1-1 INTRODUCTION

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

I

n 1957, the Department published Bulletin 3, the California Water Plan. Bulletin 3

was followed by the Bulletin 160 series, published six times between 1966 and 1993,

updating the California Water Plan. A 1991 amendment to the California Water

Code directed the Department to update the plan every five years. Bulletin 160-98 is the

latest in the series.

The Bulletin 160 series assesses California’s agricultural, environmental, and urban

water needs and evaluates water supplies, in order to quantify the gap between future water

demands and the corresponding water supplies. The series presents a statewide overview of

current water management activities and provides water managers with a framework for

making water resources decisions.

While the basic scope of the Department’s water plan updates has remained unchanged, each update has taken a distinct approach to water resources planning, reflecting

issues or concerns at the time of its publication. In response to public comments

on the last update, Bulletin 160-93, the 1998 update evaluates water management

actions that could be implemented to improve California’s water supply reliability.

Bulletin 160-93 analyzed 2020 agricultural, environmental, and urban water demands in considerable detail. These demands, together with water supply

information, have been updated for the 1998 Bulletin, which also uses a 2020

planning horizon. However, much of Bulletin 160-98 is devoted to identifying

and analyzing options for improving water supply reliability. Water management

options available to, and being considered by, local agencies form the building

The Department’s

Bulletin 160

series quantifies

California’s

managed or

dedicated water

uses—urban,

agricultural, and

environmental

uses. Unmanaged

uses, such as the

precipitation

consumed by

native plants, are

not quantified.

Introduction

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
INTRODUCTION 1-2

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

1995 2020

Agricultural

Environmental

Urban

Agricultural

Environmental

Urban

11% 15%

43% 39%

46% 46%

Summary of Key Statistics

Shown below for quick reference are some key statistics presented in Chapter 4. Water use information is based on average

water year conditions. The details behind the statistics are discussed later.

1995 2020 Forecast Change

Population (million) 32.1 47.5 +15.4

Irrigated crops (million acres) 9.5 9.2 -0.3

Urban water use (maf) 8.8 12.0 +3.2

Agricultural water use (maf) 33.8 31.5 -2.3

Environmental water use (maf) 36.9 37.0 +0.1

blocks of evaluations prepared for each of the State’s

ten major hydrologic regions. (Water supplies provided

by local agencies represent about 70 percent of

California’s developed water supplies.) These potential local options are integrated with options that are

statewide in scope, such as the CALFED Bay-Delta

program, to create a statewide evaluation.

The statewide evaluation represents a snapshot, at

an appraisal level of detail, of how actions planned by

California water managers could reduce the gap between supplies and demands. The evaluation does not

present potential measures to reduce all shortages statewide to zero in 2020. Such an approach would not

reflect economic realities and current planning by local agencies. Not all areas of the State and not all water

users can afford to reduce drought year shortages to

zero. Bulletin 160-98 focuses on compiling those options that appear to have a reasonable chance of being

implemented by water suppliers, to illustrate potential progress in reducing the State’s future shortages.

Bulletin 160-98 estimates that California’s water

shortages at a 1995 level of development are 1.6 maf

in average water years, and 5.1 maf in drought years.

(As described later in the Bulletin, shortages represent

the difference between water supplies and water demands.) The magnitude of shortages shown for

drought conditions in the base year reflects the cutbacks in supply experienced by California water users

during the recent six-year drought. Bulletin 160-98

forecasts increased shortages by 2020—2.4 maf in average water years and 6.2 maf in drought years. The

future water management options identified as likely

to be implemented could reduce those shortages to

0.2 maf in average water years and 2.7 maf in drought

years.

The accompanying sidebar summarizes key statistics developed later in the Bulletin, to provide the

reader with an overview of California’s water uses.

California—An Overview

Figure 1-1 shows California’s size relative to that

of the contiguous 48 states. California is the nation’s

most populous state and is also the top-ranked state in

dollar value of agricultural production. Although

California’s present population is over 33 million

people, the State still has large areas of open space and

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
1-3 INTRODUCTION

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

lands set aside for public use and enjoyment, including 18 national forests, 23 units of the national park

system, and 355 units of the state park system. California is a state of great contrasts. Population density

ranges from over 16,000 people per square mile in the

City and County of San Francisco to less than 2 people

per square mile in Alpine County. The highest (Mount

Whitney) and lowest (Death Valley) points in the contiguous United States are located not far from each

other in California. The State’s average annual precipitation ranges from more than 90 inches on the North

Coast to about 2 inches in Death Valley.

To put California’s population into perspective,

about one of every eight U.S. residents now lives in

California. During the time period covered in the Bulletin (the 25 years from 1995 to 2020), California’s

population is forecast to increase by more than 15 million people, the equivalent of adding the present

populations of Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah to California,

Yosemite National Park is one of the U.S. Park Service’s most

popular facilities. Here, Half Dome is seen from the Merced

River.

FIGURE 1-1.

California in Relation to the United States

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
INTRODUCTION 1-4

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Despite the State’s increasing human population, many species

of wildlife still call California home. Some of the larger

animal species that frequently coexist with suburban development, like this opossum, are nocturnal. Suburban residents

thus may not realize how widespread these species are.

as shown in Figure 1-2. Today, four of the nation’s 15

largest cities (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and

San Francisco) are located in the State.

California’s population and abundant natural resources have helped create the State’s trillion-dollar

economy which, according to the California Trade and

Commerce Agency, ranks seventh among world economic powers. California’s water resources have helped

it maintain its status as the nation’s top agricultural

state for 50 consecutive years. It is the nation’s leading

agricultural export state, the sixth largest agricultural

exporter in the world, the nation’s number one dairy

state, and the producer of 55 percent of the nation’s

fruits, nuts, and vegetables. California is the primary

U.S. producer of specialty crops such as almonds, artichokes, dates, figs, kiwifruit, olives, pistachios, and

walnuts. Ten of the top 15 agricultural counties in the

U.S. are in California.

Anticipated

Population

Growth

In California

By 2020

 + 15.4 million

Populations of

Neighboring

States

Oregon

Idaho

Montana

Wyoming

Nevada

Utah

Arizona

New Mexico

The anticipated

growth in California's population

by the year 2020 is approximately

equivalent to the combined 1995

population of these eight neighboring states.

New Mexico

Arizona

Nevada

Oregon

Idaho

Wyoming

Utah

Montana

TOTAL:

1.7

4.3

1.5

3.1

1.2

0.5

2.0

0.9

15.2 million

FIGURE 1-2.

California’s Expected Population Growth Versus Neighboring States’ Populations

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
1-5 INTRODUCTION

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Central Valley

Klamath Mountains

Modoc Plateau

Sierra Nevada

Great Basin

Mojave

Desert

Colorado

River

Desert

Peninsular

Ranges

Transverse

Ranges

Coast

Range

Cascade Range

California is a state of diverse climates and landforms. Figure 1-3 is a relief map of California

illustrating the State’s major geomorphic provinces. In

roughly north to south order, major geomorphic features are: the Klamath Mountains, Modoc Plateau,

Cascade Range, Central Valley, Sierra Nevada, Coast

Range, Great Basin, Transverse Ranges,

Mojave Desert, Peninsular Ranges, and Colorado River Desert.

The Klamath Mountains are a rugged

mountain range on the California-Oregon

border. To the east, the Cascade Range is a

chain of volcanic cones that stretches from

California into Washington. Until the 1980

eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington,

Mount Lassen (the southernmost of the Cascade volcanos) was the most recently active

volcano in the United States outside of Alaska and

Hawaii. The Modoc Plateau to the east of the Cascade Range is the southernmost part of a broad area

of lava flows and small volcanic cones covering much

of eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. The

Pit River, a major Sacramento River tributary, winds

through the Modoc Plateau and crosses the Cascade

Range between two of its major volcanos—Shasta and

Lassen.

The Central Valley is an alluvial basin over

400miles long by about 50 miles wide, bounded by

the Coast Range on the west and the Sierra Nevada

on the east. Except for the Tulare Lake drainage at

the southern end of the valley (a closed drainage basin), rivers draining the Sierra Nevada flow onto the

valley floor, join with the Sacramento or San Joaquin

Rivers, and flow through a gap in the Coast Range to

San Francisco Bay. The Central Valley provides about

Mount Shasta,

a Cascade Range

volcano, dominates

the horizon in

the northern

Sacramento

Valley.

FIGURE 1-3.

Relief Map of California

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
INTRODUCTION 1-6

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

80 percent of the State’s agricultural production. The

Sierra Nevada is a fault block mountain range whose

western slopes are marked by deep river-cut canyons.

Sierran rivers furnish much of California’s developed

surface water supplies.

The Coast Ranges are bounded on the north by

the Klamath Mountains and on the south by the Transverse Ranges. The San Andreas Fault is a prominent

geologic feature of the Coast Ranges; its path can

readily be traced in areas where faulting has controlled

the direction of watercourses such as the Gualala River

on the North Coast. The San Andreas Fault extends

into the San Bernardino Mountains of the Transverse

Ranges geomorphic province (so called because these

mountain ranges trend east-west). The Peninsular

Ranges (which trend north-south) are a cluster of

ranges separated by long valleys dividing, for example,

the Riverside area from the Los Angeles coastal plain.

The western edge of the Mojave Desert is delineated by the Garlock Fault and by a portion of the San

Andreas Fault. The Mojave is a region of interior drainage characterized by large areas of alluvium with

scattered areas of recent volcanic features. The Mojave

has numerous playa lakes, including Silver Lake, the

terminus of the Mojave River. The Colorado River

Desert to the south, also a closed drainage basin, is a

lower elevation desert whose most prominent feature

is the Salton Sea, which occupies a structural trough.

The Great Basin (also called the Basin and Range province) begins on the east side of California’s Sierra

Nevada and extends across Nevada and into Utah. Also

a region of interior drainage, it is characterized by fault

block mountain ranges separated by roughly northsouth trending valleys, such as Owens Valley and Death

Valley.

Figure 1-4 shows the location of the State’s major

water projects. The federal Central Valley Project is

the largest water project in California and the

Department’s State Water Project is the second largest. (Descriptions of these, and of some of the larger

local water projects, are provided in Chapter 3.) The

Looking out toward the floor of Death Valley from Zabriskie

Point. Borate minerals concentrated by centuries of evaporation on the valley floor were mined here in the 1800s and hauled

from the valley by mule teams.

California’s Largest Water Retailers

Shown below are some of the largest annual retail water deliveries by local agencies, to illustrate the magnitude of

urban and agricultural water demands. Retail delivery is the water supplied to an individual urban or agricultural

customer. (Local agencies that wholesale water, such as Metropolitan Water District of Southern California or the

City and County of San Francisco, have larger annual deliveries than the amounts shown here.)

Historical Maximum Annual Retail Water Deliveries

Water Agency Year Delivery (taf)

Agricultural

Imperial Irrigation District 1996 2,846

Westlands Water District 1984 1,444

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District 1984 831

Turlock Irrigation District 1976 687

Fresno Irrigation District 1995 627

Urban

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 1986a 706

City of San Diego 1989 257

East Bay Municipal Utility District 1976 249

San Jose Water Company 1987 128

City of Fresno 1996 125

a

 For fiscal year from July 1986 to June 1987.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
1-7 INTRODUCTION

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

State

Federal

Local

Trinity

Lake

Shasta

Lake

Lake

Oroville

Tehama-Colusa

Canal

Folsom

Lake

Folsom South

Canal

Mokelumne

Aqueduct Hetch Hetchy

Aqueduct

Delta-Mendota

Canal

Madera

Canal

Millerton

Lake

Friant-Kern

Canal

South Bay

Aqueduct

North Bay

Aqueduct

San Luis

Reservoir

Coalinga

Canal

Cross Valley

Canal

Los Angeles

Aqueduct California

Aqueduct

Colorado River

Aqueduct

Coachella

Canal

San Diego

Aqueducts

All American

Canal

Lake

Almanor

Corning

Canal

Black Butte

Reservoir

Stony Gorge

Reservoir

East Park

Reservoir

Tule

Lake

Clear

Lake

Indian Valley

Reservoir

Lake

Berryessa

Lake

Mendocino

Lake

Sonoma

Glenn Colusa

Canal

Contra Costa

Canal

San

New Bullards Bar

Reservoir

Englebright

Reservoir

Camanche

Reservoir New Melones

Lake

Lake

McClure

New Don

Pedro Lake Lake

Crowley

Pine Flat

Lake

Lake

Kaweah

Nacimiento

Reservoir

San Antonio

Reservoir

Success

Lake

Twitchell

Reservoir

Isabella

Lake

Castaic

Lake Lake

Casitas

Cachuma

Reservoir

Lake

Perris

Silverwood

Lake

Lake

Mathews

Henshaw

Reservoir

San Vicente

Reservoir

Grant

Lake

Lower

Otay

Reservoir

Red Bluff

Diversion Dam

Luis

Canal

Santa Clara

Conduit

Hollister

Conduit

Lake

Clear Tahoe

Lake

Whiskeytown

Lake

FIGURE 1-4.

California’s Major Water Projects

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
INTRODUCTION 1-8

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

sidebars highlight California’s largest waterbodies and

provide information on historic water deliveries by

California’s largest water retailers, to provide a perspective on California’s water resources and water use.

Bulletin 160-98 Hydrologic Regions

Figure 1-5 shows California’s hydrologic regions.

The Department subdivides the State into regions for

planning purposes. The largest planning unit is the

hydrologic region, a unit used extensively in this Bulletin. California has ten hydrologic regions,

corresponding to the State’s major drainage basins. The

next level of delineation below hydrologic regions is

the planning subarea. Some of the regional water management plans in Chapters 7-9 discuss information at

the PSA level. The smallest study unit used by the

Department is the detailed analysis unit. California is

divided into 278 DAUs. Most of the Department’s

California Water Statistics

California’s Largest Lakes, Reservoirs, and Rivers

Natural (Undammed) Lakes

Lake Storage Capacity (taf) Comments

Salton Sea 7,500 At water surface elevation of -226 feet.

This is a saline lake.

Mono Lake 2,620 At water surface elevation of 6,383.2 feet.

This lake is also saline.

Eagle Lake 640 At water surface elevation of 5,107 feet.

Has no outlet and is somewhat alkaline.

Goose Lake 475 At water surface elevation of 4,700 feet.

Partly in Oregon. The lake is alkaline.

Reservoirs Constructed at Sites Not Previously Occupied by Pre-existing Natural Lakes

Reservoir Capacity (taf) Owner

Shasta 4,552 USBR

Oroville 3,538 DWR

Trinity 2,448 USBR

New Melones 2,420 USBR

Reservoirs Constructed by Damming Pre-existing Natural Lakes

Reservoir Capacity (taf)a Owner

Lake Tahoe 745 USBR

Clear Lake (Modoc County) 451 USBR

Clear Lake (Lake County) 315 YCFCWCDb

Rivers

 Based on average annual runoff (maf)

Sacramento River 22.4

Klamath River 11.1

San Joaquin River 6.4

Eel River 6.3

a

 Storage capacity shown is the operable capacity of the reservoir, not the total capacity of the lake.

b Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

Based on watershed area (square miles)

Sacramento River 26,548

San Joaquin River 15,946

Klamath (California portion only) 10,020

Amargosa River (California portion only) 6,442

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
1-9 INTRODUCTION

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

North

Coast

Sacramento

River

San Joaquin

River

San

Francisco

Bay

Central

Coast

Tulare

Lake

South

Lahontan

South

Coast Colorado

River

North

Lahontan

FIGURE 1-5.

California’s Hydrologic Regions

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
INTRODUCTION 1-10

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Bulletin 160 analyses begin at the DAU level, and the

results are aggregated into hydrologic regions for presentation.

Some Trends in California Water

Management Activities

Key dates in California’s water history are shown

in the sidebar. The late 1940s through the 1970s was a

period of significant expansion of the State’s infrastructure, in response to California’s post-World War II

population boom. During this time, the State expanded

its highway system, constructed the State Water Project,

and established a blueprint for a higher education system. At the federal level, many of the Central Valley

Project’s major facilities were constructed. There was

substantial State and federal government involvement

in—and funding for—water resources development,

including direct financial assistance to local agencies

for constructing water supply infrastructure (such as

the Davis-Grunsky Act and Small Reclamation Projects

Act programs).

The emergence of the environmental movement

in the latter part of the 1960s began to effect a change

in society’s values, increasing the desire to preserve

natural areas in a relatively undeveloped condition.

With enactment of a number of environmental protection statutes, the State and federal governments’ roles

in water began to shift from development to management and regulation. In the 1970s, the “taxpayer

revolt”, typified by voter support for Proposition 13,

reduced available funding to local agencies. (Two recent influences on funding sources for resources

programs include deficit reduction goals for the federal budget and voter approval of Proposition 218, a

measure to limit the ability of local governments to

levy assessments.) There was a reduction in construcCalifornia’s Hydrologic Regions

North Coast Klamath River and Lost River Basins, and all basins draining into the Pacific Ocean from the Oregon

stateline southerly through the Russian River Basin.

San Francisco Bay Basins draining into San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun Bays, and into Sacramento River downstream

from Collinsville; western Contra Costa County; and basins directly tributary to the Pacific Ocean

below the Russian River watershed to the southern boundary of the Pescadero Creek Basin.

Central Coast Basins draining into the Pacific Ocean below the Pescadero Creek watershed to the southeastern

boundary of Rincon Creek Basin in western Ventura County.

South Coast Basins draining into the Pacific Ocean from the southeastern boundary of Rincon Creek Basin to the

Mexican boundary.

Sacramento River Basins draining into the Sacramento River system in the Central Valley (including the Pit River

drainage), from the Oregon border south through the American River drainage basin.

San Joaquin River Basins draining into the San Joaquin River system, from the Cosumnes River Basin on the north

through the southern boundary of the San Joaquin River watershed.

Tulare Lake The closed drainage basin at the south end of the San Joaquin Valley, south of the San Joaquin River

watershed, encompassing basins draining to the Kern, Tulare, and Buena Vista Lakebeds.

North Lahontan Basins east of the Sierra Nevada crest, and west of the Nevada stateline, from the Oregon

border south to the southern boundary of the Walker River watershed.

South Lahontan The closed drainage basins east of the Sierra Nevada crest, south of the Walker River watershed,

northeast of the Transverse Ranges, north of the Colorado River Region. The main basins are the

Owens and the Mojave River Basins.

Colorado River Basins south and east of the South Coast and South Lahontan regions; areas that drain into the

Colorado River, the Salton Sea, and other closed basins north of the Mexican border.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
1-11 INTRODUCTION

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

A California Water Chronology

 In 2000, California will celebrate its sesquicentennial (150 years of statehood). Within this relatively short time period,

the State’s major water infrastructure and complex institutional framework for managing water have been developed. The

following chronology highlights some key points in California’s water history.

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo transfers California from Mexico to the U.S.

Gold is discovered at Sutter’s Mill on the American River.

California is admitted to the Union.

First reported construction of a dam on Lake Tahoe.

Hydraulic mining is banned because of its impacts on navigation and contribution to flooding.

Lux v. Haggin addresses competing water rights doctrines of riparianism and prior appropriation.

Legislature enacts Wright Irrigation District Act, allowing creation of special districts.

Turlock Irrigation District becomes first irrigation district formed under the Wright Act.

World’s first long-distance transmission of electric power (22 miles), from a 3,000 kW

hydropower plant at Folsom to Sacramento.

Congress enacts the Reclamation Act of 1902, creating the Reclamation Service, and authorizing

federal construction of water projects.

Salton Sea is created when the Colorado River breaches an irrigation canal and flows into the Salton Trough.

First barrel of Los Angeles Aqueduct completed.

California’s present system of administering appropriative water rights is established by the

Water Commission Act.

Colorado River Compact signed.

California Constitution amended to prohibit waste of water and to require reasonable beneficial use.

Saint Francis Dam fails.

State dam safety program goes into effect.

East Bay MUD’s Mokelumne River Aqueduct is completed.

San Francisco’s Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct is completed.

All American Canal is completed.

Colorado River Aqueduct is completed.

Shasta Dam is completed.

The Department publishes Bulletin 3, the California Water Plan.

California voters approve the Burns-Porter Act, authorizing the sale of bonds to finance

State Water Project construction.

Oroville Dam is completed.

Congress enacts National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Legislature enacts Porter-Cologne Act, the foundation of California water quality regulatory programs.

Congress enacts National Environmental Policy Act.

Legislature enacts California Environmental Quality Act.

Legislature enacts California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

California Aqueduct is completed.

California v. U.S. held that the U.S. must obtain water rights under State law for reclamation projects,

absent clear congressional direction to the contrary.

SWRCB issues Decision 1485, requiring the CVP and SWP to meet specified Bay-Delta operating criteria.

National Audubon Society v. Superior Court sets forth the application of public trust concepts

to water rights administered by SWRCB.

Congress enacts the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act (PL 101-618).

Congress enacts the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (PL 102-575).

SWRCB issues Decision 1631, requiring specified protections for Mono Lake levels.

Bay-Delta Accord signed; its original three-year term was subsequently extended to a total of four years.

1848

1848

1850

1871

1884

1886

1887

1887

1895

1902

1905

1913

1914

1922

1928

1928

1929

1929

1934

1940

1941

1945

1957

1960

1968

1968

1969

1969

1970

1972

1973

1978

1978

1983

1990

1992

1994

1994

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
INTRODUCTION 1-12

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

The founding of the

San Diego Mission

in 1769 is considered

to mark the

beginning of

California’s water

supply development.

This 1918 photo

shows the ruins of

the mission’s dam.

Courtesy of

Water Resources

Center Archives,

University of

California, Berkeley

tion of large-scale water projects from the 1980s onward. The result of these changing circumstances was

that few large-scale water management actions were

able to move forward after the late 1960s. Since there

is a long lead time for developing large water supply

projects, the consequences were not immediately felt.

A theme now dominating much water management planning at the statewide level is ecosystem

restoration (accompanied by substantial funding). BayDelta actions are an example of this trend—voter

approval of Proposition 204 provided $460 million

for State restoration actions directly associated with

the Delta, and another $93 million in State matching

funds for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Central

Valley Project Improvement Act restoration actions.

USBR’s annual budget for CVPIA restoration actions

covered by the Restoration Fund has been in the $40

million range. Other examples of funding for environmental restoration actions are described throughout

the Bulletin.

Greater local government and other stakeholder

participation in statewide-level water management

decision-making is an emerging trend. Formal governance structures are being employed to coordinate and

manage the collective actions of local agencies. For

example, CVP water users formed three joint powers

authorities to contract with USBR for operation and

maintenance of CVP facilities. Those JPAs have been

working with USBR to develop mechanisms to allow

the JPAs to finance normal operations and maintenance activities, rather than going through the

congressional appropriations process. Another JPA has

been formed by two county governments and two

water agencies to implement Salton Sea restoration

actions.

Changes Since the Last

California Water Plan Update

The last California Water Plan update, Bulletin

160-93, was published in 1994 and used 1990-level

information to represent base year water supply and

demand conditions. At that time, California had recently emerged from the six-year drought and

Bay-Delta issues were in a state of flux. Bulletin 160-

98 uses 1995-level information to represent base year

conditions, including new (interim) Bay-Delta standards.

Changes in Delta conditions are a major difference between the two bulletins. Bulletin 160-93 was

based on SWRCB D-1485 regulatory conditions in

the Delta, and used a range of 1 to 3 maf for unspecified future environmental water needs—a range that

reflected uncertainties associated with Bay-Delta water needs and Endangered Species Act implementation.

Bulletin 160-98 uses SWRCB’s Order WR 95-6 as the

base condition for Bay-Delta operations, and describes

proposed CALFED actions for the Bay-Delta.

Bulletin 160-93 was the first California Water Plan

update to examine the demand/supply balance for

drought water years as well as for average water years,

a response to water shortages experienced during the

then-recent drought. Bulletin 160-98 retains the

drought year analysis and also considers the other end

of the hydrologic spectrum—flooding. Traditionally,

water supply has been the dominant focus of the water plan updates. In response to the January 1997

flooding in Northern and Central California, Bulletin

160-98 highlights common areas in water supply

and flood control planning and operations and emphasizes the benefits of multipurpose facilities.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
1-13 INTRODUCTION

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Agreements reached in the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord were

widely hailed as a truce in California’s water wars. The

approach taken in the Bay-Delta exemplifies some hallmarks

of today’s water management activities—increased

participation by local governments and other stakeholders in

statewide water management issues, and significant efforts to

carry out ecosystem restoration actions.

Flooding and threatened

flooding triggered the

evacuation of thousands

of people in the greater

Yuba City/Marysville area

during the January 1997

storms.

Changes in Response to Bulletin 160-93

Public Comments

Other changes between the two reports resulted

from public comments on Bulletin 160-93. The dominant public comment on Bulletin 160-93 was that it

should show how to reduce the gap between existing

supplies and future demands, in addition to making

supply and demand forecasts. Bulletin 160-98 addresses that comment by presenting a compilation of

local agencies’ planning efforts together with potential water management options that are statewide in

scope. Local agencies’ plans form the base for this effort, since it is local water purveyors who have the

ultimate responsibility for meeting their service areas’

needs. About 70 percent of California’s developed water supply is provided by local agencies.

Bulletin 160-98 excludes groundwater overdraft

from the Bulletin’s base year water supply estimate and

is therefore the first water plan update to show an average water year shortage in its base year. (Both of the

bulletins excluded future groundwater overdraft from

future water supply estimates.) About 1.5 maf of the

1.6 maf base year shortage is attributable to groundwater overdraft.

Finally, Bulletin 160-98 uses applied water data,

rather than the net water amounts historically used in

the water plan series. This change was made in response

to public comments that net water data were more

difficult to understand than applied water data. This

concept is explained in Chapter 4.

Changes in Future Demand/Shortage Forecasts

Bulletin 160-93 used a planning horizon of 1990-

2020. Bulletin 160-98 uses a planning horizon of

1995-2020. Bulletin 160-98 uses the 2020 planning

horizon because no major data changes occurred between the two reports that would justify extending the

planning horizon. Urban water demands depend

heavily on population forecasts—the next U.S. Census will not be conducted until 2000. Appendix 1A

compares some key 2020 average year forecasts from

the two bulletins.

The water plan series uses population forecasts

from the Department of Finance. DOF reduced its

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
INTRODUCTION 1-14

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

2020 forecast for California in the period between

Bulletin 160-93 and Bulletin 160-98. The reduction

reflects the impacts of the economic recession in California in the early 1990s. California experienced a

record negative net domestic migration then, as more

people moved out of the State than moved in. This

reduction in the population forecast translates to a reduction in forecasted urban water use in Bulletin

160-98.

The 2020 forecasted agricultural water demands

increased from Bulletin 160-93 to Bulletin 160-98,

even though the forecasted crop acreage decreased

slightly. This increase resulted from elimination of the

“other” category of water use shown in Bulletin 160-

93, which included conveyance losses. For Bulletin

160-98, water in the “other” category was reallocated

to the major water use categories to simplify information presentation. Most of the conveyance losses are

associated with agricultural water use. Combining the

“other” category into the major water use categories

most affected the agricultural water demand forecast.

As shown in Appendix 1A, when conveyance losses

are factored out of the Bulletin 160-98 forecast, agricultural water use decreases between Bulletin 160-93

and Bulletin 160-98.

Bulletin 160-93 was the first water plan update to

quantify environmental water use, recognizing the

importance of the water that is dedicated to environmental purposes and that this water is unavailable for

future development for other purposes. As illustrated

earlier, the environmental sector is California’s largest

water using sector. Bulletin 160-98 uses the same definition and quantification procedure for environmental

water use as did Bulletin 160-93.

The 2020 environmental water demand forecast

increased substantially from Bulletin 160-93 to Bulletin 160-98. This increase results from implementation

of the Bay-Delta Accord, inclusion of additional wild

and scenic river flows, and increased instream flow requirements.

The shortage shown in Bulletin 160-98 is similar

in magnitude to the low end of the shortage range reported in Bulletin 160-93. The treatment of forecasted

Bay-Delta environmental water demands accounts for

much of the difference. A 1 to 3 maf range of potential future environmental water demands was added

to the Bulletin 160-93 base environmental water demand forecast, rather than being evaluated through

operations studies, because Bay-Delta regulatory assumptions could not be determined then. This

conservative approach yielded higher demands than

operations studies would have provided. (Use of operations studies to calculate water supply requirements

is explained in Chapter 3.)

Preparation of Bulletin 160-98

Although the water plan updates are published

only every five years, the Department continuously

compiles and analyzes the annual data used to prepare

them. After publication of Bulletin 160-93 in 1994,

the remainder of that year was devoted to finishing

data evaluation deferred during the Bulletin’s production. Work on Bulletin 160-98 began in 1995. A

citizen’s advisory committee with more than 30 members, representing a wide range of interests, was

established to assist the Department in its preparation

of the next water plan update. The advisory committee met with Department staff 17 times over the period

of Bulletin 160-98 preparation, and in August 1997

reviewed an administrative draft that preceded release

of the public review draft at the end of January 1998.

The review period for the public draft extended

through mid-April 1998, during which time public

meetings were held and presentations were made to

interested parties. The draft was also made available

on the World Wide Web. Over 4,000 copies of the

public review draft were distributed. Comments received on the public review draft were addressed in

the final version of the Bulletin.

Public Comments on Draft

The Department received over 200 comment letters on the draft and additional comments from public

meetings. A summary of the comments is provided in

Appendix 1B. Many comments were provided by local agencies whose facilities and projects are described

in the public draft, and dealt with edits or corrections

regarding those facilities or projects. Another major

class of comments dealt with policy, conceptual, or

analytical subjects. Many of these comments were influenced by discussions taking place in the CALFED

Bay-Delta program and reflected the commenters’

positions on CALFED issues. For example, proponents

of CALFED’s no conveyance improvements alternative generally expressed opposition to Bulletin 160-98’s

exclusion of groundwater overdraft as a supply, because

this approach increases overall statewide shortages. The

Department received positive public comments on

Bulletin 160-93 when it excluded groundwater overEE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
1-15 INTRODUCTION

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

draft as a supply for the first time, and also received

positive comments on its treatment of overdraft for

Bulletin 160-98.

Often, public comments conflicted with one another. For example, environmental organizations

frequently stated that the Bulletin should include more

future water conservation, while water purveyors frequently stated that levels assumed in the Bulletin were

overly optimistic. Some comments suggested that the

Bulletin’s future water demands could be reduced by

raising water prices, while others felt that the forecasted

demands were too low and did not take into account

future needs of California’s population and agricultural

economy. Likewise, some comments expressed philosophical opposition to constructing more reservoirs in

California, while others emphasized the need for more

storage and flood control reservoirs. The Department

considered these comments in the context of the

Bulletin’s goal of accurately reflecting actions that water purveyors statewide would be reasonably likely to

implement by year 2020.

Some comments suggested that Bulletin 160-98

(or the Department, or the State of California) advocate or express a vision on a variety of subjects—

including State-funded water supply development, sustainable development, nonpoint source pollution, flood

control, food production security, mandatory water

pricing, and greater use of desalting (by entities other

than the commenter). Such an approach is outside the

scope of the Department’s water plan update series.

The role of the Bulletin 160 series is to evaluate present

and future water supplies and demands given current

social/economic policies, and to evaluate progress in

meeting California’s future water needs. As appropriate, the Bulletin discusses how other factors such as

flood control may relate to water supply planning.

In its forecasts, the Department is making a

fundamental assumption that today’s conditions—facilities, programs, water use patterns, and other

factors—are the basis for predicting the future. (And,

as one commenter correctly pointed out, Bulletin 160-

98 also assumes that California’s climate will remain

unchanged over the Bulletin’s 25-year planning horizon.) This approach differs distinctly from the approach

of establishing a desired future goal or vision, and then

preparing a plan that would implement that goal or

vision. Such a plan would require public acceptance

that simply does not exist today.

Many of the advocacy or vision comments described above are also not within the Department’s

jurisdiction or the jurisdiction of other State agencies.

For example, the Department’s role in developing water supply for local agencies is limited to fulfilling its

State Water Project contractual obligations. (The Department may provide financial assistance to local

agencies for various water management programs as

authorized under bond measures enacted by the Legislature and approved by the voters.) The Department

has no regulatory authority to mandate how local water agencies price their water supplies, or to require

that local agencies adopt one type of water management option over another. Comments such as those

suggesting that the Department make plans for control of nonpoint source pollution or food production

address the jurisdictional areas of other State agencies.

The subject of flood control merits special mention because of the direct relationship between

operations of water supply projects and flood control

projects. The purpose of the water plan update series

is to evaluate water supplies, but those supplies can be

affected by flood control actions such as increasing the

amount of reservoir storage dedicated to flood control

purposes. With memories of the disastrous January

1997 floods still fresh in peoples’ minds, some

commenters recommended that Bulletin 160-98 devote more attention to flood control needs, including

needs such as floodplain mapping programs that are

not directly related to water supply considerations. The

1997 Final Report of the Governor’s Flood Emergency

Action Team describes recommended actions to be

taken based on the damages experienced in January

1997. The Department has referenced sections of that

report throughout Bulletin 160-98. Bulletin 160-98

emphasizes the interaction between water supply and

flood control planning, and points out the benefits

associated with multipurpose water projects.

As discussed in the following section, the Department received a number of comments requesting that

Bulletin 160-98 quantify future water supply uncertainties associated with ongoing programs or regulatory

actions, such as the CALFED Bay-Delta program,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hydroelectric

plant relicensing, and Endangered Species Act listings.

Text has been added that quantifies those actions for

which data are available.

The Department also received some comments

that could not be incorporated in Bulletin 160-98 because they suggested substantial changes in the scope

or content of the Bulletin that could not be addressed

before the Bulletin’s due date to the Legislature, or

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
INTRODUCTION 1-16

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

suggested changes for the next update of the water plan.

The scope of Bulletin 160-98 was established in coordination with the Bulletin’s advisory committee in

1995, just as the scope of the next plan update (five

years hence) will have to be established early in the

process of preparing that update. The Department will

consider these long-term comments when work begins on the next update.

Works in Progress and Uncertainties

The descriptions of major California water management activities provided in the Bulletin are generally

current through July 1998. There are several pending

activities that could be characterized as works in

progress, including the CALFED Bay-Delta program

and Colorado River water use discussions. For programs such as these, the Bulletin describes their current

status and potential impacts, if known, on future water supplies. There are uncertainties associated with

the outcomes of these activities, just as there are with

any process that is evaluated in mid-course.

As noted at the beginning of this chapter, each

water plan update focused on issues or concerns of

special interest at the time of its publication. Water

use for hydroelectric power generation is a good example of this focus. Bulletin 160-83 was the last water

plan update to review hydropower generation use, because no major changes have occurred since the late

1970s/early 1980s, when high energy prices and favorable tax treatment for renewable energy spurred a

boom in small hydropower development. Today uncertainties about water supply and water use associated

with hydropower production are increasing, with the

1998 initiation of deregulation for California investor-owned utilities and the prospect of FERC

relicensing of several powerplants on major Sierra Nevada rivers between 2000 and 2010. Although there is

presently little information available on which to base

forecasts of resultant changes in water supplies, more

information is likely to be available for the next water

plan update.

Colorado River interstate issues are a new addition to a statewide water picture largely dominated by

Delta and CVPIA issues in the recent past. Achieving

a solution to California’s need to reduce its use of Colorado River water to the State’s basic apportionment (a

reduction of as much as 900 taf from historical uses)

requires consensus among California’s local agencies

that use the river’s water, as well as concurrence in the

plan by the other basin states.

Presentation of Data in Bulletin 160-98

Water budget and related data are tabulated by

hydrologic region throughout the Bulletin. The statewide totals in these tables are generally presented as

rounded values. As a result, individual table entries

will not sum exactly to the rounded totals.

In the water budget appendices 6A, 6E, and 10A,

regional water use/supply totals and shortages are not

rounded. Individual table entries may not sum exactly

to the reported totals due to rounding of individual

entries for presentation purposes.

Organization of Bulletin 160-98

Chapter 2 provides an overview of recent events

in California water and summarizes significant changes

in statutes and programs since the publication of Bulletin 160-93. An appendix for Chapter 2 summarizes

some State and federal statutes affecting water management. Chapters 3 and 4 cover water supplies and

water uses. Chapter 5 describes the status of technology applications relating to water supply, reflecting the

continuing public interest in topics such as potential

future use of seawater desalting, status of water conservation and use technologies, or fish screening

technology applications.

Chapters 6-9 focus on ways to meet California’s

future water needs. Chapter 6 covers statewide level

water management actions, including actions such as

the CALFED Bay-Delta program, SWP future water

supply options, and CVPIA fish and wildlife water

acquisition. Chapters 7-9 evaluate regional water management options for each of the State’s ten major

hydrologic regions. These regional evaluations are combined in Chapter 10 into a tabulation of actions likely

to be taken to meet California’s future water needs.

The water budget tables in Chapter 10, shown for a

2020 level of demand with future water management

options, are key summaries of the Bulletin’s planning

process. Appendices follow at the end of the chapters

in which they are referenced. Following Chapter 10

are a brief glossary and list of abbreviations and acronyms used in the text.

An executive summary of Bulletin 160-98 is available as a separate document.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
1A-1 APPENDIX 1A

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 1A

Comparison of

2020 Average Year Forecasts

Between Bulletin 160-93

and Bulletin 160-98

1A

TABLE 1A-1

2020 Average Year Forecasts

Bulletin 160-93 Bulletin 160-98

Population (million) 48.9 47.5

Irrigated crop acreage (million acres) 9.3 9.2

Urban water use (maf) 12.7 11.4a

Agricultural water use (maf) 28.8 28.3a

Environmental water use (maf) 30.3-32.3 36.9a

Average water shortageb (maf) 3.7-5.7 2.4

a

 The “other” category of water use was removed to make the 160-93 and 160-98 numbers directly comparable, as described in the text.

b As described in the text, a major reason for the change in the shortage numbers between the two bulletins was differences in forecasted Bay-Delta

environmental water demands. Shortage values are not exactly comparable, as Bulletin 160-93 presented net water shortages and Bulletin 160-98 presented

applied water shortages

Table 1A-1 compares some key 2020 average year

forecasts from Bulletin 160-93 and Bulletin 160-98.

Bulletin 160-93 provided water use information

as applied water, net water, and depletion. The table

shows Bulletin 160-93 urban, agricultural, and environmental water use as applied water demands, to be

compatible with Bulletin 160-98 applied water use

data.

Bulletin 160-93 included a fourth category of

water use called “other.” This “other” category included

major canal conveyance losses, recreation use, cooling

water use, energy recovery use, and use by high water

using industries. Water uses previously categorized as

“other” are included in the Bulletin 160-98 urban,

agricultural, and environmental water use categories

according to their intended purpose. To provide a

meaningful comparison with Bulletin 160-93 water

use data in the table, water use previously classified as

“other” was removed from the Bulletin 160-98 data.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 1A 1A-2

Appendix 1A The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
1B-1 APPENDIX 1B

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 1B

Summary of Public Comments

on Draft Bulletin 160-98

Work on Bulletin 160-98 began in 1995. A public advisory committee with more than 30 members

representing a wide range of interests was established

to assist the Department in preparing the water plan

update. The advisory committee met with Department

staff 17 times over the period of Bulletin 160-98 preparation and, in August 1997, reviewed an administrative

draft that preceded the public review draft’s release at

the end of January 1998. Over 4,000 copies of the

draft were distributed. The draft was also made available on the World Wide Web. The review period for

the public draft extended through mid-April 1998,

during which time eight public meetings were held

and presentations were made to interested parties. The

Department received about 200 letters, form letters,

postcards, and other comment submissions.

