao Cushing, Adardip Mann . “Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California”. November, 2003.

• Department of Water Resources. Office of Water Use Efficiency. March, 2003.

• American Water Works Foundation Research Foundation “Residential End Uses of Water”, 1999.

• Department of Energy “Performance Based Contracting Guide” June, 1998.

• "Rinse & Save Program: Report to the California Public Utilities Commission, prepared by the
California Urban Water Conser vation Council, June 2004"

• BMP 9 Handbook: A Guide to Implementing Commerc ial, Industrial, and Institutional Water Conservation Programs as Specified in Best Management Practice 9," prepared for the California Urban Water Conservation Council, Sacramento, Ca lifornia, June 2004 by John B. Whitcomb, Ph.D., Bill Hoffman, and Jane H. Ploeser (June 1, 2001), page 30

• Whitcomb, John B. “Urban CII Landscape Wa ter Use and Efficiency in California.”