California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1—Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

(Volume 4 - Reference Guide contents continued)

Global Climate Change 

• Climate Change and California Water Resources: A Survey and Summary of 

the Literature 

(by Michael Kiparsky and Peter H. Gleick, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, 

Environment, and Security) 

• Accounting For Climate Change 

(by Maurice Roos, DWR) 

Hydrology 

• California River Indices 

• Frequency of a 100 Year Flood 

• Major Floods Since 1950 

• Severity of Extreme Droughts in Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley 

Infrastructure 

• California’s Major Water Projects 

• California Reservoirs 

• CALFED Bay-Delta Surface Storage Investigations Progress Report, April 2005. 

(by DWR, USBR, and California Bay-Delta Authority) 

• Hydropower Projects Relicensing 

Landscape Water Use 

• Urban Landscape Evapotranspiration 

(by Richard L. Snyder, University of California, Atmospheric Science, Davis, 

California, and Simon Eching, DWR) 

• Vegetative Assessment in an Urban Environment 

(by Alan Walters, Agricast) 

Legislation 

• Recent Water Legislation 

(by DWR Legislative Affairs Office staff) 

• Water Bonds 

• Water Plan Legislation 

• Work Plan for Meeting Legal Requirements for the California Water Plan 

Litigation 

• Joint Statement on the Monterey Amendments Litigation 

(by DWR, Central Coast Water Authority, State Water Contractors, Planning and 

Conservation League, Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 

and the Citizens' Planning Association of Santa Barbara County) 

• Summary of Significant Litigation 1998-2005 

(by DWR, Office of Chief Counsel) 

xx

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1—Strategic Plan 

(Volume 4 - Reference Guide contents continued) 

Planning 

• Addressing California's Uncertain Water Future by Coordinating Long-Term Land Use 

and Water Planning: Is a Water Element in the General Plan the Next Step? 

(by Ryan Waterman). Originally published in Ecology Law Quarterly, Vol 31:1 p.117, 

(c) 2004 by the Regents of the University of California. 

• Customer & Stake Holders Survey for CWP Update 2003 

• Financing Strategies and Guidelines for Funding Water Resource Projects 

(by David Kracman, Schlumberger Water Services) 

• Financing Strategies and Guidelines for Funding Water Resource Projects 

(by David Kracman, Schlumberger Water Services) 

• Future Food Production and Consumption in California Under Alternative Scenarios 

(by Henrich Brunke, Richard Howitt and Daniel Sumner, University of California 

Agricultural Issues Center) 

• Future Scenarios Presented in Water Plan Update 2005 

• Involving Stakeholders in Irrigation and Drainage District Decisions: Who, What, 

When, Where, Why, How 

(by Lisa Beutler, Center for Collaborative Policy) 

• Planning For Extreme and Prolonged Drought Conditions 

• Planning Framework for Water Plan Update 

• Strategic Planning Guidelines 

Tribal Consultation 

• Interim Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Supplement to General Plan Guidelines 

(by Governor’s Office of Planning and Research) 

Water Quality 

• California Nonpoint Source Encyclopedia 

(prepared for State Water Resources Control Board by Tetra Tech, Inc.) 

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/nps/encyclopedia.htm

• Californians Without Safe Water 

(by Monique Wilber) 

• California Water Quality in 2004 

(written and edited by John Andrew, DWR) 

Glossary 

References 

 xxi 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1—Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Volume 5 Technical Guide (online) http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/

xxii

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 1 Introduction 

Contents 

Chapter 1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................1-1

Changing the Water Plan........................................................................................................................1-1

New Process ...........................................................................................................................................1-2

New Features..........................................................................................................................................1-3

Strategic Planning Document .............................................................................................................1-3

Water Portfolios..................................................................................................................................1-3

Regional Reports ................................................................................................................................1-4

Future Scenarios .................................................................................................................................1-4

Resource Management Strategies.......................................................................................................1-4

Phased Work Plan and Schedule............................................................................................................1-5

Organization of California Water Plan Update 2005.............................................................................1-5

Water Plan Update 2005 Highlights ..................................................................................................1-6

Volume 1 Strategic Plan .....................................................................................................................1-6

Volume 2 Resource Management Strategies......................................................................................1-6

Volume 3 Regional Reports................................................................................................................1-7

Volume 4 Reference Guide (The Encyclopedia Water Plan) .............................................................1-7

Volume 5 Technical Guide (Online Documentation).........................................................................1-7

Boxes (where cited in text) 

Box 1-1 Updates of the California Water Plan (Bulletin 160 series)........................................................1-1

Box 1-2 Legal Requirements for California Water Plan...........................................................................1-2

Box 1-3 Strategic Plan: Components as Used for the Water Plan ............................................................1-3

Box 1-4 Water Management Objectives...................................................................................................1-4

Box 1-5 Analytical Changes .....................................................................................................................1-4

Boxes1

Box 1-1 Updates of the California Water Plan (Bulletin 160 series)........................................................1-8

Box 1-2 Legal Requirements for California Water Plan.........................................................................1-10

Box 1-3 Strategic Plan: Components as Used for the Water Plan ..........................................................1-12

Box 1-4 Water Management Objectives.................................................................................................1-13

Box 1-5 Analytical Changes ...................................................................................................................1-15

 

1

 Find boxes at end of this chapter. They are placed in order of appearance in text. 

 1-i

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 1 Introduction

1-ii

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 1 

Introduction 

About This Chapter 

Chapter 1 Introduction outlines the process under which California Water Plan Update 2005 was 

prepared and its new features, which will become the cornerstone of future updates. It also explains 

the organization of all five volumes of Update 2005 and its Highlights brochure. 

• Changing the Water Plan 

• New Process 

• New Features 

• Phased Work Plan and Schedule 

• Organization of Water Plan Update 2005

Changing the Water Plan 

The California Water Plan and its updates have been important sources of information for water planners 

since 1957 (see Box 1-1 Updates of the California Water Plan). As a master plan, it guides the orderly and 

coordinated control, protection, conservation, development, management, and efficient use of the water 

resources of the state (Water Code, § 10005(a)). Periodically, the California Department of Water 

Resources (DWR) has updated the water plan with revised estimates of future water demands and the 

delivery capability of existing and planned facilities. The difference between those estimates of water 

demand and supply is sometimes called “the gap.” 

Box 1-1 Updates of the California Water Plan (Bulletin 160 series) 

Over the past 40 years, California water management has changed significantly. State and federal projects 

have not expanded as originally expected; in fact, deliveries have been reduced in recognition of 

environmental needs. In response, regional water planning has begun to integrate multiple water and 

resource management activities to meet a wide range of local objectives. Water agencies, local 

governments, and the Legislature need a water plan that promotes and supports integrated regional water 

management and helps State government meet its responsibilities for improving statewide water 

management systems. 

California Water Plan Update 2005 addresses our changing water management and better reflects the 

roles of the State and federal governments and the growing role of regional and local agencies in 

California water management. It goes beyond trying to forecast and quantify a simple “gap” between 

statewide supply and demand. It is a roadmap for meeting the state’s water demands through the year 

2030. Update 2005 charts a Framework for Action that will help us sustain our water resource use and 

manage our supplies to ensure that water is available where and when it is needed. Its new features 

include a strategic plan with vision, goals, recommendations and implementation plan, an analytical 

approach with extended information and tools, use of water portfolios, regional reports, future scenarios, 

and resource management strategies. 

 1-1

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 1 Introduction

In preparing this update, DWR sought the participation of California's water communities, responded to 

new State laws, and developed a new framework to planning California's water future. The result of this 

new and expanded public process is a water plan that includes the very best ideas for meeting our water 

challenges. 

Box 1-2 Legal Requirements for California Water Plan 

By statute the California Water Plan cannot mandate actions nor authorize spending for its 

recommendations. California Water Plan Update 2005 makes neither project-specific nor site-specific 

recommendations; therefore, it does not include environmental review and documentation as required by 

the California Environmental Quality Act. Consequently, policy-makers and lawmakers must take further 

action to adopt the recommendations in this water plan and develop funding methods to help in their 

implementation. This underscores the need to have broad public participation and support for the water 

plan in order to have its recommendations realized. 

New Process 

This update recognizes the vital importance of working with key stakeholders to define issues, identify 

potential management responses, and evaluate planning steps. Since January 2001 DWR has worked with 

a 65-member advisory committee, a 350-member extended review forum, and 2,000 interested members 

of the public. The advisory committee is composed of representatives of agriculture, urban water districts, 

businesses, environmentalists, American Indians, environmental justice advocacy, cities, counties, federal 

and State agencies, the California Bay-Delta Authority, academia, and different regions of California. 

DWR sought a broadly informed and consensus-seeking process. Using large group meetings held 

roughly every six weeks for three years, more frequent smaller work groups and workshops, and many 

public briefings. Advisory committee members provided the Department with substantial suggestions and 

recommendations on all aspects of this update. 

As part of their membership obligations, advisory committee members periodically briefed their 

constituencies on key developments. Members relayed comments received during these briefings to 

DWR. The briefing process helped ensure two-way communication between members and their 

organizations. In addition, briefings formally expanded the dialogue beyond the advisory committee into 

a wider audience of potential users of California Water Plan Update 2005. Public outreach and 

involvement during the preparation of the plan are described in Volume 4 Reference Guide articles 

“Planning Framework for Water Plan Update” and “Customer and Stake Holders Survey.” 

The Internet provided another principal venue for advisory committee work. DWR used e-government 

technology to set up Web pages and electronic surveys, and used e-mail correspondence and 

teleconferencing whenever possible. DWR posted meeting agendas, materials, and highlights, including 

draft copies of the water plan update, for all to see. DWR also posted data, assumptions, and 

documentation on the public Web site for use by advisory committee members and other interested 

parties. 

1-2

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 1 Introduction

To create a fair, open and transparent process, the California State University Sacramento, Center for 

Collaborative Policy provided impartial third party facilitation and mediation design, implementation, and 

refinement for the consensus-seeking process. The center ensured advisory committee members’ interests, 

views, and opinions were thoughtfully considered and advisory committee activities were governed by its 

own operating guidelines. 

This new process is one of the significant accomplishments of this water plan. The principles of a fair, 

open, and transparent process should serve as the cornerstone for future updates because they 

(1) considerably expand public involvement and access to the State’s water planning process; (2) seek 

collaborative recommendations that are stronger, have greater longevity, and are more likely to be 

adopted by the Governor’s Office, Legislature, State, federal and local agencies and governments, and 

resource managers; and (3) produce a strategic plan with a vision, mission, goals, recommendations, and 

implementation plan. 

New Features 

Following are some significant accomplishments of California Water Plan Update 2005 that provide 

California’s water leaders with useful tools and can serve as the cornerstone for future updates. 

Strategic Planning Document 

The water plan has become a strategic planning document that describes the role of State government and 

the growing role of California’s regions in managing the state’s water resources. Considerable public 

involvement has brought strong recommendations to this strategic plan. 

Box 1-3 Strategic Plan: Components as Used for the Water Plan 

Water Portfolios 

State and regional water portfolios cover the entire hydrologic cycle and water quality conditions 

consisting of more than 80 categories of water use, supply, and management. Actual data are used for 

3 recent but different water years—1998 (wet); 2000 (average), and 2001 (driest since extended drought 

when preparing this update). Water portfolios include flow diagrams, flow diagram tables, water 

balances, water quality reports, and summary table and charts and identify data gaps. (See Volume 3 

Regional Reports, Chapter 1 State Summary for more information about the water portfolio concept.) 

 1-3

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 1 Introduction

Regional Reports 

In compliance with SB 672 (Stats. 2001, ch. 320), a regional report has been prepared for each of the 

10 hydrologic regions, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, and the Mountain Counties overlay area. 

Each report includes the region’s major challenges, current programs and projects, and water portfolio. 

Future Scenarios 

To acknowledge that we don’t know with great certainty what will happen in the distant future, this water 

plan update has three plausible yet very different scenarios for 2030, rather than just a single “likely 

future” condition. Each scenario describes a different base condition for 2030, to which the water 

community would need to respond by implementing various management strategies. The scenarios are 

created by varying assumptions about important factors that affect water use and supplies, but the water 

community has little control like population growth, development patterns, crop markets, industrial 

productivity, and environmental regulations. The three future scenarios developed for Update 2005 are 

Current Trends, Less Resource Intensive, and More Resource Intensive. 

Resource Management Strategies 

This water plan update describes a broad and diverse set of 25 resource management strategies. They are 

available to regions for stronger integrated regional water management to meet future demands and 

sustain the environment, resources, and economy, involve communities in decision-making, and meet 

various goals. A resource management strategy is a project, program or policy that helps local agencies 

and governments manage their water and related resources (see Volume 2 Resource Management 

Strategies). For example, urban water use efficiency is a strategy to reduce urban water use. A pricing 

policy or incentive for customers to reduce water use also is a strategy. New water storage to improve 

water supply, reliability, and quality is another strategy. Each region chooses an appropriate mix of 

strategies based on its own water management objectives and goals (See Box 1-4 Water Management 

Objectives). 

Box 1-4 Water Management Objectives 

To implement these new features, DWR has made, and needs to make, significant analytical changes as 

summarized in Box 1-5 Analytical Changes. 

Box 1-5 Analytical Changes 

1-4

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 1 Introduction

Phased Work Plan and Schedule 

DWR will meet Water Code requirements under a phased work plan and develop analytical tools and 

acquire data for the next update, California Water Plan Update 2010. (See Box 1-2 Legal Requirements 

for California Water Plan and Volume 4 Reference Guide article “Work Plan for Meeting Legal 

Requirements for the California Water Plan.”) The new, additional data and studies will help regional and 

local agencies in integrated water resource management. 

• Phase 1: Distribution of the public review draft of this five-volume publication marks the end of the 

first phase. This water plan update is based on the best available data and information and input 

from an active and diverse advisory committee. Update 2005 recommends policy and priorities, 

documents gaps in data and analytical tools, and describes an approach for future quantitative 

analysis. 

• Phase 2: This phase began in 2004 and provides a final California Water Plan Update 2005 with 

revised policy recommendations based on broad public input and numerous public hearings. Phase 2 

also documents the data, analytical tools, methods, and assumptions DWR will use in Phase 3. 

• Phase 3: Phase 3 begins in 2006 when DWR initiates the process for California Water Plan Update 

2010 with participation of a broad public advisory committee. DWR will begin to quantify and 

evaluate 3 future scenarios and alternative management responses using the data and tools identified 

in Phase 2. A water flow diagram will present evaluation results for wet and dry year conditions, 

and a California Department of Food and Agriculture food forecast will be used to estimate future 

irrigated crop water use for one future scenario. 

As part of an ongoing strategic planning process, DWR will present Phase 3 evaluations to the public as 

they become available. And as a strategic plan, the findings, recommendations, and the implementation 

plan of California Water Plan Update 2005 will be reviewed and revised periodically. DWR will publish 

five other water plan updates during this plan’s 2030 planning horizon. 

Organization of California Water Plan Update 2005

California Water Plan Update 2005 is organized in five volumes: (1) The Strategic Plan, (2) Resource 

Management Strategies, (3) Regional Reports, (4) Reference Guide, and (5) Technical Guide. It includes 

recently compiled water data, information, and studies used to develop the strategic plan. It identifies the 

most pressing water management issues and challenges affecting the state and its regions. It describes 

short-term and long-term actions that can be implemented at the state and regional level. It considers 

future uncertainties, scenarios, and their water demands; and describes a comprehensive set of resource 

management strategies and an approach for improving data and analytical tools needed to make better 

water management and planning decisions. All the volumes plus the brochure “Water Plan Update 

Highlights” and supporting data and information are available on the water plan Web site 

(http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov). 

 1-5

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 1 Introduction

Water Plan Update 2005 Highlights 

This colorful brochure highlights key findings and recommendations of the water plan update and 

describes foundational actions that must be central to California water management to assure sustainable 

water resource use. It discusses the initiatives needed to achieve the foundational actions to stimulate 

progress toward assuring that our water supplies are reliable through 2030. It also notes a number of 

essential support activities needed to accomplish the foundational actions and initiatives. 

Volume 1 Strategic Plan 

Chapter 1 (Introduction). This chapter outlines the public process that figures significantly in this 

California Water Plan Update 2005. This process will become the standard for future water plan updates. 

It also discusses new features of this water plan update and describes the organization of the multi-volume 

water plan update. 

Chapter 2 (A Framework for Action). This chapter lays out State government’s role in supporting regions 

through leadership, assistance, and oversight as they assume a central role in California water 

management. The water plan’s strategic plan with vision, mission, goals, and recommendations is 

described here. It identifies foundational actions, key initiatives, and near-term actions that will stimulate 

progress toward meeting our water challenges while building a future that assures sustainable and reliable 

water supply. The near-term actions are part of the implementation plan in Chapter 5. 

Chapter 3 (California Water Today). This chapter reviews California water conditions, challenges, and 

responses since the previous water plan update. Challenges from regional reports are summarized here 

and detailed in Volume 3 Regional Reports. 

Chapter 4 (Preparing for an Uncertain Future). This chapter examines a new planning and analytical 

approach for addressing future uncertainties; has discussion of significant factors affecting future 

conditions; and describes a partial implementation of the new analytical approach, including three future 

scenarios. 

Chapter 5 (Implementation Plan). For the first time, the water plan includes proposals for carrying out its 

recommendations. Chapter 5 lists the 14 recommendations of the strategic plan and for each one includes 

specific near-term and comprehensive long-term actions, resources assumptions, implementation 

challenges, and performance measures. This implementation plan will focus State leadership and guide 

State and regional actions in managing California’s water resources through 2030. 

Volume 2 Resource Management Strategies 

Volume 2 includes narratives for 25 resource management strategies (presented alphabetically). As used 

in this water plan, a resource management strategy is a project, program, or policy that helps California’s 

local agencies and governments manage their water and related resources. Strategies can be combined in 

various ways to meet the water management objectives and values of different regions and to achieve 

benefits for many natural resources. The volume’s introduction gives an overview of the 25 resource 

management strategies and describes how each strategy narrative is organized. Each scenario narrative 

includes recommendations to facilitate its implementation. 

1-6

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 1 Introduction

Volume 3 Regional Reports 

Volume 3 includes regional reports for the state’s 10 hydrologic regions, the Delta, and a Mountain 

Counties overlay area, as well as a state summary. Each report includes a discussion of the region: key 

challenges; ongoing programs; and water portfolio data and information on water supplies and uses for 

water years 1998, 2000, and 2001. 

Volume 4 Reference Guide (The Encyclopedia Water Plan) 

Volume 4 includes general reference information on California water resources and infrastructure from 

prior water plan updates and articles prepared for, or related to, this water plan that support material in 

volumes 1, 2 or 3. In past water plans, this information was interspersed throughout the document. DWR 

has consolidated this reference material in the Reference Guide to make it more accessible and to 

streamline Volume 1. The articles are organized by topic and presented alphabetically by title. The 

Reference Guide will be updated periodically on the water plan Web site 

(http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov). 

Volume 5 Technical Guide (Online Documentation) 

Volume 5 documents the data, analytical tools, and methods used to prepare Update 2005. The Technical 

Guide is organized and formatted as a Web site to document the data, analytical tools, and methods used 

to prepare California Water Plan Update 2005. (For link to Volume 5, go to 

http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov.) 

 1-7

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 1 Introduction

Box 1-1 Updates of the California Water Plan (Bulletin 160 series) 

The California Water Plan is the State’s strategic plan for managing and developing water resources 

statewide. Since its first California Water Plan, published as Bulletin No. 3 in 1957, the Department of 

Water Resources has prepared 7 water plan updates, known as the Bulletin 160 series. The Water Code 

now requires the water plan to be updated every five years. For fuller descriptions, see Volume 4 

Reference Guide article “A Look Back at Past California Water Plans.” 

Bulletin No. 3 described a comprehensive master plan for the control, protection, conservation, 

distribution, and use of the waters of California to meet present and future needs for all beneficial uses in 

all areas of the state to the maximum feasible extent. The plan was intended to indicate the general 

manner in which California's water resources should be developed to satisfy its potential ultimate water 

requirements with emphasis on statewide water projects. 

Statewide planning studies to update the California Water Plan have continued since 1961. Each update 

took a distinct approach to water resources planning, reflecting issues or concerns at the time of its 

publication. 

Implementation of the California Water Plan (1966). The first of the Bulletin 160 series, Bulletin 160-66, 

proposed a pattern for implementation of specific parts of the California Water Plan as set forth by the 

California Water Code. Water policy concerns included flood control and floodplain management, power 

demands, water-related recreation, the relationship of fish and wildlife to water development, and water 

quality. 

Water for California: The California Water Plan; Outlook in 1970. By 1967 the growth rate of 

California's population had slowed from that of the 1950s; population projections for 1990 and 2020 were 

reduced. Irrigated acreage estimates were also reduced, and more accurate information on the 

consumptive use of crops and the extent of water reuse was available. With projects then under 

construction or authorized, the report concluded that sufficient water supplies would be available to meet 

most of the 1990 requirements. The trend toward increasing environmental awareness was noted at both 

the national and state levels. 

The California Water Plan: Outlook in 1974. This report concluded that the status of available supplies 

was favorable based on the premise that the Auburn, New Melones, and Warm Springs reservoirs and the 

Peripheral Canal would be operational by 1980. The report was less conclusive about the extent to which 

supplies would satisfy future needs, considering new California legislation for wild and scenic rivers. The 

update included a detailed section on water quality control (or basin) planning written by staff at the State 

Water Resources Control Board as well as water demand estimates for alternative futures for California 

population growth and agricultural acreage. Key water policy issues were cooling water for electric 

energy production, water deficiencies (risk), water exchanges, public interest in agricultural drainage (San 

Joaquin Drain), water use efficiency (water conservation), economic efficiency (water transfers), and 

wastewater reclamation. 

The California Water Plan: Projected Use and Available Water Supplies to 2010 (1983). More of a 

technical report than previous editions, part of the process included the development of agricultural 

models applied for the first time. These were used in assessing the general economic effects of increasing 

1-8

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 1 Introduction

water and energy costs. The report quantified the effect of urban and agricultural water conservation 

measures and the potential for water reclamation as a means of reducing additional water supply needs. 

This water plan update included a detailed statewide water flow diagram titled “Hydrologic Balance 

Network for California 1980.” 

California Water: Looking to the Future (1987). Bulletin 160-87 took a broad view of water events and 

issues in California. The report also discussed several leading water management concerns including 

water quality, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and a wide range of evolving water policies. One of its 

main conclusions was that in roughly three out of four years, California's water resources, including rights 

to the Colorado River, were sufficient to meet all of its water needs for the foreseeable future. 

California Water Plan Update: Bulletin 160-93 (1994). This report discussed how population growth, 

land use, and water allocations for the environment were affecting water resource management. It differed 

from the five previous water plan updates by (1) estimating environmental water needs separately and 

accounting for these needs along with urban and agricultural water demands, (2) presenting water demand 

management methods as additional means of meeting water needs, and (3) presenting separate water 

balance scenarios for average and drought conditions. This was the first of the Bulletin 160 series to 

incorporate an advisory committee of representatives of interested parties. 

The California Water Plan Update: Bulletin 160-98 (1998). The 1998 update evaluated water 

management options that could improve California's water supply reliability. Water management options 

being planned by local agencies were used as the building blocks to evaluate future water conditions for 

each of the state's 10 hydrologic regions. Potential local options were integrated with options of a 

statewide scope to create a statewide evaluation. 

 1-9

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 1 Introduction

Box 1-2 Legal Requirements for California Water Plan 

At a minimum, California Water Plan Update 2005 must meet requirements specified in the Water Code 

about its purpose, content, and process. The advisory committee, extended review forum, and public may 

suggest additions to the water plan update that do not conflict with the Water Code. For details see 

Volume 4 Reference Guide article “Work Plan for Meeting Legal Requirements for the California Water 

Plan.” 

Purpose 

The following excerpts from the Water Code and other legislation address the purpose of the California 

Water Plan and its updates: 

• A long-term, reliable supply of water is essential to protect and enhance California’s natural resources 

and economic climate. (Stats 2000, ch. 720, § 1(a)) 

• The plan for the orderly and coordinated control, protection, conservation, development, management 

and efficient utilization of the water resources of the State, which is set forth and described in Bulletin 

No. 1 of the State Water Resources Board entitled “Water Resources of California,” Bulletin No. 2 of 

the State Water Resources Board titled, “Utilization and Requirements of California,” and Bulletin 

No. 3 of the Department of Water Resources (DWR) titled, “The California Water Plan,” with any 

necessary amendments, supplements, and additions to the plan shall be known as “The California 

Water Plan.” (Water Code, § 10004(a)) 

• ... The California Water Plan ... is accepted as the master plan which guides the orderly and 

coordinated control, protection, conservation, development, management and efficient utilization of 

the water resources of the state. (Water Code, § 10005(a)) 

• The California Water Plan “does not constitute approval for the construction of specific projects or 

routes for transfer of water or for financial assistance by the state without further legislative action, 

nor shall [The California Water Plan] be construed as a prohibition of the development of the water 

resources of the state by any entity.”(Water Code § 10005(b)). 

Content 

The following excerpts from the Water Code and other legislation address the content of the California 

Water Plan and its updates: 

• Without credible and accurate estimates of water supply needs, it is impossible to ensure that water 

programs, policies, and investments are appropriate to meet all residential, commercial, industrial, 

agricultural, and environmental needs (Stats 2000, ch. 720, § 1(c)) 

• ... to ensure the state makes appropriate investments in water programs, policies, and facilities, there 

needs to be a credible and objective assessment of the state’s future water supply needs. 

(Stats 2000, ch. 720, § 1(e)) 

• As part of the requirement of the department to update The California Water Plan ... the department 

shall include in the plan a discussion of various strategies that may be pursued to meet the State’s 

future water needs, including, but not limited to, those relating to the development of new water 

storage facilities, water conservation, water recycling, desalinization, conjunctive use, and water 

transfers that may be pursued to meet the future water needs of the state. The department shall also 

include a discussion of the potential for alternative water pricing policies to change current and 

projected uses. (Water Code § 10004.5) 

1-10

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 1 Introduction

• The department shall include in the plan a discussion of the potential advantages and disadvantages of 

each strategy and an identification of all federal and state permits, approvals, or entitlements that are 

anticipated to be required in order to implement the various components of the strategy. 

(Water Code, § 10004.5) 

Recently Enacted Legislation∗

SB 1062 (Stats 1999, ch. 210) - The California Water Plan 

Requires DWR to include in water plan updates various strategies for meeting the state's water supply 

needs. The update must identify all federal and State permits, approvals or entitlements that may be 

required in order to implement the strategies. It also establishes an advisory committee to help DWR 

update the plan. 

SB 1341 (Stats 2000, ch. 720) - State Water Plan 

Requires DWR to release a preliminary draft of the water plan’s assumptions and estimates and 

restructures Water Code section 10004 relevant to the California Water Plan. 

SB 672 (Stats 2001, ch. 320) - Regional Planning & Water Plan Update 

Requires that the California Water Plan include a report on each hydrologic region’s development of 

regional and local water projects to improve water supplies to meet municipal, agricultural, and 

environmental water demands and minimize the need to import water from other hydrologic regions. It 

also requires urban water suppliers describe in their urban water management plans the management tools 

and options they use to maximize resources and minimize the need to import water from other regions. 

SB 1672 (Stat. 2002, ch. 767) - Integrated Regional Water Management Planning

Authorizes local public agencies to form regional water management groups and adopt regional plans to 

address “qualified programs or projects.” This bill requires DWR and other departments to give 

preference to “qualified programs or projects” when establishing criteria for funding under various 

programs. 

AB 857 (Stats 2002, ch. 1016) - State Strategic Planning 

Establishes three specific planning priorities for State strategic plans: 

• To promote infill development and equity by rehabilitating, maintaining, and improving existing 

infrastructure, particularly in underserved areas, and to preserving cultural and historic resources. 

• To protect, preserve, and enhance environmental and agricultural resources, including working 

landscapes (farm, range, and forest lands), natural lands (wetlands, watersheds, wildlife habitats, and 

other wildlands), recreation lands (parks, trails, greenbelts), and other open space. 

• To encourage efficient development patterns. 

AB 2587 (Stats 2002, ch. 615) – Food: Water Usage Forecasts 

Requires the Department of Food and Agriculture to estimate production of food, fiber, livestock, and 

other farm products and to provide that information to the DWR for estimating related water usage 

reported in Bulletin 160. 

 

∗

 For more information and legislation, see Volume 4 Reference Guide article “Recent Water Legislation.” 

 1-11

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 1 Introduction

Box 1-3 Strategic Plan: Components as Used for the Water Plan 

Internal/External Assessments - Analysis and evaluation of key data and factors that influence the 

success of achieving the water plan’s goals. In developing the water plan, the Department of Water 

Resources consulted with the Legislature and solicited and considered the views and suggestions of 

entities, such as water users, suppliers, and other stakeholders, potentially affected by or interested in the 

water plan. 

Vision - A compelling and succinct statement of the desired future for California water resources and 

management. A vision statement crystallizes what the water plan visualizes California water to be in the 

future. It is not bound by time, represents global and continuing services, and serves as a foundation for 

future water planning. 

Mission - The water plan’s unique purpose and overarching reason for existence is described in statute. 

The mission statement succinctly identifies what the water plan should do and why and for whom it does 

it. 

Goals - The desired results of the water plan and general ends toward which State government directs its 

efforts. Goals address the primary water issues facing California within broad groupings of interrelated 

state concerns. The goals are founded on the statewide vision and may involve coordination among 

several agencies with similar functions. 

Objectives – The specific and measurable targets for accomplishing a goal. The recommendations of this 

water plan represent objectives. They mark interim steps toward achieving the plan’s long-term mission 

and goals and emphasize the intended results of actions at a specific time. 

Action Plan - A description of the key activities to implement each objective and the entities best 

positioned to play a key role in implementation. Action plans break objectives into manageable parts 

including near-term, high-priority actions and long-term comprehensive actions, resource assumptions, 

implementation challenges, and performance measures for tracking progress. 

Performance Measures - The methods used to ensure accountability to measure work performed and 

results achieved. They describe what is to be measured and methods of measurement. The measures may 

be short term, intermediate, and/or long term. In contrast, evaluation criteria represent the technical 

information used by policy-makers, water managers, and the public to compare how well proposed 

scenarios and resource management strategies would meet desired water management objectives. The 

criteria include parameters like the cost of implementing different resource strategies, environmental 

benefits, water reliability, and water quality improvements. 

1-12

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 1 Introduction

Box 1-4 Water Management Objectives 

Several of the goals and recommendations of this water plan relate to the water management objectives 

described here and shown in the strategy summary table in Volume 2 Resource Management Strategies. 

Local managing entities use water management objectives to identify and focus on the most important 

issues in meeting their resource needs. These objectives support the goal of a sustainable supply for the 

beneficial uses of water in their particular area. There is no fixed set of management objectives for any 

given planning area. Management objectives may range from being entirely qualitative to strictly 

quantitative. Threshold values associated with management objectives may be locally determined. For 

example, in establishing a management objective for groundwater quality, one area may simply choose to 

establish an average value of total dissolved solids as the indicator of whether a management objective is 

met, and another may choose to have no constituents exceeding the maximum contaminant level for 

public drinking water standards. 