Because this update of the water plan focused on

local agency water management actions, the Department received many local agency comments with

corrections, updates, or other changes to the draft’s

text on their facilities, service areas, or programs. The

Department also received many comments relating to

CALFED Bay-Delta program activities. CALFED’s

draft PEIR/PEIS was released during the Bulletin 160-

98 public review period; comments on Bulletin 160-98

often reflected commenters’ positions on the CALFED

document. For example, proponents of CALFED’s

alternative one generally commented that the Bulletin’s

future water demand forecasts were too high.

 The following sections summarize the most frequently repeated comments. Public comments often

conflicted with one another. Specific comments or edits

on descriptions of local agencies’ facilities and programs

are not included in the summary due to space limitations. Copies of comments received are available for

review at the Department’s office.

The Role of the State, the Department,

and the Water Plan Update Series

• The Department should take the lead in planning

new facilities to meet California’s future needs.

(Chapter 6, Chapter 10)

• The Bulletin only summarizes the actions that

local agencies are taking to meet future needs. It

does not acknowledge the State’s responsibility for

meeting California’s water needs. (Chapter 6,

Chapter 10)

• The State should provide financial assistance to

local agencies to help them meet future water

needs. Many agencies cannot afford the actions

that would be required to provide reliable supplies

for their service areas. (Chapter 6, Chapter 10)

• The Department should take steps to meet the

future needs of water users in the area of origin.

(Chapter 6, Chapter 8)

• The State should provide leadership in addressing

California’s serious groundwater overdraft. (Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 8, Chapter 10)

• The State should take an active role in promoting

or enforcing water conservation, and should take

action to reduce water waste and high water use

by agriculture. (Chapter 4, Chapter 6)

• The State should require local agencies to price

their water in a manner that reflects its true cost

or to achieve goals such as water conservation.

(Chapter 4)

• The Bulletin does not plan for the State’s future—

it tabulates a list of possible options. A plan should

1B

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 1B 1B-2

Appendix 1B The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

contain a process for achieving the desired goal

and should identify financing sources. (Chapter6,

Chapter 10)

• The Bulletin should prioritize the options that

most urgently need to be implemented, perhaps

those that would eliminate average year water

shortages. (Chapter 6, Chapter 10)

• The Bulletin should plan explicitly for future flood

control needs. (Chapter 3, Chapter 6, Chapter 8,

Chapter 10)

• The Bulletin’s scope should be expanded beyond

water supply planning to include planning for

nonpoint source pollution control and controlling agricultural drainage. (Chapter 6, Chapter 10)

• The Bulletin should plan for the agricultural water supply needed to maintain California’s

agricultural production and to grow the food that

will be needed by the State’s increasing population. (Chapter 4, Chapter 10)

The Bulletin in General

• The Bulletin does a good job of presenting a balanced overview of California water supplies and

demands, and options for meeting future needs.

(no specific chapter)

• The Bulletin has fundamental flaws in methodology and should not be used to support

CALFED-related decisions. The public draft

should be critiqued by an external peer review

committee. (Chapter 4, Chapter 6)

• The Bulletin 160-98 switch to an applied water

budget approach for presentation of information

is appreciated. The applied water budget is easier

to understand than the net water budgets used in

previous bulletins. (Chapter 3, Chapter 4)

• The applied water budget is more confusing than

the previous net water budgets. (Chapter 3, Chapter 4)

• The Bulletin should not use an applied water budget because it overstates environmental water use.

(Chapter 4)

• The Bulletin should provide more detail on

demand forecasting, descriptions of water management options, and cost data. Show all

assumptions and background data. (Chapter 4,

Chapter 6)

• Presentation of some subjects is difficult to follow. Simplify presentation. (no specific chapter)

• Status of ongoing programs/actions (CALFED,

Colorado River Board 4.4 Plan negotiations, new

ESA listings) should be updated. (Chapter 2,

Chapter 6)

• The Bulletin should show a range of shortage outcomes to reflect uncertainties associated with new

ESA listings, FERC relicensing, CVPIA supplemental water acquisition, SWRCB’s Bay-Delta

water rights proceedings, and CALFED. (Chapter 6, Chapter 10)

Water Supplies and Demands

• There were comments on groundwater supplies

or overdraft for individual groundwater basins or

hydrologic regions. There were also several comments about boundaries of specific groundwater

basins or sub-basins. A general comment was that

the Bulletin needs to place more emphasis on good

groundwater data. (Chapter 3)

• The Bulletin’s treatment of 1995 and 2020

groundwater overdraft as not available as a source

of supply accurately represents dependable water

supplies. Groundwater overdraft is not sustainable

over the long term and should not be a long-term

solution to water supply needs. (Chapter 3)

• Groundwater overdraft should not be treated as

creating a shortage, but should be a source of supply. Farmers will stop overdrafting groundwater

when it becomes too expensive to pump. (Chapter 3)

• The high levels of groundwater overdraft shown

in the San Joaquin Valley are of concern. The Bulletin should examine means to address this

overdraft through long-term basin management.

(Chapter 3, Chapter 8)

• There were several questions about the source of

water supply data for water recycling. It was suggested that water recycling survey results be shown

in an appendix. (Chapter 3, Chapter 6)

• There were several suggestions for different terminology to distinguish among water transfers,

banking, exchanges, sales, and acquisitions. (Chapter 3, Chapter 6)

• The Bulletin should recognize the reality of global warming/long-term global climate change.

Future hydrologic conditions will differ from

today’s. Existing hydrologic forecasts are based on

a limited period of historical record. (Chapter 3)

• The Bulletin should evaluate the relationship of

local land use planning to water supply/water

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
1B-3 APPENDIX 1B

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 1B

needs. Quantify the results of enactment of

SB 901 (a 1995 amendment to Section 65302 of

the Government Code). (Chapter 4)

• Environmental water use should be treated on an

equal basis with urban and agricultural water use.

The only environmental demands forecasted in

the Bulletin are those required by laws or agreements. The Bulletin forecasts urban and

agricultural uses based on needs, not minimum

legal requirements. (Chapter 4)

• North Coast wild and scenic rivers should not be

counted as environmental water use. The magnitude of their flow is so great that it skews the rest

of the environmental water uses. North Coast wild

and scenic rivers should not be counted as environmental water use because no one is seriously

planning to develop them. (Chapter 4)

• The Bulletin should emphasize that the environment once received 100 percent of the water and

now receives much less. Environmental water supplies are needed for more uses than recognized in

the Bulletin—for non-listed species of fish and

wildlife, flushing flows through the Golden Gate,

and other aquatic resources. (Chapter 4)

• The Bulletin puts environmental water use in

proper perspective with other water uses—that the

environment is California’s largest water using sector. (Chapter 4)

• The Bulletin understates future environmental

demands because it uses Bay-Delta Accord requirements which expire in 1998 and present ESA

requirements. Water requirements for recently

listed fish species will likely increase future environmental demands. (Chapter 4)

• The Bulletin should place more emphasis on environmental water conservation. Conservation is

required of the urban and agricultural sectors, but

not of the environmental sector. (Chapter 4, Chapter 6)

• CVPIA supplemental water needs shown in

USBR’s draft CVPIA PEIS should not be counted

as future environmental water demands because

they falsely inflate future shortages. CVPIA

supplemental water needs should not be counted

as future environmental water demands because

water users will not sell such large quantities of

water to USBR. (Chapter 4)

• The Bulletin correctly includes CVPIA supplemental water needs as future environmental water

demands. (Chapter 4)

• The Bulletin should recognize environmental

water needs for the Colorado River delta area in

Mexico. (Chapter 4, Chapter 9)

• More attention should be given to environmental

water needs at the south end of the San Francisco

Bay. (Chapter 7)

• Urban water use forecasts are too high because they

are based on normalized data, not on actual water

data. (Chapter 4)

• Water pricing should be explicitly considered in

future demand forecasts. The definition of demand

should be revised to make demand a function of

price. (Chapter 4)

• There were several comments stating that water

demand is not price inelastic. (Chapter 4)

• Much more conservation is possible than is shown

in the Bulletin. Price should be used to achieve or

enforce conservation. (Chapter 4, Chapter 6)

• Increased market penetration of horizontal axis

washing machines will result in greater conservation amounts than forecasted in the Bulletin.

Urban landscaping changes will also result in

greater conservation. (Chapter 4, Chapter 6)

• The assumption that water agencies statewide will

implement BMPs should be clarified. Not all

BMPs can be quantified. (Chapter 4)

• The Bulletin overstates potential demand reductions from implementing BMPs. Agencies are only

obligated to implement measures that are costeffective for their service areas. (Chapter 4)

• Water conservation should not be implemented

unless it is cost effective. Water savings do not

necessarily result in depletion reductions. (Chapter 4, Chapter 6)

• The Bulletin should provide more information on

its conservation assumptions, and data to substantiate forecasted conservation. (Chapter 4,

Chapter6)

• The Bulletin should discuss CVPIA water conservation plans and the effects of CVPIA tiered

pricing. (Chapter 4, Chapter 6)

• The Bulletin should discuss lack of data available

for city/county implementation of AB 325 (model

landscaping ordinance). (Chapter 4, Chapter 6)

• There were several comments that the Bulletin’s

forecasts of future irrigated acreage underestimated

acreage for specific areas. (Chapter 4)

• Forecasts of irrigated acreage and crop mix in past

water plan updates (e.g., Bulletin 160-83) do not

seem to be coming true (were too high). The BulEE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 1B 1B-4

Appendix 1B The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

letin should acknowledge uncertainties in the forecasts. (Chapter 4)

• The Bulletin should give equal treatment to forecasts of agricultural and urban water use. Urban

water use is forecasted based on the needs of

California’s future population. Agricultural needs

should be based on maintaining California

agriculture’s proportionate share of in-state, national, and global food and fiber production.

(Chapter 4)

• The Bulletin’s irrigated acreage forecast does not

include the effects of proposed large-scale land use

conversion from irrigated agriculture to wildlife

habitat, such as that proposed in CALFED’s ecosystem restoration program. (Chapter 4)

• The Bulletin provides a realistic assessment of the

potential for agricultural water conservation.

(Chapter 4, Chapter 6)

• The potential for agricultural water conservation

is much greater than is shown in the Bulletin. The

Bulletin did not consider the impacts of reducing

federal crop and water subsidies on forecasted

demands. (Chapter 4, Chapter 6)

• The Bulletin incorrectly characterizes shortages as

the gap between forecasted supplies and demands.

There is no shortage if water users are unwilling

to pay the amount needed to acquire new water.

It is generally not economically rational to reduce

shortages to zero. (Chapter 6, Chapter 10)

• The Bulletin should shift from requirements-based

planning to reliability-based planning. (Chapter6)

Future Water Management Options

• The Bulletin places too much emphasis on structural solutions to future water needs and not

enough on nonstructural solutions. (Chapter 6,

Chapters 7-9)

• Pricing and marginal costs should be explicitly

included in the evaluation of future water management options. Use demand and supply curves

to illustrate role of cost in evaluating future supplies. (Chapter 4, Chapter 6)

• Environmental impacts from new projects must

be balanced against gains in environmental water

supplies. Benefits of developing additional water

supplies should be weighed against benefits of protecting other natural resources. (no specific

chapter)

• No new reservoirs should be constructed in California. (Chapter 6, Chapters 7-9)

• California needs additional reservoirs. (Chapter 6,

Chapters 7-9)

• As a matter of policy, the Bulletin should give priority to options that use existing supplies more

efficiently, or reallocate existing supplies, before

considering new water development projects.

(Chapter 6, Chapters 7-9)

• As a matter of policy, the Bulletin should give priority to options that create new water supplies

(reservoirs). (Chapter 6, Chapters 7-9)

• The Bulletin should emphasize that implementing conjunctive use projects in some areas is

constrained by the lack of surface water available

for recharge. (Chapter 6)

• California’s future water needs can be met through

increased conservation and water marketing. A

modest reallocation of agricultural water supplies

would satisfy the needs of California’s growing urban population. (Chapter 6, Chapter 10)

• Retirement of agricultural lands should not be

considered as a future water supply option. (Chapter 6)

• Land retirement costs shown in the Bulletin are

too high—economic multipliers were not used for

any other water management option. (Chapter 6)

• Land retirement costs shown in the Bulletin are

too low. (Chapter 6)

• More emphasis should be given to integrating

water supply and flood control benefits. Flood

control needs should be emphasized. (Chapter 6,

Chapter 8, Chapter 10)

• Multiple benefits of water conservation and recycling should be acknowledged. Conservation and

recycling should be treated as new supplies regardless of where they are implemented (e.g., in inland

regions). (Chapter 4, Chapter 6)

• Multipurpose benefits of new reservoirs should be

emphasized. New reservoirs are increasingly important as future options, because demand

hardening due to increased water conservation efforts has removed past flexibility in responding to

droughts. (Chapter 6, Chapter 10)

• The Bulletin correctly recognizes that conservation and recycling create new water only where

that water would otherwise be lost to the ocean

or to another unusable source. (Chapter 4, Chapter 6)

• It is unrealistic to assume further conservation beyond

BMPs and EWMPs. There is no way of accurately quantifying future conservation. (Chapter 6)

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
1B-5 APPENDIX 1B

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 1B

• There is no evidence suggesting that the 80 percent ET0

 target for urban landscaping could be

attained statewide. The urban BMPs and AB 325

have been in effect for some time and have not

shown that this level is being achieved. (Chapter

4, Chapter 6)

• Distribution uniformity values assumed for the

future agricultural water conservation options may

be unrealistically high with present agricultural

technology. (Chapter 6)

• The Bulletin should recognize that there are no

accurate numbers for estimated acreage of urban

landscape—either existing landscape acreage or

potential future acreage. (Chapter 6)

• The Bulletin places undue reliance on conservation as a panacea for reducing future shortages.

(Chapter 4, Chapter 6)

• Much more future conservation can be achieved

beyond BMPs and EWMPs. Reduction of outdoor water use for landscape is not costly and can

be phased in over time. More agricultural acreage

can be converted from inefficient irrigation techniques to drip irrigation. (Chapter 6)

• The Bulletin does not give water transfers/water

marketing equal treatment with construction of

new reservoirs. The Bulletin substantially understates the future potential for water marketing.

(Chapter 6)

• Water transfers do not create new water supplies—

they are a reallocation of existing uses. The future

market for water transfers will be much less than

is shown in the Bulletin. (Chapter 6)

• There were several comments regarding treatment

of potential future transfers in the water budgets—

whether transfers should or should not be shown

as a supply if no sellers had been identified, whether

transfers should be identified as options if an environmental document had not been completed,

whether transfers should be subject to a real water

test. (Chapter 3, Chapter 6)

• The water budgets do not show enough water supplies from potential future transfers. (Chapter 3,

Chapter 6)

• New water supplies from transfers should not be

shown in the water budgets. (Chapter 3, Chapter

6)

• The Bulletin does not adequately analyze thirdparty impacts resulting from water transfers.

(Chapter 6)

• The “real water” concept in water transfers is not

valid—the Department is just trying to protect

the SWP. (Chapter 6)

• The Bulletin does not take into account that competition for supplies from transfers will limit the

amount of water available. Well-funded environmental restoration programs such as CVPIA’s

supplemental water program and the CALFED

program will reduce supplies available for others.

(Chapter 3, Chapter 6)

• Pending regulatory actions and additional ESA listings may further reduce the amount of water that

could be available for transfer. (Chapter 6)

• Area of origin protections need to be explicitly

recognized as a limitation to transfers. (Chapter6)

• The Bulletin should recognize salinity constraints

in Southern California water supplies that limit

local agencies ability to implement water recycling

projects. (Chapter 6, Chapter 7)

• As technology improves, there is increasing potential for desalting San Joaquin Valley agricultural

drainage water as part of larger projects for urban/

agricultural water transfers or exchanges. (Chapter 8)

• The Bulletin should place more emphasis on seawater desalting in the future. Additional research

and development funds should be devoted to desalting. (Chapter 6)

• The State should support marine transport of

freshwater (tankers or water bags). The Department should work with interested parties to

develop this option. (Chapter 6)

• Forest thinning should be given serious consideration as a source of future water supply.

(Chapter6)

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

2-1 RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER

his chapter highlights key infrastructure and institutional changes

that have occurred since the publication of Bulletin 160-93, and reviews

the status of selected programs. An overview of significant legislative actions is provided,

and the legislative framework for California water management is summarized in the

appendix.

Infrastructure Update

A common theme in previous updates of the California Water Plan has been the need

to respond to California’s continually increasing population. Population growth brings with

it the need for new or expanded infrastructure. This section provides a very brief overview

of the largest infrastructure projects which are now under construction or have been recently completed. Some of these projects are described in more detail in later chapters.

Large dams under construction or recently completed are listed in Table2-

1. Large conveyance projects under construction or recently completed are

listed in Table 2-2. Information about smaller-scale new water supply facilities, including water recycling and desalting plants, can be found in Chapter

5 and Chapters 7-9.

T

Recent Events

In California Water

California’s

increasing

population is a

driving factor in

future water

management

planning.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER 2-2

TABLE 2-1

Large Dams Under Construction or Recently Completed

Dam Constructing Estimated Reservoir Purpose Project

Agency Capacity (taf) Costa (million $)

Seven Oaks USACE 146 flood control 366

Los Vaqueros CCWD 100 offstream storageb 450

Eastside MWDSC 800 offstream storage 2,000

a

 Project construction include costs for land acquisition, environmental mitigation, and associated facilities (such as pipelines and road relocations).

b Offstream storage for water quality and emergency service; no new water supply created.

TABLE 2-2

Major Water Conveyance Facilities Since 1992

Facility Constructing Status Length Maximum Capacity

Agency (miles) (cfs)

Coastal Branch Aqueduct DWR completed 1997 100 100

Eastside Reservoir Pipeline MWDSC completed 1997 8 1,000

East Branch Enlargement DWR completed 1996 100 2,880

Mojave River Pipeline MWA started 1997 70 94

Old River Pipelines CCWD completed 1997 20 400

(Los Vaqueros Project)

East Branch Extension DWR started 1998 14 104

Inland Feeder Project MWDSC started 1997 44 1,000

Morongo Basin Pipeline MWA completed 1994 71 100

New Melones Water SEWDand completed 1993 21 500

Conveyance Project CSJWCD

Shasta Dam Temperature

Control Device

TABLE 2-3

Large Structural Fishery Restoration Projects

Project Owner Description

USBR An approximately $83 million modification to the

dam’s outlet works to allow temperature-selective

releases of water through the dam’s powerplant was

completed in 1997.

Red Bluff Diversion Dam

Research Pumping Plant

USBR A $40 million experimental facility to evaluate fishery

impacts of different types of pumps diverting

Sacramento River water into the Tehama-Colusa and

Corning Canals was contructed in 1995.

Butte Creek fish passage Western Canal

Water District and others

A multi-component project to improve fish passage by

removing small irrigation diversion dams from the

creek. By 1998, five diversion dams will have been

removed.

Maxwell Irrigation District

fish screen

Maxwell ID An 80 cfs diversion on the Sacramento River was

screened in 1994.

Pelger Mutual Water

Company fish screen

PMWC A 60 cfs diversion on the Sacramento River was

screened in 1994.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

2-3 RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER

Table 2-3 lists some of the largest examples of recently completed structural environmental restoration

actions. Several more fish screening projects in the

Sacramento River system are expected to begin construction or to be completed in 1998. Details on these

facilities can be found in Chapters 5 and 8. Table 2-4

shows a sampling of completed smaller restoration

projects.

Legislative Update

This section summarizes major changes within the

last five years to State and federal statutes affecting water

resources management, together with the status of ongoing efforts to reauthorize some key federal statutes. The

existing statutory and regulatory framework for California water management is summarized in Appendix 2A.

State Statutes

Local Water Supply Reliability. In 1995, the Legislature enacted three bills dealing with water supply

reliability and long-range planning to serve future water

needs. Two of the bills (Statutes of 1995, Chapters 330

and 854) amended requirements for preparing urban

water management plans by requiring that local

agencies make a specified assessment of the reliability

of their water supplies. (Water agencies serving more

than 3,000 customers or 3 taf annually are required to

prepare urban water management plans and to update

the plans at least every five years.) Local water agencies are required to evaluate the reliability of their

supplies for varying water year types.

The third bill (Statutes of 1995, Chapter 881) requires that cities and counties making specified land

use planning decisions, such as amending a general

plan, consult with local water agencies to determine if

water supply is available. The bill also requires that

findings by local water agencies on water supply availability be incorporated into cities’ or counties’

environmental documents for the proposed action. To

date, there are no statewide data available on local agenSuisun Marsh Fish Screening Project

TABLE 2-4

Sample Restoration Projects Funded in Part by the SWP’s 4-Pumps Program

Location Description Implementing Capital Completion

Agency(ies) Costs Date

Suisun Marsh Design, construct, and install seven fish

screens on diversions for managed

wetlands within Suisun Marsh.

Suisun Resource

Conservation District,

DFG, DWR, USBR

$2,000,000 1997

Mill Creek Water Exchange Project

Mill Creek Fund operation of an irrigation well to

replace diversions (up to 25 cfs)

bypassed to provide flows for

anadromous fish.

DFG, DWR $559,000 Phase IISummer 1994

Magneson Salmon Habitat Restoration and Predator Habitat Isolation Project, Merced River

Merced River

(River Mile

29-30)

Restore river channel and isolate

abandoned gravel pit.

$336,000

Parrot-Phelan Fish Ladder

Design and construct a pool-and-chute

fish ladder to provide fish passage.

Butte Creek at DFG, USBR, DWR $800,000 1995

Parrot-Phelan

Dam

Durham Mutual Fish Screens and Ladder

Install two fish screens and an

improved high volume fish ladder to

eliminate entrainment and improve

fish passage.

Durham Mutual

Water Company,

USBR, DWR, DFG

Butte Creek at $930,000 1998

Durham

Mutual Dam

1994

DFG, DWR 1996

Stanislaus River Spawning Habitat Restoration, 3 Riffles

Stanislaus

River

Restore salmon spawning gravel at

three sites.

 DFG, DWR $209,000

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER 2-4

cies’ implementation of these new requirements. The

statute did not require reporting on consultations or

findings to the State CEQA clearinghouse or to any

external agency.

Financing Water Programs and Environmental Restoration Programs (Proposition 204).

California voters approved Proposition 204—the Safe,

Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act—in 1996. The act

authorized the issuance of $995 million in general obligation bonds to finance water and environmental

restoration programs throughout the state. Approximately $600 million of these bonds would provide the

State share of costs for projects to benefit the Bay-Delta

and its watershed, including $390 million of this

amount to implement CALFED’s ecosystem restoration program for the Bay-Delta. These latter funds

would be available after final federal and State environmental documents are certified and a cost-sharing

agreement is executed between the federal and State

governments. Table 2-5 summarizes programs authorized for Proposition 204 funding.

The Department’s Coastal Branch extension from Kings

County to Santa Barbara County was completed in 1997.

TABLE 2-5

Proposition 204 Funding Breakdown

Program Dollars

(in millions)

Delta Restoration 193

CVPIA State share 93

Category III State share 60

Delta levee rehabilitation 25

South Delta barriers 10

Delta recreation 2

CALFED administration 3

Clean Water and Water Recycling 235

State Revolving Fund Clean Water Act loans 80

Clean Water Act grants to small communities 30

Loans for water recycling projects 60

Loans for drainage treatment and management projects 30

Delta tributary watershed rehabilitation grants and loans 15

Seawater intrusion loans 10

Lake Tahoe water quality improvements 10

Water Supply Reliability 117

Feasibility investigations for specified programs 10

Water conservation and groundwater recharge loans 30

Small water project loans and grants, rural counties 25

Sacramento Valley water management and habitat improvement 25

River parkway program 27

CALFED Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Program 390

Flood Control Subventions 60

Total 995

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

2-5 RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER

Proposition 218. Voter approval of Proposition

218 in November 1996 changed the procedure used

by local government agencies for increasing fees,

charges, and benefit assessments. Benefit assessments,

fees, and charges that are imposed as an “incident of

property ownership” are now subject to a majority

public vote. Proposition 218 defines “assessments” as

any levy or charge on real property for a special benefit conferred to the real property, including special

assessments, benefit assessments, and maintenance assessments. Proposition 218 further defines “fee” or

“charge” as any levy (other than an ad valorem tax,

special tax, or assessment), which is imposed by an

agency upon a parcel or upon a person as an incident

of property ownership, including a user fee or charge

for a property-related service.

Although there are many tests to determine if a

fee or charge is subject to the provisions of Proposition 218, the most significant one is whether the agency

has relied upon any parcel map for the imposition of

the fee or charge. There is currently uncertainty in the

interpretation of Proposition 218 requirements, especially as they relate to certain water-related fees and

charges. From one point of view, Proposition 218 could

be interpreted as a comprehensive approach to regulate all forms of agency revenue sources. This broad

interpretation would include all fees and charges for

services provided to real property. Types of water-related charges and fees that may be affected by

Proposition 218’s requirements include meter charges,

acreage-based irrigation charges, and standby charges.

Additional legislation or judicial interpretation

may be needed to clarify the application of Proposition 218 to fees and charges used by water agencies.

Several water industry groups are working on proposals for clarifying legislation. To date, there has been

one water-related legislative clarification of Proposition 218. A 1997 statute clarified that assessments

imposed by water districts and earmarked for bond

repayment are not subject to the proposition’s voter

approval requirements.

Municipalities and special districts are beginning

to seek voter approval of assessments as required by

Proposition 218. Many assessments to fund existing

programs have been receiving voter approval. There

has been at least one example, however, of a water

agency whose proposed assessment was not approved.

Monterey County Water Resources Agency did not

receive voter approval for an assessment to support existing programs—groundwater quality monitoring,

water conservation, and nitrate management outreach—funded by water standby charges. Examples

of MCWRA’s proposed assessment charges were $1.67

per irrigated acre for agricultural land use and $2.26

per parcel for single-family dwellings.

Water Recycling. In 1995, provisions of the Water Code, Fish and Game Code, Health and Safety

Code, and other statutes were amended to replace

terms such as wastewater “reclamation” and “reclaimed

water” with “water recycling” and “recycled water.”

The legislation was intended to enhance public acceptance of recycled water supplies.

MTBE. Detection of methyl tertiary butyl ether

in water supplies soon after it was approved for use as

an air pollution-reducing additive in gasoline has

raised concerns about its mobility in the environment.

Legislation enacted in 1997 included several provisions dealing with MTBE regulation, monitoring, and

studies. One provision required the Department of

Health Services to establish a primary (health-based)

drinking water standard for MTBE by July 1999, and

a secondary (taste and odor) drinking water standard

by July 1998. (MTBE can be detected by taste at very

low concentrations, hence the early requirement for a

secondary drinking water standard.)

Federal Statutes

Safe Drinking Water Act. The Safe Drinking

Water Act, administered by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency in coordination with the states, is

the chief federal regulatory legislation dealing with

drinking water quality. The 104th Congress reauthorized and made significant changes to the SDWA,

which had last been reauthorized in 1986. Major

changes included:

• Establishing a drinking water state revolving loan

fund, to be administered by states in a manner

similar to the existing Clean Water Act State

Revolving Fund. Loans would be made available

to public water systems to help them comply with

national primary drinking water regulations and

to upgrade water treatment systems.

• The standard-setting process for drinking water

contaminants established in the 1986 amendments was changed from a requirement that EPA

adopt standards for a set number of contaminants

on a fixed schedule to a process based on risk

assessment and cost/benefit analysis. The 1996

amendments require EPA to publish (and

periodically update) a list of contaminants

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER 2-6

not currently subject to NPDWRs and to

periodically determine whether to regulate at least

five contaminants from that list, based on risk and

benefit considerations.

• A requirement that states conduct vulnerability

assessments in priority source water areas

expanded existing source water quality protection

provisions. States are authorized to establish

voluntary, incentive-based source protection

partnerships with local agencies. This activity may

be funded from the new SRF.

• As a result of the 1996 amendments, EPA adopted

a more ambitious schedule for promulgating the

Disinfectant/Disinfection By-Products Rule and

the Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. The

first phase of the D/DBP Rule is proposed to take

effect in late 1998, as is an interim ESWTR. More

stringent versions of both rules are proposed to

follow in 2002. This subject is discussed in more

detail in Chapter 3.

Clean Water Act Reauthorization. The Clean

Water Act, administered by EPA in coordination with

the states, is the chief federal regulatory statute controlling point and nonpoint source discharges to surface

water. The CWA additionally provides federal authority for wetlands protection and regulation of dredging

and filling. CWA reauthorization proposals were heard

in the 103rd and 104th Congresses, but no legislation

was enacted. The act’s broad scope complicates reauthorization.

Some of the topics covered in reauthorization proposals have included funding levels for the SRF

program; changes to the water quality standard setting process (such as special recognition of

environmental benefits of discharging treated wastewater to streams in arid areas); recognition of impacts

of introduced aquatic species on species of concern in

the water quality standard setting process; Good Samaritan liability provisions for remediation measures

at abandoned mines; new programs for nonpoint

source management and regulation of combined sanitary/stormwater sewers; new stormwater management

requirements for municipalities; recognition of state

primacy in water quantity allocation; and expanded

statutory treatment of wetlands protection.

Endangered Species Act Reauthorization. As

with the CWA, ESA reauthorization proposals were

heard in past congresses, but no legislation has been

enacted. Some proposed changes included amending

the act to focus on preserving ecological communities

rather than on preserving a single species or subspecies, providing for stakeholder participation and

peer-reviewed science in the species listing process, addressing management of candidate species,

streamlining the Section 7 consultation process, quantifying recovery plan objectives, and providing

assurances and regulatory relief for nonfederal landowners.

Reclamation, Recycling, and Water Conservation Act of 1996. This act amended Title

16 of PL

102-575 by authorizing federal cost-sharing in additional wastewater recycling projects. (PL 102-575 had

authorized federal cost-sharing in specified recycling

projects.) The additional California projects are shown

below, along with the nonfederal sponsors identified

in the statute.

• North San Diego County area water recycling

project (San Elijo Joint Powers Authority, Leucadia

County Water District, City of Carlsbad,

Olivenhain Municipal Water District)

• Calleguas Municipal Water District recycling

project (CMWD)

• Watsonville area water recycling project (City of

Watsonville)

• Pasadena reclaimed water project (City of Pasadena)

• Phase 1 of the Orange County regional water reclamation project (Orange County Water District

and County Sanitation Districts of Orange

County)

• Hi-Desert Water District wastewater collection

and reuse facility (HDWD)

• Mission Basin brackish groundwater desalting

demonstration project (City of Oceanside)

• Effluent treatment for the Sanitation Districts of

Los Angeles County with the City of Long Beach

(Water Replenishment District of Southern California, OCWD)

• San Joaquin area water recycling and reuse project

(San Joaquin County, City of Tracy)

Federal cost-sharing in these projects is authorized

at a maximum of 25 percent for project construction

and federal contributions for each project are capped

at $20 million. Funds are not to be appropriated for

project construction until after a feasibility study and

cost-sharing agreement are completed. Federal costsharing may not be used for operations and

maintenance.

The act also authorizes the Department of Interior to cost-share up to 50 percent (planning and

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

2-7 RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER

The zebra mussel has caused millions of dollars in increased

operations and maintenance costs to Great Lakes water users.

Preventing the mussels’ spread is a priority in invasive species

management.

design) in a Long Beach desalination research and development project. Local sponsors are the City of Long

Beach, Central Basin Municipal Water District, and

MWDSC.

Water Desalination Act of 1996. This act authorizes DOI to cost-share in non-federal desalting

projects at levels of 25 percent or 50 percent (for

projects which are not otherwise feasible unless a federal contribution is provided). Cost-shared actions can

be research, studies, demonstration projects, or development projects. The authorization provides $5 million

per year for fiscal years 1997 through 2002 for research

and studies, and $25 million per year for demonstration and development projects. The act requires DOI

to investigate at least three different types of desalting

technology and to report research findings to Congress.

National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (PL 104-

332). NISA reauthorized and amended the

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance and Prevention and

Control Act of 1990. The purpose of the legislation

was to provide tools for management and control of

aquatic nuisance species, such as zebra mussels. NISA

reauthorized a mandatory ballast management program

for the Great Lakes, an area already heavily infested

with zebra mussels, and created an enforceable national

ballast management program for all U.S. coastal regions. The act requires detailed reporting on ballast

exchange by cargo vessels. Ship ballast water has been

identified as a likely mode of introduction for many

of the nonindigenous invertebrates identified in the

Bay-Delta, now home to at least 150 introduced plant

and animal species.

State and Federal

Programmatic Actions

SWP Monterey Agreement

Contract Amendments

The Monterey Agreement among the Department

and SWP water contractors was signed in December

1994. This agreement set forth principles for making

changes in SWP water supply contracts, which would

then be implemented by an amendment (Monterey

amendment) to each contractor’s SWP contract. The

amendment has been offered to all SWP contractors.

Those contractors that sign the amendment will receive the benefits of it, while those that do not will

have their water supply contracts administered such

that they will be unaffected by the amendment. As of

December 1997, 26 of the 29 contractors had signed

the amendment.

Changes to SWP Water Allocation Rules. The

amendment states that during drought years project

supplies are to be allocated proportionately on the basis of contractors’ entitlements. The amendment

allocates water to urban and agricultural purposes on

equal basis, deleting a previous initial supply reduction to agricultural contractors.

Permanent Sales of Entitlement. The amendment provides for transfer of up to 175 taf of annual

entitlement from agricultural use. The first transfer

made was relinquishment of 45 taf of annual entitlement (40,670 acre-feet from Kern County Water

Agency, 4,330 acre-feet from Dudley Ridge Water

District) back to the SWP, as part of the transfer of the

Kern Water Bank property to these agencies. This relinquishment reduces the total SWP contractual

commitment. The amendment provides for an additional 130 taf/yr of existing agricultural entitlement

to be sold on a permanent basis to urban contractors,

on a willing buyer-willing seller basis. As of April 1997,

25 taf/yr of KCWA entitlement had been purchased

by Mojave Water Agency for recharge in Mojave’s

groundwater basin. Other potential permanent transfers are being discussed.

Storing Water Outside a Contractor’s Service

Area and Transfers of Non-Project Water. While

some of the amendment’s benefits help the larger SWP

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER 2-8

contractors, the ability to store water outside a

contractor’s service area is a significant benefit to the

smaller contractors. Many SWP urban contractors do

not have significant water storage opportunities in their

service areas. This provision of the Monterey amendment allows a contractor to store water in another

agency’s reservoir or groundwater basin. Examples include water storage programs with Semitropic Water

Storage District (a member agency of KWCA).

Several water exchanges are moving forward following approval of the Monterey amendment. Dudley

Ridge Water District has entered into an exchange

agreement with San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water

District. Solano County Water Agency has developed

an exchange program with MWA whereby SCWA provides a portion of its entitlement in wetter years in

return for a lesser amount of water in dry years. While

these exchanges cannot be directly attributed to the

amendment, the amendment facilitates their implementation.

Finally, the amendment provides a mechanism for

using SWP facilities to transport non-project water for

SWP water contractors. (The Department uses other

contractual arrangements for wheeling water for the

CVP and for other non-SWP water users.)

Annual Turnback Pool. Prior to the amendment,

water allocated to contractors that was not used during a year would revert to the SWP at the end of the

year. No compensation was provided to the contractor for this water, and no other contractors could make

use of these supplies during the year. The turnback

pool is an internal SWP mechanism which provides

for pooling potentially unused supplies early in the

year for purchase by other SWP contractors at a set

price. The pool was not intended as a water market,

but rather as an incentive to return unneeded water

early in the year for reallocation among SWP contractors on a willing-buyer basis. The turnback pool

operated successfully on a trial basis during 1996, when

more than 200 taf were reallocated. If neither the SWP

nor individual SWP contractors wish to use water

placed into the pool, that water may then be sold to

entities that are not SWP contractors.

Other Operational Changes. The amendment

established a procedure to transfer ownership of the

Department’s KWB property to KCWA and Dudley

Ridge Water District. The amendment allows contractors repaying costs of constructing the Castaic and

Perris terminal reservoirs to increase their control and

management of a portion of the storage capacity of

each reservoir to optimize the operation of local and

SWP facilities. This is expected, for example, to improve drought year supplies for MWDSC, Castaic Lake

Water Agency, and Ventura County Flood Control and

Water Conservation District.

CVPIA Implementation

CVPIA made significant changes to the CVP’s legislative authorization, amending the project’s purposes

to place fish and wildlife mitigation and restoration

on a par with water supply, and to place fish and wildlife enhancement on a par with power generation. Key

areas of CVPIA implementation are summarized below. A more detailed summary of the act is provided

in Appendix 2A. USBR and USFWS released a draft

programmatic EIS on CVPIA implementation for

public review in November 1997. The draft PEIS describes, among other things, estimated water supply

impacts of federal implementation of the act, and illustrates the consequences of different alternatives for

fish and wildlife supplemental water acquisition. A final EIS is scheduled to be released in 1999.

Renewal of CVP Water Service Contracts.

CVPIA prohibited execution of new CVP water service contracts (with minor exceptions), except for fish

and wildlife purposes, until all of the many environmental restoration actions specified in the statute had

been completed. The act also provided that existing

long-term water service contracts be renewed for 25-

year terms, as opposed to their previous 40-year terms.

Only interim renewals (not more than three years) are

allowed until the PEIS required by the act is completed.

Beginning in October 1997, most existing long term

contracts are subject to a monetary hammer clause

encouraging early renewal. Renewed contracts will incorporate new provisions required by CVPIA, such as

tiered water pricing. Since USBR has not completed

the PEIS, all contract renewals to date have been interim renewals. USBR has had more than 60 interim

contract renewals from the date of enactment through

1996, representing over 1 maf/yr of supply.

Transfers of Project Water. CVPIA authorized

transfer of project water outside the CVP service area,

subject to many conditions, including a right of first

refusal by entities within the service area. Several conditions, including right of first refusal by entities within

the service area, terminate in 1999. Transfers must be

consistent with State law, be approved by USBR, and

be approved by the contracting water district if the

transfer involves more than 20 percent of its long-term

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

2-9 RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER

CVPIA’s Dedicated Water

Section 3406(b)(2) describes the dedicated water as follows:

Upon enactment of this title dedicate and manage annually

800,000 acre-feet of Central Valley Project yield for the primary

purpose of implementing the fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration

purposes and measures authorized by this title; to assist the State

of California in its efforts to protect the waters of the San Francisco

Bay-San Joaquin Delta Estuary; and to help meet such obligations

as may be legally imposed upon the Central Valley Project under

State or Federal law following the date of enactment of this title,

including but not limited to additional obligations under the

federal Endangered Species Act. For the purpose of this section,

the term “Central Valley Project yield” means the delivery

capability of the Central Valley Project during the 1928-1934

drought period after fishery, water quality, and other flow and

operational requirements imposed by terms and conditions existing

in licenses, permits, and other agreements pertaining to the Central

Valley Project under applicable State or Federal law existing at

the time of enactment of this title have been met.

contract supply. USBR has published interim guidelines for administration of this provision, pending

formal promulgation of rules and regulations. As of

this writing, no out of service area transfers have been

approved or implemented.

