California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft

Chapter 23. Water Transfers

23-1

Chapter 23. Water Transfers

Water transfers are defined in the Water Code as a temporary or long-term change in the point of

diversion, place of use, or purpose of use due to a transfer or exchange of water or water rights.1

 Many

transfers, such as those among contractors of the State Water Project or Central Valley Project, do not fit

this definition. A more general definition is that water transfers are a voluntary change in the way water is

usually distributed among water users in response to water scarcity. Transfers can be from one party with

extra water in one year to another who is water-short that year. Transfers can be between water districts

that are neighboring or across the state, provided there is a means to convey and store the water. Water

transfers can be a temporary or permanent sale of a water right by the water right holder; a lease of the

right to use water from the water right holder; or a sale or lease of a contractual right to water supply.

Water transfers can also take the form of long-term contracts for the purpose of improving long-term

supply reliability. Generally, water is made available for transfer by five major sources:

1. Transferring water from storage that would otherwise have been carried over to the following year.

The expectation is that the reservoir will refill during subsequent wet seasons.

2. Pumping groundwater instead of using surface water delivery and transferring the surface water

rights.

3. Transferring previously banked groundwater either by directly pumping and transferring groundwater

or by pumping groundwater for local use and transferring surface water rights.

4. Making water available by reducing the existing consumptive use through crop idling or crop shifting

or by water use efficiency measures.

5. Making water available by reducing return flows or seepage losses in conveyance systems that would

otherwise be irrecoverable for reuse.

Water transfers are sometimes seen as merely moving water from one beneficial use to another. However,

in practice many water transfers become a form of flexible system reoperation linked to many other water

management strategies including surface water and groundwater storage, conjunctive management,

conveyance efficiency, water use efficiency, water quality improvements, and planned crop shifting or

crop idling. These linkages often result in increased beneficial use and reuse of water overall and are

among the most valuable aspects of water transfers. Transfers also provide a flexible approach to

distributing available supplies for environmental purposes.

Water Transfers in California2

Statewide, water transfers have significantly increased since the mid-1980s. Temporary and long-term

transfers between water districts increased from 80,000 acre-feet in 1985 to over 1,250,000 acre-feet in

2001 (see figure 1). About 80 percent of this volume is traded on a short-term basis, within the same year.

The remaining 20 percent is considered long-term, for durations ranging from two to 35 years. Since

1998, there have been several permanent transfers of water rights and contracts with the Central Valley

Project and the State Water Project for up to 175,000 acre-feet per year.

 

1

 Temporary water transfers, Section 1728 of the California Water Code, have a duration of one year or less. Long

term water transfers, Section 1735 of the California Water Code, have a duration in excess of one year.

2

 Data in this section are drawn from Chapter 2 and Appendix A of Who Should Be Allowed to Sell Water in

California? Third-Party Issues and the Water Market, Public Policy Institute of California, 2003. Ellen Hanak.

(available for download at www.ppic.org). These data do not include transfers between farmers within the same

water district, which can be substantial in some places.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies

Chapter 23. Water Transfers

23-2

Source: Hanak, 2003. * Note: Water-year type is measured by the

Sacramento River 40-30-30 index, an indicator of water supply conditions for the

state’s primary river system.

Figure 1. Temporary and Long-Term Water Transfers in California

Since 1985

Statewide water conditions have

encouraged water transfers as a

management strategy. Transfer

activity increased substantially

during the drought of the late

1980s and early 1990s, especially

through the state-run Drought

Water Bank and other droughtrelated State and federal

programs. Transfers continued to

increase since the mid 1990s,

generally a much wetter period.

Throughout this period, water

transfers have primarily been

from agricultural water districts,

although in some wet years urban

districts in Southern California

have also transferred water to

other users. The pattern of

transfers has changed somewhat between the prolonged drought in the early 1990s and the more recent

period (Figure 2). Although urban water districts were a primary destination in the early 1990s,

accounting for over 40 percent of all transfers, their transfers have remained flat since the mid 1990s and

now account for only 20 percent of all purchases.

Two sectors responsible for

most growth in transfers

have been environmental

programs and agriculture.

Environmental purchases to

benefit wildlife refuges and

instream fish populations

began during the early

1990s drought. They have

increased considerably

under the Central Valley

Project Improvement Act

and CALFED’s

Environmental Water

Account, accounting for

roughly 25 percent of the total since 1995 and as much as one-third by 2001. Agricultural districts now

account for half of all transfers, and have been responsible for two-thirds of growth in transfers since

1995. The bulk of this increase is destined for farmers in the San Joaquin Valley and Tulare Basin, who

have turned to transfers for replacement water in response to cutbacks of contract allocations under the

Central Valley Project Improvement Act. Typically, farmers purchase water on a year-to-year basis. Most

long-term and permanent transfers are destined for urban users.

Figure 2. Water Transfers by Type of End-User

(Source: Hanak, 2003.)

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft

Chapter 23. Water Transfers

23-3

Three regions are major participants in water transfers: the 10-county Sacramento Valley, the eightcounty San Joaquin Valley and Tulare Lake Basin, and the seven-county Southern California region.3

 In

most years, roughly 75 percent of transfers originate within the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys,

with the remainder from Southern California. Overall, most transfers are between users within the same

county (nearly 25 percent) or within the same region (nearly 50 percent). Interregional transfers account

for the remaining 25-30 percent of transfers. Only 20 percent of these transfers are negotiated directly

between parties in different regions; the rest move through programs run by DWR and USBR.

Oversight of Water Transfers in California

Before the Drought Water Bank program, water transfers were usually arrangements between two parties,

one with extra water and one with unmet water demands. These parties would reach a mutually

acceptable arrangement regarding price and quantity. Because public rights in water have always been

recognized, approval by appropriate State and federal agencies has been viewed as a necessary part of the

process for these independent water transfers. Transfers which involve changes in place or purpose of use

of permitted or licensed water rights most often require the approval of the State Water Resources Control

Board. Transfers which require the use of State or federal facilities or which may affect project operations

require the concurrence or approval of DWR or USBR. State water law generally requires that transfers

not damage any other legal user of water, not unreasonably affect fish and wildlife, and not unreasonably

affect the overall economy of the county from which the water is transferred.4

 State agencies must

consider the effects on public trust resources when participating in or approving water transfers.

The Drought Water Bank, Dry Year Purchase Programs, Environmental Water Account (EWA), and

Central Valley Project Improvement Act have increased the role and responsibilities of State and federal

agencies in the water transfer process. A large portion of water transfers each year now occur either under

the guidance of, or funded by, a State or federal program. The complexity of cross-Delta transfers and the

need to optimize the use of both CVP and SWP facilities, make USBR and DWR critical players in the

water transfer process. The rules that govern water transfers within the SWP or CVP typically protect

water users within these projects from the potential adverse effects of water transfers made by other

project users.

The EWA is an element of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program's overall Management Strategy for the BayDelta Ecosystem that is administered, managed, and implemented by five federal and State agencies (U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Water Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

 

3

 Data availability allows regional definitions for county groupings, but not DWR’s hydrologic regions. Notably,

Southern California includes both the South Coast and Colorado River hydrologic regions (Imperial, Los Angeles,

Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura counties), and the San Joaquin Valley includes both the

San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake hydrologic regions (Fresno, Kings, Kern, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin,

Stanislaus, and Tulare counties). Sacramento Valley counties include Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Placer, Sacramento,

Shasta, Sutter, Tehama, Yolo, and Yuba.

4

 California Water Code Section 1810 et seq. specifies the requirements that must be met in order for DWR and

other regional and local agencies to allow use of their conveyance facilities. Also, Water Code Sections 386, 1702,

1706, 1727 and 1736 follow the common law and establish similar requirements for changes in water rights. Strictly

speaking, economic issues are typically only required to be evaluated in water transfers that seek to utilize DWR’s

water conveyance facilities or those of other State or local agencies. However, economic impacts that are associated

with physical changes to the environment may require analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act

(CEQA).

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies

Chapter 23. Water Transfers

23-4

DWR and USBR Water Transfer Guidelines

• DWR has published water transfer guidelines in a series of

white papers available on DWR’s Water Transfers Office

Web site /www.watertransfers.water.ca.gov

• USBR, upon enactment of CVPIA, issued "Interim

Guidelines for the Implementation of the Water Transfer

Provisions of Central Valley Project Improvement Act",

available from USBR’s Water Transfer Program office.

National Marine Fisheries Service, and California Department of Fish and Game). EWA's purpose is to

provide protection to the fish of the Bay-Delta Estuary through environmentally beneficial changes in the

operations of the CVP and SWP at no uncompensated water cost to the projects' users. EWA reduces

Delta exports or provides other modifications to CVP and SWP operations at critical times for added

protection to at-risk fish species above that provided by the existing regulatory baseline. These changes in

operations can cause reductions in water supply to users south of the Delta. Therefore, EWA obtains

water to replace the water not delivered to CVP and SWP contractors in the Delta export service areas

because of these changes in CVP or SWP operations.

Enactment of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) in October 1992 provided new

authority and expanded flexibility to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to allow transfers of federally

developed water. One purpose of the CVPIA is to improve CVP operational flexibility and increase

water-related benefits provided by the CVP through expanded use of voluntary water transfers. The water

transfer provisions of the CVPIA govern the transfer of CVP water. These provisions authorize CVP

users to transfer, subject to certain conditions, all or a portion of contract water to any California water

user or agency, State or federal agency, Indian tribe or private nonprofit organization for any purpose

recognized as beneficial under State law.

Controversy regarding the effects on water users, fish and wildlife, and local economies strained the

Drought Water Banks of the early

1990s. In response, DWR and

USBR developed guidelines for

implementing water transfers

conducted within their areas of

responsibility. The purpose of the

guidelines is to help resolve

issues and clarify the technical

aspects of water transfers that

need consideration when

contracting with these agencies to

either sell or convey water made available through water transfers.

In addition, DWR and water districts in Northern California have begun to develop better mechanisms to

respond to concerns over potential transfer effects on local water users and the environment. Cooperative

monitoring and rapid response programs have been implemented to identify and protect or mitigate

potential impacts on groundwater levels from groundwater substitution programs. Data from monitoring

programs and open communication with parties that could be affected have helped identify groundwater

issues as they developed and before adverse impacts became serious. Districts took actions to halt

pumping, deepen wells, and work with parties that could be affected to prevent or mitigate impacts caused

by water transfers.

Local leadership and initiative are also needed to implement water transfers. Water transfers are typically

proposed by local water agencies and can benefit from local community involvement in the development

of these proposals. Some counties have passed local ordinances to regulate groundwater extraction for

water transfer purposes. With adequate public notice, disclosure of proposals and meaningful public

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft

Chapter 23. Water Transfers

23-5

participation, local communities can best assess their area’s water demands and supplies and determine if

there is potential for transferring water outside of the local region.

An example of local leadership in implementing water transfers is the December 1988 Water

Conservation Agreement (Agreement) between Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and Metropolitan Water

District of Southern California (MWD) and in the December 1989 Approval Agreement among IID,

MWD, Palo Verde Irrigation District and Coachella Valley Water District. The agreement provided for

water conservation from 17 projects to be constructed by IID under the Program. Projected water

conservation, when the final project was placed into operation, was 106,110 acre-feet of water per year.

MWD funded all costs of the new projects in return for having this additional amount of Colorado River

water available for diversion through its Colorado River Aqueduct.

The Agreement called for a Program Coordinating Committee (PCC) to secure effective cooperation and

interchange of information and to provide consultation, review, and approval on a prompt and orderly

basis between IID and MWD in connection with various financial, economic, administrative, and

technical aspects of the Program. The Approval Agreement called for a Water Conservation Measurement

Committee (WCMC) to provide an orderly basis, among the parties, for verification of the amount of

water conserved and different amounts conserved by the individual projects. All Program actions of the

PCC are to be approved by a majority vote. WCMC decisions, however, are to be approved by

unanimous vote. If unanimity is lacking, the matter is taken up according to a dispute resolution

procedure set forth in the Approval Agreement.

Potential Benefits of Water Transfers

For receiving areas, water transfers have the potential of improving economic stability and environmental

conditions that can deteriorate with water scarcity. Sellers can use the compensation from transfers to

fund beneficial activities, although there is no guarantee that benefits to the seller will benefit the source

area as a whole. Compensation from most transfers involving agricultural water goes directly to the

participating landowner, who may choose to reinvest into the farming business. In some cases,

compensation goes to water districts, which can use the income to reduce water rates, improve facilities,

or improve environmental conditions. For example, Western Canal Water District used proceeds from

drought water bank sales to remove diversion dams and reconfigure its canals to reduce impacts on

threatened spring-run salmon. Transfers by regional water agencies can provide additional resources to

benefit the entire community. For example, the Yuba County Water Agency has used over $10 million

from the proceeds of water transfers over the past several years to fund needed flood control projects.