Integrate and optimize management strategies–Improve the ability of resource planners and managers 

to optimally mix and match the maximum number of resource management strategies in their regional 

plans. 

Reduce uncertainty to minimize risk–Reduce the uncertainty and risks associated with water planning 

and management decisions because of data gaps, insufficient analytical capabilities, incomplete scientific 

understanding, short- and long-term climate variations, and unpredictable events. 

Provide water supply benefits–Reduce water demands, improve operational efficiency, redistribute 

water, and/or augment water supplies. 

Improve drought preparedness–Reduce the economic, environmental, and social impacts of drought on 

regions including activities that increase water conservation, reduce dry year demand, increase surface 

water or groundwater storage, allow short-term transfers of surplus water, or increase reuse of water. 

Improve water quality–Improve water quality by matching water quality to its use or by using treatment 

technology. Other water management strategies, such as storage, conveyance, and water use efficiency, 

may also benefit water quality. Water quality is also improved by preventing or reducing pollution, 

agricultural drainage, and urban runoff. 

Improve system flexibility and efficiency–Link water management facilities in a way that increases 

beneficial use and reuse of water overall. For example, additional interconnection among neighboring 

water districts can help short-term water transfers during dry years and reduce the impacts of drought. 

Reduce flood impacts–Reduce flood damage to life and property by minimizing flow impacts to 

developed land, maintaining or restoring natural floodplain processes, removing obstacles within the 

floodplain voluntarily or with compensation, educating the public about avoiding flood risks and planning 

for emergencies, developing policies for appropriate land use in undeveloped floodplains. 

Provide environmental benefits–Protect, restore, or enhance the environment. This may include 

instream flow and timing changes, temperature management, habitat restoration, physical modification to 

water bodies, reduction of diversion impacts to fisheries (for example, fish screens), control of waste 

discharge in waterways, exotic species control, removal of barriers to anadromous fish migration, land 

and water acquisitions, and fire management. 

Increase energy generation or reduce use–Generate additional energy supplies or reduce the 

consumption of energy. 

 1-13

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 1 Introduction

Increase recreation opportunities–Provide or enhance recreational opportunities in freshwater bodies, 

such as lakes, reservoirs, and rivers, and outdoor recreation activities near water, such as wildlife viewing, 

picnicking, camping, and hiking. 

Reduce groundwater overdraft–Reduce the condition in which over the long term the amount of 

groundwater withdrawn by pumping exceeds the amount of water that recharges the basin. Groundwater 

overdraft is characterized by groundwater levels that decline over a period of years and never fully 

recover, even in wet years.

1-14

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 1 Introduction

Box 1-5 Analytical Changes 

Water portfolios 

The water portfolios and water balances in this water plan update include actual data for a recent dry 

water year—2001. Planning for drought conditions, that is, extreme and prolonged dry years, is 

significant for water resources planners, managers, and decision-makers. A drought cannot be described 

by using actual data for a single water year. Previous water plans considered drought conditions by using 

trend-based data from a sequence of dry years. 

Regional reports 

It is important to note that estimates of future statewide average-year water demands, however small or 

large, do not adequately characterize the challenges facing California water. Increases in water demand 

must be addressed at regional and local scales because available supplies in one part of the state cannot 

necessarily be used to meet rising demands in another part. As local demands increase, more severe local 

water shortages could occur than in recent experience during drier water years. Moreover, the challenges 

of flood management, protecting water quality, and managing water systems to help restore the 

environment will all require California’s water managers to develop strong water plans that go well 

beyond just meeting water demand increases in average-years. 

Future scenarios 

Rather than use the prior method for forecasting future water conditions, the Department of Water 

Resources (DWR) with advisory committee input decided to initiate a phased work plan to develop the 

data and analytical tools that can be used to analyze multiple future scenarios and alternative mixes of 

resource management strategies. Consequently, California Water Plan Update 2005 does not include 

quantified water balances for future conditions with a shortage analysis as presented in prior updates. 

Until this quantification occurs, the narratives for three future scenarios and the preliminary scenario 

water demand estimates cannot be compared to forecasts of shortage from previous updates because of 

significant differences in the method and level of analysis. 

Resource management strategies

In this update, the estimates of potential water supply benefits for the resource management strategies 

(summarized in Strategy Summary Table in Volume 2) are quantified on a statewide basis. Therefore, 

they cannot be used to evaluate local shortages. For example, water supply benefits achieved in an area 

that does not have a water shortage may not contribute to reducing a shortage elsewhere. However, the 

supply benefit may serve other useful purposes in the area it occurs. DWR plans to work with regional 

and local partners to develop the necessary data and analytical tools to allow future phases of the 

California Water Plan update to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of a variety of management 

responses for a number of plausible scenarios. 

 1-15

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 1 Introduction

1-16

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

Contents 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action ..........................................................................................................2-1

Sustaining Our Water Resources...........................................................................................................2-2

Fundamental Lessons ........................................................................................................................2-2

Foundational Actions ........................................................................................................................2-3

Use Water Efficiently ...................................................................................................................2-3

Protect Water Quality ...................................................................................................................2-4

Support Environmental Stewardship ............................................................................................2-4

Ensuring Reliable Water Supplies.........................................................................................................2-5

Initiative 1 Promote and Implement Integrated Regional Water Management.................................2-5

Foster Regional Partnerships ........................................................................................................2-6

Develop and Implement Integrated Regional Water Management Plans .....................................2-6

Diversify Regional Water Portfolios ............................................................................................2-7

Near-term Actions to Implement Initiative 1................................................................................2-7

Initiative 2 Maintain and Improve Statewide Water Management Systems .....................................2-8

Maintain Aging Facilities .............................................................................................................2-9

Implement the CALFED Program ................................................................................................2-9

Improve Flood Management.......................................................................................................2-10

Sustain the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.................................................................................2-10

Near-term Actions to Implement Initiative 2..............................................................................2-11

Performing Essential Support Activities .............................................................................................2-12

Provide State Government Leadership and Develop Funding Methods .........................................2-12

Invest in New Water Technology....................................................................................................2-13

Ensure Equitable Decisions.............................................................................................................2-15

Looking to the Future ..........................................................................................................................2-16

Figure (placed in text) 

Figure 2-1 A Framework for Action.........................................................................................................2-2

Boxes (where cited in text) 

Box 2-1 The Strategic Plan: Vision, Mission, Goals, and Recommendations..........................................2-1

Box 2-2 Public Trust Responsibilities of State Agencies .........................................................................2-4

Box 2-3 Integrated Resource Planning, the Basis for Regional Water Management ...............................2-6

Box 2-4 Elements of Integrated Regional Water Management ................................................................2-6

Box 2-5 Delta Improvements Package....................................................................................................2-11

Box 2-6 Benefit-based Approach for Financing .....................................................................................2-13

Box 2-7 Case Study of State Investment in Research and Development................................................2-14

Box 2-8 Consideration of All Competing Needs ....................................................................................2-15

 2-i 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

Boxes1

Box 2-1 The Strategic Plan: Vision, Mission, Goals, and Recommendations........................................2-17

Box 2-2 Public Trust Responsibilities of State Agencies .......................................................................2-19

Box 2-3 Integrated Resource Planning, the Basis for Regional Water Management .............................2-21

Box 2-4 Elements of Integrated Regional Water Management ..............................................................2-24

Box 2-5 Delta Improvements Package....................................................................................................2-25

Box 2-6 Benefits-based Approach for Financing....................................................................................2-26

Box 2-7 Case Study of State Investment in Research and Development................................................2-27

Box 2-8 Consideration of All Competing Needs ....................................................................................2-28

 

1

 Find boxes at end of this chapter. They are placed in order of appearance in text. 

2-ii 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

Chapter 2 

A Framework for Action 

About This Chapter 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action describes the role of State government in supporting regional water 

management and improving statewide water management systems. It lays out the foundational 

actions that must be done as part of sustainable water resource management, and it explains key 

initiatives that will stimulate progress and assure that Californians have enough water through 2030. 

The near-term actions listed under each initiative are part of the implementation plan outlined in 

Chapter 5.

• Sustaining Our Water Resources 

• Ensuring Reliable Water Supplies 

• Performing Essential Support Activities 

• Looking to the Future

California can contend with its water resources challenges. However, we must take action now and be 

prepared to make significant investments. In facing these challenges, we must apply the fundamental 

lessons of recent decades. Notable among those lessons, and a primary theme of California Water Plan 

Update 2005, is that our policies, decisions, and actions must lead to long-term, sustainable water 

resource use that enhances our environment, our economy, and our communities. With creativity, 

flexibility, discipline, and innovation we can use our groundwater and surface water resources wisely, in 

ways that sustain their viability, expand the economy, protect the environment, and assure Californians a 

high quality of life. The framework outlined in this chapter sets forth the policies and actions for 

sustaining our water resources and ensuring reliable supplies. 

As a strategic document, California Water Plan Update 2005 can guide us toward meeting statewide and 

regional water challenges through 2030. It is the first water plan update to include a strategic plan with a 

vision, mission, recommendations, and implementation plan (See Box 2-1 The Strategic Plan: Vision, 

Mission, Goals, and Recommendations). 

Box 2-1 The Strategic Plan: Vision, Mission, Goals, and Recommendations 

 2-1 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

The water plan provides a Framework for Action, or roadmap, that lays out the role of State government 

and the water community to ensure that California has sustainable water use and reliable water supply in 

2030 for all beneficial uses - the vision of Update 2005 (See Figure 2-1 A Framework for Action.). 

The framework identifies three foundational actions—use water efficiently, protect water quality, and 

support environmental stewardship—that must be central to California water management to ensure 

sustainability of our water uses. The framework also describes two key initiatives—implement integrated 

regional water management and improve statewide water management systems—to ensure reliability of 

our water supplies. The initiatives outline the ways to achieve the foundational actions. This update also 

identifies a number of support activities which are essential to all the foundational actions and initiatives. 

The Framework for Action is intended to stimulate progress toward meeting California’s water challenges 

while building a future that assures water resources are available for future generations. 

Figure 2-1 A Framework for Action 

Sustaining Our Water Resources 

Fundamental Lessons 

The Framework for Action embodies the following fundamental lessons, learned by California’s water 

community through the experience of recent decades. 

• The practice of water conservation and recycling in California has grown dramatically and must 

continue as a fundamental strategy for all regions and individual water users in California. The 

cumulative effect of each decision to use water more efficiently has an enormous impact on 

future water supplies and water quality. 

• California must protect the quality of its water and use available supplies with great efficiency 

because water will always be a precious resource. 

2-2 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

• Science and technology are providing new insights into threats to our watersheds, including our 

waterways and groundwater basins. California must use this knowledge to take protective actions 

and manage water in ways that protect and restore the environment. 

• Sustainable development and water use foster a strong economy, protect public health and the 

environment, and enhance our quality of life. Sustainable development relies on the full 

consideration of social, economic, and environmental issues in policy- and decision-making. 

Sustainable water use assures that we develop and manage our water and related resources in a 

way that meets the needs of the present while protecting our environment and assuring the ability 

to meet the needs of the future. 

• Solutions to California’s water management issues are best planned and carried out on a regional 

basis. Hydrological, demographic, geopolitical, socioeconomic, and other differences among 

California’s regions demand that the mix of water management strategies be suited to meet each 

region’s needs for the long term. 

• California needs additional groundwater and surface water storage capacity. Storage gives water 

managers tremendous flexibility to meet multiple needs and provide vital reserves in drier years. 

Foundational Actions 

To ensure that our water resource use is sustainable, water management at all levels – State, federal, 

regional, and local - must achieve these three foundational actions: 

1. Use water efficiently 

2. Protect water quality 

3. Support environmental stewardship 

A number of resource management strategies that can be used to accomplish the foundational actions are 

listed in the following sections and described in more detail in Volume 2 Resource Management 

Strategies. 

Use Water Efficiently 

To minimize the impacts of water management on California’s natural environment and ensure that our 

state continues to have the water supplies it needs, Californians must use water efficiently to get 

maximum utility from existing supplies. Californians are already leaders in water use efficiency measures 

such as conservation and recycling. Because competition for California’s limited water resources is 

growing, we must continue these efforts and be innovative in our pursuit of efficiency. Water use 

efficiency will continue to be a primary way that we meet increased demand. 

In the future, we must broaden our definition of efficient water use to include other ways of getting the 

most utility out of our groundwater and surface water resources and water management systems: 

• Increase levels of urban and agricultural water use efficiency 

• Increase recycled municipal water and expand its uses 

• Reoperate water facilities to improve their operation and efficiency 

• Facilitate environmentally, economically, and socially sound transfers to avoid regional shortages 

• Reduce and eliminate groundwater overdraft 

 2-3 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

As California’s population grows from 36.5 million to a projected 48 million in 2030, there is bound to be 

an effect on California’s environment. By wringing every bit of utility from every drop of water, 

Californians can stretch water supplies and help ensure continued economic and environmental health. 

Protect Water Quality 

California must also protect and improve water quality to safeguard public and environmental health and 

secure the state’s water supplies for their intended uses. Water supply and water quality are inseparable in 

water management. While implementing projects to reduce water demand or to augment supply, water 

managers must employ methods and strategies that protect and improve water quality: 

• Protect surface waters and aquifers from contamination 

• Explore new treatment technologies for drinking water and groundwater remediation 

• Match water quality to its intended uses 

• Improve management of urban and agricultural runoff 

• Improve watershed management 

Support Environmental Stewardship 

To ensure sustainability, California must also manage water in ways that protect and restore the 

environment. Water is a vital natural resource for people and the environment, so water management 

activities must occur in the context of resource management and environmental protection. Water 

development in California has a rich history of conflict, at times pitting water supply projects against 

ecosystem protection. Water supplies and the environment must both be considered together. 

Water managers must support environmental stewardship as part of their management responsibilities. As 

managers develop and deliver reliable water supplies, environmental stewardship can be incorporated in 

many ways: 

• Integrate ecosystem restoration with water planning and land use planning 

• Restore and maintain the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems 

• Minimize the alteration of ecosystems by water management actions 

• Improve watershed management 

• Protect public trust resources (See Box 2-2) 

• Integrate flood management with water supply management 

Box 2-2 Public Trust Responsibilities of State Agencies 

Water management activities will often have unavoidable environmental consequences: When water is 

removed from the natural environment for other beneficial uses, the environment is affected. In carrying 

out water management activities, Californians must acknowledge these environmental costs and ensure 

that restoration actions are carried out to maintain and improve environmental health. 

2-4 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

Ensuring Reliable Water Supplies 

Two key initiatives in the California Water Plan Update 2005 outline the ways we will achieve the 

foundational actions. The initiatives will ensure that our water supplies are reliable - that Californians 

have enough clean and affordable water through the year 2030. As part of the Framework for Action, 

State, federal, regional, and local agencies and governments must work cooperatively on these two critical 

initiatives: 

1. Promote and implement integrated regional water management 

2. Maintain and improve statewide water management systems 

The following sections describe each initiative, outline State government’s role in promoting them, and 

identify specific actions that should be completed before the next water plan update in 2010. 

Initiative 1 Promote and Implement Integrated Regional Water Management 

Promote and implement integrated regional water management to ensure sustainable water resource use, 

better water quality, environmental stewardship, efficient urban development, protection of agriculture, 

and a strong economy. 

The first initiative is to continue recent progress in implementing integrated regional water management. 

This is an approach that will help communities and regions incorporate the three foundational actions into 

their water management efforts. Actions to use water efficiently, protect water quality, and restore the 

environment will be most successful when they are part of an integrated regional program. 

This initiative includes the following elements: 

• Foster regional partnerships 

• Develop and implement integrated regional water management plans 

• Diversify regional water portfolios 

Over the past 50 years, California has met much of its increasing water demands with interregional 

projects. Although these State, federal, and local projects now serve as the backbone of California water 

management, by themselves they cannot provide for our growing population, changing agricultural 

production patterns, and environmental needs. However, regional partnerships can efficiently solve water 

management problems, consider multiple resource issues, and account for the distinct regional hydrology, 

infrastructure, and political institutions. 

With State government leadership, assistance and oversight, regional water planning and management 

will help meet water needs through 2030. Integrated regional water management relies on a diversified 

portfolio of water strategies. The resulting regional plans can provide efficient solutions, consider other 

resource issues, and enjoy broad public support. 

 2-5 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

Foster Regional Partnerships 

The physical and institutional realities within California do not allow for a one-size-fits-all approach to 

water management and planning. The California Water Plan serves as a critical tool for coordinating 

water planning and management throughout the state, but integrated resource planning must be applied on 

a regional level to develop integrated regional water management plans that contain the mix of resource 

management strategies best suited for each region’s particular conditions and goals. 

Regions have opportunities not available to individual water suppliers. Water suppliers that form 

partnerships with other entities in their region can accomplish projects and provide benefits that no single 

agency could do alone. For example, partnerships may allow agencies to improve their water supply 

reliability by establishing emergency connections with neighboring water suppliers; increase operational 

flexibility by participating in regional groundwater management and conjunctive use; protect water 

quality by participating in regional watershed management; reduce costs by cooperating with other 

agencies on water conservation and outreach programs; facilitate new projects by contributing to local 

habitat conservation plans; and help achieve many other regional resource management objectives. 

Partnerships can lead to integrated regional water management plans and regional eligibility for certain 

grant funds. Integrated regional water management relies on a diversified portfolio of water strategies. 

Early coordination with land planning agencies may help water suppliers and land planners anticipate and 

plan for future growth, and ensure that additional regional growth will not exceed water suppliers’ 

capabilities. Ultimately, regional partnerships will enable optimum management of water and other 

resources within a region, and the resulting regional plans can provide efficient solutions, consider other 

resource issues, and enjoy broad public support. 

Develop and Implement Integrated Regional Water Management Plans 

To quote the great American naturalist John Muir, “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it 

hitched to everything else in the Universe." This concept is the premise of integrated resource planning, 

the basis for integrated regional water management (see Box 2-3 Integrated Resource Planning, the Basis 

for Regional Water Management). The approach requires that we become better systems thinkers and take 

into account how resource management practices and land use changes affect the long-term reliability and 

quality of water supplies. Our perspective should be broad—include economic growth, environmental 

quality, and social equity. Given the projected population increases and strain that new development can 

impose on ecosystems, an integrated, systemwide approach is the best approach to protect the 

environment and manage urban growth. California must implement integrated regional water 

management for sustainable and reliable water use, environmental stewardship, and efficient urban 

development. (See Box 2-4 Elements of Integrated Regional Water Management). 

Box 2-3 Integrated Resource Planning, the Basis for Regional Water Management 

Box 2-4 Elements of Integrated Regional Water Management 

California is placing more emphasis on integrated regional water management. With this inclusive 

systems approach, local agencies and governments can be more flexible and act more efficiently. This 

approach makes better use of existing local resources. It integrates multiple aspects of managing water 

2-6 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

and related resources such as water quality, local and imported water supplies, watershed protection, 

wastewater treatment and recycling, and protection of local ecosystems. 

The principles of integrated regional water management have a broad and long-term perspective. By 

applying the principles, regions develop plans that have multiple benefits. As an example, in some areas 

of the state, agricultural users have developed projects that simultaneously conserve water, reduce 

contaminants, preserve the agricultural economy, and improve aquatic habitat. 

State government must help cities, counties, local water agencies, and private utilities to prepare useful 

integrated regional water management plans. State government should develop incentives to promote and 

support integrated regional water management. With the State's technical assistance and partnership, local 

and regional agencies and governments can apply balanced portfolios of water resource management 

strategies to help meet their water demands, and put into effect existing legislation and State policies that 

improve coordination between water and land use planning. 

Diversify Regional Water Portfolios 

Every region of California must build a balanced water portfolio that increases water use efficiency and 

maximizes our return on investment in sound water management policies. Every time water is wasted, 

money and a precious resource go down the drain. Continued investment in our existing facilities and 

carefully planned new water developments will provide the strong foundation to meet future needs. But 

Californians also must promote water conservation and recycling, enhance groundwater storage, provide 

adequate supplies of water for the environment, and support innovative water technologies such as 

desalination to reduce the impacts of droughts, support a vibrant economy, and meet future water 

demands for all beneficial uses. 

California’s regions cannot meet all of their water objectives with a single strategy. Volume 2 of this 

water plan update describes 25 resource management strategies. These strategies are like individual tools 

in a tool kit. Just as the mix of tools in a tool kit will vary depending on the job, the combination of 

strategies varies from region to region depending on the individual situations surrounding water supply 

and use, climate, projected growth, and environmental and social conditions. A diverse portfolio of water 

management strategies is essential to provide the flexibility needed to cope with changing and uncertain 

future conditions. 

Near-term Actions to Implement Initiative 1 

State government is responsible for ensuring that regional projects and initiatives protect the public trust 

and the environment, evaluating the interaction of water supply between regions, and evaluating the 

adequacy of statewide water supplies for all beneficial uses. To ensure that state water planning and 

future decisions about water use and urban development are in line with the State’s sustainable 

development goals, State and local governments and agencies should carry out the following near-term 

actions: 

• Regional efforts should incorporate integrated water management to meet multiple water 

management objectives consistent with the principles advanced in this water plan. 

• The degree and nature of the need for more groundwater and surface water storage varies from 

region to region; therefore, DWR will work with regional entities to evaluate the best ways to 

 2-7 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

meet their groundwater and surface storage needs and the possible means of sharing storage 

capacity among regions. 

• Local governments and agencies should improve coordination between land use planning and 

water planning and management to ensure that new infrastructure has adequate water supply and 

that land uses are protective of water quality. 

• State government should give preference to applicants of Proposition 50, Chapter 82

 grants who 

have plans that apply DWR and State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) grant program 

guidelines.3

 

• DWR will adapt its existing programs and develop new ones to give incentives and technical 

assistance to regional and local agencies and governments to prepare comprehensive, integrated 

water management plans that include actions to protect public trust resources and promote 

efficient, beneficial water use. 

• DWR will develop guidelines for technical and financial assistance and templates for integrated 

regional water management plans, urban and agricultural water management plans, and drought 

contingency plans. 

• DWR will facilitate the next phases of this water plan update, use the water plan update process 

as a forum to identify and resolve conflicts between regional plans, and integrate the water plan 

into a future State strategic planning process. 

Initiative 2 Maintain and Improve Statewide Water Management Systems 

Maintain and improve statewide water management systems to provide reliable water supplies, improve 

drought and flood management, and sustain the Delta. 

The second initiative is to maintain and improve statewide water management systems. California 

depends on vast statewide water management systems to provide clean and reliable water supplies, 

protect lives and property from flood, withstand drought, and sustain environmental values. These water 

management systems include physical facilities and statewide water management programs. 

Facilities - the backbone of water management in California – include over 1,200 State, federal, and local 

reservoirs, as well as canals, treatment plants, and levees. Systems are often interconnected. The operation 

of one system can depend on the smooth operation of another. The successful operation of the complete 

system can be vulnerable if any parts fail. 

This initiative also includes statewide water management programs which contribute to better operation 

of water systems. These programs include water quality standards, monitoring programs, economic 

incentives, water pricing policies, and statewide water efficiency programs such as appliance standards, 

labeling, and education. These statewide water management programs help meet major State government 

responsibilities for statewide water planning and ecosystem restoration. The State needs to continue 

 

2

 Proposition 50: Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002, Chapter 8 

"Integrated Regional Water Management." 

3

 DWR. 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 

2-8 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

providing technical assistance to efforts involving interregional, inter-state, or international issues, and to 

efforts resulting in broad public benefits, such as protecting and restoring the Delta, Salton Sea, Mono 

Lake, Klamath basin, and Lake Tahoe. 

This initiative includes the following actions by State, federal, and local agencies and governments: 

• Maintain aging facilities 

• Implement the CALFED Program 

• Improve flood management 

• Sustain the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 

Maintain Aging Facilities 

California must rehabilitate and maintain its aging water facilities, especially those that provide drinking 

water, sewage treatment, water delivery, and flood control. These are operated by State, federal, and local 

entities. Aging facilities risk public safety, water supply reliability, and water quality. The State Water 

Project is over 30 years old; the federal Central Valley Project is over 50 years old. Some local facilities 

were constructed nearly a century ago. These and other aging facilities must be rehabilitated and carefully 

maintained to protect public investment and ensure that our water management systems continue to 

provide intended services. 

The maintenance and rehabilitation of California’s water facilities as they age will be costly. In addition, 

these facilities will face many challenges, such as changing water demands and use patterns, withstanding 

catastrophic natural events like earthquakes and floods, and adapting to the potential impacts of global 

climate change. 

By maintaining, rehabilitating, and expanding our water facilities, we improve the efficiency and 

flexibility of our water management systems. Improvements may include new water storage, additional 

conveyance capacity, and refinements in the way water systems are operated. These improvements are 

intended to increase reliability and flexibility in the system, improving our ability to deal with the 

uncertainty of a highly variable water supply. 

Implement the CALFED Program 

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is intended to develop and implement a long-term comprehensive plan 

that will restore ecological health and improve water management for beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta 

System. The program significantly reduced conflicts over Delta operations through better agency 

coordination and implementation of comprehensive resource management solutions. 

The CALFED program proposes actions to improve and increase aquatic and terrestrial habitats and 

improve ecological functions in the Bay-Delta, reduce the mismatch between Bay-Delta water supplies 

and current and projected beneficial uses, provide good water quality for all beneficial uses, and reduce 

the risk to land use and associated economic activities, water supply, infrastructure, and the ecosystem 

from catastrophic breaching of Delta levees. 

State government must provide leadership for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. This will continue our 

progress toward meeting CALFED objectives of improved water supply reliability, good water quality, 

ecosystem restoration, and levee system integrity. 

 2-9 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

Improve Flood Management 

The need for adequate flood management is more critical now than ever before. While the flood 

protection system—constructed over the past 100 years—continues to age, budget shortfalls have meant 

the deferral of maintenance. In addition, new knowledge of levee instability factors, changing rainfall 

patterns, and increased development in floodplains has combined with the above trends to put the State’s 

financial stability and the safety of its people at risk. California needs aggressive investment in the State’s 

flood management system and a change in the way we think about flood management. 

Compounding these challenges are recent court rulings. Appellate court decisions have exposed the State 

and local agencies to enormous liability for failing to investigate the condition of flood control facilities 

that were made a part of a larger system, and for failing to challenge environmental constraints on 

maintenance activities. 

It has become clear that a new approach to flood management is needed. Flood management in the 

Central Valley needs an approach that will achieve both short-term and long-term solutions. This 

approach should include a set of strategies that involve policy changes, program reforms, and funding 

proposals to better protect California from the devastating consequences and economic impacts caused by 

floods. These strategies include: improved maintenance, system rehabilitation, better emergency response, 

sustainable funding for flood management programs, better flood mapping, and public education. 

Legislative and constitutional actions may include stronger flood insurance requirements, a Central 

Valley flood control assessment district, and a reduction in taxpayer exposure for funding flood disaster 

claims. 

Flood management cannot occur in isolation; whenever possible it must be integrated with other 

objectives such as ecosystem restoration, farmland protection, and other multi-objective management of 

floodplains. 

Sustain the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the hub of California water management and aquatic ecosystems. 

Public and private entities carry out myriad activities to maintain the benefits that California derives from 

this great estuary: the State Water Resources Control Board sets water quality standards; federal, State, 

and private entities preserve land as habitat; farmers till 500,000 productive acres. 

The common denominator among all these pursuits is the Delta levee system. These levees protect water 

supplies needed for the environment, agriculture, and urban uses. Delta levees also protect roadways, 

cities, towns, agricultural lands, as well as terrestrial and aquatic habitat. The CALFED Delta levee 

program is intended to reduce the risk to land use and associated economic activities, water supply, 

infrastructure, and the ecosystem from catastrophic breaching of these levees. 

Despite their importance, there are many factors that make it quite challenging to sustain the Delta levees 

and the benefits they protect. Subsidence of Delta islands continues to occur where peat soils oxidize, 

increasing the pressure on levees that protect the islands. A catastrophic earthquake in or near the Delta 

might cause multiple levee failures that would draw seawater into the Delta, rendering the water unfit for 

irrigation or human consumption until levees were repaired and seawater was flushed from the Delta. 

Climate change is causing sea levels to rise and may also increase the magnitude of floods. Maintenance 

and improvement of Delta levees is costly, and available funds have not kept pace with needs. Levee 

2-10 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

failures are extremely costly to repair, further burdening the ability to fund adequate maintenance and 

rehabilitation. 

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, like the Central Valley flood control system, needs an approach that 

will achieve both short-term and long-term solutions. This approach should maintain the services and 

values we get from the Delta and should be sustainable over the long term. DWR has initiated a multiyear 

study to assess ongoing and future risks to the Delta, identify consequences of levee failures, and evaluate 

alternative risk reduction strategies, and develop a plan for future action. 

Near-term Actions to Implement Initiative 2 

In addition to maintaining and strengthening water facilities, we must make better use of it by improving 

the efficiency and flexibility of water project operations and by fostering water conservation practices in 

all regions of the State. Improving the efficiency and flexibility of our operations will provide more 

reliable supplies for agricultural, ecosystem, and urban demands and drought management. Water 

conservation must play a key role in this process because conservation practices increase efficiencies, are 

generally cost-effective, and reduce overall demands on facilities. Increasing operational flexibility will 

also be important, especially with the SWP and CVP. Projects that increase operational flexibility, such as 

the SWP-CVP intertie planned as part of the Delta Improvements Package, can provide water managers 

with a wider range of options to meet water supply reliability needs (see Box 2-5 Delta Improvements 

Package). During critically dry periods, a Water Transfers Dry Year Program4

 similar to earlier programs 

could also add flexibility and help optimize water infrastructure operations. 

Box 2-5 Delta Improvements Package 

As efficiency increases and water is made available for longer-term use, additional groundwater and 

surface water storage will be needed in some regions for operational flexibility. However, not all regions 

will need more storage facilities because existing storage capacities and available water supplies vary 

from region to region. Water storage needs should be considered from a more local perspective in 

integrated regional water management plans to more accurately account for regional conditions. 

Improvements for more efficiency and flexibility in statewide water management systems include new, 

suitably located physical facilities, operational commitments, and special water transfer programs. 

• DWR will develop and administer a Dry Year Water Transfer Program when needed to meet 

critical water needs during shortages while protecting regions with available supplies. 

• DWR, in cooperation with regional partners and the California Bay-Delta Authority (CBDA), 

will continue its role in implementing the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Plan to address 

ecosystem, water quality, water supply reliability, and levee system integrity in the San Francisco 

Bay-Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta by carrying out the following: 

 DWR, in cooperation with CBDA and other State and federal agencies, will implement 

actions in the Delta Improvements Package. 

 DWR, in cooperation with the CBDA and other State and federal agencies, will continue to 

evaluate and, if feasible, implement a long-term Environmental Water Account. 

 

4 http://www.watertransfers.water.ca.gov/water_pgms/water_pgms_index.cfm

 2-11 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

 DWR, in cooperation with the regional partners, will complete feasibility studies of 

additional storage infrastructure in the CALFED Record of Decision. 

