California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 14 6 established as an alternative to SWRCB Phase 8 litigation proceedings designed to determine the responsibility of meeting water quality standards in the Delta. This agreement allows the parties to collaborate in the development and implementation of a variety of water management projects that will increase the availability of Sacramento Valley water. The agreement provides that increased supplies will be used first to fully meet the in basin needs, but would also be made available to help meet the requirements of the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan, provide other environmental benefits, and potentially meet additional export needs.

The key to this program is to keep it focused on integrated regional planning. SVWMP hydrologists and engineers areinvolved in more than 50 projects into both short- and longterm work plans for the region. These projects are designed toprotect Northern California surface water rights and groundwater basins through the implementation of groundwater planning and monitoring that provides for unmet demands in the Sacramento Valley before exporting water to other regions. They include system improvement and water-use efficiency measures, conjunctive management, and surface water reoperation projects that include groundwater protection elements. The SVWMP is based on local control. This program is undergoing an environmental review and will seek public funds, including Proposition 50, to help implement many of these projects.

I n addition to the Sacramento Valley Water Management Program, several other entities are working to improve water supply reliability and quality in the region and throughout the state. For example, the Redding Area Water Council isconsidering local water transfers, conjunctive use of groundwater, groundwater management, and additional surface water developments to increase supplies.

T he Regional Water Authority is a joint powers authority that represents the interests of nearly 20 water providers around Sacramento. The organization’s mission is to help its members protect and enhance the reliability, availability, affordability and quality of water in this area of the region. RWA and its members have successfully implemented the American RiverBasin Conjunctive Use Program and a region-wide water effic iency program in furtherance of the goals and objectives of the historic Water Forum Agreement.

The Sacramento Water Forum has developed a Water Forum Agreement containing two, equal objectives: 1) provide reliable and safe water for the region’s economic health and planned development through 2030; and 2) preserve the fishery, wildlife, recreational and aesthetic values of the lower American River. The proposed draft solution includes an integrated package of seven actions. Generally, foothill water interests would increase their diversions from the American River in average and wet years and decrease those diversions in drier and driest years. Placer County Water Agency would be providing excess water from non-American River sources to many of the participating water agencies during drier and driest years to help make up the decreased American River diversions in those years.

The Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition (SVWQC) was formed in 2002 to enhance and improve water quality in the Sacramento River watershed (Sacramento River Basin, Region5a), while sustaining the economic viability of agriculture, functional values of managed wetlands and sources of safe drinking water. This group is comprised of more than 200 agricultural and wetlands interests that have joined with local governments throughout the region to improve water quality for Northern California farms, cities and the environment.

In response to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board’s recent decisions to revise agricultural water discharge waivers, the SVWQC developed and submitted its Regional Plan for Action to both the SWRCB and the Regional Water Quality Control Board in June 2003. This plan was submitted as the SVWQC’s General Report with its Notice of Intent (NOI) to meet the newly adopted water quality regulations. On Feb. 10, 2004, the Regional Board issued a Notice of Applicability (NOA) to the SVWQC verifying the NOI. As the next step to implement this SVWQC Plan and to meet the Regional Board’s regulations, two documents were prepared and submitted on April 1, 2004, a Watershed Evaluation Report (WER) and a Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan (MRP). When approved by the RWQCB, these documents are intended to become the foundation for a rational, phased water quality management program.


### Changes in Water
D emands for 2030 Scenarios To illustrate the general magnitude of future changes in urban,

a gricultural, and environmental water demands, DWR prepared preliminary estimates of average-year water demands for each of the three example 2030 scenarios. As described in Chapter 3 of Volume 1, these three future scenarios are identified as Current Trends, Less Resource Intensive, and More Resource Intensive. The Volume 4 Reference Guide includes a description of the methods and assumptions used to produce these estimates in “Analytical-based Scenario Water Demand Estimation.”15 6 **Chapter 6** Sacramento River Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

Scenario demand estimates were made individually for the urban, agricultural, and environmental sectors for each of the 10 California hydrologic regions. DWR staff assigned a unique set of input values for each scenario to reflect the qualitative narrative descriptions and scenario factors in Table 4-1 of Volume 1.

As previously stated, these projections are preliminary estimates of plausible future demands, which were developedwithout consideration of water supplies and delivery capabilities. The complex modeling necessary to complete a full analysis of the three described scenarios will be undertaken in the next CWP process.


### Regional Planning and Coordination Regional coordination of water resource issues and planning in the Sacramento River region is just beginning and will initially focus on fostering regional cooperation and helpingregional interests develop programs that are mutually beneficial to the various stakeholders. Efforts will be made to assist the stakeholders by increasing communication between groups in the region and between the region and CBDA programs.

CBDA staff and associated federal, State and local agencieswill work closely with Sacramento Valley stakeholders, including those mentioned in preceding paragraphs as well as local elected officials, water district elected officials and staff, public agencies, watershed groups, environmental activists and other interested members of the public. The goal will be to assist regional efforts in the development of regional planning. This strategy will allow local stakeholders to have a voice in activities supported by CBDA through funding in the region. It will also outline how the region will coordinate these activities with other regions throughout the Bay-Delta solution area.

Several northern California counties have also sought and obtained grant funding through the AB 303 program, and formed working partnerships to help them develop regional groundwater monitoring. AB 303 provides up to $250,000 per project for groundwater monitoring activities, including the drilling of monitoring wells. Both Butte and Tehama County have completed an inventory/analysis of their water resources to assist them in future water planning. Lake County recently applied for funding under AB 303 to do the same. Butte, Glenn, Plumas, Sutter, Shasta, Tehama and Sacramento coun

ties have all moved forward with the development of integrated groundwater management plans. Glenn, Tehama and Butte counties have obtained funding to increase their groundwater monitoring activities through AB 303 grant funding. Several other entities, such as Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District, Deer Creek Irrigation District, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, Western Canal Water District and Maxwell Irrigation District have all augmented their groundwater monitoring activities in the region as well. Other counties, some non-profit groups, and Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) in the region have also received funding for major ecosystem restoration and conservation programs through the CBDA program.



## Water Portfolios for Water **Y ears 1998, 2000, and 2001**  Tables 6-3 and 6-4 present actual information about the water supplies and uses for the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region.Water year 1998 was wet for this region, with annual precipitation at 168 percent of normal, while the statewide annual precipitation was 171 percent of average. 2000 represents nearly normal hydrologic conditions with annual precipitation at 105 percent of average for the Sacramento River region, and 2001 reflected dryer water year conditions with annual precipitation at 67 percent of average. For comparison, statewide average precipitation in 2001 was 72 percent of normal. Table 6-3provides more detailed information about the total water supplies available to this region for these three specific years from precipitation, imports and groundwater, and also summarizes the uses of all of the water supplies. Water portfolio information is included in Table 6-4 and companion water portfolio flowdiagram figures 6-5 and 6-6 provided more detailed information about how the available water supplies are distributed and used throughout this region.

A more detailed tabulation of the portion of the total available water that is dedicated to urban, agricultural and environmentalpurposes is presented in Table 6-4. Because much of the Sacramento River region is devoted to agricultural activities, a large component of the developed water is supplied to agricultural purposes. Dedicated environmental water use is also a large component of the developed water supply, primarily because the required Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta outflow is accounted for in this region. Table 6-4 also provides detailed information about the sources of the developed water supplies, which are primarily from surface water systems of the Sacramento River and its tributaries. The use of available groundwater supplies is also a significant resource to this region.



## Selected References
2002 California 305(b) Report on Water Quality, State Water Resources Control Board Bulletin 118 (Draft), California’s Groundwater, Update 2003, Department of Water ResourcesCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 16 6 6 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2001. Spring-run
C hinook salmon annual report for the Fish and Game Commission. Hanak, Ellen 2003, Who Should be Allowed to Sell Water in California? Third-Party Issues and the Water Market, Public Policy Institute of California Kelley, Robert 1998 Battling the Inland Sea, University of California Press, Berkeley Nonpoint Source Program Strategy and Implementation Plan, 1998-2013, State Water Resources Control Board, California Coastal Commission, January 2000 Smith, F. 1980. A short review of the status of riparian forests in California. Pages 1-2 in: A. Sands (Editor). Riparian Forests in California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Strategic Plan, State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Boards, November 15, 2001 USDA Forest Service Web site at www.fs.fed.us/recreation/map/state_list.shtml#California Water Quality Control Plan, RegionalWater Quality Control Board Watershed Management Initiative Chapter, Regional17 6 **Chapter 6** Sacramento River Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005



# Water Portfolios

Sacramento River Hydrologic Region18 6 **Chapter 6** Sacramento River Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

**Table 6-4 Sacramento River region water portfolio (TAF)** 

ID Sacramento River Sacramento River Sacramento River Number: Flow Diagram Component (see legend) 1998 2000 2001

1 Colorado River Deliveries

- - - 2 Total Desalination

- - - 3 Water from Refineries

- - - 4a Inflow From Oregon

- - - b Inflow From Mexico

- - - 5 Precipitation 89,500.1 57,105.9 35,894.8 6a Runoff - Natural b Runoff - Incidental 7 Total Groundwater Natural Recharge 8 Groundwater Subsurface Inflow N/A 9 Local Deliveries 13,939.5 12,204.8 8,843.0 10 Local Imports 9.7 10.4 8.5 11a Central Valley Project :: Base Deliveries 1,572.3 1,912.9 2,002.0 b Central Valley Project :: Project Deliveries 418.4 553.8 495.3 12 Other Federal Deliveries 198.0 228.3 239.5 13 State Water Project Deliveries 14.9 14.9 19.6 14a Water Transfers - Regional

- - - b Water Transfers - Imported

- - - 15a Releases for Delta Outflow - CVP b Releases for Delta Outflow - SWP c Instream Flow Applied Water 3,699.6 3,759.8 3,747.5 16 Environmental Water Account Releases 0 264 242 17a Conveyance Return Flows to Developed Supply - Urban

- - - b Conveyance Return Flows to Developed Supply - Ag 60.0 44.5 45.4 c Conveyance Return Flows to Developed Supply - Managed Wetlands

- - - 18a Conveyance Seepage - Urban

- - - b Conveyance Seepage - Ag 208.1 273.3 271.8 c Conveyance Seepage - Managed Wetlands 23.8 24.5 13.4 19a Recycled Water - Agriculture

- - - b Recycled Water - Urban

- - -

c Recycled Water - Groundwater

- - - 20a Return Flow to Developed Supply - Ag 996.7 1,211.2 955.2 b Return Flow to Developed Supply - Wetlands 4.0 4.2 4.4 c Return Flow to Developed Supply - Urban 2.6 2.6 2.6 21a Deep Percolation of Applied Water - Ag 179.3 299.8 320.3 b Deep Percolation of Applied Water - Wetlands 8.3 11.6 12.3 c Deep Percolation of Applied Water - Urban 80.0 91.6 91.4 22a Reuse of Return Flows within Region - Ag 367.6 569.2 446.1 b Reuse of Return Flows within Region - Wetlands, Instream, W&S 4,964.2 4,442.0 3,752.8 24a Return Flow for Delta Outflow - Ag

- - 227.9 b Return Flow for Delta Outflow - Wetlands, Instream, W&S 1,564.2 1,413.2 965.0 c Return Flow for Delta Outflow - Urban Wastewater

- - - 25 Direct Diversions 26 Surface Water in Storage - Beg of Yr 9,727.2 11,603.3 10,502.6 27 Groundwater Extractions - Banked

- - - 28 Groundwater Extractions - Adjudicated

- - - 29 Groundwater Extractions - Unadjudicated 1,854.7 2,815.2 2,926.9 23 Groundwater Subsurface Outflow N/A N/A N/A 30 Surface Water Storage - End of Yr 12,479.2 10,502.6 8,090.8 31 Groundwater Recharge-Contract Banking

- - - 32 Groundwater Recharge-Adjudicated Basins

- - - 33 Groundwater Recharge-Unadjudicated Basins

- - - 34a Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from Native Vegetation b Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from Unirrigated Ag 35a Evaporation from Lakes 320.7 331.5 326.1 b Evaporation from Reservoirs 700.7 798.5 728.9 36 Ag Effective Precipitation on Irrigated Lands 1358 1057.5 1056.6 37 Agricultural Water Use 5,841.2 7,927.1 7,781.7 38 Managed Wetlands Water Use 398.3 429.5 445.7 39a Urban Residential Use - Single Family - Interior 120.0 136.1 139.8 b Urban Residential Use - Single Family - Exterior 224.3 267.9 273.0 c Urban Residential Use - Multi-family - Interior 71.5 87.2 89.4 d Urban Residential Use - Multi-family - Exterior 19.5 23.8 24.3 40 Urban Commercial Use 113.1 140.4 137.5 41 Urban Industrial Use 77.3 84.2 84.5 42 Urban Large Landscape 91.8 111.2 120.1 43 Urban Energy Production

- 0.3 0.1 44 Instream Flow 586.3 600.2 614.1 45 Required Delta Outflow 9505 7231.6 4486.2 46 Wild and Scenic Rivers 947.7 782.8 320.5 47a Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Ag 3677.9 4983.2 4908.4 b Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Managed Wetlands 127.5 169.7 162.9 c Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Urban 313.2 378.8 384.4 48 Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from Urban Wastewater 0.2 0.1 0.2 49 Return Flows Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Ag 122 173.4 174.2 50 Urban Waste Water Produced 253 299.7 312.6 51a Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Urban 4.9 4.3 4.3 b Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Ag 40.6 61.5 59.9 c Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Managed Wetlands 11.7 16.3 15.5 d Conveyance Outflow to Mexico 52a Return Flows to Salt Sink - Ag 637 869.5 931.5 b Return Flows to Salt Sink - Urban 314.3 370.4 381.2 c Return Flows to Salt Sink - Wetlands 179.24 164.1 169.3 53 Remaining Natural Runoff - Flows to Salt Sink 33,981.9 10,924.2 2,457.9 54a Outflow to Nevada

- - - b Outflow to Oregon

- - -

c Outflow to Mexico

- - - 55 Regional Imports 901.1 1,150.3 700.4 56 Regional Exports 5193.6 6250.8 4657.1 59 Groundwater Net Change in Storage 739.9 -150.8 -1,147.6 60 Surface Water Net Change in Storage 2,752.0 -1,100.7 -2,411.8 61 Surface Water Total Available Storage 16,145.6 16,145.6 16,145.6

Inflows Outflows Green number signifies included in summary boxes**Chapter 6** Sacra mento RiverRegion 1 9 6 **Volume 3**  Regional Reports California Wa ter Plan Update 200520 6 **Volume 3**  Regional Reports **Chapter 6** Sacra mento River Region California Wa ter Plan Update 2005

## Chapter 7 San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region 

# Volume 3i 7 **Chapter 7** San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005 

# Chapter 7 San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region

Contents
Chapter 7 San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region ........................................................................................................7-1 Setting ................................ 7-1 Climate ............................... 7-1 Population .......................... 7-1 Land Use ............................ 7-2 Water Supply and Use ......... 7-5 State of the Region .............. 7-8 Challenges ...................... 7-8 Accomplishments .......... 7-10 Relationship with Other Regions .........................................................................................................................7-11 Looking to the Future ......... 7-12 Regional Planning ............. 7-12 Water Portfolios for Water Years 1998, 2000, and 2001 .....................................................................................7-12
Water Year 1998 .......... 7-12 Water Year 2000 .......... 7-13 Water Year 2001 .......... 7-14 Selected References ........... 7-14



## Figures Figure 7-1 San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region (map) .............................................................................................7-ii Figure 7-2 San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region population ......................................................................................7-3 Figure 7-3 San Joaquin River region water balance for water years 1998, 2000, 2001 (2 bar charts) ..........................7-6 Figure 7-4 San Joaquin River region - illustrated water flow diagram ........................................................................7-17 Figure 7-5 San Joaquin River region - schematic flow diagram .................................................................................7-18



## Tables
Table 7-1 San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region water balance summary .....................................................................7-4

T able 7-2 San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region water use and distribution of dedicated supplies ..................................7-7

T able 7-3 San Joaquin River region water portfolios ................................................................................................7-16**Volume 3** Regional Reports California Water Plan Update 2005

**Some Statistics** Area -15,214 square miles (9.6% of State) Average annual precipitation - 26.3 inches Year 2000 population - 1,751,010 2030 population projection - 3,385,885 Total reservoir storage capacity -11,477 TAF 2000 irrigated crop area - 2,050,400 acres .

.

.

.

.

. Flow in TAF
1998 83 2000 113 2001 152 **Central Coast Region** San Felipe Unit (CVP) Flow in TAF
1998 40 2000 30 2001 23 **Sacramento River Region** Sly Park

Flow in TAF
1998 764 2000 1,212 2001 735 **Tulare Lake Region** Friant-Kern Canal (CVP)

Flow in TAF
1998 915 2000 0 2001 0 **San Joaquin River Region** Kings River Flow in T AF
1998 8,491 2000 2,846 2001 1,732 **San Joaquin River Region** Flow in TAF
1998 597 2000 629 2001 625 **San Francisco Bay Region**

Contra Costa Canal Mokelumne Aqueduct Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct

South Bay Aqueduct Flow in TAF
1998 5,119 2000 6,174 2001 4,572 **Sacramento River Region** Delta Mendota Canal (CVP) Folsom South Canal California Aqueduct (SWP)

Flow in TAF
1998 2,952 2000 4,414 2001 2,961 **Tulare Lake Region** California Aqueduct (SWP) San Luis Unit (CVP) Delta-Mendota Pool ALPINE

MARIPOSA

MERCED MADERA FRESNO

CALAVERAS

SAN JOAQUIN CONTRA

COSTA TUOLUMNE

STANISLAUS AMADOR **Figure 7-1 San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region**

The San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region includes all of the San Joaquin River drainage area extending from Madera County in th e south to the Delta in the north. Arrows indicate annual flows entering and leaving the region for water years 1998, 2000, and 2001.1 7 **Chapter 7** San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005



# Chapter 7 San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region

**Climate**
Because the San Joaquin Valley is isolated by mountains from the marine effects of coastal California, the maximum average daily temperature in the valley reaches a high of 101 degrees during late July. Daily temperatures during the warmest months usually range between 76 and 115 degrees. The northern part of this hydrologic region does benefit from Delta breezes during the hot summer periods, which are winds produced by the strong temperature difference between the hot valley regions and the cooler coastal climate of the San Francisco Bay area. Winter temperatures in the valley floor regions are usually mild, but during infrequent cold spells minimum readings occasionally drop below freezing. Heavy frost occurs in most fall and winter seasons, typically between the end of November and early March.

T he San Joaquin River hydrologic region experiences a wide range of precipitation, which varies from low rainfall amounts on the valley floor to extensive amounts of snow in the higher elevations of the Sierra Nevada. The climate of much of the upland area on the west side of the valley floor resembles that of the Sierra Nevada foothills on the east side. The average annual precipitation of several Sierra Nevada stations is about 35 inches. Snowmelt runoff from the mountains is the major contributor to local water supplies for the eastern San Joaquin Valley. The climate of the valley is characterized by long, hot summers and mild winters. Average annual precipitation ranges from about 22 inches near the Stockton area in the north to about 11 inches in the southern portion of the region and further decreases to about 6.5 inches near the dry southwestern corner of the region.



