### x The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### Leviathan Mine.............................................................................................................................. 9-9 Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project .................................................................................................... 9-9 January 1997 Flood Event ............................................................................................................. 9-9 Water Management Options for the North Lahontan Region .............................................................. 9-9

Water Conservation ..................................................................................................................... 9-11 New Reservoirs or Conveyance Facilities ...................................................................................... 9- 11 Groundwater Development or Conjunctive Use .......................................................................... 9-11 Options Likely to be Implemented in the North Lahontan Region .................................................... 9-12 South Lahontan Hydrologic Region.......................................................................................................... 9-15 Description of the Area ...................................................................................................................... 9-15 Water Demands and Supplies ............................................................................................................. 9-16 Los Angeles Aqueduct .................................................................................................................. 9-16 State Water Project....................................................................................................................... 9-17 Local Surface Water Supplies ................................................................................................... .... 9-18 Groundwater Supplies ................................................................................................................. 9-18 Local Water Resources Management Issues ........................................................................................ . 9-19 Owens Valley Area ....................................................................................................................... 9-19

Mono Basin ................................................................................................................................. 9-20 Mojave River Adjudication ...................................................................................................... .... 9-21 Antelope Valley Water Management ............................................................................................ 9-21

Interstate Groundwater Basins .................................................................................................. ... 9-22 Water Management Options for South Lahontan Region ................................................................... 9-22

Water Conservation ..................................................................................................................... 9-22 Modify Existing Reservoirs or Operations .................................................................................... 9-23 New Reservoirs or Conveyance Facilities ...................................................................................... 9- 24 Water Marketing .......................................................................................................................... 9-24 Water Recycling ........................................................................................................................... 9-24 Other Local Options.................................................................................................................... 9-24 Statewide Options ....................................................................................................................... 9-24 Options Likely to be Implemented in the South Lahontan Region ..................................................... 9-24 Colorado River Hydrologic Region ........................................................................................................... 9-27 Description of the Area ...................................................................................................................... 9-27 Water Demands and Supplies ............................................................................................................. 9-28 Supplies from the Colorado River ............................................................................................... . 9-28 Supplies from Other Sources.................................................................................................... .... 9-32 Local Water Resources Management Issues ........................................................................................ . 9-33 Management of California’s Colorado River Water ...................................................................... 9-33 Tribal Water Rights ...................................................................................................................... 9-35 Water Conservation Programs.................................................................................................... .. 9-35

### xi The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### Salton Sea .................................................................................................................................... 9-35 Coachella Valley Groundwater Overdraft ..................................................................................... 9-38
Lower Colorado River Environmental Water Issues ..................................................................... 9-39 Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program ........................................................ 9-40 Water Management Options for the Colorado River Region .............................................................. 9-40
Water Conservation ..................................................................................................................... 9-40 Potential Sources of Water for Intrastate Marketing ..................................................................... 9-42 Intrastate Groundwater Recharge or Banking............................................................................... 9-44 Interstate Banking/Conservation................................................................................................ .. 9-45 Reoperating Colorado River System Reservoirs ............................................................................ 9-45
Weather Modification .................................................................................................................. 9-45 Options for Coachella Valley ................................................................................................... .... 9-46 Statewide Options ....................................................................................................................... 9-46 Options Likely to be Implemented in the Colorado River Region ...................................................... 9-46

Appendix 9A. Options Evaluations for Eastern Sierra and Colorado River Regions...................................9A-1

Chapter 10. Conclusions Future with Existing Facilities and Programs ................................................................................... ... 10-2 Water Supply ............................................................................................................................... 10-2
Water Demand ............................................................................................................................ 10-3 Water Shortages ........................................................................................................................... 10-4 Summary of Options Likely to be Implemented ................................................................................. 10-6 Implementing Future Water Management Options ............................................................................ 10-8 Bulletin 160-98 Findings.................................................................................................................. 10-11

Appendix 10A. Regional Water Budgets with Likely Options .................................................................10A-1

Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................... A-1

Glossary ................................................................................................... G-1

Tables Table 6-1. California Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs................................................... 6-2 Table 6-2. 1991 Urban Water Shortage Management................................................................................ .. 6-7 Table 6-3. Urban Depletion Reduction Potential Due to Water Conservation Options Beyond BMPs ....... 6-9 Table 6-4. Agricultural Depletion Reduction Potential Due to Water Conservation Options Beyond EWMPs ....................................................................................................................................... 6-12 Table 6-5. CVP Yield Increase Plan Conjunctive Use Options .................................................................. 6-24 Table 6-6. Sample of Potential Water Purchases ........................................................................................ 6-29 Table 6-7. Drought Water Bank Summary ................................................................................................ 6-30 Table 6-8. 2020 Level Water Recycling Options and Resulting New Water Supply ................................... 6-32 Table 6-9. Potential 2020 Water Recycling Options by Hydrologic Region ............................................... 6-33

### xii The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### Table 6-10. Statewide Supply Augmentation Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020 ........................ 6-38 Table 6-11. Likely Statewide Supply Augmentation Options by Hydrologic Region, 2020 Average Year ... 6-39 Table 6-12. Likely Statewide Supply Augmentation Options by Hydrologic Region, 2020 Drought Year . 6-39 Table 6-13. Effects of Alternative Assumptions on 2020 Applied Water Shortages .................................... 6-40 Table 6-14. Environmental Restoration Funding .................................................................................. .... 6-42 Table 6-15. Sample Projects Funded by Category III Program .................................................................. 6-45 Table 6-16. Significant Sources of Revenue to Water Agencies by Type of Ownership ............................... 6-48 Table 6-17. Significant Sources of Revenue to Water Agencies by Water Agency Size ................................ 6-48 Table 6-18. Major State and Federal Financial Assistance Programs .......................................................... 6-50 Table 6-19. Financing Methods Available to Water Agencies by Type of Ownership ................................. 6-51 Table 6-20. Financing Methods Typically Available to Water Agencies by Water Agency Size .................... 6-52 Table 6-21. Financial Assistance Programs Available to Water Agencies by Type of Ownership ................. 6-52 Table 6A-1. North Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ..............................6A-2 Table 6A-2. San Francisco Bay Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ......................6A-2 Table 6A-3. Central Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ............................6A-2 Table 6A-4. South Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ...............................6A-3 Table 6A-5. Sacramento River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ......................6A-3 Table 6A-6. San Joaquin River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ......................6A-3 Table 6A-7. Tulare Lake Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ................................6A-4 Table 6A-8. North Lahontan Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ........................6A-4 Table 6A-9. South Lahontan Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs .........................6A-4 Table 6A-10. Colorado River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ........................6A-5 Table 6B-1. Applied Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region, 1995-Level Average Year ............................. 6B-2 Table 6B-2. Applied Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region, 1995-Level Drought Year............................6B-2 Table 6B-3. Applied Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region, 2020-Level Average Year ............................. 6B-3 Table 6B-4. Applied Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region, 2020-Level Drought Year............................6B-3 Table 6C-1. Sample Cost Computation ................................................................................................... 6C-2 Table 6D-1. Minimum New Water Needs by Hydrologic Region, 2020 Average Year .............................. 6D-2 Table 6D-2. Minimum New Water Needs by Hydrologic Region, 2020 Drought Year ............................ 6D-2 Table 6E-1. North Coast Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs........................ 6E-2 Table 6E-2. San Francisco Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ...................... 6E-2 Table 6E-3. Central Coast Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs...................... 6E-2 Table 6E-4. South Coast Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ........................ 6E-3 Table 6E-5. Sacramento River Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ................ 6E-3 Table 6E-6. San Joaquin River Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ............... 6E-3 Table 6E-7. Tulare Lake Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ......................... 6E-4 Table 6E-8. North Lahontan Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs.................. 6E-4 Table 6E-9. South Lahontan Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs .................. 6E-4 Table 6E-10. Colorado River Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ................. 6E-5

### xiii The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### Table 6E-11. California Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ..................................... 6E-5 Table 6F-1. Agricultural Depletion Reductions Due to Land Retirement .................................................. 6F-2
Table 6F-2. Costs of Land Retirement ...................................................................................................... 6F-2 Table 6F-3. Land Retirement Analysis—Scenario 1 Economic Impacts .................................................... 6F-3 Table 6F-4. Land Retirement Analysis—Scenario 2 Economic Impacts .................................................... 6F-3 Table 6G-1. Onstream Storage Options Upstream of the Delta ............................................................... 6G-2 Table 6G-2. Retained Onstream Storage Options and Environmental Issues............................................ 6G-4 Table 6G-3. Offstream Storage Options Upstream of the Delta ............................................................... 6G-5 Table 6G-4. Retained Offstream Storage Options and Environmental Issues ........................................... 6G-6 Table 6G-5. Watersheds Identified for South of the Delta Storage Options ............................................ 6G-10 Table 6G-6. South of the Delta Off-Aqueduct Storage Size Categories................................................... 6G-10 Table 6G-7. Ranking of Off-Aqueduct Storage Options South of the Delta ........................................... 6G-11 Table 6G-8. Retained Off-Aqueduct Storage Option South of the Delta................................................ 6G-12 Table 7-1. Population and Crop Acreage ..................................................................................................... 7-3 Table 7-2. North Coast Region Water Budget ............................................................................................. 7-4 Table 7-3. North Coast Region List of Water Management Options ........................................................... 7-9 Table 7-4. Options Ranking for North Coast Region .............................................................................. .. 7-12 Table 7-5. Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, North Coast Region............................................ 7-12 Table 7-6. Population and Crop Acreage ................................................................................................... 7-15 Table 7-7. San Francisco Bay Region Water Budget ............................................................................... ... 7-16 Table 7-8. Major North Bay Water Suppliers ............................................................................................ 7-17 Table 7-9 . Local Agency Reservoirs Serving the North Bay ...................................................................... 7-17 Table 7-10. Major South Bay Water Suppliers ........................................................................................... 7-18 Table 7-11. Local Surface Reservoirs Serving the South Bay ..................................................................... . 7-18 Table 7-12. San Francisco Bay Region List of Water Management Options .............................................. 7-25 Table 7-13. Options Ranking for San Francisco Bay Region ..................................................................... 7- 30 Table 7-14. Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, San Francisco Bay Region ................................. 7-31 Table 7-15. Population and Crop Acreage ................................................................................................. 7-34 Table 7-16. Central Coast Region Water Budget ....................................................................................... 7-34 Table 7-17. Central Coast Region List of Water Management Options ..................................................... 7-38 Table 7-18. Options Ranking for Central Coast Region ........................................................................... . 7-43 Table 7-19. Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, Central Coast Region........................................ 7-44 Table 7-20. Population and Crop Acreage ................................................................................................. 7-47 Table 7-21. South Coast Region Water Budget ......................................................................................... 7-48 Table 7-22. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Member Agencies .................................. 7-49 Table 7-23. State Water Project Contractors in the South Coast Region .................................................... 7-50 Table 7-24. Major Reservoirs in the South Coast Region ......................................................................... . 7-51 Table 7-25. Reservoirs Owned by Water Retailers in MWDSC’s Service Area ........................................... 7-51 Table 7-26. San Diego County Water Authority Member Agencies ........................................................... 7-52

### xiv The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### Table 7-27. Adjudicated Groundwater Basins in the South Coast Region ................................................. 7-55 Table 7-28. Salinity of South Coast Region Groundwater Supplies ........................................................... 7-59 Table 7-29. South Coast Region List of Water Management Options ....................................................... 7-64 Table 7-30. Options Ranking for South Coast Region ............................................................................. . 7-72 Table 7-31. Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, South Coast Region .......................................... 7-73 Table 7A-1. Options Evaluation North Coast Region .............................................................................. .7A-2 Table 7A-2. Options Evaluation San Francisco Bay Region .......................................................................7 A-3 Table 7A-3. Options Evaluation Central Coast Region ............................................................................ .7A-5 Table 7A-4. Options Evaluation South Coast Region .............................................................................. ..7A-7 Table 8-1. Population and Crop Acreage ..................................................................................................... 8-3 Table 8-2. Sacramento River Region Water Budget ..................................................................................... 8-4 Table 8-3. Major Sacramento River CVP Water Users .............................................................................. .. 8-5 Table 8-4. Sacramento River Region List of Water Management Options ................................................. 8-16 Table 8-5. Options Ranking for Sacramento River Region ........................................................................ 8 -20 Table 8-6. Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, Sacramento River Region .................................... 8-21 Table 8-7. Population and Crop Acreage ................................................................................................... 8-23 Table 8-8. San Joaquin River Region Water Budget ............................................................................... ... 8-23 Table 8-9. New Melones Releases for CVPIA Environmental Purposes ..................................................... 8-31 Table 8-10. San Joaquin River Region List of Water Management Options............................................... 8-36 Table 8-11. Comparison of Salinity of Water Sources............................................................................ .... 8-39 Table 8-12. Options Ranking for San Joaquin River Region ..................................................................... 8- 40 Table 8-13. Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, San Joaquin River Region ................................. 8-41 Table 8-14. Population and Crop Acreage ................................................................................................. 8-43 Table 8-15. Tulare Lake Region Water Budget .......................................................................................... 8-45 Table 8-16. Tulare Lake Region List of Water Management Options......................................................... 8-48 Table 8-17. Options Ranking for Tulare Lake Region ............................................................................. .. 8-53 Table 8-18. Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, Tulare Lake Region ........................................... 8-53 Table 8A-1. Options Evaluation Sacramento River Region .......................................................................8A -2 Table 8A-2. Options Evaluation San Joaquin River Region .......................................................................8 A-3 Table 8A-3. Options Evaluation Tulare Lake Region .............................................................................. ...8A-4 Table 9-1. Population and Crop Acreage ..................................................................................................... 9-3 Table 9-2. North Lahontan Region Water Budget ....................................................................................... 9-4 Table 9-3. Major Reservoirs in the Truckee River Basin in California .......................................................... 9 -5 Table 9-4. North Lahontan Region List of Water Management Options ................................................... 9-10 Table 9-5. Options Ranking for North Lahontan Region .......................................................................... 9 -12 Table 9-6. Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, North Lahontan Region...................................... 9-12 Table 9-7. Population and Crop Acreage ................................................................................................... 9-16 Table 9-8. South Lahontan Region Water Budget .................................................................................. ... 9-17 Table 9-9. Los Angeles Aqueduct System Reservoirs.............................................................................. .... 9-17

### xv The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### Table 9-10. SWP Contractors in the South Lahontan Region ................................................................... 9-17 Table 9-11. South Lahontan Region List of Water Management Options ................................................. 9-23 Table 9-12. Options Ranking for South Lahontan Region ........................................................................ 9- 25 Table 9-13. Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, South Lahontan Region .................................... 9-25 Table 9-14. Population and Crop Acreage ................................................................................................. 9-27 Table 9-15. Colorado River Region Water Budget ................................................................................. ... 9-28 Table 9-16. Key Elements of the Law of the River..................................................................................... 9-29 Table 9-17. Annual Apportionment of Use of Colorado River Water ........................................................ 9-30
Table 9-18. Estimated Colorado River Flow and Uses ............................................................................. .. 9-31 Table 9-19. SWP Contractors in the Colorado River Region .................................................................... 9-32 Table 9-20. Existing Colorado River Region Water Conservation Actions ................................................. 9-36 Table 9-21. Colorado River Region List of Water Management Options................................................... 9-41 Table 9-22. Potential Colorado River Water Conservation Programs......................................................... 9-42 Table 9-23. Options Ranking for Colorado River Region ......................................................................... 9 -47 Table 9-24. Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, Colorado River Region ..................................... 9-48
Table 9-25. Future Actions Described in Bulletin 160-98 That Could be Part of Draft CRB 4.4 Plan Implementation ........................................................................................................ 9-48 Table 9A-1. Options Evaluation North Lahontan Region .........................................................................9A -2 Table 9A-2. Options Evaluation South Lahontan Region ..........................................................................9 A-3 Table 9A-3. Options Evaluation Colorado River Region ........................................................................... 9A-4 Table 10-1. California Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs............................................... 10-2 Table 10-2. Applied Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region With Existing Facilities and Programs ....................................................................................................... 10-4 Table 10-3. Summary of Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, by Option Type ............................ 10-7 Table 10-4. California Water Budget with Options Likely to be Implemented .......................................... 10-8 Table 10-5. Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region With Likely Options ................................................. 10-9 Table 10A-1. North Coast Region Water Budget with Options...............................................................10A-2 Table 10A-2. San Francisco Bay Region Water Budget with Options ......................................................10A-2 Table 10A-3. Central Coast Region Water Budget with Options.............................................................10A-2 Table 10A-4. South Coast Region Water Budget with Options ...............................................................10A-3 Table 10A-5. Sacramento River Region Water Budget with Options .......................................................10A-3 Table 10A-6. San Joaquin River Region Water Budget with Options ......................................................10A-3 Table 10A-7. Tulare Lake Region Water Budget with Options ................................................................10A-4 Table 10A-8. North Lahontan Region Water Budget with Options.........................................................10A-4 Table 10A-9. South Lahontan Region Water Budget with Options .........................................................10A-4 Table 10A-10. Colorado River Region Water Budget with Options ........................................................10A-5

Figures Figure 6-1. Index to Regional Chapters ....................................................................................................... 6-3 Figure 6G-1. Likely Reservoir Sites Upstream of the Delta ....................................................................... 6G-8

### xvi The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### Figure 6G-2. Off-Aqueduct South of the Delta Watershed Sites............................................................. 6G-13 Figure 7-1. Coastal Hydrologic Regions ...................................................................................................... 7-1 Figure 7-2. North Coast Hydrologic Region ............................................................................................... 7-2 Figure 7-3. San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region ..................................................................................... 7-14 Figure 7-4. Central Coast Hydrologic Region. .......................................................................................... 7-32 Figure 7-5. South Coast Hydrologic Region.............................................................................................. 7-46 Figure 7-6. South Coast Groundwater Basins............................................................................................ 7-53 Figure 8-1. Interior Hydrologic Regions...................................................................................................... 8-1 Figure 8-2. Sacramento River Hydrologic Region ....................................................................................... 8-2 Figure 8-3. San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region ..................................................................................... 8-22 Figure 8-4. Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region ............................................................................................... 8-42 Figure 9-1. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River Hydrologic Regions............................................................. 9-1 Figure 9-2. North Lahontan Hydrologic Region ......................................................................................... 9-2 Figure 9-3. South Lahontan Hydrologic Region........................................................................................ 9-14 Figure 9-4. Colorado River Hydrologic Region ......................................................................................... 9-26 Figure 9-5. Basic Apportionment and Consumptive Use of Mainstem Colorado River in Lower Basin ..... 9-31 Figure 9-6. U.S.-Mexican Border Region .................................................................................................. 9-43 Figure 10-1. 2020 Shortages by Hydrologic Region with Existing Facilities and Programs ........................ 10-5 Figure 10-2. 2020 Shortages by Hydrologic Region with Likely Options ................................................ 10-10

Sidebars Initial Screening Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 6-4 Options Category Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 6-5 Data on Urban Landscaping ....................................................................................................................... 6-8 CALFED Water Conservation Planning ................................................................................................... 6-11 Land Retirement in Drainage-Impaired Areas ........................................................................................... 6-13 CALFED Bay-Delta Program Common Programs .................................................................................... 6-15 Prospects for Onstream Surface Storage Upstream of the Delta ................................................................. 6- 18 Feasibility Study for American Basin Conjunctive Use Project .................................................................. 6 -25
Is That Real Water? ................................................................................................................................... 6-26
Water Code Section 1810 et seq. ............................................................................................................... 6-28 Seawater Desalting as a Future Water Management Option ...................................................................... 6-34 Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Research and Development Project ................................. 6-34 Monterey County Water Resources Agency’s Cloud Seeding Program ....................................................... 6-35 San Diego Area Water Reclamation Programs ........................................................................................... 7-69 Brackish Water Reclamation Demonstration Facility.............................................................................. ... 7-70 Sacramento River Flood Control Project ................................................................................................... 8-10 Grasslands Bypass Project Drainage Fee System ........................................................................................ 8-32 Westlands Water District Distribution System .......................................................................................... 8-50 Water Marketing—WaterLink Program .................................................................................................... 8-52

### xvii The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### Searles Lake............................................................................................................................................... 9-19
Colorado River Board of California .......................................................................................................... 9-35 Reservoir Reoperation for Flood Control .................................................................................................. 10-66-1 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

Sources of water

supply must be
identified to meet the
needs of California’s
growing population.
Chapters 6-9 discuss
potential future water

management options. 

# Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

# A main objective of this California Water Plan update is evaluating, at an
appraisal level of detail, how California’s water supply reliability needs
could be met through 2020. This chapter outlines the process used to put
together the conceptual evaluation and evaluates water management options that are
statewide in scope. A brief discussion of methods available to local agencies for financing
water management options is also provided.
The planning process includes developing regional water management evaluations
for each of the State’s ten major hydrologic regions, and integrating those results with
statewide water management options to form a summary for the entire State. Development
of regional water management evaluations is covered in Chapters 7-9.
Statewide water management options include demand reduction measures that
many water agencies are expected to implement, and large-scale water supply augmentation
measures that would provide supply to multiple beneficiaries in more
than one hydrologic region. For example, a large offstream storage
reservoir studied under CALFED’s Bay-Delta program is considered a
statewide option. A small reservoir project being studied by a local agency
to provide benefits only to its service area is not a statewide option.
Such local projects are covered in Chapters 7-9. This chapter opens by
presenting a balance between California’s water supplies and its water
use, illustrating the shortages that would occur if no new water
management facilities or programs were developed.6-2 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### The water supply and water use information discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 and summarized in Tables3-3, 4-26, and 4-27 is combined into the statewide applied water budget with existing facilities and programsshown in Table 6-1. Regional water budgets with existing facilities and programs are shown in Appendix 6A. The shortages shown in Table 6-1 reflect the Bulletin’s assumption that groundwater overdraft is not available as a supply. The average water year shortages at 1995 and2020 levels illustrate the need to develop new facilities and programs to improve California’s water supply reliability. Californians are facing water shortages now, and will face them in the future. As Californians experienced in 1991 and 1992, drought year shortages are large. Urban water users faced cutbacks in supply and mandatory rationing, some small rural communities saw their wells go dry, agricultural lands were fallowed, and environmental water supplies were reduced. By 2020, without additional facilities and programs, these conditions will worsen, reflectingCalifornia’s forecasted population increase. Appendix 6B shows forecasted shortages by hydrologic region, assuming that no new facilities or programs were implemented.The following section describes the planning process used in Bulletin 160-98 to evaluate actions that would reduce the State’s future water shortages. T

ABLE 6-1 California Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (maf)

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 8.8 9.0 12.0 12.4 Agricultural 33.8 34.5 31.5 32.3 Environmental 36.9 21.2 37.0 21.3 Total 79.5 64.7 80.5 66.0 Supplies

Surface Water 65.1 43.5 65.0 43.4 Groundwater 12.5 15.8 12.7 16.0 Recycled & Desalted 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 Total 77.9 59.6 78.1 59.8 Shortage 1.6 5.1 2.4 6.2



### Statewide Water Budget . . .

The process used to evaluate ways to meet California’s future water needs drew upon, at an appraisal level of detail, techniques of integrated resources planning. IRP evaluates water management options—both demand reduction options and supply augmentation options— against a fixed set of criteria and ranks the options basedon costs and other factors. Although the IRP process includes economic evaluations, it also incorporates environmental, institutional, and social considerations which cannot be expressed easily in monetary terms.The development of likely regional water management options used information prepared by local agencies. The regional water management options evaluations are not intended to replace local planningefforts, but to complement them, by showing the relationships among regional water supplies and waterneeds and the statewide perspective. Local water management options form the basis of the regionalsummaries which are combined into the statewide options evaluation. Figure 6-1 is an index map showinghow the regional summaries are organized in Chapters␣ 7-9. The Bulletin 160-98 Planning Process . . .6-3 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

Redding North Coast

Sacramento River

San Joaquin River San Francisco Bay

Central Coast Tulare Lake South Lahontan

South Coast Colorado River North Lahontan Coastal Regions (Chapter 7)

Interior Regions (Chapter 8)

Eastern Sierra and Colorado River Regions (Chapter 9) F IGURE 6-1 Index to Regional Chapters6-4 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### Major Steps in Planning Process Major steps involved in the Bulletin 160-98 water management options evaluation process included:• Identify water demands and existing water supplies on a regional basis. • Compile lists of regional and statewide water management options. • Use initial evaluation criteria to either retain ordefer options from further evaluation. For options retained for further evaluation, group some by categories and evaluate others individually.• Identify characteristics of options or option categories, including costs, potential demand reductionor supply augmentation, environmental considerations, and significant institutional issues.• Evaluate each regional option or category of options in light of identified regional characteristics using criteria established for this Bulletin. If local agencies have performed their own evaluation, review and compare their evaluation criteria with those used for the Bulletin. • Evaluate statewide water management options.• Develop tabulation of likely regional water management options.• Develop a statewide options evaluation by integrating the regional results.The first step in evaluating regional water management options was to prepare applied water budgetsfor the study areas to identify the magnitude of potential water shortages for average and drought year conditions. In addition to identifying shortages, otherwater supply reliability issues in the region were reviewed. Once the shortages were identified, a list of local water management options was prepared. Where possible, basic characteristics of these options (yields,costs, significant environmental or institutional concerns) were identified. After identifying options, they were compared with the initial screening criteria shown in the sidebar. For options deferred from further evaluation, the major reasons for deferral were given. Options retained for further evaluation were placed into the following categories: • Conservation (urban and agricultural) • Modifications to existing reservoirs/operations • New reservoirs/conveyance facilities • Groundwater/conjunctive use • Water marketing • Water recycling • Desalting (brackish groundwater and seawater) • Other local options • Statewide options Because each of these categories may contain many individual options, some options within each category were further combined into groups based upon their estimated costs. For example, water recycling projectscosting less than $500/af were grouped into one category. Options were evaluated and scored against the set of fixed criteria shown in the sidebar. The Bulletin 160-98 options evaluation process relied heavily upon locally developed information. Methods used to develop this information vary fromone local agency to the next, making direct comparisons between cost estimates difficult. To make costinformation comparable, a common approach for estimating unit cost was developed (Appendix 6C). However, due to lack of detailed information, not all Initial Screening Criteria

The criteria used for initial screening of water management options were:

• Engineering

— an option was deferred from further evaluation if it was heavily dependent on the development of technologies not currently in use, it used inappropriate technologies given the regional characteristics (desalting in the North Lahontan Region), or it did not provide new water (water recycling in the Central Valley).

• Economic

— an option was deferred from further evaluation if its cost estimates (including environmental mitigation costs) were extraordinarily high given the region’s characteristics. • Environmental

—

an option was deferred from further evaluation if it had potentially significant unmitigable environmental impacts or involved use of waterways designated as wild and scenic.

• Institutional/Legal

— an option was deferred from further evaluation if it had potentially unresolvable water rights conflicts or conflicts with existing statutes.

• Social/Third Party

— an option was deferred from further evaluation if it had extraordinary socioeconomic impacts, either in the water source or water use areas.

• Health —an option was deferred from further evaluation if it would violate current health regulations or would pose significant health threats.6-5 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

Options Category Evaluation

Evaluation What is Measured? How is it Measured? Score

Criteria
Engineering Engineering feasibility Increase score for greater reliance upon current technologies Operational flexibility Increase score for operational flexibility with existing facilities and/or other options Drought year supply Increase score for greater drought year yield/ reliability Implementation date Increase score for earlier implementation date Water quality limitations Increase score for fewer water quality constraints Engineering Score 0 - 4

Economics Project financial feasibility Increase score for lower overall costs and the ability to finance Project unit cost Increase score for lower overall unit cost (including mitigation costs) Economics Score 0 - 4

Environmental Environmental risk Increase score for least amount of environmental risk
Irreversible commitment of resources Increase score for least amount of irreversible commitment of resources Collective impacts Increase score for least amount of collective impacts Proximity to environmentally Increase score for little or no proximity to sensitive resources sensitive resources Environmental Score 0 - 4

Institutional/Legal Permitting requirements Increase score for least amount of permitting requirements Adverse institutional/legal effects upon Increase score for least amount of adverse water source areas institutional/legal effects Adverse institutional/legal effects upon Increase score for least amount of adverse water use areas institutional/legal effects Stakeholder consensus Increase score for greater amount of stakeholder

consensus Institutional/Legal Score 0 - 4

Social/Third Party Adverse third party effects upon Increase score for least amount of adverse third water source areas party effects Adverse third party effects upon Increase score for least amount of adverse third water use areas party effects Adverse social and community effects Increase score for least amount of adverse social and community effects Social/Third Party Score 0 - 4

Other Benefits Ability to provide benefits in addition Increase score for environmental benefits to water supply
Increase score for flood control benefits
Increase score for recreation benefits Increase score for energy benefits
Increase score for additional benefits Increase score for improved compliance with health and safety regulations Other Benefits Score 0 - 4

Total Score 0 - 246-6 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### option costs could be made comparable. Unit cost estimates took into account capital costs associated with construction and implementation (including any needed conveyance facilities), annual operations costs, and option yield. Water management options can serve purposes other than water supply; they can also provide floodcontrol, hydroelectric power generation, environmental enhancement, water quality enhancement, andrecreation. In recognition of the multipurpose benefits provided by some water management options, the options evaluation scoring process assigned a highervalue to multipurpose options, as shown in the sidebar. However, since the focus of the Bulletin 160 series is water supply, cost estimates were based solely on the costs associated with water supply. Once options were evaluated and scored, they were ranked according to their scores. This ranking was usedto prepare a tabulation of likely regional water management options, taking into account options that maybe mutually exclusive or could be optimized if implemented in conjunction with other options. Depending on a region’s characteristics, its potential options, and its ability to pay for new options, the tabulation oflikely options may not meet all of a region’s water shortages (especially in drought years).This appraisal-level evaluation of options at a statewide level of detail is based on presently availableinformation. The ultimate implementability of any water management option is dependent on factors suchas the sponsoring entity’s ability to complete the appropriate environmental documentation, obtain the necessary permits, and finance the proposed action.

Shortage Management Water agencies may choose to accept less than 100␣ percent water supply reliability, especially under drought conditions, depending on the characteristics of their service areas. Shortage contingency measures such as restrictions on residential outdoor watering or deficit irrigation for agricultural crops can be used to meet temporary shortages. Demand hardening is animportant consideration in evaluating shortage contingency measures. Implementing water conservation measures such as plumbing retrofits and low water use landscaping reduces the ability of water users to achieve future drought year water savings through shortage contingency measures. Supply augmentation actions (purchasing water from the DWB) and demand reduction actions (urban rationing and agricultural land fallowing) are available to water agencies for coping with shortagesthat exceed planned levels of reliability. Table 6-2 summarizes actions taken by some of California’s larger urban water suppliers to respond to water shortages in 1991, the driest year of the recent 1987-92 drought.Measures taken by agricultural water agencies and water users included increased pumping of groundwater,land fallowing, and intra- and interdistrict water transfers. The WaterLink system established by Westlands Water District (described in Chapter 8) is an example of an action that could be used by agricultural water suppliers to facilitate intradistrict water transfers as part of managing shortages.The impacts of allowing planned shortages to occur in water agency service areas are necessarily site-specific and must be evaluated by each agency on an individual basis. In urban areas where conservation measures have already been put into place to reducelandscape water use, imposing rationing or other restrictions on landscape water use can create significant impacts to homeowners, landscaping businesses, and entities that manage large turf areas such as parks and golf courses. Drought year cutbacks in the agricultural sector create economic impacts not only to individualgrowers and their employees, but also to local businesses that provide goods and services to the growers.

Using Applied Water Budgets to Calculate New Water NeedsAs discussed in Chapter 3, some municipal wastewater discharges, agricultural return flows, and required environmental instream flows are reapplied several times before finally being depleted from the State’s hydrologic system. An applied water budget explicitly accounts for this unplanned reuse of water. Becausereapplication has the potential to account for a substantial portion of a region’s water supply, appliedwater budgets may overstate the supply of water actually needed to meet future water demands. Shortagescalculated from an applied water budget must be interpreted with caution to determine new water needs for a region. The amount of new water required to meet a region’s future needs depends on several factors,including the region’s applied water shortage, opportunities to reapply water in the region, and the types of water management options that are implemented6-7 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### in the region. If no water reapplication opportunities exist, then the region’s new water need is equivalent to its applied water shortage. In this case, the new water need would be independent of the types of water management options that are implemented. However,if opportunities are available to reapply water in a region, then the region’s new water need is less than its applied water shortage. In this case, the new water need depends on the types of water management options that are implemented. Not all water management options are createdequal in their ability to meet new water needs. Because supply augmentation options provide new water to a region, the opportunity exists for the options’ effectiveness to be multiplied through reapplication.For example, a supply augmentation option may provide 100 taf of new water to a region. But through reapplication within the region, the option effectively meets applied water demands in excess of 100 taf. Demand reduction options, on the other hand, do notprovide new water to a region. Hence, the opportunity does not exist to multiply the options’ effectivenessthrough reapplication. To satisfy an applied water shortage of 100 taf, a demand reduction option must conserve 100 taf of water. Calculation of regional and statewide new water needs is more complex than computing regional and statewide applied water shortages—new water needs also depend on reapplication and implemented watermanagement options. An applied water shortage provides an upper bound on the new water need. A lower bound on the new water need can be estimated for each region by assuming that new water supplies are reapplied in the same proportion that existing suppliesare reapplied. Minimum new water needs are computed for each region in Appendix 6D.The tabulations of likely regional water management options in Chapters 7-9 use minimum new water needs as target values for selecting the appropriate number of regional options. If a region is unable to meet minimum new water needs as a result of regional characteristics, lack of potential options, or inability to pay for potential options, specifying minimum newwater needs rather than applied water shortages as regional target values has no impact on options selection.On the other hand, if a region is able to meet its minimum new water needs, this does not necessarily guarantee that all applied water shortages would be met. The remaining applied water shortages would depend on the selected option mix—the more water T

ABLE 6-2 1991 Urban Water Shortage Management

Contingency Measures

Reduction Water Agency a Goal b A B CDE F GH I J K Alameda County WD 18% ✔ ✔ ✔✔✔ ✔ Contra Costa WD 26% ✔ ✔✔ ✔✔✔ ✔✔ East Bay MUD 15% ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ LA Dept. of Water and Power 15% ✔✔ ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ MWD of Southern California 31% ✔✔✔✔✔ ✔ ✔✔ MWD of Orange County 20% ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ ✔ Orange County WD 20% ✔ ✔ ✔✔ ✔ San Diego Co. Water Authority 20% ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ City of San Diego 20% ✔ ✔✔✔✔ ✔ San Francisco PUC 25% ✔✔ ✔ ✔✔✔ ✔✔ Santa Clara Valley WD 25% ✔✔ ✔ ✔✔✔✔✔ A = Rationing G = Broadcast Public Information B = Mandatory Conservation H = Mailed Public Information C = Extraordinary Voluntary Conservation I = Water Patrols and Citations D = Increasing Rate or Surcharges J = Fines and Penalties E = Economic Incentives K = Water Transfer F = Device Distribution

a Agencies listed include both wholesale and retail water agencies and, as a result, the shortage contingency measures available to them are different.

b The actual performance of an agency’s drought management may have exceeded the adopted goal. Several of the retail agencies are located within

wholesalers’ boundaries. Contingency measures shown can include both retail and wholesale measures.6-8 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### conservation selected, the greater the remaining applied water shortages would be (as water conservation options do not provide reapplication opportunities.)This approach is consistent with the treatment of shortages in prior water plan updates, which used net water budgets. Because data in net water budgets factor out reapplied water, net water shortages are essentially thesame as minimum new water needs. Appendix 6E provides a compilation of Bulletin 160-98 net water budgets, statewide and by region.

Data on Urban Landscaping

As plumbing code changes designed to reduce interior urban water use are implemented, a main potential for futureurban water conservation lies in reducing exterior urban water use—specifically landscape water use. Estimating wateruse reductions from landscape irrigation changes is made difficult by the lack of data on irrigated urban landscaping. Only a handful of water districts in California have actual data on the extent of irrigated acreage (residential lots plus large turf areas, such as parks, cemeteries, and golf courses) in their service areas, and data are nonexistent at a statewide level. For planning purposes, California’s irrigated urban acreage has historically been estimated at about one million acres at a 1980s/1990s level of development, based on estimated ratios of landscape acreage to total urban acreage from land use surveys. Such ratios vary widely by county (the Department’s,for example, vary from percentages in the low teens to almost 40 percent), and are inherently subject to uncertainty. Water agencies are beginning to evaluate ways to quantifyexisting irrigated urban acreage—aerial photography or satellite imagery, estimated ratios from parcel maps, surveys, orquestionnaires. Estimates of future irrigated landscape acreage are generally made by increasing an assumed base acreage by ratios of forecasted population growth—which implicitly assumes no major changes in housing density or single to multifamily housing ratios.

These uncertainties illustrate the present difficulty of quantifying landscape conservation savings, and lack of hard data to support planning estimates. Better estimates of urban landscape acreage would greatly improve future conservation planning. 