• DWR will develop and carry out a comprehensive flood management plan. DWR has prepared a 

White Paper that addresses the need for an aggressive investment in the State’s flood 

management system (DWR 2005). 

• DWR will help resolve long-standing water quality issues in the state, such as Delta salinity, 

dissolved oxygen in the San Joaquin River near Stockton, salinity at Vernalis, and restoration 

flow needs for SJR, Salton Sea, and Klamath River basin. 

• DWR and State agencies should advance water planning and management that restore and protect 

watersheds and assess instream flow demands needed to protect and restore aquatic ecosystems. 

Performing Essential Support Activities 

The foundational actions needed for sustainable water use and the two initiatives for water reliability are 

critical parts of the Framework for Action. Underlying these parts are essential activities that provide 

support for the Framework over the long term. The essential support activities are: 

• Provide State Government Leadership and Develop Funding Methods to provide more effective 

leadership, assistance, and oversight in order to gain efficiency, clarify roles and responsibilities, 

develop funding strategies, and clarify the role of public investments 

• Invest in Promising Technology to capitalize on new water technologies, increase scientific 

understanding, adapt for global climate change impacts, and improve water data management and 

analyses 

• Ensure Equitable Decisions by increasing tribal participation and access to funding and assuring 

water decisions are equitable across all communities 

Provide State Government Leadership and Develop Funding Methods 

California has a large network of complex water systems with a highly decentralized system of 

governance involving State and federal agencies; thousands of local agencies, governments, and private 

firms; and millions of households and farms. The differing roles of various agencies can create 

coordination problems, especially when integrating regional management efforts. 

Moreover, legal mandates often prevent State agencies responsible for managing natural resources from 

making the tradeoffs needed for comprehensive, regional solutions to water management problems. 

Competing or conflicting agency mandates often complicate coordination of regional efforts. Also, these 

mandates and agency organizational structures can impede communication and cooperation between the 

numerous State agencies and departments responsible for water resource management. State government 

should reform to better meet the needs of Californians and to support local agencies and governments in 

sustainable water management practices, both in coordinating the activities of government agencies and in 

developing better methods for financing water projects. 

2-12 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

To begin to address the maze of roles and jurisdictions governing water management in California, State 

government should lead an effort to examine where the mandates and jurisdictions of State, federal, and 

local governments and agencies managing water resources conflict with or complement each other. 

One of the key problems facing policy-makers is deciding who ultimately should pay for the different 

actions needed to improve California’s water management system. A great deal of debate surrounds the 

State and federal roles in funding local and regional projects, and local, State, and federal governments 

and water agencies all have significant financing and implementation roles. The CALFED Bay-Delta 

Program has advanced a benefit-based approach where costs are repaid in a way that considers what 

groups are receiving the benefits and the relative magnitude of those benefits obtained by each 

beneficiary. A benefits-based approach, used in conjunction with the principles of fairness and 

environmental justice, should serve as a solid foundation for financing water resource projects throughout 

the state. (See Box 2-6 Benefit-based Approach for Financing and also Volume 4 Reference Guide article 

"Financing Strategies and Guidelines for Water Resource Projects.") 

Box 2-6 Benefit-based Approach for Financing 

In order to develop reliable, long-term funding sources for water initiatives in California, State 

government should use alternative financing methods such as revenue bonds, regional partnerships, joint 

powers authority bond pooling arrangements, infrastructure-for-water transfers, and other innovative 

techniques. User fees, suggested under the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, should also be considered as a 

potential long-term funding source. While general obligation bonds will continue to have a place in water 

project financing, new methods that follow a benefit-based approach broaden the portfolio of funding 

tools available to the State. 

To meet future governance and funding challenges, the following near-term activities are recommended: 

• State government should continue to provide leadership, assistance, and oversight to protect public 

health and safety, especially with regard to drinking water quality, dam safety, and flood 

management. 

• State government should provide technical assistance for efforts involving interregional, inter-state, 

or international issues or for efforts creating broad public benefits. 

• State government should lead an effort to examine where the mandates and jurisdictions of State, 

federal, and local governments and agencies conflict with or complement each other to streamline 

the roles and jurisdictions governing California water management. 

• State government should use a benefit-based approach to develop long-term, reliable funding 

sources for water projects in a way that accurately characterizes benefits, uses public funds 

responsibly, and follows the principles of equity and environmental justice. 

Invest in New Water Technology 

California must capitalize on promising technologies, increase our scientific understanding, and improve 

data management and analysis to support better business and policy decisions related to water resources. 

To produce and carry out useful integrated water management plans, managers and planners need access 

to promising and affordable water technologies, as well as current, accurate data and reliable analytical 

 2-13 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

tools to evaluate the benefits and risks of planned water management actions. Knowledge from such 

evaluations allows water managers to make better decisions. 

State government should invest in research and development for promising water technologies and those 

that improve our ability to predict the effects of global climate change. State government should also 

encourage pilot projects and focused research incorporating knowledge and experience specific to each 

region (see Box 2-7 Case Study of State Investment in Research and Development). For its part, DWR 

will carry out the following actions in the near-term: 

• DWR will work with California research and academic institutions to identify and prioritize applied 

research projects. 

• DWR will work with other State agencies to invest in a broad and diverse scientific agenda that will 

fill the gaps of knowledge about California’s water resources. 

• DWR will evaluate management responses to potential impacts of global climate change on the 

State Water Project and California’s hydrology. 

Box 2-7 Case Study of State Investment in Research and Development 

Water managers need the data and advanced modeling tools to answer a complex array of questions about 

water use patterns, surface water and groundwater interactions, water quality, and the environmental and 

economic effects of water management decisions. For planning purposes the data and analytical tools 

must help planners predict a range of plausible future conditions and interactions on statewide and 

regional levels; they must enable planners to compare outcomes of various combinations of water 

resource management strategies. To begin tailoring data and analytical tools for use in predicting 

plausible future conditions and interactions on statewide and regional levels, DWR will carry out the 

following actions: 

• DWR with regional input will develop a general checklist of issues, resources, data, and analytical 

tools as well as guidelines to aid regional integrated resource planning. 

• DWR will select and/or develop the analytical tools and data in support of California Water Plan 

Update 2010. 

• DWR will develop the Water Plan Information Exchange (Water PIE) for collecting and sharing 

data and networking existing databases and websites, using GIS software to improve analytical 

capabilities and developing timely surveys of statewide land use, water use, and estimates of future 

implementation of resource management strategies. 

• DWR will participate in efforts by the California Water and Environmental Model Forum to 

develop and carry out a plan for long-term improvement of analytical tools and data for statewide 

planning. 

Because State government is responsible for evaluating the interaction of water supplies between regions, 

it must assess the potential system-wide impacts and tradeoffs of proposed integrated regional water 

resource management plans to help ensure that, taken together, they will protect public trust resources and 

provide for beneficial use of water supplies. To accomplish this, State government should invest in 

cooperative data collection and management for regional integrated water management plans. At a 

2-14 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

minimum, this investment of resources should develop data standards, improve water data management 

systems, and expand and simplify public access to water resource data. 

Ensure Equitable Decisions 

To provide reliable, affordable, good quality water from a diversity of sources and design comprehensive, 

integrated regional water management plans that are likely to succeed, California water planners and 

decision makers must consider all competing needs and develop plans that take into account potential 

impacts on social equity, as well as the environment and the economy. Water management decisions that 

adversely affect disadvantaged communities can incur costs that ripple through broader, regional 

communities and undermine long-term, sustainable water resource use. (see Box 2-8 Consideration of All 

Competing Needs). 

Box 2-8 Consideration of All Competing Needs 

As much as possible, water managers evaluating water management strategies must make decisions that 

promote social equity and environmental justice―the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and 

incomes with respect to the development, funding, and implementation of resource management projects. 

The following actions are recommended to promote equitable water management decisions: 

• DWR and other State agencies should invite, encourage, and assist tribal government 

representatives to participate in statewide, regional, and local water planning processes and access 

State funding for water projects. 

• State agencies should include tribal water concerns and water uses in future water plan updates 

and should engage appropriate local, State, and federal agencies to resolve tribal water issues that 

are identified. 

• DWR and other State agencies should encourage and assist representatives from disadvantaged 

communities and vulnerable populations, and the local agencies and private utilities serving them, 

to participate in statewide, regional, and local water planning processes and to get equal access to 

State funding for water projects. 

 2-15 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

Looking to the Future 

California needs a sustainable and reliable water supply through 2030. Californians can secure this water 

supply for the future by making the right choices and the necessary investments. To ensure that water use 

is sustainable, California groundwater and surface water management must be based on three 

foundational actions: use water efficiently, protect water quality to get maximum utility from existing 

supplies, and manage water in ways that protect and restore the environment. These actions support two 

initiatives that water management must pursue to ensure a reliable water supply: first, promote and 

practice integrated regional water management; and second, maintain and improve statewide water 

management systems, the backbone of water management in California. 

California faces big water management challenges in the future, especially during extended drought 

periods and flood events. Fortunately, there are tools available to cope with these challenges. There are a 

host of strategies that will help ensure successful management of groundwater and surface water and 

related natural resources. Californians need only to marshal the cooperation and dedication to implement 

these strategies. 

In future Water Plan updates, we will refine our ability to measure water use and project the effects of our 

management strategies. For now, California Water Plan Update 2005 provides a guide to make the right 

choices so our state has the water needed for our people, our growing economy, and the environment in 

the years to come. Working together, we can secure our water future for the next generation of 

Californians. 

2-16 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

Box 2-1 The Strategic Plan: Vision, Mission, Goals, and Recommendations 

The Department of Water Resources (DWR) has changed the process for preparing the California Water 

Plan update and the type of information it contains. The water plan has become a strategic planning 

document that describes the role of State government and the growing role of California’s regions in 

managing the state’s water resources. As a strategic planning document, this water plan provides 

California’s water communities with a vision, mission, and goals for meeting challenges of sustainable 

water use through 2030 in the face of uncertainty5

. 

Vision 

The vision statement of Update 2005 describes the desired future for California water resources and 

management and serves as a foundation for water planning during the next 25 years. 

California's water resource management preserves and enhances public health and the standard 

of living for Californians; strengthens economic growth, business vitality, and the agricultural 

industry; and restores and protects California’s unique environmental diversity. 

Mission 

The mission statement of Update 2005 describes the water plan’s unique purpose and its overarching 

reason for existence. It identifies what it should do and why and for whom it does it. 

To develop a strategic plan that guides State, local, and regional entities in planning, developing, 

and managing adequate, reliable, secure, affordable, and sustainable water of suitable quality 

for all beneficial uses. 

Goals 

The following goals are the desired outcome of this water plan over its planning horizon to 2030. The 

goals are founded on the statewide vision. Meeting the goals requires coordination among State, federal, 

and local governments and agencies. 

• State government supports good water planning and management through leadership, oversight, and 

public funding. 

• Regional efforts play a central role in California water planning and management. 

• Water planning and urban development protect, preserve, and enhance environmental and 

agricultural resources. 

• Natural resource and land use planners make informed water management decisions. 

• Water decisions are equitable across all communities.

 

5

 AB 857 (Stats 2000; ch. 1016) establishes three planning priorities and requires that all State strategic plans, 

including the California Water Plan be consistent with them. (See “Coordination of Water and Land Use Planning” 

in Chapter 3 California Water Today.) 

 2-17 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

Recommendations 

California Water Plan Update 2005 provides recommendations for the next 25 years. These 

recommendations are directed at decision-makers throughout the state(referred to as California), the 

executive and legislative branches of State government, and DWR and other State agencies. 

(See Chapter 5 Implementation Plan for details.) 

1. California needs to invest in reliable, high quality, 

sustainable, and affordable water conservation, 

efficient water management, and development of 

water supplies to protect public health, and to 

maintain and improve California’s economy, 

environment, and standard of living. 

2. State government must provide incentives and 

assist regional and local agencies and governments 

and private utilities to prepare integrated resource and 

drought contingency plans on a watershed basis; to 

diversify their regional resource management 

strategies; and to empower them to implement their 

plans. 

3. State government must lead an effort with local 

agencies and governments to inventory, evaluate, 

and propose management strategies to remediate the 

causes and effects of contaminants on surface and 

groundwater quality. 

4. California needs to rehabilitate and maintain its 

aging water infrastructure, especially drinking water 

and sewage treatment facilities, operated by State, 

federal, and local entities. 

5. State government must continue to provide 

leadership for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program to 

ensure continued and balanced progress on greater 

water supply reliability, water quality, ecosystem 

restoration, and levee system integrity. 

6. State government needs to take the lead in water 

planning and management activities that: (a) regions 

cannot accomplish on their own, (b) the State can do 

more efficiently, (c) involve interregional, interstate, or 

international issues, or (d) have broad public benefits. 

7. California needs to define and articulate the 

respective roles, authorities, and responsibilities of 

State, federal, and local agencies and governments 

responsible for water. 

8. California needs to develop broad and realistic 

funding strategies that define the role of public 

investments for water and other water-related 

resource needs over the next quarter century. 

9. State government should invest in research and 

development to help local agencies and governments 

implement promising water technologies more cost 

effectively. 

10. State government should help predict and prepare 

for the effects of global climate change on our water 

resources and water management systems. 

11. DWR and other State agencies should improve 

data, analytical tools, and information management 

needed to prepare, evaluate, and implement regional 

integrated resource plans and programs in 

cooperation with other federal, tribal, local, and 

research entities. 

12. DWR and other State agencies should explicitly 

consider public trust values in the planning and 

allocation of water resources and protect public trust 

uses whenever feasible. 

13. DWR and other State agencies should invite, 

encourage, and assist tribal government 

representatives to participate in statewide, regional, 

and local water planning processes and to access 

State funding for water projects. 

14. DWR and other State agencies should encourage 

and assist representatives from disadvantaged 

communities and vulnerable populations, and the 

local agencies and private utilities serving them, to 

participate in statewide, regional, and local water 

planning processes and to get equal access to State 

funding for water projects. 

2-18 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

Box 2-2 Public Trust Responsibilities of State Agencies 

The Public Trust Doctrine imposes trust responsibilities on State agencies that have authority over trust 

resources (certain types of property of high public value held for the benefit of all citizens) or whose 

activities might affect the resources. Examples of these responsibilities include the following: 

The Department of Fish and Game, under Fish and Game Code section 1802, 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. DFG acts as a permitting agency for streambed alteration permits, reviews 

and comments on environmental documents, participates in water rights hearings to present evidence 

regarding the needs of fish and wildlife, determines instream flow requirements of certain streams, 

implements and enforces the California Endangered Species Act and the Natural Communities 

Conservation Program. 

The Department of Water Resources must consider the public trust in connection with the planning, 

design, construction, and operation of State Water Project (SWP) facilities or other projects in which 

DWR is a participant. Where a project will require a new water rights permit, the State Water Resources 

Control Board will usually make a public trust determination during the course of the water rights 

process. DWR should assist SWRCB by conducting and presenting studies and investigations regarding 

the needs of trust resources. Where DWR is the owner of a dam, Fish and Game Code section 5937 

requires the release or bypass of sufficient water to keep fish in the stream below the dam in good 

condition. 

When acting as a party to a transfer, or when approving use of SWP facilities by others, DWR must take 

the public trust into account. Where SWRCB approval of a transfer is required, SWRCB may take the 

lead in determining what is required to protect the public trust resources. Where SWRCB approval is not 

required, as in the case of transfers of pre-1914 rights, DWR should consider all available information and 

protect public trust uses whenever feasible and reasonable. DWR may put conditions on its participation 

in a transfer, or condition the use of SWP facilities to protect public trust uses or resources. If a transfer 

would cause undue harm to trust resources, DWR may decline to participate, or deny the use of SWP 

facilities. 

DWR also has the obligation to consider the public trust when carrying out its role in water planning, 

including the preparation of this water plan. 

The State Lands Commission, which holds and administers state sovereign lands, including tidelands 

and the beds of navigable streams, must protect the public’s interest in trust uses of those properties. 

The State Water Resources Control Board must consider the public trust when granting water rights 

permits or licenses or approving transfers or other change petitions. SWRCB may fulfill its duty of 

continuous supervision under the Public Trust Doctrine by responding to complaints of violation or 

initiating investigations. If it determines that the trust is being violated, it may reconsider and amend 

existing water rights. 

In acting on permits, transfer petitions, or complaints, SWRCB considers all available information, 

including NEPA or CEQA documents, input from DFG, information or evidence presented by other State 

 2-19 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

agencies or local agencies or other parties, and other evidence regarding appropriate instream flows and 

non-flow conditions necessary to protect trust resources. The balance between the need to use water out 

of the stream and the requirement to protect trust uses will vary with the circumstances of the particular 

diversion. Trust resources must be protected where feasible. 

2-20 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

Box 2-3 Integrated Resource Planning, the Basis for Regional Water Management 

Overview 

Integrated resource planning is a comprehensive approach to resource management and planning that 

emerged in the late 1980s in the electric power industry. As applied to water management, integrated 

resource planning is a systems approach that explores the cause-and-effect relationships affecting water 

resources wherever the planning entity’s operations affect water use, quality, and supply. The process 

analyzes all the interrelated water management components in a given region. The focus is on the 

interrelation of the different water management components with the understanding that changes in the 

management of one component will affect the others. Because these components are often not confined to 

the boundaries of a single water management agency, a consensus-based, cross-jurisdictional, regional 

approach may be required to formulate comprehensive, win-win solutions to identified problems. 

The overriding goals of the process are to ensure reliable, affordable, good quality water from a diversity 

of sources; and design a comprehensive plan that achieves water supply reliability and quality objectives 

but allows planned programs to adapt to changes in environmental, institutional, and socioeconomic 

conditions. By its nature, integrated resource planning is technical and political because a plan for 

managing water resources in any basin affects ecosystems; socioeconomic systems; and water storage, 

treatment, and conveyance systems. Integrated resource planning identifies the appropriate mix of 

demand-side and supply-side management components (for example, urban water conservation, 

agricultural water conservation, water reuse and recycling, water transfers, conjunctive use, expanded 

conveyance flexibility, and new groundwater and surface water storage) that are expected to provide 

long-term, reliable water service and maximize benefits at the lowest reasonable cost. The process is 

employed to: 

• evaluate the current state of water resources in a watershed or region; 

• determine the variety of current and future demands for water and how demand, quality, and supply 

patterns are affecting land use, fish and wildlife resources, and local and regional economies; and 

• balance demand management and supply enhancement options to produce a comprehensive, adaptive 

water management plan that specifies long-term goals, objectives, and programs to provide 

sustainable water use in a basin. 

When integrated resource planning is applied rigorously, it considers all competing needs and identifies 

the different resource management strategies that the planning entity can employ (See Volume 2 for a 

discussion of 25 resource management strategies). Integrated resource planning evaluates various 

response packages, which are different mixes of resource management strategies used to manage water 

resources over a designated planning horizon, and indicates when and under what future conditions a 

management strategy would be added or changed. The costs (economic and environmental) of employing 

each response package are also derived during the planning process. 

Selecting the timing of adding or changing individual strategies to a region’s management response 

requires completion of a risk analysis. The risk analysis takes into account the expected frequency and 

severity of not meeting current and future water demands; how additional water management strategies 

are likely to affect that frequency and severity; and how available contingency measures can reduce the 

impact of shortages when they occur. 

 2-21 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

Integrated resource planning includes many elements of traditional planning. It also includes thorough 

analyses of water use efficiency programs, levels of uncertainty acceptable to the planning entity, and 

coordinated efforts to involve the public in the planning process. Integrated resource planning is 

multi-objective planning that recognizes decisions must balance competing objectives in a sustainable 

way. Integrated resource planning often includes the following activities: 

• Define planning objectives and associated evaluation criteria (see Chapter 4 for suggested criteria). 

The objectives must be specific and the criteria measurable, so they can be used to evaluate 

alternative response packages. 

• Involve the appropriate constituencies. The level and breadth of involvement will vary depending on 

local area needs and the level of interest in the resource strategies being considered. 

• Assess demand-reduction strategies such as agricultural and urban water conservation. These 

strategies must be identified and analyzed in the same multi-tiered way that supply-side strategies are 

analyzed. 

• Assess operational efficiency and supply redistribution strategies such as conveyance, system 

operation, and water transfers. 

• Assess supply augmentation strategies such as conjunctive management, water recycling, 

desalination, and storage. 

• Assess water quality management strategies such as drinking water treatment, groundwater/aquifer 

remediation, pollution prevention, and runoff management. 

• Assess resource stewardship strategies such as agricultural land stewardship, urban land use 

management, ecosystem restoration, floodplain management, and watershed management. 

• Formulate and evaluate different response packages. The resource management strategies selected 

from the above activities are combined into alternative response packages (25 strategies are described 

in Volume 2). Each response package then goes through multi-level screening using approved 

evaluation criteria, until (one to three) responses emerge that best meet the planning objectives and 

evaluation criteria. Each response package (mix of strategies) must explicitly demonstrate the 

tradeoffs among the different evaluation criteria. Often, a decision analysis model must be approved 

before screening the individual resource management strategies and the response packages. 

Guiding Principles 

Use a broad, long-term perspective 

Use a comprehensive stakeholder-based planning process to (1) promote multi-objective planning with a 

regional focus, (2) emphasize both local and regional initiatives, (3) recognize distinct regional problems 

and resources, and (4) emphasize long-term planning (30-50 year planning horizon). 

Identify broad benefits, costs, and tradeoffs

Evaluate programs and projects recognizing economic growth, environmental quality, and social equity as 

co-equal objectives. Based on this comprehensive assessment, determine potential economic, 

environmental, and social benefits, beneficiaries, costs, and tradeoffs and include a plan to avoid, 

minimize, and mitigate for adverse impacts. 

2-22 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

Promote sustainable resource management 

Promote the wise use of all natural resources to ensure their availability for future generations. This can 

be done by promoting activities with the greatest benefit for the entire region and activities that consider 

the interrelationship between regional water supplies, water quality, water infrastructure, flood protection, 

recreation, land use, economic prosperity, and the environment. 

Increase regional self-sufficiency 

Increase regional self-sufficiency by considering activities that reduce the need to import water from 

another hydrologic region, particularly during times of limited supply availability such as during a 

drought or after a catastrophic event like an earthquake. 

Increase regional drought preparedness 

Evaluate and implement strategies that among other benefits would reduce the impacts of drought in the 

region. In California, drought contingency planning is an important component of regional water 

planning. Examples of such strategies include water use efficiency and recycled municipal water, system 

reoperation, conjunctive management and groundwater storage, surface storage (CALFED and local), and 

ocean and brackish water desalination. 

Promote environmental justice 

All projects sponsored by or partnered with the State, or using public funds must promote environmental 

justice, which is the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the 

development, funding and implementation of resource management projects. 

Promote coordination and collaboration among local agencies and governments 

Promote and improve coordination and collaboration among local agencies and governments within a 

region, particularly those that are involved in activities that might affect the long-term sustainability of 

water supply and water quality within the region. Regional planning should include a public review 

process with open and transparent decision-making, as well as education and outreach for public, 

stakeholders, and decision-makers. 

Use sound science, best data, and local knowledge 

Use the best available data and information and, when possible, use planning methods and analytical 

techniques that have undergone scientific review. 

 2-23 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

Box 2-4 Elements of Integrated Regional Water Management 

A water management plan created through integrated resource planning includes the following elements: 

Content and Principles 

• Short-term goals and objectives (prioritized to the extent possible) 

• Long-term goals and objectives (prioritized to the extent possible) 

• Description of current resource characteristics and conditions 

• Description of resource management strategies to address cross-cutting water management issues 

such as flood control, water quality, environmental water management, land use planning, water 

allocation and appropriation 

• Inclusion of information from a variety of interests through broad public participation–especially 

when developing goals, objectives, and evaluation criteria 

• Information regarding management strategies, costs, risks and tradeoffs (more details offered under 

“Analysis” below) 

• Transparency of evaluation methods, tools, assumptions, and data 

Analysis 

• Initial conditions for water management information such as water uses, supplies, quality, water 

infrastructure and operational criteria, and water-related resource management 

• Employment of a systems approach to water management assessment 

• Current water management objectives 

• Current water management capabilities, such as ability to meet current water management 

objectives 

• Employment of a least-cost planning framework6

 that identifies all economic costs and other 

implications of adding reliability, as well as all costs and implications of forgoing additional 

reliability 

• Identification of risks and uncertainties associated with different resource management strategies 

• Evaluation criteria for comparing alternative response packages (different mixes of management 

strategies) 

• Identification of response packages that achieve an acceptable level of supply reliability and meet 

other water management objectives, while considering risks and tradeoffs. 

Implementation 

• Finance plan based on prioritized objectives and preferred response packages 

• Implementation plan that includes roles, tasks, and challenges, such as regulatory compliance, lead 

agencies, timelines, legal issues, etc. 

• Performance measures to track plan implementation (for example, how well the preferred response 

packages meet goals and objectives) 

 

6

 Least-cost planning is a cornerstone of integrated resource planning. It assists a comprehensive examination of all water 

management alternatives including the option of forgoing additional reliability measures if the cost (economic or other) of 

implementation exceeds the cost of coping with current reliability levels. 

2-24 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

Box 2-5 Delta Improvements Package 

The Delta Improvements Package outlines actions related to water project operations in the SacramentoSan Joaquin Delta that will result in increased water supply reliability, improved water quality, 

environmental protection and ecosystem restoration, protection of the Delta Levee system, and analyses 

and evaluation to support improved real-time and long-term management. 

It also outlines conditions under which the State Water Project would be allowed to increase its permitted 

export pumping capacity from 6,680 to 8,500 cubic feet per second. In addition to the commitments in the 

CALFED Record of Decision to avoid adverse fishery impacts and to protect in-Delta water supply 

reliability and water quality, these conditions include the following: 

• Construction of permanent operable barriers in the South Delta 

• Development of a salinity management plan for the San Joaquin River 

• Improvements to protect water quality near the Contra Costa Canal 

• Environmental protection for important native fish species, including implementation of the 

Ecosystem Restoration Program 

• Development of a long-term Environmental Water Account 

See Volume 3, Chapter 12 “Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Region” for discussion of some package 

components. 

More on website at: 

http://www.calwater.ca.gov/DeltaImprovements/DIP/DeltaImprovementPackage.shtml#CURRENT 

 2-25 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

Box 2-6 Benefits-based Approach for Financing 

The use of a benefit-based approach for financing will involve certain requirements. Cost-benefit analysis 

should ensure that the value of a project is greater than its costs and non-monetary benefits are captured in 

the process. Because the nature of certain types of benefits will not always allow for comparison of costs 

and benefits on a dollar-for-dollar basis, it is crucial that decision-makers carefully characterize all project 

benefits and that potential beneficiaries participate in determining how much they are willing to pay for 

specific levels of those benefits. Fundamental to all these activities is a need for clear, consistent, and 

mutually agreed-upon terms that can be used in discussions and decision-making about financing. Terms 

such as benefit and baseline must be defined or replaced to ensure that all groups participating in project 

financing have a consistent frame of reference. In addition, principles of environmental justice must be 

used to protect groups such as disadvantaged communities from being unfairly burdened by project costs. 

As part of a benefit-based process, public funds should be used responsibly and not create unfair 

advantages for private interests. Public funds should be used to pay for project actions that lead to broad 

public benefits, such as ecosystem restoration or other benefits that cannot be linked to a particular set of 

beneficiaries. The exceptions to this include actions that initiate local investment in new water 

management approaches and technology and situations where environmental justice calls for public 

assistance to help communities in need. 

2-26 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

Box 2-7 Case Study of State Investment in Research and Development 

As part of the deregulation of California’s electric power sector in the late1990s, the Legislature and 

Governor established within the California Energy Commission the Public Interest Energy Research 

(PIER) Program to offset the loss of certain resources, including the expected loss of 

research-and-development resources provided by Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs). The PIER Program 

mission is to support research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) activities that are not otherwise 

adequately supplied by energy markets, such as energy planning and forecasting, efficiency, reliability, 

and environmental benefits and impacts. 

Through partnerships with organizations in various economic sectors, the PIER program focuses 

primarily on six subject areas: renewable energy; environmentally preferred advanced generation; 

buildings end-use energy efficiency; demand-side technologies (which include pollution mitigation, 

pumping, and water treatment technologies); energy-related environmental research; and energy systems 

integration. The Legislature has authorized approximately $60 million per year for PIER through 2012, 

funded by an electrical consumption surcharge collected via the IOUs. Funding decisions incorporate an 

open stakeholder-based process to help identify RD&D needs, seek to leverage research funds with other 

sources and organizations, and use an independent program review and evaluation process. Of course, 

beyond the PIER Program, other RD&D models exist, including water industry organizations such as the 

National Water Research Institute, academic institutions such as the International Center for Water 

Technology at California State University, Fresno, and federal agencies operating pursuant to the Federal 

Technology Transfer Act. 

 2-27 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 2 A Framework for Action 

Box 2-8 Consideration of All Competing Needs 

Environment, economy, and social equity—known as the three E's—are vehicles to sustainability and 

help ensure that competing needs are met when evaluating and implementing the management strategies 

included in integrated resource planning. Many agencies already consider these factors in their resource 

evaluations. In most areas of government decisions, the application of environmental justice policy takes 

place at the local level. 

Environmental Evaluation 

As the linkage between water management and the health of the natural infrastructure are understood, the 

benefits of restoration to water supply reliability and water quality improvements become increasingly 

evident. Environmental evaluation begins with recognition that “environment” consists of both the natural 

environment and the environment built by people so they can live, work, and produce. Transporting water 

from one part of the environment for use in another creates change, which needs to be evaluated. Change 

in water use affects water quality and ecological, hydrological, biological, and other environmental 

resources in the natural and the constructed environment. Tradeoffs between existing and new water uses 

need to be evaluated. Water uses that benefit the natural environment must be considered even if they 

adversely impact agricultural and urban water users. In addition, when changes in trust-protected 

resources are proposed, public trust values must be considered and protected when feasible. 

Social Equity Evaluation 

The environmental justice movement began as a grassroots response to unequal enforcement of 

environmental, civil rights, and land use laws. The most obvious disparities involved environmental 

harms and benefits (for example, water quality) affecting some communities, faulty assumptions in risk 

assessment, discriminatory land use practices, and exclusionary policies and practices that limit public 

participation. Disparities can be less obvious when it comes to water use and allocation. For example, 

third party impacts from transferring water from agriculture to accommodate urban growth can 

disproportionately impact migrant worker communities. Although the relevance of environmental justice 

in this case is limited to the extent that economic conditions drive human and environmental health, the 

State has enacted eight laws specifically regarding environmental justice since 1999 (see Volume 4 

Reference Guide article “Environmental Justice in California Government”). 

Economic and Financial Evaluation 

Economic evaluation includes a range of considerations such as capital, operations, maintenance, 

mitigation, and financing. Capitalization of annual costs and benefits is also necessary because it provides 

a common basis for comparing alternatives that are subject to (1) benefit-decay (for example, some 

plumbing retrofit incentives) and (2) inter-annual variability of costs and benefits. 