## Population The population of the San Joaquin River region in year 2000

was about 1.7 million, which was about 5 percent of the state’s total population. Although there are 15 counties partially orentirely in the San Joaquin River region, most of the popula

## Setting
The San Joaquin River hydrologic region is in the heart of California and includes the northern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. It is bordered on the east by the Sierra Nevada and on the west by the coastal mountains of the Diablo Range. It extends from the southern boundaries of the Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta to include all of the San Joaquin River drainage area to the northern edge of the San Joaquin River in Madera. Roughly half of the Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta is within this hydrologic region, encompassing those portions of the Delta in Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Joaquin counties. The region extends south from just below the northeastern corner of Sacramento County and east to include the southern third of El Dorado County, almost all of Amador County, all of Calaveras, Mariposa, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne counties, and the western slope of Alpine County. The San Joaquin River Basin is hydrologically separated from the Tulare Lake Basin by a low, broad ridge that extends across the San Joaquin Valley between the San Joaquin and Kings rivers. A map and table of statistics describing the region are presented in Figure 7-1.

T he San Joaquin River is roughly 300 miles long, which makes it one of the state’s longest rivers. It has an average unimpaired runoff of about 1.8 million acre-feet per year, and its eight major tributaries drain about 32,000 square miles of watershed lands. The headwaters of the San Joaquin River begin near the 14,000 foot elevation of the crest of the Sierra Nevada. The river runs down the western slope of the Sierra, and then flows northwest to the Delta where it meets the Sacramento River. The two rivers converge in the 1,153-square-mile Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta—amaze of channels and islands—which also receives freshwater inflow from the Cosumnes, Mokelumne and Calaveras rivers and other smaller streams. Historically, more than 40 percent of the state’s annual run-off flowed to the Delta via the Sacramento, San Joaquin and Mokelumne rivers.California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 2 7 tion and agricultural land use occurs within five counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Contra Costa, and Madera. Of these, the county with the largest year 2000 population wasSan Joaquin County with 567,600 people. Stockton, its largest city, had 243,771 people. Stanislaus County, population 567,600, was the second largest county in the region, and its largest city is Modesto with a population of 188,856. The county of Merced is the next largest with a population of 210,200; the city of Merced had a population of 63,800. For counties that are only partially within this hydrologic region, Contra Costa County had 145,775 residents, and Madera County had a year 2000 population of 127,400. Figure 7-2 provides a graphical depiction of the San Joaquin River region’s total actual population from years 1960 through year 2000, with projections to year 2030.

California experienced a statewide population increase of almost 14 percent from 1990 to 2000, and the growth rates in San Joaquin valley cities and counties are projected to exceed that trend. According to California Department ofFinance projections, growth rates for the above five count ies will range between 18 and 32 percent over the next 10 years. The highest rate of urbanization will occur in the northern portion of the region. For San Joaquin County, the projected population will increase to 747,100 by 2010 and to 1,229,000 by 2030. Similarly, the projected population for Stanislaus County will increase to 559,100 by 2010, and to 744,600 by 2030. The rapid rates of growth and urbanization in these regions will generate significant land and water uses challenges for the entire San Joaquin Valley.



## Land Use
The valley portion of the San Joaquin River region consists primarily of highly productive farmland and the rapidly growing urban areas of Stockton, Tracy, Modesto, Manteca, and Merced. Agriculture is the major economic and land use activity in the San Joaquin River region. The San Joaquin The valley portion of the San Joaquin River region consists primarily of highly productive farmland and the rapidly growing urban areas of Stockton, Tracy, Modesto, Manteca, and Merced. The river runs down the western slope of the Sierra, and then flows northwest to the Delta. (DWR photo)3 7 **Chapter 7** San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

Valley is recognized as one of the most important agricultural regions in California, with roughly 2 million acres of irrigated cropland and an annual agricultural output valued at more than $ 4.9 billion. The region has a high diversity of irrigatedcrops with about 34 percent as permanent orchard and vineyard crops and 29 percent as grains, hay, and pasture. Some of the other major crops include cotton, corn, tomatoes, anda variety of other fi eld and truck crops. In addition to agriculture, other important industries in the region include food processing, chemical production, lumber and wood products, glass, textiles, paper, machinery, fabricated metal products, and various other commodities. About 1.95 million acres or 21 percent of the region’s total land area were devoted to irrigated agriculture in year 2000.

While the valley fl oor areas of the San Joaquin River region are primarily privately owned agricultural land, much of the Sierra Nevada is national forest. The government-owned public lands include the El Dorado, Stanislaus, and Sierra national forests and Yosemite National Park. Public lands amount to about one-third of the San Joaquin River region’s total land area. The national forest and park lands encompass more than 2.9 million acres; State parks and recreational areas and other State property account for about 80,000 acres; and U.S. Bureau of Land Management and militaryproperties occupy over 200,000 and 5,100 acres, respectively. The valley portion of the region constitutes about 3.5 million acres, the eastern foothills and mountains total about 5.8 million acres, and the western coastal mountains comprise about 900,000 acres.

Restoration of Central Valley wetlands habitat is critical to the preservation of many species of fi sh and wildlife in the San Joaquin River ecosystem. Beginning in the 1990s, agencies began to make progress in efforts to set aside and restore acreage for wetland habitat. In 1990, the San Joaquin River Management Program was formed to restore the river system, which led to completion of the San Joaquin River Management Plan in 1995. This plan identifi ed nearly 80 consensus-based actions intended to benefi t the San Joaquin River system,which are organized into the categories of projects, feasibility studies, and riparian habitat acquisitions. Many federal and State agencies now have active roles in the funding and implementation of wetlands habitat restoration programs,including the U.S. Fish and Wild Service, the California BayDelta Authority and the California Department of Fish and Game. One of the larger projects along the San Joaquin River is the restoration of 775 acres of native riparian habitat on the 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 

### Figure 7-2 San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region population

Data from California Department of Finance provide decadal population from 1960 to 2000 and population projection for 2030 for the San Joaquin River region.California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 4 7 **Water Entering the Region** Precipitation 35,535 23,209 16,120 Inflow from Oregon/Mexico 0 0 0 Inflow from Colorado River 0 0 0 Imports from Other Regions 6,034 6,174 4,572 **Total 41,569 29,383 20,692 Water Leaving the Region**  Consumptive Use of Applied Water * 3,705 4,762 4,983 (Ag, M&I, Wetlands) Outflow to Oregon/Nevada/Mexico 0 0 0 Exports to Other Regions*** 4,436 6,398 4,496 Statutory Required Outflow to Salt Sink 0 0 0 Additional Outflow to Salt Sink 176 196 218 Evaporation, Evapotranspiration of Native Vegetation, Groundwater Subsurface Outflows, 31,448 18,055 13,690 Natural and Incidental Runoff, Ag Effective Precipitation & Other Outflows **Total 39,765 29,412 23,387 Storage Changes in the Region**  [+] Water added to storage [-] Water removed from storage Change in Surface Reservoir Storage 2,248 67 -1,435 Change in Groundwater Storage ** -444 -96 -1,260 **Total 1,804 -29 -2,695** 

**Applied Water *** (compare with Consumptive Use) 6,035 7,584 7,817

*Footnote for applied water

Consumptive use is the amount of applied water used and no lon ger available as a source of supply. Applied water is greater than consumptive use because it includes consumptive use, reuse, and outflows.

**Footnote for change in Groundwater Storage

C hange in Groundwater Storage is based upon best available information. Basins in the north part of the state (North Coast, San Francisco, Sacramento River and North Lahontan regions and parts of Central Coast and San Joaquin River regions) have been modeled – spring 1997 to spring 1998 for the 1998 water year and spring 1999 to spring 2000 for the 2000 water year. All other regions and year 2001 were calculated using the following equation:

GW change in storage = intentional recharge + deep percolation of applied water + conveyance deep percolation - withdrawals

This equation does not include the unknown factors such as natural recharge and subsurface inflow and outflow. 

### Water Year (Percent of Normal Precipitation)
1998 (174%) 2000 (113%) 2001 (79%) 

### Table 7-1 **San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region water balance summary - TAF**
Water Entering the Region – Water Leaving the Region = Storage Changes in Region5 7 **Chapter 7** San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

West Unit of the San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge, west of Modesto. About 158,000 native trees, shrubs, and vines will be planted to accommodate the habitat needs of threatened and endangered species.

T he San Joaquin Valley serves as a breeding and resting stop along the Pacific Flyway for many species of waterfowl. Public wildlife refuges in the San Joaquin River region include the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge, which encompasses 26,340 acres; the San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge with 2,875 acres; Merced National Wildlife Refuge with 8,280 acres; Los Banos Wildlife Area with 5,586 acres; Volta Wildlife Area with 2,891 acres; the North Grasslands Wildlife Area with 7,069 acres; the White Slough Wildlife Area with 969 acres; and the Isenberg Sandhill Crane Reserve at 361 acres. Toward the northern end of this region, the Cosumnes River Preserve is managed by the Nature Conservancy and has become the largest refuge area in theregion at 36,300 acres. Additionally, there are many private duck clubs in the region that maintain wetland habitat.



## Water Supply and Use
The primary sources of surface water in the San Joaquin

River region are the rivers that drain the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. These include the San Joaquin River and its major tributaries, the Merced, Tuolumne, Stanislaus, Calaveras, Mokelumne, and Cosumnes rivers. Most of these rivers drain large areas of high-elevation watersheds that supply snowmeltrunoff during the late spring and early summer. Other tributaries to the San Joaquin River include the Chowchilla and Fresno rivers, which originate in the Sierra Nevada foothills where most of the runoff results directly from rainfall.

The water balance table for the San Joaquin River hydrologic region (Table 7-1) summarizes all of the water supplies, uses,and outflows for years 1998, 2000, and 2001 and is supplemented by the detailed regional water accounting information in Table 7-2. As shown in Table 7-1, changes in groundwater storage are balanced with the available surface water each year to meet the regions needs. In wet years like 1998 excess surface water supply is added into groundwater storage, while in a drier year like 2001 the amount of groundwater pumped to meet water needs results in a net reduction of groundwater in storage. Table 7-3 (in large format at the end of this chapter) provides more specific information about the developed or dedicated component of water supplies for agricultural, urban and environmental purposes, as assembled from actual data for 1998, 2000 and 2001. I n 2000, an average water year, about 44 percent of the San Joaquin River region’s developed water supply came from local surface sources, 23 percent was from imported surface supplies, and groundwater provided about 33 percent of the water supply. About 26 percent of the developed supply, excluding surface water and groundwater reuse, was used for dedicated natural flows to meet instream flow requirements. Figure 7-3 and Table 7-2 summarize all of the developed urban, agricultural and dedicated environmental water uses in this region for years 1998, 2000 and 2001.

Many surface water supply systems in the Sierra Nevada streams and rivers follow a similar pattern of use. Often a series of small reservoirs in the mountain valleys will gathers and store snowmelt runoff. This water is used to generate electricity as it is released downstream. Some diversions occur for consumptive use in local communities, but most flows are recaptured in larger reservoirs in the foothills and along the eastern edge of the valley. Most of these larger reservoirs were built primarily for flood control. However, many of them also store water for urban and agri

c ultural purposes, and make downstream releases for fish and environmental needs. Irrigation canals and municipal pipelines divert much of the water from these reservoirs. Many of the small communities in the Sierra Nevada foothills receive most of their water from local surface supplies. The extensive network of canals and ditches constructed in the 1850s for hydraulic mining forms the basis of many of the conveyance systems. In addition to surface water, many of these foothill and mountain communi

ties pump groundwater from hard rock wells and old mines to augment their supplies, especially during droughts. Groundwater supplies in the foothills are limited, but this is the primary source of water for individual residents who are not connected to municipal water systems.

On the valley floor, many agricultural and municipal users receive their water supply from large irrigation districts, such as the Modesto, Merced, Oakdale, South San Joaquin and Turlock Irrigation Districts. Most of this region’s imported surface water supplies are delivered by the federal Central Valley Project, which average about 1.9 million acre-feet per year. In addition, Oak Flat Water District receives about 4,500 acre-feet per year from the State Water Project.

Most of the surface water in the upper San Joaquin River is stored and diverted at Friant Dam, and is then conveyed north through the Madera Canal and south through the Friant-Kern Canal. Average annual diversions from the San Joaquin River through the Friant-Kern and Madera Canals total about 1.5 million acre-feet per year. Releases from Friant Dam to the San Joaquin River are generally limited to those required to satisfyCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 6 7 **Figure 7-3 San Joaquin River region water balance for water years 1998, 2000, 2001**

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000

1998 2000 2001Thousand Acre-Feet Wild & Scenic
R.

Instream Flow

Managed Wetlands

Irrigated Agriculture

Urban

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000

1998 2000 2001Thousand Acre-Feet Reuse & Recycle

Ground Water

State Project

Federal Projects
Local Projects **Dedicated Water Supplies Applied Water Uses** 

Three years show a marked change in the amount and relative pro portions of water delivered to San Joaquin River region’s urban and agricultural sectors and water dedicated to the environment ( applied water, top chart), where the water came from, and how much water was reused among sectors (dedicated water supplies, bottom chart).7 7 **Chapter 7** San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

Applied Net Depletion Applied Net Depletion Applied Net Depletion
Water Use Water Use Water Use Water Use Water Use Water Use 2001 1998 2000

**WATER USE Table 7-2**  **San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region water use and distribution of dedicated supplies (TAF)**

**DEDICATED WATER SUPPLIES Urban**  Large Landscape 30.2 32.9 35.5 Commercial 34.5 37.6 39.6 Industrial 86.3 89.4 90.1 Energy Production 0.0 0.0 0.0 Residential - Interior 176.2 191.5 199.7 Residential - Exterior 214.0 231.3 243.7 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 191.0 191.0 206.6 206.6 218.4 218.4 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Outflow 142.3 142.3 150.0 150.0 160.8 160.8 Conveyance Applied Water 19.2 17.5 20.5 Conveyance Evaporation & ETAW 12.6 12.6 12.0 12.0 13.6 13.6 Conveyance Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Outflow 6.6 6.6 5.5 5.5 6.9 6.9 GW Recharge Applied Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 GW Recharge Evap + Evapotranspiration 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 **Total Urban Use 560.4 352.5 352.5 600.2 374.1 374.1 629.1 399.7 399.7**  **Agriculture** On-Farm Applied Water 4,823.5 6,215.8 6,533.0 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 3,408.1 3,408.1 4,406.0 4,406.0 4,627.8 4,627.8 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 74.4 74.4 11.6 11.6 14.3 14.3 Outflow 1,183.4 4.0 954.1 5.0 980.8 12.4 Conveyance Applied Water 379.0 461.5 449.1 Conveyance Evaporation & ETAW 207.7 207.7 248.8 248.8 245.3 245.3 Conveyance Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Outflow 22.9 22.9 35.4 35.4 37.9 37.9 GW Recharge Applied Water 255.5 340.5 260.9 GW Recharge Evap + Evapotranspiration 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 **Total Agricultural Use 5,458.0 4,896.5 3,717.1 7,017.8 5,655.9 4,706.8 7,243.0 5,906.1 4,937.7** 
**Environmental** Instream Applied Water 1,528.9 2,098.5 1,424.4 Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wild & Scenic Applied Water 3,661.1 2,093.8 1,091.0 Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Required Delta Outflow Applied Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Managed Wetlands Habitat Applied Water 414.5 444.8 414.7 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 105.9 105.9 149.7 149.7 136.6 136.6 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Outflow 134.2 1.6 128.3 1.6 135.7 1.5 Conveyance Applied Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Evaporation & ETAW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Managed Wetlands Use 414.5 240.1 107.5 444.8 278.0 151.3 414.7 272.3 138.1 **Total Environmental Use 5,604.5 240.1 107.5 4,637.1 278.0 151.3 2,930.1 272.3 138.1** 
**TOTAL USE AND OUTFLOW 11,622.9 5,489.1 4,177.1 12,255.1 6,308.0 5,232.2 10,802.2 6,578.1 5,475.5**

**Surface Water** Local Deliveries 3,229.8 3,229.8 2,321.5 3,540.7 3,540.7 2,837.2 3,548.5 3,548.5 2,812.5 Local Imported Deliveries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Colorado River Deliveries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CVP Base and Project Deliveries 1,367.0 1,367.0 982.6 1,803.5 1,803.5 1,445.2 1,666.5 1,666.5 1,320.9 Other Federal Deliveries 64.3 64.3 46.2 65.8 65.8 52.7 97.6 97.6 77.4 SWP Deliveries 4.3 4.3 3.1 4.6 4.6 3.7 3.5 3.5 2.8 Required Environmental Instream Flow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Groundwater Net Withdrawal 821.8 821.8 821.8 891.5 891.5 891.5 1,260.1 1,260.1 1,260.1 Deep Percolation of Surface and GW 943.8 1,754.8 1,708.5 Reuse/Recycle Reuse Surface Water 5,190.0 4,192.3 2,515.6 Recycled Water 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

**TOTAL SUPPLIES 11,622.9 5,489.1 4,177.1 12,255.1 6,308.0 5,232.2 10,802.2 6,578.1 5,475.5**  **Balance = Use - Supplies 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0** California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 8 7 downstream water rights, above Gravelly Ford, and for floodcontrol. In the vicinity of Gravelly Ford, a high amount of subsurface percolation into the groundwater basin occurs because the river bed is primarily sand and gravel. As a result of the operation of Friant Dam, there are seldom any surface flows in the middle reaches of the San Joaquin River until it is joined bythe Merced River and other major downstream tributaries Agricultural and municipal return flows into the river also contribute to the surface flow of the lower San Joaquin River.

The tributaries of the San Joaquin River provide the region withhigh-quality water that constitutes most of the surface water supp lies for local uses. Much of this water is regulated by reservoirs and used on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley. Significant amounts of water are also diverted west across the valley to the San Francisco Bay Area via the Mokelumne Aqueduct, which supplies some for the urban water demands of East Bay Municipal Utility District, and the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, which supplies urban water to San Francisco and several other Bay Area cities. The average annual water diversions from the Moke

lumne and Tuolumne rivers for export from the basin include 245,000 acre-feet through the Mokelumne Aqueduct and 267,000 acre-feet through the Hetch-Hetchy Aqueduct. Major dams on the tributary streams include Pardee and Camanche dams on the Mokelumne River, New Melones, Donnells, and Beardsley dams on the Stanislaus River, O’Shaunessy and New Don Pedro dams on the Tuolumne River, and Exchequer Dam on the Merced River.

In 2000, an average water year, agriculture accounted for about 57 percent of the San Joaquin River region’s total developed water use, while urban water use was about 5 percent and environmental water use for dedicated purposes was 38 percent. Regional average urban per capita water use was about 304 gpcd. Imported water supplies to this region from the Central Valley Project, the State Water Project, and other federal deliver

i es, amounted to 1,874,000 acre feet. Environmental demands, including for refuges, instream requirements, and wild and scenic flows, totaled 4,637,100 acre feet (see Figure 7-3 and Table 7-2)



## State of the Region Challenges Historically, the surface water originating from Sierra Nevada rivers has proven to be a dependable supply of high qualitywater, but it meets only half of the region’s total water requirem ents. Imported surface water and groundwater-pumping make up the difference. Because the region relies on imported surface water from other regions, there is growing concern over the long-term availability of external supplies. Additionally , proposals to restore fisheries on the San Joaquin River through larger releases of water from Friant Dam have resulted in growing concerns over the long-term stability of the existing surface water supplies.

