x

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xi

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xii

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xiii

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xiv

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 .......................................................................7A-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 .......................................................................8A-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

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xv

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 ..........................................................................9A-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

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xvi

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xvii

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Searles Lake............................................................................................................................................... 9-19

Colorado River Board of California .......................................................................................................... 9-35

Reservoir Reoperation for Flood Control .................................................................................................. 10-6

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-1 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-2

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

The water supply and water use information discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 and summarized in Tables

3-3, 4-26, and 4-27 is combined into the statewide applied water budget with existing facilities and programs

shown 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 and

2020 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, reflecting

California’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.

TABLE 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 based

on 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 planning

efforts, but to complement them, by showing the relationships among regional water supplies and water

needs and the statewide perspective. Local water management options form the basis of the regional

summaries which are combined into the statewide options evaluation. Figure 6-1 is an index map showing

how the regional summaries are organized in Chapters

7-9.

The Bulletin 160-98 Planning Process

. . .

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-3 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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)

FIGURE 6-1

Index to Regional Chapters

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-4

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 or

defer 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 reduction

or 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 budgets

for the study areas to identify the magnitude of potential water shortages for average and drought year

conditions. In addition to identifying shortages, other

water 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 projects

costing 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 from

one local agency to the next, making direct comparisons between cost estimates difficult. To make cost

information 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-5 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 - 24

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-6

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 flood

control, hydroelectric power generation, environmental enhancement, water quality enhancement, and

recreation. In recognition of the multipurpose benefits provided by some water management options, the

options evaluation scoring process assigned a higher

value 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 used

to prepare a tabulation of likely regional water management options, taking into account options that may

be 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 of

likely 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 available

information. The ultimate implementability of any water management option is dependent on factors such

as 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

100percent 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 an

important 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 shortages

that 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 reduce

landscape 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 individual

growers and their employees, but also to local businesses that provide goods and services to the growers.

Using Applied Water Budgets to

Calculate New Water Needs

As 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. Because

reapplication has the potential to account for a substantial portion of a region’s water supply, applied

water budgets may overstate the supply of water actually needed to meet future water demands. Shortages

calculated 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 implemented

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-7 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 created

equal 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 not

provide new water to a region. Hence, the opportunity does not exist to multiply the options’ effectiveness

through 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 water

management 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 supplies

are 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 new

water 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

TABLE 6-2

1991 Urban Water Shortage Management

Contingency Measures

Reduction

Water Agencya Goalb 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-8

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 the

same 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 future

urban water conservation lies in reducing exterior urban water use—specifically landscape water use. Estimating water

use 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 quantify

existing irrigated urban acreage—aerial photography or satellite imagery, estimated ratios from parcel maps, surveys, or

questionnaires. 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 the

planning 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 the

1976-77 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 applied

water would be lost to evapotranspiration, or to a saline water body, and could not be beneficially

reapplied.) The options evaluated in this Bulletin would

yield 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 discussed

in Chapter 4.) Quantifying depletion reductions allows the comparison of water conservation options with

water 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 may

be 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’s

options evaluation process, as described earlier. As discussed in Chapter 3, the Bulletin treats demand

reduction actions on an equal footing with water supply actions. Each action must create water that is new

to the State’s hydrologic region.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-9 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Although water conservation options will be carried out at the local level, they are discussed in this

chapter conceptually as statewide demand reduction

options for simplicity of presentation. Analyses of water conservation options for each hydrologic region are

discussed in Chapters 7-9.

Urban Water Conservation Options

As 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 urban

BMPs 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 be

achieved in the Central Valley, urban water conservation options beyond BMPs are deferred for valley

regions. Table 6-3 summarizes statewide urban water

conservation 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 different

landscape types by their corresponding statewide acreTABLE 6-3

Urban Depletion Reduction Potential Due to Water Conservation Options Beyond BMPsa (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 ET0 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 Cross

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-10

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 on

water 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 ET0

 by 2020.

Options to reduce outdoor water use assume that statewide landscape irrigation could be reduced on average

to 0.8 ET0

 either in new development, or in all development. These reductions would be realized through

landscape water audits and incentive programs by retailers. So that the cost of implementing these options

can be equitably compared with other supply augmentation options, the economic evaluations in Chapters

7–9 assume that implementation costs are funded by

water purveyors and not by homeowners. This assumption implies that water purveyors could choose to carry

out landscape water management programs in much

the 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 ET0

 . The Model Landscape Ordinance

indicates that a landscape plant factor of 0.8 ET0

 could

be attainable through measures such as proper landscape and irrigation system design, more intensive

landscape water audit programs, installing automatic

rain 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 ET0

 at a cost of about $750/af. The ordinance is

directly applicable to new construction; existing landscaping would require retrofitting.

Option 2: Outdoor Water Use in New and Existing Development to 0.8 ET0

 . This option extends

the provisions of Option 1 to include existing development. Statewide, about 370 taf/yr of depletion

reduction could be achieved by reducing outdoor water use in new and existing development to 0.8 ET0

.

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 Use

Options 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 4

would 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. More

aggressive 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 Use

Urban 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 percent

and 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-year

start 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

50taf/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 with

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-11 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

existing standards, and new efficiency standards. About

80 taf/yr of depletion reduction could be achieved, primarily in the coastal regions, at a cost of $750/af.

Distribution System Losses

The Department estimates that the average unaccounted water in the State’s hydrologic regions ranges

between 6 and 15 percent. Two percent is attributed

to unmetered water use (including water used for construction, fire fighting, and for flushing drains and

hydrants) and meter errors; therefore, distribution system losses range between 4 percent and 13 percent.

Options to reduce distribution system losses assume

that 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 audits

would 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, leak

detection 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 Options

Agricultural 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 expected

to 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 purveyors

statewide 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 other

measures increasing average on-farm SAE to 73 percent. Recent Department studies have shown that

average SAEs might be increased to 80 percent through

improved irrigation equipment and irrigation management practices.

The agricultural water conservation options

described below were based on attaining SAEs

greater 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 in

certain locations and with some crops and irrigation methods.

Stressing orchards to reduce ET (also referred to

as regulated deficit irrigation) was not evaluated as an

option. 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 March

1998 draft PEIR/PEIS outlined a proposed water conservation approach for urban and agricultural agencies wishing to

participate 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 and

EWMPs 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 included

in 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-12

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Agricultural demand reduction options are evaluated for each hydrologic region and summarized in

Table 6-4. The water conserved from these options

varies for each region according to prevailing irrigation practices and the regional soil types and

hydrology. As with urban conservation options, the

purpose 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. In

California agriculture, this condition exists primarily in the Colorado River Region (which drains to

the Salton Sea), parts of the coastal regions, and the

westside of the San Joaquin Valley. In the Sacramento River 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 could

theoretically 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 achieving

depletion reductions through additional agricultural conservation occurs in the Colorado River Region. The environmental impacts of such conservation on the Salton

Sea must be carefully evaluated. The Salton Sea provides valuable habitat for migratory waterfowl, and

alternatives for stabilizing its increasing salinity are

now 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-farm

SAEs will average 73 percent statewide. Based on mobile laboratory studies, average SAE could reach 80

percent 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 SAE

from 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.

