Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Chapter 3. Agricultural Water Use Efficiency 

 3-4

with the same amount of applied water. Conversion of traditional irrigation systems to pressurized 

systems and installation of advanced technologies on district delivery systems require more investment in 

facilities as well as use of additional energy that increases 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-time 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 Resources’ weather station program that provides 

evapotranspiration data. Universities, districts, and consultants 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 evapotranspiration, 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, risks, 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.) 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 Agricultural 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 benefits of water use as a part of the CBDA Year-4 

Comprehensive Report (Year-4 Report). These two estimates were based on different approaches and 

assumptions. ROD’s potential costs and benefits are based on assumed on-farm efficiency improvements 

up to 85 percent within hydrological regions and utilizing 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 Update Planning Areas. Both methods estimate costs 

and benefits for on-farm and district improvements and 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 Benefits 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 result in a water savings ranging 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 provides environmental and crop 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/region/g4000/crwda/index.htm). 

Benefits resulting from implementation of other advanced technologies in hardware, water management, 

and crop evapotranspiration, crop shifts and reducing crop transpiration have 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 this information is provided under the chapters that 

present data for the hydrologic regions. The analysis was conducted based on a 27-year implementation 

(2003 - 2030) horizon at the on-farm and district level. 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 state funding levels. District improvements were 

based on the implementation of EWMP and various state 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 efficiency actions that generate statewide benefits. 

Water use efficiency estimates at the district level 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 delivery capabilities and practices. In 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Chapter 3. Agricultural Water Use Efficiency 

 3-6

addition it is assumed that all locally cost effective 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 the majority of the benefit of water use efficiency is 

in recoverable flows. Since recoverable flows, especially 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, irrigation 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 characteristics: how much of the applied water is used 

beneficially and how much is “lost” to irrecoverable flows. Irrecoverable losses include flows to saline 

sinks and non-beneficial evapotranspiration including an estimate for savings due to implementation of 

regulated deficit irrigation on select tree and vine crops. Recoverable flows encompass surface runoff and 

deep percolation. Recoverable flow results in Table 2 are provided based on the Quantifiable Objectives 

that express in-stream flow needs for Bay-Delta tributaries. 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 systems over the horizon of the projections. 

Environmental benefits of water use efficiency actions 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 are 

isolated and properly disposed. The Quantifiable Objectives flows in Table 2 represent the aggregate instream Bay-Delta watershed flow needs that can potentially 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 

Spending1

Irrecoverable 

Flows2

Recoverable 

Flows2

Quantifiable 

Objective3

Investment 

Level Investment 

area 

M$/year

thousand acre-feet 

On-farm4, 5 1 0.0 26 165

District 2.9 1.0 3

On-farm4, 5 2 7.5 94 570

District 7.5 13 22

On-farm4, 5 3 15.0 145 892

District 15.0 51 63

On-farm4, 5 4 25.0 200 1220

District 25.0 99 110

5 0n-farm 50.0 293 1747

District 50.0 199 165

6 On-farm 75 354 2041 

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 Objectives 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 the corresponding district-level spending. District improvements 

conserve water themselves and are required to enable much of the on-farm conservation. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Chapter 3. Agricultural Water Use Efficiency 

 3-8

Potential Costs 

The 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 efficiency 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 improvements are summarized in Table 2. The district 

improvements are required to achieve on-farm improvements. 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 individual field basis and rice acreage is significant. 

Marginal costs of recoverable and irrecoverable 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 fallen 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 improvements associated with 

“real water savings”. Details of estimates and assumptions are in the CALFED WUE Program Plan (Final 

Programmatic EIS/EIR Technical Appendix- July 2000). 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 application 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 water management practices. 

For some districts, funding for water use efficiencies comes from the ability to transfer water. While 

transfers to urban areas may reduce the amount of water available to grow crops, they are expected to 

play a significant role in financing future 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, irrigation 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 agency and to provide regional or statewide benefits. 

Designing and installing efficient irrigation and water 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 salinity. 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 various 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 dissemination of these data to growers, districts, and state 

planners are necessary for promoting increased water use efficiency. A concern identified by some 

members of the Advisory Committee was a lack of statewide guidance to assist regions and districts to 

collect the data needed for future Water Plan Updates in a usable format. 

Independent Panel on the Appropriate Measurement of Agricultural Water Use (www.Calwater.ca.gov) 

that was convened by the CBDA made specific measurement recommendations for district diversions, net 

groundwater use, crop water consumption and aggregate farm gate deliveries. In addition a 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Chapter 3. Agricultural Water Use Efficiency 

 3-10

recommendation was made to increase research on measurement 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 Agricultural Water Use Efficiency 

The following recommendations can help facilitate 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 verifying intended benefits of projects receiving State loans and grants. 

2. The State should fund technical and planning assistance to improve water use efficiency including 

local efforts to implement EWMPs and meet CALFED WUE goals. Provide technical and financial 

assistance to the Agricultural Water Management Council 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 encourage the development of new cost-effective water 

savings technologies and practices and evaluate cost-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 should incorporate CALFED Quantifiable Objectives 

within the Agricultural Water Management Planning and implementation process. 

4. State’s loans & grants should provide ample opportunities for small districts and economically 

disadvantaged communities, tribes and community-based organizations to benefit from technical 

assistance, planning activities, and incentive programs, based on environmental justice policies. 

5. Agricultural Water Management Council should encourage more water suppliers to join the 

Memorandum of Understanding and broaden 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 other training and education programs to improve 

distribution uniformity, irrigation scheduling and on-farm irrigation efficiency. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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, mulch, alfalfa dry down, etc.) demonstration and 

research plots and other promising programs to reduce 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 rate 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 benefits 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 water use-related data for dissemination and for 

Water Plan Update. DWR should work with CBDA in implementing recommendations of the 

Independent Panel on the Appropriate Measurement of Agricultural Water Use. 

10. Develop community educational and motivational strategies for conservation activities to foster water 

use efficiency, with the participation of the agricultural and water industries and environmental 

interests. Develop partnerships with State, federal, UC Cooperative Extension Service, farm advisors, 

irrigation specialists, State educational and research institutions to provide educational, informational, 

and training opportunities to growers, district staff 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, demonstrations, 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, distribution, and dissemination of new and innovative 

irrigation technologies and management practices. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Chapter 3. Agricultural Water Use Efficiency 

 3-12

Information Sources 

• California Water Plans 93 and 98. Department of Water Resources 

• Water Use Efficiency Program Plan. Programmatic EIS/EIR Technical Appendix. July 2000. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 

• Agricultural Water Use Efficiency Program. 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, Watershare Program. www.watershare.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 Report 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California 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 water storage and use, groundwater 

storage and use, and conveyance facilities to meet water management objectives. Although surface water 

and groundwater are sometimes considered to be separate 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 storage 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 California to varying degrees since the Spanish mission 

era. The first known artificial recharge of groundwater 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 has 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 rivers 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. Groundwater 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 provides 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 storage1

. 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 sources: 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 Water in Southern California”, 3) A 1998 report by the Natural Heritage Institute 

entitled, “Feasibility Study of a Maximal Program of Groundwater 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 County

Groundwater Elevation (feet)

Land Surface Elevation (feet)

Deliveries from State

 Project Begin

Deliveries from Local

 Projects Begin

Deliveries from Federal

 Project Begin

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California 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 and groundwater storage to achieve the benefits and 

do not fully consider the conveyance capacity constraints for exports from the Delta and other 

conveyance facilities. 