Historically, water agencies have primarily accounted for the direct construction and operation costs of 

additional water supply facilities. Today, most cost accounting also includes demand management 

programs and project mitigation costs. Increasingly, people are identifying additional costs for more 

complete mitigation they believe should be included in cost accounting for water systems. 

Beyond quantification, how the costs and benefits are allocated among stakeholders is an important 

component of any plan. Cost recovery mechanisms must be framed and in place prior to implementation. 

In addition, nonmonetary costs and benefits must be taken into account. 

2-28 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

Contents 

Chapter 3 California Water Today.............................................................................................................3-1

Setting.....................................................................................................................................................3-1

Climates, Ecosystems, Physical Settings............................................................................................3-1

Industry, People, Social Setting..........................................................................................................3-2

Water Uses, Supplies, and Quality .....................................................................................................3-3

Challenges ..............................................................................................................................................3-5

Ongoing Concerns ..............................................................................................................................3-6

Dry-Year Challenges.......................................................................................................................3-6

People Without Clean and Safe Drinking Water ............................................................................3-8

Contamination of Surface Water and Groundwater........................................................................3-8

Groundwater Overdraft ...................................................................................................................3-8

Deferred Maintenance and Aging Facilities ...................................................................................3-9

Flood Management .........................................................................................................................3-9

Delta Vulnerabilities .......................................................................................................................3-9

Global Climate Change.................................................................................................................3-10

Water and Energy..........................................................................................................................3-11

Tribal Water Rights.......................................................................................................................3-11

Environmental Justice ...................................................................................................................3-11

Regional/Local Challenges...............................................................................................................3-12

North Coast Hydrologic Region....................................................................................................3-12

San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region.........................................................................................3-13

Central Coast Hydrologic Region .................................................................................................3-13

South Coast Hydrologic Region....................................................................................................3-14

Sacramento River Hydrologic Region ..........................................................................................3-14

San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region..........................................................................................3-15

Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region....................................................................................................3-16

North Lahontan Hydrologic Region..............................................................................................3-17

South Lahontan Hydrologic Region..............................................................................................3-17

Colorado River Hydrologic Region ..............................................................................................3-18

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta .....................................................................................................3-19

Mountain Counties........................................................................................................................3-20

Responses.............................................................................................................................................3-20

Moving Toward Regional Water Reliability ....................................................................................3-20

Integrated Regional Water Management ......................................................................................3-21

Coordination of Water and Land Use Planning ............................................................................3-22

Statewide and Interregional Response..............................................................................................3-23

Programs and Planning .................................................................................................................3-23

Task Forces and Advisory Panels .................................................................................................3-27

DWR Bulletins and Reports..........................................................................................................3-28

Water Bonds..................................................................................................................................3-29

Federal Planning (Water 2025) .....................................................................................................3-29

Understanding How Water Is Allocated, Used, and Regulated ...........................................................3-30

Institutional Framework....................................................................................................................3-30

Constitutional, Statutory, and Common Law Framework for Water Uses ...................................3-30

Public Trust Doctrine ....................................................................................................................3-31

 3-i 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

Surface Water Rights ....................................................................................................................3-31

Groundwater Use and Management..............................................................................................3-32

Tribal Water Rights.......................................................................................................................3-32

Law of the River ...........................................................................................................................3-33

Water Contracts.............................................................................................................................3-33

Area of Origin Protections ............................................................................................................3-34

Water for Environmental Uses......................................................................................................3-34

Water Transfers.............................................................................................................................3-35

Institutional Roles.............................................................................................................................3-35

California Government .................................................................................................................3-35

Federal Government......................................................................................................................3-36

American Indian Tribes ................................................................................................................3-36

Public Agencies, Districts, and Local Governments.....................................................................3-37

Private Entities ..............................................................................................................................3-37

International Trade Agreements....................................................................................................3-37

Individual Water Users .................................................................................................................3-37

Institutional Tools for Managing Resources.....................................................................................3-38

Figures (where cited in text)

Figure 3-1 Map of California’s major geomorphic features (under development)...................................3-1

Figure 3-2 Map of California w/major rivers and facilities (under development)....................................3-2

Figure 3-3 Gross state product, 1980–2001 ..............................................................................................3-2

Figure 3-4 California population, 1960–2030...........................................................................................3-3

Figure 3-5 California water balance (water source and applied water uses) for water years 1998, 2000, 

and 2001 .............................................................................................................................................3-4

Figure 3-6 Sacramento River April–July runoff in percent of water year runoff ...................................3-10

Figure 3-7 Golden Gate annual average and 19-year mean tide levels...................................................3-10

Figure 3-8 Map of California’s 10 hydrologic regions, the Delta, and Mountain Counties ...................3-12

Boxes (where cited in text) 

Box 3-1 Historical Perspective of Water Development in California.......................................................3-3

Box 3-2 Critical Conditions of Overdraft .................................................................................................3-8

Box 3-3 Hydroelectric Facilities.............................................................................................................3-11

Box 3-4 Description of California’s 10 Hydrologic Regions, the Delta, and Mountain Counties .........3-12

Box 3-5 Examples of Ongoing Regional Water Planning Efforts ..........................................................3-21

Box 3-6 Complementary Management Approaches: IRWM and Watershed Management ...................3-22

Box 3-7 New Laws Support Integrated Regional Water Management...................................................3-22

Box 3-8 SB 221, SB 610, and AB 901....................................................................................................3-23

Box 3-9 Recent Statewide and Interregional Responses to Challenges..................................................3-23

Box 3-10 Water 2025 (Federal) Principles, Realities, and Key Tools....................................................3-29

Box 3-11 Some Regulations Governing Water-related Resources Management ...................................3-30

Table (placed in text) 

Table 3-1 California water balance summary (maf) .................................................................................3-4

3-ii 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

Boxes and Figures1

Figure 3-1 Map of California’s major geomorphic features (under development).................................3-39

Figure 3-2 Map of California with major rivers and facilities (under development)..............................3-40

Figure 3-3 Gross state product, 1980–2001 ............................................................................................3-41

Figure 3-4 California population, 1960–2030.........................................................................................3-41

Box 3-1 Historical Perspective of Water Development in California.....................................................3-42

Figure 3-5 California water balance (water source and applied water uses) for water years 1998, 2000, 

and 2001 ...........................................................................................................................................3-44

Box 3-2 Critical Conditions of Overdraft ...............................................................................................3-45

Figure 3-6 Sacramento River April-July runoff in percent of water year runoff)...................................3-46

Figure 3-7 Golden Gate annual average and 19-year mean tide levels...................................................3-46

Box 3-3 Hydroelectric Facilities.............................................................................................................3-47

Figure 3-8 Map of California’s 10 hydrologic regions, the Delta, and Mountain Counties ...................3-48

Box 3-4 Description of California’s 10 Hydrologic Regions, the Delta, and Mountain Counties .........3-49

Box 3-5 Examples of Ongoing Regional Water Planning Efforts ..........................................................3-51

Box 3-6 Complementary Management Approaches: IRWM and Watershed Management ...................3-55

Box 3-7 New Laws Support Integrated Regional Water Management...................................................3-56

Box 3-8 SB 221, SB 610, and AB 901....................................................................................................3-57

Box 3-9 Recent Statewide and Interregional Responses to Challenges..................................................3-58

Box 3-10 Water 2025 (Federal) Principles, Realities, and Key Tools....................................................3-59

Box 3-11 Some Regulations Governing Water-related Resources Management ...................................3-60

 

1

 Find these boxes and figures at end of this chapter. They are placed in order of appearance in text. 

 3-iii 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

3-iv 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

Chapter 3 

California Water Today 

About This Chapter 

Chapter 3 California Water Today describes our natural resources and their influence on building the 

nation’s largest economy and attracting a growing population. The chapter reports statewide and 

regional water challenges and how we are meeting those challenges with a variety of responses, 

including task forces and advisory committees, partnerships and integrated regional water 

management, programs, water bonds, water management systems, research and reports, legislation 

and regulation. Finally, the chapter recounts the many facets of California’s water rights, usage, and 

allocation.

• Setting 

• Challenges

• Responses

• Understanding How Water Is Allocated, Used, and Regulated

Setting 

California boasts some of the world’s most beautiful land and richest soil, which support an economy that 

is the largest and most diverse in the nation. Planning and management of California’s water resources 

require full and balanced consideration of its people, environments, businesses, land uses, climates, 

geology, and variable hydrology. 

Climates, Ecosystems, Physical Settings 

California is a state of contrasts and diversity. The highest (Mount Whitney) and lowest (Death Valley) 

points in the contiguous United States are not far from each other. The range of annual rainfall varies 

greatly from more than 140 inches in the northwestern part of the state to less than 4 inches in the 

southeastern part (DWR 2003 Bulletin 118). The third largest state in the nation, California’s geomorphic 

features include the Klamath Mountains, Modoc Plateau, Cascade Range, Central Valley, Sierra Nevada, 

Coast Range, Great Basin, Transverse Ranges, Mojave Desert, Peninsular Ranges, and Colorado River 

Desert (Figure 3-1 Map of California’s major geomorphic features). 

Figure 3-1 Map of California’s major geomorphic features (under development) 

Precipitation varies widely in California—from place to place, from season to season, and from year to 

year. Climate is dominated by the Pacific storm track. Most precipitation and runoff occur in the northern 

part of the state. The numerous mountain ranges cause orographic lifting of clouds, producing 

precipitation mostly on the western slopes and leaving a rain shadow on most eastern slopes. Snowmelt 

and rain falling in the mountains flow into creeks, streams, and rivers. As flows make their way into the 

valleys, much of the water percolates into the ground. 

 3-1 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

Groundwater and surface water are inextricably linked in the hydrologic cycle. The vast majority of 

California's groundwater that is accessible in significant amounts is stored in alluvial groundwater basins, 

which cover nearly 40 percent of the geographic area of the state (DWR 2003 Bulletin 118). Groundwater 

supplies contribute water used for beneficial purposes. Interbasin storage and transfer projects allow for 

redistribution of water to where it is needed for crops, people, and industry (Figure 3-2 Map of California 

with major rivers and facilities). 

Figure 3-2 Map of California w/major rivers and facilities (under development) 

The state’s ecosystems, from mountain watersheds to coastal beaches to inland deserts have been called 

California’s natural infrastructure, supporting its population and economic growth. These varied 

environments also support an estimated 5,000 native flora species—more than one-third are unique to 

California—and 1,000 introduced species (CERES 2003). Diverse landforms have preserved unusual 

species like giant redwoods and made homes for hundreds of species of birds, mammals, and reptiles. 

Since the 1800s, California’ natural infrastructure has experienced aquatic and riparian habitat 

degradation and declines in freshwater biodiversity. Hydraulic mining and gold extraction in the 1800s, 

dam construction and operation, pollution, flood control, urbanization, increases in Delta exports and 

upstream diversions, and introduction of non-native species have all contributed to a decline in the state’s 

watersheds and the health of our ecosystems. Flows on many rivers and streams currently do not resemble 

natural hydrographs. This is a contributing factor to impaired ecosystem functions, reduction and loss of 

native species and habitats, impacts on commercial fisheries, and degraded water quality. 

Industry, People, Social Setting 

California has the largest and most diverse economy in the nation with a gross product of more than a 

trillion dollars, 13.5 percent of the U.S. total (DOF 2003). The economy is a mix of long-established 

industries such as agriculture and mineral extraction and emerging industries such as biotechnology, 

telecommunications, and computer technology. California has the largest manufacturing complex in the 

nation. Its natural beauty has helped make California the No. 1 travel destination in the United States. In 

addition to world-renowned beaches and rivers, we have wetlands and wildlife refuges for bird watching 

and hunting, activities that contribute hundreds of millions of dollars annually to the state's economy 

(See Figure 3-3 Gross state product, 1980-2001). 

Figure 3-3 Gross state product, 1980–2001 

The state's multibillion dollar agribusiness makes California the nation's leading agricultural producer. 

California contributes more than half of the nation’s fruit, nut, and vegetable production. Many counties 

rely on agriculture as a primary economic contributor. Providing food and fiber crop products to 

Californians, as well as to other states and countries, consumes more water than is consumed by all 

municipal and industrial uses. And it will continue to do so. 

The location and timing of our variable water uses do not coincide with the state's natural water supplies. 

The Gold Rush spawned a technology of water movement that helped cultivate California's agricultural 

landscape and was used in the early 1900s to urbanize the San Francisco area and the Los Angeles Basin 

(Starr 2000). With the population boom after World War II, the state's urban centers spread, and a 

3-2 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

suburban, automobile-dependent style of community development became the hallmark of California. 

(See Box 3-1 Historical Perspective of Water Development in California.) 

Box 3-1 Historical Perspective of Water Development in California 

Since 1990 our population has increased from about 30 million to 36.5 million. The nation's most 

populous state is now growing by about 600,000 people per year. The California Department of Finance 

(DOF) projects that the population may reach about 48 million by 2030—an additional 12 million 

people.2

 By 2050 California’s population may jump by more than 20 million people to reach a total of 

nearly 55 million, according to long-range population projections issued by DOF in May 2004. Figure 3-4 

depicts the state's total population and growth from year 1960 through year 2000, plus DOF’s most recent 

projections to year 2030. 

Figure 3-4 California population, 1960–2030 

These projections indicate the majority of Californians will continue to reside in Southern California, and 

Los Angeles will remain the most populous county in California, exceeding 11 million people in 2050. 

Riverside is projected to overtake Orange County and become the third most populous county behind San 

Diego. 

In California's Central Valley, San Joaquin County is expected to triple in size and experience the greatest 

percentage increase over the 50-year period—200 percent. Other counties with large projected percentage 

increases include Merced, Placer, and Madera (DOF 2004). 

Water Uses, Supplies, and Quality 

From a statewide perspective, California meets most of its water management objectives in most years. 

Most of our demands are being met with the help of advances in water conservation and recycling, 

combined with infrastructure improvements including new storage and conveyance facilities. Except in 

multiyear droughts, most urban areas have sufficient supplies for existing populations. Cities use about 

the same amount of applied water today as they did in the mid-1990s, but accommodate 3.5 million more 

people. Water conservation and demand reduction strategies are expected to continue playing a prominent 

role in achieving future goals. 

Significant water supply and quality challenges persist on local and regional scales. Water quality is 

generally good, but many areas face specific water quality problems. Many rural residents on small water 

systems or wells experience limited water supply as well as water quality impacts during droughts. (See 

Regional/Local Challenges later in this chapter.) Water supply and water quality are inseparable in water 

management. Some areas of California rely on over-pumping groundwater basins, which reduces longterm available water supply, increases pumping costs, and in some areas degrades groundwater quality. 

 

2

 The estimates of changes in future water demands presented in this water plan update are based on assumptions 

about future population growth for the period 2000 to 2030. For the Current Trends and Less Resource Intensive 

scenarios this corresponds to the Department of Finance estimates with a population increase of 14 million, from 

about 34 million in 2000 to 48 million in 2030. For the More Resource Intensive scenario this corresponds to a 

population increase of 18 million to a total population of 52 million in 2030. 

 3-3 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

In many areas surface water and groundwater are impaired by natural and human-made contaminants that 

can threaten human health, degrade the natural environment, increase water treatment costs, and 

effectively reduce the available water supply. 

Most agricultural water demands are met in average water years. Farmers have learned to grow more 

crops per acre-foot of applied water by improving productivity and efficiency. For example, from 1980 to 

2000 the annual statewide harvest increased by 40 percent measured in tons of crops per acre-foot of 

applied water. However, in some areas, water sources once used for agriculture are now used for urban 

needs, environmental restoration, and groundwater replenishment. Even in average water years, some 

growers forgo planting and other agricultural operations because they lack a firm water supply. 

Environmental requirements are not always met, although a considerable amount of water is dedicated to 

restoring ecosystems. Many flow regimes no longer resemble natural hydrographs, largely because of 

efforts to manage water storage and diversions to meet competing demands. We do not sufficiently 

understand ecosystem needs and their response to flow, but significant scientific advancement is taking 

place. We are seeing improvements when ecosystem needs are integrated with water management and 

project operations. 

California Water Plan Update 2005 presents a range of actual water conditions that have occurred in 

recent water years. Water year 1998 represents a recent wet year in California. Year 2000 is a 

representative average water year, and year 2001 provides a snapshot of a dry water year. (See Table 3-1 

California water balance summary and Figure 3-5 California water balance [water source and applied 

water uses] for water years 1998, 2000, and 2001) 

Table 3-1 California water balance summary (maf) 

1998 

(171% of normal)a 2000 (97% of normal)a 2001 (72% of normal)a

Total supply (precipitation & imports) 336.9 194.7 145.5 

Total uses, outflows, & evaporation 331.1 200.5 159.8 

Net storage changes in state 5.8 -5.8 -14.3 

Distribution of dedicated supply (includes reuse) to various applied water uses 

Urban uses 7.8 (8%) 8.9 (11%) 8.6 (13%) 

Agricultural uses 27.3 (29%) 34.2 (41%) 33.7 (52%) 

Environmental waterb 59.4 (63%) 39.4 (48%) 22.5 (35%) 

Total dedicated supply 94.5 82.5 64.8 

 maf = million acre-feet 

 a. Percent of normal precipitation. Water year 1998 represents a wet year; 2000, average water year; 2001, drier water year. 

 b. Environmental water includes instream flows, wild and scenic flows, required Delta outflow, and managed wetlands water use. 

Some environmental water is reused by agricultural and urban water users. 

Figure 3-5 California water balance (water source and applied water uses) for water years 1998, 

2000, and 2001 

In average water years like 2000, California receives about 200 million acre-feet of water from 

precipitation and imports from Colorado, Oregon, and Mexico. Of this total supply, about 50 to 

60 percent either is used by native vegetation, evaporates to the atmosphere, provides some of the water 

for agricultural crops and managed wetlands (effective precipitation), or flows to Oregon, Nevada, the 

3-4 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

Pacific Ocean, and salt sinks like saline groundwater aquifers and Salton Sea. The remaining 40 to 

50 percent (denoted as dedicated supply) is distributed among urban and agricultural uses, used to protect 

and restore the environment, or stored in surface and groundwater reservoirs for later use. In any year 

some of the dedicated supply includes water that is used multiple times (reuse) and water stored from 

previous years. Ultimately, about a third of the dedicated supply flows to the Pacific Ocean (in part to 

meet environmental requirements) or to other salt sinks. Statewide, local surface water and groundwater 

supplies make up about 50 percent of California’s total dedicated supply (percentage varies regionally). 

In wet and drier years, like 1998 and 2001, respectively, the total supply and the distribution of the 

dedicated supply to various uses differ significantly from the example above for an average year. For 

more information on the state's recent water supplies and uses, see Volume 3 Regional Reports, Chapter 1 

State Summary. 

Challenges 

Californians continue to face a variety of water challenges, and State, federal, and regional agencies are 

meeting those challenges by responding with a variety of methods: task forces and advisory committees, 

partnerships and integrated regional water management, programs, water bonds, water management 

systems, research and reports, legislation, regulation, and more. (For further discussion, see the Response 

section that follows.) 

The biggest challenge for California water resources management remains making sure that water is in 

the right places at the right time. This challenge is at its greatest during dry years. In these years, water 

made available for the environment is curtailed sharply, and greater reliance on groundwater results in 

higher costs for many users. In the mean time, those who have already increased water use efficiency may 

find it more challenging to achieve additional water use reductions. 

During the past 50 years, the growing water demands of many areas were met by large State, federal, and 

interregional projects that moved water significant distances across the state. Because of a variety of 

issues and uncertainties, new large, interbasin projects on the scale of the State Water Project (SWP) and 

the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) are not foreseeable in the near term. These State, federal, and 

local projects continue to serve as the backbone of California water management, and water supplies from 

these sources will incrementally increase. However, they will not, by themselves, provide for California’s 

growing population and meet the State’s agriculture production and environmental objectives. 

The quality of California water is of particular and growing concern. Various water management actions 

potentially have water quality impacts. These include transfers, water use efficiency, water recycling, 

conjunctive use of aquifers, storage and conveyance, Delta operations, land fallowing, and hydroelectric 

power. Degraded water quality can limit, or make very expensive, some water supply uses or options 

because the water must be pretreated. Furthermore, water managers increasingly recognize that the water 

quality of various water supplies needs to be matched with its eventual use and potential treatment. 

Overall, the State should develop and adopt an integrated “source-to-tap” strategy for meeting future 

water quality challenges. 

As competition grows among water users, management of the water system becomes more challenging, 

complex, and at times contentious. Water issues are being resolved through coalitions and partnerships 

 3-5 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

among government, public and private water suppliers, and users. Local, regional, State, and federal 

governments and water suppliers all have a role in assuring water resource sustainability and improving 

water supply reliability for the existing and future population and the environment. 

Ongoing Concerns 

Challenges persist for California water management at statewide, regional, and local levels. Significant 

statewide challenges that require improved water management are summarized here; a section on specific 

regional and local challenges follows. 

Dry-Year Challenges 

California has not experienced the hardships and environmental pressures of a prolonged statewide 

drought since the early 1990s, but similar or worse conditions of unreliable water supplies will recur. 

During long or extreme droughts, water supplies are less reliable, heightening competition and at times 

leading to conflicts among water users. Water quality is degraded, making it difficult and costly to make 

drinkable. Business and irrigated agriculture are adversely affected, jeopardizing California’s economy. 

Ecosystems are strained, risking sensitive and endangered plants, animals, and habitats. Groundwater 

levels decline, and many rural residents who are dependent on small water systems or wells run short of 

water. 

California's most severe recorded drought statewide occurred in 1976–1977. Two consecutive years with 

little precipitation (fourth driest and the driest year in recorded history) left California with record low 

storage in its surface reservoirs and dangerously low groundwater levels. Socioeconomic and 

environmental impacts were very severe during these extreme drought conditions. The total loss due to 

this drought exceeded $ 2.5 billion ($6.5 billion at today’s cost). 

The most recent prolonged statewide drought lasted 6 years from 1987 to 1992. During the drought’s first 

5 years, the groundwater extractions in San Joaquin Valley exceeded the recharge by 11 million acre-feet, 

which caused increased land subsidence in some areas. Department of Water Resources (DWR) studies 

indicate that in 1990–1992 the drought resulted in reduced gross revenues of about $670 million to 

California agriculture. Energy utilities were forced to substitute hydroelectric power with more costly 

fossil-fuel generation at an estimated statewide cost of $500 million in 1991. The drought also adversely 

affected snow-related recreation businesses; some studies suggest a loss of about $85 million during the 

winter of 1990–91. 

Data released in early February 2005 suggest a lessening of the drought that has been affecting the greater 

Colorado River Basin. The 5-year drought may have left conditions in this basin worse than that of the 

Dust Bowl years during the 1930s, according to Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner John Keys III 

(USBR 2003). The Colorado River is California's largest interstate water source, and in 2004 the river's 

two major reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, were expected to fall below 50 percent full. 

During drought periods, some areas rely on interregional water transfers to supplement local water 

supplies. Meanwhile, concerns of groundwater overdraft and environmental impairment have led some 

counties to pass ordinances meant to control out-of-basin water transfers. State statute (Stats 2001, 

3-6 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

ch. 320, SB 672) requires that the California Water Plan describe water management tools and options 

that “will maximize resources and minimize the need to import water from other regions.” 

Water managers today use hydrologic records of the past century to estimate how climatic conditions 

would affect future water availability and water needs. Planners take into account the normal fluctuations 

of wet and dry years in allocating deliveries from reservoirs and in determining how much water will be 

provided from other sources. Urban water suppliers must adopt urban water management plans3

 at least 

every five years (next updates are due by the end of 2005). These suppliers are those who provide water 

for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supply more than 

3,000 acre-feet of water annually. The urban water management plan must include an analysis and a 

contingency plan for water supply reliability in case of a severe drought, which includes up to 50 percent 

reduction in water supply. Water management plans lay out shortage contingency scenarios that water 

agencies use as guidelines when reducing water use and augmenting short-term supply. Some of the tools 

that water districts use to plan against a multiyear drought are long- and short-term conservation 

measures, recycled water, water transfers, short-term sources of water, and long-term storage including 

conjunctive use. 

In its July 2000 report, “Preparing for California’s Next Drought,” DWR reviewed items for near-term 

drought planning, putting California’s conditions today into perspective with experiences gained in the 

1987–1992 drought. Major findings of the report focused on the characterization of drought conditions as 

a gradual phenomenon and their impacts on water users. The report also addressed the vulnerability of 

existing water users based on past droughts and discussed current actions that affect drought preparedness 

planning. 

Since the drought of 1987–1992, many notable changes—increases in water demands, changes in 

regulations, and improvements in conservation and infrastructure—have occurred that will alter the 

impacts of future droughts. While developing drought management plans, planners must continue to 

consider changes like the following and determine the impact on their region. 

• California’s population has increased to about 36.5 million people as of July 1, 2004. 

• The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted Decision 1630 in 1995, which 

requires higher flows to protect the Delta. 

• Completion of construction of Coastal Aqueduct (DWR), Morongo basin pipelines (Mojave Water 

Agency), Diamond Valley Lake (Metropolitan Water District), Los Vaqueros Reservoir (Contra 

Costa Water District), and five large-scale groundwater recharge/storage projects should add 

flexibility in operating the water system. 

• Despite the increase in population, advances in water conservation and recycling, combined with 

infrastructure improvements including new storage facilities, have helped meet most demands. 

Cities use about the same amount of applied water today as they did in the mid-1990s, but 

accommodate 3.5 million more people. 

• The Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement has been adopted, limiting California’s 

access to Colorado River water. 

 

3

 Required by the California Urban Water Management Planning Act (Water Code, ch.1, §§ 10610—10610.4) 

 3-7 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

People Without Clean and Safe Drinking Water 

Census figures from 1990 indicate that in California almost 32,000 housing units obtained water from 

shallow wells and another 49,000 housing units obtained their water from some source other than dug 

wells, drilled wells, or public or private water systems. The Census counted about 68,000 housing units 

(less than 1 percent of the state’s population) that disposed their sewage by means other than a public 

sewer, septic tank, or cesspool. 

Californians lacking access to clean and safe drinking water are vulnerable to a higher incidence of 

disease than is the general population. Untreated water can contain bacterial, parasitic, and viral 

contaminants. People at risk most often get their water from untreated surface water such as rivers, lakes, 

or springs. They may also have shallow unsealed wells or use irrigation ditch water. Surface water and 

shallow wells can become contaminated from rain runoff or flooding. A further concern is sewage 

disposal. Many rural communities have problems associated with failing septic drainfields and sewage 

surfacing in yards. This lack of wastewater infrastructure may cause cross-contamination with potable 

water (see Volume 4 Reference Guide article “Californians Without Safe Water” (Wilber 2003)). 

Contamination of Surface Water and Groundwater 

Nonpoint-source pollution, including urban and agricultural runoff, is the largest contributor of humaninduced contamination of surface water and groundwater in the state. Regarding surface water, about 

13 percent of the total miles of California’s rivers and streams and about 15 percent of its lake acreage are 

listed as impaired. Regarding groundwater, samples analyzed from all 10 hydrologic regions showed that 

5 to 42 percent of public water supply wells exceeded one or more drinking water standards, depending 

on the region. The exceedance was usually for inorganic chemicals or radioactivity and, in particular, 

nitrate, which presents a known health risk. Largely agricultural or industrial regions had high percentage 

of exceedances for pesticides and volatile organic chemicals, respectively. Seawater intrusion in the Delta 

and in coastal aquifers, agricultural drainage, and imported Colorado River water can increase salinity in 

all types of water supplies, adversely affecting many beneficial uses. 

Groundwater Overdraft 

Overdraft is the condition of a groundwater basin in which the amount of water withdrawn by pumping 

over the long term exceeds the amount of water that recharges the basin. Overdraft is characterized by 

groundwater levels that decline over a period of years and never fully recover, even in wet years. 

Overdraft can lead to increased extraction costs, land subsidence, water quality degradation, and 

environmental impacts. A comprehensive assessment of overdraft in California’s groundwater basins has 

not been conducted since 1980 (DWR 1980), but it is estimated that overdraft is between 1 million and 

2 million acre-feet annually (DWR 2003 Bulletin 118). (See Box 3-2 Critical Conditions of Overdraft.) 

Box 3-2 Critical Conditions of Overdraft 

In some cases the term overdraft is used to describe a short-term decline in groundwater in storage during 

a drought, or to describe a one-year decline of groundwater in storage. A one-year decrease of the amount 

of groundwater in storage is an annual change in storage and does not constitute overdraft. During a 

3-8 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

drought the aquifer is being used as a reservoir, and water is being withdrawn with the expectation that 

the aquifer will be recharged during a wet season to follow. 

Deferred Maintenance and Aging Facilities 

California depends on vast statewide water management systems to provide clean and reliable water 

supplies, protect lives and property from floods, withstand drought, and sustain environmental values. 

These water management systems include physical facilities and their operational policies and 

regulations. Facilities include over 1,200 State, federal, and local reservoirs, as well as canals, treatment 

plants, and levees. Systems are often interconnected. The operation of one system can depend on the 

smooth operation of another. The successful operation of the complete system can be vulnerable if any 

parts fail. 

California’s facilities require costly maintenance and rehabilitation as they age. In addition, they face 

many challenges: meeting the needs of a growing population and changing water use patterns, 

withstanding catastrophic natural events like earthquakes and floods, and adapting to the changes that 

accompany global climate change. 

Aging facilities risk public safety, water supply reliability, and water quality. The SWP is more than 

30 years old; the federal CVP is more than 50 years old. Some local facilities were constructed nearly a 

century ago. Current infrastructure disrepair, outages, and failures and the degradation of local water 

delivery systems are in part the result of years of underinvestment in preventive maintenance, repair, and 

rehabilitation. The Public Policy Institute of California estimated the state’s water supply and wastewater 

treatment systems maintenance backlog to be about $40 billion (Dowall and Whittington 2003). 

Flood Management 

California’s Central Valley flood control facilities are deteriorating and, in some places, literally washing 

away. Flood events in 1986, 1995, and 1997 cost lives, billions of dollars in property and economic 

losses, and caused severe disruptions to public infrastructure. At the same time, the Central Valley’s 

growing population is pushing new housing and job centers to areas that are particularly vulnerable to 

flooding. Yet, in recent years, funding to maintain and upgrade flood protection facilities has sharply 

declined. Compounding these challenges are recent court rulings that hold State and local agencies liable 

for flood-related damages when levees fail. 

Delta Vulnerabilities 

There are many factors that make it challenging to sustain the Delta levees. Subsidence of Delta islands 

continues to occur where peat soils oxidize, increasing the pressure on levees that protect the islands. A 

catastrophic earthquake in or near the Delta might cause multiple levee failures that would draw seawater 

into the Delta, rendering the water unfit for irrigation or human consumption until levees were repaired 

and seawater was flushed from the Delta. Climate change is causing sea levels to rise and may also 

increase the magnitude of floods. Maintenance and improvement of Delta levees is costly, and available 

funds have not kept pace with needs. Levee failures are extremely costly to repair, further burdening the 

ability to fund adequate maintenance and rehabilitation. 