TABLE 6-4

Agricultural Depletion Reduction Potential Due to Water Conservation Optionsa 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 Pipingb 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 Riverc 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 depletion 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-13 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 is

currently 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 rates

and 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 the

level of effort provided in existing EWMPs. Distribution system losses can be reduced by lining open canal

systems or using pipelines. Pipelines would reduce

depletions from evaporation and from seepage of applied water to unusable groundwater. (This option

applies 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

45taf/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 surface

water by reducing losses from operational spills in irrigation district delivery canals. About 70 taf/yr of

depletion 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 water

conservation has occurred. Development of a formal program to evaluate efficient water use on wetlands is

currently the only active program. DFG, USBR, and

USFWS are working with the Grasslands Resource Conservation District to develop an interagency program for

water 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 CVPIA

land 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 for

these drainage management options. Since the scope of Bulletin 160-98 is limited to water supply/demand planning, the

Bulletin 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-14

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Presently, most active planning for statewide water

supply options is being done either for the CALFED BayDelta program or for SWP future supply. In accordance

with CVPIA requirements, an appraisal level water supply

augmentation 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 Facilities

Two programs, the SWP Interim South Delta Program and the CALFED program, are studying

conveyance 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 SWP

by 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 the

proposed 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 San

Joaquin 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 a

result of the environmental review and permitting process which it is now undergoing. A draft EIR/EIS for

the 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 a

three-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 the

Delta would be substantially improved by making significant changes to the existing system

of channels.

Water Supply Augmentation Options

. . .

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-15 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

• Alternative 3. Water conveyance through the Delta

would 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/or

around 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 operators

to 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, upstream

of 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 a

revised 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 first

stage 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 with

CALFED 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 broad

scope 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-16

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 could

be provided for conjunctive use and groundwater banking programs, alleviating groundwater overdraft

conditions. Improved groundwater conditions through

delivery 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 Facilities

Developing additional surface storage is an important option for improving statewide water supply

reliability. New facilities could store water for the environment, agriculture, municipalities, industry, or a

combination of these uses. More storage would increase

flexibility 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 explicit

statutory 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 the

construction 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 development

system, the State filed applications for the appropriative water rights (including rights to store water) needed

for 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 the

Department, with regard to construction and operation of the SWP, to not deprive areas of origin, or “an

area immediately adjacent thereto which can conveniently be supplied with water therefrom,” of the water

reasonably needed for their beneficial uses. Water agencies in the area of origin and adjoining areas could

contract 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 area

of origin agency with different needs might seek a different contractual format. For example, an alternative

contractual form might be negotiated for agencies that

could 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 transportation

charges 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 Storage

New water supply provided by the CALFED program would come about by implementing some

combination 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 for

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-17 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

illustrative purposes, but does not attempt to identify

which facility or facilities CALFED might construct.

As presently scheduled, CALFED would not begin

construction 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 available

by 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 draft

preferred 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 operations

studies. 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 the

locations 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 development

potential 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 from

CVP 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 New

Bullards 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 a

small 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 and

scenic 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 would

require 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 CaliforEE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-18

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 Creek

Basins. 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 the

downstream dam proved environmentally unacceptable, alternatives examined eventually included enlarging Shasta

Dam. New storage upstream is possible, but sites are limited

by 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 have

been 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 few

upstream sites identified in the past have fallen by the wayside for various environmental and economic reasons. No

serious 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 River

Basin 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 facilities

and 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 and

constructing additional storage upstream at Auburn. The controversy over Auburn Dam prompted reappraisal of storage

sites 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 Creek

Basin, 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 Bank

Creeks 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. These

drainages 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).

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-19 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

reservoirs and divert from existing facilities upstream

from current anadromous fishery habitat.

To illustrate how specific surface storage projects

upstream 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 sites

would 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 spring

and 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 Delta

diversions 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 storage

reservoir 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 was

needed. 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. Kettleman

and Sunflower Reservoir sites were dropped after reconnaissance level review because of their physical

characteristics. 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 reviewed

all drainages south of the Delta and selected Los Vaqueros, Los Banos Grandes, and Sunflower Reservoirs

for further studies. In a 1976 Delta alternatives memorandum report, the Sunflower site was again eliminated

when compared with the other sites on the basis of

low storage availability and marginal foundation conditions. The Los Vaqueros site in Contra Costa County

was 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 failed

passage, Los Vaqueros was included with the Peripheral Canal in SB 200. LBG was not specifically

mentioned 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-20

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

The Department initiated a more comprehensive

investigation of alternative off-aqueduct storage reservoirs south of the Delta in 1983, and after an initial

examination of 18 storage sites, completed a reconnaissance report on 13 potential San Joaquin Valley

sites. The study recommended that LBG be investigated to determine its most cost-effective size, and its

engineering, economic, financial, and environmental

feasibility. 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 on

Delta pumping and rising costs have prompted reconsideration of the LBG proposal. Given the uncertainty

of future Delta exports and the reluctance of some SWP

contractors 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 reservoir

islands, and seasonally divert water to create and enhance wetlands for wildlife habitat on the other two

islands (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 meet

Bay-Delta water quality or flow requirements. The reservoir islands would be designed to provide a total

estimated 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 quality

concerns, 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 of

the 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 to

minimize the need to consider the other benefits potentially available from reservoir sites—especially flood

control. The January 1997 flooding, the largest and

most 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 Team

contained a variety of recommendations for improving emergency response management and flood

protection in the Central Valley.

 The 1997 floods highlighted a fundamental fact

of 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-21 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 the

valley. Although more emphasis is being given to floodplain management and prevention of future

development 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 the

American 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 Joaquin

River exceeded the flood control capability of both reservoirs. On the Tuolumne River, it appears that new

upstream 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 be

implemented (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 Shasta

Lake 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-22

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

project could proceed to implementation. It is recommended that feasibility-level studies of enlarging Shasta

be 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 constrained

by 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 Valley

Plans for local development of additional groundwater and conjunctive use programs are covered in

Chapters 7–9. This section reviews the potential for

groundwater development and conjunctive use as elements of statewide water management, concentrating

on the potential for augmenting supplies of the major

State 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 Sacramento

River 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 uniform

and 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, Sacramento

Valley 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 the

effects of increased extractions on neighboring nonparticipating groundwater users. Such monitoring

programs would be an important component of future conjunctive use programs.