 

The potential benefits from additional conjunctive management are highly dependent on adequate water 

quality and the ability to capture, convey, and recharge surface water. The above estimates are based on 

increases in local water deliveries from individual projects with project specific sources of recharge 

supply and do not necessarily reflect a statewide increase 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 regulatory 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 operational conditions to overcome these constraints. 

In addition to water supply benefits, conjunctive management can provide environmental benefits when 

recharge basins are designed to be compatible with wildlife habitat, such as using natural floodplains and 

wetlands as recharge areas. Re-operation of surface water 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 (GWR) 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 urban 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 intrusion 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 released 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 groundwater 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 estimated to be $453 million. The unit cost of the supply 

is $516 per acre-foot. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 Conjunctive 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 project 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 water, and treatment requirements. 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 approximately $1.5 billion for the conservative level of 

implementation and $5 billion for 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 surface water and the environment. Data is needed to 

evaluate conditions and trends laterally 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 monitoring network and data collection can help reduce this 

uncertainty, but must be done in accordance with a groundwater management plan that is acceptable to 

stakeholders in the basin. 

Infrastructure and Operational Constraints 

Physical capacities of existing storage and conveyance 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 example, permitted export capacity and efforts to protect 

fisheries and water quality in the Delta often limit the 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 influenced by the interaction between surface water and 

groundwater. Failure to understand these connections can lead to unintended 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 Groundwater 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 boundaries 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 beneficial use on the overlying property. Failure to integrate 

water management across jurisdictions makes it difficult 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 water users, establish rights to use vacant aquifer space 

and banked water, protect the environment, recognize and protect groundwater recharge and discharge 

areas, and protect public trust resources. The Protecting 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 occurring or human introduced chemical constituents, 

low quality recharge water, or chemical reactions caused by mixing water of differing qualities. 

Protection of human health, the environment, and groundwater 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 certain crops can be sensitive to some constituents like 

boron. New and changing water quality standards and emerging contaminants add uncertainty to 

implementing conjunctive management projects. In some cases, conjunctive management activities may 

need to be coordinated with groundwater clean up activities to achieve multiple benefits to both water 

supply and groundwater quality. 

Environmental Concerns 

Environmental concerns related to conjunctive management projects include potential impacts on habitat, 

water quality, and wildlife caused by shifting or increasing 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 basins and new conveyance facilities. 

Funding 

There is generally limited funding to develop the infrastructure and monitoring capability for conjunctive 

management projects. This includes funding to develop and implement groundwater management plans, 

to study and construct conjunctive management projects, 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 coordinate 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 managing groundwater and surface water quantity and 

quality, land use planning, human health, and environmental protection. Regional groundwater 

management plans should be developed with assistance 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 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. 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 implementation 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 management plan, increase water supplies, and have 

other benefits including the sustainable use of groundwater, 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 state 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 working, 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 timely 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 projects 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 wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 Agencies (AGWA). “Groundwater and Surface Water in Southern California.” 

October 2000. 

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

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

• Fleckenstein, J.H., Anderson, M, Fogg, G.E. & Mount, J. (2003), Managing Surface water-groundwater to 

restore fall flows in the Cosumnes River, Journal of Water Resources Management and Planning, in press. 

• Natural Heritage Institute. “Designing Successful Groundwater 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. “Feasibility 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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, consumptive and non-consumptive environmental uses, 

water quality improvement, recreation, operational flexibility, and urban and agricultural water deliveries. 

Conveyance infrastructure includes natural watercourses as well as constructed facilities like canals, 

pipelines and related structures, including pumping plants, diversions, distribution systems and fish 

screens. Groundwater aquifers are also used to convey water. Conveyance facilities range in size from 

small local end-user distribution systems to the large systems that deliver water to, or drain, areas as large 

as multiple hydrologic regions. 

It is important to note that common water management objectives and option evaluation criteria do not 

consistently show favor toward either regional or inter-regional options. Determinations must be made at 

the project-level. 

Conveyance in California 

In general, conveyance facilities are used to move water from a source to where it is needed. An extensive 

system of conveyance facilities moves water with the use of its natural and constructed waterways. At the 

local level, water is distributed from locally developed sources to the end users. Since the state’s 

ecosystem depends on water flow and quality in creeks, streams and rivers, an overall objective is to 

balance the operation and maintenance of these conveyances 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 use natural rivers and constructed conveyances to 

deliver water from storage reservoirs in northern California 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 urban 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 interconnected channels provide convey water for in-Delta 

use and to the south of Delta pumping facilities. Without 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 Francisco Public Utilities Commission have developed major 

conveyance systems that transport water from Sierra Nevada 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 overall water supply reliability. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 conveyance projects in the Bay Area already include the, 

Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, South Bay Aqueduct and emergency interconnects between various agencies. 

The program examines the effectiveness of additional regional conveyance projects that maximize 

operational efficiency and flexibility1

. 

 

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 Conveyance 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 Fish 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 restoration 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California 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 Conveyance 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 Canal / 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 available 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 exports 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 SWP and CVP export operations and one barrier is being 

installed to protect the fisheries in the San Joaquin River. Water supply studies conducted by DWR 

indicate that average long-term water supplies will increase SWP deliveries by 90,000 acre-feet and CVP 

deliveries by 100,000 acre-feet. The details of the studies 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 10,000 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 District in the development of the San Luis Reservoir 

Low Point Improvement Project indicate that additional 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 provide 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 water quality, hydrologic variability, 

costs, timing, risk levels, geographical distribution and capacities. Therefore, significant water 

management benefits occur by integrating water operations (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, agricultural and environmental water use sectors are in 

maintaining or increasing water supply reliability, protecting water quality, augmenting current water 

supplies, and providing water system operational flexibility. For the environmental sector, benefits 

include in-stream flows, appropriate temperatures and water 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. Indeed, conveyance capacity improvements can enhance 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public 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 water, 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 water during low flow/highly 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 to 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 circumstances, 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 plants 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 studied could cost an additional $1.6 billion to $2.1 

billion over the next 10 years. However, until all alternatives for these facilities are fully evaluated, these 

cost are tentative. 

Major Issues Facing Conveyance 

Maintenance 

It is essential, at a minimum, to maintain the current 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 maintenance, 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, there 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California 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 management 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 watershed 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 management strategy in this Volume) will also require 

investment as part of the natural infrastructure of the state’s water system. 

Science 

Water managers, planners and biologists continue to work to identify and understand the relationships 

between hydrodynamics, flow timing, fish timing and movement, water temperature, geomorphology, 

water quality, environmental responses, global climate change and other conveyance related 

considerations so they can optimally plan, develop, operate and maintain natural and constructed 

conveyance infrastructure. Various CALFED programs have 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 improve 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 conveyance systems, hydrology, and level of demand. 