### Demand Reduction Options . . .

Demand reduction has taken on a key role in theplanning and management of water resources. By making wise use of water through water conservation, the need for new sources of supply can be minimized. Many agencies have implemented programs to achieve a high level of water use efficiency.For nearly three decades, Californians have recognized the importance of water conservation. Since the1976-77 drought, attention has focused on plans, programs, and measures to encourage efficient use of water.The water conservation options evaluated in this Bulletin are limited to actions that would have the effect of creating new water supply through reductions in existing consumptive use or water depletions. (The potential for depletion reductions exists where appliedwater would be lost to evapotranspiration, or to a saline water body, and could not be beneficially reapplied.) The options evaluated in this Bulletin wouldyield depletion reductions above the 2020-level demand reduction of 2.3 maf assumed to result from statewide implementation of existing BMPs and EWMPs. (Existing BMPs and EWMPs are discussedin Chapter 4.) Quantifying depletion reductions allows the comparison of water conservation options withwater supply augmentation options such as water storage or recycling facilities. The options presented are for planning purposes only and are not mandated targets. They represent an attempt to quantify potential water savings that maybe achieved by implementing measures beyond current BMPs and EWMPs. Local water agencies can evaluate these options against other available options to assess appropriate actions for their service areas. Since the purpose of the Department’s Bulletin 160 series is to assess water supply benefits, it is that aspect of water conservation that the Bulletin addresses. Water conservation projects may provide additional benefits, such as reduction in water treatment costs,reduction in fish entrainment at water supply diversion structures, or reduction in nonpoint source runoff. These other benefits are recognized in the Bulletin’soptions evaluation process, as described earlier. As discussed in Chapter 3, the Bulletin treats demandreduction actions on an equal footing with water supply actions. Each action must create water that is new to the State’s hydrologic region.6-9 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### Although water conservation options will be carried out at the local level, they are discussed in this chapter conceptually as statewide demand reductionoptions for simplicity of presentation. Analyses of water conservation options for each hydrologic region are discussed in Chapters 7-9.

Urban Water Conservation OptionsAs discussed in Chapter 4, urban water use forecasts were calculated from estimates of population, urban per capita water use, and conservation savings from urban BMPs. The Bulletin assumes that urbanBMPs are put into effect by 2020, resulting in an estimated 1.5 maf of demand reduction statewide. The urban water conservation options described below assume a more intensive application of current BMPs and potential evolution of additional BMPs. If all of the options described below were implemented,nearly 1 maf/yr of depletion reduction could theoretically be attained. The level of water conserved from these options would vary for each region depending on current urban water use and the region’s hydrology. Since little or no depletion reductions would beachieved in the Central Valley, urban water conservation options beyond BMPs are deferred for valley regions. Table 6-3 summarizes statewide urban waterconservation options and the potential depletion reductions associated with each option. These options are evaluated for each region in Chapters 7-9. Outdoor Water Use Ideally, landscape water use could be derived by the method used for estimating agricultural water use— multiplying water use requirements for differentlandscape types by their corresponding statewide acreT

ABLE 6-3 Urban Depletion Reduction Potential Due to Water Conservation Options Beyond BMPs a (taf)

Opt 1 Opt 2 Opt 3 Opt 4 Opt 5 Opt 6 Opt 7 Opt 8 Region New New & 60 gpcd 55 gpcd 3% 5% 7% 5% Existing

0.8 ET 0 Outdoor Indoor Water Use CII Water Use Distribution
Water Use Reduction System Losses

North Coast 1 6 3 6 1 2 6 9 San Francisco Bay 2 52 38 77 11 18 D 13 Central Coast 4 13 8 17 2 3 3 8 South Coast 67 246 110 220 30 49 D 84 Sacramento River D D D D D D D D San Joaquin River D D D D D D D D Tulare Lake D D D D D D D D North Lahontan D 1 D 1 D D D D South Lahontan 20 31 7 15 2 4 4 12 Colorado River 9 18 2 3 1 2 9 13 Total (rounded) 100 370 170 340 50 80 20 140

a In some regions, these levels of conservation are already being achieved. Urban water conservation options beyond BMPs would not result in significant, costeffective additional reductions in depletion in interior regions and are deferred (D). Only depletion reductions greater than 1 taf are considered in this table.

The greatest potential reductions in urban water use would come from reducing outdoor water use for landscaping. Data for accurately quantifying present acreage of urban landscaping (or for forecasting future acreage) are virtually non-existent today. Courtesy of Barbara Cross6-10 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### age, and summing the results to obtain a total for irrigated landscapes in the State. As discussed in the sidebar, no firm numbers are available for statewide irrigated urban landscape acreage. For this Bulletin, based onwater budget data and projected increases in population, landscape water use in California is estimated to increase from about 2.4 maf in 1995 to 3.6 maf in 2020.The Department estimates that landscape in California will be irrigated on average at 1.0 ET 0 

### by 2020.Options to reduce outdoor water use assume that statewide landscape irrigation could be reduced on average to 0.8 ET 0 

### either in new development, or in all development. These reductions would be realized throughlandscape water audits and incentive programs by retailers. So that the cost of implementing these optionscan be equitably compared with other supply augmentation options, the economic evaluations in Chapters 7–9 assume that implementation costs are funded bywater purveyors and not by homeowners. This assumption implies that water purveyors could choose to carry out landscape water management programs in muchthe same manner as some urban purveyors have implemented ultra low flush toilet retrofit programs.Option 1: Outdoor Water Use in New Development to 0.8 ET 0 

### . The Model Landscape Ordinance indicates that a landscape plant factor of 0.8 ET 0 

### couldbe attainable through measures such as proper landscape and irrigation system design, more intensive landscape water audit programs, installing automaticrain sensors, better irrigation scheduling, and incentive programs tied to an ET-based billing structure. Statewide, about 100 taf/yr of depletion reductions could be achieved by reducing outdoor water use to 0.8 ET 0 

### at a cost of about $750/af. The ordinance isdirectly applicable to new construction; existing landscaping would require retrofitting.Option 2: Outdoor Water Use in New and Existing Development to 0.8 ET 0 

### . This option extendsthe provisions of Option 1 to include existing development. Statewide, about 370 taf/yr of depletionreduction could be achieved by reducing outdoor water use in new and existing development to 0.8 ET 0 

### . The cost of this option is difficult to quantify and is greatly affected by site-specific factors. It is expected to be high due to the cost involved in retrofitting existing landscape.

Residential Indoor Water UseOptions to reduce indoor residential water use assume that by 2020, indoor water use in the State would average 65 gallons per capita daily. Options 3 and 4would reduce this average to 60 gpcd and 55 gpcd, respectively. These reduced levels of indoor water use could be achieved statewide if strong incentive programs, such as financial incentives for retrofits, were provided. Moreaggressive indoor water audits would be needed. Conversion to horizontal axis washing machines is assumed to occur in 25 percent of all residences under Option 3 and 75 percent under Option 4. Option 3: Reduce Residential Indoor Water Use to 60 gpcd. This option is based on the potential for a 3 gpcd reduction in leaks, a 1 gpcd reduction in shower usage, and a 1 gpcd reduction in laundry use. These savings result in an 8 percent reduction of applied water beyond current BMPs at the retail level. This option could achieve about 170 taf/yr in depletion reductions at a cost of about $400/af. Option 4: Reduce Residential Indoor Water Use to 55 gpcd. This option is based on the potential for a 5 gpcd reduction in leaks, a 2 gpcd reduction in shower usage, and a 3 gpcd reduction in laundry use. These savings result in a 15 percent reduction of applied water beyond current BMPs at the retail level. This option could achieve about 340 taf/yr in depletion reductions at a cost of $600/af.

Interior CII Water UseUrban BMPs account for 12 to 15 percent reduction in commercial, industrial, and institutional water use by 2020. Options 5 and 6 assume that CII water use could be reduced beyond BMPs with aggressive audits and information programs by the retailer. These options could reduce CII water use by an additional 3 percentand 5 percent. The reduction levels are based on measures with varying payback schedules, and also on a national study funded by EPA which identifies potential savings beyond BMPs attainable for various enterprises. Option 5: Interior CII Water Use by 3 percent. This option is based on measures requiring a five-yearstart up time with payback in two years. The additional 3 percent CII reduction would require increased water audits and compliance with existing standards and regulations. This option could achieve about 50␣ taf/yr in depletion reductions, primarily in coastal regions, at a cost of about $500/af. Option 6: Interior CII Water Use by 5 percent.This option is based on measures requiring an additional five-year start up period with a payback within two to five years. The additional 5 percent reduction would accrue through increased audits and compliance with6-11 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### existing standards, and new efficiency standards. About80 taf/yr of depletion reduction could be achieved, primarily in the coastal regions, at a cost of $750/af.

Distribution System LossesThe Department estimates that the average unaccounted water in the State’s hydrologic regions ranges between 6 and 15 percent. Two percent is attributedto unmetered water use (including water used for construction, fire fighting, and for flushing drains andhydrants) and meter errors; therefore, distribution system losses range between 4 percent and 13 percent. Options to reduce distribution system losses assumethat they could be reduced to 7 and 5 percent statewide with more aggressive leak detection and repair programs by the retailer.Option 7: Distribution System Losses to 7 percent. This option assumes that water system auditswould be carried out every three years, leak detection surveys would be conducted from the audits, and repairs would be made. The cost of this option is estimated to be about $200/af. This option would achieve about 20 taf/yr of depletion reductions.Option 8: Distribution System Losses to 5 percent. This option assumes full metering of all water sources and points of use, annual water audits, leakdetection of newly constructed pipelines, and systematic leak detection and repair programs linked to water audits. Implementation of this option would achieve about 140 taf/yr of depletion reduction at a cost of $300/af.

Agricultural Water Conservation OptionsAgricultural water use in the Bulletin’s 2020 forecast is calculated from estimates of crop acreage, unit applied water, unit ETAW and SAEs. Irrigated crop acreage was 9.5 million acres in 1995 and is expectedto decline to 9.2 million acres by 2020 because of urbanization (mostly in the South Coast Region and San Joaquin Valley), westside San Joaquin Valley drainage problems, and changes in CVP water supply in the Central Valley. Bulletin 160-98 assumes that water purveyorsstatewide will implement EWMPs by 2020, as described in Chapter 4. The resultant demand reduction is included in the Bulletin’s 2020 agricultural water use forecast. Statewide implementation of EWMPs results in about 800 taf/yr of applied water reductions by 2020, largely from canal lining or piping and othermeasures increasing average on-farm SAE to 73 percent. Recent Department studies have shown that average SAEs might be increased to 80 percent throughimproved irrigation equipment and irrigation management practices. The agricultural water conservation options described below were based on attaining SAEsgreater than 73 percent, on average, through implementation of conservation measures in excess of present EWMPs. Average efficiencies of 76, 78, and 80 percent were used for the water management options. The Department’s mobile laboratory data have shown these efficiencies can be achieved incertain locations and with some crops and irrigation methods. Stressing orchards to reduce ET (also referred to as regulated deficit irrigation) was not evaluated as anoption. The RDI method was used successfully during the drought, but may impact crop yields and needs further testing as a long-term management strategy. RDI and other irrigation techniques are discussed in Chapter 5. CALFED Water Conservation Planning

A technical appendix published with CALFED’s March1998 draft PEIR/PEIS outlined a proposed water conservation approach for urban and agricultural agencies wishing toparticipate in CALFED program benefits. CALFED’s conservation levels differ from those used in Bulletin 160-98.CALFED’s assumptions represent its vision of future conservation goals. Bulletin 160-98 uses the approach of forecasting the future based on present conditions. For example, CALFED assumes that new sources of financial assistance and other incentives would be provided to water agencies to encourage high levels of conservation. Bulletin 160-98 assumes that demand reduction options beyond BMPs andEWMPs must be cost-competitive with supply augmentation options, and that no new subsidies or financial assistance programs are provided.

Demand reductions estimated to occur from implementation of CALFED conservation measures were not includedin CALFED’s quantification of new water supplies potentially generated by the program. Thus, they are also not included in the Bulletin 160-98 quantification of potential new supplies from CALFED.6-12 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### Agricultural demand reduction options are ev aluated for each hydrologic region and summarized in Table 6-4. The water conserved from these optionsvaries for each region according to prevailing irrigation practices and the regional soil types and hydrology. As with urban conservation options, thepurpose of implementing these agricultural conservation options is to generate new water supply by reducing depletions. Reducing consumptive use results in additional water supply only where water would otherwise be lost to evapotranspiration or to a saline water body such as the Pacific Ocean. InCalifornia agriculture, this condition exists primarily in the Colorado River Region (which drains to the Salton Sea), parts of the coastal r egions, and thewestside of the San Joaquin Valley. In the Sacramento River and the San Joaquin River Regions, almost all excess applied irrigation water is reused, ultimately percolating to usable groundwater or draining back into rivers that flow toward the Delta.If all of the options discussed below were implemented, about 230 taf of depletion reduction couldtheoretically be achieved. In areas where no depletion reductions would be achieved by conservation beyond EWMPs (such as the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Regions), this additional conservation was deferred as a water supply option. Most of the potential for achievingdepletion reductions through additional agricultural conservation occurs in the Colorado River Region. The environmental impacts of such conservation on the SaltonSea must be carefully evaluated. The Salton Sea provides valuable habitat for migratory waterfowl, and alternatives for stabilizing its increasing salinity arenow being studied. Since agricultural drainage provides the bulk of fresh water inflow to the sea, actions reducing the freshwater inflow may not be implementable on a large scale.

Irrigation Management (Options 1, 2, and 3) By 2020, the Department assumes that on-farmSAEs will average 73 percent statewide. Based on mobile laboratory studies, average SAE could reach 80percent through programs that include irrigation system evaluations, better system design, and improved irrigation systems and management practices. Options 1, 2, and 3 represent the depletion reductions that would be obtained with improved average SAE at 76, 78, and 80 percent, respectively. Increasing average SAEfrom 73 to 76 percent would yield a depletion reduction of about 40 taf/yr statewide at about $100/af. Improving SAE from 73 to 78 percent would increase depletion reductions to 60 taf/yr statewide at a cost of $250/af. Improving irrigation management from 73 to 80 percent SAE would result in statewide depletion reductions of about 80 taf/yr at a cost of $450/af.

T

ABLE 6-4 Agricultural Depletion Reduction Potential Due to Water Conservation Options a Beyond EWMPs (taf)

Opt 1 Opt 2 Opt 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6
Region 76% 78% 80% Seasonal Application Flexible Water Canal Lining and Tailwater Efficiency Delivery Piping b Recovery

North Coast D D D D D D San Francisco Bay D D D D D D Central Coast D D D D D D South Coast 4 7 10 D D D Sacramento River D D D D D D San Joaquin River D D D 2 2 2 Tulare Lake 7 12 17 D D D North Lahontan D D D D D D South Lahontan 2 3 5 D D D Colorado River c 22 36 50 30 45 65 Total (rounded) 40 60 80 30 50 70

a Implementing options in certain regions would not result in any depletion reduction. These options are deferred (D). Only dep letion reductions greater than 1 taf are presented in this table.
b Excludes lining of major conveyance facilities (eg., All American Canal, Coachella Canal), which are treated as individual options in the regional water

management chapters.

c These options are subject to environmental review to ensure that reduced depletions will not have significant impacts to the Salton Sea.6-13 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### Water Delivery Flexibility (Option 4) The manner of water delivery to the farm affects water use and efficiency of use. Flexible water delivery allows a farmer to turn water on and off at will. This iscurrently impractical for many gravity flow agricultural water delivery systems because of the large volumes of water that must be delivered. However,some agricultural water agencies have been able to allow farmers to give shorter notice to the district before receiving water and to allow farmers to adjust flow ratesand the duration of the irrigation. Flexible water delivery beyond that achieved through implementation of existing EWMPs would yield about 30 taf/yr at a cost of about $1,000/af.

Canal Lining and Piping (Option 5) Increased water use efficiency could be achieved by improving on-farm distribution systems beyond thelevel of effort provided in existing EWMPs. Distribution system losses can be reduced by lining open canal systems or using pipelines. Pipelines would reducedepletions from evaporation and from seepage of applied water to unusable groundwater. (This optionapplies only to canal lining and piping of on-farm delivery systems. Lining of major conveyance facilities such as the All American Canal and lining of water agency-owned canals are treated as individual options in Chapters 7-9.) Lining irrigation canal systems in the San Joaquin River Region could reduce depletions by about 2 taf/yr in areas that drain into unusable shallow groundwater. Less than 1 taf in annual depletion reduction would accrue in the Tulare Lake Region because many irrigation systems on the westside of the valley where there is unusable shallow groundwater are already lined or piped. This option could reduce depletions by 45␣ taf/yr in the Colorado River Region. It is estimated that this option would cost about $1,200/af.
Tailwater and Spill Recovery Systems (Option 6) This option would improve irrigation efficiency by the construction of additional tailwater and spill recovery systems. The tailwater recovery option is only applicable to areas with furrow or border irrigation systems. Spill recovery systems would lessen the amount of water reaching unusable groundwater and surfacewater by reducing losses from operational spills in irrigation district delivery canals. About 70 taf/yr ofdepletion reductions could be achieved with this option, primarily in the Colorado River Region, at a cost of about $150/af.

Environmental Water Conservation Options Unlike the urban and agricultural efforts discussed above, little formal planning for environmental waterconservation has occurred. Development of a formal program to evaluate efficient water use on wetlands is currently the only active program. DFG, USBR, andUSFWS are working with the Grasslands Resource Conservation District to develop an interagency program forwater use planning for Central Valley wildlife refuges covered by the CVPIA. The program will include best management practices for efficient water use. Draft work products are expected in 1998. The Bulletin does not quantify options for wetlands water conservation. Land Retirement in Drainage-Impaired Areas

Land retirement has been considered for purposes that include drainage management and creation of wildlife habitat, as well as for potential water supply gains. Currently, two programs have authority to fund land retirement—the CVPIAland retirement program and the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Relief Program created by State legislation in 1992.USBR’s CVPIA program has significant funding for land retirement, as described in Chapters 2 and 4. Retiring drainage-impaired land on the westside of the San Joaquin Valley would result in reduction of applied water and depletions associated with the current agricultural land use. The use of this associated water—whether for agricultural, urban, or environmental purposes—would depend on the authority and purpose of the program implementing the retirement. For illustrative purposes, Bulletin 160-98 quantified demand reductions associated with two land retirement scenarios on the westside of the San Joaquin Valley, where some agricultural lands face serious drainage problems and where the existing land retirement programs are authorized to make acquisitions. This analysis is presented to show the demand reduction amounts and potential associated socioeconomic impacts forthese drainage management options. Since the scope of Bulletin 160-98 is limited to water supply/demand planning, theBulletin does not include land retirement for drainage purposes as a water management option. The results of the land retirement analysis are shown in Appendix 6F.6-14 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### Presently, most active planning for statewide watersupply options is being done either for the CALFED BayDelta program or for SWP future supply. In accordance with CVPIA requirements, an appraisal level water supplyaugmentation report (for replacing the project water dedicated to environmental use) was recently prepared for the CVP. There has not been action to implement potential CVP supply options described in that report, apart from initiation of a conjunctive use study described later in this chapter. Statewide-level supply augmentation options are described in the following text, and a summary table of their potential yield is provided at the end of this section.

Conveyance FacilitiesTwo programs, the SWP Interim South Delta Program and the CALFED program, are studyingconveyance actions in and around the Delta. Past studies have evaluated a potential Mid-Valley Canal, a major conveyance facility to supplement water supplies to the eastern San Joaquin Valley.
SWP Interim South Delta Program The Department’s Interim South Delta Program proposes to improve water levels and circulation in south Delta channels for local agricultural diversions, and to enhance existing delivery capability of the SWPby improving south Delta hydraulic conditions, allowing increased diversions into Clifton Court Forebay.This would allow for more frequent use of full pumping capacity (10,300 cfs) at the Banks Pumping Plant during high flows in the Delta, and more operational flexibility for reducing fishery impacts.The ISDP partly responds to the proposed settlement of a lawsuit brought by the South Delta Water Agency against the Department and USBR. In theproposed settlement agreement, the three parties committed to develop mutually acceptable long-term solutions to the water supply problems of water users within SDWA. The Department has taken the lead responsibility for planning and constructing the project, with cost-sharing provided by USBR.The ISDP preferred alternative would cost an estimated $60 million to construct and includes five
components:(1) Construction and operation of a new intake structure at the northeastern corner of Clifton Court Forebay, as part of providing greater operational flexibility in export pumping. (2) Channel dredging along 4.9 miles of Old River just north of Clifton Court Forebay. (3) Construction and seasonal operation of a barrier at the head of Old River in spring and fall to improve fishery conditions for salmon migrating in the SanJoaquin River. (Construction of an Old River fishery barrier is included in CVPIA’s list of mandated federal environmental restoration actions.) (4) Construction and operation of three flow control structures at Old River, Middle River, and Grant Line Canal to improve existing water level and circulation patterns for agricultural users in the south Delta.(5) Increased diversions into Clifton Court Forebay up to a maximum of 20,430 af daily on a monthly average basis, resulting in the ability to pump an average of 10,300 cfs at Banks Pumping Plant. ISDP could augment SWP supplies by 125 taf/yr in average years and 100 taf/yr in drought years at a 2020 level of demand, based on present studies. This figure does not take into account any new operational restrictions that may be imposed on the project as aresult of the environmental review and permitting process which it is now undergoing. A draft EIR/EIS forthe program was released in July 1996 and ESA consultation is ongoing. A final EIR/EIS is scheduled for completion in 1999.

CALFED Delta Conveyance The CALFED Bay-Delta program is carrying out athree-phase process for solutions for the Bay-Delta system. In Phase I, the program identified the problems in the Bay-Delta system, developed guiding principles, and devised three basic alternatives to solving the identified problems. The second phase consisted of preparing a programmatic EIR/EIS covering three main alternatives for conveyance of water across the Delta: • Alternative 1. Water would be conveyed through the Delta using the current system of channels. • Alternative 2. Water conveyance through theDelta would be substantially improved by making significant changes to the existing system of channels. Water Supply Augmentation Options . . .6-15 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### • Alternative 3. Water conveyance through the Deltawould be substantially improved by making significant changes to the existing system of channels and constructing a conveyance facility, isolated from the Delta’s natural channels, to transport part or all of the water intended for export. Each alternative presents options for water storage, as well as a system for conveying water through and/oraround the Delta. The water storage element could include expanding existing storage, constructing new surface storage, or conjunctive use and groundwater banking. Additional storage would increase flexibility in operating the Bay-Delta system, allowing operatorsto respond to changing conditions and needs throughout the year, and would help respond to the effects of drought. Surface storage could be in the Delta, upstreamof the Delta, or south of the Delta. Groundwater storage components include conjunctive use and groundwater banking programs in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys and in the Mojave River Basin.A public review draft of the PEIR/PEIS was released in March 1998. CALFED expects to issue arevised draft PEIR/PEIS by the end of 1998. The revised draft would identify CALFED’s draft preferred alternative. The third phase of the CALFED process would involve staged implementation of the preferred alternative, over a time period perhaps as long as 30 years, and would require site-specific compliance with NEPA and CEQA. In June 1998, it was announced that the second draft of CALFED’s PEIR/PEIS would focus on a firststage of program implementation that would be defined as the period prior to final action on any major new surface storage or conveyance projects that might be addressed in CALFED’s draft preferred alternative. The first stage was estimated to span seven to ten years.The first stage was to focus on implementation of demonstration projects and actions associated withCALFED common program elements (see accompanying sidebar) and on further planning for water storage and conveyance actions.The total costs of the CALFED program are difficult to estimate at this time because of its broadscope and programmatic nature, and because decisions have not yet been reached about specifics of implementation. CALFED’s PEIR/PEIS estimated total program costs as potentially in the range of

CALFED Bay-Delta Program Common Programs

The following six common program elements provide the foundation for overall improvement in the Bay-Delta system. Each of the individual elements is a major program of its own. • Long-Term Levee Protection Plan—Improve reliability of

the Delta levees to benefit all users of Delta water and land. • Water Quality Program—Reduce point and non-point

source pollution for the benefit of all water uses and the Bay-Delta ecosystem. • Ecosystem Restoration Program—Improve habitat,

restore critical flows, and reduce conflict with other Delta system resources. • Water Use Efficiency Program—Provide for efficient use

of existing water supplies and assure efficient use of any new supplies developed through the program. • Water Transfer Policy—Provide a framework to facilitate

and encourage a water market to move water among users on a voluntary and compensated basis.• Watershed Management Coordination—Encourage locally-led watershed management activities that benefit Delta system resources. Delta levees protect infrastructure such as EBMUD’s Mokelumne River Aqueduct, highways, railroads, and power transmission lines.6-16 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### $10 billion, over a program life of several decades. There is presently no information available on what portion of those costs would be allocated to any new water supply CALFED would develop.

Mid-Valley Canal The Mid-Valley Canal was a proposed conveyance facility to supplement water supplies to the eastern San Joaquin Valley. With two components—a main branch and a north branch—the canal would convey existing CVP water supply from the Delta to portions of Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, and Tulare Counties and, by exchange, Kern County. The main branch of the Mid-Valley Canal would convey water from the Mendota Pool down the east side of the valley, providing additional water deliveries to the southern San Joaquin Valley and Tulare Lake Basin. The north branch would divert water out of the Mendota Pool to provide additional water deliveries to the eastern San Joaquin Valley. Water deliveries couldbe provided for conjunctive use and groundwater banking programs, alleviating groundwater overdraft conditions. Improved groundwater conditions throughdelivery of surplus Delta flows could increase the reliability of drought year supplies. Because of the uncertainty of Delta exports, this option is deferred from further analysis in this Bulletin as a statewide option.

Surface Storage FacilitiesDeveloping additional surface storage is an important option for improving statewide water supplyreliability. New facilities could store water for the environment, agriculture, municipalities, industry, or a combination of these uses. More storage would increaseflexibility in operating the Bay-Delta system, improving operators’ ability to respond to changing conditions and needs throughout the year. At this time, the only statewide-level studies of new surface storage facilities are those relating to the CALFED program.

Area of Origin Protections As described in Appendix 2A, there are explicitstatutory protections for area of origin water development, with regard to actions taken by SWRCB in administering water rights and by the Department in providing SWP supply. These provisions apply to theconstruction and operation of CVP and SWP facilities and would apply to any CALFED-related facilities constructed by the projects. At the time when initial planning was being performed for a statewide water resources developmentsystem, the State filed applications for the appropriative water rights (including rights to store water) neededfor coordinated development of California’s water resources. Some of these State filings were subsequently assigned to CVP or SWP facilities, and some to local projects. SWRCB may not, in acting on water right applications for these State filings (e.g., applications for a new surface storage facility), deprive the county of origin of the water needed for its present and future development. Many of these original State filings have now been assigned and the associated facilities have been constructed. Water Code Sections 11460 et seq. require theDepartment, with regard to construction and operation of the SWP, to not deprive areas of origin, or “anarea immediately adjacent thereto which can conveniently be supplied with water therefrom,” of the waterreasonably needed for their beneficial uses. Water agencies in the area of origin and adjoining areas couldcontract with the Department for SWP supply pursuant to this provision. The terms and conditions contained in the contract would depend on the nature of the agencies’ needs. If the agency wished to become a SWP contractor on a par with the existing 29 water contractors, the contract would be negotiated in the same manner as the existing SWP contracts. An areaof origin agency with different needs might seek a different contractual format. For example, an alternative contractual form might be negotiated for agencies thatcould carry out local conjunctive use programs to reduce their need for a firm supply from the SWP. Existing SWP contractors pay a share of the costs of developing SWP supply, plus a transportation charge that reflects the cost of water delivery to a contractor’s service area. Actual water supply and transportationcharges for an area of origin contractor would be determined by the type of water supply needed and the associated transportation facilities. To date, no area of origin agencies have negotiated water supply contracts with the Department.

CALFED Surface StorageNew water supply provided by the CALFED program would come about by implementing somecombination of surface storage facilities and conjunctive use programs (discussed later in this chapter). Bulletin 160-98 describes potential CALFED storage facilities and their water supply contributions for6-17 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### illustrative purposes, but does not attempt to identify which facility or facilities CALFED might construct. As presently scheduled, CALFED would not beginconstruction of a new surface storage facility until after its initial implementation of common program elements. Given the long lead time associated with moving forward on large storage facilities, new water supply from a CALFED facility may not be availableby the Bulletin’s 2020 planning horizon. The potential new water supply provided by CALFED storage(quantified later in this chapter) is necessarily a placeholder, as no decision has yet been made on a draftpreferred alternative. Quantification of CALFED actions for Bulletin 160-98 is based on information provided in CALFED’s March 1998 first draft PEIS/ PEIR and supporting technical appendices. For illustrative purposes, the Bulletin’s discussion of new CALFED storage facilities treats some of the facilities as if they were part of the SWP, to provide a benchmark for calculating their yields via operationsstudies. Many of these sites have been studied historically as potential SWP future water supply facilities,and data available for them reflect that intended purpose. The Bulletin’s treatment of these facilities as potential components of the SWP is to facilitate their quantification, and is not intended to be a proposal as to the agency that would actually finance, construct,and own them. To date, there has been no determination of how any new supplies developed by CALFED would be allocated. The following sections present an overview of thelocations where new CALFED surface storage facilities could be developed. Surface Storage Upstream of the Delta. Review of potential statewide surface storage options upstream of the Delta revealed that most of the water developmentpotential of the eastern Delta and San Joaquin River tributaries is likely to be dedicated to local plans. The Sacramento River Basin presents nearly all the potential for additional development to meet statewide needs.The Sacramento River Basin produces nearly onethird of California’s surface runoff. About 16 maf total reservoir storage throughout the basin regulates much of that runoff to support extensive agricultural development within the region, and also provides significant water supply for export to other regions fromCVP and SWP facilities. A potential remains for developing additional storage in the basin, as evidenced by frequent winter outflows in excess of in-basin and Delta needs. Over the past century, hundreds of potential reservoir storage sites have been examined encompassing every significant tributary of the Sacramento River Basin. The most economical and practicable of those were developed, the largest of which are Shasta, Oroville, Berryessa, Almanor, Folsom, and NewBullards Bar. Options for additional storage are primarily past project proposals that were not developed.The average annual surplus outflow in the Sacramento River Basin is about 9 maf. While this suggests potential for additional storage development, much of the surplus runoff occurs during short periods in years of exceptional flood runoff. For example, a maximum daily flow of about 600,000 cfs flowed past Sacramento during the floods of February 1986 and January 1997. New storage capacity could be developed to capture asmall fraction of this surplus. Prospects for the development of additional onstream surface storage reservoirs are discussed in the sidebar. Besides the onstream reservoir sites proposed over the years, many potential offstream storage sites have been investigated to develop surplus water in the upper Sacramento River Basin. Major planning on such projects began in the 1970s, in the wake of wild andscenic rivers legislation that effectively eliminated additional development of the North Coast rivers. By then,it was also apparent that new storage sites on the Sacramento River were not environmentally feasible, so attention shifted to various onstream tributary reservoirs and to offstream sites. With one exception (Tuscan Buttes Reservoir on Inks Creek, north of Red Bluff), the most promising offstream storage sites investigated during this time lay west of the river from the Stony Creek Basin (Newville and Glenn Reservoirs) south (from Colusa and Sites Reservoirs) to the Putah Creek Basin (enlarged Lake Berryessa). All these projects wouldrequire conveyance facilities to divert surplus flow (usually during flood periods) from the Sacramento River, some with potential pump lifts of 300 to 900 feet.(CALFED’s studies of storage options are presently examining whether existing facilities such as the Tehama-Colusa Canal could be modified to serve as conveyance facilities for some of the potential offstream storage sites.) Offstream storage projects of this type can be sited to minimize environmental impacts within the inundation area, but diversions from the river involve engineering and environmental challenges. There has been a revival of interest in other offstream storage possibilities, some new and some that appeared in the Department’s Bulletin 3, The Califor6-18 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### nia Water Plan , in 1957. Among the latter is a potential local project, Waldo Reservoir, to store surplus Yuba River water diverted from the existing Englebright Reservoir. Similar proposals have been developed to store surplus American River water from Folsom Reservoir in the nearby Deer Creek or Laguna CreekBasins. Offstream storage projects of this type are attractive because they eliminate the need for onstream Prospects for Onstream Surface Storage Upstream of the Delta

The seven areas outlined below contribute more than 80 percent of Sacramento River Basin runoff. The remaining runoff originates within the substantial valley floor area and adjacent low- elevation foothills. With few exceptions, streams draining this area are ephemeral, flowing only during and following storms. No consideration has been given to onstream storage on these minor tributaries or nearby valley floor areas, except for discussion of possible winter storage in rice fields.

Upstream from Shasta Dam

About 26 percent of basin runoff originates in this 6,700- square mile tributary area, primarily in the Pit, McCloud, and upper Sacramento Rivers. The availability of water to support additional storage has long been recognized. In the 1930s, Shasta Dam planners considered a larger project, but opted for construction of storage downstream at the Table Mountain or Iron Canyon sites near Red Bluff. When thedownstream dam proved environmentally unacceptable, alternatives examined eventually included enlarging Shasta Dam. New storage upstream is possible, but sites are limitedby steep topography and extensive existing power development of the Pit and McCloud systems.

Upper Sacramento River Tributaries, Shasta Dam to Red Bluff

This large, but low-elevation, area contributes about oneeighth of Sacramento River Basin runoff. The principal tributaries (in descending order of runoff) are Cottonwood, Cow, Clear, and Battle Creeks. Clear Creek is fully developed by Whiskeytown Lake (a CVP facility). Several reservoir sites havebeen investigated on the other tributaries, with primary emphasis on Cottonwood Creek. Previously studied reservoir sites are available in this area, but none have proven viable.

Feather River

This is the Sacramento River’s largest tributary and contributes 20 percent of basin runoff, an annual average of about 4.5 maf. Lake Oroville at 3.5 maf regulates Feather River flows in most years, but the huge spills in wet years show that the river could support additional storage. Enlargement of Lake Oroville has not been considered practical and the fewupstream sites identified in the past have fallen by the wayside for various environmental and economic reasons. Noserious planning attention has been devoted to major reservoir storage in the Feather River Basin since construction of Oroville Dam. Yuba and Bear Rivers The Yuba River constitutes 11 percent of Sacramento RiverBasin runoff, but is substantially diminished by power diversions to the adjacent Bear and Feather Rivers. Still, a significant potential for additional storage remains. Proposals for large reservoirs at the Marysville (or nearby Narrows) site have been discussed in the past 40 years. Upstream development potential is restrained by extensive existing power facilitiesand diversions. The Bear River is small, but its runoff is bolstered by the diversions from the Yuba River.

American River

With 12 percent of Sacramento Basin runoff, the American River could support more than the 1.0 maf of storage provided by Folsom Lake and the nearly 0.5 maf of upper basin storage. For the past decade, recognition of a flooding hazard along the lower American River has added urgency to finding options, including enlarging Folsom Lake andconstructing additional storage upstream at Auburn. The controversy over Auburn Dam prompted reappraisal of storagesites farther upstream and on the South Fork, but none appeared to justify follow-up attention.

Westside Tributaries South of Cottonwood Creek

The principal tributaries in this group are (from south to north): Putah, Cache, Stony, Thomes, Elder, and Red Bank Creeks. The existing Lake Berryessa, which has an unusually high storage/inflow ratio, fully develops Putah Creek. Clear Lake and Indian Valley Reservoir provide about 0.6 maf of active storage in the upper Cache CreekBasin, but only modest potential exists for additional storage in the lower basin. East Park, Stony Gorge, and Black Butte Reservoirs partially control Stony Creek, but some surplus water remains. Thomes, Elder, and Red BankCreeks are presently uncontrolled; Thomes Creek contributes about two-thirds of the runoff from this northern trio.Potential reservoir sites have been considered on the various westside tributaries, principally within the Stony/ Thomes Basins.