In addition to the approximately 1.2 million acre-feet transferred annually in recent years, there are

several long-term transfers pending or approved since 2003 shown in Table 1. 5 These include transfers

under the Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement. Beyond those transfers shown in Table 1,

economic studies indicate that about 300 TAF in the Sacramento Valley and 400 TAF in the San Joaquin

Valley could be made available through crop idling without unreasonably affecting the overall economy

 

5

 Transfers only redistribute water. For term of water transfer agreement, redistributes water that comes from

implementing other resource management strategies, in particular, agricultural water use efficiency, system

reoperation, conjunctive management, and temporary crop idling (included in agricultural lands stewardship).

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies

Chapter 23. Water Transfers

23-6

of the county from where the water would be transferred. 6 These studies estimate that the economic

effects of idling up to 20 percent of the rice land in the Sacramento Valley and up to 20 percent of the

cotton lands in the San Joaquin Valley in any given year are near 1 percent or less of the county-wide

economy, except in Glenn and Colusa counties where the impact would be less than 5 percent of the

countywide economy. The amount of land that would be idled is less than 10 percent of the total

agriculture lands in these counties. The studies did not evaluate the economic effects of crop idling on

commodity markets.

A statewide economic-engineering optimization study by the University of California, Davis (Jenkins, et

al. 2001; Newlin et al. 2002) highlights potential benefits of water transfers to meet forecasted future

water scarcity. Results suggest that by 2020 water transfers combined with conjunctive management and

various operational changes could provide additional economic benefits as high as $1.3 billion per year

statewide by reducing forecasted economic impacts of water scarcity as much as 80 percent. Almost all of

the benefit comes from intra-regional water transfers and operational improvements within five regions of

California, especially in southern California. The study indicates that the maximum reduction in

deliveries to a major water user would be 15 percent with most transfers averaging much less. The study

concludes that only a small proportion of California’s water need be transferred to achieve significant

economic benefits. Much of the added benefits would be from increased flexibility added to the water

management system through reoperation of surface water and groundwater supplies using conjunctive

management. These results represent a simplification of California’s water management system and do

not address legal and institutional barriers that may prevent full implementation.

Potential Costs of Water Transfers

The direct costs of completing a water transfer includes more than just the sale price of water, which is

typically at the last point the seller controls the water. Additional direct costs to the buyer include

conveyance, storage, and treatment costs, and seepage losses between the location and time of sale and

 

6

 Studies conducted for preparing the Public Draft EIR/EIS for the Environmental Water Account dated July, 2003.

7

 Data in this table are updated from Table A.5 of Ellen Hanak, Who Should Be Allowed to Sell Water in California?

Third-Party Issues and the Water Market, Public Policy Institute of California, 2003 (available for download at

www.ppic.org). These data do not include transfers between farmers within the same water district, which can be

substantial in some places.

Table 1. Pending or Approved Long-Term Water Transfers7

Seller Buyer Maximum Annual

Acre-feet

Duration

(years)

Purpose

(from/to)

Imperial ID San Diego County WA 200,000 45-75 Agriculture to

Agriculture and Urban

Imperial ID Coachella Valley WD 103,000 45-75 Agriculture to

Agriculture

Imperial ID Metropolitan WDSC 110,000 54-90 Agriculture to Urban

Imperial ID Salton Sea Mitigation Program 150,000 15 Agriculture to

Environment

Butte WD Madera ID and Root Creek

WD

 15,000 25 Agriculture to Urban

Merced ID U.S. Fish and Wildlife 47,000 10 Agriculture to

Environment

Palo Verde ID Metropolitan WDSC 111,000 35 Agriculture to Urban

South San

Joaquin ID

Cities of Tracy, Escalon,

Manteca, and Lathrop

 75,000 25 Agriculture to Urban

Total 811,000

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft

Chapter 23. Water Transfers

23-7

the place and time that the water is used by the buyer. Sale prices reflect the cost to make the water

physically available and, in some cases, added monitoring or mitigation needed to ensure compliance with

federal and State Legislative guidance related to water transfers. The buyer typically arranges for

transferred water to be conveyed to their area of use. Conveyance costs can be significant, as much as the

price paid to the seller. For example, prices paid to the seller in 2002 and 2003 for the Environmental

Water Account and Dry Year Water Purchase Programs operated by DWR ranged from $75 to $185 per

acre-foot. The lower prices reflect a source in Northern California and the higher prices reflect the price to

EWA of banked groundwater and conveyance costs in Kern County in years of 50 percent State Water

Project allocations.

In addition to the direct costs of a water transfer to the receiving areas, indirect costs to third parties also

can occur, and there could be impacts to other water users and the environment from water transfers.

These concerns are discussed under the issues that follow.

Major Issues Facing Water Transfers

Maintaining agricultural productivity

Because most water transfers come from agriculture, it is important to include the protection of

agricultural productivity and economic benefits in water transfer policies. A key challenge is to balance

the ability of agriculture to provide water for transfers with limits so that transfers do not destabilize

California’s agricultural productivity and economy.

Balanced Approach to Regulating Transfers

There is a concern by some that State laws and oversight of water transfer are not adequate to protect the

environment, third parties, public trust resources, and broader social interests that may be affected by

water transfers. This is particularly the concern for water transfers involving pre-1914 water rights, which

are not subject to regulation by SWRCB, and transfers that involve pumping groundwater or crop idling

and crop shifting. Conversely, there is also concern that efforts to more heavily regulate water transfers

may unnecessarily restrict many short-term, intra-regional transfers that have multiple benefits during

temporary supply shortages and that have little likelihood of direct or indirect impacts. The key issue is

how to balance these concerns to allow water transfers to continue as a viable water management strategy

while having mechanisms to minimize effects on others.

Environmental Concerns

Environmental consequences of transfers could occur in three places: the area from which water is

transferred, the area through which water is conveyed and the area to which water is transferred.

Cumulative effects of short- and long-term transfers could have impacts on habitat, water quality, and

wildlife caused by substituting groundwater for surface water, changing the location, timing, and quantity

of surface diversions, or changing crop patterns through crop shifting or idling. For example, rice growing

areas could have significant secondary benefits as wildlife habitat. Transfers that involve crop idling in

these areas could either harm or benefit wildlife depending on implementation. Transfers that involve

increased groundwater pumping also raise concerns over groundwater overdraft and the long term

sustainability of groundwater resources. In addition, long term water transfers that induce new urban

development in the receiving area may have environmental impacts.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies

Chapter 23. Water Transfers

23-8

Using Limited Duration Transfers for Long-Term Demands

There is a concern that transfers of limited duration are being used for long-term demands. For example,

transfers under the Environmental Water Account, Central Valley Project Improvement Act, and related

programs are designed to improve environmental conditions. Because these transfers rely on public

funding that may not exist every year, they may not provide long term protection for the environment.

There is also a concern that urban areas may use limited duration transfers to accommodate population

growth with water supplies that are not sustainable. Finally, there is a concern that agricultural areas may

use limited duration transfers to supply crops, such as orchards, that cannot be easily scaled back during

droughts.

Economic Concerns

Short term, out-of-county transfers created through extensive crop idling can reduce production and

employment of both on farm and secondary economic sectors resulting in reduced tax revenues and

increased costs for farmers not participating in the transfer. Extensive idling of crops that resulted in

unemployment of low wage laborers could be considered unfair treatment under the State’s

environmental justice policies (see Government Code Section 65040.12). In addition reduced revenues

could affect local governments disproportionately with potential impacts to spending on a wide range of

services provided by local government. Long-term transfers could result in similar impacts even though

the amount of fallowed land may be less. For long-term transfers, impacts to other elements of the local

community (schools, businesses etc.) may be more widespread and severe. Transfers of surface water that

are replaced by increasing groundwater pumping may drop groundwater levels and increase the pumping

costs to other groundwater users.

State law generally requires that water transfers not unreasonably affect the overall economy of the

county from which the water is transferred (referred to as source areas). However, there is potential for

some economic disruption to source areas depending on the source of transferred water, the amount of

water transferred, and the duration of the transfer. While there is no evidence that recent water transfers

have had long-term negative economic impacts to source areas, there is a concern that source areas could

experience long-term economic impacts if transfers become more widespread. Water scarcity can also

cause economic impacts, both where the shortage occurs and far beyond. Water transfers can help reduce

water scarcity in areas receiving transfers thereby helping to avoid job losses and secondary economic

impacts in these areas.

Quantifying Uncertainties and Effects on Others

Transfers, especially those where water is moved long distances, are limited by several factors including

access to and physical capacity of conveyance systems, environmental and water quality regulations,

losses along the flow path, linkages between surface water and groundwater movement and use, and other

factors that are difficult to quantify or anticipate. Those who traditionally relied on return flows from

upstream areas as a source of supply are concerned about changes in timing and quantity of flows

resulting from water transfers or water conservation measures. Quantifying the actual water savings from

crop shifting and crop idling is particularly difficult because only the consumptive use by the crop is

transferable in most cases. There is a risk that estimates of the water supply benefits from the transfer to

the water system (estimates of “real water”) will be inaccurate and that the transfers have unintended

consequences to other water users, local economies, or the environment. A key challenge is to improve

methods for quantifying these uncertainties and to include adequate monitoring and assurances when

implementing water transfers. Monitoring is particularly critical for transfers that either obtain water from

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft

Chapter 23. Water Transfers

23-9

crop idling, crop shifting, or increase groundwater use. Information may be needed on historical and

current land use and water use, groundwater levels, land subsidence, water quality, environmental

conditions, and surface water flows.

Need For More Integrated Management of Water Resources

In California, authority is among local, State and federal agencies for managing different aspects of

groundwater and surface water resources. Several examples highlight this: 1) SWRCB has jurisdiction

for appropriative water rights dating from 1914, but disputes over appropriative water rights dating before

1914 are settled by the court system; 2) Similarly, SWRCB has jurisdiction over groundwater quality, but

disputes over groundwater use are settled by the court system ; 3) County groundwater ordinances and

local agency groundwater management plans often only apply to a portion of the groundwater basin, and

those with overlapping boundaries of responsibility do not necessarily have consistent management

objectives. Failure to integrate water management across jurisdictions makes it difficult to develop

transfers with multiple benefits, provide for sustainable use of resources, identify and protect or mitigate

potential impacts to third parties, and ensure protection of legal rights of water users, the environment,

and public trust resources.

Infrastructure and Operational Limits

The ability to optimize the benefits of water transfers depends on access to and the physical capacity of

existing conveyance and storage facilities. For example, when export facilities in the Delta are already

pumping at full capacity, transferable water cannot be moved. This occurred in 2003 when the

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWDSC) negotiated water transfers with growers in

the Sacramento Valley but was unable to move water through the Delta where the conveyance system was

flowing full, or to store the water in Lake Oroville, which filled with late spring rain. The ability to

convey water is also an important aspect of the potential water transfer between the Imperial Irrigation

District and the San Diego County Water Authority, which requires access to the Colorado River

Aqueduct owned and operated by MWDSC.

Recommendations for Water Transfers

1. Since local government and water agencies have the lead role in developing and implementing water

transfers they should:

a. Develop groundwater management plans to guide implementation of water transfers that

increase groundwater use or that could impact groundwater quality.

b. Implement monitoring programs that evaluate potential specific and cumulative impacts from

transfers, provide assurances that unavoidable impacts are mitigated reasonably, and

demonstrate that transfers comply with existing law.

c. Evaluate and implement regional water management strategies to improve regional water

supplies to meet municipal, agricultural, and environmental water demands and minimize the

need of importing water from other hydrologic regions.

d. Provide for community participation when addressing conflicts caused by transfers within

their jurisdictions.

2. State and federal agencies, in addition to implementing State and federal law, should assist with

resolving potential conflicts over water transfers when local government and water agencies are

unable to do so and when there are overriding State or federal concerns.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies

Chapter 23. Water Transfers

23-10

3. State and federal agencies, working through the CALFED Water Transfers Program, continue to gain

consensus on how best to implement water transfers. The following actions are on-going and should

be continued and improved:

a. Preparing programmatic and site specific CEQA/NEPA documents to assess cumulative

effects of inter-regional transfers anticipated to occur under the Environmental Water

Account and Sacramento Valley Water Management Agreement.

b. The SWRCB, DWR, and DFG must consider whether the transfer is likely to harm public

trust resources, such as fish and wildlife, and must protect trust resources whenever feasible.