San Joaquin Valley. Potential conjunctive use

projects in the San Joaquin Valley would involve recharging empty groundwater storage space for later withdrawal.

Although aquifer storage capacity is available (over

50maf), 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 Kern

Water Bank and the Stanislaus/Calaveras River Basin program. The Kern Water Bank project, described in

Chapter8, 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 with

local 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 pump

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-23 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 be

released to the Stanislaus River for fishery needs, water quality improvement in the southern Delta

channels, 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 and

CSJWCD. 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 Scope

The 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’s

investigation 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 specific

potential projects. Where appropriate, these studies recommend more comprehensive feasibility studies, or

development of small scale demonstration and testing

projects. One such project under evaluation, the American Basin conjunctive use project, is discussed in the

sidebar. Under the terms of Monterey Agreement contract amendments now in place for most SWP water

contractors, 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 to

replace 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 over

800 taf/yr. A regional groundwater model characterizing the Central Valley was used to identify potential

sites for active recharge programs. Table 6-5 lists potential yield estimates from the study. Yield estimates

for active recharge programs were based on the availability of floodflows on adjacent rivers. Local water

supply availability has almost always limited the potential of a particular site. Implementation of

conjunctive 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 Ranch

project, which might yield up to 70 taf/yr. Water supplies for the project would come from excess flows

available 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 provided

only to one group of CVP contractors and not CVPwide, the project is discussed as a local project in

Chapter 8.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-24

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

TABLE 6-5

CVP Yield Increase Plan Conjunctive Use Options

Potential Evaluated Annual

General Site Locations Source(s) of Water Activity Capacitya (taf) Yieldb (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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-25 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

CALFED Conjunctive Use Component. CALFED is evaluating conjunctive use potential as part of

its storage component. The CALFED conjunctive use

program will not identify specific projects, but will attempt to identify potential for groundwater development

and 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 and

500 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 Marketing

Water 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 holder

to 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. This

concern 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 potentially

participating 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 include

South 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 the

project 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 or

wet, project recharge would occur. Recharge would be accomplished by in lieu means, which would require delivery

of 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 or

critical, 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-26

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 water

acquisition. At this time, no long-term purchase agreements have been executed—CVPIA supplemental

water 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 in

the 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 means

are 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 a

different service area. Although there can be some difficulty in quantifying the amount of water made available

and its impact on the economy of local agricultural communities, land fallowing is a proven demand reduction

technique. Land fallowing may be undertaken on either a permanent basis (land retirement) or only during

drought 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. For

example, 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 water

is 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 is

new. For example, water made available through land fallowing is real (because it reduces ETAW), but not new.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-27 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 market

conserved water have mostly occurred in the agricultural sector, where considerable confusion has

sometimes resulted over the distinction between reducing applied water and producing real water savings.

Most of California’s irrigated areas overlie usable

groundwater basins and are linked by networks of surface streams and drains. Water leaving one area usually

contributes to the supply of other areas or, in the Central Valley, to required Delta outflow. Under such

conditions, 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 areas

such 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. The

ability 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 situation

may 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. Local

districts 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 by

a wastewater treatment agency but is distributed or supplied to end users by one or more water agencies.

Groundwater Substitution. Many California

growers have rights and access to surface water supplies, even though their land may overlie productive

groundwater basins. In such cases, a grower may agree

to 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 and

pumps 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. Substantial

monitoring 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 this

source, 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 any

given time, water may be stored somewhere in the system that is not planned to be released, but could be

made available to meet urgent needs, subject to compliance with existing water rights. Such withdrawals come

at a price—usually a reduction of power generation or

recreational usage, or increased risk of future water supply shortage. Payments to the reservoir owner implicitly

include 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 other

water 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 a

continuing shift in emphasis toward systemwide appraisal of impacts and growing recognition of the need

to protect the rights of all lawful water users. Water

marketing programs (and land retirement or fallowing programs that may be used to supply water for

sale) are often controversial in the area where the transEE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-28

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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, USBR

developed guidelines for implementing sale of CVP water under CVPIA; the California Water Code directs the

Department to facilitate voluntary exchanges and transfers of water; and 1992 changes to State law authorized

water suppliers (local public agencies and private water

companies) 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 that

public 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 Coast

Region. A long-term Delta fix is necessary for providing reliable conveyance of acquired supplies across the

Delta. 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 may

deny 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’s

own 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 of

the 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 unreasonably

affecting 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 a

storm, 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 which

the 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 owning

the 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 and

maintenance 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 facilitate

the voluntary sale, lease, or exchange of water and shall support its determinations by written findings. In any judicial

action challenging any determination made under this article the court shall consider all relevant evidence, and the

court shall give due consideration to the purposes and policies of this article. In any such case the court shall sustain the

determination 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-29 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 begin

acquiring 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 to

respond 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 years

through surplus reservoir releases, groundwater substitution, and land fallowing programs are summarized

in Table 6-7. Past experience suggests that about

250taf/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 supplemental

water 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.

TABLE 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 1,530

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-30

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

in site-specific environmental documents. The Department withdrew the draft PEIR due to the difficulty of

addressing 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 developed

a 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 other

water 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 available

for 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 for

banked 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 350taf

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 1992

enactment 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 with

water 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 require

any 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

75percent or less of contract entitlement. As part of

the agreement, SCVWD will optimize its use of nonCVP water supplies, which will benefit all CVP

irrigation water service contractors in the Delta export service area. Westlands Water District and San

Luis Water District have already agreed to become

TABLE 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 Allocateda

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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-31 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 have

either 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 Banking

Authority. 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 Arizona

Project. The legislation further provided that the Authority may enter into agreements with California and

Nevada agencies to bank water in Arizona basins, with

specific 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 part

of the development of CRB’s draft 4.4 Plan. Land fallowing programs could be implemented to provide

water for marketing to urban areas during drought

periods, 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 similar

programs 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/yr

of 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 Lake

Water 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 annually

on each of the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced Rivers. Acquired water would be used for instream flows

on the three rivers, and for flow and water quality improvements on the San Joaquin River. The specific

quantities 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 13taf

of water annually from the Sacramento and Feather

River Basins for Sacramento Valley wildlife refuges.

Likewise, up to 52 taf would be purchased annually

from 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

(60taf/yr), Tuolumne (60 taf/yr), and Merced

Rivers (50 taf/yr) and on Upper Sacramento River

tributary creeks that support spring-run salmon

populations. 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-32

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Refuge water supply would be acquired to provide the incremental difference between Level

2 and Level 4 refuge supply requirements. Annual water acquisition in the Sacramento River,

San Joaquin River, and Tulare Lake Regions

would 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), and

Merced 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 meet

Level 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 in

the 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 continue

to 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 SDCWA

and 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.