Other Tributaries, Feather River to Red Bluff

From south to north, the major streams of this group are Butte, Big Chico, Deer, Mill, and Antelope Creeks. Thesedrainages are narrow, steep canyons with good sustained summer flows. Past studies have identified a few small potential storage sites, but none are considered practical because of environmental considerations (primarily anadromous fish and wilderness issues).6-19 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### reservoirs and divert from existing facilities upstream from current anadromous fishery habitat. To illustrate how specific surface storage projectsupstream of the Delta compare with one another, Bulletin 160-98 planning criteria were used to screen and evaluate the reservoir sites (Appendix 6G). CALFED is performing its own evaluation of possible storage sites. An initial screening may be included in its final PEIS/ PEIR. More detailed evaluations of the remaining siteswould be carried out after CALFED begins to implement initial elements of the common programs. Off-Aqueduct Surface Storage South of the Delta. Off-aqueduct surface storage south of the Delta has been investigated for many years.CALFED’s storage evaluations include reviewing offaqueduct storage. The CVP and SWP operate by releasing water from upstream reservoirs, which flows through the Delta and is diverted, together with unstored flows available for export, by the projects’ pumping plants located in the south Delta. Storage south of the Delta is provided by San Luis Reservoir, a joint SWP/CVP facility in the San Joaquin Valley. Water pumped at the Banks and Tracy Pumping Plants is transported to San Luis Reservoir during the winter and early springand later delivered to agricultural and urban water contractors. Additional storage south of the Delta would increase water availability through greater capture of surplus winter runoff, as well as provide for greater flexibility in operating the projects.Dependable water supplies from the SWP are estimated at about 3.1 and 2.1 maf for average and drought years, respectively. Operation studies show that under 2020 level of demand, there is a 25 percent chance of delivering full entitlement in any given year with existing facilities. Operation studies show similar CVP delivery capabilities to its Delta export service area. (See Chapter 3 for discussion of SWP and CVP operations.) Additional off-aqueduct storage south of the Delta would increase water supply reliability of both projects. In addition to increasing water supply reliability for both projects, more off-aqueduct storage south of the Delta would allow flexibility in pumping from the Delta. This flexibility would allow for shifting of Delta pumping toward months when the impacts of Deltadiversions on fisheries are at their lowest. Having additional storage south of the Delta would allow the projects to operate efficiently by taking advantage of times when maximum pumping is permissible. Operation of the SWP and CVP is governed by several limiting factors including available water supplies, demands on these supplies by project contractors, Delta water quality standards, instream flow requirements, and conveyance capability. The availability of water supplies varies with natural conditions and upstream development.Winter floods can produce Delta flow rates of up to several hundred thousand cfs, while summer rates can be as low as a few thousand cfs. Annual Delta inflow varies substantially, ranging from more than 70 maf in wet years to less than 7 maf in drought years. Since the 1950s, alternative off-aqueduct storagereservoir sites south of the Delta have been investigated by the Department. An agreement between the State and federal governments was signed in 1961 for construction and operation of San Luis Reservoir, a joint-use offstream storage facility completed in 1968.Before completion of San Luis Reservoir, it was recognized that additional storage south of the Delta wasneeded. As a result, a Delta storage development program was authorized by legislative action in 1963-64, and work started to analyze the remaining potential off-aqueduct storage sites in the San Joaquin Valley.Under this program a cursory examination of potential sites identified the Kettleman Plain, Los Banos, and Sunflower sites for more in-depth study. Kettlemanand Sunflower Reservoir sites were dropped after reconnaissance level review because of their physicalcharacteristics. The Los Banos site was deemed satisfactory for further study, and a 1966 report recommended additional geological exploration. In the 1970s, a Delta alternatives study reviewedall drainages south of the Delta and selected Los Vaqueros, Los Banos Grandes, and Sunflower Reservoirsfor further studies. In a 1976 Delta alternatives memorandum report, the Sunflower site was again eliminated when compared with the other sites on the basis oflow storage availability and marginal foundation conditions. The Los Vaqueros site in Contra Costa Countywas included in the Department’s proposed Delta program and was part of a comprehensive water management program proposed for authorization via 1977-78 legislation. (LBG was an alternative to Los Vaqueros in that legislation.) After that legislation failedpassage, Los Vaqueros was included with the Peripheral Canal in SB 200. LBG was not specificallymentioned in SB 200, but the bill provided for additional off-aqueduct storage south of the Delta. In 1980,SB 200 was signed into law, but was overruled by voters in the 1982 general election.6-20 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### The Department initiated a more comprehensiveinvestigation of alternative off-aqueduct storage reservoirs south of the Delta in 1983, and after an initialexamination of 18 storage sites, completed a reconnaissance report on 13 potential San Joaquin Valleysites. The study recommended that LBG be investigated to determine its most cost-effective size, and its engineering, economic, financial, and environmentalfeasibility. In 1984, the Legislature unanimously approved Assembly Bill 3792, authorizing LBG as a facility of the SWP. The Department released a draft EIR and a feasibility report on LBG in 1990. Since the 1990 reports, increased restrictions onDelta pumping and rising costs have prompted reconsideration of the LBG proposal. Given the uncertainty of future Delta exports and the reluctance of some SWPcontractors to participate in the project, the Department reevaluated the feasibility and optimal size of additional off-aqueduct storage. A subsequent Alternative South-of-the-Delta Offstream Reservoir Reconnaissance Study identified all alternative reservoir sites south of the Delta by cursory examination of all topographic possibilities. An overview of sites studied in the past is provided in Appendix 6G. In-Delta Storage. CALFED has also considered in-Delta storage. A private developer has proposed a water storage project involving four islands in the Delta. The project would divert and store water on two of the islands (Bacon Island and Webb Tract) as reservoirislands, and seasonally divert water to create and enhance wetlands for wildlife habitat on the other twoislands (Bouldin Island and Holland Tract). The developer would improve and strengthen levees on all four islands and install additional siphons and pumps on the perimeters of the reservoir islands. The developer’s project would divert surplus Delta inflows, or would manage transferred or banked water for later sale and/or release for Delta export or to meetBay-Delta water quality or flow requirements. The reservoir islands would be designed to provide a totalestimated initial capacity of 238 taf—118 taf from Bacon Island and 120 taf from Webb Tract—at a maximum pool elevation of 6 feet above mean sea level. A draft EIR/EIS for the Delta Wetlands Project

was completed in September 1995. SWRCB held water rights hearings in 1997. Issues included water qualityconcerns, levee integrity, seepage impacts on adjacent islands, and fishery impacts. SWRCB is currently reviewing and evaluating the evidence to develop a draft decision.

Multipurpose Storage Facilities Most reservoirs are constructed to serve multiple purposes. As discussed in Chapter 3, multipurpose reservoirs are often operated to prioritize certain uses or to balance competing uses during different times ofthe year. Good planning policy dictates that new surface storage facilities be designed to accommodate as many purposes—such as water supply, flood control, hydropower generation, fish and wildlife enhancement, water quality management, and recreation—as are practicable. Although Bulletin 160 is focused on evaluation of water supply options, this focus is not intended tominimize the need to consider the other benefits potentially available from reservoir sites—especially flood control. The January 1997 flooding, the largest andmost extensive flood disaster in the State’s history, demonstrated the urgent need to improve flood protection levels throughout the Central Valley. The 1997 Final Report of the Governor’s Flood Emergency Action Teamcontained a variety of recommendations for improving emergency response management and flood protection in the Central Valley. The 1997 floods highlighted a fundamental factof Central Valley geography—the valley floor is relatively flat, and only an extensive system of levees confines floodwaters to those areas where people would The Los Banos Grandes damsite area, looking westerly toward the Coast Range.6-21 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### prefer that they remain. At the beginning of the valley’s development in the Gold Rush era, much of the valley floor was an inland sea during the winter months and travel was possible only by boat. This condition was once again experienced on a localized scale in 1997, when numerous levee breaks occurred throughout thevalley. Although more emphasis is being given to floodplain management and prevention of futuredevelopment in flood-prone areas, extensive urban development has already occurred in areas that rely on levees for flood protection. Efforts to improve flood protection for these urban areas necessarily include evaluation of upstream storage alternatives— reoperation or enlargement of existing reservoirs and construction of new reservoirs. From a flood control standpoint, there are locations within the Sacramento and San Joaquin River systems where additional storage (onstream, or perhaps offstream with appropriate diversion and pumping capability) would be particularly useful. Communities in the Sacramento Valley with greatest need for additional flood protection include the Yuba City/Marysville and Sacramento/West Sacramento areas, as identified in the 1997 Final Report of the Governor’s Flood Emergency Action Team . An enlarged Shasta Lake could provide additional management of flood flows on the Sacramento mainstem. The need for more flood control storage on the Yuba River has been evaluated for some time, in conjunction with reservoir sites such as the old Marysville site, or the more recent Parks Bar alternative. The proposed Auburn Dam on theAmerican River, selected as the preferred flood protection alternative by the State Reclamation Board, would provide much-needed flood protection for the Sacramento area, which has one of the lowest levels of flood protection of any metropolitan area in the nation.In the San Joaquin Valley, urbanized areas needing additional protection are those affected by flooding on the mainstem San Joaquin River and on its largest tributary, the Tuolumne River. In the January 1997 flood event, runoff at New Don Pedro Dam on the Tuolumne River and Friant Dam on the San JoaquinRiver exceeded the flood control capability of both reservoirs. On the Tuolumne River, it appears that newupstream reservoirs are a less likely flood control option, given the basin’s existing storage development. Enlarging Friant Dam (or constructing its offstream alternative) would be the most probable new storage development option for the San Joaquin River. Bulletin 160-98 includes Auburn Dam and Friant Dam enlargement as statewide options likely to beimplemented (by CALFED or by others) by 2020. According to CALFED, the capital cost of a 2.3 maf Auburn Dam would be about $2.3 billion in 1995 dollars. According to USBR, the cost of raising Friant Dam by 140 feet with 500 taf additional storage is about $580 million. (This estimate, in 1997 dollars,does not include costs associated with purchasing property, the cost of relocating utilities, and mitigation costs.) Potential yields associated with these projects were estimated through operations studies. A 2.3 maf Auburn Reservoir is estimated to provide 620 taf in average years and 370 taf in drought years. An enlarged Friant Dam is estimated to provide 90 taf in average years. As noted in Appendix 6G, an enlarged ShastaLake would provide major water supply and other benefits, but additional studies of its costs and environmental impacts would be needed before the The January 1997 flooding in the Central Valley emphasized the vulnerability of lands protected by levees.

High technology (circa 1900) being used to construct a Sacramento River levee south of the then-downtown area. Courtesy of California State Library.6-22 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### project could proceed to implementation. It is recommended that feasibility-level studies of enlarging Shastabe initiated to quantify its costs and benefits. Preliminary studies show that a 9 maf enlargement of Shasta would yield about 760 taf in average years and 940 taf in drought years.

Groundwater and Conjunctive Use The potential sustainable water supply that could be derived from groundwater storage is constrainedby the water available to recharge the storage, the available storage capacity, and the wheeling capability of the conveyance facilities. In most areas the sources of recharge are natural percolation from overlying streams,infiltration of precipitation, deep percolation of applied irrigation water, and seepage from irrigation canals and ditches. In some areas, these sources are augmented by artificial recharge.

Potential for Conjunctive Use in the Central ValleyPlans for local development of additional groundwater and conjunctive use programs are covered in Chapters 7–9. This section reviews the potential forgroundwater development and conjunctive use as elements of statewide water management, concentrating on the potential for augmenting supplies of the majorState or federal water projects. As noted earlier, conjunctive use programs are also a component of CALFED’s storage evaluations. Sacramento Valley. As noted in the previous discussion of surface storage facilities, the SacramentoRiver Basin constitutes most of the potential for additional water development to meet statewide demands. Just as surface storage reservoirs are being evaluated to develop a portion of the basin’s surplus runoff (about 9 maf), managed conjunctive use programs are being evaluated to the same end.Although there is a tendency to think of Sacramento Valley groundwater in terms of a homogeneous underground reservoir that fluctuates gradually with wet and dry cycles, the reality is more complex. While much of the Sacramento Valley groundwater basin is interconnected, aquifer structure is far from uniformand horizontal movement of groundwater is slow. Differences in groundwater conditions exist from one area of the valley to another. Even within a small subarea, groundwater resources can range from abundance to scarcity within a few miles.Potential conjunctive use programs must be evaluated on a site-specific basis, just as surface water storage facilities are evaluated. In concept, SacramentoValley conjunctive use programs would operate by encouraging existing surface water diverters to make greater use of groundwater resources during drought periods. The undiverted surface water would become available for other users, and groundwater extractions would be replaced during subsequent wetter periods through natural recharge, direct artificial recharge, or in-lieu recharge (supply of additional surface water to permit a reduction of normal groundwater pumping). The DWB provides an example of conjunctive use in the Sacramento Valley. In 1991, 1992, and 1994,the DWB executed contracts to compensate Sacramento Valley agricultural water districts for reducing their diversions of surface water. Most of the reduced surface water diversions were made up by increased groundwater extractions from existing wells. The 1994 program in this area was the largest, amounting to approximately 100 taf. The DWB program included a groundwater monitoring component to evaluate theeffects of increased extractions on neighboring nonparticipating groundwater users. Such monitoringprograms would be an important component of future conjunctive use programs. San Joaquin Valley. Potential conjunctive useprojects in the San Joaquin Valley would involve recharging empty groundwater storage space for later withdrawal. Although aquifer storage capacity is available (over 50␣ maf), a lack of recharge water limits opportunity for conjunctive operation. Even with Delta improvements,prospects for additional groundwater conjunctive use storage south of the Delta are limited. From the standpoint of statewide water supply, the areas of conjunctive use potential are those within reach (either directly or through exchange) of the California Aqueduct or CVP facilities. Examples of projects studied in the past include the KernWater Bank and the Stanislaus/Calaveras River Basin program. The Kern Water Bank project, described in Chapter␣ 8, was initially developed by the Department and was subsequently turned over to the KWB Authority. The KWB is discussed as a local water management option for the Tulare Lake Region in Chapter 8. The Department and USBR, in coordination withlocal agencies, evaluated the possibility of a conjunctive use project in the Stanislaus/Calaveras River Basin. SEWD and CSJWCD proposed a conjunctive use project in 1986 for their CVP interim water supply contracts (155 taf/yr). The districts would divert CVP surface water supply in wet years and would pump6-23 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### groundwater and divert South Gulch Reservoir supplies in drought years. Water would be stored in the proposed South Gulch Reservoir, an offstream storage reservoir near the Calaveras River, in wet years. In drought years the districts would allow the water to bereleased to the Stanislaus River for fishery needs, water quality improvement in the southern Deltachannels, and CVP and SWP water supply improvement. Subsequent enactment of CVPIA and issuance of SWRCB’s Order WR 95-6 substantially reduced the quantities of surface water available to SEWD andCSJWCD. The Department deferred further participation in this program as a source of SWP supply. Local agencies are continuing to evaluate other conjunctive use programs in this area, as described in Chapter 8.

Recent Groundwater Studies with Statewide ScopeThe Department is evaluating conjunctive use opportunities that could provide future water supplies for the SWP. USBR suggested that conjunctive use could be a major option for CVP water users in its 1995 report to Congress, Least-Cost CVP Yield Increase Plan . CALFED is examining conjunctive use opportunities as part of its storage evaluations. SWP Conjunctive Use Studies. The Department’sinvestigation of Sacramento Valley conjunctive use potential for additional SWP supply is following three Recharge facilities in the Kern Water Bank area. Levees and conveyance facilities have been constructed to manage spreading of water in the recharge areas. 

### parallel tracks. The first track is an evaluation of the legal and institutional framework to define potential projects and their limitations. The second track is an inventory of water supply infrastructure, water use, and hydrogeologic characteristics of the valley to identify areas most suitable for conjunctive use projects. The third track is a pre-feasibility investigation of specificpotential projects. Where appropriate, these studies recommend more comprehensive feasibility studies, or development of small scale demonstration and testingprojects. One such project under evaluation, the American Basin conjunctive use project, is discussed in thesidebar. Under the terms of Monterey Agreement contract amendments now in place for most SWP watercontractors, only those contractors interested in receiving supplies from the project would participate in it.Since no other SWP conjunctive use projects are currently in active planning, the yield of the potential American Basin project is used as a surrogate for the yield of SWP conjunctive use programs. Least-Cost CVP Yield Increase Plan. USBR’s 1995 yield increase plan evaluated possible actions toreplace the water supply that CVPIA dedicated to environmental purposes. The plan identified conjunctive use as offering the largest potential, estimating that active recharge in the Central Valley would yield over800 taf/yr. A regional groundwater model characterizing the Central Valley was used to identify potentialsites for active recharge programs. Table 6-5 lists potential yield estimates from the study. Yield estimatesfor active recharge programs were based on the availability of floodflows on adjacent rivers. Local watersupply availability has almost always limited the potential of a particular site. Implementation ofconjunctive use options would require additional feasibility investigations and identification of potential environmental impacts. Madera Ranch Project. As described in Chapter 8, USBR is in initial stages of evaluating a conjunctive use project known as the Madera Ranchproject, which might yield up to 70 taf/yr. Water supplies for the project would come from excess flowsavailable at the Delta for export. USBR, in cooperation with the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Authority, has completed a preliminary investigation of the project and is now evaluating land acquisition. Since supplies from the potential project would be providedonly to one group of CVP contractors and not CVPwide, the project is discussed as a local project in Chapter 8.6-24 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

T

ABLE 6-5 CVP Yield Increase Plan Conjunctive Use Options

Potential Evaluated Annual General Site Locations Source(s) of Water Activity Capacity a (taf) Yield b (taf)

Region 1 E of Anderson Upper Sacramento River Active recharge 60 15

Region 2 SW and W of Orland, Tehama- Upper Sacramento River Active recharge 360 90 Colusa Canal and vicinity Within Glenn County Groundwater Developable yield N/A 55

Region 3 S of Chico, near Wheatland, Feather and Bear Rivers and Active recharge 280 85 E of Sutter Bypass, and NE of Dry Creek (north of Rio Linda Sacramento) Within Yuba County Groundwater Developable yield N/A 25

Region 4 NW of Woodland and SW Cache Creek, Sacramento Active recharge 120 30 of Davis (near Dixon), Yolo River Bypass nearby

Region 5 NE of Galt, SE of Elk Grove, American (using Folsom South Active recharge 400 185 SE of Lodi, and S of Manteca Canal), Cosumnes, Mokelumne, Calaveras, and Stanislaus Rivers

Region 6 NW of Volta and at Oro Loma Delta-Mendota Canal, Active recharge 275 200 California Aqueduct

Region 7 N of Modesto Stanislaus or Tuolumne Rivers Active recharge 100 20

Region 8 E of Atwater, NE of Merced, Merced, Chowchilla, Fresno, Active recharge 350 140 W of La Vina, and NE of Red Top and San Joaquin Rivers

Region 9
none identified

Region 10 N of Raisin City, S of Kingsburg, Kings, Kaweah, and Tule Rivers Active recharge unknown 125 S of Hanford, W of Visalia, and SW of Tipton

Region 11 W of McFarland, and SW of Kern River, California Aqueduct Active recharge 500 50 Bakersfield

a Capacity is taken to be the amount of water that can be recharged and extracted over any area without causing a water level fluctuation of more than 30 feet compared to historical water levels and has been estimated using a large-scale regional model. Values are not maximums and are used for comparison

purposes. b Location(s) descriptions are reflective of general areas where active recharge programs were estimated to be feasible. Each reference to a city or town represents a

single site (NW of Woodland and SW of Davis refers to two potential site areas). Many regions have multiple sites where active recharge is possible.6-25 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### CALFED Conjunctive Use Component. CALFED is evaluating conjunctive use potential as part of its storage component. The CALFED conjunctive useprogram will not identify specific projects, but will attempt to identify potential for groundwater developmentand provide technical support to voluntary local conjunctive use projects. CALFED is defining operating rules and assumptions in order to evaluate potential water supply benefits. Storage for conjunctive use is currently assumed to be 250 taf in the Sacramento Valley and500 taf in the San Joaquin Valley. Groundwater withdrawal and recharge capacities of 500 cfs are being assumed. Groundwater withdrawal is being assumed to take place only in drought years. Potential water supply benefits of the CALFED conjunctive use program have not been quantified at this time.

Water MarketingWater agencies are increasingly including marketing as a component of their future resources mix—not just as a drought management technique, but as a source of supply in normal water years. It is becoming increasingly common to see local agency plans with a menu of marketing alternatives which include one-time spot transfers, short or long-term agreements for drought year marketing, and long-term agreements for average year water marketing. In this update of the California Water Plan , water marketing may include: • A permanent sale of a water right by the water right holder. • A lease from the water right holder (who retains the water right), allowing the lessee to use the water under specified conditions over a specified period of time.• A sale or lease of a contractual right to water supply. Under this arrangement, the ability of the holderto transfer a contractual water right is usually contingent upon receiving approval from the supplier. An example of this type of arrangement is a sale or lease by a water agency that receives its supply from the CVP, SWP, or other water wholesaler. One common concern with marketing proposals is that only real water is sold, and that marketing of paper water is avoided (see sidebar). The difference is that real water involves a change in the place and type of an existing use without harming another legal user of water, while paper water might involve sale of water that would not otherwise be beneficially used during the period of the proposed marketing arrangement.Another common concern is third-party impacts associated with proposed marketing arrangements. Thisconcern must be addressed as appropriate on a sitespecific basis for proposed transfers. For water marketing options identified as likely to be implemented, Bulletin 160-98 water budgets show increases in supply for the gaining regions and reflect corresponding reductions in demand in regions

Feasibility Study for American Basin Conjunctive Use Project

The Department has completed a feasibility investigation of the American Basin conjunctive use project. Discussions are under way with local project participants and potentiallyparticipating SWP contractors. If negotiations are successful, CEQA/NEPA compliance and permit acquisition would follow, and initial project operation might begin in 2001. The project area is in southeastern Sutter County, western Placer County, and northwestern Sacramento County. Local water purveyors participating in the project could includeSouth Sutter Water District, Natomas-Central Mutual Water Company, Pleasant Grove-Verona Mutual Water Company, and Placer County Water Agency. Three of the four potential participants have a surface water supply within theproject area from either the Bear or Sacramento River systems, and one relies on groundwater.

As evaluated in the feasibility study, the project could develop about 55 taf of water during drought periods to supplement diminished SWP surface water supplies, depending on the number of agencies participating in the project. In the feasibility study, costs of the drought year supply for the SWP were estimated to be on the order of $150/af.

The 40-30-30 Index (see description in Chapter 3) would be used to determine when project recharge and recovery would occur. When the index is classified as above normal orwet, project recharge would occur. Recharge would be accomplished by in lieu means, which would require deliveryof SWP water to those in the project area that use groundwater. Construction of new facilities to deliver SWP water from the Feather River to each project participant’s service area would be required. When the index is classified as dry orcritical, project recovery would occur by groundwater substitution. Groundwater substitution would involve each district forgoing part of its normal surface water supply, by leaving it in the river for use by others. Reductions in surface water supply would be supplemented by extracting groundwater that was placed in the aquifer system earlier.6-26 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### from which water is being transferred, if specific participants have been identified and the options are large enough to be visible in the water budgets. Presently, the only marketing arrangements that fit this category are those associated with the draft CRB 4.4 Plan.One of the larger potential water marketing programs identified in Bulletin 160-98 is CVPIA water acquisition for instream flows and wildlife refuges.Impacts of different levels of supplemental water acquisition were described in USBR’s draft CVPIA PEIS, which did not identify a preferred quantity of wateracquisition. At this time, no long-term purchase agreements have been executed—CVPIA supplementalwater acquired to date has been purchased on a yearto-year basis. It is not possible to identify how and where the supplemental water would be obtained inthe future, or what other water demands might be reduced as a result of CVPIA water acquisition.
Sources of Water for Marketing The increased attention to marketing following the 1987-92 drought brought clear recognition that water marketing alone does not create new supplies—it is a process by which supplies developed by other meansare moved to a new place of use. In any water marketing agreement, the reliability of the supply acquired by the transferee depends upon the specific details of the agreement and the relative priority of the water rights involved. Potential sources of water that have been most often considered for marketing are described below: Land Fallowing. A potential source of water for marketing is to forgo growing crops in a given area and move the water that would have been consumed to adifferent service area. Although there can be some difficulty in quantifying the amount of water made availableand its impact on the economy of local agricultural communities, land fallowing is a proven demand reductiontechnique. Land fallowing may be undertaken on either a permanent basis (land retirement) or only duringdrought periods in various forms of shortage contingency programs. Drawbacks of fallowing include potential impacts on non-participating third parties. Crop Shifts. Some of the third party effects of fallowing could be reduced by substituting crops that consume less water for those that would use more. Forexample, safflower might be planted in place of tomatoes, or wheat in place of corn. The substituted crop is usually less profitable for the grower, so the potential buyer provides an appropriate incentive payment. Such arrangements can produce real water savings, but they introduce a further layer of complexity and uncertainty. (For example, how can it be demonstrated that the higher water-using crop would really have been planted in the absence of the arrangement? And, what are the related effects on groundwater recharge and drainage contributions to downstream surface supplies?) Crop shift proposals were solicited by the Department for the 1991 DWB, but played a limited role. Because Is That Real Water?

The initial rush of enthusiasm for water marketing stimulated much discussion about supposedly unused water. Some water users in the State hold rights (statutory or contractual) to more water than they currently use to meet their needs. Why not sell those rights to others?

Such arrangements looked attractive to both prospective sellers and buyers. The sellers would receive payment for something they were not using, while the buyers would meet urgent water needs.This view, however, overlooks the fact that water to meet the transferred rights has been part of the basin supply all along, and has almost always been put to use by downstream water right holders or is supporting an environmental need. This type of marketing arrangement became known as a “paper water” deal: the money goes to the seller, while the water is sold to the buyer from the supply of an uninvolved third party.

A similar outcome can result from some water conservation measures. Changes in irrigation management can reduce drainage outflow that otherwise contributes to the supply of downstream users or meets an instream need. Proposals to market water saved through such drainage reduction can also
represent paper water.

The California Water Code includes a number of provisions to regulate and facilitate marketing arrangements (Water Code Sections 1435, 1706, 1725, 1736, 1810d), as well as a “no-injury” clause that prohibits transfers that would harm another legal user of the water. This clause is the basis for prohibiting sale of paper water.

In analyzing water marketing and water conservation proposals, the Department uses the terms real water and new water to contrast with paper water. Real water is water not derived at the expense of any other lawful user, i.e., water that satisfies the Water Code’s no injury criterion. New wateris water not previously available, created by reducing irrecoverable losses or outflow to the ocean or inland salt sinks. New water, by definition, must be real, but not all real water isnew. For example, water made available through land fallowing is real (because it reduces ETAW), but not new.6-27 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### crop acreage is market driven, the ability to do large scale crop shifts is limited. Crop shifts are thus expected to have a small role in water marketing. Water Conservation and Water Recycling. Where conservation or recycling options result in real water savings, conserved water may be available for marketing to other users. Recent proposals to marketconserved water have mostly occurred in the agricultural sector, where considerable confusion hassometimes resulted over the distinction between reducing applied water and producing real water savings. Most of California’s irrigated areas overlie usablegroundwater basins and are linked by networks of surface streams and drains. Water leaving one area usuallycontributes to the supply of other areas or, in the Central Valley, to required Delta outflow. Under suchconditions, real water savings result by reducing consumptive use or by reducing losses to saline sinks. From a statewide perspective, opportunities for marketing conserved water occur primarily in areassuch as the Imperial Valley, where agricultural drainage water flows to the Salton Sea. (Agricultural runoff entering the sea supplies the relatively fresher water needed to sustain the sea’s biological resources. Theability to market conserved water that would otherwise flow to the sea must take into consideration impacts of such transfer on the sea.) From a local perspective, however, the situationmay be different. For example, Sacramento Valley conservation measures that reduce agricultural drainage make more water available for use in the conserving area—but at the expense of downstream users. Localdistricts in such areas have substantial incentive to practice conservation to improve the utility of their existing supplies, but the potential for creating real water for sale to others is limited. Water recycling in coastal urban areas can create new water, and there is often a potential market for this water among other urban users for landscape or turf irrigation.These sales typically entail multi-jurisdictional partnerships, since the recycled water is most often provided bya wastewater treatment agency but is distributed or supplied to end users by one or more water agencies. Groundwater Substitution. Many Californiagrowers have rights and access to surface water supplies, even though their land may overlie productive groundwater basins. In such cases, a grower may agreeto forgo use of surface water rights for a period, substituting groundwater instead. The unused surface water then becomes available for marketing to other users. This technique was tested during the DWBs of 1991, 1992, and 1994. Under favorable conditions (where wells andpumps are already installed), it can produce considerable water on relatively short notice. One major concern with groundwater substitution is the potential impact on neighboring non-participating pumpers. Substantialmonitoring is needed to assure there are no unreasonable third-party impacts. Another consideration with groundwater substitution is that additional pumping may induce recharge that depletes usable streamflow.Only that portion of groundwater replenished from future surplus flows is really a new supply. Further experience will be needed to define the potential of thissource, resolve concerns over impacts on nearby pumpers and regional surface supplies, and explore possibilities for constructing recharge facilities. Surface Storage Withdrawals. Existing reservoirs within California have a combined storage capacity of approximately 40 maf. These facilities are operated by a wide spectrum of entities for a variety of water supply, flood control, power, and recreation objectives. At anygiven time, water may be stored somewhere in the system that is not planned to be released, but could bemade available to meet urgent needs, subject to compliance with existing water rights. Such withdrawals come at a price—usually a reduction of power generation orrecreational usage, or increased risk of future water supply shortage. Payments to the reservoir owner implicitlyinclude a component to compensate for reduced benefits, increased risk, and other costs. Surface storage withdrawals are easily quantified and clearly represent real water, provided the storage is refilled from future surplus flows. Storage withdrawals played an important role in recent transfers; the refill constraints were handled through a contract clause whereby reservoir owners agreed to defer refill until a time of future high runoff when there would be no detrimental effect on otherwater users. In the long run, the prospects for such arrangements will tend to diminish as water demands increase in the reservoirs’ primary service areas.
Prospects for Water Marketing Water marketing will continue to play a role in meeting California’s water needs, but there will be acontinuing shift in emphasis toward systemwide appraisal of impacts and growing recognition of the need to protect the rights of all lawful water users. Watermarketing programs (and land retirement or fallowing programs that may be used to supply water forsale) are often controversial in the area where the trans6-28 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### ferred water would originate because of potential thirdparty impacts. Mechanisms for evaluation and approval of water marketing arrangements have been developed, and will likely continue to evolve. For example, USBRdeveloped guidelines for implementing sale of CVP water under CVPIA; the California Water Code directs theDepartment to facilitate voluntary exchanges and transfers of water; and 1992 changes to State law authorized water suppliers (local public agencies and private watercompanies) to contract with water users to reduce or eliminate water use for a specified period of time, and to sell the water to other water suppliers and users. The ability to carry out marketing is dependent on conveyance provided by California’s existing rivers,canals, and pipelines. Agencies planning to use longterm marketing arrangements as part of their core water supplies must have access to reliable conveyance for these supplies. The California Water Code requires thatpublic agencies make available unused conveyance capacity if fair compensation is paid and other conditions are met (see sidebar). The CVP and SWP wheel water for marketing; only the SWP can convey water from the Central Valley to the highly urbanized South CoastRegion. A long-term Delta fix is necessary for providing reliable conveyance of acquired supplies across theDelta. Actions that constrain agencies’ abilities to conWater Code Section 1810 et seq.

1810. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither the state, nor any regional or local public agency maydeny a bona fide transferor of water the use of a water conveyance facility which has unused capacity, for the period of time for which that capacity is available, if fair compensation is paid for that use, subject to the following:

(a) Any person or public agency that has a long-term water service contract with or the right to receive water from the owner of the conveyance facility shall have the right to use any unused capacity prior to any bona fide transferor.

(b) The commingling of transferred water does not result in a diminution of the beneficial uses or quality of the water in the facility, except that the transferor may, at the transferor’sown expense, provide for treatment to prevent the diminution, and the transferred water is of substantially the same quality as the water in the facility.

(c) Any person or public agency that has a water service contract with or the right to receive water from the owner ofthe conveyance facility who has an emergency need may utilize the unused capacity that was made available pursuant to this section for the duration of the emergency.

(d) This use of a water conveyance facility is to be made without injuring any legal user of water and without unreasonablyaffecting fish, wildlife, or other instream beneficial uses and without unreasonably affecting the overall economy or the environment of the county from which the water is being transferred.

1811. As used in this article, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

(a) “Bona fide transferor” means a person or public agency as defined in Section 20009 of the Government Code with a contract for sale of water which may be conditioned upon the acquisition of conveyance facility capacity to convey the water that is the subject of the contract.

(b) “Emergency” means a sudden occurrence such as astorm, flood, fire, or an unexpected equipment outage impairing the ability of a person or public agency to make water deliveries. (c) “Fair compensation” means the reasonable charges incurred by the owner of the conveyance system, including capital, operation, maintenance, and replacement costs, increased costs from any necessitated purchase of supplemental power, and including reasonable credit for any offsetting benefits for the use of the conveyance system.

(d) “Replacement costs” means the reasonable portion of costs associated with material acquisition for the correction of unrepairable wear or other deterioration of conveyance facility parts which have an anticipated life which is less than the conveyance facility repayment period and which costs are attributable to the proposed use.

(e) “Unused capacity” means space that is available within the operational limits of the conveyance system and whichthe owner is not using during the period for which the transfer is proposed and which space is sufficient to convey the quantity of water proposed to be transferred.

1812. The state, regional, or local public agency owningthe water conveyance facility shall in a timely manner determine the following:

(a) The amount and availability of unused capacity. (b) The terms and conditions, including operation andmaintenance requirements and scheduling, quality requirements, term or use, priorities, and fair compensation.

1813. In making the determinations required by this article, the respective public agency shall act in a reasonable manner consistent with the requirements of law to facilitatethe voluntary sale, lease, or exchange of water and shall support its determinations by written findings. In any judicialaction challenging any determination made under this article the court shall consider all relevant evidence, and thecourt shall give due consideration to the purposes and policies of this article. In any such case the court shall sustain thedetermination of the public agency if it finds that the determination is supported by substantial evidence.

1814. This article shall apply to only 70 percent of the unused capacity.6-29 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### vey water across the Delta limit their ability to enter into marketing arrangements.As more agencies rely on water marketing to balance future demand and supply, and as several large-scale environmental restoration programs beginacquiring water for fishery and habitat purposes, competition for available water will increase. The availability of water for sale in marketing programs is inherently limited by the willingness of the existing water rights holders to participate in such programs. Table 6-6 shows a few larger marketing arrangements proposed in water agency planning documents to illustrate the magnitude of purchases being considered.The following sections describe some specific water marketing proposals. Many local agencies may intend to buy water on the spot market as needed torespond to service area demands, but do not have agreements or defined programs in place at this time.
Drought Year Marketing Marketing Involving SWP Facilities. The DWB program is a water purchasing and allocation program that allows the Department to purchase water from willing sellers and market the water to buyers under specific critical needs allocation guidelines. The DWB’s EIR established the bank as a 5 to 10 year program.Chapter 3 describes past DWB activities. The quantities and prices of water made available in previous yearsthrough surplus reservoir releases, groundwater substitution, and land fallowing programs are summarized in Table 6-7. Past experience suggests that about 250␣ taf/yr could be allocated in the future through similar programs; this quantity is used for the future supplies associated with the DWB. The Department had proposed a supplementalwater purchase program to increase water supply reliability for SWP contractors. A draft programmatic EIR for the six-year program originally proposed transfer of up to 400 taf of water in drought years. The water would be purchased from willing sellers and provided to participating SWP contractors. After a number of public workshops, the Department reevaluated the program and eliminated its groundwater component. Without the groundwater component, the maximum supply available for transfer would have been 200 taf/ yr. Additional public comments received on the draft PEIR raised issues that would need to be addressed Water marketing depends on the availability of conveyance for the transferred water. For example, the East Branch of the California Aqueduct is the only inter-regional conveyance facility serving rapidly urbanizing areas in the southwestern corner of the Mojave Desert. Availability of aqueduct capacity would dictate the conditions under which transfers to this area could occur. T ABLE 6-6 Sample of Potential Water Purchases (taf)

Average Drought Drought Water Bank

— 250 CVPIA Interim Water Acquisition Program 365 365 Zone 7 Water Agency 50 50 Alameda County Water District 15 25 Contra Costa Water District 50 40 Santa Clara Valley Water District 100 100 Westlands Water District 200 200 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

— 300 San Diego County Water Authority 200 200 Total 980 1,5306-30 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### in site-specific environmental documents. The Department withdrew the draft PEIR due to the difficulty ofaddressing site-specific concerns in a programmatic environmental analysis and after reevaluating the potential benefits of the program. The supplemental water purchase program is not considered as a future water management option in the Bulletin. Semitropic Water Storage District has developeda groundwater storage program with a maximum storage capacity of 1 maf and maximum annual extraction of 223 taf. Under this program, a banking partner may contract with SWSD to deliver its SWP water or otherwater supplies to SWSD for in-lieu groundwater recharge. At the contractor’s request, groundwater would be extracted and delivered to the California Aqueduct or would be pumped by SWSD farmers in exchange for SWP entitlement deliveries. Currently, MWDSC and SCVWD have long-term agreements with SWSD for 350 taf of storage for each district. ACWD has a similar agreement for 50 taf of storage, as does Z7WA for 43 taf. There is about 200 taf of capacity availablefor other banking partners and for increased commitments by existing partners. Participants are not restricted to SWP contractors, although access to the SWP’s conveyance system is necessary. This program, discussed in more detail in Chapter 8, is considered a marketing arrangement in this Bulletin because of the possible exchange of SWSD’s SWP entitlement forbanked SWP water. The cost of recharging and extracting this water is about $175/af. A similar marketing agreement has been reached by Arvin-Edison WSD and MWDSC for up to 350␣ taf of storage in Arvin-Edison’s groundwater basin. About 60 taf would be withdrawn and delivered to MWDSC through the California Aqueduct in drought years at a cost of about $200/af, exclusive of delivery costs to member agencies. Marketing Involving CVP Facilities. Historically,users of CVP water have made intra-district, and sometimes inter-district transfers of project supply. The 1992enactment of CVPIA provided the authority to market project water outside of project boundaries to nonproject water users. The San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority,which represents 32 urban and agricultural water districts on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and in San Benito and Santa Clara Counties, has developed an agreement that will help its members cope withwater supply uncertainties. Under a three-way agreement between the authority, SCVWD, and USBR,participating member districts (shortage year providers) can receive some of SCVWD’s federal water allocation in normal and above-normal water years in exchange for committing to make available a share of the shortage year provider’s federal allocation during drought years. The agreement, which does not requireany additional exports from the Delta, will be an internal reallocation of existing federal supplies to allow greater flexibility in meeting urban and agricultural water demands.Specifically, SCVWD will provide 100 taf of water within a 10-year period for reallocation by USBR to shortage year providers. In exchange, shortage year providers will provide SCVWD with shortage year protection. The agreement directs USBR to reallocate drought year supplies (not to exceed an annual total of 14.3 taf) so that at least 97.5 taf is delivered to SCVWD in years when the CVP’s urban water deliveries are 75␣ percent or less of contract entitlement. As part ofthe agreement, SCVWD will optimize its use of nonCVP water supplies, which will benefit all CVPirrigation water service contractors in the Delta export service area. Westlands Water District and San Luis Water District have already agreed to become T

ABLE 6-7 Drought Water Bank Summary

Source of Drought Water Bank Water (taf) Year Purchase Surplus Groundwater Fallowing Total Amount Price ($/af) Reservoir Substitution Sources Allocated a Storage (taf)

1991 125 147 259 415 821 390 1992 50 32 161 0 193 159 1994 50 33 189 0 222 174

a Amount allocated for urban, agricultural, and environmental uses. This represents the actual supply developed by the bank after conveyance and fish and wildlife requirements were met.6-31 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### shortage year providers; other authority members may also enter into the agreement over time. CVPIA authorized marketing of project water outside the CVP service area, subject to numerous specified conditions, including a right of first refusal by existing CVP water users within the service area. As of this writing, no marketing arrangements haveeither been approved or implemented under this provision. One proposed transfer that had been discussed was between Arvin-Edison WSD and MWDSC. Marketing Involving Colorado River Aqueduct. In its 1996 session, the Arizona Legislature enacted legislation establishing the Arizona Water BankingAuthority. The Authority is authorized to purchase unused Colorado River water and to store it in groundwater basins to meet future needs. Conveyance to storage areas is provided by the Central ArizonaProject. The legislation further provided that the Authority may enter into agreements with California and Nevada agencies to bank water in Arizona basins, withspecific limitations. Under this legislation, future interstate banking in Arizona would have a maximum drought year yield of 100 taf. As described in Chapter 9, federal regulations to implement interstate banking are being promulgated. As discussed and quantified in Chapters 7 and 9, a variety of arrangements are being examined as partof the development of CRB’s draft 4.4 Plan. Land fallowing programs could be implemented to provide water for marketing to urban areas during droughtperiods, as demonstrated by one test program conducted in the Colorado River Region. In 1992,MWDSC began a two-year land fallowing test program with Palo Verde Irrigation District. Farmers in PVID fallowed about 20,000 acres of land. The saved water, about 93 taf/yr, was stored in Lake Mead for future use by MWDSC. (The water was subsequently released when flood control releases were made from Lake Mead). MWDSC paid each farmer $1,240 per fallowed acre, making the costs of the water to MWDSC about $135/af. It is expected that similarprograms could be implemented in the future by agencies in the South Coast Region and Colorado River Region to provide about 100 taf during drought years.