Fish and Wildlife Restoration Actions. One of

the most controversial elements of CVPIA implementation has been management of the 800 taf/yr of CVP

yield (see sidebar) dedicated by the act to fishery restoration purposes. This water is available for use on

CVP controlled streams (river reaches downstream

from the project’s major storage facilities on the Sacramento, American, and Stanislaus Rivers) and in the

Bay-Delta.

The ambiguity of the statutory language and the

use of dedicated water in the Bay-Delta Accord have

generated many questions, including whether the water may be exported from the Delta after it has been

used for instream flow needs in upstream rivers, and if

the water may be used for Bay-Delta purposes beyond

Bay-Delta Accord requirements. Initially, USBR and

USFWS attempted to develop guidelines or criteria

for its management. Subsequent to CALFED’s creation, the CALFED Operations Group became a

forum for attempting to resolve dedicated water. In

November 1997, DOI released its final administrative

proposal on management of the dedicated water issues. The proposal’s release was subsequently challenged

in legal action filed by some CVP water contractors.

A main purpose of the dedicated water is meeting

the act’s goal of doubling natural production of Central Valley anadromous fish populations from their

average 1967-91 levels by year 2002. Release of water

to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam is excluded

from this program. CVPIA authorizes USBR and

USFWS to acquire additional, supplemental water

from willing sellers to help achieve the doubling goal.

Details of supplemental water acquisition are presented

Looking at the upstream

face of Shasta Dam, with

the temperature control

device at the center of the

photo. At this high reservoir

level, only a small portion

of the TCD is visible. The

structure is bolted to the

face of the dam, covering

the powerplant intakes.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER 2-10

in Chapter 6. CVPIA further allocates additional CVP

water supply for instream use in the Trinity River, reducing the quantity of water which the project could

otherwise divert, by requiring that an instream flow of

340 taf/yr be maintained through water year 1996

while USFWS finishes a long-term instream flow study.

As discussed in Chapter 7, USFWS now recommends

instream flows much greater than 340 taf/yr.

CVPIA enumerates specific physical restoration

measures that the federal government must complete

for fishery and waterfowl habitat restoration. The largest completed measures are a temperature control

device at Shasta Dam and a research pumping plant at

Red Bluff Diversion Dam. CVPIA allocated part of

the costs of some restoration measures to the State of

California; the remaining costs are being paid by federal taxpayers and by CVP water and power contractors. Some of the smaller restoration actions include

individual fish-screening projects that USBR and

USFWS are cost-sharing with local agencies under the

anadromous fish screening program. Examples of these

projects are described in Chapter 8.

CVPIA required USBR to impose a surcharge on

CVP water and power contracts for deposit into a Restoration Fund created by the act. Monies deposited

into the fund are appropriated by Congress to help

fund CVPIA environmental restoration actions. The

act authorizes appropriation of up to $50 million (1992

dollars) per year for the restoration actions. Annual

deposits into the fund vary with water and power sales.

CVPIA environmental restoration actions can be

funded from the general federal treasury, as well as from

the Restoration Fund.

Land Retirement Program. CVPIA authorized

DOI to carry out an agricultural land retirement program for lands receiving CVP water. The statute

specified that targeted lands be lands that “are no longer

suitable for sustained agricultural production because

of permanent damage resulting from severe drainage

or agricultural wastewater management problems,

groundwater withdrawals, or other causes.” The retirement of these lands would result in improved water

conservation in a contracting district, or would help

implement recommendations of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program’s 1990 report. USBR published

interim guidelines for administration of a pilot program, pending formal promulgation of rules and

regulations. The federal guidelines were developed in

coordination with a state land retirement program established in 1992 under Water Code Section 14902 et

seq. The State statute limited the retirement program

to drainage-impaired lands. The State land retirement

program has never been funded, and thus no State acPart of the CVP water supply reallocated by CVPIA to

environmental purposes is used to provide a firm water

supply for specified federal, State, and private wildlife

refuges. The Secretary of Interior is additionally directed to

acquire supplemental water supply to meet the full habitat

needs of these refuges.

CVPIA Waterfowl Habitat Provisions

Most CVPIA environmental restoration measures address

fishery needs. Several provisions specifically address restoring

and enhancing waterfowl habitat. The act authorizes a 10-

year voluntary incentive program for farmers to flood their

fields to create waterfowl habitat, and directs USBR and

USFWS to prepare reports on the water supply reliability of

private wildlife refuges and on water needs for 120,000 acres

of additional wetlands identified in a plan by the Central

Valley Habitat Joint Venture (see Chapter 4). CVPIA’s major

waterfowl habitat provision is a requirement that, by 2002,

USBR and USFWS must provide specified levels of water

supply for certain federal, State, and private refuges. Part of

this water supply is to come from reallocating existing CVP

supplies, and part from acquisition from willing sellers.

Requirements for specific refuges are summarized in

Chapter 4. The act also authorizes DOI to construct or acquire

conveyance facilities or wells needed to supply water to the

refuges.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

2-11 RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER

quisitions have been made. By November 1997, the

federal land retirement program had made one purchase—about 600 acres of drainage-impaired land in

Westlands Water District that will be managed for wildlife habitat. Recently, USBR solicited proposals from

landowners wishing to participate in the retirement

program and received offers to sell lands amounting

to 31,000 acres.

CVP Reform Act Bill and CVPIA Administration. In 1995, the CVP Water Association sponsored

introduction of HR 1906, the Central Valley Project

Reform Act of 1995, a bill which would have made

extensive amendments to CVPIA. That bill was opposed by the federal administration and did not pass

out of the House. DOI took up CVPIA implementation issues raised by the water users in a 1996

administrative process that produced a series of concept papers outlining issues with federal

implementation of CVPIA.

USBR initially prepared interim guidelines on

many provisions of the act, with the intent that the

guidelines would remain in place until rules and regulations were promulgated for sections of CVPIA

involving discretionary actions by the federal government. In some cases, the concept papers produced in

the administrative process attempt to clarify or augment the interim guidelines. USBR has not formally

promulgated rules and regulations for any CVPIA provision.

Other Programs and Reports. USBR has developed criteria for evaluating water conservation plans

of CVP contractors, as required by the act (see Chapter 4), and has been reviewing contractors’ plans for

compliance with the criteria. As of March 1998, over

70 water agencies had submitted plans pursuant to the

criteria. The Department, DFG, USBR, and USFWS

negotiated a master State-federal cost-sharing agreement for environmental restoration actions whose costs

the act allocated in part to California. Funding for the

State’s share of those costs was provided by voter approval of Proposition 204.

From a water supply standpoint, certain CVPIAmandated reports are of special interest. USFWS has

prepared several draft documents relating to estimated

Central Valley environmental water needs and water

management actions for the AFRP. The most recent

draft of the AFRP was published in May 1997. In 1995,

USBR released an appraisal-level least-cost CVP yield

increase plan, required by the act to identify options

for replacing the water supply dedicated to environmental purposes. Although the act directed that the

plan be prepared, USBR was not required to implement it.

Title Transfer of Reclamation Projects

In the 1990s, there was increasing interest in title

transfer of federal water projects (or components of

projects) to nonfederal ownership. Generally, transfer

proposals can be divided into three broad categories—

USBR’s westwide program for small uncomplicated

projects, general congressional action dealing with principles for transfer of certain types of projects, and water

user-initiated transfers of specific projects. There was

additionally a brief period of State-federal negotiations

on title transfer of the CVP. Transfer of a federal project

or its components to nonfederal ownership would

normally require congressional authorization.

In 1995, USBR announced that it was initiating a

westwide program to transfer title of uncomplicated

reclamation projects. Uncomplicated projects were

defined as small, single-purpose projects—typically

distribution and conveyance systems (without hydropower or conservation storage components)—which

could easily be transferred to project beneficiaries. The

projects would have no competing interests, would not

be hydrologically integrated with other projects, and

would have simple financial arrangements. Transfer of

a distribution system would not necessarily

“defederalize” a project’s service area. For example, a

local agency could acquire title to a distribution system but still hold a water service contract with USBR

for the water supply made available for diversion. In

this instance, the service area would probably continue

to be subject to existing federal requirements such as

Reclamation Reform Act acreage limitations and water conservation regulations. USBR indicated that it

will not entertain transfers of large projects in their

entirety under this program. Transfer of isolated elements of such projects can be considered under the

program. One transfer being negotiated under the

administrative program is that of the Contra Costa

Canal, a CVP facility, to Contra Costa Water District.

If USBR and CCWD can successfully negotiate terms

and conditions, they would then seek congressional

authorization for the transfer. Other California reclamation facilities considered for transfer under the

administrative program include the CVP’s Clear Creek

Community Services District distribution system. Title

to the San Diego Aqueduct, a conveyance facility origiEE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER 2-12

Negotiations have been in

progress on transferring

title of the Contra Costa

Canal from USBR to

CCWD. The transfer would

include the 48-mile-long

canal, two regulating

reservoirs, and associated

pumping plants. The canal’s

maximum capacity is 350

cfs, decreasing to 22 cfs at

its terminus.

nally constructed under Department of Defense authorization and subsequently turned over to USBR to

manage, was transferred to nonfederal entities in 1997.

Legislation was introduced in the 104th Congress

that would have directed DOI to transfer title of reclamation projects whose construction costs had been

repaid by the project beneficiaries. This legislation was

not enacted. There were several proposals for transfers

of individual projects during the 104th Congress, none

of which were approved.

In 1992, California and the United States signed

a memorandum of agreement on a process to transfer

title of the CVP to California. The federal government

subsequently declined to pursue transfer negotiations

due to a change in the federal administration and 1992

enactment of CVPIA. In 1995, local agencies that

operate and maintain much of the CVP system formed

a joint powers authority to explore transferring title of

the CVP to the local agencies. The CVP Authority

proposed to introduce title transfer legislation in the

104th Congress, but legislation was not introduced.

Solano Project water users also pursued transfer legislation in the 104th Congress. That effort was put on

hold while an adjudication of Putah Creek water rights

proceeded.

FERC Relicensing

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission administers a program of licensing nonfederal

hydroelectric power plants. FERC licenses establish

conditions on the owners’ operation of their plants;

typical conditions include instream flow requirements

and other fishery protection measures. Licenses for

many California hydropower plants will be coming up

for renewal in the near future. FERC has begun to

schedule regulatory activities for plants with licenses

expiring in 2000 to 2010 (Table 2-6). The relicensing

process affords resource agencies and individuals the

opportunity to seek changes in instream flow requirements, such as those suggested in CVPIA’s draft AFRP.

Hydropower generation is a nonconsumptive water

use, but changes in the amount and timing of water

diverted for power generation can affect other uses

downstream. The impact of deregulation of the electric power industry on relicensing decisions is

uncertain. Current owners of some generating facilities (especially smaller plants) may sell their generation

assets in response to deregulation.

Water supply impacts of relicensing are difficult

to quantify, in part because impacts are site-specific.

Some plants subject to relicensing, for example, currently have no bypass flow requirements. It is likely

that relicensing would establish bypass flows at these

sites. Other plants subject to relicensing already have

substantial bypass flows, and it is not clear what changes

relicensing would bring.

Recent ESA Listings

Since publication of Bulletin 160-93, there has

been action on federal listing of several fish species

having statewide water management significance. In

August 1997, the National Marine Fisheries Service

listed two coastal steelhead populations as threatened

(from the Russian River south to Soquel Creek, and

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

2-13 RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER

TABLE 2-6

California Hydropower Projects - License Years 2000 - 2010

(projects over 1,000 kW)

License Project Stream Licensee Capacity

Expiration Date (1,000 kW)

June 2000 Lower Tule Middle Fork Southern California 2.0

Tule River Edison

September 2000 Hat Creek Hat Creek & Pacific Gas & Electric 20.0

No. 1 & 2 Pit River

February 2002 El Dorado South Fork PG&E 20.0

American River

April 2003 San Gorgonio San Gorgonio Creek SCE 2.3

No. 1 & 2

August 2003 Vermillion Valley Mono Creek SCE N/A

September 2003 Poe North Fork PG&E 142.8

Feather River

October 2003 Pit Pit River PG&E 317.0

April 2004 Santa Felicia Piru Creek United Water 1.4

Reservoir Santa Clara River Conservation District

October 2004 Upper North Fork North Fork PG&E 342.0

Feather River Feather River

December 2004 Donnells & Middle Fork Oakdale & South San 64.0

Beardsley Stanislaus River Joaquin Irrigation

Districts

December 2004 Tulloch Stanislaus River OID and SSJID 17.1

December 2004 Stanislaus - South Fork PG&E 175.8

Spring Gap Stanislaus River

February 2005 Borel Kern River SCE 9.2

March 2005 Portal Rancheria Creek SCE 10.0

Big Creek

April 2005 Kern Canyon Kern River PG&E 11.5

February 2006 Klamath Klamath River Pacificorp 231.0

January 2007 Feather River Feather River DWR 844.0

March 2007 Kilarc & Cow Old Cow Creek & PG&E 8.9

Creek Cow Creek

July 2007 Upper American South Fork SMUD 722.3

River American River

July 2007 Chili Bar South Fork PG&E 7.0

American River

November 2007 Mammoth Pool San Joaquin River SCE 181.0

February 2009 Big Creek South Fork San SCE 480.1

No. 2A & 8 Joaquin River

February 2009 Big Creek 3 San Joaquin River SCE 177.5

February 2009 Big Creek Big Creek & San SCE 225.9

No. 1 & 2 Joaquin River

March 2009 South Fork Kelly Ridge Canal Oroville-Wyandotte 104.1

Irrigation District

April 2009 Santa Ana No. 3 Santa Ana River SCE 1.5

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER 2-14

from the Pajaro River south to the Santa Maria River),

and one population as endangered (from the Santa

Maria River south to Malibu Creek). NMFS deferred

listing decisions for six months for other California

populations—from the Elk River in Oregon to the

Trinity River in California, from Redwood Creek to

the Gualala River, and in the Central Valley—due to

scientific disagreement about the sufficiency and accuracy of the data available for listing determinations.

In March 1998, NMFS listed the Central Valley

population as threatened, and deferred listing of the

two north coast populations in favor of working with

California and Oregon on state conservation plans.

Also in 1997, NMFS listed the Southern Oregon/

Northern California coast evolutionarily significant

unit of coho salmon as threatened. In 1996, NMFS

listed coho salmon in the central coast ESU (from

Punta Gorda in Humboldt County south to the San

Lorenzo River) as threatened.

In 1998, NMFS proposed several runs of chinook

salmon for listing—the spring-run in the Central Valley ESU as endangered, the fall and late-fall runs in

the Central Valley ESU as threatened, and the spring

and fall runs in the Oregon/California coastal ESU as

threatened. NMFS expects to make its decision on listing in 1999. The spring-run chinook salmon has been

listed as a candidate species under the California ESA.

USFWS proposed in 1994 to list a resident Delta

fish species, the Sacramento River splittail, but a congressional moratorium on listing of new species

prevented USFWS from working on the proposal until 1996. USFWS again proposed to list splittail in

1996, but received significant public comments on new

scientific information for splittail. As of July 1998, the

extended public comment period is just ending.

USFWS is expected to make a decision after that time.

USFWS has also listed or proposed for listing species whose limited range would result in localized water

management impacts. For example, the red legged frog,

found primarily in the Central Coast area, was listed

as threatened in 1996. Another example is the Santa

Ana sucker, found in the Santa Ana River, proposed

for listing in 1998.

San Francisco Bay and SacramentoSan Joaquin River Delta

Bay-Delta Accord and CALFED

Representatives from the California Water Policy

Council, created to coordinate activities related to State

long-term water policy, and the Federal Ecosystem

Directorate, created to coordinate actions of federal

agencies involved in Delta programs, signed a Framework Agreement for the Bay-Delta estuary in June

1994. Working together, these agencies are known as

CALFED. The Framework Agreement improved coordination and communication between State and

federal agencies with resource management responsibilities in the estuary. It covered the water quality

standards setting process; coordinated water project operations with requirements of water quality standards,

endangered species laws, and CVPIA; and provided

for cooperation in planning long-term solutions to

problems affecting the estuary’s major public values.

In December 1994 State and federal agencies,

working with stakeholders, reached agreement on the

“Principles for Agreement on Bay-Delta Standards

Between the State of California and the Federal Government” (commonly referred to as the Bay-Delta

Accord) that would remain in effect for three years.

Provisions of the Bay-Delta Accord covered water quality standard setting and water project operational

constraints, ESA implementation and use of real-time

monitoring data, and improvement of conditions not

directly related to Delta outflow. Parties to the accord

committed to fund “non-flow Category III” measures

at $60 million per year for the agreement’s three-year

term. The accord was subsequently extended for a

fourth year. An Operations Group composed of representatives from the State and federal water projects

and the other CALFED agencies was established to

coordinate project operations. Stakeholders from water agencies and environmental and fishery groups

participate in Operations Group meetings.

Water Quality Standard Setting. SWRCB

adopted a water quality control plan for the Bay-Delta

in May 1995, incorporating agreements reached in the

accord. In June 1995, SWRCB adopted Order WR

95-6, an interim order amending terms and conditions

of SWRCB’s D-1485 and the SWP’s and CVP’s water

right permits to resolve inconsistencies with D-1485

requirements and the projects’ voluntary implementation of accord standards. The interim order will expire

when a water right decision allocating final responsibilities for meeting the 1995 objectives is adopted, or

on December 31, 1998, whichever comes first.

SWRCB released a revised draft EIR for implementing the water quality control plan in 1998, and intends

to issue a water right decision implementing the order

by the end of 1998. The DEIR has eight flow alternatives:

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

2-15 RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER

(1) SWP and CVP Responsible for D-1485 Flow

Objectives.

(2) SWP and CVP Responsible for 1995 Bay-Delta

Water Quality Control Plan Flow Objectives.

(3) Water Right Priority Alternative (The CVP’s Friant

Unit is assumed to be an in-basin project.)

(4) Water Right Priority Alternative (The CVP’s Friant

Unit is assumed to be an export project.)

(5) Watershed Alternative–Monthly average flow requirements are established for major watersheds

based on Delta outflow and Vernalis flow objectives and the watersheds’ average unimpaired flow.

The parties responsible for providing the required

flows are water users with storage in foothill reservoirs that control downstream flow to the Delta,

and water users with upstream reservoirs that have

a cumulative capacity of at least 100 taf who use

water primarily for consumptive uses.

(6) Recirculation Alternative–USBR is required to

make releases from the Delta-Mendota Canal to

meet the Vernalis flow objectives.

(7) San Joaquin Basin Negotiated Agreement–San

Joaquin Basin water right holders’ responsibility to

meet the plan objectives is based on an agreement

titled “Letter of Intent among Export Interests and

San Joaquin River Interests to Resolve San Joaquin

River Issues Related to Protection of Bay-Delta Environmental Resources.”

(8) San Joaquin Basin Negotiated Agreement–Vernalis

flow objectives are replaced by target flows contained in the agreement.

CALFED Long-Term Solution-Finding Process

for Bay-Delta. The June 1994 Framework Agreement

called for a State-federal process to develop long-term

solutions to Bay-Delta problems related to fish and

wildlife, water supply reliability, natural disasters, and

water quality. The CALFED program is managed by

an interagency team under the policy direction of

CALFED member agencies, with public input provided by the Bay-Delta Advisory Council. BDAC is a

31-member advisory panel representing California’s

agricultural, environmental, urban, business, fishing,

and other interests who have a stake in the long term

solution to Bay-Delta problems.

The CALFED program’s first phase identified

problems in and goals for the Bay-Delta, and developed a range of alternatives for long-term solutions.

This phase concluded with a September 1996 report

identifying three broad solutions, each of which included a range of water storage options, a system for

conveying water, and some programs that were common to all alternatives. The second phase consisted of

preparing a programmatic EIR/EIS covering three

main alternatives for conveyance of water across the

Delta—an existing system alternative, a through-Delta

alternative, and a dual Delta conveyance alternative.

A first public review draft of the PEIR/PEIS was released in March 1998. CALFED expects to issue a

second draft PEIR/PEIS by the end of 1998. The revised draft would identify CALFED’s draft preferred

alternative.

The third phase would involve staged implemenCALFED’s Ecosystem

Restoration Program calls

for extensive creation of new

habitat in the Delta.

Construction of setback

levees would allow

restoration of riparian and

riverine aquatic habitats,

benefitting fish

and wildlife.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER 2-16

An aerial view of the Montezuma Slough salinity control

structure. The structure includes three 36-foot wide radial

gates, a 66-foot wide barge access, and a boat lock.

tation of the preferred alternative over a time period

of several decades and will require site-specific compliance with NEPA and CEQA. Current plans are for

an initial implementation period of 7 to 10 years, during which only common program elements would be

implemented (water conservation measures, ecosystem

restoration, levee improvements). Any conveyance or

storage facilities would be constructed in a later phase

of implementation.

ESA Administration. The Bay-Delta Accord established several principles governing ESA administration

in the Bay-Delta during the agreement’s term.

• The accord is intended to improve habitat conditions in the Bay-Delta to avoid the need for

additional species listings during the agreement’s

term. If additional listings do become necessary,

the federal government will acquire any additional

water supply needed for those species by buying

water from willing sellers.

• There is intended to be no additional water cost

to the CVP and SWP resulting from compliance

with biological opinion incidental take provisions

for presently listed species. The CALFED Operations Group is to develop operational flexibility

by adjusting export limits.

• Real-time monitoring is to be used to the extent

possible to make decisions regarding operational

flexibility. CALFED commits to devote significant

resources to implement real-time monitoring.

Suisun Marsh

SWRCB’s D-1485 required USBR and the Department to develop a plan to protect the Suisun

Marsh. The Suisun Marsh Preservation and Restoration Act of 1979 authorized the DOI to enter into an

agreement with California for cost-sharing in activities to protect the marsh’s fish and wildlife resources.

A plan was subsequently developed and initial water

supply distribution systems called for in the plan were

completed in 1981.

In 1986 PL 99-546 authorized the federal government to contract with Suisun Resource

Conservation District, DFG, and the Department for

mitigating effects of the SWP, CVP, and other upstream

diversions on marsh water quality. The agreement, approved in March 1987, described proposed facilities

to be constructed, a construction schedule, cost-sharing responsibilities, water quality standards, soil salinity,

water quality monitoring, and purchase of land to

mitigate the impacts of the Suisun Marsh facilities

themselves. As provided by the agreement, a salinity

control structure on Montezuma Slough was completed in 1989. The structure has effectively reduced

salinity in Montezuma Slough and eastern regions of

the marsh, and to a lesser degree, in most of the western regions of the marsh.

Because of the effectiveness of the salinity control

structure and the increased Delta outflows called for

in SWRCB’s Order WR 95-6, parties to the 1987

Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement are amending

the agreement to focus on funding water management

activities instead of constructing the large-scale facilities initially planned. Activities such as improving

discharge facilities, screening portable pumps, employing a water manager, and constructing joint-use water

management facilities among landowners will enable

landowners to effectively use water from marsh sloughs.

Delta Protection Commission

The Delta Protection Act of 1992 established the

Delta Protection Commission and charged it with preparing a plan for land uses within the primary zone of

the Delta, and with working with local governments

to ensure that their general plans are brought into conformance with the Commission’s plan. Delta

counties—including Solano, Yolo, Sacramento, San

Joaquin, and Contra Costa—are required to comply

with findings of the plan. In February 1995, the Commission adopted the Land Use and Resource

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

2-17 RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER

Management Plan for the Primary Zone of the Delta

(Delta Plan). The major goals of the Delta Plan include the following:

• Preserve and protect the natural resources of the

Delta, including soils.

• Promote protection of remnants of riparian habitat.

• Promote seasonal flooding and agricultural practices to maximize wildlife use.

• Promote levee maintenance and rehabilitation to

preserve land areas and channel configurations in

the Delta.

• Protect the Delta from excessive construction of

utilities and other infrastructure. Where construction of new infrastructure is appropriate, minimize

the impacts of new construction on levees, wildlife, and agriculture.

• Protect the unique character and qualities of the

primary zone by preserving its cultural heritage

and strong agricultural base. Encourage residential, commercial, and industrial development in

existing developed areas.

• Support long-term viability of commercial agriculture and discourage inappropriate development

of agricultural lands.

• Protect long-term water quality in the Delta.

• Promote continued recreational use of the land

and waters of the Delta; ensure that facilities that

allow such uses are constructed and maintained;

protect landowners from unauthorized recreational

uses on private lands; and maximize dwindling

public funds for recreation by promoting publicprivate partnerships and multiple use of Delta

lands.

• Support the improvement and long-term maintenance of Delta levees by coordinating permit

reviews and guidelines for levee maintenance; develop a long-term funding program for levee

maintenance; protect levees in emergency situations; and give levee rehabilitation and

maintenance priority over other uses of levee areas.

As originally authorized, the Delta Protection

Commission was to expire in January 1997. Its expiration date was extended to January 1, 1999. The

Commission is currently studying existing recreational

uses in the Delta in conjunction with the Department

of Boating and Waterways and the Department of Parks

and Recreation. The Commission continues to monitor proposed land use changes in the Delta.

San Francisco Estuary Project

The San Francisco Estuary Project, begun in 1987,

is a federal-State partnership established under Clean

Water Act authority to develop a plan for protecting

and restoring the estuary while maintaining its beneficial uses. The project, jointly sponsored by EPA and

by the State, is financed by federal appropriations and

matching funds from State and local agencies.

In 1993, the SFEP’s Comprehensive Conservation

and Management Plan was completed and signed by

the State and federal governments. The CCMP contained 145 specific action items to protect and restore

the estuary, classified into the following programs:

aquatic resources, wildlife, wetlands management,

water use, pollution prevention and reduction, dredging and waterway modification, land use, public

involvement and education, and research and monitoring. Since no specific funding exists for

implementing these action items, progress has continued under existing federal, State, and local programs.

A 1996 SFEP progress report on CCMP implementation identified ten priorities to be implemented over

the next five years:

(1) Expand, restore, and protect Bay-Delta wetlands.

(2) Integrate and improve regulatory and scientific

monitoring programs.

(3) Create economic incentives that encourage local

governments to implement measures to protect

and enhance the estuary.

(4) Improve management and control of urban runoff.

(5) Prepare and implement watershed management

plans throughout the estuary.

(6) Reduce and control introduction of exotic species.

(7) Build awareness about CCMP implementation.

(8) Increase public awareness about the estuary’s natural resources and the need to protect them.

(9) Implement a regional monitoring program.

(10) Work with CALFED and others to address program priorities.

Coordinated Operation Agreement Renegotiation

In 1986, the Department and USBR signed a Coordinated Operation Agreement obligating the CVP

and the SWP to coordinate their operations to meet

D-1485 standards. The agreement authorizes DOI to

operate the CVP in coordination with the SWP to meet

State water quality standards for the Bay-Delta (unless

DOI determines such operation to be inconsistent with

Congressional directives), and provides a formula for

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER 2-18

sharing the obligation to provide water to meet water

quality standards and other in-basin uses. It sets forth

the basis for CVP and SWP operation to ensure that

each project receives an equitable share of Central Valley runoff and guarantees that the two systems will

operate more efficiently during periods of drought than

they would if operated independently. Under the COA,

the USBR also agreed to meet its share of future water

quality standards established by SWRCB.

Article 14 of the COA provides for periodic review of project operation and of the COA, and for

future adjustments to the sharing formula if assumed

conditions used to calculate the sharing formula

change. Since COA execution, biological opinions for

winter-run chinook salmon and Delta smelt have imposed new operational constraints on both the CVP

and the SWP. In addition, the Bay-Delta Accord has

established standards which the two projects are voluntarily meeting, pending implementation of the

standards through SWRCB’s water rights proceedings.

As a result of these changes, the Department and USBR

have begun a review of the sharing formula.

Interstate Issues

California receives most of its water supply from

intrastate rivers and groundwater basins. The Colorado River, shared among seven states, contributes a

substantial water supply to Southern California, and

other smaller interstate rivers are locally important

sources. The status of apportionment actions on rivers

with long-standing interstate issues is discussed below.

There is currently no significant activity on interstate

groundwater basins. Within the last decade, there had

been concerns in California about proposed large-scale

groundwater development projects in northern Nevada

that could affect interstate basins, but these projects

have not been implemented.

Truckee-Carson River System

The Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights

Settlement Act (Title II of PL No. 101-618) settled

several water rights disputes affecting the waters of Lake

Tahoe, the Truckee River, and the Carson River. Of

most importance to California, the act made an interstate apportionment of these waters between the States

of California and Nevada. (It was the first Congressional apportionment since the Boulder Canyon

Project Act of 1928.) The act addresses several other

issues, including settlement of water supply disputes

between the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians and

other users of the Truckee and Carson Rivers. The act

also addresses environmental concerns, such as recovery of listed fish species in Pyramid Lake.

Many of the act’s provisions—including the interstate apportionment between California and

Nevada—will not take effect until several conditions

have been satisfied, including dismissal of specified lawsuits and negotiation and adoption of a Truckee River

Operating Agreement. The act requires that a TROA

be negotiated among DOI and the States of California and Nevada, after consultation with other parties

as may be designated by DOI or by the two states.

The TROA addresses interstate water allocation and

implements an agreement between Sierra Pacific Power

Company and the United States which provides for

storing water in upstream reservoirs for Pyramid Lake

fish and for emergency drought water supplies for the

Reno-Sparks area. TROA negotiation has been ongoing since 1991. A draft TROA is being analyzed in an

EIS/EIR prepared by DOI. The Department is the

State lead agency for CEQA compliance. The draft

EIS/EIR was released for public review in 1998 and is

expected to be completed in 1999.

Walker River

There are currently no significant interstate actions pending on the Walker River. A proposed

interstate allocation of the Walker River was negotiated at one time but was not implemented. The Walker

USBR’s dam on Lake Tahoe regulates releases for downstream

water users in Nevada.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

2-19 RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER

River was not included in the settlement legislation

for the adjoining Truckee and Carson River Basins. In

the recent past, interstate activities on the Walker River

have involved water quality and fishery issues associated with river operations and not water allocation

issues.

Klamath River

An interstate compact providing for administration of the Klamath River was adopted by California

and Oregon and ratified by Congress in 1957. The

compact is managed by a Commission consisting of

the Director of the Oregon Water Resources Department, the Director of the California Department of

Water Resources, and a non-voting federal representative who serves as chairperson.

For the Compact’s first 39 years, there was little

controversy concerning the upper river basin. Recent

changes in operation of USBR’s Klamath Project facilities to protect listed fish species have affected

irrigation supplies available from the project. The State

of Oregon has begun a comprehensive water rights

adjudication for its portion of the basin. USBR is drafting a new operations plan for its project to formalize

procedures for meeting the needs of listed fish species

in Klamath Lake and listed anadromous fish downstream in the lower river. The Klamath River Compact

Commission began facilitating a process in cooperation with USBR and basin water users to identify

voluntary solutions to water shortages affecting the upper basin. The effort seeks to achieve agreement on

ways to secure sufficient water for all needs, rather than

on asserting claims to rights.

Colorado River

Colorado River water management activities are

described in detail in Chapter 9. The major issue facing California is its use of Colorado River water in

excess of the amount apportioned to it by the existing

body of statutes, court decisions, and agreements controlling use of the water supply among the seven basin

states. California’s basic apportionment of river water

is 4.4 maf of consumptive use per year (plus a share of

surplus flows, when available), as compared to its

present consumptive use of up to 5.3 maf/yr.

California’s use has historically exceeded the basic apportionment because California has been able to divert

and use Arizona’s and Nevada’s unused apportionments,

and to divert surplus water. With completion of the

Central Arizona Project and the 1996 enactment of

groundwater banking legislation, Arizona used more

than its basic apportionment in 1997.

California has been meeting with the other basin

states to develop a plan for California to reduce its use

of Colorado River water to the State’s basic apportionment. A draft plan has been developed by the Colorado

River Board of California and the local agencies it represents. As described in detail in Chapter 9, the plan

includes actions such as water transfers from agricultural users of river water to urban users in the South

USBR’s Hoover Dam on the

Colorado River was a major

engineering feat at the time

of its construction and

provided jobs for thousands

of Depression-era workers.

Today, the dam is an

important source of water

and power for Southern

California.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER 2-20

USBR’s Spring Creek Debris

Dam was constructed to

control runoff reaching the

Sacramento River from part

of the Iron Mountain Mine

site.

Coast Region, lining of portions of the All American

and Coachella Canals, and groundwater banking. As

presently envisioned, implementing California’s plan

would occur in two phases, with projects that are presently well-defined (e.g., canal lining, a San Diego/

Imperial Valley water transfer) implemented in the first

phase.

Regional and Local Programs

Local Agency Groundwater

Management Programs

In most western states, the rights to the use of surface water and groundwater resources are administered

by the states. California administers rights to surface

water at the State level, but not rights to groundwater.

In California, groundwater may be managed under a

variety of authorities, ranging from judicial adjudication of individual basins to several forms of local agency

management. Some local agencies have specific statutory authority to manage groundwater resources in

their service areas. Other local agencies may manage

groundwater under authority provided by general enabling legislation, such as Water Code Section 10750

et seq. A few counties have adopted local ordinances

dealing with groundwater management.

The 1992 enactment of AB 3030 (Water Code

Section 10750 et seq.) provided broad general authority for local agencies to adopt groundwater

management plans and to impose assessments to cover

the cost of implementing the plans. To date, about

150 local agencies have adopted AB3030 groundwater management plans. Under other groundwater

management authorities, there are 7 agencies with AB

255 plans and over 50 agencies with some other form

of statutory authority.

The number of agencies adopting AB 3030 plans

is increasing. Quantifying the number of plans adopted

is somewhat uncertain, since there is no requirement

in the statute that agencies adopting plans file copies

of those plans with the Department or SWRCB. A

tabulation of agencies with AB 3030 plans, together

with agencies managing groundwater under some other

authority, can be found in the Department’s 1998 report to the Legislature on local agency groundwater

management.

Watershed-Based Planning

There has been increased interest in watershedbased planning, sometimes prompted by water quality

regulatory programs. Watersheds and sub-watersheds

are logical units for implementing SDWA source water protection programs and CWA nonpoint source

pollution control programs. “Watershed planning” can

have a range of meanings—some people associate watershed planning with small, community-based

watershed restoration efforts, often carried out via a

coordinated resources management plan. Others think

of larger-scale efforts that focus on nonpoint source

pollution control, such as SWRCB’s watershed management initiative. Some watershed-based planning

activities are reviewed below.

Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Watershed

Planning. SWRCB and the nine regional water quality control boards are implementing a watershed

management approach to administering water pollution control programs, addressing point and nonpoint

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

2-21 RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER

TABLE 2-7

Partial List of Targeted Watersheds and Watershed Activities

Identified for the Watershed Management Initiative

Regional Board Targeted Watershed Targeted Watershed Priorities/Activities

Russian/Bodega Fish restoration, erosion/sedimentation control, riparian

enhancement

Lost River and Klamath River Stream restoration on Clear Lake tributaries (Modoc County)

upstream of Iron Gate Dam

Shasta River and tributaries Irrigation return flows, nutrient and temperature reductions,

irrigation water conservation

Scott River and tributaries Temperature reduction, irrigation water conservation, erosion/

sedimentation control

Other Klamath River tributaries Fish restoration, erosion/sedimentation control

upstream of Scott River confluence

Garcia Watershed Fish restoration, erosion/sedimentation control, temperature

reduction

Humboldt Bay Fish restoration, erosion/sedimentation control

Napa River Riparian and wetland restoration, sedimentation control,

volunteer monitoring

Petaluma River Riparian and wetland restoration, sedimentation control, animal

waste control, volunteer monitoring

Tomales Bay Riparian restoration, sedimentation control, mine waste

management, on-site disposal, volunteer monitoring

San Francisquito Creek Riparian and wetland restoration, sedimentation control, urban

runoff prevention and control, volunteer monitoring

Walnut Creek Riparian restoration, sedimentation control, urban runoff

prevention and control, volunteer monitoring

Suisun Marsh Riparian and wetland restoration, sedimentation control,

construction and agricultural activities, volunteer monitoring and

education

Alameda Creek Riparian and wetland restoration, sedimentation control,

construction and agricultural activities, groundwater protection,

volunteer monitoring and education

Salinas River Agricultural activities, erosion/sedimentation control, riparian

and wetland enhancement and restoration

Morro Bay Erosion/sedimentation control, abandoned mines, road

construction, agricultural activities, riparian and wetland

enhancement and restoration

San Lorenzo Erosion/sedimentation control, road construction and

maintenance, riparian and wetland enhancement and restoration

Pajaro River Nonpoint source pollution control, riparian and wetland

enhancement and restoration

Santa Maria River Nonpoint source pollution control, riparian and wetland

enhancement and restoration

Region 2

San Francisco

Bay

Region 1

North Coast

Region 3

Central Coast

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER 2-22

Calleguas Creek Reduce nutrients, pesticides, and sediments in irrigation water;

restore aquatic and riparian habitats; flood control; enhance

recreational uses

Ventura River Watershed Restore aquatic habitats; implement flood control; enhance

recreational uses

Los Angeles River Restore aquatic and riparian habitats; enhance recreational uses;

reduce pollutants

Santa Monica Bay Reduce pollutants from boatyards and marinas; enhance

recreational uses; restore wetlands

Lower San Joaquin River Selenium, agriculture, dairies, temperature, urban runoff

Watershed

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Agriculture, sediments, bacteria, dredged material, dissolved

oxygen, urban runoff

Lower Sacramento River Agriculture, urban runoff, mercury, heavy metals, nitrates, septic

Watershed systems, fisheries

Cache Creek Watershed and Nutrients (algal blooms), mercury

Clear Lake

Pit River Hydromodification, nutrients (algal blooms), dissolved oxygen,

turbidity/sedimentation, temperature, agriculture, grazing, silvaculture

Tulare Lake Salts, pesticides, boron, chloride, molybdenum, sulfate, dissolved

oxygen, bacteria, used oil

Lower Truckee River Roadside drainage, erosion control, urban runoff, fisheries habitat

improvement, wetlands enhancement, stream restoration

Upper Truckee River Sedimentation control, nutrients from watershed disturbances;

watershed education; restoration of wetland function, riparian areas,

and/or river morphology and function

Carson River Erosion control, disposal of livestock waste, watershed education,

wetland/riparian restoration

Imperial Valley Watershed Agricultural pollution control

Coachella Valley Watershed Agricultural pollution control, groundwater protection

Chino Basin Watershed Agricultural runoff, dairies, salt build-up in groundwater

Newport Bay Watershed Toxics, nutrients, pathogens, sediments

San Diego Bay - all tributaries Urban runoff, public education

San Diego Bay Copper leaching from boat hulls, oil spills

Otay River Valley Urban runoff, public education, pollutant loadings

Sweetwater River Heavy metals, petroleum products, public education, nutrient

transport, sediment transport

Aliso Creek Coliform contamination

Santa Margarita River Nitrogen and phosphorus loading from agriculture

Region 5

Central Valley

Region 6

Lahontan

Region 7

Colorado River

Region 8

Santa Ana

Region 9

San Diego

TABLE 2-7

Partial List of Targeted Watersheds and Watershed Activities

Identified for the Watershed Management Initiative (continued)

Regional Board Targeted Watershed Targeted Watershed Priorities/Activities

Region 4

Los Angeles

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

2-23 RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER

pollution sources. In 1997, SWRCB, RWQCBs, and

EPA began a new program known as the Watershed

Management Initiative. Targeted watersheds and watershed priorities or activities were identified for each

of California’s nine RWQCBs. Examples of targeted

watersheds and watershed priorities or activities are

listed in Table 2-7. Federal CWA funding administered by SWRCB may be used to work on priority

programs.