One of the major challenges facing the San Joaquin River hydrologic region is restoring the ecosystem along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam while maintaining water supply reliability for other purposes. The river’s historic salmon popula

tions upstream of the Merced River were eradicated after the river water was diverted with the construction of Friant Dam in the 1940s. In August 2004, a federal judge ruled that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation violated California State Fish and Game Code 5937 by not providing enough water downstream to sustain fish populations. Efforts to restore some surface flows to the San Joaquin River would help restore the ecosystem and improve the reliability and quality of water available to down

stream farmers in the Delta. The litigation of these issues is not resolved, and the development of acceptable solutions will be challenging because of the potential to adversely impact water supplies to the Friant Water Users Authority.

Another major challenge is maintaining the integrity of the Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta levee system. More than 1,000miles of levees protect Delta islands, and these lands are commonly 10 to 15 feet below sea level. The potential failure of a levee could occur as the result of major earthquakes or floods, or because of gradual deterioration and inadequate maintenance. Composed largely of peat soils, many islands are vulnerable to seepage and subsidence, which contributes to settlement and the risk of levee failure. Protection and restoration of the Delta levees is one of the key objectives of the CALFED Bay-Delta program as discussed in Chapter 12 of this volume.

Groundwater pumping is a major source of water supply for the San Joaquin River region, and it continues to increase in response to the growing urban and agricultural demands. Over the long-term, groundwater extraction cannot continue to meetall of the current and projected water demands without causing negative impacts on the groundwater basins. The primary impact is groundwater overdraft, a condition where the average long-term amount of water pumped out of the basin exceeds the amount of water recharged or naturally replenished into the groundwater basin. A serious consequence of long-term groundwater overdraft is land subsidence and compaction of the aquifer, with a resulting drop in the natural land surface. Land subsidence results in a reduction of aquifer storage space and may damage public facilities such as canals, utilities, pipelines, and roads. Pumping depressions from wells have caused poor9 7 **Chapter 7** San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

quality water from the Delta to migrate underground toward eastern San Joaquin County. Several municipal wells in western Stockton have been abandoned because of the resulting decline in groundwater quality. Several existing and proposed measures can help counteract potentially serious overdraft conditions in some areas of the region, such as groundwater spreading basins and recharge programs. In some situations, the over-irrigation of crops with extra surface water in wet years and seepage from unlined canal systems can aid in groundwater recharge.

T he major water quality problems of the San Joaquin River region are a result of many factors, including depleted freshwater flows, municipal and industrial wastewater discharges, salt loads from agricultural drainage and runoff, and other pollutants associated with long-term agricultural irrigation and production, including nutrients, selenium, boron, and organophosphate pesticides. The entire Central Valley, which includes the San Joaquin River, as well as the Sacramento River and Tulare Lake basins, has 40 water bodies that are impaired due to agriculture, including 800 miles of waterways, and 40,000 acres in the Delta. In its most recent triennial review of its basin plan, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board identified high priority problems as salinity and boron discharges to the San Joaquin River, low dissolved oxygen problems in the lower San Joaquin River, control of organophosphorous pesticides, and the need for stronger policies to protect Delta drinking water quality.

High salinity is a problem in the San Joaquin River basin because of the greatly altered flows of the river, most of which is diverted from its natural course at Friant Dam. In addition, imported irri

gation water from State and federal projects annually transport more than a half million tons of salts into the west side of the San Joaquin River region. Water released from New MelonesReservoir on the Stanislaus River is used to help meet the salinity and dissolved oxygen requirements at Vernalis on the lower San Joaquin River. Agricultural drainage and discharges from managed wetlands are already regulated in the 370,000 acre Grasslands watershed, which contributes high levels of salts, selenium, boron, and nutrients to Mud and Salt Sloughs. These sloughs are some of the primary contributors of selenium to the San Joaquin River. Dairies, stockyards, and poultry ranches are also a concern in the region because they generate waste products including pathogens, nutrients, salts, and emerging contaminants that enter the waterways. Some dairies and other agricultural operations are already subject to regulatory review. Water releases from managed wetlands, part of State and federal wildlife refuge system, also can discharge salts and nutrients. The erosion of westside streams is the primary source of organochlorine pesticides in the San Joaquin River. Migrating and spawning salmonids face high temperatures in the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced rivers downstream from dams during certain times of the year, depending on hydrologic and water supply conditions. Contamination of fish is also a concern in these three rivers as well as the main stem of the San Joaquin River. For example, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board cites one study of a 43-mile reach of the San Joaquin River (between the confluences with the Merced and the Stanislaus rivers) to be toxic to fish about half the time. In the lower San Joaquin River, low dissolved oxygen levels in the Stockton Deepwater Ship Channel are attributable to warm temperatures, low flows, nutrients, and channel configuration. This portion of the river with low dissolved oxygen is potentially a barrier to fall-run Chinook salmon migrating upstream to the Merced, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus rivers to spawn.

Groundwater quality throughout the region is generally ade

quate for most urban and agricultural uses. However there are roughly 1,000 square miles overlying groundwater along the western edge of the valley floor that is contaminated with high salinity from naturally occurring marine sediments of the Coast Range. The salinity of groundwater in the region can increaseas a result of agricultural practices in which the evapotranspiration of crops and wetlands leaves behind the majority of salts contained in the imported water. In addition, high water-table conditions underlying marginal lands along the west side ofthe San Joaquin River region contribute to subsurface drainage problems. In order to maintain a salt balance in the root zone, much of this salt is leached into the groundwater. For aesthetic purposes, such as taste, Department of Health Services regulations recommend that drinking water contain less than 500 mg/L of salinity as measured by total dissolved solids. For agricultural uses, water with a salinity of less than 450 mg/L total dissolved solids is generally considered acceptable. While the above Department of Health Services recommendation is adopted by reference into the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s basin plan to protect domestic use of groundwater, thebasin plan contains no numerical salinity objectives for protection of agricultural beneficial uses.

Nitrates that are generated from the disposal of human and animal waste products or from the inefficient application of fertilizer and irrigation water have contaminated 200 square miles of groundwater in the region and do threaten some domestic water supplies. Pesticides have contaminated 500 square miles of groundwater basins, primarily in agricultural areas on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley, where soil permeability is higher and the depth to groundwater is more shallow. The entire Central Valley is home to about 500,000California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 10 7 single-family residential septic systems, each with leach fieldsthat discharge to the groundwater. The most notable agricultural contaminant detected in groundwater samples from this region is dibromochloropropane, DBCP, which is a banned nematocide that has been found mostly along the State Route 99 highway corridor. There are also roughly 200 square miles of groundwater basins that are contaminated by naturally occurring selenium.

As of January 1, 2003, the passage of Senate Bill 390 ended the previously used conditional waivers for waste dischargerequirements for 23 types of waste discharges, including irrigated agriculture and logging. A previously submitted petitionfrom three environmental groups had requested that these waivers be rescinded because of concerns about pesticides in discharges. Unlike the federal Clean Water Act, which specifically exempts agricultural discharges from regulation, California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act allows a waiverfrom regulation only if it does not conflict with the public interest. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board granted such a waiver to irrigated lands in 1982, exempting the agricultural discharges using the waste discharge requirements process. That waiver did have conditions imposed, but because of a lack of staff resources, the regional board did not monitor or review compliance. Senate Bill 390 still allows the continuation of waivers, but only when specifically renewed by the regional board and when subject to a five-year review.

In relation to other regions of the State, water discharges from irrigated lands have their greatest impact to water quality in the Central Valley, which covers 40 percent of California’s land area and contains 7-million irrigated acres and more than 25,000 individual agricultural dischargers. As an interim measure in July 2003, the Central Valley regional board adopted two types of conditional waivers for such discharges into surface water, one for “coalition groups” and the other for individuals. These waivers applied to surface runoff or tailwater, excess water diverted but not used, subsurface drainage to lower the water table for growing, and storm water runoff. Additional commod

i ty-specific and low-threat waivers are also under consideration. The requirements contained in these new waivers include water quality monitoring and implementation of best management practices or management measures to control pollution. Thisnew waiver program, which focuses on data collection, monitoring for toxicity, and drinking water constituents will expire on December 31, 2005. Subsequently, a 10-year implementation program is envisioned that would fully protect the state’s waters from quality problems associated with discharges from irrigated lands in order to meet water quality objectives. Although existing agricultural land use practices affect water quality now, the expanding urbanization of Central Valley cities will generate new and different water quality problems in the future. In anticipation of these problems, the Central Valley regional board has recently started requiring many municipal wastewater discharge systems to construct and operate more costly tertiary wastewater treatment facilities.



### Accomplishments The Reclamation Board of California and the U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers in coordination with a broad array of stakeholde rs, have recently developed a new Comprehensive Plan for the flood management system of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River regions. Rather than a physical plan for flood facilities and systems, this Comprehensive Plan recommends an approach to design and implement projects in the future in ways that would reduce damage from flooding and restore the ecosystem.

The Millerton Area Watershed Coalition is conducting a comprehensive assessment of the San Joaquin River watershed and will evaluate activities that need to be changed to better protect and care for the watershed. The information and recommendations from this study will be developed into an outreach program to promote the protection and enhancement of the watershed, including the economic and environmental well-being of the communities within it. This comprehensive assessment is sponsored by the CALFED Watershed Program and coordinated through the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

The San Joaquin River Group Authority was formed in the 1990s in response to the development of the Sacramento – San Joaquin Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan by the State Water Resources Control Board. The water quality control plan was adopted in 1995 and included significant water quality and flow standards for the lower San Joaquin River. The goals of the authority are to investigate fishery and water quality issues on the San Joaquin River and develop solutions that will protect the salmon fishery and improve water quality. To respond to water quality issues, the regional board is studying agricultural discharge quality controls, and may consider the use of agriculture waivers at a watershed level. Additional water quality monitoring will be necessary to address the various water quality problems on the Lower San Joaquin River. Landowners will have the choice of participating in water quality monitoring and improvement programs on a watershed level or on an individual basis. The watershed approach can be used to identify and address “hot spots” by working directly with individual landowners or encouraging individuals to work together to find solutions.11 7 **Chapter 7** San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

The San Joaquin River Group Authority also led the developm ent of the Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan as a 10-year test program designed to study methods to improve salmon smolt survival in the lower San Joaquin River. Starting in the year 2000, the Vernalis plan has coordinated the release of water from upstream reservoirs each spring to generate a calculated pulse flow down the lower river to help salmon smolts migrate to San Francisco Bay and the ocean. The timing and duration of this pulse flow is coordinated with reduced State Water Project and Central Valley Project Delta export pumping in order to improve Delta flow patterns to guide the salmon smolts to the ocean. The plan’s technical group coordinates extensively with several local and government agencies to oversee the successful test flow each year, which include real-time facility operations and monitoring, trackingof water flows and fish migration, and outreach and education. It is still too early in the 10-year test to determine how successful this program will be.

T he Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation evolved out of the CALFED Record of Decision of 2000. That decision states, “250 to 700 [thousand acre-feet] of additional storage in the upper San Joaquin watershed ... would be designed to contribute to restoration of and improve water quality for the San Joaquin River, and facilitate conjunctive water management and water exchanges that improve the quality of water deliveries to urban communities. Additional storage could come from enlargement of Millerton Lake at Friant Dam or a functionally equivalent storage program in the region.” Surface storage options in the San Joaquin River region that may be considered as part of the CALFED program include of the investigation of (1) raising Friant Dam, (2) Fine Gold Creek Dam, and (3) Temperance Flat Dam, which includes three alternative sites. Additionally, Yokohl Valley Reservoir near Visalia in the Tulare Lake region could also be considered as part of these planning studies.

The Farmington Groundwater Recharge and Seasonal Habitat Program is a regional effort to recharge the underground aquifer in the Eastern San Joaquin County Basin. The basin aquifer is threatened by the eastward movement of saltwater from the Delta, which could eventually contaminate municipal wells in Stockton and limit the ability of farmers to grow crops,except for some salt-tolerant, low-value varieties. By periodically spreading an average of 35,000 acre feet of surplus water per year using the flooded-field method, the program is intended to reduce groundwater overdraft and establish a barrier to prevent saline water intrusion. The $33.5 millionprogram is a partnership between Stockton East Water District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The program will initially seek to secure flooding rights on about 25 agricultural parcels totaling 1,200 acres. The initial 35,000 acre-foot per year objective was based on the Farming Groundwater Recharge and Seasonal Habitat Study, which was completed in 2001. Stockton East Water District was the lead local sponsor of the feasibility study with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Other study participants included Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District, North San Joaquin Water Conservation District, City of Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California Water Service Company.

Through the South San Joaquin County Surface Water Supply Project, the cities of Tracy, Manteca, Lathrop, and Escalon have joined with the South San Joaquin Irrigation District to plan for a water treatment plant on the Stanislaus River. The project will use water that the irrigation district has conserved from improvements in irrigation practices and water efficiencies. Water will be taken from Woodward Reservoir, treated to drinking standards, and conveyed to the cities. A 40-mile long transmission pipeline would also be built from the treatment plant to deliver water to each of the participant cities. The $150 million project is expected to begin deliveries around May 2005. The project is scheduled to deliver 30,000 acre feet per year to the cities through 2010 and up to 44,000 acre-feet per year thereafter. The intent of the project is to reduce the reliance on groundwater and to satisfy future urban demand increases.



## Relationship with Other Regions
The San Joaquin River region is dependent on receiving surface water from other regions of the State to meet a portion of its developed agricultural and urban water uses. For many years, the region has received imported Central Valley Project water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta via the Delta MendotaCanal and from the project’s Friant Dam on the upper San Joaquin River. This region also receives some State Water Project water from the California Aqueduct. The regional map in Figure 7-1 includes arrows that summarize these regional imports and exports for the years 1998, 2000, and 2001.

Some surface water supplies that originate in the San Joaquinregion are also diverted across the valley to the San Francisco Bay region via the Mokelumne Aqueduct by the East Bay Municipal Utility District and through the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct by the City of San Francisco. The average annual diversions by these two projects from the Mokelumne and Tuolumne rivers are about 245,000 acre-feet per year through the Mokelumne Aqueduct and 267,000 acre-feet per year through the Hetch-Hetchy Aqueduct.California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 12 7 In 1998, Contra Costa Water District completed Los Vaqueros Reservoir, which can hold 100,000 acre-feet in storage. This is an offstream reservoir in the northwest corner of the San Joaquin hydrologic region. The reservoir stores Contra Costa Water District water that has been diverted from the Delta in the late winter and spring when water quality is good. Water is typically withdrawn from Los Vaqueros Reservoir in the summer and fall to meet demands and improve the quality of water delivered to the water district’s service areas. However, because a portion of the service area is in the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region, this water is considered to be an export from the San Joaquin region. Los Vaqueros Reservoirhas only been operated for a few years, such that normal patter ns of diversion and water use have not yet been established.



## Looking to the Future The water agencies within this region have many projects and programs planned to address water supply problems. These include studies to evaluate new local surface storage projects and investigations for water storage development in conjunction with the CALFED program. Local agencies are further implementing groundwater conjunctive use projects and increasing their efforts on water use efficiency and water recycling programs. As the urban areas in the valleycontinue to grow and expand, the current trend of agricult ural land conversion to subdivisions is likely to continue. As an outcome of urban expansion, urban water usage is expected to increase in the future, while agricultural water use is projected to decline slightly. The effectiveness of urbanand agricultural water conservation and water use efficiency measures will influence these water use trends.



## Regional Planning
The San Joaquin Valley Water Coalition is a forum where water entities and interest groups can come together to discuss common issues related to water supply, quality, and distribution. The objective of this group is to ensure a watersupply for the valley that is sustainable and capable of meeting the needs and concerns of all water users. The Westside Integrated Water Resources Plan was initiated in 2000 and is evaluating alternatives to increase water supplies and reduce demands in order to address current water supply deficits. The West Stanislaus Hydrologic Unit Area Project is a program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and local growers to enhance water quality by reducing soil erosion into the San Joaquin River. There are several other programs that are focusing on ecosystem restoration for the Merced, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and San Joaquin rivers. The Grassland Bypass Project on the westside of the valley will consolidate the conveyance of subsurface drain flows on a regional basis. A portion of the federal San Luis Drain will be used to convey drainage flows around the Grassland habitat areas into Mud Slough before being discharged into the San Joaquin River above its confluence with the Merced River. The San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Trust has goals to preserve and restore San Joaquin River lands that have ecological, scenic, or historic significance. This group also works to educate the public on the need for river stewardship, research issues affecting the river, and promote educational, recreational and agricultural uses consistent with the protection of the river’s resources.

Work is continuing on several programs at the watershed level in the region. For example, the San Joaquin River Management Program is seeking solutions to the common problems facing the region that affect the environment, water quality, agriculture, and flood control in the San Joaquin River watershed, without the limitations imposed by political boundaries. Also, several public and private partnerships on the east side of the valley are attempting to develop a Comprehensive Plan for the management, protection and restoration of the watersheds of the San Joaquin, Merced, Chowchilla, and Fresno rivers. The goal of this plan is toattain designations as Resource Conservation and Develo pment Areas, so that watershed projects can be coordinated in Mariposa County and easter n Madera County.



## Water Portfolios for Water **Y ears 1998, 2000, and 2001** 

Water Year 1998 California experienced the affects of El Nino weather patterns from July 1997 to June 1998. The wet winter set new records for precipitation at many locations throughout the state. Annual precipitation for Fresno exceeded 180 percent of average; Stockton had almost 200 percent of average; and Los Banos recorded 248 percent of average rainfall. Watershed runoff was well above average as streamflow in the San Joaquin, Merced, Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers reached about 165 percent of average. More detailed information about how these water supplies were stored and used on a region-widebasis is presented in water portfolio Table 7-3, and the companion Water Portfolio flow diagram Figures 7-4 and 7-5 (large-format graphics placed at the end of this chapter).13 7 **Chapter 7** San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

Total irrigated acreage in the San Joaquin River region was about 2,053,700 acres in 1998. Alfalfa acreage accounted for 11.5 percent of all irrigated crops in the region; almond and pistachio acreage accounted for 13.8 percent; and vineyard acreage was 10.9 percent of the total. Compared to year 1995, irrigated pasture acreage declined by about 15,400 acres. However, the acreage of corn rose by 36,800 acres, almonds and pistachios increased 8,600 acres, and vineyards increased by 29,600 acres compared to 1995 levels. These crop shifts indicate that growers are continuing the trend of converting field crops to almond and pistachio orchards and vineyards, in an effort to find commodities that generate better long-term profits.

The effects of the wet El Nino phenomenon on the San Joaquin River region were extensive, such that growers had little need to irrigate during the first four to five months of 1998. As shown in Table 7-3, the total 1998 agricultural on-farm applied water use was 4.8 million acre feet, and total agricultural water use was 5.5 million acre feet or 47 percent of all uses. These water use volumes are significantly lower than what is usually required in a normal year such as 2000. The regional average for agricultural on-farm applied water was 2.4 acre feet per acre. The total agricultural evapotranspiration of applied water, or ETAW, in 1998 amounted to 3.4 million acre feet.

Total urban applied water use, including residential, commercial, industrial, and landscape, in the region totaled 560,400 acre feet. The average per capita water use was about 301 gallons per day, and the urban ETAW was 191,000 acre feet. Urban water use accounted for only about 5 percent of the total water use in the region, and the population for the region was 1,669,890, or 4.9 percent more than 1995.

