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 California 2
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.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 DroughtWater 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.)California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 23. Water Transfers

23-3Three 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).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 publicCalifornia 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).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 Transfers 7

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 811,000California 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.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 fromCalifornia 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.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.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.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 Opini ons 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 advant age of opportunities to enhance recreation, and can guard against actions that would limit recreation.

The Davis-Dolwig Act was passed by the California Le gislature in 1961. This act established state policy regarding recreation and fish and w ildlife enhancement at state-built water facilities, and specified the responsibilities of state agencies under the act. Complian ce 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 r esponsibility. 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 mu st 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 th at state agencies must take into account when managing tidelands and navigable wa ters and their tributaries. 

## Current Participation in Water-Dep endent 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 we re spent in recreation activities directly dependent on water. Many more visitor-days were spent in na ture-based activities such as wildlife viewing, 55 million adult participation-days, an d hiking, 36 million adult particip ation-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 i ndicated that more outdoor recreation areas, such as picnic and camping sites, are needed at lakes and reservoirs.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 (ext remely 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 resi dent tourists spent an average of $70 a day. Sales of sportfishing licenses and stamps generated more than $49 million in annual reve nue 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 economi c 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 fo r development of permanent recreation facilities. For example, the capital cost of recreation sites on the St ate 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 issu es affecting outdoor recreation, including waterdependent recreation. These funding issues fall into two categories: planning and development of new recreational sites associated with water projects, a nd 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 reas on 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

R

et

a i l S

al

es Wages and S

a laries Sales/Fuel/Tax
Stat e

I nco m

e T

ax

Fe

deral I

nco m

e T

axMillions of Dollars

Data Source: American Sportfishing Associatio nCalifornia 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, re quiring 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 cond itions than for other resources thought to be more essential. Without reliable funding, it is difficult for recr eation providers to deliver quality, consistent and relevant facilities and services to meet growing dema nd. Many park and recreation providers have taken steps to reduce programs and operating costs to beco me 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 agi ng 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 a nd aesthetic appeal of a water-dependent recreation, making it desirable and interesting to visitors. Over use, 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 a ll 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 wi ldlife 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-d ependent recreation. Poor water quality can have a negative impact on water-dependent recreation. A s ource 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 fr om 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 signi ficant problem to water meant for drinking.

Coordination Funding and impacts to natural resources are exacerba ted by the lack of coordination between those who manage water resources and those who provide recreati onal 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 partners hips and cooperation between agencies, organizations and individuals have grown, efforts at the wate rshed or landscape level are often fragmented, and opportunities are missed to achieve broader goals , placing both resources and the public at risk.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 24. Water-Dependent Recreation

24-4 

## Recommendations to Help Prov ide Adequate Water-Dependent Recreation

1. In developing water-dependent recreation opportun ities, jurisdictions should consider public needs as identified in the California Outdoor Recreation Plan. 2. Use existing data and new surveys to determine recr eational 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 agenci es, 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 le vels 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 unive rsities 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 Ga me in exploring the use of funding from the BayDelta Sport Fishing Enhancement St amp 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, Licen se and Revenue Branch, www.dfg.ca.gov

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

• Reports accessed at the Department of Park s 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, “Ca lifornia 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.govCalifornia 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, rest oring and or ganizing land and other resource use within an area of land that has a single common drainage point. Watershed management tries to provide sustainable human be nefits, 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 watershe d 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 enhan ce 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 valuab le 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 de pends 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.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 so me 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 reduce s the ability to capture water for needs during dry times. From an ecological perspective, this compre ssion of runoff events robs the streams and landscape of groundwater. This leads to dry land, a shi ft in vegetation types, lower and warmer streams, deterioration of stream channels, all of which le ad 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 cycl e 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. M any native plants evolved under fairly low nutrient conditions. Increasing the available nutrients often allo ws invasive plants to over run the native vegetation. This can reduce the infiltration ca pacity 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 wa ste materials or the applicat ion of fertilizers. In any event, the result is an increase in nutrient loads t hat 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 migrati on corridors or destroyed or impover ished habitat that is critical for certain life stages of animals. Coastal wetlands th at 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 mu ch more damage to watersheds than fires of historical intensities. The result is that watersheds are not ca pable 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 thes e processes is to describe various ecological cycles and watershed traits, such as the hydrologic cycle, nutr ient cycling, energy flow and transfers, soil and geologic characteristics, the role of fire, and animal migration and habitat utili zation. 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.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 ac tive 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 wa tershed groups. From strictly priv ate 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 pr ovide multiple benefits and are designed to achieve sustainable ecosystems.

