1-1 I NTRODUCTION The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98



# 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. 

# Introduction1-2 INTRODUCTION The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 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 ofCalifornia’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 byCalifornia water managers could reduce the gap between supplies and demands. The evaluation does notpresent potential measures to reduce all shortages statewide to zero in 2020. Such an approach would notreflect 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 tozero. Bulletin 160-98 focuses on compiling those options that appear to have a reasonable chance of beingimplemented 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 representthe difference between water supplies and water demands.) The magnitude of shortages shown fordrought conditions in the base year reflects the cutbacks in supply experienced by California water users during the recent six-year drought. Bulletin 160-98forecasts 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 and1-3 I NTRODUCTION The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

lands set aside for public use and enjoyment, including 18 national forests, 23 units of the national parksystem, 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 (MountWhitney) and lowest (Death Valley) points in the contiguous United States are located not far from eachother 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 inCalifornia. During the time period covered in the Bulletin (the 25 years from 1995 to 2020), California’spopulation is forecast to increase by more than 15 million people, the equivalent of adding the presentpopulations 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. F IGURE 1-1.
California in Relation to the United States1-4 INTRODUCTION The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

Despite the State’s increasing human population, many species of wildlife still call California home. Some of the largeranimal 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 andCommerce 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 primaryU.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 F IGURE 1-2. California’s Expected Population Growth Versus Neighboring States’ Populations1-5 I NTRODUCTION The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

Central Valley Klamath Mountains

Modoc Plateau

Sierra Nevada

Great Basin

Mojave Desert

Colorado River Desert Peninsular Ranges Transverse Ranges Coast Range Cascade RangeCalifornia is a state of diverse climates and landforms. Figure 1-3 is a relief map of California illustrating the State’s major geomorphic provinces. Inroughly 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 andHawaii. 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 400␣ miles 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 atthe 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.

F IGURE 1-3. Relief Map of California1-6 INTRODUCTION The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 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 bythe 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 SanAndreas 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 faultblock 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 theDepartment’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 ZabriskiePoint. 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 1986 a 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 1987.1-7 I NTRODUCTION The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 Tahoe Clear Lake Whiskeytown Lake F IGURE 1-4. California’s Major Water Projects1-8 INTRODUCTION The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

sidebars highlight California’s largest waterbodies and provide information on historic water deliveries byCalifornia’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 isthe 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 YCFCWCD b

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.

bYolo 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) 6,4421-9 I NTRODUCTION The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

North Coast

Sacramento River

San Joaquin River San Francisco Bay

Central Coast Tulare Lake

South Lahontan

South Coast Colorado River North Lahontan F IGURE 1-5. California’s Hydrologic Regions1-10 INTRODUCTION The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

Bulletin 160 analyses begin at the DAU level, and theresults 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 aperiod 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’ rolesin 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 resourcesprograms include deficit reduction goals for the federal budget and voter approval of Proposition 218, a measure to limit the ability of local governments tolevy 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.1-11 I NTRODUCTION The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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
19941-12 INTRODUCTION The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 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 ecosystemrestoration (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 $40million 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 managementdecision-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 allowthe 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 anddemand 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 yearconditions, 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 inthe Delta, and used a range of 1 to 3 maf for unspecified future environmental water needs—a range thatreflected 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 1997flooding in Northern and Central California, Bulletin␣ 160-98 highlights common areas in water supplyand flood control planning and operations and emphasizes the benefits of multipurpose facilities.1-13 I NTRODUCTION The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 resultedfrom 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 makingsupply and demand forecasts. Bulletin 160-98 addresses that comment by presenting a compilation oflocal agencies’ planning efforts together with potential water management options that are statewide inscope. 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 andis 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 the1.6 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 planninghorizon because no major data changes occurred between the two reports that would justify extending the planning horizon. Urban water demands dependheavily 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 its1-14 INTRODUCTION The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

2020 forecast for California in the period between Bulletin 160-93 and Bulletin 160-98. The reductionreflects 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. Thisreduction 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 reallocatedto 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 lossesare 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 theimportance 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 largestwater 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 forecastincreased substantially from Bulletin 160-93 to Bulletin 160-98. This increase results from implementation of the Bay-Delta Accord, inclusion of additional wildand scenic river flows, and increased instream flow requirements. The shortage shown in Bulletin 160-98 is similarin magnitude to the low end of the shortage range reported in Bulletin 160-93. The treatment of forecasted Bay-Delta environmental water demands accounts formuch of the difference. A 1 to 3 maf range of potential future environmental water demands was addedto the Bulletin 160-93 base environmental water demand forecast, rather than being evaluated throughoperations studies, because Bay-Delta regulatory assumptions could not be determined then. This conservative approach yielded higher demands thanoperations 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 finishingdata evaluation deferred during the Bulletin’s production. Work on Bulletin 160-98 began in 1995. Acitizen’s advisory committee with more than 30 members, representing a wide range of interests, was established to assist the Department in its preparationof 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 thepublic review draft were distributed. Comments received on the public review draft were addressed in the final version of the Bulletin.