 3-9 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

Flows from the Sacramento, San Joaquin, Calaveras, Cosumnes, and Mokelumne rivers run through the 

Sacramento San-Joaquin Delta. These rivers and the channels and levees in the Delta are some of the 

major water conveyance systems of California. They are interconnected, and failure of one part of the 

network affects operations throughout the network. Failing infrastructure leads to unreliable, poor-quality, 

expensive water supplies. 

On June 3, 2004, a levee breach occurred on Upper Jones Tract in the southern region of the Sacramento 

San-Joaquin Delta. A roughly 300-foot wide section collapsed. There was no warning, the time was 

outside the normal flood season, and it was a nonproject area. Seawater flooded about 12,000 acres of 

farmland and pulled salty water into the Delta, the major drinking water source for more than 23 million 

Californians. Responding agencies held concerns about risks to State Highway 4 and nearby islands and 

the Kinder-Morgan gasoline pipeline. 

The breach demonstrates the vulnerability of the Delta levees, which are needed for the environment, 

agriculture, and urban uses. These levees protect roadways, cities, towns, agricultural lands, as well as 

terrestrial and aquatic habitat. The CALFED Delta levee program is intended to reduce the risk of 

catastrophic breaching of these levees. 

Global Climate Change 

California’s water systems have been designed and operated based on data from a relatively short 

hydrologic record. Mounting scientific evidence suggests that forecasted climate changes could 

significantly change California’s precipitation pattern and amount from that shown by the record. Less 

snowpack would mean less natural water storage. More variability in rainfall, wetter at times and drier at 

times, would place more stress on the reliability of existing flood management and water systems. 

California’s high dependence on reservoir storage and snowpack for water supply and flood management 

makes us particularly vulnerable to these types of projected hydrologic changes. (See Chapter 4 and 

Volume 4 Reference Guide articles under Global Climate Change for further discussion.) 

Historical records reveal changes in the pattern of April–July runoff; an example is plotted here for the 

Sacramento River (Figure 3-6 Sacramento River April-July runoff in percent of water year runoff). From 

the 1950s to the present, the percentage of April–July runoff has shown a progressive decline. 

Figure 3-6 Sacramento River April–July runoff in percent of water year runoff 

Global climate change is already leading to sea level rise. Figure 3-7 (Golden Gate annual average and 

19-year mean tide levels) shows historical sea level rise at the Golden Gate. During the 20th century, sea 

levels increased by 0.2 meters (0.7 feet). During the 21st century, models project a median rise of 0.5 

meters (1.6 feet) due to climate change (IPCC 2001). This could eventually disrupt ecosystems and 

communities in coastal areas and ongoing tidal wetland restoration. The biggest impact of sea level rise 

on California water supply could be in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta where sea level rise would 

increase pressure on the levees that protect low-lying lands, much of which already is below sea level. 

Figure 3-7 Golden Gate annual average and 19-year mean tide levels 

3-10 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

Water and Energy 

Water and energy are two resources that are inherently linked, especially in California. Taken together, 

pumping, treating, and distributing potable water, groundwater pumping, heating and cooling processes, 

desalination, and the collection, treatment, recycling, and discharge of wastewater, consume 

approximately 10 percent of the state’s total electricity. Some water systems are net energy producers, for 

example, the federal CVP as well as San Francisco’s Hetch Hetchy and the Los Angeles Aqueduct water 

systems. Others are net energy consumers, for example, Metropolitan Water District’s Colorado River 

Aqueduct and the SWP. In fact, the SWP is the single largest user of electricity in the state, although the 

project produces about half of the energy it consumes. 

Just as water and energy are inherently linked, so are water and energy efficiencies. For instance, 

improvements in water use efficiency related to washers and shower heads inevitably lead to energy 

efficiency benefits related to water heating. On the other hand, some energy- and water-efficiency 

measures are inversely related (for example, drip irrigation requires more energy). Distributed water and 

wastewater treatment and reuse facilities could also reduce energy use in the water sector, by treating 

water and wastewater on-site for use (and reuse) locally, thereby decreasing the need for transporting 

(pumping) water to and from existing regional treatment facilities. 

In general, water use in the municipal and industrial sector is more energy intensive than in the 

agricultural sector because surface water used for irrigation usually takes advantage of gravity flow. In 

Southern California importing water is by far the largest use of electricity for a typical water system, and 

the total energy used to get water to a typical Southern California home (from source to tap) can be the 

second or third largest household electrical use. In response to the recent energy crisis, the State has sited 

some new power plants, often using fresh water for cooling and sometimes in water-scarce regions. This 

can potentially impact local water supplies through both diversion and discharge. (See Box 3-8 

Hydroelectric Facilities.) 

Box 3-3 Hydroelectric Facilities 

Tribal Water Rights 

In the more arid western areas of the United States, including California, state water rights framework and 

federal Reclamation Act policies have evolved over the past 100 years largely without regard to water 

resources reserved for tribal lands. Tribal water rights to meet economic and cultural needs are often 

encroached upon or unmet. Unlike previous water plan updates, this update recognizes tribal water needs 

and suggests ways to engage tribal interests in California water planning and program and project 

implementation. 

Environmental Justice 

Californians from disadvantaged and under-represented communities continue to face economic and 

environmental inequities with respect to water supply, participation in water policy and management 

decisions, and access to State funding for water projects. All Californians do not have equal opportunity 

or equal access to State planning processes, programs, and funding for water allocation, improving water 

quality, and determining how to mitigate potential adverse impacts to communities associated with 

 3-11 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

proposed water programs and projects. (See Volume 4 Reference Guide article “Environmental Justice in 

California State Government.”) 

Regional/Local Challenges 

Following is a summary of challenges faced by California’s 10 hydrologic regions, a Mountain Counties 

overlay area, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (see Figure 3-8 Map of California’s 10 hydrologic 

regions, the Delta, and Mountain Counties and Box 3-9 Description of California's 10 Hydrologic 

Regions, the Delta, and Mountain Counties). (See Volume 3 Regional Reports for more discussion of the 

regions’ challenges, a sampling of their management plans, and regional water balance summaries.) 

Figure 3-8 Map of California’s 10 hydrologic regions, the Delta, and Mountain Counties 

Box 3-4 Description of California’s 10 Hydrologic Regions, the Delta, and Mountain Counties 

North Coast Hydrologic Region 

Water supply reliablity. In the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Klamath River Project, the use of 

stored water to protect threatened or endangered fish species has affected dry-period reservoir operations 

and the supplies available for agricultural water contractors. During the recent dry period from years 2001 

through 2004, the lack of water in storage severely affected agricultural diversions and total crop acreage. 

The low flows in the river and associated warm water temperatures also contributed to significant losses 

of the salmon population. 

In the Trinity River system the need for downstream flows for fish versus water diversion to the 

Sacramento River basin has resulted in litigation and a revised operations plan at the USBR Lewiston 

Reservoir diversion. Recent federal court decisions allocate more water for Trinity River fish populations, 

but the timing and volume of these increased releases remain controversial. 

Water quality. Erosion and runoff from logging, rural roads, agriculture (including grazing), and cities 

causes sedimentation that can adversely affect rivers and streams, including habitat for spawning and 

rearing of anadromous fish, and contaminate growing areas for shellfish. Water diversions, channel 

modification, temperature, and nutrients have also impacted commercial and recreational fisheries. 

Groundwater quality problems include seawater intrusion and nitrate contamination in shallow coastal 

aquifers, salinity and alkalinity in the lake sediments of Modoc Plateau basins, and iron, boron, and 

manganese in the inland basins of Mendocino and Sonoma counties. Septic tank failures in western 

Sonoma County are a concern for recreation-water quality in the Russian River; fuel constituents from 

recreational activities are pollution concerns in Trinity, Lewiston, and Ruth lakes. 

Environmental water supply. A primary water management issue in the North Coast Hydrologic Region 

centers around balancing water demands of both agriculture and fish in the Klamath River Basin and its 

largest tributary, the Trinity River. Water supplies for farmers in the basin have been reduced because of 

habitat restoration for endangered species such as the Lost River and shortnose suckers, Coho salmon, 

and steelhead trout. In 1997 National Marine Fisheries Service listed steelhead trout as threatened and in 

2002 listed Coho salmon as endangered along part of the California coast that includes the Russian River 

Basin. 

3-12 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

The region must also balance Eel River fishery restoration needs with existing basin exports to the 

Russian River through the Pacific Gas and Electric’s Potter Valley Project. The 2004 decision to renew 

the power license with a 15 percent export reduction is being litigated in federal courts. 

San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region 

Water supply reliability and water quality. Some of the major challenges of this region include improving 

water supply reliability during drought periods and after earthquakes. More than 65 percent of the 

region’s surface water is imported from other regions, and many aging water delivery systems are 

vulnerable to earthquake damage. San Francisco is planning a $3.6 billion upgrade of the Hetch Hetchy 

water transmission system, while Contra Costa Water District is studying an alternate point of water 

diversion for its Contra Costa Canal intake from the Delta..To reduce water system risk regional water 

agencies continue to plan and construct water facility upgrades, replacements and interconnections 

between the different systems. The quality of San Francisco Bay Area drinking water supplies varies by 

source and method of treatment. Agencies are continuously pursuing activities that will improve water 

quality, such as groundwater conjunctive use, improved treatment technology, and blending of water from 

alternate sources of supply. Other challenges include the expansion of integrated regional planning 

efforts, in order to link local land use planning with water system planning and management. 

Environmental water supply. Environmental water quality issues naturally focus on the San Francisco 

Bay Estuary, including control of storm water, urban runoff, sediment, and pollutants, from local 

watersheds as well as the Central Valley and Delta watersheds. While water quality in the Estuary is 

much better now due to the implementation of secondary treatment of domestic wastewater, water and 

sediment are still widely contaminated by legacy pollutants such as mercury and polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs). 

Central Coast Hydrologic Region 

Water supply reliability. With a limited surface water supply and few surface water storage facilities, the 

region increasingly depends on imported water and groundwater resources. Surface water for agricultural 

and urban purposes is imported through the federal CVP San Felipe project (in the northern region) and 

via the SWP Coastal Branch Aqueduct to San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties (in the south). For 

the Salinas River and the Monterey Peninsula, future sources of water supply are being studied from 

recycling, conjunctive management, and desalination. 

In 1995 SWRCB ruled that California-American Water Company, the primary water supplier to most of 

the Monterey Peninsula, did not have a legal right to about 70 percent of the water it takes from the 

Carmel River, its main source. In response Cal-Am has been taking more water from wells that draw from 

groundwater below the lower valley. 

Environmental water supply and water quality. Sedimentation poses the greatest water quality threat to 

Morro Bay, one of 28 estuaries in the National Estuary Program. The primary tributary to Monterey Bay, 

the Salinas River watershed, suffers from nitrate and pesticide contamination related to agriculture, which 

is the valley’s main land use. Seawater intrudes up to 6 miles inland in the shallow aquifer around 

Castroville. The nearby Pajaro River watershed faces a variety of water quality threats such as erosion, 

 3-13 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

urban runoff, sand and gravel mining, flood control projects, off-road vehicles, and historical mercury 

mining in the Hernandez Lake area. 

South Coast Hydrologic Region 

Water supply reliability. Projected population increases will have a significant impact on water demands. 

More than 50 percent of the region's water supplies are imported from other parts of the state through the 

SWP, the Los Angeles Aqueduct, and the Colorado River Aqueduct. By year 2016 California’s Colorado 

River allocation will be reduced from the current 5.3 million acre-feet per year to 4.4 maf/year. Several 

water exchange and conjunctive use programs must be developed to offset this reduction. Drought 

impacts are a long-term concern and require the development of other local sources of supply to meet dry 

year demands, including recycling, expanded conservation, conjunctive use, and desalination. 

Water quality. Population growth (to more than 23 million residents by year 2030) and associated urban 

sprawl will present several water quality challenges, including the need for treatment facilities for the 

increased wastewater and urban runoff. Storm water, urban runoff, and overflows from sanitary sewers 

can adversely affect coastal water quality, causing beach closures and swimming restrictions. Extensive 

shipping and recreational boating can also affect ocean water quality. Imported surface water supplies 

have water quality problems including high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS) and low levels of 

perchlorate from the Colorado River, and the presence of organic carbon and bromide in SWP Delta 

supplies. In particular, high TDS levels in source water can inhibit wastewater reuse. Salinity also 

intrudes into local groundwater basins near the ocean, which is resisted with hydraulic barriers in Los 

Angeles and Orange Counties. Inland, local aquifers are polluted by MTBE, perchlorate, chromium 6, and 

organic chemicals. A large concentrating of dairies in the Chino Basin has led to salt, nutrient, and 

microbial contamination of groundwater. The Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana Rivers are the 

focus of many watershed planning and restoration activities. 

Sacramento River Hydrologic Region 

Water supply reliability and water transfers. During extended periods of drought, surface water allocation 

cutbacks from the SWP and the CVP limit water districts reliant on these supplies. Users turn to 

groundwater, switch to lower water-use crops, or allow prime farmland to lie fallow. With a growing 

demand for high quality water throughout the state, water transfers from Sacramento Valley to other parts 

of the state are evaluated more closely. Several counties have adopted groundwater ordinances that 

regulate or impede water transfers outside of the county of origin. 

DWR and USBR, under the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and in cooperation with the California BayDelta Authority (CBDA), is studying the feasibility of two proposed surface storage improvements within 

this region: the enlargement of Shasta Reservoir and a new off-stream storage reservoir on the west side 

of the Sacramento River called Sites Reservoir and other alternative sites. Flood protection and the 

adequacy of existing flood control structures is a major concern for the low-lying areas of the Sacramento 

Valley floor, particularly in areas where urban expansion is occurring. 

Water quality. Much of the region’s groundwater and surface water are of high quality, but there are some 

local groundwater problems, often from natural contaminant sources. For instance, at the north end of the 

Sacramento Valley, wells typically have high TDS content and in the western volcanic and geothermal 

areas, moderate levels of hydrogen sulfide are found in groundwater In the Sierra foothills, uranium and 

3-14 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

radon-bearing rock or sulfide mineral deposits containing heavy metals may contaminate groundwater. In 

addition, a history of gold mining activities has produced a legacy of mercury, especially in the Cache 

Creek watershed, and other toxic heavy metals in surface water supplies. Water temperature is a concern 

in the Sacramento River and its tributaries that provide habitat for four runs of salmon. Along the lower 

American River, a plume of perchlorate contamination spreads, causing closure of several municipal 

wells in the vicinity. 

Environmental water supply. Additional ecosystem protection and restoration are needed to continue 

improving habitat for threatened and endangered species while maintaining water quality on tributaries to 

the Sacramento River as well as the main stem, which eventually flow into the Delta. Existing and 

proposed projects include federal and State partnerships with landowners, agricultural water districts, 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and several other entities in the region. 

San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region 

Water supply reliability. Plans to restore the river habitat and fish populations on the San Joaquin River 

through higher releases of water from Friant Dam have spurred growing concerns over the long-term 

availability of the Sierra water supplies for the San Joaquin River. USBR, in cooperation with CBDA, is 

studying the feasibility of a new surface storage reservoir in the upper San Joaquin basin, with the 

primary location identified as Temperance Flat. 

Extensive groundwater pumping in the Stockton area has generated groundwater overdraft, leading to 

declining groundwater levels and saline groundwater intrusion. A groundwater recharge program that is 

under development would divert surplus river water during winter months to help restore groundwater 

levels and stop the saline groundwater intrusion. 

Water quality. The major surface water quality problems of San Joaquin Valley streams are a result of 

depleted freshwater flows, significant salt and other pollutant loads from agricultural runoff and wetland 

drainage, and municipal and industrial wastewater discharges. Dairies, stockyards, and poultry ranches 

are also a concern in the region for their loadings of pathogens, nutrients, salts, and emerging 

contaminants (such as antibiotics) to water bodies. High salinity groundwater can be found along the 

western edge of the Valley floor where marine sediments of the Coast Range exist. Agricultural 

pesticides, nitrates, naturally occurring selenium, and industrial organic chemicals have also widely 

contaminated groundwater in the region. 

Environmental water supply. One of the major challenges facing the San Joaquin River Hydrologic 

Region is restoring the ecosystem along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam while maintaining water 

supply reliability for other purposes. The river's historic salmon populations upstream of the Merced 

River were extirpated when river water was diverted with the construction of Friant Dam in the 1940s. In 

August 2004, a federal judge ruled that the USBR violated State Fish and Game Code 5937 by not 

providing enough water downstream to sustain fish populations. This litigation continues, and the 

resolution will be challenging because of the potential to impact water supplies for the Friant Water Users 

Authority. Water quality is also a big concern. High salinity caused by agricultural drainage and 

wastewater return flows is a problem for fish in the lower San Joaquin River. Specific water quality 

concerns are dissolved oxygen problems in the Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel and salt and boron 

load limitations. There is a lot of activity and interest in the use of San Joaquin River water for 

 3-15 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

environmental purposes as well as for water transfers between agriculture and municipalities, additional 

surface storage, conjunctive use operations, the South Delta Improvement Program and increased 

pumping at Banks. 

Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region 

Water supply reliability. Uncertainty and limitations of surface water deliveries from the Sacramento-San 

Joaquin Delta are exacerbating groundwater overdraft because groundwater is used to replace much of the 

shortfall in surface water supplies. Land subsidence from long-term groundwater overdraft has caused 

some damage to canals, utilities, pipelines, and roads. Water transfers within these areas have and will 

become more common as farmers seek to minimize water supply impacts on their operations. In urban 

areas water conservation and water recycling programs are being accelerated to help offset short-term 

water reliability, and several major groundwater recharge programs store excess water during wet periods 

for extraction and use during dry periods. 

Water quality. Much of the groundwater in the western Valley floor area is not suitable for use because of 

its high salinity and the presence of other toxic elements resulting from percolation through the marine 

sediments on the west side. Naturally occurring arsenic is a serious concern for domestic water well 

supplies. Some areas of groundwater contain elevated levels of nitrates, sulfates, selenium, and boron, as 

well as pesticides such as dibromochloropropane (DBCP) used in agriculture, and the industrial solvents 

trichloroethylene (TCE) and dichloroethylene (DCE). Dairy operations can contribute salinity, nutrients, 

and microbes to both surface and groundwater. (See also discussion of drainage in San Joaquin River 

region.) 

Drainage. Agricultural drainage plagues the poorly drained area along the western side of the San Joaquin 

Valley, from Kern County northward into the San Joaquin River basin. The drainage water is sometimes 

contaminated with naturally occurring, but elevated, levels of selenium, boron, and other toxic trace 

elements that threaten water quality and fish and wildlife. Irrigation with high salinity imported water has 

exacerbated the drainage problem. In 2002, USBR supported an “in-Valley” solution to the drainage 

problem on the Valley’s west side. Also in 2002, the Westlands Water District and the United States 

reached a settlement agreement regarding drainage service in the San Luis Unit, which reduced the 

acreage of irrigated lands and the associated drainage problems. More recently, the federal government is 

continuing to work with local interests to evaluate and select a long-term solution for the poor-quality 

drainage water. 

Environmental Water Supply. The Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region encompasses four major watersheds 

the Kings, Kaweah, Tule and Kern. Each of these river systems have unique environmental water needs. 

There has been significant activity on both the Kings and Kern Rivers to restore flows for habitat as well 

as recreation. Modification to outlet structures and timing of releases on the Kings River provide cooler 

water temperatures to protect the resident trout populations. Gravel augmentation is also carried out to 

provide spawning habitat as well. The Kern County Water Authority has implemented a successful and 

innovative program of delivering supplies down the river through the City of Bakersfield for instream 

uses and then extracting the water farther downstream through the use of wells. Environmental water 

supplies on the Kaweah and Tule Rivers are being modified due to the mitigation requirements tied to 

reservoir enlargement projects on both systems. 

3-16 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

North Lahontan Hydrologic Region 

Water supply reliability. Much of the northern third of the region is chronically short of water. During dry 

years, in areas with little or no surface storage, irrigation may be limited unless surface water is 

supplemented with groundwater. In Modoc and Lassen counties drought is a way of life for agriculture, 

and seasonal irrigation continues as long as water is available. Some groundwater pumping capacities 

diminish very rapidly even during the first year of a drought. 

While the Truckee River Operating Agreement (TROA) has the potential to settle 50 years of interstate 

disputes over Truckee and Carson River waters, the execution and implementation of that agreement will 

require considerable effort in the coming years. California and the U.S. Department of Interior are 

preparing the draft environmental impact statement/environmental impact report for evaluation of the 

TROA and potential impacts. The draft TROA cannot be signed and submitted for federal courts approval 

until after the final EIS/EIR is completed in 2005. Interstate water allocation issues are also being 

evaluated and negotiated for the Walker River basin, where the primary issue is the declining level of 

Walker Lake at the river’s terminus in Nevada and the impact of increased salinity in the lake. To 

preserve the fish, significant increases in fresh water entering Walker Lake will be needed, which would 

likely impact upstream water users in both states. 

Water quality. Water quality is generally excellent, but some communities face local water quality 

problems, such as the MTBE contamination of wells in South Lake Tahoe. The abandoned Leviathan 

Mine impacts local creeks in the upper Carson River watershed with acid mine drainage. Activities in the 

Lake Tahoe basin are subject to extensive prohibitions, BMPs, and analysis, intended to restore and 

preserve the Lake’s water quality. 

Environmental water supply. The principal consumptive uses of water for environmental uses in the 

region are those of State wildlife areas around Honey Lake. The Honey Lake Wildlife Area in southern 

Lassen County consists of the 4,271-acre Dakin Unit and the 3,569-acre Fleming Unit. The two units 

provide important habitat for several threatened or endangered species, including the bald eagle, sand hill 

crane, bank swallow, and peregrine falcon. River flows that have been designated as wild and scenic 

constitute a large part of the environmental water use within the region. Lake Tahoe is subject to 

extensive analysis and restoration activities to restore and preserve its water quality. 

South Lahontan Hydrologic Region 

Water supply reliability. Many urban areas in the developing southwestern portion of this region are now 

experiencing shortfalls in water supplies. Meeting water demands for projected growth and development 

is a concern for many water agencies. A study by the Antelope Valley Water Group concluded that the 

valley’s existing and future water supply reliability from groundwater, the SWP, Littlerock Reservoir, and 

recycling is low and that current water demands would be met only half the time without overdrafting 

groundwater resources. The Mojave River groundwater basin adjudication was finalized in 1996 as a 

mechanism to permanently control groundwater usage and overdraft in that region. 

Water quality. Like the North Lahontan region, water quality is generally excellent, though there are local 

impairments. When drinking water standards are exceeded in public water supply wells, it is most often 

for TDS, fluoride, or boron. Water quality and quantity are inherently related in the Owens River 

 3-17 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

watershed due to the large exports of surface water and groundwater by the City of Los Angeles. Arsenic 

is a health concern in the Owens River basin, and therefore, in Los Angeles as well. 

Environmental water supply. Ecosystem protection and restoration efforts are continuing to raise the level 

of Mono Lake and restore the migratory bird habitat of the South Lahontan Hydrologic Region. In the 

Owens River basin, plans are to restore surface flows to a 60-mile stretch of the lower river that was 

dewatered after the Los Angeles Aqueduct was completed in 1913. This ambitious restoration project will 

return live flows to the riverbed on a year-round basis, rebuild the riparian habitat, and reintroduce fish 

and other native wildlife. At the lower end of this 60-mile stretch, the remaining water would be 

recaptured and returned to the Los Angeles Aqueduct.

Colorado River Hydrologic Region 

Water supply reliability. One of the most significant challenges of this region will be adapting to 

requirements of the new Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) for distribution and use of 

California’s legal entitlement of Colorado River water (DWR 2003). Under this 2003 agreement 

California agencies must reduce total consumptive use of Colorado River water to 4.4 million acre-feet 

per year; past usage often exceeded 5.0 maf/year. The QSA also assists the transfer of water to meet urban 

needs in the South Coast region and of mitigation water to help restore Salton Sea water quality. Other 

regional issues include the potential impacts of Colorado River fish restoration programs on the 

availability of water for diversions and the development of solutions to groundwater overdraft problems 

in the upper (urbanized) and lower (agricultural) part of the Coachella Valley. 

Water quality. The Colorado River provides irrigation and domestic water to much of Southern 

California. The water salinity (generally between 760 to 950 parts per million) is a concern for saltsensitive crops, and municipal water agencies blend this supply with low salinity water supplies before 

urban use. Low levels of perchlorate in the Colorado River, originating in the Las Vegas Wash, and high 

levels of hexavalent chromium in wells at Needles near the river, are recent concerns for drinking water 

quality. Septic systems at recreational areas along the Colorado River are also a water quality concern for 

both domestic and recreational water uses. 

Ecosystem restoration. Salton Sea is the focus of international water quality and ecosystem restoration 

efforts in Southern California. An important stop along the Pacific Flyway, the saline and eutrophic Sea 

supports a productive fishery and more that 400 species of resident and migratory birds, of which more 

that 50 have status as threatened, endangered, or species of concern. The largest sources of the Sea’s 

inflow are the New River, which originates in, and conveys industrial and agricultural wastes from 

Mexico into the United States; the Alamo River, which also originates south of the border and consists 

mainly of agricultural return flows from the Imperial Valley; and the Imperial Valley agriculture drains, 

which contribute pesticides, nutrients, selenium, and silt to the Sea. Nutrient input to the sea can 

contribute to algal blooms and odors, and lead to low dissolved oxygen conditions that are dangerous to 

fisheries. If a solution is not developed and begun soon, Salton Sea may become too saline to support 

most of the fish and the associated bird populations. 

3-18 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 

Water supply reliability. Because local Delta water users draw from adjacent channels, they normally 

have immediate access to water. But Delta water quality and channel water levels can be influenced by 

pumping plant operations of the SWP and CVP, especially in the vicinity of south Delta islands. Lower 

water levels in the south Delta in combination with low river inflows from the San Joaquin River can 

make it difficult for local irrigation diversions to access the water. State and federal agencies are 

coordinating efforts to design and launch the South Delta Improvements Program, which proposes 

construction of barriers and control gates to improve water levels and flows. 

The maintenance and operational flexibility of SWP and CVP export pumping plants is critical toward 

meeting present and future water needs, especially for those who depend on the projects for water supply 

delivery—most of the San Joaquin Valley, Southern California, and portions of the San Francisco Bay 

Area. Periodic pumping limitations due to water quality and salinity issues and to environmental 

restrictions for endangered fish (salmon and Delta smelt) pose significant operational challenges. Among 

the proposals under study are improvements to pumping capabilities and the coordinated use of the SWP 

and CVP to create more flexibility in meeting export needs without causing adverse impacts to the Delta 

environment and water quality. 

Water quality. The Delta is a major water source for portions of the San Francisco Bay Area, the San 

Joaquin Valley, and Southern California. Salinity (from saltwater intrusion and from agricultural 

drainage), organic carbon, and pathogens are among the major constituents of concern for water agencies 

that divert water for domestic purposes. Water quality threats include population growth and increased 

wastewater discharge and urban runoff in Delta tributaries, recreational use within Delta waterways, and 

agricultural runoff and drainage from the Central Valley. Environmental water quality concerns also 

include mercury, organophosphate pesticides, selenium, and toxicity throughout the Delta, as well as low 

dissolved oxygen in the lower San Joaquin River. 

Levee stability. Historical levee construction on unstable peat soils has made Delta levees vulnerable to 

failure, especially during earthquakes or floods. Levee failures cause substantial flooding and damage to 

the agricultural lands on Delta islands (such as the Jones Tract levee break in early June 2004), and also 

can adversely impact Delta water quality. Long-term programs are being developed by DWR, in 

cooperation with CBDA, to address levee stability problems and to develop programs and funding 

resources to strengthen levees and protect the Delta’s water quality. 

Environmental water supply. Over the past century, the health of the Delta ecosystem has declined with 

the loss of habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial biota. Habitat quality has also declined due to diversion 

of water, toxics, exotic species, and other factors. Conversion of agricultural land to other uses to 

accommodate ecosystem improvements and other environmental restoration programs are being 

developed by the CALFED Bay-Delta Program as part of the long-term efforts to restore the Delta 

environment. 

 3-19 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

Mountain Counties 

Water supply reliability. The rapid urban growth and associated increases in water usage in the western 

foothill portion of this region is stressing available water supplies for many local districts and agencies. 

New surface water supplies are difficult to obtain because most of the available rights were previously 

appropriated and are now assigned to downstream users in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys and 

the coastal regions. More than 75 percent of the available water is stored and exported to water service 

areas outside of the region. Groundwater supplies in this region are also very limited because the 

underground geology consists of mostly fractured rock formations with very few significant aquifers. The 

lack of available new water supplies and the high cost of developing new water are posing major 

development problems for the growing communities in the region. Water agencies will need to consider a 

wide array of water management strategies to meet future needs, including increased water recycling, 

conservation, reclamation, conjunctive use programs, water exchanges, and water purchases. Some local 

agencies may test the State’s “Area of Origin and Watershed Protection” laws as a mechanism for 

obtaining a larger share of the available water supply. 

Water quality. Domestic water users generally benefit from high quality water supplies, but in some of the 

smaller rural delivery systems water quality can be degraded because of open reservoirs and delivery 

canals and inadequate water disinfection facilities. In some watersheds, drainage from abandoned mines 

contributes metals and other toxic elements to rivers that create water quality problems in downstream 

water bodies. Erosion from natural flooding, logging, land development, and areas devastated from forest 

fires, causes increased stream sedimentation to downstream as well. 

As a result of the rapidly increasing population growth, the capacities of wastewater treatment systems for 

many water agencies is being stressed or exceeded, in some areas, resulting in wastewater treatment plant 

overflows to rivers and streams. Widespread septic tank systems are also problematic for groundwater 

quality. Rural water agencies often have limited financial resources that restrict the ability to plan and 

construct wastewater system expansions to keep pace with the rate of urban growth. 

Responses 

Today’s water management considers a broader range of resource management issues, competing water 

demands, and diverse water management tools. In recent decades, earlier water management methods like 

storage and conveyance have been adapted to include more water conservation and recycling and other 

water management strategies. Moreover, regional and local agencies play an increasingly significant role 

in water planning. Regional initiatives that are under way are described in Volume 3 Regional Reports. 

Moving Toward Regional Water Reliability 

Water managers have learned that even though imported supplies will continue to be important, they 

cannot be relied on to satisfy growing water demands. In the 1980s concerns for protecting the 

environment were manifested in strong new laws and regulations. These regulations affected the ability of 

imported water projects to deliver water. The resulting uncertainty also contributed to hesitancy to invest 

3-20 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

in additional facilities for these interbasin systems and forced water agencies to face difficult decisions 

about how to provide a reliable water supply. 

Local and regional agencies are looking more intensely at local water management options such as water 

conservation and recycling measures and groundwater storage. Water managers are learning that planning 

for sustainable water use must address multiple resource objectives—water use efficiency, water quality 

protection, and environmental stewardship—and consider broad needs—economic growth, environmental 

quality, and social equity. 

Throughout California, stakeholders have begun working together to develop regional and watershed 

programs that cover multiple jurisdictions and provide multiple resource benefits. In several regions, 

agencies formed partnerships to combine capabilities and share costs. Integrated regional water 

management has taken a foothold and is on the rise. (See Box 3-5 Examples of Ongoing Regional Water 

Planning Efforts.) 