Every Year Marketing

Permanent Sales. The Monterey Agreement provides that 130 taf of SWP agricultural entitlement be sold to urban contractors on a willing buyer-willing seller basis. Several sales of entitlement have already been implemented. KCWA permanently sold 25 taf/yrof entitlement to MWA and is in the process of finalizing the permanent sale of 7 taf/yr to Z7WA. KCWA is arranging sale of additional entitlement to Castaic LakeWater Agency. As with the SWP, marketing of contractual entitlements among CVP contractors is occurring. The CVP drought year reallocation agreement described above represents a new approach to marketing among project water users. CVPIA Interim Water Acquisition Program. Sales of developed supplies for environmental purposes(where the transfer occurs as part of a willing buyerwilling seller arrangement, and not as the result of a regulatory action) are a relatively recent occurrence. Under the CVPIA supplemental water provisions, USBR established an interim water acquisition program that was in effect from October 1995 through February 1998.Water was acquired to meet near-term fishery and refuge water supply needs while long-term planning for supplemental water acquisition continued.As provided in the program’s environmental documentation, USBR could acquire up to 100 taf annuallyon each of the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced Rivers. Acquired water would be used for instream flowson the three rivers, and for flow and water quality improvements on the San Joaquin River. The specificquantities of water to be acquired each year and associated release patterns would depend upon projected flow conditions in the individual rivers, and projected flow and water quality conditions in the San Joaquin River at Vernalis. USBR would also acquire up to 13␣ taf of water annually from the Sacramento and Feather River Basins for Sacramento Valley wildlife refuges. Likewise, up to 52 taf would be purchased annuallyfrom willing sellers in the San Joaquin Valley for refuges there. CVPIA AFRP Water Acquisition Program. USBR’s 1997 draft PEIS analyzed four alternatives for long-term acquisition of fishery and refuge waters. • Alternative 1. No water would be acquired to meet fish and wildlife targets.• Alternative 2. AFRP water would be acquired annually from willing sellers on the Stanislaus (60␣ taf/yr), Tuolumne (60 taf/yr), and Merced Rivers (50 taf/yr) and on Upper Sacramento River tributary creeks that support spring-run salmonpopulations. Acquisition amounts on the tributary creeks were not quantified in the PEIS.Acquired water would be managed to meet target instream flows and would also be used to improve flows in the Delta. The acquired AFRP water could not be exported by the CVP or SWP.6-32 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### Refuge water supply would be acquired to provide the incremental difference between Level2 and Level 4 refuge supply requirements. Annual water acquisition in the Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and Tulare Lake Regionswould be about 30 taf, 80 taf, and 20 taf, respectively.• Alternative 3. AFRP water would be acquired annually from willing sellers on the Yuba (100 taf/ yr), Mokelumne (70 taf/yr), Calaveras (40 taf/yr), Stanislaus (200 taf/yr), Tuolumne (200 taf/yr), andMerced Rivers (200 taf/yr) and on Upper Sacramento River tributary creeks for in-stream flows. As in Alternative 2, acquisition amounts on the tributary creeks were not quantified in the PEIS. The acquired AFRP water would not be managed for increased flows through the Delta. Therefore, it could be exported if Order WR 95-6 conditions were met. Refuge water would be acquired to meetLevel 4 requirements in the same quantities as described in Alternative 2.• Alternative 4. AFRP water would be acquired annually for instream flow as under Alternative 3. Acquired water would be managed to meet target instream flows and to improve flows in the Delta.Therefore, the acquired water could not be exported by the CVP or SWP. Refuge water would be acquired for Level 4 water supplies in the same manner as described in Alternative 2. To help put the magnitude of these amounts into perspective, the draft PEIS estimates a reduction of 142,000 acres of irrigated agricultural land would be needed to provide CVPIA water acquisitions under Alternative 4, entailing water acquisition costs of up to $120 million per year. Approximately 21,000 acres would be fallowed in the Sacramento River Region, 118,000 acres would be fallowed in the San Joaquin River Region, and 3,000 acres would be fallowed inthe Tulare Lake Region. Since USBR has not yet identified a preferred alternative or specific proposals for transfers, Bulletin 160-98 does not include these CVPIA transfers in the water budgets. To the extent that the acquired water reduces demands by other water users, the water acquisition would have minimal net impact on the water budgets. Colorado River Marketing Arrangements. Water agencies in the South Coast Region will continueto pursue programs to offset the reduction in existing supplies resulting from California reducing its use of Colorado River water. This subject is covered in detail in Chapter 9. MWDSC and IID have already implemented an agreement to transfer conserved water to urban users in the South Coast Region; a similar agreement was recently executed by SDCWAand IID. Both of these arrangements represent longterm transfers of core supplies. The next step in implementing the IID/SDCWA arrangement is preparation of environmental documentation. Once implemented, transferred amounts would increase over time (up to a 75-year term) to a maximum of 200 taf annually. In order to convey the acquired water, SDCWA negotiated a wheeling agreement with MWDSC for use of capacity in MWDSC’s Colorado River Aqueduct.

Water Recycling and Desalting Water Recycling The Department, in cooperation with the WateReuse Association of California conducted a water recycling survey as described in Chapter 3. Table␣ 6-8 shows 2020 base level of water recyclingand potential future options. These options represent potential maximum levels of recycling. Not alloptions are expected to be implemented, due to economic and other considerations. New water supply would be generated by water recycling where the outflow of water treatment plants would otherwise enter a salt sink or the Pacific Ocean. In the Central Valley and other inland communities, outflow from wastewater treatment plants is discharged

T

ABLE 6-8 2020 Level Water Recycling Options and Resulting New Water Supply (taf)

Projects Total New Water Water Recycling Supply

Base 577 407 Potential options 835 655

Total 1,412 1,0626-33 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### into streams and groundwater basins and is generallyreapplied. Recycling of such outflow would not generate new water supplies. All new recycled water is expected to be produced in coastal regions—the San Francisco Bay, Central Coast, and South Coast regions.Water agencies in the South Coast Region are concerned that the lack of future high-quality water forblending supplies, or the cost of desalting recycled water, could affect implementation of future water recycling facilities. Due to extensive use of ColoradoRiver water and groundwater supplies that are relatively high in TDS, salt management is an importantconsideration in marketing recycled water in the region. Salt management options include blending Colorado River water and groundwater supplies withother sources such as SWP water, or treating (i.e., desalting) the recycled water to reduce its salt content. MWDSC and its member agencies and USBR are cooperating in a salinity management study. The study’s initial phase focuses on identifying problems and salinity management needs of MWDSC’s service area. This study is discussed in Chapter 7. Table 6-9 shows potential water recycling optionsby hydrologic region. Two major water recycling programs being planned are the Bay Area regional waterrecycling program and the Southern California comprehensive water reclamation and reuse study, discussed in detail in Chapter 7.
Desalting Today, California has more than 150 desalting plants providing fresh water for municipal, industrial, power, and other uses. The freshwater capacity of these plants totals about 66 taf annually, a 100 percent increase since 1990. Common feedwater sources fordesalting plants include brackish groundwater, municipal and industrial wastewater, and seawater.Groundwater recovery currently makes up the majority of desalting plant capacity, 45 taf/yr. Wastewater desalting accounts for 13 taf/yr and seawater desalting accounts for 8 taf/yr of total capacity. Groundwater recovery and wastewater recycling will be the primary uses of desalting in California inthe foreseeable future. (The use of desalting in wastewater treatment plants is part of water recycling and is included in the water recycling section.) Improvements in membrane technology will spur considerable growthin these areas, as discussed in Chapter 5. Seawater desalting is expected to grow very slowly. Groundwater Recovery. High TDS and nitrate levels are common groundwater quality problems. Groundwater recovery programs can be designed to treat mineralized groundwater or groundwater with nitrate contamination, as shown in the examples given in Chapter 5. Currently, mostgroundwater recovery programs under consideration are located in the South Coast Region (excluding groundwater recovery solely to remediate contamination at hazardous waste sites). Some of the polluted water must be treated and some can be blended with better quality waterto meet water quality standards. The potential annual contribution of groundwater recovery by year 2020 is about 110 taf, with 95 taf in the South Coast Region. Options are discussed in the regional chapters. T

ABLE 6-9 Potential 2020 Water Recycling Options by Hydrologic Region (taf)

Total New Water Water Recycling Supply

North Coast 15 0 San Francisco Bay 101 91 Central Coast 39 37 South Coast 639 527 Sacramento River 6 0 San Joaquin River 7 0 Tulare Lake 25 0 North Lahontan 0 0 South Lahontan 3 0 Colorado River 0 0 Total 835 6556-34 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### Seawater Desalting. The major limitation to seawater desalting has been its high cost, much of whichis directly related to high energy requirements. Seawater desalting costs typically range from $1,000 to $2,000/af depending in part on the extent to which existing infrastructure, such as brine disposal facilities, is present. With few exceptions, its costs are greaterthan costs of obtaining water from other sources. However, seawater desalting can be a feasible option forcoastal communities that are not connected to statewide water distribution infrastructure and have limitedwater supplies. Because of such circumstances, seawater desalting plants have been constructed in the Cities of Avalon, Santa Barbara, and Morro Bay. Seawaterdesalting plants can be designed to operate only during drought to improve water supply reliability, as is the case for Santa Barbara’s desalter. During the 1987-92 drought, plans to install and operate several seawater desalting plants were under consideration in the Central Coast and South Coast Regions, including plans for several large distillation plants using waste heat from existing thermal power plants in the South Coast Region. The total potential of the proposed plants was about 123 taf /yr. With the return to average water supply years, most of these plans have been put on hold. Currently, seawater desalting is most favorable as a drought year option. If desaltingcosts are substantially reduced in the future, plant capacity which is surplus to the plant owners in wetterwater years could be used to produce water for conjunctive use or marketing programs. MWDSC’s research distillation plant is the only large non-reverse osmosis facility now under study. MWDSC, in cooperation with the federal government and the Israel Science and Technology Foundation, is completing final design of a 12.6 mgd demonstration desalting plant to evaluate a future full scale 60 to 80␣ mgd seawater desalting plant. The technology is based on a multiple-effect distillation process which uses heat energy from an adjacent powerplant. The Seawater Desalting as a Future Water Management Option

Seawater desalting was often viewed with optimism as a future water management option for California in the 1950s and 1960s, because of the proximity of the State’s major urban areas to the Pacific Ocean. Most planning efforts then were focused on studiesand small-scale or pilot plant demonstration projects. Seawater desalting is expected to have only limited application during the Bulletin 160-98 planning horizon, largely due to its costs. The excerpt below, taken from a 1965 USGS report entitled Natural Resources of California , describes an early demonstration project. (A 1 mgd plant, operated continuously, would provide 1.1 taf per year.) California is cooperating with the Federal Government in a saline water conversion program. The Department of theInterior and the State jointly financed the building of a saline water conversion plant in San Diego on a site donated by the city. Capable of producing 1 million gallons of water a day, it was operated for 2 years before being dismantled in March of 1964 and shipped to Cuba to serve Guantanamo Naval Base there. It is being replaced by a joint effort of the Department [of Interior] and the California Water ResourcesBoard. The State and the Federal Government are also cooperating in the development of a multi-million-gallon saline water conversion plant.

Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Research and Development Project

The Mission Basin groundwater desalting project is an example of the type of desalting projects likely to occur within the Bulletin’s planning horizon.

The City of Oceanside owns and operates the Mission Basin Groundwater Desalting Facility. Under current operations, about 2.1 taf/yr of demineralized groundwater supply is produced fromtreating brackish groundwater through a reverse osmosis process. Because of the plant’s successful operation over the past three years, the city plans to expand its production capacity to 7.1 taf/yr, 22 percent of the city’s average annual demand. Thecost of the expansion is estimated to be $9.0 million. The additional water supply is expected to be available in year 2000. The Mission Basin aquifer holds about 92 taf of water.The city anticipates that at least half of its future water supply can ultimately be derived from this source. Expansion of the Mission Basin Desalting Facility has several important benefits. It would provide the city with a local source in the event of a natural disaster, such as an earthquake. In addition to reducing the city’s reliance on imported water, the quality of water produced at the desalting facility is better than that of the city’s imported source (TDS concentration of 400- 500 mg/L versus 600-700 mg/L for imported water).6-35 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

Monterey County Water Resources Agency’s Cloud Seeding Program

MCWRA initiated a cloud seeding program in 1990 to alleviate impacts of the drought and has continued the program as a cost-effective way to augment water supplies. MCWRA’s program costs were less than $10/af. In addition to airborne seeding, an experimental ground based propane dispenser was installed for rainfall enhancement in 1991. The program was designed to increase rainfall and runoff in the watersheds of Arroyo Seco (a small undammed tributary of the Salinas River) and San Antonio and Nacimiento Reservoirs.

Monterey County relies solely on groundwater and local surface supplies, and faces chronic groundwater overdraftand seawater intrusion. The area’s semiarid, Mediterraneanstyle climate provides only marginally sufficient rainfall during average years to sustain reservoir releases for aquiferrecharge during the summer months. Furthermore, the occurrence interval and typical productivity of weather systems passing over the central coast are such that soil mass only reaches saturation near the end of the rain event, and theweather system moves on prior to the occurrence of substantial runoff. Cloud seeding, in most cases, provides additional rainfall that converts directly into runoff. The typical interval for cloud seeding in Monterey Countyis from early November through the end of March. The primary target area is the 650 square miles of combined watershed above Nacimiento and San Antonio Reservoirs. To the north, the Arroyo Seco watershed is a secondary target area. Seeding flights in the early part of the water year cover the entire area, affecting the reservoir drainage areas and ArroyoSeco. This early seeding provides additional runoff to the reservoir system as well as added groundwater recharge in theArroyo Seco drainage area. Later in the water year when Arroyo Seco flows have reached the confluence with the Salinas River, flights are rerouted to concentrate the seeding effect on the reservoirs. The five-year program has experienced varying degreesof success in terms of providing additional water supply. Usually the wetter the storms, the greater the moisture available for conversion to precipitation and the more productive the seeding. Overall, evaluations show that rainfall increased about twenty percent above normal for the five-year study period. According to MCWRA, no known adverse environmental effects have occurred as a result of the project.

### goal is to demonstrate that the multiple-effect distillation process can produce desalted seawater at a cost of less than $1,000/af. If successful, a full scale plant could produce about 85 taf/yr.

Weather Modification Weather modification (cloud seeding) has been practiced in California for years. Most projects have been located on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada and in parts of the Coast Range. Before the 1987-92 drought, there were about 10 to 12 weathermodification projects operating, with activity increasing during dry years. During the drought the number of projects operating in California had increased to20. Some projects were subsequently dropped and others suspended operations after the drought ended. Operators engaged in cloud seeding have found itbeneficial to seed rain bands along the coast and orographic clouds over the mountains. The projects are operated to increase water supply or hydroelectric power generation. Although the amounts of water produced are difficult and expensive to determine, estimates range from a 2 to 15 percent increase in annual precipitation, depending on the number and type of storms seeded. The Department, on behalf of the SWP, planned a five-year demonstration program of cloud seeding in the upper Middle Fork Feather River Basin, beginning in the 1991-92 season. The program was to test the use of liquid propane injected into cloudsfrom generators on a mountain top. The test program was terminated after three years due to institutional difficulties.A 1993 USBR feasibility study for a cloud seeding program in the watersheds above Shasta and Trinity Dams indicated potential for the Trinity River Basin, but cast doubt on the effectiveness of a project forShasta Lake. USBR had proposed a cloud seeding demonstration program in the upper Colorado River Basin, but the demonstration program was opposed by the State of Colorado. Presently, USBR is phasing out its participation in weather modification projects. Cloud seeding is more successful in near-normal water years, when moisture in the form of storm clouds ispresent to be treated. It is also more effective when combined with carryover storage to take full advantage of additional precipitation and runoff. Institutional issues associated with cloud seeding programs include claims from third-parties who allege damage from flooding or high water caused by the cloud seeding program. Becauseof the many legal and institutional difficulties surrounding third-party impacts, new cloud seeding projects are deferred from further consideration in this Bulletin.6-36 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### Other Supply Augmentation Options

This section discusses several other methods to augment water supplies. These options are conceptual, or have not yet been widely practiced. Hence, they are deferred from further evaluation in this Bulletin.

Importing Water from Out of State Constructing an undersea pipeline, towing waterin giant nylon bags, shipping water by tanker, and towing icebergs have all been suggested to help augment California’s water supply by importing water from out of state. The idea of constructing an undersea pipeline to carry fresh water from Alaska to California was studiedthree decades ago and was last revisited in 1991. As proposed, a 2,600 mile-long suboceanic pipeline would be constructed along the coastline. The pipeline would be sized to carry about 3 maf/yr of Alaskan water from theStikine and/or Copper Rivers, and would terminate either at Shasta Lake or in Southern California. A preliminary study estimated that the project would cost between $110 and $150 billion and take at least 15 years to complete. A feasibility study by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment concluded that huge costs and unanswered engineering problems made the idea of building an undersea pipeline unrealistic. A proposal to fill giant floating nylon bags with water and tow them from Alaska to California had been suggested in the past. During the height of the most recent California drought, a California company sought investors to finance a test run. The water would be filtered, chlorinated, and then loaded into floating bags (the bags float because fresh water is lighter than salt water). An ocean-going tugboat would tow the bags(each holding about 220 af) along the coast. This proposal did not go forward. In 1996, a privately developed water bag delivery system was tested on a pilot scale when two bags of 2.4 af each were towed from Port Angeles, Washington, to Seattle. Some problems emerged in the test run. If implemented at a full scale, costs associated with this option would include towing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the loading/unloading docks and pumps to transfer the bagged water ashore to local treatment and distribution systems. Shipping water by tankers appears to be the most feasible of the water importation options suggested. Marine transport is a proven alternative to land-based pipelines in the oil industry. A Canadian company is now arranging to ship water to China via tankers. The company was granted Alaska’s first water-export permit in 1996. When shipping facilities and a bottling plant are built, the company will begin shipping 390 af/yr of Alaskan water to China using tankers, retrofitted to food grade cargo. The water is to be bottled in a plant to be built by the company and the Chinese government. The City of San Diego is considering a marine transport demonstration project, where a private company wouldtransport up to 20 taf/yr of water from British Columbia to the City of San Diego using tankers. The demonstration project, if implemented, could providecost and technical data on bulk tanker shipping of water. The U.S. Ocean Pollution Act of 1990, which required phasing out single-hulled oil tankers, presentedan opportunity to make tankers available for conversion into bulk water carriers at reduced costs. Tanker haulage could provide a flexible delivery system for emergency supply of water for coastal areas in the event of earthquakes or droughts.

Gray WaterSome residential wastewater can be directly reused by homeowners as gray water. Gray water can be used in subsurface systems to irrigate lawns, fruit trees, ornamental trees, and shrubs and flowers (in finite amounts, depending on the plant types being irrigated). Water from the bathroom sink, washingmachine, bathtub, or shower is generally safe to reuse. Care must be taken so that people and pets do not come in contact with gray water. Food irrigated by gray water subsurface systems should be rinsed and cooked before being eaten. Gray water has been used by some homeowners in coastal urban areas during extreme drought to save their landscaping. In the past, health concerns and lack of information limited use of gray water. In 1992, the Legislature amended the Water Code to allow graywater systems in residential buildings subject to appropriate standards and with the approval of local jurisdictions. There appears to be limited interest in exploring gray water as an option beyond listing its use as a potential urban BMP.

Watershed Management on National Forest Lands National forest lands provide about half of the State’s runoff. A Department study of vegetation

manag ement found that thinning trees and shrubs from 33,000 acres of foothill watershed above Lake Oroville might increase average annual runoff by 2.5 taf. USFS6-37 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### estimates that if national forest management as practiced during the 1980s had been practiced earlier, the averageannual runoff from national forests would have been increased by about 360 taf (an increase of about 1 percent). Without new storage facilities, only a fraction of this amount would contribute to water supply. Forest management proposals prepared on behalf of the biomass power industry call for removing excessdead material and invasive species from the forest understory and thinning of the trees themselves. Tree thinning would produce fuel for the biomass power industry. These proposals attempt to return forests to their pre-fire exclusion condition, achieving wildfire reduction and wildlife and water supply benefits. From a water supply perspective, extensive areas of land would have to be managed to increase statewide watersupplies. The maximum rate of forest evapotranspiration is reached at about 65 percent tree and shrub coverdensity. To achieve water savings, it would be necessary to thin trees and shrubs to reduce cover to lessthan 65 percent, requiring detailed evaluation of potential environmental impacts. Watershed management would require ongoing treatment of forest vegetation to prevent loss of water yield due to regrowth of trees and shrubs.Currently, no local water agencies are actively pursuing forest management as a component of their futuresupply. The potential environmental impacts and institutional difficulties of establishing a forest management program suggest that it would be carried out as part of a multipurpose program whose mainobjectives would be timber management or fire suppression rather than water supply.
Long-Range Weather Forecasting

Accurate advance weather information—extending weeks, months, and even seasons ahead—wouldbe invaluable for planning all types of water operations. Had it been known, for instance, that 1976 and 1977 were going to be extremely dry years, or that the drought would end in 1977, water operations couldhave been planned somewhat differently and the impacts of the drought could have been lessened. The response to the 1987-92 drought could have been modified to store more water in the winter of 1986- 87 and to use more of the remaining reserves in 1992, the last year of the drought. The potential benefits of dependable long-range weather forecasts could be calculated in hundreds of millions of dollars, and their value would be national. Hence, research programs to investigate and develop forecasting capability would most appropriately be conducted at the national level. The National Weather Service routinely issues 30 and 90 day forecasts; the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego (until recently) and Creighton University in Omaha,Nebraska, make experimental forecasts. The predictions have not been sufficiently reliable for water project operation. Predictions may be improved by research on global weather patterns, including the El Niño Southern Oscillation in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

Summary of Statewide Supply Augmentation Options The preceding sections evaluated statewide water management options, including demand reduction measures and large-scale water supply augmentationmeasures that would provide supply to multiple beneficiaries. Demand reduction and water recycling options are shown in the regional option tabulationsin Chapters 7–9, since these options would be implemented by individual local agencies in their serviceareas. Table 6-10 summarizes options likely to be implemented by 2020 to meet statewide needs. Because thesestatewide options would provide new water, the opportunity exists for the options’ effectiveness to be multiplied through regional reapplication. Therefore, the options would provide regional applied water gains that are greater than the gains shown in Table 6-10.

CALFED Statewide options include actions that could be taken by CALFED to develop new water supplies. The water supply yield shown for the CALFED Bay-Deltaprogram’s preferred alternative is necessarily a placeholder, as a final program environmental document for the Bay-Delta solution has not been completed. The CALFED placeholder does not address specifics of which upstream of Delta storage facilities might be selected, or how conjunctive use programs might beoperated. The placeholder assumes dual Delta conveyance (Alternative 3) and approximately 3 maf of storagefacilities, with 1 maf of this storage dedicated for environmental uses. Project yield and operating criteria were defined by a DWRSIM operations study. TheCALFED placeholder used for Bulletin 160-98 quantification of potential CALFED new water supply does not include water use efficiency measures proposed in a technical appendix to CALFED’s March 1998 draft6-38 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### PEIS/PEIR, because the CALFED operations studies used to quantify program water supply benefits did not incorporate those demand reductions.
Other Statewide Options Other likely statewide options include specificprojects to improve SWP water supply reliability, water marketing through the Department’s DWB, andtwo multipurpose reservoirs. A third potential multipurpose reservoir option, an enlarged Shasta Lake, was not included as a likely option because further studiesare needed to quantify the water supply and flood control benefits associated with different potential reservoirsizes. Preliminary studies suggest that a 9 maf enlargement of Shasta Lake would yield 760 taf in averageyears and 940 taf in drought years. Additional evaluation of this option is recommended. The two multipurpose reservoir projects included as statewide options – Auburn Reservoir and enlarged Millerton Lake (Friant Dam)—were included as likelyoptions to recognize the interrelationship between water supply needs and the Central Valley’s flood protectionneeds. It is recognized that both projects may have controversial aspects and that neither of them is inexpensive. However, both projects offer enough benefits to justify serious consideration. The lead time for planning and implementing any large reservoir project is long, and itwould take almost to this Bulletin’s 2020 planning horizon for the projects to be constructed. The identity of the specific entity(ies) that might implement the two multipurpose reservoir projects is uncertain. USBR, as the owner of the existing Friant Dam and as the federal agency having authorization for operating Auburn, would presumably be a participant. The implementing entity could be a partnership of some combination of federal/State/local agencies.
Allocating Options Yield Among Hydrologic RegionsIn Tables 6-11 and 6-12, yields from likely statewide supply augmentation options were allocated among potentially participating hydrologic regionsto illustrate how the supplies might be used. Potential supply from a Friant Dam enlargement was shown as remaining in the San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake Regions, where existing Friant supplies are used. For Auburn Dam and CALFED, supply was divided among hydrologic regions served byCVP and SWP facilities. Auburn could also provide supplies for foothill communities that are too small to develop projects on their own, as discussed in Chapter 8. (In neither option is it assumed that the CVP or SWP would contract for the supply— only that conveyance facilities exist to make the water available to potential users.) The Bulletin makes no attempt to allocate costs of these projects between flood protection and water supply.

Uncertainties in the Bulletin Planning Process Planning about the future is subject to uncertainty. In response to public comments, this section brieflyanalyzes the effects of some uncertainties on the shortage forecasts and potential options presented in Bulletin␣ 160-98.Water use forecasts rely on assumptions about population growth, urban per-capita water use, land use and T

ABLE 6-10 Statewide Supply Augmentation Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020 a

Options Potential Gain (taf) Average Drought
CALFED Bay-Delta Program 100 175 SWP Improvements

Interim South Delta Program 125 100 Conjunctive Use Programs — 55 Water Marketing (Drought Water Bank) — 250 Multipurpose Reservoir Projects

Auburn Dam 620 370 Friant Dam Enlargement 90 0 Total 935 950

a Demand reduction options are shown in the regional option tabulations in Chapters 7–9. Demand reduction options would be impl emented by individual local agencies in their service areas.6-39 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### cropping patterns, and environmental water requirements. Environmental water requirements are the most difficult to forecast, as they are driven by regulatory and legislative processes. Implementation of CVPIA and SWRCB’s Bay-Delta Plan, new ESA restrictions, and FERC relicensing/electric utility deregulation are actionsthat could significantly modify forecasted environmental demands with the Bulletin 160-98 planning period.In addition to forecasting water demand components, the Bulletin must also characterize future water management options. The CALFED Bay-Deltaprogram and the draft CRB 4.4 Plan are still in development. These programs have been represented by placeholder throughout the Bulletin. Even if finaldecisions on the programs were made in the near future, both are long-term programs that will be implemented in phases; some phases may extend beyond this Bulletin’s planning horizon. To illustrate the effects of uncertainties on theBulletin’s water budgets, maximum and minimum applied water shortages associated with potential implementation of SWRCB’s Bay-Delta water rights proceeding and CALFED are shown in Table 6-13. For comparison, the Bulletin’s forecasted 2020 applied water shortages are 2.4 maf in average years and 6.2␣ af in drought years with existing facilities and programs.As discussed in earlier chapters, there are no data available at this time to quantify site-specific impacts ofnew ESA listings, FERC relicensing, and electric utility deregulation. T

ABLE 6-11 Likely Statewide Supply Augmentation Options by Hydrologic Region 2020 Average Year (taf)

Region CALFED ISDP a Conjunctive DWB b Auburn Friant Total
Use a,b Dam Dam

North Coast

— — — ———— San Francisco Bay — 8

— — — — 8 Central Coast 2 1

— — 2 — 5 South Coast 15 68 — — 67 — 150 Sacramento River — — — — 85 — 85 San Joaquin River — — — — — 39 39 Tulare Lake 70 35 — — 310 51 466 North Lahontan — — —

———— South Lahontan 12 10 — — 152 — 174 Colorado River 1 3

— — 4 — 8 Total 100 125 — — 620 90 935

a SWP Improvements

b The options provide only drought year supplies

T ABLE 6-12 Likely Statewide Supply Augmentation Options by Hydrologic Region 2020 Drought Year (taf)

Region CALFED ISDP a Conjunctive DWB Auburn Friant Total
Use a Dam Dam

North Coast — — —

———— San Francisco Bay — 7 18 75 — — 100 Central Coast 4 1 — 51 1 — 57 South Coast 26 54 22 3 39 — 144 Sacramento River — — — — 51 — 51 San Joaquin River — — —

———— Tulare Lake 123 28 — 51 185 — 387 North Lahontan — — —

———— South Lahontan 21 7 15 70 91 — 204 Colorado River 1 3 — — 3 — 7 Total 175 100 55 250 370 — 950

a SWP Improvements6-40 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### Bulletin 160-98 assumes SWRCB’s Order WR 95- 6 as the prevailing Bay-Delta standard, with the CVP and SWP meeting the standards under the terms of the Bay-Delta Accord. The alternatives contained in SWRCB’s draft EIR for the water rights proceeding would broaden the responsibility for meeting standardsto include additional Central Valley water users. Doing so can entail different flow regimes in Valley andDelta waterways, resulting in changes in water supplies. To capture the effects of uncertainties of SWRCB’s water rights proceeding, flow Alternative 5 in SWRCB’s draft EIR was used to determine the maximum shortage; flow Alternative 6 was used tocompute the minimum shortage. Under flow Alternative 5, Bay-Delta standards would be met through monthly average flow requirements established for each of the major watersheds tributary to the Delta. Under flow Alternative 6, Bay-Delta standards would be metsolely by operation of the CVP and SWP. Flow objectives at Vernalis on the San Joaquin River would bemet by the CVP through releases from the DeltaMendota Canal via the Newman Waterway into the San Joaquin River.

Several large-scale environmental restoration programs are just beginning. These programs may entail significant acquisition of agricultural land and its conversion to habitat uses, as well as extensive water acquisition for environmental purposes. It is too soon to be able to quantify their water use impacts; these are among the uncertainties that must be resolved over time.

T ABLE 6-13 Effects of Alternative Assumptions on 2020 Applied Water Shortages (taf)

Applied Water Shortage Range Region Average Drought

North Coast 0 194 San Francisco Bay 0-13 276-295 Central Coast 172-176 270-276 South Coast 944-1,053 1,270-1,441 Sacramento River 0-85 739-989 San Joaquin River 63-122 711-769 Tulare Lake 264-1,027 1,619-2,071 North Lahontan 10 128 South Lahontan 270-285 303-325 Colorado River 147-149 157-162 Total (rounded) 1,870-2,920 5,670-6,650 Implementation of any of the future water management options discussed in the Bulletin would be subject to completing appropriate environmental documentation and obtaining the required permits and approvals, including compliance with ESA requirements. The Tipton Kangaroo rat, listed as endangered under both ESA and CESA, is an example of a listed species found in parts of the San Joaquin Valley where groundwater conjunctive use projects might be planned.6-41 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### For CALFED implementation, the Bulletin’splaceholder assumes dual Delta conveyance (Alternative 3) and approximately 3 maf of surface water storagefacilities. Project yield and operating criteria were defined by an operations study which assumed that 1 maf of new storage would be operated to meet CALFED’s ecosystem restoration program targets. The maximum shortage condition results from assuming that no new water supply is provided by CALFED (nostorage facilities are constructed). The minimum shortage results from assuming approximately 6 maf ofsurface and groundwater storage. (CALFED’s assumption for this scenario is that 1.25 maf of new storage would be operated to meet ERP targets.)

Options for Future Environmental Habitat Enhancement . . .

A number of programs designed to restore and/ or enhance environmental resources are in various stages of implementation. These programs vary in scope, geographic region, and objective. Some of theseprograms provide environmental water supplies; others involve structural measures, such as placing spawning gravel or constructing fish screens. Some of these programs are legislatively driven; others haveresulted from collaborative efforts among stakeholders. Table 6-14 illustrates the emphasis now beingplaced on environmental restoration actions, by identifying a variety of funding sources available for fishery-related environmental restoration actions.This section identifies and describes programs expected to provide future environmental benefits. This section covers a representative sample, and is notmeant to be a comprehensive listing of all possibilities statewide.