T otal environmental water use for instream flows, wild and scenic rivers, and refuges was about 5.6 million acre-feet. This accounted for 48 percent of total uses. Environmental water includes water that is reserved for instream and wild and scenic river flow but can be used later as a supply by downstream users. Most of these requirements are for locations on the major rivers that drain from the Sierra Nevada to the valley floor. Refuge water supplies, which are diverted and applied directly onto wildlife refuges, totaled 414,500 acre feet, or 7 percent of total environmental uses.

T otal water supplies needed to meet all of the above demands were 11.6 million acre feet, including local and imported Central Valley Project and State Water Project surface water, groundwater, and water reuse. 

### Water Year 2000 The weather for the 1999-2000 water year in the San Joaquin River region produced normal precipitation and streamflow. Rainfall amounts were slightly above average for most of the measuring stations in the region. Annual precipitation in both Madera and Modesto was 120 percent of average; Stockton rainfall was 99 percent of average; and Los Banos had 88 percent of normal precipitation. Ample moisture was received in the local watersheds, and runoff resulted in good surface water supplies. Watershed runoff was about average, with unimpaired runoff from the Tuolumne, Merced and San Joaquin rivers at about 103 percent of average. The unimpaired runoff from the Stanislaus, Mokelumne, and Cosumnes rivers was 99,89, and 70 percent, respectively, indicating the regional variability of surface flows from one watershed to the next. Heavy rainfall occurred in January and February, delaying many agricultural activities such as pruning, planting, spraying, and field preparation.

T otal irrigated acreage decreased only slightly from 1998, and was 2,050,400 acres for year 2000. Almond and pistachio acreage in 2000 was 292,500 acres, which was 9,300 acres higher than in 1998. The acreage of sugar beets dropped 26 percent to 18,500 acres, while the acreages of most other crops in the region remained about the same as in 1998.

I n general, 2000 weather, water supplies, and evaporative demand were close to average in the San Joaquin River region. The total agricultural on-farm applied water was 6.2 million acre feet, and total agricultural water use was 7 million acre-feet or 57 percent of all uses, about 29 percent more than 1998. Theregional average on-farm unit applied water use was 3 acrefeet per acre. The total agricultural ETAW was about 4.4 million acre feet, 29 percent higher than 1998. Since both 1998 and 2000 had similar total crop acreage, the significant increase in total agricultural applied water (29 percent higher) confirms that wet weather patterns result in significantly reductions in agricultural water needs.

T otal urban water use for the region was 600,200 acre feet, which was about 7 percent higher than the total urban water use for 1998. Average per capita water use was around 304 gallons perday, and total urban ETAW for the year was about 206,600 acrefeet, 8 percent higher than 1998. Urban applied water accounted for about 5 percent of the total water use in the region.

Total environmental water use for instream flows, wild and scenic rivers, and refuges was about 4.6 million acre feet, 17 percent less than in 1998. Although water for requiredCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 14 7 instream flows was higher than in 1998, the amount of water dedicated to wild and scenic rivers was much lower than those of 1998. In 2000, total environmental water use accounted for 38 percent of all developed water uses. Refuge suppliesaccounted for 444,800 acre feet or 10 percent of total environmental uses.

As shown in Table 7-2, total water supplies, including local and imported Central Valley Project and State Water Projectsurface water, groundwater, and reuse, amounted to 12.3 million acre-feet in year 2000, which was a 5 percent increase from 1998.



### Water Year 2001 The 2000-2001 water year started out cooler than normal with cumulative rainfall below average through most of January. Rainfall amounts were slightly less than average for the water year, and annual totals were 88 and 83 percent of average for Madera and Stockton, respectively. As the accumulated precipitation lagged in January, large-scale weather patterns changed significantly as February approached and a series ofPacific storms moved into the state, helping to bring precipitation totals closer to average. This cool, wet period delayedmany agricultural activities such as pruning, planting, spraying, and ground preparation. The weather became warmer by late April and the balance of the growing season offered good growing conditions.

I rrigated crop acreage totaled 2,042,700 acres in 2001,representing a 7,700 acre decline from water year 1998. Irrig ated pasture acreage decreased to 158,800 acres, a 28,900 acres decrease or 15.4 percent decline from 1998; sugar beet acreage decreased to 7,600 acres, a 70 percent decline from 1998. However, miscellaneous truck crop acreage increased 10,800 acres or 16.7 percent higher than 1998, and vineyard acreage increased 18,800 acres or 8.4 percent. The acreage of almond and pistachio orchards increased by 13,000 acres compared to 1998 levels.

The total agricultural on-farm applied water in 2001 was 6.5 million acre feet, and total agricultural water use was 7.2 million acre feet or 67 percent of all water uses, 33 percent more than 1998 and 3 percent more than 2000. The regional average on-farm unit applied water was 3.2 acre feet per acre. Total agricultural ETAW was estimated at 4.6 million acre feet. This was about 36 percent higher than 1998 and 5 percent higher than 2000.

T otal urban applied water use in this region was 629,100 acre feet, which was 12 percent higher than 1998 and 5 percent more than in year 2000. Average per capita water use was about 307 gallons per day, and total urban ETAW was about 218,400 acre feet, a 14 percent increase from 1998 and 6 percent increase from 2000. Total urban applied water use accounted for about 6 percent of the total water use in the region. Population for the region was 1,812,710, which is an 8.6 percent increase from 1998 levels.

Total environmental water use for instream flows, wild and scenic rivers, and refuges was about 2.9 million acre feet, 48 percent less than in 1998 and 37 percent less than in 2000. This decline in environmental water use occurs because instream flow requirements and wild and scenic river flows do change in response to the wetness or dryness of water year conditions. Total environmental water use was 27 percent of all uses in 2001, which is much less than the 48 percent share from year 1998. Refuge water supplies accounted for 414,700 acre feet or 14 percent of total environmental uses.

T otal water supplies needed to meet the 2001 water uses, including local and imported from Central Valley Project and State Water Project surface water, groundwater, and reuse, amounted to 10.8 million acre feet, which was 7 percent less than 1998 and 12 percent less than 2000.



## Selected References 2002 California 305(b) Report on Water Quality, State Water Resources Control Board
C alifornia’s Groundwater Update 2003 Bulletin 118-03, California Department of Water Resources
Contra Costa W ater District Far mington Groundwater Recharge Program Web site, www.farmingtonprogram.org Programmatic Record of Decision, California Bay-Delta Program, August 28, 2000.
San Joaquin River Management Program Advisory Council

S trategic Plan, State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Boards, November 15, 2001 The Modesto Bee newspaper U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Water Quality Control Plan, Regional Water Quality Control Board Watershed Management Initiative Chapter, Regional Water Quality Control Board15 7 **Chapter 7** San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005



# Water Portfolios

San Joaquin River Hydrologic RegionCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 16 7 **Table 7-3 San Joaquin River region water portfolio (TAF)** 

ID San Joaquin River San Joaquin River San Joaquin River Number: Flow Diagram Component (see legend) 1998 2000 2001
1 Colorado River Deliveries

- - - 2 Total Desalination

- - - 3 Water from Refineries

- - - 4a Inflow From Oregon

- - - b Inflow From Mexico

- - - 5 Precipitation 35,534.7 23,208.5 16,120.2 6a Runoff - Natural b Runoff - Incidental 7 Total Groundwater Natural Recharge 8 Groundwater Subsurface Inflow

- 9 Local Deliveries 3,229.8 3,540.7 3,548.5 10 Local Imports

- - - 11a Central Valley Project :: Base Deliveries 12.8 12.8 12.8 b Central Valley Project :: Project Deliveries 1,354.2 1,790.7 1,653.7 12 Other Federal Deliveries 64.3 65.8 97.6 13 State Water Project Deliveries 4.3 4.6 3.5 14a Water Transfers - Regional

- - - b Water Transfers - Imported

- - - 15a Releases for Delta Outflow - CVP b Releases for Delta Outflow - SWP c Instream Flow Applied Water 1,528.9 2,098.5 1,424.4 16 Environmental Water Account Releases

- - - 17a Conveyance Return Flows to Developed Supply - Urban

- - - b Conveyance Return Flows to Developed Supply - Ag

- - -

c Conveyance Return Flows to Developed Supply - Managed Wetlands

- - - 18a Conveyance Seepage - Urban

- - - b Conveyance Seepage - Ag

- - 0.2

c Conveyance Seepage - Managed Wetlands

- - - 19a Recycled Water - Agriculture 1.2 1.2 1.2 b Recycled Water - Urban 0.7 0.7 0.7 c Recycled Water - Groundwater

- - - 20a Return Flow to Developed Supply - Ag 1,179.4 949.1 968.4 b Return Flow to Developed Supply - Wetlands 132.6 126.7 134.2 c Return Flow to Developed Supply - Urban

- - - 21a Deep Percolation of Applied Water - Ag 157.7 844.2 910.1 b Deep Percolation of Applied Water - Wetlands 174.3 166.5 142.3 c Deep Percolation of Applied Water - Urban 207.9 226.3 229.5 22a Reuse of Return Flows within Region - Ag

- - - b Reuse of Return Flows within Region - Wetlands, Instream, W&S 5,190.0 4,192.3 2,515.4 24a Return Flow for Delta Outflow - Ag

- - - b Return Flow for Delta Outflow - Wetlands, Instream, W&S 1.6 1.6 1.5 c Return Flow for Delta Outflow - Urban Wastewater

- - - 25 Direct Diversions 26 Surface Water in Storage - Beg of Yr 6,943.0 7,378.6 7,446.0 27 Groundwater Extractions - Banked

- - - 28 Groundwater Extractions - Adjudicated

- - - 29 Groundwater Extractions - Unadjudicated 1,765.6 2,646.3 2,968.6 23 Groundwater Subsurface Outflow N/A N/A N/A 30 Surface Water Storage - End of Yr 9,190.7 7,446.0 6,010.8 31 Groundwater Recharge-Contract Banking

- - - 32 Groundwater Recharge-Adjudicated Basins

- - - 33 Groundwater Recharge-Unadjudicated Basins

- - - 34a Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from Native Vegetation b Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from Unirrigated Ag 35a Evaporation from Lakes 77.3 89.7 82 b Evaporation from Reservoirs 419.9 477.1 449.3 36 Ag Effective Precipitation on Irrigated Lands 1514 870.3 820 37 Agricultural Water Use 5,079.0 6,556.3 6,793.9 38 Managed Wetlands Water Use 414.5 444.8 414.7 39a Urban Residential Use - Single Family - Interior 93.5 101.4 106.1 b Urban Residential Use - Single Family - Exterior 172.3 186.0 197.2 c Urban Residential Use - Multi-family - Interior 82.7 90.1 93.6 d Urban Residential Use - Multi-family - Exterior 41.7 45.3 46.5 40 Urban Commercial Use 34.5 37.6 39.6 41 Urban Industrial Use 86.3 89.4 90.1 42 Urban Large Landscape 30.2 32.9 35.5 43 Urban Energy Production

- - - 44 Instream Flow

- - - 45 Required Delta Outflow

- - - 46 Wild and Scenic Rivers

- - - 47a Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Ag 3408.1 4406 4627.8 b Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Managed Wetlands 105.9 149.7 136.6 c Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Urban 191 206.6 218.4 48 Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from Urban Wastewater

- - - 49 Return Flows Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Ag 74.4 11.6 14.3 50 Urban Waste Water Produced 117.8 123.4 131.8 51a Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Urban 12.6 12 13.6 b Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Ag 207.7 248.8 245.3 c Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Managed Wetlands

- - - d Conveyance Outflow to Mexico 52a Return Flows to Salt Sink - Ag 26.7 40.4 50.3 b Return Flows to Salt Sink - Urban 148.9 155.5 167.7 c Return Flows to Salt Sink - Wetlands

- - - 53 Remaining Natural Runoff - Flows to Salt Sink 0.2

- - 54a Outflow to Nevada

- - - b Outflow to Oregon

- - -

c Outflow to Mexico

- - - 55 Regional Imports 6,034.4 6,173.5 4,571.8 56 Regional Exports 4435.8 6398.2 4496 59 Groundwater Net Change in Storage -443.9 -96.1 -1,259.9 60 Surface Water Net Change in Storage 2,247.7 67.4 -1,435.2 61 Surface Water Total Available Storage 11,372.3 11,477.1 11,477.1

Inflows Outflows Green number signifies included in summary boxes**Chapter 7** San Joaquin RiverRegion 1 7 7 **Volume 3**  Regional Reports California Wa ter Plan Update 20051 8 7 **Volume 3**  Regional Reports **Chapter 7** San Joaquin RiverRegion California Wa ter Plan Update 2005

## Chapter 8 Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region 

# Volume 3i8 **Chapter 8** Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005 

# Chapter 8 Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region

Contents Chapter 8 Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region ..................................................................................................................8-1 Setting ................................ 8-1 Climate ............................... 8-1 Population .......................... 8-2 Land Use ............................ 8-3 Water Supply and Use ......... 8-4 Water Recycling .................. 8-6 State of the Region .............. 8-8 Challenges .................... 8-8 Accomplishments ......... 8-10 Relationship with Other Regions .........................................................................................................................8-13 Looking to the Future ......... 8-13 Regional Planning ............. 8-13 Water Portfolios for Water Years 1998, 2000, and 2001 .....................................................................................8-15
Water Year 1998 ......... 8-15 Water Year 2000 ......... 8-17 Water Year 2001 ......... 8-18 Selected References ........... 8-19



## Box Box 8-1 Ongoing Planning .... 8-14



## Figures Figure 8-1 Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region (map) ........................................................................................................8-ii Figure 8-2 T ulare Lake Hydrologic Region population .................................................................................................8-3 Figure 8-3 Tulare Lake region water balance for water years 1998, 2000, and 2001 (2 bar charts) ..............................8-5 Figure 8-4 T ulare Lake region - illustrated water flow diagram ..................................................................................8-23 Figure 8-5 T ulare Lake region - schematic flow diagram ...........................................................................................8-24



## Tables Table 8-1 Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region water balance summary ...............................................................................8-7

T able 8-2 Percentage of acreage of each crop category by irrigation method used – Kern County ...............................8-11

T able 8-3 Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region water use and distribution of dedicated supplies ..........................................8-16

T able 8-4 Tulare Lake region water portfolios ...........................................................................................................8-22**Volume 3** Regional Reports California Water Plan Update 2005

**Some Statistics** Area -17,033 square miles (10.7% of State) Average annual precipitation - 15.2 inches Year 2000 population - 1,884,675 2030 population projection - 3,121,625 Total reservoir storage capacity -2,046 TAF 2000 irrigated crop area - 3,219,000 acres .

.

.

.

.

. Flow in T AF
1998 917 2000 1,509 2001 1,065 **South Lahontan Region** California Aqueduct (SWP) Flow in TAF
1998 764 2000 1,212 2001 735 **San Joaquin Region** Friant-Kern Canal (CVP)

Flow in TAF
1998 25 2000 31 2001 28 **Central Coast Region**

Coastal Branch California Aqueduct (SWP) Flow in TAF
1998 2,952 2000 4,414 2001 2,961 **San Joaquin River Region** San Luis Unit (CVP) DMC-Mendota Pool California Aqueduct (SWP)

FRESNO

TULARE

KINGS

KERN Figure 8-1 Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region

The Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region is in the southern end of the Central Valley and is one of the nation’s leading areas in agricultural production. Arrows indicate annual flows entering and leaving t he region for water years 1998, 2000, and 2001. Flow in TAF
1998 915 2000 0 2001 0 **San Joaquin River Region** Kings River18 **Chapter 8** Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005



# Chapter 8 Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region

Lake and Buena Vista Lake. These lakes have been dry for many decades, and the waters that once fed them were long ago diverted for irrigation, such that the lake bottom lands are now heavily farmed. No significant rivers or creeks drain eastward from the Coast Ranges into the valley.



## Climate Land in the region is fertile and well suited for farming. The valley portion of the region is hot and dry in summer with long, sunny days and cooler nights. Winters are wet and often blanketed with dense fog. Nearly all of the annual rainfall occurs in the six months from November to April. The valley is broad and flat, and is surrounded by the Diablo and Coast Ranges to the west, the Sierra Nevada to the east, and the Tehachapi Mountains to the south. The surrounding mountains result in the comparative isolation of the region from marine effects. Because of this and the comparatively cloudless summers, average maximum tem

peratures approach a high of 101 degrees in late July. Winter temperatures on the valley floor are usually mild, but duringinfrequent cold spells readings occasionally drop below freezing. Heavy frost occurs during the winter of most years, and the geographic orientation of the valley generates prevailing winds from the northwest.

The mean annual precipitation in the valley portion of this region ranges from about 6 to 11 inches, with the lowest amounts near the south and eastern ends of the region. Sixty-seven percent of the precipitation occurs during the months of December through March, and 95 percent of all precipitation falls during the Octo

ber through April period. The Tulare Lake region enjoys a high percentage of clear sunny days during most of the year, except during the winter months of November, December, January, and February. During periods of tule fog, which can last up to two weeks, sunshine is reduced to a minimum. This fog frequently extends to a few hundred feet above the surface of the valley and presents the appearance of a heavy, solid cloud layer. These prolonged periods of fog and low temperatures are important to orchard production for the deciduous fruit industry. 

## Setting The Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region is in the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley. This region includes all of Tulare andKings counties and large portions of Fresno and Kern count ies. Major cities include Fresno, Bakersfield, and Visalia. The Tulare Lake region is one of the nation’s leading areas in agricultural production with a wide variety of crops on about 3 million acres. Agricultural production has been a mainstay of the region since the late-1800s, and gross farm production receipts from the region account for 35 percent of the state’s total agricultural economy. This region’s population is also growing rapidly, and population growth rates began increasing above historical trends in the 1980s. As property values in the metropolitan coastal areas have become less affordable, many people began relocating to more affordable areas in the San Joaquin Valley. This trend has accelerated in recent years, and the California Department of Finance reported the Tulare Lake regional population at 2 million in 2001.

Native habitat in the region includes vernal pools, areas of valley sink scrub and saltbush, freshwater marsh, grasslands, arid plains, and oak savannah. The growth of agriculture in the Tulare Lake region has replaced much of the historic native grassland, woodland, and wetland.