Public Comments on DraftThe Department received over 200 comment letters on the draft and additional comments from public meetings. A summary of the comments is provided inAppendix 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, oranalytical 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, proponentsof 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 onBulletin 160-93 when it excluded groundwater over1-15 I NTRODUCTION The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 morefuture 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 agriculturaleconomy. 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 theBulletin’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 inmeeting 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 afundamental 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 remainunchanged 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 itsState Water Project contractual obligations. (The Department may provide financial assistance to local agencies for various water management programs asauthorized under bond measures enacted by the Legislature and approved by the voters.) The Departmenthas no regulatory authority to mandate how local water agencies price their water supplies, or to requirethat local agencies adopt one type of water management option over another. Comments such as thosesuggesting 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, somecommenters 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 Teamdescribes 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 thatBulletin 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 commentsthat 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, or1-16 INTRODUCTION The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 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 willconsider these long-term comments when work begins on the next update.
Works in Progress and UncertaintiesThe 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 programand Colorado River water use discussions. For programs such as these, the Bulletin describes their currentstatus 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. Wateruse for hydroelectric power generation is a good example of this focus. Bulletin 160-83 was the last waterplan update to review hydropower generation use, because no major changes have occurred since the late1970s/early 1980s, when high energy prices and favorable tax treatment for renewable energy spurred aboom in small hydropower development. Today uncertainties about water supply and water use associated with hydropower production are increasing, with the1998 initiation of deregulation for California investor-owned utilities and the prospect of FERCrelicensing 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. Achievinga 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 byhydrologic 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 changesin statutes and programs since the publication of Bulletin 160-93. An appendix for Chapter 2 summarizessome State and federal statutes affecting water management. Chapters 3 and 4 cover water supplies andwater uses. Chapter 5 describes the status of technology applications relating to water supply, reflecting the continuing public interest in topics such as potentialfuture 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 wateracquisition. Chapters 7-9 evaluate regional water management options for each of the State’s ten majorhydrologic 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 10are 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.1A-1 APPENDIX 1A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 1A



# Comparison of 2020 Average Year Forecasts Between Bulletin 160-93 and Bulletin 160-98 

# 1A

T

ABLE 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 11.4 a Agricultural water use (maf) 28.8 28.3 a Environmental water use (maf) 30.3-32.3 36.9 a Average water shortage b (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.
bAs 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 tableshows 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.1A-2 APPENDIX 1A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 1AAPPENDIX 1B 1B-1 The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 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 Departmentstaff 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 thedraft 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 onlocal 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 programsare 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 addressingCalifornia’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 

# 1B1B-2 APPENDIX 1B The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 1B

contain a process for achieving the desired goal and should identify financing sources. (Chapter␣ 6, 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 fornonpoint 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 thatwill 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 thanthe 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 ondemand 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 newESA listings, FERC relicensing, CVPIA supplemental water acquisition, SWRCB’s Bay-Deltawater rights proceedings, and CALFED. (Chapter 6, Chapter 10)

Water Supplies and Demands • There were comments on groundwater supplies or overdraft for individual groundwater basins orhydrologic 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 ascreating a shortage, but should be a source of supply. Farmers will stop overdrafting groundwaterwhen it becomes too expensive to pump. (Chapter 3) • The high levels of groundwater overdraft shownin 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 ofwater 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/waterAPPENDIX 1B 1B-3 The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 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 inthe 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 becounted as environmental water use. The magnitude of their flow is so great that it skews the rest of the environmental water uses. North Coast wildand 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 andnow 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 theenvironment is California’s largest water using sector. (Chapter 4) • The Bulletin understates future environmentaldemands because it uses Bay-Delta Accord requirements which expire in 1998 and present ESA requirements. Water requirements for recentlylisted 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, butnot 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 axiswashing 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 onlyobligated 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 notnecessarily result in depletion reductions. (Chapter 4, Chapter 6) • The Bulletin should provide more information onits conservation assumptions, and data to substantiate forecasted conservation. (Chapter 4, Chapter␣ 6)• 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 notseem to be coming true (were too high). The Bul1B-4 APPENDIX 1B The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 1B

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 Californiaagriculture’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 wildlifehabitat, 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. (Chapter␣ 6)

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 explicitlyincluded in the evaluation of future water management options. Use demand and supply curvesto 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 watersupplies 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 supplieswould satisfy the needs of California’s growing urban population. (Chapter 6, Chapter 10) • Retirement of agricultural lands should not beconsidered 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 andrecycling 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 beemphasized. New reservoirs are increasingly important as future options, because demandhardening 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 oceanor to another unusable source. (Chapter 4, Chapter 6) • It is unrealistic to assume further conservation beyondBMPs and EWMPs. There is no way of accurately quantifying future conservation. (Chapter 6)APPENDIX 1B 1B-5 The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 1B

• There is no evidence suggesting that the 80 percent ET 0target 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 achievedbeyond BMPs and EWMPs. Reduction of outdoor water use for landscape is not costly and can be phased in over time. More agricultural acreagecan be converted from inefficient irrigation techniques to drip irrigation. (Chapter 6) • The Bulletin does not give water transfers/water marketing equal treatment with construction ofnew 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, whethertransfers 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 beshown 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 theamount 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. (Chapter␣ 6) • 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 researchand development funds should be devoted to desalting. (Chapter 6) • The State should support marine transport offreshwater (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. (Chapter␣ 6)The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

R ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 2-1 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 Planhas 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 Table␣ 2-
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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

R

ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 2-2 T

ABLE 2-1 Large Dams Under Construction or Recently Completed

Dam Constructing Estimated Reservoir Purpose Project Agency Capacity (taf) Cost a (million $)

Seven Oaks USACE 146 flood control 366 Los Vaqueros CCWD 100 offstream storage b 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).
bOffstream storage for water quality and emergency service; no new water supply created.