Operational flexibility, particularly during emergency conditions is a primary benefit of greater 

interconnection of independent water systems. 

CALFED Through-Delta Strategy 

The CALFED objective for the Conveyance Program employs a through-Delta approach to conveyance. 

Delta conveyance capacity and operational restrictions have been identified as key bottlenecks to 

improving the water supply reliability for 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, conjunctive 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 growing 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Chapter 5. Conveyance 

 5-6

Recommendations 

The following recommendations apply to State, federal and local water agencies: 

1. Assure adequate resources to maintain existing man-made and natural conveyance facilities and 

capacity and condition. This may include development of a strategy to maintain channel capacity in 

areas of the Delta and in flood management facilities. 

2. Promote development of more extensive interconnections among water resources systems such as, 

and in addition to, the SWP-CVP intertie or improved 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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) water as well as seawater. In California, the principal 

method for desalination is reverse osmosis. This process 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, desalination 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 generally 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 are given in $ per acre-foot of fresh of potable water 

produced. 

Current Desalination in California 

Desalination began in California in 1965. The last decade 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 2003 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 environmentally 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 desalination 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 allow 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 information 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 wastewater 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 costs 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, fish 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 numerous studies underway investigating the feasibility 

of desalting seawater. In November, 2001, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

(MWD) issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) under its new Seawater Desalination Program targeting 

50,000 acre-feet –per-year (AF/Y) of sustained production. 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 San Francisco Bay area agencies 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 are currently planned or projected for construction. 

These include the plants proposed in response to the 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 equivalent 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 design and construction. 

5. Sources: “Water Desalination Report’, and Worldwide Desalting Plants Inventory series by International Desalination Association. 

In addition to the above, there is additional new water supply possible from desalting oil field production 

water in the San Joaquin and Salinas Valleys and brackish agricultural drainage water in the San Joaquin 

and Imperial Valleys. These are not quantifiable at present. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 municipal 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 currently planned or projected to be constructed. 

Groundwater desalting may or may not be a “new” water 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 competitive, with other alternatives 

for acquiring new water supplies. Desalination technologies 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 previous page) acre-feet per year in increased seawater 

desalting capacity is about $1 billion. The table below shows 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 major 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 prohibitively expensive. The improvements in 

technology and the rising cost of conventional water 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 benefits of increased water supply reliability and/or the 

environmental benefits from substituting desalination for a water supply with higher environmental costs 

(e.g. Carmel River, Monterey Bay area). 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 desalination plants face much closer scrutiny. With a 

location within the coastal zone, and with the need for water intakes and outfalls, there are many 

reviewing agencies, organizations, 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 zone. A number of coastal power plants may that use 

once-through cooling from the ocean, may cease operation or convert to a “dry” cooling system. In 

addition, some plants are not in continuous operation. 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 discharge varies with the type of desalting plant and its 

operation. Brackish water plants in California, discharge 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 plants without a discharge to the ocean 

may be limited by the type of discharge options available. 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 discharge. 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 operating 90% of the time) would require about 33 

MW of power. Forecasted seawater desalination of about 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 Task Force recommendations, given the expected 

expenditures, using existing and new funding sources (see above sidebar on Task Force 

recommendations). 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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, Center 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”, California Coastal Commission (Draft Report for public 

review) 

• “Seawater Desalination: Opportunities and Challenges”, National Water Research Institute, March 

2003. 

• “Tapping the World’s Largest Reservoir: Desalination”, Western Water, January/February 2003 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California 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 and matching water quality to water use (see preventing 

pollution and matching water quality to water use strategies), drinking water supplies will generally still 

require some of level of treatment to achieve a potable 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 public health advancements of the 20th 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 through sand and gravel followed by disinfection with 

chlorine. Many water suppliers use more advanced treatment such as granular activated carbon (GAC) for 

filtration and ozone and chloramination, a combination of chlorine and ammonia, for disinfection. 

Together, filtration and disinfection are the key parts of the traditional “multiple-barrier” approach to 

treating drinking water. This is consistent with an integrated, “source-to-tap” approach to water quality, 

which can be expanded upstream to include 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 Metropolitan Water District is upgrading to ozone 

disinfection at its five treatment plants, which use either 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 protection from microbiological contaminants in drinking 

water. Some smaller water treatment plants use membrane filtration, which produces relatively high 

quality 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 quality improvements. Water systems that rely on 

groundwater disinfect well water only with chlorine, 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 contaminated by cross-connections with non-potable 

water, such as recycled water, open treated water 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 are 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 difficult 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 health of Californians, thereby improving the state’s 

standard of living and reducing the burden and costs on the state’s healthcare system. Many water 

contaminants potentially cause cancer, nervous system and organ damage, developmental impairments, 

and dysfunction of the reproductive and 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 treatment 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 Regional Water Treatment Plant, which serves Fairfield and Vacaville, 

treats a blend of Lake Berryessa and Delta water with GAC filtration and ozone. The operations and 

maintenance expenses of this plant costs $0.04 per 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 negatively 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 Civil Engineers (ASCE) recently gave a grade of “D” to 

drinking water infrastructure, in its 2003 Progress Report 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 water 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-income 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 drinking water standard, and that more than 700,000 

people were served water in violation of surface water filtration and disinfection 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 products and pharmaceuticals), there may not yet be 

treatment technologies available to remove them from drinking water. For such contaminants, only 

pollution prevention, or matching water quality to water use, will adequately address water quality. In 

fact, emerging contaminants may be created by treatment 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 immunocompromised individuals, as well as children 

and elderly, who are more susceptible than the general 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 treated surface water. Depending upon the treatment scheme 

employed, measures to reduce the probable long-term risks 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” strategy, which looks comprehensively at the total 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public 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 advanced 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 correspondingly 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, the 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 portion of a customer’s water bill, increased costs are a 

concern for many people. As costs increase, the relative burden on the household budgets of poor families 

will increase at rates greater than that of the general 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 consumers 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 State and federal Safe Drinking 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 organizations should better educate the public about 

the actual and perceived risks of tap water, bottled 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, knowledge 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 quality 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California 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 partnerships 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, address 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 disasters, and are able to reliably 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 benefits – 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 21st Century; Safe Drinking Water Plan 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 Infrastructure 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California 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 influence 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 revenues to partially fund water services also have a direct 

effect on the prices paid by the water users. In general, 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 help 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 agencies to recover costs for such things as planning, 

operation, maintenance, capital, administrative, and some environmental costs. Water rates are also 

commonly used to contribute to water agency capital investment accounts for funding anticipated 

projects. Water rates could be used to recover external costs such as third-party costs. Other means 

available to recover costs include ad velorum taxes and revenues from bonds not repaid from water rates. 

Because of existing policy, some agencies are not required to recover the full cost of development and 

maintenance. For example, Congress has not required the 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-foot 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 subsidize individual retail agency programs that benefit 

the region. 