A map of this region with a table of statistics are presented in Figure 8-1. The largest river is the Kings River, which flows west from the Sierra Nevada near the northern border of the region. The California Aqueduct extends the entire length of the west side of the region, delivering water to State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors in the region and exporting water over the Tehachapi Mountains to Southern California. Significant rivers in the region include the Kings, Kaweah, Tule and Kern rivers, which drain into the valley floor of this hydrologically closed region. The Kings and Tule rivers historically terminated at the Tulare Lake, which was once the largest freshwater lake in the western United States. The Kern River historically terminated in two small lakes, KernCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 28 

## Population The rate of population growth throughout the San Joaquin Valley is among the highest in the state, creating a strong demand for housing and urban infrastructure. The population in the Tulare Lake Region is now about 52 percent of the entire San JoaquinValley population. While many communities in the region welcome the growth and income from a diversifying economy, therapid urban growth is beginning to generate impacts on farmi ng and the agricultural industry. In six years, between 1992 and 1998, nearly 37,000 acres of farmland were converted to urban uses according to Department of Conservation statistics.Even though there is a concern about accelerated urbanization and the subsequent conversion of farmland, relatively few private agricultural preservation efforts exist in the San Joaquin Valley. The largest regional population centers are the Fresno/Clovis metropolitan area and the cities of Bakersfield and Visalia. Other smaller population centers include the cities of Tulare, Hanford, Porterville, and Delano. Household incomes and housing prices in the Tulare Lake region are lower on an average basis, compared to other regions of the state. New jobs in services, industries, con

s truction, and agriculture are generally low-skilled and low-wage jobs, subject to seasonal fluctuation. As a result, unemployment consistently exceeds the state and national rates by as much as 10 percent. According to an April 2004 Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) special survey, the most pressing San Joaquin Valley issues for residents of the South San Joaquin survey area were related to population growth and development. These issues included pollution, 32 percent; healthy economy, 13 percent; population growth, 11 percent; crime, 9 percent; and adequate water at 6 percent. The most notable trend of annual PPIC surveys is the increas

ing amount of concern about air pollution and all pollution in general. In 1999, pollution was cited by 9 percent of the survey respondents as the most important issue, 13 percent in 2001, 19 percent in 2002, 28 percent in 2003, and 32 percent in 2004. The Tulare Lake region is one of the nation’s leading areas in agricultural production with a wide variety of crops on about 3 million acres. This is an unusual photo of Tulare Lake, which is normally dry. (DWR photo)38 **Chapter 8** Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

Population density varies widely on a county-by-county basis, and large portions of some counties are virtually unpopulated. Much of the population lives in the more densely developed cities and towns. The population in the Tulare Lake region was about 1.55 million people in 1990 and reached 1.88 million by 2000. This is more than a 20 percent growth rate over that 10-year period. Statewide, California experienced a population increase approaching 14 percent from 1990 to 2000. Between 1998 and 2000, the population increased more than 3 percent, and California Department of Finance statistics project continued growth rates of 18 percent to 22 percent for the region’s four counties over the next 10 years. Figure 8-2 shows the Tulare Lake region’s population from 1960 through 2000, with projections to year 2030.



## Land Use
The State and federal government agencies own about 30 percent of the land in the region, including about 1.7 million acres of national forest, 0.8 million acres of national parks and recreation areas, and 1 million acres of land managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The region’s foothills border Kings Canyon and Sequoia National Parks and the Sierra National Forest. Privately owned land totals about 7.4 million acres. Irrigated agriculture accounts for more than 3 million acres of the private land, while urban areas take up over 350,000 acres. Other agricultural lands and areas with native vegetation represent an additional 1.4 million acres in the region.

T he climate and soils of the Tulare Lake region contribute signifi cantly to the tremendous agricultural production of the farm lands and to the diversity of crops grown. Counties in the Tulare Lake region represent three of the top fi ve agricultural counties in the state, as measured by total value of production. More than 250 varieties of crops and farm commodities are produced in the region. While cotton was the number one crop in many past years, grapes have recently outpaced cotton in terms of gross production receipts. More than 10 percent of the irrigated acreage in California and about 12 percent of the 3 million irrigated acres in the region is planted in alfalfa. Alfalfa acreage in the region has been rising in recent years in response to the needs of the expanding dairy industry. Tulare County, in the heart of the region, is currently the nation’s richest dairy county. Deciduous and citrus trees are the main agricultural crops in the lower foothills, and livestock grazing and timber harvesting occur in the higher elevation areas. 

### Figure 8-2 Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region population

0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

Data from California Department of Finance provide decadal population from 1960 to 2000 and population projection for 2030 for the Tulare Lake region.California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 48 The Central Valley constitutes less than 1 percent of the United States farmland but produces 8 percent of the total agricultural output. Further, while more than 12 percent of the national gross receipts for farming came from California’s agriculture, more than 4 percent of these came from the Tulare Lake region alone. According to the California Department of Agriculture, total statewide agricultural production and gross cash income in 1998 declined 6 percent from 1997, and statewide gross income in 2001 increased 1 percent from 2000. By compari

son, agricultural production and cash income in the Tulare Lake region declined to $9.1 billion from 1997 to 1998, which was only a 3.7 percent decrease. Between 2000 and 2001, the Tulare Lake regions agricultural production increased by 3.4 percent to $9.9 billion.

Some of the crops and farm commodities that are produced in the Tulare Lake region experienced dramatic increases in export value in 2001. Table grapes, milk and cream, and walnuts all showed double-digit percentage increases in export value from 1998. However, most farm commodities experienced declines in export values between 1998 and 2001. Seven of the top 10 exported crops or commodities declined in value. These included almonds,$760 million to $686 million; cotton, $734 million to $605 million; and wine, $506 million to $491 million. These increases and decreases within the agricultural industry dominate the economy of these four counties and the region as a whole.



## Water Supply and Use
The region receives most of its surface water runoff from four main rivers that flow out of the Sierra Nevada, which are the Kings, Kaweah, Tule, and Kern rivers. The development and use of water from these rivers has played a major role in the history and economic development of the region. Major water conveyance facilities in the region include the California Aqueduct, the Friant-Kern Canal, and the Cross Valley Canal. Water diversions from the San Joaquin River at Friant Dam are also a significant supply source for all uses in the Tulare Lake region. The water districts in the region have developed an extensive network of canals, channels, and pipelines to deliverwater supplies to customers. Water storage facilities and conveyance systems control and retain most of the surface water runoff from the watersheds in the region, except in extremely wet years when floodwaters may flow out of the region to the San Joaquin River. During flood years, excess water flows down the north fork of the Kings River toward Mendota Pool and on to the San Joaquin River. In the wettest years, Kings River floodwaters reach the normally dry Tulare Lake via the south fork of the river. Excess runoff from the Kaweah and Tule rivers might also flow into Tulare lakebed, flooding low-lying agricultural fields. This excess surface water is managed to the maximum extent for use in artificial groundwater recharge. Inthe rare event water leaves the basin, it is because the absorptive capacity of the groundwater systems in the region has been exceeded. Floodwater can also occasionally be diverted from the Kern River intertie into the California Aqueduct for use in other SWP service areas. Figure 8-3 graphically summarizes the water supplies and the developed water uses in the region for 1998, 2000, and 2001.

W ater stored in many Sierra Nevada reservoirs is also used to generate electricity as it is released downstream. Some diversions occur for consumptive use in local communities,but most flows are recaptured in larger reservoirs in the foothills and along the eastern edge of the valley. These larger reservoirs were built primarily for flood control, but many of them were also designed with additional storage capacity for agricultural, urban, and fishery purposes. Smaller communities in the Sierra foothills receive their water from smaller local surface supplies and groundwater. These mountain com

munities sometimes pump groundwater from hard rock wells and old mines to augment their supplies, especially during droughts. Groundwater is the only source available for many foothill and mountain residents who are not connected to a municipal water system.

M ajor statewide water projects in the Tulare Lake region include the SWP’s California Aqueduct, which includes a State/federal joint use segment known as the San Luis Canal. The aqueduct is along the western side of the valley, and it also pumps water over the Tehachapi Mountains for uses in Southern California. Water from the Sacramento-San Joa

quin Delta is imported into the region through the California Aqueduct for both agricultural and urban purposes. Federal CVP water is also exported from the Delta through the San Luis Canal to agencies with federal water contracts on the west side of the valley, such as Westlands Water District. On the eastern side of the valley, the CVP’s Friant-Kern Canal runs south along the foothills and transports San Joaquin River water to agencies along the valley’s eastern side and extends into Kern County.

The SWP provides an average of 1.2 million acre-feet of surface water annually to the region for both agricultural and urban purposes. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation supplies an average of 2.7 million acre-feet from the CVP through the Mendota Pool, the San Luis Canal, and the Friant-Kern Canal, primarily for agricultural uses. Actual deliveries to contrac

58 **Chapter 8** Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

**Figure 8-3 Tulare Lake region water balance for water years 1998, 2000, 2001**

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000

1998 2000 2001Thousand Acre-Feet Wild & Scenic
R.

Managed Wetlands

Irrigated Agriculture

Urban

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000

1998 2000 2001Thousand Acre-Feet Reuse & Recycle

Ground Water

State Project

Federal Projects

Local Projects **Dedicated Water Supplies Applied Water Uses** 

Three years show a marked change in the amount and relative pro portions of water delivered to Tulare Lake region’s urban and agricultural sectors and water dedicated to the environment (applied water, top chart), where the water came from, and how much water was reused among sectors (dedicated water supplies, bottom chart).California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 68 tors vary from year to year based upon a number of factors, including water supply conditions and reservoir storage in Northern California. Other factors that may influence importedsurface water deliveries include pumping equipment malfunction, natural disasters, temporary closures for infrastructure development, and environmental challenges.

Groundwater has historically been important for both urban and agricultural uses in the Tulare Lake region. Groundwater pumped from the basin’s aquifers account for about 33 percent of the region’s total annual water supply, and also account for 35 percent of all groundwater use in the state. Additionally, the region’s groundwater supply represents about 10 percent of the state’s overall developed water supply for agricultural and urban uses. Most towns and cities along the east side of the valley, including Fresno, Visalia and Bakersfield, rely primarilyon groundwater. Bakersfield occasionally obtains supplemental water from local surface water and some imported SWP water. Fresno, Visalia, Bakersfield, and other cities also havegroundwater recharge programs to help ensure that groundwater will continue to be a viable water supply in the future. On the valley’s western side, smaller cities like Avenal, Huron, and Coalinga rely on imported surface water from the San Luis Canal to meet municipal demands. This surface water is of better quality than the local groundwater supplies on the western side, which often have poor water quality.

In addition to the recharge programs employed by some valley cities, extensive groundwater recharge programs (known aswater banks) are also operated by water districts and agencies, which have stored significant amounts of surplus water underground for future use and exchanges through water banking programs. For more than 100 years, water users throughout the region have used conjunctive use to maximize the water supply and maintain the groundwater basins.

T able 8-1 presents a water balance summary of all watersupplies and uses for the Tulare Lake region. Table 8-3 prese nts actual data for the dedicated and developed urban, agricultural and environmental water uses in the region for 1998, 2000, and 2001. A comparison of regional urban, agricultural and environmental water uses indicates that urban water use is about 5 percent of total uses, agricultural wateruse averages 84 percent and environmental water use is normally about 11 percent of the developed water supplies.

As surface water was developed and imported water becameavailable, water districts were organized to fund water conveyance and delivery infrastructure to serve the area’s developing agriculture. Many different crops are grown throughout the region. Most of the agricultural land in the region lies in organized water districts. Many water districts in recent years have actively been changing water management practices and physical structures to improve the efficiency of water delivery and use.

Urban water use accounts for about 5 percent of the total applied water in the Tulare Lake region. Until recently, many of the communities in the region have not used water meters, and customers are charged a flat rate for water use. However,urban communities are gradually working toward the installation of water meters as funding allows. State legislation, AB 514 (Kehoe), signed into law in October 2003, requires all California cities that receive water from the CVP to install and use water meters by year 2013. Some of the larger cities that are affected include Sacramento, Folsom and Fresno. InFresno, the new law is being viewed as a solution to a longstanding problem. It is believed that AB 514 will remove the requirement for Fresno to obtain voter approval to amend itscharter to permit metering of water. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the federal Department of Interior have made the installation of water meters a requirement if Fresno plans to renew its CVP contract for 60,000 acre-feet of surface water from the Friant Division.

The variability of industrial water use is a function of econ omic, climate, and technological factors. Agriculture harvest schedules have a large effect because significant amounts of water are used for processing harvested crops. Local wateragencies supply water to most of the smaller industrial facilities in the cities. However, larger industrial and institutional water users both inside and outside urban areas generally develop their own groundwater supplies or divert from local surface water sources. Higher per capita water use in areas like Fresno and Bakersfield are generally due to their higher concentration of these industries. In the case of Bakersfield, the food processing and oil industries have historically been a large segment of the total industrial water use activity.



## Water Recycling
In the Tulare Lake region, discharge of recycled water is regulated through the Central Valley Regional Water Resources Control Board, as described in the Board’s Tulare Lake Basin Plan. The significant increase in population in the Tulare Lake region has resulted in a rising volume of recyclable water. This has forced municipalities to reassess collection, transmission, and treatment capacities of their wastewater plants to handle78 **Chapter 8** Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

**Water Entering the Region** Precipitation 27,306 12,693 11,564 Inflow from Oregon/Mexico 0 0 0 Inflow from Colorado River 0 0 0 Imports from Other Regions 3,716 5,627 3,696 **Total 31,022 18,320 15,260 Water Leaving the Region**  Consumptive Use of Applied Water * 5,401 7,427 7,591 (Ag, M&I, Wetlands) Outflow to Oregon/Nevada/Mexico 0 0 0 Exports to Other Regions 1,857 1,540 1,093 Statutory Required Outflow to Salt Sink 0 0 0 Additional Outflow to Salt Sink 457 457 458 Evaporation, Evapotranspiration of Native Vegetation, Groundwater Subsurface Outflows, 22,606 10,578 10,374 Natural and Incidental Runoff, Ag Effective Precipitation & Other Outflows Total 30,321 20,002 19,516 Storage Changes in the Region [+] Water added to storage [-] Water removed from storage Change in Surface Reservoir Storage 438 -57 -141 Change in Groundwater Storage ** 263 -1,625 -4,115
Total 701 -1,682 -4,256

Applied Water * (compare with Consumptive Use) 8,429 10,717 10,717

*Footnote for applied water

Consumptive use is the amount of applied water used and no lon ger available as a source of supply. Applied water is greater than consumptive use because it includes consumptive use, reuse, and outflows.

**Footnote for change in Groundwater Storage

C hange in Groundwater Storage is based upon best available information. Basins in the north part of the state (North Coast, San Francisco, Sacramento River and North Lahontan regions and parts of Central Coast and San Joaquin River regions) have been modeled – spring 1997 to spring 1998 for the 1998 water year and spring 1999 to spring 2000 for the 2000 water year. All other regions and year 2001 were calculated using the following equation:

GW change in storage = intentional recharge + deep percolation of applied water + conveyance deep percolation - withdrawals

This equation does not include the unknown factors such as natu ral recharge and subsurface inflow and outflow. 

### Water Year (Percent of Normal Precipitation)
1998 (207%) 2000 (93%) 2001 (85%) 

### Table 8-1 **Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region Water Balance Summary - TAF**
Water Entering the Region – Water Leaving the Region = Storage Changes in RegionCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 88 increasing volumes. Most of the recycled water in the region is used for irrigation and groundwater recharge. The rest is evaporated. There are several cities, such as Bakersfield, that built recycled water delivery systems for agricultural irrigation use. When effluent is discharged, a discharge permit must be obtained as part of the EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permitting Program. Water reuse in the Tulare Lake region was estimated to be over 150,000 acre-feet in 2000. Groundwater recharge programs account for more than half of all recycled water use. 

## State of the Region Challenges Whenever a region looks outside of its borders for more water, statewide water management and integrated resource planning become important considerations. Depending on the package of options chosen, one region’s actions can affect another region’s supplies. Statewide planning involves assessing trends in each region’s water demand and quantifying the cumulative effectsof each region’s demand and use patterns on statewide supplies. It basically parallels planning at the local and regional levels. By working through a statewide planning process, the magnitude of both intra- and inter-regional effects can be analyzed. However, in a number of circumstances, measures that would be taken to manage demand, to increase supplies, or to improve water service reliability are local decisions. These decisions must assess and compare the cost of increased water reliability against the economic, environmental, and social costs of potential shortages.

In the short term, those areas of California that rely on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for all or a portion of their surface water face an unreliable supply due to the evolving protections for aquatic species and water quality. At the same time, California’s water supply infrastructure is severely limited in its capacity to transfer marketed water through the Delta due to those same operating constraints. Until solutions to complex Delta problems are identified and put in place and demand management and supply augmentation options are implemented, some water-dependent regions will experience imported water shortfalls. Such limitations of surface water deliveries will continue to exacerbate groundwater overdraft in the Tulare Lake region because groundwater is used to replace much of the shortfall in surface water. In addition, water transfers within these areas have and will become more common as farmers seek to minimize water supply effects on their operations. In urban areas, water conservation and water recycling will be accelerated to help offset short-term water needs. Proposition 50, also known as “Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002,” provides a mechanism for funding projects to augment systems and supplies, optimize delivery systems, use recycled water, and increase water management efficiency.

Distinct environmental water needs exist for each of the four major watersheds in the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region that encompass the river systems of the Kings, Kaweah, Tule and Kern. There has been significant activity on both the Kings and Kern Rivers to restore flows for habitat as well as recreation. Modification to outlet structures and timing of releases on the Kings River provide cooler water temperatures to protect theresident trout populations. Gravel augmentation is also carried out to provide spawning habitat. The Kern County Water Agency has implemented a successful and innovative program of delivering water supplies down the river through the City of Bakersfield, thus providing water for instream uses which can later be extracted farther downstream through the use of wells. Environmental water supplies on the Kaweah and Tule rivers are being modified due to the mitigation requirements tied to reservoir enlargement projects on both systems.

Groundwater pumping, a major source of supply in the Tulare Lake region, continues to increase in response to growing urban and agricultural demands. If groundwater extraction continues to be used to offset anticipated but unmet surface water imports, it will have negative consequences. One such effect of long-term groundwater overdraft is land subsidence, which also results in a reduction of aquifer storage space. This has already caused some damage to canals, utilities, pipelines, and roads in the region. In an effort to slow this condition, many water agencies have adopted groundwater replenishment programs by takingadvantage of excess water supplies available in wet years, incidental deep percolation, and seepage from unlined canals.

On the region’s west side, salinity, sulfate, boron, chloride, and selenium limit the uses of groundwater. Salinity is the primary water quality factor affecting use of groundwater for irrigation and native habitat. Where groundwater quality is marginal to unusable for agriculture, farmers use good quality surface water to irrigate crops or blend higher quality surface water with poor quality groundwater to create a larger supply. The inefficiency of some crop irrigation systems can increase percolation of irrigation water into the shallow unconfined aquifers, causing drainage problems and degrading groundwater quality. This marginal to poor quality groundwater has mounded up to reach crop root zones in this area and is threatening the viability of agriculture there.98 **Chapter 8** Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

Agricultural runoff and drainage are also the main sources of nitrate, pesticides, and selenium that endanger groundwaterand surface water beneficial uses. The basin also has a relatively large concentration of dairies that contribute microbes, salinity, and nutrients to both surface water and groundwater. Nitrate has contaminated more than 400 square miles of groundwater in the Tulare Lake Basin. In addition, oilfield waste has impacted water quality. According to the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s basin plan, there are more than 800 oilfield waste dischargers, of which 250 are regulated under waste discharge requirements.

Naturally occurring arsenic as well as pesticides and industrial chemicals have contaminated some groundwater supplies that are used for domestic water in the region. For example, the lone well that provides water for city of Alpaugh’s 760 residents (40 percent of whom are defined as living at poverty levels) contains unsafe levels of naturally occurring arsenic. By 2006, new federal and State rules will force more than 50 central San Joaquin Valley communities, including Hanford, Pixley, and Tranquility, to cut arsenic levels to one-fifth the current allowable levels. The contamination of 40 wells in Fresno due to high levels of dibromochloropropane (DBCP), trichloroethylene (TCE), and other organic compounds resulted in the installation of activated charcoal filtration systems to remove these contaminants.