Central Valley Project Improvement Act
Some CVPIA environmental restoration actions,such as water acquisition and fish screening, are applicable to the entire Central Valley. Site-specific projects,such as construction of the Shasta Dam TCD, are described in Chapters 7–9. The May 1997 draft Anadromous Fish RestorationPlan proposed habitat restoration actions such as spawning gravel placement and stream channel restoration, acquisition of land for wildlife habitat, construction offish screens and facilities to improve passage of migrating anadromous fish, and development of plans to prevent habitat degradation due to sedimentation and urbanization. The plan also included target instream flows for rivers and streams in the Central Valley and the Delta. The three tools available for USBR to meetthese flow objectives are reoperation of the CVP, dedication and management of 800 taf of CVP yield annually, and water acquisition. Water acquisition efforts were described in the water marketing section of this chapter. Tools available to meet CVPIA’s broad goalof doubling anadromous fish populations in the Central Valley include the many physical habitat restorationactions specified in the act, as well as substantial funding from the CVPIA Restoration Fund and from general congressional appropriations. USBR and USFWS have contributed funding forlocal agency and privately owned fish screen installation projects and planning studies as part of the anadromous fish screening program. About 20 grants have been executed to date for screening projects and feasibility studies of screening alternatives. Examples of completed and pending projects are described in Chapter 5. USBR and USFWS have completed twospawning gravel replenishment projects on the Sacramento River below Keswick Dam. Additional projects are being planned for the other rivers authorized inthe act. The gravel replenishment actions are analoRestoring and enhancing riparian habitat helps sustain healthy populations of the species that rely on this habitat. Beavers are an example of a species dependent on riparian habitat.6-42 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98Program:CVPIAAnadromous FishRestoration ProgramResponsibleAgencies:USBRand USFWSProjects/Program Funded:This program funds environmental restorationactions contributing to the goal of doubling natural production of anadromousfish in Central Valley rivers and streams. The program gives first priority tomeasures which protect and restore natural channel and riparian habitat valuesthrough habitat restoration actions; augment river and stream flows; andimplement supporting measures mandated by CVPIA Section 3406(b).Selection Criteria:None specified in statute.CVPIACongressionalappropriations fromCVPIA RestorationFund and Energy andWater DevelopmentFundVaries (actualexpenditures:federal FY 1995,$0.8 million; FY1996 $1.4 million)Program:CVPIA(State cost-sharingprogram)ResponsibleAgencies:DWRand DFG, incoordination withUSBR andUSFWSProjects/Program Funded:This program funds environmental restorationprojects with mandatory State cost-sharing under CVPIA Section 3406.Projects include the Shasta Dam temperature control device, Red BluffDiversion Dam fish passage actions, spawning gravel restoration projects, andfish screens.Selection Criteria:Projects must be capital outlay actions with mandatoryState cost-sharing under CVPIA. California and the United States haveexecuted a master cost-sharing agreement covering crediting and transferringfunds for the restoration actions.CVPIAProposition 2041994 State-federalcost-sharing agreementGeneral obligationbonds$93 millionProgram:Category IIIProgramResponsibleAgencies:CALFED agenciesProjects/Programs Funded:Nonflow related projects to protect and improveBay-Delta ecological resources.Selection Criteria:Selection is based on RFP process.TABLE6-14Environmental Restoration FundingProgram and Projects/Program Funded Authorizing Funding Source FundingResponsible Selection Criteria Legislation or AllocationAgenciesAgreementProposition 204provided $60million for Statecontribution.Bay-Delta AccordProposition 204, localwater agencycontributions,congressionalappropriations6-43 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98TABLE6-14Environmental Restoration Funding (continued)Program and Projects/Program Funded Authorizing Funding Source FundingResponsible Selection Criteria Legislation or AllocationAgenciesAgreementProgram:CALFEDEcosystemRestorationProgramResponsibleAgencies:CALFEDagenciesProjects/Program Funded:To be determined, but could include fish screens,spawning gravel restoration projects, and riparian habitat enhancementprojects. The funds are not available until an EIR/EIS and a State-federal costsharing agreement are completed.Selection Criteria:To be determined.Proposition 204General obligationbonds$390 millionProgram:Delta PumpingPlant FishProtectionAgreement(Four-PumpsAgreement)ResponsibleAgencies:DWRand DFGProjects/Program Funded:Fish screens, rearing striped bass, gravelrestoration projects, hatchery and other actions to benefit aquatic resources,particularly salmon and striped bass. Geographic scope includes the CentralValley and the Delta.Selection Criteria:Actions that benefit aquatic resources, particularly chinooksalmon, steelhead, and striped bass. Priority will be given to measures on theSan Joaquin River system. The Department and DFG staff review projectproposals and submit them to an advisory committee composed ofrepresentatives from SWP contractors and the environmental and fishingcommunities. Recommendations are presented to the directors of theDepartment and DFG for approval.Agreement between theDepartment and DFGto offset direct fishlosses in relation toBanks Pumping Plant,dated December 1986SWP fundsadministered by theDepartment$15 million for fishpopulation recoveryprogram, andadditional annualfunding tocompensate forannual fish lossescaused by the BanksPumping PlantaProgram:Tracy FishAgreementResponsibleAgencies:USBRand DFGProjects/Program Funded:This agreement between DFG and USBRimplements measures to reduce, offset, or replace direct losses of chinooksalmon and striped bass in the Delta as a result of Tracy Pumping Plantdiversions.Selection Criteria:A committee composed of representatives from USBR,DFG, and USFWS screens project proposals. Projects are funded uponrecommendation by DFG Director to USBR.Tracy Fish Agreementbetween USBR andDFG, dated June 1992Congressionalappropriations foroperations andmaintenance of CVP,administered by USBRApproximately $1million per year.USBR has providedfunding totaling$6.5 million during1992-976-44 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98Program:CommercialSalmon StampAccountResponsibleAgency:DFGTABLE6-14Environmental Restoration Funding (continued)Program and Projects/Program Funded Authorizing Funding Source FundingResponsible Selection Criteria Legislation or AllocationAgenciesAgreementProjects/Program Funded:Projects to restore salmon populations throughhabitat restoration and breeding, and projects which provide public educationon the importance and biology of salmon. Examples of eligible restorationprojects include spawning gravel restoration, bank stabilization, riparianrevegetation, fish passage improvement, installation of fish ladders and screens,and short-term salmon breeding.Selection Criteria:Projects are evaluated based on benefits to fisheryresources, need for work in a particular watershed for target species, and projectcosts. Project proposals are evaluated and prioritized first by DFG. Projects forsalmon habitat restoration and breeding are sent to the Commercial SalmonTrollers Advisory Committee. There are two subaccounts in the program—acommercial salmon stamp dedicated account, and an augmented salmon stampdedicated account. The commercial salmon stamp dedicated account isstatutorily directed to salmon breeding. Expenditures from the other accountmust meet the recommendations of the advisory committee. Final fundingdecision is by the Director of DFG.Fish and Game CodeSections 7860-7863that impose a stamp feeon commercial salmonfishers, as well ascommercial passengersalmon fishing vesseloperatorsAnnual stamp feewhich ranges from $85to $260 depending onsalmon landingTotal annualrevenue varies from$340,000 to justover $1 million.Program:CaliforniaWildlife,Coastal andPark LandConservationInitiative(Proposition70)ResponsibleAgency:DFGProjects/Program Funded:Projects to restore and enhance salmon streams,and wild trout and native steelhead habitat.Selection Criteria:Similar to salmon stamp program. Project proposals areinitially reviewed by DFG and then sent to the Commercial Salmon TrollersAdvisory Committee and to the Proposition 70 subcommittee (a six-membergroup representing the Commercial Salmon Trollers Advisory Committee andthe California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout) forfunding consideration. Final approval for funding is by the Director of DFG.Proposition 70 of1988bGeneral obligationbondssee footnoteaGenerally, the $15 million funds projects with long-term benefits to fish, while the annual account funds projects to replace fish lost annually at the pumping plant. By 1996, the Department had allocated all of the $15 million andhad spent about $6 million in annual mitigation projects.bState FY 1997-98 was the last year of funding under Proposition 70. DFG received $10 million to restore and enhance salmon streams, and $6 million to restore and enhance wild trout and native steelhead habitat and relatedprojects.6-45 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### gous to an operations and maintenance program, where work would be done periodically on river segmentsidentified as needing more gravel. A monitoring program would be required, both to identify areas that are gravel-limited and to evaluate the effectiveness of the gravel provided. Category III Program The Category III funding program was established as part of the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord to address non-flow factors affecting the health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem. Asteering committee of agricultural, urban, and environmental stakeholders administered the project selection process

T

ABLE 6-15 Sample Projects Funded by Category III Program

Project / Program Proponent Category III Funds

Battle Creek Restoration DFG $730,000

Durham Mutual Fish Screen and Fish Ladder Durham Mutual Water Company up to $416,500 M&T/Parrott Pump Relocation and Fish Screen Ducks Unlimited, Inc. $1,550,000 Biologically Integrated Orchard Systems Program Comm. Alliance w/ Family Farmers Fnd. $660,000 Sacramento R. Habitat Restoration (Colusa to Verona) Wildlife Conservation Board $400,000 Suisun Marsh Screening Project Suisun Resource Conservation Dist. up to $950,000 Sacramento River Winter-Run Broodstock Program Pacific Coast Fed. of Fishermen’s Assoc. $300,000 Western Canal Water District Butte Creek Siphon WCWD $2,739,000 Prospect Island Restoration DWR up to $2,535,000 Sacramento R. Habitat Restoration (Verona to Collinsville) DWR/The Reclamation Board $500,000 Princeton Pumping Plant Fish Screens Reclamation District 1004 $75,000

Princeton-Codora-Glenn/Provident ID Fish Screen PCGID/PID $5,575,000 Cosumnes River Preserve (Valensin Acquisition) The Nature Conservancy $1,500,000

Lower Butte Creek Habitat Restoration The Nature Conservancy $130,000

Sherman Island Levee Habitat Demonstration DWR up to $480,000 Ecological Functions of Restored Wetlands in the Delta University of Washington $475,000 Molecular Genetic Identification of Chinook Salmon Bodega Marine Laboratory $450,000 Runs, Focused on Spring-Run Integrity

Decker Island Tidal Wetland Enhancement Port of Sacramento $399,000 Yolo Bypass Habitat Restoration Study DFG $226,000 Clear Creek Property Acquisition Assistance BLM up to $211,000 Research Program to Address the Introduction of San Francisco Estuary Institute $197,000 Non-Indigenous Aquatic Species Sacramento River and Major Tributaries Corridor Mapping Calif. State University, Chico $145,200 Fish Screen for Unscreened Diversion on Yuba R. Browns Valley Irrigation District $114,750 Effects of Toxics on Central Valley Chinook Salmon Fox Environmental Management $110,000 Barrier Intake Screen at Wilkins Slough Diversions Reclamation District 108 $100,000 San Joaquin River Main Lift Canal Intake Banta-Carbona Irrigation District $100,000 Channel Fish Screen Facility

Adams Dam Fish Screen and Fish Ladder Rancho Esquon Partners up to $100,000

Gorrill Dam Fish Screen and Fish Ladder Gorrill Land Company up to $100,000 Fish Screen Testing for Small Unscreened Diversions Buell and Associates $90,000 Watershed Management Strategy for Butte Creek Calif. State University, Chico $83,000 Establish Battle Creek Watershed Conservancy Western Shasta Resource Consv. Dist. $50,000 Inventory of Rearing Habitat for Juvenile Salmon Calif. State University, Sacramento $24,500

Total $21,515,9506-46 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### in 1995 and 1996. During this period, the program funded 32 restoration projects, including land acquisition, fish screening, habitat restoration, and a toxicity study. In1997, CALFED became the lead agency for implementing the Category III program. Program funding sources include $10 million per year (for 3 years) from water users and $60 million from Proposition 204 funding. The Ecosystem Roundtable, a subcommittee of the Bay-Delta Advisory Council, provides input onselection of Category III projects. Table 6-15 is a sampling of projects funded through 1997. Often, projects that receive part of their funding from the Category III program are also funded in part by CVPIA’s AFRP, the 4-Pumps program, or other restoration programs.The Prospect Island restoration project is an example of a project funded by Category III. Prospect Island, an approximately 1,600-acre tract in theDelta, has a project area of about 1,300 acres in agricultural land use. The project’s objectives are to create wetland and shaded riverine aquatic habitat,restore fish and wildlife habitat, and decrease maintenance costs for the Sacramento Deepwater ShipChannel levee. Actions include flooding the interior of the island to create small internal islands, stabilizing existing levees by flattening the slopes, and planting vegetation to provide erosion control. The project is sponsored by USACE (under WRDA Section 1135 authority) and the Department. USBR purchased the project site with CVPIA funds in 1995. After restoration is complete, USFWS will manage the property in conjunction with the nearby Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. Category IIIhas established an endowment fund of $1.25 million for long-term project maintenance.

CALFED Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Program CALFED’s Ecosystem Restoration Program is toprovide the foundation for a long-term ecosystem restoration effort that may take several decades toimplement. The ERP is included in each of the alternatives being evaluated in the programmatic EIR/EIS. Some proposed actions contained in the plan include: • Breeching levees for intertidal wetlands. • Constructing setback levees to increase floodplain and riparian corridors. • Limiting further subsidence of Delta islands by implementing measures such as restoring wetlands to halt the oxidation of peat soils. • Controlling introduced species and reducing the probability of additional introductions. • Acquiring land or water from willing sellers for ecosystem improvements. • Providing incentives to encourage environmentally friendly agricultural practices. Congress authorized $430 million over the next three years for the federal share of CALFED programs such as Category III and initial implementation of the ERP, and appropriated $85 million for federal fiscalyear 1998. Proposition 204 also included $390 million for implementation of the ERP. This funding will not be available until after CALFED’s PEIR/EIS has been completed.CALFED operations studies, in addition to modeling storage and conveyance elements, also model CALFED’s ecosystem restoration common program element through specification of ERP environmental flow targets. In the operations studies, water supplies required to meet ERP flow targets are provided fromnew storage facilities dedicated to environmental restoration. Water acquisitions from willing sellers are assumed to fully meet flow targets when sufficient flow is unavailable from environmental storage releases.The ERP outlines several environmental flow objectives to support sustainable populations of plant and animal species in the Bay-Delta. The ERP identifiesmonthly and 10-day flow event targets for Delta outflow and for many of the river basins within theBay-Delta watershed. As a simplification, CALFED operations studies focus on flow targets on the Sacramento River at Freeport. (The Freeport flow target is the most significant in terms of total instream flow volume.) Instream flow targets not modeled by the operations studies include: Sacramento River at Knights Landing, Feather River at Gridley, Yuba River at Marysville, American River at Nimbus Dam, Stanislaus River at Goodwin Dam, Tuolumne River at LaGrange, and Merced River at Shaffer Bridge. The additional river flows targeted by the ERP would occur through CVPIAinstream flow requirements, releases from new environmental storage created under the CALFED program, and water acquisition from willing sellers.CALFED operations studies assume that new storage volume is split among the three water using sectors. The placeholder study assumes 3 maf of new surfacewater storage, with 1 maf dedicated for environmental water uses. Environmental storage is operated to maximize average annual yield by not imposing carryover provisions. Water released from storage to meet ERP flow targets is not diverted at the Delta.6-47 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### Other Environmental Enhancement Options

SWP’s Sherman and Twitchell Islands Wildlife Management Plans The objective of the management plans is to control subsidence and soil erosion on Twitchell and Sherman Islands, while providing wetland and riparian habitat. Theplans also provide recreational opportunities such as walking trails and wildlife viewing. Subsidence would be reduced by minimizing oxidation and erosion of peat soils on the islands and by r eplacing present agricultural cultivation practices with land use management practices designed to stabilize the soil. Altering land use practices on Twitchell Island could provide up to 3,000 acres of wetland and riparian habitat.
Fish Protection AgreementsUSBR and the Department have entered into agreements with DFG to mitigate fish losses at Delta export facilities. Subsequent to execution of USBR’s agreementwith DFG, CVPIA directed USBR to substantially upgrade Tracy Pumping Plant’s fish protection facilities and to construct a new screening facility. Planning studies are now under way for a major upgrade of the existing facility. The Department’s 4 Pumps agreement with DFG has funded, or cost-shared in many habitat restoration actions upstream of the Delta, as described previously. Discussions are presently ongoing regarding the possibility of using the remainder of the agreement’s capital outlay funds to construct a fish hatchery on the Tuolumne River.

Upper Sacramento River Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Restoration Program As described in Chapter 2, elements of the 1989 plan prepared under this program were incorporated in CVPIA, or are being considered in forums such as theCALFED program. In 1992, the Resources Agency reconvened the SB 1086 Advisory Council. The council’scurrent charge is two-part: to serve in an advisory capacity to State agencies responsible for actions likely to affect the Upper Sacramento River and adjacent lands, and to complete the council’s earlier work on riparian habitat protection and management. The goals for thelatter charge include establishing a riparian habitat management area and a governance or management entity for the area. Recommendations are being developed for the boundaries of a riparian habitat conservation area, management objectives by river reach, and the type of governance organization that could most effectively carry out the management plan.

Financing Local Water Management Options . . .

Implementing and maintaining many of the options discussed in the Bulletin will require a large commitmentof funds. When a local agency is confronted with additional expenditures for water management options, it must decide whether the costs of these options will be paid from current or accumulated revenues (pay-as-you-go),or be financed with the proceeds of debt repaid from future revenues. Historically, local water agencies relied on several methods for long-term debt financing, including general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, and assessment bonds. Innovative long-term debt financing strategies, such as bond pools, are being increasingly used. Financial costs are different from economic costs. Financial costs are the actual expenditures required bya water agency to repay the debt (with interest) incurred to finance the capital costs of an option and to meet operations and maintenance costs. Thus, the objective of financial feasibility studies is to solve cash flow problems. In contrast, economic costs reflect the costs of committing resources needed to construct,operate, and maintain an option for its life, to whomever they may accrue. Economic feasibility studies areused to compare the relative merit of options, to determine the most economically efficient size or configuration of an option, and to allocate costs among beneficiaries. It is possible for options to be financially feasible and economically unjustified, or vice versa. For example, even though an agency can generate the funds to pay for an option, this does not necessarily mean that the option is economically the best of availableoptions. On the other hand, an option may be economically justified but it cannot be financed because of existing debt limitations. Financial feasibility is becoming an increasingly important consideration in water supply management planning for a number of reasons.6-48 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### •␣ Future water demands are expected to exceed present supplies. There is thus a need to developwater supply augmentation and demand management programs. •␣ Compliance with new EPA and DHS drinkingwater standards is likely to increase capital expenditures by municipal water agencies. •␣ Some water suppliers have deferred maintenance and/or replacement of aging facilities to the pointwhere increased operation, maintenance, and replacement costs are being incurred. •␣ Since the 1980s, the federal government has been reducing aid to state and local governments for large-scale water resources projects, a trend which is expected to continue.•␣ Since the early 1990s, the Legislature has been shifting property tax revenues away from counties and special districts and into the State’s general fund.

Sources of Revenues Whether capital improvements are funded on apay-as-you-go basis or through debt financing, a water agency must have sufficient revenues to cover capital costs as well as ongoing operation and maintenance costs. The major sources of revenue for publicly-ownedsystems include water rates charged to customers, property taxes (although use of these has been limited since passage of Proposition 13), and benefit assessments through special improvement districts. (See Chapter 2 for discussion of Proposition 218 and its impacts on assessments.) Because of voter opposition to furthertax increases, local governments have increasingly relied upon other revenue sources such as development impact fees from new construction, standby fees, and fees for special services. These alternatives are typically only feasible for agencies with large service areas, sothat income from these fees will be significant and reliable. Investor-owned water agencies and mutual water companies are almost exclusively dependent upon water rates to generate revenues. Tables 6-16 and 6-17 show significant sources of revenue for water agencies by type of ownership and by agency size.

Financing MethodsThe ability of a public agency to access different financing methods depends upon the enabling legislation under which the agency was formed. Among other things, the enabling legislation will indicate the agency’s: •␣ Authority to issue bonds, the vote required to authorize issuance, and any limitations on theamounts of bonds or on the amount of indebtedness;•␣ Powers and methods of tax assessments, including whether the assessments are on an ad valorembasis (a tax based on value of property) or are levied according to benefits, and the type of property(land and/or improvements) upon which the assessments may be levied;

T

ABLE 6-17 Significant Sources of Revenue to Water Agencies by Water Agency Size

Revenue Sources Small Intermediate Medium Large

Water Rates X X X X Property Taxes X X X Special Improvement District Assessments X X X Development Impact Fees X Customer Hookup Fees X Special Service Fees X T

ABLE 6-16 Significant Sources of Revenue to Water Agencies by Type of Ownership

Revenue Sources Public Investor Mutual

Water Rates X X X Property Taxes X Special Improvement District Assessments X Development Impact Fees X Customer Hookup Fees X Special Service Fees X X6-49 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### •␣ Revenue sources, including charges, rates or tolls for service or commodities, or sales and leases of property; and•␣ Area over which it can collect taxes and/or sell services or commodities.

Self-FinancingSelf-financing is a form of non-debt financing. A water agency can use reserves generated from accumulated revenues and other income to pay for improvements ratherthan incurring debt. The pay-as-you-go approach generally works best for small or recurring capital expendituresthat can be reasonably accommodated in an agency’s annual budget. For major capital improvements, a debt financing approach would be more appropriate.

Short-Term Debt FinancingShort-term debt financing typically includes borrowing instruments with maturities of less than 1 year.Short-term borrowing can be used for cash flow borrowing, financing for capital improvements with relatively short lives, and interim financing for long-term capital improvements. Revenue and tax anticipation notes can be used when an agency is experiencing cash flow problems because revenues are occurring unevenly during the fiscal year. Revenue and tax anticipation notescan be used to pay current expenses, with note repayment coming from revenues received later in the fiscal year. Capital items with relatively short lives can be financed through the use of commercial paper— short-term, unsecured promissory notes backed by a line of credit from one or more banks. Short-term financingmethods can provide interim financing for the construction of capital improvements which are planned to be financed on a permanent basis at a later date. Examples of interim financing include grant anticipation notes (where the permanent funding could be a grant from another government agency) and bond anticipation notes (where the permanent funding will come through the issuance of long term debt such as bonds).

Conventional Long-Term Debt Financing Conventional long-term debt financing methodsinclude general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, assessment bonds, and lease or installment sales agreements, all of which are typically used by publicly owned utilities.General obligation bonds are used to finance improvements benefitting the community as a whole, andare secured by the full faith and credit of the agency. General obligation bonds issued by public water agencies are secured by a pledge of the agency’s ad valorem taxing power. Passage of Proposition 13 and its requirement fortwo-thirds voter approval have limited the ability of agencies to assess additional property taxes which would be needed to fulfill this pledge, reducing the use of thesebonds. General obligation bond limits are often established by a water agency’s enabling legislation. Revenue bonds do not require the agency’s pledge of full faith and credit. Debt service for these bonds is paid exclusively from a specific revenue source, suchas the revenue obtained from the operation of the financed project. Because revenue bonds do not require voter approval, they are now more commonly used than general obligation bonds.Assessment bonds are issued to finance capital improvements and debt service, are paid through assessments levied upon real property benefitted by suchimprovements, and are secured by a lien on that property. Under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Actof 1982, water agencies may establish a community facilities district and levy a special tax upon land withinthat district. This tax can be used to finance capital improvements (generally distribution systems), new services, or to repay bonds issued for such purposes. Passage of Proposition 218 in 1996 substantially changed the way in which property-related assessments can beimposed by local agencies. In the future, these assessments must be subjected to a vote of the property owners. Lease or installment revenue bonds have become common as taxpayer resistance and State statutes havelimited the taxing and borrowing ability of local agencies, thus reducing use of general obligation bonds. InCalifornia, a form of a lease revenue bond is the Certificate of Participation. With a COP, facilities are built or acquired by an agency of the city, and leased to the city, for which the city makes lease payments equal to the principal repayment plus interest. A city, non-profit corporation, or a community redevelopment agency must be used as the intermediary leasing entity, but that agency must give the facilities to the city free and clear without added expense when the indebtedness is repaid.

Innovative Long-term Debt FinancingNew long-term debt financing strategies are being developed to assist water agencies in obtaining funding for water system improvements. Bond poolsincrease access to bond funds for smaller water agencies who might not otherwise be able to obtain funding. Bond pools use a JPA to combine several small bond6-50 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### offerings into a single financial package, minimizing the cost of bond issuance for participating wateragencies. The Association of California Water Agencies and the WateReuse Association offer such financial packages.Privatization occurs when the private sector becomes involved in design, financing, construction, ownership and/or operation of a public facility such as a water system improvement. Privatization can offer advantages. For example, it may provide cheaper ormore accessible financing, and it may provide substantial tax advantages to the private sector. Privately arranged financing may be an attractive option when a publicly owned water agency’s access to the financial markets is diminished or nonexistent, as is the case for many smaller utilities. Another potential opportunity for water agenciesinvolves the provision of funds by one agency for water system or on-farm improvements by another agency, in exchange for use of the water conserved. An example is the agreement between MWDSC and IID, whereMWDSC is funding IID system improvements in exchange for a 35-year right to use the waters which have been conserved.

Credit Substitution and Enhancement Although not financing methods, credit substitution and enhancement can assist local agencies in obtaining financing and in lowering the costs of financing. Credit substitution occurs when an agency substitutes its own credit for that of a local agency that is seeking to finance a project. The local agency can improve the quality of itsbonds and obtain them at a lower cost. Credit enhancement occurs when an agency guarantees that the debt service obligations will be met, which can be a low-cost and effective way for states to assist local agencies.

T

ABLE 6-18 Major State and Federal Financial Assistance Programs

Program Eligible Projects Administering Agencies

State Safe Drinking Water Bond Laws Grants/low interest loans for DWR/DHS public water system improvements

Water Conservation Bond Laws Low interest loans for water DWR/SWRCB conservation, groundwater recharge, local water supply, and water recycling projects Agricultural Drainage Water Management Low interest loans for agricultural SWRCB
Loan drainage projects Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act of Low interest loans and grants for DWR/SWRCB 1996 (Proposition 204) water conservation, groundwater recharge and water recycling projects

Federal Water and Wastewater Disposal Loans and grants to small Farmers Home Administration Loans/Grants communities for water and wastewater facilities Community Development Block Grants to large communities for Housing and Urban Development Grants (HUD) water and wastewater facilities through Department of Housing and Community Development Small Business Administration Loans Loans for private water system Small Business Administration improvements

Federal/State

Clean Water Act SRF Low interest loans for water SWRCB recycling projects Safe Drinking Water Act SRF Low interest loans for public DHS water system improvements6-51 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### State and Federal Financial Assistance Programs State and federal financial assistance programs (loansand grants) are available. These programs target varied objectives including safe drinking water, water conservation, water recycling, and water supply development (for example, groundwater recharge projects). Each of these programs has criteria to determine project eligibility and funding.Most of the state and federal programs do not provide funding to investor-owned and mutual companies because thisis considered to be adding value to privately owned businesses. The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization may provide about $12 billion from 1997 through 2003 for current and new drinking water programs, including a state revolving fund of $1 billion per year nationally through2003. Table 6-18 shows some major state and federal financial assistance programs available for water system improvements. Proposition 204 included grants to localagencies for a variety of purposes. For example, the Department is administering two programs to provide loans(and in some cases, grants) to local agencies for water conservation/groundwater recharge facilities ($30 million) and local projects ($25 million). SWRCB is administering loans for water recycling.

Relationship Between Financing and Water Agency Ownership and SizeThe types of financing available can vary depending upon the ownership and size of the water agencies.These relationships are discussed below. Table 6-19 summarizes financing methods by type of ownership. Table␣ 6-20 illustrates financing methods typically available to water agencies of different sizes. Table 6-21 summarizes financial assistance programs by ownership
type.

Public Water Agencies In general, public water agencies have access to morefinancing methods than do investor-owned and mutual water companies. Many financing instruments will be tax-exempt for publicly-owned agencies. The larger public agencies can issue tax-exempt notes and bonds, assess property taxes, issue special assessment bonds, and enter into public/private partnerships to finance capital improvements. A smaller public agency may be unable to secure such financing because either the cost of the method (such as the cost of issuing bonds) or the amount of funds needed to make improvements exceeds the ability of its customers to pay. In these cases, the smalleragencies need to either obtain federal and state assistance, if available, or pursue innovative financing methods. Local public agencies must limit their rates to amounts needed to cover current financing and water costs—they are not allowed to make a profit.

Investor-Owned Water Utilities Investor-owned utilities can issue equity stock andsell taxable bonds. The California Public Utilities Commission must give authorization prior to the issuanceof stocks or bonds by an investor-owned water comT

ABLE 6-19 Financing Methods Available to Water Agencies by Type of Ownership

Method Public Investor Mutual Self-Financing XXX Short-Term Financing Fixed Rate Notes X X a X a Commercial Paper X X a X a Floating Rate Demand Notes X X a X a Conventional Long-Term Financing Equity Shares or Stock X X Bonds (GO and Revenue) X X a X a Lease Revenue X Innovative Long-Term Financing Bond Pools X Privatization X X Water transfers X X X Financial Assistance Programs X X b X b

a Taxable instruments.
b State and federal loan and grant programs have limited applications for private water agencies.6-52 E VALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98



### pany. This method of financing is primarily limited tothe larger investor-owned systems. The smaller investorowned agencies generally do not issue stock and may lack the rate base that would make other financial methods feasible. The CPUC establishes the return on investment that investor-owned utilities are allowed to earn as part ofits rate setting authority. Regulated investor-owned utilities are not able to accumulate reserves. Utilities may use short-and long-term taxable bonds and notes.
Mutual Water Companies A mutual water company is a privately owned company that issues securities in which lot owners are entitled to one share for each lot they own. Mutual water companies have the ability to assessmembers to raise capital. This does not require approval by either the members or an outside agency.The amount of the assessment may be limited, however, by the ability of the customers to pay. As arequirement of formation of a mutual water company, a sinking fund must be established that provides capital replacement of water facilities at the end oftheir useful life. Some of the larger mutual companies may be able to use short- and long-term financing instruments such as taxable bonds and notes.

T

ABLE 6-21 Financial Assistance Programs Available to Water Agencies by Type of Ownership

Programs Public Investor Mutual

State Safe Drinking Water Bond Laws X X a X a Water Conservation Bond Laws X Agricultural Drainage Water Management Loans X Community Development Block Grants X State Revolving Fund for Wastewater X State Revolving Fund for Drinking Water X X X

Federal Water and Wastewater Disposal Loans and Grants X X Community Development Block Grants X Small Business Administration Loans X

a Loans only; grants not provided to privately-owned agencies. T ABLE 6-20 Financing Methods Typically Available to Water Agencies by Water Agency Size

Method Small Intermediate Medium Large Self-Financing X X Short-Term Financing Fixed Rate Notes X Commercial Paper X Floating Rate Demand Notes X Conventional Long-Term Financing Equity Shares or Stock X X Bonds (GO and Revenue) X Lease Revenue Bonds X Innovative Long-Term Financing Bond Pools XXXX Privatization XXXX Water Transfers XXXX Financial Assistance Programs X a X a X a X a

a State and federal loan and grant programs have limited applications for private water agencies.6A-1 A PPENDIX 6A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6A



# Regional Water Budgets with Existing Facilities and Programs

The following tables show the water budgets for each of the State’s ten hydrologic regions with existing facilities and programs. Water use/supply totals and shortages may not sum due to rounding. 

# 6A6A-2 A

PPENDIX 6A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6A

T ABLE 6A-2 San Francisco Bay Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 1,255 1,358 1,317 1,428 Agricultural 98 108 98 108 Environmental 5,762 4,294 5,762 4,294 Total 7,115 5,760 7,176 5,830 Supplies

Surface Water 7,011 5,285 7,067 5,417 Groundwater 68 92 72 89 Recycled and Desalted 35 35 37 37 Total 7,115 5,412 7,176 5,543 Shortage 0 349 0 287 T

ABLE 6A-1 North Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 169 177 201 212 Agricultural 894 973 927 1,011 Environmental 19,544 9,518 19,545 9,518 Total 20,607 10,668 20,672 10,740 Supplies

Surface Water 20,331 10,183 20,371 10,212 Groundwater 263 294 288 321 Recycled and Desalted 13 14 13 14 Total 20,607 10,491 20,672 10,546 Shortage 0 177 0 194

T

ABLE 6A-3 Central Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 286 294 379 391 Agricultural 1,192 1,279 1,127 1,223 Environmental 118 37 118 37 Total 1,595 1,610 1,624 1,652 Supplies

Surface Water 318 160 368 180 Groundwater 1,045 1,142 1,041 1,159 Recycled and Desalted 18 26 42 42 Total 1,381 1,328 1,452 1,381 Shortage 214 282 172 2706A-3 A PPENDIX 6A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6A

T

ABLE 6A-4 South Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 4,340 4,382 5,519 5,612 Agricultural 784 820 462 484 Environmental 100 82 104 86 Total 5,224 5,283 6,084 6,181 Supplies

Surface Water 3,839 3,196 3,625 3,130 Groundwater 1,177 1,371 1,243 1,462 Recycled and Desalted 207 207 273 273 Total 5,224 4,775 5,141 4,865 Shortage 0 508 944 1,317

T

ABLE 6A-5 Sacramento River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 766 830 1,139 1,236 Agricultural 8,065 9,054 7,939 8,822 Environmental 5,833 4,223 5,839 4,225 Total 14,664 14,106 14,917 14,282 Supplies

Surface Water 11,881 10,022 12,196 10,012 Groundwater 2,672 3,218 2,636 3,281 Recycled and Desalted 0 0 0 0 Total 14,553 13,239 14,832 13,293 Shortage 111 867 85 989

T

ABLE 6A-6 San Joaquin River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 574 583 954 970 Agricultural 7,027 7,244 6,450 6,719 Environmental 3,396 1,904 3,411 1,919 Total 10,996 9,731 10,815 9,609 Supplies

Surface Water 8,562 6,043 8,458 5,986 Groundwater 2,195 2,900 2,295 2,912 Recycled and Desalted 0 0 0 0 Total 10,757 8,943 10,753 8,898 Shortage 239 788 63 7116A-4 A

PPENDIX 6A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6A

T ABLE 6A-7 Tulare Lake Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 690 690 1,099 1,099 Agricultural 10,736 10,026 10,123 9,532 Environmental 1,672 809 1,676 813 Total 13,098 11,525 12,897 11,443 Supplies

Surface Water 7,888 3,693 7,791 3,593 Groundwater 4,340 5,970 4,386 5,999 Recycled and Desalted 0 0 0 0 Total 12,228 9,663 12,177 9,592 Shortage 870 1,862 720 1,851

T

ABLE 6A-8 North Lahontan Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 39 40 50 51 Agricultural 530 584 536 594 Environmental 374 256 374 256 Total 942 880 960 901 Supplies

Surface Water 777 557 759 557 Groundwater 157 187 183 208 Recycled and Desalted 8 8 8 8 Total 942 752 950 773 Shortage 0 128 10 128

T

ABLE 6A-9 South Lahontan Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 238 238 619 619 Agricultural 332 332 257 257 Environmental 107 81 107 81 Total 676 651 983 957 Supplies

Surface Water 322 259 437 326 Groundwater 239 273 248 296 Recycled and Desalted 27 27 27 27 Total 587 559 712 649 Shortage 89 92 270 3086A-5 A PPENDIX 6A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6A

T

ABLE 6A-10 Colorado River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 418 418 740 740 Agricultural 4,118 4,118 3,583 3,583 Environmental 39 38 44 43 Total 4,575 4,574 4,367 4,366 Supplies

Surface Water 4,154 4,128 3,920 3,909 Groundwater 337 337 285 284 Recycled and Desalted 15 15 15 15 Total 4,506 4,479 4,221 4,208 Shortage 69 95 147 1586A-6 A

PPENDIX 6A The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6A6B-1 A PPENDIX 6B The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6B



# Applied Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region with Existing Facilities and Programs

Tables 6B-1 through 6B-4 show applied water shortages by hydrologic region with existing facilitiesand programs. Water shortages vary widely from region to region. For example, the North Coast and San Francisco Bay Regions are not expected to experiencefuture shortages during average years, but will see shortages in drought years. Most of the State’s remainingregions experience average year and drought year shortages now, and are forecasted to experience increased shortages in 2020. The largest average year shortages are forecasted for the Tulare Lake and South Coast Regions, areas that rely heavily on imported water supplies. Futureaverage year shortages in the Tulare Lake Region reflect groundwater overdraft. Future average year shortages in the South Coast Region reflect forecastedpopulation growth, plus lower Colorado River supplies as California reduces its use of Colorado River water to the State’s basic apportionment. 

# 6B6B-2 A

PPENDIX 6B The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6B

T ABLE 6B-1 Applied Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region (taf), 1995-Level Average Year a

Region Overdraft Other Total

North Coast 0 0 0 San Francisco Bay 0 0 0
Central Coast 214 0 214

South Coast 0 0 0

Sacramento River 33 78 111 San Joaquin River 239 0 239
Tulare Lake 820 50 870
North Lahontan 0 0 0
South Lahontan 89 0 89
Colorado River 69 0 69 Total (rounded) 1,460 130 1,590

a With existing facilities and programs.

T ABLE 6B-2 Applied Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region (taf), 1995-Level Drought Year a

Region Overdraft Other Total

North Coast 0 177 177 San Francisco Bay 0 349 349

Central Coast 214 68 282
South Coast 0 508 508

Sacramento River 33 834 867 San Joaquin River 239 549 788
Tulare Lake 820 1,042 1,862

North Lahontan 0 128 128
South Lahontan 89 3 92
Colorado River 69 26 95 Total (rounded) 1,460 3,690 5,150

a With existing facilities and programs.6B-3 A PPENDIX 6B The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6B

T

ABLE 6B-4 Applied Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region (taf), 2020-Level Drought Year a

Region Overdraft Other Total

North Coast 0 194 194 San Francisco Bay 0 287 287
Central Coast 102 168 270
South Coast 0 1,317 1,317

Sacramento River 85 904 989 San Joaquin River 63 648 711
Tulare Lake 670 1,181 1,851
North Lahontan 0 128 128
South Lahontan 89 219 308
Colorado River 61 97 158 Total (rounded) 1,070 5,140 6,210

a With existing facilities and programs. T ABLE 6B-3 Applied Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region (taf), 2020-Level Average Year a

Region Overdraft Other Total

North Coast 0 0 0 San Francisco Bay 0 0 0
Central Coast 102 70 172
South Coast 0 944 944

Sacramento River 85 0 85 San Joaquin River 63 0 63
Tulare Lake 670 50 720
North Lahontan 0 10 10
South Lahontan 89 181 270
Colorado River 61 86 147 Total (rounded) 1,070 1,340 2,410

a With existing facilities and programs.6B-4 A

PPENDIX 6B The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6B6C-1 A PPENDIX 6C The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6C



# Estimating a Water Management Option’s Unit Cost

A key consideration in the options evaluation process is the appraisal of costs, both financial and economic. Financial costs are the expenditures requiredto repay debt (with interest) incurred to finance capital costs of a project and to meet operations,maintenance, and replacement costs. Generally, financial costs are spread over a shorter time period than the life of the project. In comparison, economic costsreflect the costs of resources committed to the construction and operation of a project over its life, whichcan be 50 years or more for many water resources options. It is possible for options to be economically feasible and financially infeasible, or vice versa.This appendix focuses upon economic costs. Although economic costs can be expressed in many different ways, a useful statistic is the economic cost per acre-foot of option delivery. The mathematicalcomputation of unit cost is not difficult, but does entail several considerations.