• Incentives can include rebate programs for low-flush 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). 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 volume (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 delay 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 water 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 resulting 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 economic incentives since the incentives influence decisions 

on other management strategies that produce their own benefits. Economic incentives can be used to 

influence development of water supply augmentation or demand reduction programs. For example, grant 

funds from a State agency can reduce the effect on water 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 water 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 incentives are integrated with other management strategies. As with 

other management strategies, economic incentives must 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 incremental 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 based 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 costs 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 production 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 revenues 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 bond 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 Promote Economic Incentives 

The State and water agencies should consider and evaluate 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 management 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 encourage the sustainable use of groundwater. 

• Institute pricing incentives that reduce excessive deep percolation of water in 

agricultural drainage problem areas. 

• Agencies adopting new water rates should clearly identify what they mean to water 

users and provide education, training, and technical assistance to water users to 

maximize the desired outcome of those policies. 

2. Institute loans and grants that support better regional and statewide water management based on the 

conditions in each water district. 

• Develop ranking criteria for grant and loan awards to water agencies that consider 

economic, environmental, and equity issues, economic hardship, Public Trust, 

Environmental Justice, and the regional and statewide distribution of benefits in 

allocation of subsidy funds. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 available 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 statewide water management goals and objectives. 

4. The State should develop guidelines and ranking criteria 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 spawn. 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 natural 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 manner. Ecosystem restoration and protection should be 

viewed as the proper maintenance of California’s natural infrastructure. 

Over the past couple of decades, the public has recognized the need to restore California’s ecosystems. 

The desire to improve the conditions of those ecosystems was supported by the passage of bond issues, 

such as Propositions 204, 13 and 50. Local and regional restoration projects have multiplied. There are 

watershed alliances and regional ecosystem projects throughout 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 private lands provide wildlife habitat. See the agricultural 

land stewardship strategy for information of agricultural 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 characterized 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 could 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 and patterns to facilitate restoration actions. 

This strategy focuses on restoration of aquatic ecosystems 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 Commission, 1993) concluded that the health of 

California’s rivers is stressed and their viability as sustainable ecosystems is in peril. The report urged 

State agencies to undertake a comprehensive program 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 Bay-Delta Program plan for ecosystem restoration has 

presented broad goals, many specific objectives, and a prioritized list of actions to restore biological 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public 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 last decade, Californians have invested hundreds of 

millions of dollars in ecosystem restoration. 

The condition of California’s fisheries reveals the need 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 include coastal and Central Valley runs of steelhead; 

spring-run and winter-run Central Valley Chinook salmon; 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 ecosystem health. Ecosystem changes have caused a sharp 

decline in the abundance of things that society values, 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 affected 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 intended 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 through 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 occur in aquatic ecosystems that are already severely 

degraded, it may be difficult to avoid endangered species conflicts. 

Ecosystem Data 

Information on restoration projects, 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 facilitate access to a variety of electronic data 

describing California's rich and diverse environments. 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 key resources and stressors; and (3) reported on 

the status and trends of those resources. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 integrate the two. This integration of project goals has 

the potential to reduce the conflict over water management actions, increase the support for ecosystem 

restoration and provide a more cost effective solution. 

Within State government, several departments and 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 establishing 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 facilities in ways that improve water supply reliability while restoring 

ecosystem health and protecting public trust values. No one of these agencies can be completely 

successful unless there is collaboration among all. See Volume 1, Chapter 2, for details on the public trust 

doctrine and values.

Benefits of Ecosystem Restoration 

Restoration can improve plant and animal life, increase diversity and connectivity of habitat, help 

endangered species, and improve watersheds. Restoration can rehabilitate 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 wildlife 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 factors that we don’t fully understand. 

The state’s ecosystems, from mountain watersheds to coastal beaches, are California’s natural 

infrastructure, and support our population and economic growth. Ecosystem restoration is an investment 

in improving the condition of California’s natural infrastructure. As understanding of the linkage between 

water management and the health of the natural infrastructure 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 filtering capabilities can improve water quality. As floodplains 

and seasonal lakes and ponds are restored, groundwater recharge can increase. The result will be a more 

reliable, higher quality water supply supported by a sustainable ecosystem. 

The economic benefits that improved rivers, estuaries, wetlands, wildlife, 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 hunting opportunities that contribute hundreds of millions 

of dollars annually to California’s economy. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 billion1

. 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 viewed as competing with supplying water for human 

needs, or responsible for increasing the cost of supplying 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 Implementation 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 require 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 the 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 billion 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California 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 benefit gained such as an increase in abundance of a 

species. Efficiency can be thought of as the effectiveness 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 the 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 and need long-term financing. Although public funds 

are available, they may be sporadic and thus unreliable, 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 environmental 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 Ecosystem 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 and wildlife benefits into 

projects. See Volume 1, Chapter 2, for more 

recommendations to promote integrated 

resource planning. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 investment should provide a coordinated and comprehensive 

statewide implementation plan for restoration actions in each region. 

4. The Resources Agency should support 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 the 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-term coarse sediment supplies for ecosystem needs. 

This investigation should identify sources of sediment, replenishment processes that will sustain 

themselves and potential mercury contamination. 

Information Sources

• California State Lands Commission. 1993. California 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 property 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 dependent 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. Examples 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 importance of floods in maintaining a healthy environment. 

Likewise, some ecosystem restoration was done without considering long-term floodway maintenance. 

Multi-objective projects are a more effective than single-purpose projects. Government and the private 

sector are likely to gain public support for projects with many benefits. Planners now recognize the value 

of floodplains by directing development away from them, avoiding or minimizing the need for major 

flood control structures. 

An example of successful multi-objective floodplain management 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 habitat for waterfowl and wading birds. Parts of the 

bypass are managed for outdoor recreation, including hunting 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 using reservoir releases; copy natural flows of sediment 

and woody debris; and provide enough high flows to cover floodplains. The program recognizes that 

reconnection of rivers with their floodplains may be essential for recovering many at-risk species. 

A voter-approved bond issue, Proposition 13, authorized funds for a flood protection corridor program. 

The program supports projects that provide non-structural 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 watershed-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, recreation 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public 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 Reclamation 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 flooding to wildlife refuges and other wetlands to cut 

peak flood flows and improve water quality and habitat values. This concept is under discussion among 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Grasslands Resource 

Conservation Districts, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, State Reclamation Board, San Joaquin River 

Flood Control Association, and State 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 governor 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 the benefits of floodplains. The task 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, ecosystem and economic benefits. By encouraging wise 

land use decisions along river corridors, floodplain management can save lives, improve ecosystems and 

reduce property and livestock losses. By making better land use decisions, more open space, such as 

agriculture and native habitats, could be maintained. Controlling development within 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 habitat and agricultural lands. Many of the costs of 

floodplain management are associated with planning, 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 million 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California 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 disseminate compatible GIS-based flood maps. 

5. Alluvial Fan Floodplains - Priority for alluvial fan 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 agencies 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 with 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 should increase assistance to local agencies to 

improve flood-warning programs specific to each watershed. 

9. Flood Insurance Rate Map Issues – Decision-makers 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 1977 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 California Building Standards Code meets, at minimum, NFIP 

requirements. Ensure that other State codes applicable to public buildings meet, at a minimum, NFIP 

requirements. Ensure that any local code adoptions 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 Restoration 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 development of ecosystem restoration projects, the costs 

and impacts involved with vector control and with monitoring related to mosquito-transmitted diseases 

should be considered. 