The SWRCB and DWR, after considering all available information, including CEQA

documents or other environmental documents and the input of DFG, may put conditions on

transfer to protect trust resources. If the SWRCB or DWR find that proposed transfer will

cause undue harm to trust resources, they may (1) add terms to avoid the harm (2) the

SWRCB may deny the petition or (3) DWR may deny the use of its facilities. In many cases,

transfers will not result in harm to trust resources.

c. Under Section 1802 of the Fish and Game Code, DFG must exercise its responsibilities as

trustee for the resources of the State with jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and

management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable

populations of those species.

d. Improving conditions in the Delta and identifying and reducing statewide conveyance

limitations.

e. Streamlining the approval process of State and federal agencies for water transfers while

protecting water rights, the environment, and local economic interests.

f. Working with agencies proposing water transfers that move water through the Delta to

monitor and evaluate short-term, long-term, and cumulative effects that could impact the

condition of the Bay-Delta ecosystem.

g. Refining current methods on how to identify and quantify water savings for transfers using

crop idling and crop shifting. This should be accomplished through a collaborative process

that considers methods developed by others.

h. Developing, with interested parties, acceptable ways to identify, lessen, and distribute

economic impacts from transfers that use crop idling and crop shifting.

i. Providing financial assistance for local and regional groundwater management activities that

promote sustainable and coordinated use of surface water and groundwater.

j. Seeking consensus among interested parties about the role of water transfers as a water

management strategy while identifying and protecting or mitigating potential impacts to other

water users, third parties, the environment, and public trust resources.

k. Providing technical assistance and guidelines for assessing cumulative impacts of the

anticipated effects of proposed transfers, including concurrent or consecutive one-year

transfers within the same region, on other water users, local economies, and the environment.

4. State and federal agencies, working through the CALFED Water Transfers Program, should

implement the following actions to improve management of water transfers:

a. Improve coordination and cooperation among local, State, and federal agencies with different

responsibilities for surface water and groundwater management to facilitate sustainable

transfers with multiple benefits, allow efficient use of agency resources, and promote easy

access to information by the public.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft

Chapter 23. Water Transfers

23-11

b. Develop water transfer policies that balance the ability of agriculture to provide water for

transfers on a periodic basis to help with temporary water scarcity with limits so that transfers

do not destabilize agricultural productivity and economic benefits.

c. Facilitate cooperation between agencies proposing water transfers and regulatory agencies to

obtain multiple benefits from proposals. For example, transfers intended for urban or

agricultural use may also be scheduled to enhance flows for aquatic species in areas between

the seller and buyer.

d. Implement water transfers, when serving as a purchaser, in cooperation with local partners,

consistent with State water and environmental laws, and at a fair price.

Information Sources

• CALFED. Water Transfer Program Plan. July 2000

• CALFED. Programmatic Record of Decision. August 29, 2000.

• DWR. Water Transfer Papers for Water Transfers in 2002 Involving the Department of Water

Resources (Draft 3-8-02) (www.watertransfers.water.ca.gov)

• DWR. Draft EIR/S for the Environmental Water Account. July 2003.

• Governor’s Advisory Drought Planning Panel. Critical Water Shortage Contingency Plan.

December 29, 2000.

• Hanak, Ellen, "Who Should Be Allowed to Sell Water In California? Third-Party Issues and the

Water Market". Public Policy Institute of California. San Francisco, CA, June 2003.

• Jenkins, M.W., et al, “Improving California Water Management: Optimizing Value and Flexibility,”

University of California, Davis, CA, http://cee.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/lund/CALVIN/, 2001.

• Newlin, B.D., M.W. Jenkins, J.R. Lund, and R.E. Howitt, “Southern California Water Markets:

Potential and Limitations,” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, ASCE, Vol.

128, No. 1, pp. 21-32, January/February 2002.SWRCB. A Guide to Water Transfers (DRAFT).

July 1999.

• SWRCB. “Water Transfer Issues in California: Final Report to the California State Water

Resources Control Board by the Water Transfer Workgroup”. June 2002.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

Chapter 24. Water-Dependent Recreation 

24-1 

0 20 40 60 80 100

Wildlife view ing

Camping in developed sites

Sw imming in fresh w aters

Fishing-freshw ater

Pow er boating

Kayaking, rafting, etc.

Figure 24-1: Percentage of Californians 

Participating in these Water-Dependent 

activities

Data source: “Public Opinions and Attitudes on Outdoor 

Recreation in California 2002” 

Chapter 24. Water-Dependent Recreation 

Water-dependent recreation includes a wide variety of outdoor activities that can be divided into two 

categories. The first category includes 

fishing, boating, swimming and rafting, 

which occur on lakes, reservoirs, and 

rivers. The second category includes 

recreation that is enhanced by water 

features but does not require actual use 

of the water, such as wildlife viewing, 

picnicking, camping and hiking. 

Water-dependent recreation is included 

among the water management strategies 

because recreation is an important 

consideration for water managers. 

Water management, and water 

infrastructure, can have significant 

effects on recreation. By considering 

recreation during the planning process, water managers can take advantage of opportunities to enhance 

recreation, and can guard against actions that would limit recreation. 

The Davis-Dolwig Act was passed by the California Legislature in 1961. This act established state policy 

regarding recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement at state-built water facilities, and specified the 

responsibilities of state agencies under the act. Compliance with the provisions of this act will be an 

important consideration for state water managers as new facilities are built. 

The management of lands and water resources by the state, including those associated with state water 

projects, invokes an implied principle of trust responsibility. State agencies managing lands and water 

resources are required to uphold public trust in the planning, management, use and protection of resource 

values. As trustee to public resources, the state must consider the benefit and use of land and water 

resources for recreational opportunities. As discussed in Chapter 2 of Volume 1, the Public Trust Doctrine 

recognizes recreation as one of the public trust uses that state agencies must take into account when 

managing tidelands and navigable waters and their tributaries. 

Current Participation in Water-Dependent Recreation in California 

California’s temperate climate provides a long season for outdoor recreation, and water is a magnet for 

outdoor recreation. Figure 1 shows the percentage of Californians participating in various water activities. 

In 2002, about 150 million adult participation-days were spent in recreation activities directly dependent 

on water. Many more visitor-days were spent in nature-based activities such as wildlife viewing, 55 

million adult participation-days, and hiking, 36 million adult participation-days. In addition, water 

recreation is a large draw to tourists, helping to attract 28 million visitors in 2001. The 2002 Public 

Opinion and Attitudes on Outdoor Recreation in California clearly shows strong support for water-related 

activities. 

• Slightly more than 80 percent of the respondents indicated that more outdoor recreation areas, such 

as picnic and camping sites, are needed at lakes and reservoirs. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Chapter 24. Water-Dependent Recreation 

 24-2

• When asked to assign a priority score from 1 (extremely low priority) to 10 (extremely high 

priority) for providing more public-use opportunities at lakes and reservoirs, nearly 85 percent 

recorded a 5 or better and 16.7 percent gave it a 10, an extremely high priority. 

• Nearly 79 percent of the respondents indicated that the availability of lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and 

wetlands was either very important or somewhat important factor in their overall enjoyment of their 

favorite outdoor recreation. 

Benefits of Water-Dependent Recreation 

Water-dependent recreation provides a wide range of health, social and economic benefits to California 

residents and visitors, while improving the 

quality of life. It encourages physical 

activity, such as swimming and paddling as 

well as walking and bicycling along 

attractive waterside trails. 

Water-dependent recreation influences 

tourism, business and residential choices. It 

increases expenditures in the community 

for travel, food and accommodations. In 

2001, California had 28 million out-of-state 

tourists spending an average of $76 a day 

and staying an average of four days. In 

addition, 196 million resident tourists spent 

an average of $70 a day. Sales of 

sportfishing licenses and stamps generated 

more than $49 million in annual revenue for the Department of Fish and Game in 2001 and 2002. Waterdependent recreation prompts long-term investments while creating jobs in concessions, hotels, 

restaurants, and retail stores. Figure 2 shows economic information for freshwater fishing, only a portion 

of all water-dependent recreation; total economic output from freshwater fishing exceeded $3 billion. 

Potential Costs 

Initial development costs of recreation facilities can vary with the size of the project. Generally 3 percent 

to 6 percent of total project costs are allocated for development of permanent recreation facilities. For 

example, the capital cost of recreation sites on the State Water Project is about 3 percent of all capital 

expenditures for the SWP. Annual maintenance costs are just over 3 percent of the initial development 

costs of recreation facilities. 

Major Issues Facing Development of More Water-Dependent 

Recreation 

Funding 

Funding concerns usually transcend all other issues affecting outdoor recreation, including waterdependent recreation. These funding issues fall into two categories: planning and development of new 

recreational sites associated with water projects, and operation and maintenance of recreation sites once 

they are in place. When new dams, reservoirs or canals are being built, there may not be enough money to 

fully incorporate recreation. One reason for this is that the beneficiaries of recreation may be different 

Figure 24-2: 2001 Economic Impact of 

Freshwater Fishing in California

(2,206,382 Licensed Anglers)

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Retail Sales

Wages and Salaries

Sales/Fuel/Tax

State Income Tax

Federal Income Tax

Millions of Dollars

Data Source: American Sportfishing Association

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

Chapter 24. Water-Dependent Recreation 

24-3 

from the other beneficiaries of the water project, requiring complex funding mechanisms to fully support 

recreation planning. This is a significant issue in State Water Project Planning: The Davis-Dolwig Act 

specifies that water users shall not be charged for the cost of recreation facilities, but other funding 

mechanisms have not always been made available. Maintenance of recreation facilities may be more 

susceptible to funding cuts during poor economic conditions than for other resources thought to be more 

essential. Without reliable funding, it is difficult for recreation providers to deliver quality, consistent and 

relevant facilities and services to meet growing demand. Many park and recreation providers have taken 

steps to reduce programs and operating costs to become more efficient on leaner budgets by raising fees 

and charges, reducing or eliminating services, delaying equipment purchases, and deferring land 

acquisition, facility developments, rehabilitation and renovation of aging infrastructure. Inconsistent 

funding also makes it difficult to plan for services and reduces the willingness of many service providers 

to offer new programs or to take risks. 

Impacts to Natural Resources 

Natural resource values often define the character and aesthetic appeal of a water-dependent recreation, 

making it desirable and interesting to visitors. Overuse, misuse and poorly planned uses of any recreation 

resource can degrade natural resource values and recreational experiences. Water management can affect 

the amount or timing of stream flow. This may have a good or bad effect on recreation. Water managers 

should consider the effects of their actions on all resource values, including recreation as well as 

ecosystem health. Increasing numbers of visitors pursuing outdoor recreation threatens the proper 

functioning of ecosystems, disrupts and displaces wildlife and degrades the natural, environmental and 

aesthetic quality of an area and ultimately the very recreational experience being sought. In addition, 

visitors unfamiliar with ecological processes or environmental ethics are often unaware of the 

consequences of their actions. 

Water Quality 

Water quality can affect and be affected by water-dependent recreation. Poor water quality can have a 

negative impact on water-dependent recreation. A source of contamination is untreated sewage escaping 

from treatment facilities or broken sewer lines that have led to the highly publicized closure of public 

beaches. Another source is fertilizers and chemicals from agricultural runoff that also contribute to the 

problem. Contaminated lakes, rivers and streams not only present health risks to those participating in 

water-contact recreation, but they can significantly diminish the recreation experience. In reverse, the 

negative effects water-dependent recreation can have on water quality are also of concern. Human-source 

contamination, such as body contact, untreated sewage, and petroleum products discharged from 

houseboats and other pleasure craft can be a significant problem to water meant for drinking. 

Coordination 

Funding and impacts to natural resources are exacerbated by the lack of coordination between those who 

manage water resources and those who provide recreational services. All too often, agencies are limited in 

scope and effectiveness in recognizing and mitigating trends affecting resource conditions, particularly 

outside their immediate jurisdiction. While partnerships and cooperation between agencies, organizations 

and individuals have grown, efforts at the watershed or landscape level are often fragmented, and 

opportunities are missed to achieve broader goals, placing both resources and the public at risk. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Chapter 24. Water-Dependent Recreation 

 24-4

Recommendations to Help Provide Adequate Water-Dependent 

Recreation 

1. In developing water-dependent recreation opportunities, jurisdictions should consider public needs as 

identified in the California Outdoor Recreation Plan. 

2. Use existing data and new surveys to determine recreational needs that might be met by incorporating 

recreation more fully into new state and regional water project planning. 

3. Develop closer working relationships among DWR, DFG, and DPR so that recreation planning is 

incorporated appropriately into CALFED program planning. 

4. Conduct, and periodically re-examine, scientifically valid studies of the carrying capacity of proposed 

and existing sites for water-dependent recreation to help prevent degradation of water quality and 

wildlife habitat. Use data collected by other agencies, such as the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers and for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, such as the results of 

FERC Relicensing studies. 

5. Collect data on visitation rates vs. reservoir water levels and downstream flow rates, and use this data 

to help optimize the timing of water that is released or held for recreation. 