T

ABLE 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 SEWD and completed 1993 21 500

Conveyance Project CSJWCD

Shasta Dam Temperature Control Device T ABLE 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

R ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 2-3Table 2-3 lists some of the largest examples of recently completed structural environmental restoration actions. Several more fish screening projects in theSacramento 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 waterresources management, together with the status of ongoing efforts to reauthorize some key federal statutes. Theexisting 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 updatethe 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 thatfindings by local water agencies on water supply availability be incorporated into cities’ or counties’ environmental documents for the proposed action. Todate, there are no statewide data available on local agenSuisun Marsh Fish Screening Project T ABLE 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. DFG, USBR, DWR $800,000 1995 Butte Creek at 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 $930,000 1998 Butte Creek at 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 $209,000The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

R

ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 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 actauthorized the issuance of $995 million in general obligation bonds to finance water and environmentalrestoration 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 thisamount to implement CALFED’s ecosystem restoration program for the Bay-Delta. These latter fundswould be available after final federal and State environmental documents are certified and a cost-sharing agreement is executed between the federal and Stategovernments. 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.

T ABLE 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 995The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

R ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 2-5 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” asany levy or charge on real property for a special benefit conferred to the real property, including specialassessments, 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 afee 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 theinterpretation of Proposition 218 requirements, especially as they relate to certain water-related fees and charges. From one point of view, Proposition 218 couldbe interpreted as a comprehensive approach to regulate all forms of agency revenue sources. This broad interpretation would include all fees and charges forservices 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 interpretationmay 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 beenone 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 notreceive 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 withdrinking 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 watercontaminants 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 contaminantsThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

R

ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 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 withthe states, is the chief federal regulatory statute controlling point and nonpoint source discharges to surfacewater. 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 legislationwas enacted. The act’s broad scope complicates reauthorization.Some of the topics covered in reauthorization proposals have included funding levels for the SRFprogram; changes to the water quality standard setting process (such as special recognition ofenvironmental benefits of discharging treated wastewater to streams in arid areas); recognition of impacts of introduced aquatic species on species of concern inthe water quality standard setting process; Good Samaritan liability provisions for remediation measures at abandoned mines; new programs for nonpointsource 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 andpeer-reviewed science in the species listing process, addressing management of candidate species,streamlining the Section 7 consultation process, quantifying recovery plan objectives, and providingassurances and regulatory relief for nonfederal landowners.Reclamation, Recycling, and Water Conservation Act of 1996. This act amended Title␣ 16 of PL102-575 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 andcost-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 andThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

R ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 2-7 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 (forprojects which are not otherwise feasible unless a federal contribution is provided). Cost-shared actions canbe research, studies, demonstration projects, or development projects. The authorization provides $5 million per year for fiscal years 1997 through 2002 for researchand studies, and $25 million per year for demonstration and development projects. The act requires DOI to investigate at least three different types of desaltingtechnology 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 nationalballast 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 projectsupplies are to be allocated proportionately on the basis of contractors’ entitlements. The amendment allocates water to urban and agricultural purposes onequal 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 transfermade 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 theKern Water Bank property to these agencies. This relinquishment reduces the total SWP contractualcommitment. 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’sgroundwater 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 SWPThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

R

ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 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 theirservice areas. This provision of the Monterey amendment allows a contractor to store water in anotheragency’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 developedan 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 theamendment, 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 theyear. 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 waterearly 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 DudleyRidge 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 andSWP 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 ImplementationCVPIA made significant changes to the CVP’s legislative authorization, amending the project’s purposes to place fish and wildlife mitigation and restorationon a par with water supply, and to place fish and wildlife enhancement on a par with power generation. Keyareas 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 forpublic review in November 1997. The draft PEIS describes, among other things, estimated water supplyimpacts of federal implementation of the act, and illustrates the consequences of different alternatives forfish 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 fishand 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 clauseencouraging early renewal. Renewed contracts will incorporate new provisions required by CVPIA, such as tiered water pricing. Since USBR has not completedthe 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 firstrefusal 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-termThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

R ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 2-9 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 ofthe most controversial elements of CVPIA implementation has been management of the 800 taf/yr of CVPyield (see sidebar) dedicated by the act to fishery restoration purposes. This water is available for use on CVP controlled streams (river reaches downstreamfrom 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 havegenerated 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 criteriafor 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 administrativeproposal 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 meetingthe 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

R

ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 2-10 in Chapter 6. CVPIA further allocates additional CVPwater 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 completefor 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 ofCalifornia; 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 onCVP 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 authorizedDOI 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 helpimplement recommendations of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program’s 1990 report. USBR publishedinterim guidelines for administration of a pilot program, pending formal promulgation of rules and regulations. The federal guidelines were developed incoordination 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 retirementprogram 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

R ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 2-11 quisitions have been made. By November 1997, thefederal land retirement program had made one purchase—about 600 acres of drainage-impaired land inWestlands 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 madeextensive amendments to CVPIA. That bill was opposed by the federal administration and did not passout of the House. DOI took up CVPIA implementation issues raised by the water users in a 1996administrative 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 theguidelines would remain in place until rules and regulations were promulgated for sections of CVPIAinvolving discretionary actions by the federal government. In some cases, the concept papers produced inthe administrative process attempt to clarify or augment the interim guidelines. USBR has not formallypromulgated rules and regulations for any CVPIA provision. Other Programs and Reports. USBR has developed criteria for evaluating water conservation plansof 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 USFWSnegotiated a master State-federal cost-sharing agreement for environmental restoration actions whose costs the act allocated in part to California. Funding for theState’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 optionsfor replacing the water supply dedicated to environmental purposes. Although the act directed that theplan 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 uncomplicatedprojects, 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—typicallydistribution 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, alocal 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 asReclamation Reform Act acreage limitations and water conservation regulations. USBR indicated that it will not entertain transfers of large projects in theirentirety 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 congressionalauthorization 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. Titleto the San Diego Aqueduct, a conveyance facility origiThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