Current watershed management efforts blend commun ity 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 stew ardship 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 traditi onal project management approaches. Watershed stewardship groups serve as forums for coalescing the n eeds and capabilities of public and private sector interests, and people who work at the local, regional, State, national, and ev en 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 infiltra te into the ground, reduce surface runoff to a point where it reflects a nat ural pattern of runoff. 6. Restore and preserve stream channel morp hology 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 com patibility 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 migrati on corridors or critical life stage habitats. 11. Sponsor and participate in watershed stewardship groups.

Note: All activities may not be applicable to all watersheds.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 prac tice watershed management. While past bond acts provided specific funding for watershed projects (P ropositions 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 waters hed planning has evolved in the past decade in California. The bond acts and subsequent legisla tion associated with Propositions 40 and 50 have established statewide programs for Integrated Wate rshed Management and In tegrated Regional Water Management that support managing resources on a wate rshed scale and conducti ng the public outreach, education, and project management required in watershed management efforts. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) exists that directs agencies with in the Resources Agency and CalEPA to coordinate their efforts in support of watershed management. On e 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 pr omote the development of watershed assessments and plans, and to support specific projects designed to im prove local management of watershed resources. The goals for the CBDA Watershed Program are to provi de assistance, both financial and technical, for watershed activities that help achieve the missi on 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 St ate 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, restor ations, and project development ha ve 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 wa tershed to capture snowmelt and spring runoff, which in turn has lowered flood potentials and incr eased summer base flows in streams. This provides improved ability to capture water in summer for expor t 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 functi ons and processes by helpi ng 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 temperatur es. Designing projects to allow more water to soakCalifornia 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 vege tated 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 st reams draining the watershed. Preserving a more natural vegetated channel confi guration and overflow areas helps slow and lower peak flows. Improving Water Quality Watershed management helps improve water quality by maintaining natural vegeta ted stream buffers that filter pollutants and nutrients. Connecting to Other Things in the Watershed Identifying important aspects of the watershed conditi on 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 a ddition, it allows for easier identification of risks to sustaining the essential characteristics of the watershed. Unde rstanding these influences provides opportunities to conduct business in a manner that is supportive of watershed dynamics. Enduring Value Watershed management provides the ability to genera te enduring value from the integration of ecology and community interests. The melding of interest s reduces or eliminates competition for resources, provides satisfying outcomes to many people, and yi elds 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 sc ale 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 ge nerations 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 ca ses, the actions will include physical projects to alter watershed conditions and in other cases the actions w ill be limited to programs that simply influence watershed use.

Currently, costs are incurred for me asuring various features in the environment, planning projects, and building the projects. Incorporating ecological functio ns 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 le vee failures and lowered maintenance costs.

Some activities that may result in new costs (rather th an simply redirecting existing expenditures) include watershed monitoring and assessmen t, support for watershed coordina tors, increased restoration work,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 ease ments or other forms of fee-titled adjustments, and extended periods of time in pl anning 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. Theref ore, statewide Assessment and Planning = 2.5 x CALFED values from Draft CALFED Finance Plan.

2 The service area for Public Process estima ted as 25% of statewide need. Therefore, statewide Public Process = 4 x CALFED values.

3 For Projects, CALFED service area is esti mated 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 manage ment, 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 i ssues of fairness and inclusiveness can arise. Science and Understanding There is not a readily available source for finding key eco logical 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.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 d esigning and implementing responses to findings that suggest the watershed is not bei ng 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 Pr omote Additional Watershed Management

1. State, federal, local, public and private interests s hould develop new means to collectively reinvest in sustaining watershed ecological and social health. Pa rticular attention should be paid to developing means for urban areas to reinvest in sustaining the quality of rural watershe ds 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 wate r 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 integr ated 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 undert aken 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 in itiatives 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 stewar dship groups. Attention should be paid to improving the use of stewardship group pro cesses to help in achieving agency program responsibilities. 7. Watershed management efforts shoul d design and implement, supported w ith State, federal, and local resources, adaptive management programs that include monitoring, assessment, and processes for defining project redesign and re-operations that br ing management efforts more in line with local ecological functions. 8. Fish and wildlife resource managers should be en couraged to develop management plans on an ecosystem or watershed basis as opposed to what is often species-specific.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 strate gies are currently limited in their capacity to strategically address long-term regional water planning n eeds. In some cases, su ch 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 w ithin 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 retiremen t for water transfer and for solving drainage and drainage-related problems is discussed in land retirement strategy later in this sec tion. Crop idling, with the intent of soil and crop management and for so il 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 e xpected 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, willi ng farmers sell long-term agricultural production easements to the federal government. The WRP may r esult 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.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 dur ing this period can be tr ansferred 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 ge nerally 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 w ildlife. 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 cost s 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 develo pment, administration, and mitigation of local and regional socioeconomic impacts.