Box 3-5 Examples of Ongoing Regional Water Planning Efforts 

Integrated Regional Water Management 

California is placing more emphasis on integrated regional water management because it 

• makes better use of existing local resources, 

• provides for coordination and improved efficiency and flexibility in the actions of local agencies 

and governments within a region, 

• integrates all aspects of water management, including water quality, local surface water, 

groundwater, conservation, recycled water, conveyance, ecosystem restoration, and imported 

supplies. 

• reflects regional diversity and values when setting management objectives. 

Integrated regional water management is a comprehensive, systems approach for determining the 

appropriate mix of demand and supply management options that provide long-term, reliable water supply 

at lowest reasonable cost and with highest possible benefits to customers, economic development, 

environmental quality, and other social objectives. (See Chapter 2 Framework for Action for a full 

discussion of integrated regional water management.) 

Water agencies in many regions are successfully employing a mix of resource management strategies 

with State and federal incentives. Experience is showing that these regional efforts can better resolve 

regional needs, especially when paired with statewide water management systems. Regional water 

management options can reduce physical and economic risks and provide regional control over water 

supplies. More is being done to meet water demands with water conservation, reoperation of facilities, 

water recycling, groundwater storage and management, transfer programs, and, in limited cases, regional 

or local surface storage reservoirs. (See Volume 2 Resource Management Strategies for further discussion 

of regional management options.) Overall, this increased focus on integrated regional water management 

solves water management problems more efficiently, considers other resource issues, and enjoys broader 

public support. 

 3-21 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

With integrated regional water management, regions have been able to take advantage of opportunities 

that are not always available to individual water suppliers: reduce dependence on imported water and 

make better use of local supplies; enhance use of groundwater with greater ability to limit groundwater 

overdraft; increase supply reliability; security; and improve water quality. The extent to which regions 

have carried these out has been driven by considerations like economics, environment, engineering, and 

institutional feasibility. (See Box 3-6 Complementary Management Approaches: IRWM and Watershed 

Management) 

Box 3-6 Complementary Management Approaches: IRWM and Watershed Management 

Integrated regional water management results in plans that address multiple water and related resources 

objectives to produce multiple benefits. As an example, in some areas of the state where it is feasible, 

agricultural users are developing water use efficiency projects that simultaneously help stretch limited 

water supplies, reduce loads of contaminants, preserve the agricultural economy, and improve aquatic 

habitat. Similarly, some urban areas are looking at multipurpose projects that use storm water for 

groundwater recharge thereby increasing water supply, reducing urban runoff, improving water quality, 

and decreasing costs for drainage facilities. Although they may not be making significant contributions to 

urban water supply reliability, these types of projects produce a diverse and valuable mix of other 

benefits. 

The California Legislature has enacted several regulations to improve integrated regional water 

management (see Box 3-7 New Laws Support Integrated Regional Water Management). Recent 

legislation has also encouraged improvements in recycling, desalination, and groundwater potential. 

These statutory changes provide incentives for pursuing integrated regional water management and reflect 

the goals of managing water supplies with more flexibility while addressing an array of benefits and 

interests. For example, Water Code section 10530 et seq. (SB 1672 Stats. 2002, ch. 767 and AB 2469 

Stats. 2002, ch. 949) provide for Integrated Regional Water Management plans and specify that a 

planning group developing these plans be composed of at least 3 local agencies, 2 of which must have 

statutory authority over water supply. The emphasis in this part of the Water Code is on integrating local 

water management to create greater flexibility and diversity in managing water demands and supplies 

while potentially addressing other water issues such as flood management, wastewater treatment, and 

ecosystem health. 

Box 3-7 New Laws Support Integrated Regional Water Management 

Coordination of Water and Land Use Planning 

Three bills enacted by the Legislature to improve the coordination between water supply and land use 

planning processes at the local level became effective January 1, 2002 (see Box 3-8 SB 221, SB 610, and 

AB 901). In general, the new laws are intended to improve the assessment of water supplies during the 

local planning process before approval of land use projects that depend on water. The new laws require 

verification of sufficient water supplies as a condition for approving developments, and they compel 

urban water suppliers to provide more information on groundwater reliability if used as a supply. They 

also require average and drought year conditions be addressed when evaluating water supply reliability. 

3-22 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

Box 3-8 SB 221, SB 610, and AB 901 

The State of California General Plan Guidelines, updated in 2003 (OPR), recommends that local 

government include an optional water element in their general plans. Several jurisdictions have 

developed, or are now preparing, water management elements and chapters for their general plans. 

AB 857 (Stats. 2002; ch. 1016) establishes three planning priorities and requires that all State strategic 

plans and capital improvement plans—including the next update of the Governor’s Environmental Goals 

and Policy Report and the California Water Plan—be consistent with them. The Governor and Legislature 

set the following planning priorities to promote equity, strengthen the economy, protect the environment, 

and promote public health and safety in California. The overarching purpose is to establish a tie in State 

policy between planning, social equity, and the human environment. 

• Promote infill development and equity, 

• Protect environmental and agricultural resources, and 

• Encourage efficient development patterns. 

Statewide and Interregional Response 

We have learned that solutions to California’s water management issues are best planned and carried out 

on a regional basis. However, the State has led collaborative efforts to find solutions to water issues 

having broad public benefits such as protecting and restoring the Delta, Salton Sea, and Lake Tahoe. 

Statewide and interregional responses to water resource emergencies and management needs are 

summarized in this section, including programs, task forces, reports, water bonds, legislation, and federal 

programs. (See Box 3-9 Recent Statewide and Interregional Responses to Challenges.) 

Box 3-9 Recent Statewide and Interregional Responses to Challenges 

Programs and Planning 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program's Record of Decision Stage 1 Actions. In August 2000, the CALFED BayDelta Program issued a Programmatic Record of Decision (ROD) that set forth a plan to address 

ecosystem health and water supply reliability problems in the Bay-Delta. The Program plan addresses 

four interrelated, interdependent resource management objectives concurrently: water supply reliability, 

water quality, ecosystem restoration, and levee system integrity. (See Box 3-5 for background information 

about the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.) The program’s mission is to: 

• Provide good water quality for all beneficial uses. 

• Improve and increase aquatic and terrestrial habitats and improve ecological functions in the BayDelta to support sustainable populations of diverse and valuable plant and animal species. 

• Reduce the mismatch between Bay-Delta water supplies and current and projected beneficial uses 

dependent on the Bay-Delta system. 

• Reduce the risk to land use and associated economic activities, water supply, infrastructure, and the 

ecosystem from catastrophic breaching of Delta levees. 

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program began Stage 1 implementation after signing of the ROD. (Stage 1 

covers the first period of program implementation.) Actions taken during Stage 1 build the foundation for 

 3-23 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

future, long-term actions specified in the Program’s Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement/Report. Through 2003 CALFED had invested nearly $2 billion in water supply, water quality, 

and ecosystem restoration programs; significantly reduced conflicts over Delta operations through better 

agency coordination and the new Environmental Water Account; and launched an independent science 

program, which brings national experts together to conduct workshops and reviews of all major program 

activities. The California legislature established the CBDA as a new governance structure to oversee the 

Program and the CALFED agencies. 

Colorado River Agreement. In legislation enacted in 2003 to start the Colorado River QSA, the State of 

California accepted significant responsibilities and liabilities for mitigation of the agreement's 

environmental impacts and for Salton Sea ecosystem restoration. The State's actions were to enable the 

QSA’s local agency signatories to reach agreement on how to reduce their use of Colorado River water to 

California’s basic interstate apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet annually. The QSA implementing 

legislation is contained in three bills chaptered in 2003—SB 277 (Ducheny), SB 317 (Kuehl), and 

SB 654 (Machado). 

Included in the QSA are water transfers—from Imperial Irrigation District to San Diego County Water 

Authority and to Coachella Valley Water District—that will reduce the inflows of agricultural runoff that 

constitute Salton Sea’s chief source of fresh water. The sea's present salinity of about 44,000 mg/l is about 

25 percent saltier than seawater. As the sea's salinity increases through evaporation and concentration of 

salts, it will become too saline to support its present fish and wildlife resources. 

Klamath Basin. Since the drought of 2001, many Klamath Basin farmers have switched to groundwater as 

a source of water supply for their crops, which has been encouraged by USBR financial support. Oregon 

has issued more than 130 new permits for well construction in the Klamath Basin, yet very little is known 

about the capacity and recharge capability of this underground supply source. In 2004 it was reported that 

groundwater levels are declining—in some areas by as much as 20 feet. This has raised new concerns 

about the adequacy of the groundwater basin, and Oregon is now working with the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) and the State of California to evaluate and report on the capabilities of this interstate 

groundwater system. 

In March 2002 the federal administration established a cabinet-level Klamath River Basin Federal 

Working Group that includes the departments of Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce to address concerns 

raised by farmers, ranchers, fishers, tribes, and others affected by the difficult conditions in Klamath. As 

part of the working group, the Department of Agriculture is helping farmers and ranchers start a variety of 

conservation programs. For example, the Natural Resources Conservation Service is working with a 

number of landowners to improve wetland and wildlife habitat through the Wetlands Reserve Program. 

This includes an additional 2,500 acres enrolled in permanent easements during 2002. The projects are on 

Upper Klamath Lake and the Williamson River, both major water sources of the Klamath Basin. These 

projects will benefit water quality and improve wildlife habitat, thereby providing benefits to the 

endangered Lost River and Shortnose Sucker fish (USDA 2004). 

Mono Lake and Owens River. In the Mono Lake and Owens River basins, extensive long-term water 

diversions through the Los Angeles Aqueduct to Southern California have negatively affected the region 

for decades. In 1993 after years of litigation the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) 

began final flow releases to restore Mono Lake to previous levels, with a desired water surface elevation 

3-24 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

of 6,392 feet. Under this restoration program, Mono Lake’s surface elevation has been rising and reached 

an elevation of 6,382 feet by year 2003. 

In December of 2003 the LADWP and the City of Los Angeles approved a tentative agreement with 

several Owens Valley interest groups called the Lower Owens River Project (LORP) that will return 

water to a 62-mile stretch of the lower Owens River to restore the riparian ecosystem. After modifications 

to existing diversion structures are completed, this program is expected to start operations in the fall of 

2005 with a base flow of 40 cubic feet per second. If successful, LORP has the potential to become one of 

the most significant river restoration projects undertaken in the United States. 

Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study. State and federal legislation authorized 

the development of comprehensive plans for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration along the 

Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers following the disastrous floods that occurred in January 1997. 

Although there is widespread agreement that changes are needed to improve the system, there is no 

agreement at this time where the various measures should take place. What did evolve from these 

planning efforts is a process to develop future projects to meet the system’s comprehensive public safety, 

flood damage reduction, and ecosystem restoration objectives. This process consists of guiding principles 

for integrating flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration in future changes to the flood 

management system. The process provides an approach to develop projects that ensures system-wide 

effects are evaluated regardless of project scale and an administrative structure to oversee consistent 

application of the process. 

The December 2002 interim report (USACE) recognizes the water supply conveyance benefits of the 

levee system and suggests that a broader responsibility for maintenance of the flood management system 

should be considered. The Reclamation Board of the State of California endorsed the interim report on 

December 20, 2002. 

As a result of the comprehensive study, a draft feasibility study/EIS/EIR has been prepared for the 

Hamilton City Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project about 85 miles north of 

Sacramento on the Sacramanto River. This study proposes replacing the existing "J" levee with a new 

setback levee that will protect the Hamilton City community of about 2,000 people plus surrounding 

agricultural lands while restoring about 1,500 acres of native vegetation along the Sacramento River. 

San Joaquin River Basin. AB 3603 (1990) authorized the San Joaquin River Management Program 

(SJRMP) to provide a regional forum for identification, discussion, and development of projects and 

programs intended to improve the river’s water quality, fisheries, water supply, flood control, and 

recreation. In 1995 the completed SJRMP Plan identified approximately 80 consensus-based projects and 

studies that could be undertaken to improve the river system. Although some projects and programs have 

been successfully started, many others are on hold until sufficient funding and sponsors can be obtained. 

The San Joaquin River Agreement was approved in 1999 to support and implement the Vernalis Adaptive 

Management Plan, which establishes procedures to meet the river’s provisions of the SWRCB’s 1995 

Water Quality Control Plan. VAMP is a 10-year test program that evaluates the capability of April-May 

pulse flows in the lower San Joaquin River to improve the survival of salmon smolt migrating to San 

Francisco Bay. The agreement facilitates the funding and purchase of water from upstream reservoirs, 

which is released per VAMP pulse flow criteria in April and May. 

 3-25 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

Trinity River Basin. The Secretary of the Interior in December 2000 approved significant change in use of 

Trinity River Basin water. As part of an effort to restore Trinity River fish habitat, the river’s instream 

flows were increased from 340,000 acre-feet per year (roughly 25 percent of average annual flow at the 

CVP diversion point on the Trinity River) to an average of 595,000 acre-feet per year. This decision, 

which would reduce the amount of water available for export from the Trinity River to the Central Valley, 

was challenged by water and power interests in U.S. District Court in 2001. On July 13, 2004, the 9th 

U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the injunction and ruled that the original year 2000 Record of 

Decision was adequate. The water allocated to downstream fish flows is now being increased to the new 

flow schedule, which ranges from a minimum of 368,600 acre-feet in a critically dry year up to 815,000 

acre-feet in an extremely wet year. 

Truckee River Basin. In the interstate Truckee River Basin, which includes Lake Tahoe, efforts continue 

to resolve years of disputes over the waters of the Truckee and Carson rivers. In 1990 Congress passed 

the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act (Public Law 101-618), which makes an 

interstate allocation of the waters between California and Nevada, provides for the settlement of certain 

American Indian rights claims, and provides for water supplies for specified environmental purposes in 

Nevada. California’s water entitlements under this act will be established as 23,000 acre-feet annually in 

the Lake Tahoe Basin and 32,000 acre-feet annually in the Truckee River Basin below Lake Tahoe with 

the remainder of the basin water supply assigned to water interests in Nevada. However, provisions of the 

Settlement Act, including the interstate water allocation, will not take effect until several conditions are 

met, which include negotiation and approval of a new Truckee River Operation Agreement (TROA). 

Negotiation of a proposed TROA and preparation of its EIS/EIR began in 1991 involving the federal 

government, the states of California and Nevada, the Pyramid Lake Paiute Indian Tribe, and water 

purveyors from both states. The revised draft EIS/EIR for this agreement was distributed in 2004, and 

public comments are now being reviewed for preparation of the Final TROA EIS/EIR in 2005. When 

executed, the TROA would establish river operations procedures to meet water rights on the Truckee 

River and to enhance spawning flows in the lower Truckee River for cui-ui and Lahontan cutthroat trout. 

TROA would provide for management of water within the Truckee River Basin in California, including 

instream flow requirements and reservoir storage for fish and recreation uses, and would include 

procedures for operation and accounting of surface and groundwater diversions in California’s part of the 

Truckee Basin. 

Programs to manage Lake Tahoe water quality by regulating development and preventing pollutants from 

reaching the lake are being implemented at the federal, State, and local levels. The Tahoe Regional 

Planning Agency (TRPA), a bistate agency created by Congress, sets regional environmental standards, 

issues land use permits (including conditions to protect water quality), and takes enforcement actions 

throughout the basin. TRPA’s regional plan provides for achievements and maintenance of environmental 

targets by managing growth and development. In addition to its regulatory activities, TRPA carries out a 

capital improvement program to repair environmental damage done before the regional plan was adopted. 

3-26 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

Task Forces and Advisory Panels 

California Commission on Building for the 21st Century. The commission was directed to “study the 

building and infrastructure needs of California, with the intent of identifying existing critical 

infrastructure needs and developing a comprehensive long-term capital investment plan for financing 

public building needs, including responsible financial approaches and efficiency improvements." In 2000 

at the recommendation of this commission and with the support of the Governor and the Legislature, 

more than $4 billion in parks and water bonds were placed on the ballot (propositions 12 and 13) and 

approved, constituting the largest such State investment in the nation’s history (California Commission on 

Building for the 21st Century 2001). 

California Floodplain Management Task Force. This task force was established in early 2002 to examine 

specific issues related to State and local floodplain management. The diverse group of private, nonprofit, 

and local interest groups and State, federal, and local agencies created more than 30 recommendations for 

improved floodplain management. (See Volume 2 Resource Management Strategies, Chapter 10 

Floodplain Management for summary of task force recommendations.) 

Desalination Task Force. AB 2717 called for DWR to establish a Desalination Task Force. On Oct. 9, 

2003, DWR submitted "Water Desalination—Findings and Recommendations" to the Legislature on 

potential opportunities for desalination of seawater and brackish water in California, impediments to 

using desalination technology, and what role, if any, the State should play in furthering the use of 

desalination. (See Volume 2 Resource Management Strategies, Chapter 6 Desalination for 

recommendation summary of task force.) 

The Governor's Advisory Drought Planning Panel. This panel was formed in 2000 to develop a 

contingency plan to address the impacts of critical water shortages with the recognition that health, 

welfare, and economy of California are among those severely impacted. As part of a five-year planning 

program to implement specific actions of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, the panel made 

recommendations for actions that State government could take (December 2000 report, “The Critical 

Water Shortages Contingency Plan"). The recommendations included a critical water shortage reduction 

marketing program to facilitate intraregional, short-term, and dry-year transfers, financial and planning 

assistance to local agencies for drought-related response activities, and assistance to small water systems 

and homeowners in rural counties. The work on these programs started early 2002 and is ongoing through 

bond measures Proposition 13 (March 2000) and Proposition 50 (November 2002). (See Volume 4 

Reference Guide article “Selected Task Force and Advisory Panels,” for this panel's recommendations.) 

Landscape Task Force. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 2717 in September 2004. It asks the 

California Urban Water Conservation Council to set up a stakeholder task force to review and evaluate 

landscape water issues statewide and to make recommendations for improvements. The task force, 

convened in February 2005, includes representatives from water agencies, landscape contractors, the 

green industry, cities and counties, environmental groups, and state and federal agencies. The main charge 

of the task force is to recommend change to the existing Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and 

to look at other landscape issues. 

 3-27 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

State Recycling Task Force. Noting the importance of water recycling to our state, a 40-member 

California Recycled Water Task Force was established pursuant to AB 331(Goldberg, Chapter 590, 

Statutes of 2001).The task force was charged with evaluating the framework of State and local rules, 

regulations, ordinances, and permits to identify the opportunities, obstacles, or disincentives to 

maximizing the safe use of recycled water. (See Volume 2 Resource Management Strategies, Chapter 16 

Recycled Municipal Water for recommendation summary of the task force’s report (2003).) 

State Watershed Management Guidelines and Initiative. AB 2117 (Stats. 2000, ch. 735) required a report 

to the Legislature on California’s watershed status and any needed changes in State laws. The State 

Secretary for Resources and chair of SWRCB formed the Joint Task Force on California Watershed 

Management, an interagency and stakeholder effort, to discuss the results of the 10 case studies, to refine 

the findings, and to craft major recommendations to move the state in a new direction to protect and 

restore watersheds, lakes, rivers, and estuaries in California. The task force issued its recommendations in 

"Addressing the Need to Protect California’s Watersheds: Working with Local Partnerships" 

(SWRCB 2002). 

The Watershed Subcommittee of the Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee. The Watershed 

Subcommittee meets monthly, usually in Sacramento, to review progress in watershed management and 

provide input and advice to the CBDA Watershed Program. Participants come from state and local 

government, nonprofit corporations, and the private sector. Highlights of watershed work in various 

watersheds throughout the state are provided as part of each meeting. 

DWR Bulletins and Reports 

California’s Groundwater Update 2003 (Bulletin 118). DWR has long recognized the need for collection, 

summary, and evaluation of groundwater data as tools in planning optimal use of the groundwater 

resource. Bulletin 118 presents the results of groundwater basin evaluations in California. 

Fish Passage Improvement Program. A part of the CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program, the Fish 

Passage Improvement Program is a partnership-building effort to improve and enhance fish passage in 

Central Valley and San Francisco Bay Area rivers and streams. Local, State, and federal agencies and 

stakeholders cooperatively plan and implement projects that remove barriers impeding migration and 

spawning of anadromous fish. The inaugural issue of Bulletin 250 (DWR 2003) presented for the first 

time aggregated information on fish passage impediments and activities to address the decline in riverine 

habitat within the Fish Passage Improvement Program geographic scope. 

Flood Warnings: Responding to California's Flood Crisis. This Flood Management White Paper 

(DWR 2005) presents an overview of the current condition of flood management in the Central Valley 

and outlines a plan to reduce flood risks through an integrated approach for better planning, new 

investments, improved management of our infrastructure and closer collaboration between water agencies 

and users. 

Management of the California State Water Project. Bulletin 132 is a series of annual reports that began in 

1963 and describe the status of SWP operations and water deliveries. The most recent issue is Bulletin 

132-03, which covers the period from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2002 (DWR 2004). The report 

updates information regarding project costs and financing, water supply planning, power operations, and 

3-28 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

significant events that affect the management of the SWP. Bulletin 132-03 also discusses water supply 

and delivery, the continuation of construction of the East Branch Extension, Delta resources and 

environmental issues, including the CALFED Bay-Delta Program; Oroville facilities relicensing; 

financial analysis of the SWP; and the update of business systems in DWR. 

Water Bonds 

Voters have approved three additional major California water bonds since the last water plan update: 

• Proposition 13. $1.97 billion in bonds to support safe drinking, water quality, flood protection, and 

water reliability projects throughout the state. Approved by voters March 2000. 

• Proposition 40 “California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal 

Protection Act of 2002.” A $2.6 billion in bonds administered by 18 departments for various 

programs, including water quality, watershed protection and restoration, and protection of wildlife 

habitat. Approved by voters March 2002. 

• Proposition 50 “Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002.” 

This $3.4 billion bond provides $825 million (Chapter 7 funding) for CALFED for a variety of 

programs. Also, DWR is to administer one-half of the $500 million (Chapter 8 funding) for 

Integrated Regional Water Management grants for projects to “protect communities from drought, 

protect and improve water quality, and improve local water security by reducing dependence on 

imported water.” Approved by voters November 2002. 

AB 303 (Local Groundwater Management Assistance Act of 2000). The intent of AB 303 is to provide 

grant funding to help local agencies conduct groundwater studies or carry out groundwater monitoring 

and management activities, including the development of groundwater management plans. The maximum 

grant available is $250,000. 

Federal Planning (Water 2025) 

Water 2025: Preventing Crises and Conflict in the West calls for concentrating existing federal financial 

and technical resources in key western watersheds and in critical research and development such as water 

conservation and desalinization that will help to predict, prevent, and alleviate water supply conflicts. 

Water 2025 proposes modernizing aging water supply structures (from dams and reservoirs to pumping 

stations, pipelines, and canals) and improving regional water planning and tools to help stretch existing 

water supplies with improved conservation, more efficiencies, and better monitoring. 

A primary principle of Water 2025 is that solutions to complex water supply issues must recognize and 

respect state, tribal, and federal water rights, contracts, and interstate compacts and decrees of the U.S. 

Supreme Court that allocate the right to use water. (See Box 3-10 Water 2025 (Federal) Principles, 

Realities, and Key Tools). 

Box 3-10 Water 2025 (Federal) Principles, Realities, and Key Tools 

 3-29 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

In support of watershed management, federal agencies are subject to the Unified Federal Policy for 

Watersheds. The UFP guides the actions of key federal agencies such as the departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Energy, and Interior as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. This policy emphasizes the following: 

• Assessing the functions and condition of watersheds 

• Incorporating watershed goals in federal agency planning and programs 

• Enhancing pollution prevention 

• Improving monitoring 

• Restoring watersheds 

• Identifying waters of exceptional value 

• Expanding collaboration among federal agencies, States, tribes, and interested stakeholders. 

Understanding How Water Is Allocated, Used, and Regulated 

California has a very large and complex water system with a highly decentralized system of governance 

involving State and federal agencies, thousands of local agencies, governments and private firms, and 

millions of households and farms. Decentralization has a major influence on daily management, planning, 

and policy-making. Competing and conflicting roles and responsibilities make it difficult to integrate 

regional water management. Differing roles of the various State, federal, and local governments during 

planning can create coordination problems. The organizational structure of State government can cause 

insufficient communication, coordination, and cooperation among numerous State agencies and 

departments responsible for water. 

Institutional Framework 

In California water use and supplies are controlled and managed under an intricate system of common law 

principles, constitutional provisions, State and federal statutes, court decisions, and contracts or 

agreements. All of these components constitute the institutional framework for the protection of public 

interests and their balance with private claims in California’s water allocation and management. 

(See Box 3-11 Some Regulations Governing Water-related Resources Management and more details in 

Volume 4 Reference Guide article “Recent Water Legislation.”) 

Box 3-11 Some Regulations Governing Water-related Resources Management 

Constitutional, Statutory, and Common Law Framework for Water Uses 

Water rights in California are subject to State constitutional prohibition of wasteful or unreasonable use. 

California's water law and policy requires that “water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the 

fullest extent of which they are capable” (Cal. Const., art. X, § 2). It places a significant limitation on 

water rights by prohibiting the waste, unreasonable use, unreasonable method of use, or unreasonable 

method of diversion of water. However, the interpretation of what is wasteful can vary significantly 

depending on the circumstances and may depend on opinions of the SWRCB or, ultimately, the courts. 

3-30 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

Public Trust Doctrine 

Rights to use water are also subject to the State’s obligation under the Public Trust Doctrine as trustee of 

certain resources for Californians. The Public Trust Doctrine imposes legal responsibilities on State 

agencies to protect trust resources associated with California's waterways, such as navigation, fisheries, 

recreation, ecological preservation, and related beneficial uses. In National Audubon Society v. Superior 

Court of Alpine County, the California Supreme Court concluded that the public trust is an affirmation of 

the duty of State government to protect the people’s common heritage of streams, lakes, marshlands, and 

tidelands, surrendering such protection only in rare cases when the abandonment of that right is consistent 

with the purposes of the trust. Thus, California agencies have fiduciary obligations to the public when 

they make decisions affecting trust assets. 

In National Audubon, the court addressed the relationship between the Public Trust Doctrine and 

California’s water rights system and integrated them. The court reached three major conclusions: 

1) The State retains continuing supervisory control over its navigable waters, the lands beneath them, 

and the flows of their tributary streams. This prevents any party from acquiring a vested right to 

appropriate water in a manner harmful to the uses protected by the public trust. SWRCB may 

reconsider past water allocation decisions in light of current knowledge and current needs. 

2) As a practical matter, it will be necessary for the State to grant usufructuary licenses to allow 

appropriation of water for uses outside the stream, even though this taking may unavoidably harm the 

trust uses of the source stream. 

3) "The State has an affirmative duty to take the public trust into account in the planning and allocation 

of water resources, and to protect public trust uses whenever feasible.” 

Thus, while the State may, as a matter of practical necessity, have to approve appropriations that will 

cause harm to trust uses, it “must at all times bear in mind its duty as trustee to consider the effect of such 

taking on the public trust, (cite omitted) and to preserve, so far as consistent with the public interest, the 

uses protected by the trust.” 

Surface Water Rights 

California’s system for surface water rights recognizes both riparian rights and appropriative rights. 

Riparian rights were adopted in California as a part of the English common law when California became a 

state in 1850. At that time, gold miners were already operating under their own system that recognized 

claims to water rights based on prior appropriation. 

• Riparian. A riparian right is the right to divert, but not store, a portion of the natural flow for use 

based on the ownership of property adjacent to a natural watercourse. Water claimed through a 

riparian right must be used on the riparian parcel. Such a right is generally attached to the riparian 

parcel of land except where a riparian right has been preserved for noncontiguous parcels when land 

is subdivided. Generally, riparian rights are not lost through non-use. All riparian water users have 

the same priority; senior and junior riparian water rights do not exist. During times of water 

shortage, all riparian water users must adjust their water use to allow equal sharing of the available 

water supply. 

• Appropriative. Under the prior appropriation doctrine, a person may acquire a right to divert, store, 

and use water regardless of whether the land on which it is used is adjacent to a stream or within its 

 3-31 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

watershed. When water in a stream is over-appropriated, a priority system determines which 

appropriators may divert water. The rule of priority between appropriators is "first in time is first in 

right." A senior appropriative water rights holder may not change an established use of the water to 

the detriment of a junior, including a junior’s reliance on a senior’s return flow. Acquisition of 

appropriative water rights is subject to the issuance of a permit (followed by a license) by SWRCB 

with priority based on the date that the associated application for the appropriation of water was 

received by the SWRCB and was complete. Permit and license provisions do not apply to pre-1914 

appropriative rights (those initiated before the Water Commission Act took effect in 1914), but pre1914 rights are still subject to reasonable and beneficial use. Appropriative rights may be sold or 

transferred. 

Groundwater Use and Management 

California does not regulate the extraction and appropriation of groundwater with the exception of the 

19 adjudicated groundwater basins and basins in which a local agency has obtained statutory authority to 

manage groundwater. Any overlying landowner in California has the right to build a well and extract 

groundwater as long as that groundwater is put to a reasonable and beneficial use. In 1903 the California 

Supreme Court rejected the English common law system of absolute ownership of groundwater, which 

allowed for unregulated pumping of groundwater. Instead the court adopted the rule of "reasonable use of 

percolating waters." This established the doctrine of “correlative rights and reasonable use” under which 

every landowner in the basin has a right to extract and use groundwater and that right is correlative with 

the rights of all the overlying landowners in the basin. Those correlative rights are not quantified until the 

basin is adjudicated. An overlying landowner’s right is considered to be analogous to a riparian right to 

surface water. Groundwater can be appropriated-use on non-overlying lands if water is surplus to the 

reasonable needs of overlying owners. The Baldwin v. Tehama decision affirmed the authority of counties 

to regulate groundwater resources within their boundaries. Many local agencies and governments have 

prepared groundwater basin management plans under AB 3030 (1992; Water Code § 10754). 

Tribal Water Rights 

Some Indian reservations and other federal lands have reserved water rights implied from acts of the 

federal government, rather than State law. When tribal lands were reserved, their natural resources were 

implicitly reserved for tribal use. Because reserved tribal rights were generally not created by state law, 

states' water allocations did not account for tribal resources. In the landmark Winters v. U.S. case in 1908, 

the U.S. Supreme court established that sufficient water was reserved to fulfill the uses of a reservation at 

the time the reservation was established. The decision, however, did not indicate a method for quantifying 

tribal water rights. Winters rights also retain their validity and seniority over State appropriated water 

whether or not the tribes have put the water to beneficial use. Only after many years did tribes begin to 

assert and develop their reserved water rights. In 1963 the U.S. Supreme Court decision Arizona v. 

California reaffirmed Winters and established a quantification standard based on irrigation, presupposing 

that tribes would pursue agriculture. Despite criticisms of the "practicably irrigable acreage" (PIA) 

quantification standard from various perspectives, the PIA standard provided certainty to future water 

development. Quantifying water needs in terms of agricultural potential does not accurately show the 

many other needs for water. Even urban water quantity and quality assessments that look at the adequacy 

of the domestic water supply and sanitation do not provide a complete picture of tribal water needs. A 

large part of the tribal water needs are for instream flows and other water bodies that support 

environmental and cultural needs for fishing, hunting, and trapping. 