Table6-8 shows 2020 base level of water recycling

and potential future options. These options represent potential maximum levels of recycling. Not all

options 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

TABLE 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 1,062

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-33 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

into streams and groundwater basins and is generally

reapplied. 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 for

blending supplies, or the cost of desalting recycled water, could affect implementation of future water

recycling facilities. Due to extensive use of Colorado

River water and groundwater supplies that are relatively high in TDS, salt management is an important

consideration in marketing recycled water in the region. Salt management options include blending

Colorado River water and groundwater supplies with

other 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 options

by hydrologic region. Two major water recycling programs being planned are the Bay Area regional water

recycling 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 for

desalting 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 in

the 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 growth

in 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, most

groundwater 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 water

to 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.

TABLE 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 835 655

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-34

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Seawater Desalting. The major limitation to seawater desalting has been its high cost, much of which

is 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 greater

than costs of obtaining water from other sources. However, seawater desalting can be a feasible option for

coastal communities that are not connected to statewide water distribution infrastructure and have limited

water supplies. Because of such circumstances, seawater desalting plants have been constructed in the Cities

of Avalon, Santa Barbara, and Morro Bay. Seawater

desalting 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 desalting

costs are substantially reduced in the future, plant capacity which is surplus to the plant owners in wetter

water 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

80mgd 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 studies

and 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 the

Interior 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 Resources

Board. 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 from

treating 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. The

cost 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).

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-35 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 overdraft

and seawater intrusion. The area’s semiarid, Mediterraneanstyle climate provides only marginally sufficient rainfall during average years to sustain reservoir releases for aquifer

recharge 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 the

weather 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 County

is 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 Arroyo

Seco. This early seeding provides additional runoff to the reservoir system as well as added groundwater recharge in the

Arroyo 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 degrees

of 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 weather

modification projects operating, with activity increasing during dry years. During the drought the number

of projects operating in California had increased to

20. Some projects were subsequently dropped and others suspended operations after the drought ended.

Operators engaged in cloud seeding have found it

beneficial 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 clouds

from 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 for

Shasta 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 is

present 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. Because

of the many legal and institutional difficulties surrounding third-party impacts, new cloud seeding projects are

deferred from further consideration in this Bulletin.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-36

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 water

in 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 studied

three 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 the

Stikine 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 would

transport up to 20 taf/yr of water from British Columbia to the City of San Diego using tankers. The

demonstration project, if implemented, could provide

cost 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, presented

an 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 Water

Some 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, washing

machine, 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 gray

water 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

management 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. USFS

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-37 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

estimates that if national forest management as practiced

during the 1980s had been practiced earlier, the average

annual 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 excess

dead 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 water

supplies. The maximum rate of forest evapotranspiration is reached at about 65 percent tree and shrub cover

density. To achieve water savings, it would be necessary to thin trees and shrubs to reduce cover to less

than 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 future

supply. 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 main

objectives 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—would

be 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 could

have 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 augmentation

measures that would provide supply to multiple beneficiaries. Demand reduction and water recycling

options are shown in the regional option tabulations

in Chapters 7–9, since these options would be implemented by individual local agencies in their service

areas. Table 6-10 summarizes options likely to be implemented by 2020 to meet statewide needs. Because these

statewide 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-Delta

program’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 be

operated. The placeholder assumes dual Delta conveyance (Alternative 3) and approximately 3 maf of storage

facilities, with 1 maf of this storage dedicated for environmental uses. Project yield and operating criteria

were defined by a DWRSIM operations study. The

CALFED 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 draft

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-38

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 specific

projects to improve SWP water supply reliability, water marketing through the Department’s DWB, and

two multipurpose reservoirs. A third potential multipurpose reservoir option, an enlarged Shasta Lake, was

not included as a likely option because further studies

are needed to quantify the water supply and flood control benefits associated with different potential reservoir

sizes. Preliminary studies suggest that a 9 maf enlargement of Shasta Lake would yield 760 taf in average

years 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 likely

options to recognize the interrelationship between water supply needs and the Central Valley’s flood protection

needs. 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 it

would 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

Regions

In Tables 6-11 and 6-12, yields from likely statewide supply augmentation options were allocated

among potentially participating hydrologic regions

to 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 by

CVP 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 briefly

analyzes the effects of some uncertainties on the shortage forecasts and potential options presented in

Bulletin160-98.

Water use forecasts rely on assumptions about population growth, urban per-capita water use, land use and

TABLE 6-10

Statewide Supply Augmentation Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020a

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 implemented by individual

local agencies in their service areas.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-39 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 actions

that 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-Delta

program and the draft CRB 4.4 Plan are still in development. These programs have been represented

by placeholder throughout the Bulletin. Even if final

decisions 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 the

Bulletin’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 6.2af

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 of

new ESA listings, FERC relicensing, and electric utility deregulation.

TABLE 6-11

Likely Statewide Supply Augmentation Options by Hydrologic Region

2020 Average Year (taf)

Region CALFED ISDPa Conjunctive DWBb Auburn Friant Total

Usea,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

TABLE 6-12

Likely Statewide Supply Augmentation Options by Hydrologic Region

2020 Drought Year (taf)

Region CALFED ISDPa Conjunctive DWB Auburn Friant Total

Usea 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 Improvements

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-40

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 standards

to include additional Central Valley water users. Doing so can entail different flow regimes in Valley and

Delta 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 to

compute 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 met

solely by operation of the CVP and SWP. Flow objectives at Vernalis on the San Joaquin River would be

met 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.

TABLE 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-41 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

For CALFED implementation, the Bulletin’s

placeholder assumes dual Delta conveyance (Alternative 3) and approximately 3 maf of surface water storage

facilities. 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 (no

storage facilities are constructed). The minimum shortage results from assuming approximately 6 maf of

surface 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 these

programs 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 have

resulted from collaborative efforts among stakeholders. Table 6-14 illustrates the emphasis now being

placed 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 not

meant 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 Restoration

Plan proposed habitat restoration actions such as spawning gravel placement and stream channel restoration,

acquisition of land for wildlife habitat, construction of

fish 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 meet

these 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 goal

of doubling anadromous fish populations in the Central Valley include the many physical habitat restoration

actions 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 for

local 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 two

spawning gravel replenishment projects on the Sacramento River below Keswick Dam. Additional projects

are being planned for the other rivers authorized in

the 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-42

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Program:CVPIAAnadromous FishRestoration ProgramResponsibleAgencies: USBRand USFWS

Projects/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.