21. Multi-Jurisdictional Partnerships - The State should encourage multi-jurisdictional partnerships when 

floodplain management projects are planned and implemented. 

22. Watershed Monitoring - The State and others should financially support the monitoring of flood 

management projects on a watershed level. 

23. Proactive and Adaptive Management of Floodplains - 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 identify, monitor, and update 

voluntary BMPs for multi-objective floodplain management. 

25. Training, Education, and Professional Certification - 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 Sources - 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 process, involving appropriate stakeholders, 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 Reclamation Board should include, in the Community 

Assistance Workshops, information on the Reclamation 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 regulations that are impediments to flood-compatible uses 

within the floodway and recommend specific revisions. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 implementation of the State’s floodplain management 

programs, including full support of the Community 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 should 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 Analysis 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 Management Advisory Committee - DWR should sponsor a 

floodplain management advisory committee composed 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 collaboration 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 measures, 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 the stream and still prevent damage from floods and soil 

erosion. This is especially difficult and costly where 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 release 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 the Governor’s Floodplain Management Task Force 

recommendations, the following recommendations are particularly 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 gages 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. 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. 

5. A Multi-Objective-Management approach to flood 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 of

contaminant 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 NO3

Nitrate + Nitrite as N

Perchlorate, ClO4

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 names

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California 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 required

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public 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

Radioactivity

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 of

Monterey Part; EPAWhittier Narrows OU;

City of Whittier; Southern

California Water

Company CWD-Salinas;

La Puente Valley CWD

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California 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; San

Gabriel 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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.html

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California 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 considered 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 water, and lesser quality water can be desirable for 

some uses, such as riparian streams with plant materials benefiting fish. Further, some new water 

supplies, such as recycled water, can be treated to a wide range of purities that can be matched to different 

uses. The use of other water sources, again, like recycled 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 navigation, hydropower generation, and recreation. Matching water quality 

to most of these uses is important because, except for municipal and industrial 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 filtration to remove particulate matter that could clog 

low pressure irrigation systems and reduce soil infiltration rates. As an extreme case, Imperial Irrigation 

District runs all water that it diverts from the Colorado 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 suitable 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 start 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 Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the Colorado River, 

were also tapped for domestic water supplies. In response, 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. For 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 higher bromide and organic carbon levels in Delta water 

with Colorado River water, to help reduce disinfection by-products in treated water. In Solano County, 

higher quality, less variable Lake Berryessa water is blended with lower quality, highly variable North 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public 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 water (and water quality) from different levels of the 

same reservoir, by using different intake levels. Many water management actions, such as conjunctive 

use, water banking, water use efficiency, and water transfers, intentionally or unintentionally, result in 

one type of water quality traded for, or blended with, another. 

Business also matches water quality to use. Water used in high-technology applications is often purer than 

that used for drinking. For instance, Silicon Valley 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 water -- 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, the 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 supply reliability--as well as disaster preparedness--on a 

regional basis. These programs could promote matching water quality to water use, with potentially no 

degradation to the ultimate use of the water. For instance, in the Bay Area, a local water agency with 

access to a water supply of relatively lower water 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 working with both the Friant Water Users Authority 

and the Kings River Water Association to investigate 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 ability 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 source waters can reduce the levels of pollutants and 

pollutant precursors that cause health concerns in drinking 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 devices and equipment. One study, conducted in 1998 

by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Metropolitan 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 water supply reliability are also potential benefits of water quality 

matching for those agencies that have access to a diverse 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 Delta 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 demineralize (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 costs of $500 per acre-foot. In some cases, costs for 

matching water quality to use will also include new conveyance systems to connect different source 

waters. 

CALFED estimates that it will spend just under $100 million (in 2004 dollars) on water quality exchanges 

during Stage 1 implementation. The primary costs of water quality exchanges are: infrastructure, 

conveyance (such as energy, capacity, and hydraulic losses), 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 Environmental Water Account, Kern Water Bank, and 

Metropolitan. Under the exchange, EWA had purchased 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 similar 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 forced 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 use are integrally connected to pollution prevention. 

Water Transfers 

Water quality exchanges face similar regulatory, institutional, 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, reducing 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) which 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. More generally, nitrate has closed more public water 

supply wells in California than any other contaminant, often permanently redirecting the use of such 

contaminated water to irrigation.1

 

Salinity 

Agricultural drainage, imported Colorado River water, and seawater intrusion in the Delta and coastal 

aquifers all contribute to increasing salinity in all types of water supplies, which can adversely affect 

many beneficial uses, including irrigation, fish and 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 remove 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 goals and objectives related to water 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 ambient water quality standards do not reflect water user 

demand for lower salinity water supplies. Moreover, other 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 source 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 prevention or trading opportunities that could result in more 

efficient water quality protection. 

Ecosystem Restoration and Drinking Water Supplies 

Some ecosystem restoration projects, such as wetlands 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 perspective). The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is 

actively investigating this potential conflict in matching water quality to use (see ecosystem restoration 

strategy). 

Recommendations to Improve Water Quality Matching 

1. The State, local water agencies, and regional planning efforts should manage water supplies to 

optimize and match water quality to intended uses and available 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 between 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 quality 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 manner that protects an exchange participant’s 

water rights. 

4. The State and local agencies should better incorporate water quality into reservoir, Delta, and local 

water supply operations, as well as facility re-operation and construction. For example, the timing of 

diversions from the Delta, and thereby the concentrations of salinity and organic carbon in those 

waters, could be better matched to domestic, agricultural, and environmental uses. Alternatively, the 

timing and location of urban and agricultural discharges to water sources, including the Delta, could 

also be coordinated with the eventual use of water conveyed by potentially impacted diversions. 

Facilities conveying municipal and industrial water could also be separated from those conveying 

water for irrigation. 

5. To facilitate water re-use downstream, the State 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 District

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California 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 beneficial uses by protecting water at its source, 

reducing the need and cost for other water management 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 problems. In addition, the legal doctrine of “public 

trust” demands that the State protect certain natural resources for the benefit of the public, including uses 

such as fishing, protection of fish and wildlife, and 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 Agency, State Water Resources Control Board, and 

Regional Water Quality Control Boards have permitting, enforcement, remediation, monitoring, and 

watershed-based programs to prevent 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 combination of source control and treatment, while 

preventing nonpoint source pollution generally involves the use of best management practices (BMPs) 

and efficient water management practices (EWMPs). The SWRCB and RWQCBs are adopting total 

maximum daily loads (or TMDLs), to control both point and nonpoint source pollution, in those water 

bodies that are not attaining their water quality standards. 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 Water Act 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited 

Segments. In 2002, California listed 685 water bodies on the 303(d) list, 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 listed as limited under the 303(d). Water 

bodies are most often listed as impaired for pathogens, 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 water 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 Regulations maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for the 

period 1994-2000. However, in each of the state’s hydrological 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. Another common groundwater contaminant, salinity--while not a health 

risk--is a concern for water palatability as well as facility 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 addition to underground storage tanks, older landfills and hazardous waste 

disposal sites are also common sources of groundwater contamination, and abandoned wells can provide a 

ready conduit for aquifer contamination. 