Major Issues Facing Crop Idling Willing Participant The land retirement occurs on a willing particip ant 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 isCalifornia 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, groundwat er, surface waters, cultural resources, recreation, biological including human health, dust and air qualit y. In addition, communities that serve agricultural activities inherently have high percentage of low inco me 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 stru cture to satisfy the agency policy requirements and avoid conflicts. 2. The land purchase price has to be fair and costs associ ated 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 ma y achieve similar objectives, alternatives to permanent retirement to achieve the same objec tives 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 pr oductivity, and high tr ace element contents. 4. The lead agency must evaluate the growth impact s 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.htmlPublic 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 humidificati on-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 th e energy released from dew formation. Heat sources can be combustible fuel, solar or waste heat. The towe r unit is built of thin plastic films to avoid corrosion and to minimize equipment costs. Towers are relativ ely inexpensive since they operate at atmospheric
pressure. Dewvaporation in California The technology of dewvaporation is still being develo ped. 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 ar e 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, su ch as physical structures or nets to induce and collect precipitation. Fog Collection in California Precipitation enhancement in the form of fog collectio n 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.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 do mestic 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 mete rs of collection net, about 3 liters per day per square meter of net. Because of its relatively sm all 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 la bor 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.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 rem oval of farmland from irrigated agriculture. The permanent land retirement is perpetual cessation of irrigation of la nds 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 associ ated 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 area s 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, reduc ing 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, ad ministration, 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 causesCalifornia 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 re fuse. It can affect the water rights issues and alter resources such as soils, groundwater, surface waters, cu ltural resources, recreation, biological including human health, dust and air quality. In addition, comm unities 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 coordi nation structure to satisfy the agency policy requirements and avoid conflicts. 2. The land purchase price has to be fair and costs associ ated 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 ma y achieve similar objectives, alternatives to permanent retirement to achieve the same objec tives should be considered in developing the land retirement programs. Also, facilitate local water ag ency 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 pr oductivity, and high tr ace element contents. 4. The lead agency must evaluate th e growth inducement impacts of the program and ensure that the urban area receiving the water made available by la nd retirement has exhausted means of reasonable water conservation, it doesn’t induce growth, a nd 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.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 retiremen t including impacts from reduced agricultural production inputs and reduced farm income, inco me 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 inco mes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of envir onmental 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.orgCalifornia 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 th e 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, wi nter crops directly use rain water with the help of more irrigation water during the latter part of th e winter season, if needed. These areas provide a relatively high return from the high value winter cr ops such as vegetables in the Costal areas. Other important agricultural production sectors that are depende nt on rainfall are pastoral areas, rangelands, and rolling hills in the state. These areas produce significan t 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 th eir water management prac tices. In addition, DWR’s water balance calculations for each region account fo r the portion of crop water requirements provided directly by rainfall.

As demonstrated in the figure on the previous page, ap plied water and rainfall even ts are closely related. More rainfall, particularly during early growing season, provides a significant quantity of effective rainfall for crop consumptive use. The figure shows th e 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 pe rcent of the total crop consumptive use. In 1978 and 1993, two wet years with early season rainfall, e ffective rainfall amounted to 27 and 21 percentPublic 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 ex amples 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 pos t harvest/ pre-planting soil management for winter crops such as wheat. Many winter wheat growers ar e 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 impr ove 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 re duces 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 improv ed 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 additiona l or minimal cost. Cost of research, development, demonstration, education, and training and dissemin ation 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 unquantif iable 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 Improvement s 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, th is strategy does not provide water supply benefits on a real time basis. For example, improvements in so il 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 wate r 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 providin g financial resources to the State’s research and development institutions to devel op new and improved varieties. In addition, develop research andCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 26. Other Resource Management Strategies