3-32 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

The 1902 Reclamation Act provided for the establishment of irrigated agriculture and settlement 

throughout the Western states. Historical perspective indicates this policy was pursued generally without 

regard to Indian water rights or the 1908 Winters decision. In 1952 Congress passed the McCarran 

Amendment which waived sovereign immunity and authorized the adjudication of federal water rights in 

stream adjudications brought in state courts. The court later ruled that state adjudications may also apply 

to Indian reserved water rights held in trust by the United States. In asserting their Winters rights, tribes 

have come into conflict with water-using development that grew out of substantial federal and private 

investment. Costly litigation, negotiation, or both are the usual means of resolving Indian water disputes, 

and some cases can take decades to reach agreement. Some tribes request assistance from the federal 

government to pursue their water rights settlements, reminding concerned parties of the conflicting roles 

the federal government can assume on two or more sides of a judicial or administrative issue. 

Law of the River 

The Colorado River is managed and operated under numerous compacts, federal laws, court decisions and 

decrees, contracts, and regulatory guidelines collectively known as the "Law of the River." In 1922 the 

seven Colorado River Basin states negotiated the Colorado River Compact, which divided the states into 

two basins—upper and lower—and apportioned 7.5 million acre-feet per year to each basin. The compact 

also referenced Mexico's right to the Colorado River. The Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 ratified 

the compact and established California’s apportionment at 4.4 million acre-feet per year4

. In 1944 the 

United States signed a water treaty in which it agreed to deliver an annual quantity of 1.5 million acre-feet 

of water annually to Mexico. 

While compact negotiators estimated the flow of the river to be at least 17 million acre-feet per year, 

today's records indicate a flow of 15 million acre-feet at Lee Ferry just below Lake Powell. Consequently, 

the sum of the actual compact apportionments and the Mexican treaty exceed the flow of the river in most 

years. 

Water Contracts 

Water contracts are a way for an entity to obtain short-term or long-term access to water without having 

specific water rights. State, federal, and many local water agencies have written contracts for delivery of 

water to other water purveyors or customers. Both the SWP and CVP have water rights that are subject to 

area of origin protections (see following section). The Operating Criteria and Plan provides detailed 

analysis of proposed CVP and SWP operations (see http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/ocap.html). Both 

projects have written contracts to deliver water to water agencies that repay capital and operating costs. 

During some years, water deliveries are lower than the contract amounts shown below. (For actual 

deliveries in 1998, 2000, and 2001, see the water portfolios for each region in Volume 3 Regional 

Reports). 

• State Water Project—DWR has long-term water supply contracts for water service from the SWP 

with 29 local agencies for about 4.2 million acre-feet annually. The majority of the SWP goes to 

urban uses. These long-term contracts were updated in the Monterey Amendments, and their 

provisions were revised in 2003 as part of a settlement agreement with the Planning and 

 

4

 See Colorado River Agreement under Programs and Planning section for discussion of 2003 QSA. 

 3-33 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

Conservation League (see “Joint Statement on the Monterey Amendments Litigation” in the 

Volume 4 Reference Guide). 

• Central Valley Project—The CVP supplies water to more than 250 long-term water contractors 

extending from Shasta County in the north to Kern County in the south. Collectively, the contracts 

call for a maximum annual delivery of 9.3 million acre-feet: 4.8 million acre-feet is classified as 

project water, and 4.5 million acre-feet is classified as water right settlement water. In October 

2004, the Bureau of Reclamation released the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the 

proposed long-term renewal of contracts between Reclamation and up to 145 Sacramento River 

Settlement Contractors. Starting in February 2005, USBR began signing long-term contracts for 

25 or 40 years, depending on contract type. The contracts will provide water for 3.4 million acres of 

farmland in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys that produce billions of dollars in gross farm 

revenue and provide municipal and industrial water for more than 3 million people and businesses, 

including Silicon Valley. Delivering this water also generates enough electricity for 2 million 

households. 

Area of Origin Protections 

During the years when California's two largest water projects, the CVP and SWP, were being planned and 

developed, area of origin provisions were added to the Water Code to protect local Northern California 

supplies. County of origin statutes reserve water supplies for counties in which the water originates. The 

Delta Protection Act, enacted in 1959 (not to be confused with the Delta Protection Act of 1992), requires 

the SWP and the CVP to provide salinity control in the Delta and an adequate water supply for water 

users in the Delta. In 1984 additional area of origin protections were enacted to prohibit the export of 

groundwater from the combined Sacramento River and Delta basins, unless the export is in compliance 

with local groundwater plans. 

Water for Environmental Uses 

Several laws outline the state and federal obligations to protect and restore degraded habitats and species: 

• Federal Endangered Species Act 

• California Endangered Species Act 

• Natural Community Conservation Planning 

• Clean Water Act and River and Harbors Act (Dredge and Fill Permits) 

• Water Code (Public Interest Terms and Conditions, etc.) 

• Fish and Game Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements, Releases of Water for Fish, etc.) 

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

• Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

• State and Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

• National Wilderness Act. 

• Unified Federal Policy for Watersheds 

3-34 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

Water Transfers 

Every year hundreds of water transfers (totaling hundreds of thousands of acre-feet) take place between 

water users for a wide variety of reasons. Some provide water on a short-term basis for drought-year 

emergency water supplies and some provide for long-term water supplies. Water transfers occur within 

districts and projects and between regions. The State has helped transfers by purchasing and selling water 

through the Drought Water Bank and, more recently, the Dry Year Water Transfer Program. Short-term 

water transfers also include SWP supplemental water purchases and Central Valley Project Improvement 

Act and Environmental Water Account water acquisitions. (See Volume 2 Resource Management 

Strategies, Chapter 23 Water Transfers for more detail.) 

Institutional Roles 

The State and federal governments are responsible for representing and protecting the public trust (certain 

types of property of high public value held for the benefit of all citizens). Together, the State and federal 

governments provide assistance, guidance, and oversight to local governments (city- and county-owned 

municipal water systems, etc.), American Indian tribes, and special districts. 

California Government 

Many State departments and agencies oversee California's water resources. DWR operates the SWP and 

is responsible for overall water planning. SWRCB integrates water rights and water quality decisionmaking authority. SWRCB and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards are responsible for 

protecting California’s water resources. Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, water 

quality control plans for each of the nine regions shall become part of the California Water Plan. Other 

State agencies and their roles in water management follow: 

• California Bay-Delta Authority—Oversees the 23 State and federal agencies working cooperatively 

through the CALFED Bay-Delta Program to improve the quality and reliability of California’s 

water supplies while restoring the Bay-Delta ecosystem. 

• California Environmental Protection Agency—Restores, protects, and enhances the environment to 

ensure public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality. 

• California Integrated Waste Management Board—Manages the estimated 76 million tons of waste 

generated each year by reducing waste whenever possible, promoting the management of all 

materials to their highest and best use, and protecting public health and safety and the environment. 

• Colorado River Board—Protects California's rights and interests in the resources provided by the 

Colorado River. 

• Delta Protection Commission—Responsible for preparation of a regional plan for the "heart" of the 

Delta. 

• Department of Fish and Game—Regulates and conserves the state’s wildlife. 

• Department of Food and Agriculture—Supports California’s agricultural economy. 

• Department of Health Services—Oversees programs to protect and improve the health of all 

Californians, regulates and permits drinking water. 

• Department of Pesticide Regulation—Regulates pesticide sales and use and plays a significant role 

in monitoring for the presence of pesticides and in preventing further contamination of the water 

resource. 

 3-35 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

• Department of Toxic Substances Control—Provides technical oversight for the characterization and 

remediation of soil and water contamination. 

• Reclamation Board—Plans flood controls along the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and their 

tributaries in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Federal Government 

USBR operates the CVP, the largest water project in California. Other federal agencies play important 

roles in the regulation and management of California’s water resources: 

• Army Corps of Engineers—Plans, designs, builds, and operates water resources projects 

(navigation, flood control, environmental protection, disaster response, etc.). 

• National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries)—Protects and preserves living marine 

resources, including anadromous fish. 

• National Park Service—Manages national parks, including their watersheds. 

• U.S. Bureau of Land Management—Manages federal lands. 

• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation—Constructs federal water supply projects and is the nation’s largest 

wholesaler of water and the second largest producer of hydroelectric power. 

• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—Manages forests, watersheds, and other natural 

resources. 

• [USDA] Natural Resource Conservation Service—Provides technical and financial assistance to 

conserve, maintain, and improve natural resources on private lands. 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Protects human health, safeguarding the natural 

environment. 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Conserves, protects, and enhances fish, wildlife, and plants and 

their habitats. 

• U.S. Geological Survey—Provides water measurement and water quality research. 

• Western Area Power Administration—Manages power generated by the Central Valley Project. 

American Indian Tribes 

American Indian tribes exist under a unique relationship with the federal government—as beneficiary and 

trustee, respectively. In a broad sense, the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to tribes; 

however, the execution and effectiveness of this responsibility differ between the three branches of the 

federal government. 

When reservation lands were set aside, the natural resources of the reservations also were reserved for 

tribal people. The federal government is legal titleholder to all trust resources. American Indian tribes 

operate in this government-to-government relationship and help plan water resource projects affecting 

tribal land. Several landmark decisions have defined legal principles for intergovernmental relationships 

and tribal rights. In California and elsewhere, tribes without federal recognition do not enjoy 

governmental status or benefits. Tribal water rights are discussed under the section Institutional 

Framework. 

Reversing a long trend of administrative and economic failures in the administration of the government's 

trust relationship with tribes, President Richard Nixon in 1970 issued a statement in support of 

strengthening tribal governments and improving the trust relationship. The federal government has 

initiated programs to encourage development of Indian resources and tribal self-determination. The 

3-36 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

socioeconomic and political history of California Indians is documented in many published reports. Some 

are cited in the list of references for this water plan. 

Public Agencies, Districts, and Local Governments 

Local city and county governments and special districts have ultimate responsibility for providing safe 

and reliable water to their customers. In general, California has two methods for forming special districts 

that develop, control, or distribute water: (1) enactment of a general act under which the districts may be 

formed as set forth in the act, and (2) enactment of a special act creating the district and prescribing its 

powers. (See Volume 4 Reference Guide for article “What's So Special about Special Districts? A 

Citizen's Guide to Special Districts in California.”) 

Cities and counties are the land management and planning entities as well as resource management 

agencies that most influence the location and amount of population growth within the state. Many 

counties have adopted ordinances that require permits for certain uses of groundwater within their 

boundaries. 

Private Entities 

In addition to public agencies, private entities may provide water supply. Mutual water companies, for 

example, are private corporations that perform water supply and distribution functions similar to public 

water districts. Investor-owned utilities are also involved in water supply activities, sometimes as an 

adjunct of hydroelectric power development. These investor-owned water companies are regulated by the 

California Public Utilities Commission. 

International Trade Agreements 

Since January 2000 more than 140 World Trade Organization (WTO) member governments have been 

negotiating to further liberalize the global services market. The General Agreement on Trade in Services 

(GATS) is among WTO's most important agreements. It is a set of multilateral rules covering 

international trade in services. GATS recognizes "the right of Members to regulate, and to introduce new 

regulations, on the supply of services ... in order to meet national policy objectives." No international 

trade treaty now in effect or being negotiated by the United States prevents local, state, or federal 

government agencies from reviewing and regulating water projects that involve private companies with 

multinational ties. Such projects include desalination plants, water transfers, water storage projects 

(above and below ground), and wastewater reclamation projects. There is no conflict with international 

trade treaties as long as government regulations are applied to water projects involving multinational 

corporations in the same manner they are applied to water projects owned or operated by domestic 

companies or public utilities. 

Individual Water Users 

Collectively, the millions of urban businesses, individual households, and farms fund the operation and 

maintenance of California’s water systems through payment of taxes and water bills. Each makes 

decisions on water use and conservation for its own circumstances. Individual water users must dispose of 

used water, usually through a sewer or gutter, which in turn can create water pollution. This return flow 

can provide water to downstream water users. During drought periods, many households modify outdoor 

watering to conserve water. Each year, farmers make decisions on planting and water application based 

 3-37 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

on weather conditions, forecasted water supply, and individual tolerance for market risk. Taken together, 

these individual decisions about water use have an enormous impact on both water demand and water 

quality and present many opportunities for individuals to play positive roles in better managing 

California’s water quantity and quality. 

Institutional Tools for Managing Resources 

In many cases, several institutional tools interact in managing resources: 

• Collaborative decision-making—A decision made through collaboration can avoid the need for new 

legislation, regulation, and litigation. 

• Education—Educational programs can be the least expensive way to influence public action. 

Information on water use efficiency practices, water costs, habitat conditions, and other important 

subjects can help the public become active participants in plan implementation. 

• Legislation—Legislation can provide new statutes for managing resources. (See Volume 4 

Reference Guide article “Recent Water Legislation.”) 

• Voter-approved propositions—Voters can directly enact new laws by approving propositions. In 

many cases, voters decide on major funding requests. Since 1996, voters have approved four major 

California water bonds (propositions 204, 13, 40, and 50). 

• Regulation—State regulatory agencies adopt regulations (rules) to implement, interpret, or make 

specific the law enforced or administered by it, or to govern its procedure. 

• Litigation—Lawsuits provide a dispute-resolution tool that most, if not all, water stakeholders will 

employ when it appears to be their best alternative. These judicial proceedings can provide greater 

certainty to water rights holders and to public trust values in California in ways that the 

collaborative process may fail to accomplish. Legal precedents create a framework for setting up 

water resource management programs, but do not themselves create or implement the programs. 

(See Volume 4 Reference Guide article "Summary of Significant Litigation 1998-2005.") 

3-38 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

Figure 3-1 Map of California’s major geomorphic features (under development) 

 3-39 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

Figure 3-2 Map of California with major rivers and facilities (under development) 

3-40 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

Figure 3-3 Gross state product, 1980–2001 

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Millions

Total Gross State Product

Figure 3-4 California population, 1960–2030 

 3-41 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

Box 3-1 Historical Perspective of Water Development in California 

(From Water Education Foundation. Layperson's Guide to California Water 2003 Update) 

During the Gold Rush, California miners developed a system of claiming rights to take and transport 

water. These fortune seekers built the state's first hydraulic works—reservoirs and more than 4,000 miles 

of ditches and flumes—to sluice out the elusive shining metal. Water was harnessed and blasted into 

hillsides to dislodge gold in a practice called "hydraulic mining." Debris resulting from these mining 

practices washed down from the mountains and choked rivers, inundated native salmon spawning 

grounds, and caused serious problems with flooding for navigation and downstream water users. 

As the gold began to diminish, farming grew in the Delta and Central Valley and so did the need for a 

dependable water supply. While many areas experienced too little water, others had too much. In the 

maze of swamps, sloughs and marshlands that form the Delta, farmers began building levees around 

periodically submerged islands and pumped water from behind them to reclaim the land for agriculture. 

Between 1860 and 1930, most of the Delta's 350 acres of freshwater marsh were leveed, drained, and 

planted. 

Elsewhere, groundwater pumping enabled farms and cities to flourish despite the aridity of southern and 

central California. However, groundwater levels began to drop, which caused an increase in pumping 

costs. This pointed out the need for a more efficient distribution of the state's surface water supplies. 

Groups of farmers banded together, and cooperatives and development companies formed to finance and 

construct water projects in the San Joaquin Valley and southern California. The inherent problems 

associated with placing control of such a vital, public resource in private hands brought a move toward 

increasing public control. The first irrigation district, Turlock Irrigation District, was formed under the 

Wright Irrigation District Act of 1887. The act evolved into the California Irrigation District Act of 1917 

and paved the way for other types of water development and delivery districts, such as county water 

districts and special services districts. California's two major population centers, the Los Angeles and San 

Francisco Bay areas, recognized the need to augment local water supplies and were the first to develop 

faraway sources. 

The federal government has long played a major role in development of the West's water resources. As 

early as 1875, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began work on the Sacramento and Feather rivers to 

improve navigation. In 1920, the U.S. Geological Survey proposed a comprehensive, statewide plan for 

conveyance and storage of California's water supplies. This plan served as the framework for an eventual 

State Water Plan, which later formed the basis for the federal Central Valley Project. 

California's population doubled between 1940 and 1960. It appeared the state could not rely solely on 

federal or local sources to help meet future water needs. Water planners recognized the need for Delta 

improvement and for supplemental water to support growing southern California and prevent 

groundwater overdraft in the Central Valley. Additionally, the need for flood control on the Feather River 

was recognized, as was the San Joaquin Valley's need for an outlet for saline irrigation drainage for fields. 

After years of debate and study, the Porter-Burns Act and a $1.75 billion bond measure launched what 

was to become the State Water Project. 

3-42 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

During the two decades following World War II, development of California's water was virtually 

unimpeded. But by the 1970s, environmental awareness had grown to an extent that environmental 

considerations came to be factored into the water supply equation. As a result of enactment of new laws, 

attention was focused on "instream use" of water to benefit fish and wildlife, recreation, water quality, 

and aesthetics—uses to which price tags cannot easily be attached. By 1990, these uses rivaled such 

traditional benefits as irrigation and navigation in importance. Such instream uses are recognized by the 

State constitution and Water Code as beneficial and must be considered in administrative decisions and in 

issuing water rights permits. Rising costs and the enactment of State and federal environmental legislation 

have resulted in few major water development projects being built since 1980. 

Today hundreds of water utility districts supply Californians with water purchased by contract from the 

state or the federal government, bought wholesale from another water agency, or development with local 

resources. It is estimated that there are more than 3,700 public and private agencies in California dealing 

with some aspect of water supply, use, or treatment. 

See also “A California Water Chronology” in Volume 4 Reference Guide. 

 3-43 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

Figure 3-5 California water balance (water source and applied water uses) for water years 1998, 

2000, and 2001 

3-44 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

Box 3-2 Critical Conditions of Overdraft 

In 1978, the Department of Water Resources was directed by the legislature to develop a definition of 

critical overdraft and to identify those basins in a critical condition of overdraft (Water Code §12924). 

DWR held public workshops around the State to obtain public and water managers’ input on what the 

definition should include and which basins were critically overdrafted. Bulletin 118-80, Ground Water 

Basins in California was published in 1980 with the results of that local input. The definition of critical 

overdraft is: 

A basin is subject to critical conditions of overdraft when continuation of present water 

management practices would probably result in significant adverse overdraft-related 

environmental, social, or economic impacts. 

No time is specified in the definition. Definition of the time frame is the responsibility of the local water 

managers, as is the definition of significant adverse impacts, which would be related to the local agency’s 

management objectives. 

Eleven basins were identified as being in a critical condition of overdraft. They are: 

Pajaro Basin Cuyama Valley Basin 

Ventura Central Basin Eastern San Joaquin County Basin 

Chowchilla Basin Madera Basin 

Kings Basin Kaweah Basin 

Tulare Lake Basin Tule Basin 

Kern County Basin 

The task was not identified by the Legislature, nor was the funding for Bulletin 118 update (2003) 

sufficient to consult with local water managers and fully re-evaluate the conditions of the 11 critically 

overdrafted basins. Funding and duration were not sufficient to evaluate additional basins with respect to 

conditions of critical overdraft. 

(From DWR 2003 Bulletin 118 Update) 

 3-45 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

Figure 3-6 Sacramento River April-July runoff in percent of water year runoff) 

Figure 3-7 Golden Gate annual average and 19-year mean tide levels 

8.20

8.40

8.60

8.80

9.00

9.20

9.40

9.60

9.80

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

Golden Gate Gage 9414290 (Feet)

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

NGVD 1929 Datum (Feet)

Annual Average Tide

19-Year Mean Tide

3-46 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

Box 3-3 Hydroelectric Facilities 

Hydroelectric facilities account for approximately 25 percent of California’s electricity production 

capacity and on average produce about 15 percent of the state’s electricity, with relatively low production 

costs, no greenhouse gas emissions, and the ability to meet critical peak demands. Because hydropower 

obviously depends on water for fuel, hydroelectric output is quite variable, ranging from 9 to 30 percent 

in terms of electricity sales during the period 1983 to 2002. 

Unlike most of the United States, California hydropower is characterized by numerous low-volume, highhead (large elevation drop) facilities, that divert water from rivers into forebays and then into penstocks 

and powerhouses. The Central Valley is the state’s most important hydropower region because of its 

considerable generating and water storage capacities. California is also dependent upon hydropower 

generated in the Pacific Northwest and on the Colorado River. Compared to the Columbia Basin, large 

and extensive reservoir storage in California provides greater reliability to the state’s hydropower 

capability, making this energy source less vulnerable to single-year droughts. 

Along with the development and benefits of hydroelectric facilities in California have come 

environmental impacts. Dams have significantly changed river flows, stages, and temperatures and 

created barriers to fish passage, impacting two-thirds of the state’s freshwater fish species. In the North 

Coast, hydropower facilities completely block all historical spawning grounds for salmonids. A symptom 

of peaking power production, which in itself is a distinct benefit of hydropower, is fluctuating water 

levels downstream of dams, which can strand downstream migrating salmonid fry as well as upstream 

migrating adults and their redds. The California Energy Commission has concluded that decommissioning 

low energy production-high environmental impact hydropower facilities may be an economically viable 

way to restoring ecosystems. 

Hydroelectric projects are licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and the 

licenses of more than 100 existing facilities in California will be up for federal license renewal within the 

next 10 years. As part of the FERC license renewal process, the project owners must conduct studies to 

evaluate the future use, impacts, and alternatives for each hydroelectric project. For local water agencies 

this relicensing process will provide key opportunities to develop and improve integrated resource 

planning, so that the proposed operation of hydroelectric projects can also consider improved benefits to 

local water supplies, instream flows, and recreation uses. 

 3-47 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

Figure 3-8 Map of California’s 10 hydrologic regions, the Delta, and Mountain Counties 

3-48 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

Box 3-4 Description of California’s 10 Hydrologic Regions, the Delta, and Mountain Counties 

The Department of Water Resources subdivides the state into regions for planning purposes. The largest 

planning unit is the hydrologic region. California has 10 hydrologic regions corresponding to the state’s 

major drainage basins. This water plan update also includes two overlay areas described here: the 

Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta and the Mountain Counties. 

Hydrologic regions 

North Coast. Klamath River and Lost River Basins, and all basins draining into the Pacific Ocean from 

the Oregon stateline southerly through the Russian River Basin. 

San Francisco Bay. Basins draining into San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun bays, and into Sacramento 

River downstream from Collinsville; western Contra Costa County; and basins directly tributary to the 

Pacific Ocean below the Russian River watershed to the southern boundary of the Pescadero Creek Basin. 

Central Coast. Basins draining into the Pacific Ocean below the Pescadero Creek watershed to the 

southeastern boundary of Rincon Creek Basin in western Ventura County. 

South Coast. Basins draining into the Pacific Ocean from the southeastern boundary of Rincon Creek 

Basin to the Mexican boundary. 

Sacramento River. Basins draining into the Sacramento River system in the Central Valley (including the 

Pit River drainage), from the Oregon border south through the American River drainage basin. 

San Joaquin River. Basins draining into the San Joaquin River system, from the Cosumnes River basin on 

the north through the southern boundary of the San Joaquin River watershed. 

Tulare Lake. The closed drainage basin at the south end of the San Joaquin Valley, south of the San 

Joaquin River watershed, encompassing basins draining to Kern Lakebed, Tulare Lakebed, and Buena 

Vista Lakebed. 

North Lahontan. Basins east of the Sierra Nevada crest, and west of the Nevada stateline, from the 

Oregon border south to the southern boundary of the Walker River watershed. 

South Lahontan. The closed drainage basins east of the Sierra Nevada crest, south of the Walker River 

watershed, northeast of the Transverse Ranges, north of the Colorado River Region. The main basins are 

the Owens and the Mojave River Basins. 

Colorado River. Basins south and east of the South Coast and South Lahontan regions; areas that drain 

into the Colorado River, the Salton Sea, and other closed basins north of the Mexican border. 

 3-49 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

Overlay Areas 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Legal Delta includes about 740,000 acres of tidally influenced land 

near the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. While it occupies portions of the 

Sacramento, San Joaquin, and a small part of the San Francisco hydrologic regions, the Delta is described 

as an overlay area because of its common characteristics, environmental significance, and its important 

role in the State’s water systems. 

Mountain Counties. The Mountain Counties region includes the foothills and mountains of the western 

slope of the Sierra Nevada and a portion of the Cascade Range. The area includes the eastern portions of 

the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River hydrologic regions. This area shares common water and 

other resource issues and is the origin for much of the State’s developed surface water supply. 

3-50 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

Box 3-5 Examples of Ongoing Regional Water Planning Efforts 

One of the ways in which broad public benefits can be achieved is through the establishment of 

partnerships that combine the capabilities of individual agencies to create opportunities that would not 

otherwise be possible. Following are some examples. Those listed with an asterisk (*) are given more 

detail below. 

• Klamath River Watershed Framework 

• Sacramento Valley Water Management Program and Basin Wide Management Plan* 

• Regional Water Authority* 

• [Sacramento] Water Forum* 

• CALFED Bay-Delta Program* 

• Freeport Regional Water Project 

• Bay Area Water Forum 

• San Joaquin River Agreement 

• Westside San Joaquin Valley Integrated Resource Planning Program 

• San Joaquin Valley Water Coalition 

• Kern County Water Agency Conjunctive Management Program 

• Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Integrated Resources Planning Program* 

• Santa Ana River Watershed Program* 

• Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) 

Sacramento Valley Water Management Program 

The purpose of the Sacramento Valley Water Management Program is to promote better water 

management in the Sacramento Valley and develop additional water supplies through a cooperative water 

management partnership. The SVWM Program was developed to help resolve water quality and water 

rights issues arising from the need to meet the flow-related water quality objectives of the 1995 Bay-Delta 

Water Quality Control Plan and the State Water Resources Control Board's Phase 8 Water Rights Hearing 

process. The participants include the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the California Department of Water 

Resources, Northern California Water Association, and various Sacramento Valley and export water 

users. 

To implement the program, Northern California water districts and companies have proposed more than 

50 projects that will be part of both short- and long-term work plans being developed by a team of leading 

hydrologists and engineers. These projects will protect Northern California water rights and include 

groundwater planning and monitoring projects, providing for unmet demands in the Sacramento Valley, 

system improvement and water use efficiency measures, conjunctive management and surface water 

re-operation projects. Groundwater protection is central to the work plan. Local water users have 

proposed these work plan projects, which will be managed and controlled by local interests. Additionally, 

the parties are preparing a program environmental review and will jointly seek public funds, including 

Proposition 50, to help implement many of these projects. 

Regional Water Authority 

The Regional Water Authority (RWA), inaugurated in June 2001, serves as a joint powers authority for 

18 member agencies and 3 associate agencies in the greater Sacramento, Placer, and El Dorado County 

region. RWA works to protect and improve the reliability, availability, affordability, and quality of water 

 3-51 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

resources in the region, and was formed through the consolidation of several regional associations after 

two years of workshops with dozens of water interests. 

To meet the needs of the more than a million people within the region, RWA has created several new 

initiatives, including a water efficiency program for local purveyors and the $43 million American River 

Basin Regional Conjunctive Use Program, which has been assisted by a $22 million grant from the 

Department of Water Resources through RWA funding efforts. RWA has also been a key player in the 

Sacramento Area Water Forum discussions over the American River and has organized workshops and 

classes to provide educational and technical assistance to local organizations and individuals. 

RWA has been widely identified as a good example of using regional partnerships to coordinate water 

management efforts and to secure funding for water projects. Around $19 million has been awarded to 

RWA in the form of grants to support its innovative water efficiency program. The authority has 

developed good working relations with State and local agencies throughout the region. 

[Sacramento] Water Forum 

In the American River watershed, individual groups, water suppliers, environmentalists, local 

governments, business groups, agriculturalists, and citizen groups were all independently pursuing their 

own water objectives with little or no success. For more than 20 years, the various stakeholders were 

locked in a litigious battle over the American River. Even though millions of dollars had been spent 

pursuing single purpose solutions, there was little to show for these fragmented efforts. 

In 1993, the City of Sacramento and the County of Sacramento came up with a possible solution to these 

water wars – the Water Forum. Bringing together a diverse group of business, agricultural leaders, 

citizens groups, environmentalists, water managers and local governments; the Water Forum was created. 

It was a six-year crusade of intense interest-based negotiations which required each stakeholder to put 

aside their demands (“positions”) and instead focus on the underlying reasons (“interests”) behind both 

their own and their adversaries’ concerns. This creative approach resulted in the Water Forum Agreement. 

Signed by each of the stakeholder organizations in April 2000, the Water Forum Agreement is a 

comprehensive document that allows the region to meet its needs in a balanced way through 

implementation of seven elements. These elements include detailed understandings among stakeholder 

organizations on how this region will deal with key issues to the year 2030. The seven elements are: 

1. Increased surface water diversions 

2. Actions to meet customers’ needs while reducing diversion impacts on the lower American River 

in drier years 

3. An improved pattern of fishery flow releases from Folsom Reservoir 

4. Lower American River Habitat Management Element 

5. Water Conservation Element 

6. Groundwater Management Element 

7. Water Forum Successor Effort 

To ensure implementation of the Water Forum Agreement, the seventh element, the Successor Effort was 

created to oversee, monitor and report on implementation of the Agreement. The signatories to the Water 

Forum Agreement committed their organizations to continued participation in the partnership. Since the 

signing, there has been significant progress toward implementing many of its projects. 

3-52 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

The Water Forum Agreement acknowledges that there is no single-purpose program that will secure our 

water future; therefore, it is necessary to implement a full range of complementary actions through 2030 

that will achieve the Water Forum’s two co-equal objectives: Provide a reliable and safe water supply for 

the region’s economic health and planned development to the year 2030; and preserve the fishery, 

wildlife, recreational, and aesthetic values of the lower American River. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program 

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a product of years of negotiations and a variety of agency and 

stakeholder actions centered on the management of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin 

Delta. The origins of CALFED trace back to the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act and 

earlier and were directly connected with the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan developed by the State 

Water Resources Control Board. CALFED members include components of the State’s Resources and 

Environmental Protection agencies, the federal Department of Interior, EPA, NOAA Fisheries, and 

several other federal and State agencies. In addition to agency involvement, CALFED encourages strong 

public outreach, and many individuals and nongovernmental organizations participate through the BayDelta Public Advisory Committee and other avenues. 

The primary program elements of CALFED have been the topic of many publications and discussions, 

but one of the most important benefits of the CALFED Program that is often neglected is the improved 

interaction between agricultural, environmental, and other interests over water resource planning issues in 

the state. Prior to the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord and the formation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program in 

the spring of 1995, many of these interests only interacted with each other on an adversarial basis, which 

resulted in a lack of cooperative efforts and a surplus of unproductive exchanges. CALFED has provided 

a platform for groups with a variety of interests and constituents to voice their concerns and positions, to 

hear from other groups with different perspectives, and to work cooperatively in developing 

recommendations and plans for future initiatives. Although difficult to measure and describe, this is a 

valuable benefit, made possible by the existence of the CALFED Program. 