Considerations Common to All Options

Data Availability Cost estimates require extensive data on an option’scosts and its operation under different hydrologic conditions. Costs include capital and annual operations, maintenance, and replacement costs. Capital costs are associated with construction and implementation ofan option (including transportation and treatment facilities). Examples of capital costs include expenditures for planning, design, right-of-way, construction, and environmental mitigation. Capital costs also includeactivation costs (operation and maintenance expenditures prior to operations) and reservoir filling costs. OM&R costs include administration, energy, waterpurchases, water treatment, and replacement costs incurred during the normal course of project use. For many options (such as surface water reservoirs and groundwater/conjunctive use projects), hydrology is key to evaluating the option’s performance. Some options are designed to provide maximum deliveries during average and wet years and minimal deliveries during drought years; others are designed to providemaximum deliveries during drought years with minimal deliveries during other years. Some options can provide a relatively constant supply regardless of water
year type. Because this Bulletin focuses on local options, cost estimates are dependent upon cost and hydrology dataavailable in existing reports and other documents prepared by water agencies. Some difficulties that arise in using this information include:• Data are inconsistent among the agencies (different hydrologic time periods were used).• Data are missing or incomplete (sometimes capital costs are reported, but not operating costs).• Data may be available, but information about assumptions used in their development is not available (reported total capital costs may or may not include environmental mitigation costs).• Data were developed at different times (information on some options is relatively new, while other data may be 30 years old). • Data were developed at different levels of study(appraisal level data are being compared to feasibility level data). Since the Bulletin’s intent is to examine options 

# 6C6C-2 A

PPENDIX 6C The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6C

T ABLE 6C-1 Sample Cost Computation

Option Option Delivery Probabilities (%) Capital Annual Variable Unit Cost (taf) Costs Costs (Million$) ($/af) Average Drought Average Drought (Million $) Average Drought Groundwater Recharge/ 0 15 80.0 20.0 4.0 0.1 0.6 150 Conjunctive Use
Water Transfers a 0 2 80.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 250 Water Recycling 3 3 80.0 20.0 24.0 0.6 0.6 710
Surface Water Reservoir 10 3 80.0 20.0 80.0 1.0 2.0 730

a Using existing facilities. 

### from a statewide perspective at an appraisal level of detail, the approach used has been to acknowledge thatthese difficulties exist, but to use the available information. The scope of this Bulletin does not permit development of new information for all of the options for which data were collected. The Bulletin’s efforts focused on making costs of the statewide options and larger local options comparable, where possible.

Assumptions Two analysis periods were used—a 50-year period for capital-intensive options (reservoirs, desalting plants, conjunctive use facilities) and a 25-year period for less capital-intensive options (demand reduction). The analysis used constant dollars, thus excluding price changes occurring as a result of inflation. Thetime value of money is represented by a 6 percent discount rate. Dollar values are converted to constant 1995 dollars using USBR’s cost index or other cost indices as appropriate. Statewide probabilities for the occurrence of drought years and average years are 20 and 80 percent, respectively.
Method of AnalysisA spreadsheet was developed for cost computations. Table 6C-1 shows the results of a sample costanalysis for four hypothetical water management options using this spreadsheet.

Considerations Specific to Some Options

Conservation In order to achieve savings from many demand reduction options (landscape retrofits, toilet retrofits), water users rather than water districts must purchase additional equipment. Because of the substantial usercosts of some conservation options, they must be addressed in cost estimates. Since the Bulletin 160-98 options evaluation process is focused on costs from the water agency perspective, it is assumed that costsof demand reduction options are funded by water agencies, including reimbursements to water users for costs such as landscape replacement or sprinkler controller installation.

Water Recycling Costs of water recycling vary with the intendeduse of the water, due to differences in treatment requirements. Costs of recycling projects are highly site-specific, since costs of associated conveyance and distribution systems may constitute a large percent of the total project cost.

Conjunctive Use Projects Because conjunctive use projects often involve many types of facilities and are operated according to changes in hydrology, computing cost estimates can be complex. Hydrology is key to the operation of many conjunctive use projects because usually the recharge portion of the project is operated in average years and the extraction portion is operated in drought years. Facilities may not be operated during years where there is insufficient water for recharge, or when conditions are too wet to warrant extractions. Although capital costs of a conjunctive use project are not significantlyinfluenced by hydrology, annual O&M costs are sensitive to hydrology because of pumping costs.

Surface Water Reservoirs Some reservoirs are operated to maximize water supplies during average years and others are operated6C-3 A PPENDIX 6C The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6C



### for drought years or emergency storage purposes. Although the capital cost to construct a reservoir will be the same regardless of its operation, the cost of water supply will differ substantially among these operational modes. A reservoir’s O&M costs will vary significantlydepending upon whether it provides on-stream or offstream storage (the latter operation will likely havesubstantial energy costs associated with reservoir filling). Of supply augmentation options, reservoirs are most likely to provide substantial benefits other than water supply, such as recreation, flood control, and power generation. No attempt is made in this Bulletin to allocate the costs among different purposes, because cost allocation goes beyond the Bulletin’s appraisal-level scope of analysis.
Water MarketingWater transfer costs shown in the Bulletin are generally those reported by local agencies for their proposedmarketing arrangements. Costs reported by local agencies are often the contractual prices contained in transfer agreements. Such costs usually do not include environmental mitigation costs or costs relating to third-party impacts.6C-4 A

PPENDIX 6C The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6C6D-1 A PPENDIX 6D The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6D



### Calculations of lower bound, or minimum, new water needs from 2020-level applied water budget shortages are presented by hydrologic region in Tables 6D-1 and 6D-2. In an applied water budget, supply and percent reapplication are defined as: applied water supply = supply from primary sources + supply from reapplication ... (1) percent reapplication = (supply from reapplication / supply from primary sources) x 100 ... (2) In the tables, percent reapplication is calculated for each region from primary supplies and reappliedsupplies (both surface water and groundwater) according to equation (2). This calculation is performed only in planning subareas that are forecasted to experience shortages in 2020.Assuming that new supplies from water management options may be reapplied in the same proportion that existing primary supplies are reapplied, an applied water yield and a percent reapplication for the options may be similarly defined as: applied water yield = new water supply + reapplication potential ... (3) percent reapplication = (reapplication potential / new water supply) x 100 ... (4) By substituting equation (4) into equation (3) and rearranging terms, a regional new water need may be defined as a function of a regional applied water shortage: new water need = applied water shortage / (1 + [reapplication potential/100] ) ... (5) If the potential to reapply new water supplies does not exist in a region, then according to equation (5), the new water need (maximum) is equal to the region’sapplied water shortage. If the potential to fully reapply new water supplies exists in a region, then equation (5) defines a minimum new water need. In the tables,the water shortage not due to overdraft (“other” shortage) is adjusted downward by the percent reapplication in accordance with equation (5). This value is summed with the overdraft shortage to arrive at the minimum new water need for the region.As discussed in Chapter 3, regional supplies generated through groundwater overdraft are excluded from the Bulletin 160-98 water budgets because they do not represent sustainable sources of water supply.Excluding these supplies from the water budgets results in additional regional shortages. However, for clarity of presentation, the regional supplies availablethrough reapplication of overdrafted groundwater supplies are not excluded from the water budgets. Therefore, shortages due to overdraft are not adjusted by the percent reapplication in Tables 6D-1 and 6D-2 to arrive at regional new water needs. Based on the data presented in Table 6D-1, the minimum new water required to satisfy 2020 average year shortages is approximately 2.2 maf. Similarly, Table6D-2 shows the minimum new water required to satisfy 2020 drought year shortages is approximately 5.4maf. As discussed in Chapter 6, not all water management options are created equal in their ability to meetnew water needs. Demand reduction options, for example, do not provide new water to a region, and no opportunities exist to multiply their effectiveness through reapplication. Therefore, if a region’s options mix includes demand reduction options, the region’s new water need will be greater than the minimum need. 

# Calculation of Minimum New Water Needs 

# 6D6D-2 A

PPENDIX 6D The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6D

T ABLE 6D-1 Minimum New Water Needs by Hydrologic Region: 2020 Average Year

Region Percent a Shortage (taf) Minimum New Reapplication Overdraft Other Water Need (taf)

North Coast

— 0 0 0 San Francisco Bay

— 0 0 0 Central Coast 24.1 102 70 159 South Coast 12.5 0 944 839 Sacramento River 33.3 85 0 85 San Joaquin River 16.4 63 0 63 Tulare Lake 11.4 670 50 715 North Lahontan 5.4 0 10 9 South Lahontan 35.8 89 181 223 Colorado River 24.6 61 86 130 Total (rounded) 16.4 1,070 1,340 2,220

a Percent reapplication is computed from supply data for PSAs that are forecasted to experience shortages in 2020.

T

ABLE 6D-2 Minimum New Water Needs by Hydrologic Region: 2020 Drought Year

Region Percent a Shortage (taf) Minimum New Reapplication Overdraft Other Water Need (taf)

North Coast 38.8 0 194 140 San Francisco Bay 0.5 0 287 286 Central Coast 17.8 102 168 245 South Coast 10.4 0 1,317 1,192 Sacramento River 26.3 85 904 801 San Joaquin River 17.4 63 648 615 Tulare Lake 24.0 670 1,181 1,623 North Lahontan 16.5 0 128 110 South Lahontan 34.8 89 219 252 Colorado River 25.3 61 97 138 Total (rounded) 18.8 1,070 5,140 5,400

a Percent reapplication is computed from supply data for PSAs that are forecasted to experience shortages in 2020.6E-1 A PPENDIX 6E The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6E



### The following tables show the net water budgets for each of the State’s ten hydrologic regions with existing facilities and programs, and then California’s net water budget with existing facilities and programs. Water use/supply totals and shortages may not sum due to rounding. 

# Net Water Budgets 

# 6E6E-2 A

PPENDIX 6E The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6E

T ABLE 6E-1 North Coast Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Net Water Use

Urban 169 177 201 212 Agricultural 683 714 699 740 Environmental 19,378 9,393 19,378 9,393 Total 20,230 10,283 20,278 10,344 Supplies

Surface Water 20,003 9,887 20,029 9,911 Groundwater 214 239 236 261 Recycled and Desalted 13 14 13 14 Total 20,230 10,139 20,278 10,186 Shortage 0 144 0 158

T

ABLE 6E-2 San Francisco Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Net Water Use

Urban 1,255 1,358 1,317 1,428 Agricultural 87 96 87 95 Environmental 1,782 1,284 1,782 1,284 Total 3,124 2,738 3,185 2,808 Supplies

Surface Water 3,024 2,267 3,080 2,400 Groundwater 65 87 69 84 Recycled and Desalted 35 35 37 37 Total 3,124 2,389 3,185 2,520 Shortage 0 349 0 287

T

ABLE 6E-3 Central Coast Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Net Water Use

Urban 243 253 320 334 Agricultural 912 975 884 947 Environmental 84 22 84 22 Total 1,238 1,250 1,288 1,303 Supplies

Surface Water 252 118 301 140 Groundwater 754 826 772 861 Recycled and Desalted 18 26 42 42 Total 1,024 970 1,115 1,043 Shortage 214 280 172 2606E-3 A PPENDIX 6E The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6E

T

ABLE 6E-5 Sacramento River Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Net Water Use

Urban 765 829 1,139 1,235 Agricultural 6,529 7,251 6,436 7,041 Environmental 3,845 3,260 3,854 3,263 Total 11,139 11,340 11,429 11,538 Supplies

Surface Water 8,814 7,880 9,159 7,895 Groundwater 2,229 2,699 2,184 2,769 Recycled and Desalted 0 0 0 0 Total 11,043 10,579 11,344 10,665 Shortage 96 760 85 873

T

ABLE 6E-6 San Joaquin River Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Net Water Use

Urban 417 432 673 698 Agricultural 5,818 6,284 5,286 5,784 Environmental 1,249 831 1,263 845 Total 7,484 7,546 7,221 7,328 Supplies

Surface Water 6,190 4,743 6,096 4,696 Groundwater 1,055 2,118 1,063 2,026 Recycled and Desalted 0 0 0 0 Total 7,245 6,861 7,159 6,722 Shortage 239 685 63 606 T

ABLE 6E-4 South Coast Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Net Water Use

Urban 3,973 3,999 4,943 5,009 Agricultural 692 722 421 442 Environmental 27 27 31 31 Total 4,691 4,748 5,395 5,481 Supplies

Surface Water 3,400 2,758 3,184 2,704 Groundwater 1,084 1,274 1,155 1,380 Recycled and Desalted 207 207 273 273 Total 4,691 4,240 4,612 4,357 Shortage 0 508 783 1,1256E-4 A

PPENDIX 6E The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6E

T ABLE 6E-7 Tulare Lake Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Net Water Use

Urban 347 358 514 533 Agricultural 7,659 7,817 7,248 7,386 Environmental 37 37 39 39 Total 8,043 8,211 7,801 7,957 Supplies

Surface Water 6,226 2,894 6,129 2,794 Groundwater 957 3,684 962 3,568 Recycled and Desalted 0 0 0 0 Total 7,183 6,578 7,091 6,361 Shortage 860 1,634 710 1,596

T

ABLE 6E-8 North Lahontan Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Net Water Use

Urban 32 33 41 42 Agricultural 470 514 470 516 Environmental 174 136 174 136 Total 675 683 685 695 Supplies

Surface Water 531 384 506 378 Groundwater 136 171 161 190 Recycled and Desalted 8 8 8 8 Total 675 564 675 576 Shortage 0 120 10 119

T

ABLE 6E-9 South Lahontan Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Net Water Use

Urban 160 160 412 412 Agricultural 291 291 230 230 Environmental 107 81 107 81 Total 558 532 750 724 Supplies

Surface Water 244 181 338 234 Groundwater 198 232 201 252 Recycled and Desalted 27 27 27 27 Total 469 440 566 514 Shortage 89 92 184 2106E-5 A PPENDIX 6E The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6E

T

ABLE 6E-11 California Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (maf)

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Net Water Use

Urban 7.7 7.9 10.1 10.4 Agricultural 27.0 28.5 25.2 26.6 Environmental 26.7 15.1 26.8 15.1 Total 61.4 51.5 62.0 52.2 Supplies

Surface Water 52.7 35.1 52.6 35.0 Groundwater 6.8 11.4 6.9 11.5 Recycled and Desalted 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 Total 59.8 46.9 59.9 46.8 Shortage 1.6 4.7 2.1 5.3 T

ABLE 6E-10 Colorado River Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Net Water Use

Urban 312 312 526 526 Agricultural 3,847 3,847 3,412 3,412 Environmental 39 38 44 43 Total 4,197 4,196 3,982 3,981 Supplies

Surface Water 4,047 4,021 3,809 3,800 Groundwater 66 77 79 79 Recycled and Desalted 15 15 15 15 Total 4,128 4,113 3,903 3,894 Shortage 69 83 79 886E-6 A

PPENDIX 6E The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6E6F-1 A PPENDIX 6F The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6F



# Land Retirement Analysis in Drainage-Impaired Areas

The San Joaquin Valley Interagency Drainage Program’s 1990 report stated that 75,000 acres of land with the worst drainage problems would need to be retired by 2040 unless other actions were taken to improve drainage problems in the area. Assuming that land retirement would occur uniformly over time, the Bulletin’s 2020 irrigated acreage forecast includes a reduction of 45,000 acres of land due to impaired drainage, as discussed in Chapter 4. Existing or future programs in which land is purchased and then taken out of irrigated agriculture could increase the acreage taken out of production. Considering the region’s chronic agricultural water shortages, it is likely that local water agencies would want to keep the water in the region to improve water supplies for remaining irrigated lands, as is being planned in a pending joint financing arrangement between USBR and WWD. Bulletin 160-98 does not treat land retirement for drainage purposes as a future demand reduction option. The Bulletin’s scope is limited to actions whose primary intent is demand reduction or water supply augmentation. Because land retirement for drainagepurposes would affect water use, the following analysis has been provided to quantify water supply impacts.Two land retirement scenarios were evaluated. Scenario␣ 1 assumed that the full 75,000 acres of agricultural lands with the worst drainage problemsrecommended for retirement by 2040 by the interagency program would be retired by 2020, adding 30,000 acres to the base 45,000 acres included in theDepartment’s 2020 agricultural acreage forecast. Scenario 2 assumed the retirement of up to 85,000 acresover the base 45,000 acres for a total of 130,000 retired acres. This included the 30,000 acres in Scenario␣ 1 plus other lands in the westside of the San Joaquin Valley with a selenium concentration of more than 200 ppb in shallow groundwater. For Scenario 2, the 200ppb selenium criterion was used to benchmark acreage to be retired because of the interagency report’s recommendations. The acreage of land underlain byshallow groundwater has fluctuated over time, reflecting hydrologic conditions and the availability of watersupplies in the region. There has been no new regionwide monitoring of selenium in shallow groundwater since publication of the 1990 report, and changes inthe extent of lands underlain by high selenium groundwater are unknown. (As described in Chapter 4, theinteragency drainage program is in the process of updating its 1990 recommendations based on new information.) To help put these acreage values into perspective, in 1997 USBR’s land retirement program issued its first request for proposals from persons who wished to retire land pursuant to the CVPIA program. USBR received proposals totaling 31,000 acres. Based on its 1998 budget, USBR expects to retire about 12,000acres of the lands proposed, with additional lands expected to be retired in future budget years. In 1998,USBR released an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact for a demonstration project on about 1,890 acres of lands acquired or planned to be acquired under the land retirement program. Thedemonstration program would evaluate wildlife habitat management actions on the retired lands. Under aseparate agreement with WWD, the agricultural water supplies associated with the lands would remain within WWD, and part of the supplies would be usedto irrigate wildlife habitat. Water used for habitat irri

# 6F6F-2 A

PPENDIX 6F The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6F



### gation would be limited to 0.6 af/acre, to avoid deep percolation of applied water.Table 6F-1 displays the crops calculated to be retired for both scenarios along with the expected reductions in depletions. Field crops are the primarytypes of crops calculated to be retired, based on Central Valley Production Model results, with barley,wheat, cotton, and safflower comprising almost 90␣ percent of total retired acreage for each option.The costs of land retirement scenarios are measured by the estimated costs to purchase farmland and remove it from irrigated agricultural production. Table6F-2 shows land retirement costs for either permanently taking the farmland out of agricultural production or for taking it out of irrigated agricultural production. Implementing land retirement programs can becontroversial because of concerns about third-party impacts to those who do not benefit from sale of the land or its associated water supply. (Direct farm income losses to growers should be recovered through landpurchase costs.) To illustrate the magnitude of potential third-party impacts, Tables 6F-3 and 6F-4 show economic effects of the land retirement scenarios. These effects would need to be addressed in environmentaldocumentation for land retirement programs. Environmental documentation prepared to date for landretirement activities has not proposed specific mitigation measures for third-party economic impacts. There has thus been no basis for allocating costs in addition to the land purchase price to the costs shown in this analysis. Third-party impacts associated with managed land retirement programs on the westside of the San Joaquin Valley would be of particular concern to cityand county governments in the area, because agricultural activities provide the dominant source of employment in many of the small rural communities on the westside.

T

ABLE 6F-2
Costs of Land Retirement (1995 Dollars)

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Land Retirement Total Annualized Cost Total Annualized Cost

Assumptions Cost Per Cost Per af of Cost Per Cost Per af of
Acre Per Acre a Depletions Acre Per Acre a Depletions
With No Alternative Uses 1,550 121 55 1,760 138 63 With Grazing 1,420 111 51 1,640 128 59

a For a 25 year period and 6% discount rate. T ABLE 6F-1 Agricultural Depletion Reductions Due to Land Retirement

Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Crops Land Retired Depletions Land Retired Depletions (acres) (af/yr) (acres) (af/yr) Alfalfa 2,370 8,560 4,740 17,290 Irrigated Pasture 60 220 160 580 Barley 3,080 3,880 9,160 11,540 Wheat 5,850 8,660 14,980 22,170 Cotton 12,830 33,490 41,600 108,580 Safflower 4,390 4,430 9,690 9,790 Sugar Beets 60 170 350 990 Dry Beans 470 900 1,470 2,820 Dry Onions 190 500 520 1,370 Tomatoes (processing) 480 1,280 1,730 4,600 Almonds 110 360 220 690 Pistachios 10 20 80 240 Wine Grapes 100 220 250 550 Total (rounded) 30,000 62,700 85,000 181,2006F-3 A PPENDIX 6F The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6F

T

ABLE 6F-3 Land Retirement Analysis—Scenario 1 Economic Impacts (1995 Dollars)

Direct, Indirect, Induced Effects Value of Production Employment Crops Acres Regional a Statewide Regional a Statewide Retired ($1,000) ($1,000) (person years) (person years)

Alfalfa 2,370 3,980 4,190 56 58 Irrigated Pasture 60 50 50 1 1 Barley 3,080 1,730 1,960 29 30 Wheat 5,850 5,180 5,510 73 77 Cotton 12,830 32,480 34,650 535 541 Safflower 4,390 3,670 4,000 59 61 Sugar Beets 60 120 120 2 2 Dry Beans 470 750 850 10 10 Dry Onions 190 500 540 7 7 Tomatoes (processing) 480 1,590 1,740 22 23 Almonds 110 710 770 14 14 Pistachios 10 70 70 1 1 Wine Grapes 100 500 560 10 10 Totals (rounded) 30,000 51,300 55,000 820 830

a Includes Fresno, Kern, and Kings Counties.

T ABLE 6F-4 Land Retirement Analysis—Scenario 2 Economic Impacts (1995 Dollars)

Direct, Indirect, Induced Effects Value of Production Employment
Crops Acres Regional a Statewide Regional a Statewide Retired ($1,000) ($1,000) (person years) (person years)

Alfalfa 4,790 8,050 8,460 114 118 Irrigated Pasture 160 120 130 2 2 Barley 9,160 5,140 5,840 86 88 Wheat 14,980 13,240 14,100 187 196 Cotton 41,600 105,300 112,350 1,735 1,756 Safflower 9,690 8,090 8,830 129 134 Sugar Beets 350 680 720 11 12 Dry Beans 1,470 1,920 2,180 32 33 Dry Onions 520 1,360 1,490 19 19 Tomatoes (processing) 1,730 5,740 6,280 80 81 Almonds 220 1,380 1,510 26 27 Pistachios 80 770 840 15 15 Wine Grapes 250 1,250 1,410 24 24 Totals (rounded) 85,000 153,000 164,100 2,460 2,510

a Includes Fresno, Kern, and Kings Counties.6F-4 A

PPENDIX 6F The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6F6G-1 A PPENDIX 6G The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6G



# Review and Evaluation of Statewide-LevelStorage Facilities That Could Be Included in CALFED Alternatives

Evaluation of Onstream Storage Options Upstream of the Delta The initial screening of storage options included the 34 reservoir sites shown in Table 6G-1. These sites have been investigated, so information was available to support a preliminary assessment. After the initialscreening, 15 remaining options were examined in detail. This appraisal relied on previous studies coveringtraditional project formulation, engineering feasibility, cost, and environmental aspects. The older studieswere supplemented by a cursory reexamination of environmental aspects that reflected the most recent information on critical habitat, wetlands, endangered species, and cultural resources. Because past studieswere limited, these environmental reexaminations generated few conclusive findings. The larger reservoirs on major waterways tend to have the most potential environmental consequences. And, there is a definite correlation between the intensity of prior studies andthe number of known potential environmental problem issues. The potential environmental issues at the 15 retained options are shown in Table 6G-2. The appraisal process confirmed that larger projects tend to have the potential to produce less costlyand more reliable water supply, but have greater potential impacts on the environment. There is no one accepted method to compare options, particularly those of vastly differing size, but clear conclusions emerged from assessing options within similar groups. Very Large Onstream Reservoirs (Over 1.0 maf) With the potential to provide up to 10 maf of additional storage, an enlarged Lake Shasta is in a class apart; at large sizes, it could provide new storage at a favorable unit cost, but with substantial financial and environmental consequences. In the 1.0-2.5 maf range, Auburn Reservoir ranks high, but is burdened withwell-publicized environmental controversies. As discussed in Chapter 3, there is an urgent need for greater flood protection on the American River, and a dam at Auburn has been identified by the Reclamation Boardas the best flood control alternative. A ThomesNewville development in the Stony Creek basin remains a possibility, provided it is sized to match its limited water supply; the site also has potential for offstream storage of adjacent basin or Sacramento River

water. The Trinity enlargement option involves a new concept that has not been investigated in detail. The fundamental premise is sound: divert surplus water directly from Lake Shasta to an enlarged Trinity Lake on the Trinity River. This would reap some benefits ofenlarging Lake Shasta without the associated major disruptions or relocation costs. The less attractive aspects include a 13-mile tunnel, a 1,500-foot pump lift, and substantial energy costs. This option appears to be more costly than enlarging Lake Shasta, but within the rangeof consideration. More information on environmental aspects would be needed for a better assessment. Experience has shown large projects at this stage oftenharbor unexpected environmental drawbacks. Currently, enlarging Trinity Lake is characterized as a future possibility, but not yet thoroughly explored. 

# 6G6G-2 A

PPENDIX 6G The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6G

T ABLE 6G-1 Onstream Storage Options Upstream of the Delta

Stream Reservoir Retain or Reason for Deferral Defer
Cache Creek Wilson Valley Defer Defer due to environmental impacts and conflicts with federal land management policies. Kennedy Flats Defer Defer due to environmental impacts and conflicts with federal land management policies. Blue Ridge Defer Defer due to environmental impacts and conflicts with federal land management policies.

Stony Creek Newville (Part of Thomes-Newville Retain Complex)

Thomes Creek Thomes Division Retain (Part of Thomes-Newville Complex) Paskenta Defer Defer in favor of alternate site in same general

area.
Elder Creek Gallatin Defer Limited water supply to support significant amount of storage.

Red Bank Creek Schoenfield (Part of Red Bank Retain Project)

S.F. Cottonwood Creek Dippingvat (Part of Red Bank Retain Project) Rosewood (Dry Creek) Defer Limited water supply to support significant amount of storage.

Tehama Retain

M.F. Cottonwood Creek Fiddlers Retain

Cottonwood Creek Dutch Gulch Retain

N.F. Cottonwood Creek Hulen Retain

Lake Shasta Tributaries Shasta Enlargement Retain
Enlarged Trinity Retain Squaw Valley (Squaw Valley Cr.) Defer Defer due to high costs and substantial environmental impacts. Kosk (Pit River) Retain Allen Camp (Pit River) Defer Primarily a local project, not well suited for statewide supply augmentation.

Little Cow Creek Bella Vista Defer Defer due to high costs and substantial environmental impacts.

South Cow Creek Millville Retain

Inks Creek Wing Retain6G-3 A PPENDIX 6G The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6G

T

ABLE 6G-1 Onstream Storage Options Upstream of the Delta (continued)

Stream Reservoir Retain or Reason for Deferral Defer
Deer Creek Deer Creek Meadows Defer Primarily a local project, not well suited for statewide supply augmentation. Also doubtful environmental feasibility.
Upper Feather River Abbey Bridge (Red Clover Creek) Defer Primarily a local project, not well suited for statewide supply augmentation. Also doubtful environmental feasibility. Dixie Refuge Defer Primarily a local project, not well suited for (Last Chance Creek) statewide supply augmentation. Also doubtful environmental feasibility.

Yuba River Marysville/Narrows Defer Defer due to high costs and substantial environmental impacts.

M.F. Yuba River Freemans Crossing Defer Limited water supply to support significant amount of storage and doubtful environmental feasibility.

Bear River Garden Bar Defer Primarily a local project.

N.F. American River Auburn Retain

American River Folsom Enlargement Retain

S.F. American River Coloma/Salmon Falls Defer Defer due to environmental and social/third party impacts.

Cosumnes River Nashville Retain

Mokelumne River Pardee Enlargement Defer Primarily a local project.

San Joaquin River Millerton Enlargement Retain



### Large Onstream Reservoirs (0.5 to 1.0 maf)

Tehama and Dutch Gulch reservoirs in the Cottonwood Creek Basin clearly warrant further consideration, possibly at smaller sizes than the 0.7and 0.9 maf considered in the 1983 USACE feasibility study. As an alternative to Dutch Gulch the upstream Fiddlers Reservoir site has promise, but its optimum size may be smaller than 0.5 maf. Raising Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River by 120 to 140 feet could more than double the current520 taf capacity of Millerton Lake. While the expansion would be expensive, it is the only San JoaquinValley surface storage option that appears to offer potential for statewide supply augmentation. Enlarging Friant Dam also would provide flood control benefits. Kosk Reservoir on the Pit River and Nashville Reservoir on the Cosumnes River appear to offer some promise for storage in this size range, but scant current information is available on their cost, water supplyefficacy, or environmental impacts. Reconnaissance reappraisals could fully assess the practicability of thesesites. The Nashville site appears to have significant environmental issues associated with its construction. Coloma Reservoir on the South Fork American River could provide storage within this size range, but any size over 0.2 maf would inundate the town ofColoma and the Marshall Gold Discovery State Historic Park (which would require legislative authorization under Water Code Section 10001.5). Coloma and the nearby Salmon Falls alternative areunpromising and are deferred from further consideration. Marysville and Narrows sites on the Yuba River also are deferred from further consideration because local interests are evaluating a small facility at a nearby site as a local project.6G-4 A

PPENDIX 6G The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6G



### Small-to-Medium-Sized Onstream Reservoirs (0.1 to 0.5 maf)
Options within this range selected for analysis included three sites on upper Sacramento Valleytributaries that appear to offer acceptable combinations of water supply capability, cost, and environmental compatibility. The largest of these, Wing Reservoir on Inks Creek with a diversion from Battle Creek, could provide over 0.4 maf of storage. The other apparently viable options, both near the lower limit of this size range, are the Red Bank Project on South Fork Cottonwood and Red Bank Creeks, and Millville Reservoir on South Cow Creek. One of the two on-stream reservoirs developed by the Red Bank Project would be used primarily as an offstreamstorage facility. Hulen Reservoir on North Fork Cottonwood Creek would be high on the list except itwould inundate a premier deposit of Cretaceous fossils. (Medium-sized projects involving Cottonwood Creek water, such as the Fiddlers site, are alternatives, not adjuncts, to the larger downstream Tehama and Dutch Gulch storage sites.)Enlargement of Folsom Lake was among the options considered to provide additional flood control along the lower American River. If that enlargement were practicable, it could provide a valuable incrementof water supply storage (depending on the flood operT

ABLE 6G-2 Retained Onstream Storage Options and Environmental Issues

Storage a Reservoir Volume Potential Environmental Issues (maf)

Very Large Reservoirs Shasta Enlargement up to 14.5 stream/river habitat; wild and scenic rivers; trout fisheries; downstream salmon; downstream seepage and erosion impact; deer; numerous listed and candidate species; cultural resources; disruption of established development Trinity Enlargement 7.2 stream habitat; wetlands/marshes; sensitive plants; eagles; spotted owls; anadromous fish (Trinity and Sacramento Rivers)

Auburn 0.85 - 2.3 stream habitat; wetlands; wildlife; trout; listed amphibian, insect, and plant species; cultural resources; recreation impacts Thomes-Newville 1.4 - 1.9 deer; stream habitat; cultural resources; possible minor salmon/steelhead runs

Large Reservoirs
Tehama 0.5 - 0.7 riparian habitat; salmon/steelhead; deer; upland game; bald eagles; cultural resources; various listed species possible

Dutch Gulch 0.7 - 0.9 riparian habitat; salmon/steelhead; deer; upland game; bald eagles; cultural resources; various listed species possible

Kosk 0.8 stream habitat; deer; elk; bear; upland game; eagles; spotted owls; trout; Big Bend Indian Rancheria

Nashville 0.9 wetland/marsh habitat; stream habitat; deer; upland game Millerton Enlargement 1.0 - 1.4 stream and upland habitat; disruption of established development

Small to Medium Reservoirs Wing 0.25 - 0.5 salmon/steelhead (Battle Creek); deer; several listed bird, amphibian, insect, plant species Red Bank Project 0.35 stream habitat; California red-legged frog; spring-run salmon

Millville 0.1 - 0.25 stream habitat; salmon

Hulen 0.2 - 0.3 fossils; stream habitat Folsom Enlargement 1.3 stream and upland habitat; eagles; several listed plant species; cultural resources; disruption of established development

Fiddlers 0.2 - 0.5 stream habitat

a Volume shown is total storage volume, including, where applicable, the existing storage capacity of reservoirs to be enlarged.6G-5 A PPENDIX 6G The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6G



### ating criteria). That storage would be expensive, so it is unlikely except as an element of a comprehensive flood control package. The remaining two medium-sized options are Bella Vista Reservoir on Little Cow Creek near Redding and Squaw Valley Reservoir on Squaw Valley Creek near McCloud. These projects appear more expensive and more environmentally disruptive than the competing options. Therefore, they are not considered promising prospects for future development and are deferred from further evaluation.

Evaluation of Offstream Storage Options Upstream of the Delta The initial screening of upstream of Delta offstream storage options included the 14 proposals in Table 6G-3. The initial screening indicated that eight of those warranted further examination, including a review of past studies and a cursory reexamination of the latest available environmental information. Thepotential environmental issues identified with the retained options are shown in Table 6G-4. Offstreamstorage has an inherent environmental advantage because the reservoirs tend to be on minor tributaries, which reduces impacts on live streams and riparian habitat. For most of the larger offstream options, that advantage must be balanced against the potentially severe environmental impacts with diversions from major nearby streams. Evaluating the retained options from that perspective leads to the following general conclusions.

Very Large Offstream Reservoirs (Over 1.0 maf) Two of the five very large reservoir options havethe potential to provide more than 4 maf of new storage, but not without some considerable environmental effects. The existing 1.6 maf Lake Berryessa could be enlarged to provide massive amounts of storage for surplus flows pumped from the lower reaches of the Sacramento River. Past studies have shown the unitcost of storage in the large project sizes would be attractive, though a 31-mile conveyance facility with a 700-foot pump lift would be required. The financialand energy costs of this conveyance would be enormous, as would the environmental consequences. Diversion of around 12,000 cfs from the lower river could prove challenging. Under current conditions,offstream storage of Sacramento River water in an enlarged Lake Berryessa does not appear to hold much promise in the foreseeable future.

T

ABLE 6G-3 Offstream Storage Options Upstream of the Delta

Watershed Reservoir Retain or Reason for Deferral Defer Putah Creek Berryessa Enlargement Retain

Various Sites Retain
Various Colusa Retain Stony Creek Thomes-Newville Retain Stony Creek Glenn Retain S.F. Cottonwood Creek Red Bank Project Retain Inks Creek Tuscan Buttes Defer Defer due to substantial environmental impacts. Bear River Waldo Defer Being actively pursued by Yuba County Water Agency; not considered for statewide supply. Deer Creek County Line Defer Defer in favor of alternate site in same general area.