Upper Sacramento River Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Plan. In 1986, State legislation (SB 1086)

called for preparation of a management plan to protect, restore, and enhance the fishery, riparian habitat,

and wildlife of the upper Sacramento River. The plan,

published in 1989, was prepared by an advisory council working closely with a wide range of agency

representatives and stakeholders. The plan recommended implementation of 20 fishery improvement

actions, several of which (for example, constructing a

temperature control device at Shasta Dam and improving fish passage at USBR’s Red Bluff Diversion Dam)

were subsequently included in CVPIA. Other actions,

such as habitat restoration at Mill Creek, are being

implemented largely under State authorities with the

participation of local property owners and other stakeholders.

In 1992, the Upper Sacramento River Advisory

Council was reconvened by the Secretary for Resources

USBR is evaluating the

fishery impacts of different

types of pump diversions to

the Tehama-Colusa Canal.

One alternative for

improving fish passage at

Red Bluff Diversion Dam

would be to leave the dam’s

gates in the raised position

and use a pumping plant to

make TCC diversions. The

research plant contains three

pumps–one helical pump and

two Archimedes screw pumps

(right side of photo).

to “complete its earlier work concerning riparian habitat protection and management, including the

development of a specific implementation program.”

The council in turn established a riparian committee

to define the inner and outer zones of a proposed conservation area, provide the basic framework of the

riparian plan, and evaluate and recommend a suitable

organizational structure to implement the riparian

plan. Detailed mapping of the riparian corridor continues, and the committee is continuing to refine

mechanisms to manage the proposed conservation

area.

San Joaquin River Management Program. The

San Joaquin River Management Program was authorized by 1990 State legislation that established an

advisory council and action team, and directed the

Secretary for Resources to coordinate their activities

in preparing a program to develop solutions to meet

water supply, water quality, flood protection, fisheries, wildlife habitat, and recreation needs on a specified

segment of the San Joaquin River. Members of the

advisory council and action team included State, federal, and local agencies and stakeholders representing

a variety of interests. The members developed a consensus-based plan addressing resource issues listed in

the authorizing legislation; the plan was published in

1995. Subsequent State legislation extended the original 1995 termination of the program and further

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

RECENT EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WATER 2-24

directed SJRMP to work with programs such as

CVPIA and CALFED to seek funding for actions recommended in the 1995 plan.

The plan recommended implementation of specific projects and further study of other projects, such

as enlargement of Friant Dam and construction of

Montgomery Reservoir offstream storage reservoir for

fishery water supply. Some of the recommended

projects are being implemented, including a pilot program for real-time management of agricultural

drainage discharge to the San Joaquin River. Other

recommended projects may be implemented through

CVPIA’s AFRP or the CALFED Category III program.

Conservancies. Other mechanisms for watershedbased planning are conservancies created by special

enabling legislation. These conservancies are usually

focused on land acquisition or management activities. Two conservancies have a water-related

orientation. The Tahoe Conservancy was created in

1984 to acquire and manage property in the Lake

Tahoe Basin for the primary purpose of maintaining

the lake’s water quality. Other authorized purposes of

the conservancy are to provide access to public lands,

preserve wildlife habitat, and perform environmental

restoration projects. The conservancy is governed by

a seven-member board, with members from the City

of South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County, Placer

County, the Resources Agency, Department of Finance, and two members appointed by the Legislature.

A representative of the U.S. Forest Service is a nonvoting board member. Since voter enactment of the

1982 Lake Tahoe Acquisitions Bond Act, the conservancy has spent about $85 million in land acquisition

and erosion control projects in the basin.

The San Joaquin River Conservancy was created

by 1992 legislation to acquire and manage lands along

the river in Fresno and Madera Counties for recreational and wildlife habitat. As established in the

enabling legislation, the conservancy is governed by a

board of six voting members and seven non-voting

ex-officio members.

Non-Governmental Organizations. Some watershed-based planning activities are being carried out

by voluntary non-governmental organizations, often

in the form of non-profit corporations. These NGOs

are typically focused on resource issues in small watersheds, where they may partner with a resource

conservation district to carry out specific projects. Examples of such efforts are found on Mill Creek and

Deer Creek in the Sacramento Valley, where local landowners banded together to improve fishery habitat on

the creeks. Actions taken or being considered include

addressing fish passage problems at water diversion

structures, using groundwater for irrigation instead of

surface water during times critical to fish passage, and

fencing riparian habitat to exclude livestock.

Implementation of Urban

Water Conservation MOU

The 1991 Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California defined a

set of urban best management practices and procedures

for their implementation, and established a California

Urban Water Conservation Council composed of

MOU signatories (local water agencies, environmental groups, and other interested parties). More than

200 entities have signed the MOU. The CUWCC has

monitored implementation of BMPs and reported

progress annually to the SWRCB. The council developed a plan providing for ongoing review of BMPs

and potential BMPs. In late 1996, the council initiated a review of the BMPs to clarify expectations for

implementation and to develop an implementation

evaluation methodology. Revised BMPs were adopted

in 1997, as described in Chapter 4.

Implementation of Agricultural Efficient

Water Management Practices MOU

The Agricultural Efficient Water Management

Practices Act of 1990 (AB 3616) required the Department to establish an advisory committee to develop

EWMPs for agricultural water use. Negotiations among

agricultural water users, environmental interests, and

governmental agencies on a MOU to implement

EWMPs were completed in 1996. The MOU established an Agricultural Water Management Council to

oversee EWMP implementation, much like the organizational structure that exists for urban BMPs, and

also provided a mechanism for its signatories to evaluate and endorse water management plans. By May

1998, the MOU had been signed by 31 agricultural

water suppliers irrigating about 3 million acres of land,

as well as by over 60 other entities. More detail on the

agricultural MOU is provided in Chapter 4.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
2A-1 APPENDIX 2A

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 2A

In California, water use and supplies are controlled

and managed under an intricate system of federal and

State laws. Common law principles, constitutional provisions, State and federal statutes, court decisions, and

contracts or agreements all govern how water is allocated, developed, or used. All of these components

constitute the institutional framework for allocation

and management of water resources in California.

This appendix presents an overview of California’s

institutional framework, highlighting some of the more

recent changes. Summarized here are major constitutional requirements, statutes, court decisions, and

agreements that form the groundwork for many water

resource management and planning activities. Changes

since the publication of Bulletin 160-93 are covered

in the Chapter 2 text.

Allocation and Management of

California’s Water Supplies

The following subsections condense basic water

rights laws and doctrines governing allocation and use

of California’s water supplies.

California Constitution Article X, Section 2

The keystone of California’s water law and policy,

Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution,

requires that all uses of the State’s water be both reasonable and beneficial. It places a significant limitation

on water rights by prohibiting the waste, unreasonable use, unreasonable method of use, or unreasonable

method of diversion of water.

Riparian and Appropriative Rights

California operates under a dual system of water

rights for surface water which recognizes both riparian

rights and appropriative rights. Under the riparian doctrine, the owners of land have the right to divert, but

not store, a portion of the natural flow of water flowing by their land for reasonable and beneficial use upon

their land adjacent to the stream and within its watershed, subject to certain limitations. Generally, all

riparian water right holders must reduce their water

use in times of water shortages. Under the prior appropriation doctrine, a person may acquire a right to

divert, store, and use water regardless of whether the

land on which it is used is adjacent to a stream or within

its watershed, provided that the water is used for reasonable and beneficial uses and is surplus to water from

the same stream used by earlier appropriators. The rule

of priority between appropriators is “first in time is

first in right.”

Water Rights Permits and Licenses

The Water Commission Act, which took effect in

1914 following a referendum, recognized the overriding interest of the people in the waters of the State,

but provided that private rights to use water may be

acquired in the manner provided by law. The act established a system of State-issued permits and licenses

to appropriate water. Amended over the years, it now

appears in Division 2 (commencing with Section 1000)

of the Water Code. These provisions place responsibility for administering appropriative water rights with

Institutional Framework

for Allocating and Managing

Water Resources in California

2A

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 2A 2A-2

Appendix 2A The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

SWRCB; however, the permit and license provisions

do not apply to pre-1914 appropriative rights (those

initiated before the act took effect in 1914). The act

also provides procedures for adjudication of water

rights, including court references to SWRCB and statutory adjudications of all rights to a stream system.

Groundwater Management

 Generally, groundwater is available to any person

who owns land overlying the groundwater basin.

Groundwater management in California may be accomplished either by a judicial adjudication of the

respective rights of overlying users and exporters, or

by local management of rights to extract and use

groundwater as authorized by statute or agreement.

Statutory management may be granted to a public

agency that also manages surface water, or to a groundwater management agency created expressly for that

purpose by a special district act.

In 1991, the Water Code was amended by AB 255

to allow local water agencies overlying critically

overdrafted groundwater basins to develop groundwater management plans. Only a few local agencies

adopted plans pursuant to that authorization. In 1992,

the Legislature adopted new sections authorizing another form of groundwater management, also available

to any local agency that provides water service, if the

groundwater was not subject to management under

other provisions of law or a court decree. Plans adopted

pursuant to the 1992 statute (commonly called AB

3030 plans) may include control of salt water intrusion; identification and protection of wellhead and

recharge areas; regulation of the migration of contaminated water; provisions for abandonment and

destruction of wells; mitigation of overdraft; replenishment; monitoring; facilitating conjunctive use;

identification of well construction policies; and construction of cleanup, recharge, recycling, and extraction

projects by the local agency.

Public Trust Doctrine

In the 1980s, the public trust doctrine was used

by courts to limit traditional water rights. Under the

equal footing doctrine of the U.S. Constitution, each

state has title to tidelands and the beds of navigable

lakes and streams within its borders. The public trust

doctrine—recognized in some form by most states—

embodies the principle that the state holds title to such

properties within the state in trust for the beneficial

use of the public, and that public rights of access to

and use of tidelands and navigable waters are inalienable. Traditional public trust rights include navigation,

commerce, and fishing. California law has expanded

the traditional public trust uses to include protection

of fish and wildlife, preserving trust lands in their natural condition for scientific study and scenic enjoyment,

and related open-space uses.

In 1983, the California Supreme Court extended

the public trust doctrine’s limitation on private rights

to appropriative water rights. In National Audubon

Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County, the court

held that water right licenses held by the City of Los

Angeles to divert water from streams tributary to Mono

Lake remain subject to ongoing State supervision under the public trust doctrine. The court held that public

trust uses must be considered and balanced when rights

to divert water away from navigable water bodies are

considered. The court also held that California’s appropriative rights system and the public trust doctrine

embody important precepts which “. . . make the law

more responsive to the diverse needs and interests involved in planning and allocation of water resources.”

Consequently, in issuing or reconsidering any rights

to appropriate and divert water, the State must balance public trust needs with the needs for other

beneficial uses of water. In 1994, the SWRCB issued a

final decision on Mono Lake (Decision 1631) in which

it balanced the various uses in determining the appropriate terms and conditions of the water rights permit

for the City of Los Angeles. The public trust doctrine

will also be applied by the SWRCB in its current consideration of water rights in the Bay-Delta.

Since the 1983 National Audubon decision, the

public trust doctrine has been involved in several other

cases. In United States v. State Water Resources Control

Board (commonly referred to as the Racanelli Decision and discussed below), the State Court of Appeal

reiterated that the public trust doctrine is a significant

limitation on water rights. The public trust doctrine

was also a basis for the decision in Environmental Defense Fund v. East Bay Municipal Utility District. In

this case, EDF claimed that EBMUD should not contract with USBR for water diverted from the American

River upstream from the Sacramento urban area in a

manner that would harm instream uses including recreational, scenic, and fish and wildlife preservation

purposes. The Superior Court upheld the validity of

EBMUD’s contract with USBR, but placed limitations

on the timing and amounts of deliveries to EBMUD.

As a result of these cases, the SWRCB now routinely

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
2A-3 APPENDIX 2A

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 2A

implements the public trust doctrine through regulations and through terms and conditions in water rights

permits and licenses.

Federal Power Act

The Federal Power Act created a federal licensing

system administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission and required that a license be obtained

for nonfederal hydroelectric projects proposing to use

navigable waters or federal lands. The act contains a

clause modeled after a clause in the Reclamation Act

of 1902, which disclaims any intent to affect state water

rights law.

In a number of decisions dating back to the 1940s,

the U.S. Supreme Court held that provisions of the

Reclamation Act and the Federal Power Act preempted

inconsistent provisions of law. Decisions under both

acts found that these clauses were merely “saving

clauses” which required the United States to follow

minimal state procedural laws or to pay just compensation where vested nonfederal water rights are taken.

In California v. United States (1978), however, the

U.S. Supreme Court disavowed dicta in a number of

earlier Supreme Court decisions which stated that

under the Reclamation Act the United States need not

comply with state water law. It held that the Reclamation Act clause requires the USBR to comply with

conditions in state water rights permits unless those

conditions conflict with “clear Congressional directives.” In California v. FERC (1990), commonly

referred to as the Rock Creek Decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected California’s argument that the

Federal Power Act clause required deference to state

water law, as the Reclamation Act did. The Supreme

Court distinguished between the two acts, finding that

the Federal Power Act envisioned a broader and more

active oversight role than did the Reclamation law. The

Federal District Court case of Sayles Hydro Association

v. Maughan (1993), reinforced this view by holding

that federal law prevents any state regulation of federally licensed power projects other than determining

proprietary water rights.

In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision referred to as the Elkhorn decision or Tacoma

decision (PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County and City of

Tacoma v. Washington Department of Ecology). The Supreme Court held that a state minimum instream flow

requirement is a permissible condition of a Clean Water

Act Section 401 certification, in response to a proposal

to construct a hydroelectric project on the Dosewallips

River. Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act,

the project proponents were required to obtain state

certification for the hydroelectric project. The State of

Washington set an instream flow requirement in its

certification process to protect the river’s designated

use as fish habitat. Section 303 of the Clean Water Act

requires states to establish water quality standards for

intrastate waters, with the standards to include both

numeric water quality criteria and designated uses.

Area of Origin Protections

During the years when California’s two largest

water projects, the CVP and SWP, were being planned

and developed, area of origin provisions were added to

the water code to protect local Northern California

supplies from being depleted as a result of the projects.

County of origin statutes reserve water supplies for

counties in which the water originates when, in the

judgment of the SWRCB, an application for the assignment or release from priority of State water right

filings will deprive the county of water necessary for

its present and future development. Watershed protection statutes are provisions which require that the

construction and operation of elements of the CVP

and the SWP not deprive the watershed, or area where

water originates (or immediately adjacent areas which

can be conveniently supplied with water) of the prior

right to water reasonably required to supply the present

or future beneficial needs of the watershed area or any

of its inhabitants or property owners.

The Delta Protection Act, enacted in 1959 (not

to be confused with the Delta Protection Act of 1992,

which relates to land use), declares that the maintenance of an adequate water supply in the Delta—to

maintain and expand agriculture, industry, urban, and

recreational development in the Delta area and provide a common source of fresh water for export to areas

of water deficiency—is necessary for the peace, health,

safety, and welfare of the people of the State, and is

subject to the County of Origin and Watershed Protection laws. The act requires the SWP and the CVP

to provide salinity control in the Delta and an adequate

water supply for water users in the Delta.

In 1984, additional area of origin protections were

enacted covering the Sacramento, Mokelumne, Calaveras,

and San Joaquin Rivers; the combined Truckee, Carson,

and Walker Rivers; and Mono Lake. The protections prohibit the export of groundwater from the combined

Sacramento River and Delta Basins, unless the export is

in compliance with local groundwater plans.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 2A 2A-4

Appendix 2A The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Environmental Regulatory Statutes

and Programs

Endangered Species Act

Under the federal ESA, an endangered species is

one that is in danger of extinction in all or a significant part of its range, and a threatened species is one

that is likely to become endangered in the near future.

The ESA is designed to preserve endangered and threatened species by protecting individuals of the species

and their habitat and by implementing measures that

promote their recovery. The ESA sets forth a procedure for listing species as threatened or endangered.

Final listing decisions are made by USFWS or NMFS.

Once a species is listed, Section 7 of the act requires that federal agencies, in consultation with the

USFWS or NMFS, ensure that their actions do not

jeopardize the continued existence of the species or

habitat critical for the survival of that species. The federal wildlife agencies are required to provide an opinion

as to whether the federal action would jeopardize the

species. The opinion must include reasonable and prudent alternatives to the action that would avoid

jeopardizing the species’ existence. Federal actions subject to Section 7 include issuance of federal permits

such as the dredge and fill permit required under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, which requires

that the project proponent demonstrate that there is

no feasible alternative consistent with the project goals

that would not affect listed species. Mitigation of the

proposed project is not considered until this hurdle is

passed.

State agencies and private parties also are subject

to the ESA. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the “take”

of endangered species and threatened species for which

protective regulations have been adopted. Take has been

broadly defined to include actions that harm or harass

listed species or that cause a significant loss of their

habitat. State agencies and private parties are generally

required to obtain a permit from the USFWS or NMFS

under Section 10(a) of the ESA before carrying out

activities that may incidentally result in taking listed

species. The permit normally contains conditions to

avoid taking listed species and to compensate for habitat adversely impacted by the activities.

California Endangered Species Act

The California Endangered Species Act is similar

to the federal ESA. Listing decisions are made by the

California Fish and Game Commission.

All State lead agencies are required to consult with

the Department of Fish and Game about projects that

impact State listed species. DFG is required to render

an opinion as to whether the proposed project jeopardizes a listed species and to offer alternatives to avoid

jeopardy. State agencies must adopt reasonable alternatives unless there are overriding social or economic

conditions that make such alternatives infeasible. For

projects causing incidental take, DFG is required to

specify reasonable and prudent measures to minimize

take. Any take that results from activities that are carried out in compliance with these measures is not

prohibited.

Many California species are both federally listed

and State listed. CESA directs DFG to coordinate with

the USFWS and NMFS in the consultation process so

that consistent and compatible opinions or findings

can be adopted by both federal and State agencies.

Natural Community Conservation Planning

Adopted in 1991, California’s Natural Community Conservation Planning Act establishes a program

to identify the habitat needs of species before they become listed as threatened or endangered, and to develop

appropriate voluntary conservation methods compatible with development and growth. Participants in the

program develop plans to protect certain habitat and

will ultimately enter into agreements with DFG to

ensure that the plans will be carried out. Plans must

be created so that they are consistent with endangered

species laws.

Dredge and Fill Permits

Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged and fill materials into

waters of the United States, including wetlands. The

term “discharge of dredged and fill material” has been

defined broadly to include the construction of any

structure involving rock, soil, or other construction

material. No discharge may occur unless a permit is

obtained from the USACE. Generally, the project proponent must agree to mitigate or have plans to mitigate

environmental impacts caused by the project before a

permit is issued. The EPA has the authority to veto

permits issued by the Corps for projects that have unacceptable adverse effects on municipal water supplies,

fisheries, wildlife, or recreational areas.

Section 404 allows the issuance of a general permit on a state, regional, or nationwide basis for certain

categories of activities that will cause only minimal enEE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
2A-5 APPENDIX 2A

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 2A

vironmental effects. Such activities are permitted without the need of an individual permit application.

Installation of a stream gaging station along a river

levee is one example of an activity which falls within a

nationwide permit.

The USACE also administers a permitting program under Section 10 of the 1899 Rivers and Harbors

Act. Section 10 generally requires a permit for obstructions to navigable water. The scope of the permit under

Section 10 is narrower than under Section 404 since

the term “navigable waters” is more limited than “waters of the United States.”

The majority of water development projects must

comply with Section 404, Section 10, or both.

Public Interest Terms and Conditions

The Water Code authorizes the SWRCB to impose public interest terms and conditions to conserve

the public interest, specifically the consideration of

instream beneficial uses, when it issues permits to appropriate water. It also considers environmental

impacts of approving water transfers under its jurisdiction. Frequently, it reserves jurisdiction to consider

new instream uses and to modify permits accordingly.

Releases of Water for Fish

 Fish and Game Code Section 5937 provides protection to fisheries by requiring that the owner of any

dam allow sufficient water at all times to pass through

the dam to keep in good condition any fisheries that

may be planted or exist below the dam. In California

Trout, Inc. v. the State Water Resources Control Board

(1989), the court determined that Fish and Game Code

sections 5937 and 5946 required the SWRCB to

modify the permits and licenses issued to the City of

Los Angeles to appropriate water from the streams feeding Mono Lake to ensure sufficient water flows for

downstream fisheries. The SWRCB reconsidered Los

Angeles’ permits and licenses in light of Fish and Game

Code Section 5937 and the public trust doctrine. In

1994, the SWRCB adopted D-1631, which requires

Los Angeles to allow sufficient flows from the streams

feeding Mono Lake to reach the lake to allow it to rise

to the level of 6,391 feet in approximately twenty years.

Streambed Alteration Agreements

Fish and Game Code Sections 1601 and 1603 require that any governmental entity or private party

altering a river, stream, lakebed, bottom, or channel

enter into an agreement with DFG. When the project

may substantially impact an existing fish or wildlife

resource, DFG may require that the agreement include

provisions designed to protect riparian habitat, fisheries, and wildlife. New water development projects and

ongoing maintenance activities are often subject to

these sections.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

This act implements various treaties for the protection of migratory birds and prohibits the “taking”

(broadly defined) of birds protected by those treaties

without a permit. The Secretary of the Interior determines conditions under which a taking may occur, and

criminal penalties are provided for unlawfully taking

or transporting protected birds. Liability imposed by

this act was one of several factors leading to the decision to close the San Luis Drain and Kesterson

Reservoir.

Environmental Review

and Mitigation

Another set of environmental statutes compels governmental agencies and private individuals to

document and consider the environmental consequences of their actions. They define the procedures

through which governmental agencies consider environmental factors in their decision-making process.

National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA directs federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement for all major federal

actions which may have a significant effect on the human environment. It states that it is the goal of the

federal government to use all practicable means, consistent with other considerations of national policy, to

protect and enhance the quality of the environment.

It is a procedural law requiring all federal agencies to

consider the environmental impacts of their proposed

actions during the planning and decision-making processes.

California Environmental Quality Act

CEQA, modeled after NEPA, requires California

public agency decision-makers to document and consider the environmental impacts of their actions. It

requires an agency to identify ways to avoid or reduce

environmental damage, and to implement those measures where feasible. CEQA applies to all levels of

California government, including the State, counties,

cities, and local districts.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 2A 2A-6

Appendix 2A The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

CEQA requires that a public agency carrying out

a project with significant environmental effects prepare an environmental impact report. An EIR contains

a description of the project; a discussion of the project’s

environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives; public comments; and the agency’s responses

to the comments. In other instances, a notice of exemption from the application of CEQA may also be

appropriate.

NEPA does not generally require federal agencies

to adopt mitigation measures or alternatives provided

in the EIS. CEQA imposes substantive duties on all

California governmental agencies that approve projects

with significant environmental impacts to adopt feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that

substantially lessen these impacts, unless there are overriding reasons. When a project is subject to both CEQA

and NEPA, both laws encourage the agencies to cooperate in planning the project and to prepare joint

environmental documents.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act expresses

congressional policy to protect the quality of the aquatic

environment as it affects the conservation, improvement, and enjoyment of fish and wildlife resources.

Under this act, any federal agency that proposes to

control or modify any body of water, or to issue a permit allowing control or modification of a body of water,

must first consult with the USFWS and State wildlife

officials. This requires coordination early in the project

planning and environmental review processes.

Protection of Wild and Natural Areas

Water use and management are also limited by

several statutes designed to set aside resources or areas

to preserve their natural conditions. These statutes preclude many activities, including most water

development projects, within the areas set aside.

Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers System

In 1968, Congress passed the National Wild and

Scenic Rivers Act to preserve, in their free-flowing condition, rivers which possess “outstandingly remarkable

scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic,

cultural, or other similar values.” The act also states

“ . . . that the established national policy of dam and

other construction at appropriate sections of rivers of

the United States needs to be complemented by a policy

that would preserve other selected rivers or sections

thereof in their free-flowing condition to protect the

water quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital

national conservation purposes.”

The act prohibits federal agencies from constructing, authorizing, or funding the construction of water

resources projects having a direct and adverse effect

on the values for which a river was designated. This

restriction also applies to rivers designated for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers

System. Included in the system are most rivers protected under California’s State Wild and Scenic Rivers

Act; these rivers were included in the national system

upon California’s petition on January 19, 1981. The

West Walker and East Fork Carson Rivers are not included in the federal system.

California Wild and Scenic Rivers System

In 1972, the Legislature passed the California Wild

and Scenic Rivers Act, declaring that specified rivers

possess extraordinary scenic, recreational, fishery, or

wildlife values, and should be preserved in a

free-flowing state for the benefit of the people of California. It declared that such use of the rivers would be

the highest and most beneficial use within the meaning of Article X, Section 2 of the California

Constitution. The act prohibits construction of any

dam, reservoir, diversion, or other water impoundment

on a designated river. Diversions needed to supply domestic water to residents of counties through which

the river flows may be authorized, if the Secretary for

Resources determines that the diversion will not adversely affect the river’s free-flowing character.

The major difference between the national and

State acts is that if a river is designated wild and scenic

under the State act, FERC can still issue a license to

build a dam on that river, thus overriding the State

system. (See Federal Power Act discussion above.) This

difference explains why national wild and scenic designation is often sought.

National Wilderness Act

The Wilderness Act sets up a system to protect

federal land designated by Congress as a “wilderness

area” and preserve it in its natural condition. Wilderness is defined as undeveloped federal land retaining

its primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or human habitation. Commercial

enterprise, permanent roads, motor vehicles, aircraft

landings, motorized equipment, or construction of

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
2A-7 APPENDIX 2A

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 2A

structures or installations (such as dams, diversions,

conveyance facilities, and gaging stations) are prohibited within designated wilderness areas.

Water Quality Protection

Water quality is an important aspect of water resource management. The SWRCB plays a central role

in determining both water rights and regulating water

quality. The Department of Health Services has regulatory oversight over drinking water quality, a program

administered in coordination with county environmental health agencies. Discussed below are key State and

federal laws governing water quality.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

This act is California’s comprehensive water quality control law and is a complete regulatory program

designed to protect water quality and beneficial uses

of the State’s water. The act requires the adoption of

water quality control plans by the State’s nine

RWQCBs for areas within their regions. These plans

are subject to the approval of the SWRCB, and ultimately the federal EPA. The plans are to be reviewed

and updated.

The primary method of implementing the plans

is to require each discharger of waste that could impact the waters of the State to meet formal waste

discharge requirements. Anyone discharging waste or

proposing to discharge waste into the State’s waters

must file a “report of waste discharge” with the regional

water quality control board within whose jurisdiction

the discharge lies. Dischargers are subject to a wide

variety of administrative, civil, and criminal actions

for failing to file a report. After the report is filed, the

regional board may issue waste discharge requirements

that set conditions on the discharge. The waste discharge requirements must be consistent with the water

quality control plan for the body of water and protect

the beneficial uses of the receiving waters. The regional

boards also implement Section 402 of the federal Clean

Water Act, which allows the State to issue a single discharge permit for the purposes of both State and federal

law.

Clean Water Act—National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System

Section 402 of the Clean Water Act established a

permit system known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System to regulate point sources

of discharges in navigable waters of the United States.

The EPA was given the authority to implement the

NPDES, although the act also authorizes states to

implement the act in lieu of the EPA, provided the

state has sufficient authority.

In 1972, the Legislature amended the

Porter-Cologne Act to give California the authority

and ability to operate the NPDES permits program.

Before a permit may be issued, Section 401 of the Clean

Water Act requires that the regional water quality control board certify that the discharge will comply with

applicable water quality standards. After making the

certification, the regional board may issue the permit,

satisfying both State and federal law. In 1987, Section

402 was amended to require the regulation of storm

water runoff under the NPDES.

Safe Drinking Water Act

 The SDWA, enacted in 1974 and significantly

amended in 1986 and 1996, directed the EPA to set

national standards for drinking water quality. It required the EPA to set maximum contaminant levels

for a wide variety of constituents. Local water suppliers are required to monitor their water supplies to assure

that regulatory standards are not exceeded.

The 1986 amendments set a timetable for the EPA

to establish standards for specific contaminants and

increased the range of contaminants local water suppliers were required to monitor to include

contaminants that did not yet have an MCL established. The amendments included a wellhead

protection program, a grant program for designating

sole-source aquifers for special protection, and grant

programs and technical and financial assistance to small

systems and states.

The 1996 amendments added a provision requiring states to create their own revolving funds in order

to be eligible to receive federal matching funds for loans

and grants to public water systems. More details of the

1996 amendments are described in Chapter 2.

California Safe Drinking Water Act

In 1976, California enacted its own Safe Drinking Water Act, requiring the Department of Health

Services to regulate drinking water, including: setting

and enforcing federal and State drinking water standards; administering water quality testing programs;

and administering permits for public water system

operations. The federal Safe Drinking Water Act alEE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 2A 2A-8

Appendix 2A The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

lows the State to enforce its own standards in lieu of

the federal standards so long as they are at least as protective as the federal standards. Significant amendments

to the California act in 1989 incorporated the new

federal safe drinking water act requirements into California law, gave DHS discretion to set more stringent

MCLs, and recommended public health levels for contaminants. DHS was authorized to consider the

technical and economic feasibility of reducing contaminants in setting MCLs. The standards established by

DHS are found in the California Code of Regulations,

Title 22.

Historical Background—Bay-Delta

Regulatory Actions

The SWRCB issued the first water rights permits

to the USBR for operation of the CVP in 1958, and

to the Department for operation of the SWP in 1967.

In these and all succeeding permits issued for the CVP

and SWP, the SWRCB reserved jurisdiction to reformulate or revise terms and conditions relative to salinity

control, effect on vested rights, and fish and wildlife

protection in the Delta. SWRCB has a dual role of

issuing both water rights permits and regulating water

quality.

Decision 1485

In 1976, SWRCB initiated proceedings leading

to the adoption of D-1485 in 1978. D-1485 set forth

conditions—including water quality standards, export

limitations, and minimum flow rates—for SWP and

CVP operations in the Delta and superseded all previous water rights decisions for the SWP and CVP

operations in the Delta. Among beneficial uses to be

protected by the decision were: municipal and industrial water supply,

agriculture, and fish and wildlife.

In formulating D-1485, the SWRCB asserted that

Delta water quality should be at least as good as it would

have been if the SWP and CVP had not been constructed.

In other words, both the SWP and the CVP were to be

operated to meet “without project” conditions. D-1485

standards included different levels of protection to reflect variations in hydrologic conditions during different

types of water years.

To help implement these water quality standards,

D-1485 mandated an extensive monitoring program.

It also called for special studies to provide critical data

about major concerns in the Delta and Suisun Marsh

for which information was insufficient. D-1485 included water quality standards for Suisun Marsh, as

well as for the Delta, requiring the Department and

USBR to develop a plan for the marsh that would ensure meeting long-term standards.

Recognizing that the complexities of project operations and water quality conditions would change

over time, the SWRCB also specified that the Delta

water right hearings would be reopened within ten years

of the date of adoption of D-1485, depending upon

changing conditions in the Bay-Delta region and the

availability of new evidence on beneficial uses of water.

Racanelli Decision

Lawsuits by various interests challenged D-1485

and the decision was overturned by the trial court in

1984. Unlike its predecessor, D-1379, whose standards

had been judicially stayed, D-1485 remained in effect. In 1986, the appellate court in the Racanelli

Decision (named after Judge Racanelli who wrote the

opinion) broadly interpreted the SWRCB’s authority

and obligation to establish water quality objectives, and

its authority to set water rights permit terms and conditions that provide reasonable protection of beneficial

uses of Delta water.

The court stated that SWRCB needed to separate

its water quality planning and water rights functions.

SWRCB needs to maintain a “global perspective” in

identifying beneficial uses to be protected (not limited to water rights) and in allocating responsibility

for implementing water quality objectives (not just to

the SWP and CVP, nor only through the SWRCB’s

own water rights processes). The court recognized the

SWRCB’s authority to look to all water rights holders

to implement water quality standards and advised

SWRCB to consider the effects of all Delta and upstream water users in setting and implementing water

quality standards in the Delta, as well as those of the

SWP and the CVP.

SWRCB Bay-Delta Proceedings

Hearings to adopt a water quality control plan and

water rights decision for the Bay-Delta estuary began

in July 1987. Their purpose was to develop a Bay-Delta

water quality control plan and to consider public interest issues related to Delta water rights, including

implementation of water quality objectives. During the

first phase of the proceedings, testimony was heard on

issues pertaining to the reasonable and beneficial uses

of the estuary’s water. The second phase of the BayDelta hearings was to come up with a water quality

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
2A-9 APPENDIX 2A

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 2A

control plan. SWRCB adopted a final plan in May

1991. The federal EPA rejected this plan in September 1991, setting the stage for preparation of federal

water quality standards for the Bay-Delta.

With the adoption of the water quality control

plan, the SWRCB began the EIR scoping phase and

held several workshops during 1991 to receive testimony regarding planning activities, facilities

development, negotiated settlements, and flow objectives.

Concurrently, under the broad authority of the

ESA, the federal regulatory process was proceeding

toward development of Delta standards and upstream

measures applicable to the CVP and SWP for the protection of the threatened winter-run chinook salmon.

In February 1993, the NMFS issued a long-term biological opinion governing operations of the CVP and

SWP with Delta environmental regulations that, in

certain months, were more restrictive than SWRCB’s

proposed measures. In March 1993, the USFWS listed

the Delta smelt as a threatened species and shortly

thereafter indicated that further restrictions of CVP

and SWP operations would be required. In December

1993, EPA announced its proposed standards for the

estuary in place of the SWRCB water quality standards that EPA had rejected in 1991. In addition,

USFWS proposed to list the Sacramento splittail as a

threatened species, and NMFS announced its decision

to change the status of winter-run salmon from threatened to endangered.

The impending regulatory gridlock lead to the

negotiation and signing of the June 1994 Framework

Agreement for the Bay-Delta estuary. The Framework

Agreement and subsequent Bay-Delta activities are

described in Chapter 2.

To mitigate fish losses at Delta export facilities,

the Department and USBR have entered into agreements with DFG. As part of the environmental review

process for installing four additional pumps at SWP’s

Banks Pumping Plant in the Delta in 1992, DFG and

the Department negotiated an agreement to preserve

fish potentially affected by the operation of the pumps.

This agreement, signed by the two departments in

1986, identifies the steps needed to offset adverse impacts of the Banks Pumping Plant on fisheries. It sets

up a procedure to calculate direct fishery losses annually and requires the Department to pay for mitigation

projects that would offset the losses. Losses of striped

bass, chinook salmon, and steelhead are to be mitigated first. Mitigation of other species is to follow as

impacts are identified and appropriate mitigation measures found. In recognition of the fact that direct losses

today would probably be greater if fish populations

had not been depleted by past operations, the Department also provided $15

million for a program to

increase the probability of quickly demonstrated results. In 1996, the Department and DFG agreed to

extend the period for expending the remainder of the

$15 million to the year 2001.

Following negotiation of the agreement for Banks

Pumping Plant, DFG negotiated a similar agreement

with USBR for its CVP Tracy Pumping Plant.

Surface Water Management

The following sections are brief descriptions of

major statutes affecting surface water management in

California.

CVPIA

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Title

34 of PL 102-575) made significant changes to the

CVP’s legislative authorization, amending the project’s

purposes to place fish and wildlife mitigation and restoration on a par with water supply, and to place fish

and wildlife enhancement on a par with power generation. Major provisions of the act are summarized

below.

The act prohibits execution of new CVP water

supply contracts for purposes other than fish and wildlife (with a few limited exceptions) until all

environmental restoration actions specified in the act

have been completed. Existing long-term water supply contracts are to be renewed for a 25-year term,

with the possibility of subsequent 25-year renewals

thereafter. Only interim contract renewals are allowed

until the programmatic EIS required by the act is completed. Renewed contracts are to incorporate CVPIA’s

new requirements, such as restoration fund payments.

The act allows transfers of project water to users

outside of the CVP service area, under numerous specified conditions. The conditions include a right of first

refusal to a proposed transfer by existing CVP water

users (under the same terms and conditions specified

in the proposed transfer), and a requirement that proposed transfers of more than 20 percent of a contracting

agency’s project water supply be subject to review and

approval by the contracting agency.

The act requires DOI to develop water conservation criteria, and to review conservation plans

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 2A 2A-10

Appendix 2A The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

submitted by contracting agencies pursuant to Reclamation Reform Act requirements for conformance to

the CVPIA criteria. Tiered pricing is to be included in

CVP water supply contracts when they are renewed.

Project water supply and repayment contractors’ surface water delivery systems are to be equipped with

water measurement devices.

The act directs DOI to develop a program, by

October 1995, to make all reasonable efforts to double,

by 2002, natural production (based on 1967-91 fishery population levels) of specified anadromous fish in

the Central Valley, and to implement that program.

(A portion of the San Joaquin River is exempted from

this provision.) The act dedicates 800 taf/yr of CVP

yield to fish and wildlife purposes, and authorizes DOI

to acquire supplemental water for meeting the fish doubling goal. The act further requires that DOI provide

an annual Trinity River instream flow of at least 340

taf through 1996, via releases from Lewiston Dam,

with subsequent instream flow requirements to be determined by a USFWS instream flow study.

The act requires DOI to provide, from CVP supplies, firm water supplies (i.e., deliver water

corresponding to existing non-firm supplies such as

agricultural drainage) to specified federal, State, and

private wildlife refuges in the Sacramento and San

Joaquin Valleys. DOI is to acquire, from willing sellers, an additional increment of water supply for the

wildlife areas, corresponding to their full habitat development needs. All of the supplemental water needs

are to be met by 2002.

The act requires DOI to implement numerous

specified environmental restoration actions, such as

constructing a temperature control device at Shasta

Dam, remedying fish passage problems at Red Bluff

Diversion Dam, replenishing spawning gravel, and

assisting in screening non-federal diversions. Costs of

some of these restoration actions are allocated in part

to the State of California. DOI is required to enter

into a cost-sharing agreement with California for the

environmental restoration actions whose costs are allocated in part to California.

The act requires DOI to prepare specified reports

and studies, to implement a Central Valley fish and

wildlife monitoring program, and to develop ecosystem and water operations models. Examples of reports

to be prepared include a least-cost plan to replace the

800 taf/yr of project yield dedicated to environmental

purposes, and an evaluation of water supply and development requirements for 120,000 acres of wetlands

identified in a Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture

report. DOI is also directed to prepare, by October

1995, a programmatic EIS analyzing impacts of CVPIA

implementation.