6. Develop partnerships with universities to coordinate the monitoring of public recreation use, 

equipment and emerging outdoor and water-dependent recreation trends. Create partnerships with 

education providers to educate youth about preserving and protecting natural resources. 

7. Promote and establish effective partnerships between federal agencies, state and local governments, 

and the private sector for operation, maintenance and law enforcement of water recreation sites. 

8. Coordinate with the Department of Fish and Game in exploring the use of funding from the BayDelta Sport Fishing Enhancement Stamp to integrate new and improved public angling opportunities. 

Important Sources 

• Multiple reports issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

• Department of Fish and Game, License and Revenue Branch, www.dfg.ca.gov 

• Public Research Institute, “Survey of Boat Owners in California” 

• Reports accessed at the Department of Parks and Recreation, Planning Division Library 

• Department of Parks and Recreation, “Public Opinions and Attitudes on Outdoor Recreation 

in California 2002”, www.parks.ca.gov 

• Department of Parks and Recreation, “California Outdoor Recreation Plan 2002”, 

www.parks.ca.gov 

• American Sportfishing Association, www.asafishing.org 

• California Department of Tourism, www.gocalif.ca.gov 

• State Board of Forestry, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “The 

California Fire Plan,” www.fire.ca.gov 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

Chapter 25. Watershed Management 

25-1 

Chapter 25. Watershed Management 

Watershed management is the process of evaluating, planning, managing, restoring and organizing land 

and other resource use within an area of land that has a single common drainage point. Watershed 

management tries to provide sustainable human benefits, while maintaining a sustainable ecosystem. 

Watershed management assumes that a prerequisite for any project is the sustained ability for the 

watershed to maintain the functions and processes that support the native ecology of the watershed. This 

does not imply that a goal is to return the watershed to an undisturbed condition. Instead it implies an 

integration of human needs and 

ecological condition that allows the 

watershed to sustain ecological 

integrity over time while providing for 

sustainable community needs. It is 

recognized that watersheds are 

dynamic and the precise make up of 

plants, animals, and other 

characteristics will change over time. 

Watershed management seeks to 

balance changes in community needs 

with these evolving ecological 

conditions. Chapter 4 of Volume 1 

discusses watershed management in 

the context of integrated regional 

water management. 

Watersheds offer a convenient scale 

for considering how factors can degrade or enhance resources conditions. Watersheds collect all of 

California’s precipitation, rain, snow and fog, filter or treat much of it, store more water than all of the 

state’s reservoirs combined, and release water to rivers and groundwater at rates that vary with 

watersheds. Managing our watersheds can be thought of as the necessary maintenance of our natural 

infrastructure. 

The natural processes that make watersheds valuable to the state are susceptible to damage and 

degradation. That damage threatens to significantly impact and reduce the ability of those watersheds to 

function and provide those benefits that the state depends upon. This is evident through reductions in 

water infiltration, degradation of water quality, increased maintenance costs from erosion related impacts, 

changes in runoff patterns and timing, decreased in the ability of mountain meadows to capture and hold 

snowmelt for later natural accretion into streams, and in decreases in the populations of native flora and 

fauna. These factors threaten the state’s economy that is directly, and indirectly, dependent on the 

condition and trend of its watersheds. 

What is a Watershed? 

In its simplest context a watershed is an area of land 

with a single common drainage point. In the context 

emerging for planning purposes in California, a 

watershed includes living (including the people who live 

and work in the watershed) and non-living elements 

within a defined geographical area that is generally 

characterized by the flow of water. The flow of water 

defining a watershed includes both surface and 

groundwater as it moves through natural and manmade 

features, from higher elevations to lower elevations. 

Throughout the state we have engineered the flow of 

water such that defining watershed boundaries is often 

prefaced on hydrologic features but adjusted to 

accommodate water conveyance systems. In some 

cases planning watershed boundaries may be 

influenced by administrative boundaries as well, such 

as city limits. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Chapter 25. Watershed Management 

 25-2

Issues Facing California Watersheds that Affect Water 

Land uses alter hydrologic cycles – The hydrologic cycle includes snow or rain, the flow of water over 

and beneath the land, and the evaporation of water into the atmosphere. How the land is managed can 

reduce rainwater infiltration and the timing, and in some case, the volume of stormwater runoff. Storms, 

especially in urban areas, but also in some rural areas are now marked by high intensity runoff over short 

periods. This creates greater flood risk and reduces the ability to capture water for needs during dry 

times. From an ecological perspective, this compression of runoff events robs the streams and landscape 

of groundwater. This leads to dry land, a shift in vegetation types, lower and warmer streams, 

deterioration of stream channels, all of which lead to shifts in the plants and animals that can be 

supported. In some cases the diversion of water from streams in the watershed to other regions outside 

the watershed or the application of water imported from outside the watershed has changed ecological 

functions or altered the flow of water through the watershed. 

Human activities alter nutrient cycles - Another important natural cycle is the nutrient cycle. As 

watersheds are developed we tend to increase the amount of water soluble nutrients, often concentrating 

them in fertilizers or biosolids. These concentrated forms of nutrients can trigger dramatic changes in 

water bodies, vegetation, and animal communities. Many native plants evolved under fairly low nutrient 

conditions. Increasing the available nutrients often allows invasive plants to overrun the native vegetation. 

This can reduce the infiltration capacity of the land and diminish the habitat quality. We often export 

nutrients from the location that they are generated. In some cases this is through the pollution of water 

which carries the nutrients to a point where they can support algae or other plant growth that impairs the 

water. In other cases this is through the transport of waste materials or the application of fertilizers. In any 

event, the result is an increase in nutrient loads that often diminish the ecological quality in water bodies. 

Disrupting habitats and migration corridors - Life cycles and migration patterns of animals is another 

set of important cycles to consider. Many projects built in the past prior to environmental laws such as 

CEQA and NEPA have disrupted migration corridors or destroyed or impoverished habitat that is critical 

for certain life stages of animals. Coastal wetlands that support breeding, nursery and rearing habitat for 

many ocean species have been particularly hard hit. Dams have blocked access to spawning and rearing 

habitats for anadromous fish. Riparian forests that support migration of South American birds, and inland 

wetlands that support the Pacific Flyway species have all been severally impacted. 

Fire and water – The management of our forest and brush lands over the past few generations has 

created a risk of very large, very hot fires that do much more damage to watersheds than fires of historical 

intensities. The result is that watersheds are not capable of rapidly repairing the damage from these fires. 

These fires create long periods of erosion and diminish the plant communities that cover the land. They 

displace animals and limit the subsequent human use of the lands. This results in more water quality 

problems, more runoff and less infiltration, increased operations and maintenance costs for our reservoirs 

and canal systems, unstable lands, and large economic losses. 

Underpinning watershed management is the need to understand ecological processes important to the 

local watershed. One approach to understanding these processes is to describe various ecological cycles 

and watershed traits, such as the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycling, energy flow and transfers, soil and 

geologic characteristics, the role of fire, and animal migration and habitat utilization. Understanding these 

watershed processes allows for adaptively managing the watershed. In some cases the description of these 

processes will highlight that some infrastructure, programs, or projects are not sensitive to watershed 

processes. In these cases reoperation or redesign the infrastructure, programs, or projects may greatly 

improve their compatibility with the watershed processes. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

Chapter 25. Watershed Management 

25-3 

Watershed Management in California 

Groups pursuing watershed management are now operating in all regions of California. It is estimated that 

several hundred watershed stewardship groups are now active in the state. A recent request of watershed 

management grant proposals produced more than 330 applications from all parts of the state. Proposals 

included both local and regional projects. Local projects addressed support for local stewardship groups, 

watershed assessment, planning and project implementation. Regional proposals centered on creating and 

coordinating networks for local watershed groups. From strictly private land holdings to consortia of 

public and private interests, people are focusing on the watershed scale as a way to create understandable 

and meaningful resource management efforts that provide multiple benefits and are designed to achieve 

sustainable ecosystems. 

Current watershed management efforts blend community goals and management consistent with the 

environmental conditions of the watershed. The emphasis on community interests has introduced new 

methods for managing public discourse within stewardship groups and for collectively identifying 

principles and projects that are important to the local community. Issues of environmental justice have 

emerged and been blended into the more traditional project management approaches. Watershed 

stewardship groups serve as forums for coalescing the needs and capabilities of public and private sector 

interests, and people who work at the local, regional, State, national, and even international levels. 

Some Activities that might Improve Watershed Management

 1. Conduct normal business in a manner consistent with watershed dynamics and 

characteristics. 

 2. Design projects with ecological processes in mind and with a goal of making the projects as 

representative of the local ecology as possible. 

 3. Establish adaptive management programs that regularly assess the performance and 

condition of projects to determine if they are satisfying ecological and community needs. 

Adjust the operations or design the projects as needed. 

 4. Place projects in the watershed in a way that allows them to reinforce each other and build on 

the impacts collectively to support the local ecological cycles. 

 5. Increase the ability for precipitation to infiltrate into the ground, reduce surface runoff to a point 

where it reflects a natural pattern of runoff. 

 6. Restore and preserve stream channel morphology to allow access of flood waters to the 

floodplain and to provide for stable banks and channel form. 

 7. Maintain and create habitat around stream and river corridors that is compatible with stream 

and river functions. Provide as much upslope compatibility with these corridors as possible. 

 8. Rely on native plant communities where feasible in landscaping, agriculture, forestry, and 

restoration work. 

 9. Incorporate nutrient cycles that rely on the local watershed to supply and receive nutrients for 

important processes in the watershed. 

10. Preserve features that support migration corridors or critical life stage habitats. 

11. Sponsor and participate in watershed stewardship groups. 

Note: All activities may not be applicable to all watersheds. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Chapter 25. Watershed Management 

 25-4

In addition to the local and regional efforts, a number of statewide initiatives have recently been 

undertaken to improve our overall ability to practice watershed management. While past bond acts 

provided specific funding for watershed projects (Propositions 204 and Proposition 13), recent bond acts 

stress the need for integrated plans and contain incentives to design projects consistent with these plans. 

This demonstrates just one manner in which watershed planning has evolved in the past decade in 

California. The bond acts and subsequent legislation associated with Propositions 40 and 50 have 

established statewide programs for Integrated Watershed Management and Integrated Regional Water 

Management that support managing resources on a watershed scale and conducting the public outreach, 

education, and project management required in watershed management efforts. A memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) exists that directs agencies within the Resources Agency and CalEPA to coordinate 

their efforts in support of watershed management. One focus of the MOU is to ensure that various state 

grant programs work in concert to address the most important aspects of watershed management in key 

watersheds throughout the state. Another focus is to facilitate coordinated work of various state programs 

involved in watershed management. An 18-month action plan will guide specific project work identified 

to address these issues. 

Recent legislation established the California Bay Delta Authority and, in part, assigned it the 

responsibility to maintain a watershed program. The initial goals of this program are to build local 

capacity to engage in watershed management, to promote the development of watershed assessments and 

plans, and to support specific projects designed to improve local management of watershed resources. The 

goals for the CBDA Watershed Program are to provide assistance, both financial and technical, for 

watershed activities that help achieve the mission and objectives of the CALFED (now CBDA), and to 

promote collaboration and integration among existing and future local watershed programs. The CBDA 

Watershed Program, with assistance from various State agencies, manages a grant program to achieve 

these goals. 

The combination of a rapidly increasing number of local watershed management efforts and improved 

grant funding has broadened the interest in watershed management so that local public agencies that once 

relied on narrow program funding for support are engaging in watershed management to address their 

needs. 

Benefits of Watershed Management 

Water Supply Reliability and Management Flexibility 

Watershed scale assessments, restorations, and project development have illustrated the potential to 

improve the ability to capture, store, and use water. For example, in the Feather River Watershed, 

meadow restoration has improved the ability of the watershed to capture snowmelt and spring runoff, 

which in turn has lowered flood potentials and increased summer base flows in streams. This provides 

improved ability to capture water in summer for export in the State Water Project. It also potentially 

reduces operations and maintenance costs of projects in the watershed and alleviates flood damage. These 

improvements are consistent with the natural hydrology of the basin and serve to restore many ecological 

functions associated meadows and streams. 

Preserving Ecological Functions and Processes 

Watershed management helps preserve ecological functions and processes by helping us consider natural 

cycles (hydrologic, nutrient, and life cycles) when designing projects. For example elevated stream 

temperatures are often identified as a problem. Promoting groundwater accretion to streams and 

improving riparian cover often cools stream temperatures. Designing projects to allow more water to soak 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

Chapter 25. Watershed Management 

25-5 

into the ground, less water to sheet off as runoff, protecting the soil surface from erosion by planting 

native plants, and stabilizing stream channels with vegetated buffers brings the stream more in line with 

the natural watershed cycles and sustains important ecological processes. 