Environmental Water Quality 

Throughout California, water quality impairments threaten riparian and aquatic habitats, and in some 

cases are major impediments to ecosystem restoration. Urban, military, industrial, hydropower, mining, 

logging, agricultural, grazing, and recreational activities can degrade water quality. Depleted freshwater 

flows as a result of upstream dams, diversions, and interbasin 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, and conservation, can also affect water quality, both 

positively and negatively. Many significant pollution problems 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 19th century, and industrial chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), used in electrical 

transformers. These pollutants also contaminate sediments, making ecosystem restoration efforts more 

difficult. Hydraulic mining during the 1900s still has 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 links, 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 these sources have at least one detection of a regulated 

contaminant, usually from man-made sources, at a level 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 another 900 drinking water 

sources. Uranium, a naturally occurring radionuclide, and the organic chemicals trichloroethylene (TCE, 

an industrial solvent), 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP, a now-banned nematocide) and methyl 

tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE, a gasoline additive), also 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 quality in those wells is not necessarily representative of the 

water quality throughout the basin. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 groundwater sources (about 14,000 wells) are most vulnerable to septic 

tanks and sewage collection systems. Surface water 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 unique 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-products, 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 fluctuating levels of pH, turbidity, and alkalinity. 

Potential Benefits 

For the vast majority of contaminants, it is generally accepted that a pollution prevention approach to 

water quality is more cost-effective than end-of-the-pipe treatment of wastes, or advanced domestic water 

treatment for drinking water. Pollution prevention measures 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 financial 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 pollution3

. 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 source pollution. In terms of drinking water quality, 

investments in pollution prevention measures may entail more risk and uncertainty in improving water 

quality relative to advanced domestic water treatment options. 

Major Issues 

Urban Impacts 

USEPA’s most recent National Water Quality Inventory 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 city 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 Regional Water Quality Control Board has endorsed the 

use of farm-based watershed groups to monitor water quality and implement best management practices 

(BMPs) and efficient water management practices (EWMPs) to control nonpoint source pollution from 7 

million acres of irrigated lands (i.e., crops, 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 ocean salinity, are largely a result of natural processes 

for which a pollution prevention approach may not be possible, 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 and 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 sediment are other examples of naturally occurring 

contaminants for which a pollution prevention approach is infeasible.

Emerging Contaminants 

Traditionally, water agencies focus on pathogens (disease –causing microorganisms) and disinfectant byproducts (potential cancer-causing contaminants), 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 the state’s population ages, there may be increasing 

levels of pharmaceutical discharges in domestic wastewater and to the environment. Such contaminants 

 

3

 Cost estimate adjusted to $15 billion in 20004 dollars. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 processes, and can negatively impact water recycling and 

groundwater recharge projects. 

Population Growth Demands and Impacts 

Future population growth and land-use changes may unpredictably 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 originating 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 degrade 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. Once 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 sampling 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 water 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 quality, while DHS primarily regulates treatment and 

distribution of potable water. Further, surface water in California is mostly managed by DWR and the 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, while groundwater is usually not managed at all. Moreover, actually serving 

drinking water to Californians is an obligation of cities, water districts, and private water companies that 

were generally not formed in any comprehensive pattern.

Legacy Pollutants 

Although abandoned mines, clear-cut forests, and many former industrial and commercial sites leave 

behind pollution problems (e.g. leaking underground storage 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 extensive regulatory and legal proceedings determining 

legal and financial responsibility while hazardous waste sites remain.

Pollutant-by-Pollutant Water Quality Management 

Federal law requires that the State regulate water quality on a programmatic, pollutant-by-pollutant basis, 

even though our rivers, lakes, and bays — and the aquatic 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 subtly 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public 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, gene structure, nervous system functions, or immune 

response. Such changes can over time affect species survival, and population and ecosystem structure. 

Recommendations to Improve Pollution Prevention 

1. In addition to regulating water quality on a pollutant-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 pollution prevention, water quality matching, and, for 

drinking water, treatment and distribution. For pollution prevention, such a strategy would build on 

urban and agricultural pollution prevention programs 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 recommendation, 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 and 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 monitoring 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 quality problems, as well as identify trends in water 

quality. Such a program would also seek to standardize methods, especially for monitoring of 

emerging, unregulated contaminants, regularly monitor the quality of all waters of the state, and 

provide compatible data management that is accessible 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 should 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 restrict land uses or activities that threaten surface 

and groundwater quality. (See recharge area protection strategy.) 

5. The State should prioritize grant funding for source water protection activities, including building 

institutional capacity for watershed planning. 

 

4

 Such a strategy would be much like the “Equivalent Level of Public Health Protection (ELPH)” process of the 

CALFED Drinking Water Quality Program, and similar efforts 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). 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 Committee (for NPS Pollution Control) 

• Environmental Protection Indicators for California (EPIC) 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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

runoff1

.

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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 the

Hydrologic 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 necessary if the quantity and quality of groundwater in 

the aquifer are to be maintained. Existing and potential 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 secure 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 operated 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 sediment is coarse enough to allow surface water to 

infiltrate at a higher rate than through finer sediments. 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. Third, 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 Auth. Off-stream, injection wells 

Santa Clara Valley WD In-stream, off-stream 

Semitropic WSD Off-stream 

United Water Conservation District In-stream, off-stream 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public 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 spreading 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 sites during periods of the year. These active recharge 

areas and other areas should be protected for recharge purposes. 

The Drinking Water Source Assessment Program (DWSAP) 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 amendments 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 replenishing the groundwater that is 

stored in an aquifer. In simple terms, a groundwater 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 provide 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 volume 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 effective. 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 components: (1) preventing the areas from being covered 

by urban infrastructure, which renders the land unusable 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 working 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. Such 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 runoff 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 of 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California 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 availability of a sustainable and reliable water supply may 

lessen the need to purchase alternative 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 include 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 control 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 buildings, 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 successful, but they may be cost effective in the face of 

the high cost of urban land in many cities. 

Many potentially contaminating activities 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 decrease 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 transported into the aquifer and 

the groundwater may require treatment before it can be used, thereby increasing the cost of water to the 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public 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 for 10 years or longer. If we protect recharge areas by 

retaining those areas for recharge and by preventing contamination 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-treatment 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 does 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 mature 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 Promote 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 protect 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 would provide guidance and 

funding for local governments and agencies to implement 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 protecting recharge areas versus the cost of non-protection. 

Eminent domain should not be allowed to convert potential recharge areas to other uses1

. 

7. Ensure that federal and State programs regulating subsurface disposal in accordance with the Safe 

Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection Control 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 the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-523) 

and Amendments. 

9. Develop educational programs for public works officials 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 and why recharge areas are critical components. 