Deer Creek Deer Creek Retain Laguna Creek Clay Station Retain Calaveras River Duck Creek Defer Defer due to extraordinarily high costs. Calaveras River South Gulch Defer Primarily a local project, not well suited for statewide supply augmentation. Littlejohns Creek Farmington Enlargement Defer Primarily a local project, not well suited for statewide supply augmentation.6G-6 A

PPENDIX 6G The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6G

T ABLE 6G-4 Retained Offstream Storage Options and Environmental Issues

Reservoir Storage Volume Potential Environmental Issues (maf)

Very Large Reservoirs Berryessa Enlargement up to 11.5 additional stream habitat; wetlands; deer and upland game; Putah Creek trout fishery; Sacramento River anadromous fish; listed/sensitive plant species; cultural resources; disruption of established agriculture and recreation; population displacement Thomes-Newville 1.4 -1.9 deer; stream habitat; cultural resources; possible minor salmon/ steelhead runs Glenn 6.7 - 8.7 stream habitat; wetlands/vernal pools; deer and upland game; deer winter range; Sacramento River anadromous fish; eagles; cultural resources; population displacement

Sites 1.2 - 1.8 Sacramento River anadromous fish
Colusa 3.0 Sacramento River anadromous fish

Large Reservoirs Deer Creek 0.6 vernal pools; meadow/marsh habitat; listed bird, invertebrate, insect, and plant species; cultural resources

Small to Medium Reservoirs Red Bank 0.35 stream habitat; California red-legged frog; spring-run salmon Clay Station 0.2 stream habitat; wetlands; meadow/marsh habitat; listed bird, invertebrate, insect, and plant species



### Similarly, a Glenn Reservoir, a combination of Thomes-Newville Reservoir on the North Fork Stony Creek and Rancheria Reservoir on the mainstem of Stony Creek would provide over 8 maf of storage forsurplus water of the upper Sacramento River. The twocompartment Glenn Reservoir was conceived asterminal storage for exports from the North Coast rivers. Following passage of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1972, it was reformulated for offstream storage of water diverted from the Sacramento River. The unit cost of storage appeared reasonable, but controversy over diversions to the Tehama-Colusa Canal cast doubt on the environmental feasibility of diverting large flows to support the large-scale Glenn Reservoir. At this time, a large Glenn Reservoir does not appear to be a likelycandidate for early construction. The smaller ThomesNewville Reservoir (1.4 to 1.9 maf) operated as an offstream storage reservoir remains a possibility. The other very large offstream storage options, Sites and Colusa Reservoirs, are related, in that the 3maf Colusa Reservoir represents a northward expansion of the 1.2 to 1.8 maf Sites Reservoir into the Hunter and Logan Creek Basins. Either version of thereservoir would involve minimal environmental impacts within the area of inundation. The drawback is diverting surplus water from the Sacramento River for storage. Past proposals have focused on off-season useof the existing Tehama-Colusa Canal diversion facilities at Red Bluff Diversion Dam and the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District pumping plant near Hamilton City. Alternative Sites/Colusa conveyance facilities are now being examined. Although the alternative conveyance facilities would likely raise costs, the Sites and Colusa offstream storage options remain the most promising.
Large Offstream Reservoirs (0.5 to 1.0 maf)
Deer Creek Reservoir in northeastern SacramentoCounty is the only upstream of Delta offstream storage option within this size range. Past investigators haveexamined a 0.6 maf Deer Creek Reservoir to store surplus water from the American River, delivered from an enlargement of the existing northern reaches of the Folsom South Canal. Another version of the projectwas considered for flood control, incorporating a gravity diversion direct from Folsom Lake via a new outlet at Mormon Island Dike. Major offstream storage in the Deer Creek area would be ideally suited to develop some of the abundant surplus flow of the American6G-7 A PPENDIX 6G The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6G



### River without the difficulties associated with Auburn Dam. Also, by diverting directly from Folsom Lake or Lake Natoma, this project would avoid the principal conflicts with anadromous fish. Initial studies indicatea Deer Creek offstream storage project would be expensive—with a unit storage cost several times that of the lower-cost options.

Small to Medium Offstream Reservoirs (0.1 to 0.5 maf) Two options fall into this range, the Red Bank Project and Clay Station Reservoir. The Red BankProject would consist of a 100 taf Dippingvat Reservoir and a 250 taf Schoenfield Reservoir. Dippingvat Reservoir would store water from the South Fork of Cottonwood Creek. Water would be diverted from Dippingvat to Schoenfield Reservoir where it wouldlater be released down Red Bank Creek to the Sacramento River. Water could also be released via a new conveyance facility to the Corning Canal or the Tehama-Colusa Canal. The Clay Station Reservoir is a smaller version of Deer Creek Reservoir, but 8 miles south. Its storage cost would be similar to Deer Creek’s (very high). Withits small size and high cost, Clay Station Reservoir offers little promise as a statewide water supply option.

Likely Storage Options Upstream of the Delta Figure 6G-1 shows the location of likely surface storage options upstream of the Delta. This reappraisalof surface reservoir options identified several that appear to offer the best prospects. Foremost in this group, in order of size, are: • Colusa Reservoir, 3.0 maf offstream • Thomes-Newville Reservoir, 1.4 to 1.9 maf offstream • Sites Reservoir, 1.2 to 1.8 maf offstream • Dutch Gulch Reservoir, 0.7 to 0.9 maf onstream (or its upstream alternative, Fiddlers Reservoir, 0.2 to 0.5 maf) • Tehama Reservoir, 0.5 to 0.7 maf onstream • Wing Reservoir, 0.25 to 0.5 maf onstream (with Battle Creek diversion) • Red Bank Project, 0.35 maf onstream and offstream • Millville Reservoir, 0.1 to 0.25 maf onstream A second tier of options offers substantial watersupply potential, but with greater environmental impacts and/or economic costs that create some uncertainty about their implementability. From a floodcontrol standpoint, enlarged Shasta, Auburn, and enlarged Millerton would provide important benefits. In order of size, these sites are: • Enlarged Lake Berryessa, up to 11.5 maf additional offstream • Enlarged Lake Shasta, up to 10 maf additional

onstream • Glenn Reservoir, 6.7 to 8.7 maf offstream • Auburn Reservoir, 0.85 to 2.3 maf onstream • Thomes-Newville Reservoir, 1.4 to 1.9 maf

onstream • Enlarged Millerton Lake, 0.5 to 0.9 maf additional

onstream • Enlarged Folsom Lake, 0.37 maf additional

onstream A third group of options includes one that may be a viable alternative, but for which limited informationis available. This site might be characterized as “worthy of a second look” in the future: • Kosk Reservoir, 0.8 maf onstream

Operation of Storage Upstream of the Delta Additional surface storage upstream of the Deltawould be effective if operated with major water supply reservoirs in the basin, principally Shasta, Oroville, and Folsom. Under California’s water rights hierarchy, new facilities may store surplus water that is not needed to meet preexisting rights. Since virtually no surplus water is available during the irrigation season, storage in new projects will be limited to late fall, winter, and early spring. Most storable flow occurs during periodsof flood runoff. But, under certain conditions, coordinated operation with other reservoirs may allowoccasional storage of fall releases made to achieve mandatory flood reservations. A Sites Reservoir offstream storage facility provides a good example of how a Sacramento Valley surface project could be operated in coordination with other facilities. A large Sites Reservoir would provide 1.8 maf of storage in the foothills west of Maxwell. The large Sites Reservoir would be formed by constructing two main dams on Stone Corral and Funks Creeks andseveral smaller saddle dams along the low divide be6G-8 A

PPENDIX 6G The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6G

Dutch Gulch Shasta Enlargement Kosk

Millville Wing Tehama Dippingvat Schoenfield
Thomes - Newville Glenn
Colusa Sites

Auburn

Folsom Enlargement Berryessa Enlargement

Millerton Enlargement F IGURE 6G-1 Likely Reservoir Sites Upstream of the Delta6G-9 A PPENDIX 6G The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6G



### tween Funks and Hunters Creeks. A larger Colusa Reservoir, providing 3.0 maf of storage, would be formed by extending the large Sites Reservoir north into the Hunters and Logan Creek drainages. In this configuration, water would be delivered tothe reservoirs by winter use of the existing TehamaColusa Canal (which diverts from the river near Red Bluff), and by diversion to the Glenn-Colusa Canal at its pumping site near Hamilton City. A new pumped intertie would deliver Glenn-Colusa Canal water to the Tehama-Colusa Canal, from which it would be lifted a maximum of about 320 feet to Sites/Colusa Reservoirs. In a recently conceived alternative, use of the existing diversions would give way in favor of a single pumping facility south of Chico Landing. Most of the water available for storage in Sites/ Colusa Reservoirs occurs from December throughApril. Whenever water and energy were available, operators would make maximum effort to fill Sites/ColusaReservoirs. As seasonal water demands increased, water would be withdrawn from system reservoirs to meet needs. Since water would have to be pumped to Sites/Colusa Reservoirs, the optimum operation would favor making the initial withdrawals from onstream reservoirs with higher ratios of inflow to storage (which are more likely to refill in the subsequent wet season). At some point, depending on the dryness of the year and the storage status of other facilities, withdrawalswould be made from Sites/Colusa Reservoirs. To minimize potential impacts of the existing diversions on the Sacramento River fisheries, Sites/Colusa Reservoirswould release water back into the two canals in exchange for reduced diversions from the river. Sites/ Colusa Reservoirs would be drawn to minimum pool only in a prolonged series of drought years. In wetter periods, they would operate within a narrow range near full.

Evaluation of Off-Aqueduct Storage Options South of the Delta In the Department’s recent alternative South ofDelta offstream reservoir reconnaissance study, all geographically possible off-aqueduct reservoir sites on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley were identified.Alternatives on the east side of the valley were not considered due to the excessive cost of conveyance connections to the California Aqueduct. Ninety-sevendam sites in 46 watersheds were evaluated (Table 6G5) for their potential to economically improve SWP water supply reliability with minimal environmental and social impacts. For each potential reservoir site,the capital cost and the potential environmental impacts were ev aluated and rated at a general level to determine the sites that should be studied in more detail. The Department’s study examined a wide range of storage volumes to evaluate potentially feasible projects based on the future long-term availability ofexports from the Delta and the level of SWP contractor participation. Multiple reservoir sizes were considered for each alternative dam site. Volumes from0.1 to 2 maf of storage were classified into four categories (Table 6G-6). All sites were evaluated using the same level of detail for each of the screening criteria. To evaluateand compare engineering characteristics, site information was gathered and construction costs wereestimated for each alternative. For this purpose, a basic design configuration was selected. The storagecapacity and water surface area of each reservoir option were calculated. The embankment volumes of each main dam and associated saddle dams were calculated. The capital costs of all reservoir options were basedon previous cost estimates developed for LBG facilities. Sixteen categories of cost, including mitigation costs, were calculated. A rating of the alternatives wasperformed based on estimated capital costs per acrefoot of storage. A unit storage cost of above $3,000/af was deemed impractical and was used as a thresholdfor deferring alternative sites. After deferring alternatives with unit storage costs above the practical threshold, 34 dam sites in 18 watersheds were retained for further consideration. The unit storage cost for each of these options was translated to a 100 point system, with 0 points assigned to a unit cost of $3,000/af ofstorage and 100 points to a unit cost of $0/af of storage. Unit costs and scores were developed for several reservoir sizes at each site to cover the potential range of storage volume available at each dam site. The unit costs and scores for the reservoir sizes evaluated at each dam site were plotted versus volume. Curves were drawn through the points associated with each dam site to allow interpolation of this information for the entire range of storage volumes available at each dam
site. Environmental criteria were developed by the Department and DFG. Factors affecting the degree of environmental sensitivity of each alternative reservoir site were identified by the Department and DFG, andwere reviewed by USFWS. Six environmental screen6G-10 A

PPENDIX 6G The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6G



### ing criteria were developed. The environmental resources information varied among the sites. To ensure that all the options were evaluated equally, all sites usedthe same level of detail for each of the screening criteria. In evaluating wetland resources, USFWS NationalWetland Inventory Maps were used to determine wetland abundance and types at each site. USGS nationalaerial photographic project maps were used to determine vegetation community abundance and type, and to obtain additional habitat and land use information. Listed and candidate animal and plant species that could potentially be found at the alternative sites wereidentified by searching the 1995 DFG Natural Diversity Data Base, the fifth edition of the California NativePlant Society’s inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California, and DFG Wildlife Habitat Relationships System publications. Economic and environmental sensitivity scores were given equal weight and combined to develop a score for each alternative reservoir site ranging from 0to 100 points. Table 6G-7 shows the combined ranking of each alternative reservoir site, sorted by the four storage volume categories. Alternative reservoir sites with the highest scores were selected for each storage volume category. A minimum of 4 and a maximum of 10 alternative reservoir sites were chosen for each size category to provide a reasonable variety of alternatives for further evaluation. Using the previously defined categories, alternative reservoir sites were selected for further evaluation. Many of the alternative reservoir sites were selected in more than one size category. As shown in Table 6G-8, a total of 19 reservoir sites in 10 watersheds were retained for more analysis after the initial evaluation. These sites are shown in Figure 6G-2.

Likely Off-Aqueduct Storage Options South of the Delta After a general evaluation, five sites appeared most favorable: Garzas Creek, Ingram Canyon, Los Banos

T

ABLE 6G-6 South of the Delta Off-Aqueduct Storage Size Categories

Category Storage (maf)

Small 0.1 - 0.25 Medium 0.25 - 0.5 Large 0.5 - 1.0 Very Large 1.0 - 2.0 T

ABLE 6G-5 Watersheds Identified for South of the Delta Storage Options

Watershed County Watershed County Arroyo Ciervo Fresno Los Banos Creek Merced Arroyo Hondo Fresno Los Gatos Creek Fresno Bitter Creek Kern Los Vaqueros Contra Costa Bitterwater Valley Kern/San Luis Obispo McKittrick Valley Kern Broad Creek Kern Moreno Gulch Fresno Buena Vista Creek Kern Mustang Creek Merced Buena Vista Lake Bed Kern Orestimba Creek Stanislaus Cantua Creek Fresno Ortigalita Creek Merced Capita Canyon Fresno Oso Creek Stanislaus Castac Valley Kern/Los Angeles Packwood Creek Kern Deep Gulch San Joaquin Panoche Hills Fresno Del Puerto Canyon Stanislaus Panoche/Silver Creek Fresno/San Benito Garzas Creek Stanislaus Pleito Creek Kern Hospital Creek San Joaquin/Stanislaus Quinto Creek Merced/Stanislaus Ingram Canyon Stanislaus Romero Creek Merced Ingram/Kern Canyon Stanislaus Salado Creek Merced Kellogg/Marsh Creek Contra Costa Salt Creek Fresno/Kern/Merced Kern Canyon Stanislaus San Emigdio Creek Kern Kettleman Plain Kings San Luis Creek Merced Laguna Seca Creek Merced Sandy Creek Kern Little Panoche Creek Fresno Santiago Creek Kern Little Salado/Crow Creek Stanislaus Sunflower Kings/Kern Lone Tree Creek San Joaquin Wildcat Canyon Merced/Fresno6G-11 A PPENDIX 6G The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6G

T

ABLE 6G-7 Ranking of Off-Aqueduct Storage Options South of the Delta

Dam Site Potential Unit Cost Cost Environmental Combined Range of ($/af) Ranking Sensitivity Ranking Storage (taf) (0-100) Ranking (0-100) (0-100)
Very Large Reservoirs (1.0 to 2.0 maf) LBG/Los Banos Creek (Dam 181) 1,000-2,000 730-550 76-82 31-31 53-56 Garzas Creek (Dam 104) 1,000-1,750 1,600-1,310 47-56 53-52 50-54 Panoche/Silver Creek (Dam 114) 1,000-2,000 1,370-1,210 54-60 47-45 51-52 Orestimba Creek (Dam 171) 1,000-1,140 1,670-1,600 44-47 46-46 45-46

Large Reservoirs (0.5 to 1.0 maf) LBG/Los Banos Creek (Dam 181) 500-1,000 1,000-730 67-76 33-31 50-53 Panoche/Silver Creek (Dam 112) 500-1,000 1,620-1,320 46-56 49-47 48-52 Panoche/Silver Creek (Dam 114) 500-1,000 1,830-1,370 39-54 48-47 44-51 Ingram Canyon (Dam 37) 500-980 1,950-1,400 35-53 48-48 42-51 Orestimba Creek (Dam 170) 500-900 1,890-1,410 37-53 49-46 43-50 Garzas Creek (Dam 104) 500-1,000 2,090-1,600 30-47 54-53 42-50 Garzas Creek (Dam 105) 500-630 1,910-1,660 36-45 54-54 45-49 Panoche/Silver Creek (Dam 45) 500-990 2,300-1,920 23-36 59-57 41-47 Garzas Creek (Dam 109) 500-940 2,250-1,730 25-42 54-52 40-47 Orestimba Creek (Dam 171) 500-1,000 1,930-1,670 36-44 48-46 42-45

Medium Reservoirs (0.25 to 0.5 maf) LBG/Los Banos Creek (Dam 181) 250-500 1,660-1,000 45-67 35-33 40-50 Panoche/Silver Creek (Dam 112) 250-500 2,250-1,620 25-46 49-49 37-48 Sunflower Valley (Dam 177) 250-500 2,490-1,460 17-51 46-44 31-48 Garzas Creek (Dam 106) 250-310 2,050-1,820 32-39 54-54 43-47 Garzas Creek (Dam 105) 290-500 2,400-1,910 20-36 54-54 37-45 Panoche/Silver Creek (Dam 114) 250-500 2,050-1,830 32-39 49-48 40-44 Orestimba Creek (Dam 170) 250-500 2,630-1,890 12-37 50-49 31-43 Garzas Creek (Dam 104) 250-500 2,950-2,090 2-30 55-54 28-42 Orestimba Creek (Dam 171) 250-500 3,000-1,930 0-36 49-48 24-42 Ingram Canyon (Dam 37) 250-500 3,120-1,950 N/A-35 49-48 N/A-42

Small Reservoirs (0.10 to 0.25 maf) Kettleman Plain (Dam 99) 100-250 2,990-1,620 0-46 61-59 30-53 Garzas Creek (Dam 106) 100-250 3,300-2,050 N/A-32 56-54 N/A-43 Garzas Creek (Dam 107) 100-250 3,300-2,020 N/A-33 56-54 N/A-43 Panoche/Silver Creek (Dam 111) 100-240 3,480-2,020 N/A-33 51-49 N/A-41 LBG/Los Banos Creek (Dam 181) 100-250 3,350-1,660 N/A-45 37-35 N/A-40 Panoche/Silver Creek (Dam 114) 100-250 3,560-2,050 N/A-32 51-49 N/A-40 Little Salado/Crow Creek (Dam 63) 100-130 2,810-2,310 6-23 49-48 28-36 Quinto Creek (Dam 54) 110-250 3,120-2,370 N/A-21 50-49 N/A-35 Romero Creek (Dam 56) 100-180 3,410-2,560 N/A-15 53-53 N/A-34 Garzas Creek (Dam 108) 100-250 4,010-2,870 N/A-4 56-55 N/A-306G-12 A

PPENDIX 6G The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6G



### Creek, Orestimba Creek, and Panoche/Silver Creek. As all past studies have shown, Los Banos Creek is the most cost-effective reservoir option considered for sizecategories above 250 taf. The next least costly reservoir option ranges from about 50 percent more expensive for the medium size category up to about 100 percent more expensive for the very large category. In the environmental analysis, however, the Los BanosCreek option received the lowest environmental sensitivity rating (or had the most potential impacts) of all alternative sites. This could be because there is a greater level of knowledge about this reservoir site. Los Banos Creek was the highest ranked reservoir option based on total combined rating for reservoir sizes above 250␣ taf. A reservoir at Little Salado-Crow Creek would have a high surface area to storage volume ratio. There wouldbe high evaporation losses, making the site unfavorable. Sunflower Reservoir site lies 10 miles west of the California Aqueduct and would require an extended conveyance system. Significant seepage rates would also be expected at this site. These two sites (in addition to Romero Creek, Kettleman Plain, and Quinto Creek) have small storage capacities. Preliminary modelingresults indicate that the range of additional surface storage south of the Delta should be around 500 to 2,000␣ taf. The cumulative environmental impacts of several small to medium reservoirs needed to attain the storage capacity would probably be greater than one larger reservoir. Therefore, the small to medium size reservoir options were deferred. Enlarging San Luis Reservoir has been considered for additional storage, but because of engineering andeconomic criteria, this has been deferred. The integrity of an enlarged San Luis Dam has been questioned, and the cost would be high.

T

ABLE 6G-8 Retained Off-Aqueduct Storage Options
South of the Delta

Watershed Dam Site Reservoir Size Category Small Medium Large Very Large

Garzas Creek 104 X X X 105 X X 106 X X 107 X 108 X 109 X

Ingram Canyon 37 X X

Kettleman Plain 99 X

LBG/Los Banos Creek 181 X X X X

Little Salado/Crow Creek 63 X

Orestimba 170 X X 171 X X X

Panoche/Silver Creek 111 X
112 X X 114 X X X X 45 X

Quinto Creek 54 X

Romero Creek 56 X

Sunflower 177 X6G-13 A PPENDIX 6G The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6G

Ingram Canyon Little Salado/Crow Creek Orestimba Creek Garzas Creek Quinto Creek Romero Creek Los Banos Creek Panoche/Silver Creek Kettleman Plain Sunflower

C

a l i f

o

r n

i a

A q

u

e

d

u

c

t F IGURE 6G-2. Off-Aqueduct South of the Delta Watershed Sites6G-14 A

PPENDIX 6G The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6G



### Operation of Off-Aqueduct Storage South of the Delta To illustrate how south of Delta offstream storage would operate, LBG Reservoir is used as a model. This example treats LBG as an SWP facility. To meet CVP service area needs, USBR could participate with the Department in this project. LBG would be located on Los Banos Creek 6 mileswest of the California Aqueduct in the Los Banos Valley area. The main damsite would be about 80 miles south of the Delta. Facilities would consist of a storage reservoir with associated pump-generating plants and conveyance channels. Delta winter flows would be conveyed through the California Aqueduct andpumped into LBG for storage. Operation of the reservoir would be similar to that of San Luis Reservoir,except that LBG would retain about one half to twothirds of its storage in average years to improve drought year water supply reliability of the SWP. During periods of low Delta inflow, LBG would provide water supplies south of the Delta to reduce the demand for Delta exports. Added flexibility could permit the SWP to take advantage of seasonal and short-term water quality improvements to enhance thequality of delivered supplies. The 1.73 maf LBG Reservoir examined in the 1990 feasibility study would operate through a range of about 550 to 750 taf each year, filling in the early spring and releasing water to the California Aqueduct between May and September.6G-15 A PPENDIX 6G The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6GThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-1 

# Options for Meeting Future Water Needs in Coastal Regions of California 

# T his chapter covers the coastal hydrologic regions of the State: the North Coast,
San Francisco Bay, Central Coast, and South Coast (Figure 7-1). These four
regions make up 29 percent of the State’s land area and were home to 78 percent of the State’s population in 1995.

The Pulgas Water Temple, owned by the City and County of San Francisco. F IGURE 7-1
Coastal Hydrologic RegionsThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-2 SISKIYOU

HUMBOLDT

TRINITY

SONOMA MENDOCINO DEL NORTE

MODOC OREGON

P

a

c

i f

i

c

O

c

e

a

n LAKE COUNTY River

River Mattole River Eel River Tule Lake Clear Lake Reservoir

Navarro River

ver Gar

cia Dry Creek Russian

River Klamath

Scott River

River Salmon River Smith River
Klamath Redwood
Creek Trinity River Trinity Lake Shasta River

South

Fork

River

Lake Sonoma Meiss Lake Lower Klamath Lake

Lake Mendocino Noyo Butte Creek

Mad

Van zen River

Ri Lake Shastina

River Eel Lake Pillsbury Du

Ruth Lake Lewiston Lake

South Fork

Santa Rosa-SonomaPetaluma Aqueducts Clear Creek Tunnel

Van Arsdale Diversion F IGURE 7-2 North Coast Hydrologic RegionThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-3 

### Description of the Area
The North Coast Region comprises the PacificOcean coastline from Tomales Bay to the Oregon border, extending inland to the crest of coastal watersheds. The region includes all or large portions of Modoc, Siskiyou, Del Norte, Trinity, Humboldt, Mendocino, Lake, and Sonoma Counties. Small areas of Shasta, Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, and Marin Counties are also within the North Coast Region (Figure 7-2).Most of the region is comprised of rugged mountains; the dominant topographic features are the Klamath Mountains and the Coast Range. Mountain elevations range from 5,000 feet along the coast to morethan 8,000 feet in the Klamath River watershed. Valley areas include the high plateau of the Klamath River Basin in Modoc County, the Eureka/Arcata area, Hoopa Valley in Humboldt County, Anderson Valley, the Ukiah area, Alexander Valley, and the Santa Rosa Plain. Precipitation in the region varies depending on location and elevation. In the Modoc Plateau of the Klamath River Basin, annual precipitation averages 10 inches, while higher elevation lands of the Smith River Basin in Del Norte County average more than 100 inches of rain per year. The southern portion of the region is drier; Santa Rosa averages about 29 inches of rain annually.Most land area in the North Coast Region is forest or range land. Irrigated agriculture is concentrated in narrow river valleys such as the Russian River Valley in Sonoma County, and on the high plateau of the Klamath River Basin. The primary crops are pasture, grain, alfalfa, wine grapes, truck crops, and nursery stock. Principal cities in the region include Crescent City, Yreka, Eureka, Fort Bragg, Ukiah, Santa Rosa,and Rohnert Park. Table 7-1 shows the 1995 population and irrigated crop acreage in the region and 2020 forecasts.

Water Demands and Supplies

Because of the water dedicated to the North Coast’s wild and scenic rivers, environmental water use comprises the majority of the total water demand in the North Coast Region. Water shortages are expected to occur only under drought conditions, as shown in Table 7-2. These water shortages will be mostly in the USBR’s Klamath Project’s service area and in some small coastal communities. Three existing projects provide much of the NorthCoast’s developed surface water supply—USBR’s Klamath Project, Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District’s Ruth Lake, and USACE’s Russian River Project. The primary water storage facilities of USBR’s Klamath Project are Upper Klamath Lake, Clear Lake, and Gerber Reservoir. This project was authorized by the Secretary of the Interior in 1905, and is one of theWest’s earliest reclamation projects. The project’s primary purpose is to store and divert water for agricultural use. The project service area includes more than 230,000 acres of irrigable lands in Oregon and

T

ABLE 7-1 Population and Crop Acreage

Population Irrigated Crop Acreage (thousands) (thousands of acres)

1995 606 323
2020 835 335 

### . . . 

# North Coast Hydrologic RegionThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-4

### California. The project also serves four national wildlife areas—the Lower Klamath, Tule Lake, Clear Lake, and Upper Klamath Refuges.The 48 taf Ruth Lake is Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District’s water storage facility on the Mad River. Downstream Ranney collector wells capture water released from Ruth Lake for distribution in the Eureka-Arcata-McKinleyville area. Humboldt Bay MWD is a water wholesaler with seven municipal, twoindustrial, and about 200 miscellaneous water customers. The Trinity River Division of the CVP develops supply for export to the Central Valley and does notdeliver water in the North Coast Region. USBR constructed Trinity River facilities in the early 1960s to augment CVP water supplies in the Central Valley.The principal features of the Trinity Division are Trinity Dam and the 2.4 maf Trinity Lake on the upper Trinity River, Lewiston Dam, the 10.7-mile Clear Creek Tunnel that begins at Lewiston Dam and ends at Whiskeytown Lake in the Sacramento River Basin, Spring Creek Tunnel, and Spring Creek Powerplant. Exports from the Trinity River to the Sacramento River Basin began in 1963. From 1980 through 1995, Trinity River exports averaged 825 taf annually. In 1981, the Secretary of the Interior increased instream flow requirements in the Trinity River from 120 taf to 287 taf in drought years, and 340 taf in wet years. In 1991, the Secretary of the Interior amended the 1981 decision, directing that at least 340 taf be released intothe Trinity River for water years 1992 to 1996, pending completion of a USFWS instream flow study. In 1992, CVPIA mandated that the secretarial decisionremain in place until the instream flow study was comUSBR’s Anderson-Rose Dam is located on the Lost River in Oregon, just north of the stateline. This Klamath Project facility diverts water to serve irrigation needs on the bed of the former Tule Lake in California and Oregon.

Courtesy of USBR T

ABLE 7-2 North Coast Region Water Budget (taf) a

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 169 177 201 212 Agricultural 894 973 927 1,011 Environmental 19,544 9,518 19,545 9,518 Total 20,607 10,668 20,672 10,740 Supplies

Surface Water 20,331 10,183 20,371 10,212 Groundwater 263 294 288 321 Recycled and Desalted 13 14 13 14 Total 20,607 10,491 20,672 10,546 Shortage 0 177 0 194

a Water use/supply totals and shortages may not sum due to rounding.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-5 

### pleted, at which time the study’s recommendations would be implemented. Currently, a draft Trinity River flow evaluation report recommends that 815 taf, 701 taf, 636 taf, 453 taf, and 369 taf be released in the Trinity River during extremely wet, wet, normal, dry, and critically dry years, respectively. The water year types are based on Trinity Lake inflow. Lake Mendocino on the East Fork Russian River near Ukiah and Lake Sonoma on Dry Creek near Geyserville are the water storage facilities of USACE’s Russian River Project. Sonoma County WA receives most of the water from this project and delivers about 29 taf/yr to Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Cotati, and Forestville in the North Coast Region, and another 25 taf/yr to Novato, Petaluma, the Valley of the Moon, and Sonoma in the San Francisco Bay Region. TheRussian River Project also regulates flow in the Russian River for agricultural, municipal, and instream uses within Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, and municipal uses in Marin County. Water is diverted from the Eel River into Lake Mendocino through PG&E’s Potter Valley Project.

Local Water Resources Management Issues

Klamath River Fishery IssuesThe primary water management issue in the Klamath River Basin is the restoration of fish populations that include listed species such as the Lost River and shortnose suckers, coho salmon, and steelhead trout. The Lost River sucker is native to Upper Klamath Lake and its tributaries, and the shortnose sucker is found in the Lost River, Clear Lake, Tule Lake, and Upper Klamath Lake. Both species spawn during the spring. Higher water levels in Upper Klamath Lake have been identified as an aid to recovery of these fisheries. Coho and steelhead were recently listed, and water supply implications will not be known until management plans are completed and recovery goals are established. To address the need for greater certainty in projectoperations, USBR began preparing a long-term Klamath Project operations plan in 1995. Difficult andcomplex issues have delayed completion of the longterm plan. USBR has issued an annual operations plan each year since 1995 as it continues the development of the long-term plan. The Klamath River CompactCommission is facilitating discussions on water management alternatives to address ESA and water supply needs. This three-member commission was established by an interstate compact ratified by Congress in 1957to facilitate integrated management of interstate water resources and to promote intergovernmentalcooperation on water allocation issues. Members include a representative from the Department, the Director of the Oregon Water Resources Department, and a presidentially-appointed federal representative.
Trinity River Fish and Wildlife Management ProgramFollowing completion of the Trinity River Division, fish populations in the Trinity River Basindeclined dramatically. The Resources Agency estabTrinity Dam and Trinity Lake. Releases from the reservoir are reregulated at Lewiston Dam, 7 miles downstream on the Trinity River. At Lewiston, water is either released back to the Trinity River or diverted through the Clear Creek Tunnel into the Sacramento
River Basin.

Courtesy of USBRThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-6

### lished a statewide task force in 1967 to develop a program to improve the fishery. One of the most significant problems identified was sedimentation from Grass Valley Creek. In 1980, PL 96-335 authorized construction of Buckhorn Mountain Debris Dam on Grass Valley Creek, as well as sediment dredging in the Trinity River below Grass Valley Creek. In 1984,PL 98-541 authorized the Trinity River fish and wildlife management program, providing $57 million(excluding Buckhorn Mountain Debris Dam and sediment dredging costs) to implement actions to restorefish and wildlife populations in the Trinity River Basin to pre-project levels. Congress authorized an additional $15 million in 1993 for purchase of 17,000 acres of the Grass Valley Creek watershed andits restoration. PL 104-143 in 1996 extended the program three years to October 1, 1998, to allow expenditure of funds previously authorized, but not yet appropriated. Reauthorization of the program iscurrently under consideration. A draft EIS/EIR is being prepared to address proposed streamflow changes and mainstem Trinity River restoration actions.
Water Supplies of Small Coastal CommunitiesThe town of Klamath in Del Norte County obtains its water supply from two wells adjacent to the Klamath River. During the recent drought, seawater intrusion forced the Klamath Community Services District to use an upstream private well in the Hoopa Creek drainage area. All of Klamath’s water supply in1995 was obtained from the private well, and no water was pumped from Klamath CSD’s wells. In 1996, Klamath CSD pumped adequate supplies from its two wells, but seawater intrusion during dry years remains a problem. Although the Hoopa Creek drainage area has adequate groundwater supplies, Klamath CSD does not have funding to construct an additional well.The town of Smith River, 13 miles north of Crescent City, takes its water supply from wells along Rowdy Creek. Water demands in the town of Smith River are expected to exceed the capacity of the town’s delivery system if projected growth occurs. (Growthfrom Brookings, a popular Oregon retirement and resort community about 7 miles north of the stateline,is affecting Smith River.) There are no plans to upgrade Smith River’s water system. Growth in the Crescent City area is creating the need to expand the city’s water distribution system, which consists of a Ranney collector well on the Smith River and a 50,000 gallon storage tank. The Ranney collector can produce about 7.8 taf/yr, but the capacity of the existing transmission and storage system is only about 4.5 taf/yr. Crescent City is planning to add new mains, a new pump station, one additional booster pump, and a 4 mg storage tank. The upgraded systemwill produce 5.9 taf/yr. The estimated cost is $6.7 million. A second phase will make additional distributionsystem improvements. These new conveyance facilities should meet the city’s demands through 2007. The Weaverville Community Services District inTrinity County serves about 1,370 metered connections. In average water years, demands within the district are met with existing supplies from East andWest Weaver Creeks. During drought years, water rationing and building moratoria were needed to reduce demands. In response to drought year demands, a new diversion of up to 3 cfs from the Trinity River was constructed. The Weaverville area is expected to have adequate water supplies to meet demands over the next 30 years.Trinity County Water Works District #1 is investigating a wastewater treatment and reuse project for the Hayfork area. The project would treat wastewater from individual septic systems, and would eliminate septic tank seepage into local streams. The district’s feasibility study identified a gravity collection system with an oxidation pond and two marsh areas as the best alternative for wastewater treatment. The project would treat 160 af annually, and could reuse the treated water to irrigate agricultural lands or landscaping. The estimated cost for this project is $8.9 million. The City of Rio Dell obtains its water from a wellon property owned by the Eel River Sawmill. Pentachlorophenol has been detected in groundwater on the sawmill’s property, although not in the city’s well water. Rio Dell is planning to find an alternate watersupply. The most likely alternative will be treated surface water from the Eel River.The City of Fort Bragg experiences water shortages during drought years. The water sources for the city are direct diversions from surface water sources. During average rainfall years, water rights from these sources are enough to meet the city’s demands to the year 2020. Supplies are inadequate to meet the city’s needs during drought years and to maintain instream flows required by DFG. DHS issued an order in 1991 prohibiting new demands on the water system until adequate water supplies were developed. The city has been investigating alternate sources of supply and hasimplemented water conservation measures and imThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-7 

### proved existing system capacity. As a result of these corrective measures DHS lifted its order in 1993 andallowed the city to begin issuing building permits, subject to restrictions including no net increase in consumption and implementation of a conservation and retrofit program. Groundwater use is constrained by limitations in aquifer storage capacity in some coastal communities. Wells on low terraces near the ocean are potentially vulnerable to seawater intrusion. The town of Mendocino is completely dependent on individual wells. A local survey conducted in 1986 showed that about 10 percent of the wells go dry every year and 40 percent go dry during drought years. In 1986, water was trucked in during summer and fall to help reduceshortages. The Mendocino Community Services District investigated new water supply sources, including wells in the Big River aquifer and desalting. To date, no acceptable water source has been identified. In 1990, town residents approved developing a public water system if an adequate water source could be found. The district is currently collecting hydrogeological data on the groundwater basin.

Russian River Environmental Restoration Actions Water quality issues and barriers to fish migration are of concern in the Russian River Basin. No future water supply shortages are forecasted for the basin, although actions taken to protect recently listed salmonids may affect existing or future diversions. A Russian River Action Plan, prepared by Sonoma County WA in 1997, provides a regional assessmentof needs in the watershed and identifies fishery habitat restoration projects in need of funding. The SWRCB is promoting a coordinated Russian River fishery restoration plan. In 1997, NMFS listed coho salmon and steelheadtrout as threatened along part of the Central California coast that includes the Russian River Basin. SCWA, USACE, and NMFS signed an agreement to establish a framework for consultation under Section 7 of the ESA. Under the agreement, USACE and SCWA will jointly review information on their respective Russian river activities to determine impacts to critical habitat. The Eel-Russian River Commission, composed of county supervisors from Humboldt, Mendocino,Sonoma, and Lake Counties, provides a regional forum for agencies and groups to stay informed aboutprojects and issues affecting the Eel and Russian Rivers. The Commission, formed in 1978 under a joint powers agreement among the counties, was to aid inimplementing an Eel-Russian River watershed conservation and development plan. A regional issue currently being addressed by the Commission is the review of a

Currently, the main water issues in the Russian River Basin are related to watershed management and environmental restoration programs.