Reducing Flooding Potential 

Watershed management helps reduce flooding along streams draining the watershed. Preserving a more 

natural vegetated channel configuration and overflow areas helps slow and lower peak flows. 

Improving Water Quality 

Watershed management helps improve water quality by maintaining natural vegetated stream buffers that 

filter pollutants and nutrients. 

Connecting to Other Things in the Watershed 

Identifying important aspects of the watershed condition and trend can help guide activities to achieve a 

sustainable watershed that is connected with the working ecology. Watershed management helps identify 

how a new project has influences beyond the immediate project area and highlights opportunities for 

further watershed enhancements. In addition, it allows for easier identification of risks to sustaining the 

essential characteristics of the watershed. Understanding these influences provides opportunities to 

conduct business in a manner that is supportive of watershed dynamics. 

Enduring Value 

Watershed management provides the ability to generate enduring value from the integration of ecology 

and community interests. The melding of interests reduces or eliminates competition for resources, 

provides satisfying outcomes to many people, and yields cost effective solutions. Participation on a 

watershed management or stewardship group can give people a safe and open forum to express their 

ideas. Projects that are designed with an ecological scale in mind have a lower risk of being undermined 

by natural events than projects designed only looking at the site scale. Projects incorporating ecological 

conditions also preserve and enhance ecological conditions for future generations thereby contributing to 

fulfilling Public Trust responsibilities (see Volume 1, Chapter 2). 

Costs Associated with Watershed Management 

Costs associated with watershed management depend on site specific conditions such as the size of the 

watershed and actions to be implemented. In some cases, the actions will include physical projects to alter 

watershed conditions and in other cases the actions will be limited to programs that simply influence 

watershed use. 

Currently, costs are incurred for measuring various features in the environment, planning projects, and 

building the projects. Incorporating ecological functions into projects does not necessarily add costs. For 

example, some nurseries in Southern California have found that by growing plants in the peripheral 

drainage ditches of their properties they are able to reduce nutrient discharges and wastewater while 

growing a saleable crop. In agricultural settings tailwater ponds and vegetated canal systems have 

replaced disking and spraying of field edges and canal banks. Providing stream systems access to their 

floodplains has reduced the potential damage from levee failures and lowered maintenance costs. 

Some activities that may result in new costs (rather than simply redirecting existing expenditures) include 

watershed monitoring and assessment, support for watershed coordinators, increased restoration work, 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Chapter 25. Watershed Management 

 25-6

preservation of certain land use capabilities through easements or other forms of fee-titled adjustments, 

and extended periods of time in planning and design to accommodate watershed ecology. Actual costs for 

these activities are difficult to estimate and may largely be offset by savings in other aspects of watershed 

management, such as water supply reliability, flood damage reduction, reductions in threatened and 

endangered species listings. 

DWR estimates about $0.5 billion to $3.6 billion could be spent on watershed management in California 

to year 2030. The estimates are based on scaling CALFED watershed management estimates up for 

statewide coverage. Table xx shows these estimates by time period. 

Table 25-1 

Preliminary Estimates of Watershed Management Costs 

Period (years) Assessment-Planning 1

($ million)

Public Process 2

($ million)

Projects 3

($ million) 

Total for period 

2004-2009 $10-37.5 $8-16 $14-80 $160 - 667 

2010-2015 $10-30 $8-16 $14-88 $160 - 804 

2016-2030 $10-25 $8-16 $14-100 $160 – 2,115 

Total $480 – 3,586 

1

 CALFED service estimated as 40% of statewide need. Therefore, statewide Assessment and Planning = 2.5 x CALFED values 

from Draft CALFED Finance Plan. 2 The service area for Public Process estimated as 25% of statewide need. Therefore, statewide Public Process = 4 x CALFED 

values. 3 For Projects, CALFED service area is estimated to be 25% of the statewide need. Therefore, statewide Public Process = 4 x 

CALFED values. 

Major Issues Facing Additional Implementation of Watershed 

Management 

Lack of Appreciation for the Role of Watersheds 

In general the role of watersheds in sustaining our economies, businesses and communities is not fully 

appreciated. Providing for a greater understanding of watershed dynamics and how our communities and 

economies rely on their local watersheds will require working within schools, encouraging the business 

community to become involved in watershed management, and providing opportunities and incentives to 

the larger community to be involved in watershed management. 

Fairness, Inclusion and Decision Making 

Because many watershed projects are collaborative, projects often require coalitions to successfully 

implement them. However, the governance of these groups is not standard. They range from ad-hoc 

groups, to formal delegations of authority. Discussions often take significant time. All participants do not 

have the same ability to stay involved so issues of fairness and inclusiveness can arise. 

Science and Understanding

There is not a readily available source for finding key ecological information that can be incorporated into 

projects. Scientific assessments seek to provide a good technical description of watershed conditions, but 

cannot be definitive. State agencies can help in describing important ecological processes and functions 

throughout the state. As watershed assessment matures, a better understanding will likely emerge and 

more localized information will become available. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

Chapter 25. Watershed Management 

25-7 

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management requires the regular measurement of various watershed projects and characteristics. 

It also requires assessing these measurements and designing and implementing responses to findings that 

suggest the watershed is not being managed well. In relatively few cases have watershed stewards 

established and maintained the needed monitoring and assessment activities. Efforts to respond to 

periodic assessments often are not pursued from a watershed scale, instead being limited to project 

specific issues. 

Recommendations to Help Promote Additional Watershed 

Management 

1. State, federal, local, public and private interests should develop new means to collectively reinvest in 

sustaining watershed ecological and social health. Particular attention should be paid to developing 

means for urban areas to reinvest in sustaining the quality of rural watersheds that provide water 

supplies for the urban areas. 

2. Watershed management assessments and plans must include quantitative efforts to improve water 

supply flexibility and the timing and amount of water available for diversion without significantly 

impacting watershed condition or trend. 

3. State grant-distribution should be based on meeting specific criteria that support watershed 

assessments, planning, public involvement, and integrated project design and operations that result in 

multiple benefits. 

4. Education efforts to inform the general public and specific constituencies about the role watersheds 

play in sustaining their communities should be undertaken at all levels of watershed management. 

Specific efforts to link to schools including K-12, community colleges, and universities should be 

undertaken by State grants and agency programs working on watershed scales. 

5. State agencies should pursue the goals and initiatives in the California Agency Watershed 

Management Strategic Plan (draft August 18, 2003). 

6. State and local agencies should improve and expand their expertise in broad-based public decision 

making processes and participate in watershed stewardship groups. Attention should be paid to 

improving the use of stewardship group processes to help in achieving agency program 

responsibilities. 

7. Watershed management efforts should design and implement, supported with State, federal, and local 

resources, adaptive management programs that include monitoring, assessment, and processes for 

defining project redesign and re-operations that bring management efforts more in line with local 

ecological functions. 

8. Fish and wildlife resource managers should be encouraged to develop management plans on an 

ecosystem or watershed basis as opposed to what is often species-specific. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

Chapter 26. Other Resource Management Strategies 

26-1 

Chapter 26. Other Resource Management Strategies 

This narrative highlights a variety of water management strategies that can potentially generate benefits 

that meet one or more water management objectives, such as water supply augmentation or water quality 

enhancements. However, these management strategies are currently limited in their capacity to 

strategically address long-term regional water planning needs. In some cases, such as Dewvaporation, the 

strategy involves emerging technologies that will require more research and development. In other cases, 

such as Crop Idling and Irrigated Land Retirement, they involve voluntary and often temporary tradeoffs 

from one sector of use to another (i.e., agricultural to urban) that will likely be unpredictable and limited 

in scope over the time horizon of this California Water Plan Update. Finally, implementation of strategies 

such as Rainfed Agriculture will have limited applicability in California due to the variability and 

uncertainty of precipitation patterns within the state from year to year. 

A list of the strategies considered in this narrative:1

• Crop idling for water transfers 

• Dewvaporation 

• Fog collection 

• Irrigated land retirement 

• Rainfed agriculture 

• Transoceanic water bags 

Crop Idling for Water Transfers 

Crop Idling is removal of lands from irrigation with the aim of returning the lands to irrigation at a later 

time. Crop idling for water transfers is done to make water available for transfer. Crop Idling may be done 

for a certain time or can be episodic. Land retirement for water transfer and for solving drainage and 

drainage-related problems is discussed in land retirement strategy later in this section. Crop idling, with 

the intent of soil and crop management and for soil and crop sustainability and productivity, is discussed 

in the agricultural lands stewardship strategy. 

Crop Idling Programs 

Westlands Water District Lease Back Program – The WWD has implemented a lease-back land 

fallowing program for about 30,000 acres. These lands are expected to be returned to irrigation if the U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation provides drainage service to the lands. 

Wetlands Reserve Program – The objective of the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is to preserve and 

enhance the nation's wetlands. Under the WRP, willing farmers sell long-term agricultural production 

easements to the federal government. The WRP may result in improving quality of drainage waters from 

irrigated lands and thus benefits agriculture. 

 

1 Note that the quantity and specificity of information varies between strategies. This is solely due to the amount of 

information available to staff and does not make any inferences as to the relative efficacy of the strategies. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Chapter 26. Other Resource Management Strategies 

 26-2

Summer Alfalfa Dry-down Research Program – This is an episodic event. Alfalfa summer dry-down is 

the practice of cutting off irrigation for one or two summer months and then reapplying water again in the 

fall when temperatures are cooler. The water saved during this period can be transferred to other uses. 

The yield and quality of the summer cuttings is low. Early alfalfa production in the desert regions used 

alfalfa summer dry-down to control weeds and conserve water. This program is currently under research 

and development. Alfalfa summer dry-down offers a unique tool for drought water management for 

several reasons. The program has potentially large water savings; 1 acre foot per acre or 0.5 million acre 

feet to 1 million acre feet statewide. Net water savings can be easily verified. Water storage and transfer 

decisions can be made as late as June. Yield is generally reduced by only 20 to 40 percent, which 

diminishes the impact of crop idling on local communities. Research on alfalfa summer dry-down over 

the past 15 years has had mixed results with crop loss being the major limitation. 

Potential Benefits 

Crop idling could enhance water supply reliability by making water available for redistribution, enhance 

water quality, and protect and restore fish and wildlife. The water made available from crop idling 

depends on how long irrigation is interrupted. Palo Verde Irrigation District Land Management Program 

is expected to have an estimated annual water supply of 25,000 acre feet to 111,000 acre feet for transfer 

to MWD. 

The crop idling program helps the farming community as well as urban areas, infusing money into the 

local economy, while increasing the reliability of water supplies for urban consumers. Avoided costs of 

new water supply should also be considered in the costs and benefit analysis of crop idling. Payments to 

farmers would provide stable income that can be used on farm-related investments, purchases and debt 

repayment and for local community improvement programs. 

Potential Costs 

Costs include loss of crop productivity and the annual cost of managing the lands to avoid negative 

impacts. Additional costs can include program development, administration, and mitigation of local and 

regional socioeconomic impacts. 

Major Issues Facing Crop Idling 

Willing Participant 

The land retirement occurs on a willing participant basis and many farmers may lack the desire sell their 

land and abandon their way of life. 

Growth Inducement of Crop Idling 

Land retirement could result in urban growth when water from retired lands at a low price is made 

available to urban areas. 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

Loss of agricultural productivity and loss of revenue to the local communities and regional and statewide 

socioeconomic impacts are issues of concern. Land retirement can significantly change the local 

population’s way of life. It can cause loss of local tax base, community businesses and farm related jobs 

locally and regionally. The third-party impacts can be significant, especially when land retirement is 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

Chapter 26. Other Resource Management Strategies 

26-3 

concentrated in areas where the communities provide labor and other services. If significant amount of 

land is retired it can also have a statewide impact on the economies, food production, and food security.

Environmental Impacts 

Land use changes can impact neighboring land and its productivity. It can cause introduction of new 

wildlife species, weeds, pests, illegal dumping of refuse. It can affect the disposition of water and water 

rights issues and alter resources such as soils, groundwater, surface waters, cultural resources, recreation, 

biological including human health, dust and air quality. In addition, communities that serve agricultural 

activities inherently have high percentage of low income and disadvantaged groups that can be affected 

by the land retirement. 

Recommendations to encourage crop idling programs to benefit water management 

strategy 

1. The agency or entity leading the land retirement program must begin early consultation with other 

agencies and develop the necessary coordination structure to satisfy the agency policy requirements 

and avoid conflicts. 

2. The land purchase price has to be fair and costs associated with the mitigation of all impacts must be 

considered in developing the program. The land retirement programs must be voluntary. 