CVPIA Congressional

appropriations fromCVPIA RestorationFund and Energy andWater DevelopmentFund

Varies (actualexpenditures:federal FY 1995,$0.8 million; FY1996 $1.4 million)

Program: CVPIA(State cost-sharingprogram)ResponsibleAgencies: DWRand DFG, incoordination withUSBR andUSFWS

Projects/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 agreement

General obligationbonds

$93 million

Program:Category IIIProgramResponsibleAgencies:CALFED agencies

Projects/Programs Funded: Nonflow related projects to protect and improve

Bay-Delta ecological resources.Selection Criteria: Selection is based on RFP process.

TABLE 6-14

Environmental Restoration Funding

Program and Projects/Program Funded Authorizing Funding Source Funding

Responsible Selection Criteria Legislation or Allocation

Agencies Agreement

Proposition 204provided $60million for Statecontribution.

Bay-Delta Accord Proposition 204, local

water agencycontributions,congressionalappropriations

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-43 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

TABLE 6-14

Environmental Restoration Funding (continued)

Program and Projects/Program Funded Authorizing Funding Source Funding

Responsible Selection Criteria Legislation or Allocation

Agencies Agreement

Program:CALFEDEcosystemRestorationProgramResponsibleAgencies:CALFEDagencies

Projects/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 204 General obligation

bonds

$390 million

Program:Delta PumpingPlant FishProtectionAgreement(Four-PumpsAgreement)ResponsibleAgencies: DWRand DFG

Projects/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 1986

SWP fundsadministered by theDepartment

$15 million for fishpopulation recoveryprogram, andadditional annualfunding tocompensate forannual fish lossescaused by the BanksPumping Planta

Program:Tracy FishAgreementResponsibleAgencies: USBRand DFG

Projects/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 1992

Congressionalappropriations foroperations andmaintenance of CVP,administered by USBR

Approximately $1million per year.USBR has providedfunding totaling$6.5 million during1992-97

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-44

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Program:CommercialSalmon StampAccountResponsibleAgency: DFG

TABLE 6-14

Environmental Restoration Funding (continued)

Program and Projects/Program Funded Authorizing Funding Source Funding

Responsible Selection Criteria Legislation or Allocation

Agencies Agreement

Projects/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 vesseloperators

Annual stamp feewhich ranges from $85to $260 depending onsalmon landing

Total annualrevenue varies from$340,000 to justover $1 million.

Program:CaliforniaWildlife,Coastal andPark LandConservationInitiative(Proposition70)ResponsibleAgency: DFG

Projects/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 of1988b

General obligationbonds

see footnote

a Generally, 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 and

had spent about $6 million in annual mitigation projects.

b State 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 related

projects.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-45 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

gous to an operations and maintenance program, where

work would be done periodically on river segments

identified 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. A

steering committee of agricultural, urban, and environmental stakeholders administered the project selection process

TABLE 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 $21,515,950

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-46

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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. In

1997, 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 on

selection 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 the

Delta, 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 Ship

Channel 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 III

has 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 to

provide the foundation for a long-term ecosystem restoration effort that may take several decades to

implement. 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 fiscal

year 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 from

new 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 identifies

monthly and 10-day flow event targets for Delta outflow and for many of the river basins within the

Bay-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 CVPIA

instream 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 surface

water 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-47 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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. The

plans 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 replacing 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 Agreements

USBR and the Department have entered into agreements with DFG to mitigate fish losses at Delta export

facilities. Subsequent to execution of USBR’s agreement

with 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 the

CALFED program. In 1992, the Resources Agency reconvened the SB 1086 Advisory Council. The council’s

current 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 the

latter 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 commitment

of 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 by

a 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 are

used 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 available

options. 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-48

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

•Future water demands are expected to exceed

present supplies. There is thus a need to develop

water supply augmentation and demand management programs.

•Compliance with new EPA and DHS drinking

water 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 point

where 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 a

pay-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-owned

systems 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 further

tax 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, so

that 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 Methods

The 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 the

amounts of bonds or on the amount of indebtedness;

•Powers and methods of tax assessments, including whether the assessments are on an ad valorem

basis (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;

TABLE 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

TABLE 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 X

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-49 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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-Financing

Self-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 rather

than incurring debt. The pay-as-you-go approach generally works best for small or recurring capital expenditures

that 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 Financing

Short-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 notes

can 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 financing

methods 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 methods

include 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, and

are 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 for

two-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 these

bonds. 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, such

as 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 such

improvements, and are secured by a lien on that property. Under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act

of 1982, water agencies may establish a community facilities district and levy a special tax upon land within

that 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 be

imposed 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 have

limited the taxing and borrowing ability of local agencies, thus reducing use of general obligation bonds. In

California, 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 Financing

New long-term debt financing strategies are being developed to assist water agencies in obtaining

funding for water system improvements. Bond pools

increase 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 bond

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-50

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

offerings into a single financial package, minimizing the cost of bond issuance for participating water

agencies. 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 or

more 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 agencies

involves 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, where

MWDSC 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 its

bonds 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.

TABLE 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 improvements

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6-51 EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

State and Federal Financial Assistance Programs

State and federal financial assistance programs (loans

and 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 this

is 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 through

2003. Table 6-18 shows some major state and federal financial assistance programs available for water system

improvements. Proposition 204 included grants to local

agencies 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 Size

The 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.

Table6-20 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 more

financing 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 smaller

agencies 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 and

sell taxable bonds. The California Public Utilities Commission must give authorization prior to the issuance

of stocks or bonds by an investor-owned water comTABLE 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 Xa Xa

Commercial Paper X Xa Xa

Floating Rate Demand Notes X Xa Xa

Conventional Long-Term Financing

Equity Shares or Stock X X

Bonds (GO and Revenue) X Xa Xa

Lease Revenue X

Innovative Long-Term Financing

Bond Pools X

Privatization X X

Water transfers X X X

Financial Assistance Programs X Xb Xb

a

 Taxable instruments.

b State and federal loan and grant programs have limited applications for private water agencies.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FROM A STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE 6-52

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

pany. This method of financing is primarily limited to

the 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 of

its 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 assess

members 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 a

requirement of formation of a mutual water company, a sinking fund must be established that provides

capital replacement of water facilities at the end of

their 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.

TABLE 6-21

Financial Assistance Programs Available to Water Agencies by Type of Ownership

Programs Public Investor Mutual

State

Safe Drinking Water Bond Laws X Xa Xa

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.

TABLE 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 Xa Xa Xa Xa

a

 State and federal loan and grant programs have limited applications for private water agencies.

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

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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.