The quality of local surface water from the Kings River and the San Joaquin River (diverted south through the Friant-KernCanal) is generally considered excellent for irrigation, municipal, and industrial uses. However the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board has specifically identified salinity in the lower Kings River as a water quality priority in its 2002 Triennial Review. On the west side of the region, the California Department of Water Resouces (DWR) has sought solutions to the flooding on the Arroyo Pasajero, which threatens the California Aqueduct. The aqueduct, which forms a barrier to arroyo floodwaters and sediment flow, is at risk of failure duringmajor rainstorms in the watershed. Also, the naturally occurring asbestos in the arroyo sediments that enter the aqueduct during floods has raised questions of possible health risks. Both Panoche and Silver creeks contribute large sediment loads to the valley floor, and Panoche Creek also contains elevated levels of selenium.

For many years, portions of the Tulare Lake region have experienced significant drainage problems. The need for proper drainage of agricultural return flows has long been recognized by federal and State agencies. Planning for drainage facilities to serve the San Joaquin Valley began in the mid-1950s. The poorly drained area is concentrated along the western side of the San Joaquin Valley from Kern County north into the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region. Although the San Joaquin Valley has some of the most productive agricultural lands in the world, much of the west side of the valley is plagued by poor subsurface drainage that adversely effects crop productivity.Between 1977 and 1991, the area affected by saline shallow groundwater on the west side doubled to about 750,000 acres. At present, a substantial portion of the valley, about 2.5 million acres, is threatened by saline shallow groundwater resulting from the lack of proper drainage.

In addition, drainage water is sometimes contaminated with naturally occurring, but elevated, levels of selenium, boron, and other toxic trace elements that threaten the water quality,environment, and fish and wildlife. Water planners had originally envisioned a master surface water drain to remove this poor quality water, but that proposal was never implemented. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has an obligation to provide agricultural drainage service to farm lands served by the CVPon the west side of the valley. To convey this sometimes contaminated drainwater more directly to the San Joaquin River and away from the sensitive San Luis National Wildlife Refuge Complex, a portion of the San Luis Drain was reopened in September 1996 as part of the Grassland Bypass Project. The San Luis Drain was modified to allow drainage through six miles of Mud Slough, a natural waterway that passes through the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge Complex and a section of the North Grassland Wildlife Area.

Monitoring the quality of San Joaquin Valley agricultural drainage water began in 1959 as a cooperative agreement between the DWR and the University of California. In 1984, the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program was established as a joint federal and State effort to investigate drainage and drainage-related problems and identify possible solutions. In September 1990 the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program summarized its findings and presented a plan to manage drainage problems in a report titled “A Management Plan For Agricultural Subsurface Drainage and Related Problems in the Westside San Joaquin Valley.” In December 1991 several federal and State agencies signed a memorandum of understanding and released an implementation strategy titled “The San Joaquin Valley Drainage Implementation Program.” The purpose of the 1991 MOU and its strategy document was to coordinate various programs in implementing the 1990 recommendations.

I n 1997 member agencies of the San Joaquin Valley DrainageCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 108Implementation Program and the University of California initiated a plan to review and evaluate the 1990 Plan and update its recommendations. Eventually, the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Authority, which includes districts in the Grassland, Westlands, and Tulare subareas, was formed to develop a long-term solution for drainage problems in the valley, which could include out-of-valley disposal. Studies continue in pursuit of cost-effective ways to dispose of the drainage water.

In 2002 the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation released a new San Luis report, which declared that an “in-Valley” solution to the drainage problem on the valley’s west side should be implemented. The proposed alternative contains features that include a drainwater collection system, regional drainwater reuse facilities, selenium treatment, reverse osmosis treatment for the Northerly Area, and evaporation ponds for disposal of accumulated salts.

Also in 2002 the Westlands Water District and the United States reached a settlement agreement regarding the drainage of lands that the federal government was legally obligated to provide to west side farmers. Under this agreement the federal government would buy the poorest drained agricultural lands from farmers and then remove those lands from agricultural production. As a result of this agreement, the number of acres requiring drainage service in the San Luis Unit will initially be reduced by retiring about 33,000 acres, part of a long-term plan that may eventually retire up to 200,000 acres.



### Accomplishments Many water districts in recent years have actively been work ing to improve agricultural water delivery and use efficiencies. About 14 individual water districts encompassing more than 1.3 million acres have become signatories to the Agricultural Water Management Council and have prepared Agricultural Water Management Plans. In addition, many water districts are working with individual growers to improve on-farm irrigation water management systems and efficiency. These activities include providing irrigation scheduling information, assistance in obtaining low interest loans, water trading toimprove delivery efficiency, delivery augmentation and irrigation system evaluations.

On the western side of the San Joaquin Valley, particularlyin Fresno and Kings counties, farmers are using more sprinkler irrigation and less flood, basin, or furrow irrigation as a means to reduce excess runoff. This change in water usemethods also reduces incidental deep percolation to groundwater , which is beneficial for areas that have problems with high water tables. In addition, improved management of the remaining farm lands that use furrow and basin irrigation is resulting in the reduction of applied water. By 1998, less than half of the agricultural land in this region still used the flood irrigation method.

Many farmers use sprinklers and drip irrigation, especially on truck crops where small applications of water early in the growing season are very beneficial. The amount of water applied during the pre-irrigation of cotton and other crops has been significantly lowered via increased use of sprinklers. Buried drip irrigation systems have been increasing in acreage, as the proper equipment and designs are proven successful. Currently, almost all new plantings and replanting of orchards and vineyards are installing drip or micro-sprinkler irrigation systems and many older plantings are being converted from furrow or basin systems, where conditions are favorable for success. As trees and vines age, their yields decrease to a point where returns are no longer profitable, and orchards are then replanted. Eventually nearly all trees and vines in the region are likely to be irrigated with micro-irrigation systems, as long as conditions are favorable to this conversion.

DWR conducted a survey of irrigation methods being used to irrigate crops in Kern County in conjunction with its summer land use surveys performed in 1984 and 1998, as shown inTable 8-2. The results indicate that the adoption of micro-irrigation systems has increased dramatically in all plantings of truck and permanent crops over this period. This transition to the more efficient drip and micro-sprinkler systems has greatly improved agricultural water use efficiency and thus reduced the amount of applied water that is needed.

In general, management of all irrigation systems, including non-pressurized irrigation systems, such as furrow and basin, has been improving. Economic factors, such as the need to keep overall production costs down, are a primary reason for increasing farm water use efficiency. These agricultural economic considerations include higher production costs, higher utility rates, and low market prices for crops sold. Inconsistent year to year contract deliveries from the CVP and SWP have also motivated farmers to improve efficiency. Farmers are using a wider availability of crop irrigation scheduling information and soil moisture monitoring programs to respond to these cost concerns. On-going and expanded public outreach and training efforts by the UC Cooperative Extension, irrigation districts, and other agencies has made helped make these improvements possible.118 **Chapter 8** Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

Efforts to improve water use effi ciency in the urban sector began earnestly during the last six-year drought, which extended from 1987 through 1992. The California Urban Water ConservationCouncil was created in 1991 with the development and signing of the “Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California.” The CUWCC is composedof urban water agencies, public interest organizations, government agencies, and private entities. Together these organizations work to promote effi cient urban water use statewide. Many water and utility companies throughout the state offer fi nancial and technical assistance programs that specifi cally help residential customers with limited fi nances to implement water and energy effi ciency programs in their homes.

Throughout the State, Urban Water Management Plans are now required under the provisions of the California Urban Water Management Planning Act. These plans must be adopted and submitted to the State every fi ve years by all water suppliers that provide water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers. In general, these plans must describe an agency’s current sources of water supply and the municipal demands being served, provide estimates of future urban demands, and describe the proposed management methods and water supply sources that will be developed to meet the future needs. Water agencies and municipalities in the Tulare Lake region that have submitted urban water management plans include West Kern Water District, North of the River Municipal Water District, East Niles Community Services District, City of Clovis, City of Dinuba, McAllister Ranch, Tejon-Castaic Water District, City of Wasco, Oildale Mutual Water Company, Vaughn Water Company, City of Bakersfi eld, City of Corcoran, City of Lemoore, City of Reedley, City of Hanford, Kern County Water Agency, and the City of Sanger. Nine of the above agencies now have completed urban water management plans. Regarding groundwater, the Groundwater Management Act of 1992, AB 3030 (California Water Code Section 10750 et seq.) allows certain defi ned existing local agencies to develop groundwater management plans. Groundwater basins are explained and defi ned in “California’s Groundwater” (DWR Bulletin 118, Update 2003). Before the passage of AB 3030, the California Water Code had been amended by AB 255 in 1991 which allowed local agencies overlying critically overdrafted groundwater basins to develop groundwater management plans. Six water agencies in the Tulare Lake region prepared groundwater management plans under AB 255 laws. Following AB 3030 legislation, 26 additional groundwater management plans have been adopted in this region. In 2002, SB 1938 amended existing law related to groundwater management by local agencies. This law now requires any public agency thatapplies for State funds for the construction of groundwater projects or groundwater quality projects to prepare and implement a groundwater management plan that contains more specifi c procedures and plan components.

Cities and counties in the region are continually introducing new water system technology to solve problems, reduce costs, and improve system operations as part of efforts to maintain, expand, and update their municipal water systems. After years of violating state drinking water standards for taste and smell, the city of Mendota, in western Fresno County, is in the process of implementing major water system improvements. Three new wells east of the city have been constructed, each with the capacity to pump up to 1,500 gallons per minute. This new groundwater supply is transported to the city’s treatment facility via a 20-inch pipeline, where a new fi ltering tank has been added to improve the water purifi cation system. 1984 1998 1984 1998 1984 1998

SURFACE SPRINKLER MIRCRO

GRAIN 52.1 46.1 47.9 53.9 0.0 0.0
FIELD CROPS 63.9 77.2 36.1 22.8 0.0 0.0
ALFALFA 77.2 88.3 22.8 11.7 0.0 0.0
PASTURE 76.9 81.7 23.1 18.3 0.0 0.0
TRUCK CROPS 17.4 24.9 82.6 70.5 0.0 4.6
DECIDUOUS ORCHARD 41.9 29.9 27.2 6.1 30.9 64.0
SUBTROPICAL 13.8 2.8 23.4 0.6 62.8 96.6
VINEYARD 59.2 36.1 15.7 1.8 25.2 62.1 **Table 8-2 Percentage of acreage of each crop category by**  **irrigation method used – Kern County**California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 128The California Revolving Fund program disburses low interest loans to address water quality problems associated with discharges from wastewater and water reclamation facilities, as well as from nonpoint source discharges and for estuary enhancement. This policy was written to implement the 1987 Amendments to the Federal Clean Water Act, which created the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program. In the Tulare Lake Region recent program participants include (1) the town of Alpaugh with a treatment and collection system, (2) the City of Fresno’s treatment plant expansion, (3) the County of Kern’s Rexland Acres community sewer collection and transmission system, and (4) the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s storm water quality management program.

The City of Clovis received AB 303 funding for a proposed project that will include (1) compiling groundwater recharge basin site characteristics to increase recharge capabilities, (2) constructing groundwater monitoring wells at recharge facilities to better monitor percolation and movement, and (3) creating a Ground Water Information System (data management system) to provide a comprehensive and organized data base for improved groundwater data accessibility and maintenance.

I n Kern County, the Kern Water Bank groundwater program will receive Proposition 13 funding to increase the recovery capacity of the Kern Water Bank. The Kern County Groundwater Storage and Water Conveyance Infrastructure Improvement Program administered by the Kern County Water Agency will receive Proposition 13 funding to provide additional opportunities for Kern County facilities to capture and transport high-flow water supplies and may provide water for ecosystem restoration and the Environmental Water Account.

Another project receiving Proposition 13 funding is the Kern Water Bank River Area Recharge and Recovery Project that would allow the Kern Water Bank Authority to provide as much as 50,000 acre-feet per year of additional water recovery capability. In years when recovery needs are less than recovery capacity, water could be recovered for the Environmental Water Account or other ecosystem restoration needs.

The North Kern Groundwater Storage Project will take advantage of wet-year high flows and store them in the groundwater aquifer. This may reduce demands on water supplies from the Delta in dry years.

The Westlands Water District received AB 303 funding to find more water, including potential conjunctive use opportunities. The investigation included three deep soil-boring and monitoring wells installed by DWR to evaluate the storage, water quality, and extraction potential of the groundwater aquifer. AB 303 also paid for the installation of 35 shallow borings to evalu

ate the percolation potential of the uppermost soil sediments. The study was completed in 2002 and recommended the area where Arroyo Pasajero intersects with Interstate 5 as a site for conjunctive use groundwater application.

W ithin the past several years, Broadview Water District announced that landowners had decided to sell the district due to the increasing costs of water production and the additional water system costs associated with the district’s drainage and salinity problems. In 2003 the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency and Broadview Water District began negotiating thesale. Pajaro Valley WMA had prepared the necessary paperw

ork and completed the required studies, but negotiations never culminated in an agreement that was acceptable to both parties. At about this time, Westlands Water District, which shares partof its northern district boundary with Broadview, began negotiations with the Broadview Water District. Westlands recently announced that negotiations had been completed to purchase the Broadview Water District and that the acquisition would encompass all the Broadview lands and include the Broadview Water District’s 27,000 acre-foot CVP water service contract. This sales/purchase agreement is being circulated among Broadview landowners for their approval, and the transaction is expected to be completed in 2005. District staff has also met with Fresno County Local Agency Formation Commission to discuss annexing the Broadview lands into Westlands.

For several years Westlands WD has been attempting to “aug

ment” its water supplies by selling agricultural lands that have severe drainage problems and then using the water entitlements retained from those lands to firm up the water entitlements to the remaining irrigated lands within the district. The impendingpurchase of Broadview Water District with its CVP water entitlement is another example of this ongoing process.

Among other regional programs, the U.S. Natural ResourcesConservation Service has been promoting agricultural programs in wester n Fresno County that: (1) reduce the amount of salts leached to ground water and improve shallow, saline water table conditions with improved irrigation water management. (2) improve the distribution and management of livestock to reduce erosion using prescribed grazing, fencing, and improved watering facilities for livestock. (3) reduce soil salinity in the crop root zone to improve cropland productivity with improved irrigation water management and soil salinity management. (4) reduce the amount of airborne particulates with adjusted138 **Chapter 8** Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

timing of agricultural operations, vegetating turn areas, and avoiding tracking soil onto the county roads. (5) reduce sheet and rill erosion on rangeland through improved livestock distribution and production of forage.

T he Lake Kaweah Enlargement Project proposes to raise the Lake Kaweah spillway by 21 feet and increase the lake’s water storage capacity by 43,000 acre-feet to 183,000 acre-feet, or28 percent. Still a small lake in comparison to others in Calif ornia, the enlargement project will increase flood protection to downstream communities on the Kaweah Delta river system, especially near Visalia. The dam’s spillway crest, a U-shaped cut, is being raised with the installation of “fuse gates.” These gates are like large concrete teeth that pop out like fuses if the lake should become so full. Once completed, farmers are expected to see immediate benefits because a larger lake will allow longer irrigation periods during the summer months. Additionally, the Tulare Lake bottom lands are less likely to be inundated with flood flows that occasionally interrupt farming operations. Recreational use will also be enhanced because even in winter, when lake levels are low, it will be large enough for boating. The federal government is funding more than half the cost of the $33 million project, the State Reclamation Board is providing $10.1 million, and the local agencies are providing the remaining $5.4 million.

The Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) groups in the Tulare Lake region include the Panoche/Silver Creek CRMP, the Stewards of the Arroyo Pasajero Watershed CRMP, and the Cantua/Salt Creek Watersheds CRMP. The general purpose of these groups is to promote watershed health throughout the western Fresno County foothills. The primary concerns in these watersheds are flooding, erosion, sediment transport, and the quality of water entering into the San Joa

quin River and the California Aqueduct. Some of the water management strategies that have been developed to address these problems include streamflow and water quality monitoring programs, revegetation of embankments, and implementation of watershed best management practices.

As part of the Kern County Water Agency’s Kern River Restorat ion and Water Supply Improvement Program, the Kern River Parkway will include a new 40-acre multipurpose recharge lake and recreation area with a permanent 10-acre recharge lake and adjoining playing field that will be surrounded by grassy slopes and tree-shaded seating areas. During extremely wet water years, these open 25-acre fields will be flooded and used for groundwater recharge in the spring. There will also be a new access route to the existing Kern River north bank equestrian trail from the future Jewetta Avenue extension. 

## Relationship with Other Regions The Tulare Lake region receives CVP water from the San Joaq uin River region via the Friant-Kern Canal and imported water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta via the SWP California Aqueduct and the CVP San Luis and Delta-Mendota canals. The regional map in Figure 8-1 identifies the amounts of water imports and exports for recent years 1998, 2000, and 2001. The economic health of the region heavily depends on the availability of imported surface water to meet current and future needs.Several water districts within the Tulare Lake region have develo ped groundwater storage and recovery programs that benefit water districts outside of the region. Groundwater overdraft has created sufficient dewatered storage space to store water for local uses and for extraction and exchange or delivery to other agencies. Revenues generated by these storage andrecovery programs have helped finance additional conveyance infrastructure to move surface water to areas that were previously served with groundwater. This type of conjunctive use activity ultimately helps relieve overdraft, while providing additional water supplies to agencies outside of the region.



## Looking to the Future
Major water agencies and counties within the Tulare Lake region have been proactive for many years in all facets of water use and supply planning (see Box 8-1 Ongoing Planning Activities). The efficiency of water diversions from local rivers and streams is continually being optimized to meet agricultural and urban purposes. In addition, when it became apparent that the groundwater supply was not sustainable for meeting all future water demands, water agencies worked with the CVP and SWP to find ways to improve delivery capabilities.

The predominantly agricultural economy is now adapting to share water resources with the rapidly growing urban economy. New projects have been identified as necessary to better managethe local water supplies, as well as to adhere to more stringent water quality standards and environmental regulations.



## Regional Planning
An important component of California’s ability to meet future water needs involves the voluntary transfer of water from one user to another. In recent years, programs and proposals that involve water transfers have become very active in the Tulare Lake region and adjacent areas. Water districts have alsomade significant progress in the development and expans ion of groundwater banking agreements and conjunctiveCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 148 use programs, which facilitate the storage and movement of water to where it is needed.

T he San Joaquin Valley Water Coalition is one example of several regional groups that facilitate the discussion of common issues related to water supply, water quality, and water management to ensure the reliable distribution of water. Some of the factors that are commonly considered in these regional planning efforts include:

• Population growth, impacts, and resulting water needs

• Groundwater overdraft and associated problems

• Preservation of prime agricultural lands

• Reliability of water supplies in foothill and mountain
communities

• Reliability of water supplies for fish, refuges, and the
environment

• P otential water transfers and exchanges and their effects

• Groundwater banking programs

• G roundwater quality issues, particularly for drinking and municipal use

Several examples of recent projects that have evolved through the use of regional planning approaches are mentioned below.

**Pond-Poso Improvement District Project Enhancements.** The Pond-Poso Improvement District is working to improve the groundwater resource in north-central Kern County. The district recently qualified for Proposition 204 funds. A primary goal is to encourage local groundwater users to begin using surface water whenever available instead of groundwater, which will help to stabilize the groundwater basin. The project is being completed by the Semitropic Water Storage District.