The act authorizes DOI to carry out a land retirement program, and specifies categories of land that

may be acquired. San Joaquin Valley drainage-impaired

lands are among the authorized categories.

The act establishes a CVPIA restoration fund

within the federal treasury, and directs DOI to collect

mitigation and restoration payments from project water and power users. DOI is authorized to use

appropriations from the fund to carry out the environmental restoration measures required by the act.

Payments are capped at $6/af for agricultural water

contractors and $12/af (1992 dollars) for municipal

and industrial water contractors, but the caps are subject to adjustment for inflation. (An additional

restoration payment is assessed against contractors in

the Friant Division, in lieu of requiring Friant Dam

releases for instream flows in the San Joaquin River

between Gravelly Ford and the Mendota Pool.)

Regional and Local Water Agency Formation

In general, there are two methods in California

for forming special districts which develop, control,

or distribute water: enactment of a general act under

which the districts may be formed as set forth in the

act, and enactment of a special act creating the district

and prescribing its powers. There are more than 40

different statutes under which local agencies may be

so organized. In addition, there are a number of special act districts, such as the Metropolitan Water

District of Southern California. The Department’s

Bulletin 155-94, General Comparison of Water District

Acts (March 1994), presents a comparison of various

water district acts in California.

In addition to public agencies, there are other entities that may provide water supply. Mutual water

companies, for example, are private corporations that

perform water supply and distribution functions similar

to public water districts. Investor-owned utilities may

also be involved in water supply activities, sometimes

as an adjunct of hydroelectric power development.

Water Use Efficiency

Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution prohibits the waste, unreasonable use,

unreasonable method of use, or unreasonable method

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
2A-11 APPENDIX 2A

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 2A

of diversion of water. It also declares that the conservation and use of water “shall be exercised with a view

to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the public

interest and for the public welfare.” Although provisions and requirements of the Constitution are self

executing, the Constitution states that the Legislature

may enact statutes to advance its policy. Water Code

Section 275 directs the Department and SWRCB to

“take all appropriate proceedings or actions before executive, legislative, or judicial agencies to prevent waste

or unreasonable use of water.” SWRCB’s Water Right

Decision 1600, directing the Imperial Irrigation District to adopt a water conservation plan, is an example

of an action brought under Article X, Section 2.

SWRCB’s authority to order preparation of such a plan

was upheld in 1990 by the courts in Imperial Irrigation District v. State Water Resources Control Board.

Urban Water Management Planning Act

 Since 1983, this act has required urban water suppliers that serve more than 3,000

customers or more

than 3,000 af/yr to prepare and adopt urban water

conservation plans. The act authorizes the supplier to

implement the water conservation program. The plans

must contain several specified elements, including estimates of water use, identification of existing

conservation measures, identification of alternative

conservation measures, a schedule of implementation

of actions proposed by the plan, and identification of

the frequency and magnitude of water shortages. In

1991, the act was amended in response to the drought

to require water suppliers to estimate water supplies

available at the end of one, two, and three years, and

to develop contingency plans for severe shortages. The

act also requires water suppliers to review and update

their plans at least once every five years.

Water Conservation in Landscaping Act

The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act required the Department, with the assistance of an

advisory task force, to adopt a model water-efficient

landscape ordinance. The model ordinance was

adopted in August 1992, and has been codified in Title

23 of the California Code of Regulations. It establishes

methods of conserving water through water budgeting plans, plant use, efficient irrigation, and auditing.

Cities and counties were required to review the

model ordinance and adopt a water-efficient landscape

ordinance by January 1, 1993, if they had not done so

already. Alternatively, cities and counties could make

a finding that such an ordinance is unnecessary due to

climatic, geological, or topographic conditions, or

water availability. If a city or county failed to adopt a

water efficient landscape ordinance or make findings

by January 31, 1993, the model ordinance became effective in that jurisdiction.

Agricultural Water Management

Planning Act

Under this act, agricultural water suppliers supplying more than 50 taf of water annually were required

to submit a report to the Department indicating

whether a significant opportunity exists to conserve

water or reduce the quantity of highly saline or toxic

drainage water through improved irrigation water

management. The act provided that agricultural water

suppliers who indicated that they had an opportunity

to conserve water or reduce the quantity of highly saline or toxic water should prepare a water management

plan and submit it to the Department. The Department was required to review the plans and submit a

report to the Legislature by January 1993.

Agricultural Water Suppliers Efficient

Management Practices Act

The Agricultural Water Suppliers Efficient Management Practices Act, adopted in 1990, required that the

Department establish an advisory committee to review

efficient agricultural water management practices. Under the act, the Department was required to offer

assistance to agricultural water suppliers seeking to improve the efficiency of their water management practices.

The committee developed a Memorandum of Understanding to implement the practices, and to establish an

Agricultural Water Management Council. The advisory

committee adopted the MOU in October 1996. The

MOU was declared in effect in May 1997 after 15 agricultural water suppliers, representing 2 million irrigated

acres, had signed. The Council was established and held

its first meeting in July 1997.

Agricultural Water Conservation and

Management Act of 1992

This act gives any public agency that supplies water for agricultural use authority to institute water

conservation or efficient management programs. The

programs can include irrigation management services,

providing information about crop water use, providing irrigation consulting services, improving the

supplier’s delivery system, providing technical and fiEE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 2A 2A-12

Appendix 2A The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

nancial assistance to farmers, encouraging conservation through pricing of water, and monitoring.

Water Recycling Act of 1991

This act describes the environmental benefits and

public safety of using recycled water as a reliable and

cost-effective method of helping to meet California’s

water supply needs. It sets a statewide goal to recycle

700 taf/yr by the year 2000 and 1 maf/yr by 2010.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
2A-13 APPENDIX 2A

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 2A

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-1 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Water Supplies

The SWP’s

California

Aqueduct is the

only conveyance

facility that

moves water

from the

Central Valley

to Southern

California.

This chapter reviews existing water supplies and updates information presented

in Bulletin 160-93. Beginning with a brief overview of California’s climate

and hydrology, this chapter describes how water supplies are calculated and

summarized within a water budget framework. A description of California’s existing

supplies—surface water, groundwater, recycled water, and desalted water—and how

a portion of these supplies are reallocated through water marketing follows. Chapter 3

concludes with a review of water quality considerations that influence how the State’s water

supplies are used.

Climate and Hydrology

Much of California enjoys a Mediterranean-like climate with cool, wet winters

and warm, dry summers. An atmospheric high pressure belt results in fair weather for

much of the year with little precipitation during the summer. The high pressure belt shifts

southward during the winter, placing the State under the influence of Pacific storms, bringing rain and snow. Most of California’s moisture originates in the Pacific Ocean. As moisture-laden air moves over mountain barriers such as the Sierra Nevada, the air is lifted and

cooled, dropping rain or snow on the western slopes. This mountain-induced

(orographic) precipitation is very important for the State’s water supply.

Average annual statewide precipitation is about 23 inches, corresponding to a volume of nearly 200 maf over California’s land surface. About 65

percent of this precipitation is consumed through evaporation and transpiration by trees and other plants. The remaining 35 percent comprises the State’s

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-2

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

The Colorado River Region is California’s driest region; the

North Coast Region is its wettest.

average annual runoff of about 71 maf. Less than half

this runoff is depleted by urban or agricultural use.

Most of it maintains ecosystems in California’s rivers,

estuaries, and wetlands. Available surface water supply

totals 78 maf when out-of-state supplies from the Colorado and Klamath Rivers are added.

Distribution of the State’s water supplies varies

geographically and seasonally. Water supplies also vary

climatically through cycles of drought and flood.

Geographic Variability

Uneven distribution of water resources is part of

the State’s geography. More than 70 percent of

California’s 71 maf average annual runoff occurs in

the northern part of the State; the North Coast Region accounts for 40 percent and the Sacramento

River Region accounts for 32 percent. Figure 3-1

shows average annual rainfall and runoff in California by hydrologic region. About 75 percent of the

State’s urban and agricultural demands for water are

south of Sacramento. The largest urban water use is in

the South Coast Region where roughly half of

California’s population resides. The largest agricultural

water use is in the San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-3 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

North Coast 

Sacramento

River

San Joaquin

River

San Francisco

Bay

Central

Coast

Tulare Lake

South

Lahontan

Colorado

River

South Coast

North

Lahontan

Average

Precipitation

(maf per year)

Average

Runoff

(maf per year)

55.9

52.4

5.5 1.2

21.8

7.9

12.3

13.9

3.3

9.3

10.8

1.2

4.3 0.2

1.3

2.5

6.0

22.4

1.9

28.9

FIGURE 3-1

Distribution of Average Annual Precipitation and Runoff

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-4

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

58

Hydrologic Regions

c

TL SL

SC CR

SJ

SR

NC

CC

SF

NL

1995 Level of Development (taf)

NC

SR

SF

CC

TL

SL

SC CR

NL

SJ

55 Putah South Canal

36 North Bay Aqueduct

 1 City of Vallejo

80

b

Folsom Lake Diversion 1

Folsom South Canal 31

California Aqueduct 5

6 Little Truckee

Trinity River 881

Sonoma/Petaluma Aqueducts 33

2 North Fork Ditch

153 South Bay Aqueduct Contra Costa Canal 21

72 Contra Costa Canal

14 Sly Park

85 San Felipe

DMC-Mendota Pool 

California Aqueduct 

221

1,206

SanLuis

Unit CVP 955

Cross Valley Canal 66

1,185

0 Coastal Branch Aq.

360 Los Angeles Aqueduct

California Aqueduct

1,571

Colorado River 1,193 

2 Echo Lake Conduit

237 Mokelumne Aqueduct

294 Hetcth Hetchy Aqueduct

Exports from the Delta are taken from commingled waters

originating in both the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Regions.

Exchange

Deliveries did not begin until 1997.

a

b

c

North Coast

San Francisco Bay

Central Coast

South Coast

Sacramento River

San Joaquin River

Tulare Lake

North Lahontan

South Lahontan

Colorado River

NC

SF

CC

SC

SR

SJ

TL

NL

SL

CR

Delta-Mendota

Canal 1,406

a

Friant-Kern

Unit

Canal

28 San Felipe Unit

a

FIGURE 3-2

Regional Imports and Exports, 1995 Level of Development

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-5 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

regions. Fertile soils, a long, dry growing season, and

water availability have combined to make these regions

among the most agriculturally productive in the world.

Wild and scenic river flows in the North Coast Region provide the largest environmental water use. Statewide water use is described in Chapter 4.

In response to the uneven geographic distribution

of California’s water resources, facilities have been

constructed to convey water from one watershed or

hydrologic region to another. Figure 3-2 shows larger

exports and imports among the State’s hydrologic regions.

Seasonal Variability

On average, 75 percent of the State’s average

annual precipitation of 23 inches falls between

November and March, with half of it occurring

between December and February. A shortfall of a few

major storms during the winter usually results in a dry

year; conversely, a few extra storms or an extended

stormy period usually produces a wet year. An unusually

persistent Pacific high pressure zone over California

during December through February predisposes the

year toward a dry year. Urban and agricultural water

demands are highest during the summer and lowest during the winter, the inverse of statewide rainfall patterns.

Figure 3-3 compares average monthly precipitation in the

Sacramento River region with precipitation during

extremely wet (1982-83) and dry (1923-24) years.

Spring snowmelt helps fill Sierra Nevada reservoirs. Every year, snowpack depth and water content are measured at selected sites

throughout the Sierra as part of a cooperative snow surveys program. This information is used to forecast spring runoff,

allowing reservoir operators to plan for the coming year.

0

5

10

15

20

NovOct Dec Jan JunMayAprMarFeb Jul Aug Sep

E i g h t S t a t i o n I n d e x i n I n c h e s

Mt. Shasta City

Shasta Dam

Brush Creek

Mineral

Quincy

Sierraville

Blue Canyon

Pacific House

The eight stations are:

1982-83

Average

1923-24

FIGURE 3-3

Northern Sierra Eight Station Precipitation Index

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-6

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Climatic Variability

California’s water development has generally been

dictated by extremes of droughts and floods. The

six-year drought of 1929-34 established the criteria

commonly used to plan storage capacity or water yield

of large Northern California reservoirs.

The influence of climatic variability on California’s

water supplies is much less predictable than the influences

of geographic and seasonal variability, as evidenced by

the recent historical record of precipitation and

runoff. For example, the State’s average annual runoff

of 71 maf includes the all-time low of 15 maf in 1977

and the all-time high (exceeding 135 maf) in 1983.

Floods and droughts occur often, sometimes in the

same year. The January 1997 flood was followed by a

record-setting dry period from February through June

and the flooding of 1986 was followed by six years of

drought (1987-92).

Figures 3-4 and 3-5 show the estimated annual

unimpaired runoff from the Sacramento and San

Joaquin River basins to illustrate climatic variability.

Because these basins provide much of the State’s water

supply, their hydrologies are often used as indices of

water year classification systems (see sidebar, page 3-8).

Droughts of Recent Record. Numerous multi-year

droughts have occurred in California this century:

1912-13, 1918-20, 1922-24, 1929-34, 1947-50,

1959-61, 1976-77, and 1987-92. In order to provide

water supply reliability, major reservoirs are designed to

maintain and deliver carryover storage through several

years of drought. The 1929-34 drought established the

criteria commonly used to design the storage capacity

and water yield of large Northern California reservoirs.

Many reservoirs built since this drought were sized to

maintain a reliable level of deliveries should a repeat of

the 1929-34 hydrology occur. Even a single critical runoff year such as 1977 can be devastating to water users

with limited storage reserves, who are more dependent

Av e ra g e

R u n o f f

1 7 . 9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

The Sacramento Four Rivers are:

Sacramento River above Bend Bridge, near Red Bluff;

Feather River inflow to Oroville; Yuba River at Smartville; American River inflow to Folsom

Wet Above Normal Below Normal Dry Critical

The WR 95-6 year types are:

R u n o f f i n m a f

FIGURE 3-4

Sacramento Four Rivers Unimpaired Runoff

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-7 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

TABLE 3-1

Severity of Extreme Droughts in the

Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys

Drought Sacramento Valley Runoff San Joaquin Valley Runoff

Period (maf/yr) (% Average (maf/yr) (% Average

1906-96) 1901-96)

1929-34 9.8 55 3.3 57

1976-77 6.6 37 1.5 26

1987-92 10.0 56 2.8 47

on annual runoff. Table 3-1 compares the severity

of recent droughts with the 1929-34 drought in the

Sacramento Valley and San Joaquin Valley.

Groundwater supplies about 30 percent of

California’s urban and agricultural applied water use.

In drought years when surface water supplies are reduced, groundwater supports an even greater percentage of use, resulting in declining groundwater levels in

many areas. For example, during the first five years of

the 1987-92 drought, groundwater extractions exceeded groundwater recharge by 11 maf in the San

Joaquin Valley. Drawing down groundwater reserves

in drought years is analogous to reservoir carryover storage operations.

Av e ra g e

R u n o f f

5 . 9

0

3

6

9

12

15

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

1905

R u n o f f i n m a f

The San Joaquin Four Rivers are:

Stanislaus River inflow to New Melones, Tuolumne River inflow to New Don Pedro, 

Merced River inflow to New Exchequer, San Joaquin River inflow to Millerton

Wet Above Normal Below Normal Dry Critical

The WR 95-6 year types are:

FIGURE 3-5

San Joaquin Four Rivers Unimpaired Runoff

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
An Example of Water Year Classifications

Water year classification systems provide a means to assess

the amount of water originating in a basin. Because water

year classification systems are useful in water planning and

management, they have been developed for several hydrologic

basins in California. The Sacramento Valley 40-30-30 Index

and the San Joaquin Valley 60-20-20 Index were developed

by SWRCB for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River

hydrologic basins as part of SWRCB’s Bay-Delta regulatory

activities. Both systems define one “wet” classification, two

“normal” classifications (above and below normal), and two

“dry” classifications (dry and critical), for a total of five water

year types.

The Sacramento Valley 40-30-30 Index is computed as a

weighted average of the current water year’s April-July

unimpaired runoff forecast (40 percent), the current water

year’s October-March unimpaired runoff forecast (30

percent), and the previous water year’s index (30 percent). A

cap of 10 maf is put on the previous year’s index to account

for required flood control reservoir releases during wet years.

Unimpaired runoff (calculated in the 40-30-30 Index as the

sum of Sacramento River flow above Bend Bridge near Red

Bluff, Feather River inflow to Oroville, Yuba River flow at

Smartville, and American River inflow to Folsom) is the river

production unaltered by water diversions, storage, exports,

or imports. A water year with a 40-30-30 index equal to or

greater than 9.2 maf is classified as “wet.” A water year with

an index equal to or less than 5.4 maf is classified as “critical.”

Unimpaired runoff from the Sacramento Valley, often referred

to as the Sacramento River Index or the Four River Index,

was the dominant water supply index used in SWRCB’s 1978

Delta Plan and in D-1485. The SRI, while still used in

SWRCB’s Order WR 95-6 as a water supply index, is no

longer employed to classify water years. By considering water

availability from storage facilities as well as from seasonal

runoff, the 40-30-30 Index provides a more representative

characterization of water year types than does the SRI.

The San Joaquin Valley 60-20-20 Index is computed as a

weighted average of the current water year’s April-July

unimpaired runoff forecast (60 percent), the current water

year’s October-March unimpaired runoff forecast (20

percent), and the previous water year’s index (20 percent). A

cap of 4.5 maf is placed on the previous year’s index to account

for required flood control reservoir releases during wet years.

San Joaquin Valley unimpaired runoff is defined as the sum

of inflows to New Melones Reservoir (from the Stanislaus

River), Don Pedro Reservoir (from the Tuolumne River), New

Exchequer Reservoir (from the Merced River), and Millerton

Lake (from the San Joaquin River). A water year with a

60-20-20 index equal to or greater than 3.8 maf is classified

as “wet.” A water year with an index equal to or less than 2.1

maf is classified as “critical.”

Although not used to classify water years, the Eight River

Index is another important water supply index employed

in Order WR 95-6. The Eight River Index, defined as the

sum of the unimpaired runoff from the four Sacramento

Valley Index rivers and the four San Joaquin Valley Index

rivers, is used to define Delta outflow requirements and

export restrictions. Key index months for triggering Delta

requirements are December, January, and February. Figure

3-6 shows the Eight River Index computed for January from

1906-96.

Existing water year classification systems have been useful

in planning and managing water supplies; however, they have

also shown shortcomings during unusual hydrologic periods.

The 1997 water year is one such example. Because of wet

antecedent conditions and unusually high precipitation runoff

in December and January, the water year was classified as

“wet” in spite of a string of dry months that followed this

unusually wet period. Water project operators were compelled

to meet stringent instream flow and Delta requirements

during the subsequent dry months to comply with the “wet”

water year classification. Compliance was met through

reservoir storage releases, as spring and summer runoff was

significantly lower than is typical in wet years. Reservoir levels

benefitted only marginally from the wet December and

January, as flood control criteria limited the amount of water

that could be stored.

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

WATER SUPPLIES 3-8

Average

Runoff

2.6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

Eight River Index Computed for January 1906-1996

FIGURE 3-6

The Eight Rivers are:

Sacramento, Feather, Yuba, American, Stanislaus,

Tuolumne, Merced, and San Joaquin

J a n u a r y R u n o f f i n m a f

FIGURE 3-6

Eight River Index Computed for January 1906-96

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Floods of Recent Record. Wet water years are not

necessarily indicative of flood conditions. Although

water year 1983 was the wettest in California this

century, major flooding did not occur then. Table 3-2

shows estimated unimpaired runoff from a few of the

State’s larger floods since the 1950s. In January 1997,

California confronted one of the largest and most

extensive flood disasters in its history. Rivers across

the State from the Oregon border to the southern

Sierra reached flood stages. Flood volumes of some

rivers exceeded channel capacities by as much as 700

percent. In many major river systems, flood control

dams reduced peak flows by one-half or more. Even

so, leveed flood control systems were overwhelmed in

some areas. Flood damage costs are nearing $2 billion.

Pre-Nineteenth Century Climatic Variability.

Precipitation and runoff records for some locations in

California date back to the mid to late 1800s. Data for

many other areas are sparse into the early 1900s. These

data provide only a glimpse of the range of variability

that has occurred. One approach to supplementing the

existing climate record is to statistically reconstruct data

through the study of tree rings. By properly selecting

trees, data on the thickness of annual growth rings can

be used to infer the wetness of the season. A 420-year

reconstruction of Sacramento River runoff data from

tree ring data was made for the Department in 1986

by the Laboratory for Tree Ring Research at the

University of Arizona. The tree ring data suggested that

the 1929-34 drought was the most severe in the 420-

year reconstructed record from 1560 to 1980. The data

also suggested that a few droughts prior to 1900 exceeded three years, and none lasted over six years, except for one eight-year period of less than average runoff from 1839-46. John Bidwell, an early pioneer who

arrived in California in 1841, confirmed that 1841,

1843, and 1844 were extremely dry years in the Sacramento area. Similar tree ring studies, covering the period between 1550 and 1977, were also conducted for

the Colorado and Santa Ynez Rivers. According to these

studies, the most severe drought on the Colorado River

occurred during 1580-1600, while the most severe

drought on the Santa Ynez River occurred during 1621-

37. Below average periods, very long wet periods, and

The Sacramento metropolitan area has one of the lowest flood protection levels in the nation, for a community of its size.

Without interim reoperation of Folsom Dam, the community is estimated to have only a 1-in-60 year level of protection. (With

reoperation, the level of protection is 1-in-77 years). This photo shows the American River in January 1997, and the high-density

urban development adjacent to the levee.

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

3-9 WATER SUPPLIES

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-10

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

TABLE 3-2

Major Floods Since the 1950s

Unimpaired Runoff

River Location Date Max 1-Day (cfs) 3-day Volume (taf)

Sacramento Shasta Dam Jan 1974 196,000 779

Feb 1986 126,000 681

Jan 1997 216,000 1,000

Feather Oroville Dam Dec 1964 179,000 984

Feb 1986 217,000 1,113

Jan 1997 298,000 1,392

Yuba Marysville Dec 1964 144,000 703

Feb 1986 142,000 729

Jan 1997 161,000 736

American Folsom Dam Dec 1964 183,000 835

Feb 1986 171,000 988

Jan 1997 249,000 977

Mokelumne Camanche Dam Dec 1964 36,000 171

Feb 1986 28,000 149

Jan 1997 76,000 233

Stanislaus New Melones Dam Dec 1964 44,000 198

Feb 1986 40,000 246

Jan 1997 73,000 298

Tuolumne New Don Pedro Dam Dec 1964 73,000 306

Feb 1986 53,000 294

Jan 1997 120,000 548

Merced New Exchequer Dam Dec 1964 33,000 136

Feb 1986 30,000 164

Jan 1997 67,000 262

San Joaquin Friant Dam Feb 1986 33,000 176

Mar 1995 39,000 156

Jan 1997 77,000 313

Truckee Reno Oct 1963 25,000 79

Feb 1986 22,000 112

Jan 1997 37,000 148

Cosumnes Michigan Bar Dec 1964 29,000 115

Feb 1986 34,000 196

Jan 1997 60,000 N/A

Eel Scotia Dec 1964 648,000 2,936

Feb 1986 304,000 1,515

Santa Ynez Lompoca Jan 1969 38,000 175

Salinas Sprecklesa Feb 1969 65,000 252

Mar 1983 60,000 314

Mar 1995 64,000 241

Santa Clara Saticoy Feb 1969 92,000 270

a

 Impaired flows

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-11 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

last century, with a surge of warming prior to 1940

(which cannot be attributed to greenhouse gases) and

a more recent rise during the 1980s. The extent to

which this latest rise is real or an artifact of instrument

location (heat island effect of growing cities) or a

temporary anomaly is debated among climatologists.

For now, most projections of climate change are derived

from computer simulation studies and generally indicate a

global average temperature rise of about 2 to 5°

C over the

next century, for a doubling of carbon dioxide content

in the atmosphere. Figures for regional changes are less

dependable because of regional weather influences not

accounted for in the global models.

For California, if global warming occurs, the most

likely impact would be a shift in runoff patterns.

Warmer temperatures would mean higher snow levels

during winter storms, more winter runoff, and less

carryover storage into late spring and summer (assuming

precipitation remains the same). There would be some

loss in water supply yield if the shift in snowmelt

runoff occurs.

short severe drought periods were also reconstructed

in the studies.

A 1994 study of relict tree stumps rooted in

present-day lakes, rivers, and marshes suggested that

California sustained two “epic drought” periods,

extending over more than three centuries. The first epic

drought lasted more than two centuries before the year

1112; the second drought lasted more than 140 years

before 1350. In this study, the researcher used drowned

tree stumps rooted in Mono Lake, Tenaya Lake, West

Walker River, and Osgood Swamp in the central

Sierra. One conclusion that can be drawn from this

study is that California is subject to droughts far more

severe and far more prolonged than anything witnessed

in the last 150 years of weather recording.

Future Climate Change. Much concern has been

expressed about possible future climate change caused

by burning fossil fuel and other modern human

activities that increase carbon dioxide and other trace

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. World weather

records indicate an overall warming trend during the

When the climate was drier in the past, trees were growing in areas now submerged by alpine lakes such as Lake Tenaya. Dating

these submerged stumps by radiocarbon and other techniques provides information about the dates and durations

of previous drought periods.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-12

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Water Supply Calculation

Bulletin 160-98 calculates existing water supplies

and demands, then balances forecasted future demand

against supplies and future water management

options. The balance, or water budget, with existing

supply is presented on a statewide basis in Chapter 6

and on a regional basis in Chapters 7-9. The water

budget with future water management options is

presented in Chapter 10.

The following section defines and classifies water

supplies, describes the method for calculating water

supplies within the Bulletin 160 water budget framework, and quantifies statewide water supplies with

existing facilities and programs. Two water supply

scenarios—an average year and a drought year—are

presented for a base year (1995) and a forecast year (2020)

to illustrate existing and future water supply reliability.

Definition of Bulletin 160-98

Water Supplies

The Bulletin’s water budgets do not account for the

State’s entire water supply and use. In fact, less than

one-third of the State’s precipitation is quantified in the

water budgets.

As discussed in the previous section on climate

and hydrology, precipitation provides California with

about 200 maf of total water supply in average years.

Of this renewable supply, about 65 percent is depleted

through evaporation and transpiration by trees and

other plants. This large volume of water (approximately 130 maf) is excluded from the Bulletin’s water supply and water use calculations. The remaining 35 percent stays in the State’s hydrologic system as runoff.

Over 30 percent of the State’s runoff is not explicitly

designated for urban, agricultural, or environmental uses.

This water is depleted from the State’s hydrologic

system as outflow to the Pacific Ocean or other salt

sinks. (Some of this non-designated runoff is captured

by reservoirs, but is later released for flood control.)

Similar to precipitation depletions by vegetation, nondesignated runoff is excluded from the Bulletin 160

water supply and water use calculations.

The State’s remaining runoff is available as

renewable water supply for urban, agricultural, and

environmental uses in the Bulletin’s water budgets (Figure 3-7). In addition to this supply, water budgets include supplies not generated by intrastate precipitation.

These supplies include imports from the Colorado and

Klamath Rivers and new supplies generated by water

recycling and desalting.

Classification of Water Supplies. Water supplies

are classified into three broad groups to develop the

Key Water Supply and Water Use Definitions

Chapters 3 and 4 introduce California’s water supplies and

urban, agricultural and environmental water uses. Certain

key concepts, defined below, provide a foundation for

analyzing water supplies and water use.

Applied Water: The amount of water from any source

needed to meet the demand of the user. It is the quantity of

water delivered to any of the following locations:

• The intake to a city water system or factory.

• The farm headgate or other point of measurement.

• A managed wetland, either directly or by drainage flows.

For instream use, applied water is the quantity of stream

flow dedicated to instream use (or reserved under the federal

or State wild and scenic rivers acts) or to maintaining flow

and water quality in the Bay-Delta pursuant to the SWRCB’s

Order WR 95-6.

Net Water: The amount of water needed in a water service

area to meet all demands. It is the sum of evapotranspiration

of applied water in an area, the irrecoverable losses from the

distribution system, and agricultural return flow or treated

urban wastewater leaving the area.

Irrecoverable Losses: The amount of water lost to a salt

sink, lost by evapotranspiration, or lost by evaporation from

a conveyance facility, drainage canal, or fringe area.

Evapotranspiration: ET is the amount of water transpired

(given off), retained in plant tissues, and evaporated from

plant tissues and surrounding soil surfaces.

Evapotranspiration of Applied Water: ETAW is the portion

of the total ET which is provided by applied irrigation water.

Depletion: The amount of water consumed within a service

area that is no longer available as a source of supply. For

agricultural and certain environmental (i.e., wetlands) water

use, depletion is the sum of irrecoverable losses and the ETAW

due to crops, wetland vegetation, and flooded water surfaces.

For urban water use, depletion is the ETAW due to

landscaping and gardens, wastewater effluent that flows to a

salt sink, and incidental ET losses. For environmental instream

use, depletion is the amount of dedicated flow that proceeds

to a salt sink.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-13 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Bulletin’s water budgets: surface water, groundwater,

and recycled/desalted water. Surface water

includes developed supplies from the CVP, the SWP,

the Colorado River, other federal projects, and local

projects. Surface water also includes the supplies for

required environmental flows. Required environmental

flows are comprised of undeveloped supplies designated for wild and scenic rivers, supplies used for

instream flow requirements, and supplies used for

Bay-Delta water quality and outflow requirements.

(Bulletin 160-98 assumes Bay-Delta requirements are

in accordance with the SWRCB’s Order WR 95-6.)

Finally, surface water includes supplies available for

reapplication downstream. Urban wastewater discharges

and agricultural return flows, if beneficially used downstream, are examples of reapplied surface water.

Groundwater includes developed subsurface supplies

and water reapplied through deep percolation. Bulletin

160-98 excludes long-term basin extractions in excess

of long-term basin inflows in its definition of groundwater supply. This long-term average annual difference

between extractions and recharge, defined in the Bulletin

as overdraft, is not a sustainable source of water and is

thus excluded from the base year and forecast year

groundwater supply estimates. (In response to public

comments on the Bulletin 160-93, Bulletin 160-98 is

the first water plan update to exclude overdraft from

the base year groundwater supply estimate.)

The Bulletin 160 definition of water supply from

recycling and desalting does not include all water that is

reclaimed and reused through treatment technologies.

The recycled/desalted classification is limited to supplies

that, if not recycled or desalted, would otherwise be

depleted to a saline water body, such as the Pacific

Ocean. This classification is limited to “new” supply

that was previously unavailable for downstream

reapplication. In California, this condition exists

primarily in the Colorado River Region (which drains

to the Salton Sea), parts of the coastal regions, and the

westside of the San Joaquin Valley. In the Sacramento

River, San Joaquin River, and Tulare Lake regions,

almost all urban wastewater becomes available downstream for reapplication through river discharge or

groundwater percolation. In these regions, recycling

reduces applied water demand and provides water

supply reliability and water quality benefits. However,

recycling in these regions does not generate a “new”

water supply.

Applied Water Methodology. Bulletin 160-98

water supplies are computed using applied water data.

As defined in the sidebar on page 3-12, applied water

refers to the amount of water from any source

Evapotranspiration by

Trees and Other Plants

Other

Runoff

Designated Runoff

(Bulletin 160

Water Supply)

En vi ronmen t al Ag ri cul tu r al Urban

FIGURE 3-7

Disposition of California’s Average Annual Precipitation

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-14

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

employed to meet the demand of the user. Previous

editions of Bulletin 160 computed water supplies

using net water data. Bulletin 160-98 switched from a

net water methodology to an applied water methodology

in response to public comments on Bulletin 160-93.

Because applied water data are analogous to agency

water delivery data, water supply data based on an

applied water methodology are easier for local water

agencies to review. Net water supply values are smaller

than applied water supply values because they exclude

that portion of demand met by reapplication of surface

and groundwater supplies. Figures 3-8 through 3-10

illustrate applied water and net water methodologies

for three different cases. Figure 3-8 shows how outflow

in an inland area can be reapplied downstream; Figure

3-9 shows how outflow to a salt sink cannot be reapplied downstream. Figure 3-10 is similar to Figure 3-8

except that agricultural water use is more efficient. In

addition to providing another example of applied and

net water methodologies, Figure 3-10 also illustrates that,

unless depletions are reduced, water conservation in an

inland area does not generate new water.

As suggested by Figures 3-8 through 3-10, reapplication can be a significant source of water in many

hydrologic regions of California. An applied water

budget explicitly accounts for this source. However,

because of reapplication, applied water budgets do not

translate directly into the supply of water needed to

meet future demands. The approach used to compute

the new water needed to meet future demands with

applied water budgets is presented in Chapter 6.

Normalized Data. Water budget data used to

represent the base planning year do not necessarily

match the historical conditions observed in 1995.

Over 30 percent of the State’s runoff is not explicitly designated for urban, agricultural, or environmental uses. This runoff flows

to the Pacific Ocean or to inland drainage sinks.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-15 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

ETAW

55 Units 10 Units

ETAW

7 Units

Treated Outflow

4 Units

Outflow 21 Units

Deep

Percolation

2 Units

CITY

Applied Water

10 Units

ETAW

3 Units

Irrecoverable

Losses *

1 Unit

Outflow 14 Units

Deep

Percolation

10 Units

Irrecoverable

Losses *

4 Units

R

i

v

e

r

400

Units

500

Units

Diversion to Service Area

WILDLIFE AREA

Applied Water

21 Units

Water Use in Inland Area

100 Units

FARM "A"

Applied Water

90 Units

Applied Water 90 21 10 30 151

Reapplied Water 31 14 6 0 51

Net Water Use — — — — 100

ETAW 55 7 3 18 83

Irrecoverable Losses* 4 0 1 0 5

Depletion 59 7 4 18 88

Farm "A" Wildlife City Farm "B" Total

 Area

ETAW = Evapotranspiration of Applied Water

* Irrecoverable losses are losses from conveyance facilities due to evaporation,

 evapotranspiration, or deep percolation to a salt sink.

Reapplied in Downstream

Service Area

Return Flow

From Service Area

12 Units

Groundwater

Pumpage

12 Units

FARM "B"

Applied Water

30 Units

ETAW

18 Units

412

Units

FIGURE 3-8

Illustration of Applied and Net Water Methodologies: Inland Area

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-16

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Farm "A" Wildlife City Farm "B" Total

 Area

CITY

Applied Water

ETAW 10 Units

3 Units

Deep

Percolation

2 Units

Irrecoverable

Losses *

1 Unit

Treated Outflow

4 Units

SALT SINK

Return Flow

From Service Area

 8 Units

ETAW

18 Units

FARM "B"

Applied Water

26 Units

Groundwater

Pumpage

12 Units

WILDLIFE AREA

Applied Water

21 Units

Outflow 14 Units

ETAW

7 Units

Outflow 21 Units

Irrecoverable

Losses *

4 Units

Deep

Percolation

10 Units

FARM "A"

Applied Water

90 Units

ETAW

55 Units 10 Units

Diversion to Service Area

100 Units

Water Use in Coastal Area

R

i

v

e

r

400

Units

Applied Water 90 21 10 26 147

Reapplied Water 31 14 2 0 47

Net Water Use — — — — 100

ETAW 55 7 3 18 83

Irrecoverable Losses* 4 0 5 8 17

Depletion 59 7 8 26 100

ETAW = Evapotranspiration of Applied Water

* Irrecoverable losses are losses from conveyance facilities due to evaporation,

 evapotranspiration, or deep percolation to a salt sink.

400

Units

500

Units

FIGURE 3-9

Illustration of Applied and Net Water Methodologies: Coastal Area

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-17 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

g

Inland Areas with High Efficiency

10 Units

Treated Outflow

Outflow 7 Units 4 Units

R

i

v

e

r

407

Units

500

Units

Diversion to Service Area

Groundwater

Pumpage

12 Units

93 Units

CITY

Applied Water

ETAW 10 Units

3 Units

Deep

Percolation

2 Units

Irrecoverable

Losses *

1 Unit

ETAW

7 Units

WILDLIFE AREA

Applied Water

14 Units

Outflow 14 Units

ETAW

55 Units

Deep

Percolation

10 Units

Irrecoverable

Losses *

4 Units

FARM "A"

Applied

Water

83 Units

412

Units

ETAW

18 Units

Reapplied in Downstream

Service Area

Return Flow

From Service Area

5 Units

FARM "B"

Applied Water

23 Units

Applied Water 83 14 10 23 130

Reapplied Water 24 7 6 0 37

Net Water Use — — — — 93

ETAW 55 7 3 18 83

Irrecoverable Losses* 4 0 1 0 5

Depletion 59 7 4 18 88

Farm "A" Wildlife City Farm "B" Total

 Area

ETAW = Evapotranspiration of Applied Water

* Irrecoverable losses are losses from conveyance facilities due to evaporation,

 evapotranspiration, or deep percolation to a salt sink.

FIGURE 3-10

Illustration of Applied and Net Water Methodologies: Inland Area with High Efficiency

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-18

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Instead, Bulletin 160-98’s base year applied water budget

data are developed from “normalized” water supply,

land use, and water use data. Through the normalizing

process, year-to-year fluctuations caused by weather

and market abnormalities are removed from the data.

For example, water year 1998 would greatly underestimate average annual water use, as rainfall through

May and early June provided the necessary moisture

needed to meet crop and landscape water demands. In

most years, much of California would require applied

water supplies during May and early June.

On the supply side, normalized water project

delivery values are computed by averaging historical

delivery data. Normalized “average year” project supplies

are typically computed from 3 to 5 recent non-deficient

water years. Normalized “drought year” project supplies

are computed by averaging historical delivery data

from 1990 and 1991. A notable exception to the above

procedure is the development of normalized CVP and

SWP project deliveries. Supplies from these projects

are developed from operations studies rather than from

historical data (See sidebar). Operations studies provide an average project delivery capability over a multiyear sequence of hydrology under SWRCB’s WR 95-

6 Bay-Delta standards. The following section on water supply scenarios describes how other water supply

data are normalized.

On the demand side, base year urban per capita

water use data are normalized to account for factors

such as residual effects of the 1987-92 drought. In any

given year, urban landscape and agricultural irrigation

requirements will vary with precipitation, temperature,

and other factors. Base year water use data are normalized

to represent ETAW requirements under average and

drought year water supply conditions. Land use data

are also normalized. The Department collects land use

data through periodic surveys; however, the entire State

is not surveyed in any given year (such as 1995). To

arrive at an estimate of historical statewide land use

for a specific year, additional sources of data are

consulted to interpolate between surveys. After a

statewide historical land use base is constructed, it is

evaluated to determine if it was influenced by abnormal

weather or crop market conditions and is normalized

to remove such influences. (See Chapter 4 for further

discussion on the development of Bulletin 160-98

water and land use data.)

Normalizing allows Bulletin 160-98 to define an

existing level of development (i.e., the 1995 base year)

that is compatible with a forecasted level of development

(i.e., the 2020 forecast year). Future year shortage

calculations implicitly rely on a comparison between

future water use and existing water supply, as water

supplies do not change significantly (without implementation of new facilities and programs) over the

planning horizon. Therefore, the normalizing procedure

is necessary to provide an appropriate future year

shortage calculation. Normalizing also permits more

than one water supply condition to be evaluated for a

given level of development. If historical data were used

to define the base year, only one specific hydrologic

condition would be represented. (Historical data

for 1995 would represent a wet year.) But through

normalizing, a base level of development can be evaluated

under a range of hydrologic conditions. The following

section discusses how Bulletin 160-98 develops average

and drought year water supply scenarios for its water

budget analysis.