R

ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 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 Congressthat 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 RelicensingThe 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 theopportunity 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 usesdownstream. The impact of deregulation of the electric power industry on relicensing decisions isuncertain. 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, andThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

R ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 2-13 T

ABLE 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 1.5The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

R

ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 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 toscientific 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 chinooksalmon 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 asthreatened. 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 Deltafish species, the Sacramento River splittail, but a congressional moratorium on listing of new speciesprevented 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 federalagencies involved in Delta programs, signed a Framework Agreement for the Bay-Delta estuary in June 1994. Working together, these agencies are known asCALFED. The Framework Agreement improved coordination and communication between State andfederal agencies with resource management responsibilities in the estuary. It covered the water qualitystandards 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 StandardsBetween 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 afourth year. An Operations Group composed of representatives from the State and federal water projects and the other CALFED agencies was established tocoordinate 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-1485requirements and the projects’ voluntary implementation of accord standards. The interim order will expirewhen 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:The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

R ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 2-15 (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 watershedsbased on Delta outflow and Vernalis flow objectives and the watersheds’ average unimpaired flow. The parties responsible for providing the requiredflows 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 JoaquinRiver Issues Related to Protection of Bay-Delta Environmental Resources.” (8) San Joaquin Basin Negotiated Agreement–Vernalisflow 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 ofCALFED 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 identifiedproblems in and goals for the Bay-Delta, and developed a range of alternatives for long-term solutions. This phase concluded with a September 1996 reportidentifying three broad solutions, each of which included a range of water storage options, a system forconveying 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 asecond 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

R

ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 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 periodof several decades and will require site-specific compliance with NEPA and CEQA. Current plans are foran 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 provisionsfor 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 SuisunMarsh. The Suisun Marsh Preservation and Restoration Act of 1979 authorized the DOI to enter into anagreement 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 upstreamdiversions on marsh water quality. The agreement, approved in March 1987, described proposed facilitiesto 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 salinitycontrol structure on Montezuma Slough was completed in 1989. The structure has effectively reduced salinity in Montezuma Slough and eastern regions ofthe 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 managementactivities instead of constructing the large-scale facilities initially planned. Activities such as improvingdischarge 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 theDelta Protection Commission and charged it with preparing a plan for land uses within the primary zone of the Delta, and with working with local governmentsto 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 complywith findings of the plan. In February 1995, the Commission adopted the Land Use and ResourceThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

R ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 2-17 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 ofutilities and other infrastructure. Where construction of new infrastructure is appropriate, minimizethe impacts of new construction on levees, wildlife, and agriculture. • Protect the unique character and qualities of the primary zone by preserving its cultural heritageand 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 dwindlingpublic 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 permitreviews and guidelines for levee maintenance; develop a long-term funding program for leveemaintenance; protect levees in emergency situations; and give levee rehabilitation andmaintenance priority over other uses of levee areas. As originally authorized, the Delta ProtectionCommission 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 Parksand 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 protectingand 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 bythe 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, publicinvolvement and education, and research and monitoring. Since no specific funding exists forimplementing 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 RenegotiationIn 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 forThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

R

ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 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 thateach 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 forwinter-run chinook salmon and Delta smelt have imposed new operational constraints on both the CVP and the SWP. In addition, the Bay-Delta Accord hasestablished 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 fromintrastate 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. Ofmost importance to California, the act made an interstate apportionment of these waters between the Statesof 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 actalso 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 conditionshave been satisfied, including dismissal of specified lawsuits and negotiation and adoption of a Truckee River Operating Agreement. The act requires that a TROAbe 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 theReno-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 RiverThere are currently no significant interstate actions pending on the Walker River. A proposedinterstate 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

R ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 2-19 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 Riverhave involved water quality and fishery issues associated with river operations and not water allocation
issues.

Klamath RiverAn 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 ofthe Director of the Oregon Water Resources Department, the Director of the California Department ofWater 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. Recentchanges 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 rightsadjudication 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 speciesin Klamath Lake and listed anadromous fish downstream in the lower river. The Klamath River CompactCommission began facilitating a process in cooperation with USBR and basin water users to identifyvoluntary 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 aredescribed 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 existingbody 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 useof Colorado River water to the State’s basic apportionment. A draft plan has been developed by the ColoradoRiver Board of California and the local agencies it represents. As described in detail in Chapter 9, the planincludes 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.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

R

ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 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 planwould 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 ProgramsIn 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 avariety of authorities, ranging from judicial adjudication of individual basins to several forms of local agencymanagement. Some local agencies have specific statutory authority to manage groundwater resources in their service areas. Other local agencies may managegroundwater 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, about150 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. 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 otherauthority, 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-watershedsare logical units for implementing SDWA source water protection programs and CWA nonpoint source pollution control programs. “Watershed planning” canhave 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 sourcepollution 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 watershedmanagement approach to administering water pollution control programs, addressing point and nonpointThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

R ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 2-21 T

ABLE 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 CoastThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

R

ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 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 T ABLE 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 AngelesThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

R ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 2-23 pollution sources. In 1997, SWRCB, RWQCBs, and EPA began a new program known as the WatershedManagement 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 arelisted 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 agencyrepresentatives and stakeholders. The plan recommended implementation of 20 fishery improvement actions, several of which (for example, constructing atemperature 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 theparticipation 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 committeeto 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 riparianplan. 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. TheSan 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 meetwater supply, water quality, flood protection, fisheries, wildlife habitat, and recreation needs on a specified segment of the San Joaquin River. Members of theadvisory council and action team included State, federal, and local agencies and stakeholders representinga variety of interests. The members developed a consensus-based plan addressing resource issues listed in the authorizing legislation; the plan was published in1995. Subsequent State legislation extended the original 1995 termination of the program and furtherThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