3. Since alternative land use management scenarios may achieve similar objectives, alternatives to 

permanent retirement to achieve the same objectives should be considered in developing the land 

retirement programs. Also, encourage local water agency initiatives to use land retirement alternatives 

as appropriate for local conditions for State and local benefits such as voluntary integration of land 

fallowing with conjunctive use and water exchange and transfers. When retiring lands, give the 

highest priority to lands with poor quality, low productivity, and high trace element contents. 

4. The lead agency must evaluate the growth impacts of the program and ensure that the urban area 

receiving the water made available by land retirement has exhausted means of reasonable water 

conservation, it does not induce growth, and the water from land retirement will be put to reasonable 

and beneficial uses. 

5. Study local community impacts and other third-party impacts and develop and implement the 

necessary actions for maintaining the economic stability of local communities and mitigation of 

socioeconomic impacts. 

Information Sources 

• WWD Land Retirement Program: http://www.westlandswater.org/drainage/drainage1.htm 

• Palo Verde Irrigation District Land Management Program: 

http://www.mwd.dst.ca.us/mwdh2o/pages/yourwatersupply/paloverde01.html 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Chapter 26. Other Resource Management Strategies 

 26-4

Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination 

Dewvaporation is a specific process of humidification-dehumidification desalination. Brackish water is 

evaporated by heated air, which deposits fresh water as dew on the opposite side of a heat transfer wall. 

The energy needed for evaporation is supplied by the energy released from dew formation. Heat sources 

can be combustible fuel, solar or waste heat. The tower unit is built of thin plastic films to avoid corrosion 

and to minimize equipment costs. Towers are relatively inexpensive since they operate at atmospheric 

pressure. 

Dewvaporation in California 

The technology of dewvaporation is still being developed. Final demonstration project towers have been 

built and operated at Arizona State University (ASU) laboratories. The Salt River Project and the ASU 

Office of Technology Collaborations and Licensing are sponsoring the dewvaporation pilot plant program 

as an extension of grassroots support by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 

Potential Benefits from Dewvaporation 

Dewvaporation can provide small amounts of water in remote locations. The basic laboratory test unit 

produces to 150 gallons per day. Eight of these units form a 1,000-gallons-per-day demonstration pilot 

plant of the dewvaporation process. 

Areas such as Yuma, Arizona, and the desert regions of California could reclaim salt water at relatively 

low cost by taking advantage of their dry climates. 

Potential Costs of Dewvaporation 

The capital cost of 1,000 gallon per day desalination plant can range between $1,100 and $2,000. 

Operating costs range from $0.80 to $3.70 per 1,000 gallons distillate, or about $260 to $1,200 per acrefoot, depending on fuel source, humidity levels and plant size. 

Major Issues Facing Dewvaporation 

1. Cost and affordability 

2. Small Scale 

3. Concentrate disposal 

Information Sources 

• Beckman, James. R., Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 

“Carrier Gas Enhanced Atmospheric Pressure Desalination.” Final Report. October 2002. 

Fog Collection 

Precipitation enhancement also includes other methods, such as physical structures or nets to induce and 

collect precipitation. 

Fog Collection in California 

Precipitation enhancement in the form of fog collection has not been used in California as a management 

technique but does occur naturally with coastal vegetation; fog provides an important portion of summer 

moisture to our coastal redwoods. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

Chapter 26. Other Resource Management Strategies 

26-5 

Potential Benefits of Fog Collection 

There has been some interest in fog collection for domestic water supply in some of the dry areas of the 

world near the ocean where fog is frequent. Some experimental projects have been built in Chile, and 

there has been considered in some parts of the Middle East and South Africa. The El Tofo project in Chile 

yielded about 10,600 liters per day from about 3,500 square meters of collection net, about 3 liters per day 

per square meter of net. Because of its relatively small production, fog collection is limited to producing 

domestic water where little other viable water sources are available. 

Potential Costs of Fog Collection 

The lowest costs for fog collection in Chile, where labor is much less expensive than California, were 

about $1.40 per 1,000 liters, or about $1,750 per acre-foot. 

Information Sources 

• Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Fog and Fog Collection, P.O. Box 81541 

Toronto, Ontario, Canada, July 2001. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Chapter 26. Other Resource Management Strategies 

 26-6

Irrigated Land Retirement

Irrigated land retirement is the removal of farmland from irrigated agriculture. The permanent land 

retirement is perpetual cessation of irrigation of lands from agricultural production, which is done for 

water transfer or for solving drainage-related problems. Crop idling, or land fallowing, for crop 

management and for soil and crop sustainability and productivity is discussed in the agricultural lands 

stewardship strategy. Crop idling, with the intent of water transfer, is discussed in crop idling strategy 

Irrigated Land Retirement in California 

Central Valley Project Improvement Act Land 

Retirement Program – The 1992 Central Valley 

Project Improvement Act authorized purchase from 

willing sellers, of agricultural land and associated 

water rights and other property interests which 

receive CVP water. The program is expected to retire 

about 100,000 acres of irrigated farmland. 

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation initiated the Land 

Retirement Demonstration Project. So far, this 

program has retired about 8,300 acres of land in the 

Westlands Water District and the Tulare Lake Basin. 

Reclamation’s Settlement Agreements – About 3,000 acres of drainage problem lands in WWD have 

been retired as a part of Britz vs. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation settlement. Also, 33,000 acres in the WWD 

over a three-year period are planned to be retired, Sumner-Peck vs. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. These 

lands have been permanently retired and the associated water allocation is given to WWD under an 

agreement. 

Potential Benefits 

Land retirement could enhance water supply reliability by making water available for redistribution, 

enhance water quality, and protect and restore fish and wildlife resources, but it results in loss of 

agricultural lands. The total water made available by irrigated land retirement is potentially 2 to 3.5 acre 

feet per year for each retired acre, assuming the lands are receiving their water allocation. 

Permanent land retirement in problem drainage areas would improve water quality, specifically reducing 

the risk of selenium exposure to fish and wildlife. Permanent land retirement can reduce drainage volume 

annually by about 0.3-0.5 acre-feet per acre, reducing the costs associated with drainage disposal. 

Permanent retirement of lands also creates an opportunity to establish upland or other habitat for wildlife. 

Potential Costs 

Costs include price of lands and the annual cost of managing the lands to avoid environmental impacts. 

Additional costs may include program development, administration, and mitigation of local and regional 

socioeconomic impacts. 

CVPIA Land Retirement Program 

Applies to lands that: 

• Would improve water conservation or 

improve the quality of an irrigation 

district’s agricultural drainage water 

or 

• Are no longer suitable for sustained 

agricultural production because of 

permanent damage resulting from 

severe agricultural drainage water 

management problems, groundwater 

withdrawals, or other causes 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

Chapter 26. Other Resource Management Strategies 

26-7 

Major Issues Facing Land Retirement 

Willing Participant 

The land retirement is voluntary, and many farmers may lack the desire sell their land and abandon their 

way of life. 

Growth Inducement of Land Retirement 

Land retirement could result in urban growth when water from retired lands at a low price is made 

available to urban areas. 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

Loss of agricultural productivity and loss of revenue to the local communities and regional and statewide 

socioeconomic impacts are issues of concern. Land retirement can significantly change the local 

population’s way of life. It can cause loss of local tax base, community businesses and farm related jobs 

locally and regionally. The third-party impacts can be significant, especially when land retirement is 

concentrated in areas where the communities provide labor and other services. If significant amount of 

land is retired it can also have a statewide impact on the economies, food production, and food security.

Environmental Impacts 

Land use changes can impact neighboring land and its productivity. It can cause introduction of new 

wildlife species, weeds, pests, and illegal dumping of refuse. It can affect the water rights issues and alter 

resources such as soils, groundwater, surface waters, cultural resources, recreation, biological including 

human health, dust and air quality. In addition, communities that serve agricultural activities inherently 

have high percentage of low income and disadvantaged groups that can be affected by the land retirement. 

 

Recommendations to facilitate land retirement programs to benefit water management 

1. The agency or entity leading the land retirement program must begin early consultation with other 

interested agencies and develop the necessary coordination structure to satisfy the agency policy 

requirements and avoid conflicts. 

2. The land purchase price has to be fair and costs associated with the mitigation of all impacts must be 

considered in developing the program. The land retirement programs must be voluntary. 

3. Since alternative land use management scenarios may achieve similar objectives, alternatives to 

permanent retirement to achieve the same objectives should be considered in developing the land 

retirement programs. Also, facilitate local water agency initiatives to use land retirement alternatives 

as appropriate for local conditions for State and local benefits such as voluntary integration of land 

fallowing with conjunctive use and water exchange and transfers. When retiring lands, give the 

highest priority to lands with poor quality, low productivity, and high trace element contents. 

4. The lead agency must evaluate the growth inducement impacts of the program and ensure that the 

urban area receiving the water made available by land retirement has exhausted means of reasonable 

water conservation, it doesn’t induce growth, and the water from land retirement will be put to 

reasonable and beneficial uses. 

5. Study local community impacts and other third party impacts and develop and implement the 

necessary actions for maintaining the economic stability of local communities and mitigation of 

socio-economic impacts. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Chapter 26. Other Resource Management Strategies 

 26-8

6. Study regional impacts resulting from land retirement including impacts from reduced agricultural 

production inputs and reduced farm income, income received from land payments and habitat 

restoration. 

7. Land retirement must comply with the CEQA. The land retirement programs must include fair 

treatment of people of all races, cultures and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. 

Information Sources 

• WWD Land Retirement Program: http://www.westlandswater.org/drainage/drainage1.htm

• Land Retirement Guidelines, USBR, http://www.mp.usbr.gov/cvpia/lrgdln97.pdf

• The San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program 1990 Report (the Rainbow Report) and other reports: 

http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/statedrain/pubs/pubs.cfm

• The San Joaquin Valley Drainage Implementation Program 

http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/statedrain/index.cfm

• The Land Retirement Report- SJVDIP 

• The USBR San Luis Drainage Feature Reevaluation and EIS 

http://www.mp.usbr.gov/sccao/sld/index.html

• Drainage Without a Drain. The Bay Institute et al. www.bay.org

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

Chapter 26. Other Resource Management Strategies 

26-9 

Rainfed Agriculture 

Rainfed agriculture is when all crop consumptive water use is provided directly by rainfall on a real time 

basis. Due to unpredictability of rainfall frequency, duration, and amount, there is significant uncertainty 

and risk in relying solely on rainfed agriculture. This is especially true in California, where there is little 

or no precipitation during most of the spring and summer growing season. 

Current Extent of Rainfed Agriculture in California 

Climatic conditions in California provide excellent conditions for crop production; little cloud cover 

provides ample solar radiation during the spring and summer growing season. Precipitation in the form of 

rainfall and snow occurs mainly during the fall and winter months. However, the lack of sufficient and 

timely rainfall during the spring and summer in much of California severely limits the potential for 

expansion of rainfed agriculture. 

In California’s interior, north coast, and central coast, winter crops directly use rain water with the help of 

more irrigation water during the latter part of the winter season, if needed. These areas provide a 

relatively high return from the high value winter crops such as vegetables in the Costal areas. Other 

important agricultural production sectors that are dependent on rainfall are pastoral areas, rangelands, and 

rolling hills in the state. These areas produce significant amounts of feed and provide grazing areas for the 

state’s large cattle (dairy and meat) 

industry. Winter small grains crops, such 

as winter wheat, account for about 4 

percent (400,000 acres) of agricultural 

lands and provide a relatively small 

contribution to the state’s total 

agricultural economy. 

The vast majority of California’s 

agricultural production requires 

irrigation. Rainfall that occurs before 

irrigation season and during the irrigation 

season can reduce irrigation water 

requirements. During years with heavy 

springtime rains, soil moisture remains 

higher for longer periods of time and can measurably reduce irrigation requirements for the year. Growers 

and water districts factor effective rainfall into their water management practices. In addition, DWR’s 

water balance calculations for each region account for the portion of crop water requirements provided 

directly by rainfall. 

As demonstrated in the figure on the previous page, applied water and rainfall events are closely related. 

More rainfall, particularly during early growing season, provides a significant quantity of effective 

rainfall for crop consumptive use. The figure shows the inverse relationships between effective rainfall 

and applied water. Based on the 18 years (1978-1996) of data for an area on the west side San Joaquin 

Valley, effective rainfall provided an average of 7 percent of the total crop consumptive use. In 1978 and 

1993, two wet years with early season rainfall, effective rainfall amounted to 27 and 21 percent 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Chapter 26. Other Resource Management Strategies 

 26-10

respectively of the crop consumptive use. In 1990, a dry year, effective rainfall amounted to only 3 

percent of the total crop consumptive use. Similar examples can be given for other regions of the state. 