12. Develop a uniform method for analyzing the economic 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 areas 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 groundwater 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 Means to Improve the Connection,” found in Volume 4. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 Water 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 Proceedings, 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 California

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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

Year

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California 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 potentially

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

Chapter 17. Surface Storage – CALFED 

17-1 

Chapter 17. Surface Storage – CALFED1 

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 and 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 management plans in the nation, the CALFED Bay-Delta 

Program set forth objectives and actions to protect water 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 provide 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 extent possible, be paid by the beneficiaries of the 

program actions. The CALFED Program has also provided 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 example, potential reservoirs smaller than 200,000 acrefeet of storage were considered too small to materially 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 Investigations Progress Report,” April, 2005 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public 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 reached a critical milestone. With input from 

stakeholders and assistance from local agencies, Reclamation and DWR have completed preliminary 

environmental impact studies and conceptual modeling 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 processes. 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 date 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 systems and consequently negatively impacted the 

quantity, quality, and timing of deliveries. The inflexibility and resulting consequences are then passed 

along to water users that are partially or wholly dependent on the operations or deliveries of the CVP and 

SWP systems. By storing additional water, new surface 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 provide 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.cfm 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California 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 relatively smaller seasonal snowpack storage capacity. 

Implementation of individual surface storage reservoirs 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 Environmental 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 various 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 individual surface storage projects identified in the CALFED 

 

2

. Increase in deliveries from DWR and 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 capacity) 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 droughts. 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 Shasta Lake Expansion, to $2.4 billion for Sites 

Reservoir with the most extensive conveyance facilities; 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 complete 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 critical to successful completion of the feasibility and 

environmental studies for the five projects. California’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 authorization for four of the five storage investigations 

(SLWRI, NODOS, LVE, and USJRBSI). DWR, Reclamation 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 support surface storage investigations. The Federal 

budget for this fiscal year and the President’s proposed budget for next year amount to approximately 

$13.5 million, leaving an unmet need of $21.6 million. Any future Federal appropriations 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 addition, DWR and Reclamation are working with 

stakeholders to identify which projects have the greatest local interest and possible willingness to pay for 

project costs. The CALFED Storage Program will then 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 advancing 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 investigations. While each of the investigations 

addresses a unique purpose to meet different combinations of water supply and water quality needs, all of 

the surface storage investigations share some common requirements including completing planning 

reports and feasibility studies and the 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 Reclamation report entitled, “CALFED Bay-Delta Surface 

Storage Investigations Progress Report,” April, 2005. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 developing 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 planning process is developing project alternatives that 

meet the requirements of Federal, State, and local 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 studies and environmental documents can be completed when potential 

participants are able to provide more specificity regarding their needs and interests. 

The CALFED Storage Program is refining project alternatives and evaluating the level of potential 

participants’ interests. The Federal planning process is being used to determine if a Federal interest exists 

for a specific project. In addition, Reclamation and DWR are working directly with potential participants 

by performing requested studies and are providing information to these participants as they perform their 

own evaluations to determine if the surface storage projects 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 developed, detailed impact analyses cannot be completed. Utilizing the 

planning process, identifying each surface storage project’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 complete the feasibility and environmental studies of 

the five potential surface storage projects identified in the CALFED ROD. 

• The investigations should continue to test all 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Chapter 17. Surface Storage – CALFED 

 17-6

• Continue evaluation and presentation of operational scenarios that will allow potential 

participants to assess their interest in specific projects. 

• Develop mechanisms to provide assurances that projects 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 State and federal financial policies 

and a determination of the potential for State and federal 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 Storage Scoping Report, October 2002 

• Initial Surface Water Storage Screening Report, CALFED August 2000 

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

• In-Delta Storage Program Draft Summary Report 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 Restoration along the Sacramento River between Colusa 

and Red Bluff, Revised February 14, 2000 

• Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation, 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 Mission 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/storage

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California 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 States1

.

In California, nearly 40 dams have been built over the past decade2

. 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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, more

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 operation and management procedures for such water 

facilities as dams and canals to meet multiple beneficial uses. System reoperation could be used to 

rebalance existing and new water supplies, improve the efficiency of existing uses, or improve some uses 

and decrease others. In some cases, physical modifications to the facilities may be needed to expand the 

reoperation capability. 

Population growth, with its commensurate demand for more water, better understanding of the 

environmental impacts of water development, and changing 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 released 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 capacity of reservoirs by conveying reservoir water 

to groundwater banks before the refill season. 

• Coordinating water storage, water conveyance, and 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 accept if full deliveries are not met. The ability to 

customize risk tolerances to users may allow overall improvements in system efficiency. 

Extent of System Reoperation 

System reoperation is not a new tool for water managers. 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 deliveries 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 have 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, mandated changes in management of the Central Valley 

Project, particularly for the protection, restoration, and enhancement of fish and wildlife. This has led to 

changes in water supply contracts, reallocation of water for environmental benefits, increased use of 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public 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 installation 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 release it through powerhouse turbines, providing cold water 

for endangered Winter Run Chinook salmon spawning downstream in the Sacramento River, while 

maintaining hydroelectric power generation. Water is drawn from different levels of the lake at different 

times of the year to match the downstream requirements 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 recognizes 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 system 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 develop 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 management 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-Delta Program's overall management strategy for the 

Bay-Delta Ecosystem. EWA's purpose is to provide greater protection to the fish of the Bay-Delta Estuary 

than current regulatory requirements through environmentally 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 California licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) must undergo review and relicensing by 2015. 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, marshlands 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, public 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 California are uncertain. Climate change could result in 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

Chapter 19. System Reoperation 

19-3 

altered snowpack accumulation and melting, runoff patterns, 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, groundwater, and ecosystems. The California water 

managers continue to evaluate climate change and study ways of incorporating flexibility into the system 

to respond to climate change. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 (EID’s) Project 184 highlights the potential benefits, costs, and issues 

surrounding system reoperation as part of FERC relicensing. 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 significantly 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 settlement agreement, which has been filed with FERC as 

recommendations for establishing conditions for the new license: 

• Lake Level criteria for improved recreation opportunities 

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

• Pulse flows in regulated reaches to mimic natural hydrologic condition peak flows 

• Recreation facility improvements including a new boat ramp, campground 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 conveyance, 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 reoperation would generally be enhanced for recreation 

interests compared to historic project operations, disagreement 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 difficult 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 annual agreements that were eventually finalized in 1986 with 

the signing of the Coordinated Operating Agreement. This agreement has led to significant 

improvement in how the two projects coordinate to provide water to meet consumptive and 

environmental uses. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is evaluating system reoperation, 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 Joaquin River. Part of this 

reoperation would be to use excess capacity from 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 management strategies such as surface storage, 

conveyance facilities, conjunctive management, water-dependent 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 extreme 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 costs may include performing the feasibility studies, 

completing CEQA/NEPA analysis, and undergoing water 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 construction, 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 Commission indicate that project-specific and cumulative 

losses associated with FERC relicensing are not significant 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 developing 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 and 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public 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. There 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 existing uses including recreation, summer homes, wetland 

habitat and fisheries. In addition, reoperation could 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 environment, 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 been widely exercised, but they are increasingly of 

interest as rural counties develop. It may be possible 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. Forest 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 constructing new or modifying or removing existing 

facilities. Agencies might have difficulty raising the 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 existing operations for other benefits. For example, the 

need to maintain cold-water temperature reserves in reservoirs for downstream fisheries may prohibit 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California 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 reoperation 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 scientific data on the ecological impacts. 

b. Determine the adequacy of current and new sampling 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 enhance scientific understanding and assessment of 

effects. 