Water Supply Scenarios

California is subject to a wide range of hydrologic

conditions and water supply variability. Knowledge of

water supplies under a range of hydrologic conditions

is necessary to evaluate reliability needs that water

managers must meet. Two water supply scenarios–average year conditions and drought year conditions–were

selected from among a spectrum of possible water

supply conditions to represent variability in the regional

and statewide water budgets.

Average Year Scenario. The average year supply

scenario represents the average annual supply of a system

over a long planning horizon. As discussed in the sidebar, average year supplies from the CVP and SWP are

defined by operations studies for a base (1995) level

of development and for a future (2020) level of development. Project delivery capabilities are defined over a

73-year hydrologic sequence. For other water supply

projects, historical data are normalized to represent

average year conditions. For required environmental

flows, average year supply is estimated for each of its

components. Wild and scenic river flow is calculated

from long-term average unimpaired flow data. Instream

flow requirements are defined for an average year

under specific agreements, water rights, court decisions,

and congressional directives. Bay-Delta outflow

requirements are estimated from operations studies.

Drought Year Scenario. For many local water

agencies, and especially urban agencies, drought year

water supply is the critical factor in planning for water

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-19 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

supply reliability. Traditional drought planning often

uses a design drought hydrology to characterize

project operations under future conditions. For

a planning region with the size and hydrologic

complexity of California, selecting an appropriate

statewide design drought presents a challenge. The

1990-91 water years were selected to represent the

drought year supply scenario for Bulletin 160-98. (The

1990-91 water years were also used to represent the

drought year scenario in Bulletin 160-93.)

The 1990-91 drought year scenario has a recurrence interval of about 20 years, or a 5 percent

probability of occurring in any given year. This is

typical of the drought level used by many local agencies

for routine water supply planning. For extreme events

such as the 1976-77 drought, many agencies would

implement shortage contingency measures such as

mandatory rationing. Another important consideration

in selecting water years 1990-91 was that, because of

their recent occurrence, local agency water demand and

supply data were readily available.

The statewide occurrence of dry conditions during

the 1990-91 water years was another key consideration

in selecting them as a representative drought. Because

of the size of California, droughts may or may not

occur simultaneously throughout the entire State.

Figure 3-11 illustrates the statewide occurrence of dry

conditions in water year 1990. The figure also shows that,

two years later, dry conditions persisted in Northern

California, but not in Southern California.

Defining a representative drought in Southern

California is complicated by the region’s access to

imported supplies from the Colorado River. The

Colorado River watershed is large (about 244,000 square

miles, or roughly 10 times the size of the Sacramento

River watershed) and experiences hydrologic conditions

different than California’s. As a result, Southern

California’s water supply may be buffered from the

effects of severe drought in Northern California. Figure

3-12 presents Colorado River unimpaired flow at the

Lee Ferry interstate compact measurement point to

illustrate the river basin’s hydrology.

Other Drought-Related Considerations. During

low runoff years such as 1990 and 1991, carryover storage in surface water reservoirs is an important source

of water supply. At the beginning of an extended dry

period, the drought’s duration is unknown. Therefore, to

manage deficiencies imposed on water users, water may

be released from storage based upon a predetermined risk

analysis procedure. As the drought continues, the

procedure may impose progressively larger deficiencies.

Carryover storage was used to supplement water

Operations Studies

Computer simulations, also known as operations studies,

are performed to estimate the delivery capabilities of the CVP

and SWP under average year and drought year conditions.

Two widely used computer models for conducting CVP/SWP

operations studies are the Department’s DWRSIM and

USBR’s PROSIM. Most Bulletin 160-98 studies were

performed with DWRSIM.

DWRSIM is designed to simulate the monthly operation

of the CVP and SWP system of reservoirs and conveyance

facilities under different hydrologic sequences. These

hydrologic sequences are typically based on a 73-year record

of historical hydrology from 1922 through 1994. DWRSIM

simulates the availability, storage, release, use, and export of

water in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River systems, the

Delta, and the aqueduct and reservoir systems south of the

Delta. The model provides numerical output on parameters

such as reservoir storage and releases, Delta inflows, exports,

and outflows. The model operates the CVP and SWP system

to provide the maximum water withdrawal from the Delta

allowed by regulatory constraints, up to the total water

demand. Additional system operational objectives (e.g.,

reservoir carryover storage), physical constraints (e.g., reservoir

and pumping plant capacities), and institutional agreements

(e.g., Coordinated Operation Agreement) also affect the

simulated operation.

In considering the results of a project operations study, it

is important to note that conditions in a specific model year

do not match those observed in the actual year. Simulated

hydrology deviates from historical hydrology because the 73-

year sequence is normalized to reflect existing or forecasted

future land development and consumptive use conditions.

Project deliveries and reservoir operations deviate from

historical conditions because they are optimized for a specific

level of demand over the entire hydrologic sequence. The

results should be interpreted as average project delivery

capability over a 73-year sequence of hydrology rather than

in water years 1922 through 1994. Project deliveries over

this long sequence of hydrology provide an indication of the

system’s average performance, as well as the performance over

a wide range of wet and dry years.

An example of the use of operations studies is provided

later in this chapter to describe how operations studies

evaluated CVP/SWP delivery impacts associated with the

SWRCB’s Order WR 95-6 Delta standards.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-20

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

0 - 50

50 - 80

80 - 100

100 - 150

v

150

Water Year

1990

Water Year

1992

Percent of Mean

Annual Precipitation

FIGURE 3-11

Statewide Distribution of Precipitation for Water Years 1990 and 1992

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-21 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

deliveries during the low runoff years of the 1987-92

drought, minimizing the initial impacts of the drought

on many water users. To illustrate the use of carryover

storage for supplementing water project deliveries, actual

CVP and SWP deliveries during the 1987-92 drought

are shown in Figure 3-13. (The Bulletin’s drought

year water supplies from these projects are based on

normalized operations studies data, not the actual

delivery data shown in Figure 3-13.) Although the

drought lasted six years, neither project imposed

delivery deficiencies during the first three years of the

drought. During the final three years, however, both

projects imposed significant deficiencies.

Figure 3-14 shows how Shasta, Oroville, New

Melones, and Cachuma Reservoirs were actually operated during the 1987-92 drought. Data for Cachuma

Av e ra g e

R u n o f f

1 5 . 0

0

5

10

15

20

25

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

R u n o f f i n m a f

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

D e l i v e r i e s i n m a f

CVP SWP

FIGURE 3-12

Colorado River Unimpaired Runoff at Lee Ferry Compact Point

FIGURE 3-13

CVP and SWP Deliveries During 1987-92 Drought

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-22

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

0

1

2

3

4

5

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

Fall Spring

Fall Spring

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

Fall Spring

Fall Spring

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

0

50

100

150

200

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

S t o r a g e i n m a fS t o r a g e i n m a f

SHASTA OROVILLE

NEW MELONES CACHUMA

S t o r a g e i n m a f

S t o r a g e i n t a f

FIGURE 3-14

Selected Reservoir Storage During 1987-92 Drought

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-23 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

are shown to illustrate drought impacts to a Southern

California reservoir not hydrologically connected to

Central Valley supplies.

California Water Supplies with Existing Facilities

and Programs

Table 3-3 shows California’s estimated water supply,

for average and drought years under 1995 and 2020

levels of development, with existing facilities and

programs. Facility operations in the Delta are assumed

to be in accordance with SWRCB’s Order WR 95-6.

The State’s 1995-level average year water supply is

about 77.9 maf, including about 31.4 maf of dedicated

flows for environmental uses. As previously discussed, this

supply is based on an applied water methodology and

therefore includes considerable amounts of reapplication within hydrologic regions. Even with a reduction

in Colorado River supplies to California’s 4.4 maf basic

apportionment, annual average statewide supply is

projected to increase about 0.2 maf by 2020 without

implementation of new water supply options. While the

expected increase in average year water supplies is due

mainly to higher CVP and SWP deliveries (in response

to higher 2020-level demands), new water production

will also result from groundwater and recycling facilities

currently under construction.

The State’s 1995-level drought year water supply is

about 59.6 maf, of which about 16.6 maf is dedicated

for environmental uses. Annual drought year supply is

expected to increase slightly by 2020 without implementation of new water supply options. The expected

increase comes from higher CVP and SWP deliveries and

new production from surface, groundwater, and recycling

facilities currently under construction.

The following section describes the State’s major

surface water development projects. In response to

public comments on Bulletin 160-93, the description

of surface water projects was expanded to provide more

detail on the larger local agency projects. A discussion

on reservoir and river operations follows. The section

TABLE 3-3

California Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programsa (taf)

Supply 1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Surface

CVP 7,004 4,821 7,347 4,889

SWP 3,126 2,060 3,439 2,394

Other Federal Projects 910 694 912 683

Colorado River 5,176 5,227 4,400 4,400

Local 11,054 8,484 11,073 8,739

Required Environmental Flow 31,372 16,643 31,372 16,643

Reapplied 6,441 5,596 6,449 5,575

Groundwaterb 12,493 15,784 12,678 16,010

Recycled and Desalted 323 333 415 416

Total (rounded) 77,900 59,640 78,080 59,750

a

 Bulletin 160-98 presents water supply data as applied water, rather than net water. This distinction is explained in a previous section. Past editions of

Bulletin 160 presented water supply data in terms of net supplies.

b Excludes groundwater overdraft

O’Neill Forebay with San Luis Reservoir in the background.

These are joint facilities of the CVP and SWP.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-24

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

concludes by addressing surface water supply impacts

associated with recent events and the effects of changes

in reservoir operations on supplies.

Surface Water Supplies

Surface Water Development Projects

This section describes California’s largest surface

water development projects, including the CVP, SWP,

Colorado River facilities, and Los Angeles Aqueduct.

Descriptions of smaller surface water development

projects are provided in Chapters 7-9. See Chapter 1

for a location map of these larger facilities.

Central Valley Project. In 1921, California began planning a water project to serve the Central Valley. The Legislature authorized the State Central Valley Project in 1933. Because California was unable to

sell the bonds needed to finance the project during the

Auburn Dam—Planned, But Not Constructed

Auburn Dam was authorized as a CVP facility by Congress

in 1965 to provide greater flood control and water supply on

the American River. Foundation preparation and related

earthwork for a dam to impound 2.3 maf were halted by

seismic safety concerns after a 1975 Oroville earthquake. The

dam’s design was changed in 1980 from a concrete arch to a

gravity structure. The proposed dam has been a source of

controversy between proponents of downstream flood control

and water supply benefits and those who wish to preserve

the American River Canyon. As originally planned, a

multipurpose Auburn Reservoir could have provided more

than 300 taf/yr of new water supply to the CVP, as well as

substantial flood control and power benefits. Recent reviews

of American River hydrology have emphasized the flood

control potential of a dam at Auburn.

Much of the Sacramento metropolitan area is threatened

by flooding from the American and Sacramento Rivers. The

100-year floodplain covers over 100,000 acres and contains

over 400,000 residents, 160,000 homes and structures, and

over $37 billion in developed property. When Folsom Dam

was completed in 1955, the facility was estimated to provide

Sacramento with 250-year level of flood protection. This

estimate was revised downward to a 60-year level of protection

(77-year level with Folsom reoperation for additional flood

control space) after the storms of 1986 and 1997.

Given the area’s low level of flood protection (one of the

lowest in the nation for a metropolitan area of its size), USACE

has evaluated many alternatives to providing additional flood

protection. Three recent alternatives include the Folsom

modification plan, the Folsom stepped release plan, and the

detention dam plan. The Folsom modification plan would

increase maximum flood storage in Folsom from 400 taf to

720 taf, lower the main spillway by 15 feet, enlarge 8 river

outlets, and make levee improvements along the American

and Sacramento Rivers. The Folsom stepped release plan

would increase Folsom’s flood storage to 670 taf, lower the

main spillway by 15 feet, enlarge 8 river outlets, and make

levee improvements to increase maximum reservoir releases

to 180,000 cfs. The detention dam plan would construct a

508-foot-high flood detention facility on the North Fork of

the American River near Auburn, make levee improvements

along the American and Sacramento Rivers, and return the

maximum flood storage in Folsom Reservoir to 400 taf.

USACE completed an EIR/EIS in 1992 and a

supplemental EIR/EIS in March 1996, addressing flood

control alternatives for the Sacramento area. Both identified

the detention dam as the national economic development

plan, i.e., the plan that would maximize net national economic

benefit. In 1995, the Reclamation Board voted for a preferred

plan from among the three alternatives and endorsed the

detention dam plan. The Sacramento Area Flood Control

Agency also voted for the detention dam as the locally

preferred plan.

In its Resolution No. 95-17, the Reclamation Board stated

that it “ . . . believes the Folsom Modification Plan provides

an inadequate level of flood protection for the Sacramento

area, and would reduce water-supply capacity and hydropower

benefits at Folsom Reservoir . . .” and that “ . . .the Board

believes the Stepped Release Plan would place undue reliance

on the levees of the lower American River, would reduce water

supply capacity and hydropower benefits at Folsom Reservoir,

and . . . would be significantly more expensive for State and

local interests . . . .” Regarding the detention dam plan, the

resolution states “ . . . the Board believes that the Detention

Dam Plan . . . represents the NED Plan for the American

River flood plain. The Board recommends that the Corps

pursue Congressional authorization of this plan.” In spite of

support from USACE, the Reclamation Board and SAFCA,

the detention dam was not authorized in the Water Resources

Development Act of 1996.

In 1998, the Reclamation Board reaffirmed its support for

an Auburn Dam, stating in Resolution No. 98-04 that “the

best long-term engineering solution to reliably provide greater

than 1-in-200 year flood protection is to develop additional

flood detention storage at Auburn which, with a capacity of

894,000 acre-feet would provide a 1-in-400 year level of

protection”.

As Bulletin 160-98 is being written, competing proposals

for American River flood control measures are being heard

by congressional authorizing committees.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-25 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

TABLE 3-4

Major Central Valley Project Reservoirs

Reservoir Capacity (taf) Year Completed Stream

Shasta 4,552 1945 Sacramento River

Trinity 2,448 1962 Trinity River

New Melones 2,420 1979 Stanislaus River

Folsom 977 1956 American River

San Luis (Federal Share) 966 1967 Offstream

Millerton 520 1947 San Joaquin River

Whiskeytown 241 1963 Clear Creek

4.55 maf Lake Shasta, the largest reservoir in California.

CVP reservoirs provide a total storage capacity of over

12 maf, nearly 30 percent of the total surface storage in

California, and deliver about 7 maf annually for agricultural (6.2 maf), urban (0.5 maf), and wildlife refuge

use (0.3 maf). Table 3-4 shows major CVP reservoirs.

Shasta and Keswick Reservoirs regulate CVP

releases into the Sacramento River. Red Bluff Diversion

Dam on the Sacramento River diverts water to the

Tehama-Colusa and Corning Canals. At the Delta,

CVP water is exported at Rock Slough into the Contra

Costa Canal and at Tracy Pumping Plant on Old River

to the Delta-Mendota Canal. During the winter, water

is conveyed via the Delta-Mendota Canal to San Luis

Floodflows on the American River in 1986 breached the cofferdam that USBR had constructed when it began its initial work at

the Auburn damsite. This flood event produced record flows in the American River through metropolitan Sacramento.

Great Depression, USBR stepped in to begin project

construction. Initial congressional authorization for the

CVP covered facilities such as Shasta and Friant Dams,

Tracy Pumping Plant, and the Contra Costa, DeltaMendota, and Friant-Kern Canals. Later authorizations

included Folsom Dam (1949), Trinity River Division

(1955), Sacramento Valley Canals (1959), San Luis Unit

(1960), New Melones Dam (1962), Auburn Dam

(1965), and the San Felipe Division (1967).

The USBR’s CVP is the largest water storage

and delivery system in California, covering 29 of the

State’s 58 counties. The project’s features include 18

federal reservoirs and 4 additional reservoirs jointly

owned with the SWP. The keystone of the CVP is the

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-26

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Trinity

Lake

Shasta

Lake

Tehama Colusa

Canal

Folsom

Lake

Folsom South

Canal

Delta-Mendota

Canal Madera

Canal

Millerton

Lake

Friant-Kern

Canal

Whiskeytown

Lake

Corning

Canal

Contra Costa

Canal

San Luis

Canal

New Melones

Lake

Jenkinson

Lake

Red Bluff

Diversion Dam

Keswick

Dam

Tracy Pumping

Plant

Delta Cross

Channel

Lewiston

Lake

San Luis

Reservoir

Santa Clara

Conduit

Hollister

Conduit

Coalinga

Canal

FIGURE 3-15

Major Central Valley Project Facilities

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-27 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Reservoir for later delivery to the San Luis and San

Felipe Units of the project. A portion of the DeltaMendota Canal export is placed back into the San

Joaquin River at Mendota Pool to serve, by exchange,

water users with long-standing historical rights to the use

of San Joaquin River flow. This exchange enabled the

CVP to build Friant Dam (Millerton Lake), northeast of

Fresno, which diverts a major portion of San Joaquin

River flows through the Friant-Kern and Madera Canals.

Figure 3-15 is a map of CVP facilities.

The CVP supplies water to more than 250

long-term water contractors in the service areas shown

in Figure 3-16. The majority of CVP water goes to

agricultural water users. Large urban centers receiving

CVP water include Redding, Sacramento, Folsom,

Tracy, most of Santa Clara County, northeastern Contra

Costa County, and Fresno. Collectively, the contracts

call for a maximum annual delivery of 9.3 maf,

including delivery of 1.7 maf of Friant Division supply

when available in wet years. Of the 9.3 maf total

annual contractual delivery, 4.8 maf is classified as

project water and 4.5 maf is classified as water right

settlement (also called base supply or prior rights)

water. About 90 percent of south-of-Delta contractual

delivery is for agricultural and urban uses; the remaining

10 percent is for wildlife refuges. Figure 3-17 shows

actual CVP water deliveries since 1960. (The Bulletin’s

CVP supplies are based on normalized data, not the

actual delivery data shown in Figure 3-17.)

Water right settlement water is water covered in

agreements with water rights holders whose diversions

existed before the project was constructed. Project

reservoirs altered natural river flow upon which these

pre-project diverters had relied, so contracts were

negotiated to agree on the quantities of diversions that

could be made without any payment to the United

States. CVP base supply and settlement contractors

on the upper Sacramento River receive their supply

(about 2.3 maf/yr) from natural flow and storage regulated at Shasta Dam. Settlement contractors on the

San Joaquin River (called exchange contractors) receive

Delta water from Northern California which is diverted

at Tracy Pumping Plant, stored in San Luis Reservoir

and/or pumped directly via the Delta-Mendota Canal.

Friant Dam, a 319-foot high concrete gravity dam, controls runoff from about 1,630 square miles of the San Joaquin River’s

drainage basin. The Friant-Kern Canal is in the foreground.

Courtesy of USBR

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-28

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Siskiyou Modoc

Humboldt

Trinity

Shasta

Tehama

Glenn

Lake

Sonoma

Colusa

Butte

Yuba Sutter

Nevada

Sierra

Sacramento

Yolo

Napa

Solano

Placer

El Dorado

Amador

Alpine

Mono

Mariposa

Merced

Madera

San

Benito

Monterey

Fresno

Inyo

Tulare

Kings

San Luis

Obispo Kern

Ventura

Los Angeles

San Bernardino

Orange Riverside

San Diego Imperial

Santa Barbara

Calaveras

San

Contra Joaquin Costa

Alameda

Santa

Clara

Santa

 Cruz

San

Mateo

Marin

San Francisco

Tuolumne

Stanislaus

Mendocino

Lassen

Plumas

Del

Norte

FIGURE 3-16

Central Valley Project Service Areas

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-29 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

1995 and 2020 Central Valley Project Delivery Capability

South of Delta with Existing Facilities

FIGURE 3-18

P e r c e n t T i m e a t o r A b o v e

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

D e l i v e r i e s i n m a f

1995 Level

2020 Level

The capability of the CVP to meet full water

supply requests by its south-of-Delta contractors in a

given year depends on rainfall, snowpack, runoff,

carryover storage, pumping capacity from the Delta,

and regulatory constraints on CVP operation. Figure

3-18 shows existing (1995 level)

and future (2020 level) CVP

south-of-Delta delivery capability, as estimated by operations

studies, under SWRCB Order

WR 95-6. The figure shows

that existing CVP facilities have

a 20 percent chance of making

full deliveries under both

demand levels.

State Water Project. It was

evident soon after World WarII

that local and federal water

development could not keep

pace with California’s rapidly

growing population. Planning

for the multipurpose SWP

began in the late 1940s, and

accelerated in the early 1950s.

Voters authorized SWP construction in 1960 by ratifying

the Burns-Porter Act. The

majority of existing project

facilities were constructed in

the 1960s and 1970s. Future

SWP facilities were to be added

as water demands increased,

to meet the project’s initial contractual entitlement of 4.2

maf/yr.

SWP facilities include 20 dams, 662 miles of

aqueduct, and 26 power and pumping plants. SWP

reservoirs are listed in Table 3-5. Major facilities

include the multipurpose Oroville Dam and Reservoir

on the Feather River, the Edmund G. Brown California

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Central Valley Project Deliveries

FIGURE 3-17

D e l i v e r i e s i n m a f

FIGURE 3-17

Central Valley Project Deliveries

FIGURE 3-18

1995 and 2020 Level Central Valley Project Delivery Capability

South of Delta with Existing Facilities

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-30

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Aqueduct, South Bay Aqueduct, North Bay Aqueduct,

and a share of the State-federal San Luis Reservoir. With

a storage capacity of 3.5 maf, Lake Oroville is the second

largest reservoir in California after Lake Shasta. Lake

Oroville stores winter and spring flows of the upper

Feather River. Water released from Lake Oroville travels

down the Feather and Sacramento Rivers to the Delta.

There, some of the water flows to the ocean to meet

mandated Delta water quality criteria, and some of

the water is delivered through project facilities to the

Bay Area, Central Coast, San Joaquin Valley and

Southern California.

Water is diverted from the California Aqueduct into

the South Bay Aqueduct, which extends into Santa Clara

County. A separate Delta diversion supplies the North Bay

TABLE 3-5

Major State Water Project Reservoirs

Reservoir Capacity (taf) Year Completed Stream

Oroville 3,538 1968 Feather River

San Luis (State share) 1,062 1967 Offstream

Castaic 324 1973 Offstream

Pyramid 171 1973 Offstream

Perris 131 1973 Offstream

Davis 84 1966 Big Grizzly Creek

Del Valle 77 1968 Arroyo Valle Creek

Silverwood 75 1971 Offstream

Frenchman 55 1961 Last Chance Creek

Antelope 23 1964 Indian Creek

Aqueduct, which serves areas in Napa and Solano

Counties. Maximum capacity of the California

Aqueduct is 10,300 cfs at the Delta and 4,480 cfs over

the Tehachapis to the South Coast Region. The Department has just completed construction of the

extension of the Coastal Branch of the California

Aqueduct, which extends about 115 miles from the

main aqueduct to serve parts of San Luis Obispo and

Santa Barbara Counties. Figure 3-19 is a map of major

SWP facilities.

The service area of the 29 SWP contracting agencies

is shown in Figure 3-20. Initial project contracts were

signed for an eventual annual delivery of 4.2 maf.

Of this annual entitlement, about 2.5 maf was to serve

Southern California and about 1.3 maf was to serve

The Department’s

expansion of

the Coastal Branch

included construction of

new pumping plants,

such as the Bluestone

Pumping Plant.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-31 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Lake

Oroville

South Bay

Aqueduct

North Bay

Aqueduct

San Luis

Reservoir

Coastal

Branch

California

Aqueduct

East

Branch

West

Branch

Antelope

Lake

Lake

Davis Frenchman

Lake

Thermalito

Facilities

Castaic

Lake

Pyramid

Lake

Lake

Perris

Silverwood

Lake

Lake

Del Valle

Clifton Court

Forebay

Harvey O. Banks

Pumping Plant

San Luis Canal

FIGURE 3-19

Major State Water Project Facilities

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-32

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Palmdale Water District

Desert Water Agency

Plumas County

Flood Control &

Water Conservation

County of Butte District

Solano County Water Agency

Napa County

Flood Control & Water

Conservation District

City of Yuba City

Zone 7 Water Agency

Oak Flat Water District

Alameda County Water District

Santa Clara Valley

Water District

County of Kings

Empire West Side Irrigation District

Dudley Ridge Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District

Water District

Castaic Lake

Water Agency

(Devil's Den)

Kern County Water Agency

San Luis Obispo County

Flood Control & Water

Conservation District

Santa Barbara County

Flood Control & Water

Conservation District

Ventura County

Flood Control District

The Metropolitan Water District

of Southern California

Antelope Valley-East Kern

Water Agency

Mojave Water Agency

Castaic Lake Water Agency

Littlerock Creek Irrigation District

Crestline-Lake Arrowhead

 Water Agency

San Bernardino Valley

Municipal Water District

Coachella Valley

Water District

San Gorgonio Pass 

Water Agency

San Gabriel Valley

Municipal Water District

FIGURE 3-20

State Water Project Service Areas

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-33 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

the San Joaquin Valley. The remaining 0.4 maf annual

entitlement was to serve the Feather River area and

the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast regions. (As

discussed in Chapter 2, 45 taf of annual entitlement

belonging to two project contractors in the San Joaquin

Valley was subsequently retired as part of the Monterey

Agreement.) Figure 3-21 shows actual SWP water

deliveries since the beginning of entitlement deliveries

in 1967. (The Bulletin’s SWP supplies are based on

normalized data, not the actual delivery data shown in

Figure 3-21.) Except during very wet years and during

drought years, San Joaquin Valley use of SWP supply

has been near full contract amounts since about 1980.

Southern California use of SWP supply has reached

about 60 percent of full entitlement.

The ability of the SWP to deliver full water supply

requests by its contractors in a given year depends on

rainfall, snowpack, runoff, carryover storage, pumping

capacity from the Delta, and regulatory constraints on

SWP operation. The calculated average annual delivery

during a repeat of the 1929-34 drought is about

2.1maf. About half of this water would come from

Lake Oroville and the rest from surplus flow in the

Delta, some of which is stored in San Luis Reservoir.

Figure 3-22 shows existing (1995 level) and future

(2020 level) SWP delivery capability, as estimated

by operations studies, under SWRCB Order WR 95-6.

The figure shows that existing SWP facilities have a

65 percent chance of making full deliveries under 1995

level demands and have an 85 percent chance of delivering 2.0

maf to project contractors in any given year. The figure also shows that under a 2020

level demand scenario, existing

SWP facilities have less than a 25

percent chance of making full deliveries.

Colorado River. The

Colorado River is an interstate

and international river. Its mean

annual unimpaired flow is

about 15 maf. The river, which

has is headwaters in Wyoming’s

Green River Basin, crosses

through parts of seven states

before flowing into Mexico and

terminating at the Gulf of

California. The Colorado

River watershed is depicted in

Figure 3-23.

Nearly 60 maf of surface

water storage has been developed on the river and its tributaries, resulting in a ratio of storage to average annual river flow

of about 4 to 1—comparable to

the ratio found on Putah Creek

at Lake Berryessa—but much

higher than the ratio found on

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

0

1

2

3

4

5

1995 and 2020 State Water Project Delivery Capability

with Existing Facilities

FIGURE 3-22

P e r c e n t T i m e a t o r A b o v e

D e l i v e r i e s i n m a f

1995 Level

2020 Level

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

State Water Project Deliveries

FIGURE 3-21

D e l i v e r i e s i n m a f

FIGURE 3-21

State Water Project Deliveries

FIGURE 3-22

1995 and 2020 State Water Project Delivery Capability

with Existing Facilities

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-34

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Flaming

Gorge

Dam

PER

ER COLORADO

COLORADO

RIVER

RIVER

BASIN

BASIN

Lake

Havasu

Hoover

Dam

Davis

Dam

Lake

Mead

Lake

Mohave

Sandy

River

All

American

Canal

Morelos

Dam

River

Tucson

Phoenix

Las

Vegas

Lee

Ferry

Aspen

Pinedale

Viva

Naughton

Reservoir

ARIZONA

CALIFORNIA

NEW MEXICO

MEXICO

NEVADA

UTAH COLORADO

WYOMING

Upper

Stillwater

Dam

Soldier Creek

Dam

Meeks

Cabin

Reservoir

Red Fleet

Dam

Fontenelle

Reservoir

Fremont

Lake

River

River

Devil

River

McPhee

Dam

Silver Jack

Dam

Crystal

Dam

Dolores

Lemon

Dam

Vallecito

Dam

Navajo

Dam

Dallas Creek

Dam

River

 N. Fk.

Morrow

Point

Dam

River

Taylor

Park

Dam

River

San

Juan

Joe's

Valley

Dam

Scofield

Dam

Colorado

Glen

Canyon

Dam

Moon Lake

Dam

Strawberry

Reservoir

Headgate

Rock Dam

Palo Verde

Diversion Dam

Colorado

Big

River

Little

ado

Verde

River

River

Salt River

Agua

Fria River

New

Waddell

Dam

Bartlett

Dam

Horeshoe

Dam

Roosevelt

Dam

Horse Mesa

Dam

Mormon

Flat

Dam

Stewart

Mountain

Dam Painted

Rock Dam

Coolidge

Dam

San

Pedro

River

Gila River

Imperial

Dam

Laguna

Dam

Gila River

Parker

Dam Alamo

Dam

Starvation

Dam

Blue Mesa

Dam

Big San dy River

H a ms Fork

Little Snake River Ya mp a River

Green River

Price Rive

S

r

an Rafael River

Fremont

Virgin River

Stateline

Reservoir

Lake

Powell

Gunnison

Dirty

River

Green River

White River

Color

Colorado

UP

LOW

San

River

Fran

Colorado er Aqueduct Riv

ante

Escal

cisco

FIGURE 3-23

Colorado River Watershed in United States

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-35 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

The 82-mile All American Canal transports water from Imperial Dam on the Colorado River to Imperial Irrigation District’s

service area. In an outstanding engineering feat, the canal system and district distribution system operate entirely on gravity flow.

most of California’s rivers. The two largest reservoirs

are the 24 maf Lake Powell (impounded by Glen Canyon Dam) and the 26 maf Lake Mead (impounded by

Hoover Dam). Three major structures divert water

from the Colorado River to California. Parker Dam

impounds Lake Havasu, which supplies water for

MWDSC’s Colorado River Aqueduct on the California side of the stateline and for the Central Arizona

Project on the Arizona side of the stateline. Palo Verde

Diversion Dam supplies water to Palo Verde Irrigation District’s canal system. Imperial Dam diverts water

to the All American Canal (and to California users of

USBR’s Yuma Project) on the California side of the

stateline and to Arizona Yuma Project users on the Arizona side of the stateline. An off-stream storage reservoir, Senator Wash Reservoir, is used to adjust releases

from Parker Dam and to meet downstream demands.

The Colorado River service area is shown in Figure

3-24.

Three major facilities—USBR’s All American Canal, MWDSC’s Colorado River Aqueduct, and Palo

Verde Irrigation District’s main canal—convey water

from the Colorado River to California users. Construction of the All American Canal was authorized in the

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-36

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Siskiyou Modoc

Humboldt

Trinity

Shasta

Tehama

Glenn

Lake

Sonoma

Colusa

Butte

Yuba

Sutter

Nevada

Sierra

Sacramento

Yolo

Napa

Solano

Placer

El Dorado

Amador

Alpine

Mono

Mariposa

Merced

Madera

San

Benito

Monterey

Fresno

Inyo

Tulare

Kings

San Luis

Obispo Kern

Ventura

Los Angeles

San Bernardino

Orange Riverside

San Diego Imperial

Santa Barbara

Calaveras

San

Joaquin Contra

Costa

Alameda

Santa

Clara

Santa

 Cruz

San

Mateo

Marin

San Francisco

Tuolumne

Stanislaus

Mendocino

Lassen

Plumas

Del

Norte

FIGURE 3-24

Colorado River Service Areas

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-37 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act. Work on the canal began in the 1930s, with water deliveries beginning in

1940. Colorado River water diverted at Imperial Dam flows

by gravity through the All American Canal and the Coachella

Canal to the Imperial and Coachella Valleys. The All American Canal has a maximum capacity of 15,200 cfs in the

reach immediately downstream from Imperial Dam. The

main branch of the All American Canal extends 82 miles

from Imperial Dam to the western portion of Imperial

Irrigation District’s distribution system. The Coachella

Canal branches off from the main canal and extends 121

miles northward, to terminate in Coachella Valley Water

District’s Lake Cahuilla.

In 1933, MWDSC started constructing its

Colorado River Aqueduct to divert Colorado River

water from Lake Havasu to the South Coast Region.

Completed in 1941, the 242-mile long aqueduct had a

design capacity of 1.2 maf/yr, although MWDSC has

been able to deliver as much as 1.3 maf/yr. Facilities

associated with the aqueduct include five major

pumping plants and Lake Mathews, the aqueduct’s

terminal reservoir in Riverside County. The San Diego

Aqueduct, constructed by the federal government,

interconnects with the Colorado River Aqueduct in

Riverside County. Delivery of Colorado River Aqueduct

water to San Diego County began in 1947. Colorado

River operations are described in the sidebar.

California’s basic apportionment of Colorado River

supplies is a consumptive use of 4.4 maf/yr, plus half

of any excess or surplus water. Apportionment of

Colorado River supplies is discussed in detail in

Chapter 9. California has been able to use as much

as 5.4 maf of Colorado River supplies annually because neither the Upper Basin states nor Arizona

and Nevada were using their full apportionments,

and because of wet hydrologic conditions.

Klamath Project. The USBR’s Klamath Project

straddles the California-Oregon stateline near Klamath

Falls, Oregon, and provides water supplies to users in

both states. The project, authorized in 1905 by the

Reclamation Act of 1902, transfers water between the

Lost River (which naturally flowed into Tule Lake and

occasionally into the Klamath River) and the Klamath

River. Project works were constructed to drain and

reclaim lakebed lands of Lower Klamath and Tule Lakes

and to provide irrigation supplies to lands within the

project area totaling about 230,000 acres. Major storage

facilities of the Klamath Project are given in Table 3-6.

The Klamath Project includes 185 miles of main

canal, 532 miles of laterals, 37 pumping plants, and

728 miles of drains. Project agricultural water use has

historically averaged about 400 taf/yr. The project also

serves water to adjacent national wildlife refuges.

Other Federal Projects. In addition to the CVP,

Colorado River Reservoir Operations

Operation of lower Colorado River reservoirs is controlled

by USBR, which serves as the watermaster for the river. USBR

is responsible for maintaining an accounting of consumptive

use of the basin states’ allocations, and for ensuring that

Mexican treaty requirements are met with respect to the

quantity of flows and salinity concentration of water delivered

to Mexico.

The 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act directed DOI

to develop criteria for long-range operation of the major

federal reservoirs on the river and its tributaries. USBR

conducts a formal review of the long-range operating criteria

every five years. The act further requires DOI to prepare an

annual operating plan for the river, in consultation with

representatives from the basin states. Some river operating

criteria have already been established in the statutes

comprising the law of the river (see Chapter 9 for more detail).

For example, USBR is required to equalize, to the extent

practicable, storage in Lake Mead and Lake Powell. (Lake

Powell in essence serves as the bank account that guarantees

annual delivery of 7.5 maf from the Upper Basin to the Lower

Basin, plus water to satisfy Mexican treaty obligations. The

actual statutory guarantee is 75 maf every 10 years, plus onehalf of the Mexican treaty water requirements.)

Current federal operating criteria for the reservoirs have

focused on balancing the conservation of water and avoiding

downstream flood damage. As consumptive use of water in

the Lower Basin has reached the annual 7.5 maf basic

apportionment, there has been increasing interest in operating

the river more efficiently from a water supply standpoint.

Proposals discussed among Colorado River water users have

included a variety of surplus and shortage operating criteria,

banking programs, and augmentation of the river’s base flow.

In order to be implemented, any changes in operating criteria

formally recommended by the Colorado River Board would

have to be acceptable to the other basin states and to the

federal government.

Based on the amount of water in the reservoir system,

USBR declared a surplus condition on the river in 1996, 1997,

and 1998, allowing California to continue diverting more

than its basic apportionment. In 1997 and 1998, flood control

releases were made from Lake Mead.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-38

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

TABLE 3-7

Other USBR Projects in Californiaa

Reservoir Project Capacity (taf) Year Completed Stream

Berryessa Solano 1,600 1957 Putah Creek

Tahoe(b,c) Newlands 745 1913 Truckee River

Casitas Ventura River 254 1959 Ventura River

Twitchell Santa Maria 240 1958 Cuyama River

Stampedeb Washoe 227 1970 Little Truckee River

Cachuma Cachuma 190 1953 Santa Ynez River

East Park Orland 51 1910 Stony Creek

Stony Gorge Orland 50 1928 Stony Creek

Bocab Truckee Storage 41 1937 Little Truckee River

Prosser Creekb Washoe 30 1962 Prosser Creek

a Does not include CVP or Colorado River projects.

b Lands served by this reservoir are located in Nevada.

c USBR controls the dam under easement from Sierra Pacific Power Company.

are shown in Table 3-8.

The delivery capability of LADWP’s aqueduct

system has been affected by judicial and regulatory

actions intended to restore environmental resources in

the Mono Lake Basin and in the Owens River Valley. In

1979, the National Audubon Society, the Mono Lake

Committee, and others filed the first in a series of

lawsuits which challenged the project’s water diversions

from the Mono Basin. In 1989 and 1990, the El

Dorado County Superior Court entered preliminary

injunctions which required the project to reduce

diversions to restore and maintain the water level of

Mono Lake at 6,377 feet. The injunctions also established minimum fishery flows in all four Mono Basin

streams from which project diversions are made.

In 1994, SWRCB’s Decision 1631 specified

minimum fishery flows on the four Mono Basin

streams. The order also established water diversion

criteria to protect wildlife and other environmental

resources in the Mono Basin. The water diversion

criteria prohibited export of water from the Mono

Basin until the water level of Mono Lake reached

6,377 feet, and restricted Basin exports until the

water level of Mono Lake rose to an elevation of

6,391feet (estimated to take approximately 20 years).

Once the water level of 6,391 feet is reached, the

Colorado River facilities, and the Klamath Project,

USBR has constructed several other reclamation

projects in California (Table 3-7). These reclamation

projects and other facilities constructed by USACE

provide important flood control and recreation benefits.

Los Angeles Aqueduct. In 1913, the City of Los

Angeles began importing water from the Owens Valley

through the first pipeline of the Los Angeles Aqueduct. The original aqueduct reach was 233 miles long,

had 142 tunnels, and crossed 9 major canyons to

deliver water to Los Angeles using only gravity. In 1940,

the aqueduct was extended north to tap Mono Basin

water at Lee Vining Creek, increasing its length to 338

miles. The extension included an 11-mile tunnel drilled

through the Mono Craters.