Potential Benefits 

Currently, improvements in the rainfed agricultural production offer limited water supply opportunity in 

California. More acreage for production of winter crops will reduce runoff flowing in the surface water 

systems and to ocean outflows. Improvements in rangelands and grazing areas through improved plant 

varieties can provide crop yield benefits but not significant water supply opportunities. One important 

aspect of improved rainfed agriculture is a better post harvest/ pre-planting soil management for winter 

crops such as wheat. Many winter wheat growers are already implementing adequate and prudent soil 

management practices for water and erosion management. Land that is tilled and left fallow after harvest 

can cause the soil surface to seal with the first and second rainfall and increase runoff and erosion. 

Improved tillage practices, no-till or minimum-till, may improve water infiltration into soil root zone, thus 

increasing soil-water storage and could contribute to water supply by eliminating the first seasonal 

irrigation. Additionally, increased soil moisture reduces soil erosion; helps improve water quality and 

may help increase water use efficiency and economic efficiency. Advances in plant genetics to provide 

higher crop yields from direct rainfall could replace some crops that rely on irrigation. 

Quantification of potential water savings from improved rainfed agriculture, while very small, is not 

possible due to lack of information. 

Potential Costs 

Potential cost consists of on-farm soil management and cost of research and development, demonstration 

and educational and training and dissemination of information and technologies. On-farm cost is an 

integral part of soil management that is already part of grower’s practices. Soil management practices 

may need to be adjusted for timing with no additional or minimal cost. Cost of research, development, 

demonstration, education, and training and dissemination of new information and tillage management 

technologies will need to be paid by the State. It is possible that such activities can be funded from 

CALFED Water Use Efficiency loans and grants. 

Major Issues for Additional Rainfed Agriculture 

While rainfed agriculture provides some opportunity for increasing yield and water supply reliability, the 

efforts will likely result in insignificant and unquantifiable contributions to the water supply. However, 

increases in yields for winter crops and winter cover crops can be significant and benefit overall water 

management in California. Water supply Improvements would require development of new varieties of 

plants, new and innovative soil and water management. A major issue is that quantification of water 

savings can not be made at the present time. Also, this strategy does not provide water supply benefits on 

a real time basis. For example, improvements in soil management may provide future benefit in storing 

more rainfall in the root zone if future uncertain and unpredictable weather conditions prevail. 

Recommendations to Increase Rainfed Agriculture 

Following is a list of recommendations to increase water use efficiency in the rainfed agriculture: 

1. Develop improved varieties of winter rainfed crops, such as wheat, other small grains, cover crops, 

and winter crops. This can be achieved by providing financial resources to the State’s research and 

development institutions to develop new and improved varieties. In addition, develop research and 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

Chapter 26. Other Resource Management Strategies 

26-11 

demonstration of innovative water management practices where growers with marginal lands and 

marginal production may shift from irrigated agricultures to rainfed winter crops. 

2. Provide technical and financial assistance to promote no-till or minimum-till practices by growers 

who prepare their lands for planting during spring, but leave it fallow during the fall and winter. 

Cooperative efforts with the State’s research and development institutions can benefit this important 

aspect of rainfed agriculture. 

3. Develop new and innovative technologies, management, and efficient water management practices 

for rainfed agriculture, particularly winter wheat. 

4. Provide technical and financial assistance to implement technologies, and management practices for 

rainfed agriculture. 

5. Develop and promote new and innovative activities and management practices for intensive and 

managed grazing. 

6. Maximize, collect, and store runoff from rainfed agriculture and develop cooperative efforts to link 

runoff from rainfed agriculture and water banking and conjunctive use activities and groundwater 

recharge. 

7. Disseminate practical information through educational and training opportunities. 

Information Sources 

• Local agencies (reports and publications) 

• Local farm advisors and UC System 

• Federal Bureau of Land Management and National Forest Service 

• Private rangeland owners and relevant associations of rangeland managers/owners 

• United States Department of Agriculture, ARS 

• State educational institutions (Fresno CIT, Cal Poly, etc.) 

• Published technical and scientific papers 

• California Cattlemen Association 

• Commodity groups 

• Ranches 

• Information from best professional/scientific assessment/judgment of DWR’s staff and others 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Chapter 26. Other Resource Management Strategies 

 26-12

Transoceanic Water Bags 

The use of transoceanic water bags involves diverting water in areas that have unallocated fresh water 

supplies, storing the water in large inflatable bladders, and towing to an alternate coastal region. Fresh 

water is lighter than seawater, which makes the bags float on the surface. This makes them easier to tow. 

After discharging their contents, empty bags are then reeled to the deck of the tug allowing for a more 

speedy return to the source water area. Towing icebergs (frozen fresh water) is a variation of towing water 

bags. 

Transoceanic Water Bag Use 

Although this strategy is not currently being used in California, there have been several proposals to 

implement this technology throughout the world. The most recent was the proposal by Alaska Water 

Exports Company to divert up to 30 TAF from the Albion and Gualala River Rivers in Northern 

California and transport the water to the San Diego metropolitan area. The proposal received significant 

local opposition. 

Potential Benefits of Transoceanic Water Bags 

Freshwater supply augmentation. 

Potential Costs of Transoceanic Water Bags 

Cost is contingent upon several factors such as water purchase cost, facility costs for diverting and offloading water, environmental mitigation, administrative costs, cost to construct bags and towing costs. No 

published cost estimates have been found as of release of this draft. 

Issues 

Third-Party Impacts 

Similar to any other type of transfer, impacts on the area of origin may occur. This includes projects that 

use “surplus” water and using water that is currently being put to a beneficial use. Other issues of concern 

expressed to proponents of recent projects include aesthetics and noise pollution from diversion facilities 

and the dissatisfaction within area of origin communities that others are exporting a local resource. 

Environmental Impacts 

Although most diversions take place near the mouth of a source river, facilities would need to be built to 

convey the water from a significant distance upstream (e.g. before blending with high salinity ocean 

water). 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

References 

27-1 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 

California Water Plan Update 2005 

References 

-----General plans. Various cities and counties. 

-----CEQA documents from various projects. 

-----. 1990, 1995, and 2000. Urban Water Management Plans (AB 797). Various agencies. 

-----. 2000. Assem. Conc. Res. No. 185--Relative to Native American tribal rights. stats. 2000 res. ch 150. 

-----. 2003. Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement: Federal Quantification Settlement Agreement for Purposes 

of Section 5(B) of Interim Surplus Guidelines. 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2001. Toxicological Profile for Chromium. 

American Sportfishing Association. 2003. Fishing Statistics: Demographics and Economic Impacts. 

www.asafishing.org. March 12, 2003. 

[AMS] American Meterological Society. 1998. Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification. Boston, MA. 2 p. 

Anderson SW and others. 2001. Water Resources Data - California, Water Year 2000, Vol. 3. Sacramento: US 

Geological Survey. 

[ASCE] American Society of Civil Engineers. 1995. Guidelines for Cloud Seeding to Augment Precipitation. 

Reston, VA: ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 81. 168 p. 

[ASCE] American Society of Civil Engineers. 2003. Progress Report for America's Infrastructure. 

http://www.asce.org/reportcard/index.cfm. 

[ASCE] American Society of Civil Engineers. 2003. Atmospheric Water Resources Management. 

http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/policy_details.cfm?hdlid=149. 

[ASCE and EWRI] American Society of Civil Engineers and Environmental and Water Resources Institute. 2004. 

Standard Practice for the Design and Operation of Precipitation Enhancement Projects. Reston, VA: 

Forthcoming. 

Associated Press. 2003 May 25. Key elements of Colorado River water deal. 

Association of Groundwater Agencies. 2000. Groundwater and Surface Water in Southern California. 

Awwa Research Foundation. 1999. Residential End Uses of Water (Project #241A). 

Beach D. 2002. Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems in the United States. 

Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans Commission. 

Bednarek Angela T. 2001. Undamming rivers: A review of the ecological impacts of dam removal. Environment 

Management 27:803-814. 

Belitz Kenneth, Neil M Dubrovsky, Karen Burow, Bryant Jurgens, Tyler Johnson. 2003. Framework for a GroundWater Quality Monitoring and Assessment Program for California. Sacramento: US Geological Survey. 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4166. 

Blomquist William, Edella Schlager, Tanya Heikkila. 2004. Common Waters, Diverging Streams; Linking 

Institutions and Water Management in Arizona, California, and Colorado. Washington D.C.: Resources for 

Future. 205 p. 

Bookman-Edmonston Inc. 1979. Water Resources Management in the Southern San Joaquin Valley. 

Bookman-Edmonston Inc. 1994. Mojave Water Agency Regional Water Management Plan. Glendale, CA. 

Borcalli & Associates Inc. 1999. Water Needs Assessment. Mountain Counties Water Resources Association. 

Brunke H, Howitt R, and Sumner D. 2004. Future Food Production and Consumption in California under 

Alternative Scenarios. University of California Agricultural Issues Center. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 References 

References 

Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 27-2

Bryant D. 2002. Salinas Valley Survey Sets Nitrate Practices Baseline. Western Farm Press (5 Dec). 

Burt CM and others. 2002. Evaporation from Irrigated Agricultural Land in California. Irrigation Training and 

Research Center, California Polytechnic State University. ITRC Report R 02-0001. 144 p. 

[Cal/EPA and others] California Environmental Protection Agency, The Resources Agency. 2002. Environmental 

Protection Indicators for California (EPIC). 

Calaveras County Water District. 1995. County Water Master Plan. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 1999. Conjunctive Use Assessment. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. Final Programmatic EIS/EIR: Water Use Efficiency Program Plan. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. Flow Regime Requirements for Habitat Restoration along the Sacramento 

River between Colusa and Red Bluff. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. Initial Surface Water Storage Screening Report. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. Net Water Estimates. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. Phase II report : final programmatic EIS/EIR technical appendix / CALFED 

Bay-Delta Program. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. Programmatic Record of Decision. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. Programmatic Record of Decision. Conveyance Program. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. Strategic Plan for Ecosystem Restoration. 73 p. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. Water Quality Program Plan. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. Water Transfer Program Plan. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2001. CALFED Bay-Delta Program: CALFED Primary Objectives. 

http://calwater.ca.gov/AboutCalfed/PrimaryObjectives.shtml. Accessed on May 6, 2004. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2002. Contra Costa Water District's Draft Project Concept Report. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2002. Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation, In-Progress Review, 

Initial Surface Storage Options Screening. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2003. Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation, Phase 1 Investigation 

Report. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. In progress. Common Assumptions, Conjunctive Use Inventory. 

California Coastal Commission. 1993. Seawater Desalination in California. 

California Coastal Commission. 2003. Seawater Desalination and the California Coastal Act. 

California Commission on Building for the 21st Century. 2001. Invest for California: Strategic Planning for 

California's Future Prosperity and Quality of Life. Sep. 

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1998. Public Opinions and Attitudes on Outdoor Recreation in 

California 1997. http://www.parks.ca.gov/. 

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2002. California Outdoor Recreation Plan 2002. 

http://www.parks.ca.gov/. 

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2002. The State Park System Plan 2002: Initiatives for Action. 56 p. 

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2003. Public Opinions and Attitudes on Outdoor Recreation in 

California 2002. 

California Department of Public Works, Division of Water Resources. 1930. State Water Plan 1930. Presented to the 

California Legislature of 1931. Bulletin 25. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

References 

27-3 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 

California Department of Tourism. 2002. Domestic Leisure Travel to California 1998-2001. 

http://www.gocalif.ca.gov/state/tourism/tour_homepage.jsp. June 9, 2003. 

California Energy Commission, Integrated Energy Policy Report Workshop. 2003. Hydropower System--Energy 

and Environment. 

California Floodplain Management Task Force. 2002. California Floodplain Management Report. Final 

Recommendations Report. 29 p. Dec. Availability: http://fpmtaskforce.water.ca.gov/. 

California State Advisory Commission on Indian Affairs. 1969. Final report to the Governor and the Legislature. 

Sacramento. 

California State Lands Commission. 1993. California Rivers, A Public Trust Report. 334 p. 

California State University Sacramento, UC Davis, California Department of Transportation. 2001. Caltrans 

Stormwater Management Program. Stormwater Journal. 

California Stormwater Quality Task Force. 1993. California Storm Water Best Management Handbook - 

Construction Activity. Prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee, Larry Walker Associates, Uribe and 

Associates, Resource Planning Associates. 

California Stormwater Quality Task Force. 1993. California Storm Water Best Management Handbook - 

Industrial/Commercial. Prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee, Larry Walker Associates, Uribe and 

Associates, Resource Planning Associates. 

California Stormwater Quality Task Force. 1993. California Storm Water Best Management Handbook - Municipal 

Activity. Prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee, Larry Walker Associates, Uribe and Associates, Resource 

Planning Associates. 

California Urban Water Conservation Council. 2004. Rinse & Save Program: Report to the California Public 

Utilities Commission. 