2. The State should provide financial and technical assistance for feasibility studies and evaluations that 

could lead to enhanced management of water resources 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 potential impacts of global climate change on water 

management in California and develop potential 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 resources 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 2003 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The 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 strong 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 combination 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. Although 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 the 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 the 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 governments 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 regional 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 municipal service reviews on a regular basis. This 

will allow a comprehensive evaluation of how all services, including water, are delivered to developing 

areas of the state. 

Potential Benefits of More Compact Development 

There are water-related benefits that accrue from more 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 congestion in urban areas, it may reduce the total 

development footprint in the state and reduce urbanization 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 almost half of residential water use. An increase in 

residential density from four units per acre to five reduces the landscaping area by 20 percent, which 

should cut water usage by roughly 10 percent compared 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. The 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 implementing 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 suppliers, and agencies which regulate water quality. 

However, by implementing this strategy, there will 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 development 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 liability associated with pursuing infill projects, and 

environmental mitigation strategies that encourage lower density development. In addition, landscape, 

soils, environmental hazards and infrastructure limitations 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 significant and expensive public policy undertaking with as 

yet unknown water use savings compared to more 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 agencies 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 221 (Kuehl) enacted in 2001. Increased coordination 

will also be necessary among all levels of government to coordinate inter-agency planning, to develop 

databases, and to interpret and share data and information. 

Recommendations 

State 

1. Provide incentives to developers and local governments 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 urban 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 with these water agencies to show compliance with 

Water Code sections that require local governments 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 governments 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 and water quality to help local 

agencies in their planning efforts. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 resource efficient development patterns and best 

practices. 

Local Government 

1. Recognize regional needs and resources when developing local general plans and designing and 

building neighborhoods and communities. Improve communication, coordination and informationsharing with other local agencies, regional planning 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 promote 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 context 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 water 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 agencies to assess water supply availability for new development. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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, Environmental 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 amend § 65867.5 of, and to add §§ 66455.3 and 66473.7 to, the 

Government Code, relating to land use. 

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=78704329921+8+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

• Statutes of 2001 (California), ch. 643. (Senate Bill 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 10657 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?WAISdocID=78698629691+3+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California 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 of

activities 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 the

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public 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 wildlife

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 the

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 supply, water quality, and the environment. 

Urban Water Use Efficiency Efforts in California 

In 2000, cities and suburbs used about 8.7 million acre-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 Department 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 1992 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 improved water use efficiency, including new methods 

and technologies that can be expected to significantly increase conservation potential. The Irvine Ranch 

Water District is experimenting with “ET Controllers” -- weather-controlled irrigation systems and 

installed controllers at 40 homes. Consumption dropped 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 Programs 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public 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 Foundation “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 water 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 groundwater storage, or stores water by agreement with 

an agency that maintains a groundwater bank and returns it for use during drought years. Translating 

water use efficiency savings into specific water supply reliability benefits will depend on the water 

system involved, the level of savings, and the variations 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 and operation. Energy costs, which are often much 

greater than water costs, are avoided as well, 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 green 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 very 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 also any capital investments and staffing that may be 

required. Water conservation measures can also include 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 fallen below commitments made in 2000 through the 

CALFED Record of Decision that called for a state and federal investment of $1.5 billion to $2 billion 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California 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 projected expenditures by $235 million. 

Through the CUWCC MOU, local agencies have committed 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 consistent and broadly acceptable method to evaluate costeffectiveness and water savings is needed. 

Additional research is needed into the problems of funding and implementing 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 and its customers. One example of a no-interest loan 

program is the "Unconserved Water Using Air Conditioner 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 replace them with new non-water using energy efficient 

units. It applied the surcharge paid by participating customers to loan repayment for the program. The 

customer surcharge will be eliminated when 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 the Light Wash Program in which a company is working 

with California water agencies and utilities to offer combined 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 area laundry facilities, businesses with on-premise 

laundry, and coin laundry stores in 2003. The program is operated on a turnkey basis for participating 

water utilities and requires virtually no staff time. The only required contribution by participating water 

utilities is the rebate co-payment. Program participation 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 compete 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 programs, not all water suppliers have 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). 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 collaborative action by agencies, further research, and 

continued state/federal support in addressing the implementation 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. Documentation and evaluation of the achievements attributable to 

water use efficiency projects and programs, vital elements 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, complemented by ongoing accounting, monitoring and 

assessment. 

The measurement of water use and associated information provided to the water user are essential to 

efficient water management. Documenting water savings related to the various programs rests on the 

ability to track water use. Most urban areas are metered, but several metropolitan areas, mostly in the 

Central Valley and Foothill regions, remain unmetered. 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; incentives; 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 institutional 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 priority 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 

rehabilitation 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California 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 are needed before being promoted and fully adopted. 

Presently it takes too long to run pilot projects, conduct 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 actions 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 improvements. Offset programs in Cambria, on the 

California coast, have included farm irrigation improvements such as drip irrigation. Some water districts 

implementing an Offset program require the developer 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 reducing their net water needs. Water savings have been 

achieved using the Offset program in the City of San 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 Offset 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 some 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. This phenomenon is known as 

‘demand hardening’. Districts 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 records. Public education has 

proven effective in rallying support for short-term 

additional water conservation measures. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 incentive programs, both implementation and data 

collection. Identify and establish priorities for future grant programs and other incentives. Provide 

ample opportunities for small districts, economically 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 conservation programs. Develop and implement rate 

structures that encourage water use efficiency. Help 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 requirements, 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 the CUWCC. The Task Force will (1) make 

recommendations for improving the Model Landscape Ordinance, and (2) comment on additional 

matters related to landscape water use efficiency. 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 standards for fixtures and appliances, reducing 

residential water use. 

• Retrofit remaining standard toilets with more efficient 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, education, training, and technical assistance 

programs to foster a strong environmental resource ethic with an emphasis on water use 

efficiency. 

• Coordinate with other resource management programs such as watershed management, urban 

runoff management, waste water treatment, 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 development of incentives for use of submeters in large landscape irrigation. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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 practices, including the positive and potentially 

negative effects of these practices and real world challenges to implementation. 

• Increase the emphasis on the science aspect of projects, especially monitoring and evaluation, in 

support of CALFED goals. 

• Work with state and federal grant recipients and others 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 implementation of water conservation activities at the 

local and regional level. Pursue and promote state 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 participation of other stakeholders, standardize utility 

billing and reporting systems by customer type and units of measure and identify industrial 

water use customers by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Collect enduse data periodically. Coordination 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 per 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 the 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 techniques to improve water use efficiency and 

develop new BMPs to correspond with new information. 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 districts 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. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
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, Christine 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 Conservation Council, June 2004" 

• BMP 9 Handbook: A Guide to Implementing Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Water 

Conservation Programs as Specified in Best Management Practice 9," prepared for the California 

Urban Water Conservation Council, Sacramento, California, 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 Water Use and Efficiency in California.” 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A