6A

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 6A 6A-2

Appendix 6A The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

TABLE 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

TABLE 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

TABLE 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 214 282 172 270

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6A-3 APPENDIX 6A

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6A

TABLE 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

TABLE 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

TABLE 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 63 711

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 6A 6A-4

Appendix 6A The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

TABLE 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

TABLE 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

TABLE 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 92 270 308

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6A-5 APPENDIX 6A

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6A

TABLE 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 95 147 158

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 6A 6A-6

Appendix 6A The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6B-1 APPENDIX 6B

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 facilities

and programs. Water shortages vary widely from region to region. For example, the North Coast and San

Francisco Bay Regions are not expected to experience

future shortages during average years, but will see shortages in drought years. Most of the State’s remaining

regions 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. Future

average year shortages in the Tulare Lake Region reflect groundwater overdraft. Future average year

shortages in the South Coast Region reflect forecasted

population growth, plus lower Colorado River supplies as California reduces its use of Colorado River

water to the State’s basic apportionment.

6B

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 6B 6B-2

Appendix 6B The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

TABLE 6B-1

Applied Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region (taf), 1995-Level Average Yeara

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.

TABLE 6B-2

Applied Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region (taf), 1995-Level Drought Yeara

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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6B-3 APPENDIX 6B

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6B

TABLE 6B-4

Applied Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region (taf), 2020-Level Drought Yeara

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.

TABLE 6B-3

Applied Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region (taf), 2020-Level Average Yeara

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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 6B 6B-4

Appendix 6B The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6C-1 APPENDIX 6C

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 required

to 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 costs

reflect the costs of resources committed to the construction and operation of a project over its life, which

can 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 mathematical

computation 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’s

costs 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 of

an 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 include

activation costs (operation and maintenance expenditures prior to operations) and reservoir filling costs.

OM&R costs include administration, energy, water

purchases, 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 provide

maximum 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 data

available 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

6C

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 6C 6C-2

Appendix 6C The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

TABLE 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 Transfersa 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 that

these 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. The

time 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 Analysis

A spreadsheet was developed for cost computations. Table 6C-1 shows the results of a sample cost

analysis 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 user

costs 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 costs

of 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 intended

use 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 significantly

influenced 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 operated

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6C-3 APPENDIX 6C

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 significantly

depending upon whether it provides on-stream or offstream storage (the latter operation will likely have

substantial 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 Marketing

Water transfer costs shown in the Bulletin are generally those reported by local agencies for their proposed

marketing 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 6C 6C-4

Appendix 6C The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6D-1 APPENDIX 6D

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 reapplied

supplies (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’s

applied 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 available

through 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, Table

6D-2 shows the minimum new water required to satisfy 2020 drought year shortages is approximately 5.4

maf. As discussed in Chapter 6, not all water management options are created equal in their ability to meet

new 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

6D

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 6D 6D-2

Appendix 6D The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

TABLE 6D-1

Minimum New Water Needs by Hydrologic Region: 2020 Average Year

Region Percenta 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.

TABLE 6D-2

Minimum New Water Needs by Hydrologic Region: 2020 Drought Year

Region Percenta 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6E-1 APPENDIX 6E

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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

6E

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 6E 6E-2

Appendix 6E The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

TABLE 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

TABLE 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

TABLE 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 214 280 172 260

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6E-3 APPENDIX 6E

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6E

TABLE 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

TABLE 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

TABLE 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 1,125

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 6E 6E-4

Appendix 6E The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

TABLE 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

TABLE 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

TABLE 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 92 184 210

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6E-5 APPENDIX 6E

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6E

TABLE 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

TABLE 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 88

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 6E 6E-6

Appendix 6E The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6F-1 APPENDIX 6F

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 drainage

purposes 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 problems

recommended 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 the

Department’s 2020 agricultural acreage forecast. Scenario 2 assumed the retirement of up to 85,000 acres

over 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 200

ppb selenium criterion was used to benchmark acreage to be retired because of the interagency report’s

recommendations. The acreage of land underlain by

shallow groundwater has fluctuated over time, reflecting hydrologic conditions and the availability of water

supplies in the region. There has been no new regionwide monitoring of selenium in shallow groundwater

since publication of the 1990 report, and changes in

the extent of lands underlain by high selenium groundwater are unknown. (As described in Chapter 4, the

interagency 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 12,000

acres 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. The

demonstration program would evaluate wildlife habitat management actions on the retired lands. Under a

separate agreement with WWD, the agricultural water supplies associated with the lands would remain

within WWD, and part of the supplies would be used

to irrigate wildlife habitat. Water used for habitat irri6F

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 6F 6F-2

Appendix 6F The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

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 primary

types of crops calculated to be retired, based on Central Valley Production Model results, with barley,

wheat, cotton, and safflower comprising almost 90percent 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. Table

6F-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 be

controversial 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 land

purchase 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 environmental

documentation for land retirement programs. Environmental documentation prepared to date for land

retirement 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 city

and county governments in the area, because agricultural activities provide the dominant source of

employment in many of the small rural communities

on the westside.

TABLE 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 Acrea Depletions Acre Per Acrea 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.

TABLE 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 85,000 181,200

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6F-3 APPENDIX 6F

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6F

TABLE 6F-3

Land Retirement Analysis—Scenario 1 Economic Impacts (1995 Dollars)

Direct, Indirect, Induced Effects

Value of Production Employment

Crops Acres Regionala Statewide Regionala 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.

TABLE 6F-4

Land Retirement Analysis—Scenario 2 Economic Impacts (1995 Dollars)

Direct, Indirect, Induced Effects

Value of Production Employment

Crops Acres Regionala Statewide Regionala 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 6F 6F-4

Appendix 6F The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6G-1 APPENDIX 6G

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6G

Review and Evaluation of Statewide-Level

Storage 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 initial

screening, 15 remaining options were examined in detail. This appraisal relied on previous studies covering

traditional project formulation, engineering feasibility, cost, and environmental aspects. The older studies

were 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 studies

were 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 and

the 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 costly

and 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 with

well-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 Board

as 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 of

enlarging 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 range

of consideration. More information on environmental aspects would be needed for a better assessment.

Experience has shown large projects at this stage often

harbor unexpected environmental drawbacks. Currently, enlarging Trinity Lake is characterized as a future

possibility, but not yet thoroughly explored.

6G

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 6G 6G-2

Appendix 6G The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

TABLE 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 Retain

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6G-3 APPENDIX 6G

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6G

TABLE 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 0.7

and 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 current

520 taf capacity of Millerton Lake. While the expansion would be expensive, it is the only San Joaquin

Valley 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 supply

efficacy, or environmental impacts. Reconnaissance reappraisals could fully assess the practicability of these

sites. 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 of

Coloma 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 are

unpromising 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 6G 6G-4

Appendix 6G The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

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 Valley

tributaries 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 offstream

storage facility. Hulen Reservoir on North Fork Cottonwood Creek would be high on the list except it

would 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 increment

of water supply storage (depending on the flood operTABLE 6G-2

Retained Onstream Storage Options and Environmental Issues

Storagea

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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6G-5 APPENDIX 6G

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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. The

potential environmental issues identified with the retained options are shown in Table 6G-4. Offstream

storage 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 have

the 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 unit

cost 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 financial

and 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.