## Lupine PhotoThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-8 

### draft 10-year fishery study by PG&E for its Potter Valley Project, required as a condition of a 1983 FERC license.A proposed SCWA project would allow fish passage through a flood control structure on MatanzasCreek in downtown Santa Rosa. The original structure, constructed in the early 1960s, does not permitfish passage. SCWA also proposes to install a fish ladder at Healdsburg Dam on the Russian River, a smallflashboard dam used in the summer to create a recreational pool.
City of Santa Rosa Long-Term Wastewater Project In early 1998 the City of Santa Rosa selected an alternative that would recharge depleted geothermal fields in the Geysers area with treated wastewater as part of its long-term wastewater recycling program.Under this alternative, the Santa Rosa Subregional Sewerage System will pump about 11 mgd of treated wastewater to the Geysers for injection into the steamfields. This amount is a little less than half the flow the treatment system is expected to produce atbuildout. The project is intended to eliminate weatherrelated problems of the city’s current disposal system and minimize treated wastewater discharges into theRussian River. The project consists of pipeline transmission and distribution systems and is scheduled to be completed by 2001.
SCWA Water Supply and Transmission ProjectSonoma County WA is preparing an EIR to develop additional water supply as well as to expand its existing water transmission system. The project will be implemented under an agreement among SCWA and its water contractors. Components of the projectinclude water conservation, increased use of the Russian River Project, and expansion and revised operation of the water transmission system. Water conservation is planned to provide additional savings of 6.6 taf. TheRussian River component will allow for increasing diversions from 75 to 101 taf from the Russian River. This increased use of the Russian River Project water will require construction of additional diversion andconveyance facilities, including new diversion locations. The project will continue to meet existing instream flow requirements associated with the SWRCB’s Decision 1610 and will require new waterrights applications to SWRCB. The transmission system component has two elements—facilities to divertand treat Russian River Project water, and transmission system improvements allowing for delivery of up to 167 taf/yr. The final EIR is scheduled for late 1998.
Potter Valley Project PG&E’s Potter Valley Project diverts water from the Eel River to the East Fork of the Russian River for power generation and downstream agricultural and municipal water use. The project consists of Scott Dam and Lake Pillsbury, Van Arsdale Diversion Dam and tunnel, and the Potter Valley Powerplant. The project diverts about 159 taf of water and generates about 60 million kWh of energy annually. Releases are limited by required minimum flows on the Eel River and by requirements to maintain reservoir levels in LakePillsbury during the summer recreation season. Under the FERC relicensing process, PG&E has been meeting with State and federal agencies to develop instream flow recommendations for the Eel River. Diversions from the Eel River are being evaluated in light of ongoing efforts to restore Eel River fisheries. PG&E is also trying to secure additional operating revenue from the project and, if unsuccessful, may sell or abandon the project. Local agencies have expressed interest in acquiring the project if it were to be sold.

Water Management Options for the North Coast Region Table 7-3 shows a list of options for the region, and the results of an initial screening of the options. The retained options were evaluated (Table 7A-1 in Appendix 7A) based on a set of fixed criteria discussed in Chapter 6.

Water Conservation

Urban. Urban water demand forecasts for 2020 assume that BMPs are in place; consequently, only thoseurban conservation efforts which exceed BMPs are considered as options. All urban conservation options were retained. Reducing outdoor water use to 0.8 ET

o 

### in new development would attain about 1 taf /yr of depletionreductions, while extending this measure to include existing development would reduce depletions by about 6 taf/yr. Reducing residential indoor water use to 60 and55 gpcd would reduce depletions by 3 and 6 taf/yr, respectively. Reducing commercial, institutional, and industrial water use an additional 3 and 5 percent would attain 1 and 2 taf/yr of depletion reductions, respectively. Reducing distribution system losses to 7 and 5 percent would reduce depletions by 6 and 9 taf/yr.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-9 T

ABLE 7-3 North Coast Region List of Water Management Options

Option Retain Reason for Deferral or Defer

Conservation

Urban

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8 ET

o Retain
Indoor Water Use Retain

Interior CII Water Use Retain Distribution System Losses Retain Agricultural

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable. Flexible Water Delivery Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable. Canal Lining and Piping Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable. Tailwater Recovery Defer No significant depletion reductions attainable.

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations Ewing Reservoir Enlargement Defer No demand for additional supply.

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities Boundary Reservoir - Lost River, Oregon Defer Low yields, high cost. Beatty Reservoir - Sprague River, Oregon Defer High cost, archaeological resources, and sucker habitat. Chiloquin Narrows Reservoir - Sprague River, Defer High cost, archaeological resources, and sucker Oregon habitat. Montague Reservoir - Shasta River Defer Low yields, high cost. Grenada Ranch Reservoir - Little Shasta River Defer Low yields, poor dam site and reservoir geology, high cost. Table Rock Reservoir - Little Shasta River Defer No surplus water, no local interest. Highland Reservoir - Moffett Creek Defer Low yields, high cost. Callahan Reservoir - Scott River Defer Low yields, high cost, no local interest. Grouse Creek Reservoir - E.F. Scott River Defer Reservoir seepage, high cost, no local interest. Etna Reservoir - French Creek Defer Low yields, high cost, no local interest. Mugginsville Reservoir - Mill Creek Defer Low yields, excessive cost. Various sites in Noyo/Navarro River Basins Defer No local interest in offstream storage; unfavorable environmental conditions. Long/Round/Aspen Valley Reservoirs - Defer Excessive capital cost, questionable reservoir Klamath River geology. Georgia-Pacific Wood Waste Disposal Site Defer Site not available. Georgia-Pacific Replacement Site Defer Unfavorable geotechnical conditions. Georgia-Pacific Site No. 3 Defer Unfavorable geotechnical conditions. Newman Gulch Site Defer Unfavorable geotechnical conditions. Large reservoir at Boddy Property Site Defer Excessive capital cost. Smaller reservoir (at Boddy property site or Defer Excessive capital cost. alternate location) Waterfall Gulch Intake Improvement Defer Biological, instream flow concerns. South Basin (City of Fort Bragg) Defer Water rights issues.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-10 

### Agricultural. The 2020 agricultural water demand forecasts assume that EWMPs are in place. As with the urban water management options, only those agricultural conservation efforts which exceed EWMPs are considered as options. Agricultural conservation options were deferred from evaluation for this regionbecause they provide little potential to create new water (reduce depletions).
Modifying Existing Reservoirs or OperationsTrinity County Water Works District #1 has considered raising Ewing Dam, which was designed to be raised up to 12 feet to meet future water supply needs. Raising the dam 12 feet to increase reservoir capacity from 800 af to 1.45 taf and modifying the spillway and outlet works would cost $1.5 million. Plans toenlarge the reservoir were halted when Hayfork’s primary employer (a lumber mill) closed, reducing the district’s customer base by about 10 percent.
New Reservoirs and Conveyance Facilities Onstream Storage. Eleven onstream reservoirs in the Klamath River Basin were evaluated and deferred, mainly because of high costs and relatively low yields. Cursory investigations of these projects were completedby USBR, the Department, or the Oregon Water Resources Department. Recent studies completed by theCity of Fort Bragg identified potential onstream reservoir sites in the Noyo River watershed; however, these sites were deferred due to environmental and economic

concerns. Offstream Storage. USBR investigated three offstream reservoirs in Oregon’s Long, Aspen, and Round Valleys adjacent to Upper Klamath Lake. These offstream storage plans were deferred due to high costs. In 1993, the City of Fort Bragg moved forwardwith preliminary plans and work on an environmental impact report on what was then its preferred long-term project, which included a 1.5 taf offstream reservoir. Several promising locations were investigated,but geotechnical investigations indicated that all except one of the sites was unsuitable. Further detailedinvestigations and cost estimates for the most favorable site indicated the site was infeasible due to excessive costs. A smaller reservoir (about 1 taf) was evaluated, but was also not feasible. T

ABLE 7-3 North Coast Region List of Water Management Options (continued)

Option Retain Reason for Deferral or Defer
Groundwater/Conjunctive Use New wells Retain

Water Marketing

— ——
Water Recycling City of Fort Bragg Defer Unfavorable costs due to lack of potential users within a reasonable distance.

Desalting

Brackish Groundwater

City of Fort Bragg Project Retain

Seawater

City of Fort Bragg Project Defer Excessive cost.

Other Local Options

— ——
Statewide Options — — See Chapter 6.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-11 

### Groundwater Development or Conjunctive Use
Surface water sources meet most of the water needsin the coastal regions. Communities with water shortage problems continue to look for possible groundwatersources and well locations to provide adequate supplies at reasonable cost. Although groundwater qualityis generally good, supplies are limited by aquifer storage capacity. For example, Fort Bragg began a test program in 1994 to identify possible well sites, but no significant groundwater supply was found. The city has drilled test wells along the Noyo River about twomiles upstream of its mouth, and is studying the potential development of a small production well. It appears that the product water may be brackish.
Water Recycling The City of Fort Bragg had considered a water recycling project which involved using tertiary treated wastewater to replace potable water used at a lumber processing plant. However, water conservation efforts by the plant reduced its water demand by more than 50 percent, rendering this option uneconomical. Other water recycling projects planned in the region would not generate a source of new supply from a statewide perspective. There are several projects planned whichwould produce about 15 taf of recycled water annually to serve local water management needs foragricultural, environmental, and for landscape irrigation purposes.
Desalting Interest in desalting for Fort Bragg increased whenfeasibility studies showed it was economically competitive with storage alternatives. The city evaluated two reverse osmosis alternatives—one involving seawater and one involving brackish water. Both plant designs would produce about 1 taf of potable water in drought years. Major cost components for the seawater plant would include the ocean intake structure, feedwaterpipeline to the plant, and plant equipment. The brackish groundwater plant would require wells, well field collection piping, and a feedwater pipeline into the plant. The city is conducting more detailed studies to identify the location of brackish water sources and brine disposal options.
Other Local Options Fort Bragg has investigated other alternatives thathave not proven to be feasible. These alternatives include improving the city’s diversion from Waterfall Gulch and new surface water sources in the South Basin. Lowering the intake structure at Waterfall Gulch would capture an additional 110 af/yr, but presents biological and instream flow concerns. New surface water sources have been identified, but these sources had water rights issues.

Options Likely to be Implemented in North Coast Region Water supplies are not available to meet all of the region’s 2020 water demands in drought years. Drought year applied water shortages are forecasted to be 194 taf. No average year shortages are forecasted for 2020. Ranking of retained water management options for the North Coast Region is summarized in Table 7-4.Table 7-5 summarizes options that can likely be implemented by 2020 to relieve the shortages.The majority of shortages in the region are agricultural and are expected to occur in the Klamath Project area. The economics of crop production have a major influence on the extent to which growers canafford drought year water supply improvements. Additional groundwater development is a possibility in some areas of the Klamath Project, but there are little data available to evaluate this option. The ability to change cropping patterns in the northern part of the region is limited by the area’s climatic conditions. Thereare no quantifiable options available to meet agricultural shortages. Urban water conservation options could provide 18 taf/yr in water savings. Small communities along the coast generally do not have the financial resourcesto construct major water supply projects, and therefore will continue to investigate new groundwater supplies.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-12 T

ABLE 7-5 Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020 (taf) North Coast Region

Average Drought Applied Water Shortage a 0 194 Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020

Conservation

— 18 Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations

— — New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities

— — Groundwater/Conjunctive Use

— — Water Marketing

— — Recycling

— — Desalting

— — Other Local Options

— — Statewide Options

— — Expected Reapplication

— — Total Potential Gain

— 18 Remaining Applied Water Shortage 0 176

a Majority of shortages in this region are agricultural. Most agricultural shortages in this region are expected to occur in th e Klamath Project area. T

ABLE 7-4 Options Ranking for North Coast Region

Option a Rank Cost ($/af) Potential Gain (taf) Average Drought

Conservation

Urban

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8 ET

o - New Development M 750 1 1 Outdoor Water Use to 0.8 ET

o -New and Existing Development M b 6 6 Indoor Water Use (60 gpcd) M 400 3 3 Indoor Water Use (55 gpcd) M 600 6 6 Interior CII Water Use (3%) M 500 1 1 Interior CII Water Use (5%) M 750 2 2 Distribution System Losses (7%) M 200 6 6 Distribution System Losses (5%) M 300 9 9

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use New wells - Fort Bragg and other small coastal communities H 150 c c Agricultural Groundwater Development M b bb

Desalting

Brackish Groundwater

City of Fort Bragg Project L 770 1 1

a All or parts of the amounts shown for highlighted options have been included in Table 7-5.
b Data not available to quantify.

c Less than 1 taf.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-13The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-14 F IGURE 7-3. San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region

SONOMA

SOLANO

CONTRA COSTA

ALAMEDA

SANTA CLARA SAN MATEO MARIN

SAN FRANCISCO NAPA

P

a

c

i

f

i

c

O

c

e
a

n San Francisco Bay San Pablo

Bay River Sonoma Aqueduct Santa Rosa - Petaluma Aqueduct Lake Curry Lake Hennessey

North Bay Aqueduct ah

Briones Reservoir

Pilarcitos Lake San Andreas Lake

Crystal Springs Reservoir Creek Ala eda Lake Chabot Upper San Leandro

Reservoir

South Bay duct San Pablo Reservoir Soulajule Reservoir

Stafford Lake
Nicasio Reservoir

Kent Lake Alpine Lake

Lake Del Valle Arroyo

Del

Valle Napa

Anderson Lake Lexington Reservoir Calero Reservoir Coyote Lake Coyote Creek Aque South Canal Put

Contra Costa Canal

Mokelumne Aqueduct

Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct

Santa Clara Conduit m

San Antonio Reservoir Guadalupe

RiverThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-15 

### Description of the AreaThe San Francisco Bay Region (Figure 7-3) extends from southern San Mateo County north to Tomales Bay in Marin County, and inland to the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers near Collinsville. The eastern boundary follows the crest of the Coast Range. The region includes all of San Francisco and portions of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, and Alameda Counties. The San Francisco Bay Region is divided into the North Bay and South Bay planning subareas. Geographic features include the Marin and San Francisco Peninsulas; San Francisco, Suisun, and San Pablo Bays; and the Santa Cruz Mountains, Diablo Range, Bolinas Ridge, and Vaca Mountains of theCoast Range. Streams flow into the bays or to the Pacific Ocean. The climate within the region varies significantly from west to east. The coastal areas are typically cooland often foggy. The inland valleys and interior portions of San Francisco Bay are warmer, with aMediterranean-like climate. The average annual precipitation in the region is 31 inches, ranging from 13inches in Pittsburg to 48 inches at Kentfield, northeast of Mount Tamalpais in Marin County. The region is highly urbanized and includes the San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose metropolitan areas. Agricultural acreage is mostly in the north, with the predominant crop being grapes. In the south, morethan half of the irrigated acres are in high-value specialty crops, such as artichokes or flowers. Table 7-6 summarizes the population and irrigated crop acreage for the region. Water Demands and SuppliesTable 7-7 shows the water budget for the San Francisco Bay Region. Environmental water demands, primarily Bay-Delta outflow, account for most of the San Francisco Bay Region’s water use. Water demands for Suisun Marsh are also included in environmental water needs. As shown in the table, water shortages are forecast only for drought years.
North Bay Municipal and industrial water use will continue to grow as the population in the North Bay grows.The fastest growing communities have been municipalities in southwestern Solano County, such asFairfield and Benicia. Growth in the larger communities of Sonoma and Napa Counties, such as Petalumaand Napa, has also been fairly rapid (more than 20 percent during the 1980s). Growth in Marin County hasbeen slow, initially because of a water connection moratorium administered by Marin Municipal WD in the 1970s, and more recently because of the lack of land available for development. Marin MWD imposed asecond moratorium on water service connections during the 1987-92 drought. It was lifted in 1993 with the adoption of an integrated water supply program T

ABLE 7-6 Population and Crop Acreage

Population Irrigated Crop Acreage (thousands) (thousands of acres)

1995 5,780 65 2020 7,025 65 

### . . . 

# San Francisco Bay Hydrologic RegionThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-16 

### and the signing of a new Russian River water supply

contract. The Suisun Marsh is the only managed wetlandin the North Bay that requires deliveries of fresh water. Its annual applied water demand is expected toremain constant at 150 taf. Other environmental demands include instream flows in Walker and Lagunitas Creeks in Marin County. Table 7-8 lists major water suppliers within theNorth Bay, along with their primary sources of supply. Each of these agencies serves a number of municipalities or water retailers. Groundwater and small locally developed supplies serve the remainder of the water users in the area. Table 7-9 lists local agency water supply reservoirs (with capacity greater than 10 taf) serving the North Bay. • Sonoma County WA, which wholesales waterthroughout Sonoma and Marin Counties, is forecasting no water shortages through 2020, and isnot looking at water supply reliability enhancement options.• Marin MWD was once one of the most vulnerable water suppliers in the State. The district has negotiated a supplemental water supply contractwith Sonoma County WA for 10 taf and now expects to have a more reliable supply as it develops infrastructure to import additional Russian River

water.• Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has a contract for SWP water with a maximum entitlement of 25 taf/yr. The City andCounty of Napa are examining water supply enVineyard acreage in the Napa and Sonoma Valleys is among the State’s most expensive agricultural real estate. Grapes—wine grapes, table grapes, and raisin grapes—are one of California’s top dollar value crops. T

ABLE 7-7 San Francisco Bay Region Water Budget (taf) a

1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 1,255 1,358 1,317 1,428 Agricultural 98 108 98 108 Environmental 5,762 4,294 5,762 4,294 Total 7,115 5,760 7,176 5,830 Supplies

Surface Water 7,011 5,285 7,067 5,417 Groundwater 68 92 72 89 Recycled and Desalted 35 35 37 37 Total 7,115 5,412 7,176 5,543 Shortage 0 349 0 287

a Water use/supply totals and shortages may not sum due to rounding.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-17

### hancement options to ensure future supply reliability. • Solano County WA anticipates a water supply deficiency as municipalities in the western part of the county urbanize rapidly without developing additional water supply sources. Solano County WA’s 1995 SWP supply was about 21 taf. The agency’s annual SWP entitlement is 42 taf. Benicia is the most vulnerable of the agency’s service areasto drought conditions because it is entirely dependent on SWP water. Fairfield also is forecasting future drought year shortages. Vallejo has its own supply from the Delta, which is now conveyed through North Bay Aqueduct facilities.
South BayThe South Bay is highly urbanized—about 16 percent of the State’s population lives in 2 percent of the State’s land area. A minor portion of South Bay wateruse is for agriculture. Hayward Marsh is the only identified environmental water use within the South Bay. The marsh, part of the Hayward Regional Shoreline, has an annual freshwater use of approximately 10 tafof reclaimed wastewater from Union Sanitation District. Industrial water use for cooling is primarily associated with independently produced industrial supplies along the Carquinez Strait. Table 7-10 lists the major water suppliers in the South Bay and their primary sources of supply. Those areas not served by the listed suppliers get their water from groundwater and from small locally developed surface supplies. Alameda County Water District, Zone T

ABLE 7-8 Major North Bay Water Suppliers

Agency Primary Source of Supply
Sonoma County WA Russian River Project Marin MWD Local surface and Sonoma County WA contract Napa County FC&WCD Local surface and SWP Solano County WA Solano Project and SWP

T

ABLE 7-9 Local Agency Reservoirs Serving the North Bay

Agency Reservoir Capacity Year Region (taf) Constructed

USACE/Sonoma CWA a Mendocino 119 1922 North Coast USACE/Sonoma CWA a Sonoma 381 1982 North Coast Pacific Gas & Electric Pillsbury 73 1921 North Coast
Marin MWD Kent 33 1953/1982 b San Francisco Bay Marin MWD Nicasio 22 1960 San Francisco Bay Marin MWD Soulajule 11 1979 San Francisco Bay City of Napa Hennessey 31 1946 San Francisco Bay City of Vallejo Curry 11 1926 San Francisco Bay

a USACE built Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma primarily for flood control. Sonoma County WA operates the facilities for water supply and holds water rights for the supply.
b A 16.5 taf reservoir was initially constructed in 1953. The dam was raised in 1982, nearly doubling the capacity. The SWP’s North Bay Aqueduct terminates at the Napa Turnout Reservoir, a 22 af storage tank. Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is the contractor for this water supply.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-18

### 7 Water Agency, and Santa Clara Valley Water District recharge and store local and imported surface water in local groundwater basins. Each of the major wateragencies supplies several municipalities or water retailers. Table 7-11 lists local agency water supply reservoirs (with capacity greater than 10 taf) serving the South Bay. • SFPUC provides water to more than 2.3 million people in San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties, and is forecasting drought year shortages through 2020. In 1990 and 1991, wholesale and retail customers received 25 percent supply reductions (based on historical use). In 1991, SFPUC adopted, but did not implement, a 45 percent rationing plan. Recently revised instream flow requirements in the Tuolumne River Basin have reduced the available Hetch Hetchy supply. The city’s studies indicate that the annual yield of the Hetch Hetchy system has dropped from 336 taf to 271 taf.• SCVWD, which supplies water to about 1.7 million people, provides water to 16 municipal and industrial retailers as well as to agricultural usersin Santa Clara County. A number of these retailers also contract with SFPUC for water from HetchHetchy. The district possesses one of the most diverse supplies in the State, with imported state project and federal project water, locally developedsurface supplies, and extensive groundwater recharge programs. Some of the retail agencies in T

ABLE 7-10 Major South Bay Water Suppliers

Agency Primary Source of Supply

San Francisco PUC Hetch Hetchy project and local surface Santa Clara Valley WD Local surface, groundwater, CVP, and SWP Alameda County WD Local surface, groundwater, SWP, and Hetch Hetchy project Zone 7 WA Local surface, groundwater, and SWP East Bay MUD Mokelumne River project and local surface Contra Costa WD CVP and local surface

T

ABLE 7-11 Local Surface Reservoirs Serving the South Bay

Agency Reservoir Capacity Year Region (taf) Constructed
San Francisco PUC Lloyd 273 1956 San Joaquin River San Francisco PUC Eleanor 27 1918 San Joaquin River San Francisco PUC Hetch Hetchy 341 1923 San Joaquin River San Francisco PUC Calaveras 97 1925 San Francisco Bay San Francisco PUC Crystal Springs 58 1888 San Francisco Bay San Francisco PUC San Andreas 19 1870 San Francisco Bay San Francisco PUC San Antonio 50 1964 San Francisco Bay

East Bay MUD Camanche 417 1963 San Joaquin River East Bay MUD Pardee 198 1929 San Joaquin River East Bay MUD San Pablo 39 1920 San Francisco Bay East Bay MUD Briones 61 1964 San Francisco Bay East Bay MUD Chabot 10 1892 San Francisco Bay East Bay MUD Upper San Leandro 41 1977 San Francisco Bay

Contra Costa WD Los Vaqueros a 100 1998 San Joaquin River

Santa Clara Valley WD Calero 10 1935 San Francisco Bay Santa Clara Valley WD Coyote 23 1936 San Francisco Bay Santa Clara Valley WD Leroy Anderson 89 1950 San Francisco Bay Santa Clara Valley WD Lexington 20 1953 San Francisco Bay

a Reservoir provides emergency storage and water quality regulation. Does not develop local supply.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-19 

### the district are vulnerable to drought deficiencies imposed by the SWP, CVP, and Hetch Hetchy Project. These deficiencies may be intensified bydiminished local runoff during drought conditions.• ACWD serves a population of 292,000 in southwestern Alameda County, adjacent to San Francisco Bay. ACWD’s Niles Cone groundwater basin supply is augmented by SWP and Hetch Hetchy supplies. The district is vulnerable to drought deficiencies imposed by SWP or SFPUC.• Zone 7 WA delivers water in the Livermore-Almaden Valley in eastern Alameda County, serving communities such as Dublin, Livermore,and Pleasanton, as well as agricultural and industrial customers. Z7WA has an annual SWP entitlement of 46 taf. • EBMUD provides water to 1.2 million people in the remainder of northern Alameda County, and part of western Contra Costa County. Virtually all of the water used by EBMUD comes from the 577-square-mile watershed of the Mokelumne River, which collects runoff from Alpine, Amador, and Calaveras Counties, on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada. EBMUD has water rights for upto 364 taf/yr from the Mokelumne River. In average years, district reservoirs in the East Bay capture an additional 30 taf from local watershed runoff. In drought years, evaporation and other reservoir losses may exceed local runoff. • CCWD delivers municipal and industrial water throughout central and eastern Contra Costa County. Deliveries from CCWD go up during droughts as industrial diverters stop diverting with their own Delta water rights (because of waterquality constraints) and use CCWD’s CVP supplies instead. CCWD’s 195 taf/yr CVP contract was recently renegotiated to include operation ofLos Vaqueros Reservoir, completed in 1998. Under its new CVP contract CCWD will receive 75 percent of the contract amount, or 85 percent State Highway 280 parallels

San Francisco’s Upper and Lower Crystal Springs
Reservoirs in San Mateo County. The reservoirs are located on the San Andreas fault zone.

Santa Clara Valley Water District operates an extensive system of groundwater recharge facilities, some of which are incorporated into a regional system of recreational walking/ biking trails.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-20 

### of historical use, during drought periods. Under severe drought conditions, the CVP supply may be reduced to 75 percent of historical use. CCWD has a smaller locally developed source at Mallard Slough, with an associated right to take up to 26.7 taf/yr. Diversions from Mallard Slough are unreliable due to poor water quality. The average annual diversion from this source over the past 20 years was only 5.6 taf. Small independent water systems, such as those along the San Mateo coast, also suffer water supply reliability problems during droughts. These systems often rely on a single source, such as groundwater, and do not have connections to the larger systems in the Bay Area.

Local Water Resources Management Issues

Bay-Delta Estuary The CALFED Bay-Delta Program and the 1995SWRCB Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary arediscussed in Chapters 2, 4, and 6. CALFED’s ecosystem restoration program could restore wetlands and riparian habitats in the Delta. Other ERP actions in the region could include protection and enhancementof agricultural lands for wildlife, focusing on agricultural land and water management practices that wouldincrease wildlife habitat value, and discouraging development of ecologically important agricultural lands for urban or industrial uses in the Delta, Suisun Marsh, and north San Francisco Bay.

Suisun Marsh
In 1995, USBR, DWR, DFG, and the Suisun Resource Conservation District began negotiations to update the Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement. In 1996, the negotiators agreed in principle to 10 joint actions designed to lower soil salinity on Suisun Marsh managed wetlands (especially in the Marsh’s western half) and to use water more efficiently. SWRCB will review western Suisun Marsh water quality objectives and water rights issues as part of its Bay-Delta water rights proceeding. More information on the Suisun Marsh can be found in Chapters 2, 4, and 6.
Local Water Agency Issues North Bay . The primary water supply source for Sonoma County Water Agency, the Russian River, is in the North Coast Hydrologic Region. Issues related to SCWA and the Russian River are discussed in theNorth Coast Region portion of this chapter. Issues facing other major water suppliers in the North Bay are discussed below. In 1995, SWRCB issued Decision WR 95-17, establishing instream flow requirements in LagunitasCreek watershed. Marin MWD estimates that the decision will diminish its supply by 3 taf annually during drought years. In the past, Marin MWD examined desalting as an option to augment its water supply, studying construction of a 10 mgd reverse osmosis desalting plant near the western end of the San RafaelBridge. The plant’s annual yield would be approximately 10 taf at a cost of $1,900/af. The desalting project was included in a 1991 bond measure that was not approved by the voters. The following year, a bond measure for new facilities to bring more Russian River water to Marin County passed, and Marin MWD’s need for the desalting option diminished. The new Marin MWD Russian River facilities will be on lineby 2020. Since the district has all the necessary permits, this water source is not listed as a future option but is included in the district’s base supply. Napa County voters approved a local ordinance in 1998 which established a 0.5 percent sales tax to CCWD’s Los Vaqueros Dam under construction. The reservoir, completed in 1998, does not provide new water supply, but provides terminal storage for CCWD’s existing supply and improves service area water quality. Courtesy of CCWDThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-21 

### fund a Napa County flood protection and watershed improvement expenditure plan. The goal of the plan was to “provide flood protection, save lives, protect property, restore the Napa River, Napa Creek, and other tributaries, maintain economic vitality, and enhance riparian environments”. The Napa River and Napa Creek Project, a cooperative effort with USACE, is designed to provide 100-year flood protection for the City of Napa and environmental restoration. These objectives will be achieved by creating a flood bypasschannel and wetlands; removal, redesign and replacement of floodway obstructions; elevation and relocation of homes; and construction of set-back levees and floodwalls. The design is intended to provide flood protection while allowing the river to meander through wide riparian zones. In other actions, funds would beprovided for flood protection, environmental enhancement, and water supply reliability improvements for other communities and unincorporated areas of the County. USBR and Solano County Water Agency have been involved in water rights actions on Putah Creek upstream and downstream of USBR’s Solano Project facilities. In 1995, a settlement agreement was reached with water users in Lake and Napa Counties upstream of Lake Berryessa. The agreement establishes limits onfuture water development in the Lake Berryessa watershed and allocates water for the upstream users. A court-appointed watermaster will monitor water uses and enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.Downstream of the Solano Project, disputes center around environmental water use and riparian water rights. The Putah Creek Council brought suit in 1990 against Solano Project water users to increase flows in the lower reaches of the creek. In 1996, the Sacramento County Superior Court ruled on instream flow requirements for Putah Creek downstream from Solano Diversion Dam, where water is diverted to Putah South Canal for delivery to agricultural lands and to communities in Solano County. The judgment cited the public trust doctrine as well as California Fish and Game code requirements and required higher (andyear-round) flows from the creek into the Yolo Bypass. SCWA estimates the additional requirements are approximately 10 taf during an average year and 20taf during a dry year. Solano County interests are appealing the judgment, which has been stayed until theappeal is heard. USBR is seeking an out-of-court settlement of the case. Under the Superior Court judgment, Solano County water users would be responsible formeeting the instream flow requirements in the downstream portion of the creek. Solano County water users have asked SWRCB to participate in the settlement process so that regulation of riparian diversions can be included in the final instream flow requirements for the creek. SCWA’s contract with USBR for Solano Projectwater supply will expire in 1999. The contract is renewable, but the terms and conditions of the contractwill be renegotiated. SCWA will then need to renegotiate its contracts with Solano Project member entities. SCWA has entered into a multi-year banking and Although lands in the Suisun Marsh are managed primarily to provide waterfowl habitat, a variety of mammals are found there as well.The California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-22 

### exchange agreement with Mojave Water Agency in the South Lahontan and Colorado River regions. During wet years, SCWA can bank up to 10 taf of its annualSWP entitlement in MWA’s groundwater basin. During dry years, SCWA can take part of MWA’s SWP entitlement in exchange (up to half the banked amount with a maximum of 10 taf/yr). SCWA pays for part of the transportation cost to convey the water to MWA. Solano County water agencies are monitoring useof groundwater from the Putah Fan/Tehama Formation groundwater basin because of concerns about the condition of the shared basin. The City of Vacaville,Solano Irrigation District, Maine Prairie Water District, and Reclamation District 2068 have implemented AB 3030 groundwater management plans. SCWA hasinitiated a groundwater monitoring and data collection program. Vacaville, SID, Dixon, and Solano County developed a 1995 agreement to cooperatively mitigate any adverse conditions related to the basin. South Bay. San Francisco Public Utility Commission and the Bay Area Water Users Association (SFPUCBay Area Water contractors) are cooperatively developing a water supply master plan for the PUC’s retail and wholesale service areas. Phase 1 of the three-phase plan was recently completed. The preliminary list ofwater supply options to be considered in Phase 2 includes:• Short- and long-term Central Valley water transfers. • Conjunctive use / groundwater banking within the Hetch Hetchy system (Tuolumne River Basin and areas adjacent to the aqueduct). • Transfers within the Hetch Hetchy system. • Additional surface storage within the Hetch Hetchy system. • Conjunctive use / groundwater banking within the Bay Area system. • Transfers within the Bay Area system. • Additional surface storage within the Bay Area
system. • Desalting. • Other local projects. Phase 2 will ultimately produce a master plan for the PUC system and is scheduled for completion in1999. Phase 3, the implementation phase of the master plan, will include environmental review, design, andconstruction of plan elements. Construction is anticipated to begin as early as 2001.Without improvements to its water supply reliability, SCVWD is forecasted to face the largest drought year shortages in the San Francisco Bay Region. The district released an integrated water resources plan in December 1996 to address water supply reliabilitythrough 2020. The primary components of the preferred strategy include water banking, water transfers, water recycling, and water conservation. Components are scheduled to be phased into operation as necessaryto meet increasing demands. Implementation of specific components is designed to be flexible, with a list of contingency strategies to meet changing conditions. The plan is to be updated every three to five years. Alameda County Water District is continuing to monitor and manage saline water intrusion in its bayside aquifers. The district depends upon the Niles Cone groundwater basin, which includes at least threedistinct aquifers, for district supplies. The district recharges locally developed water and imported surface water to the basin and extracts recharged supplies. Prior to ACWD’s import of surface supplies in the 1960s,the upper two aquifers were overpumped, causing saline intrusion into the basin. In 1974, ACWD began its aquifer reclamation program, which includes ninewells designed to extract and discharge saline groundwater from the basin. Because of further intrusion of saline water during the recent drought, operations havebeen modified to pump and dispose of greater quantities of saline water. In 1992, a reconnaissance level study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of desalting water pumped from extraction wells, and blending it with groundwater and imported surface water. This desalting option is discussed in the following section. ACWD is developing a groundwater model tosimulate the effectiveness of its aquifer reclamation program, movement of saline water, and remediation ofthe basin. Because runoff from the Alameda Creek watershed is used to recharge the groundwater basin, ACWD is working with upstream agencies and the RWQCB to ensure that water quality in Alameda Creek is not compromised due to development or other activities in the watershed. Zone 7 WA has initiated a water supply masterplan program EIR to meet projected water needs. Preliminary estimates indicate a need for 40 to 50 taf of additional water supply by 2020. The water supply program will include imported surface water transfers, conservation, water recycling, and purchase of the South Bay Aqueduct’s currently unused conveyance capacity. In a separate planning effort, Z7WA has beenworking with local developers on a water transfer agreeThe California Water Plan Update B ULLETIN 160-98

O PTIONS - C OASTAL R

EGIONS 7-23 

### ment to provide water to 9,500 new homes in Dougherty Valley, in southern Contra Costa County. A small portion of the Dougherty Valley developmentis within EBMUD’s existing service area. After Contra Costa County approved the development in 1992, EBMUD indicated that it could not reliably provide water service to all 11,000 new customers. Ultimately,EBMUD agreed to provide service to Dougherty Valley over a lengthy development period, with the condition that developers try to find another source of water. The developers negotiated with Berrenda Mesa Water District, a member agency of Kern County WA,to purchase 7 taf of currently unused SWP entitlement water. Dublin San Ramon Services Districtagreed to be the water retailer and Z7WA, a wholesaler of SWP water, will treat and deliver water from the South Bay Aqueduct. In addition to paying for the entitlement water and connection fees from Z7WA and DSRSD, developers have agreed to pay Z7WA an additional $18 million for the wholesale service. DSRSD and Z7WA anticipate that the arrangement will result in lower water costs to existing customers and improved reliability. Another condition of theagreement stated that the project could not use existing local Z7WA storage space (primarily the LivermoreValley groundwater basin). Z7WA completed an agreement with Semitropic Water Storage District for 43taf of groundwater storage, which is also being purchased by the developers. In wet years, excess water from Berrenda Mesa WD will be delivered to SWSD and stored in the groundwater basin. In drought years, Z7WA would receive SWP water in exchange through the SBA. After the Z7WA / Dougherty Valley arrangementwas finalized, the City of Livermore and environmental interests sued Z7WA in an effort to stop similarfuture arrangements. (The city is one of Z7WA’s primary contractors.) A major concern of the plaintiffs is that Z7WA’s water supply reliability will be diminished. EBMUD’s board approved a water supply action plan in 1995 to meet the objectives of its 1993 watersupply management program EIR for improving supply reliability in its service area. The action plan’s recommendation was to construct a Folsom SouthCanal connection to EBMUD’s Mokelumne Aqueduct, to allow the district to use its CVP contract for up to 150 taf/yr of American River water. The project would be designed to operate in accordance with theAlameda County Superior Court’s 1990 Hodge Decision, which confirmed the district’s right to divert its contract amount subject to the court’s physical solution for instream flow requirements in the Lower American River. In November 1997, EBMUD and USBR released a draft EIR/EIS with two alignment alternatives for conveying American River water and one no projectalternative. One alternative incorporates a concept developed by Sacramento County, the City ofSacramento, and EBMUD to construct a joint diversion facility near the American River’s confluence with the Sacramento River. American River water would be diverted near the confluence and would be pumpedback to the City of Sacramento’s Fairbairn Water Treatment Plant. A portion of this water would continueon to the Folsom South Canal where it would be conveyed to the Mokelumne Aqueduct via a pipelineextension from the end of the canal. Water for Sacramento County would be treated at the Fairbairn Water Treatment Plant and conveyed to local water users. In 1997, San Joaquin County interests proposed a groundwater storage project that would allow EBMUD to store surface water in San Joaquin County aquifers and would provide significant benefits to San Joaquin County water users. A joint powers authorityof San Joaquin County water agencies hopes to initiate a pilot project to help assess the feasibility of thisconjunctive use proposal. EBMUD has agreed to provide water for the project and is retaining thisalternative for consideration to provide more out-ofservice area storage and improved supply reliabilityduring droughts. However, a conjunctive use alternative was not included in EBMUD’s draft EIR for conveyance of its CVP contract supply. EBMUD has also been involved in negotiations related to instream flows in the Mokelumne River.EBMUD’s 1981 FERC license for operation of hydropower facilities at Pardee and Camanche Reservoirsincorporated an existing instream flow agreement between the district and the DFG. During the 1987-92 drought, poor fishery conditions on the Mokelumne River and fish losses at the district’s Camanche fish hatchery prompted FERC to evaluate fishery flows. FERC issued a final EIS in November 1993, which was opposed by all the involved parties. Subsequentnegotiations led to preparation of a settlement agreement by EBMUD, DFG, and USFWS which was submitted to FERC for review in June 1997. EBMUD has already implemented the agreement’s flows which significantly impact the district’s water supply. EBMUD estimates that its 2020 shortage with the new