R

ECENT EVENTSI NC ALIFORNIA W

ATER 2-24 directed SJRMP to work with programs such asCVPIA 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 recommendedprojects 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 usuallyfocused 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, PlacerCounty, 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 the1982 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 alongthe 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 NGOsare typically focused on resource issues in small watersheds, where they may partner with a resourceconservation district to carry out specific projects. Examples of such efforts are found on Mill Creek andDeer 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 ofMOU 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 reportedprogress annually to the SWRCB. The council developed a plan providing for ongoing review of BMPsand 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 ManagementPractices 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 implementEWMPs were completed in 1996. The MOU established an Agricultural Water Management Council tooversee EWMP implementation, much like the organizational structure that exists for urban BMPs, andalso 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 4.2A-1 APPENDIX 2A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 2A

In California, water use and supplies are controlled and managed under an intricate system of federal andState laws. Common law principles, constitutional provisions, State and federal statutes, court decisions, andcontracts 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 morerecent 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 limitationon 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 riparianrights and appropriative rights. Under the riparian doctrine, the owners of land have the right to divert, butnot store, a portion of the natural flow of water flowing by their land for reasonable and beneficial use upontheir land adjacent to the stream and within its watershed, subject to certain limitations. Generally, all riparian water right holders must reduce their wateruse 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 withinits 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 in1914 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 beacquired 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 

# 2A2A-2 APPENDIX 2A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 2A

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 waterrights, 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 publicagency 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 criticallyoverdrafted 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 AB3030 plans) may include control of salt water intrusion; identification and protection of wellhead andrecharge areas; regulation of the migration of contaminated water; provisions for abandonment anddestruction 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 protectionof 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 MonoLake 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 areconsidered. The court also held that California’s appropriative rights system and the public trust doctrine embody important precepts which “. . . make the lawmore responsive to the diverse needs and interests involved in planning and allocation of water resources.” Consequently, in issuing or reconsidering any rightsto 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 whichit 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 doctrinewill 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 inEnvironmental Defense Fund v. East Bay Municipal Utility District. Inthis case, EDF claimed that EBMUD should not contract with USBR for water diverted from the American River upstream from the Sacramento urban area in amanner 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 routinely2A-3 APPENDIX 2A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 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 followminimal 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 notcomply with state water law. It held that the Reclamation Act clause requires the USBR to comply with conditions in state water rights permits unless thoseconditions conflict with “clear Congressional directives.” In California v. FERC (1990), commonlyreferred 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 holdingthat 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 thejudgment of the SWRCB, an application for the assignment or release from priority of State water right filings will deprive the county of water necessary forits 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, andrecreational 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 issubject 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.2A-4 APPENDIX 2A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 2A

Environmental Regulatory Statutes and Programs

Endangered Species Act Under the federal ESA, an endangered species isone 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 thatpromote 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 orhabitat 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 thespecies. The opinion must include reasonable and prudent alternatives to the action that would avoidjeopardizing the species’ existence. Federal actions subject to Section 7 include issuance of federal permitssuch 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 toavoid 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 renderan opinion as to whether the proposed project jeopardizes a listed species and to offer alternatives to avoidjeopardy. 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 minimizetake. 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 PlanningAdopted in 1991, California’s Natural Community Conservation Planning Act establishes a programto identify the habitat needs of species before they become listed as threatened or endangered, and to developappropriate 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 PermitsSection 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 isobtained 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 vetopermits 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 certaincategories of activities that will cause only minimal en2A-5 APPENDIX 2A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 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 HarborsAct. 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 sincethe 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 ofinstream beneficial uses, when it issues permits to appropriate water. It also considers environmentalimpacts 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 FishFish 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 ofLos 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 includeprovisions 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 ActThis act implements various treaties for the protection of migratory birds and prohibits the “taking” (broadly defined) of birds protected by those treatieswithout 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 bythis act was one of several factors leading to the decision to close the San Luis Drain and Kesterson
Reservoir.

Environmental Review and MitigationAnother set of environmental statutes compels governmental agencies and private individuals todocument and consider the environmental consequences of their actions. They define the proceduresthrough which governmental agencies consider environmental factors in their decision-making process.
National Environmental Policy ActNEPA directs federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement for all major federalactions which may have a significant effect on the human environment. It states that it is the goal of thefederal 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 proposedactions during the planning and decision-making processes. California Environmental Quality Act CEQA, modeled after NEPA, requires Californiapublic agency decision-makers to document and consider the environmental impacts of their actions. It requires an agency to identify ways to avoid or reduceenvironmental damage, and to implement those measures where feasible. CEQA applies to all levels of California government, including the State, counties, cities, and local districts.2A-6 APPENDIX 2A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 2A

CEQA requires that a public agency carrying outa project with significant environmental effects prepare an environmental impact report. An EIR contains a description of the project; a discussion of the project’senvironmental impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives; public comments; and the agency’s responsesto 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 projectswith significant environmental impacts to adopt feasible alternatives or mitigation measures thatsubstantially lessen these impacts, unless there are overriding reasons. When a project is subject to both CEQAand 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 aquaticenvironment as it affects the conservation, improvement, and enjoyment of fish and wildlife resources. Under this act, any federal agency that proposes tocontrol 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 areasto 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 andScenic 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. Thisrestriction also applies to rivers designated for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic RiversSystem. 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. TheWest 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 afree-flowing state for the benefit of the people of California. It declared that such use of the rivers would bethe 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 impoundmenton a designated river. Diversions needed to supply domestic water to residents of counties through which the river flows may be authorized, if the Secretary forResources 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.) Thisdifference 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 “wildernessarea” and preserve it in its natural condition. Wilderness is defined as undeveloped federal land retainingits primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or human habitation. Commercial enterprise, permanent roads, motor vehicles, aircraft landings, motorized equipment, or construction of2A-7 APPENDIX 2A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 2A

structures or installations (such as dams, diversions,conveyance facilities, and gaging stations) are prohibited within designated wilderness areas.