TABLE 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 6G 6G-6

Appendix 6G The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

TABLE 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 for

surplus water of the upper Sacramento River. The twocompartment Glenn Reservoir was conceived as

terminal 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 likely

candidate 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 3

maf 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 the

reservoir 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 use

of 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 Sacramento

County is the only upstream of Delta offstream storage option within this size range. Past investigators have

examined 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 project

was 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 American

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6G-7 APPENDIX 6G

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 indicate

a 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 Bank

Project 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 would

later 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). With

its 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 reappraisal

of 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 water

supply potential, but with greater environmental impacts and/or economic costs that create some

uncertainty about their implementability. From a flood

control 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 information

is 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 Delta

would 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 periods

of flood runoff. But, under certain conditions, coordinated operation with other reservoirs may allow

occasional 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 and

several smaller saddle dams along the low divide beEE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 6G 6G-8

Appendix 6G The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Dutch Gulch

Shasta Enlargement

Kosk

Millville

Wing

Dippingvat Tehama

Schoenfield

Thomes - Newville

Glenn

Colusa

Sites

Auburn

Folsom

Enlargement Berryessa

Enlargement

Millerton Enlargement

FIGURE 6G-1

Likely Reservoir Sites Upstream of the Delta

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6G-9 APPENDIX 6G

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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 to

the 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 through

April. Whenever water and energy were available, operators would make maximum effort to fill Sites/Colusa

Reservoirs. 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, withdrawals

would be made from Sites/Colusa Reservoirs. To minimize potential impacts of the existing diversions on

the Sacramento River fisheries, Sites/Colusa Reservoirs

would 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 of

Delta 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-seven

dam 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 evaluated 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 of

exports from the Delta and the level of SWP contractor participation. Multiple reservoir sizes were

considered for each alternative dam site. Volumes from

0.1 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 evaluate

and compare engineering characteristics, site information was gathered and construction costs were

estimated for each alternative. For this purpose, a basic design configuration was selected. The storage

capacity 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 based

on previous cost estimates developed for LBG facilities. Sixteen categories of cost, including mitigation

costs, were calculated. A rating of the alternatives was

performed 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 threshold

for 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 of

storage 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, and

were reviewed by USFWS. Six environmental screenEE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 6G 6G-10

Appendix 6G The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

ing criteria were developed. The environmental resources information varied among the sites. To ensure

that all the options were evaluated equally, all sites used

the same level of detail for each of the screening criteria. In evaluating wetland resources, USFWS National

Wetland Inventory Maps were used to determine wetland abundance and types at each site. USGS national

aerial 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 were

identified by searching the 1995 DFG Natural Diversity Data Base, the fifth edition of the California Native

Plant 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 0

to 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

TABLE 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

TABLE 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/Fresno

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6G-11 APPENDIX 6G

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6G

TABLE 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-30

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 6G 6G-12

Appendix 6G The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

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 size

categories 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 Banos

Creek 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

250taf.

A reservoir at Little Salado-Crow Creek would have

a high surface area to storage volume ratio. There would

be 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 modeling

results indicate that the range of additional surface storage south of the Delta should be around 500 to

2,000taf. 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 and

economic criteria, this has been deferred. The integrity of an enlarged San Luis Dam has been questioned,

and the cost would be high.

TABLE 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 X

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6G-13 APPENDIX 6G

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 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

FIGURE 6G-2.

Off-Aqueduct South of the Delta Watershed Sites

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX 6G 6G-14

Appendix 6G The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

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 miles

west 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 and

pumped 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 the

quality 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.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
6G-15 APPENDIX 6G

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix 6G

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

7-1 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

Options for Meeting

Future Water Needs in

Coastal Regions of California

This 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.

FIGURE 7-1

Coastal

Hydrologic

Regions

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

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 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 Garcia

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

FIGURE 7-2

North Coast Hydrologic Region

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

7-3 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

Description of the Area

The North Coast Region comprises the Pacific

Ocean 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 more

than 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 North

Coast’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 the

West’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

TABLE 7-1

Population and Crop Acreage

Population Irrigated Crop Acreage

(thousands) (thousands of acres)

1995 606 323

2020 835 335

. . .

North Coast

Hydrologic Region

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

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 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, two

industrial, and about 200 miscellaneous water customers.

The Trinity River Division of the CVP develops

supply for export to the Central Valley and does not

deliver 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 into

the Trinity River for water years 1992 to 1996, pending completion of a USFWS instream flow study. In

1992, CVPIA mandated that the secretarial decision

remain 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

TABLE 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.

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

7-5 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

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. The

Russian 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 Issues

The 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 project

operations, USBR began preparing a long-term Klamath Project operations plan in 1995. Difficult and

complex 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 Compact

Commission 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 1957

to facilitate integrated management of interstate water resources and to promote intergovernmental

cooperation 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 Program

Following completion of the Trinity River Division, fish populations in the Trinity River Basin

declined 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 USBR

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

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 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 restore

fish 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 and

its 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 is

currently 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 Communities

The 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 in

1995 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. (Growth

from 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 system

will produce 5.9 taf/yr. The estimated cost is $6.7 million. A second phase will make additional distribution

system improvements. These new conveyance facilities should meet the city’s demands through 2007.

The Weaverville Community Services District in

Trinity County serves about 1,370 metered connections. In average water years, demands within the

district are met with existing supplies from East and

West 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 well

on 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 water

supply. 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 has

implemented water conservation measures and imEE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-7 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

proved existing system capacity. As a result of these

corrective measures DHS lifted its order in 1993 and

allowed 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 reduce

shortages. 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 assessment

of 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 steelhead

trout 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 about

projects and issues affecting the Eel and Russian Rivers. The Commission, formed in 1978 under a joint

powers agreement among the counties, was to aid in

implementing 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 Photo

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

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 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 Matanzas

Creek in downtown Santa Rosa. The original structure, constructed in the early 1960s, does not permit

fish passage. SCWA also proposes to install a fish ladder at Healdsburg Dam on the Russian River, a small

flashboard 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 at

buildout. The project is intended to eliminate weatherrelated problems of the city’s current disposal system

and minimize treated wastewater discharges into the

Russian River. The project consists of pipeline transmission and distribution systems and is scheduled to

be completed by 2001.