To keep pace with the city’s growing population,

a second pipeline of the LAA was completed in 1970

to import additional water from the southern Owens

Valley at Haiwee Reservoir. The second pipeline increased the aqueduct’s annual delivery capacity from

330 taf to 550 taf. In dry years, the aqueduct was to

be maintained at full capacity through groundwater

pumping in the Owens Valley. Pumped groundwater

is also used to meet in-valley uses. In addition to the

two aqueduct pipelines, the system includes eight reservoirs and eleven powerplants. The largest reservoirs

TABLE 3-6

Major Reservoirs of USBR’s Klamath Project

Reservoir Capacity (taf) Year Completed Stream

Upper Klamath 873 1921 Klamath River

Clear 527 1910 Lost River

Gerber 94 1925 Miller Creek

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-39 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

LAA will be able to export approximately 31 taf/yr

from the Mono Basin.

Longstanding litigation between Inyo County and

the City of Los Angeles over environmental effects of

Owens Valley groundwater pumping ended in June

1997, allowing implementation of water management

and environmental mitigation actions. (See Chapter 9

for additional details.) A key environmental restoration

effort is rewatering the lower Owens River in a 60-mile

stretch from the aqueduct intake south of Big Pine to

just north of Owens Dry Lake. The effort calls for

providing continuous river flows of about 40 cfs (with

seasonal habitat flows up to about 200 cfs), establishing

1,825 acres of wetlands, and establishing and

maintaining off-river lakes and ponds. (Most of the

instream flows will be pumped back out of the river

and into the LAA from a point just north of Owens

Dry Lake. Between 6 and 9 cfs will be allowed to flow

past the pumpback station to sustain a 325 acre wetland in the Owens Lake delta.) Providing the base flow

of 40 cfs and river channel restoration must begin no

later than 2003.

As discussed in Chapter 9, the Great Basin

Unified Air Pollution Control District issued an order

to LADWP in July 1997 requiring 50 taf of water per

year to control dust from the Owens Dry Lake. Two

potential sources of water identified by the GBUAPCD

include aquifers under the lakebed and the Los Angeles

Aqueduct. As described in Chapter 9, LADWP and

GBUAPCD have developed a draft agreement for dust

control measures.

TABLE 3-8

Major Reservoirs in the Los Angeles Aqueduct System

Reservoir Capacity (taf) Year Completed Stream

Crowley 183 1941 Owens River

Grant 47 1940 Rush Creek

Haiwee 39 1913 Rose Valley Creek

Bouquet 34 1934 Bouquet Creek

Tinemaha 6 1929 Owens River

Tuolumne River Development. The Tuolumne

River, which begins at Lyell Glacier in Yosemite

National Park and extends 163 miles to its confluence

with the San Joaquin River west of Modesto, is the

largest of the San Joaquin River tributaries. It produces

an average annual runoff of about 1.9 maf of which

1.2 maf comes from snowmelt between April and July.

Total reservoir capacity on the river is 2.8 maf, almost

1.5 times its average annual runoff. Of this total, over

0.34 maf is reserved for flood control. Table 3-9 lists

major reservoirs on the Tuolumne River system.

The oldest dam on the Tuolumne River is La

Grange Dam, about 2.5 miles downstream of New

As Mono Lake’s level rises as a result of SWRCB’s Decision

1631, some of the lakeshore tufa formations will be

submerged.

TABLE 3-9

Major Reservoirs in the Tuolumne River Basin

Reservoir Capacity (taf) Year Completed Owner Stream

New Don Pedro 2,030 1971 Modesto ID/Turlock ID Tuolumne River

Hetch Hetchy 360 1923 San Francisco PUC Tuolumne River

Lake Lloyd 268 1956 San Francisco PUC Cherry Creek

Turlock 49 1915 Turlock ID Offstream

Modesto 29 1911 Modesto ID Offstream

Eleanor 26 1918 San Francisco PUC Eleanor Creek

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-40

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

San Francisco’s Pulgas Water Temple marks the original

terminus of the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct at Upper Crystal

Springs Reservoir.

Don Pedro Dam. The 131-foot high La Grange Dam

was completed in 1894; it serves as a diversion dam to

divert river flows into Modesto ID’s and Turlock ID’s

canals. In 1923, Modesto and Turlock Irrigation

Districts completed the old Don Pedro concrete dam

with a capacity of about 290 taf. The New Don Pedro

Dam, capacity 2.03 maf, was completed in 1971 as a

joint project of the two irrigation districts and the City

and County of San Francisco.

In its early years, the City of San Francisco’s water

supply came from local creeks and springs. This was

soon inadequate and, in 1862, water from the peninsula

was drawn from Pilarcitos Creek (in San Mateo

County) via a tunnel and redwood flume. In the 1870s,

San Andreas and Crystal Springs Reservoirs were added

and, with later improvements, increased the city’s

water supply greatly. About the turn of the century,

the Spring Valley Water Company, the city’s main water

purveyor, turned its attention to the East Bay area and

Alameda Creek. It constructed the Sunol Aqueduct in

1900 and completed Calaveras Dam in 1925. (The

215-foot high dam was the highest earth-fill dam in

the world at the time.)

Concern about adequate water supply led to a

series of studies and the choice in 1901 of the

Tuolumne River as the city’s next major source of supply.

The centerpiece was to be a dam at Hetch Hetchy

Valley in northern Yosemite Park. Authorization was

secured in the 1913 Raker Act and work soon began

on the construction of O’Shaughnessy Dam and the

Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct. A dam at Lake Eleanor was

built in 1918 to supply hydroelectric power for Hetch

Hetchy construction. O’Shaughnessy Dam was

completed in 1923 and the San Joaquin Valley

pipeline and Coast Range tunnel were finished to

deliver the first water to the San Francisco peninsula

in 1934. Cherry Valley Dam (Lake Lloyd) was

completed in 1956, which added further regulated

storage to help satisfy irrigation district prior water

rights below Hetch Hetchy.

The capacity of the current Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct

system’s San Joaquin pipeline is about 330 taf/yr. Average

and drought year delivery capability of the system is

294 taf and 270 taf, respectively.

Two major San Joaquin Valley water agencies,

Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts, have water

rights on the Tuolumne River that are senior to those

of San Francisco. Annual diversions by these irrigation districts average between 0.9 maf and 1.1 maf.

As shown in Table 3-9, each of the irrigation districts

uses an offstream regulatory reservoir to manage the

distribution of the water diverted from the river.

Mokelumne Aqueduct. The Mokelumne River,

one of the smaller Sierra Nevada rivers, has an average

annual runoff of 740 taf. It is a snowmelt stream, with

over 60 percent of its runoff occurring during April

through July. The Mokelumne River has about 840taf

of storage capacity, approximately 1.1 times its average annual runoff. The largest reservoir is Camanche,

TABLE 3-10

Mokelumne Aqueduct System Reservoirs

Reservoir Capacity (taf) Year Completed Stream

Camanche 417 1963 Mokelumne River

Pardee 198 1929 Mokelumne River

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-41 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

which can hold 417 taf. Total flood control space on

the Mokelumne River system is 200 taf. In addition

to EBMUD’s facilities on the river (Table 3-10), there

is 220 taf of storage (owned by PG&E) and diversion

works for two irrigation districts—Jackson Valley and

Woodbridge Irrigation Districts.

In the 1920s, as the Hetch Hetchy Project for the

San Francisco peninsula was under way, East Bay cities

also turned to the Sierra Nevada for more water,

specifically to the Mokelumne River. EBMUD completed

Pardee Dam and the Mokelumne Aqueduct from

Pardee Reservoir to the East Bay in 1929. The downstream Camanche Reservoir was completed in 1963.

With the addition of a third pipeline in 1965,

Mokelumne Aqueduct capacity was increased from 224

taf/yr to 364 taf/yr. Drought year supplies are not always

adequate to sustain full aqueduct capacity diversions.

Yuba and Bear Rivers Development. The Yuba

and Bear Rivers drain the west slope of the Sierra Nevada between the Feather River Basin on the north

and the American River Basin on the south. The Yuba

and Bear River Basins include portions of Yuba, Sutter,

Placer, Nevada, Sierra, Butte, and Plumas Counties.

Elevations range from 60 feet near Marysville to over

9,000 feet along the Sierra Nevada crest. The basins

produce an average annual runoff of about 2.4 maf,

45 percent of which is derived from snowmelt from

April through July. Runoff from the 1,700 square mile

area drains westerly to the confluence with the Feather

River, south of Marysville. Total reservoir capacity on

the rivers is more than 1.6 maf, or approximately twothirds of the average annual runoff. Surface water development provides municipal, irrigation, power generation, and environmental supplies to more than one

dozen water purveyors, and serves the Cities of

Marysville, Grass Valley, Nevada City, and many

smaller communities.

The basins contain numerous lakes and reservoirs,

including many small mountain lakes in the headwaters

area. The larger reservoirs are listed in Table 3-11. New

Bullards Bar, a concrete arch dam 645 feet high

impounding a 966 taf reservoir, is located on the North

Fork Yuba River about 30 miles northeast of Marysville.

The facility was built for irrigation, power generation,

recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement, and flood

control. Seasonal flood control storage capacity is 170

taf. Englebright Dam (which impounds Englebright

Reservoir) was constructed in 1941 by the California

Debris Commission as a debris storage project. The

dam, along with Daguerre Point Dam and channel

training walls farther downstream, was designed to

control movement of hydraulic mining debris along the

lower Yuba River. Up to that time, mining debris was

filling the downstream channels, creating flooding and

navigation problems. Currently, PG&E and YCWA pay

the federal government to use Englebright’s storage to

generate hydroelectric power at two powerplants.

Water from the Yuba and Bear Rivers is exported to

the Feather and American River Basins via diversion

works. Water is transferred to the Feather River basin

(from Slate Creek to Sly Creek Reservoir) by OrovilleWyandotte Irrigation District. Water is transferred to

Hydraulic mining in

the 1860s in the

Michigan Bar

District. Hydraulic

mining was widely

blamed for worsening

flooding in Sacramento

Valley towns because

sediments washed into

streams and rivers,

raising their beds and

reducing their capacity.

Courtesy of California

State Library

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-42

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

the American River Basin (from Rollins Reservoir to

Folsom Lake) by PG&E and Nevada Irrigation

District. PG&E also diverts water for power generation

from the American River Basin to the Bear River, which

is subsequently returned to the North Fork American

River and Folsom Lake.

Reservoir and River Operations

Most large reservoirs in California are multipurpose

impoundments designed to provide water supply storage, electric power, flood control, recreation, water

quality, and downstream fishery needs. Often, large

reservoirs would not be economically feasible as single

purpose projects. Multipurpose designs maximize the

beneficial uses of large reservoir sites and provide

regional water supply benefits.

Water Supply Operations. Water supply needs

dictate many operating criteria of multipurpose reservoirs.

Sufficient water must be provided for existing water

rights, instream requirements for fish and water quality

(including temperature control), downstream water

demands, and, in the case of Shasta Reservoir, minimum

flows or depths in the Sacramento River for navigation.

The generation of hydroelectric power is, for the most

part, an ancillary purpose. However, where there is

capacity and an afterbay to re-regulate flow, reservoirs

may be operated to meet peaking power needs. Lake

recreation is an important element of the local economy

at many reservoirs. High reservoir levels often are maintained into the summer to maximize local recreation.

Urban and agricultural water demands are highest

during the summer and lowest during the winter, the

inverse of natural runoff patterns. Environmental

water demands can follow a different pattern. Water

needs for flooding refuge and duck club lands tend to

peak in the late fall. Anadromous fishery

(primarily salmon) demands are highest in the fall to

attract spawning fish and again in the spring to move

the newly hatched smolts and fry downstream to the

ocean. Demands for groundwater recharge can be

scheduled any time of the year when water spreading

capacity is available. Reservoir operators must balance

these varying water demands against other considerations

that affect reservoir and river use, such as flood control

operating criteria and fishery temperature needs.

Flood Control Operations. Multipurpose reservoirs incorporating formal flood control functions

are common on California’s major rivers. Table 3-12

shows the principal Central Valley storage facilities

that incorporate flood control. Most of the reservoirs

shown were constructed by federal agencies under authorizations that allowed a large share of costs allocated to flood control to be treated as non-reimbursable and be absorbed by the federal government. Table

3-12 also includes several non-federal projects where

part of the costs allocated to flood control were paid

by the federal government under federal flood control law (or specific legislation). The share of flood

control costs that must be borne by non-federal interests

has gradually increased in recent years. Under the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, that non-federal share is now up to 35 percent.

Typically, flood control operations are integrated

with those for other project purposes through the

concept of “joint use” sharing of a portion of a

reservoir’s storage capacity. The usual climate patterns

in California result in flood control needs being greatest

in midwinter and least in the summer. Through joint

use, substantial reservoir storage space is maintained

empty to help control floods during the period of highest

risk. As the year progresses and flooding risk diminishes,

TABLE 3-11

Major Reservoirs on the Yuba and Bear River Systems

Reservoir Capacity (taf) Year Completed Owner Stream

New Bullards Bar 966 1970 YCWA NF Yuba River

Camp Far West 103 1963 South Sutter WD Bear River

Lake Spaulding 75 1913 PG&E SF Yuba River

Englebright 70 1941 USACE Yuba River

Bowman 69 1927 Nevada ID Canyon Creek

Jackson Meadows 69 1965 Nevada ID MF Yuba River

Rollins 66 1965 Nevada ID Bear River

Collins 57 1963 Browns Valley ID Dry Creek

Scotts Flat 49 1948 Nevada ID Deer Creek

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-43 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

the flood reservation is reduced, allowing the storage to

be used for water supply or other project purposes. The

allocation of joint use storage is controlled by formal

operating procedures, as discussed in the sidebar.

Flood control operating criteria are individually

crafted to reflect the specific conditions at each reservoir.

For example, reservoirs on the east side of the San

Joaquin Valley are subject to high late spring snowmelt

runoff from the high Sierra; their flood reservations

must be maintained longer than those for areas where

late spring snowmelt is not a factor.

Temperature Control Operations. Downstream

water temperature has become an important criterion

in establishing river and reservoir operations for the

protection of salmon and other anadromous fish. For

example, in 1990 and 1991 SWRCB established

temperature standards in portions of the Sacramento

and Trinity Rivers through its Orders WR 90-5 and

91-01. On the Sacramento River below Keswick Dam,

these orders include a daily average water temperature

objective of 560

 F during critical periods when high

temperatures could be detrimental to survival of eggs

and pre-emergent fry. Through reservoir releases, the

CVP attempts to maintain this temperature within the

winter-run chinook salmon spawning grounds below

Keswick Dam from April through September.

As another example of temperature control

operations, NMFS issued a long-term winter-run

chinook salmon biological opinion in 1993 that

required the CVP to maintain a minimum Shasta Lake

September storage of at least 1.9 maf, except in the

driest years. Higher storage levels are required in Shasta

Reservoir to ensure that cold water is available for reservoir

releases. Before USBR constructed the temperature

control device, water of sufficiently low temperature

could be provided during critical periods only by

bypassing Shasta Dam’s powerplant, causing an annual

revenue loss to the CVP of $10 to $20 million. The

TCD, constructed at a cost of about $83 million, has

multi-level intakes, allowing temperature- selective reservoir releases without having to bypass the powerplant.

Some dams, such as the Department’s Oroville Dam,

were constructed with the ability to make temperatureselective reservoir releases, as shown in the photo.

In certain cases, temperature control capability can

be provided by a temperature control curtain. This

technology has been used successfully to provide

selective withdrawal and to control reservoir mixing

TABLE 3-12

Federal Flood Control Storage in Major Central Valley Reservoirs

Maximum

Reservoir Stream Storage Flood Control Owner

(taf) Space (taf)

Shasta Sacramento River 4,552 1,300 USBR

Oroville Feather River 3,538 750 DWR

New Melones Stanislaus River 2,420 450 USBR

New Don Pedro Tuolumne River 2,030 340 Modesto ID/Turlock ID

McClure Merced River 1,025 350a Merced ID

Pine Flat Kings River 1,000 475a USACE

Folsom American River 977 400b USBR

New Bullards Bar Yuba River 966 170 YCWA

Isabella Kern River 568 398a USACE

Millerton San Joaquin River 520 170a USBR

Camanche Mokelumne River 417 200a EBMUD

New Hogan Calaveras River 317 165 USACE

Indian Valley Cache Creek 301 40 YCFCWCD

Eastman Chowchilla River 150 45 USACE

Black Butte Stony Creek 144 137a USACE

Kaweah Kaweah River 143 142 USACE

Hensley Fresno River 90 65 USACE

Success Tule River 82 75 USACE

Farmington Littlejohns Creek 52 52 USACE

a

 Maximum flood control space may vary depending on transferable upstream storage space and/or snowpack

b Does not include 270 taf reoperation for SAFCA

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-44

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

at USBR’s Lewiston and Whiskeytown Reservoirs.

The four curtains constructed at the two reservoirs

have reduced the temperature of Trinity River diversions

into the upper Sacramento River by about 50

 F. See

Chapter 5 for more detailed discussion of temperature

control technology.

Delta Operations. Because both the CVP and SWP

export water from the Delta, a need for coordinated

project operations exists. The Coordinated Operation

Agreement between the Department and USBR

differentiates between storage withdrawals and

unstored flows in the Delta. Storage withdrawals

belong to the project that makes the reservoir release.

Unstored flows that are available for export are shared

between the projects—55 percent to the CVP and

45percent to the SWP. The COA also specifies how the

projects are to share the responsibility of satisfying Sacramento River in-basin demands and Delta requirements

This sloping intake structure at Oroville Reservoir allows for

temperature-selective releases of water through Hyatt Pump

Generating Plant. Shutters underneath the trashrack structure

are lowered into position with the gantry crane shown.

Federal Flood Control Operating Criteria

 For federal projects, or as a condition of federal cost

sharing on other projects, USACE prescribes rules for

operating reservoir space dedicated to flood control. Figure

3-25, a flood control operating diagram for Lake Oroville,

illustrates the nature of those operating criteria.

 By mid-October each year, Lake Oroville storage must

be reduced to a specified level within the range shown, creating

an initial flood control reservation of at least 375 taf. The

allowable level within the range is recalculated each day, using

an index that reflects the wetness of the watershed and the

likelihood of heavy runoff from any incoming storms. As a

wet season such as 1997-98 progresses, the allowable storage

tends to coincide with the “maximum flood control pool”

line at the bottom of the flood diagram, which represents a

flood reservation of 750 taf.

 When high inflows occur, water is temporarily held in

the flood reservation as necessary to maintain reservoir releases

within prescribed limits that are designed to prevent

downstream damage. The downstream flow limits set by the

USACE for Lake Oroville are 150,000 cfs north of Honcut

Creek, 180,000 cfs above the mouth of the Yuba River, and

320,000 cfs south of the Bear River.

 While water is being stored to maintain releases within

target levels, reservoir storage may exceed the level allowable

under the flood operating criteria, a condition known as

“encroachment” into the required flood reservation. The

USACE criteria recognize that such encroachment will occur

and establish release criteria for such conditions. Reservoir

operators must balance the conflicting objectives of

controlling the current flood event and preparing for a possible

future one; the encroachment will be eliminated when

downstream conditions permit.

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

375 taf 750 taf

R e s e r v o i r S t o ra g e i n m a f

Reservoir Capacity

Minimum Flood Control Pool

Maximum Flood Control Pool

FIGURE 3-25

Lake Oroville Flood Control Operating Diagram

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-45 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

when there are no surplus flows. Under “balanced”

conditions when storage withdrawals are being made,

responsibility is allocated 75 percent to the CVP and

25percent to the SWP. The sharing of responsibility for

satisfying new Delta export restrictions under Order WR

95-6 is not specified under the present COA.

 Environmental needs in the Delta, especially for

threatened and endangered fisheries, exert a strong

influence on export pumping and other water project

operations. Starting in the 1970s, project exports

were reduced during May and June to improve juvenile striped bass survival in the Delta. In the last decade, requirements to protect ESA listed fish species

have led to new Delta environmental criteria and more

export constraints. Travel time to the Delta is a

consideration in operating SWP and CVP reservoirs

to meet regulatory requirements. Sometimes, a rapid

change in salinity conditions calls for additional

release of water. Of the major Sacramento River

region reservoirs, Folsom gives the quickest response

(about a day), while it takes 3 days for Oroville

releases and 5 days for water at Keswick Dam (from

Shasta releases or Trinity River imports) to reach the

Delta. Reservoir releases from New Melones on the

San Joaquin River reach the Delta in about 1.5 days.

Stanislaus River releases from USBR’s New

Melones Reservoir must meet prior water rights and

provide CVP water supply. Also, some water is

dedicated to maintaining dissolved oxygen levels in

the Stanislaus River and to diluting salts in the lower

San Joaquin River. New Melones must make spring

pulse flow releases to meet Delta fishery requirements.

Except during flood control operations, releases are

maintained below 1,500 cfs to avoid seepage effects

on adjacent orchard lands.

Impacts of Recent Events on

Surface Water Supplies

As discussed in Chapter 2, several key events in

California water have occurred since the last update of

Bulletin 160. Events of particular importance to surface

water supply availability include CVPIA implementation,

the 1993 winter-run chinook salmon biological

opinion, the Monterey Agreement, and the Bay-Delta

Accord. The Department’s DWRSIM computer model

was used to evaluate the Bay-Delta Accord’s impact on

CVP and SWP operations under base year (1995) and

future year (2020) conditions. A similar operations

study, assuming D-1485 Delta standards and base year

conditions, was conducted to compare delivery

capability of the projects with the new Delta criteria.

The 73-year simulations (1922-94) show how the CVP

and SWP would operate at current and future levels of

demand and upstream development if the historical

hydrology sequence were to repeat.

Based on these operations studies, Figures 3-26 and

3-27 show that delivery capabilities of the CVP (south

90100 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

P e r c e n t T i m e a t o r A b o v e

D e l i v e r i e s i n m a f

D-1485

WR 95-6

90100 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

P e r c e n t T i m e a t o r A b o v e

D e l i v e r i e s i n m a f

D-1485

WR 95-6

FIGURE 3-26

1995 Level Central Valley Project Delivery Capability

South of Delta Under D-1485 and WR 95-6

FIGURE 3-27

1995 Level State Water Project Delivery Capability

Under D-1485 and WR 95-6

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-46

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

of the Delta) and SWP were significantly reduced from

the prior Delta operating criteria to the current criteria.

Under D-1485 and 1995 level demands, the CVP

had a 40 percent chance of making full deliveries and a 95

percent chance of delivering 2.0 maf in any given year.

Under WR 95-6 with identical demands, the CVP has a

20 percent chance of making full deliveries and an 80

The gated inlet structure to the SWP’s Clifton Court Forebay in the Southern Delta.

percent chance of delivering 2.0 maf in any given year.

Under D-1485 and 1995 level demands, the SWP had a

70 percent chance of making full deliveries and a 95

percent chance of delivering 2.0 maf in any given year.

Under WR 95-6 with identical demands, the SWP has a

65 percent chance of making full deliveries and an 85

percent chance of delivering 2.0 maf in any given year.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-47 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Together, the operations studies indicate the combined 1995 level export capability of the CVP and

SWP declined by about 300 taf/yr on average and by

about 850 taf/yr during 1929-34 drought conditions.

(These operations studies do not account for Delta

export curtailments due to concerns for authorized take

of ESA listed species. Reduction in exports due to take

limits could be significant, especially during drought

periods, when the projects are unable to export

significant unstored flows or reservoir releases providing

required instream flows.) Table 3-13 summarizes key

changes in Delta standards, as modeled in operations

studies, from Bulletin 160-93 to Bulletin 160-98.

Impacts of Reservoir Reoperation on Surface

Water Supplies

California’s large multipurpose reservoirs have been

constructed to provide a certain mix of project benefits

established during their planning periods. A change in a

reservoir’s operation rules (to increase one type of benefit) requires careful analysis of how the change may

affect the project’s ability to accomplish other purposes.

Providing additional winter flood control in a

reservoir, for example, reduces the probability that it

will refill after the flood season. Temporary increases

in winter flood control space have been suggested at

some of the San Joaquin River region foothill

reservoirs in the wake of the 1997 flood. However,

the value of water supply in this region is high, and

these proposals would have significant costs and water

supply impacts. At USBR’s Folsom Reservoir, the local flood control agency has negotiated an agreement

with USBR for an additional 270 taf of winter flood

TABLE 3-13

Major Changes in Delta Criteria from D-1485 to WR 95-6

Criteria Change

Water Year Classification from SRI to 40-30-30 Index

Sacramento River Flows higher Sept.-Dec. Rio Vista flows

San Joaquin River Flows new minimum flows and pulse flows

Vernalis Salinity Requirement more restrictive during irrigation season, less restrictive other months

Delta Outflow outflow required to maintain 2 ppt salinity during Feb.-June

Export Limits 35%-65% export-to-Delta inflow ratio, Apr.-May export-to-SJR inflow ratio

Delta Cross Channel Operations additional closures required

control space. The agreement requires the flood

control agency to provide a substitute water supply,

under specified conditions, if the flood control reservation results in a loss of supply to USBR. The

payback provision of this agreement was triggered

by the 1997 flood. See Chapter 8 for details.

Conversely, Chapters 7-9 discuss several flood

control reservoirs being studied for reoperation to

provide some water supply benefits. Many of these

reservoirs are smaller, single-purpose flood detention

impoundments on streams with relatively low average

annual runoff. In many cases, physical changes to the

existing dams, such as raising their spillways, would

be needed as part of a reoperation for water supply.

Often, the goal at existing detention dams is to operate

the reservoir to enhance groundwater recharge, because

maintaining year-round conservation storage on a

stream with relatively low average runoff would not

be economical.

Providing higher reservoir minimum storage requirements, another example of reservoir reoperation, results in lower delivery potential during dry periods. The

increase in required Shasta Reservoir storage to maintain

cool water for the winter-run salmon has reduced CVP

water supply potential during drought periods. Current

minimum storage target levels are about 1.9 maf, except

in critical years when the target is allowed to drop to

1.2maf. (Shasta storage dropped under 0.6 maf in the

1976-77 drought and dropped to 1.3 maf during the

1987-92 drought.) Providing higher reservoir carryover

also reduces electrical energy generation, which is often

replaced with electricity generated from fossil fuel burning generation plants.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-48

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Groundwater Supplies

In an average year, about 30 percent of California’s

urban and agricultural applied water is provided by

groundwater extraction. In drought years when

surface supplies are reduced, groundwater supports an

even larger percentage of use. The amount of water

stored in California’s aquifers is far greater than that

stored in the State’s surface water reservoirs, although

only a portion of California’s groundwater resources

can be economically and practically extracted for use.

In evaluating California water supplies, an

important difference between surface water and

agencies (as described later in this section), but there are

no statewide requirements that require quantification

of the resource. Much of California’s groundwater

production is self-supplied, and is not managed or

quantified by local agencies.

The following description of groundwater supplies

is presented in a more general manner than was used

for surface water supplies, reflecting the difference in

data availability. Much of the groundwater information

in this section is based on calculations, rather than on

direct measurement. Estimating overdraft in a basin,

for example, relies on interpretation of measured data

(water levels in wells) and interpretation of calculated

information (extractions from the basin). The ability

to assess statewide groundwater resources would

benefit greatly from additional data collection and

better access to existing data.

Base Year Supplies

Table 3-14 summarizes estimated 1995 level

groundwater supplies. The data represent current levels of groundwater production, and not necessarily the

maximum potential of statewide groundwater supplies. The data include water reapplied through deep

percolation and exclude groundwater overdraft.

To help put this information in perspective, the

sidebar illustrates typical groundwater production

conditions in three hydrologic regions that rely heavily

on groundwater because their local surface water supplies

do not fully support existing development. These

regions—the San Joaquin, Tulare Lake, and Central

Coast regions—all have alluvial aquifer systems that

support significant groundwater development, as

TABLE 3-14

Estimated 1995 Level Groundwater Supplies

by Hydrologic Region (taf)

Region Average Drought

North Coast 263 294

San Francisco Bay 68 92

Central Coast 1,045 1,142

South Coast 1,177 1,371

Sacramento River 2,672 3,218

San Joaquin River 2,195 2,900

Tulare Lake 4,340 5,970

North Lahontan 157 187

South Lahontan 239 273

Colorado River 337 337

Total (rounded) 12,490 15,780

Groundwater is often the only local source of supply for

desert communities.

groundwater must be accounted for—the availability

of data quantifying the resource. Surface water reservoirs

are constructed to provide known storage capacities,

reservoir inflows and releases can be measured, and

stream gages provide direct measurements of flows in

surface water systems. Groundwater basins have relatively

indeterminate dimensions, inflow (e.g., recharge) to

an entire basin cannot be directly measured, and total

basin extractions and natural outflow are seldom

directly measured. In addition to physical differences

between surface water and groundwater systems,

statutory differences in the administration of the

resources also affect data availability. Entities who

construct surface water reservoirs must have State water

rights for the facility, and all but the smallest dams are

regulated by the State’s dam safety program. These

requirements help define and quantify the resource.

In contrast, groundwater may be managed by local

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-49 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

suggested by the information presented in the sidebar.

(The data shown are typical of wells used for agricultural

or municipal production. A well used to supply an

individual residence would have a much smaller

capacity. Over 90 percent of the groundwater use in

each of these regions is for agricultural use.) In contrast,

aquifer systems in fractured rock, such as those used

to supply small communities in the Sierra Nevada

foothills, can generally support only limited

groundwater development.

In these hydrologic regions water users frequently

take advantage of surface water available in wet years to

recharge groundwater basins. In drought years when

surface water is not available, water users increase

groundwater pumping. For example, Friant-Kern CVP

contractors maximize groundwater recharge with less

expensive Class II supplies (wet weather water) when

they are available. Member agencies of KCWA have

developed extensive recharge facilities along the Kern

River channel to take advantage of wet year flows.

Groundwater Basin Yield

 Historically, the term safe yield has been used in

an attempt to describe the available supply from a

groundwater basin. Safe yield is defined in the

Department’s Bulletin 118-80, Groundwater Basins in

California, as “the maximum quantity of water that

can be continuously withdrawn from a groundwater

basin without adverse effect.” Adverse effect in this

context can include depletion of the groundwater

reserves (groundwater level decline), intrusion of water

of undesirable quality, impacts to existing water rights,

higher extraction costs, subsidence, depletion of

streamflow, and environmental impacts. Historically,

additional extraction from a groundwater basin above

the safe yield value has been called overdraft. Overdraft

is defined in Bulletin 118-80 as “the condition of

a groundwater basin where the amount of water

withdrawn exceeds the amount of water replenishing

the basin over a period of time.”

Typical Groundwater Production Conditions

 The Department collects data from a statewide network

of wells to monitor long-term changes in groundwater levels.

The network includes local agency wells and privately-owned

wells. These data were combined with Bulletin 160 water use

information to prepare the tabulation on typical groundwater

production conditions shown below. Long-term water level

data can show the effects of increased groundwater extraction

in drought years; it can also show the effects of changing

water management practices in a basin.

 Local conditions within the tabulated basins may deviate

greatly from the typical conditions shown below. In the Tulare

Lake Region, for example, some groundwater production is

occurring from wells with pumping lifts of over 800 feet.

Basin Extraction Well Yields Pumping Lifts

(taf/yr) (gpm) (feet)

San Joaquin River Region

Madera 570 750-2,000 160

Merced 560 1,500-1,900 110

Delta Mendota 510 800-2,000 35-150

Turlock 450 1,000-2,000 90

Chowchilla 260 1,500-1,900 110

Modesto 230 1,000-2,000 90

Tulare Lake Region

Kings 1,790 500-1,500 150

Kern 1,400 1,500-2,500 200-250

Kaweah 760 1,000-2,000 125-250

Tulare Lake 670 300-1,000 270

Tule 660 NA 150-200

Westside 210 800-1,500 200-800

Pleasant Valley 100 NA 350

Central Coast Region

Salinas Valley 550 1,000-4,000 180

Pajaro Valley 60 500 10-300

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-50

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Quantifying either overdraft or safe yield is

inherently complex. For example, estimates of safe yield

of a basin often change over time, as more development

occurs in a basin and extractions increase. The observed

effects of these extractions can cause water managers

to revise—either upward or downward—safe yield estimates based on an earlier level of development. The

safe yield definition is limited because it tends to

imply a fixed quantity of water that can be extracted

on an annual basis without regard to how the overall

supply might be enhanced through basin management.

This update of the California Water Plan uses perennial

yield rather than safe yield to define long-term groundwater basin yield.

Perennial Yield. Perennial yield is the amount of

groundwater that can be extracted without lowering

groundwater levels over the long-term. Perennial yield

in basins where there is hydraulic connection between

surface water and groundwater depends, in part, on

the amount of extraction that occurs. Perennial yield

can increase as extraction increases, as long as the

annual amount of recharge equals or exceeds the

amount of extraction. Extraction at a level that exceeds

the perennial yield for a short period may not result in

an overdraft condition. In basins with an adequate

groundwater supply, increased extraction may establish

a new hydrologic equilibrium with a new perennial

yield. The establishment of a new and higher

perennial yield requires that adequate recharge from

some surface supply be induced, which may impact

downstream users of that supply.

In Bulletin 160-98, perennial yield is estimated as

the amount of groundwater extraction that has taken

place, or could take place, over a long period of time

under average hydrologic conditions without lowering

groundwater levels. Existing basin water management

programs (1995 level of development) were evaluated

in the development of perennial yield estimates.

Overdraft. Additional annual extraction from a

groundwater basin over a long period of time above

the annual perennial yield is defined as overdraft in

Bulletin 160-98. In wet years, recharge in developed

groundwater basins tends to exceed extractions.

Conversely, in dry years, groundwater basin recharge

tends to be less than groundwater basin extraction. By

definition, overdraft is not a measure of these annual

fluctuations in groundwater storage volume. Instead,

overdraft is a measure of the long-term trend associated

with these annual fluctuations. The period of record

used to evaluate overdraft must be long enough to

produce data that, when averaged, approximate long-term

average hydrologic conditions for the basin. Table 3-15

TABLE 3-15

1995 and 2020 Level Overdraft by Hydrologic Region (taf)

1995 2020

Region Average Drought Average Drought

North Coast 0 0 0 0

San Francisco Bay 0 0 0 0

Central Coast 214 214 102 102

South Coast 0 0 0 0

Sacramento River 33 33 85 85

San Joaquin River 239 239 63 63

Tulare Lake 820 820 670 670

North Lahontan 0 0 0 0

South Lahontan 89 89 89 89

Colorado River 69 69 61 61

Total (rounded) 1,460 1,460 1,070 1,070

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-51 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

shows the Department’s estimates of 1995 and

2020-level groundwater overdraft by hydrologic

region. Within some regions overdraft occurs in welldefined subareas, while additional groundwater development potential may exist in other subareas.

For the 1995 base year, Bulletin 160-98 estimates

a statewide increase in groundwater overdraft (160 taf)

above the 1990 base year reported in Bulletin 160-93.

Most of the statewide increase in overdraft occurred in

the San Joaquin and Tulare Lake regions, two regions

where surface water supplies have been reduced in

recent years by Delta export restrictions, CVPIA

implementation, and ESA requirements. CVP contractors

who rely on Delta exports for their surface water supply

have experienced supply deficiencies of up to 50 percent

subsequent to implementation of export limitations

and CVPIA requirements. Many of these contractors

have turned to groundwater pumping for additional

water supplies. This long-term increase in groundwater

extractions exacerbated a short-term decline in water

levels as a result of the 1987-92 drought.

As shown in Table 3-15, groundwater overdraft is

expected to decline from 1.5 maf to 1.1 maf statewide

by 2020. Overdraft in the Central Coast Region is

expected to decline as demand shifts from groundwater

to imported SWP supplies, provided through the

recently completed Coastal Branch of the California

Aqueduct. The reduction in irrigated acreage in drainage

problem areas on the west side of the San Joaquin

Valley, as described in the 1990 report of the San

Joaquin Valley Interagency Drainage Program, is

expected to reduce groundwater demands in the San

Joaquin River and Tulare Lake regions by 2020. (A

discussion on the San Joaquin Valley Interagency

Drainage Program is provided in Chapter 4.) Some

increases in groundwater overdraft are expected in

Sacramento, Placer and El Dorado Counties of the

Sacramento River Region.

The Central Coast hydrologic region includes, in

addition to the Salinas and Pajaro Valley Basins,

several small basins with limited storage capacity. During

drought periods, water levels in these basins may

decline to a point where groundwater is not usable.

However, during wet periods, most of these basins

recover, thus making application of overdraft or

perennial yield concepts difficult. The Department is

currently evaluating Central Coast Region groundwater use to better estimate overdraft, but this evaluation

will not be completed in time for Bulletin 160-98. Parts

of the Central Coast have received CVP water through

the San Felipe Tunnel since 1986; other parts are now

able to receive SWP water through the Coastal Branch

of the California Aqueduct. These imported supplies

should help reduce overdraft in the region.

Groundwater Management Programs

Groundwater basin management may be implemented to achieve a variety of objectives, including

limiting groundwater overdraft or well interference,

preventing seawater intrusion, controlling land

subsidence, or managing migration of contaminants

of concern. Because no two groundwater basins are

identical, local agency groundwater basin management

programs differ in purpose and scope. Typical local

groundwater management strategies include monitoring

groundwater levels and extractions; cooperative

arrangements among pumpers to minimize or eliminate

problem conditions; and, where applicable, conjunctive

use. Groundwater management options include AB

3030 plans (Water Code Section 10750, et seq.), local

ordinances, and legislative authorization for individual

special districts. Rights to use groundwater also may

be adjudicated by court action.

Reasons for Basin Management. Overdraft in a

basin, or intensive local pumping in one part of a

basin, can cause problems in addition to those associated

with insufficient water quantity. Some of the most

common undesirable impacts are land subsidence and

seawater intrusion (or migration of poorer quality water).

Land subsidence caused by groundwater withdrawal has occurred in parts of the Central and Santa

Clara Valleys and in localized areas of the south coastal

plain. An important groundwater management goal

in developed areas is the prevention or reduction

of land subsidence. Land subsidence can impact

infrastructure, roads, buildings, wells, canals, stream

channels, flood control structures (such as levees), and

low-lying coastal or floodplain areas. Actions to monitor

and manage subsidence may include monitoring

changes in groundwater levels, precisely surveying land

surface elevations at periodic intervals to detect changes,

installing extensometers to measure the change in

thickness of sediments between the land surface and

fixed points below the surface, recording the amount

of groundwater extracted, recharging the aquifer to

control subsidence, and determining when extraction

must be decreased or stopped. These management

actions could be coordinated with groundwater/land

subsidence modeling to predict future land subsidence

under various water management scenarios.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-52

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

One area of particular concern is the west side of

the San Joaquin Valley, where infrastructure affected

by subsidence includes state highways, county roads,

and water conveyance and distribution facilities. The

sidebar provides an overview of subsidence in the area.

Seawater intrusion was recognized as a water

management problem in California’s coastal areas as

early as the 1950s (see sidebar), affecting both urban

and agricultural water agencies. Overextraction from

basins near the coast induces seawater intrusion into

the aquifer where the extraction occurred and leads to

the expansion of areas of degraded water quality, as

pumpers relocate wells to take advantage of better quality

water in deeper aquifers or in aquifers farther inland.