Water Quality ProtectionWater quality is an important aspect of water resource management. The SWRCB plays a central role in determining both water rights and regulating waterquality. The Department of Health Services has regulatory oversight over drinking water quality, a programadministered in coordination with county environmental health agencies. Discussed below are key State and federal laws governing water quality.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control ActThis 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 plansare 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 plansis 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 requirementsthat 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 CleanWater 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 apermit 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 CleanWater 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 setnational standards for drinking water quality. It required the EPA to set maximum contaminant levelsfor 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 andincreased the range of contaminants local water suppliers were required to monitor to includecontaminants 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: settingand enforcing federal and State drinking water standards; administering water quality testing programs; and administering permits for public water systemoperations. The federal Safe Drinking Water Act al2A-8 APPENDIX 2A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 2A

lows the State to enforce its own standards in lieu ofthe 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 newfederal safe drinking water act requirements into California law, gave DHS discretion to set more stringentMCLs, and recommended public health levels for contaminants. DHS was authorized to consider thetechnical 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 CVPand 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 andCVP operations in the Delta and superseded all previous water rights decisions for the SWP and CVP operations in the Delta. Among beneficial uses to beprotected 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-1485standards 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 Marshfor which information was insufficient. D-1485 included water quality standards for Suisun Marsh, as well as for the Delta, requiring the Department andUSBR 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 theavailability 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 standardshad 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, andits 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” inidentifying 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 advisedSWRCB 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-Deltawater 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 usesof the estuary’s water. The second phase of the BayDelta hearings was to come up with a water quality2A-9 APPENDIX 2A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 2A

control plan. SWRCB adopted a final plan in May1991. 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 andheld several workshops during 1991 to receive testimony regarding planning activities, facilitiesdevelopment, 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 upstreammeasures 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 theestuary 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 decisionto 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 in1986, identifies the steps needed to offset adverse impacts of the Banks Pumping Plant on fisheries. It setsup a procedure to calculate direct fishery losses annually and requires the Department to pay for mitigation projects that would offset the losses. Losses of stripedbass, 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 populationshad not been depleted by past operations, the Department also provided $15␣ million for a program toincrease 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’spurposes to place fish and wildlife mitigation and restoration on a par with water supply, and to place fishand wildlife enhancement on a par with power generation. Major provisions of the act are summarized below. The act prohibits execution of new CVP watersupply contracts for purposes other than fish and wildlife (with a few limited exceptions) until all environmental restoration actions specified in the acthave 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 alloweduntil 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 usersoutside 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 specifiedin 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 plans2A-10 APPENDIX 2A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 2A

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 DOIto 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 SanJoaquin Valleys. DOI is to acquire, from willing sellers, an additional increment of water supply for thewildlife 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 theenvironmental 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 andwildlife 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 environmentalpurposes, 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 collectmitigation and restoration payments from project water and power users. DOI is authorized to useappropriations 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 municipaland 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 beso 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 method2A-11 APPENDIX 2A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 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 publicinterest 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 RightDecision 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 inImperial Irrigation District v. State Water Resources Control Board.

Urban Water Management Planning ActSince 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 plansmust 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 ActThe 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 establishesmethods 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 findingsby January 31, 1993, the model ordinance became effective in that jurisdiction.
Agricultural Water Management Planning ActUnder 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 opportunityto conserve water or reduce the quantity of highly saline or toxic water should prepare a water managementplan 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 ActThe Agricultural Water Suppliers Efficient Management Practices Act, adopted in 1990, required that the Department establish an advisory committee to reviewefficient agricultural water management practices. Under the act, the Department was required to offerassistance 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. TheMOU 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 1992This 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 thesupplier’s delivery system, providing technical and fi2A-12 APPENDIX 2A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 2A

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 2010.2A-13 APPENDIX 2A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 2A3-1 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98



# Water Supplies

The SWP’s California Aqueduct is the only conveyance facility that

moves water from the Central Valley

to Southern California.



# T his 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’s3-2 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 supplytotals 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 inthe northern part of the State; the North Coast Region accounts for 40 percent and the Sacramento River Region accounts for 32 percent. Figure 3-1shows average annual rainfall and runoff in California by hydrologic region. About 75 percent of the State’s ur ban 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 Lake3-3 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 F IGURE 3-1 Distribution of Average Annual Precipitation and Runoff3-4 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 6Little Truckee

Trinity River 881Sonoma/Petaluma Aqueducts33 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
221 California Aqueduct 1,206 SanLuis Unit CVP955 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

294Hetcth 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 Canal Unit

28

San Felipe Unit a F IGURE 3-2 Regional Imports and Exports, 1995 Level of Development3-5 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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

Sep Aug Jul JunMayAprMarFeb Jan Dec NovOctE 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 F IGURE 3-3 Northern Sierra Eight Station Precipitation Index3-6 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 ofthe 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

1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 1930 1920 1910 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 F IGURE 3-4 Sacramento Four Rivers Unimpaired Runoff3-7 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

T

ABLE 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 ofthe 1987-92 drought, groundwater extractions exceeded groundwater recharge by 11 maf in the San Joaquin Valley. Drawing down groundwater reservesin 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