**Pioneer Groundwater Recharge and Recovery Project.** Funding obtained from Proposition 204 will be used to enhance the Kern County Water Agency’s Pioneer Project. This project will develop methods to maximize recovery of recharged groundwater, to increase the water supply available to the program participants. The project has the potential to reduce dry-year demands for surface water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin

**Pond - Shafter - Wasco Irrigation and Water Use Efficiency.** This effort is targeting agricultural irrigation in Kern County.The project’s goals are to (1) implement a Total Farm Management Program for the San Joaquin Valley portion of KernCounty; (2) reduce PM-10 levels on 50 percent of the perman ent crops harvested in the valley; (3) reduce agricultural water use by 15 percent over the next five years through changes to irrigation systems and irrigation management; (4) increase wildlife habitat by 30 percent over the next five years; and 5) educate local growers about new or proven techniques inwater, air, nutrient, and pesticide management. The PondShafter-Wasco Resource Conservation District and the Natural Resources Conservation Service are leading this project.

**Kern County Groundwater Storage and Water Conveyance Infrastructure Improvement Program.**  Proposition 13 funding will be used to provide additional opportunities for Kern County to develop water supplies for local uses, increase opportunities for ecosystem restoration, and increase sales to the Environmental Water Account. Kern County Water Agency has received the funding to develop this program.

**W hite Wolf Basin Groundwater Banking Project.**  The White Wolf Basin is a small, somewhat isolated, groundwater basinin the southeastern corner of Kern County. The Wheeler RidgeMaricopa Water Storage District is studying groundwater banking using this aquifer. Surface water from the California Aqueduct would be imported for use in groundwater storage.Recovered water could then be conveyed back to the aqued uct, or introduced into the district’s distribution system and exchanged for SWP water. Pilot wells are being drilled in order to better understand the geology of the groundwater basin.

**South Valley Water Management Program.** The southern



## Box 8-1 Ongoing Planning Activities

• Kern County Water Agency Conjunctive Management Program

• Water Agency Exchanges and Transfers

• Kern County Water Agency EWA Sales

• Optimization of Water Conveyance Systems

• Inter-regional Water Storage, Drought Supply Agreements158 **Chapter 8** Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

end of the San Joaquin Valley has water conveyance facilities that are interconnected, especially in Kern County. During wet years water can become available for short durations from any of a number of sources, including the San Joaquin River, Kings River, and Kern River. The Kern County Water Agency and several south valley water districts are evaluating possible ways to coordinate supplies and deliveries in order to take full advantage of these wet year supplies.

**R**

**osedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District Banking Program.**The Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District (RRB) is develo ping a groundwater banking project with a maximum storage of 500,000 acre-feet. Recharge basins and recovery wells are being constructed. Generally, RRB will store water for other entities in wet years by offering a 2-for-1 exchange proposal. In drier years this water would be returned, either by exchange delivery of RRB’s SWP or Kern River water, or by pumping from wells if there is insufficient exchange capacity.

**Kern Delta Water District/Metropolitan Water District Joint Banking Project.**  Kern Delta Water District is developing a groundwater banking partnership with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. MWD will store water in the groundwater basin underlying the Kern Delta Water District in wet years and recover the water during drier years. The project is similar in concept to a separate joint Arvin-Edison/MWD Program. The program contemplates storing a maximum of 250,000 acre-feet of water for MWD.

Other long-term programs and activities that may be considered for the T ulare Lake region include:

• Methods to increase agricultural water use efficiency

• Methods to increase urban water use efficiency

• W ater conservation activities

• Agricultural land retirement

• T emporary fallowing of crop lands

• SWP water supply augmentation concepts

• CVP water supply augmentation proposals

• Mid-V alley Canal as a new surface water facility

• Demand reduction strategies

• Short-term water transfers

• Use of “gray water” for approved purposes

• W ater recycling proposals

• Local conjunctive use

• Groundwater reclamation efforts

• T reatment and reuse of brackish agricultural drainage water 

## Water Portfolios for Water Years **1 998, 2000, and 2001** 
Detailed information about actual water supplies and water uses (called “water portfolios”) for water years 1998, 2000, and 2001 is presented in tables 8-3 and 8-4 and figures 8-4 and 8-5.



### Water Year 1998 California weather and precipitation were significantly affected by an El Nino weather event during the winter of 1997-98. The last prior El Nino period occurred in 1991-92. Wet El Nino storms did not begin earnestly until January 1998, after which storm impacts resulted in damage to a number of crops. Of California’s 58 counties, 42 were declared major disaster areas during that year.

The wet weather damaged some winter and spring crops and delayed the planting and development of some summer season crops. Consumers felt the impacts from the resulting higher supermarket prices for California vegetables. Producers had difficulty getting into their soggy fields in the spring, delaying normal farming practices, such as spraying, pruning, and tying vines. The wet weather also reduced both the quality and volume of many crops harvested during this year. However for late-developing crops such as cotton, raisins, and table grapes, the fall weather produced clear skies and good temperatures, which allowed the majority of these late-season crops to be harvested without weather problems.

Watershed runoff was well above normal, as unimpaired runofffrom both the San Joaquin and Kings rivers was about 170 perc ent of average, the Kaweah River was 196 percent of normal, and the Kern River runoff was 224 percent of average.

The total amount of acreage irrigated in this region varies in direct relation to the amount of surface water available from local and imported sources in any particular year. The 1998 total irrigated acreage was 3.2 million acres, based on abundant water supplies. The trends in crop acreage pointed towards increased acreage of higher value commodities such as fruits, tree nuts and vegetables; while the acreage of field crops was declining. Acreage planted in wine grapes was rapidly increasing, and the acreage planted in almond trees also continued to increase at a steady rate.

T he dairy industry continued its growth in 1998, particularly in Tulare County, which is now the top milk-producing county in the nation. Alfalfa acreage in the Tulare Lake region exceeded 360,000 acres in 1998, up from 279,600 acres reported inCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 168 Applied Net Depletion Applied Net Depletion Applied Net Depletion
Water Use Water Use Water Use Water Use Water Use Water Use 2001 1998 2000

**WATER USE Table 8-3**  **Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region Water Use and Distribution of Dedicated supplies (TAF)**

**Urban** Large Landscape 16.1 19.2 19.8 Commercial 37.5 44.6 46.4 Industrial 53.5 63.8 66.4 Energy Production 0.0 0.0 0.0 Residential - Interior 208.6 248.8 259.0 Residential - Exterior 219.4 261.4 272.5 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 187.1 187.1 223.3 223.3 232.5 232.5 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Applied Water 10.6 12.8 13.3 Conveyance Evaporation & ETAW 10.6 10.6 12.8 12.8 13.3 13.3 Conveyance Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GW Recharge Applied Water 0.7 2.9 0.0 GW Recharge Evap + Evapotranspiration 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 **Total Urban Use 546.4 197.7 197.7 653.5 236.1 236.1 677.4 245.8 245.8**  **Agriculture** On-Farm Applied Water 7,006.6 9,677.3 9,933.6 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 5,181.0 5,181.0 7,162.0 7,162.0 7,320.4 7,320.4 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 457.3 457.3 457.3 457.3 457.8 457.8 Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Applied Water 735.4 797.0 590.5 Conveyance Evaporation & ETAW 415.3 415.3 472.5 472.5 380.0 380.0 Conveyance Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GW Recharge Applied Water 824.8 328.3 42.6 GW Recharge Evap + Evapotranspiration 18.0 18.0 13.0 13.0 1.4 1.4 **Total Agricultural Use 8,566.8 6,071.6 6,071.6 10,802.6 8,104.8 8,104.8 10,566.7 8,159.6 8,159.6** 

**Environmental** Instream Applied Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wild & Scenic Applied Water 3,205.0 1,331.1 964.1 Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Required Delta Outflow Applied Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Managed Wetlands Habitat Applied Water 62.9 73.7 76.3 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 32.7 32.7 41.4 41.4 38.3 38.3 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Outflow 3.1 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.5 Conveyance Applied Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Evaporation & ETAW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Managed Wetlands Use 62.9 35.8 32.7 73.7 43.9 41.4 76.3 40.8 38.8 **Total Environmental Use 3,267.9 35.8 32.7 1,404.8 43.9 41.4 1,040.4 40.8 38.8** 

**TOTAL USE AND OUTFLOW 12,381.1 6,305.1 6,302.0 12,860.9 8,384.8 8,382.3 12,284.5 8,446.2 8,444.2**

**Surface Water** Local Deliveries 3,621.8 3,621.8 3,620.1 2,397.0 2,397.0 2,396.1 1,698.0 1,698.0 1,697.2 Local Imported Deliveries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Colorado River Deliveries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CVP Base and Project Deliveries 1,811.3 1,811.3 1,810.4 2,280.2 2,280.2 2,279.3 1,787.9 1,787.9 1,787.1 Other Federal Deliveries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SWP Deliveries 1,035.0 1,035.0 1,034.5 1,915.2 1,915.2 1,914.5 849.3 849.3 848.9 Required Environmental Instream Flow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Groundwater Net Withdrawal -163.0 -163.0 -163.0 1,792.4 1,792.4 1,792.4 4,111.0 4,111.0 4,111.0 Deep Percolation of Surface and GW 2,871.0 3,145.0 2,874.2 Reuse/Recycle Reuse Surface Water 3,205.0 1,331.1 964.1 Recycled Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
**TOTAL SUPPLIES 12,381.1 6,305.1 6,302.0 12,860.9 8,384.8 8,382.3 12,284.5 8,446.2 8,444.2**  **Balance = Use - Supplies 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0**  **DEDICATED WATER SUPPLIES**178 **Chapter 8** Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

1995. Corn acreage rose even faster than alfalfa, exceeding 257,000 acres in the region in 1998, which was driven by the increasing demand for cattle feed by the dairy industry.

Cotton acreage was substantially lower due primarily to the El Nino weather, decreasing to 655,400 acres (35 percent less than year 1995). Growers continued the trend of converting field crop land to almond/pistachio orchards in an effort to generatebetter long-term profits. The combined almond/pistachio acreage of 245,700 acres was 32 percent higher than the acreage reported in 1995.

The El Nino storms provided a significant amount of rainfall on agricultural fields, filling soil profiles, and reducing the early season evapotranspiration of applied water (ETAW). Consequently, less applied water was needed for irrigation compared to most normal years. Estimated total agricultural on-farm applied water was 7 million acre-feet for the Tulare Lake region; total agricultural water use was 8.6 million acre-feet (or 69 percent of all uses). The total agricultural ETAW in 1998 in the region was 5.2 million acre-feet. The regional average unit ETAW was 1.6 acre-feet per acre. Individual crop ETAW amounts vary due to differences in rainfall, growing season, soil texture, and rooting depths.

T otal urban applied water use, including residential, commercial, industrial, and landscape, in the region was 546,400 acre-feet. Urban water use accounted for only about 5 percent of the total applied water in this hydrologic region. The total population of the region in 1998 was 1,816,440. Total urban ETAW for the year was about 187,100 acre-feet, and the regional average per capita water use was about 268 gallons per day.

Total environmental demand for instream flows, wild and scenic rivers, and waterfowl refuges was about 3.3 million acre-feet. This accounted for 26 percent of total uses. This includes water that is reserved for instream and wild and scenic river flows but can later be diverted as a supply by other downstream users. Refuge water uses, which are supplies applied directly onto wildlife refuges, accounted for 62,900 acre-feet.

Total supplies, including local and imported CVP and SWP surface water, groundwater, and reuse, amounted to 12.4 million acre-feet, as detailed in Table 8-3.



### Water Year 2000 The weather for water year 1999-2000 in the Tulare Lake Region was very close to the long-term average. Rainfall was slightly below normal in the southern areas of the region, where Bakersfield received 81 percent of average. Precipitation was somewhat higher than normal in the northern areas of this region, where Fresno received 120 percent of average. Watershed runoff was about 101 percent of average fromboth the San Joaquin and Kings rivers, 87 percent of average from the Kaweah River and about 70 percent of average from the Kern River.

Total irrigated crop acreage within the region was 3.2 million acres, which was virtually unchanged from 1998. However,the acreage of some individual crops did change significantly from 1998. The largest change in crop acreage was for cotton, which increased 10.7 percent to 725,300 acres in 2000. The combined almond and pistachio acreage of 257,000 was 11,200 acres, or 4.6 percent higher than in 1998. Corn acreage, primarily for silage, declined 10 percent during this year.

The total agricultural on-farm applied water in 2000 for the Tulare Lake region was 9.7 million acre-feet, a significant 38 percent increase over 1998. This large difference illustrates the degree to which wet and cool conditions can alter the irrigation water demand and crop acreage grown. 1998 was a very wet and cool year (low evaporative demand), which reduced irrigation demand dramatically. In contrast the total agricultural water use for 2000 was 10.8 million acre-feet (84 percent of all uses) and 26 percent more than 1998. The regional average agricultural on-farm unit applied water was about 3.4 acre-feet per acre.

T he total agricultural ETAW in the region was about 7.2 million acre-feet, or 38 percent higher than that of 1998. The regional average unit ETAW was 2.2 acre-feet per acre.

The dairy industry continued its strong growth in year 2000. New records were set for the number of milk cows and milk production. In 2000, California led the nation in total milk production with a record 32.2 billion pounds, representing a 6 percent increase from the previous year. The Tulare Lake region was responsible for a large part of this increase in the number of dairies and cows.

I n 2000, total urban applied water for the region was 653,500 acre-feet, which was about 20 percent higher than the total applied water in 1998. Urban water use accounted for more than 5 percent of the total applied water in the region. Total population in 2000 in the Tulare Lake region climbed to1,884,650, an increase of 3.8 percent over the 1998 population. Average per capita water use was also much higherCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 188 than 1998, at 310 gallons per day. Total urban ETAW for the year was about 223,300 acre-feet, an increase of 19 percent from 1998.

Environmental demand for instream flows, wild and scenicrivers, and refuges for the region was about 1.4 million acrefeet in year 2000, which is 57 percent less than 1998. This category accounted for 11 percent of total uses. Because the components of environmental water use are directly tied to streamflows, this category of use will always decline duringnormal to drier water years. Refuge supplies, which are supp lies applied directly onto wildlife refuges, accounted for 73,700 acre-feet in 2000.

T otal developed water supplies, including local and imported from the CVP and SWP surface water, groundwater, and reuse, amounted to about 12.9 million acre-feet, which is 4 percent more than in 1998.



### Water Year 2001 The 2001 water year started out cooler than normal with cumulative rainfall below average through most of January. However, large-scale weather patterns changed significantly as February approached and a series of Pacific storms moved into the state, bringing regional precipitation totals closer to normal. Rainfall amounts were slightly less that average for the water year in the region with totals in both Fresno and Bakersfield about 93 percent of average.

Except for a thunderstorm in April that produced significant high wind, hail, and rainfall, crop development was generally normal throughout the remainder of the growing season. Less than normal precipitation in local watersheds resulted in below normal river runoff and below normal surface water supplies. Runoff from the San Joaquin, Kings, and Kaweah rivers was about 71 percent of average for each, while runoff from the Kern River was 54 percent of average.

Total irrigated agricultural acreage was 3.1 million acres, a decline of 9.6 percent (or 126,000 acres) from year 2000. The price for milk and cream commodities rose 14 percent in 2001 and pushed Tulare County to the top agricultural producing position in the nation, surpassing Fresno County, which had held the number-one position for many years. Cotton acreage was 639,400 acres, which was 85,900 fewer acres than in 2000, due primarily to the drop in price of the upland variety. Sugar beet acreage continued its multiyear downward spiral to 15,100 acres, 47 percent less acreage than in 2000. The transition into wine grapes over the past several years leveled out as the market reached a point of saturation, and prices began to weaken. The acreage of raisin grapes dropped almost 20 percent in 2001 responding to the dramatic drop in price over the past two years. Raisin growers had received more than $1,000 per ton in 1999 compared to about $525 per ton in 2001. The almond/pistachio acreage continued the upward trend of previous years, increasing more than 10 percent in 2001.

The total agricultural on-farm applied water in 2001 for theTulare Lake region was 9.9 million acre-feet, and total agricultural water use was 10.6 million acre-feet or 86 percent of all water uses. This amount is 23 percent more than 1998, but 2 percent less than year 2000. This resulted in an average unit rate of 3.4 acre-feet per acre. The total agricultural ETAW in the region was 7.3 million acre-feet, about 41 percent higher than 1998 and 2 percent higher than 2000.

The total urban applied water in 2001 for the region was 677,400 acre-feet, which was 24 percent higher than 1998 and 4 percent higher than 2000. Urban water use accounted for about 5.5 percent of the total applied water in the region. Total population in the region for 2001, was 1,921,915, an increase of 2 percent over the 2000 population and 5.7 percent higher than 1998. Average per capita water use was about 315 gallons per day, possibly due partly to the drier water supply conditions. Total urban ETAW for the year was about 232,500 acre-feet, an increase of 24 percent from 1998 and 4 percent from 2000.

T otal environmental demand for instream flows, wild and scenic rivers, and refuges for the region was about 1.04 million acre-feet, 68 percent less than 1998 and 26 percent less than 2000. This accounted for about 8.5 percent of total uses. This includes water that is reserved for instream and wild and scenic river flow, which is generally much lower in below normal water years. Refuge supplies, which are applied directly onto wildlife refuges, accounted for 76,300 acre-feet.

T otal water supplies, including local and imported CVP and SWP surface water, groundwater, and reuse, amounted to 12.3 million acre-feet, 1 percent less than 1998 and 4 percent less than 2000.198 **Chapter 8** Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005



## Selected References
2002 California 305(b) Report on Water Quality, State Water Resources Control Board Califor nia’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 (Draft), Update 2003, California Department of Water Resources

F resno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan Phase III Report Implementation Plan Excerpts, city of Fresno Planning Library Web site, www.fresno.gov/planning_library/default.asp Grassland Bypass Project Contaminants Investigation - Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://sacramento.fws.gov/ec/grassland.htm Nonpoint Source Program Strategy and Implementation Plan, 1998-2013, State Water Resources Control Board, California Coastal Commission, January 2000
PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey of the Central Valley. Public Policy Institute of California. Mark Baldassare. April 2004.