26-11 

### demonstration of innovative wate r 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 de velopment institutions can benefit this important aspect of rainfed agriculture. 3. Develop new and innovative tec hnologies, management, and efficient water management practices for rainfed agriculture, particularly winter wheat. 4. Provide technical and financial assistance to impl ement technologies, and management practices for rainfed agriculture. 5. Develop and promote new and in novative activities and management practices for intensive and managed grazing. 6. Maximize, collect, and store runoff from rainfed agri culture and develop cooperative efforts to link runoff from rainfed agriculture and water banking and conjunctive use activities and groundwater recharge. 7. Disseminate practical information throu gh 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 asso ciations 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 asse ssment/judgment of DWR’s staff and othersPublic 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 diverti ng water in areas that have unallocated fresh water supplies, storing the water in large inflatable bladde rs, and towing to an alternate coastal region. Fresh water is lighter than seawater, which makes the bags fl oat 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 Die go 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 wa ter purchase cost, facility costs for diverting and offloading water, environmental mitigation, administrative co sts, 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 be ing 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).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 th e time of writing 

# California Water Plan Update 2005 References

-----General plans. Vari ous 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 Regist ry. 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. S acramento: 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 Civ il Engineers. 2003. Progress Report for America's Infrastructure. http://www.asce.org/re portcard/index.cfm

. [ASCE] American Society of Ci vil Engineers. 2003. Atmospheric Water Resources Management. http://www.asce.org/pressroom/ne ws/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 el ements of Colorado River water deal. Association of Groundwater Agen cies. 2000. Groundwater and Surface Water in Southern California. Awwa Research Foundation. 1999. Residential End Uses of Water (Project #241A). Beach D. 2002. Coastal Spra wl: 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 Ju rgens, Tyler Johnson. 2003. Framework for a GroundWater Quality Monitoring and Assessment Program fo r 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, Califor nia, 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 Assessmen t. 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.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies References References

Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) we re accurate at th e time of writing 

### 27- 2 Bryant D. 2002. Salinas Valley Survey Sets Nitrat e 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 Stat e 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 Programma tic 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 : fi nal programmatic EIS/EIR te chnical 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/AboutCal fed/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. Se awater 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. Pu blic 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 St ate Park System Plan 2002: Initiatives for Action. 56 p. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2003. Pu blic 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.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 th e 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, Ca lifornia 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 Dresse r & McKee, Larry Walker Associates, Uribe and Associates, Resource Planning Associates. California Stormwater Quality Task Force. 1993. Califor nia 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 For ce. 2003. Water Recycling 2030: Reco mmendations of California's Recycled Water Task Force. Sacramento: Califor nia Department of Water Resources. http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/recycle/docs/TaskForceReport.htm

. Camp Dresser & McKee. 1999. Description of Existing I nvestigations 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. Californi a 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/A nnualReport2003/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 Hea lth Services. California's Drinking Wa ter Source Assessment and Protection (DWSAP) Program. http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/dwsap/DWSAPindex.htm

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

Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) we re accurate at th e 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 Do minant Contaminants. http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/chemi cals/monitoring/results94-02.htm

. [CDHS] California Department of Health Services. Specific Contaminants of Cu rrent 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/c hemicals/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. Ch romium-6 in Drinking Water: Background Information. [CDHS] California Department of Health Services. 200 3. 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. Fu ture 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.repor t.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.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 th e 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. Californi a's Annual Population Growth Exceeds Half a Million For Fifth Year. http://www.dof.ca.gov/HT ML/DEMOGRAP/e-1press.doc . May 6. [DOF] California Department of Finance. 2005. Californi a Population Tops 36.5 Million in 2004, Adds Nearly 600,000 According to New State De mographic 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 Me tropolitan Water District of Southern California. 1998. Salinity Management Study. Dowall David E, Jan Whittington. 2003. Making Room for the Future: Rebuild ing 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 Enviro nmental Planning. San Fran cisco: 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. Ca laveras 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 Wa ter 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. Wa ter for California: The California Water Plan Outlook in 1970. Bulletin 160-70. 170 p. Dec. [DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1974. Th e 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.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies References References

Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) we re accurate at th e 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 th rough 2002. Public Water Systems Statistics Survey Forms. [DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1983. The California Water Plan: Pr ojected 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, No rthern 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 Re sources. 1993. Water Recycling Survey. [DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1994. Ca lifornia Water Plan Update 1993. Bulletin 160-93. Oct. [DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Cent ral District. 1995. Ameri can 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.w ater.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. Ca lifornia's Groundwater Update 2003. Bulletin 118. Oct. Availability: http://www.groundwater.water.ca.gov/bulletin118/

.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 th e 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 an d 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/de sal/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, Offi ce 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/newsre leases/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 Investiga tions 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 Econom ic 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.