1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 1930 1920 1910 1905R 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: F IGURE 3-5 San Joaquin Four Rivers Unimpaired RunoffAn 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 B ULLETIN160-98

3-8 W

ATER S UPPLIES Average Runoff 2.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 1930 1920 1910 Eight River Index Computed for January 1906-1996 F IGURE 3-6

The Eight Rivers are: Sacramento, Feather, Yuba, American, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Merced, and San JoaquinJ a n u a r y R u n o f f i n m a f F IGURE 3-6 Eight River Index Computed for January 1906-96Floods 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 dataalso 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 B ULLETIN160-98

3-9 W ATER S UPPLIES3-10 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

T

ABLE 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 Spreckles a 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 flows3-11 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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.3-12 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 watersupplies 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 andother 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, andenvironmental 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.3-13 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 environmentalflows 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 dischargesand 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 excessof 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)

Urban Ag ri cul tu r al En vi ronmen t al F IGURE 3-7 Disposition of California’s Average Annual Precipitation3-14 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

employed to meet the demand of the user. Previous editions of Bulletin 160 computed water sup plies 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; Figure3-9 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.3-15 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 F IGURE 3-8 Illustration of Applied and Net Water Methodologies: Inland Area3-16 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

Farm "A" Wildlife City Farm "B" Total Area CITY Applied Water 10 Units ETAW 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 F IGURE 3-9 Illustration of Applied and Net Water Methodologies: Coastal Area3-17 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

g

Inland Areas with High Efficiency

10 Units

Treated Outflow 4 Units Outflow 7 Units R

i

v

e

r

407 Units 500 Units

Diversion to Service Area

Groundwater Pumpage 12 Units 93 Units

CITY Applied Water 10 Units ETAW 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. F IGURE 3-10 Illustration of Applied and Net Water Methodologies: Inland Area with High Efficiency3-18 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 fromhistorical 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 watersupplies 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 watermanagers 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 systemover 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) levelof 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 water3-19 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 typi cal 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.Duringlow 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.3-20 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

0 - 50

50 - 80

80 - 100

100 - 150v 150 Water Year 1990

Water Year 1992 Percent of Mean Annual Precipitation F IGURE 3-11 Statewide Distribution of Precipitation for Water Years 1990 and 19923-21 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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, NewMelones, 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

1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 1930 1920 1910R u n o f f i n m a f

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987D e l i v e r i e s i n m a f CVP SWP F IGURE 3-12 Colorado River Unimpaired Runoff at Lee Ferry Compact Point

F IGURE 3-13 CVP and SWP Deliveries During 1987-92 Drought3-22 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

0 1 2 3 4 5

1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 Fall Spring

Fall Spring 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 Fall Spring

Fall Spring

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 0 50 100 150 200

1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986S t o r a g e i n m a fS t o r a g e i n m a f S HASTA O ROVILLE

N EW M ELONES C ACHUMAS t o r a g e i n m a fS t o r a g e i n t a f F IGURE 3-14 Selected Reservoir Storage During 1987-92 Drought3-23 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 andtherefore 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 T

ABLE 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.

bExcludes groundwater overdraft

O’Neill Forebay with San Luis Reservoir in the background. These are joint facilities of the CVP and SWP.3-24 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 A uburn 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.3-25 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

T

ABLE 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 inCalifornia, 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 the3-26 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 F IGURE 3-15 Major Central Valley Project Facilities3-27 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

Reservoir for later delivery to the San Luis and SanFelipe 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 USBR3-28 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 F IGURE 3-16 Central Valley Project Service Areas3-29 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

1995 and 2020 Central Valley Project Delivery Capability South of Delta with Existing Facilities F IGURE 3-18

P e r c e n t T i m e a t o r A b o v e 90 100 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5D 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) CVPsouth-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 War␣ II 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 facili ties 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

1995 1990 1985 1980 1975 1970 1965 1960 Central Valley Project Deliveries F IGURE 3-17D e l i v e r i e s i n m a f F IGURE 3-17 Central Valley Project Deliveries

F IGURE 3-18 1995 and 2020 Level Central Valley Project Delivery Capability South of Delta with Existing Facilities3-30 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 T

ABLE 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 overthe 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 an nual 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.3-31 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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

S a n L u i s C a n a l F IGURE 3-19 Major State Water Project Facilities3-32 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

Palmdale Water District

Desert Water Agency Plumas County Flood Control & Water Conservation District County of Butte

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

Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District Dudley Ridge 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 F IGURE 3-20 State Water Project Service Areas3-33 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 2.1␣ maf. 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 1995level 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 25percent chance of making full deliveries. Colorado River. The Colo rado 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 surfacewater 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 90 100 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 F IGURE 3-22

P e r c e n t T i m e a t o r A b o v eD 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

1995 1990 1985 1980 1975 1970

State Water Project Deliveries F IGURE 3-21D e l i v e r i e s i n m a f F IGURE 3-21 State Water Project Deliveries

F IGURE 3-22 1995 and 2020 State Water Project Delivery Capability with Existing Facilities3-34 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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

River Verde 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 GilaRiver Parker Dam Alamo Dam Starvation Dam

Blue Mesa Dam B i g S a n d y R i v e r

H

a m

s F

or

k

L i t t l e S n a k e R i v e r

Y a m

p

a R i ve

r

G r e e n R i v e r

P r i c e R i v e r S a n R

a f a e l R i v e r

F

r e mo n t

V i r g i n R i ve

r Stateline Reservoir

Lake Powell G un

n i s o n D

i r t y River Green River

White River

Color

Color ado UP LOW

San River
Fran Colorado er Aqueduct Riv ante Escal

cisco F IGURE 3-23
Colorado River Watershed in United States3-35 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 forMWDSC’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 VerdeDiversion 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 thestateline 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 waterfrom the Colorado River to California users. Construction of the All American Canal was authorized in the3-36 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 F IGURE 3-24
Colorado River Service Areas3-37 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 CoachellaCanal 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 Colo rado 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 muchas 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.3-38 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

T

ABLE 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 Stampede b 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 Creek b 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 ofMono 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 6,391␣ feet (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 Valleythrough 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 OwensValley 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 thetwo aqueduct pipelines, the system includes eight reservoirs and eleven powerplants. The largest reservoirs T

ABLE 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 Creek3-39 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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
main taining 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 flowpast 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.