S trategic Plan, State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Boards, November 15, 2001

V

arious articles, Fresno Bee newspaper

W

ater Quality Control Plan, Regional Water Quality Control Board

W atershed Management Initiative Chapter, Regional Water Quality Control Board

W estlands Water District Web site, www.westlandswater.org218 **Chapter 8** Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005



# Water Portfolios

Tulare Lake Hydrologic RegionCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 228 **Table 8-4 Tulare Lake region water portfolio (TAF)** 

ID Tulare Lake Tulare Lake Tulare Lake Number: Flow Diagram Component (see legend) 1998 2000 2001
1 Colorado River Deliveries

- - - 2 Total Desalination

- - - 3 Water from Refineries

- - - 4a Inflow From Oregon

- - - b Inflow From Mexico

- - - 5 Precipitation 27,305.9 12,692.9 11,563.6 6a Runoff - Natural N/A N/A N/A b Runoff - Incidental N/A N/A N/A 7 Total Groundwater Natural Recharge N/A N/A N/A 8 Groundwater Subsurface Inflow N/A 9 Local Deliveries 3,621.8 2,397.0 1,698.0 10 Local Imports

- - - 11a Central Valley Project :: Base Deliveries

- - - b Central Valley Project :: Project Deliveries 1,811.3 2,280.2 1,787.9 12 Other Federal Deliveries

- - - 13 State Water Project Deliveries 1,035.0 1,915.2 849.3 14a Water Transfers - Regional

- - - b Water Transfers - Imported

- - - 15a Releases for Delta Outflow - CVP b Releases for Delta Outflow - SWP c Instream Flow Applied Water

- - - 16 Environmental Water Account Releases

- - - 17a Conveyance Return Flows to Developed Supply - Urban

- - - b Conveyance Return Flows to Developed Supply - Ag

- - -

c Conveyance Return Flows to Developed Supply - Managed Wetlands

- - - 18a Conveyance Seepage - Urban

- - - b Conveyance Seepage - Ag

- - -

c Conveyance Seepage - Managed Wetlands

- - - 19a Recycled Water - Agriculture

- - - b Recycled Water - Urban

- - -

c Recycled Water - Groundwater

- - - 20a Return Flow to Developed Supply - Ag

- - - b Return Flow to Developed Supply - Wetlands 3.1 2.5 2.0 c Return Flow to Developed Supply - Urban

- - - 21a Deep Percolation of Applied Water - Ag 1,368.1 2,058.2 2,155.2 b Deep Percolation of Applied Water - Wetlands 27.1 29.7 34.5 c Deep Percolation of Applied Water - Urban 348.2 414.5 431.7 22a Reuse of Return Flows within Region - Ag

- - - b Reuse of Return Flows within Region - Wetlands, Instream, W&S 3,205.0 1,331.1 964.1 24a Return Flow for Delta Outflow - Ag

- - - b Return Flow for Delta Outflow - Wetlands, Instream, W&S

- - -

c Return Flow for Delta Outflow - Urban Wastewater

- - - 25 Direct Diversions 26 Surface Water in Storage - Beg of Yr 865.3 708.7 652.2 27 Groundwater Extractions - Banked

- - - 28 Groundwater Extractions - Adjudicated

- - - 29 Groundwater Extractions - Unadjudicated 2,708.0 4,937.4 6,985.2 23 Groundwater Subsurface Outflow N/A N/A N/A 30 Surface Water Storage - End of Yr 1,303.6 652.2 511.4 31 Groundwater Recharge-Contract Banking 99.8 167.4 -3.9 32 Groundwater Recharge-Adjudicated Basins

- - - 33 Groundwater Recharge-Unadjudicated Basins

- - - 34a Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from Native Vegetation b Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from Unirrigated Ag 35a Evaporation from Lakes 39.3 38.5 34.2 b Evaporation from Reservoirs 232.9 233.8 190.6 36 Ag Effective Precipitation on Irrigated Lands 2320.5 1121.7 729.6 37 Agricultural Water Use 7,831.4 10,005.6 9,976.2 38 Managed Wetlands Water Use 62.9 73.7 76.3 39a Urban Residential Use - Single Family - Interior 101.6 121.1 126.2 b Urban Residential Use - Single Family - Exterior 155.1 184.9 192.7 c Urban Residential Use - Multi-family - Interior 107.0 127.7 132.8 d Urban Residential Use - Multi-family - Exterior 64.3 76.5 79.8 40 Urban Commercial Use 37.5 44.6 46.4 41 Urban Industrial Use 53.5 63.8 66.4 42 Urban Large Landscape 16.1 19.2 19.8 43 Urban Energy Production

- - - 44 Instream Flow

- - - 45 Required Delta Outflow

- - - 46 Wild and Scenic Rivers

- - - 47a Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Ag 5181 7162 7320.4 b Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Managed Wetlands 32.7 41.4 38.3 c Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Urban 187.1 223.3 232.5 48 Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from Urban Wastewater

- - - 49 Return Flows Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Ag

- - - 50 Urban Waste Water Produced

- - - 51a Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Urban 10.6 12.8 13.3 b Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Ag 433.3 485.5 381.4 c Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Managed Wetlands

- - - d Conveyance Outflow to Mexico 52a Return Flows to Salt Sink - Ag 457.3 457.3 457.8 b Return Flows to Salt Sink - Urban

- - -

c Return Flows to Salt Sink - Wetlands

- - 0.5 53 Remaining Natural Runoff - Flows to Salt Sink

- - - 54a Outflow to Nevada

- - - b Outflow to Oregon

- - -

c Outflow to Mexico

- - - 55 Regional Imports 3,715.7 5,626.6 3,695.8 56 Regional Exports 1856.7 1539.9 1093 59 Groundwater Net Change in Storage 262.8 -1,625.0 -4,114.9 60 Surface Water Net Change in Storage 438.3 -56.5 -140.8 61 Surface Water Total Available Storage 2,046.1 2,046.1 2,046.1

Inflows Outflows Green number signifies included in summary boxes**Chapter 8** Tulare LakeRegion 23 8 **Volume 3**  Regional Reports California Wa ter Plan Update 200524 8 **Volume 3**  Regional Reports **Chapter 8** Tulare LakeRegion California Wa ter Plan Update 2005

## Chapter 9 North Lahontan Hydrologic Region 

# Volume 3i 9 **Chapter 9** North Lahontan Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005 

# Chapter 9 North Lahontan Hydrologic Region

Contents
Chapter 9 North Lahontan Hydrologic Region ...........................................................................................................9-1 Setting ................................ 9-1 Climate ............................... 9-1 Population .......................... 9-1 Land Use ............................ 9-1 Water Supply and Use ......... 9-2 State of the Region .............. 9-5 Challenges .................... 9-5 Accomplishments ........... 9-6 Relationship with Other Regions ...........................................................................................................................9-7 Looking to the Future ........... 9-8 Water Portfolios for Water Years 1998, 2000, and 2001 .......................................................................................9-8 Selected References ............. 9-8



## Figures Figure 9-1 North Lahontan Hydrologic Region (map) .................................................................................................9-ii Figure 9-2 North Lahontan Hydrologic Region population ..........................................................................................9-3 Figure 9-3 North Lahontan region water balance for water years 1998, 2000, 2001 (2 bar charts) ..............................9-4 Figure 9-4 North Lahontan region - illustrated water flow diagram ...........................................................................9-13 Figure 9-5 North Lahontan region - schematic flow diagram ....................................................................................9-14



## Tables
Table 9-1 North Lahontan Hydrologic Region water balance summary ........................................................................9-9 Table 9-2 North Lahontan Hydrologic Region wate r use and distribution of dedicated supplies ....................................9-10 Table 9-3 North Lahontan region water portfolios ....................................................................................................9-12**Volume 3** Regional Reports California Water Plan Update 2005

**Some Statistics** Area - 6,122 square miles (3.9% of State) Average annual precipitation - 23.1 inches Year 2000 population - 99,035 2030 population projection -130,800 Total reservoir storage capacity - 1,181 TAF 2000 irrigated crop area - 125,200 acres .

.

.

.

.

.

NEVADA SIERRA

PLACER

EL DORADO

ALPINE

TUOLUMNE MODOC

LASSEN

Flow in TAF
1998

1 2000 1 2001 1 **South Lahontan Region** Virginia Creek Flow in TAF
1998 1,391 2000 754 2001 552 **Outflow to Nevada**

Flow in TAF
1998

0 2000 1 2001 2 **Sacramento River Region** Echo Lake Conduit Flow in T AF
1998

10 2000 9 2001 7 **Sacramento River Region** Little T ruckee

Flow in TAF
1998

3 2000 3 2001 3 **Sacramento River Region** Pit River **Figure 9-1 North Lahontan Hydrologic Region**

The North Lahontan Hydrologic Region is in the northeast corner of California, and its surface waters drain eastward toward Nevada. Arrows indicate annual flows entering and leaving the region fo r water years 1998, 2000, and 2001.1 9 **Chapter 9** North Lahontan Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005



# Chapter 9 North Lahontan Hydrologic Region

**Population**
By 2000, about 99,000 people, a quarter of 1 percent of California’s population, lived in the North Lahontan Region. The largest population center is the city of Susanville, the county seat of Lassen County. The cities of Truckee and South Lake Tahoe have large permanent populations, and large transient tourist populations during the summer and winter holidays.

It is estimated that the region’s population will grow to 130,800 by 2030. Most of this growth is expected tooccur around the existing urban communities of Susanv ille, Lake Tahoe, Truckee, and the adjacent Martis Valley area. Figure 9-2 provides a graphical depiction of the North Lahontan region’s total population from 1960 through 2000, with current projections to 2030.



## Land Use
Much of the region is either national forest or lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. Cattle-ranching is the principal agricultural activity with pasture and alfalfa being the dominant irrigated crops. Commercial crop production is very limited because of the short growing season. Although growing seasons vary considerably each year, the mountain valleys where most crops are grown are usually frost free from late May to mid-September or about 120 days.

T ourism and recreation are the principal economic activities in the Truckee-Tahoe area and the surrounding mountains. On a typical summer day, the number of visitors in the Tahoe basin often exceeds the number of full-time residents. In the Lake Tahoe Basin, urban growth is tightly controlled by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, which is responsible for protecting the sensitive environment and water quality of the basin. To the north, the town of Truckee and the adjacent Martis Valley region are experiencing more rapid urban development. For environmental purposes, the principal consumptive use of water is for the State wildlife areas around Honey Lake, 

## Setting The North Lahontan Hydrologic Region forms part of the western edge of the Great Basin, a large landlocked area that includes most of Nevada and northern Utah. The crest of the Sierra Nevada forms much of the western boundary of this region. All surface water in the region drains eastward toward Nevada. This hydrologic region extends about 270 miles from the Oregon border to the southern boundary of the Walker River drainage in Mono County (Figure 9-1). The region covers 6,122 square miles, about 4 percent of California’s total area. The region includes portions of Modoc, Lassen, Sierra, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Alpine, Tuolumne, and Mono counties. The northern part of this region is primarily arid high desert with relatively flat valleys at elevations of 4,000 to 5,000 feet, bordered on the west by mountain peaks that reach between 7,000 and 9,000 feet. The central and southern portions of this region are comprised of the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada and include the California portion of the Lake Tahoe Basin. The major rivers of the region are the Truckee, Carson and Walker, which carry the mountain snowmelt into Nevada. The mountain crests up to 11,000 feet form the western boundary of the region.



## Climate
The region’s climate is characterized by dry summers with the exception of occasional scattered thundershowers. Winter precipitation ranges from less than 5 inches in the valleys of Eastern Modoc and Lassen counties to about 30 inches in the Walker Mountains to more than 60 inches in the Sierra Nevada in the upper reaches of the Truckee, Carson and Walker River basins. Most of the winter precipitation is snow, which generally accumulates in mountain areas above 5,000 feet. In the valleys, winter precipitation is a mixture of rain and some snow, which usually melts between storms. Snowpack from the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada melts in the late spring and summer to become the primary source of surface water supplies for much of northern NevadaCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 2 9 which provide important habitat for waterfowl and several threatened or endangered species, including the bald eagle, sand hill crane, bank swallow, and peregrine falcon.



## Water Supply and Use
Unimpaired runoff of the streams and rivers averages 1.6 million acre-feet per year, of which only about one-quarter is in the drier northern portion. The largest rivers in the region and their average regulated runoff at the Nevada state line are the Truckee River with 540,000 acre-feet; the Carson River, 335,000 acre-feet; and the Walker River, 300,000 acre-feet. The Susan River is the only major river in the northern half of the region and its annual discharge at Susanville averages 60,000 acre-feet.

T he Truckee, Carson, and Walker rivers are governed in largepart by existing federal court water rights decrees administered by court-appointed watermasters. The interstate nature of these rivers, combined with the long history of disputes overwater rights, has created a complex system of river managem ent criteria. On the Carson River for example, more than 55 years of federal court litigation has been necessary to resolve water rights disputes, resulting in approval of the Alpine Decree, which governs operation of the river today.

Much of the supply from the Truckee, Carson, and Walker rivers has been reserved for use by Nevada interests under various historical water rights settlements, agreements, and SWRCB surface water rights permits. On the California side of these interstate basins, most locally developed water supplies are from groundwater or small surface water diversions, with storage provided by outlet dams constructed on natural lakes. Figure 9-3 provides a graphical presentation of all of the water supply sources that are used to meet the developed water uses in this hydrologic region for 1998, 2000 and 2001. A second chart in this figure summarizes all of the dedicated and developed The central and southern portions of the North Lahontan region include the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada and the California portion of the Lake Tahoe Basin. (DWR Photo)3 9 **Chapter 9** North Lahontan Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

urban, agricultural and environmental water uses within this region for the three years.

Lake Tahoe is the largest reservoir in the region, with the top 6 feet of storage operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in conjunction with the federal watermaster to meet downstream water rights in Nevada. Other federal water storage facilities in the Truckee River basin include Stampede Reservoir, Boca Reservoir, and Prosser Creek Reservoir, constructed primarily to provide water supply for urban and agricultural water use in Nevada, downstream fl ood protection, protection of threatened and endangered species and recreation. Independence and Donner lakes are now operated by Truckee Meadows Water Authority to supply water to the Reno – Sparks region. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also completed the Martis Creek Dam in 1971 as additional Truckee River fl ood protection for the Reno-Sparks area.

Farther south on the Walker River, both Bridgeport Reservoir and Topaz Lake are large reservoirs that capture the spring snowmelt from the Sierra Nevada, and are operated by the Walker River Irrigation District to provide summer irrigation water to Nevada farmers in that watershed. Most urban water uses in the North Lahontan region are supplied from groundwater wells. There are 24 groundwater basins and two subbasins recognized in the region. Thirteen of these basins are shared with Nevada and one with Oregon. These basins cover about 1,033,240 acres (1,610 square miles) orabout 26 percent of the entire region. Information about groundwater storage capacities is available for only six of the 26 basins, and the combined storage for these underground basins is estimated at approximately 24 million acre-feet. Although the groundwater basins were delineated based on mapped alluvial fi ll, much of the groundwater produced actually comes from underlying fractured rock aquifers. This is particularly true in the volcanic areas of Modoc and Lassen counties where volcanic fl ows are interstratifi ed with lake sediments and alluvium. Wells constructed in these volcanic formations commonly produce large amounts of groundwater, whereas wells constructed in fi ne-grained lake deposits produce less. Because the thickness and lateral extent of the fractured hard rocks outside of the defi ned basin are generally not known, actual groundwater in storage in these areas is also unknown.

About 5,000 acre-feet of reclaimed municipal wastewater are exported out of the Lake Tahoe Basin each year by theSouth Tahoe Public Utility District for recharge and agri

### Figure 9-2 North Lahontan Hydrologic Region population

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

Data from California Department of Finance provide decadal population from 1960 to 2000 and population projection for 2030 for the North Lahontan region.California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 4 9 **Figure 9-3 North Lahontan region water balance for water years 1998, 2000, 2001**

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000

1998 2000 2001Thousand Acre-Feet Wild & Scenic
R.

Instream Flow

Managed Wetlands

Irrigated Agriculture

Urban

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000

1998 2000 2001Thousand Acre-Feet Reuse & Recycle

Ground Water

Local Projects **Dedicated Water Supplies Applied Water Uses** 

Three years show a marked change in the amount and relative pro portions of water delivered to North Lahontan region’s urban and agricultural sectors and water dedicated to the environment ( applied water, top chart), where the water came from, and how much water was reused among sectors (dedicated water supplies, botto m chart).5 9 **Chapter 9** North Lahontan Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

cultural use in the Carson River watershed. Truckee Tahoe Sanitation Agency also treats wastewater from the north end of the Lake Tahoe Basin and returns about 4,000 acre-feet to the Martis Valley groundwater basin each year. Farther to the north, the Susanville Sanitary District reclaims more than 3,000 acre-feet of wastewater each year for use on nearby irrigated pasturelands.

The principal consumptive uses of water for environmental uses in the region are those of State wildlife areas around Honey Lake. The Honey Lake Wildlife Area in southern Lassen County consists of the 4,271-acre Dakin Unit and the 3,569- acre Fleming Unit. The two units provide important habitat for several threatened or endangered species, including the bald eagle, sand hill crane, bank swallow, and peregrine falcon. This wildlife area has winter-storage rights from the Susan River from November 1 until the last day of February. The HLWA also operates eight wells, each producing between 1,260 and 2,100 gallons per minute. In an average year, the HLWA floods 3,000 acres by March 1 for waterfowl brood habitat.

In 1989, the California Department of Fish and Game purchased the 2,714-acre Willow Creek Wildlife Area in Lassen County to preserve existing wetlands and to increase the potential for waterfowl production and migration habitat. About 2,000 acres are wetlands and riparian habitats. The endangered bald eagle and sand hill crane also inhabit thisarea. In addition to the Honey Lake and Willow Creek Wildlife Areas, DFG operates the Doyle Wildlife Area, also in the Honey Lake Basin. This wildlife area is protected as dry land winter range for deer and requires less water than the Honey Lake or Willow Creek areas.

R iver flows that have been designated as wild and scenic constitute a large part of the environmental water use within the North Lahontan region. The east fork of the Carson River and the west fork of the Walker River are listed as State-designated wild and scenic, for the California portions of these two interstate rivers.



## State of the Region Challenges Much of the northern portion of North Lahontan region is chronically short of water. In the Modoc and Lassen County areas drought is a way of life for agriculture, and seasonal irrigation takes place only as long as water is available. During dry years areas with little or no surface storage may only have irrigation water available for a short period early in the season, resulting in irrigation of limited acreage unless growers are able to supplement their surface water supply by pumping groundwater. However in the Modoc and LassenCounty regions groundwater is also limited and some wellpumping capacities are known to diminish very rapidly during the first year of droughts.

While the Truckee River Operating Agreement has the potential to settle 50 years of disputes over Truckee and CarsonRiver waters, the execution and implementation of this agreement will require considerable effort in the coming years. A final environmental impact statement /environmental impact report (EIS/EIR) is being prepared by the U.S. Department of Interior and the California Department of Water Resources to evaluate the potential benefits and impacts of TROA, as well as alternatives to TROA. After the EIS/EIR is completed and certified, TROA will be signed, approved by the courts and implemented. The TROA contains 14 chapters with more than 200 pages of operating criteria and conditions pertaining towater priorities, deliveries and operation of the water facilities in the system.

In the Walker River basin, California and Nevada have beendiscussing interstate water allocation issues that could potentially affect future uses of the river in both states. The primary issue of concern is the long-term decline in the water level and associated water quality of Walker Lake, which is the river’s terminus in central Nevada. The water level at Walker Lake is estimated to have declined by about 140 feet from an historical high elevation of about 4,080 feet in 1882 to 3,941 feet in 2003. Starting in the early 1900s much of the water in the Walker River was developed to provide water to agricultural lands in Nevada. Bridgeport Reservoir and Topaz Lake were built upstream to meet those needs. As the uses increased, the flows to Walker Lake diminished, and the lake has become increasing more saline, such that the lakes historic Lahontan cutthroat trout population is severely threatened. As the lake has declined, the level of salinity as measured by total dissolved solids (TDS) has increased to measured values of 13,000 ppm TDS. Significant increases in the amount of fresh water entering Walker Lake will be needed in order to maintain or restore the fishery, which would likely affect the water uses and supplies of all upstream parties in both states. Other issues that could also affect existing water users in this basin are the potential water rights claims of the Walker River Indian Reservation, which is just upstream of Walker Lake.

Water quality in the North Lahontan region is generally very good, but many communities face specific water quality