Typically, seawater intrusion in larger basins occurs in

areas where surface water supplies are limited, relative

to the extent of water demands. In this case, a new

supply of surface water must be provided to the area as

part of controlling seawater intrusion, if existing land

use patterns (either urban or irrigated agriculture) are

to continue. Examples of areas which have experienced

seawater intrusion problems include some of the

managed basins in the highly urbanized South Coast

Region, small basins serving individual communities

in the Central Coast Region, and the Salinas Valley (a

highly productive agricultural area). Imported supplies

from the SWP have helped local agencies manage

seawater intrusion in the South Coast Region; local

agencies are also increasingly turning to recycled

water supplies to help manage intrusion. Examples of

local agency efforts to control seawater intrusion are

described in Chapter 7.

Local Agency Groundwater Management Programs. The 1992 enactment of AB 3030 (Water Code

Section 10750, et seq.) provided broad general authority for local agencies to adopt groundwater management plans pursuant to specified procedures, and to

impose assessments to cover the cost of implementing

the plans. To date, about 150 local agencies have

adopted AB 3030 groundwater management plans.

Under other groundwater management authorities,

there are 7 agencies with AB 255 plans and over 50

agencies with some other form of statutory authority.

While the number of agencies adopting AB 3030

plans increases every year, quantifying the statewide

number of adopted plans is somewhat uncertain; there

is no requirement in the statute that agencies adopting

plans file copies of those plans with the Department

or SWRCB. A tabulation of agencies with AB 3030

plans, together with agencies managing groundwater

under some other authority, can be found in the

Department’s 1998 report to the Legislature on the

number of local agencies having some form of management authority.

Special Powers Agencies and Local Ordinances.

The California Legislature may create special powers

agencies, such as the Fox Canyon Groundwater

Management District, or may amend the statutory

authority of an existing agency to allow it to manage

groundwater. Generally, these agencies are governed by

a board of directors that may be appointed or elected.

The Baldwin v. County of Tehama decision

The Department monitors subsidence along the California

Aqueduct, maintaining seven compaction recorders and

performing periodic precise leveling along the aqueduct. The

data indicate, for example, that a 68-mile reach of the

aqueduct near Mendota subsided 2 feet between 1970 and

1994. Over the same time period, the aqueduct subsided

approximately 2 feet along a 29-mile reach near Lost Hills,

and up to 1 foot in a 9-mile reach near the Kern Lake Bed. At

the time of the aqueduct’s design, the potential for San Joaquin

Valley subsidence was recognized, and measures were taken

to compensate for some of its impacts. Canal sections in

subsidence-prone areas were designed with extra freeboard,

and structures crossing the canal (such as bridges) were

designed to allow them to be raised later. Even so, continued

subsidence along the aqueduct alignment creates the need

for canal lining repairs and reduces the canal’s capacity in

places.

Land Subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley

San Joaquin Valley land subsidence was observed as early

as the 1920s. The rate of subsidence increased significantly

in the post-WWII era as groundwater extraction increased.

Subsidence was especially noticeable along parts of the west

side of the valley, where land that had been used for grazing

or dry farming was converted to irrigated agriculture. By 1970,

5,200 square miles in the valley had subsided more than 1

foot. Between 1920 and 1970, a maximum of 28 feet of

subsidence was measured at one location southwest of

Mendota. In the years since 1970, the rate of subsidence has

declined because surface water was imported to the area.

An increase in subsidence occurred during the 1976-77 and

1987-92 droughts, when groundwater extraction increased due

to reductions in SWP and CVP supplies. Recent increases in

subsidence are the result of increased groundwater extractions

to compensate for water supply deficiencies caused by BayDelta export restrictions, ESA requirements, and CVPIA.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-53 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

confirmed the right of cities and counties to adopt

local regulations concerning groundwater. Moreover,

the Baldwin decision confirmed that Tehama County

has general police power to regulate groundwater and

water transfers, and that counties are free to adopt local

ordinances that do not conflict with State legislative

mandates. The following counties have ordinances

regulating groundwater: Butte, Glenn, Imperial, San

Benito, San Joaquin, Tuolumne, and Tehama. At

least three other counties (Shasta, Sutter, and Yolo)

have developed ordinances, or are in the process of

developing ordinances, to regulate indirect transfers

of groundwater resulting from groundwater

substitution programs.

Basin Adjudication. In California’s adjudicated

groundwater basins, groundwater extraction is regulated

or administered by a court-appointed watermaster. The

court retains jurisdiction over the judgment, so parties

can appeal to the court to resolve disputes related to

their adjudicated rights. The groundwater that each well

owner may extract is determined by the court decision

as administered by the watermaster. While each court

decision may be different, the common goal is to avoid

groundwater overdraft. Table 3-16 shows a list of

adjudicated basins. Also see Figure 3-28.

While not listed in Table 3-16, groundwater and

surface water have also been adjudicated in the Santa

Margarita River Watershed in Riverside and San

Diego Counties. Water users are required by the court

decision to report to the court-appointed watermaster

the amount of groundwater they extract from the aquifer

and the amount of surface water they divert from

the river, canals, or ditches. However, groundwater

extraction is not limited by the decision.

Water Marketing

In recent years, water marketing has received

increasing attention as a tool for addressing statewide

imbalances between water supply and water use.

Experience with water markets during and since the

1987-92 drought bolstered interest in utilizing

marketing as a local and statewide water supply

augmentation option. While water marketing

does allow water agencies to purchase additional water

supply reliability during both average and drought

years, water marketing does not create new water.

Therefore, water markets alone cannot meet

California’s long-term water supply needs. A discussion

on the use of marketing to meet future statewide water

needs is provided in Chapter 6.

Definition of Water Marketing

In this update of the California Water Plan, water

marketing may include:

• A permanent sale of a water right by the water

right holder.

• A lease from the water right holder (who retains

the water right), allowing the lessee to use the

water under specified conditions over a specified

period of time.

• A sale or lease of a contractual right to water supply.

Under this arrangement, the ability of the holder

to transfer a contractual water right is usually conSeawater Intrusion in Orange County

Orange County Water District was formed in 1933 to

protect and manage the groundwater basin that underlies the

northwest half of the county. Groundwater supplies about

75 percent of OCWD’s total water demand. As the county

developed, increased groundwater extractions resulted in a

gradual lowering of the water table. By 1956, years of heavy

pumping to sustain the region’s agricultural economy had

lowered the water table below sea level, and saltwater from the

ocean had encroached as far as 5 miles inland. The area of seawater

intrusion is primarily along 4 miles of coast between Newport

Beach and Huntington Beach known as the Talbert Gap.

To prevent further seawater intrusion, OCWD operates a

hydraulic barrier. A series of 23 multi-point injection wells 4

miles inland delivers fresh water into the underground aquifer

to form a water mound, blocking further passage of seawater.

Water supply for the Talbert Barrier is produced at OCWD’s

Water Factory 21. The supply is a blend of recycled water and

groundwater pumped from a deep aquifer zone that is not

subject to seawater intrusion. The first blended recycled water

from the plant was injected into the barrier in October 1976.

Water Factory 21 recycles about 10 mgd and, with the

deep well water used for blending, produces about 15 mgd.

OCWD has applied for and has received a permit to modify

the treatment process to allow for injection of 100 percent

recycled water, eliminating the use of deep well water for

blending. The plant’s current treatment includes chemical

clarification, recarbonation, multi-media filtration, granular

activated carbon, reverse osmosis, chlorination, and blending.

The blended injection water has a total dissolved solids

content of 500 mg/L or lower, and meets DHS primary and

secondary drinking water standards.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-54

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Siskiyou Modoc

Humboldt

Trinity

Shasta

Tehama

Glenn

Lake

Sonoma

Colusa

Butte

Yuba Sutter

Nevada

Sierra

Sacramento

Yolo

Napa

Solano

Placer

El Dorado

Amador

Alpine

Mono

Mariposa

Merced

Madera

San

Benito

Monterey

Fresno

Inyo

Tulare

Kings

San Luis

Obispo Kern

Ventura Los Angeles

San Bernardino

Orange Riverside

San Diego Imperial

Santa Barbara

Calaveras

San

Joaquin Contra

Costa

Alameda

Santa

Clara

Santa

 Cruz

San

Mateo

Marin

San Francisco

Tuolumne

Stanislaus

Mendocino

Lassen

Plumas

Del

Norte

FIGURE 3-28

Adjudicated Groundwater Basins

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-55 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

tingent upon receiving approval from the supplier.

An example of this type of arrangement is a sale or

lease by a water agency that receives its supply from

the CVP, SWP, or other water wholesaler.

Water marketing is not an actual statewide source

of water, but rather is a means to reallocate existing

supplies. Therefore, marketing is not explicitly itemized

as a source of water supply from existing facilities and

programs in the Bulletin 160 water budgets. (Water

marketing agreements in place by 1995 are considered to

be existing programs and are implicitly part of the water

budgets.) Water marketing is identified as a potential

water supply augmentation option in the Bulletin 160

water budgets (see Chapter 6). Potential water

marketing options have several characteristics that must

be captured in the water budgets incorporating supplies

from future management options. For example,

through changes in place of use, water marketing options

can reallocate supplies from one hydrologic region to

another. And through changes in type of use, water

marketing options can reallocate supplies from one

water use sector to another. Finally, for a given place

and type of use, water marketing options can reallocate

supplies between average years and drought years.

A transfer of water through a local exchange is not

defined as water marketing in this update of Bulletin

160. Water exchanges between individual water users

within a water district are common in drought years,

and such transfers are becoming increasingly common,

even in average years. Water exchanges between users

within a district normally do not require approval from

the SWRCB because a change in the place of use,

purpose of use, or point of diversion does not occur.

Water banking, where water is physically banked

or stored without a change in ownership, is also not

defined as water marketing in this Bulletin. For example,

Warren Act contracts, where local agencies contract

with USBR for storage or conveyance of non-project

TABLE 3-16

California Adjudicated Groundwater Basins and Watermasters

County Basin Watermaster

Los Angeles Central DWR

West Coast DWR

Upper Los Angeles River Area Superior Court appointee

Raymond Raymond Basin Management Board

Main San Gabriela Nine-member board

Puente Three appointees

Kern Cummings Tehachapi-Cummings Water District

Tehachapi Tehachapi-Cummings Water District

San Bernardino Warren Valley Hi-Desert Water District

San Bernardino Basin Area One representative each from Western

Municipal Water

District of Riverside County and

San Bernardino Valley Municipal

Water District

Cucamonga Cucamonga County Water District and

San Antonio Water Company

Mojave Basin Area Mojave Water Agency

Riverside and Chino Nine-member board

San Bernardino

Riverside and San Diego Santa Margarita River Watershed District Court appointee

Siskiyou Scott River Stream System Two irrigation districts

Ventura Santa Paula Three-person Technical Advisory Committee

a

 The watermaster for Main San Gabriel Basin has returned to court and obtained approval of regulations to control extraction for protecting groundwater quality.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-56

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

water in federal facilities, only involve the rental of

facilities for storage or conveyance. On the other hand,

if a water banking agreement does involve a change in

ownership, it is defined as water marketing in this

Bulletin. For example, an agreement between

MWDSC and Semitropic Water Storage District allows

MWDSC access to 35 percent of SWSD’s groundwater

storage capacity. According to the agreement,

MWDSC may store a portion of its SWP entitlement

water for later withdrawal and delivery to its service area.

Alternatively, SWSD could exchange a portion of its

SWP entitlement water for MWDSC’s stored water.

Short-Term Agreements

Short-term agreements have made up the majority

of water marketing arrangements in recent years.

Short-term agreements (less than one year) can be an

effective means of alleviating the most severe drought

year impacts. Short-term agreements can be executed

on the spot market; however, water purveyors are

increasingly interested in negotiating longer-term

agreements for drought year transfers. In such future

agreements, specific water supply conditions may be

the triggers to determine whether water would be

transferred in a specific year.

Two examples of programs for acquiring water

through short-term agreements are the Drought

Water Bank and the CVPIA interim water acquisition

program. These programs are discussed below. Beyond

these programs, data on short-term water marketing

arrangements are difficult to locate and verify. Agreements executed for less than one year do not need

SWRCB approval (unless there is a change in place of

use or point of diversion) and thus are not tracked by

outside entities. Data are also difficult to evaluate, as it

is often difficult to distinguish between exchanges and

marketing arrangements.

Drought Water Bank. In 1991, after four consecutive years of drought, the Governor signed an executive order establishing a Drought Action Team. The

first emergency drought water bank was created in response to the team’s recommendations. The Department operated the DWB in coordination with other

agencies, including USBR, SWRCB, DFG, and local governments. DWB’s primary role was to purchase water

from willing sellers and sell it to entities with critical

needs. Sellers made water available to DWB by fallowing farmland, releasing surplus reservoir storage,

and by substituting groundwater for surface supplies.

During 1991, the DWB purchased about 820 taf

of water under more than 300 short-term agreements.

About half of that water came from fallowing agreements. About 30 percent came from groundwater

substitution arrangements made with participating

farmers and water districts. The remainder of the

water came from reservoir storage.

The 1991 DWB experience and contracts provided

a basis for administration of the 1992 DWB. In 1992,

the Department purchased about 190 taf of water, with

80 percent from groundwater substitution contracts and

20 percent from reservoir storage. No land fallowing

contracts were executed. These conditions allowed the

1992 DWB to operate at a significantly reduced cost

for water. As with the 1991 DWB, the 1992 DWB

was able to acquire sufficient water to meet the critical

needs of all participants.

Drawing on the 1991 and 1992 DWB experiences,

the Department completed a programmatic environmental impact report that evaluated different types of

water marketing. The final EIR, released in 1993,

covered future drought water bank programs intended

to meet water demands during drought periods over

the next 5 to 10 years, on an as-needed basis. The

program is a water purchase and allocation program

whereby the Department will purchase water from

willing sellers and market the water to buyers under

specific critical needs allocation guidelines.

The DWB program would be implemented as

needed for a particular year upon an executive order

of the Governor, a decision by the Secretary for

Resources, or upon a finding by the Department’s

Director that drought or other unanticipated conditions

exist that would significantly curtail water deliveries.

The program would continue to operate until water

supplies returned to noncritical levels.

In 1994, the Department reactivated the DWB

and also initiated a short-term water purchase program

for SWP contractors. More than 170 taf of water was

delivered to cities and farms throughout the State.

About 115 taf was delivered from the DWB and 58

taf was delivered from the short-term water purchase

program. A comparison of the three DWBs is shown

in Table 3-17.

The Department began to organize a 1995 DWB

in September 1994, anticipating another drought year.

By mid-November, water agencies had signed contracts

with the Department to purchase water from DWB

for critical needs. The Department established DWB in

an inactive status, with the intent of activating it if 1995

precipitation was below normal. While in inactive

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-57 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

TABLE 3-17

Drought Water Bank Purchases and Allocations (taf)

1991 1992 1994a

Supply

Purchases 821 193 222

Delta and instream fish requirements (165) (34) (48)

Net supply 656 159 174

Allocation

Urban 307 39 24

Agricultural 83 95 150

Environmental — 25 —

SWP Carryover 266 — —

Total Allocation 656 159 174

Selling Price ($/af)b 175 72 68

a Includes deliveries for the SWP.

b Price to buyers south of the Delta at Banks Pumping Plant. Includes the cost of the water, adjustments for carriage losses and

administrative charges. Does

not include transportation charges which have ranged from $15 to $200 /af, depending onthe point of delivery and other factors.

status, DWB purchased options on 29 taf of water

from five willing sellers. As a result of an abundance

of precipitation and snowpack throughout California

in 1995, the DWB was not activated and the

Department did not exercise the acquired options.

Despite the success of the DWB, it is a contingency or drought management supply option. The

program does not provide a permanent water supply.

Based upon past experience, future State-operated

DWBs might be able to reallocate about 250 taf/yr of

supplies during droughts. Future ESA listings and other

actions that would reduce the ability to convey water

through the Delta could reduce the amount of water

available from the DWB.

CVP Interim Water Acquisition Program. Shortterm water marketing arrangements have provided supplies to meet CVPIA fish and wildlife water requirements.

An interim water acquisition program was established

to acquire water while long-term planning for supplemental fishery water acquisition and refuge water

supply acquisition continued. The program, a joint

effort by USBR and USFWS, was to be in place from

October 1995 through February 1998, as initially envisioned in its environmental documentation. A 1995

environmental assessment and finding of no significant

impact for the interim program addressed the regional

impacts associated with four categories of water

acquisition. The four categories were:

• Acquisition of up to 13.1 taf/yr of water for

wildlife refuges in the Sacramento Valley;

• Acquisition of up to 45 cfs of water on Battle Creek

for spawning and migration of winter- and springrun chinook salmon and steelhead trout;

• Acquisition of up to 52.4 taf/yr of water for wildlife

refuges within the San Joaquin Valley; and

• Acquisition of up to 100 taf/yr of water on each

of the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced Rivers

to meet instream flows for anadromous fish and

to help meet Bay-Delta flow and water quality

requirements on the San Joaquin River.

Table 3-18 summarizes water purchases made

under the program.

Long-Term Agreements

Table 3-19 presents several long-term agreements

completed in recent years. Long-term agreements

currently being negotiated are presented as future

water management options and are discussed in Chapter 6.

One of the terms in the SWP’s Monterey Agreement was that agricultural contractors would make

130 taf of SWP annual entitlement available through

permanent sale to urban contractors (on a willing

buyer-willing seller basis). In 1997, KCWA

concluded sale of 25 taf to MWA. KCWA is also in

the process of selling up to 7 taf of annual entitlement

to Zone 7 WA. Entitlement transfers among CVP contractors are also taking place. In 1997, USBR completed an environmental assessment for a proposed

long-term, 25-year transfer of 25 taf/yr of water from

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-58

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Westside Water District to the CCWD.

Banking project water outside of an SWP

contractor’s service area for later use within its service

area is also provided for in the Monterey Agreement.

Semitropic WSD has developed a groundwater storage

program with 1 maf of storage capacity. Under this

program, an SWP contractor may negotiate an

agreement with SWSD to deliver SWP water to

SWSD for in-lieu groundwater recharge. At the

contractor’s request, groundwater would be extracted

and delivered to the California Aqueduct, or otherwise

exchanged for entitlement. Currently, MWDSC and

SCVWD each have long-term agreements with

SWSD for 350 taf of storage, Alameda County Water

District has an agreement for 50 taf and Z7WA has

an agreement for 43 taf.

In addition to the MWDSC-IID water conservation agreement shown in Table 3-19 (described in

Chapter 9), MWDSC has executed an agreement for

groundwater banking in Arizona. Under an existing

agreement between MWDSC and the Central Arizona

Water Conservation District, MWDSC can store a

limited amount of unused Colorado River water in

Arizona for future use. The Southern Nevada Water

Authority is also participating in the program. The

agreement stipulates that MWDSC and SNWA can

store up to 300 taf in central Arizona any time before

2001. To date, MWDSC has placed 89 taf of water in

storage and SNWA has placed 50 taf of water in storage

for a total of 139 taf. About 90 percent of the stored

water can be recovered, contingent upon the declaration

of surplus conditions on the Colorado River. When

TABLE 3-18

CVP Interim Water Acquisition Program Purchases

Water Purchases (taf)

Seller 1995 1996 1997 Purpose

Pacific Gas and Electric 8.4 12.3 9.2 Battle Creek instream flow

Oakdale & South San Joaquin IDs — — 50.0 Stanislaus and lower San Joaquin River

instream flows

Modesto ID — — 5.0 Tuolumne and lower San Joaquin River

instream flows

Merced ID — 16.2 45.3 Merced and lower San Joaquin River

instream flows

SJR Exchange Contractors 25.0 30.3 40.0 Level 4 refuge supply; lower San Joaquin

River instream flows

Semitropic WSD 5.2 4.3 — Level 4 refuge supply

Yuba County WA — — 25.0 Level 4 refuge supply

Corning, Proberta, & Thomes Creek WDs — — 4.8 Level 4 refuge supply

Total 38.6 63.1 179.3

TABLE 3-19

Recently Completed Long-Term Water Marketing Agreements

Participants Region(s)

Westside Water District, Colusa County Water District Sacramento River

Semitropic Water Storage District, Santa Clara Valley Water District Tulare Lake, San Francisco Bay

Semitropic Water Storage District, Alameda County Water District Tulare Lake, San Francisco Bay

Semitropic Water Storage District, Zone 7 Water Agency Tulare Lake, San Francisco Bay

Semitropic Water Storage District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Tulare Lake, South Coast

Kern County Water Agency, Mojave Water Agency Tulare Lake, South Lahontan

Arvin-Edison Water Storage District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Tulare Lake, South Coast

Mojave Water Agency, Solano County Water Agency South Lahontan, San Francisco Bay

Imperial Irrigation District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Colorado River, South Coast

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-59 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Water supplied by the City of San Luis Obispo’s water

reclamation plant is used to provide instream flows in San

Luis Obispo Creek.

MWDSC is able to draw on this source, it can divert

up to a maximum of 15 taf in any one month. The

stored water would be made available to MWDSC by

Arizona foregoing the use of part of its normal supply

from the Central Arizona Project. MWDSC plans to

recover the stored water at times in the future when its

Colorado River Aqueduct diversions may be limited.

Water Recycling

and Desalting Supplies

Water recycling is the intentional treatment and

management of wastewater to produce water suitable

for reuse. Several factors affect the amount of wastewater

treatment plant effluent that local agencies are able to

recycle, including the size of the available market and

the seasonality of demands. Local agencies must plan

their facilities based on the amount of treatment plant

effluent available and the range of expected service area

demands. In areas where irrigation uses constitute the

majority of recycled water demands, winter and summer

demands may vary greatly. (Where recycled water is

used for groundwater recharge, seasonal demands are

more constant throughout the year.) Also, since water

recycling projects are often planned to supply certain

types of customers, the proximity of these customers

to each other and to available pipeline distribution

systems affects the economic viability of potential

recycling projects.

Technology available today allows many municipal

wastewater treatment systems to produce water supplies

at competitive costs. More stringent treatment

requirements for disposal of municipal and industrial

wastewater have reduced the incremental cost for

higher levels of treatment required for recycled water.

The degree of additional treatment depends on the

intended use. Recycled water is used for agricultural

and landscape irrigation, groundwater recharge, and

industrial and environmental uses. Some uses are

required to meet more stringent standards for public

health protection. An example is the City of San Diego’s

planned 18 mgd wastewater repurification facility.

This project (described in Chapter 5) would produce

about 16 taf/yr of repurified water to augment local

municipal supplies. If implemented, the project

would be California’s first indirect potable reuse

project that discharges treated water directly into a

surface reservoir without percolation or injection into

a groundwater basin.

The use of recycled water can lessen the demand

for new water supply. However, not all water recycling

produces new water supply. Bulletin 160 counts water that would otherwise be lost to the State’s hydrologic system (i.e., water discharged directly to the ocean

or to another salt sink) as recycled water supply. If

water recycling creates a new demand which would

not otherwise exist, or if it treats water that would

have otherwise been reapplied by downstream entities

or recharged to usable groundwater, it is not considered new water supply. Water recycling also provides multiple benefits such as reduced wastewater discharge

and improved water quality and may be implemented

for these purposes in addition to water supply.

Water Recycling Status

 The Department, in coordination with the

WateReuse Association of California, conducted a

survey of 1995 water recycling to update the

association’s 1993 survey of local agencies’ planned

water recycling. The 1993 survey was used in Bulletin

160-93 to estimate recycling potential. Bulletin

160-98 uses 1995 data. The 1993 survey had 111

respondents. The 1995 survey had 230 respondents.

Survey data are provided in Appendix 3A.

The survey analyzed three levels of project development—base, planned, and conceptual. Projects

in the conceptual stage are not yet defined and are

deferred in this Bulletin from further evaluation. Total

water recycling in 1995 is estimated to be 485 taf/yr,

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-60

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

with 323 taf/yr being new water supply. (The survey

reported 450 taf/yr of base water recycling. While

most agencies responded, not all water recycling was

reported and data from the survey were augmented by

additional data where available.) As shown in Table 3-

20, recycling projects do not generate new water

supply in the State’s interior regions. In these

regions, treated water from recycling projects would

otherwise be used by downstream entities or would

be recharged to usable groundwater.

The 1993 survey respondents reported plans to

recycle more than 650 taf/yr of water by 1995. This level

of recycling did not materialize. The most obvious reason

for the shortfall between 1993 projections for 1995 and

the actual 1995 recycling was because the 1993 survey

was administered when the memory of the 1987-92

drought was vivid. When asked about factors that

influence water recycling decisions, respondents reported

that “memory of the last drought” and “concern over

long-term supply” were most likely to influence recycling

decisions. Financial problems and the recession were

identified as least likely to affect recycling decisions in

the 1995 survey. Existing use of recycled water is shown

by category in Table 3-21.

Water Recycling Potential

By 2020, total water recycling is expected to increase

from 485 taf/yr to 577 taf/yr, due to greater production

at existing treatment plants and new production at plants

currently under construction. This base production is

expected to increase new water supplies from 323 taf/yr

to 407 taf/yr. All new recycled water is expected to be

produced in the San Francisco Bay, Central Coast, and

South Coast regions. Table 3-22 shows projections of

potential water recycling options and resulting new water supply based on the 1995 survey.

By 2020, water recycling options could bring

total water recycling potential to over 1.4 maf/yr and

could generate as much as 1.1 maf/yr of new supply, if

water agencies implemented all projects identified

in the survey. Future water recycling options are

discussed in Chapter 6 and in the regional chapters.

Seawater Desalting

Total seawater desalting capacity is currently about

8 taf/yr statewide. Most existing plants are small (less

than 1 taf/yr) and have been constructed in coastal

communities with limited water supplies. The Santa

Barbara desalting plant, with capacity of 7.5 taf/yr, is

currently the only large seawater desalting plant. The

plant was constructed during the 1987-92 drought and

is now on long-term standby. In the 1995-level water

budget, 8 taf of seawater desalting is included as a

drought year supply. In the 2020-level water budget,

8 taf of seawater desalting is included as average and

drought year supplies.

Water Quality

A critical factor in determining the usability and

reliability of any particular water source is water

quality. Water has many potential uses and the water

quality requirements for each use vary. The quality

TABLE 3-20

1995 and 2020 Level Water Recycling by Hydrologic Region (taf)

With Existing Facilities and Programs

1995 2020

Region Total Water New Water Total Water New Water

Recycling Supply Recycling Supply

North Coast 13 13 13 13

San Francisco Bay 40 35 42 37

Central Coast 19 18 36 34

South Coast 263 207 331 273

Sacramento River 12 0 15 0

San Joaquin River 37 0 39 0

Tulare Lake 51 0 51 0

North Lahontan 8888

South Lahontan 27 27 27 27

Colorado River 15 15 15 15

Total 485 323 577 407

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-61 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

needed to irrigate landscaping, for example, is lower

than that required for human consumption or for

making computer chips. Sometimes, different water

uses may have conflicting water quality requirements.

Water temperatures ideal for crop irrigation may be

unsuitable for fish spawning.

Overview of Pollutants and Stressors Causing

Water Quality Impairment

Mineralization. When water passes over and

through soils, it picks up soluble minerals (salts) that

are the result of natural processes such as geologic

weathering. As the water passes through a watershed

and is used for various purposes, concentrations of

dissolved minerals and salts in the water increase, a

process called mineralization. For example, Sierra

Nevada streams typically pick up 20 to 50 mg/L of

dissolved minerals from the valley floors on their way

to the Pacific Ocean, which is equivalent to about 50

to 140 pounds of salts per acre-foot. An acre-foot of

water with total dissolved solids of 736 mg/L (a concentration typical of water in the lower Colorado River)

contains one ton of salt. Increased concentrations of

San Francisco’s Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct system develops its water supply from the Sierra Nevada at Yosemite National Park.

High elevation Sierra sources typically have low levels of mineralization. Hetch Hetchy water may be stored in Crystal Springs

Reservoir on the San Francisco Peninsula where public access and land use are managed to protect water quality.

TABLE 3-21

1995 Level Total Water Recycling by Category

Category Amount Percent of

(taf) Total

Agricultural Irrigation 155 32

Groundwater Recharge 131 27

Landscape Irrigation 82 17

Industrial Uses 34 7

Environmental Uses 15 3

Seawater Intrusion Barrier 5 1

Othera 63 13

Total 485 100

a

 Includes snow making, dust suppression, fire fighting and

 recreational ponds.

TABLE 3-22

2020 Level Total Water Recycling and

New Water Supply (taf)

Projects Total New Water

Water Recycling Supply

Base 577 407

Options 835 655

Total 1,412 1,062

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-62

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

minerals can result from both urban and agricultural

water uses.

In the Delta, the export location for much of

California’s water supply, sea water intrusion is a major

source of mineralization. Sea water intrusion in the Delta

elevates the salinity (particularly the concentrations of

sodium, chloride, and bromide) of fresher river water

entering the Delta. Bromides are of particular concern

because they contribute to formation of disinfection

by-products when the water is treated for drinking. The

impact of sea water intrusion is especially significant

during periods of low river flows. For example during

the 1987-92 drought, the average TDS concentration

in the lower Sacramento River was 108 mg/L. In the

lower San Joaquin River, the average was 519 mg/L,

and at Banks Pumping Plant, the southern Delta

export location of the SWP, the average was 310 mg/L.

During the wetter years from 1993 to 1995, the average

TDS concentration in the lower Sacramento River

was 98 mg/L, while the average TDS was 342 mg/L

in the lower San Joaquin River and 236 mg/L at Banks

Pumping Plant.

Some water agencies south of the Delta blend

Delta water supplies with other more saline water. Elevated TDS levels limit agencies’ ability to recycle water. Agencies must meet customer objectives for TDS

and comply with discharge requirements. Increased

TDS levels may limit their ability to do so. Agencies’

ability to store water for future use through groundwater recharge or conjunctive use programs depends

on the TDS of the source water. RWQCB basin plans

generally require that water used for recharge not

degrade existing groundwater quality. Increased TDS

levels increase salt loadings to groundwater basins and

may ultimately limit the use of the existing groundwater.

Eutrophication. Eutrophication results when

nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus are added

to surface waters. In the presence of sunlight, algae

and other microscopic organisms use the available

nutrients to increase their populations. Slightly or

moderately eutrophic water can support a complex web

of plant and animal life. However, water containing

high concentrations of microorganisms is undesirable

for drinking water and other needs. Some microorganisms can produce compounds that, while not

directly harmful to human health, may cause taste and

odor problems in drinking water.

Eutrophication is of great concern at Lake Tahoe,

where stringent regulatory controls have been imposed

to maintain the lake’s unique clarity or halt its decline.

The lake is in the early stages of eutrophication and, if

it continues, the lake’s clarity will be significantly

reduced in 20 to 40 years. Development of the basin’s

erodible land, as well as construction of highways,

streets, and logging roads, mobilizes phosphorous

and nitrogen compounds deposited in the lake,

spurring algae growth. Algae and suspended sediments cloud the lake and reduce its transparency.

The combination of the lake’s large volume and the

low inflow relative to volume aggravates the impacts

of phosphorous and nitrogen loading because there

is virtually no flushing action.

Temperature and Turbidity. Temperature is important to aquatic organisms and has been especially

of concern for salmonid spawning in rivers such as

the Sacramento River. Turbidity also affects aquatic

organisms and water treatment plant operations.

Significant turbidity increases are observed in rivers

and streams during periods of high storm runoff.

Phytoplankton abundance is affected by increased

turbidity, and increased turbidity requires increased

chemical addition or changes in operation of water

treatment plants.

Abandoned Mines. Runoff from abandoned

mines is a major source of heavy metals such as nickel,

silver, chromium, lead, copper, zinc, cadmium, mercury, and arsenic in surface waters. Iron Mountain

Mine on Spring Creek above Keswick Reservoir on the

Sacramento River and Penn Mine above Camanche

Reservoir on the Mokelumne River are examples of

abandoned mines that drain into major watersheds.

Historically, periodic fish kills occurred at these sites

when acidic mine drainage with elevated levels of heavy

metals flowed into surface waters. Remedial actions

have been in various stages of progress at these sites for

many years. Concentration of heavy metals well below levels of concern for humans can be acutely toxic

to aquatic species. Much of the heavy metals loading in the Sacramento River is thought to come from

abandoned mines in the upper watershed. In the

drought years of 1991 and 1992, the CVP contributed 125 taf of water to dilute this metals loading.

Pathogens. Cryptosporidium parvum outbreaks

have been documented in many places throughout the

world. Table 3-23 lists some of the most significant

outbreaks documented in recent years. In 1993,

approximately 403,000 persons in Milwaukee,

Wisconsin, became ill from cryptosporidiosis (the

disease caused by Cryptosporidium) in their water

supply. Approximately 100 deaths resulted from this

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
3-63 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

outbreak. The suspected sources of Cryptosporidium

were cattle wastes, slaughterhouse wastes, and sewage

carried by rivers tributary to Lake Michigan, the drinking water source. This outbreak was associated with

operational deficiencies in the water treatment plant

and presents a compelling example of the importance

of maintaining the quality of source waters.

More significantly, the 1994 Cryptosporidium

outbreak in Las Vegas, Nevada was the first documented epidemiologically-confirmed waterborne

outbreak from a water system with no associated

treatment deficiencies or breakdowns. During this

outbreak, 78 immunocompromised persons became

ill of cryptosporidiosis, even when no Cryptosporidium

was detected in the treated drinking water.

State and federal surface water treatment rules

require that all surface water supplied for drinking

receive filtration, high level disinfection, or both, to

inactivate or remove viruses and protozoan cysts such

as Giardia lamblia. However, if a water supply meets

certain source water quality criteria and a watershed

management program exists to provide protection

against these pathogens, the public water purveyor may

receive an exemption from filtration requirements.

The City and County of San Francisco is currently

the only California water retailer exempted from

filtration requirements.

Besides Giardia and Cryptosporidium, there are

many other disease-causing viruses, bacteria, and

protozoans. Table 3-24 lists some waterborne diseases

of concern in the United States.

Disinfection By-Products. As water passes over

and through soils, it also dissolves organic compounds

(including humic and fulvic acids) present in the soil as

a result of plant decay. High levels of these compounds

can be present in drainage from wooded or heavily

vegetated areas and from soils high in organic content.

Chlorine, when used as a disinfectant in drinking

water treatment, reacts with these organic compounds

to form DBPs such as trihalomethanes and haloacetic

acids. Where present, bromide enters the reaction to

produce bromine-containing DBPs. Table 3-25 lists

some potential DBPs, or chemical classes of DBPs,

which may be produced during disinfection of drinking

water. A maximum contaminant level for total THMs

for drinking water has been established by EPA and by

DHS, in accordance with the federal and State Safe

Drinking Water Acts. The current MCL for total THMs

in drinking water is 0.10 mg/L; no MCL for haloacetic

acids is currently in effect. Under EPA’s proposed

TABLE 3-23

Significant Cryptosporidium Outbreaks

Year Location Reported Cases Reported Deaths

1984 Braun Station, Texas 2,000 —

1987 Carrollton, Georgia 13,000 —

1989 Thames River area, England 100,000 —

1992 Jackson County, Oregon 15,000 —

1993 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 403,000 100

1994 Las Vegas, Nevada 78 16

TABLE 3-24

Some Waterborne Diseases of Concern in the United States

Disease Microbial Agent

Amebiasis Protozoan (Entamoeba histolytica)

Campylobacteriosis Bacterium (Campylobacter jejuni)

Cholera Bacterium (Vibrio cholerae)

Cryptosporidiosis Protozoan (Cryptosporidium parvum)

Giardiasis Protozoan (Giardia lamblia)

Hepatitis Virus (hepatitis A)

Shigellosis Bacterium (Shigella species)

Typhoid Fever Bacterium (Salmonella typhi)

Viral Gastroenteritis Viruses (Norwalk, rotavirus, and other types)

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES 3-64

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Disinfectant/Disinfection By-Product Rule, the

maximum contaminant level for THMs will be

lowered from 0.1 to 0.08 mg/L in Stage 1 and to 0.04

mg/L in Stage 2. Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the rule are

to be promulgated in November 1998 and May 2002,

respectively. Stage 1 of the rule also requires conventional surface water treatment systems to remove a

percentage of the DBP precursors in the influent (as

measured by TOC). A new MCL of 0.06 mg/L for

haloacetic acids is also expected to become effective

in late 1998.

Ozone is a powerful oxidant widely used for drinking water disinfection. Its advantages are that it efficiently

kills pathogens such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium,

destroys tastes and odors, and minimizes production of

THMs and most other unwanted DBPs. However,

bromate is formed during ozone disinfection of waters

containing bromide. EPA estimates that bromate may

be a more potent carcinogen than THMs and haloacetic

acids. A new MCL of 0.01 mg/L for bromate is

expected to be effective in late 1998.

Agricultural Pollutants. Pollutants from agricultural areas are generally of the nonpoint variety, meaning their sources are usually diffuse and are not readily

subject to control. Agricultural runoff may contain

chemical residues, trace elements, salts, nutrients, and

elevated concentrations of organic compounds which

may be converted to DBPs in drinking water. Pathogens from dairies and livestock operations can enter

waterways through agricultural runoff. Sediments from

land tillage and forestry activities can enter waterways,

obstructing water flow and affecting the survival and

reproduction of fish and other aquatic organisms.

Drainage from some agricultural lands in the San

Joaquin Valley contains high concentrations of salts

and sometimes concentrations of pesticides and trace

elements. This water quality problem is exacerbated

when salts are recirculated as Delta water is delivered

to the San Joaquin Valley to irrigate agricultural lands,

and then is returned to the Delta through the San

Joaquin River.

The TOC level of water is generally a good indication of its propensity to form DBPs during water

treatment. Rivers passing through the Delta pick up

organic matter, due to the contribution of agricultural

drainage from peat soils. As Sacramento River water

passes through the Delta, its THM formation potential

increases almost threefold by the time it reaches Banks

Pumping Plant.

Urban Pollutants. Urban pollutants can come

from both point and nonpoint sources. Nonpoint

sources of pollution include recreational activities,

drainage from industrial sites, runoff from streets and

highways, discharges from other land surfaces, and

aerial deposition. In California, storm water runoff, a

major source of nonpoint source pollution, is regulated

by SWRCB on behalf of EPA.

Municipal and industrial wastewater discharges are

point sources of urban pollution. Most industries in

California discharge to a publicly-owned wastewater

treatment plant and only indirectly to the environment.

These industries are required to pretreat their industrial

waste prior to its discharge to municipal wastewater

treatment plants. Like municipal discharges, industrial

discharges are subject to regulation through the

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

Industries discharging directly into the environment

are also required to have NPDES permits. California’s

TABLE 3-25

Disinfectants and Disinfection By-Products

Disinfectant Potential DBPs or

Classes of DBPs

Chlorine Trihalomethanes

Halogenated acids

Haloacetonitriles

Halogenated aldehydes

Halogenated ketones

Chloropicrin

Chlorinated phenols

Chloramine Trihalomethanes

Halogenated acids

Haloacetonitriles

Halogenated aldehydes

Halogenated ketones

Chloropicrin

Chlorinated phenols

Cyanogen chloride

Ozone Bromate

Brominated acids

Formaldehyde

Acetaldehyde

Other aldehydes

Carboxylic acids

Hydrogen peroxide

Chlorine dioxide Chlorite

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A