T ABLE 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.

T

ABLE 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 Creek3-40 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 pipe line 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 thoseof 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 840␣ tafof storage capacity, approximately 1.1 times its average annual runoff. The largest reservoir is Camanche,

T

ABLE 3-10 Mokelumne Aqueduct System Reservoirs

Reservoir Capacity (taf) Year Completed Stream

Camanche 417 1963 Mokelumne River Pardee 198 1929 Mokelumne River3-41 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 V alley 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 fromPardee 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 Yubaand 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 onthe 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. Hydr aulic 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 Library3-42 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 multipurposeimpoundments 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 economyat 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 in corporate flood control. Most of the reservoirsshown 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 fed eral 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, T

ABLE 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 Creek3-43 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 56 0F 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, hasmulti-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 T

ABLE 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 1,025 350 a Merced ID Pine Flat Kings River 1,000 475 a USACE Folsom American River 977 400 b USBR New Bullards Bar Yuba River 966 170 YCWA Isabella Kern River 568 398 a USACE Millerton San Joaquin River 520 170 a USBR Camanche Mokelumne River 417 200 a 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 144 137 a 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

bDoes not include 270 taf reoperation for SAFCA3-44 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 5 0F. 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 45␣ percent to the SWP. The COA also specifies how theprojects 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

Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan Dec Nov Oct Sep 750 taf 375 tafR 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 F IGURE 3-25 Lake Oroville Flood Control Operating Diagram3-45 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

when there are no surplus flows. Under “balanced” conditions when storage withdrawals are being made, responsibility is allocated 75 percent to the CVP and 25␣ percent 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. Star ting in the 1970s, project exportswere 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 dedi cated 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 opin ion, 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

capa bility 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 eD 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 eD e l i v e r i e s i n m a f

D-1485

WR 95-6 F IGURE 3-26
1995 Level Central Valley Project Delivery Capability

South of Delta Under D-1485 and WR 95-6 F IGURE 3-27
1995 Level State Water Project Delivery Capability

Under D-1485 and WR 95-63-46 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

of the Delta) and SWP were significantly re duced from the prior Delta operating criteria to the current criteria. Under D-1485 and 1995 level de mands, 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 deliv ering 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.3-47 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 areservoir’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 watersupply 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

T

ABLE 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 1.2␣ maf. (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.3-48 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 levelgroundwater supplies. The data represent current levels of groundwater production, and not necessarily themaximum 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

T

ABLE 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 local3-49 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 with drawn 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 10-3003-50 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 managersto 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 Planuses perennialyield 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

T

ABLE 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 1,0703-51 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

shows the Department’s estimates of 1995 and 2020-level groundwater overdraft by hydrologicregion. 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 iscurrently 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 ProgramsGroundwater 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.3-52 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 CodeSection 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 Tehamadecision 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 extractionsto compensate for water supply deficiencies caused by BayDelta export restrictions, ESA requirements, and CVPIA.3-53 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 r eliability 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 holderto 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.3-54 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 F IGURE 3-28 Adjudicated Groundwater Basins3-55 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 T

ABLE 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 Gabriel a 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.3-56 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 marketingarrangements 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. Thefirst emergency drought water bank was created in response to the team’s recommendations. The Department op erated the DWB in coordination with otheragencies, including USBR, SWRCB, DFG, and local governments. DWB’s primary role was to purchase water from willing sellers and sell it to entities with criticalneeds. 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 inactive3-57 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

T

ABLE 3-17 Drought Water Bank Purchases and Allocations (taf)

1991 1992 1994 a 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 on␣ the 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 establishedto acquire water while long-term planning for supplemental fishery water acquisition and refuge water supply ac quisition continued. The program, a joint effort by USBR and USFWS, was to be in place fromOctober 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 wild life refuges in the Sacramento Valley; • Acquisition of up to 45 cfs of water on Battle Creekfor 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 futurewater 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 from3-58 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 T

ABLE 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

T

ABLE 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 Coast3-59 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 entitiesor 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,3-60 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 re gions. In these regions, treated water from recycling pr ojects would otherwise be used by downstream en tities 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 ofpotential water recycling options and resulting new water supply based on the 1995 survey. By 2020, water recycling options could bring total wa ter 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. W ater has many potential uses and the water quality requirements for each use vary. The quality

T

ABLE 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 4073-61 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 ofwater 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.

T

ABLE 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.

T ABLE 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 1,0623-62 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

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 blendDelta 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 thr ough 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 undesirablefor 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,

spur ring 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 formany 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 thedrought 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 this3-63 W ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

outbreak. The suspected sources of Cryptosporidium were cattle wastes, slaughterhouse wastes, and sewagecarried 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 Cryptosporidiumoutbreak 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 T

ABLE 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

T

ABLE 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 (N orwalk, rotavirus, and other types )3-64 W

ATER S UPPLIES The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN160-98

Disinfectant/Disinfection By-Product Rule, the
maxi mum 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 whichmay 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 T

ABLE 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