Metropolitan Water District Integrated Water Resources Plan 

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) is a large consortium of 26 cities and 

water districts that provides an average of 1.7 billion gallons per day of drinking water to almost 

18 million customers. Because of its important role in distributing water in California and maintaining 

adequate quantity and quality of supplies for its members, MWD developed its integrated water resources 

plan in 1996. It identified a “Preferred Resource Mix” that includes recommendations for meeting full 

service retail demands through 2020. 

In 2001 the MWD Board of Directors initiated an effort to update the 1996 plan to review past goals and 

achievements, determine what conditions related to water resource development had changed since 1996, 

and to update the targets contained in the “Preferred Resource Mix” through 2025. The 2003 

Metropolitan Water District Integrated Water Resources Plan was developed with the assistance of the 

MWD Board, a plan workgroup, MWD member agencies, environmental organizations, agricultural 

representatives, and other parties, and included several changes from the earlier plan. Higher conservation 

savings are stressed in the 2003 plan, along with increased use of desalination, recycling, and 

groundwater recovery, to meet 100 percent reliability needs through 2025. The 2003 MWD plan is a 

 3-53 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

useful example of using integrated resource planning in conjunction with regional partnerships to develop 

goals and objectives for comprehensive water resource management. 

According to Chief Executive Officer Ronald R. Gastelum, Metropolitan’s preparations and ability to 

deal with water shortages, drought and emergencies have expanded in recent years. “The great strides that 

Metropolitan and its member public agencies have made in water storage, conservation, recycling, 

transfer and option programs have helped the region through recent periods that otherwise could have 

been called droughts and have prepared us well for future droughts and emergencies. We anticipate 

working with all of our member agencies to further strengthen our resources management in both wet 

times and dry,” Gastelum stated in a March 2005 press release issued in response to a State Appellate 

Court upholding MWD’s water allocation formula. 

New partnerships should be explored in other parts of the state to determine other opportunities to 

collaborate and pool resources for more effective, regional water management. As shown in these 

examples, partnerships can provide broad public benefits that otherwise would not be possible through 

actions of the individual agencies. By employing the principles of integrated resource planning, these 

partnerships can develop well-structured objectives and holistic strategies to meet objectives while 

responsibly managing California's precious water resources. 

Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority

Formed as a planning agency in 1968, the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) was later 

reorganized and in 1975 officially became a joint powers authority (classified as a Special District under 

California law). SAWPA has five member agencies: Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), Inland 

Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), Orange County Water District (OCWD), San Bernardino Valley 

Municipal Water District (SBVMWD), and Western Municipal Water District (WMWD). The agencies 

span almost 2,000 square miles and include more than 4 million people. 

The purpose of creating SAWPA was to better implement projects focused on several key objectives: 

water quality control; pollution abatement using waste treatment management plans for the watershed 

area; disposal of wastewater, storm water, and other wastes; irrigation, municipal, and industrial water 

supply development; aquifer rehabilitation; and water reclamation, recycling, and desalting. SAWPA has 

authority to issue bonds and take on other forms of indebtedness to fund projects, and has additional 

powers granted to joint power authorities. 

Because the Santa Ana watershed is one of the fastest-growing regions in California and because of the 

high regional demand for good-quality water supplies, SAWPA has faced severe challenges since its 

creation. By forming a regional partnership, SAWPA has been able to obtain funds that might otherwise 

be inaccessible or overly expensive, and the authority has been able to speak with a common voice for its 

members before the Legislature and in other policy and management forums. 

3-54 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

Box 3-6 Complementary Management Approaches: IRWM and Watershed Management 

Many overlapping characteristics and issues confront integrated regional water management and 

watershed management. Both approaches are being used in California to combine local, State, and federal 

resources to create a broader, more flexible water management system. Watershed management is a 

process of evaluating, planning, managing, and organizing land and other resource use within a watershed 

while maintaining a sustainable ecosystem. For regional planning purposes in California, a watershed 

includes living (including the people who live and work in the watershed) and nonliving elements within 

a defined geographical area that is generally characterized by the flow of water. Watershed management 

seeks to balance changes in community needs with evolving ecological conditions. (See Volume 2 for 

more discussion of watershed management as a resource management strategy.) 

 3-55 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

Box 3-7 New Laws Support Integrated Regional Water Management 

• SB 672 (Stats. 2001, ch. 320) and SB 1341 (Stats 2000, ch. 720) have increased the focus on 

regional and integrated water planning in preparing the California Water Plan Update. 

• The Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act of 2002 (Stats. 2002, ch. 767) 

authorizes regional water management groups to prepare and adopt regional plans and requires the 

Department of Water Resources and other State agencies to include the status of regional water 

management planning in the set of criteria used to select projects for grant and loan programs. 

• SB 1938 (Stats. 2002, ch. 603) requires agencies seeking funding for groundwater projects to 

include a plan for coordinating with other agencies within a region. 

• The governor and Legislature encouraged the regional approach by including regional 

representatives on the new California Bay-Delta Authority to oversee the Bay-Delta Program. 

• The voters of California provided further support for regional solutions with approval of 

Proposition 50, “Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 

2002,” that includes $500 million for Integrated Regional Water Management. 

• SB 221 (Stats. 2001, ch. 642) and SB 610 (Stats. 2001, ch. 643) require greater coordination and 

more extensive data to be shared between water suppliers and local land use agencies for large 

development projects and plans. 

These and other legislation passed since Bulletin 160-98 are described in Volume 4 Reference Guide 

article “Recent Water Legislation.” 

3-56 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

Box 3-8 SB 221, SB 610, and AB 901 

SB 221 (Bus. and Prof. Code, § 11010 as amended; Gov. Code, § 65867.5 as amended; Gov. Code, 

§§ 66455.3 and 66473.7) prohibits approval of subdivisions consisting of more than 500 dwelling units 

unless there is verification of sufficient water supplies for the project from the applicable water 

supplier(s). This requirement also applies to increases of 10 percent or more of service connections for 

public water systems with less than 500 service connections. The law defines criteria for determining 

"sufficient water supply, such as using normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry year hydrology and 

identifying the amount of water that the supplier can reasonably rely on to meet existing and future 

planned uses. Rights to extract additional groundwater must be substantiated if used for the project. 

SB 610 (Water Code, §§ 10631, 10656, 10910, 10911, 10912, and 10915 as amended; Pub. Resources 

Code, § 21151.9 as amended) and AB 901 (Water Code, §§10610.2 and 10631 as amended; Water Code 

§ 10634) make changes to the Urban Water Management Planning Act to require additional information 

in Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) if groundwater is identified as a source available to the 

supplier. Required information includes a copy of any groundwater management plan adopted by the 

supplier, proof that the developer or agency has rights to the groundwater, a copy of the adjudication 

order or decree for adjudicated basins, and if not adjudicated, whether the basin has been identified as 

being overdrafted or projected to be overdrafted in the most current California Department of Water 

Resources publication on the basin. If the basin is in overdraft, the UWMP must include current efforts to 

eliminate any long-term overdraft. A key provision in SB 610 requires that any project that is subject to 

the California Environmental Quality Act and supplied with water from a public water system be 

provided a water supply assessment, except as specified in the law. 

State of California General Plan Guidelines (OPR 2003) recommends facilitating SB 610 by having 

strong water elements in local general plans that incorporate coordination between the land use agency 

and the water supply agency. AB 901 requires the plan to include information relating to the quality of 

existing sources of water available to an urban water supplier over given periods and include the manner 

in which water quality affects water management strategies and supply reliability. 

 3-57 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

Box 3-9 Recent Statewide and Interregional Responses to Challenges 

Programs and Planning 

• CALFED Bay-Delta Program’s Record of Decision (2000)

• California’s Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement (2003)

• Lower Owens River Project (2003)

• Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study

• San Joaquin River Agreement

• San Joaquin River Management Program

• Trinity River Basin (2000)

• Truckee River Basin (since 1991)

Regional Initiatives 

• See Volume 3 for regional initiatives that are under way 

Task Forces and Advisory Panels 

• California Commission on Building for the 21st Century 

• California Floodplain Management Task Force Recommendations 

• California Watershed Council 

• Desalination Task Force 

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

• State Recycling Task Force 

• State Watershed Management Guidelines Initiative (formed Joint Task Force on California 

Watershed Management) 

State Bulletins and Reports 

• California’s Groundwater Update 2003 (Bulletin 118) 

• Fish Passage Improvement (Bulletin 250-2003) 

• General Plan Guidelines Update 2003 (recommends new Water Element) 

• Governor’s Environmental Goals and Policy Report Update (2003) 

• Management of the California State Water Project (annual publication of Bulletin 132) 

Water Bonds 

• Proposition 204, November 1996, $995 million 

• Proposition 13, March 2000, $1.97 billion 

• Proposition 40, March 2002, $2.6 billion

• Proposition 50, November 2002, $3.4 billion 

Water Legislation 

• See Volume 4 article “Recent Water Legislation” 

Water Litigation 

• See Volume 4 articles “Joint Statement on the Monterey Amendments Litigation” and “Summary 

of Significant Litigation 1998-2005” 

3-58 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 3 California Water Today 

Box 3-10 Water 2025 (Federal) Principles, Realities, and Key Tools 

Six principles to guide the federal Department of the Interior in addressing water problems: 

• Recognize and respect state, tribal, and federal water rights, contracts, and interstate compacts or 

decrees of the U.S. Supreme Court that allocate the right to use water 

• Maintain and modernize existing water facilities so they will continue to provide water and power 

• Enhance water conservation, use efficiency, and resource monitoring to allow existing water 

supplies to be used more effectively 

• Use collaborative approaches and market based transfers to minimize conflicts 

• Improve water treatment technology, such as desalination, to help increase water supply 

• Existing water supply infrastructure can provide additional benefits for existing and emerging 

needs for water 

Five realities that drive water crises: 

• Explosive population growth is taking place in areas of the West where water is already scarce 

• Water shortages occur frequently in the West 

• Over-allocated watersheds can cause crisis and conflict 

• Water facilities are aging 

• Crisis management is not effective in dealing with water conflicts 

Four key tools to help manage scarce water resources: 

• Conservation, efficiency, and markets 

• Collaboration 

• Improved technology 

• Removal of institutional barriers and increased interagency cooperation 

http://www.doi.gov/water2025/

 3-59 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3 California Water Today

Box 3-11 Some Regulations Governing Water-related Resources Management 

Regulations protecting water quality. Water quality is an important aspect of water resource 

management. 

• Clean Water Act-National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

• Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

• Safe Drinking Water Act

• California Safe Drinking Water Act 

Environmental laws and regulations. Several laws outline the state and federal obligations to protect 

and restore degraded habitats and species. 

• Federal Endangered Species Act

• California Endangered Species Act

• Natural Community Conservation Planning 

• Clean Water Act and River and Harbors Act (Dredge and Fill Permits)

• Water Code (Public Interest Terms and Conditions, etc.)

• Fish and Game Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements, Releases of Water for Fish, etc.) 

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

• Central Valley Project Improvement Act

• State and Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers System

• National Wilderness Act

• Unified Federal Policy for Watersheds

Regulating project planning, implementation and mitigation. Another set of environmental statutes 

compels governmental agencies and private individuals to document and consider the environmental 

consequences of their actions. 

• National Environmental Policy Act 

• California Environmental Quality Act 

Regulations for water use efficiency. Water Code section 275 directs the Department and SWRCB to 

"take all appropriate proceedings or actions before executive, legislative, or judicial agencies to prevent 

waste or unreasonable use of water." 

• Urban Water Management Planning Act

• Water Conservation in Landscaping Act 

• Agricultural Water Management Planning Act 

• Agricultural Water Suppliers Efficient Management Practices Act

• Agricultural Water Conservation and Management Act (AB3616) of 1992 

• Water Recycling Act of 1991

• CALFED Water Use Efficiency Program 

Local land use. Water planning is influenced by local land use requirements. 

• Local General Plans and Specific Plans

• SB 221

• SB 610

Other regulations. Some other regulations that influence water resource management include: 

• Cloud Seeding Regulations

• Federal Power Act

• State Water Resources Control Board decisions 

3-60 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future 

Contents 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future............................................................................................................. 4-1

Changing Times, Changing Questions .................................................................................................................. 4-1

Desired Information........................................................................................................................................... 4-2

Need for a New Analytical Approach................................................................................................................ 4-2

Data Gaps ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-3

Fragmented Water Information ..................................................................................................................... 4-3

New Analytical Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 4-4

Improving Water Data Management and Scientific Understanding .................................................................. 4-4

A Long-Term Plan for Improving Water Data and Analytical Tools ................................................................ 4-5

Describing the Analytical Process ......................................................................................................................... 4-5

Identify Problems .............................................................................................................................................. 4-5

Specify Objectives............................................................................................................................................. 4-6

Describe the Water Management System.......................................................................................................... 4-6

Explore Options................................................................................................................................................. 4-7

Describe Expected Changes........................................................................................................................... 4-7

Craft Alternative Responses .......................................................................................................................... 4-7

Compare Performance ................................................................................................................................... 4-8

Make Decisions ................................................................................................................................................. 4-8

Partial Application of New Approach ................................................................................................................... 4-8

Describing Expected Changes with Three Preliminary ‘No Action’ Scenarios for 2030.................................. 4-9

Description of Preliminary Scenarios .............................................................................................................. 4-10

Scenario 1: Current Trends.......................................................................................................................... 4-10

Scenario 2: Less Resource Intensive............................................................................................................ 4-11

Scenario 3: More Resource Intensive .......................................................................................................... 4-11

Preliminary Estimates of Water Demand for Each Scenario ........................................................................... 4-12

Factors Affecting Water Demand ................................................................................................................ 4-13

Scenario Water Demand Changes between 2000 and 2030......................................................................... 4-14

Implications from Preliminary Analysis...................................................................................................... 4-15

Next Steps – Craft Responses and Compare Performance .............................................................................. 4-17

Initial Insights.................................................................................................................................................. 4-17

Potential Changes to Consider When Preparing for the Future ........................................................................... 4-18

Sources for Gradual Change............................................................................................................................ 4-18

Future Landscape (Land Use Patterns)........................................................................................................ 4-18

Urban Use.................................................................................................................................................... 4-19

Agricultural Use .......................................................................................................................................... 4-19

Environmental Use ...................................................................................................................................... 4-21

Sources for Sudden Change............................................................................................................................. 4-22

Droughts ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-23

Floods .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-23

Earthquakes ................................................................................................................................................. 4-24

Wildfire........................................................................................................................................................ 4-24

Facility Malfunction .................................................................................................................................... 4-24

Chemical Spills............................................................................................................................................ 4-25

Intentional Disruption.................................................................................................................................. 4-25

Global Climate Change.................................................................................................................................... 4-26

Snowpack Changes...................................................................................................................................... 4-27

Hydrologic Pattern....................................................................................................................................... 4-27

Sea Level Rise ............................................................................................................................................. 4-28

Rainfall Intensity ......................................................................................................................................... 4-28

 4-i 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Demand ............................................................................ 4-28

Aquatic Life................................................................................................................................................. 4-28

Changing Policies, Regulations, Laws, and Social Attitudes .......................................................................... 4-29

Relationships between Water Operations and Environmental Impacts ....................................................... 4-29

Changing Plumbing Codes .......................................................................................................................... 4-29

Emerging Contaminants .............................................................................................................................. 4-29

Summary.............................................................................................................................................................. 4-30

Figures (where cited in text)

Figure 4-2 Net change in average-year water demand for three scenarios, 2000–2030 ......................................... 4-14

Figure 4-3 Net change in average-year water demand for three scenarios by sector, 2000–2030.......................... 4-15

Figure 4-4 Net change in average-year water demand for three scenarios by region, 2000–2030 ......................... 4-15

Figure 4-5 Map of flooded islands in the Delta for different high flow periods..................................................... 4-24

Figure 4-6 Map of San Francisco Bay Region earthquake probability................................................................... 4-24

Figure 4-7 Model simulation of potential changes in snowpack during 21st century ............................................. 4-27

Figure 4-8 Sacramento River April-July runoff in percent of water year runoff.................................................... 4-27

Figure 4-9 Golden Gate annual average and 19-year mean tide levels................................................................... 4-28

Tables (where cited in text)

Table 4-1 Factors affecting regional and statewide water demands and supplies................................................... 4-10

Table 4-5 Evaluation criteria for assessing achievement of water management objectives ................................... 4-17

Boxes (where cited in text)

Box 4-1 Desired Information for the California Water Plan..................................................................................... 4-2

Box 4-2 Types of Quantitative Information.............................................................................................................. 4-2

Box 4-3 Evolving Analytical Approach ................................................................................................................... 4-4

Box 4-4 Principles for Development and Use of Analytical Tools and Data for California Water Problems and 

Solutions............................................................................................................................................................ 4-5

Box 4-5 Conceptual Framework Diagram Description ............................................................................................ 4-7

Box 4-6 Sample Response Package........................................................................................................................ 4-17

Box 4-7 Comprehensive Evaluation of Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta Levee Programs ............................ 4-23

Box 4-8 Potential Impacts from a Critical Levee Failure ....................................................................................... 4-24

Box 4-9 PIER Program and Climate Change Research.......................................................................................... 4-27

Box 4-10 CALVIN: An Analytical Tool to Evaluate Effects of Climate Change.................................................. 4-27

Figure (placed in text) 

Figure 4-1 Conceptual framework diagram for analysis of water resources and management ................................ 4-6

Tables (placed in text)

Table 4-2 Scenario factors affecting urban water demand ..................................................................................... 4-13

Table 4-3 Scenario factors affecting agricultural water demand ............................................................................ 4-14

Table 4-4 Year 2000 unmet environmental water objectives ................................................................................. 4-14

4-ii 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Boxes, Figures, and Tables1

Box 4-1 Desired Information for the California Water Plan................................................................................... 4-31

Box 4-2 Types of Quantitative Information............................................................................................................ 4-32

Box 4-3 Evolving Analytical Approach ................................................................................................................. 4-33

Box 4-4 Principles for Development and Use of Analytical Tools and Data for California Water Problems and 

Solutions.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-35

Box 4-5 Conceptual Framework Diagram Description .......................................................................................... 4-37

Table 4-1 Factors affecting regional and statewide water demands and supplies................................................... 4-39

Figure 4-2 Net change in average-year water demand for three scenarios, 2000–2030 ......................................... 4-40

Figure 4-3 Net change in average-year water demand for three scenarios by sector, 2000–2030.......................... 4-41

Figure 4-4 Net change in average-year water demand for three scenarios by region, 2000–2030 ......................... 4-42

Box 4-6 Sample Response Package........................................................................................................................ 4-43

Table 4-5 Evaluation criteria for assessing achievement of water management objectives ................................... 4-44

Box 4-7 Comprehensive Evaluation of Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta Levee Programs ............................ 4-45

Box 4-8 Potential Impacts from a Critical Levee Failure ....................................................................................... 4-46

Figure 4-5 Map of flooded islands in the Delta for different high flow periods..................................................... 4-47

Figure 4-6 Map of San Francisco Bay Region earthquake probability................................................................... 4-48

Box 4-9 PIER Program and Climate Change Research.......................................................................................... 4-49

Box 4-10 CALVIN: An Analytical Tool to Evaluate Effects of Climate Change.................................................. 4-50

Figure 4-7 Model simulation of potential changes in snowpack during 21st century ............................................ 4-51

Figure 4-8 Sacramento River April-July runoff in percent of water year runoff.................................................... 4-52

Figure 4-9 Golden Gate annual average and 19-year mean tide levels................................................................... 4-53

 

1

 Find these boxes, figures, and tables at end of this chapter. They are placed in order of appearance in text. 

 4-iii 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

4-iv 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Chapter 4 

Preparing for an Uncertain Future 

About This Chapter 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future describes how the State of California is adapting to the 

changing needs of decision-makers, water managers, and planners. It lays out an approach for how 

the Department of Water Resources will develop and share crucial information needed for the many 

difficult choices California will face when managing our water resources over the next 25 years. 

• Changing Times, Changing Questions

• New Analytic Approach

• Describing the Analytic Process

• Partial Application of New Approach

• Potential Changes to Consider When Preparing for the Future

• Summary

California’s water management system is large and complex. Making wise choices will require a great 

deal of cooperation and collaboration between decision-makers at all levels. State, federal, regional, and 

local entities throughout California will have to make many decisions to implement the Framework for 

Action as described in Chapter 2. The framework’s foundational actions, initiatives, and essential support 

activities are central to ensuring that California has a sustainable and reliable water supply through 2030. 

Our decisions will involve making wise investments that balance risk with reward, given the uncertainties 

that may occur in the future. Some of the risks associated with potential changes in California’s future are 

quite severe and need due consideration. Fortunately, the potential rewards are equally compelling, and a 

broader understanding of these opportunities can help people work together for collective gains. 

People can work together more effectively if they all have access to the same information. As part of this 

and future California Water Plan updates, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) is promoting ways 

to develop a common conceptual framework, data standards, and analytical approach for understanding, 

evaluating, and improving regional and statewide water management systems. A common analytic 

approach is particularly important when multiple agencies are proposing actions that may compete for the 

same resources. This can occur, for example, when State government solicits funding proposals for water 

management projects or when agencies identify new management strategies for meeting future water 

demands. It is difficult to evaluate the benefits of multiple projects that affect the same water management 

system, but are not described using a common analytical framework. 

Changing Times, Changing Questions 

During the emergence of the information age, our society has become increasingly prosperous, mobile, 

and interdependent. We also are recognizing that human activities can harm our environment, and we are 

demonstrating a willingness to protect vital ecosystems. The ways we manage our water resources reflect 

this rising complexity and interdependence. Recent scientific studies show that we face a great deal of 

 4-1 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

uncertainty about future climate conditions including the severity of droughts and the effects of global 

climate change. Along with uncertainty surrounding water supplies, we expect increased competition for 

water supplies due to population growth that is currently about 600,000 people a year coupled with a 

growing desire to protect and enhance our environment. As in other areas of our lives, we routinely rely 

on timely and trustworthy information to make prudent, high-stake decisions about how and where to best 

use our water resources and funding. In keeping with these changes, the kinds of questions people are 

trying to answer are different than those addressed in earlier California Water Plan updates. 

While preparing Update 2005, DWR worked extensively with a broad range of stakeholders to identify 

their information needs for improving water planning and management. DWR asked what information 

local and regional water agencies and governments need to plan for and successfully implement actions to 

meet water demands now and in the future. DWR asked what information would be most useful to 

balance risk versus reward with regard to public and private investments in our water resource 

management systems. DWR also addressed the role that State government should play in helping produce 

and disseminate this information. 

Desired Information 

DWR conducted a series of public workshops to understand the kind of information most needed by 

decision-makers, water managers, and planners (see questions and responses in Box 4-1 Desired 

Information for the California Water Plan). Topics included what we want to accomplish with our water 

resources, the current water management system and how it might be changed, what the future may hold 

and how to prepare for future uncertainties, how statewide and regional water and resource planning 

intersect, and how different approaches to preparing for the future compare to one another in light of our 

objectives and available resources. 

Box 4-1 Desired Information for the California Water Plan 

Need for a New Analytical Approach 

Several factors have caused DWR to rethink how it evaluates California’s future water conditions. There 

is a need to provide policy-makers and the public with more detailed quantitative information about the 

costs, benefits, and tradeoffs associated with different water management strategies. Data, analytical tool 

development, and data management have not kept pace with growing public awareness of the complex 

interactions among water-related resources. Finally, California lacks a consistent framework and 

standards for collecting, managing, and providing access to data and information on water and 

environmental resources essential for integrated resource planning. More accurate data and analytical 

tools and better information management can reduce many uncertainties about the state’s current and 

future water resources: how water supplies, demands, and quality change in response to different resource 

management strategies; how ecosystem health and restoration can succeed; and how we can adapt our 

water system to reduce controversy and conflicts (Box 4-2 Types of Quantitative Information). 

Box 4-2 Types of Quantitative Information 

4-2 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

The need for enhanced quantitative information is not unique to the California Water Plan update process. 

Concurrently, several groups have identified the need for more integrated data and analytical tools, and 

more accessible and robust information management systems. Members of the California Water and 

Environment Modeling Forum (CWEMF) have written a draft report recommending promising 

approaches to address these important needs (see Volume 4 Reference Guide article “Strategic Analysis 

Framework for Managing Water in California”). DWR is working closely with CWEMF and others to 

ensure that California continues to develop an appropriate level of quantitative capability (including 

information management systems and analytical tools) to inform crucial decisions about water resource 

investments. Some areas where data and tools are inadequate for the analyses we need to conduct are 

described below. 

Data Gaps 

Data are needed to complete regional flow diagrams (see Volume 3 Regional Reports). Flow diagrams 

characterize a region's hydrologic cycle. Completing regional flow diagrams and water balances requires 

more detailed land and water use data and the ability to differentiate between applied and consumptive 

water uses. The following categories of data are simply not available or are very resource intensive to 

compile. (See Volume 4 Reference Guide article “Future Quantitative Analysis for California Water 

Planning” for a more comprehensive description of data gaps.): 

• Statewide land use data (for example, native vegetation, urban footprints, nonirrigated and 

irrigated agriculture) 

• Groundwater (total natural recharge, subsurface inflow and outflow, recharge and extractions, 

groundwater levels, and water quality) 

• Surface water (natural and incidental runoff, local diversions, return flows, total streamflows, 

conveyance losses2

, and runoff to salt sinks) 

• Consumptive use (evaporation and evapotranspiration from native vegetation, wetlands, urban 

runoff, and nonirrigated agricultural production) 

Data are available for some regions and not others. For example, methodologies and data to estimate 

natural runoff are available for regions like the Sacramento Valley where the Delta is a central outflow 

measurement. In areas like the South Coast Hydrologic Region, with no central point for outflow 

measurement and substantial groundwater, the natural runoff is more difficult to estimate. In addition to 

natural obstacles, existing data are not easily aggregated or disaggregated to provide convenient access 

for all areas and spatial scales of interest. In addition, budget constraints limit extensive data collection 

and management necessary to quantify and track all the water in the state. 

Fragmented Water Information 

California needs better data and analytical tools to produce useful and more integrated information on 

water quality, environmental objectives, economic performance, social equity objectives, and surface 

water and groundwater interaction. Today, it is difficult to compare, much less integrate, water data and 

information from different local entities to understand and resolve regional and statewide water 

management issues. It will be difficult to make significant progress toward a more comprehensive 

 

2

 The term losses is used in connection with several water use components of the water portfolios. Recognizing that 

water is never lost from the hydrologic cycle, DWR is working to develop more descriptive terms for these water 

use components for the final Water Plan Update 2005. 

 4-3 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

scientific understanding without creating a new information exchange and management system and more 

integrated analytical tools that can be used to document and share knowledge as it is developed. 

New Analytical Approach 

Because current data and analytical tools are not sufficient to provide answers to some important 

questions from decision-makers, water managers, and resource planners, DWR is working with others to 

develop a new analytical approach to prepare California Water Plan Update 2010. The following sections 

describe an approach for analyzing promising responses to an uncertain future. Box 4-3 (Evolving 

Analytical Approach) provides a brief comparison of how analysis was done for the last water plan update 

(Bulletin 160-98) and the general approach proposed in this update. Volume 4 Reference Guide article 

“Future Quantitative Analysis for California Water Planning,” provides more discussion of this approach. 

Box 4-3 Evolving Analytical Approach 

Developing and providing more comprehensive information will take time. DWR, advisory committee 

members, and other stakeholders put a lot of thought into how to develop more useful quantitative 

information. In particular, a lot of discussions focused on “What to expect in the future” and “How to 

account for uncertainties when making a decision.” DWR and stakeholders have made good progress 

developing a conceptual analytic framework to address these questions, and DWR staff has taken initial 

steps to develop methods and tools necessary for the required analyses. Because time is needed to develop 

this new approach, most of the detailed quantitative work will be presented in Update 2010. 

Producing broader and more integrated quantitative information is an ongoing process. DWR expects to 

lead an effort with other State, federal, and local entities to continue developing and refining information. 

Credible and relevant answers to these questions require significant advances in our approach to learning 

about the system, testing hypotheses about change, and sharing information. Achieving these advances 

requires significant investments in better information management systems, additional data collection, 

and more sophisticated, transparent, and accessible analytical tools. One of the primary aims of the next 

two water plan updates is to collaborate with recognized experts to develop a foundation for a quantitative 

water information system that will support water plan updates and serve water managers and planners 

well into the future. 

Improving Water Data Management and Scientific Understanding 

DWR has determined that designing the details of this progressive quantitative approach can best be 

achieved through a consortium of public and private entities, with State leadership and stakeholder input. 

The consortium should prepare a long-term plan to improve and peer review data and analytical tools, as 

well as to develop presentation and decision-support tools to make complex technical information more 

accessible to decision-makers and resource managers. 

DWR intends to build and maintain an online information management system—called the Water Plan 

Information Exchange (Water PIE)—to assist regional and local agencies and governments. It is intended 

4-4 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

to include information from locally developed urban and agricultural water management plans and local 

general plans. This type of online information exchange system will be designed to support regional 

partnerships by providing a common way of developing and sharing information. It will streamline 

development of integrated regional water management plans by providing a common vocabulary and a 

check list of the types and format of information needed to develop an effective plan. An information 

management system such as Water PIE will also enhance the opportunities for collaboration with 

academic and research institutions by improving access to the most current data and information 

throughout the state. 

A Long-Term Plan for Improving Water Data and Analytical Tools 

DWR is participating in an effort by CWEMF to develop a long-term vision for analytical tools and data. 

This effort has derived a number of principles to guide the development and use of data and analytical 

tools over the next 10 to 15 years (see Box 4-4 Principles for Development and Use of Analytical Tools 

and Data for California Water Problems and Solutions). The technical scope and magnitude of the desired 

analyses are unprecedented in California water planning. (See Volume 4 Reference Guide article by 

CWEMF, “Strategic Analysis Framework for Managing Water in California” a draft summary report) 

Fully implementing this work will take many years and significant resources. In the interim, we recognize 

that qualitative approaches may be required for areas with insufficient data or inadequate tools to quantify 

all of the desired information. 

Box 4-4 Principles for Development and Use of Analytical Tools and Data for California Water 

Problems and Solutions 

Describing the Analytical Process 

When describing a quantitative information approach, it is useful to remember that all of the quantitative 

information is intended to support a sound planning process that will lead to wise decisions about 

resource investments. As such, all analytical techniques should relate to one or more steps in the planning 

process. Typically, a formal planning process includes the following steps: identify problems, specify 

objectives, describe the relevant system, explore options, and make decisions. 

This planning process enhances understanding about the problem at hand and forms the basis for a plan of 

action supported by those affected. 

Identify Problems 

What problem are we trying to solve? It is important for all stakeholders to agree on a clear statement of 

the problem before attempting to find a solution. Without agreement about the problem, the evaluation of 

possible solutions will be difficult or impossible. Problems may be existing conditions like too few 

returning salmon in a particular stream reach or concerns about future water management challenges with 

a growing population. 

 4-5 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A