California's Recycled Water Task Force. 2003. Water Recycling 2030: Recommendations of California's Recycled 

Water Task Force. Sacramento: California Department of Water Resources. 

http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/recycle/docs/TaskForceReport.htm. 

Camp Dresser & McKee. 1999. Description of Existing Investigations and Data Relevant to the Owens Lake 

Groundwater Evaluation. Inyo County, CA. 

Carlson C. 2003 Jun 5. County Farmland Falling Victim of Urbanization. Merced Sun-Star. 

Carlson K. 2003 Apr 17. Valley Counties Among Growth Leaders Due to Internal Migration. Modesto Bee. 

[CBDA and others] California Bay-Delta Authority, California Department of Water Resources, US Bureau of 

Reclamation. 2004. California Bay-Delta Surface Storage Program Progress Report. 

[CBDA] California Bay-Delta Authority. 2003. Developing Bay-Delta Program Finance Options - Framework & 

Issues Report. 26 p. Oct. Availability: 

http://calwater.ca.gov/FinancePlanning/Final_Framework_Issues_Report_9-23-03.pdf.

[CBDA] California Bay-Delta Authority. 2003. Annual Report. Availability: 

http://www.calwater.ca.gov/AboutCalfed/AnnualReport2003/AnnualReport_2003.pdf. 

[CBDA] California Bay-Delta Authority. 2004. Draft Finance Options Report. 361 p. May. Availability: 

http://calwater.ca.gov/FinancePlanning/Draft_Finance_Options_Report_5-11-04.pdf. 

[CDFA] California Department of Food and Agriculture. Annual Resource Directories. 

[CDFA] California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2004. California Preliminary 2002 Census Results. Release 

Number: CDFA04-008. Feb 20. Availability: 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/exec/pa/pressreleases/PressRelease.asp?PRnum=04-008

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services. California's Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection 

(DWSAP) Program. http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/dwsap/DWSAPindex.htm. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 References 

References 

Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 27-4

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services. Chemical Contaminants in Drinking Water. 

http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/chemicals/chemindex.htm. 

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services. Drinking Water: Overview of Monitoring Results, 1994-2002, 

and an Indication of Dominant Contaminants. 

http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/chemicals/monitoring/results94-02.htm. 

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services. Specific Contaminants of Current Interest: arsenic, chromium-6, 

manganese, methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), perchlorate, 1, 2, 3-

trichloropropane. 

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services. 1998. Salinity Management Study. 

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services. 2003. Drinking Water Action Level, Chemicals with Recent 

Detections. http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/chemicals/AL/actionlevels.htm. 12 Jun. 

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services. 2003. Drinking Water Action Levels, Historic Action Levels and 

Action Levels for Contaminants Detected Infrequently. June. 

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services. 2003. Perchlorate in California Drinking Water: Status of 

Regulations and Monitoring. 

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services. 2003. Chromium-6 in Drinking Water: Background Information. 

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services. 2003. Chromium-6 in Drinking Water: Regulation and 

Monitoring Update. 

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services, Office of Drinking Water. 1993. Drinking Water into the 21st 

Century: Safe Drinking Water Plan for California, a Report to the Legislature. Sacramento. 443 p. 

Center for Clouds Chemistry and Climate. 2002. The Asian Brown Cloud: Climate and Other Environmental 

Impacts. Nairobi: UNEP. 

Center for Collaborative Policy. 2003. Draft Desalination Issues Assessment Report. California State University. 

CH2M Hill. 1994. Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan: Phase III Report Implementation Plan. 

Prepared for City of Fresno. 

City of Santa Monica. Stormwater Best Management Practices for New Developments. 

City of Santa Monica. Working for a Cleaner Bay. 

Clemings R. 2002 Jan 3. Fresno Growth Plan Limits Sprawl. Fresno Bee. 

Coleman DE. 2003 Jan 28. Toast of the Town. Fresno Bee. 

Congressional Budget Office. 2002. Future Investment in Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure. Congress 

of the United States. 

Contra Costa Water District. 1998. Future Water Supply Implementation. 

Cooper A. 2003 Apr 17. Valley Dairies Face Beefed Up Water Rules. Stockton Record. 

[CPR] California Performance Review. 2004. Government for the People for a Change. Commissioned by the 

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. 4 volumes. July. Availability: http://www.report.cpr.ca.gov/. 

[CUWA] California Urban Water Agencies. 1998. Bay-Delta Water Quality Evaluation. 

Dallman Suzanne and Thomas Piechota. 2000. Stormwater: Asset not Liability. Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers 

Watershed Council. 

Delacy R. 2003 Raising Tuolumne Lake Level Explored. Modesto Bee. 

Devine D. 2003 Feb 8. Desalination proposed. Salinas Californian. 

Devine D. 2003 Feb 8. Voters weight water ballot. Salinas Californian. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

References 

27-5 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 

[DFG] California Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation Division, Native Anadromous Fish and 

Watershed Branch. 2002. Sacramento River Spring-run Chinook salmon: 2001 Annual Report. 

[DFG] California Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation Planning Branch. 2003. California's Plants 

and Animals. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/species.shtml. 

[DFG] California Department of Fish and Game, License and Revenue Branch. 2003. Sport Fishing Fees: By 

licensed year as of January 31, 2003. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/index.html. Mar 14, 2003. 

[DOF] California Department of Finance. Population Projections. 

http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/repndat.htm. 

[DOF] California Department of Finance. 2004. California's Annual Population Growth Exceeds Half a Million For 

Fifth Year. http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/e-1press.doc. May 6. 

[DOF] California Department of Finance. 2005. California Population Tops 36.5 Million in 2004, Adds Nearly 

600,000 According to New State Demographic Report. Press Release. 

http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/E-2_PR_Jul04.pdf. Feb 7. 

[DOI] US Department of the Interior. Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement: Federal Quantification Settlement 

Agreement for purposes of Section 5(B) of Interim Surplus Guidelines. 

[DOI and MWDSC] US Department of the Interior and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 1998. 

Salinity Management Study. 

Dowall David E, Jan Whittington. 2003. Making Room for the Future: Rebuilding California’s Infrastructure. San 

Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. Mar. Availability: 

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_303DDR.pdf. 

Doyle M. 2003 May 6. US Sees Big Water Problem in Delta. Sacramento Bee. 

[DRI] Desert Research Institute. 2003. Report on Nevada Cloud Seeding Program. Reno, NV. 43 p. 

Driscoll Fletcher G. 1986. Groundwater and Wells. St. Paul, Minn.: Johnson Division. 

Duerr S. 2003 Apr 11. Our County's Next 100,000. San Luis Obispo Tribune. 

Dunne Thomas, Leopold B. Luna. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and 

Company. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. Bulletin 166 series. Urban water use in California. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. Calaveras County Area Investigation. Bulletin 94. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Division of Planning and Local Assistance, San Joaquin 

District. Desalting in California. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. State Water Project Analysis Office. Water Deliveries from the 

SWP [online]. http://www.swpao.water.ca.gov/deliveries/index.cfm. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1957. The California Water Plan. Bulletin no. 3. maps, 246 p. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1963. Alameda County Investigation. Bulletin 13. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1966. Implementation of the California Water Plan. Bulletin 

160-66. 143 p. Mar. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1967. Implementation of the California Water Plan Appendixes 

A through F. Bulletin 160-66 appendixes. Aug. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1970. Water for California: The California Water Plan Outlook 

in 1970. Bulletin 160-70. 170 p. Dec. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1974. The California Water Plan Outlook in 1974. Bulletin 160-

74. Nov. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1975. Vegetative Water Use in California. Bulletin 113-3. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 References 

References 

Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 27-6

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1980. Ground Water Basins in California - A Report to the 

Legislature in Response to Water Code Section 12924. 73 p. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1980 through 2002. Public Water Systems Statistics Survey 

Forms. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1983. The California Water Plan: Projected Use and Available 

Water Supplies to 2010. Bulletin 160-83. 268 p. Dec. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Central District. 1983. Eel-Russian River Water Allocation 

Studies. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1986. Crop Water Use in California. Bulletin 113-4. 116 p. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1987. California Water: Looking to the Future. 125 p. Nov. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Central District. 1989. El Dorado Report. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Central District. 1990. Amador County Report. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Northern District. 1990. Colusa Basin Appraisal. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Northern District. 1993. Butte and Sutter Basins. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Northern District. 1993. Napa River Trial Distribution Program. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1993. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Atlas. Reprinted July 

1995. 122 p. Availability: http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/delta_atlas.fdr/datp.html. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1993. Water Recycling Survey. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1994. California Water Plan Update 1993. Bulletin 160-93. Oct. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Central District. 1995. American Basin Conjunctive Use 

Project. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1998. California Water Plan Update 1998. Bulletin 160-98. 

Nov. Availability: http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/b160index.html. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1999. Groundwater Management in California: a report to the 

Legislature pursuant to Senate Bill 1245 (1997). Prepared by Carl J. Hauge and others. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1999. Management of the California State Water Project. 

Sacramento. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2000. North-of-the-Delta Offstream Storage Investigation 

Progress Report. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2000. Preparing for California's Next Drought: Changes Since 

1987-92. July. Availability: http://watersupplyconditions.water.ca.gov/rep1987-92.htm. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2001. Management of the California State Water Project. 

Sacramento. Bulletin 132-00 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2002. In-Delta Storage Program Draft Summary Report and 

supplemental reports on operations, water quality, engineering, environmental, and engineering 

evaluations. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2002. Management of the California State Water Project. 

Sacramento. Bulletin 132-01 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2002. North-of-the-Delta Offstream Storage Scoping Report. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Bay Delta Office. 2002. The State Water Project Delivery 

Reliability Report. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2003. California's Groundwater Update 2003. Bulletin 118. Oct. 

Availability: http://www.groundwater.water.ca.gov/bulletin118/. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

References 

27-7 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2003. California's Groundwater Update 2003 Draft. Bulletin 

118. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2003. Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement and 

Related Agreements and Documents to which State and Southern California Agencies are Signatories. 

http://www.saltonsea.water.ca.gov/crqsa/index.cfm. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2003. Draft EIR/S for the Environmental Water Account. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2003. Fish Passage Improvement 2003: An Element of 

CALFED's Integrated Storage Investigations Program. Bulletin 250-2003. Feb. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2003. Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and 

Senate Bill 221 of 2001 to assist water suppliers, cities, and counties in integrating water and land use 

planning. Oct 8. Availability: http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/Guidebook_101003.pdf. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2003. Water Desalination - Findings and Recommendations. 

Report to the Legislature (Stats. 2002, ch. 957). Oct. Availability: 

http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/recycle/desal/Docs/Findings-Recommendations.pdf. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2003. Water Transfer Papers for Water Transfers in 2002 

Involving the Department of Water Resources. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Division of Flood Management. 2004. After Action Report: 

2004 Jones Tract Flood Incident. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Office of Water Use Efficiency (OWUE). 2004. California 

Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) weather station data. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2004. In-Delta Storage State Feasibility Study Draft Reports. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2004. Integrated Regional Water Management Grant Program 

Guidelines for Proposition 50, Chapter 8. Public draft Aug 16 

http://www.grantsloans.water.ca.gov/docs/Prop_50_Chap_8_IRWM_Guidelines_Public_Draft_081604.pdf

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2004. Management of the California State Water Project. 

Bulletin 132-02. Jan. Availability: http://www.swpao.water.ca.gov/publications/. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, State Water Project Analysis Office (SWPAO). 2004. Water 

Deliveries from the SWP. http://www.swpao.water.ca.gov/deliveries/. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2004. Management of the California Water Project. 

Bulletin 132-03. Jan. Availability: http://www.swpao.water.ca.gov/publications/. Dec. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2005. Flood Warnings: Responding to California's Flood Crisis. 

http://www.publicaffairs.water.ca.gov/newsreleases/2005/01-10-05flood_warnings.pdf

[DWR and others] California Department of Water Resources, US Bureau of Reclamation, and California Bay-Delta 

Authority. 2005 Apr. CALFED Bay-Delta Surface Storage Investigations Progress Report. Draft. 

Forthcoming. 

[DWR and others] California Department of Water Resources, US Bureau of Reclamation, Contra Costa Water 

District. 2002. Draft Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Studies. 

[DWR and USBR] California Department of Water Resources, US Bureau of Reclamation. 2004. California BayDelta Surface Storage Program Report. Apr. 

East Bay Municipal Utility District. 1993. EBMUD Water Supply Management Program. 

Egelko B. 2003 Apr 18. Deal to revive dammed-up San Joaquin falters, environmentalists, farmers stop talking. San 

Francisco Chronicle. 

[EID] El Dorado Irrigation District. 2003. FERC Economic Analysis Critique--El Dorado Hydroelectric Project. 

Prepared for EID by Mead & Hunt. 

[EID] El Dorado Irrigation District. 2003. Operational Modeling. Prepared by Hydrologics for EID. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A