SCWA Water Supply and Transmission Project

Sonoma 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 project

include 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. The

Russian 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 and

conveyance 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 water

rights applications to SWRCB. The transmission system component has two elements—facilities to divert

and 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 Lake

Pillsbury 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 those

urban conservation efforts which exceed BMPs are considered as options. All urban conservation options were

retained. Reducing outdoor water use to 0.8 ETo in new

development would attain about 1 taf /yr of depletion

reductions, while extending this measure to include existing development would reduce depletions by about 6

taf/yr. Reducing residential indoor water use to 60 and

55 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.

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

7-9 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

TABLE 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 ETo 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.

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

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 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 region

because they provide little potential to create new water (reduce depletions).

Modifying Existing Reservoirs or Operations

Trinity 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 to

enlarge 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 completed

by USBR, the Department, or the Oregon Water Resources Department. Recent studies completed by the

City 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 forward

with 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 detailed

investigations 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.

TABLE 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.

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

7-11 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

Groundwater Development or Conjunctive Use

Surface water sources meet most of the water needs

in the coastal regions. Communities with water shortage problems continue to look for possible groundwater

sources and well locations to provide adequate supplies at reasonable cost. Although groundwater quality

is 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 two

miles 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 which

would produce about 15 taf of recycled water annually to serve local water management needs for

agricultural, environmental, and for landscape irrigation purposes.

Desalting

Interest in desalting for Fort Bragg increased when

feasibility 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, feedwater

pipeline 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 that

have 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 can

afford 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. There

are 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 resources

to construct major water supply projects, and therefore will continue to investigate new groundwater

supplies.

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

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-12

TABLE 7-5

Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020 (taf)

North Coast Region

Average Drought

Applied Water Shortagea 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 the Klamath Project area.

TABLE 7-4

Options Ranking for North Coast Region

Optiona Rank Cost ($/af) Potential Gain (taf)

Average Drought

Conservation

Urban

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8 ETo

 - New Development M 750 1 1

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8 ETo -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.

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

7-13 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

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

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-14

FIGURE 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

Ala

Creek 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

River

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

7-15 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

Description of the Area

The 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 the

Coast 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 cool

and often foggy. The inland valleys and interior portions of San Francisco Bay are warmer, with a

Mediterranean-like climate. The average annual precipitation in the region is 31 inches, ranging from 13

inches 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, more

than 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 Supplies

Table 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 as

Fairfield and Benicia. Growth in the larger communities of Sonoma and Napa Counties, such as Petaluma

and Napa, has also been fairly rapid (more than 20 percent during the 1980s). Growth in Marin County has

been 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 a

second moratorium on water service connections during the 1987-92 drought. It was lifted in 1993 with

the adoption of an integrated water supply program

TABLE 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 Region

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

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 7-16

and the signing of a new Russian River water supply

contract.

The Suisun Marsh is the only managed wetland

in the North Bay that requires deliveries of fresh water. Its annual applied water demand is expected to

remain 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 the

North 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 water

throughout Sonoma and Marin Counties, is forecasting no water shortages through 2020, and is

not 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 contract

with 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 and

County 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.

TABLE 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.

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

7-17 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

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 areas

to 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 Bay

The 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 water

use 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 taf

of 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

TABLE 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

TABLE 7-9

Local Agency Reservoirs Serving the North Bay

Agency Reservoir Capacity Year Region

(taf) Constructed

USACE/Sonoma CWAa Mendocino 119 1922 North Coast

USACE/Sonoma CWAa Sonoma 381 1982 North Coast

Pacific Gas & Electric Pillsbury 73 1921 North Coast

Marin MWD Kent 33 1953/1982b 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.

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

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 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 water

agencies 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 users

in Santa Clara County. A number of these retailers also contract with SFPUC for water from Hetch

Hetchy. The district possesses one of the most diverse supplies in the State, with imported state

project and federal project water, locally developed

surface supplies, and extensive groundwater recharge programs. Some of the retail agencies in

TABLE 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

TABLE 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 Vaquerosa 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.

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

7-19 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

the district are vulnerable to drought deficiencies

imposed by the SWP, CVP, and Hetch Hetchy

Project. These deficiencies may be intensified by

diminished 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 up

to 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 water

quality constraints) and use CCWD’s CVP supplies instead. CCWD’s 195 taf/yr CVP contract

was recently renegotiated to include operation of

Los 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.

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

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 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 1995

SWRCB Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary are

discussed 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 enhancement

of agricultural lands for wildlife, focusing on agricultural land and water management practices that would

increase 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 the

North 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 Lagunitas

Creek 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 Rafael

Bridge. 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 line

by 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 CCWD

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

7-21 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

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 bypass

channel 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 be

provided 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 on

future 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 (and

year-round) flows from the creek into the Yolo Bypass. SCWA estimates the additional requirements are

approximately 10 taf during an average year and 20

taf during a dry year. Solano County interests are appealing the judgment, which has been stayed until the

appeal 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 for

meeting 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 Project

water supply will expire in 1999. The contract is renewable, but the terms and conditions of the contract

will 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.

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

OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS 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 annual

SWP 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 use

of 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 has

initiated 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 (SFPUC

Bay 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 of

water 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 in

1999. Phase 3, the implementation phase of the master plan, will include environmental review, design, and

construction 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 reliability

through 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 necessary

to 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 three

distinct 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 nine

wells designed to extract and discharge saline groundwater from the basin. Because of further intrusion of

saline water during the recent drought, operations have

been 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 to

simulate the effectiveness of its aquifer reclamation program, movement of saline water, and remediation of

the 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 master

plan 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 been

working with local developers on a water transfer agreeEE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

7-23 OPTIONS - COASTAL REGIONS

ment to provide water to 9,500 new homes in

Dougherty Valley, in southern Contra Costa County.

A small portion of the Dougherty Valley development

is 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 District

agreed 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 the

agreement stated that the project could not use existing local Z7WA storage space (primarily the Livermore

Valley groundwater basin). Z7WA completed an agreement with Semitropic Water Storage District for 43

taf 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 arrangement

was finalized, the City of Livermore and environmental interests sued Z7WA in an effort to stop similar

future 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 water

supply management program EIR for improving supply reliability in its service area. The action plan’s

recommendation was to construct a Folsom South

Canal 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 the

Alameda 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 project

alternative. One alternative incorporates a concept developed by Sacramento County, the City of

Sacramento, 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 pumped

back to the City of Sacramento’s Fairbairn Water Treatment Plant. A portion of this water would continue

on to the Folsom South Canal where it would be conveyed to the Mokelumne Aqueduct via a pipeline

extension 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 authority

of San Joaquin County water agencies hopes to initiate a pilot project to help assess the feasibility of this

conjunctive use proposal. EBMUD has agreed to provide water for the project and is retaining this

alternative for consideration to provide more out-ofservice area storage and improved supply reliability

during 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 Reservoirs

incorporated 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. Subsequent

negotiations 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

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A